Linda Hill: How to manage for collective creativity

Translator: Cristiano Eriksen Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

I have a confession to make.

Jeg har en tilståelse.

I'm a business professor

Jeg er en business professor,

whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead.

hvis ambition altid har været, at hjælpe folk med at lede.

But recently, I've discovered

Men for nylig opdagede jeg,

that what many of us think of as great leadership

at hvad mange af os opfatter som god ledelse

does not work when it comes to leading innovation.

ikke virker, når det kommer til at lede innovation

I'm an ethnographer.

Jeg er en etnograf.

I use the methods of anthropology

Jeg bruger antropologiens metode

to understand the questions in which I'm interested.

til at forstå de spørgsmål, som jeg er interesseret i.

So along with three co-conspirators,

Så sammen med tre medsammensvorne,

I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal

brugte jeg næsten et årti på at observere, på tæt hold og personligt,

exceptional leaders of innovation.

enestående ledere af innovation.

We studied 16 men and women,

Vi studerede 16 mænd og kvinder,

located in seven countries across the globe,

placeret i syv lande fordelt over kloden,

working in 12 different industries.

arbejdende i 12 forskellige industrier.

In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground,

I alt brugte vi hundredvis af timer på jorden,

on-site, watching these leaders in action.

on-site, kiggende på disse ledere i aktion.

We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes

Vi endte med sider og sider og sider af felt noter,

that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did.

som vi analyserede for mønstre i, hvad vores ledere gjorde.

The bottom line?

Slutresultatet?

If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,

Hvis vi vil opbygge organisationer, som kan innovere igen og igen,

we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.

så må vi glemme vores konventionelle opfattelser af ledelse.

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision,

At lede innovation er ikke om at skabe en vision,

and inspiring others to execute it.

og inspirere andre til at udføre den.

But what do we mean by innovation?

Men hvad mener vi med innovation?

An innovation is anything that is both new and useful.

En innovation er alt, som er både nyt og brugbart.

It can be a product or service.

Det kan være et produkt eller en service.

It can be a process or a way of organizing.

Det kan være en process eller en måde at organisere.

It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough.

Det kan være gradvist, eller det kan være et gennembrud.

We have a pretty inclusive definition.

Vi har en rimelig inklusiv definition.

How many of you recognize this man?

Hvor mange af jer genkender denne mand?

Put your hands up.

Op med hænderne.

Keep your hands up, if you know who this is.

Behold jeres hænder oppe hvis I ved, hvem det er.

How about these familiar faces?

Hvad med disse bekendte ansigter?

(Laughter)

(Latter)

From your show of hands,

Fra antallet af hænder

it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie,

ser det ud til, at mange af jer har set en Pixar film,

but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,

men meget få af jer genkendte Ed Camull,

the founder and CEO of Pixar --

skaberen og CEO af Pixar --

one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.

en af de virksomheder, som jeg havde privilegiet af at studere.

My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,

Mit første besøg til Pixar var i 2005,

when they were working on "Ratatouille,"

da de arbejdede på "Ratatouille",

that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef.

den provokerende film om en rotte, som bliver en mester kok.

Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today,

Computer-genererede film er virkelig mainstream i dag,

but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years

men det tog Ed og hans kolleger næsten 20 år

to create the first full-length C.G. movie.

at skabe den første fuld længde C.G. film.

In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies.

I de efterfølgende 20 år, har de produceret 14 film.

I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you

Jeg var for nylig ved Pixar, og jeg er her for at fortælle jer,

that number 15 is sure to be a winner.

at nummer 15 er en sikker vinder.

When many of us think about innovation, though,

Når mange af os tænker på innovation,

we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment.

tænker vi ofte på en Einstein, som har et "Aha!" øjeblik.

But we all know that's a myth.

Men vi ved alle, at det er en myte.

Innovation is not about solo genius,

Innovation er ikke om solo genialitet,

it's about collective genius.

det er om kollektivt genialitet.

Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie:

Lad os for et øjeblik overveje, hvad det tager at lave en Pixar film:

No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies.

Intet solo geni, intet glimt af inspiration producerer en af disse film.

On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years,

Tvært i mod. Det tager omkring 250 mennesker fire til fem år

to make one of those movies.

at lave en af disse film.

To help us understand the process,

For at hjælpe os med at forstå processen,

an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture.

tegnede et individ i studiet en version af dette billede.

He did so reluctantly,

Han gjorde det modstræbende,

because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps

fordi det antyder, at processen er en pæn serie af skridt

done by discrete groups.

taget af diskrete grupper.

Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you

Selv med alle de pile, mente han, at det fejlede i at fortælle jer,

just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.

hvor iterativt, nært forbundet, og rent ud sagt rodet deres process var.

Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves.

Hele vejen igennem skabelsen af en film hos Pixar, udvikler historien sig.

So think about it.

Så tænk over det.

Some shots go through quickly.

Nogle filmoptagelser er hurtigt overstået.

They don't all go through in order.

De går ikke alle sammen i rækkefølge.

It depends on how vexing the challenges are

Det afhænger af, hvor besværlige udfordringerne er,

that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene.

som de møder, når de arbejder på en specifik scene.

So if you think about that scene in "Up"

Så hvis du tænker på den scene i "Op",

where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird,

hvor drengen giver chokoladestykket til fuglen,

that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.

som varede 10 sekunder, tog en animator næsten 6 måneder at perfektionere.

The other thing about a Pixar movie

Det andet om en Pixar film er,

is that no part of the movie is considered finished

at ingen del af filmen er opfattet som færdig,

until the entire movie wraps.

før at hele filmen er færdig.

Partway through one production, an animator drew a character

Delvist igennem en produktion tegnede en animator en figur

with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side.

med et buet øjenbryn, som antydede en drilagtig side.

When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great.

Da instruktøren så den tegning, syntes han den var god.

It was beautiful, but he said,

Den var smuk, men han sagde,

"You've got to lose it; it doesn't fit the character."

"Du er nød til at droppe det; det passer ikke til figuren."

Two weeks later, the director came back and said,

To uger senere kom instruktøren tilbage og sagde,

"Let's put in those few seconds of film."

"Lad os putte de to sekunder i filmen."

Because that animator was allowed to share

Fordi den animator havde lov til at dele,

what we referred to as his slice of genius,

hvad vi henviste til som hans del af geni,

he was able to help that director reconceive the character

var han i stand til at hjælpe instruktøren med at genfortolke figuren

in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.

på en diskret men vigtig måde, som virkelig forbedrede historien.

What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox.

Hvad vi ved er, at i hjertet af innovation er et paradoks.

You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people

Du er nød til at slippe talenterne og passioner af mange mennesker fri,

and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful.

og du er nød til at kontrollere dem ind i et værk, som faktisk er brugbart.

Innovation is a journey.

Innovation er en rejse.

It's a type of collaborative problem solving,

Det er form for samarbejdende problemløsning,

usually among people who have different expertise

for det meste mellem folk, som har forskellige ekspertiser

and different points of view.

og forskellige synsvinkler.

Innovations rarely get created full-blown.

Innovationer bliver sjældent skabt med det samme.

As many of you know,

Som mange af jer ved,

they're the result, usually, of trial and error.

er de ofte et resultat af at prøve sig frem.

Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes.

Mange mislykkede forsøg, fejlskridt og fejltagelser.

Innovative work can be very exhilarating,

Innovativt arbejde kan være meget oplivende,

but it also can be really downright scary.

men det kan også være decideret skræmmende.

So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does,

Så når ser på, hvorfor det er, Pixar er i stand til at gøre, hvad de gør,

we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?

er vi nød til at spørge os selv, hvad foregår der her?

For sure, history and certainly Hollywood,

Det er sikkert at historien, og helt sikkert Hollywood,

is full of star-studded teams that have failed.

er fuld af stjerne fyldte hold, som har fejlet.

Most of those failures are attributed

De fleste af de fejltagelser er tilskrevet

to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.

for mange stjerne eller for mange kokke, om du vil, i køkkenet.

So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks,

Så hvorfor er det, at Pixar med alle deres kokke

is able to be so successful time and time again?

er i stand til at være så succesfulde igen og igen?

When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai,

Da vi studerede en Islamisk Bank i Dubai,

or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa,

eller et luksus brand i Korea, eller en social virksomhed i Afrika,

we found that innovative organizations

fandt vi ud af, at innovative organisationer

are communities that have three capabilities:

er samfund, som har tre kapaciteter:

creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.

kreativt slid, kreativ adræthed og kreativ beslutsomhed.

Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas

Kreativt slid er om at være i stand til at skabe en markedsplads af ideer

through debate and discourse.

igennem debat og samtaler.

In innovative organizations, they amplify differences,

I innovative organisationer forstærker de forskelligheder,

they don't minimize them.

de minimerer dem ikke.

Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming,

Kreativt slid handler ikke om brainstorming,

where people suspend their judgment.

hvor folk holder deres meninger tilbage.

No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments

Nej. De ved, hvordan man har ophedede, men konstruktive argumenter,

to create a portfolio of alternatives.

for at skabe en portefølje af alternativer.

Individuals in innovative organizations

Individer i innovative organisationer

learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what?

lærer, hvordan man forespørger, de lærer, hvordan man aktivt lytter men gæt engang.

They also learn how to advocate for their point of view.

De lærer også, hvordan man forsvarer sin egen holdning.

They understand that innovation rarely happens

De forstår, at innovation sjældent finder sted,

unless you have both diversity and conflict.

medmindre du har både diversitet og konflikt.

Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas

Kreativ adræthed er om at være i stand til at teste og danne porteføljen af ideer

through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment.

igennem hurtig udførelse, refleksion og tilpasning.

It's about discovery-driven learning

Det er om opdagelsesbaseret læring,

where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future.

hvor du handler, i modsætning til planlægger, din vej ind i fremtiden.

It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination

Det er om design tænkning, hvor du har en interessant kombination

of the scientific method and the artistic process.

af den videnskabelig metode og kunstneriske proces.

It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.

Det er om at køre rækker af eksperimenter og ikke en række af forsøgsprojekter.

Experiments are usually about learning.

Eksperimenter er som regel om læring.

When you get a negative outcome,

Når du får et negativt udfald,

you're still really learning something that you need to know.

lærer du stadig noget, som du har brug for at vide.

Pilots are often about being right.

Forsøgsprojekter handler ofte om at have ret.

When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.

Når de ikke fungerer, så er nogen eller noget at bebrejde.

The final capability is creative resolution.

Den sidste kapacitet er kreativ beslutsomhed.

This is about doing decision making

Dette handler om træffe beslutninger

in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas

på en måde, hvor du kan kombinere selv modstridende ideer,

to reconfigure them in new combinations

for at omdanne dem i nye kombinationer,

to produce a solution that is new and useful.

for at producere en løsning, som er ny og brugbar.

When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along.

Når du ser på innovative organisationer, taler de aldrig hinanden efter munden.

They don't compromise.

De går ikke på kompromis.

They don't let one group or one individual dominate,

De lader ikke en gruppe eller et individ dominere,

even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert.

ikke engang hvis det er chefen, ikke engang hvis det er eksperten.

Instead, they have developed

I stedet for har de udviklet

a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process

en relativ tålmodig og mere inklusiv beslutningsproces,

that allows for both/and solutions to arise

som tillader både/og løsninger at opstå,

and not simply either/or solutions.

og ikke simple enten/eller løsninger.

These three capabilities are why we see

Disse tre kapaciteter er, hvorfor vi ser,

that Pixar is able to do what it does.

at Pixar er i stand til at gøre, hvad de gør.

Let me give you another example,

Lad mig give jer et andet eksempel,

and that example is the infrastructure group of Google.

og det eksempel er Google's infrastruktur gruppe.

The infrastructure group of Google is the group

Google's infrastruktur gruppe er gruppen,

that has to keep the website up and running 24/7.

som skal holde siden kørende 24/7.

So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube,

Så da Google var ved at introducere Gmail og YouTube,

they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate.

vidste de, at deres dataopbevarings system ikke var tilstrækkelig.

The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time

Lederen af ingeniør gruppen og infrastruktur gruppen på det tidspunkt,

was a man named Bill Coughran.

var en man ved navn Bill Coughran.

Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust,

Bill og hans ledelseshold, som han refererede til som hans hjernetrust,

had to figure out what to do about this situation.

var nød til at finde ud af, hvordan situationen skulle håndteres.

They thought about it for a while.

De tænkte over det.

Instead of creating a group to tackle this task,

I stedet for at skabe en gruppe til at takle denne opgave,

they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously

besluttede de at lade grupper opstå spontant

around different alternatives.

om forskellige alternativer.

Two groups coalesced.

To grupper smeltede sammen.

One became known as Big Table,

En blev kendt som "Big Table",

the other became known as Build It From Scratch.

den anden blev kendt som "Build it From Scratch".

Big Table proposed that they build on the current system.

Big Table foreslog, at de byggede videre på det nuværende system.

Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.

Build it From Scratch foreslog, at det var på tide med et helt nyt system.

Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time

Separat var disse to hold tilladt at arbejde fuldtid

on their particular approach.

på deres specifikke vinkel.

In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as,

I ingeniør tidsskrifter beskrev Bill sin rolle

"Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."

som "At indsprøjte ærlighed i processen ved at fremme debat."

Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could

Tidligt i forløbet var holdene opfordret til at bygge prototyper, så de kunne,

"bump them up against reality and discover for themselves

"holde dem op imod virkeligheden og selv opdage

the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach."

styrkerne og svaghederne i deres respektive vinkel."

When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group

Da Build it From Scratch delte deres prototype med gruppen,

whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night

hvis personsøger ville ringe i midten af natten,

if something went wrong with the website,

hvis noget gik galt med hjemmesiden,

they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design.

hørte de højt og klart om begrænsningerne af deres design.

As the need for a solution became more urgent

Som behovet for en løsning blev mere påtrængende,

and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in,

og som dataene, eller beviset begyndte at komme ind,

it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution

blev det rimelig klart, at Big Table løsningen

was the right one for the moment.

var den rette for øjeblikket.

So they selected that one.

Så de valgte den.

But to make sure that they did not lose the learning

Men for at være sikker på, at de ikke mistede erfaringen

of the Build it From Scratch team,

fra Build it From Scratch holdet,

Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging

bad Bill to medlemmer af det hold om at tilslutte sig et nyt hold,

to work on the next-generation system.

som opstod for at arbejde på det næste generations system.

This whole process took nearly two years,

Hele denne proces tog næsten to år,

but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.

men jeg blev fortalt, at de alle arbejde i halsbrækkende hastighed.

Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said,

Tidligt i processen, havde en af ingeniørerne henvendt sig til Bill og sagt,

"We're all too busy for this inefficient system

"Vi har alle for travlt til dette ineffektive system

of running parallel experiments."

med at køre parallelle eksperimenter."

But as the process unfolded, he began to understand

Men som processen udfoldede sig, begyndte han at forstå

the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions.

klogskaben i at tillade talentfulde folk at udfolde deres passioner.

He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team,

Han indrømmede, "Hvis du havde tvunget os til alle at være på et hold,

we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning,

havde vi måske været nødsaget til at bevise hvem, som har ret og vinder,

and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."

og ikke på at lære og opdage, hvad der var det bedste svar for Google."

Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again?

Hvorfor er det at Pixar og Google er i stand til at innovere igen og igen?

It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that.

Det er fordi, at de har mestret kapaciteten, der er nødvendig for det.

They know how to do collaborative problem solving,

De ved, hvordan man laver kooperativ problemløsning,

they know how to do discovery-driven learning

de ved, hvordan man laver opdagelse dreven læring,

and they know how to do integrated decision making.

og de ved, hvordan man foretager en integreret beslutningsproces.

Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now,

Nogle af jer sidder måske der og tænker for jer selv lige nu,

"We don't know how to do those things in my organization.

"Vi ved ikke, hvordan man gør de ting i min organisation.

So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar,

Så hvorfor ved de, hvordan man gør de ting hos Pixar,

and why do they know how to do those things at Google?"

og hvorfor ved de, hvordan man gør det hos Google?"

When many of the people that worked for Bill told us,

Når mange af de folk, som arbejdede for Bill fortalte os,

in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,

at i deres mening, var Bill en af de bedste ledere i Silicon Valley,

we completely agreed; the man is a genius.

var vi fuldstændig enige; manden er et geni.

Leadership is the secret sauce.

Ledelse er den hemmelige opskrift.

But it's a different kind of leadership,

Men det er en anderledes form for ledelse,

not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership.

ikke den form som mange af os tænker på, når vi tænker på god ledelse.

One of the leaders I met with early on said to me,

En af de ledere jeg mødtes med i begyndelsen sagde til mig,

"Linda, I don't read books on leadership.

"Linda, jeg læser ikke bøger om ledelse.

All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter)

Alt de formår, er at gøre mig deprimeret." (Latter)

"In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision.

"I det første kapitel siger de, at jeg skal skabe en vision.

But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers.

Men hvis jeg prøver at gøre noget, som virkelig er nyt, har jeg ingen svar.

I don't know what direction we're going in

Jeg ved ikke, hvilken retning vi går i mod,

and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there."

og jeg ikke engang sikker på, at jeg ved, hvordan vi kommer derhen."

For sure, there are times when visionary leadership

Der er helt sikkert tider, hvor visionær ledelse

is exactly what is needed.

er præcist, hvad som er nødvendigt.

But if we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,

Men hvis vi vil bygge organisationer, som kan innovere igen og igen,

we must recast our understanding of what leadership is about.

må vi omstøbe vores forståelse af hvad ledelse handler om.

Leading innovation is about creating the space

At lede innovation handler om at skabe rummet,

where people are willing and able to do the hard work

hvor folk er villige og i stand til at tage det hårde arbejde

of innovative problem solving.

med innovativ problemløsning.

At this point, some of you may be wondering,

På dette tidspunkt er der sikkert nogle af jer, som undrer jer over,

"What does that leadership really look like?"

"Hvordan ser ledelse virkelig ud?"

At Pixar, they understand that innovation takes a village.

Hos Pixar forstår de, at innovation tager en landsby.

The leaders focus on building a sense of community

Lederne fokuserer på at bygge en form for fællesskab

and building those three capabilities.

og at bygge de tre kapaciteter.

How do they define leadership?

Hvordan definerer de ledelse?

They say leadership is about creating a world

De siger, at ledelse er om at skabe en verden,

to which people want to belong.

som folk vil være en del af.

What kind of world do people want to belong in at Pixar?

Hvilken form for verden vil folk tilhøre hos Pixar?

A world where you're living at the frontier.

En verden hvor du lever på grænsen.

What do they focus their time on?

Hvad fokuserer de deres tid på?

Not on creating a vision.

Ikke at skabe en vision.

Instead they spend their time thinking about,

I stedet bruger de deres tid på at tænke på,

"How do we design a studio that has the sensibility of a public square

"Hvordan skaber vi et studie, som har følsomheden af et offentlig torv,

so that people will interact?

så folk vil interagere.

Let's put in a policy that anyone, no matter what their level or role,

Lad os implementere en politik, hvor alle uanset deres niveau eller rolle er

is allowed to give notes to the director

tilladt at give noter til instruktøren,

about how they feel about a particular film.

om hvordan de føler om en bestemt film.

What can we do to make sure

Hvad kan vi gøre for at være sikker på,

that all the disruptors, all the minority voices in this organization,

at alle de forstyrrende folk, alle stemmerne af minoriteten i organisationen,

speak up and are heard?

taler op og er hørt.

And, finally, let's bestow credit in a very generous way."

Og til slut, lad os uddele anerkendelse på en meget generøs måde."

I don't know if you've ever looked at the credits of a Pixar movie,

Jeg ved ikke, om I nogensinde har set rulletekster på en Pixar film,

but the babies born during a production are listed there.

men babyer, som er født under en produktion er listet der.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

How did Bill think about what his role was?

Hvordan tænkte Bill over, hvad hans rolle var?

Bill said, "I lead a volunteer organization.

Bill sagde, "Jeg leder en frivillig organisation..

Talented people don't want to follow me anywhere.

Talentfulde folk vil ikke følge mig hvor som helst hen.

They want to cocreate with me the future.

De vil sammen med mig skabe fremtiden.

My job is to nurture the bottom-up

Mit job er at opfostre fra bunden op

and not let it degenerate into chaos."

og ikke lade det degenerere til kaos."

How did he see his role?

Hvordan så han sin rolle?

"I'm a role model, I'm a human glue,

"Jeg er en rollemodel, jeg er menneskelig lim,

I'm a connector, I'm an aggregator of viewpoints.

Jeg er en forbinder, jeg er en samler af synspunkter.

I'm never a dictator of viewpoints."

Jeg er aldrig en diktator af synspunkter."

Advice about how you exercise the role?

Råd om hvordan du udfører rollen?

Hire people who argue with you.

Hyr folk som diskuterer med dig.

And, guess what?

Og gæt engang?

Sometimes it's best to be deliberately fuzzy and vague.

Nogle gange er det bedst at være bevidst uklar og vag.

Some of you may be wondering now,

Nogle af jer undrer jer måske nu om,

what are these people thinking?

hvad tænker disse folk på?

They're thinking,

De tænker,

"I'm not the visionary, I'm the social architect.

"Jeg er ikke en visionær, jeg er den sociale arkitekt.

I'm creating the space where people are willing and able

Jeg skaber rummet, hvor folk er i stand og villige til,

to share and combine their talents and passions."

at dele og kombinere deres talenter og passioner."

If some of you are worrying now that you don't work at a Pixar,

Hvis nogle af jer nu er bekymrede over, at I ikke arbejder hos Pixar,

or you don't work at a Google,

eller I ikke arbejder hos Google,

I want to tell you there's still hope.

vil jeg sige til jer, at der er stadig håb.

We've studied many organizations

Vi har studeret mange organisationer,

that were really not organizations you'd think of

som ikke rigtig er organisationer man tænker på,

as ones where a lot of innovation happens.

som nogle hvor der er meget innovation.

We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company

Vi studerede en juridisk afdeling i en farmaceutisk virksomhed,

who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers,

som var nød til at finde ud af, hvordan de fik advokater

19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate.

fra 19 konkurrenter til at samarbejde og innovere.

We studied the head of marketing at a German automaker

Vi studerede lederen af marketing hos en tysk bilproducent,

where, fundamentally, they believed that it was the design engineers,

hvor de fundamentalt troede, at det var designingeniørerne,

not the marketeers, who were allowed to be innovative.

ikke markedsførerne, som var tilladt at være innovative.

We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies,

Vi studerede Vineet Nayar hos HCL Technologies,

an Indian outsourcing company.

en indisk outsourcing virksomhed.

When we met Vineet,

Da vi mødte Vineet,

his company was about, in his words, to become irrelevant.

var hans virksomhed, i hans ord, ved at blive irrelevant.

We watched as he turned that company into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation.

Vi så ham forvandle den virksomhed til en global dynamo af IT innovation.

At HCL technologies, like at many companies,

Hos HCL technologies, ligesom hos mange virksomheder,

the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction

havde lederne lært at se deres rolle som at sætte en retning

and making sure that no one deviated from it.

og være sikker på, at ingen afveg fra den.

What he did is tell them it was time for them

Hvad han gjorde var at fortælle dem, at det var tid for dem

to think about rethinking what they were supposed to do.

til at genoverveje, hvad de egentlig burde gøre.

Because what was happening is that everybody was looking up

For hvad der skete var, at alle så opad,

and you weren't seeing the kind of bottom-up innovation

og man så ikke den form for innovation nedefra,

we saw at Pixar or Google.

som vi så hos Pixar eller Google.

So they began to work on that.

Så de begyndte at arbejde på det.

They stopped giving answers, they stopped trying to provide solutions.

De stoppede med at give svar, de stoppede med at prøve at give løsninger.

Instead, what they did is they began to see

Hvad de gjorde i stedet for var, at de begyndte at se på

the people at the bottom of the pyramid, the young sparks,

folkene i bunden af pyramiden, de unge,

the people who were closest to the customers,

folkene som var tættest på kunderne,

as the source of innovation.

som kilden til innovation.

They began to transfer the organization's growth

De begyndte at overføre organisationens vækst

to that level.

til det niveau.

In Vineet's language, this was about inverting the pyramid

I Vineets sprog, var dette om at vende pyramiden på hovedet,

so that you could unleash the power of the many

så du kunne slippe kræften af de mange fri

by loosening the stranglehold of the few,

ved at løsne kvælertaget på de få,

and increase the quality and the speed of innovation

og øge kvaliteten og hastigheden på innovation

that was happening every day.

som fandt sted hver dag.

For sure, Vineet and all the other leaders that we studied

Vineet og alle de andre ledere vi studerede

were in fact visionaries.

var faktisk visionære.

For sure, they understood that that was not their role.

De forstod, at dette ikke var deres rolle.

So I don't think it is accidental that many of you did not recognize Ed.

Så jeg tror ikke, at det er tilfældigt, at mange af jer ikke genkendte Ed.

Because Ed, like Vineet, understands that our role as leaders

Fordi Ed, ligesom Vineet, forstår at vores rolle som ledere

is to set the stage, not perform on it.

er at sætte scenen, ikke at optræde på den.

If we want to invent a better future,

Hvis vi vil opfinde en bedre fremtid,

and I suspect that's why many of us are here,

og jeg formoder, at det er derfor, at mange af os er her,

then we need to reimagine our task.

så er vi nød til at nyfortolke vores opgave.

Our task is to create the space

Vores opgave er at skabe det rum,

where everybody's slices of genius

hvor alles genistreger

can be unleashed and harnessed,

kan blive sluppet fri og udnyttet

and turned into works of collective genius.

og blive formet til værker af kollektiv genialitet.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)