Jim Collins: Essentially what we do, at least we've done for the last 20 years, going back to "Built to Last", which I co-authored with Jerry Porras, where I learned the research methods later used in "Good to Great" and "How the Mighty Fall" and our on-going work. We're always looking at those that obtained a sustained period of greatness, in contrast to others that were in the same situation. They were in the same industries with the same opportunities, with the same resources. They also could have had a sustained period of greatness but they didn't. And so we are always asking, what was different, right?
And in the "Good to Great" study it was those that shifted in contrast to those that didn't, so what's different? Given that their circumstances are very much the same.
Now, the key thing is we are always looking at errors in history. We're always going back and saying, we're not so much looking at companies, as we're looking at something almost like a great sports dynasty. You look at a given moment in time and you say, for maybe an "X" number of years run, this was a great sports dynasty, how did that happen? How was it different from the others?
It may or may not be a dynasty today, but at one point it was, and we're studying that era. Ok, so when we do that, we look at the "Good to Great" companies during that era when they rose, in contrast to the others.
We started the study, with me saying to the research team, "We're not going to look at leadership." And the reason I said that, is because one, I've always been kind of skeptical of 'the leader is everything' answer. The world is too complex to be explained that way. And it might make us feel good to think that there is one overall answer, which is, "It's just the leader." But, I don't trust that the world is that simple at all.
Second, I think it covers up our ability to see other factors. If we just always go in a circle and we say, "It's a great leader" then if it was successful, we find a great leader, we're just going to go around in circles.
So I said to the research team "I'm skeptical of this whole leader thing, we're not going to look at the leaders."
The research team came back... we have a very data driven kind of team. I don't get to win the arguments unless the data is on my side. If the data's on the research team's side, the team wins the argument.
And the research team came to me and said, "We think that you're really missing something very important. Because when we look at Coleman Mockler of Gillette and we look at Darwin Smith of Kimberly Clark, or Bill Allen of Boeing. We look at these people that we been studying. These leaders played a critical role in the companies becoming great, and you can't take them out of the equation."
So, I said back to the team, "Yes, but didn't the comparison companies also have leaders?" So, they both had leaders, so they're just going to disappear out of the equation.
And this is when the research team came back and said, "No, there's something different about these leaders. They are cut from a different cloth."
And this is what really led to the level 5 idea.
The point was that, yes the good companies and the great companies both had leaders, but those good to great companies had, what we call, the level 5's.
So if you think of it as layering, you're sort of a level one capability, level two, level three, level four, and level 5. Level one's about your individual skills, level two's about your team skills, level three's about your managerial skills, level four's about leadership. So to be at level four, you're a good leader, you're a good manager, you're a good team person, you're good at individual skills. These folks, and that's what the comparison company had, the ones that didn't become great.
Then there's this extra level, and that's what these levels, we called them level 5's, because they were just a cut up. So they had all the other stuff, but what they had was this very interesting blend of, we called it, humility and wealth.
But in a sense, that doesn't really capture all of it, because what it really is an absolute, almost compulsive, intense, off the chart, level of ambition -- but it's not for themselves.
And that's really the special thing, they want to build a great company, they want to drive down Moore's Law and transform society. They want to build theme parks that will affect millions of kids, and they want to do stuff that is much, much bigger than them.
And yes, if you looked at them, you would say, these are really ambitious people. But, the ambition is outward, the ambitious is out towards doing things, getting things done, building great companies, leaving a footprint, it's not about them.
And because they're so ambitious for something that is not them, that is bigger than them, is beyond them, they have this voracity that allows them to be able to make the most difficult decisions, often very painful decisions.
Shutting things down, selling off chunks of the business, having to move people around, whatever it happens to be. But, because it's not about them, that's where the will comes from, it is bigger than them.
And that's what the level 5 is all about, it comes down to one simple question: "What are you in it for?" |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：我们在过去20年里所做的工作，基本上都要追溯到我与杰里•波拉斯（Jerry Porras）合写《基业长青》的日子。我在《从优秀到卓越》（Good to Great）、《巨人如何倒下》（How the Mighty Fall）以及现阶段进行的工作中所用到的研究方法，都是在那段时间学到的。我们一直关注那些持续保持卓越状态的企业，将他们与其他处境相同的公司进行对比。他们处于同样的行业中，有着同样的机会、同样的资源，按理说后者也可以成为持续保持卓越状态的企业，但是他们没能做到。所以我们总是在问：这些公司之间的区别是什么？
在《从优秀到卓越》的研究中，我们会问：那些从优秀迈向卓越的企业和那些没能完成转变的企业差别究竟在哪里？他们所处的环境几乎完全相同。
一个关键的问题是，我们总是盯着人们在历史上犯下的各种错误。我们总是回顾历史，与其说我们是在观察那些企业，倒不如说我们就像是在观察一个伟大竞技体育王朝的兴衰。在一个特定的历史时段里，比如说在N年间，某企业就像是一个如日中天的体育王朝，它为什么会如此成功？它与其他企业有何不同？
这家企业今天可能仍然处于鼎盛时期，也可能辉煌不再，但在某一段时间，它的确曾经辉煌过，我们就是要研究这段时间。所以当我们进行研究时，我们着重观察那些“从优秀到卓越”的公司在崛起阶段的表现，并和其他公司进行比较。
我们刚开始这项研究的时候，我对研究团队说：“我们的研究范围不包括领导力。”为什么？首先，我一向对“领导就是一切”的观点持怀疑态度。这个世界太复杂了，不能这么简单地解释。如果引入领导力这一因素，很容易使我们将一切都归结到它身上，也就是认为一切都是由于领导力的作用。但我根本不相信这个世界有那么简单。
其次，我认为它会影响我们观察其它的潜在因素。否则，我们的研究会原地打转：如果一家企业成功了，我们就说：“这家企业的领导很伟大。”然后，我们就会把成功归功于领导的英明，于是我们就一直原地打转。
所以我对研究团队说：“我对领导力这套理论持怀疑态度，我们不会把它纳入研究范围。”
在提到我们研究团队对此的回复意见之前，先要说明他们都是以数据为基础工作的。如果产生了争论，除非数据证明我是对的，否则他们不会信服我。反之亦然，如果数据证明研究团队是对的，他们就会赢得争论。
我们的研究团队对我说：“你漏掉了一些非常重要的因素。因为当研究吉列公司（Gillette）的柯尔曼•莫克勒（Coleman Mockler）、金佰利公司（Kimberly Clark）的达尔文•史密斯（Darwin Smith）和波音公司（Boeing）的比尔•艾伦（Bill Allen）时，我们发现这些领导者都在企业走向卓越的过程中扮演了至关重要的角色，你不能把他们的作用排除在外。”
我回答道：“是的，但是作为对比的其他公司不是也有领导者吗？”这两类公司都有领袖人物，所以我们要把领导力的因素排除在外。
后来研究团队又找到我，对我说：“不，这两类领导者之间有区别，他们不能相提并论。”
正是这种争论引出了第五级领导（Level 5 Leadership）这一概念。
的确，优秀的公司和卓越的公司都有各自的领导者，但那些从优秀走向卓越的公司却拥有“第五级领导者”。
如果将领导力分级，可以划分为五个层次。第一级是个人技能，第二级是团队技能，第三级是管理技能，第四级则是领导能力。所以第四级的领导者是优秀的领导者，优秀的管理者，优秀的团队成员，而且拥有优秀的个人技能。这部分人，就是那些尚未走向卓越的企业的领导者。
除此之外还有另外一个级别，我们将它们统称为第五级领导力，因为它在第四级上更进了一步。这些卓越的领导者不但拥有刚才提到的四种素质，还拥有一种非常有趣的结合，即我们所说的“谦逊而执著，腼腆而无畏”。
不过从某种意义上来说，这并不能完全概括卓越领导者的所有特质，因为那种特质实际上是一种绝对意义上的、几乎带有强迫性的、强烈得无法估量的雄心壮志，但是这些雄心并不是为了他们自己。
这就是他们的特别之处。他们想要建立卓越的公司，打破摩尔定律，他们想要改变社会。他们想要创建能够吸引成千上万儿童的主题公园。他们还想做许多超越自身的伟大的事。
的确，看到他们，你会说，这些人真是雄心勃勃。然而这些雄心壮志都是外在的：执行、完成计划、建立卓越的公司、并留下不可磨灭的足迹……这些都不是为了他们自己。
正因为他们对于一些超越自身的更伟大的追求充满了雄心壮志，这种对于成功的渴望，才能驱使他们做出最艰难的决定，甚至是十分痛苦的决定。
比如将一些业务关停、卖掉，不得不裁掉身边的人，或是做出其它任何不得已的决定。正因为他们奋斗的目标不是为了自己，而是为了更有意义的事，这一切才成了他们意志的源泉。
这就是第五级领导力，归根结底，它是一个简单的问题：你奋斗的目标是什么？ |
