What are you willing to give up to change the way we work? | Martin Danoesastro

譯者: Val Zhang 審譯者: SF Huang

Have you ever watched a flock of birds work together?

你看過成群飛行的鳥嗎？

Thousands of animals, flying in perfect synchrony:

上千隻的動物， 以完美的協調性成群飛行，

Isn't it fascinating?

這是不是很迷人呢？

What I find remarkable is that these birds would not be able to do that

我覺得值得注意的是：

若這些鳥只能跟著一位領袖， 那牠們便無法如此成群飛行了。

if they all would have to follow one leader.

Their reaction speed would simply be too low.

因為牠們的反應速度會太慢。

Instead, scientists believe that these birds are aligned on

相反地，科學家相信這些鳥

依循著幾個簡單的原則，

a few simple rules,

allowing every single bird to make autonomous decisions

這些原則讓每一隻鳥 都可以自主決策，

while still flying in perfect synchrony.

同時以完美的協調性成群飛行。

Their alignment enables their autonomy,

牠們的共識讓牠們能夠具自主性，

and their autonomy makes them fast and flexible.

而牠們的自主性 讓團隊飛行更快速、靈活。

Now, what does this have to do with any one of us?

那這跟我們有什麼關係呢？

Well, it's one way of illustrating what I believe to be the most important change

這是詮釋我相信現今的工作方式

需做重大改變的一種方法。

that is needed in ways of working today.

The world is getting faster and more complex,

世界變得愈來愈快、越錯綜複雜，

so we need a new way of working,

所以我們需要新的工作方式，

a way that creates alignment around purpose,

以目的為核心達成共識，

that takes out bureaucracy

摒棄繁文縟節，

and that truly empowers people to make decisions faster.

授權人們使其能更快速地做出決策。

But the question is:

但問題是：

In order to get there,

為了達成目標，

what are we willing to give up?

我們願意放棄什麼？

A few years ago, I was working with a bank

幾年前，我與一間銀行合作，

that wanted to embark on a digital transformation.

他們想進行數位化的改革。

They wanted their offering to be simpler, more intuitive, more relevant.

銀行希望提供更簡單、 直覺式和適切的服務。

Now, I'm not sure how many of you have seen a bank from the inside,

我不確定多少人 知道銀行的內部作業，

so let me try to illustrate what many traditional banks look like.

讓我試著形容一下傳統的銀行：

You see lots of people in suits

你看到許多人穿著西裝，

taking elevators to go to their department,

搭著電梯抵達他們的部門，

marketers sitting with marketers, engineers with engineers, etc.

行銷人員坐一起， 工程師們坐一起，依此類推。

You see meetings with 20 people

你看到二十個人的會議，

where nothing gets decided.

沒有作出任何決定。

Great ideas? They end up in PowerPoint parking lots.

若有好主意， 最終也埋沒在簡報堆裡。

And there are endless handovers between departments.

還有數不盡部門間的會簽。

Getting anything done can take forever.

把事情搞定似乎是遙遙無期。

So this bank knew that in order to transform,

這間銀行知道為了變革，

they would have to improve their time to market

他們必須大幅地改變工作的方式

by drastically changing their ways of working as well.

以加速產品的上市時間。

But how?

但該怎麼做呢？

To get some inspiration, we decided to go and have a look at companies

為了汲取一些靈感，

我們去拜訪那些看起來 很有創意的公司，

that seem to be more innovative,

like Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos.

像 Google, Netflix, Spotify, Zappos。

And I remember how we were walking the halls at one of these companies

我記得當我們走進 其中一間公司的大廳，

in December 2014,

在 2014 年的十二月，

a management consultant and a team of bankers.

一個管理顧問跟一群銀行家。

We felt like strangers in a strange land,

我們自覺像是造訪異地的異鄉客，

surrounded by beanbags and hoodies

被懶骨頭沙發、連帽運動衫、

and lots of smart, creative employees.

許多聰明有創意的員工給包圍。

So then we asked, "How is your company organized?"

我們請教：「你們的公司 是如何組織運作的？」

And we expected to get an org chart.

我們預期會拿到一張組織表，

But instead, they used strange drawings

但是，他們畫了些 標著有趣名稱的奇怪圖案，

with funny names like "squads" and "chapters" and "tribes"

像是「小隊」、 「地方分會」或是「部落」，

to explain how they were organized.

來解釋他們是如何運作的。

So then we tried to translate that to our own world.

我們試著把這些轉譯成自己的語言。

We asked, "How many people are working for you?"

我們接著問： 「有多少人為你工作呢？」

"It depends."

「看狀況。」

"Who do you report to?"

「你向誰報告呢？」

"It depends."

「看狀況。」

"Who decides on your priorities?"

「誰決定你工作的優先順序呢？」

"It depends."

「看狀況。」

You can imagine our surprise.

你可以想像我們有多訝異。

We were asking for what we thought were some of the basic principles

我們自認請教的是一些 關於組織的基本原則，

of organizations,

and their answer was, "It depends."

而他們的回答卻是「看狀況」。

Now, over the course of that day,

經過了那天的拜訪，

we gained a better understanding of their model.

我們更了解他們的模式。

They believed in the power of small, autonomous teams.

他們相信精簡自主的工作團隊 所擁有的力量。

Their teams were like mini-start-ups.

他們的團隊就像小型的創業團隊。

They had product people and IT engineers in the same team

他們讓產品部和工程師 在同一個團隊，

so they could design, build and test ideas with customers

因此他們能與顧客一起 設計、建立、測試想法，

independently of others in the company.

而無須仰賴公司其他人。

They did not need handovers between departments.

他們不需要做部門間的會簽，

They had all the skills needed right there in the team.

他們所需要的人才都在團隊中。

Now, at the end of that day, we had a session

那天的尾聲，我們有一個會議

to reflect on what we had learned.

來回顧我們今天的所見所學。

And we had started to like their model,

我們開始欣賞他們的模式，

so we were already thinking of how to apply some of these ideas to a bank.

我們已經在思考如何 將某些點子應用在銀行業上。

But then, one of the hosts, a guy who had not said a word all day,

當下，其中一位主人， 那天全程保持緘默，

he suddenly said,

他突然開口問道：

"So I see you like our model.

「你們喜歡我們的模式，

But I have one question for you:

但我有一個問題想問你們，

What are you willing to give up?"

你們願意放棄什麼呢？」

What were we willing to give up?

我們願意放棄什麼？

We did not have an answer immediately, but we knew he was right.

我們當下沒有答案， 但我們知道他是對的。

Change is not only about embracing the new;

改變不只是擁抱新的方法，

it's about giving up on some of the old as well.

同時也要放棄一些舊的作法。

Now, over the past five years,

現在過了五年之後，

I have worked with companies all over the world

我協助世界各地的公司

to change their ways of working.

改變他們工作的方式。

And clearly, every company has their own skeptics

顯然每家公司都有他們自己覺得

about why this is not going to work for them.

新方式對他們而言是行不通的質疑：

"Our product is more complex,"

「我們的產品更複雜。」

or "They don't have the legacy IT like we do,"

「他們不像我們有這麼多老舊系統，」

or "Regulators just won't allow this in our industry."

或是「主管機關不會允許 我們的產業這麼做。」

But for this bank and also for the other companies

但對這家銀行與其他 和我合作過的公司而言，

that I have worked with afterwards,

change was possible.

改變是可能的。

Within a year, we completely blew up the old silos

一年之內，我們完全打破了以往

between marketing, product, channels and IT.

行銷、產品、通路和資訊部門間 各自為政的狀況。

Three thousand employees were reorganized into 350 multidisciplinary teams.

三千多名的員工被重新組織成 三百五十個多專業合作團隊。

So instead of product people sitting just with product people

取代以往：產品部門坐在一起、 工程師們坐在一起，

and engineers with engineers,

a product person and an engineer were now members of the same team.

現在產品經理跟工程師 隸屬於同一個團隊。

You could be a member of a team responsible for account opening

你可能是任務團隊一員： 負責開立帳戶

or for the mobile banking app, etc.

或行動銀行手機應用軟體等。

At the go-live date of that new organization,

新組織架構正式運作的那天，

some people were shaking hands for the very first time,

有些同事第一次握手，

only to find out that they had been sitting two minutes away from each other

才發現彼此的座位 走路僅兩分鐘的距離，

but they were sending each other emails and status reports for the last 10 years.

而他們可能彼此互寄電子信件 和進度報告已有十年之久的時間。

You would hear someone saying,

你可能聽到有人說：

"Ah, so you're the guy that I was always chasing for answers."

「原來你就是那位 我一直追著要答案的人。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But now, they're having coffee together every day.

但現在他們每天都一起喝咖啡。

If the product guy has an idea, he can just raise it

如果產品經理有個想法， 他直接提出後

to get input from the engineer who is sitting right next to him.

就可獲得鄰座工程師的意見回饋。

They can decide to test with customers immediately --

他們可以決定立刻進行顧客測試，

no handovers, no PowerPoints, no red tape,

不用會簽、簡報或耗時的繁瑣手續，

just getting stuff done.

直接把事情搞定。

Now, getting there is not easy.

要達到這樣並不容易。

And as it turns out,

我們發現

"What are you willing to give up?"

「你們願意放棄什麼？」

is exactly the right question to ask.

就是最核心的問題。

Autonomous decision-making requires multidisciplinary teams.

自主決策需要多專業合作團隊。

Instead of decisions going up and down the organization,

不再是由上而下的決策過程，

we want the team to decide.

我們希望讓團隊決定。

But to do so, we need all the skills and expertise for that decision

但要能這麼做，

團隊之中就必須擁有 做該決策所需的技巧與專業。

in the team.

And this brings difficult trade-offs.

隨之而來的是困難的取捨。

Can we physically co-locate our people who are working in different buildings,

我們能將不同大樓、城市甚至國家的 工作同仁共置在一起嗎？

different cities or even different countries today?

Or should we invest in better videoconferencing?

或我們要投資更好的視訊會議設備？

And how do we ensure consistency in the way we do things

我們如何確保 不同團隊行事的一致性，

across these teams?

We still need some kind of management matrix.

我們仍然需要一些管理矩陣工具，

Now, all these changes to structure and process and procedure --

這些組織架構、過程、 步驟的改變並不容易。

they are not easy.

But in the end,

但最終，

I found that the most difficult thing to change

我發現最難改變的 是我們自己的行為。

is our own behavior.

Let me try to illustrate.

讓我試著更具體的描述：

If we want these teams to be fast, flexible, creative, like a mini-start-up,

如果我們希望團隊可以 更快、更彈性、更有創意，

就像是小型的創業團隊， 那他們必須被授權並具自主性。

they have to be empowered and autonomous.

But this means we cannot have leaders commanding their people what to do,

但這代表我們不能有主管

下指令告訴別人該： 做什麼、何時做、怎麼做。

when to do, how to do.

No micromanagers.

無需微觀經理人。

But it also means that each employee needs to become a leader,

這也代表每個員工都必須是領導者，

regardless of their formal title.

不管他們工作的職稱為何。

It's about all of us stepping up to take initiative.

每個人都須積極、主動地 處理應對各種狀況。

Now obviously, we also cannot afford

當然我們無法承受多頭馬車的團隊，

to have all these teams running in different directions,

because that would certainly lead to chaos.

那一定會帶來混亂。

So we need alignment and autonomy at the same time,

所以我們必須同時擁有共識且自主，

just like a flock of birds.

就像一群飛鳥一樣。

In an organizational setting,

在一個組織環境裡 這需要一些新的行為。

this requires new behaviors,

and with each new behavior,

每一個新行為也都代表了 要捨棄一些舊作法。

there is giving up on something old as well.

Leaders have to make sure that everyone in the organization

領導者必須確認組織裡的每一個人

is aligned around the overall purpose -- the why --

有一致的整體目標──為什麼， 有一致的整體順序──做什麼。

and the overall priorities -- the what.

But then they have to let go and trust their teams

然後他們必須放手，相信他們的團隊

to make the right decisions on how to get there.

將做出對的決策以達成目標。

Now, creating alignment requires open and transparent communication.

達成共識需要公開且透明的溝通。

But you know how they say that information is a source of power?

大家常說資訊就是力量，

Well, for some managers,

但對一些經理人而言，

sharing information may feel as if they're giving up that source of power.

分享資訊如同放棄權力。

And it's not just managers.

不只是經理人，

The teams need to communicate openly and transparently as well.

團隊亦必須公開且透明的溝通，

In these companies, the teams typically work in short sprints,

在這些公司，

團隊常採取短時間密集工作的方式，

and at the end of every sprint, they organize a demo session

每一次專案的尾聲， 他們都會有一場成果展示，

to share the output of what they've done, transparently.

公開透明地分享他們產出的成果。

And every day,

每天、每位團隊成員，

each member of the team gives an update

都會更新他們目前各自的工作狀況；

of what they are working on individually.

Now, all this transparency can be uncomfortable for people,

這樣的透明程度可能 會讓有些人覺得不自在，

because suddenly, there is no place to hide anymore.

因為突然沒有任何隱藏的空間。

Everything we do is transparent for everyone.

大家做的每件事都是公開、透明的。

So, alignment is not easy,

所以達成共識並不容易，

and providing autonomy is not so obvious, either.

提供自主權也不是一蹴可及。

One executive at another company

另一家公司的一位主管，

likes to explain how he used to be a master of milestone-tracking.

曾以「進度管理專家」自詡；

Now, today, to know how things are going,

而現今，若想掌握狀況，

instead of looking at status reports,

他不再是看進度報告，

he needs to walk down to the team floors to attend one of their sessions.

他必須走進每一個團隊 參加他們的活動；

And instead of telling people what to do,

不再是告訴別人該怎麼做，

he looks for ways to help them.

而是尋找幫助團隊的方式。

That is radical change

對曾為「進度管理專家」的人來說， 這是一個重大的改變。

for someone who used to be a master of milestone-tracking.

But in the old world, this executive said,

但這位主管說：「在舊的思維裡，

"I only had the illusion of control.

我只擁有控制的假象，

In reality, many projects would run over time and over budget, anyway.

實際上，許多專案仍會 延遲、超出預算；

Now I have much more transparency,

現在我擁有更高的掌握度，

and I can course-correct much earlier if needed."

必要的話，我可以及早修正事態。」

And middle managers need to change as well.

中階經理人亦必須改變。

First of all, without the handovers and the PowerPoint,

首先，沒有工作移交與簡報，

there's less of a need for middle managers.

將需要更少的中階經理人。

And in the old world, there was this idea of thinkers and doers.

在舊的思維裡，

區分了「思考者」跟「執行者」，

Employees would just follow orders.

員工只是執行著命令。

But now, instead of only managing other people,

現在除了單純管理員工，

middle managers were expected to become player-coaches.

中階經理人更被期待扮演著 教練兼球員的角色。

So imagine, for the last 10 years,

想像一下：過去十年，

you have just been telling other people what to do,

你只需要告訴別人做什麼，

but now you're expected to do things yourself again.

但現在你被期待要親力親為。

Clearly, this model is not for everyone,

顯然這樣的模式 並不是所有人都能接受，

and some great people leave the company.

一些人才也因此離開了公司。

But the result is a new culture

但結果是帶入了 降低官僚色彩的新職場文化。

with less hierarchy.

And all of this is hard work.

這些成果得來不易，

But it's worth it.

但這很值得。

The companies that I worked with,

我合作的那些公司，

they were used to deploying new product features a few times per year.

以往他們一年僅能部署 幾次的特色產品，

Now they have releases every few weeks,

現在他們每隔幾週就能做到；

and without the handovers and the red tape,

無須工作會簽、耗時的繁瑣手續，

the whole organization becomes more efficient.

整個工作組織變得更有效率。

And finally, if you walk the halls of these companies today,

最後，若你走進這些公司的大廳，

you just feel a new energy.

你能感受到一股新的能量。

It feels as if you're walking the halls of a very large start-up.

就像走在一間 非常大型的新創公司裡。

Now, to be fair, these companies, they cannot claim victory yet.

平心而論，

這些公司還不能自稱已經成功。

But at least with this new model,

但至少這樣新的模式，

they are much better prepared to respond to change.

他們應對的能力更強。

The world is getting faster and more complex,

世界愈來愈快、複合愈深，

so we need to reboot our way of working.

我們必須重新調整工作的方式。

And the hardest part of that change is not in structure

而其中最難的， 不是改變架構、過程或步驟，

or process or procedure,

and it's also not just senior executives taking charge.

也不僅是讓資深經理人負責掌理。

Leaders will be all of those in the organization

那些擁抱改變的人， 就是組織裡的領導者。

who embrace the change.

We all have to lead the change.

我們必須一同領導變革。

So the question is:

而那核心的問題是：

What are you willing to give up?

「你們願意放棄什麼？」

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）