为什么都是科技公司在引领变革？

世界上唯一不变的就是变化，而且，变化还很复杂、困难、往往势不可挡。

提升我们自身引领变革的技能是个不小的挑战，而要帮助企业从我们的知识和经验中获益更是难上加难。那么，究竟应该采用什么新方法来引领复杂且持续的变革，才能帮助企业在真实世界中激流勇进呢？

印度有句俗语称，帮正要站起来的大象站起来，比帮一头正要坐下的大象站起来更容易。如果你的企业正在思考这个课题，并且已经设计了一些灵活性因素来帮助员工更好地完成工作，那么，你们将领先于其他企业。

让我们用几个例子对照一下。几年前，我和同事为了避免克里夫兰市一家工厂陷入关门停产的境地，决定发动员工参与到企业的改革之中。工厂母公司的高管们也表示，如果我们真能提高这家工厂的产能并降低成本，他们可能就不再考虑将生产转移到海外。

这家工厂已经有年头了，设备已经过时，实行的是传统的等级文化。人们被局限在狭窄的工作职责里，大多数岗位基本上没有让人发挥创造力的机会。尽管如此，厂长还算是个乐意改革的人，对我们的尝试表示支持。

在几个员工工作组的帮助下，我们勤奋地工作了几个星期，根据轻重缓急，列出了一张需要变革的任务清单。到执行变革方案的时候，我们打算在工厂中招募志愿者来帮忙。让我们感到惊讶的是，没有一个人报名！

我们进行了深入调查，发现由于工厂可能关停的消息已经散布出去几个月了，员工们都已经对未来另有打算。没人有热情在这家老旧、肮脏、难受的工厂里多待几年。这家工厂以前没让他们参与过变革，他们现在也没有任何动力去变革它。他们深知，要改变工厂的文化，改革企业的管理模式，重新定义工作职责，引进新技术，让高管层重拾信心，难度有多么大。直接退出比继续前进更容易，所以，这家工厂终究还是关闭了。

我们再拿谷歌、Facebook或其他硅谷创业公司的例子来做对比。这些公司的文化极富创业精神，变革是常态，职责也定义得很宽松，人们都乐于自动学习。一旦有新的创意出来，或者一旦竞争对手有了新动向，企业的战略就会相应地做出迅速改变。

这些企业虽然也有各种架构和流程，但它们的设计都是为了促进持续的创新。企业希望员工们贡献他们的创意。在这样的企业里，领导力同时存在于多个方向，从上至下，从下至上，甚至横向。

在以上案例中（克里夫兰工厂与硅谷创业公司），谁更容易采取新的方法来领导复杂且持续的变革呢？答案是明显的。

当僵化的企业面临复杂的变革挑战时，他们想要控制自己的反应，会把自己的反应分割成一系列独立的项目，每个项目都有自己的计划、日程和领导人。他们想要详尽的计划和经常性的流程监测，这样当问题发生时，领导才好进行干预。他们想让一切都可控，仿佛复杂的变革真的能被控制似的。

具有创业精神的企业则总是准备迎接变革，其组织结构和文化就是为了适应变革而设计的。他们期待员工共同参与变革，同时仍然留出足够的空间，让员工无需等待最高领导层发出指令便能迅速做出反应。在进行重大新项目、并购、制定战略等重大决策时，这种企业会广泛听取意见并集中进行决策，但这种企业基本上没有或只有极少的微观管理。人们知道自己能为公司带来什么，但他们不知道自己未来的具体工作将是什么，因为公司的工作重心将发生变化。企业各部门、团队和级别之间的边界并不是密不透风。比起争权夺利，员工们更关心企业的健康和持续存在。

面临变革时，这种具有创业精神的企业并不会试图设立预算、时间期限和考核标准都十分精确的项目。他们会直接针对问题开展工作，然后看看会发生什么。项目规模是增长还是缩水，取决于它能够展现出什么样的前景，或者有多么令人兴奋。公司的优先工作虽然会变化，但员工对公司最终成功的信心和付出不会变化。没人感觉自己是在高压管制下的流水线上工作。

每个人可以自由地发表意见，每个人都可以自由地贡献他所了解的最佳方法。

并不是说，富有创业精神的企业必然好于结构严密的企业。这两种企业的设计都是为了满足特定的目标。只是当面临复杂而持续的挑战时，具有创业精神的企业才能够显现优势。如果你在一家结构严密的企业工作，是不是就没希望了？并非如此。

迈克尔•塔什曼和查尔斯•奥雷利就所谓的“两面型企业”这一课题撰写了大量文章。所谓的“两面型企业”，是指根据情势需要，企业既能够以结构严密的方式运作，也能在更为宽松的模式下运作。虽然学做一家“两面型企业”并不容易，但这并非不可能。它只不过需要强烈的目的性和努力。那么，是什么在阻碍企业成为“两面型企业”？不是自然法则，而是那些爱说“我们不能”或“我们不会”的领导。

为了在企业的灵活性上实现突破，领导者需要积极参与发现、决策、执行和辨识等方面的工作，从而帮助企业不断学习进步。企业就和人一样，只有通过练习才能学习和进步，前提是学习过程得到正确的指导和有力的支持。

领导者需要推动企业实现更大的“两面性”，因为其他人无权改变企业的规则。一开始的时候，不需要对企业规则做出永久性改变，老规矩只需要暂停一段时间，让员工大胆尝试不同的方法来鼓励持续性变革。一旦企业对有效和无效的方法有了深刻认识，就可以考虑制定长期规则。只有那样，在应对复杂且持续的变革时，企业才会实现真正的突破。（财富中文网）

本文节选自比尔•帕斯莫尔的《引领持续变革》一书。

译者：朴成奎

审校：任文科

Change may be the only constant, but it’s also complex, difficult, and often overwhelming.

Improving our individual skills to lead change can be challenging. Helping our organizations benefit from what we have learned can be even tougher. What does it take to apply new ways of leading complex, continuous change to help our organizations navigate churn in the real world?

There’s an old Indian saying that it is easier to help an elephant get up if it’s already in the process of getting up rather than in the process of sitting down. If your organization is concerned about this issue, and has already designed some flexibility into how people approach their work, you’ll be ahead of the curve.

Let’s contrast a couple of examples. Some years ago colleagues and I decided to see if we could keep a manufacturing plant in Cleveland from closing, by engaging employees in transforming the operation. Executives of the corporation that owned the plant agreed that if we could improve productivity and reduce costs, they would reopen their decision to relocate production offshore.

The plant was very old, with outdated equipment and a traditional hierarchical culture. People were slotted into narrow jobs, most of which allowed little opportunity for creativity. Despite this the plant manager was a student of change and was interested in supporting our experiment.

We worked diligently for several weeks with the help of a number of employee task forces to come up with a prioritized list of changes to pursue. To our surprise, when it came time to implement the changes, we asked for volunteers to help with the implementation—and no one signed on! When we investigated further, we found that employees, having heard months earlier that the plant would close, had already made other plans for their futures. No one was excited about extending their time in a setting that they experienced as old, dirty, and unpleasant. They had little energy for trying to change an organization that had not engaged them in change before. They knew how difficult it would be to shift their culture, change the organization’s approach to management, redefine their jobs, introduce new technology, and win the confidence of senior leadership. It was easier to simply exit and move on. The plant closed.

Contrast this example with Google , Facebook , or Silicon Valley startups. Their cultures are entrepreneurial, change is constant, roles are loosely defined, and people are dedicated to learning. Strategies shift as new ideas are explored or competitors make moves. Structures and processes are introduced but are designed to allow continuous innovation. People are expected to contribute their ideas. Leadership is top-down, bottom-up, and sideways, all at the same time.

Which of these examples (the plant in Cleveland or a Silicon Valley startup) would be more receptive to adopting new approaches to leading complex, continuous change? The answer is obvious. When rigid organizations face complex change challenges, they want to control how they respond. They want to divide their response into a series of independent projects, each with its own plans, schedules, and leaders. They want elaborate plans and regular progress metrics so that leaders can intervene when issues arise. They want to keep things under control, as if complex change can actually be controlled.

Entrepreneurial organizations expect change to happen and design for it. They leave room for people to react without central guidance, although they expect people to engage one another as they do so. Big decisions about major new projects, acquisitions, or company strategies are made centrally with a lot of input, but there is little or no micromanagement. People know what they bring to the table, but they don’t know what work they will be doing in the future because priorities will change. Boundaries are permeable across units, teams, and levels in the organization. People are more concerned about the well-being and continued existence of the organization than accumulating power and influence.

When faced with change, these entrepreneurial companies do not try to formulate projects with precise budgets, deadlines, and metrics. They start working on things and see what happens. Projects shrink or grow with the promise they show and the excitement they generate. Priorities shift but not people’s commitment to the ultimate success of the company. No one feels like he or she is working on a production line under tight constraints.

Everyone is free to comment and to try to contribute in the best way he or she knows how.

It is not that entrepreneurial organizations are better than more tightly structured companies. Each is designed to be fit for a purpose. Yet when it comes to being ready for complex, continuous change, the entrepreneurial organization has the clear advantage. If you are in a tightly structured company, is the situation hopeless? No. Michael Tushman and Charles O’Reilly have written extensively on the topic of ambidextrous organizations, by which they mean that organizations should develop the capability of operating in a tightly structured manner when they need to and in a looser fashion when that is called for. Although learning to become ambidextrous isn’t easy, there’s no law against it. It just requires intention and effort. What keeps organizations from becoming more ambidextrous? Not laws of nature but rather leaders who say “we can’t” or “we won’t.”

To achieve breakthroughs in organizational agility, leaders need to help their organizations learn by engaging in Discovering, Deciding, Doing, and Discerning. Just like individuals, organizations learn from practice, provided the learning is well directed and well supported.

Leaders need to support greater ambidexterity because no one else has permission to change the rules. At first the rules don’t need to be changed permanently; they just have to be suspended for a period of time as people are invited to experiment with different approaches to continuous change. Once an organization gains greater insights into what works and what doesn’t, more-permanent rule changes can be considered. Only then will true breakthroughs in responding to complex, continuous change occur.