超越缓慢的等级制组织

我是阿迪·伊格内修斯。

I'm Adi Ignatius.

我是艾莉森·比尔德，这里是《哈佛商业评论》创意播客。

I'm Alison Beard, and this is the HBR idea cast.

艾莉森，关于我们的机构能否应对当今挑战的讨论很多。

Allison, there has been a lot of talk about whether our institutions are up to today's challenges.

我指的是学校。

So I'm talking about schools.

我指的是企业。

I'm talking about companies.

我指的是那些仍以百年前方式运作的其他组织——当时我们的经济和社会需求与现在截然不同。

I'm talking about other organizations that really continue to be run essentially as they were a hundred years ago when our economic and social needs were very, very different.

我特别关注企业结构问题，以及它们是否适应当今快速变化的商业环境。

I'm particularly interested in how companies structured and whether they're set up to succeed in today's, you know, really fast moving business environment.

是的。

Yeah.

我认为这是我们多年来一直试图解决的问题。

And I think this is a problem that we've been trying to solve for years.

对吧？

Right?

通过重组变得更敏捷、更具实验性、更数字化。

Reorganizing to be more agile, more experimental, and more digital.

这确实已经发生了。

That's definitely happened.

我们今天的嘉宾亚娜·维尔纳认为，大多数公司仍保留着一种组织结构，虽然可能有所演变，但在这个时代仍显得过于僵化。

Our guest today, Jana Werner, argues that most companies still retain an organizational structure that, yeah, may have evolved, but is still too rigid to make it in this world.

作者用了一个比喻，理想的现代组织应该像章鱼一样，触手既能独立运作又能协同工作，具备分布式智能、感官意识和适应能力。

And the authors use a metaphor that the ideal modern organization should be like an octopus with tentacles that work separately but also together with distributed intelligence, sensory awareness, and adaptability.

我喜欢这个比喻。

I like that.

章鱼（听说正确的复数形式不是octopi）最近似乎很流行，在影视和书籍中经常出现。

Octopuses, I've been told it's not octopi, seem to be having a moment, you know, in film and TV and books.

它们确实有大脑袋，但我想那些腿才是推动它们在海洋中前进的真正引擎。

They do have big heads, but I guess the legs are the real engines powering them through the ocean.

那么这是否意味着企业终于找到方法彻底减少层级，创建像章鱼腿那样既自主又相互连接的团队？

So is this about finally finding a way for companies to reduce hierarchy once and for all and create autonomous but still connected teams like those legs?

可能是这样。

So it might be.

这绝对关乎打破官僚主义，也关乎对真正重要之事——即客户需求——的执着关注。

It's definitely about breaking down bureaucracy, and it's about an obsessive focus on what really matters, which is customer needs.

这是亚马逊网络服务企业战略驻场高管、同时也是《哈佛商业评论》新文章《成为章鱼型组织》及新书《章鱼型组织：在持续变革世界中蓬勃发展的指南》合著者Jana Werner与Phil LeBrun的建议。

So that's the advice of Jana Werner, executive in residence of enterprise strategy at Amazon Web Services and coauthor with Phil LeBrun of the new HBR article, Become an Octopus Organization, as well as the new book, The Octopus Organization, a guide to thriving in a world of continuous transformation.

以下是我与Yana的对话。

So here's my conversation with Yana.

我想听听您对当今企业存在问题的分析。

I'd like your analysis of what's wrong with corporations today.

让我们从这个话题开始。

So let's start with that.

我们的组织存在什么问题？

What is wrong with our organizations?

我和合著者菲利普·伯恩在大型组织工作时发现，无论是帮助它们推进转型，还是现在日常工作中与许多大公司合作，本质上它们仍是工厂模式。

My co author, Philip Burn, and I found working in large organizations, helping to advance and transform them, and now working with a lot of large companies in our day jobs currently, that they essentially still are factories.

这些组织基于弗雷德里克·泰勒等人的模型，是一种建立在标准化、专业化、控制、个人绩效导向、合规性基础上的静态结构，本质上追求可预测的结果。

They're based on the models of Frederick Taylor and Co, a bit of a resting construct built on standardization, specialization, control, individual performance focus, compliance, essentially predictable outcomes.

创造效率曾是这种运营方式的目标，但这些模型如今已不再适用。

And the idea of creating efficiency was a way to operate, but these models no longer work.

它们建立在'许可'基础上——需要许可才能创新、才能发声，这种设计本意是降低风险并提高效率。

They're built on a foundation of permission, permission to innovate, to speak up, and they're designed to de risk and be efficient.

是的，我们正在尝试进化。

Yes, we are trying to evolve.

现在已有许多优秀的新实践和案例，比如硅谷模式。

There's a lot of great new practice and practical examples out there, Silicon Valley, for example.

部分组织已经这样进化，比如苹果和亚马逊这样的全球企业。

And some organizations have evolved like this, the Apples, of course, of the world and Amazons of the world.

但与我合作的许多大型传统企业，实际上大多数都感到举步维艰。

But many of the larger traditional organizations I work with, the majority actually are finding it hard.

它们只在局部进行尝试，远未达到我们期望激励企业实现的程度。

And they do it in pockets, but not to the point that we would like to inspire organizations to do.

听起来企业自以为取得了进步，认为自己在效仿硅谷模式，但你的观点是这些改变只是浮于表面，传统架构仍需彻底变革。

It sounds like companies think they have made progress, think they have you know, we're adopting the Silicon Valley style, but your point is it's just sort of tacked on to these traditional structures that need a pretty dramatic change.

所以你的理念是激励企业采用新方法，也就是所谓的'章鱼模式'，成为章鱼型组织。

So so your idea is to inspire companies to pursue a new approach, which you call, you know, Octopus to become an Octopus organization.

谈谈什么是章鱼型组织。

Talk about what is an Octopus organization.

我们的出发点是：当今的运营方式、协作模式以及企业和客户的需求已发生巨变。

We start from the point of view that how we operate and and how we engage and what companies and customers need today has changed so much.

如今的成功更依赖于与客户、员工以及更广泛的利益相关方建立真正的信任关系。

Today's success depends much more on building genuine trust with customers, with the employees you work with, with a broader set of stakeholders as well.

工作已远非简单的交易行为。

Work is so much less transactional.

它是跨学科的。

It's cross disciplined.

新技术不断涌现。

New technology comes up.

因此我们的观点是：你需要稍微摆脱命令与控制模式，因为你无法通过命令与控制来获得卓越成果，而是要通过学习新的运营方式和技术。

So the idea for us is to say, you need to move a bit away from command and control because you can't command and control your way to exceptional outcomes through learning new ways of operating and new technology.

所以关键在于建立连接、创造自主权，而非当前这种层层审批的文化，然后设计出能在当前复杂环境中蓬勃发展的公司。

So it's about creating connection, about creating agency more than this permission setting culture we currently have, and then designing companies that can thrive in the current complexity.

就像从金属锡人套装转变为活体生物，而章鱼这个形象因多种原因跃入脑海。

So a bit from the metal tin man suit to a living organism, and the octopus was one that came to mind for many reasons.

我最近采访了麦肯锡全球管理合伙人

I recently interviewed the global managing partner, McKinsey

哦，是的。

Oh, yeah.

他表示在与全球CEO们的对话中——我在转述——但基本上没人对自己公司的组织结构感到满意。

Who said in his conversations with CEOs all over the world I'm paraphrasing, but basically, no one is happy with their organizational structure.

是的。

Yeah.

他们觉得这太复杂了。

They feel that it's too complicated.

太矩阵化了。

It's too matrix.

确实。

True.

人们搞不清楚该如何推进工作。

People can't figure out how to get anything done.

你现在谈的是一种重组，对于那些已经觉得对现有组织失去掌控的公司来说相当令人生畏。

Now you're sort of talking about a reorganization, which is kind of daunting for companies that are already feeling that they don't have a grip on, you know, the organization now.

但这种方式将如何简化或润滑公司内部的创新业务呢？

But in what way will this simplify or lubricate kind of the business of innovation within companies?

我可能不会太把它称为一种结构。

I would probably not so much call it a structure.

我更愿意称之为一种心态、一种思维方式、一种运作方式，一种不同的生活方式。

I would call it a mindset, a way of thinking, and a way of operating, of living differently.

我们见过许多重组案例，其中大多数带来的挑战或伤痕多于实际的生产力提升和工作舒适度改善。

We've seen a lot of restructures and most of them cause more challenge or often scarring than they cause an actual improvement of productivity and comfort for people to work in it.

这个理念更多是关于如何将决策权下放到组织中，交给那些贴近客户、了解问题的人。

The idea is more about how can you push decisions into the organization, to people who are close to the customer, who are close to the problem.

关键在于我们雇佣了这么多优秀人才，却总是告诉他们该做什么，而不是善用他们的知识和经验。

It's about all these amazing people that we hire and then actually tell them what to do instead of tapping into their knowledge and their experience.

如何能激发所有人的积极性，让他们每天上班都想着'哪些问题值得解决'？

How can you switch them all on so they all come every day to work to say, What are the problems worth solving?

我怎样才能用更好的方式解决这些问题？

How can I solve them in ever better ways?

我该如何推动组织进步和适应变化，保持其精简高效？

And how can I help advance and adapt my organization so it stays lean?

我们要对抗这种自然积累的官僚层级和冗余事物，持续聚焦客户需求而非内部事务。

We fight against this natural buildup of bureaucracy of layers of extra things, and we keep focusing on the customers, not on inward things.

我们持续思考如何为这些客户创新。

And we keep thinking about how to innovate for those customers.

我想可能有很多公司都这么认为，是的。

I think there are probably a lot of companies that think, yes.

我们以客户为中心，因为我们每天都在这么说。

We are customer centric because we say it every day.

对吧？

Right?

那么如何从空喊'我们以客户为中心'到真正践行这一点呢？

So how do you how do you get from mouthing the words we're customer centric to actually being that?

我很喜欢这个问题，因为我合作的组织都说'我们把客户置于一切工作的核心'。

I love that question because I work with organizations that say, we put the customer at the heart of everything we do.

但当你查看他们的预算时，80%的资金实际上都花在了维持基础设施运转和内部变革上。

But then they, for example, you look at their budget, and 80% of their budget is actually spent on what we call keeping the lights on on infrastructure, on internal change.

所以他们的资金流向与他们宣称的工作方向并不一致。

So their money doesn't talk the way that they think they are working.

这种转变相当具有挑战性，而那些做得好的组织会让领导者直接与客户互动。

The switch is quite challenging, and the organizations that do that well have their leaders engage with customers.

他们不再依赖代理指标，比如净推荐值，而是摒弃'我干这行三十年，我知道客户要什么'的主观臆断。

So instead of thinking they have used proxies, they use proxy metrics like Net Promoter Scores Instead of using opinions of I have done this job for thirty years.

他们仍然会走出去与客户交流。

I know what my customers want.

我们曾与英德拉·努伊交谈过。

They still go out and speak to customers.

她曾是百事公司的前CEO，现在是亚马逊的董事会成员。

We've spoken to Indra Nooy.

她过去常跟百事送货卡车一起，亲自去餐厅了解实际情况。

She was the former CEO of PepsiCo and is now an Amazon board member.

所以领导者始终保持近距离接触。

She used to write Pepsi delivery trucks and go in restaurants to see what was going on.

（注：原文第7条'So leaders stay close.'与前文逻辑衔接紧密，建议保留与上条合并翻译。但根据要求仍单独列出，此处作补充说明）

So leaders stay close.

他们确实称之为倾听。

They do call listening.

他们明白需要深入分析从客户那里获得的数据，而不是轻信像净推荐值这样的抽象代理指标。

They understand they need to dive deeper into the data they get from customers and not believe the abstract proxy metrics like Net Promoter Scores.

他们听取客户故事，并追踪这些故事以发现问题所在，思考如何更好地服务客户。

They hear anecdotes, and they follow those anecdotes to figure out what is not quite right and how do we serve customers better.

他们将如何服务客户和解决问题的决策权下放给组织中贴近客户的一线人员。

And they push decisions of how to serve customers and solve problems to those people in their orgs that are close to them.

这就是关键吗？

Is that the key?

我是说，作为CEO，关键不可能只是偶尔搭乘一次送货卡车吧？

I mean, mean, the key to this can't be to ride a delivery truck once in a while if you're the CEO.

对吧？

Right?

但关键是否正如你所说——要赋能一线人员去倾听并响应客户需求？

But it is it what you just said about empowering the frontline people to listen and to respond to customer needs?

正是如此。

Exactly.

这意味着要给予他们思考如何为客户解决问题的机会，而不是把决策权层层上报，要赋能他们，提供技术支持。

And that means giving them the opportunity to think about how they solve problems for their customers and not pushing those decisions up the chain and enabling them, giving them the technology.

我们现在经常讨论人工智能，与其压制它，不如提供技术手段让他们以新颖独特的方式为客户解决问题，给予他们创新自由。

We talk a lot about AI now instead of clamping down on it, giving them the technology to solve problems in new and different ways for their customers, giving them the innovation freedom.

上周我拜访了一家陷入困境的汽车制造商的转型团队。他们承受着巨大压力，所有创新想法都需要详尽的商业案例、长篇提案，以及大量幕后争论和谈判来获取支持。

Last week, visited the transformation team of a car manufacturer, a struggling one, And they're under so much pressure that all innovation ideas need big business cases, big proposals, massive behind the scenes arguing and negotiating that people get buy in.

然后这些创新提案规模变得如此庞大，需要提交董事会签字批准。

And then these innovation proposals get so big and to the board that they have to be signed off.

一旦董事会批准，所有人当然必须立即执行，因为已经引起了董事会的关注。

And when the board has signed off, of course, everyone then has to jump at it because the board has given attention.

这样一来，就没有空间进行小规模创新和实践了。

So there's no more room to innovate small and do things.

他们说，工程师们过去常常去地下室研发新车型。

And they said we used to go down to the basement, the engineers, and work on new cars.

这一切都已不复存在，而这恰恰与所需背道而驰。

None of this exists anymore, and that's the opposite of what's needed.

那么我们来谈谈章鱼的隐喻吧。

So let's talk about the octopus metaphor.

对。

Yeah.

你知道，就是关于分布式智能、感官意识和适应能力的概念。

So, you know, the idea of distributed intelligence, sensory awareness, adaptability.

那么，是哪个瞬间让你确信章鱼是现代企业最贴切的隐喻和模型呢？

You know, what was the moment, the moment maybe that convinced you that, you know, the octopus is the right metaphor, the right model for a modern business?

我看过一部精彩的纪录片叫《我的章鱼老师》。

I saw an amazing movie called My Octopus Theater.

大多数人应该都知道这部片子。

Most people probably know it.

它激发了我对这种生物的好奇心，促使我做了更多研究。

And it got me curious about the creature, and I studied more about it.

我了解到它们通过变形等能力来适应的方式简直精妙得荒谬

And I learned how absurdly sophisticated their ability is to adapt through things like shape shifting.

它们能改变皮肤质地

They can change the texture of their skin.

它们拥有惊人的学习能力

They have an unbelievable capacity to learn.

它们甚至能改变自己的RNA

They can even alter their RNA.

根据所处水温高低，它们能创造出新的分子

They can create new molecules depending if they're in hot or cold water.

它们能在一天内完成这种变化以适应环境

And they do that within a day so they can adapt to the environment.

整个理念就是：我们能否给人们提供一种简单的理解方式，来说明这就是我们想要实现的？

The whole idea was, can we give people a simple way of looking at it to say, this is what we're looking to do?

最重要的是，它们具有分布式智能

Most importantly, they have distributed intelligence.

我10岁的女儿告诉我，它们的每条触腕都有神经簇。

My 10 year old daughter told me they have neural clusters in each of their arms.

所以它们不仅有一个中央大脑，还具有去中心化的智能。

So they don't just have a central brain, but they have decentralized intelligence.

因此我们的想法是，如何为人们提供一种意象和隐喻，让他们以不同方式思考自己的组织。

So the idea is how can we give people an imagery and a metaphor to think differently about their organization.

而这种生物正是这样的存在。

And this creature is just that.

是的。

Yeah.

好的。

Okay.

那么继续这个思路，你看，它们有触腕——希望我用词正确——这些触腕各自独立工作，但显然也在协同合作。

So to stick with that, so then, you know, you have the tentacles, I hope I have the right word, that are working separately, but obviously are also working together.

没错。

Yes.

那么我们来谈谈公司内部的情况。

So let's talk about that within companies.

我听过教授们说过，是的。

I've heard professors say, yes.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

Yes.

我们讨厌信息孤岛，但孤岛实际上对完成任务很有用。

We hate silos, but silos are actually useful for getting things done.

你如何平衡既要事物独立运作，又要为这个更完整、更庞大的组织做出贡献这一事实？

How do you balance the fact that we need things to work independently while also contributing to this sort of fuller, whaler organization?

我认为这是个永恒的问题，即如何平衡自主权与协调一致。

I think this is an ever questioned problem, the idea of how do you balance autonomy with alignment.

关键在于领导者要提供清晰的挑战背景，明确哪些问题值得解决.

The idea is to think about leaders providing the clarity, the context of what the challenges are, what are the problems worth solving, what are the few things that are important to enable people to then go and solve for those things.

这样就能在明确重点事项的同时，给予人们自由探索的空间。

And that creates a mix of having context, having clarity of what the few priorities are, and giving people the freedom and the space to experiment in that space.

在这方面做得好的公司，实际上会接受一定程度的重复和混乱。

And in the companies that do this well, they actually accept that there will be a bit of duplication and there will be a bit of messiness.

但我们宁愿接受这些，以换取更强的创新能力、更快的速度和更以客户为中心。

But we rather accept this for the advanced gain of more innovation and more speed and more customer centricity.

但这始终是一种权衡。

But it is always a trade off.

在我看来，大型传统组织中的筒仓问题更为突出——领导者们虽然坐在高管团队中，却并非真正的领导团队。

The silo problem for me is much more pronounced in large and traditional organizations where leaders sit in an executive team, and they are not a leadership team.

他们只是一群聚在一起的领导者。

They are just a team of leaders who come together.

比如他们在高管会议上决定'我们要变得更以客户为中心'。

And they, for example, decide in an executive team something like, we want to become more customer centric.

然后首席财务官离开后却说'好吧，我们需要提高效率以便降价'。

And then the CFO goes away and says, Okay, we need to get more efficient so we can cut prices.

首席营销官离开后说，我们需要打造全新的客户体验。

The CMO goes away and says, we need a new customer experience.

首席信息官离开后说，我们必须这样那样地改造我们的技术。

The CIO goes away and says, we have to change our technology like this and that.

因此，那些坐在高管团队中的人更倾向于固守自己的领域，试图在各自领域内解决问题，同时作为领导团队努力协调成果，并横向连接和发展这些成果。

So the people who sit together in the executive team are more connected to their silos and try and solve problems in their silos and trying to connect an outcome as a leadership team, and then horizontally connect and develop these outcomes.

那么在这个阶段，你会把亚马逊描述为一个成功的章鱼式企业典范吗？

So at this stage, would you describe Amazon as, you know, a successful example of an Octos company?

我可能会想到，自从杰夫·贝佐斯创立以来，亚马逊一直以客户为中心。

I may think of them as, you know, since Jeff Bezos' creation, you know, we are customer obsessed.

我认为在安迪·贾西领导下，他们正试图削减大量官僚程序，清除那些阻碍效率的中间环节。

I think under Andy Jassy, they're trying to cut out a lot of the bureaucracy, a lot of the the stuff that slows them down in the middle.

他们已经成为你所说的那种企业了吗？

Have they become what you're talking about?

他们是否正在朝着这个方向迈进？

Are they on the path to becoming that?

有没有可能任何公司都能达到你所说的理想状态？

Can anybody ever become the ideal that you're talking about?

我认为有个理想目标是好的。

I think it's good to have an ideal.

许多公司既有章鱼般的触手，也残留着铁皮人锈迹斑斑的盔甲。

Many companies have mixed some tentacles and still some old Tinman rusty armors.

有些公司章鱼特征多些，有些则少些。

Some have more of an octopus, some have less.

我认为越成功的公司往往具备更多这类特质。

And I think the more successful companies have more of these traits.

亚马逊具备许多这样的特质，其组织内许多部门确实在以这种隐喻方式运作。

And I think Amazon has many of the qualities and in many parts of the organization acts in this way, in this metaphor.

因此我们遵循着体现价值观的基本原则。

So we have principles that we follow that lay out values.

我们推行独立产品团队（我们称之为'两个披萨团队'），让他们尽可能广泛自治，贴近客户，像小型初创公司那样自主决策。

We try to push independent product teams, we call them two pizza teams who are as broadly autonomous as possible, and can be close to the customers, can make their own decisions like little startups.

当然，每个组织都存在这样的风险：公司会变得僵化，陷入反模式，比如将决策权层层上移、决策过程过于缓慢，开始沉迷于内部代理流程而非关注客户需求。

Of course, in every organization, there's a risk that the company calcifies and goes into the anti patterns like pushing decisions up the hierarchy and making decisions too slowly, starting to become involved in their internal proxy processes rather than thinking about customers.

这种风险确实存在。

That risk exists.

我们称之为从'第一天'文化（像初创企业般灵活）向'第二天'文化的转变——后者是更为僵化迟缓的组织形态，完全不像章鱼。

We call this a shift from day one culture being like a startup to a day two culture, which is this more rigid, slower organization that's not an octopus.

我们一直在有意识地对抗这种'第二天'文化，因为这并非一劳永逸的变革。

And we keep consciously fighting against this day two culture because it's not something you change once.

必须持续确保组织回归这种章鱼般的运作方式。

You have to continuously make sure you go back to this octopus like way of being.

关于创新这个问题，很多公司都采用所谓的双轨转型策略。

On the question of innovation, you know, a lot of companies pursue a sort of dual transformation approach.

哈佛商业出版社也是如此。

I mean, that's been true at Harvard Business Publishing as well.

我们出版过斯科特·安东尼的相关著作，其中提到要将下一代创新（即创造未来）与核心业务创新区分开来。

You know, we've published a book by Scott Anthony on this where, you know, you your next generation innovation, right, you're inventing the future is separated from innovation at the core.

听起来你在建议一种不同的创新方式。

It sounds like you're suggesting a different approach to innovation.

是这样吗？

Is that right?

是的。

Yeah.

我们看到很多企业设立创新实验室，因为他们感到难以真正通过组织基因推动创新。

We see a lot of organizations that do innovation labs because they feel they're struggling to truly drive innovation through the DNA of the organization.

但这将创新边缘化了。

But that puts innovation to the side.

它把能力和资源集中在少数人手中，而这些少数人往往不是最接近客户和待解决问题的广大组织成员。

It gives the ability and the resources to few people, and those few people are often not the broad organization that is actually close to the customers and to the problems to solve.

这很危险，因为很多这类创新最终无法触达客户。

And that's risky because a lot of this innovation then doesn't reach the customer.

它们停留在概念验证阶段，很难将这些抽象的、象牙塔式的、脱离实际的创新真正融入组织并实现规模化。

It stays proof of concepts, and it's hard to bring these abstracts, ivory tower and removed innovations into the organization to stick and scale.

因此我们的建议是，实际上应该广泛开放创新机制和工作方式，让整个组织各个部分都能参与创新。

So the recommendation we have is actually giving broad access to innovation mechanisms, ways of working and enabling organizations across the piece to innovate.

例如亚马逊Prime的创意，最初是由一位负责填写物流表格的员工提出的，他开始思考如何整合和打包服务。

For example, Amazon Prime, the idea was was created by someone who's who's filling spreadsheets about delivery and about how to start thinking about connecting and bundling offerings.

这个创意被推广给组织中的每个人，而不仅仅是少数自认为懂得创新的人。

The idea is pushed to anyone in the organization rather than just a few who think they understand how to innovate.

因为创新源于实验，源于贴近问题，源于不断尝试，源于产生想法。

Because innovation comes from experimenting, from being close to the problems, from trying things, and from having ideas.

那么，领导层可以通过哪些结构性文化信号向员工传达：创新应该是日常痴迷的行为，而不是像你说的那种孤立事件或特殊部门？

You know, what are the structural cultural signals that leadership can try to create that tells employees that innovation is genuinely that sort of daily obsessive behavior and not, as you say, a kind of isolated or special event or or isolated department?

首先是给他们提供机制。

It's first of all giving them the mechanism.

比如在亚马逊，我们有一种叫'逆向工作法'的方法，整个组织都能获得相关工具和机会来创造、撰写创新想法并分享。

So for example, at Amazon, we have a method called working backwards, and the broader organization gets the tools to do this and gets the opportunity to create and write ideas for innovation and share them.

这是我们年度绩效评估中的一项要求。

We expect this in our annual performance reviews.

我们会评估你在创新和简化方面做了哪些努力。

We look at what have you done to look to innovate, to simplify.

我们会明确阐释创新的含义。

We share what we mean by innovation.

并不是要求你必须发明X光机那样的突破。

This is not you don't have to invent the X-ray.

也不需要你开发新的智能体AI工具。

And you don't have to invent a new tool for agentic AI.

创新可以是细微之处的改进，通过解决小问题、提升效率，帮助人们摆脱'必须做大事'的思维束缚。

Innovation can be small eye innovation, so little things, creating some efficiency, fixing small problems, so that people get out of this fear that they a paralyzing idea they have to do something big.

我们还给予员工提出创意时的自由度：写下你的想法，让它在组织内流转。

And we also provide the freedom to say, when you come up with something, write your idea down, take it through the organization.

你不必事事都向上级请示批准。

You don't just have to go up to your boss and ask for permission.

因此核心理念是：通过制定原则让员工意识到这是日常工作，纳入绩效考核，提供工具支持，并在创新成果出现时予以表彰。

So the idea is give principles where people can realize this is part of my daily job, put it into the performance reviews, give them the tools, and then celebrate when people come up with innovations.

讲述这些故事，分享他们的创造，让其他人意识到这是真实存在的。

Tell the stories, share what they have created so that others realize this is real.

我们不只是假装这么说。

We're not just pretending to say this.

我们实际上希望你们这么做。

We're actually wanting you to do this.

所以现在正在产生一些创新。

So there are innovations that are being created.

你也写到，有些需要被摒弃或改进的反模式。

You also write about how, you know, there are these antipatterns that need to be done away with or or improved.

谈谈其中一两个阻碍你所描述转型的反模式。

Talk about, you know, one or two of them, these these sort of antipatterns that are blocking this transformation that you're describing.

在很多公司里，我们开始做一项工作时，并没有真正思考我们要解决什么问题。

In a lot of companies, we start to do a piece of work, and we don't really think about what is the problem we're trying to solve.

我们获得了这么多资金。

We get all this money.

我们启动了一个大项目，然后开始推进，试图展示项目进展。

We create a big project, and then we go and we start, and we try to show progress in this project.

这种趋势导致我们不断开发、持续投入，因为首先我们渴望获得即时满足感——证明项目正在推进。

The tendency is then to keep developing, keep working on it, because we want to first of all have a bit of immediate gratification that we're making progress on the project.

我们想向领导层展示工作正在取得进展。

We want to showcase to our leaders that we're making progress.

但事实上，在我们为书籍采访Alphabet X登月计划CEO阿斯特罗·泰勒时，他给出了'猴子与基座'的比喻。

But actually, when we spoke in our interview for the book to ask Trotella, who's the CEO of Alphabet X's Moonshot Lives, he gave us the metaphor of the monkey and the pedestal.

他说：'如果你想教基座上的猴子背诵莎士比亚，该从哪里开始？'

He said, If you want to teach a monkey on a pedestal how to recite Shakespeare, where do you start?

他的观点是：大多数组织会从建造基座开始。

And his viewers that most organizations start building the pedestal.

于是你开始试图取得进展，让团队停留在舒适区，可以炫耀成果。

So you start trying to make progress, keeps the team in the comfort zone, you can show off things.

但实际上，如果不能让猴子背诵莎士比亚，建造基座就毫无意义。

But actually, there's absolutely no point building the pedestal if you can't get the monkey to recite Shakespeare.

他想表达什么观点？

What's his point?

他的观点是：要快速了解并优先解决最困难和最具挑战性的问题。

His point is get to know quickly and tackle the most difficult and challenging problems first.

这样你就能迅速掌握情况。

And then you get to know quickly.

当你了解后，要表彰那些团队，因为他们已经从本应停止的工作中解放出资源、时间和精力，而不是一味继续。

And when you get to know, you celebrate those teams because they have now freed up resources and time and energy from something they should no longer be working on instead of just keeping going.

这些都是人类行为问题。

These are human behavioral issues.

对吧？

Right?

而且你知道，你不可能淘汰所有管理者。

And, you know, you're not gonna do away with every manager.

对吧？

Right?

管理者有其控制的领域。

And managers have their areas of control.

他们有自己的自尊心，这就是你提到的部分原因。

They have their egos, and that's the reason for some of what you talked about.

你不能只是希望这些消失。

You can't just wish that away.

我的意思是，你需要有致力于做有成效工作的管理者。

I mean, how do you you need committed managers who are doing something productive.

对吧？

Right?

那么如何平衡这一点呢？好吧，每个人都获得授权去创新、采取行动和创造事物，但如何平衡这一点与组织确实倾向于建立结构的事实呢？

So so how do you balance this, okay, everyone is empowered to innovate and to take steps and to make things you know, how do you balance that with the fact that organizations do tend to create structures?

对吧？

Right?

这就是事情得以完成的方式。

That's how things get done.

我很喜欢这个理念，但具体该如何实施并让它持续有效呢？

I love the idea of it, but how do you do it, how do you make it stick?

这需要纪律性。

It requires discipline.

我记得是帕金森定律提出这个观点：我们的组织和官僚机构每年会在我们睡觉时自然增长5%到7%。他作为海军历史学家发现，当英国海军舰队规模缩小时，海军内部的将领和工作人员数量反而增加了。

I think it was Parkinson's law who came up with this idea that our organizations and bureaucracies grow in our sleep by five to 7% every year because he found he was a naval historian, and he found as the British Navy's fleet became smaller, the number of generals and people working in the British Navy became more.

所以帕金森定律告诉我们，组织官僚体系会不断膨胀，甚至在我们睡觉时也不例外。

So Parkinson's Law tells us the organizational bureaucracy grows and grows even in our sleep.

在这方面做得好的组织，它们会坚定承诺必须持续进行优化调整。

And organizations that do this well, they they take a commitment to say we have to constantly groom.

我们知道像谷歌这样的公司，有些领导者会在流程变得过于庞大时主动设置正向阻力。

We know companies like Google, there are leaders who put positive friction into processes that become too big.

例如谷歌的招聘流程曾变得如此庞大，以至于需要越来越多的人参与一个职位的招聘。

For example, Google's hiring process became so big that more and more people were involved in hiring someone.

后来有位高层领导设置了正向阻力，规定如果招聘流程要超过5人参与，就必须获得他本人的签字批准。

And at some point, a senior leader put positive friction in to say, you now need sign off from me personally, if you want to have more than five people involved in the hiring process.

这就像修剪草坪一样。

So it's like mowing the lawn.

你不能停下来。

You can't stop.

必须持续在可能的地方增加正向阻力，并持续削减官僚主义和领导层的增长。

You have to continuously add positive friction where you can and continuously take out this growth of bureaucracy and leadership.

我的同事菲尔发现了一个绝妙的术语。

We have a beautiful term that my colleague Phil came across.

就像身体质量指数，但实际上是官僚主义质量指数。

It's like the body mass index, but it's actually the bureaucracy mass index.

所以你可以尝试测量你的等待时间、无用活动的时间，并努力改善你的官僚主义质量指数。

So you can try and measure your wait time, your time of useless activities, and try and work on your body mass index.

好的。

Okay.

那么如果你的官僚主义质量指数显示你过于官僚化，你会怎么做？

So if your bureaucracy mass index shows that you're too bureaucratic, what do you do?

如果你们发现或自我意识到官僚主义太重，第一步该怎么做？

If you identify or or self identify, we are too bureaucratic, then what's the first step?

我们知道领导者很少了解工作是如何完成的。

We know that leaders rarely understand how work gets done.

所以通常不是靠领导者自上而下推动变革，而是授权员工发声，并建立相应的评估和奖励原则，比如：我是否有所创新？

So it's often not about leaders trying to drive change from the top but empowering people to say and having principles that you also get measured on and rewarded on to say, have I invented?

我是否简化了流程？

Have I simplified?

在亚马逊，我们称之为'发明与简化'。

We call this invent and simplify at Amazon.

我们有一条原则。

We have a principle.

我是否持续关注如何以更精简的方式做事？

Have I consistently looked at how I can do things leaner?

如何消除这些官僚主义？

How I can take out this bureaucracy?

如果我想要启动一个新项目，就要抱着将其规模做小的心态，因为人们往往会在更大的空间里占用更多时间和资源。

If I want to start a new project, have the mindset of making it smaller because people tend to take up the time and the resource with bigger spaces.

你把项目周期拉得越长，它就会耗费更多时间，需要更多资源。

You make a project longer, it will take the time, it will require more resources.

因此，保持一种给予人们更少时间和资源的心态，是防止官僚主义滋长的一种方式。

So having a mindset of giving people less time, less resource is a way to reduce bureaucracy growing.

节俭是减少官僚主义滋长的方式，同时也给予人们自主削减官僚主义的机会。

Frugality is a way of bureaucracy growing less and giving people the opportunity to cut that down themselves.

有时候是一些小事，比如学会如何提供工具。

And sometimes it's little things like learning how to give tools.

例如，领导者不要求对解决方案的初稿实施做完整的PPT演示，而是说：我不需要你这样做。

For example, a leader not expecting a full PowerPoint presentation about a first draft implementation of a solution but saying, I don't need you to do that.

我需要你直接展示你正在处理的粗糙、糟糕、困难的部分，因为这能建立诚实，减少官僚主义，让我们更真实地了解工作进展和完成情况。

I need you to come and show me the scrappy, terrible, difficult stuff you're working on because it creates honesty, it creates less bureaucracy, and it shows us in more real life what's going on and how far you're getting with your work.

但我们如何才能打造世界上最好的基座呢？

But how are we gonna build the world's best pedestal?

你们不需要。

You don't.

许多公司的做法是在基层进行实验，比如与客户一起，如果有效，就会本能地想要扩大规模。

So what a lot of companies do is experiment at the bottom, you know, with the customer, and then if it works, there's this instinct to scale it.

你之前提到过这一点。

And you started to talk about this before.

那么这种做法有什么问题？或者说，对于看似有效的实验，正确的与错误的规模化方法是什么？

You know, what's wrong with that, or or what's the right versus wrong approach to scaling experiments that seem to be working?

我们讨论过规模化的风险。

We talk about risks of scaling.

我们更喜欢用‘传播’这个词。

We like the word spreading.

我们认为，如果在组织的某个部分开发出真正优秀的东西，它们会自然传播开来。

We believe that things that work well that are developed in a certain part of the organization, if they're really that good, they naturally spread.

这意味着不需要自上而下地推动，而是由人们自发采纳并在组织中传播有效的方法。

It means that you don't create a push top down, but people adopt and spread through the organization what works.

这是一种更为自然的变革方式，能让人们真正接受并推动进步，因为他们感到这是属于自己的。

And that is a much more natural way of change to stick with people and for people to then also advance because they feel they own it.

规模化是一个危险的概念，因为它可能剥夺人们对本地事务的自主权。

Scaling is a risky concept because it runs the risk of robbing people of local ownership.

我们认为规模化应是为人们提供能创造效率和速度的事物。

We believe scaling is something you do to offer people something that creates efficiency and speed.

其他所有事情更适合在自然形成的拉动文化中进行组织和改变。

Everything else is better organized and changed in a natural pull culture.

正如我们一直讨论的，组织内部存在各自为政的现象。

As we've been saying, you know, organizations, you know, they have their silos.

它们有着自己的结构体系。

They have their structures.

包括我自己在内，我们都形成了某种会议文化。

Myself included, we have kind of meeting cultures.

要知道，没人愿意为有风险的想法承担责任。

You know, nobody wants to take ownership of risky ideas.

在存在所有这些根深蒂固问题的组织内部，你如何真正实现这一目标？

How do you make this really happen within organizations that have all of these embedded problems?

是的。

Yeah.

我们经常讨论主人翁文化，以及把关者文化往往带来的挑战。

We talk a lot about ownership culture and the challenge that a gatekeeper culture tends to create.

我们还会讲一个关于猪和鸡的笑话。

And and we tell the joke of the pig and the chicken.

猪和鸡一起走在路上，鸡对猪说：'我们一起开家餐厅吧？'

So the pig and the chicken walk down the road, and the chicken says to the pig, shall we open a restaurant together?

猪回答说：'好啊，没问题。'

And the pig goes, yeah, sure.

'我们该供应什么？'

What shall we serve?

鸡说：'当然是火腿和鸡蛋啦。'

And the chicken says, well, ham and eggs, of course.

突然，猪停下脚步说，你意识到我必须比你投入更多。

And suddenly, the pig stops in its tracks and goes, you realize I have to be much more committed to that than you.

有时候观众需要花点时间才能明白为什么。

And sometimes it takes the audience a minute of why that is.

但基本上，我们想表达的是，贡献者与真正承诺并负责的人之间存在区别。

But basically, the point we're trying to make, there's a difference between those that contribute and those who are really committed and accountable.

在组织中，我们往往有很多只会下蛋的鸡。

And often in organizations, we have lots of chickens who lay their eggs.

他们来参加会议。

They come to meetings.

他们发表意见。

They have opinions.

他们想参与其中，对某些事情给予部分认可。

They want to be involved, they give part sign offs of something.

但真正找到一个能从头到尾负责、交付实际成果、做出必要决策来实现目标的人，确实非常非常困难。

But it's really, really difficult to find someone who truly owns something end to end and delivering an actual outcome, something meaningful, and making the necessary decisions to achieve it.

我们说，你的组织需要更多'猪'型人才。

And we say, you need more pigs in your organization.

或许不该直接称他们为猪。

Maybe don't call them pigs.

在亚马逊，我们称他们为单线程领导者。

At at Amazon, we call them single threaded leaders.

我想在苹果公司，他们称之为直接责任人。

I think at Apple, they call directly responsible individuals.

但核心理念是要找到这样的人：他们能真正行动起来，为项目注入能量和紧迫感，对事物充满热情，能深入探究问题，推动进展，每日坚持取得进步。

But the idea is someone who really gets up and injects energy and urgency into initiatives, is passionate about something, can dive deep into issues, move forward, presses on progress every day.

当企业告诉我他们难以指派单线程领导者时，我会告诉他们：要么这件事不够重要，要么你们存在优先级问题。

And when companies tell me they struggle to assign single threaded leaders, then I tell them either this isn't important enough or you have a prioritization issue.

因此要揭露那些'鸡'型行为，创造非对抗性的方式来挑战这种被动参与，这样才能克服阻碍组织发展的巨大问题。

So surface your chicken behavior, create non confrontational ways to challenge this passive participation, but it overcomes a massive problem that stagnates organizations.

从很多方面来说，你描述的正是我们多年来一直在撰写的核心理念。

In many ways, you described what, you know, I would say for years, we've been writing about.

这是优秀的领导力。

This is good leadership.

优秀的领导力不仅仅是居高临下地发号施令，而是赋能他人。

That good leadership isn't just sort of talking down, but it is empowering others.

它赋予他人成为领导者并发展领导能力的力量。

It's empowering others to to be leaders and to develop leadership capabilities.

但要让这种模式真正成功，仅靠这些还不够。

But there must be something more than just that, you know, for this really to succeed.

归根结底，关键在于公司CEO或领导者是否真正理解通过释放这些机遇所能创造的价值？

And, you know, at the end of the day, is it about, you know, the CEO or the leader of the company truly understanding the value that you can create by unlocking some of these opportunities?

最终是否需要自上而下的推动——需要一位明确表态'支持'的CEO？

Is it ultimately top down you need as a CEO who says, yes.

我们要实现充分赋能。

We're gonna we're gonna empower.

我要学会放手。

I'm gonna let go.

我下面的人会放手。

People below me are gonna let go.

我们将放弃权威，让更多一线员工能够创新并公开讨论。

We're gonna let go of authority and let people more on the front lines innovate and and talk openly.

要实现这一点，理想的领导职能是什么？

What is the ideal leadership function here to making this happen?

是的。

Yeah.

这需要勇气，对领导者来说非常困难。

It's a courage to do so, and it's very hard as a leader.

我和菲尔都曾写过这方面的内容，我们自己也当过领导，有时仍会因事情没有完全按我们想要的方式完成而难以放弃掌控权。

Both Phil and I who wrote about this have been leaders, and we still find ourselves struggling sometimes to give up ownership because things aren't done the way exactly how we want them.

所以这确实很难做到。

So it is hard to do that.

这只是其中一方面。

And that is one part.

但同样重要的是建立清晰度，让人们能够拥有做出正确决策的背景，理解哪些问题是需要解决的重要问题，以及如何着手解决，并拥有这样做的自由和舒适感。

But the other part that's really important is creating the clarity so that people can have the context of making the right decisions, of being able to understand which problems are the important problems to solve, and how to go about solving them and having the freedom and the comfort to do so.

创造这种清晰度是一项极其艰巨的任务，也是领导者持续面临的挑战。

And creating that clarity is a really, really difficult task, and it's an ongoing task for leaders.

我们曾与伦敦证券交易所CEO朱莉娅·霍格特交谈，她说她三分之一的职责就是持续为团队创造这种清晰度并不断重塑它。

We spoke to the CEO of the London Stock Exchange named Julia Hoggart, and she says a third of her role is to continuously create that clarity into her team and to keep recreating it.

另一项工作是将决策权下放给组织，自己则退后一步，更多地成为系统架构师。

The other thing then is to push decisions into the organizations and stepping away and becoming more an architect of the system.

因此不是过多参与系统运作，而是当人们拥有这种清晰度和背景时，让他们自主决策并进行实验。

So not so much working in the system, but trying to let people, when they have this clarity and context, take decisions and do experiments.

我很欣赏里德·哈斯廷斯（Netflix CEO）的做法。

And I love this Reid Hastings.

他说他为自己设定了整个季度都不做任何决策的目标而感到自豪。

He said he prides himself of trying not to take any decisions in an entire quarter.

最后一点，特别是在我和菲尔的工作中观察到，领导者们需要对技术保持更多好奇心。

And the last thing that particularly in our role, Phil and I see is leaders haven't get more curious about technology.

不仅仅是说我不理解。

Not just saying I don't understand.

他们对人充满好奇。

They are curious about people.

他们对金融感兴趣，但对技术往往不那么好奇。

They're curious about finance, but often not so curious about technology.

我们看到的优秀领导者，这些方面都做得很好。

And the leaders we see, they do all of this well.

他们变得充满求知欲。

They become curious.

他们邀请我们参加培训课程。

They invite us for training sessions.

他们与技术专家交流，并了解在他们的生态系统中什么是可能的。

They speak to tech experts, and they understand in their ecosystem what's possible.

在我们复杂的组织中，领导者有太多优先事项需要处理。

Leaders in our complex organizations have so many priorities.