The Six Attributes Every Employee Needs
每位員工都需要的六項特質
A right person for a key seat a priori shares the core values of the enterprise. People often ask, " How do you get people to share core values?" And the answer is, "You don't." You can't install new core values in people. Instead, what you do is you find people who already have a predisposition to showing the values. You create a culture that so systematically reinforces those values that those who do not share those values tend to be encircled and ejected like a virus.
重要職位的正確人選照理說會共享企業的核心價值。人們經常問：「你如何讓人們去共享核心價值？」而那答案是：「你並不能。」你不能在人們體內安裝新的核心價值。取而代之，你做的事是你尋找已經有顯現出那些價值觀傾向的人們。你創造出一個如此有系統地強化那些價值觀的文化，以便那些並未共享那些價值觀的人們能輕易像一個病毒般被包圍且逐出。
Number two: The right people understand that they don't have a job; they have responsibilities. And they can answer the question—I am the one person ultimately responsible for X or Y or Z. Now think about it as an air traffic controller, right, doesn't have just a job, has a responsibility to keep the airplane safe; you think about a surgeon, doesn't just have a job to do cutting and sewing but actually has a responsibility for the safety of the patient, until when you think about this idea that the right people accept "I don't have a job; I have responsibilities."
第二項：對的人了解他們不是只有一份工作；他們有責任義務。而且他們能回答那問題－－我是最終對 X 或 Y 或 Z 要負責的唯一一人。現在將這想成一個空中交通管制員，好的，不是只有一份工作，是有個維護飛機安全的責任；你想想一位外科醫生，不是只有一個做切割和縫補的工作，而是實際上有個對病人安全的責任，直到當你思考這個對的人接受「我不是有一份工作；我有責任義務」的概念。
Number three: The right people do what they've said they're going to do. Period. Full stop. What this means is they're very careful what they say they are going to do. They don't just try to fulfill their commitments. They have a hundred percent hit rate at fulfilling their commitments or being explicitly absolved from the commitment. But they never view it as "Well, I tried, but I didn't succeed," and they therefore have a great discipline to never commit to what they know they cannot achieve.
第三項：對的人實踐他們說過他們要去做的事。句點。就是這樣。這代表的事是他們非常謹慎於他們說他們要去實行的事。他們不只是試著去實現他們的承諾。在實現他們的承諾方面，或是明確地從那承諾免除責任方面，他們有百分之百命中率。但他們從不將之視為「嗯，我試過了，但我沒成功」，他們因而有個永遠不要承諾他們知道他們無法達成的事情的重要紀律。
Number four: The right people don't need to be tightly managed. The right people are self-disciplined, are self-motivated, are self-managed, are self-obsessively driven to make great results, are self-learners, and this rerolling good to great. The moment that you begin to feel the need to tightly manage someone, you might have made a hiring mistake. Guide them. Yes. Teach them. Yes. Manage them? No. The right people have tremendous passion for the enterprise and what it's trying to do. For a very simple reason—nothing great ever happens unless it is fueled by passion.
第四項：對的人不需要被嚴密管理。對的人是自律的、是自動自發的、是自我管理的、是自我著迷地驅使去創造出偉大成果的、是自發學習的人，而這將不錯再發展成傑出。一當你開始感受到嚴密管理某人的需求時，你可能已經犯了個雇人的錯誤。指導他們。好的。訓練他們。好的。管理他們？不了。對的人對企業以及它試著去做的事有驚人的熱情。因為一個非常簡單的原因－－偉大的事從不會發生，除非它是由熱情所驅動的。
And number six: The right people display a "window and mirror" maturity. Now, a window and mirror maturity means this: It means that when things go well, when there are successes, they're very comfortable pointing out the window to other people and to factors like good luck and good circumstances that are out of their control. They're not taking the credit for themselves, and they want to pin the blame of success on other people. But when things go badly, they're very comfortable looking in the mirror and saying, "I'm responsible. I'm the one ultimately responsible. Here's how I accept that responsibility, and here is what I learn from that." Those who do not have that window-and-mirror responsibility do not deserve the opportunity to be permanently in a key seat. So those are those key characteristics—what would make for right people in key seats. It's those six.
而第六項：對的人展現出一種「窗與鏡」的成熟態度。現在，一個窗與鏡的成熟態度代表這樣的意思：它代表當事情進展順利時，當有成就時，他們很樂意指出那扇窗給其他人，還有歸功於像是好運的因素，以及超出他們所能控制的有益情勢。他們不自己居功，而且他們想要將成功的責任別在他人身上。但當事情發展得不妙時，他們十分樂意看著鏡子並說：「我有責任。我是最終該負責的那人。這是我接受那責任的方式，這是我從那學到的事物。」那些沒有那種窗與鏡責任感的人們不配擁有永久處在一個重要職位的機會。所以那是那些重要特質－－會有助於讓對的人在重要職位上的特質。這就是那六項。
How do you find the right people?
你如何找到對的人？
I have a passionate love affair with data. I just love numbers and graphs and Excel sheets and calculations and anything where we can marshal. Lots of data and statistics, and it just makes me happy. And one of the things that we did was to look at an analysis that had tons of data, 50 years of proxy reports. A member of my research team named Eric Haagen, who was a remarkable researcher back when he was on my team, did this analysis, where he looked at members and key seats on the executive team over 50 years and the good-to-great companies and the comparisons, and then he looked at their 10-year on the team. And what he found is that as a company became great, there was kind of a bimodal distribution in terms of how long someone was on the team and the key seat.
我對數據有股強烈興趣。我就是很愛數字和圖表，還有 Excel 試算表和計算，以及任何我們可以整理的東西。一大堆數據和統計，它就是讓我開心。我們所做的其中一件事，是看看一份有一堆數據、有五十年委託報告的分析。我研究團隊裡一個名叫 Eric Haagen 的成員，過去當他在我團隊時他是位傑出的研究員，他做了這項分析，在分析中他看過在管理團隊中待超過五十年的成員及重要職位，看過從不錯成長到傑出的公司，以及之中的比較，接著他看團隊中他們有十年經驗的成員。他發現的事情是，當一間公司變得傑出，在某人會待在那團隊及重要職位多久方面，有某種雙峰分佈。
By bimodal, I mean that there were a bunch of people who were there, say, only a year, and then there were a bunch of people that were there for a very long time, maybe 10 or 15 or 20 years. And what that says is that the ones who were there, say, only a year, they were a mistake. And even the best executives that we studied, the best leaders that we studied, they made mistakes in selecting, but what they had was the discipline to correct the mistake quickly once they had made it.
提到雙峰分佈，我的意思是有許多在那裡，假設說，只有一年的人，然後有一群在那裡一段非常長時間的人，也許十或十五或二十年。然後那說的事情是，那些，假設說，只在那待一年的人，他們是個錯誤。甚至我們所研究的最傑出的主管、我們所研究最傑出的領導者，他們都在選才方面犯過錯，但他們所擁有的東西是在他們犯錯後，很快地矯正那錯誤的訓練。
Second is, they had the discipline to perpetuate their good decisions for a very long time, and that leads to a really key point, which is, "How do you know that you have one of these right people for a key seat? How do you know that someone is gonna be one of those good decisions you wanna perpetuate for a long time?" How do you know? You don't know until you have empirical experience with the person, until you've worked with them, until you've seen them under pressure, until you've seen them when things go badly, until you've seen how they managed commitments.
第二是，他們擁有那種使他們的正確決定永久留下的訓練，而那促成了一個非常關鍵的要點，也就是：「你怎麼知道你為了一個重要職位找到這些正確的人其中之一？你怎麼知道某人將會成為你想要長久留下的那些正確決定之一？」你怎麼知道？你不會知道，直到你對那個人有觀察經驗、直到你已和他們共事、直到你看過他們面臨壓力、直到你在事態變得嚴重時看過他們、直到你看過他們如何處理承諾。
And what that means is there's no way to just go out and know for certain that you're going to find all these people. You have to bring people in, test them, put them under fire, see how they do, and then make very rigorous decisions based upon how you see them actually perform when you're up close, personal, underdressed.
那表示沒有辦法能夠就走出去，並且確切知道你要找到所有這些人。你必須將人帶進來、測試他們、將他們推入火坑、看看他們會怎麼做，接著基於你在靠近、親近、在私底下，你所看到他們實際上如何表現，做出非常精確的決定。
As a coach, when do you throw in the towel?
身為一名教練，你何時會退出？
Dale Gifford, the chief executive of Hewitt Associates, had a wonderful framework that he suggested for this, and it's very compatible with our research. That framework, think of it as sort of three levels: values, will, and skills, and when you look at someone, what do you suggest—and this is a very consistent way our executives manage at the lower level, skills level—you ask yourself the question that, "Do I have a skills issue here? Is it something what they just need to learn, they need to develop in the role, they can grow into it?" And then we can be really quite patient, because...or more patient, because they... Skills are an acquirable thing. We can develop them, we can learn, we can grow them.
Dale Gifford，Hewitt Associates(美國人資管理顧問公司)的董事長，有個他為此建議的絕佳架構，且它和我們的研究非常相容。那個架構，將它想做是某種三階層次：價值觀、決心，以及技術，當你看著某人，你所建議的事情是－－而這在較低層次，也就是技術層次方面是我們主管管理的非常一致的方式－－你問你自己這問題：「我在這裡有技術上的問題嗎？這是他們需要學習、他們需要在那職位發展、他們可以習慣那職位的東西嗎？」接著我們可以非常有耐心，因為...或是更有耐心點，因為他們...技術是一件可取得的事物。我們可以發展它們、我們可以學習、我們可以培養它們。
The next level up is "will." Or maybe the reason that they don't have the skills, they don't have that kind of burning, compulsive, passionate, obsessive need to do something great, to do great work, maybe they just don't have the will. They don't have the motivation. There's not self-motivated. So, then the question is, " Well, maybe it's something I'm doing as a leader and as a manager that's demotivating them, or maybe I have them in the wrong seat or something," but the real question is, "Can I address the will question?" Be a little less patient there. Then there's the values level, and they ask the question, "Well, wait a minute! Maybe we have a values issue. Maybe it's just a values misfit." And there, there's no compromise, because a great enterprise has to have people who fit with the core values. So think of it as "How patient do you want to be, values, will, or skills?"
往上下一階層次是「決心」。也許他們沒有那技術、他們沒有那種燃燒著、強迫的、熱情的、著迷的那種需求去做某件偉大的事、去做某個偉大工作的原因，也許是因為他們就是沒有那個決心。他們沒有那個動力。他們沒有自我激勵。所以，接著那問題就是：「嗯，也許正是我身為領導者及身為管理者所做的某件事使他們失去動力，或也許我將他們放在錯誤的位置或某些原因」但真正的問題是：「我可以處理這個決心層次的問題嗎？」在這裡要沒耐心一點。接著有價值觀層級，而他們問那問題：「這個嘛，等一等!也許我們有個價值觀的問題。也許這只是價值觀不合。」而那兒，那裡沒有妥協，因為一間偉大的公司需要有滿足核心價值的人。所以將它想成「你想要多有耐性，找尋價值觀、決心，或是技術？」
