-
一位名叫William Swenson的美軍上尉最近獲頒國會榮譽勳章,表揚他2009年9月8日的英勇行為。
那天,一個美軍縱隊和阿富汗軍隊正通過阿富汗某個區域,協助保護一組政府官員及阿富汗政府官員,他們正與當地村落的長老會面。縱隊遭遇伏擊,被敵軍三面包圍。除此之外,有人看見Swenson上尉在槍林彈雨中搶救傷員,並拖回陣亡者屍體。他拯救的其中一位戰友是個中士,他與一位同袍被送上醫療後送直升機。
這天最令人印象深刻的是,純粹巧合地,其中一位隨機軍醫碰巧將一台GoPro攝影機裝在頭盔上,拍攝到整個現場。影片顯示,Swenson上尉和他的同袍帶回一位頸部中槍的傷兵,他們把他送上直升機,然後Swenson上尉彎下腰,給了他一個吻,然後轉身拯救更多戰友。
目睹這一幕,我心想,像這樣的人從何而來?那是怎麼回事?那是基於某種深刻的情感,你才會想這麼做,其中蘊含著滿滿的愛。我想知道,為何與我共事的人不像這樣?你知道,在軍隊中,他們將勳章頒給願意犧牲自我、使他人受益的人;在商界,我們把獎金頒給願意犧牲他人、使公司受益的員工。我們的做法完全相反,對嗎?因此我自問,像這樣的人從何而來?我的初步結論是,他們只是更好的人,這就是軍隊吸引他們的原因,這些較好的人被服務的概念所吸引。但那是完全錯誤的想法。據我所知,這與環境有關。如果身處正確的環境,我們每個人都有能力做出這些了不起的事。更重要的是,其他人也會擁有這個能力。我十分榮幸能與其中一些我們稱之為英雄的人見面,他們曾經將自己的生命置於風險中,以拯救他人。我問他們:「你為何願意這麼做?你為何這麼做?」他們全都給我同樣的回答:「因為他們也會為我這麼做。」這是深刻的信任與合作意識,因此信任與合作是相當重要的因素。關於信任與合作這個概念的問題是,它們是感覺,而非指示。我不可能只是對你說,「相信我。」你就相信我。不可能只是指示兩個人合作,他們就合作。這並非其中的運作方式,這是一種感覺。
展開英文
收合英文
-
以下為系統擷取之英文原文
There's a man by the name of Captain William Swenson who recently was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on September 8, 2009.
On that day, a column of American and Afghan troops were making their way through a part of Afghanistan to help protect a group of government officials, a group of Afghan government officials, who would be meeting with some local village elders. The column came under ambush, and was surrounded on three sides, and amongst many other things, Captain Swenson was recognized for running into live fire to rescue the wounded and pull out the dead. One of the people he rescued was a sergeant, and he and a comrade were making their way to a medevac helicopter.
And what was remarkable about this day is, by sheer coincidence, one of the medevac medics happened to have a GoPro camera on his helmet and captured the whole scene on camera. It shows Captain Swenson and his comrade bringing this wounded soldier who had received a gunshot to the neck. They put him in the helicopter, and then you see Captain Swenson bend over and give him a kiss before he turns around to rescue more.
I saw this, and I thought to myself, where do people like that come from? What is that? That is some deep, deep emotion, when you would want to do that. There's a love there, and I wanted to know why is it that I don't have people that I work with like that? You know, in the military, they give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to people who are willing to sacrifice others so that we may gain. We have it backwards. Right? So I asked myself, where do people like this come from? And my initial conclusion was that they're just better people. That's why they're attracted to the military. These better people are attracted to this concept of service. But that's completely wrong. What I learned was that it's the environment, and if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too. I've had the great honor of getting to meet some of these, who we would call heroes, who have put themselves and put their lives at risk to save others, and I asked them, "Why would you do it? Why did you do it?" And they all say the same thing: "Because they would have done it for me." It's this deep sense of trust and cooperation. So trust and cooperation are really important here. The problem with concepts of trust and cooperation is that they are feelings, they are not instructions. I can't simply say to you, "Trust me," and you will. I can't simply instruct two people to cooperate, and they will. It's not how it works. It's a feeling.
-
那麼,這種感覺從何而來?如果你回到五萬年前舊石器時代,回到人類歷史的初期,我們發現這個世界充滿危險,所有這些力量躍躍欲試地想幹掉我們;沒有針對任何人的意思。無論是天氣、缺乏資源,也許是一隻劍齒虎。這些外力可能減少我們的壽命,因此我們演化成群居動物。我們一起居住、一起工作,在我所謂的安全圈內,在部落當中,我們感到這是我們的歸屬。當我們在這個環境中感到安全,自然反應是產生信任與合作。這還有其固有的好處,意味著我可在晚上安心睡覺,信任部落中的同伴會注意危險情況。如果我們不信任彼此,如果我不信任你,意味著你不會注意危險情況,這對生存其中的人來說是糟糕的系統。
如今的情形完全相同。這個世界充滿危險,使我們對生活感到灰心,或降低我們的成功率,減少我們成功的機會。或許是起伏不定的經濟、股市的不確定性;或許是一項新科技,使你的商業模式一夜之間變得過時;或許是競爭對手,有時試圖毀掉你,有時試圖使你倒閉,至少會竭力阻撓你的成長,搶走你的業務。我們無法控制這些力量,這些是不變的事物,它們不會消失無蹤。
唯一的變數是組織內部的情況,這正是領導能力至關重要的地方。因為訂立基調的是領導者,當一位領導者作出選擇,將組織內部成員的安全與生命放在第一位,犧牲自身的舒適和一些有形的結果,使大家擁有安全感和歸屬感,意想不到的事就會發生。
我坐飛機旅行的途中曾目睹一件事。某位乘客在號碼還沒被叫到時就企圖登機,我看見登機口的工作人員對待這名男子的態度就像他犯了法,就像犯人一樣。他叫喊著說他想趕上某個提早登機的團體,於是我說了一些話,我說,「為何你把我們像牲畜般看待?為何不能用對待人類的方式對待我們?」以下是她對我所說的話。她說,「先生,如果我不遵守規則,就會惹上麻煩或失去工作。」在我看來,她所表達的是:她缺乏安全感。她所表達的是:她不信任她的領導者。我們喜歡乘坐西南航空的原因,並非因為他們必定聘請較好的職員,而是因為他們不會懼怕他們的領導者。
展開英文
收合英文
-
So where does that feeling come from? If you go back 50,000 years to the Paleolithic era, to the early days of Homo sapiens, what we find is that the world was filled with danger, all of these forces working very, very hard to kill us. Nothing personal. Whether it was the weather, lack of resources, maybe a saber-toothed tiger, all of these things working to reduce our lifespan. And so we evolved into social animals, where we lived together and worked together in what I call a circle of safety, inside the tribe, where we felt like we belonged. And when we felt safe amongst our own, the natural reaction was trust and cooperation. There are inherent benefits to this. It means I can fall asleep at night and trust that someone from within my tribe will watch for danger. If we don't trust each other, if I don't trust you, that means you won't watch for danger. Bad system of survival.
The modern day is exactly the same thing. The world is filled with danger, things that are trying to frustrate our lives or reduce our success, reduce our opportunity for success. It could be the ups and downs in the economy, the uncertainty of the stock market. It could be a new technology that renders your business model obsolete overnight. Or it could be your competition that is sometimes trying to kill you. It's sometimes trying to put you out of business, but at the very minimum is working hard to frustrate your growth and steal your business from you. We have no control over these forces. These are a constant, and they're not going away.
The only variable are the conditions inside the organization, and that's where leadership matters, because it's the leader that sets the tone. When a leader makes the choice to put the safety and lives of the people inside the organization first, to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice the tangible results, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong, remarkable things happen.
I was flying on a trip, and I was witness to an incident where a passenger attempted to board before their number was called, and I watched the gate agent treat this man like he had broken the law, like a criminal. He was yelled at for attempting to board one group too soon. So I said something. I said, "Why do you have treat us like cattle? Why can't you treat us like human beings?" And this is exactly what she said to me. She said, "Sir, if I don't follow the rules, I could get in trouble or lose my job." All she was telling me is that she doesn't feel safe. All she was telling me is that she doesn't trust her leaders. The reason we like flying Southwest Airlines is not because they necessarily hire better people. It's because they don't fear their leaders.
-
你知道,如果環境出了問題,我們就會被迫消耗時間和精力來保護自己,這在本質上弱化了組織。當我們在組織裡感到安全,自然就會結合我們的才華與能力,不辭辛勞地面對外界危機、把握機會。
我能提出最接近的比喻是,偉大的領導者就像為人父母。如果你思考一下偉大父母會怎麼做。你想怎麼做?塑造偉大父母的要素是什麼?我們希望給孩子機會、教育,必要時管教他們,使他們成長茁壯,達成比我們更傑出的成就。偉大領導者的想法完全一致。他們希望提供屬下機會、教育,必要時管教他們,建立他們的自信,提供他們嘗試和失敗的機會,使他們達成比我們本身更傑出的成就。
Charlie Kim是一位執行長,他的公司名叫Next Jump,這是一家位於紐約市的科技公司。他提出一個觀點:如果你的家庭遭遇困難,你會考慮裁掉一個孩子嗎?我們永遠不會這麼做。那為何我們會考慮裁掉公司員工?Charlie實施一項終身僱用政策。如果你在Next Jump謀得一份職位,你不會因表現問題而遭到解僱。事實上,如果你遇到問題,他們會指導你、支持你,就像我們對待自己的孩子一樣,即使他從學校拿了個C回家。這是與一般公司完全相反的做法。
這就是為何對於某些擁有不相稱薪資與獎金結構的銀行執行長,如此多的人內心深處充滿仇恨、憤怒。原因不在於數字,而在於他們違背了領導的定義,他們違反了這份根植於社會的契約。我們知道,他們任由員工的權益被犧牲,使他們能保有自身利益。或更糟的是,他們犧牲員工權益來保護自身利益,這才是令我們惱火之處,而非數字。有人會因為給聖雄甘地1.5億美元獎金而惱火嗎?或是給德蕾莎修女2.5億美元獎金?我們對此有爭議嗎?一點也沒有,完全沒有。偉大的領導者絕不會犧牲屬下以減少支出,他們寧可犧牲利益來幫助屬下。
展開英文
收合英文
-
You see, if the conditions are wrong, we are forced to expend our own time and energy to protect ourselves from each other, and that inherently weakens the organization. When we feel safe inside the organization, we will naturally combine our talents and our strengths and work tirelessly to face the dangers outside and seize the opportunities.
The closest analogy I can give to what a great leader is, is like being a parent. If you think about what being a great parent is, what do you want? What makes a great parent? We want to give our child opportunities, education, discipline them when necessary, all so that they can grow up and achieve more than we could for ourselves. Great leaders want exactly the same thing. They want to provide their people opportunity, education, discipline when necessary, build their self-confidence, give them the opportunity to try and fail, all so that they could achieve more than we could ever imagine for ourselves.
Charlie Kim, who's the CEO of a company called Next Jump in New York City, a tech company, he makes the point that if you had hard times in your family, would you ever consider laying off one of your children? We would never do it. Then why do we consider laying off people inside our organization? Charlie implemented a policy of lifetime employment. If you get a job at Next Jump, you cannot get fired for performance issues. In fact, if you have issues, they will coach you and they will give you support, just like we would with one of our children who happens to come home with a C from school. It's the complete opposite.
This is the reason so many people have such a visceral hatred, anger, at some of these banking CEOs with their disproportionate salaries and bonus structures. It's not the numbers. It's that they have violated the very definition of leadership. They have violated this deep-seated social contract. We know that they allowed their people to be sacrificed so they could protect their own interests, or worse, they sacrificed their people to protect their own interests. This is what so offends us, not the numbers. Would anybody be offended if we gave a $150 million bonus to Gandhi? How about a $250 million bonus to Mother Teresa? Do we have an issue with that? None at all. None at all. Great leaders would never sacrifice the people to save the numbers. They would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save the people.
-
Bob Chapman經營一間位於中西部的大型製造公司,名叫Barry-Wehmiller。2008年遭受經濟不景氣的嚴重打擊,他們一夜之間失去30%訂單。對大型製造公司來說,這是相當嚴重的事,他們再也無法負擔現有的人力資源,他們需要節省一千萬美元的支出。因此,如同現今許多公司,董事會成員聚在一起,討論裁員事宜。但Bob拒絕裁員。你知道,Bob相信的不是人頭,Bob相信的是人心。裁減人心困難多了。因此他們想出一個休假計劃。從秘書到執行長,每位員工都必須休四星期無薪假。他們可在任何時間休假,無須連休。但最重要的是Bob宣布這個計劃時的說法。他說,每個人都分擔一些苦難,勝於任何人獨自擔負大量苦難。這提振了公司的士氣,他們減少了二千萬美元的支出。最重要的是,正如預期,當人們感到安全,感覺受到組織領導者的保護,自然反應就是產生信任與合作。完全自發性地-沒人預料到這種情況-員工開始互相交易。較有能力負擔無薪假損失者與較無法負擔者彼此交易,有些人休假五星期,因此有些人只需休假三星期。
領導是一種選擇,不是一種階級。我知道許多位於組織最高層的決策者絕對稱不上是領導者,他們是掌權者。他們說什麼,我們就得做什麼,因為他們的職權大於我們,但我們不會追隨他們。我知道許多位於組織底層的員工,他們無權無勢,但他們是不折不扣的領導者,因為他們選擇照顧左邊的人,他們選擇照顧右邊的人,這就是領導者風範。
我聽過一個關於海軍陸戰隊的故事。他們上戰場時,根據海軍陸戰隊的習俗,軍官最後用餐。他讓屬下先用餐,當屬下用完餐後,已沒有食物剩下。當他們從戰場返回,他的屬下會將自己的食物分給他,讓他飽餐一頓,因為這就是曾經發生過的情形。我們稱他們為領導者,因為他們身先士卒;我們稱他們為領導者,因為他們搶在其他人之前率先涉險;我們稱他們為領導者,因為他們選擇犧牲,使追隨者感到安全和受保護,或因此得益。當我們這麼做時,所得到的自然反應是,追隨者將會為我們犧牲。他們將為我們奉獻熱血、汗水和淚水,幫助領導者實現願景。當我們問他們,「你為何這麼做?你為何為那個人奉獻熱血、汗水和淚水?」他們都給出相同的答案:「因為他們也會為我這麼做。」大家希望加入的不就是這樣的組織?
十分感謝。(掌聲)
展開英文
收合英文
-
Bob Chapman, who runs a large manufacturing company in the Midwest called Barry-Wehmiller, in 2008 was hit very hard by the recession, and they lost 30 percent of their orders overnight. Now in a large manufacturing company, this is a big deal, and they could no longer afford their labor pool. They needed to save 10 million dollars, so, like so many companies today, the board got together and discussed layoffs. And Bob refused. You see, Bob doesn't believe in head counts. Bob believes in heart counts, and it's much more difficult to simply reduce the heart count. And so they came up with a furlough program. Every employee, from secretary to CEO, was required to take four weeks of unpaid vacation. They could take it any time they wanted, and they did not have to take it consecutively. But it was how Bob announced the program that mattered so much. He said, it's better that we should all suffer a little than any of us should have to suffer a lot, and morale went up. They saved 20 million dollars, and most importantly, as would be expected, when the people feel safe and protected by the leadership in the organization, the natural reaction is to trust and cooperate. And quite spontaneously, nobody expected, people started trading with each other. Those who could afford it more would trade with those who could afford it less. People would take five weeks so that somebody else only had to take three.
Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank. I know many people at the seniormost levels of organizations who are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities, and we do what they say because they have authority over us, but we would not follow them. And I know many people who are at the bottoms of organizations who have no authority and they are absolutely leaders, and this is because they have chosen to look after the person to the left of them, and they have chosen to look after the person to the right of them. This is what a leader is.
I heard a story of some Marines who were out in theater, and as is the Marine custom, the officer ate last, and he let his men eat first, and when they were done, there was no food left for him. And when they went back out in the field, his men brought him some of their food so that he may eat, because that's what happens. We call them leaders because they go first. We call them leaders because they take the risk before anybody else does. We call them leaders because they will choose to sacrifice so that their people may be safe and protected and so their people may gain, and when we do, the natural response is that our people will sacrifice for us. They will give us their blood and sweat and tears to see that their leader's vision comes to life, and when we ask them, "Why would you do that? Why would you give your blood and sweat and tears for that person?" they all say the same thing: "Because they would have done it for me." And isn't that the organization we would all like to work in?
Thank you very much.
Thank you. (Applause)