立即打开
波音CEO“应该是个飞机迷,而不是会计”

波音CEO“应该是个飞机迷,而不是会计”

PAUL EREMENKOPAUL EREMENKO 2024-05-04
空客前CTO给波音管理层的三条建议。

2月29日,法国西部南特附近,一名空客员工在空客A350飞机组装线工作。图片来源:SEBASTIEN SALOM-GOMIS - AFP - GETTY IMAGES

今年年底,波音(Boeing)公司将迎来新任首席执行官。领导层要在创纪录的时间内领导激进的大规模文化变革,波音目前员工超过17万名,其中工程师约5万人。

现代航空运输系统几乎可以说是奇迹。飞机是人类创造最复杂的工程杰作之一,每天都有数千架飞机穿梭空中而且事故率很低,飞行也成了最安全的出行方式之一,仅次于乘电梯(比走路更安全,比开车更是安全太多)。其实这并不是奇迹,背后是一套精心积累的工程原则、质量流程和操作程序——全都靠着一套文化基础作为支撑,确保切实且明智地执行。文化元素是实现奇迹的要素,也正是波音公司的问题所在。

2018年和2019年波音两架737 MAX飞机相隔数月坠毁的悲惨事故就是案例。航空工程有一条重要原则,即安全关键系统不能存在任何故障点。波音工程师在纸面上说服自己和美国联邦航空管理局(FAA)导致事故发生的MCAS系统不是安全关键系统。当然,事实证明MCAS正是安全关键系统。这是工程失误,但从更重要和更系统层面来说,这是文化的失败:相关责任人本应及时对假设正确提出质疑。

最近,阿拉斯加航空(Alaska Airlines)另一架波音737 MAX航班在飞行中舱门脱落,看起来是质检流程错误(不过调查仍在进行中)。很大可能是,流程本身并没错,只是没严格遵循。同样,公司文化几乎肯定是问题根源。今年2月,美国国会授权专家小组针对之前MAX坠机事件发布了关于波音安全系统的报告。其中写道:“专家小组观察到波音高管层与企业内其他成员在安全文化方面存在脱节。”

波音的公司文化怎么了,如何修复

过去20年里,波音刻意从工程导向转型为更注重商业成果的公司。本世纪初,波音首席执行官哈里·斯通塞弗曾打趣道:“人们说我改变了波音的文化,其实这正是我的意图,我想让波音更像企业,而不只是伟大的工程公司。”

斯通塞弗的继任者詹姆斯·麦克纳尼更进一步:“每25年弄一次堪比登月的大项目……然后研发出707或787——这是飞机制造行业错误的经营方式。追求投入产出效益的世界不会给你机会打磨登月计划的机会。”

实现股东价值与强大的产品和安全文化本质上并非对立关系。但股东回报不能被以牺牲员工、产品或公司的长期使命为代价。

我对波音董事会和新任首席执行官有三条具体建议,都来自我在空客(Airbus)担任高管的亲身经历。空客的文化和产品也不是完美无缺。但这家欧洲公司有三件事做得很好:高管形象,关心员工,以及大胆尝试的勇气。

新任波音首席执行官应该是飞机迷,而不是会计师

波音决策层和高管层应该选择志趣相投者,应该热爱产品,热爱波音制造伟大飞机的使命。

决策层讨论的内容不应仅围绕现金流和息税折旧及摊销前利润,还应关心新产品、功能、客户反馈,以及极为重要的安全问题实质。安全问题不能强制或造假。因为波音的产品非常独特,领导团队必须真正怀有热情。

如果董事会和高管层把产品和安全当成首要任务,全公司都会感受到。这一点空客做得很好。上一任首席执行官坚持从空客新型A400M运输机上跳伞,还亲自驾驶平流层滑翔机。现任掌门曾是直升机测试工程师。从首席执行官办公室和董事会会议室都能看到空客飞机测试跑道全景。空客总部明显有种“航空迷”的氛围。我见过的航空公司首席执行官当中有些热衷财务数据,也有飞机爱好者。其中区别非常明显,造成的氛围会在公司里迅速传播,而且很重要。

让员工成为股东

波音不必为强调股东回报而道歉,但应该明确告诉员工,公司不会牺牲员工利益,而是为员工争取最大利益。

如今,绝大多数大型工业公司里,权益报酬仅限于高管层。私募股权公司KKR在工业行业投资的少数几家公司部署了一项战略,确保所有员工都拥有一定股份,连车间小时工都要持股。结果令人震惊。哈佛商学院(HBS)针对一家此类公司的研究报告称,息税折旧摊销前利润率立即跃升8%,同时安全事故率减半,产品质量也明显提升。

让员工像老板一样思考,员工在改善公司运营和交付优质产品方面就会承担更多责任。工会关系也会因此改善,过去这一直是波音的痛点。当然,这一点空客其实别无选择。法国和德国的劳动法规定了员工至上的文化。每个重大决策都必须与员工代表费力协商。我记得曾与一位非常资深的空客高管谈话,我提出公司的目标就是为股东创造价值,他对这一“非常美国化”的判断提出质疑。我滔滔不绝谈及著名的道奇诉福特案,称之为美国公司法的原则,他却嗤之以鼻。“你说说公司的目标是什么?”我问道。“为欧洲创造更多就业机会,”他回答说。

帮波音实现新目标

波音最新一款飞机787的研发于20年前启动(报道称,一位吹哨人要求停飞,目前该飞机正接受审查)。737设计超过半个世纪(第一架737-100于1967年首飞),通过十几种衍生设计逐渐改进,变成了今天的MAX。将现有品牌货币化从而避免设计新飞机产生的费用,确实是深思熟虑的策略。然而从波音学到的教训来看,该策略不可持续,最终会影响股东的价值。

例如,MAX坠机事件中的MCAS系统就是737缺乏现代数字飞行控制系统的直接后果。一系列事故也让很多员工沮丧,他们原本希望进入航空领域制造全世界最酷的产品,勇敢解决重大问题,站在人类创新的前沿,结果却在改进父母一代可能曾参与设计的老飞机。

新目标可能什么样?航空业有个肮脏的秘密,即随着交通运输量增长远远超过飞机效率提高,未来几十年航空业二氧化碳排放量将大幅增加。波音用碳补偿和所谓“可持续”航空燃料给旗下产品营造绿色形象,所谓“可持续”燃料是指生产过程中将燃烧碳氢化合物时排放的一小部分二氧化碳重新捕获。使用这一方法,波音省下了制造新飞机的费用,将氢能、柔性燃料、混合动力和开放式旋翼等清洁飞行技术的领先地位拱手让给了空客,而空客显然很乐意成为行业创新者。

不妨挑战波音用美国载人登月计划的时间交付真正的零排放飞机(顺便说一句,当年这项大计划中波音曾发挥重要作用)。员工热情会非常高。而且他们肯定能做到。

我小时候最大的梦想就是去波音当总工程师。我幻想新飞机的样子,贪婪地阅读关于传奇飞机设计师的书,在波音在线礼品店订购每件周边。哪怕我跟随职业的脚步前往大西洋彼岸的空客工作,我仍然对波音这家美国标志性企业怀有深厚感情,也对其目前深陷困境很难过。我相信,只要让真正热爱飞机的人掌舵,推动员工为公司的成功拼命努力,勇于为将来大胆下注,波音就能重现往日辉煌。

保罗·埃雷缅科曾在空客和联合技术公司(United Technologies)担任首席技术官。(财富中文网)

译者:梁宇

审校:夏林

今年年底,波音(Boeing)公司将迎来新任首席执行官。领导层要在创纪录的时间内领导激进的大规模文化变革,波音目前员工超过17万名,其中工程师约5万人。

现代航空运输系统几乎可以说是奇迹。飞机是人类创造最复杂的工程杰作之一,每天都有数千架飞机穿梭空中而且事故率很低,飞行也成了最安全的出行方式之一,仅次于乘电梯(比走路更安全,比开车更是安全太多)。其实这并不是奇迹,背后是一套精心积累的工程原则、质量流程和操作程序——全都靠着一套文化基础作为支撑,确保切实且明智地执行。文化元素是实现奇迹的要素,也正是波音公司的问题所在。

2018年和2019年波音两架737 MAX飞机相隔数月坠毁的悲惨事故就是案例。航空工程有一条重要原则,即安全关键系统不能存在任何故障点。波音工程师在纸面上说服自己和美国联邦航空管理局(FAA)导致事故发生的MCAS系统不是安全关键系统。当然,事实证明MCAS正是安全关键系统。这是工程失误,但从更重要和更系统层面来说,这是文化的失败:相关责任人本应及时对假设正确提出质疑。

最近,阿拉斯加航空(Alaska Airlines)另一架波音737 MAX航班在飞行中舱门脱落,看起来是质检流程错误(不过调查仍在进行中)。很大可能是,流程本身并没错,只是没严格遵循。同样,公司文化几乎肯定是问题根源。今年2月,美国国会授权专家小组针对之前MAX坠机事件发布了关于波音安全系统的报告。其中写道:“专家小组观察到波音高管层与企业内其他成员在安全文化方面存在脱节。”

波音的公司文化怎么了,如何修复

过去20年里,波音刻意从工程导向转型为更注重商业成果的公司。本世纪初,波音首席执行官哈里·斯通塞弗曾打趣道:“人们说我改变了波音的文化,其实这正是我的意图,我想让波音更像企业,而不只是伟大的工程公司。”

斯通塞弗的继任者詹姆斯·麦克纳尼更进一步:“每25年弄一次堪比登月的大项目……然后研发出707或787——这是飞机制造行业错误的经营方式。追求投入产出效益的世界不会给你机会打磨登月计划的机会。”

实现股东价值与强大的产品和安全文化本质上并非对立关系。但股东回报不能被以牺牲员工、产品或公司的长期使命为代价。

我对波音董事会和新任首席执行官有三条具体建议,都来自我在空客(Airbus)担任高管的亲身经历。空客的文化和产品也不是完美无缺。但这家欧洲公司有三件事做得很好:高管形象,关心员工,以及大胆尝试的勇气。

新任波音首席执行官应该是飞机迷,而不是会计师

波音决策层和高管层应该选择志趣相投者,应该热爱产品,热爱波音制造伟大飞机的使命。

决策层讨论的内容不应仅围绕现金流和息税折旧及摊销前利润,还应关心新产品、功能、客户反馈,以及极为重要的安全问题实质。安全问题不能强制或造假。因为波音的产品非常独特,领导团队必须真正怀有热情。

如果董事会和高管层把产品和安全当成首要任务,全公司都会感受到。这一点空客做得很好。上一任首席执行官坚持从空客新型A400M运输机上跳伞,还亲自驾驶平流层滑翔机。现任掌门曾是直升机测试工程师。从首席执行官办公室和董事会会议室都能看到空客飞机测试跑道全景。空客总部明显有种“航空迷”的氛围。我见过的航空公司首席执行官当中有些热衷财务数据,也有飞机爱好者。其中区别非常明显,造成的氛围会在公司里迅速传播,而且很重要。

让员工成为股东

波音不必为强调股东回报而道歉,但应该明确告诉员工,公司不会牺牲员工利益,而是为员工争取最大利益。

如今,绝大多数大型工业公司里,权益报酬仅限于高管层。私募股权公司KKR在工业行业投资的少数几家公司部署了一项战略,确保所有员工都拥有一定股份,连车间小时工都要持股。结果令人震惊。哈佛商学院(HBS)针对一家此类公司的研究报告称,息税折旧摊销前利润率立即跃升8%,同时安全事故率减半,产品质量也明显提升。

让员工像老板一样思考,员工在改善公司运营和交付优质产品方面就会承担更多责任。工会关系也会因此改善,过去这一直是波音的痛点。当然,这一点空客其实别无选择。法国和德国的劳动法规定了员工至上的文化。每个重大决策都必须与员工代表费力协商。我记得曾与一位非常资深的空客高管谈话,我提出公司的目标就是为股东创造价值,他对这一“非常美国化”的判断提出质疑。我滔滔不绝谈及著名的道奇诉福特案,称之为美国公司法的原则,他却嗤之以鼻。“你说说公司的目标是什么?”我问道。“为欧洲创造更多就业机会,”他回答说。

帮波音实现新目标

波音最新一款飞机787的研发于20年前启动(报道称,一位吹哨人要求停飞,目前该飞机正接受审查)。737设计超过半个世纪(第一架737-100于1967年首飞),通过十几种衍生设计逐渐改进,变成了今天的MAX。将现有品牌货币化从而避免设计新飞机产生的费用,确实是深思熟虑的策略。然而从波音学到的教训来看,该策略不可持续,最终会影响股东的价值。

例如,MAX坠机事件中的MCAS系统就是737缺乏现代数字飞行控制系统的直接后果。一系列事故也让很多员工沮丧,他们原本希望进入航空领域制造全世界最酷的产品,勇敢解决重大问题,站在人类创新的前沿,结果却在改进父母一代可能曾参与设计的老飞机。

新目标可能什么样?航空业有个肮脏的秘密,即随着交通运输量增长远远超过飞机效率提高,未来几十年航空业二氧化碳排放量将大幅增加。波音用碳补偿和所谓“可持续”航空燃料给旗下产品营造绿色形象,所谓“可持续”燃料是指生产过程中将燃烧碳氢化合物时排放的一小部分二氧化碳重新捕获。使用这一方法,波音省下了制造新飞机的费用,将氢能、柔性燃料、混合动力和开放式旋翼等清洁飞行技术的领先地位拱手让给了空客,而空客显然很乐意成为行业创新者。

不妨挑战波音用美国载人登月计划的时间交付真正的零排放飞机(顺便说一句,当年这项大计划中波音曾发挥重要作用)。员工热情会非常高。而且他们肯定能做到。

我小时候最大的梦想就是去波音当总工程师。我幻想新飞机的样子,贪婪地阅读关于传奇飞机设计师的书,在波音在线礼品店订购每件周边。哪怕我跟随职业的脚步前往大西洋彼岸的空客工作,我仍然对波音这家美国标志性企业怀有深厚感情,也对其目前深陷困境很难过。我相信,只要让真正热爱飞机的人掌舵,推动员工为公司的成功拼命努力,勇于为将来大胆下注,波音就能重现往日辉煌。

保罗·埃雷缅科曾在空客和联合技术公司(United Technologies)担任首席技术官。(财富中文网)

译者:梁宇

审校:夏林

By the end of the year, Boeing will have a new CEO. They will need to lead an aggressive cultural transformation on a massive scale–the company has over 170,000 employees of whom about 50,000 are engineers–and in record time.

The modern air transportation system is nothing short of miraculous. Airplanes are some of the most complex feats of engineering created by humans, and yet thousands of them fly daily with so few incidents that flying is one of the safest modes of travel, second only to taking an elevator (and safer than walking, not to mention driving). It is not a miracle but a meticulously accumulated set of engineering principles, quality processes, and operating procedures–all underpinned by a set of cultural mores to ensure that they are faithfully and intelligently implemented. This cultural element is the magic ingredient. And it is what’s broken at Boeing.

Take, for example, the tragic crashes of two Boeing 737 MAX aircraft a few months apart in 2018 and 2019. A key aviation engineering principle is that safety-critical systems cannot have a single point of failure. Boeing engineers convinced themselves (and the FAA) on paper that the MCAS system, which was found to be the culprit, was not safety-critical. Of course, it turned out to be. This is an engineering error–but more importantly and systemically, it is a failure of culture: The right people should have felt empowered to question the right assumptions at the right time.

The recent in-flight loss of a door plug on another Boeing 737 MAX Alaska Airlines flight looks to be a quality process error (although the investigation is ongoing). Most probably. the process itself wasn’t wrong–it just wasn’t followed. Again, culture is almost certainly the culprit. In February, a Congressionally-mandated panel of experts convened in the wake of the earlier MAX crashes released its report on Boeing safety systems. It wrote that “[t]he Expert Panel observed a disconnect between Boeing’s senior management and other members of the organization on safety culture.”

What happened to Boeing’s culture and how to fix it

For the last two decades, Boeing has undergone a deliberate transformation from an engineering-driven company to one more focused on business results. Harry Stonecipher, Boeing’s CEO in the early 2000s, famously quipped: “When people say I changed the culture of Boeing, that was the intent, so that it is run like a business rather than a great engineering firm.”

Stonecipher’s successor, James McNerney, took this even further: “Every 25 years a big moonshot… and then produce a 707 or a 787–that’s the wrong way to pursue this business. The more-for-less world will not let you pursue moonshots.”

Delivering shareholder value is not inherently antithetical to a strong product and safety culture. But shareholder returns cannot be perceived as coming at the expense of the employees, the product, or the company’s long-term mission.

I have three concrete suggestions for Boeing’s board and new CEO. These come from my own experience in the Airbus C-suite. Neither Airbus’s culture nor its products are flawless. But the European company has consistently gotten three things right: the profile of the people at the top, a focus on its employees, and the willingness to make bold bets.

The new Boeing CEO needs to be an airplane geek, not a bean counter

Boeing should fill the C-suite and executive ranks with like-minded people who love the product and Boeing’s mission to build great airplanes.

C-suite discussions should revolve not just around free cash flow and EBITDA, but around new products, features, customer feedback, and–importantly–the nitty gritty of safety issues. And it can’t be forced or faked. Because Boeing’s products are so unique, the leadership team must have a genuine passion for them.

If product and safety are routinely the top priorities at the board and C-suite level, the whole company will feel it. This is something that Airbus has done well. Its last CEO insisted on parachuting out of Airbus’ new A400M transport plane and piloting a stratospheric glider. The current one is a former helicopter flight test engineer. The CEO’s office and corporate board room has a panoramic view of the runway where Airbus planes are tested. There is a distinct “AvGeek” aura at headquarters. I’ve witnessed first-hand aerospace CEOs who are bean counters and others who are airplane geeks. The difference is stark, it cascades quickly through an organization, and it matters.

Make all employees shareholders

While Boeing need not apologize for emphasizing shareholder returns, it should signal to employees that it is not at their expense but in their best interest.

Today, equity compensation at most large industrial companies is limited to executive ranks. The private equity firm KKR deployed a strategy at a handful of companies in its industrial portfolio of giving all employees–including shop floor hourly workers–a meaningful ownership stake in the business. The results were staggering. An HBS case study on one such company reported an immediate 8% jump in EBITDA margin while halving the safety incident rate and improving product quality.

Making employees think like owners made them take greater personal responsibility for improving company operations and delivering a good product. It will also improve union relations, which has historically been a sore point for Boeing. Airbus, of course, has no choice in the matter. It’s an employee-first culture by virtue of French and German labor laws. Every major decision has to be painstakingly negotiated with employee representatives. I recall a conversation with a very senior Airbus executive where he challenged my “very American” assertion that the purpose of the company was to deliver shareholder value. After I pontificated about the famous Dodge v. Ford court case which enshrined this as a principle of U.S. corporate law, he scoffed. “What is its purpose then?” I asked. “To create good European jobs,” he replied.

Commit Boeing to a bold new goal

The development of the last new Boeing airplane–the 787–was launched two decades ago (and the aircraft is now also coming under scrutiny after a whistleblower reportedly called for its grounding). The 737 was designed over a half-century ago (the original 737-100 first flew in 1967) and has morphed into today’s MAX through more than a dozen derivative designs making incremental improvements. This has been a deliberate strategy to monetize the existing franchise and avoid the expense of a new design. Such a strategy is not sustainable and, as Boeing is learning the hard way, is ultimately detrimental to shareholder value.

The MCAS system at issue in the MAX crashes, for instance, was a direct consequence of the 737 lacking a modern digital flight control system. It is also demotivating to the employees who went into aerospace to build some of the world’s coolest products, help tackle big audacious problems, and be on the bleeding edge of human innovation to be working with ancient tools on the same airplane their parents might have helped design.

What might such a bold new goal look like? Aviation’s dirty secret is that the industry’s CO2 emissions are set to increase significantly in the coming decades, as traffic growth far outpaces incremental improvements in airplane efficiency. Boeing has hidden behind carbon offsets and so-called “sustainable” aviation fuels–where a fraction of the CO2 emitted when burning the hydrocarbon is recaptured during the fuel production process–to greenwash its product portfolio. This approach has allowed the company to avoid the expense of building a new airplane. But in doing so, Boeing ceded the lead in developing clean flight technologies such as hydrogen, flex-fuel, hybrid-electric, and open rotor to Airbus, which has been only too happy to pick up the mantle as the industry’s innovator.

Challenge Boeing to deliver a true-zero-emissions airplane in the time it took the U.S. to land a man on the moon (incidentally, this was a moonshot in which Boeing played a significant part). The employees will love it. And they will almost certainly deliver.

My dream job growing up was to be chief engineer at Boeing. I fantasized what my new airplane would look like, devoured books about legendary airplane designers, and ordered every piece of Boeing swag in its online gift shop. And while my career took me to the planemaker on the other side of the Atlantic, I feel a deep fondness for the American icon that is the Boeing Company–and sadness at its current malaise. I am confident that it can regain its magic by putting airplane geeks at the helm, giving its employees a direct stake in the company’s success, and making a bold, ambitious bet on the future.

Paul Eremenko is a former Chief Technology Officer at Airbus and at United Technologies.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP