Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • I have a confession to make.

    有件事我必須坦白:

  • I'm a business professor

    我是一位商學教授,

  • whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead.

    我亟欲教導人們如何當個領導者。

  • But recently, I've discovered

    但最近我發現,

  • that what many of us think of as great leadership

    大多數人觀念中優秀的領導能力

  • does not work when it comes to leading innovation.

    在創新這方面並不適用。

  • I'm an ethnographer.

    我是一名民族誌學者。

  • I use the methods of anthropology

    我運用人類學

  • to understand the questions in which I'm interested.

    來了解我感興趣的問題。

  • So along with three co-conspirators,

    因此,我與三位夥伴一起,

  • I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal

    花了將近十年,仔細觀察

  • exceptional leaders of innovation.

    優秀的創新領導者。

  • We studied 16 men and women,

    我們研究了16位男性與女性,

  • located in seven countries across the globe,

    他們分布於世界上七個不同國家,

  • working in 12 different industries.

    投身於十二種不同產業。

  • In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground,

    我們總共花了幾百個小時在現場,

  • on-site, watching these leaders in action.

    觀察這些領導人的工作情形,

  • We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes

    記錄下一頁又一頁的實地考察筆記,

  • that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did.

    並且分析這些領導者是否有特定領導模式。

  • The bottom line?

    重點是?

  • If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,

    若我們想創立一個能夠持續進行創新的機構,

  • we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.

    我們就必須跳脫傳統領導觀念的框架。

  • Leading innovation is not about creating a vision,

    創新領導不只是創造新視野,

  • and inspiring others to execute it.

    並且激勵他人來執行。

  • But what do we mean by innovation?

    我們所謂創新,究竟是什麼?

  • An innovation is anything that is both new and useful.

    創新可以是任何新穎、有用的東西。

  • It can be a product or service.

    可以是產品,或是服務,

  • It can be a process or a way of organizing.

    可以是過程,也可以是組織的方法,

  • It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough.

    可以是提升,也可以是突破。

  • We have a pretty inclusive definition.

    我們對其有許多定義。

  • How many of you recognize this man?

    在座有多少人知道此人?

  • Put your hands up.

    知道的請舉手。

  • Keep your hands up, if you know who this is.

    如果你們也知道這是誰,請繼續舉手。

  • How about these familiar faces?

    那⋯這些熟面孔呢?

  • (Laughter)

    (笑聲)

  • From your show of hands,

    從大家這些高舉的手,

  • it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie,

    看來很多人都看過皮克斯動畫,

  • but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,

    但很少人能認出艾德·凱特穆,

  • the founder and CEO of Pixar --

    也就是「皮克斯動畫」的創辦人兼執行長

  • one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.

    ——那是我有幸能研究的幾家公司之一。

  • My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,

    我第一次拜訪皮克斯動畫是在2005年,

  • when they were working on "Ratatouille,"

    當時他們正在製作《料理鼠王》,

  • that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef.

    這部備受討論的電影講述一隻老鼠變成大廚的故事。

  • Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today,

    在今天,電腦動畫電影儼然已成主流。

  • but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years

    但艾德和他的同事花了將近20年時間,

  • to create the first full-length C.G. movie.

    才完成第一部完整長度的電腦動畫電影。

  • In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies.

    此後20年,他們又製作了14部電影。

  • I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you

    我最近也去了皮克斯公司,我可以告訴你:

  • that number 15 is sure to be a winner.

    第十五部電影一定會造成轟動。

  • When many of us think about innovation, though,

    當我們想到「創新」時,

  • we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment.

    腦中可能是愛因斯坦靈光一現時的樣子。

  • But we all know that's a myth.

    但我們都知道那只是我們的想像。

  • Innovation is not about solo genius,

    創新指的不是一個孤立的天才,

  • it's about collective genius.

    它指的是集體才華。

  • Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie:

    讓我們想想看,需要多少努力才能造就一部皮克斯動畫電影。

  • No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies.

    單一才華、片刻靈感皆無法完成任何一部動畫電影。

  • On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years,

    相反地,大約250人花上四、五年

  • to make one of those movies.

    才能完成一部動畫電影。

  • To help us understand the process,

    為了讓我們了解製作過程,

  • an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture.

    一位皮克斯工作室員工畫了這麽一張圖。

  • He did so reluctantly,

    他做得很不情願,

  • because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps

    因為從這張圖我們就可以看出:製作過程由一系列繁瑣的步驟構成,

  • done by discrete groups.

    每個步驟都被嚴謹地分組完成。

  • Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you

    即使有這些箭頭的標注,他仍然覺得這張圖無法真正讓你認識到

  • just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.

    這個流程有多麼的迭代、相互關聯,而且⋯說實話,很混亂。

  • Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves.

    皮克斯在做電影的過程中,故事會不斷演化。

  • So think about it.

    所以我們想一下:

  • Some shots go through quickly.

    有些鏡頭過得很快⋯⋯

  • They don't all go through in order.

    他們的工作不全是按順序進行的。

  • It depends on how vexing the challenges are

    這取決於他們製作時遇到的挑戰有多惱火。

  • that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene.

    在製作不同場景時,遇到的挑戰也會不同。

  • So if you think about that scene in "Up"

    所以,例如《天外奇蹟》裡的一個情景

  • where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird,

    就是那個小男孩遞給鳥巧克力的畫面,

  • that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.

    那十秒的鏡頭,花了一個繪製師將近六個月去完善它。

  • The other thing about a Pixar movie

    關於皮克斯電影的另外一件事是:

  • is that no part of the movie is considered finished

    電影的任何部份都不會被當做成品

  • until the entire movie wraps.

    直到整個電影製作完工。

  • Partway through one production, an animator drew a character

    製作到一半時,繪製師給人物

  • with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side.

    畫了一根拱形的眉毛,以體現他淘氣的一面。

  • When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great.

    當導演看到繪圖的時候,他覺得很棒。

  • It was beautiful, but he said,

    很漂亮。但是他說:

  • "You gotta lose it; it doesn't fit the character."

    「你要裁掉它,它與角色的設定不符」

  • Two weeks later, the director came back and said,

    兩個星期後,導演回來又說:

  • "Let's put in those few seconds of film."

    「讓我們把那個眉毛放幾秒鐘在電影裡吧」

  • Because that animator was allowed to share

    因為那位繪製師有機會分享

  • what we referred to as his slice of genius,

    他的天才點子,

  • he was able to help that director reconceive the character

    使他能夠幫助導演重新塑造這個角色。

  • in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.

    用微小但是重要的方式切實地改善了故事。

  • What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox.

    所以我們從這裡知道,創新的核心是矛盾的。

  • You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people

    你既要釋放大家的才能和激情,

  • and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful.

    又要控制他們去做有效的事。

  • Innovation is a journey.

    創新是場旅程。

  • It's a type of collaborative problem solving,

    是一種協作式的解決方案,

  • usually among people who have different expertise

    它通常發生在一個成員各有所長、

  • and different points of view.

    視角多元化的團隊中。

  • Innovations rarely get created full-blown.

    創新很少是一開始就成熟的。

  • As many of you know,

    正如你們大多數人所知

  • they're the result, usually, of trial and error.

    創新本身其實是個「結果」,是多次試錯之後的結果。

  • Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes.

    很多很多錯誤的開始、錯誤的步驟,還有大量的失誤。

  • Innovative work can be very exhilarating,

    創造性的工作可以特別過癮,

  • but it also can be really downright scary.

    也可以特別可怕。

  • So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does,

    所以當我們在思考「皮克斯是怎麼做到的」,

  • we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?

    我們要問我們自己,究竟發生了什麼?

  • For sure, history and certainly Hollywood,

    當然,無論是歷史上還是好萊塢裡,

  • is full of star-studded teams that have failed.

    充滿了曾經失敗過的星級團隊。

  • Most of those failures are attributed

    幾乎所有的失敗,都歸結於

  • to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.

    團隊裡有過多的明星,就像一個廚房裡塞進了太多的廚師。

  • So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks,

    所以為什麼皮克斯和它的廚師們,

  • is able to be so successful time and time again?

    可以一次又一次地獲得成功?

  • When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai,

    當我們在杜拜研究一個伊斯蘭銀行,

  • or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa,

    或在韓國研究一個奢侈品牌,或在非洲研究社交網絡創業公司時,

  • we found that innovative organizations

    我們發現這些創新組織,

  • are communities that have three capabilities:

    都擁有三種能力:

  • creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.

    「創意摩擦」、「創造的靈活性」和「創造性的解決方案」。

  • Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas

    「創意摩擦」是通過辯論和討論,創造一個「創意」的交流平台。

  • through debate and discourse.

    「創意摩擦」是通過辯論和討論,創造一個「創意」的交流平台。

  • In innovative organizations, they amplify differences,

    在創新機構裡,他們將差異放大,

  • they don't minimize them.

    他們並不將差別減小。

  • Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming,

    創意摩擦不是腦力激盪。

  • where people suspend their judgment.

    人們只把想法丟出來

  • No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments

    不,他們知道如何進行激烈而有意義的爭論

  • to create a portfolio of alternatives.

    來創造出大量的不同構想。

  • Individuals in innovative organizations

    在創新機構裡的個人,

  • learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what?

    要學會如何詢問,學會如何時刻聆聽。但是你知道嗎?

  • They also learn how to advocate for their point of view.

    他們還學著如何主張他們自己的觀點。

  • They understand that innovation rarely happens

    他們知道:如果你不在團隊中保持多樣性和衝突,

  • unless you have both diversity and conflict.

    創新就很難發生。

  • Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas

    「創造的靈活性」是指,能夠通過快速的追索、反應和調整,來檢驗和提煉那些創想。

  • through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment.

    「創造的靈活性」是指,能夠通過快速的追索、反應和調整,來檢驗和提煉那些創想。

  • It's about discovery-driven learning

    這是一種探索式的學習,

  • where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future.

    你不必按照計劃行事,未來的事沒有什麼是安排好的。

  • It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination

    是一種結合了科學方法和藝術過程

  • of the scientific method and the artistic process.

    的有趣的設計思維。

  • It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.

    它是進行一系列的實驗,而不是制定一系列的指導規範。

  • Experiments are usually about learning.

    「實驗」往往就是學習的過程。

  • When you get a negative outcome,

    當你得到負面結果時,

  • you're still really learning something that you need to know.

    你至少學到了這樣做是行不通的。

  • Pilots are often about being right.

    而指導規範往往意味著絕對正確,

  • When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.

    如果你不按照指導的去做,就有人或事要被責怪了。

  • The final capability is creative resolution.

    最後一點是「創造性的解決方案」。

  • This is about doing decision making

    這是關於決策制定的。

  • in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas

    你甚至要把截然相反的創想結合起來,

  • to reconfigure them in new combinations

    重新塑造它們,做成新的組合。

  • to produce a solution that is new and useful.

    從而產生一個既新穎又有用的解決方案。

  • When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along.

    當你在研究創新機構時,你會發現他們既不與人隔絕,也不好好相處,

  • They don't compromise.

    他們就是不妥協。

  • They don't let one group or one individual dominate,

    他們不讓任何一個人或者團隊做主,

  • even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert.

    即使是老闆也不行,即使是專家也不行。

  • Instead, they have developed

    相反,他們創造了

  • a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process

    一種更加有耐心和包容力的決策方式,

  • that allows for both/and solutions to arise

    使得最後的解決方案不僅僅是從幾個創想中挑出一個,

  • and not simply either/or solutions.

    還有可能是同時用上好幾個創想。

  • These three capabilities are why we see

    這三種能力,

  • that Pixar is able to actually do what it does.

    就是皮克斯能夠做到現在這樣的原因。

  • Let me give you another example,

    我來給你們另外一個例子,

  • and that example is the infrastructure group of Google.

    那是Google的基礎設施部門。

  • The infrastructure group of Google is the group

    Google的基礎設施部門

  • that has to keep the website up and running 24/7.

    負責網站每天24小時都運作。

  • So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube,

    所以當Google要推出 Gmail 和 YouTube 時,

  • they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate.

    他們意識到,他們現有的數據存儲容量不夠用了。

  • The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time

    當時,工程組和基礎設施組的組長

  • was a man named Bill Coughran.

    是一個叫Bill Coughran的人。

  • Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust,

    Bill和他的領導小組——也就是他的智囊團,

  • had to figure out what to do about this situation.

    需要想方法解決這個問題。

  • They thought about it for a while.

    他們想了一段時間。

  • Instead of creating a group to tackle this task,

    最終,他們不是為此建一個小組去處理問題;

  • they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously

    而是讓大家根據自己支持的觀點,自然地分組。

  • around different alternatives.

    而是讓大家根據自己支持的觀點,自然地分組。

  • Two groups coalesced.

    結果他們合併出了兩個組合。

  • One became known as Big Table,

    一個被成為 Big Table (大桌子),

  • the other became known as Build It From Scratch.

    另一個叫 Build it From Scratch (無中生有)。

  • Big Table proposed that they build on the current system.

    Big Table小組建議他們在現有的系統基礎上再建,

  • Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.

    Build it From Scratch小組則覺得是時候把整個系統換成全新的了。

  • Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time

    這兩組分別投入時間

  • on their particular approach.

    去按照各自的想法工作。

  • In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as,

    從工程的角度來看,Bill 稱他的角色是

  • "Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."

    「通過引起辯論,向工作進程中注入真誠」。

  • Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could

    早些時候,每隊被鼓勵去造出樣品,

  • "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves

    這樣他們就能和現實做比較,並且發現他們自己

  • the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach."

    和對手之間的強項和弱點。

  • When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group

    當Build it From Scratch分享他們的模型時

  • whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night

    (如果網站出現問題時,它通過傳呼機報警。但如果發生在半夜,有些人的傳呼機是關閉的)

  • if something went wrong with the website,

    (如果網站出現問題時,它通過傳呼機報警。但如果發生在半夜,有些人的傳呼機是關閉的)

  • they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design.

    他們被明確的告知這個設計缺陷。

  • As the need for a solution became more urgent

    當對解決方案的需要越來越緊急時,

  • and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in,

    ——而且大量數據已經開始進入系統,

  • it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution

    很明顯的,Big Table的解決方案

  • was the right one for the moment.

    是對當前來說更適合的。

  • So they selected that one.

    所以他們選擇了Big Table。

  • But to make sure that they did not lose the learning

    但是為了確保他們沒有丟失

  • of the Build it From Scratch team,

    向Build it From Scratch小組學習的機會,

  • Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging

    Bill讓Build it From Scratch的兩名隊員和Big Table一起組建了一個新的團隊,

  • to work on the next-generation system.

    去開發下一代系統。

  • This whole process took nearly two years,

    這整個過程花了將近兩年,

  • but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.

    但我聽說他們每個成員都在極速工作。

  • Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said,

    過程的早期,一個工程師曾對Bill說:

  • "We're all too busy for this inefficient system

    「這個沒有效率的平行實驗,

  • of running parallel experiments."

    讓我們每個人都忙得焦頭爛額。」

  • But as the process unfolded, he began to understand

    隨著工作進程的展開,他也開始明白了這種,

  • the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions.

    讓有才能的人發揮自己熱情的智慧。

  • He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team,

    他承認,「如果你只讓我們關注一個小組,

  • we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning,

    我們有可能只會關注誰對誰贏,

  • and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."

    而不會去學習和發現對Google最有利的答案」

  • Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again?

    所以,為什麼皮克斯和Google可以不斷地創新?

  • It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that.

    這是因為他們已經掌握了所需的能力。

  • They know how to do collaborative problem solving,

    他們知道如何創造協同解決方案,

  • they know how to do discovery-driven learning

    他們知道如何探索性地學習,

  • and they know how to do integrated decision making.

    而且他們還知道如何做整合性的決策。

  • Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now,

    你們中有些人有可能正坐在那裡,對自己說:

  • "We don't know how to do those things in my organization.

    「我們並不知道怎麼在我的機構裡做那些事情。

  • So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar,

    所以,為什麼皮克斯會知道那麼做?

  • and why do they know how to do those things at Google?"

    為什麼Google也知道該這麼做?」

  • When many of the people that worked for Bill told us,

    當很多為Bill工作過的人告訴我們,

  • in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,

    他們覺得,Bill是矽谷最出色的領導人之一。

  • we completely agreed; the man is a genius.

    我們完全贊同,那個人是個天才。

  • Leadership is the secret sauce.

    領導力是一種秘密調料。

  • But it's a different kind of leadership,

    但那是一種不一樣的領導力,

  • not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership.

    不是那種,我們都會想到的偉大的領導力。

  • One of the leaders I met with early on said to me,

    我之前見到的一位領導者告訴我,

  • "Linda, I don't read books on leadership.

    「Linda,我不看講領導力的書。

  • All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter)

    它們只會讓我感覺不好。」(笑聲)

  • "In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision.

    「第一章 他們說我應該創造一個景象。

  • But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers.

    但是如果我是真的在嘗試新的東西,我想像不出來。

  • I don't know what direction we're going in

    我不知道我們的方向,

  • and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there."

    而且我都不知道怎麼達到目標。」

  • For sure, there are times when visionary leadership

    當然,有時候,有預見性的領導力

  • is exactly what is needed.

    是非常重要的。

  • But if we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,

    但是如果我們想建造有創新力的機構,

  • we must recast our understanding of what leadership is about.

    我們必須重新認識什麼是領導力。

  • Leading innovation is about creating the space

    領導創新,等於創造一個空間

  • where people are willing and able to do the hard work

    ——讓大家願意,並且能夠努力工作,

  • of innovative problem solving.

    去創新性解決問題。

  • So, at this point, some of you may be wondering,

    此時,你們中一些人有可能在想:

  • "What does that leadership really look like?"

    「那種領導力到底是什麼樣子的?」

  • At Pixar, they understand that innovation takes a village.

    在皮克斯,它們很清楚創新需要的東西很多。

  • The leaders focus on building a sense of community

    領導者關注於建造一種社區感

  • and building those three capabilities.

    和培養那三個能力 (創意摩擦,創造的靈活性和創造性的解決方案)

  • How do they define leadership?

    他們是怎麼定義領導力的?

  • They say leadership is about creating a world

    他們說領導力就是創造一個世界,

  • to which people want to belong.

    一個人們想存在的世界。

  • What kind of world do people want to belong in at Pixar?

    在皮克斯工作的人想存在與哪樣的世界呢?