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：我們在過去20年里所做的工作，基本上都要追溯到我與杰里?波拉斯（Jerry Porras）合寫《基業(yè)長青》的日子,。我在《從優(yōu)秀到卓越》（Good to Great）,、《巨人如何倒下》（How the Mighty Fall）以及現(xiàn)階段進行的工作中所用到的研究方法，都是在那段時間學到的,。我們一直關注那些持續(xù)保持卓越狀態(tài)的企業(yè),，將他們與其他處境相同的公司進行對比。他們處于同樣的行業(yè)中,，有著同樣的機會,、同樣的資源，按理說后者也可以成為持續(xù)保持卓越狀態(tài)的企業(yè),，但是他們沒能做到,。所以我們總是在問：這些公司之間的區(qū)別是什么？
在《從優(yōu)秀到卓越》的研究中,，我們會問：那些從優(yōu)秀邁向卓越的企業(yè)和那些沒能完成轉(zhuǎn)變的企業(yè)差別究竟在哪里,？他們所處的環(huán)境幾乎完全相同。
一個關鍵的問題是,，我們總是盯著人們在歷史上犯下的各種錯誤,。我們總是回顧歷史，與其說我們是在觀察那些企業(yè),，倒不如說我們就像是在觀察一個偉大競技體育王朝的興衰,。在一個特定的歷史時段里，比如說在N年間,，某企業(yè)就像是一個如日中天的體育王朝,，它為什么會如此成功？它與其他企業(yè)有何不同,？
這家企業(yè)今天可能仍然處于鼎盛時期,，也可能輝煌不再，但在某一段時間,，它的確曾經(jīng)輝煌過,，我們就是要研究這段時間,。所以當我們進行研究時，我們著重觀察那些“從優(yōu)秀到卓越”的公司在崛起階段的表現(xiàn),，并和其他公司進行比較,。
我們剛開始這項研究的時候，我對研究團隊說：“我們的研究范圍不包括領導力,?！睘槭裁矗渴紫?，我一向?qū)Α邦I導就是一切”的觀點持懷疑態(tài)度,。這個世界太復雜了，不能這么簡單地解釋,。如果引入領導力這一因素,，很容易使我們將一切都歸結(jié)到它身上，也就是認為一切都是由于領導力的作用,。但我根本不相信這個世界有那么簡單。
其次,，我認為它會影響我們觀察其它的潛在因素,。否則，我們的研究會原地打轉(zhuǎn)：如果一家企業(yè)成功了,，我們就說：“這家企業(yè)的領導很偉大,。”然后,，我們就會把成功歸功于領導的英明,，于是我們就一直原地打轉(zhuǎn)。
所以我對研究團隊說：“我對領導力這套理論持懷疑態(tài)度,，我們不會把它納入研究范圍,。”
在提到我們研究團隊對此的回復意見之前,，先要說明他們都是以數(shù)據(jù)為基礎工作的,。如果產(chǎn)生了爭論，除非數(shù)據(jù)證明我是對的,，否則他們不會信服我,。反之亦然，如果數(shù)據(jù)證明研究團隊是對的,，他們就會贏得爭論,。
我們的研究團隊對我說：“你漏掉了一些非常重要的因素。因為當研究吉列公司（Gillette）的柯爾曼?莫克勒（Coleman Mockler）,、金佰利公司（Kimberly Clark）的達爾文?史密斯（Darwin Smith）和波音公司（Boeing）的比爾?艾倫（Bill Allen）時,，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這些領導者都在企業(yè)走向卓越的過程中扮演了至關重要的角色,，你不能把他們的作用排除在外?！?br/>
我回答道：“是的,，但是作為對比的其他公司不是也有領導者嗎？”這兩類公司都有領袖人物,，所以我們要把領導力的因素排除在外,。
后來研究團隊又找到我，對我說：“不,，這兩類領導者之間有區(qū)別,，他們不能相提并論?！?br/>
正是這種爭論引出了第五級領導（Level 5 Leadership）這一概念,。
的確，優(yōu)秀的公司和卓越的公司都有各自的領導者,，但那些從優(yōu)秀走向卓越的公司卻擁有“第五級領導者”,。
如果將領導力分級，可以劃分為五個層次,。第一級是個人技能,，第二級是團隊技能，第三級是管理技能,，第四級則是領導能力,。所以第四級的領導者是優(yōu)秀的領導者，優(yōu)秀的管理者,，優(yōu)秀的團隊成員,，而且擁有優(yōu)秀的個人技能。這部分人,，就是那些尚未走向卓越的企業(yè)的領導者,。
除此之外還有另外一個級別，我們將它們統(tǒng)稱為第五級領導力,，因為它在第四級上更進了一步,。這些卓越的領導者不但擁有剛才提到的四種素質(zhì)，還擁有一種非常有趣的結(jié)合,，即我們所說的“謙遜而執(zhí)著,，靦腆而無畏”。
不過從某種意義上來說,，這并不能完全概括卓越領導者的所有特質(zhì),，因為那種特質(zhì)實際上是一種絕對意義上的、幾乎帶有強迫性的、強烈得無法估量的雄心壯志,，但是這些雄心并不是為了他們自己,。
這就是他們的特別之處。他們想要建立卓越的公司,，打破摩爾定律,，他們想要改變社會。他們想要創(chuàng)建能夠吸引成千上萬兒童的主題公園,。他們還想做許多超越自身的偉大的事,。
的確，看到他們,，你會說,，這些人真是雄心勃勃。然而這些雄心壯志都是外在的：執(zhí)行,、完成計劃,、建立卓越的公司、并留下不可磨滅的足跡……這些都不是為了他們自己,。
正因為他們對于一些超越自身的更偉大的追求充滿了雄心壯志,，這種對于成功的渴望，才能驅(qū)使他們做出最艱難的決定,，甚至是十分痛苦的決定,。
比如將一些業(yè)務關停、賣掉,，不得不裁掉身邊的人，或是做出其它任何不得已的決定,。正因為他們奮斗的目標不是為了自己,，而是為了更有意義的事，這一切才成了他們意志的源泉,。
這就是第五級領導力,，歸根結(jié)底，它是一個簡單的問題：你奮斗的目標是什么,？ |
