MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Yves Morieux 談因應日漸複雜之工作的6項簡化原則

Yves Morieux: As work gets more complex, 6 rules to simplify

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Yves Morieux

2013年10月演講,2014年1月在TED@BCG San Francisco上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恒

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後制:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

為何人們覺得工作如此痛苦、不願投入?Yves Morieux認為:因為現今企業日漸複雜-而傳統管理支柱早已過時。因此他說,這使員工在息息相關的複雜體系中單打獨鬥。在這場鏗鏘有力的演講中,Morieux提供六項「智慧型簡化」原則。(原則一:瞭解同事在做什麼。)

 

關於Yves Morieux

BCG(波士頓諮詢公司)的Yves Morieux研究企業如何適應複雜的現代商業環境。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

Yves Morieux深入探索使組織有效運作的方法。身為BCG華盛頓辦事處資深合夥人及BCG組織部門主任,Morieux思考結構的整體變化如何激勵所有工作人員。他稱這個方法為「智慧型簡化法」,藉由六個關鍵原則鼓勵員工合作,以解決長久以來的問題。這不僅能降低成本、提高利潤-也能促使公司所有階層積極參與。Morieux探討組織變革的著作曾刊登於《哈佛商業評論》、《經濟學家》、《華爾街日報》、《Fast Company》及《世界報》。

 

Yves Morieux的英語網上資料

Bio: BCG

Read: "Smart rules"

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Yves Morieux 談因應日漸複雜之工作的6項簡化原則

 

我花了幾年時間試著解析兩個謎題:為何生產力如此令人失望,在所有我任職的公司裡?我與超過500家公司打過交道,儘管擁有進步的科技-電腦、資訊技術、通訊、電信、網路。謎題二:為何對工作的投入程度如此低落?為何人們感到如此痛苦、甚至傾向於置身事外?與同事各自為政、採取與公司利益背道而馳的行動,儘管有那些自強活動、慶祝會、員工提案、訓練管理階層如何更有效激勵團隊士氣的領導力發展專案。

 

最初我以為這是先有雞還是先有蛋的問題:因為投入程度不足,因此生產力低落;或反之,因為生產力低落,我們施予較大壓力,他們因此變得較不投入。但當我們進行分析,我們意識到這兩個問題來自相同根源;事實上這與管理策略的基本支柱有關。我們的組織方式基於兩大支柱:硬性支柱為結構、流程、系統;軟性支柱為感覺、情緒、人際關係、性格、個性。每當一家公司進行改組、整頓、重新設計、進行文化轉型計畫,都得選擇這兩種支柱;現在我們試著將它們改進、結合。真正的問題-也就是這兩個謎題的解答在於-這些支柱已過時。你在商務書籍中所讀到的一切都基於兩者之一,或兩者的組合;它們已經過時。它們如何產生作用,當你試著將這些方法應用於業務中的新複雜性上?硬性方法基本上始於策略需求、結構、流程、系統、關鍵績效指標、記分卡、委員會、總部、中樞、群組,任何你想得到的項目;我還沒提那些矩陣、激勵措施、委員會、中間辦公室及介面。基本上位於左側,其中存在更多複雜性,業務的新複雜性。我們需要品質、成本、可靠性、速度。每當出現新的需求,我們都採取相同措施。我們建立專門的結構流程系統,基本上用以處理業務的新複雜性;硬性方法只會造成組織內的複雜性。

 

我們來看一個例子。某家汽車公司的工程部門是五維矩陣,如果你審視矩陣中任何單位,將發現另一個20維矩陣,其中包含噪音先生、油耗先生、防撞性先生。對任何新需求來說,你建立專門的功能小組,負責召集工程師處理這項新需求。當新需求出現時會發生什麼事?幾年前,市場出現一項新需求:保固期限長度。因此這項新需求為「可維修性」,使汽車易於維修,否則當你把車送到車廠修理車燈,如果必須拆除引擎才能修理車燈,這輛車將必須留在修車廠一星期,而不是兩小時,保固預算將嚴重超支。因此硬性解決方法為何?如果可維修性是新需求,解決方案為建立新功能小組-可維修性先生。可維修性先生建立可維修性流程,包括可維修性記分卡、可維修性矩陣,最後是可維修性激勵方案,位居其他25項關鍵績效指標之上。這些人中有多少比例屬於變動薪酬?最多20%,除以26項關鍵績效指標,可維修性造成的影響為0.8%。這對員工的行為、選擇簡化流程的意願有多少影響?零。但這個零影響耗費多少資源?可維修性先生、流程、記分卡、評估、與其他25個單位的協調,得到的影響是零。

 

現在,面對業務的新複雜性,唯一解決方案並非建立框架、建立管理架構。基本上這是一種交互作用,這些架構如何彼此合作,重點在於其中的連繫、交互作用、突觸。這並非骨骼框架,而是具適應性及智慧的神經系統。你知道,基本上可稱之為合作。每當人們彼此合作,將使用較少的資源,對任何事來說。你知道,可維修性問題即合作問題。當你設計汽車時,請考慮售後修車場中修車工人的需求。當缺乏合作時,我們需消耗更多時間、更多設備、更多系統、更多團隊。我們需要-當採購、供應鏈、製造商缺乏合作時,我們需要更多現貨、更多庫存及更多周轉資金。誰將為此買單?股東?客戶?不,他們會拒絕,因此剩下誰?員工。他們必須藉由個人努力彌補缺乏合作的損失:壓力、職業倦怠、過勞、意外,難怪他們不願投入。如何藉由硬性及軟性方法促進合作?硬性方法:在銀行中,當後台及前台單位之間出現問題時,他們不願合作,解決方法為何?他們設立一個中間單位。一年後結果如何?不再僅是後台與前台間的一個問題,現在出現兩個問題:存在於後台與中間單位,及中間單位與前台之間。此外,我還得支付中間單位的開銷。硬性方法無法促進合作,它只會加入新框架,在骨架中加入新骨頭。

 

軟性方法:為了使人們合作,我們必須使他們喜愛對方、增進人與人之間的感情。人們越喜愛彼此,越可能進行合作。大錯特錯,甚至可能適得其反。聽著,我家有兩台電視,為什麼?正是為了不必與老婆合作(笑聲),不必與老婆協調。我試著不與老婆進行協調的原因,正因為我愛我的老婆。如果我不愛老婆,一台電視就夠了:你可以觀賞我最喜愛的足球賽,如果不爽,不妨看書或走人?(笑聲)

 

我們越喜愛彼此,就越該避免真正的合作。艱難的協調將使我們關係緊張,因此我們購買第二台電視,或將決定權交給上層定奪。當然,這些方法早已過時。

 

為了因應複雜性、改進新系統,我們創立所謂的「智慧型簡化方法」,基於一些簡單原則。簡單原則一:瞭解其他人在做什麼。他們真正的工作是什麼?我們必須超越框架、職務描述、跳脫盒子的侷限、瞭解真正的內容。身為設計師的我,如果把一根電線放在這裡,我知道這意味著必須拆掉引擎才能修理車燈。第二,你必須給予整合者更多支持。整合者並非中間單位,而是管理者。給予現有管理者更多支持,使他們擁有權力及影響力,促進他人合作。你如何將管理者轉變為整合者?藉由移除層級。當層級太多時,人們離實際行動太過遙遠,因此他們需要關鍵績效指標、矩陣,他們需要為實際情況找出彆腳的替代品。他們不瞭解實際情況,因此他們增加關鍵績效指標矩陣的複雜性。藉由消弭規則-組織越大、越需要整合者。因此我們必須減少規則,將裁量權交給管理者。我們卻反其道而行-組織越大、我們創造的規則越多,最後產生如大英百科全書般繁瑣的規則。你必須增加權力額度,才能賦予每個人運用本身判斷力及智慧的權力。你必須給人們更多牌,他們才擁有足夠的牌承擔合作的風險、打破孤立狀態。否則他們將退縮,他們將置身事外;這些原則來自賽局理論及組織社會學。你可增加未來的陰影、創造反饋機制,讓人們承受行動的後果,這就是汽車公司的做法。當他們看見可維修性先生無法造成影響,他們對設計工程師說:三年後,當新車上市時,你將調往售後服務網,負責保固預算。如果保固預算透支,你會因此顏面無光(笑聲)。這比0.8%的變動薪酬有效多了。你也必須增強交互影響,藉由去除使我們自給自足的緩衝保護。當你移除這些緩衝保護,大家唇齒相依,我們將彼此合作。拿走第二台電視;職場上有太多第二台電視,它不會創造價值,只會提供功能失調的自給自足。你必須獎勵合作的人、責備不合作的人。樂高集團執行長Jorgen Vig Knudstorp十分擅長運用這個方法。他說,責備並非用於失敗,而是用於不提供幫助或求助,這改變了一切。突然間,暴露我真正的弱點和預期成了優勢,因為我知道我不會因失敗而受責備,而是因為不提供幫助或求助。當你這麼做時,對組織設計有很大影響。你停止繪製框架、虛線、實線,著重於各單位間的互動。這對我們所運用的財務政策有極大影響,對人力資源管理的實行亦然。當你這麼做時,可掌控複雜性業務的新複雜性,使它不會愈加複雜。你可藉由較低成本創造更多價值,同時增進工作績效及滿意度,因為你已移除導致這兩種複雜性的共同根源。這是你的戰鬥。企業領導人真正的戰鬥並非對抗競爭對手;這太荒謬、太抽象。我們何時與競爭者面對面戰鬥?真正的戰鬥是與自己作戰,對抗我們的官僚體系、我們的複雜性。只有你能進行戰鬥、達成目標。謝謝。(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk
Why do people feel so miserable and disengaged at work? Because today's businesses are increasingly and dizzyingly complex -- and traditional pillars of management are obsolete, says Yves Morieux. So, he says, it falls to individual employees to navigate the rabbit's warren of interdependencies. In this energetic talk, Morieux offers six rules for "smart simplicity." (Rule One: Understand what your colleagues actually do.)
 
About Melinda Gates
BCG's Yves Morieux researches how corporations can adapt to a modern and complex business landscape.
 
About the transcript
    I have spent the last years trying to resolve two enigmas: Why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advances -- computers, I.T., communications, telecommunications, the Internet. Enigma number two: Why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaging their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.

At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: Because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars. The hard -- structure, processes, systems. The soft -- feelings, sentiments, interpersonal relationships, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now, we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is -- and this is the answer to the two enigmas -- these pillars are obsolete. Everything you read in business books is based either on one or the other or their combination. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirements, structures, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the matrix, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization.

Let's take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Properties. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the new requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the new requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability matrix and eventually repairability incentive. That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their actions, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact.

Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing boxes with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the paths work together. The connections, the interactions, the synapses. It is not the skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem. When you design cars, please take into account the needs of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garages. When we don't cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more systems, more teams. We need -- When procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don't cooperate we need more stock, more inventories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholders? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have to compensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation? The hard: In banks, when there is a problem between the back office and the front office, they don't cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office. What happens one year later? Instead of one problem between the back and the front, now I have two problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.

The soft approach: To make people cooperate, we need to make them like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people like each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally wrong. It is even counterproductive. Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. (Laughter) Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn't love my wife, one TV would be enough: You will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? (Laughter) The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration. Definitely, these approaches are obsolete.

To deal with complexity, to enhance a novel system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: Understand what others do. What is their real work? We need to go beyond the boxes, the job descriptions, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reenforce integrators. Integrators are not middle offices, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. How can you reinforce your managers as integrators? By removing layers. When there are too many layers people are too far from the action, therefore they need KPIs, matrix, they need poor proxies for reality. They don't understand reality and they add the complicatedness of matrix KPIs. By removing rules -- the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers. And we do the opposite -- the bigger we are, the more rules we create. And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules. You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence. You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage. These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology. You can increase the shadow of the future. Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions. This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact. They said to the design engineers: Now, in three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face. (Laughter) Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation. You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear. We will cooperate. Remove the second TV. There are many second TVs at work that don't create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency. You need to reward those who cooperate and blame those who don't cooperate. The CEO of The Lego Group, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, has a great way to use it. He says, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help. It changes everything. Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weaknesses, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help. When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design. You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines; you look at their interplay. It has a lot of implications on financial policies that we use. On human resource management practices. When you do that, you can manage complexity, the new complexity of business, without getting complicated. You create more value with lower cost. You simultaneously improve performance and satisfaction at work because you have removed the common root cause that hinders both complicatedness. This is your battle, business leaders. The real battle is not against competitors. This is rubbish, very abstract. When do we meet competitors to fight them? The real battle is against ourselves, against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness. Only you can fight, can do it. Thank you. (Applause)
 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入1 + 6 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

目前暫無評論,快來留言吧!

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: