TED | 你愿意为改变工作方式而放弃什么？

中文讲稿

00:13

你看过一群鸟成群飞行吗？上千只动物，以完美的协调性成群飞行，是不是很壮观呢？我觉得最令人惊叹的是：若这些鸟只能跟着一位领袖，那它们就无法如此成群飞行。因为如此一来，它们的反应速度就太慢了。相反，科学家们相信这些鸟遵循着几个简单的原则，这些原则让每一只鸟都可以自主决策，同时以完美的协调性成群飞行。共识让它们能够自主行动，而它们的自主又让群体行动更快更灵活。

01:05

那这跟我们有什么关系呢？事实上，这是诠释在我看来当今的工作方式中最重要的改变的一种方法。世界正在变得越来越快，越来越复杂，所以我们需要新的工作方式，以目的为核心达成共识，取代官僚体制，真正授权每个人更快地做出决策。但问题是：为了达成这个目标，我们愿意放弃什么？

01:44

几年前，我与一家银行合作，他们想进行数字化的改革，希望提供更简单、更直观、更贴心的服务。我不确定多少人了解银行内部的流程，让我试着形容一下什么是传统的银行：你能看到很多人穿着西装，搭乘电梯抵达他们的部门，营销人员坐在营销人旁边，工程师坐在工程师旁边，依此类推。你会看到二十个人的会议，却没有做出任何决定。即便有好的主意，也会淹没在一堆幻灯片中。各个部门之间的交接没完没了。把事情搞定似乎遥遥无期。所以这家银行知道，想要改革，他们必须通过大幅改变工作方式来加速产品的上市时间，但这该怎么做呢？

02:49

为了汲取一些灵感，我们去拜访了那些看起来很有创意的公司，像是Google,Netflix,Spotify,Zappos。我还记得在2014年的12月，我和一个管理顾问，以及一群银行家穿过其中一家公司的大堂时的感受。我们仿佛进入了一个奇异之地，被懒人沙发、卫衣、以及许多聪明，有创造力的员工包围着。于是我们不禁问道：“你们的公司是如何组建的？”我们预期会拿到一张组织结构表。然而，他们画了一些奇怪的圆，标着有趣的名称，像是“小队”、“地方分会”或是“部落”，以此来解释他们是如何运作的。

03:32

我们试着把这些转译成自己的语言。我们接着问：“有多少人为你工作呢？”

03:40

“看情况。”

03:42

“你向谁报告呢？”

03:44

“看情况。”

03:46

“谁决定你工作的优先顺序呢？”

03:49

“看情况。”

03:51

你可以想象我们有多惊讶。我们自认请教的是一些关于组建的基本原则，而他们的回答却是“看情况”。

04:02

在那天之后，我们对他们的工作模式有了更深入的了解。他们相信精简而自主的工作团队的力量。他们的团队就像小型的创业公司。他们让产品部和工程师在同一个团队里。这样他们就能够跟顾客一起设计、打造并测试想法，而无需依赖公司其他人。他们不需要做部门之间的工作移交。他们所需要的人才就在团队里。

04:29

在那天结束的时候，我们有一个环节，回顾我们今天学到了什么。我们开始欣赏他们的模式，我们已经在思考如何将某些想法用在银行业。这时候，接待方的一位当天一直一言不发的人突然说：“我看得出来，你们喜欢我们的模式，但我有一个问题问你们：你们愿意放弃什么呢？”

04:57

我们愿意放弃什么呢？我们当下没有答案，但我们知道他是对的。改变不只是拥抱新的方法，同时也要放弃一些旧的做法。过了五年之后，我协助世界各地的公司改变他们的工作方式。虽然每家公司都有他们自己的质疑，觉得新方法对他们而言是行不通的：“我们的产品更复杂，”“他们不像我们有这么多老旧的系统，”或是“我们这个行业的监管者不会允许我们这样做。”

05:35

但对于这家银行与其他和我合作过的公司而言，改变是可能的。一年之内，我们完全打破了以往营销、产品、渠道和信息技术部门间的孤立。三千多名员工被重新组织成三百五十多个专业合作团队。取代以往产品经理坐在一起、工程师们坐在一起的模式，现在产品经理和工程师隶属于一个团队。你可能是团队里负责开立账户的一员或是负责移动银行应用软件，等等。新组织架构正式运作的那天，有些同事之间是第一次握手，同时发现彼此的座位之间仅有两分钟的步行距离，而在过去的十年中，他们可能仅仅在给彼此发电子邮件和进度报告。你可能听到有人说：“原来你就是那位我一直追着要答案的人。”

06:36

但现在他们每天都一起喝咖啡。如果产品经理有个想法，可以直接提出来，立刻就能获得坐在他旁边的工程师的意见。他们可以决定立刻进行顾客测试，不用移交、幻灯片或耗时的繁琐手续，就能直接把事情搞定。

06:59

要做到这样的程度并不容易。我们发现“你们愿意放弃什么？”就是最核心的问题。自主决策需要跨行业合作的团队。摒弃公司范围内繁琐迂回的决策过程，我们希望让团队自己做决定。

07:19

但要做到这一点，我们需要团队拥有所有必需的技能和专长。随之而来的就是困难的取舍。我们能重新整合大家工作的不同的大楼，城市甚至国家吗？或者，我们应该投资更好的视频会议工具吗？我们如何确保不同团队行事的一致性？我们仍需要一种管理体系。

07:47

要实现所有这些组织架构、过程和步骤的改变——并不容易。但最终，我发现最难改变的是我们自己的行为。让我试着解释一下：

08:05

如果我们希望团队更高效，更灵活，更有创意，就像是一个小型的创业团队，那他们必须被授权，能够自主决策。这代表我们不能有主管不停来下指令告诉别人：做什么，何时做，怎么做。无需微观管理者（控制狂）。这也代表每个员工都需要成为领导者，无论他们在工作中的正式职称是什么。这是让我们每个人都往前站一步，采取主动性。

08:34

当然，我们无法承受所有团队都朝向不同的方向前进，因为这肯定会带来混乱。所以我们需要同时实现共识和自主，就像一群鸟一样。在一个组织环境里，我们需要新的行为方法，每个新行为的诞生也意味着一些旧的方法要被舍弃。领导者必须确认组织里的每一个人有一致的整体目标——即为什么——有在整体上一致的优先顺序——即做什么。然后他们应该放手，相信团队将做出对的决策来达到目的。

09:20

达成共识需要开放且透明的沟通。大家常说信息就是力量，但对于一些管理者来说，分享信息就如同放弃自己的权力。这不仅限于管理者。团队亦需要开放且透明的沟通。在这些公司，团队常常采取短时间密集工作的方式。每一次项目的尾声，他们都会组织一次演示活动，公开透明的分享他们的劳动成果。每天，每个团队成员都会更新他们各自的工作状况。这样的透明度可能会让一些人觉得不自在，因为突然之间，一切都变得无处可藏了。我们做的所有事情对他人来说都是透明的。所以达成共识并不容易，赋予自主权也不是一蹴而就的。

10:21

另一个公司的主管曾以“进度管理专家”自诩；而现在要想掌握情况，他不再看进度报告，他必须走进每一个团队，参加他们的会议。不再是告诉别人该怎么做，而是寻找帮助团队的方式。对于自诩是“进度管理专家”的人来说，这是一个巨大的改变。这位主管说：“在过去的思维里，我只拥有控制权的假象。实际上很多项目仍会拖延，超出预算；现在，我拥有更高的透明度。必要的话，我可以及早修正事态发展。”

11:07

中层管理者也必须做出改变。首先，没有工作移交与幻灯片演示，将需要更少的中层管理者。在旧的思维里，区分了“思考者”与“执行者”，员工只负责执行命令。但现在，除了单纯管理员工，中层管理者更被期待扮演教练兼球员的角色。想象一下：过去十年，你只需要告诉别人做什么，但现在你被期待更亲力亲为。

11:41

虽然这样的模式并不是所有人都能接受，一些人才也因此离开了公司。但结果是新的职场文化——降低了官僚色彩。这些成果来之不易，但这很值得。我合作的那些公司，以往他们一年只能对产品的新功能进行有限几次的部署，而现在，他们每隔几周就会更新产品功能；无需工作移交、耗时的繁琐手续，整个工作组都变得更高效。最后，若你走进这些公司的大厅，你能感到一股新的力量。就像走在一个非常大型的创业公司里。

12:22

平心而论，这些公司还不能自称已经成功。但至少在这样新的模式下，他们能够更好的应对改变。世界正在经历着越来越快，越来越复杂的改变，我们必须重新调整工作的方式。而其中最难的不是改变架构、过程或步骤，也不仅是让资深管理者承担责任。那些拥抱改变的人，就是组织里的领导者。我们必须一同领导变革。

12:58

所以问题是：你愿意放弃什么？

13:04

谢谢大家。

The End

英文讲稿

00:13

Have you ever watched a flock of birds work together? Thousands of animals, flying in perfect synchrony: Isn't it fascinating? What I find remarkable is that these birds would not be able to do that if they all would have to follow one leader. Their reaction speed would simply be too low. Instead, scientists believe that these birds are aligned on a few simple rules, allowing every single bird to make autonomous decisions while still flying in perfect synchrony. Their alignment enables their autonomy, and their autonomy makes them fast and flexible. 

01:05

Now, what does this have to do with any one of us? Well, it's one way of illustrating what I believe to be the most important change that is needed in ways of working today. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need a new way of working, a way that creates alignment around purpose, that takes out bureaucracy and that truly empowers people to make decisions faster. But the question is: In order to get there, what are we willing to give up? 

01:44

A few years ago, I was working with a bank that wanted to embark on a digital transformation. They wanted their offering to be simpler, more intuitive, more relevant. Now, I'm not sure how many of you have seen a bank from the inside, so let me try to illustrate what many traditional banks look like. You see lots of people in suits taking elevators to go to their department, marketers sitting with marketers, engineers with engineers, etc. You see meetings with 20 people where nothing gets decided. Great ideas? They end up in PowerPoint parking lots. And there are endless handovers between departments. Getting anything done can take forever. So this bank knew that in order to transform, they would have to improve their time to market by drastically changing their ways of working as well. But how? 

02:49

To get some inspiration, we decided to go and have a look at companies that seem to be more innovative, like Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos. And I remember how we were walking the halls at one of these companies in December 2014, a management consultant and a team of bankers. We felt like strangers in a strange land, surrounded by beanbags and hoodies and lots of smart, creative employees. So then we asked, "How is your company organized?" And we expected to get an org chart. But instead, they used strange drawings with funny names like "squads" and "chapters" and "tribes" to explain how they were organized. 

03:32

So then we tried to translate that to our own world. We asked, "How many people are working for you?" 

03:40

"It depends." 

03:42

"Who do you report to?" 

03:44

"It depends." 

03:46

"Who decides on your priorities?" 

03:49

"It depends." 

03:51

You can imagine our surprise. We were asking for what we thought were some of the basic principles of organizations, and their answer was, "It depends." 

04:02

Now, over the course of that day, we gained a better understanding of their model. They believed in the power of small, autonomous teams. Their teams were like mini-start-ups. They had product people and IT engineers in the same team so they could design, build and test ideas with customers independently of others in the company. They did not need handovers between departments. They had all the skills needed right there in the team. 

04:29

Now, at the end of that day, we had a session to reflect on what we had learned. And we had started to like their model, so we were already thinking of how to apply some of these ideas to a bank. But then, one of the hosts, a guy who had not said a word all day, he suddenly said, "So I see you like our model. But I have one question for you: What are you willing to give up?" 

04:57

What were we willing to give up? We did not have an answer immediately, but we knew he was right. Change is not only about embracing the new; it's about giving up on some of the old as well. Now, over the past five years, I have worked with companies all over the world to change their ways of working. And clearly, every company has their own skeptics about why this is not going to work for them. "Our product is more complex," or "They don't have the legacy IT like we do," or "Regulators just won't allow this in our industry." 

05:35

But for this bank and also for the other companies that I have worked with afterwards, change was possible. Within a year, we completely blew up the old silos between marketing, product, channels and IT. Three thousand employees were reorganized into 350 multidisciplinary teams. So instead of product people sitting just with product people and engineers with engineers, a product person and an engineer were now members of the same team. You could be a member of a team responsible for account opening or for the mobile banking app, etc. At the go-live date of that new organization, some people were shaking hands for the very first time, only to find out that they had been sitting two minutes away from each other but they were sending each other emails and status reports for the last 10 years. You would hear someone saying, "Ah, so you're the guy that I was always chasing for answers." 

06:36

But now, they're having coffee together every day. If the product guy has an idea, he can just raise it to get input from the engineer who is sitting right next to him. They can decide to test with customers immediately -- no handovers, no PowerPoints, no red tape, just getting stuff done. 

06:59

Now, getting there is not easy. And as it turns out, "What are you willing to give up?" is exactly the right question to ask. Autonomous decision-making requires multidisciplinary teams. Instead of decisions going up and down the organization, we want the team to decide. But to do so, we need all the skills and expertise for that decision in the team. And this brings difficult trade-offs. Can we physically co-locate our people who are working in different buildings, different cities or even different countries today? Or should we invest in better videoconferencing? And how do we ensure consistency in the way we do things across these teams? We still need some kind of management matrix. 

07:47

Now, all these changes to structure and process and procedure -- they are not easy. But in the end, I found that the most difficult thing to change is our own behavior. Let me try to illustrate. 

08:05

If we want these teams to be fast, flexible, creative, like a mini-start-up, they have to be empowered and autonomous. But this means we cannot have leaders commanding their people what to do, when to do, how to do. No micromanagers. But it also means that each employee needs to become a leader, regardless of their formal title. It's about all of us stepping up to take initiative. 

08:34

Now obviously, we also cannot afford to have all these teams running in different directions, because that would certainly lead to chaos. So we need alignment and autonomy at the same time, just like a flock of birds. In an organizational setting, this requires new behaviors, and with each new behavior, there is giving up on something old as well. Leaders have to make sure that everyone in the organization is aligned around the overall purpose -- the why -- and the overall priorities -- the what. But then they have to let go and trust their teams to make the right decisions on how to get there. 

09:20

Now, creating alignment requires open and transparent communication. But you know how they say that information is a source of power? Well, for some managers, sharing information may feel as if they're giving up that source of power. And it's not just managers. The teams need to communicate openly and transparently as well. In these companies, the teams typically work in short sprints, and at the end of every sprint, they organize a demo session to share the output of what they've done, transparently. And every day, each member of the team gives an update of what they are working on individually. Now, all this transparency can be uncomfortable for people, because suddenly, there is no place to hide anymore. Everything we do is transparent for everyone. So, alignment is not easy, and providing autonomy is not so obvious, either. 

10:21

One executive at another company likes to explain how he used to be a master of milestone-tracking. Now, today, to know how things are going, instead of looking at status reports, he needs to walk down to the team floors to attend one of their sessions. And instead of telling people what to do, he looks for ways to help them. That is radical change for someone who used to be a master of milestone-tracking. But in the old world, this executive said, "I only had the illusion of control. In reality, many projects would run over time and over budget, anyway. Now I have much more transparency, and I can course-correct much earlier if needed." 

11:07

And middle managers need to change as well. First of all, without the handovers and the PowerPoint, there's less of a need for middle managers. And in the old world, there was this idea of thinkers and doers. Employees would just follow orders. But now, instead of only managing other people, middle managers were expected to become player-coaches. So imagine, for the last 10 years, you have just been telling other people what to do, but now you're expected to do things yourself again. 

11:41

Clearly, this model is not for everyone, and some great people leave the company. But the result is a new culture with less hierarchy. And all of this is hard work. But it's worth it. The companies that I worked with, they were used to deploying new product features a few times per year. Now they have releases every few weeks, and without the handovers and the red tape, the whole organization becomes more efficient. And finally, if you walk the halls of these companies today, you just feel a new energy. It feels as if you're walking the halls of a very large start-up. 

12:22

Now, to be fair, these companies, they cannot claim victory yet. But at least with this new model, they are much better prepared to respond to change. The world is getting faster and more complex, so we need to reboot our way of working. And the hardest part of that change is not in structure or process or procedure, and it's also not just senior executives taking charge. Leaders will be all of those in the organization who embrace the change. We all have to lead the change. 

12:58

So the question is: What are you willing to give up? 

13:04

Thank you. 

The End