PPT模版之鲍威尔的演说.ppt

Lesson 1,一個好的領導者是必須對群體之共同福利負責任的，這也就是說群體中有些人可能會對於你所採取的行動或決定感到不悅。但如果你是個值得尊敬的人，這將是無法避免的。試著想討好所有的人就只能是個庸才：此時你將失去做重大決定的機會，你將不敢與需要面對的人面對，並且你也將無法論功行賞，就因為怕一些人可能因此而對你爭吵不已。 諷刺的是，若將麻煩事拖延不決，試著不讓任何人生氣，並且不顧他們個人表現地同樣 “優渥“ 的對待每一個人，所得到的結果就是你將只會讓那些團隊中最有創造力和生產力的人越來越氣憤而已。,負責任不怕惹人氣,“Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.“,Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions. Its inevitable, if youre honorable. Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: youll avoid the tough decisions, youll avoid confronting the people who need to be confronted, and youll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset. Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices, by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone equally “nicely“ regardless of their contributions, youll simply ensure that the only people youll wind up angering are the most creative and productive people in the organization.,當部屬不再帶著問題前來求援,即代表你不應再領導他們.他們不是對你的幫助失去信心,就是認為你根本不關心成敗.這都代表領導權的失敗,如果做一個實地測驗, 大多數的高階管理層(CEO) 都會面臨失敗. 第一. 高階管理層經常設定許多溝通障礙, 使得部 屬尋求協助的企圖看來可笑 第二. 高階管理層經常塑造尋求協助即是弱者的企 業文化, 下屬只有儘量掩飾弱點, 當然組織也 相同受害 真正的領袖應使自己的協助垂手可得, 而且即使要求高標準, 也應給部屬不斷的挑戰並對部屬努力付出關心, 當然, 領導者更應塑造一個以協助問題分析代替責難的環境,Lesson 2,“The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.“,If this were a litmus test, the majority of CEOs would fail. One, they build so many barriers to upward communication that the very idea of someone lower in the hierarchy looking up to the leader for help is ludicrous. Two, the corporate culture they foster often defines asking for help as weakness or failure, so people cover up their gaps, and the organization suffers accordingly. Real leaders make themselves accessible and available. They show concern for the efforts and challenges faced by underlings, even as they demand high standards. Accordingly, they are more likely to create an environment where problem analysis replaces blame.,小公司和剛開始起步的公司無法好整以暇的找分析專家 他們也沒什麼錢可以供奉上國的精英階級.必要時總經理也得親自接電話或者送貨. 每個列名帳冊上的員工都會對他公司的盈虧有貢獻. 可是當公司變大之後, 他們經常忘了是什麼條件讓他們有開始時那般的活力的:像是全面參與,平等, 不拘泥形式,貼近市場, 大膽, 冒險, 速度, 靈活. 從象牙塔出來的政策通常對衝鋒陷陣的人產生反效果. 實際的領導人要對這些趨勢有所警惕,Lesson 3,別被專家或是上國學者的牛皮給唬了,專家擁有的資料比他們的判斷能力還多.上國學者的想法也會有近親通婚的現象.變得像是白血病患.對現實世界殘酷的變化毫無扺抗力,“Dont be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment. Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world.“,Small companies and start-ups dont have the time for analytically detached experts. They dont have the money to subsidize lofty elites, either. The president answers the phone and drives the truck when necessary; everyone on the payroll visibly produces and contributes to bottom-line results or theyre history. But as companies get bigger, they often forget who “brought them to the dance“: things like all hands involvement, egalitarianism, informality, market intimacy, daring, risk, speed, agility. Policies that emanate from ivory towers often have an adverse impact on the people out in the field who are fighting the wars or bringing in the revenues. Real leaders are vigilant, and combative, in the face of these trends.,從專家身上學習, 觀察他們, 將專家視為良師與夥伴. 但是要記得, 即使專家在知識及技巧上也有級別之分. 有時即使專家也會變得自滿與怠惰. 領導者不會從任何人的盲從產生. 全錄公司的巴里一針見血地警告他的屬下, 如果請了一個只會說是的人為你工作, 那麼你們二者之間, 有一個就是冗員. 好的領導鼓勵每個人的發展.,Lesson 4,“不要懼怕挑戰專家, 即使在他們最專長的部分”,“Dont be afraid to challenge the pros,even in their own backyard.“,Learn from the pros, observe them, seek them out as mentors and partners.But remember that even the pros may have leveled out in terms of their learning and skills. Sometimes even the pros can become complacent and lazy. Leadership does not emerge from blind obedience to anyone. Xeroxs Barry Rand was right on target when he warned his people that if you have a yes-man working for you, one of you is redundant. Good leadership encourages everyones evolution.,“策略相當於執行“,世界上所有偉大的計劃或願景,如果無法被迅速有效地落實執行,那麼就一點價值也沒有了,好的領導者慷慨地授權於它人,但是每天會專注檢視細節(想想如 Jimmy Johnson, Pat Riley和Tony La Russa 等偉大的運動教練),不好的領導者,即使自認為是革新的遠見卓識者, 卻認為他們的工作遠高於檢視操作上的細節,自相矛盾地,好的領導者了解更深入: 檢視細節的煩人例行公事會導致盲目遵從與自滿,那是會使每個人腦筋變遲鈍的,這就是為甚麼好的領導者會非常專注於檢視細節,他們不斷地鼓勵人們去挑戰整個過程,他們可以體會到如Quad Graphic公司總裁Harry Quadracchi , Oticon公司總裁Lars Kolind 及已逝的MCI總裁Bill McGowan 他們的心情,他們都不約而同地聲稱 “領導者的工作不僅是最重要的組織者,更是最重要的破壞組織者“,Lesson 5,“決不忽略細節，當每個人的頭腦都遲鈍或思想不集中時,領導者更需加倍警惕“,Strategy equals execution. All the great ideas and visions in the world are worthless if they cant be implemented rapidly and efficiently. Good leaders delegate and empower others liberally, but they pay attention to details, every day. (Think about supreme athletic coaches like Jimmy Johnson, Pat Riley and Tony La Russa). Bad ones, even those who fancy themselves as progressive “visionaries,“ think theyre somehow “above“ operational details. Paradoxically, good leaders understand something else: an obsessive routine in carrying out the details begets conformity and complacency, which in turn dulls everyones mind. That is why even as they pay attention to details, they continually encourage people to challenge the process. They implicitly understand the sentiment of CEO leaders like Quad Graphics Harry Quadracchi, Oticons Lars Kolind and the late Bill McGowan of MCI, who all independently asserted that the Job of a leader is not to be the chief organizer, but the chief dis-organizer.,“Never neglect details. When everyones mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant.“,你知道 “ 得到寬恕比得到同意來得容易“. 那是真的, 好的領導者不會等到正式的同意之後才去試驗. 他們是謹慎而不是魯莽的. 但他們也了解在許多組織中嚴酷的生活現實 : 如果你要足夠的人同意, 你將不可避免地碰到相信本身工作的人說 “no“ 的困難. 道德是如此, 不是要求. 較少有力的中階主管認同這個觀點, “如果我沒有明確地被告知 “yes“ , 我不會做它.“, 然而好的中階主管相信, “如果我沒有明確地被告知 “no“, 我可以做. “ 這是這兩個觀點的最大差別.,Lesson 6,“你不知道你會成功直到你嘗試過後“,“You dont know what you can get away with until you try.“,You know the expression, “its easier to get forgiveness than permission.“ Well, its true. Good leaders dont wait for official blessing to try things out. Theyre prudent, not reckless. But they also realize a fact of life in most organizations: if you ask enough people for permission, youll inevitably come up against someone who believes his job is to say “no.“ So the moral is, dont ask. Less effective middle managers endorsed the sentiment, “If I havent explicitly been told yes, I cant do it,” whereas the good ones believed, “If I havent explicitly been told no, I can.“ Theres a world of difference between these two points of view.,“如果沒有損壞就不需修理“是句自滿,自大與嚇唬人的話.這是怠惰的託辭,稱為沒戰鬥力.它是一種假設今天的事實會以有條不紊與可預料的方式延續至明天的心態.這完全是空想,幻想.你在這樣的文化下將不會找到專業積極的人對出現的問題採取解決的步驟.這兒有個小小的提示:不要加入這種團體.,Lesson 7,“持續不斷的留意表面狀況以外的事. 不要迴避去面對它,因為你可能不喜歡你所知道發現的事“,“Keep looking below surface appearances.Dont shrink from doing so (just) because you might not like what you find.“,“If it aint broke, dont fix it“ is the slogan of the complacent, the arrogant or the scared. Its an excuse for inaction, a call to non-arms. Its a mind-set that assumes (or hopes) that todays realities will continue tomorrow in a tidy, linear and predictable fashion. Pure fantasy. In this sort of culture, you wont find people who pro actively take steps to solve problems as they emerge. Heres a little tip: dont invest in these companies.,在知識經濟的年代，最佳的資產就是“人“。我們太常聽到這句話，以致於它變得像是陳腔爛調。但是有多少領導者真正將這句話付諸實現?人們常被高階主官當成(無能力的)小棋子而任意擺佈, 這或許說明了為何有這麼多的高階主管終日都忙於交易的完成、組織的再造，或鍾情於一些最新的管理時尚。又有多少主管能真正的以致力創造一個最好、最明亮、最有創造性的環境為目標，來吸引、留住人材，並能真正的釋放出他們的潛力?,Lesson 8,“組織不能真正地完成任何事情，計畫亦然，空談管理的理論更沒辦法成就任何事。努力付出之後的成功與否，取決於所參與的群體。只有吸引最優秀的人才，方能成就偉大的事業“,“Organization doesnt really accomplish anything. Plans dont accomplish anything, either. Theories of management dont much matter. Endeavors succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds.“,In a brain-based economy, your best assets are people. Weve heard this expression so often that its become trite. But how many leaders really “walk the talk“ with this stuff? Too often, people are assumed to be empty chess pieces to be moved around by grand viziers, which may explain why so many top managers immerse their calendar time in deal making, restructuring and the latest management fad. How many immerse themselves in the goal of creating an environment where the best, the brightest, the most creative are attracted, retained and, most importantly, unleashed?,在一個動態工作場合，如同環繞你的外部環境，組織圖是一張凝結的陳年相片。如果人們真的只遵照組織圖辦事，公司將會倒掉。然而，而在運作良好的組織中，頭銜照常不算什麼。他們頂多告訴人們你的授權範圍，一個正式授與命令的能力。但就真正能發揮影響力以鼓舞人們的權力來說，頭銜的意義不大。你是否曾注意到，人們會對人表態，這些人形式上沒什麼權力，但有的是活力、驅使能力、專業能力、與對團隊合作與產品的真心認同？ 另一方面，不具領導魅力的管理者，也許有正式的高職位與閃亮外表，但對其他人卻不具影響力，僅能得到他人極少的認同與工作標準。,Lesson 9,“組織圖與花俏的頭銜不算什麼“,“Organization charts and fancy titles count for next to nothing.“,Organization charts are frozen, anachronistic photos in a work place that ought to be as dynamic as the external environment around you. If people really followed organization charts, companies would collapse. In well-run organizations, titles are also pretty meaningless. At best, they advertise some authority, an official status conferring the ability to give orders and induce obedience. But titles mean little in terms of real power, which is the capacity to influence and inspire. Have you ever noticed that people will personally commit to certain individuals who on paper (or on the organization chart) possess little authority, but instead possess pizzazz, drive, expertise, and genuine caring for teammates and products? On the flip side, non-leaders in management may be formally anointed with all the perks and frills associated with high positions, but they have little influence on others, apart from their ability to extract minimal compliance to minimal standards.,“千萬不要依恃你的地位而忘了自省, 總有一天你會失去你的職位,也失去自省能力.“,變革往往被那些死守著舊地盤和工作職掌定義的人所阻礙。某些大型組織之所以衰亡，原因之一就是管理者安於用原有習慣的方法去處理事情。真正的領導者知道我們現在所做的每一件工作在未來都可能毫無用處。我們應當在別人淘汰我們的工作前自我反省淘汰。有效能的領導者會營造出一種組織氣候，使得部屬的價值來自於學習新技能和主動負起新的職責的意願，並持續不斷地在工作上有創舉。工作表現上，最重要的問題不是“上次開會以來，你原有工作的表現是否更進步了？“而是“你對你的工作做了多少創新改變？“,Lesson 10,“Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it.“,Too often, change is stifled by people who cling to familiar turfs and job descriptions. One reason that even large organizations wither is that managers wont challenge old, comfortable ways of doing things. But real leaders understand that, nowadays, every one of our jobs is becoming obsolete. The proper response is to obsolete our activities before someone else does. Effective leaders create a climate where peoples worth is determined by their willingness to learn new skills and grab new responsibilities, thus perpetually reinventing their jobs. The most important question in performance evaluation becomes not, “How well did you perform your job since the last time we met?“ but, “How much did you change it?“,隨波逐流地追隨流行會使領導者的威信盡失並耗廢組織相當的資源; 盲目地遵照流行的管理法則來行事將使思考及行動變得僵化. 不同狀況下往往要有不同的思考方向.例如: 有時掌握產品的市場先機來得比追求品質來得重要; 有些狀況下斷然的指令比起開放性的決策過程來得適切; 有些時候領導者要緊密的監控情況的發展, 然而在適當時候他又必需懂得放手讓下屬去發揮,身為領導者, 必需矢志去維護其不變的核心價值, 至於達成的手段則是可以因地制宜的, 稱職的管理者瞭解管理的技巧並非萬靈單, 而只是在試切時後可以加以運用的一項工具.,Lesson 11,“不可墨守成規,不要只是盲目追隨最時尚的管理法則. 確實的認清情境並據此作出判斷才能尋求到達成任務的最佳途徑.“,Flitting from fad to fad creates team confusion, reduces the leaders credibility, and drains organizational coffers. Blindly following a particular fad generates rigidity in thought and action. Sometimes speed to market is more important than total quality. Sometimes an unapologetic directive is more appropriate than participatory discussion. Some situations require the leader to hover closely; others require long, loose leashes. Leaders honor their core values, but they are flexible in how they execute them. They understand that management techniques are not magic mantras but simply tools to be reached for at the right times.,“Fit no stereotypes. Dont chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the teams mission.“,“永久的樂觀主義是成長的力量。”,領導者的熱誠及樂觀所產生的影響是很大的。 同樣的譏諷和悲觀也有一樣的效果。 領導者的嘀咕和埋怨會引起他的同僚相同行為。 我的不是愚昧接受愚笨的組織和無能力的表現， 臉上還帶著一副 “什麼?我錯了嗎? ”的苦笑。 我的是一種熱心的態度，大聲的說著 “我們可以改變事情，我們可以達成遠大的目標，我們可以做到最好”。 捨棄殘酷嚴肅的現實，每天都給我有著不切實際渴望的樂天派。,Lesson 12,“Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.“,The ripple effect of a leaders enthusiasm and optimism is awesome. So is the impact of cynicism and pessimism. Leaders who whine and blame engender those same behaviors among their colleagues. I am not talking about stoically accepting organizational stupidity and performance incompetence with a “what, me worry?“ smile. I am talking about a gung-ho attitude that says “we can change things here, we can achieve awesome goals, we can be the best.“ Spare me the grim litany of the “realist,“ give me the unrealistic aspirations of the optimist any day.,在我們的招募和任用過程中,有多少次是採用這些因素來判斷呢? 經常沒有,我們忽略那些因素而偏好簡歷的長度,學歷和頭銜? 昨日招幕用的一長串的職位說明書似乎比今天這個人是誰? 他們明天能貢獻什麼?或者是他們與組織相互協調有多好的價值?還來的重要? 你可以相當輕易地訓練一位聰明有意願的新手有關企業的基本法則,但是要教育他成為一位正直,有判斷力,有活力,有平衡的自我意識和把事情完成的魄力的人才卻是相當艱難的? 所以優秀的領導者在招募的階段就能選對新人而奠定良好的基石?,Lesson 13,“尋找有智慧,有判斷力,相當具有批判性的潛力,能預測未來的險阻.同時,也要選擇有忠誠度,正直,很有活力,有平衡的自我意識,和把事情完成的魄力的人才。”,“Powells Rules for Picking People:” Look for intelligence and judgment, and most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego, and the drive to get things done. “,How often do our recruitment and hiring processes tap into these attributes? More often than not, we ignore them in favor of length of resume, degrees and prior titles. A string of job descriptions a recruit held yesterday seem to be more important than who one is today, what they can contribute tomorrow, or how well their values mesh with those of the organization. You can train a bright, willing novice in the fundamentals of your business fairly readily, but its a lot harder to train someone to have integrity, judgment, energy, balance, and the drive to get things done. Good leaders stack the deck in their favor right in the recruitment phase.,成功的領導者明瞭 “KISS“ 原則 (Keep It Simple, Stupid) , 亦即簡單化、單純化。他們能夠清楚地表達出強烈而且完整的目標和價值觀, 而這些目標和價值觀將驅策、約束他們每天的行為舉止, 並藉以在爭執和衝突中做決策。他們的洞察力和處事之輕重緩急簡潔而且是深思熟慮自有定見, 不會雜亂而贅言。他們的決策乾脆俐落而且明確, 不會猶豫而模糊不清。他們表達出一種毫不動搖的堅定信念和行動上的一貫性, 並且與他們所描繪的願景緊密地結合在一起。如此一來的結果將是:明確的目的, 可信賴的領導統御, 以及完善健全的組織。,Lesson 14,“成功的領導者皆是卓越的簡化者,他能化解爭執、疑慮進而提供一個眾人皆能明瞭的解決之道。”,“Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.“,Effective leaders understand the KISS principle, Keep It Simple, Stupid. They articulate vivid, over-arching goals and values, which they use to drive daily behaviors and choices among competing alternatives. Their visions and priorities are lean and compelling, not cluttered and buzzword-laden. Their decisions are crisp and clear, not tentative and ambiguous. They convey an unwavering firmness and consistency in their actions, aligned with the picture of the future they paint. The result: clarity of purpose, credibility of leadership, and integrity in organization.,如果所得到的資訊只能讓你有不到百分40的把握, 則不要輕舉妄動,但也不必等到百分之一百的肯定, 因為藉時幾乎都太遲了. 在今日, 為了收集資訊而造成過度的耽擱會導致“分析癱瘓“, 以降低風險為理由的延遲實際上卻更增加了失敗的風險.,Lesson 15,I. “利用式子 “P = 40 70”, 其中P代表成功的機率而數字則表示達到該機率所需要的資料量“ II. “一旦資訊量介於 40 到 70, 就放手一搏吧“,Part I: “Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired.” Part II: “Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut.“,Dont take action if you have only enough information to give you less than a 40 percent chance of being right, but dont wait until you have enough facts to be 100 percent sure, because by then it is almost always too late. Today, excessive delays in the name of information-gathering breeds “analysis paralysis.“ Procrastination in the name of reducing risk actually increases risk.,在大多數的情況下，這句話的相反意思才能闡釋團隊文化。 這也就是為什麼像NUCOR鋼鐵的總裁KEN IVERSON、ABB的PERCY BARNEVIK及VIRGIN的RICHARD BRANSON都一直將其核心部屬人數保持在最少。如果再將ABB的核心部屬降低至100人以下來維持其超過300億的營餘？或是個別用約當25及3人的核心部屬來維持NUCOR及VIRGIN數十億的營餘？ 所以(結論)應將權力與財務權則交付給帶來利益的員工，而非那些數計或分析他們的人。,“職場中的指揮官永遠是對的，而基層的階層人員是錯的；除非你有辦法反證之。”,Lesson 16,“The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise.“,Too often, the reverse defines corporate culture. This is one of the main reasons why leaders like Ken Iverson of Nucor Steel, Percy Barnevik of Asea Brown Boveri, and Richard Branson of Virgin have kept their corporate staffs to a bare-bones minimum - how about fewe