I thought that the diversity stuff was not something I had to worry about.

十五年前，

It was something an older generation had to fight for.

我並不覺得我需要 擔心多樣性的問題。

In my university, we were 50-50, male-female,

這問題是老一輩的人 才需要去努力爭取的。

and we women often had better grades.

在我就讀的大學，男女比例各半，

So while not everything was perfect,

我們女生的成績通常都比較好。

diversity and leadership decisions

所以，雖然並非一切都很完美，

was something that would happen naturally over time, right?

多樣性和領導決策

Well, not quite.

是隨時間就會自然發生的，對吧？

While moving up the ladder working as a management consultant

嗯，不見得。

across Europe and the US,

當我繼續向上爬，當上了管理顧問，

I started to realize how often I was the only woman in the room

在歐洲和美國各地工作，

and how homogenous leadership still is.

我開始發現到，我常常是 房間中唯一的女性，

Many leaders I met

且領導階層仍然是非常同質性的。

saw diversity as something to comply with out of political correctness,

我見過許多領導人

or, best case, the right thing to do,

視多樣性為由於政治正確性 而要去遵守的東西，

but not as a business priority.

或者最多視為對的、該做的事，

They just did not have a reason to believe

但不是企業的優先考量。

that diversity would help them achieve their most immediate, pressing goals:

他們沒有理由相信

hitting the numbers, delivering the new product,

多樣性能協助他們 達成最立即、最緊迫的目標：

the real goals they are measured by.

讓數字達標、推出新產品等等，

My personal experience working with diverse teams

那些用來評量他們的目標。

had been that while they require a little bit more effort at the beginning,

我和多樣性團隊合作的個人經驗是

they did bring fresher, more creative ideas.

雖然在一開始他們需要多點努力，

So I wanted to know:

他們確實能帶來更新鮮、 更有創意的想法。

Are diverse organizations really more innovative,

所以，我想要知道：

and can diversity be more than something to comply with?

多樣性組織真的比較創新嗎？

Can it be a real competitive advantage?

多樣性能不能不只是 一項該遵守的東西？

So to find out, we set up a study with the Technical University of Munich.

它能不能成為真正的競爭優勢？

We surveyed 171 companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland,

為了找出答案，我們和慕尼黑 工業大學合作了一項研究。

and as we speak, we're expanding the study

我們調查了德國、奧地利、 和瑞士的 171 間公司，

to 1,600 companies

現在我正在說話的同時，

in five additional countries around the world.

我們已經把研究擴展到另外五個國家

We asked those companies basically two things:

達 1,600 間公司了。

how innovative they are and how diverse they are.

我們問那些公司兩項基本的東西：

To measure the first one,

問它們的創新以及多樣性的程度。

we asked them about innovation revenue.

為了要測量第一項，

Innovation revenue is the share of revenues they've made

我們問它們創新收益相關的問題。

from new products and services in the last three years,

創新收益是在過去三年間，

meaning we did not ask them how many creative ideas they have,

新產品和新服務佔了多少收益，

but rather if these ideas translate into products and services

也就是說，我們並沒有問 它們有多少創意想法，

that really make the company more successful today and tomorrow.

而是這些創意想法

To measure diversity, we looked at six different factors:

是否使得公司現在和未來的 產品和服務更為成功。

country of origin, age and gender, amongst others.

為了測量多樣性， 我們檢視六個不同的因子：

While preparing to go in the field with those questions,

原國籍、年齡、性別，和其他。

I sat down with my team

在準備要帶著那些問題去實做時，

and we discussed what we would expect as a result.

我和團隊坐下來討論

To put it mildly, we were not optimistic.

我們期待怎樣的結果。

The most skeptical person on the team thought, or saw a real possibility,

用溫和的說法，我們並不樂觀。

that we would find nothing at all.

最多疑的那位團隊成員認為

Most of the team was rather on the cautious side,

很可能我們什麼都發現不了。

so we landed all together at "only if,"

大多數團隊成員比較謹慎，

meaning that we might find some kind of link

所以我們最後談的都是「只限於」，

between innovation and diversity,

意思是我們可能會找到

but not across the board --

創新和多樣性之間的某種連結，

rather only if certain criteria are met,

但並非全面適用，

for example leadership style, very open leadership style

而是「只限於」某些 標準被達到的情況下，

that allowed people to speak up freely and safely and contribute.

比如，領導風格， 非常開放的領導風格，

A couple of months later, the data came in,

讓人們能夠自由且安全地 發表意見和做出貢獻。

and the results convinced the most skeptical amongst us.

幾個月後，資料進來了，

The answer was a clear yes,

結果說服了我們當中最多疑的人。

no ifs, no buts.

答案很明顯是「是的」，

The data in our sample showed

沒有「如果」，沒有「但是」，

that more diverse companies are simply more innovative, period.

我們樣本的資料顯示，

Now, a fair question to ask is the chicken or the egg question,

比較多樣化的公司 就是比較創新，就這樣。

meaning, are companies really more innovative

現在應該要問的問題， 是雞生蛋或蛋生雞的問題，

because they have a more diverse leadership,

意思是，公司會比較創新

or the other way around?

真的是因為它們有 比較多樣化的領導階層嗎？

Which way is it?

或是反過來？

Now, we do not know how much is correlation versus causation,

哪個才是真的？

but what we do know is that clearly,

我們不知道在這相關性中 有多少的因果關係，

in our sample, companies that are more diverse

但我們確實知道，很明顯，

are more innovative,

在我們的樣本中，

and that companies that are more innovative

比較多樣化的公司就比較創新，

have more diverse leadership, too.

而比較創新的公司

So it's fair to assume that it works both ways,

也有比較多樣化的領導階層。

diversity driving innovation and innovation driving diversity.

所以可以假設兩個方向都是對的，

Now, once we published the results,

多樣性導致創新，創新導致多樣性。

we were surprised about the reactions in the media.

在我們發表了結果之後，

We got quite some attention.

媒體的反應讓我們很驚訝。

And it went from quite factual,

我們得到了不少的關注。

like "Higher Female Share Boosts Innovation"

從事實性的描述，

to a little bit more sensationalist.

如「女性比例較高會激發創新」，

(Laughter)

到稍微聳動些的。

As you can see,

（笑聲）

"Stay-at-home Women Cost Trillions,"

你們可以看到，

and, my personal favorite,

「女性待在家的代價高達數兆元」，

"Housewives Kill Innovation."

我個人的最愛是這個，

Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?

「家庭主婦扼殺了創新」。

(Laughter)

沒有所謂的負面宣傳，對吧？

On the back of that coverage,

（笑聲）

we started to get calls from senior executives

緊接在那報導之後，

wanting to understand more,

我們開始接到高階主管打來的電話，

especially -- surprise, surprise -- about gender diversity.

他們想了解更多，

I tend to open up those discussions by asking,

尤其讓人驚訝的 是特別想了解性別的多樣性。

"Well, what do you think of the situation in your organization today?"

對於這類的討論，我通常 開場的方式是先問：

And a frequent reaction to that is,

「你認為現今在你組織內 是怎樣的情況？」

"Well, we're not yet there, but we're not that bad."

對這個問題，常見的反應是：

One executive told me, for example,

「嗯，我們還沒做到， 但我們也沒太糟。」

"Oh, we're not that bad.

比如，有位主管告訴我：

We have one member in our board who is a woman."

「喔，我們沒那麼糟。

(Laughter)

我們的董事當中有一名女性。」

And you laugh --

（笑聲）

(Applause)

你會笑出來──

Now, you laugh, but he had a point in being proud about it,

（掌聲）

because in Germany,

你現在會笑，但他對此 感到自豪其實是有根據的，

if you have a company

因為在德國，

and it has one member on the board who is a woman,

如果你有一間公司，

you are part of a select group of 30

公司有一名女性董事，

out of the 100 largest publicly listed companies.

你就是前百大公開上市公司當中

The other 70 companies have an all-male board,

特出的三十家之一。

and not even one of these hundred largest publicly listed companies

另外七十間公司的董事全都是男性，

have, as of today, a female CEO.

而這百大公開上市的公司中，

But here's the critically important insight.

沒有任何一家有女性執行長， 截至今天都沒有。

Those few female board members alone,

但，我要再提出個重要的洞察。

they won't make a difference.

只有那少數幾位女性董事，

Our data shows that for gender diversity to have an impact on innovation,

她們無法造成不同。

you need to have more than 20 percent women in leadership.

我們的資料顯示， 若要讓性別多樣性影響創新，

Let's have a look at the numbers.

你得要在領導階層裡面 有超過 20% 的女性。

As you can see, we divided the sample into three groups,

我們來看看數字。

and the results are quite dramatic.

如你們所見，我們把樣本分成三組，

Only in the group where you have more than 20 percent women in leadership,

結果十分引人注目。

only then you see a clear jump in innovation revenue

只有在領導階層有 超過 20% 女性的那一組，

to above-average levels.

只有在那一組， 才看得見創新收益

So experience and data shows that you do need critical mass

明顯提升到超過平均值以上。

to move the needle,

所以，經驗和資料顯示， 你的確需要關鍵人數

and companies like Alibaba, JP Morgan or Apple

才能移動一根針，

have as of today already achieved that threshold.

像阿里巴巴、摩根大通、 蘋果等這些公司，

Another reaction I got quite a lot was,

現今已經達到了那個門檻。

"Well, it will get solved over time."

我還常碰到的另一種反應是：

And I have all the sympathy in the world for that point of view,

「嗯，隨時間過去， 問題就會解決。」

because I used to think like that, too.

對於那種觀點，我非常同情，

Now, let's have a look here again and look at the numbers,

因為我也曾經那麼想。

taking Germany as an example.

現在我們再來看看數字，

Let me first give you the good news.

用德國當例子。

So the share of women who are college graduates

我先告訴各位好消息。

and have at least 10 years of professional experience

大學畢業並且至少具有

has grown nicely over the last 20 years,

十年專業經驗的女性比例，

which means the pool in which to fish for female leaders

在過去二十年間都一直在成長，

has increased over time,

意思就是，女性領導人的人才庫

and that's great.

隨著時間越來越大了，

Now, according to my old theory,

這點是很棒的。

the share of women in leadership

根據我的舊理論，

would have grown more or less in parallel, right?

領導階層的女性比例

Now, let's have a look at what happened in reality.

應該多少也會平行成長，對嗎？

It's not even close,

我們來看看現實的狀況。

which means I was so wrong

還差很遠，

and which means that my generation,

這意味著，我錯得可大了，

your generation,

也意味著我的世代，

the best-educated female generation in history,

你的世代，

we have just not made it.

史上教育程度最高的女性世代，

We have failed to achieve leadership in significant numbers.

我們就是還沒成功。

Education just did not translate into leadership.

我們沒能達成在領導階層 佔有顯著的人數。

Now, that was a painful realization for me

教育程度並不會直接轉成領導階層。

and made me realize,

對我而言，那是種痛苦的領會，

if we want to change this,

讓我了解到，

we need to engage, and we need to do better.

如果我們想要改變這狀況，

Now, what to do?

我們得要參與投入，且要做得更好。

Achieving more than 20 percent women in leadership

所以，該怎麼做？

seems like a daunting task to many,

達成在領導階層至少有 20% 是女性的這項任務，

understandably, given the track record.

對許多人來說，似乎挺讓人氣餒，

But it's doable,

從過往記錄來看，這是可理解的。

and there are many companies today that are making progress there

但這是可行的，

and doing it successfully.

現今有很多公司在這方面都有進展，

Let's take SAP, the software company, as an example.

且成功做到這一點。

They had, in 2011, 19 percent women in leadership,

咱們用思愛普（SAP） 軟體公司來當例子，

yet they decided to do better,

在 2011 年，他們的 領導階層有 19% 是女性，

and they did what you do in any other area of business

但他們仍然決定要再做更好些，

where you want to improve.

而他們的做法，就和你在 任何其他商業領域中

They set themselves a measurable target.

想做改善時的做法一樣。

So they set themselves a target of 25 percent for 2017,

他們為自己設定了可測量的目標。

which they have just achieved.

他們設定的目標是， 在 2017 年達到 25%，

The goals made them think more creatively about developing leaders

他們已經達到這個目標了。

and tapping new recruiting pools.

因為有目標，在開發領導人方面 他們會做更創意的思考，

They now even set a target of 30 percent women in leadership for 2022.

也會去開闢新的人才招募來源。

So experience shows it's doable,

他們現在甚至把 2022 年目標 設為領導階層要有 30% 女性。

and at the end of the day,

所以，經驗顯示這是做得到的，

it all boils down to two decisions that are taken every day

且到頭來，

in every organization by many of us:

都能歸結到每天要做的 兩項決策，在每個組織中，

who to hire and who to develop and promote.

我們許多人都要做這兩項決策：

Now, nothing against women's programs,

要僱用誰、要發展誰，及要提拔誰。

networks, mentoring, trainings.

我們不是要反對 針對女性的人才計畫、

All is good.

連結人際關係網、 顧問指導、教育訓練，

But it is these two decisions

這些都很好。

that at the end of the day send the most powerful change signal

但到頭來，是這兩項決策，

in any organization.

在任何組織中，

Now, I never set out to be a diversity advocate.

發送出最強而有力的改變信號。

I am a business advisor.

我從來沒有打算要 成為多樣性的提倡者。

But now my goal is to change the face of leadership,

我是企業顧問。

to make it more diverse --

但現在，現在我的目標 是要改變領導階層的面貌，

and not so that leaders can check a box

讓它更多樣化。

and feel like they have complied with something

目的並不是為了讓領導人打個勾，

or they have been politically correct.

感覺他們已經遵守了什麼，

But because they understand,

或是他們已經做到政治正確。

they understand that diversity is making their organization

而是因為他們了解，

more innovative, better.

他們了解多樣性讓他們的組織

And by embracing diversity, by embracing diverse talent,

更創新、更出色。

we are providing true opportunity for everyone.

透過擁抱多樣性， 透過擁抱多樣化的人才，

Thank you. Thank you so much.

我們就能夠提供每個人真正的機會。

(Applause)

謝謝。非常謝謝大家。