人們傳統上認為，當領導就會走上兩種極端，要么成為一個獨裁者，要么成為手下人的代表，而沒有中間地帶。《上下一心》一書回避了這種觀念，而是給出了八種領導模型，利用諸如指揮家與樂隊、地主與佃戶、建筑師與建筑工人等職業關系，來闡釋不同的管理模式。《財富》雜志最近采該了奎勵杰，探討了他的領導力理念，以及他對美國的競爭力的展望。
《財富》：你為什么現在出版這本書?是因為美國當前工作環境中的某些問題令你覺得有必要出版這本書嗎?
奎勵杰：市面上已經有很多關于這個問題的調查了，例如蓋洛普公司(Gallup survey)的調查或Synotac公司的調查。他們的調查結果顯示，企業員工對工作的投入程度正在下降。也就是說，在你的公司里，越來越多的員工雖然身在崗位，但并沒有全心投入、做到最好。他們對工作目標沒有激情，心不在焉。軀體雖在公司，魂兒卻留在家里。如果你可以讓你的團隊煥發激情，你就會成功。
你如何勸說領導者，讓他們相信現在是該改變管理方式的時候了?
你可以坐在會議室里，把事實擺在他們面前。如果我們找到我們的客戶，對他們說他們的領導者和員工之間匹配得不好，他們會不會不承認?可能一開始幾分鐘他們會否認。不過如果你把事實擺在他們面前，并且對他們所選擇的人進行調查，然后把調查結果也擺在他們前面，那么他們就不可能一直否認下去了。
作為一名管理者，你是如何說服你的員工和你的公司，讓他們相信現在應該進行一次痛苦的轉變了?
最常用也是最有效的方法就是經典的“平臺著火法”。如果你想讓你的團隊從A平臺轉移到B平臺上，最有效的方法就是讓他們相信A平臺著火了。只要他們相信他們所處的平臺著了火，他們就會轉移的。
而更困難的挑戰，是利用雄心勃勃的語言，讓一個原本已經很成功的企業轉移到C平臺上去。這種企業原本就處于B平臺，而且他們在B平臺上待得很舒服。而現在你要雄心勃勃地挑戰你的團隊，令團隊做出變化。改變一個成功的企業，這才是最大的挑戰。
你真的可以教一個人成為優秀的領導者或管理者嗎?
有些人的成長環境使他們相比其他人擁有極大優勢。不過我之所以熱衷于領導力，是因為我認為領導力是可以習得的。而且我認為，領導者們都有機會決定是否改變他們的領導方式和行為方式。
為什么我們欣賞通用電氣公司(GE)的領導藝術?是因為他們成功地雇傭了一群具有強勁領導力的人嗎?還是因為我們真的認為，通用電器的領導力發展模式確實會培養出一些極為出色的人才?通用電氣的首席執行官杰夫•伊梅爾特究竟是個天生的領導者，還是通過在通用電氣工作的經歷，才逐步成長為一個領導者的?我認為很大程度上是后者。
很多人認為年輕一代不愿接受傳統的領導模式。你怎么看?
我覺得這種說法有些真實性。不過我認為他們并不是全盤拒絕這些領導模式。我認為如果這些年輕人覺得沒人真正關心他們，或沒人關心他們的想法，他們就會工作中心不在焉。這就是為什么激發員工的工作專注度如此重要。
如果你是一家金融機構的首席執行官，你會用什么模式來促使員工遵守規章?除了零瑕疵的管理模式之外，你是否真的承受得起其它模式?因為如果管理出了問題，監管機構是可以讓你關門的。此外，如果你是在這家金融機構里工作的所謂X世代或Y世代人，在遵守規章的問題上，我想你可能期待的是一種指令型的管理模式，以及圍繞這種模式打造的責任和義務。
關于美國管理的未來，你最關心的是什么?
我最關心領導者們是否有能力廣泛地適應當下的競爭環境。而且企業要真正、切實地理解這些轉變的重要性。不管是知識工人的供需情況，還是總體工作人口的規模，都會對商業模式和企業的成功模式造成顯著的影響。
此外，我認為另一個已經發生了的重要轉變，是公共部門與私營部門之間的關系。我認為要想獲得成功，需要公共和私營部門之間建立建設性的合作關系。
像中國或韓國這樣的市場，他們的數理化教育做得很好，僅憑單方面的力量是否可以產出這種成果?這是私營部門的功勞，還是公共部門的功勞?還是公共、私營部門攜手發展教育的結果?
我認為這正是我們在美國所需要做的。當你研究任何一個經濟體的基本競爭力時，你會發現，那些以人才驅動創新，并能夠就此創造出就業崗位和財富的經濟體，將會獲得競爭優勢。
譯者：樸成奎 What makes a leader effective? How can a leader adapt to a changing environment? And what do you do when the people you are expected to manage have no interest in cooperating? Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CEO Jim Quigley and Mehrdad Baghai recently published As One: Individual Action， Collective Leadership， which argues that leaders can take several different approaches to their craft， with the goal of inspiring collective action.
As One sidesteps the concept that a leader can either be a dictator or a representative of the people and nothing in between. Instead， the book offers eight models of leadership， using professional relationships like conductor-orchestra， landlord-tenant， and architects-builders， to illustrate different management styles. Fortune recently sat down with Quigley to discuss his concept of leadership and his outlook on American competitiveness.
Fortune: Why publish this book now? Is there something about the current American work environment that convinced you to publish this book?
Quigley:There have been any number of surveys， whether it''s the Gallup survey or the Synotac， and what they found is the degree of engagement of the workforce is declining. So a higher percentage of your workforce year after year is coming to work but they are not really bringing their very best， they are not bringing their passion to what it is they are trying to achieve. They''re just simply disengaged. They''re bringing their arms and legs but their heart and mind is staying behind. And if you can obtain that passion from your team， you''re going to win.
How do you convince a leader that it''s time to change the way they have been managing?
You sit down in the conference room and you put the facts right in front of them. And so will clients be in denial if we come to them and suggest that they have a leader and follower mismatch? They might spend a few minutes in denial. But if you put the facts in front of them and the results of a survey of people they selected， they can''t stay in denial.
As a manager， how do you convince your staff， your company， that it''s time to make a painful change?
The most common， and sometimes the most effective [approach] is the classic burning platform. If you want to get your team to move from platform A to platform B， the most effective way to do that is convince them that platform A is on fire. And as soon as they''ve think they''re on that burning platform， they''re going to move.
The harder change to drive is to take a successful organization and then convince them with aspirational language to move to platform C. They''re on platform B and they''re pretty comfortable. Now you challenge your team to change aspirationally. Changing a successful organization， that is the biggest challenge.
Can you actually teach someone to be a great leader or manager?
The environment in which some of us are born just gives us enormous advantages over some others. But the reason I am so passionate about leadership is I think it can be learned. And I think leaders have the opportunity to decide that they are going to change how they lead and how they behave.Why do we think the way we do about leaders from GE (GE)? Is it because they were successful at hiring a bunch of people who had strong leadership attributes? Or do we actually think the leadership development model at GE actually produces some pretty talented people? Was Jeff Immelt born as a leader? Or did he develop as a leader as he came through GE? I think it was largely the latter.
There''s a lot of talk that the younger generation is unwilling to accept traditional leadership models. What''s your take?
I think there''s definitely some truth in that. But the thing that I reject is that they are unwilling to accept any one of these leadership models. I do think they are disengaged， if they feel that no one really cares about them and their ideas. And that''s where moving that [employee] engagement number up becomes so critical.
If you were a CEO of a financial institution， what model would you use to try to drive regulatory compliance? Could you actually afford anything other than a zero-defects approach? Because a regulator could shut you down. And so if you were a Gen X''er or Gen Y''er inside that financial institution， when it came to regulatory compliance， I think you''d expect quite a directive [leadership] model and accountability built around that.
What''s most concerning to you when it comes to the future of American management?
The ability for leaders broadly to be able to adjust to the environment that we are now competing in. To really， truly understand the significance of those shifts. Whether that''s simply the availability of knowledge workers and the scale of the number of working age adults， that''s going to have a significant impact on how business is done and how businesses are able to succeed.
I also think that another significant shift that has occurred is the relationship between the public and private sectors. And I think success is going to require a constructive public-private partnership.
Are markets like Korea or China， are they able to produce those science and math education results alone? Is it the private sector that''s doing that? Is it the public sector? Or is there a private-public partnership that is committed to education?
That''s what I think we need to do in the United States. When you look at the fundamental competitiveness of any economy， the winning edge is going to be obtained by talent-driven innovation and the ability to create the jobs and wealth that go with that.
加多寶
IBM
摩拜單車
vivo\oppo
中興
GOOGLE
