trying to resolve two enigmas:

試著解決兩個謎題：

Why is productivity so disappointing

為什麼所有跟我合作過的公司

in all the companies where I work?

其生產力總是這麼令人失望？

I have worked with more than 500 companies.

我與超過 500 家公司合作過，

Despite all the technological advances --

不管那些先進科技—

computers, I.T., communications, telecommunications,

電腦、資訊科技、傳播、電信

the Internet.

及網路；

Enigma number two:

謎題二：

Why is there so little engagement at work?

為什麼員工沒有完全投入工作？

Why do people feel so miserable,

為什麼大家覺得這麼痛苦，

even actively disengaged?

甚至要積極地擺脫現狀？

Disengaging their colleagues.

不願投入與同事合作，

Acting against the interest of their company.

做出損害公司利益的事，

Despite all the affiliation events,

儘管有那些員工聯誼活動，

the celebration, the people initiatives,

慶祝活動、員工倡議、

the leadership development programs to train

領導力發展課程

managers on how to better motivate their teams.

來訓練經理人如何更有效

At the beginning, I thought there was

一開始，我以為那是

a chicken and egg issue:

先有雞還是先有蛋的問題：

Because people are less engaged, they are less productive.

因為大家不投入，所以生產力也較差，

Or vice versa, because they are less productive,

或反之，因為生產力較差，

we put more pressure and they are less engaged.

就算我們施加更多壓力

But as we were doing our analysis

但當我們進行分析時，

we realized that there was a common root cause

就瞭解到有一個共同根源

to these two issues.

造成這兩個問題，

That relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management.

而事實上與基本的管理支柱有關。

The way we organize is based on two pillars.

我們組織的方式基於二個支柱，

The hard -- structure, processes, systems.

硬性 — 結構、流程、系統，

The soft --

軟性 —

feelings, sentiments, interpersonal

感覺、情緒、人際關係、特質、個性，

And whenever a company

無論何時一間公司

reorganizes, restructures, reengineers,

改組、重組、重新設計，

goes through a cultural transformation program,

經歷文化轉型計畫，

it chooses these two pillars.

都要選擇這兩種支柱。

Now, we try to refine them,

現在，我們試著改進它們，

we try to combine them.

嘗試著結合它們，

The real issue is --

真正的問題是 —

and this is the answer to the two enigmas --

這也是兩個謎題的解答 —

these pillars are obsolete.

這些支柱已經過時，

Everything you read in business books is based

你在企業書上讀到的一切都是

either on one or the other

建立在其中一個基礎上

or their combination.

或兩者的組合體，

They are obsolete.

它們已經過時了。

How do they work

當你在企業的新複雜度前，

when you try to use these approaches

試著使用這些方法，

in front of the new complexity of business?

怎麼可能還有用啊？

The hard approach, basically

強硬的方式基本上就是從策略、

requirements, structures, processes,

條件、結構、流程

committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters,

委員會、總部、中心、群組開始，

you name it.

各式各樣你說得出的，

I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees,

我還忘了提那些度規、激勵措施、

What happens basically on the left,

基本上在左邊的那些

you have more complexity, the

複雜性更大，是企業的新複雜度，

We need quality, cost, reliability, speed.

我們需要品質、成本、信度、速度，

And every time there is a new requirement,

而每次有新的條件，

we use the same approach.

我們就用同樣的措施，

We create dedicated structure processed systems,

我們設立專門的結構流程系統，

basically to deal with the

在根本上處理企業的新複雜度，

The hard approach creates just complicatedness

強硬的方案只會產生

in the organization.

組織的複雜度。

Let's take an example.

讓我們舉個例，

An automotive company, the engineering division

一家汽車製造公司的工程部門

is a five-dimensional matrix.

使用一個五維矩陣，

If you open any cell of the matrix,

如果你看看矩陣內任何一個小組，

you find another 20-dimensional matrix.

就會發現另一個二十維的矩陣，

You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption,

噪音先生、油耗先生、

Mr. Anti-Collision Properties.

防撞性能先生，

For any new requirement,

如出現任何新的條件，

you have a dedicated function

就有專門的功能小組

in charge of aligning engineers against

負責指揮工程師

the new requirement.

應付這項新條件。

What happens when the new

當新的條件出現時會怎麼樣？

Some years ago, a new requirement

幾年前，一項新條件

appeared on the marketplace:

在市場出現，

the length of the warranty period.

就是保固期限。

So therefore the new requirement is repairability,

那麼這項新的條件就是可維修性，

making cars easy to repair.

讓維修汽車變得容易，

Otherwise when you bring the car

不然當你要修燈把車送到修車廠，

if you have to remove the engine

如果你必須拆掉引擎

to access the lights,

才能碰到燈，

the car will have to stay one week in the garage

車輛必須留在修車廠一星期，

instead of two hours, and the

而不是兩小時，那麼保固預算會爆掉，

So, what was the solution using the hard approach?

使用強硬方式的解決方案是什麼？

If repairability is the new requirement,

如果可維修性是新的條件，

the solution is to create a new function,

解決方案即是建立一個新的函數

Mr. Repairability.

可維修性先生，

And Mr. Repairability creates

而可維修性先生建立

With a repairability scorecard,

設計可維修性記分卡，可維修性度規，

and eventually repairability incentive.

最終則是可維修性激勵方案，

That came on top of 25 other KPIs.

這可在其他二十五項關鍵績效指標上，

What percentage of these people is variable compensation?

這些人領取變動薪酬佔百分之幾？

Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs,

最多百分之二十，

repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent.

可維修性可多拿 0.8%。

What difference did it make in their actions,

他們會做些什麼行動

their choices to simplify? Zero.

去選擇簡化流程？沒有。

But what occurs for zero impact?

到底零影響會帶來什麼事？

scorecard, evaluation, coordination

記分卡、評估

to have zero impact.

帶來零影響。

Now, in front of the new complexity of business,

現在，在企業的新複雜度前，

the only solution is not drawing boxes

唯一的解決方案不是畫框框，

with reporting lines.

並連上從屬關係線，

It is basically the interplay.

它基本上是交互作用，

How the parts work together.

不同的部門如何一起合作、

The connections, the interactions, the synapses.

各式各樣的連接、交互作用、突觸，

It is not the skeleton of boxes,

這不是程序框框，該是具適應性

of adaptiveness and intelligence.

及智能的神經系統，

You know, you could call it cooperation, basically.

你知道，基本上你可以稱之為合作。

Whenever people cooperate,

無論何時只要大家合作，

they use less resources. In everything.

就可減少使用資源，

You know, the repairability issue

你知道，可維修性問題

is a cooperation problem.

是一個關於合作的問題。

When you design cars, please take into account

當你設計不同的汽車時，請考慮到

the needs of those who will repair the cars

那些提供售後服務的修車人

in the after sales garages.

在修車場裡的需要，

When we don't cooperate we need more time,

當我們不合作時就需要更多時間、

more equipment, more systems, more teams.

更多器材、更多系統、更多團隊，

We need -- When procurement, supply

我們需要 — 當採購、

we need more stock, more inventories,

我們就需要進更多貨、

Who will pay for that?

誰要為這些買單？

Shareholders? Customers?

股東？顧客？

No, they will refuse.

不，他們會拒絕的。

So who is left?

那麼誰留下來？由於缺乏合作，

who have to compensate through their super

各個員工必須付出超級努力

individual efforts for the lack of cooperation.

去補償損失，

Stress, burnout, they are

壓力、燃燒殆盡、壓倒、意外，

No wonder they disengage.

難怪他們不投入。

How do the hard and the soft

各式軟硬的方法如何嘗試促進合作？

The hard: In banks, when there is a problem

硬性：在銀行，當問題發生在

between the back office and the front office,

前綫部門與後勤辦公室，

they don't cooperate. What is the solution?

他們就是不合作。有什麼解決方法？

They create a middle office.

他們設立一個中間部門，

What happens one year later?

一年後結果如何？

Instead of one problem

本來只有一個問題存在

now I have two problems.

現在我有兩個問題

Between the back and the middle

存在於後勤辦公室與中間部門之間

and between the middle and the front.

及中間部門與前線部門之間，

Plus I have to pay for the middle office.

此外我還要支付中間部門的開銷。

The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation.

強硬的方式不能促進合作，

It can only add new boxes,

它只能加上新的程序、

The soft approach:

軟性措施：

To make people cooperate, we need

我們需讓他們彼此喜愛對方

Improve interpersonal feelings,

增進人與人之間的感情，

the more people like each other,

彼此愈喜愛對方，合作就愈多。

It is totally wrong.

這是大錯特錯的。

It is even counterproductive.

這甚至會產生不良後果。

Look, at home I have two TVs. Why?

看，我家有兩部電視。為什麼？

Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife.

就是因為不用跟我老婆合作，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife.

不用跟我老婆談交換條件，

And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife

我不跟老婆談交換條件的原因

is precisely because I love my wife.

正是因為我愛老婆，

If I didn't love my wife, one TV would be enough:

如果我不愛老婆，一架電視就夠了：

You will watch my favorite football game,

你要跟著看我喜愛的足球賽，

if you are not happy, how is the book or the door?

如果你不高興，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The more we like each other,

我們愈是彼此相愛

the more we avoid the real cooperation

就愈要避免真正的合作，

that would strain our relationships

因為勉為其難的讓步

And we go for a second TV or we escalate

於是我們買第二部電視

the decision above for arbitration.

或者就結論得進行仲裁程序，

Definitely, these approaches are obsolete.

這些方法無疑早已過時。

To deal with complexity, to enhance the nervous system,

因應複雜度，要增強神經系統，

we have created what we call

建立於一些簡單規則，

based on simple rules.

簡單智慧型的措施。

Simple rule number one:

簡單規則一：

Understand what others do.

瞭解別人做什麼，

What is their real work?

他們真正的工作是什麼？

We need to go beyond the boxes,

我們需要超越程序框框、

the job descriptions, beyond the surface

職務說明書、容器的表面，

of the container, to understand the real content.

瞭解真正的內容。

Me, designer, if I put a wire here,

我作為設計師，

I know that it will mean that we will have to

我知道那意味著

remove the engine to access the lights.

必須拆掉引擎才能碰到燈。

Second, you need to reinforce integrators.

第二，你需要增援整合者，

Integrators are not middle

整合者不是中間部門，

existing managers that you reinforce

現存的經理人，而你的增援，

so that they have power and interest

使他們擁有權力及利益動機

to make others cooperate.

促使其他人合作。

How can you reinforce your

你要如何增援經理人

By removing layers.

要移去各式各樣的階層，

When there are too many layers

當一間公司有太多層級，

people are too far from the action,

大家距離真正的行動階層太遠，

therefore they need KPIs, metrics,

於是他們需要關鍵績效指標、度規，

they need poor proxies for reality.

需要為現實尋找較差的替代物，

They don't understand reality

他們不瞭解實情，

and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs.

他們增加了度規、

By removing rules -- the bigger we are,

把規則挪去 — 我們規模愈大，

the more we need integrators,

需要的整合者人數就愈多，

therefore the less rules we must have,

因此我們必須減少規則，

to give discretionary power to managers.

授予經理裁量權，

And we do the opposite --

而我們所行正好相反 —

the bigger we are, the more rules we create.

我們規模愈大，就創造更多規則，

And we end up with the Encyclopedia

最後得到像大英百科全書的規則，

You need to increase the quanitity of power

你需要增加權力額度

so that you can empower everybody

才能授權每個員工，

to use their judgment, their intelligence.

要他們運用判斷及智慧，

You must give more cards to people

你必須給大家發出更多的牌，

so that they have the critical mass of cards

使他們有關鍵多數的牌

to take the risk to cooperate,

以承擔合作的風險，

to move out of insulation.

搬離孤獨的生活。

Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage.

不然，他們就會退縮，就不會投入，

These rules, they come from game theory

這些規則，是從賽局理論

and organizational sociology.

及組織社會學得來。

You can increase the shadow of the future.

你可以對未來陰影 (shadow of the future)

Create feedback loops that expose people

創造回饋環路 (feedback loop)，

to the consequences of their actions.

向大家揭露行動的後果真相，

This is what the automotive company did

這就是汽車製造公司所做的，

when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact.

當他們看到可維修性先生

They said to the design engineers:

他們對設計工程師說：

Now, in three years, when the new

那三年內，當新車推出市場時，

you will move to the after sales

你會被調到售後服務的網絡內

of the warranty budget,

負責保固的預算，

and if the warranty budget explodes,

如果保固預算爆了，

it will explode in your face. (Laughter)

它會讓你死得很難看！（笑聲）

Much more powerful than 0.8

這一定比 0.8% 的

You need also to increase reciprocity,

你也需要增強相互關係，

by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient.

挪去讓自我感到滿足的緩衝保護，

When you remove these buffers,

當你挪走這些緩衝保護，

you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear.

大家的關係唇齒相依，

We will cooperate.

我們就會一起合作，

Remove the second TV.

拿走第二部電視。

There are many second TVs at work

工作職場上存在很多第二部電視，

that don't create value,

它們不會創造價值，

they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency.

只會提供不正常的自我滿足，

You need to reward those who cooperate

你需要獎勵會合作的員工，

and blame those who don't cooperate.

責備不合作的。

The CEO of The Lego Group,

樂高集團執行長

Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, has a great way to use it.

納斯托普採取主動使用它，

He says, blame is not for failure,

他說失敗者不應該受到責備，

it is for failing to help or ask for help.

要責備那些未曾幫助他人或求助者，

It changes everything.

這樣可以改變一切。

Suddenly it becomes in my

突然間坦率地表達出

on my real weaknesses, my real forecast,

變為對自己有利，

because I know I will not be blamed if I fail,

因為我知道即使失敗也不會受到責備，

but if I fail to help or ask for help.

除非沒有幫助他人或向其他人求助。

When you do this, it has a lot of implications

當你這麼做，

on organizational design.

在整個企業的組織設計上

You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines;

你停止畫框框、虛線、實線，

you look at their interplay.

你著重在他們之間的交互作用，

It has a lot of implications on financial policies

在我們所運用的財務政策上

that we use.

也有很多涵義，

On human resource management practices.

在人力資源管理上也如是。

When you do that, you can manage complexity,

當你那樣做，你就能控制複雜度，

the new complexity of business,

企業的新複雜度，

without getting complicated.

卻不至搞得很繁複。

You create more value with lower cost.

你花較少的成本創造更多價值，

You simultaneously improve

同時改善了工作績效及滿意度，

because you have removed the common root cause

因為你已經挪去了

that hinders both.

阻礙工作績效和

Complicatedness: This is your

複雜度：這是你的戰鬥，企業領導人。

The real battle is not against competitors.

真正的戰鬥不是面對競爭者。

This is rubbish, very abstract.

這是廢話，兼非常抽象的。

When do we meet competitors to fight them?

我們什麼時候會與競爭者面對面戰鬥？

The real battle is against ourselves,

真正的戰鬥是跟自己作戰，

against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness.

跟我們的官僚體系、

Only you can fight, can do it.

只有你能打這場仗，

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）