The Six Attributes Every Employee Needs
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do you find the right people?
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.
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.
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.
As a coach, when do you throw in the towel?
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?"