How diversity makes teams more innovative | Rocío Lorenzo | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

Fifteen years ago,

十五年前，

I thought that the diversity stuff was not something I had to worry about.

我並不覺得我需要 擔心多樣性的問題。

It was something an older generation had to fight for.

這問題是老一輩的人 才需要去努力爭取的。

In my university, we were 50-50, male-female,

在我就讀的大學，男女比例各半，

and we women often had better grades.

我們女生的成績通常都比較好。

So while not everything was perfect,

所以，雖然並非一切都很完美，

diversity and leadership decisions

多樣性和領導決策

was something that would happen naturally over time, right?

是隨時間就會自然發生的，對吧？

Well, not quite.

嗯，不見得。

While moving up the ladder working as a management consultant

當我繼續向上爬，當上了管理顧問，

across Europe and the US,

在歐洲和美國各地工作，

I started to realize how often I was the only woman in the room

我開始發現到，我常常是 房間中唯一的女性，

and how homogenous leadership still is.

且領導階層仍然是非常同質性的。

Many leaders I met

我見過許多領導人

saw diversity as something to comply with out of political correctness,

視多樣性為由於政治正確性 而要去遵守的東西，

or, best case, the right thing to do,

或者最多視為對的、該做的事，

but not as a business priority.

但不是企業的優先考量。

They just did not have a reason to believe

他們沒有理由相信

that diversity would help them achieve their most immediate, pressing goals:

多樣性能協助他們 達成最立即、最緊迫的目標：

hitting the numbers, delivering the new product,

讓數字達標、推出新產品等等，

the real goals they are measured by.

那些用來評量他們的目標。

My personal experience working with diverse teams

我和多樣性團隊合作的個人經驗是

had been that while they require a little bit more effort at the beginning,

雖然在一開始他們需要多點努力，

they did bring fresher, more creative ideas.

他們確實能帶來更新鮮、 更有創意的想法。

So I wanted to know:

所以，我想要知道：

Are diverse organizations really more innovative,

多樣性組織真的比較創新嗎？

and can diversity be more than something to comply with?

多樣性能不能不只是 一項該遵守的東西？

Can it be a real competitive advantage?

它能不能成為真正的競爭優勢？

So to find out, we set up a study with the Technical University of Munich.

為了找出答案，我們和慕尼黑 工業大學合作了一項研究。

We surveyed 171 companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland,

我們調查了德國、奧地利、 和瑞士的 171 間公司，

and as we speak, we're expanding the study

現在我正在說話的同時，

我們已經把研究擴展到另外五個國家

to 1,600 companies

達 1,600 間公司了。

in five additional countries around the world.

We asked those companies basically two things:

我們問那些公司兩項基本的東西：

how innovative they are and how diverse they are.

問它們的創新以及多樣性的程度。

To measure the first one,

為了要測量第一項，

we asked them about innovation revenue.

我們問它們創新收益相關的問題。

Innovation revenue is the share of revenues they've made

創新收益是在過去三年間，

from new products and services in the last three years,

新產品和新服務佔了多少收益，

meaning we did not ask them how many creative ideas they have,

也就是說，我們並沒有問 它們有多少創意想法，

but rather if these ideas translate into products and services

而是這些創意想法

是否使得公司現在和未來的 產品和服務更為成功。

that really make the company more successful today and tomorrow.

To measure diversity, we looked at six different factors:

為了測量多樣性， 我們檢視六個不同的因子：

country of origin, age and gender, amongst others.

原國籍、年齡、性別，和其他。

While preparing to go in the field with those questions,

在準備要帶著那些問題去實做時，

I sat down with my team

我和團隊坐下來討論

and we discussed what we would expect as a result.

我們期待怎樣的結果。

To put it mildly, we were not optimistic.

用溫和的說法，我們並不樂觀。

The most skeptical person on the team thought, or saw a real possibility,

最多疑的那位團隊成員認為

that we would find nothing at all.

很可能我們什麼都發現不了。

Most of the team was rather on the cautious side,

大多數團隊成員比較謹慎，

so we landed all together at "only if,"

所以我們最後談的都是「只限於」，

meaning that we might find some kind of link

意思是我們可能會找到

between innovation and diversity,

創新和多樣性之間的某種連結，

but not across the board --

但並非全面適用，

rather only if certain criteria are met,

而是「只限於」某些 標準被達到的情況下，

for example leadership style, very open leadership style

比如，領導風格， 非常開放的領導風格，

that allowed people to speak up freely and safely and contribute.

讓人們能夠自由且安全地 發表意見和做出貢獻。

A couple of months later, the data came in,

幾個月後，資料進來了，

and the results convinced the most skeptical amongst us.

結果說服了我們當中最多疑的人。

The answer was a clear yes,

答案很明顯是「是的」，

no ifs, no buts.

沒有「如果」，沒有「但是」，

The data in our sample showed

我們樣本的資料顯示，

that more diverse companies are simply more innovative, period.

比較多樣化的公司 就是比較創新，就這樣。

Now, a fair question to ask is the chicken or the egg question,

現在應該要問的問題， 是雞生蛋或蛋生雞的問題，

meaning, are companies really more innovative

意思是，公司會比較創新

because they have a more diverse leadership,

真的是因為它們有 比較多樣化的領導階層嗎？

or the other way around?

或是反過來？

Which way is it?

哪個才是真的？

Now, we do not know how much is correlation versus causation,

我們不知道在這相關性中 有多少的因果關係，

but what we do know is that clearly,

但我們確實知道，很明顯，

in our sample, companies that are more diverse

在我們的樣本中，

比較多樣化的公司就比較創新，

are more innovative,

and that companies that are more innovative

而比較創新的公司

have more diverse leadership, too.

也有比較多樣化的領導階層。

So it's fair to assume that it works both ways,

所以可以假設兩個方向都是對的，

diversity driving innovation and innovation driving diversity.

多樣性導致創新，創新導致多樣性。

Now, once we published the results,

在我們發表了結果之後，

we were surprised about the reactions in the media.

媒體的反應讓我們很驚訝。

We got quite some attention.

我們得到了不少的關注。

And it went from quite factual,

從事實性的描述，

like "Higher Female Share Boosts Innovation"

如「女性比例較高會激發創新」，

to a little bit more sensationalist.

到稍微聳動些的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

As you can see,

你們可以看到，

"Stay-at-home Women Cost Trillions,"

「女性待在家的代價高達數兆元」，

and, my personal favorite,

我個人的最愛是這個，

"Housewives Kill Innovation."

「家庭主婦扼殺了創新」。

Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity, right?

沒有所謂的負面宣傳，對吧？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

On the back of that coverage,

緊接在那報導之後，

we started to get calls from senior executives

我們開始接到高階主管打來的電話，

wanting to understand more,

他們想了解更多，

especially -- surprise, surprise -- about gender diversity.

尤其讓人驚訝的 是特別想了解性別的多樣性。

I tend to open up those discussions by asking,

對於這類的討論，我通常 開場的方式是先問：

"Well, what do you think of the situation in your organization today?"

「你認為現今在你組織內 是怎樣的情況？」

And a frequent reaction to that is,

對這個問題，常見的反應是：

"Well, we're not yet there, but we're not that bad."

「嗯，我們還沒做到， 但我們也沒太糟。」

One executive told me, for example,

比如，有位主管告訴我：

"Oh, we're not that bad.

「喔，我們沒那麼糟。

We have one member in our board who is a woman."

我們的董事當中有一名女性。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And you laugh --

你會笑出來──

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Now, you laugh, but he had a point in being proud about it,

你現在會笑，但他對此 感到自豪其實是有根據的，

because in Germany,

因為在德國，

if you have a company

如果你有一間公司，

and it has one member on the board who is a woman,

公司有一名女性董事，

you are part of a select group of 30

你就是前百大公開上市公司當中

out of the 100 largest publicly listed companies.

特出的三十家之一。

The other 70 companies have an all-male board,

另外七十間公司的董事全都是男性，

and not even one of these hundred largest publicly listed companies

而這百大公開上市的公司中，

have, as of today, a female CEO.

沒有任何一家有女性執行長， 截至今天都沒有。

But here's the critically important insight.

但，我要再提出個重要的洞察。

Those few female board members alone,

只有那少數幾位女性董事，

they won't make a difference.

她們無法造成不同。

Our data shows that for gender diversity to have an impact on innovation,

我們的資料顯示， 若要讓性別多樣性影響創新，

you need to have more than 20 percent women in leadership.

你得要在領導階層裡面 有超過 20% 的女性。

Let's have a look at the numbers.

我們來看看數字。

As you can see, we divided the sample into three groups,

如你們所見，我們把樣本分成三組，

and the results are quite dramatic.

結果十分引人注目。

Only in the group where you have more than 20 percent women in leadership,

只有在領導階層有 超過 20% 女性的那一組，

only then you see a clear jump in innovation revenue

只有在那一組， 才看得見創新收益

明顯提升到超過平均值以上。

to above-average levels.

So experience and data shows that you do need critical mass

所以，經驗和資料顯示， 你的確需要關鍵人數

to move the needle,

才能移動一根針，

and companies like Alibaba, JP Morgan or Apple

像阿里巴巴、摩根大通、 蘋果等這些公司，

have as of today already achieved that threshold.

現今已經達到了那個門檻。

Another reaction I got quite a lot was,

我還常碰到的另一種反應是：

"Well, it will get solved over time."

「嗯，隨時間過去， 問題就會解決。」

And I have all the sympathy in the world for that point of view,

對於那種觀點，我非常同情，

because I used to think like that, too.

因為我也曾經那麼想。

Now, let's have a look here again and look at the numbers,

現在我們再來看看數字，

taking Germany as an example.

用德國當例子。

Let me first give you the good news.

我先告訴各位好消息。

So the share of women who are college graduates

大學畢業並且至少具有

and have at least 10 years of professional experience

十年專業經驗的女性比例，

has grown nicely over the last 20 years,

在過去二十年間都一直在成長，

which means the pool in which to fish for female leaders

意思就是，女性領導人的人才庫

has increased over time,

隨著時間越來越大了，

and that's great.

這點是很棒的。

Now, according to my old theory,

根據我的舊理論，

the share of women in leadership

領導階層的女性比例

would have grown more or less in parallel, right?

應該多少也會平行成長，對嗎？

Now, let's have a look at what happened in reality.

我們來看看現實的狀況。

It's not even close,

還差很遠，

which means I was so wrong

這意味著，我錯得可大了，

and which means that my generation,

也意味著我的世代，

your generation,

你的世代，

the best-educated female generation in history,

史上教育程度最高的女性世代，

we have just not made it.

我們就是還沒成功。

We have failed to achieve leadership in significant numbers.

我們沒能達成在領導階層 佔有顯著的人數。

Education just did not translate into leadership.

教育程度並不會直接轉成領導階層。

Now, that was a painful realization for me

對我而言，那是種痛苦的領會，

and made me realize,

讓我了解到，

if we want to change this,

如果我們想要改變這狀況，

we need to engage, and we need to do better.

我們得要參與投入，且要做得更好。

Now, what to do?

所以，該怎麼做？

Achieving more than 20 percent women in leadership

達成在領導階層至少有 20% 是女性的這項任務，

seems like a daunting task to many,

對許多人來說，似乎挺讓人氣餒，

understandably, given the track record.

從過往記錄來看，這是可理解的。

But it's doable,

但這是可行的，

and there are many companies today that are making progress there

現今有很多公司在這方面都有進展，

and doing it successfully.

且成功做到這一點。

Let's take SAP, the software company, as an example.

咱們用思愛普（SAP） 軟體公司來當例子，

They had, in 2011, 19 percent women in leadership,

在 2011 年，他們的 領導階層有 19% 是女性，

yet they decided to do better,

但他們仍然決定要再做更好些，

and they did what you do in any other area of business

而他們的做法，就和你在 任何其他商業領域中

where you want to improve.

想做改善時的做法一樣。

They set themselves a measurable target.

他們為自己設定了可測量的目標。

So they set themselves a target of 25 percent for 2017,

他們設定的目標是， 在 2017 年達到 25%，

which they have just achieved.

他們已經達到這個目標了。

The goals made them think more creatively about developing leaders

因為有目標，在開發領導人方面 他們會做更創意的思考，

and tapping new recruiting pools.

也會去開闢新的人才招募來源。

They now even set a target of 30 percent women in leadership for 2022.

他們現在甚至把 2022 年目標 設為領導階層要有 30% 女性。

So experience shows it's doable,

所以，經驗顯示這是做得到的，

and at the end of the day,

且到頭來，

it all boils down to two decisions that are taken every day

都能歸結到每天要做的 兩項決策，在每個組織中，

in every organization by many of us:

我們許多人都要做這兩項決策：

who to hire and who to develop and promote.

要僱用誰、要發展誰，及要提拔誰。

Now, nothing against women's programs,

我們不是要反對 針對女性的人才計畫、

networks, mentoring, trainings.

連結人際關係網、 顧問指導、教育訓練，

All is good.

這些都很好。

But it is these two decisions

但到頭來，是這兩項決策，

that at the end of the day send the most powerful change signal

在任何組織中，

發送出最強而有力的改變信號。

in any organization.

Now, I never set out to be a diversity advocate.

我從來沒有打算要 成為多樣性的提倡者。

I am a business advisor.

我是企業顧問。

But now my goal is to change the face of leadership,

但現在，現在我的目標 是要改變領導階層的面貌，

to make it more diverse --

讓它更多樣化。

and not so that leaders can check a box

目的並不是為了讓領導人打個勾，

and feel like they have complied with something

感覺他們已經遵守了什麼，

or they have been politically correct.

或是他們已經做到政治正確。

But because they understand,

而是因為他們了解，

they understand that diversity is making their organization

他們了解多樣性讓他們的組織

more innovative, better.

更創新、更出色。

And by embracing diversity, by embracing diverse talent,

透過擁抱多樣性， 透過擁抱多樣化的人才，

we are providing true opportunity for everyone.

我們就能夠提供每個人真正的機會。

Thank you. Thank you so much.

謝謝。非常謝謝大家。

(Applause)

（掌聲）