2014年10月22日 星期三

The Wilbur Lucius Cross Medal / Leadership Awards



孫教授,妳的歌劇票勾起我的紐約回憶1992。我的東海同學知道我沒看過opera (當然,1974年德國文化中心在台中的中興堂招待東海同學馬拉松式華格納,我們許多同學都睡了.....),拉我去。因為他怕我發太多錢,位置如在山上看山下的歌唱.....

我這封主要要請教貴校的The Wilbur Lucius Cross Medal,應該等同外校的"杰出校友獎"?如果是,它沒給企業界的老闆/捐大錢者 (沒這類的),近年來不是有"壓力"嗎?(我之所以問The Wilbur Lucius Cross Medal,因為我們這行有位偉人Dr. W. Edwards Deming,是耶魯校友,榮譽博士、此獎章得主。) 希望沒打擾您太多?

***** http://www.aya.yale.edu/content/wilbur-cross-medal
此獎1966年開始,近來每年約給5-6人。
1991
W. Edwards Deming '28 PhD (Physics)

The Wilbur Lucius Cross Medal is an honor presented each year by the Graduate School Alumni Association to a small number of outstanding alumni. The medal recognizes distinguished achievements in scholarship, teaching, academic administration, and public service–all areas in which the legendary Dean Cross excelled.
Wilbur Lucius Cross himself was a scholar of distinction in English literature. He taught at the Sheffield Scientific School, the precursor to Yale's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and served as Dean during the Graduate School's reorganization into its present form. He rejuvenated the Yale Review as its editor.



****** 幾天前自問的耶魯大學如何獎賞工商界人士?這多少是解決方式之一。

Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute Honors Jiang Jianqing of ICBC and Gao Xiqing, Formerly of the China Investment Corporation, with Leadership Awards
New Haven, Conn., October 26, 2014—Dr. Jiang Jianqing, chairman of ICBC, the world's largest bank in assets and market capitalization, and Mr. Gao Xiqing, the former president and chief investment officer of China Investment Corporation, China's sovereign wealth fund, will be honored for their leadership with awards by the Chief Executive Leadership Institute of the Yale School of Management at a ceremony to be held at the Yale CEO Summit in Beijing, China, on October 27.
Dr. Jiang will receive the Legend in Leadership Award in recognition of his legacy of global financial leadership. It will be presented by Fu Chengyu, chairman of Sinopec and last year's recipient of this award, and Peter Salovey, president of Yale University.
Jiang Jianqing represents the finest in global business leadership and perceptive financial wisdom, and has been a prominent voice for responsible governance. He is also an inspiring reminder of what contributions a great scholar can make to the world in callings beyond academic life. He has built a formidable global enterprise while skillfully balancing domestic responsibility with public shareholder accountability. A scholar and researcher on theoretical and practical implications of financial innovation, he is also a leader in market reform, becoming chairman of ICBC in 2005 as it prepared for its public listing and dramatic global expansion.  
Mr. Gao will receive the Lifetime of Leadership Award, to be presented by Edward A. Snyder, dean of the Yale School of Management; Chen Zhiwu, professor at Yale School of Management; and Stephen S. Roach, senior fellow of the Yale Jackson Institute for Global Affairs and former chair of Morgan Stanley Asia.
Mr. Gao also has distinguished twin careers as a scholar and as a business leader. Now a professor at Tsinghua University and Duke University, he began his career as a manual railroad worker and became a core architect of Chinese security law and a renowned scholar and teacher, as well as an influential business leader. A graduate of Peking University and Duke University's Law School, he was an associate at a major New York corporate law firm before returning to help establish the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges in 1990. He became a founding member of the Chinese Securities Regulatory Commission, where he was known as a bold reformer and advocate for more liberal capital markets. He retired this past January after leading the China Investment Corporation since 2007.  
CEO Summit organizer Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean for executive programs at the Yale School of Management, commented:  "Both Chairman Jiang of ICBC and Mr. Gao of CIC are revered in both China and the West for their rare blend of trailblazing entrepreneurial triumphs,  pioneering global expansion, innovative processes, problem-solving business statesmanship, inspiring social responsibility, and authentic governance integrity. At this time of sensitive U.S.-China relations and leadership transitions, it is vital to learn from these models of quiet diplomacy, original foresight, and personal humility."   
The Legend in Leadership and Lifetime of Leadership Awards were created 25 years ago to honor current and former CEOs who serve as living legends to inspire chief executives across industries, sectors, and nations. Past recipients include D. Scott Davis of UPS, Fu Chengyu of Sinopec, Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, Jeff Immelt of GE, Jeff Bewkes of Time Warner, Frank Blake of Home Depot, Dave Cote of Honeywell, Ellen Kullman of DuPont, Alan Mulally of Ford, Andrew Liveris of Dow Chemical Company, Ken Chenault of American Express, David Stern of the NBA, Ratan Tata of the TATA Group, Mike Ullman of JCPenney, Infosys founder Nandan Nilekani, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Robert Iger of Walt Disney, Stephen Schwarzman of Blackstone, Roger Enrico of PepsiCo, John Pepper of Procter & Gamble, Don Keough of Coca-Cola Co., McKinsey founder Marvin Bower, Jim Kelly of UPS, Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon, Richard Teerlink of Harley-Davidson, Holiday Inn founder Kemmons Wilson, financier Wilbur Ross, and Lou Gerstner of IBM.
The Yale CEO Summit will take place on October 26 and 27 at the Grand Hyatt Beijing. The Summit theme is "Trading Places: U.S.-China Perspectives on Trade Partnerships." Distinguished global corporate leaders from across industries will engage in lively, candid discussions at this invitation-only leaders' conference hosted by the Yale School of Management. The event takes place in connection with the opening of the Yale Center Beijing, a convening space and intellectual hub for all of Yale University's activities in China.
Additional Summit participants include Kevin Rudd, prime minister of Australia (2007- 2013); U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus; Fu Chengyu, chairman of Sinopec; Tian Guoli, chairman, Bank of China;  Xu Niansha, chairman of China Poly Group; Ling Wen, president & CEO of Shenhua Group; Liu Shiyu, deputy governor of People's Bank of China; Hu Xiaolian, deputy governor of People's Bank of China; Miao Jianmin, president of China Life Insurance (Group) Company; Maurice (Hank) Greenberg, CEO of CV Starr and former CEO of AIG; Zhang Lei, president of Hillhouse Capital Management; Bob Diamond, founder and CEO of Atlas Merchant; John Lundgren, CEO of Stanley Black & Decker; J. Stapleton Roy, 5th U.S. ambassador to China (1991-1995); Ann M. Veneman, 27th U.S. secretary of agriculture (2005-2010); James Lawrence, chairman of Rothschild North America; Zili Shao, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan China; James A. Lawrence, chairman of Rothschild North America; Ma Xutian; president of Asset Management Center of Bank of Communications China; Zhang Yong, founder and chairman of Xinyuan (China) Real Estate; Eddie Tam, CEO of Central Asset Investments; Shirley Yeung, founder and managing partner of Dragonrise Capital; Neil Shen, founding managing partner of Sequoia Capital China; Wendi Murdoch, co-founder of Artsy; Albert Ng, chairman of EY China; and U.S. filmmaker Robert Simonds.
Conference partners include CV Starr & Co, E&Y, PepsiCo, Omni Group, Grand Overseas Development, Atlas Merchant Capital, EEN Group, UPS, and Xinyuan Real Estate.
The Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, the world's first "CEO College," was founded in 1989 to provide original research on top leadership and lively, current educational forums through peer-driven learning for accomplished leaders across a range of sectors. For more information, visit http://celi.som.yale.edu.
For an interview with Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, please contact Tabitha Wilde, 203-432-6010,tabitha.wilde@yale.edu; Joe DeLillo, 202-742-4452, joseph.delillo@yale.edu; or Dan Mullins, 770-605-5032, dan.mullins@yale.edu.


2014年9月18日 星期四

蘇格蘭夫婦的盛情(蔡珠兒)

珠兒夫妻這個故事是戴明著《新經濟學:適用於產業‧政府‧教育界》探討的心理學的Overjustifcation 例子。當時他們也許年輕,不然或許可以想出更創意、溫情的謝謝方式。

蔡珠兒
【快富之夜】
香港和蘇格蘭,天南地北,看來不相干,其實頗有牽連。歷任港督有不少蘇格蘭人,雖已任滿返鄉,名字卻還留在香港,港島有麥理浩徑,西貢有衛奕信徑。
港九街道也多蘇格蘭地名,中環有愛丁堡廣場,上環有鴨巴甸街(Aberdeen Street),旺角有快富街(Fife Street)。Fife在愛丁堡和鄧迪(Dundee)之間,「快富」是粵語,另譯「法夫」,多年前我去過一次,但不是專程,是意外迷路。
那回在愛丁堡租了車,和老汪長征高地,租車公司沒自排車,清一色是手排檔,我不熟,頻頻熄火出狀況,不時卡在陡坡。老汪只會騎馬,不會開車,坐在旁邊乾著急。
好在愈開愈順,縱情馳騁,玩遍各地,最後一天逛完St. Andrews,打算開回愛丁堡,卻迷了路,七彎八拐山窮水盡,闖進一個從沒聽過的地方,Fife,這是哪裡啊?眼看天色將黑,老汪說,趕緊找個民宿歇腿過夜。
開進一個有人煙的聚落,好不容易碰見一個人在蹓狗,搖下車窗打聽,他搖頭,說這一帶沒有民宿,要開到城裡才有旅館。我們很失望,正在地圖畫線找路,那人卻又踱回來,「如果你們願意,可以來我家住,就在前面樹林邊,跟我來。
暮色深濃染衣,夜風凜洌刺骨,停好車,走進那燈火黃暖,狗聲汪汪的磚屋,我有種聊齋之感。那人叫Matt,太太叫Doreen,兩人都六十出頭,子女已成年,兒子在格拉斯哥工作。「你們就睡他的房間吧。」Doreen又抱來一床毛毯,房間小而整潔,家具是簡樸的松木,床頭有手織燈罩,窗簾垂著流蘇。
Doreen添菜,燒了肉湯和豆子,邀我們加入晚餐,Matt喝了麥芽酒,談興更濃。原來這個鎮叫Kirkcaldy,是歷史悠久的煤區,Matt是個退休礦工,和大部分蘇格蘭人一樣,他支持工黨,討厭保守黨,對人頭稅和柴契爾夫人深惡痛絕。老汪和他聊起工黨,Matt對白高敦(Gordon Brown)讚不絕口,引以為傲,「他是我們這裡長大的,好小子,遲早要做首相咧。」 
第二天吃完早餐,我們拿出錢,懇切道謝,感激他們收留。Matt先是搖頭,後來虎起臉,Doreen收起笑,一語不發,我們只得尷尬收回。臨走時,Matt遞來一本書,是白高敦的傳記,「哪,送你們,這小子好樣的,遲早要做首相!」
車子上路,倒後鏡裡,Matt揮手的身影愈來愈小。又一次奇遇,聊齋之感縈繞不去,會不會一切都是虛幻,一回頭,後面灰飛煙滅,只見一片荒塚廢墟?然而那本書是實的,牢牢握在老汪手裡。
歲月流轉,政黨輪替,白高敦果然當上英國首相,可是不得民心,黯然下台。原來政治才是聊齋,詭譎多變,魅異虛幻,唯有真善深鐫長存,他家鄉那棟磚房的溫暖,永遠烙印心上,管它哪黨當家,又叫哪個國,我們都是蘇粉,永遠熱愛蘇格蘭。

2014年9月6日 星期六

A Bias for Bonuses: What It Means for Your Paycheck

最近重譯Dr. W. Edwards Deming的作品,可以評論這類的新文章:它們都沒有基本的統計品質管制的基本學識,所以沒先弄清楚什麼是員工績效的"系統-分布"....



http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/bias-for-bonuses/
A Bias for Bonuses: What It Means for Your Paycheck

Sep 05, 2014

MIC LISTEN TO THE PODCAST:
Ken Abosch and Iwan Barankay discuss bonuses vs. raises for employees

Expecting a salary raise this year? You could end up with a bonus check instead. More and more companies are moving toward giving performance-based bonuses instead of handing out pay raises unrelated to results achieved on the job. The trend is a key finding of the “2014 Salary Increase Survey”by Aon Hewitt, a human resources and consulting services firm based in Lincolnshire, Ill. Spending on variable pay among U.S. employers reached a record-high level of 12.7% of payroll in 2014—the highest in the 38 years that Aon Hewitt has conducted these studies. At the same time, salary increases for U.S. workers accounted for just 2.9%, reflecting a continued focus among companies on controlling fixed costs.

“Salaries tend to have a cascading effect,” explained Ken Abosch, compensation, strategy and market development leader at Aon Hewitt. He said the increasing emphasis on variable pay, including bonuses, has been occurring over the past 10-15 years and is not merely a response to the 2008 recession. “It is a quiet revolution,” he added. Wharton management professor Iwan Barankay noted that the balance between the salary component and variable pay reveals who has more bargaining power —and that employers are increasingly coming out on top.

Barankay and Abosch recently discussed those emerging trends and the takeaways for employers and employees on the Knowledge@Wharton showon Wharton Business Radio on SiriusXM channel 111. (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page.)



According to an Aon Hewitt news release, the survey found that 91% of the 1,064 companies polled currently offer a variable pay program that would make up 12.7% of payroll spending in 2015. By comparison, in 2005, just 78% of companies offered a variable pay program, which accounted for 11.4% of payroll. Improved financial performance and results seem to be driving the trend: Abosch said two-thirds of the survey participants reported meeting all of their performance requirements, and 18% exceeded them by 10% or more. “You see a correlation between performance, results and reward as opposed to some uncontrollable circumstance,” he noted.


“You see a correlation between performance, results and reward as opposed to some uncontrollable circumstance.” –Ken Abosch

Winners and Losers

According to Aon Hewitt’s survey, workers in some U.S. cities can expect to see salary increases higher than the national average in 2015. That’s good news for people living in Denver (3.5%), Houston (3.4%) and Los Angeles (3.2%). However, workers in New York, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Milwaukee should anticipate pay increases of 2.8%, lower than the national average, the survey found.

SPONSORED CONTENT:


Abosch noted that Denver and Houston lead the pack on pay hikes because of the concentration of energy companies in those cities. The energy industry is the leader in not just variable pay, but also salaries, he added. Other industries with the highest variable pay component are life and health insurance, entertainment and communications, and industrial machinery and equipment.

The industries that can expect to see the highest salary increases in 2015 include energy/oil/gas (3.8%), real estate (3.4%), telecommunications (3.2%) and pharmaceutical (3.2%), according to Aon Hewitt. The lowest increases are projected in education (2.7%), government (2.6%) and forest and paper products/packaging (2.6%).

The Chief Bonus Drivers

According to Abosch, employers’preference for bonuses is a result of the strengthening economy and some tightening in the job market. “Salaries represent a fixed cost and have a compounding effect, whereas bonuses are a lump sum payout, which have a one-year impact on the balance sheet.” Employers also see bonuses as a useful tool in motivating employees, he added. “[Also], shareholders and analysts like seeing that employees [have] skin in the game.”


“When you look inside a company at individual productivity, it is very skewed. A small fraction of the employees generate the bulk of the value inside a company.” –Iwan Barankay

Salary increases are not being completely pushed out, though, noted Abosch. After the 2008 recession, which saw the study’s lowest recorded level of salary increases at 1.8%, there has been some improvement. Average salary increases have since crept up to 2.9%-3% forecast for 2015, and Abosch predicts that they will stay at those levels for a while.

Barankay asked Abosch if the companies surveyed based their variable pay on performance or luck. “We know from past research that CEOs in particular have been rewarded much more for luck than for actual effort and their ideas,” Barankay said. Abosch agreed that “structuring these arrangements properly is critical.”

Barankay noted that the latest trends reveal that employers are gaining increasing leverage over employees. “If it were the case that the job market really picked up very strongly across the board, then you should see a strengthening of the base pay,” he said. “Instead, you see these performance-related pay [increases], which basically give a lot of money to those who perform the best. And that really reflects that employers have a lot of power at this point in time.” Twitter

According to Barankay, data analytics can be a powerful tool to separate what results are related to employee effort and which are a matter of luck. “Otherwise, we are left with a situation where employers are basically rewarding gambling, and people are performing well because they were at the right place at the right time,” he said.

The broader question for companies is to determine the kind of workplace they want to offer, according to Barankay. “If you offer a very individualistic, high-powered incentive structure where you will reward individuals for their performance, that could hurt cooperation and team spirit,” he said. “It you really want people to work together, to be innovative, creative and just be able to enjoy being in the workplace, then these high-powered incentives could be a drawback.” Twitter At the same time, he noted that high performing employees may not want to pull along underachievers.

“When you look inside a company and look at individual productivity, it is very skewed, meaning that a small fraction of the employees generate the bulk of the value inside a company,” he said. “Employees who know their worth …can put pressure on their employers and get [attractive compensation] contracts. For the firms, it will be a question of how they balance these conflicting forces— [creating] a nice, cooperative environment but also feeling the pressure from the highest-talent people in the workplace who want stronger compensation and bonuses.”

2014年9月1日 星期一

高階主管培訓; 「情境規劃」( SP)詠嘆調

(這篇可能是1998年作品)
「情境規劃」( SP)詠嘆調

.無遠慮必有近憂?-兼論情境規劃及種種「以不變應萬變」策略及技術

 The mind begins with actions.── Mary Follett

    這次談話的目的是要簡介情境規劃(Scenario Planning)及由它引發的一些不同的看法。在管理上,只要能促進組織內的成員溝通、對話或自我了解,也許任何方式都可行。我以為各位在與會前或少該參考一下下述的書單。
  
  先談 Scenario Planning的目的。有的人說管理的目的是要預測(戴明),但有許多人以為情境規劃主旨不在預測,而是團隊學習,溝通的過程,甚至 "詩意 "地說它是" 在想像中躍進未來"。這是值得討論的。
    情境規劃也不只像台灣的兩岸關係應對進退中,所謂的"七十二套劇本 "。其實對許多台商而言,作兩岸長期關係的情境規劃,極重要而又切合需要。可惜,大家對目前的 "不戰(?)、不和(?)、不對口 "等僵局似乎愛莫能助。
    規劃是會有風險的。有許多的勢、利,是早晚必然會發生的,例如哥德生前就說巴拿馬運河、蘇黎士運河早晚會開通的,果然在他身後數十年都實現了。同樣的,我在二十年前就知道INTERNET 及多媒體的雛形,但這些都與我個人生活型態沒什相干,所以沒什麼利用或感動。
    因此,作情境規劃也一樣,主題必須是切身相關而又是優先的、有意思的。有人把情境規劃 (Scenario Planning)譯成「高瞻遠矚」,這也是有點溢美的,不過,我們不妨思考,多高多遠才算數,如何能高瞻遠矚呢?如何讓大家一起來共同描繪、親手藝成(Crafting )一種"共同而分享 "的氣氛呢?又如何 "用左腦來規劃,右腦來管理呢" 

    我想,戴明的淵博知識系統System of Profound Knowledge (本文以SoPK表示)的前提中,有所謂 "一種信念的合作精神,一種整體、攸戚與共精神,一種熱情而有同感的理解,一種免於懼怕而融洽的相處(最起碼,要免於過分的創造性的衝突),是這種 "每一種意識(念頭)卻促使另一種意識死亡 "的對話的成立。不過,事實上目前很少有組織型態是採所謂格子式( lattice)或是真正的蛛網式的關聯,所以要有共同對話的環境,必須要有外來的智慧的介入,使大家能在 " "中求" 全"

    上班族都是人在江湖中,即使" "為通用汽車公司的總裁,或醜聞纏身的克林頓,也覺得許多事力有未逮。不過,儘管如此,也許真的無遠慮的,必有近憂。這適用於個人,也許也適用於組織。近來日本 PHP的江口先生在為李登輝先生立傳時說,李先生簡直是極像松下的哲王,而且身體又遠比松下強 ……我最想請教江口先生的是,松下對他的事業集團,據說能有二百五十年的宏圖規劃(關於這點,聽講哈佛大學學生莫不以為然,因為美國開國也不過如此久而已,不過,我們是三、四千年的古文明,也許比較見怪不怪的,)李總統會做什麼情境規劃呢?

    所以說,情境規劃的範圍愈大,愈久遠,愈要有深刻而淵博的知識來配合。然而,這不是沒有限制的,譬如王作榮先生在考選部時,據說把下幾任部長所可能碰到的潛在問題都解決(PPS )了,也就是說,王先生是善於此道的。然而,他在監院呢?除了「清談」外,也許祇能寫寫《壯志未酬》的回憶錄而已(它的壯志未酬,就是未幹上經建會主委;也許這是福氣)。行政院搞" 組織再造( )"時,沒人想過立法院會自肥,會為自己而弄許多高級政務官" 滿街跑的「立院組織法」吧!

    我從這兒切入公共行政學者所謂「混水摸魚(muddling through )」式定政策方式吧!這種且戰且走的方式,似乎有點逼真呢!也就是說,也許靈活的行動和可靈活運用的種種資源(包含最有彈性(?)的人力等等),都是成功不可或缺的。七O 年代,《未來衝擊》暢銷時,司馬賀(H. A. Simon)說:「有何衝擊可言呢?我祖母時代所面臨的科技衝擊,絕不下於現在!」我們有一部《易經》,什麼簡易、變異、X易、我們通通都懂;再不然,躲進金庸筆下的什麼「乾坤挪移法」等,不亦美哉!

    情境規劃的優點之一就是它要編故事,編一套屬於我們自己的故事,而演故事或戲劇,是有治療效果的,這無庸置疑,問題是,如何讓大家都是主角?或許說,參與與行動是極重要的表演。

    在《第五項修練實戰篇》中,有人又提出「專家系統」的做法,換句話說,我們是可以結合戲劇、人工智能(專家系統)、想像力(例如在情境展開中,我們可以大膽應用故James March 所談的The Technology of Foolishness中所言的五大法寶:

Treat goals as hypothesis (把標的或目標看成是假說)
Treat intuition as real (直覺要當真看待)
Treat hypocrisy as a transition (不一致又怎樣?)
Memory as an enemy (記得也好,最好忘掉)
Experience as a theory (PDSA ))
 
    其實情境規劃的創始人之一Wack是想要使主管在必要時可以改變其現實的心智 "design scenarios so that manager would question their own model of reality and change it when necessary" (英文 P.179中文??)。由於 scenario design出來的,所以我們可以談情境規劃的科學與藝術。目前,我們所看到的大都是藝術或情境規劃的「詠嘆調」,很少有所謂的情境規劃科學,其實,司馬賀認為,現在是可以考慮把策略規劃弄成專家系統了。請注意,把情境規劃弄成科學,並不見得會失去它浪漫如詩的地方,正如 J. March說,會計人員不見得不可以用詩歌來分析數字的( 1980年已有會計專家系統),同樣是 P/L,有人以為是 Profit/Loss有人以為People/Love 

    你以為情境規劃是什麼,它就是什麼。只要稍微想一下,遠瞻一下,就如凱因斯所說的,我們早晚都是白骨一堆(我的話)。《聖經》中說耶和華把千年當一聲嘆息呢!所以有人說個人做情境規劃時,要先問你想為世間留下什麼遺澤開始。

    情境規劃以「嚴肅面對現實」(prepare seriously for what might have to face )為起點。De Geus把情境規劃看成是「如何才能加速組織學習( "競爭力 "共同模式的再造)」Can we accelerate institutional learning ?(.P.188 )。如果你對商業知識不深廣,如何能與別人分享呢?所以據說用情境規劃的經理要有下述功力:

         The ability to articulate your thinking on complex subjects to assimilate diverse views ,and to be both forceful and open. p.189)。也就是說,作情境規劃經理人要有戴明領導 14項修練。

    David Bohem 說"language is collective",這番話談情境規劃,不知是否促進大家有一些共通的語言? "企業是活水 " Living beings" 新的生意究竟是怎樣的一部無字天書?我有些問題要請教大家:
    .羅馬俱樂部的《成長的極限》等書,是否為一情境規劃?
    .池田有許多(數十部)與世界精英對話錄是否為情境規劃?
    .你家有沒有情境規劃?
 
 
戴明哲學中,特別強調「品質始於董事會」,換句話說,要做好組織的品質轉型,領導極為重要。
戴明又極強調培訓與教育。那麼我們不妨問高階主管們如何來培育呢?

這要分兩部份講,一是高階主管的自覺,二是外來的智慧。

"自覺",可以用前福特汽車公司董事長彼得森(D.Peterson)為例,他向最高經營團隊說:
「我們之所以爬到組織項層,可能都是『誤打誤撞』,甚至都是學到一些表面的、假知識(所謂的〝極有技巧地掩飾自己的無能〞),所以要向戴明博士學…」(大意) 
「外來的智慧」是指戴明認為「系統內的人無法解決自己系統固有的問題。」
所以要借助外來顧問及資源等。但是外來和尚,畢竟仍是獨立、超然的「外人」,組織仍需要變革的代理人(Change agents, 管理人)親自處理許多實際問題。

所以日、美產生近似兩種組織型式。一是日系多採用「推行室」,由它來帶動改革。戴明提議的是一種精神上稍為不同淵博知識轉型內部顧問室,配合外來智慧來推行轉型,他/她扮演各事業部門「特助」的角色。

高階主管的學習方式,要看各公司的規模及理念而定。不過,最常見的是內部一周集合研習。其中內部總策略的制度,溝通討論,請外面專家來介紹,通常一人一天,最後再由最高主管總結。 

這種方式,奇異(G.E)公司有個著名學院。英代爾也有個有意思的做清。福特汽車的做法可參考《戴明修練Ⅱ》。我再簡單地介紹摩托羅拉的事業部副總裁(V.P)培訓計畫作代表,要點如下:
Debra Eller(1995)〝Motorala train VPs to Become Growth Leaders〞(HRMagazine, June)
M公司為了達成每年15%成長,展望未來全球局勢,了解必須發展高階主管領袖訓練,遂成立副總學院(VP Institute,簡稱VPI)。 
該訓練所的規畫是要使每位VP都能有下述能力:
確認公司關鍵性領袖成功因素
討論最高經營主管對未來數十年領袖之期望(該公司實際上是以30年後組織結構為前瞻。
檢視其個人在組織內受到的衝擊並善用自然的領導技能。
在公司內事業單位,群組間建立連擊網路。
開始18月的個人發展過程。
先有五天課程再由總經理檢討該公司的領袖剖面(心理分析)、什麼叫成長性組織以及對扛大任的全能領袖需求。
該公司請了下述的全球性專家來上課
全球多樣文化下的如何相處、成長
如何進入創造過程


這些做法及內因公司而異,例如1992年的杜邦高階主管會議,研讀的重點是「Leadership is an Art(領導為藝術)」等。其實,我們從這些可以了解各公司的企業文化及事業重點,因為事業因人成事,反過來,例如摩托羅拉強調「全球化經營的文化觀」、杜邦強調「有人性價值觀的領導」…。

2014年7月24日 星期四

Robert Reich 、戴明博士、利害關係人、員工、頂層主管自支高薪問題

Robert Reich 提出公司組織應由所有利害關係人組成,可解決頂層主管自支高薪問題。戴明博士的看法

參考戴明博士的看法:
日本企業並不追求股東的最大股利。因為資本是由銀行借貸而來,只要求固定的資產報酬率。由於日本企業不需要去討好股東,就可以委託另一批人--企業的員工--來經營。彼得‧杜拉克(Peter Drucker) 類似的觀察:大企業的經營是為了員工,在傳統的法律上,大企業是「相互扶助的業主」。由於員工是(非為盈餘)制度的受益者,勞資之間自然會相互信任。


United Airlines reports it’s outsourcing 630 gate agent jobs at 12 airports to companies paying near-poverty level wages. Employees who have been with the company for years, earning middle-class wages of $50,000 a year, will be replaced by people paid between $9.50 and $12 per hour. United says it must do this to cut costs and raise its profits relative to other airlines. But United CEO Jeff Smisek gave himself $8.1 million this year. If he cut his salary just $2 million (inline with the CEO of the more successful Southwest Airlines, who gets $4 million), United would save about as much as it will by cutting the pay of those 630 employees.
The problem in America isn’t that typical workers are paid more than they’re “worth” in the market. It’s that they have no bargaining power, while too many CEOs and other top executives have the power to pay themselves almost whatever they want. How do redress this power imbalance? Some call for stronger unions and greater shareholder say over CEO pay, but I'm increasingly of the view we have to change the organization of the corporation so that it has to respond to all stakeholders -- not just its shareholders but also its workers and affected communities. What's your view?

2014年7月17日 星期四

蔡士魁: 合作學習/百隻猿猴現象


這篇"合作學習"是我1996年請同學蔡士魁先生整理的,我是從全球戴明共同體學到此觀念的。2014年中,翻讀佐藤 學(Manabu Sato 1996)《學校的挑戰----創建學習共同體》上海:華東師範大學出版社,2010。知道作者也是從加拿的學校學習此一寧靜的革命的。



合作學習



作者簡介:蔡士魁﹐畢業於東海大學工業工程系。曾經在台塑、飛利浦等公司資訊部門任職近二十年。
本文摘要:合作學習兼負有合作與學習兩種任務。它要求學生是學習過程中的主人。課程要能引起學生學習的興趣。同學之間要能彼此積極互賴。
感 想:記得長子初上小學時﹐老師發下一張意見調查表﹐詢問貴家長對貴子女的期望。我毫不思索地寫下:希望小朋友能保有對學習的興趣。回想自己曾經在不當的教導下﹐挫折了對若干學科的好奇﹐延誤了探索的時程﹐因此對合作學習也就更為嚮往了!

  1. 學習的目的何在?
學習是為了勝任某一項工作或職能。
學習是為了獲取某一項知識或能力。
透過學習﹐可以重塑自我、突破自我。
 
也有人認為:學習本身並無目的﹐它只是一種(改變的)過程、一種手段。所以學習可以有很多種型態:



個別學習(Individualistic Learning):個人利用書籍或其他工具﹐獲得所需的知識或能力。學習評鑑為標準參照(criterion-referenced)取向。
競爭學習(Competitive Learning):一群學生在爭取高分與排名的獎勵下﹐展開競相追逐設定目標的學習。其學習評鑑為常模參照(norm-referenced)取向。
合作學習(Cooperative Learning):藉著小組學生彼此互賴式的合作﹐進行分享式的學習﹐以達到共同的目標。
 

  1. 合作學習為什麼不受重視
合作學習從英國開始倡導起﹐迄今已有近二百年的歷史了。數年前﹐它雖然曾經被教育單位列為十二種推廣的教學方法之一﹐但是能坐而言,又能起而行的中小學老師並不多見。
只要看看中小學課桌椅排列方式(一律面向黑板﹐前後對正、左右看齊)﹐就可知道傳統「排排坐、吃果果」的教學理念﹐仍然十分強勢。講求權威與服從、安靜守秩序的教室管理下﹐並不鼓勵(分組)合作(討論)學習的開展。
即使是拒絕聯考的「放牛班」學生﹐畢業之後仍要面對一個強調競爭甚於合作的社會。企業內部考績等同調薪的作法﹐所要塑造的仍舊是個人英雄﹐而非團隊合作。
合作學習一直不受到青睞﹐自有其歷史背景。
 
  1. 合作學習的大要
合作學習是什麼呢?顧名思義﹐就是一群學生為達到共同一致的目標﹐所進行的一種小組分工合作、積極互賴(Positive Interdependence)的學習型態。它比其他的學習型態﹐更要求學生的社會技巧。

為什麼要合作學習呢?因為競爭學習中所產生的挫折與焦慮感﹐在合作學習中可以避免。藉由合作學習產生的自尊與成就感﹐可以讓學生真正樂在學習(Joy in Learning)。若以很功利的角度來看﹐合作學習所強調的合作﹐也將是新世紀社會必備的特質。企業界你輸我贏的零合模式不敵雙贏(Win-Win)的合作模式。企業內個人英雄主義將被「局部最佳化未必等同全體最佳化」的系統觀所掩蓋﹐而學術界達爾文優勝劣敗說也受進化需要合作說所挑戰﹐在在都可反映「合作重於競爭」的趨勢。
 
艾爾菲孔(Alfie Kohn)在《不要競爭(No Contest)》一書中﹐對合作學習的三項要素(3C)提出簡明的要求:
Control(掌控權):學生才是學習過程中的主人﹐學習的掌控權應回歸到學生手中。若由老師(供應商)來決定學生(顧客)的需求﹐是一件弔詭的事。
Curriculum(課程):課程要編排有趣﹐能引人好奇﹐進而探索或付諸行動。學生藉此課程也可以學習合作的精神。
Community(共同體):學生要彼此積極互賴﹐在學習的過程中更要培養出社會技巧。
 
很顯然的﹐合作學習兼具「學習」與「合作」兩種任務。針對合作學習﹐目前﹐已有許多不同的設計。在黃政傑與林佩璇合著的《合作學習》中﹐就列舉一些﹐包括:學生小組成就區分法(STAD)、小組遊戲競賽法(TGT)、拼圖法(Jigsaw)、團體探究法(GI)等等。然而﹐各種實施步驟仍不出PDSA的模式:
課前準備:含選題、教材準備、分組。
授課、分組學習。
評鑑:含發表或測驗、表揚。
 
在合作學習的進行中﹐對於師生的角色﹐也有了不同的認定:
學生:學生過程中的主動者。
老師:協助者。
同學:互賴者(我的成功有賴於你)。
在合作學習中﹐對於教室也有不同的意義:
教室:由學生自己來發問:「我需要什麼樣的教室?」教室是否不限時段與課程﹐都可以進行合作學習?教室的定義可能是:一群互相關心與負責的共同體所學習的場所。
  1. 合作學習的實例
合作學習在中小學並不「流行」﹐但是在校門外卻不乏先例:
幼稚園:角落教學(佳美幼稚園)。
公司內:跨部門的專案小組。
社團:讀書會、個人成長團體或工作坊。
其他
展望未來﹐合作學習將有更多成功的案例。畢竟﹐合作學習所琢磨出的社會技巧﹐在面對工作伙伴或生活伴侶都十分有助益。不過﹐要想讓合作學習受到正視﹐與其寄望保守因循的教育官僚體系﹐或等待世界級大師(品管大師或諾貝爾獎得主)來鼓吹﹐不如靠體制外的團體(如戴明學院、森林小學等)的倡導﹐才可能更迅速有效的對學習的品質提出更多的挑戰與改善。
  1. 參考資料
  1. Alfie Kohn(1986)〝No Contest〞Houghton Mifflin出版
  2. 黃政傑、林佩璇(民國85年)《合作學習》五南出版社
*****

百隻猿猴現象
蔡士魁
日本宮崎縣的一個小島上,有一群被京都大學研究人員觀察數十年猴子。在1950年時發現,有一隻一歲半母猴,在撿食蕃薯時,會先用河水沖洗才吃。四年後,廿隻猴子中有十五隻有此習慣,而十二歲以上的公猴則不受影響。後來島上河水枯乾了,猴群就改到海邊用海水沖洗蕃薯。
不可思議的是,相鄰的大分縣(直線距離約二百公里左右),也出現了會用水清洗蕃薯的猴子。這就是被學術界在1949年所承認的「百隻猿猴現象」。
《生命潮流》( Life Tide )作者萊爾華特森(Lyall Watson),在1980年著書批露此事,並認為只要在小島上洗蕃薯的猴子數目,超過一個臨界值後,不僅會影響周邊的猴子數目,甚至會隔傳到外地。而這個臨界值,大約就是以一百隻為界限。
船井幸雄在《第一百隻猴子》(洪建全基金會出版)中,還舉出另一個有趣的例子:

在1920年英國某小鎮的山雀,會在早晨啄破送牛奶工人送來奶瓶上的鋁箔紙,把牛奶喝光。這種現象,竟然由一個小鎮擴及全國。令人不解的是,山雀的活動範圍很小,飛行能力亦十分有限。可是,這種現象在1947年出現在大海對面的荷蘭和瑞典。
第二次世界大戰期間,因牛奶缺乏,這種現象一度消失。可是在戰後,又再度發生。而這種傳播的現象,已經不僅是在距離上的橫向傳播,甚至是時間上縱向的隔代遺傳了。作者在此的解釋是:個體的改變會引起磁場改變,繼而引出更多的共鳴,於是整體就隨著改變。所以作者藉此鼓勵有心人立志做「第一百隻猴子」,把自己變成可以壓垮駱駝的最後一根稻草。
《猴子啟示錄》(The Hundredth Monkey)(桂冠出版),則以新詩的體裁闡述「一百隻猴子」的故事,並呼籲讀者一齊來湊成「一百隻猴子」共同為己、為子孫來參與反核行動。所以原作者放棄該書的版權,歡迎翻譯翻印,以擴大影響面。

至於反核成效如何呢?且看近幾年來,歐洲陸續關閉核電廠,就可知道「一百隻猴子」的繁衍效果果然驚人。而台灣反核四的「猴子」,不論是否已達一百隻的臨界值,但也己令主事單位如芒刺在背了。
誰又是台灣百匹猿猴現象的「第一百猴子」呢?慈濟功德會的證嚴法師?嘉義行善團的何明德團長?致力森林小學的史英?獻身戴明學院的鍾漢清?還是……,還是我們還在袖手中,等待百匹猿猴的轉型現象自動出現?


*****船井 幸雄(ふない ゆきお、1933年1月10日 - 2014年1月19日[1])は、大阪府出身の経営コンサルタント
著書は400冊を超える。
******Facebook
15%的老猴子 容閻驊

在科學界吵了幾十年的老故事:「幸島的一百隻猴子」,很多人認為這是一則擺明的偽科學故事,但是也有更多人認為這故事的推論完全屬實,是一則很有啟發性的勵志故事。

通常聽過「幸島的一百隻猴子」這故事的人,幾乎都是因為看過以下兩本超級暢銷書(分別是萊爾•華特遜的《生命潮流》與船井幸雄的《第一百隻猴子》)。儘管這故事曾經掀起為期數十年的激辯,但是誰也不能否認這故事對人們真的很有啟發性!

如果您沒聽過「幸島的一百隻猴子」,那請容閻驊佔用小小篇幅重新再為您講一次。

話說,在日本宮崎縣有座非常迷你的島嶼:幸島(Koshima)。幸島上啥都沒有,只有一條快要乾枯、要死不活的小溪與一群日本猿猴。

約當六十年前,日本京都大學靈長類研究所的研究人員跑去幸島上觀察這群猴子的一舉一動,因為怕這群猴子挨餓,所以研究人員還留了一些蕃薯給猴子吃。

後來幸島上的猴子們發現蕃薯可以吃,但是蕃薯上頭的泥巴實在很討厭,所以猴子們在吃蕃薯之前就會用手來拍落蕃薯上頭的泥巴。不過某一天,有一隻芳齡一歲半的聰明小猴子突然發現用清澈的溪水也可以洗淨蕃薯上的泥巴。於是乎,幸島上其他猴子也很快學會這一招,於是幸島上的85%猴子從此就改用溪水來洗淨蕃薯,但是僅佔15%的老猴子卻始終不願意學習這招。

後來幸島唯一的小溪乾枯了,於是又有一隻聰明的小猴子發現用海水來洗蕃薯,滋味似乎也不錯!於是在很短的時間內,幸島上85%猴子又全部學會這招!接下來就是這個故事的重點了!大家要專心聽好!

當幸島上出現第100隻「用水洗蕃薯」的猴子時,居然在幸島200公里之外的大分縣猴子也莫名其妙地學會這招。您要知道大分縣的猴子跟幸島的猴子根本沒機會見著面、牠們也不可能寫信、發噗浪、傳真或是MSN,但是這兩群毫不相干的猴子居然在同一時間學會了「用水洗蕃薯」!

為甚麼一隻小猴子用水洗蕃薯的「個別行為」最後會穿越時空,傳播到遙遠的地方之外、成為一種「集體行為」呢?日本經營顧問之神:船井幸雄於是就對大家開示了起來。

船井幸雄說:「只要是對的信念,這種無形的力量就可以匯聚成為一個很大的正向能量!只要團隊中有任何一個人願意率先行動,他就可以在人群中產生示範作用,在無形中跨越時間與空間的藩籬、去影響絕大部分的人,就像幸島上那群猴子一樣!」。

當然∼船井幸雄並不是宗教家,他可是日本經營顧問之神呢!他絕對不能講一些沒有數據佐證的形而上言論,為此船井幸雄也特別提出一個非常精準的「7-11數據:任何新觀念推廣,起初只要有7%~11%的人願意接受與認同,等到臨界點來臨時,就會出現驚人進展與質變!」。

「幸島的一百隻猴子」這個故事明明白白地揭示一個重要觀念:「整體文化的變遷往往始於個體行為的變化!」,這個觀念就是希望任何人都不要小看自己,千萬不要認為自己是個屁、是坨屎、而喪氣地放棄自己可以改變世界的所有潛能!或許一個人的力量非常有限,但是請務必相信心的力量可是無遠弗屆!一顆善念的種籽就可以創造出一整片森林,任何人都千萬不能小看自己!

不過對個人而言,我倒覺得「幸島的一百隻猴子」的重點倒不是潛能、心量或是勵志,而是60年在幸島上研究猴子的那群日本京都大學研究人員的一段額外發現。

或許大家都把這故事的焦點鎖定在幸島上那隻一歲半的聰明小猴子莫名其妙地影響到200公里之外的大分縣猴子的精彩重點上,但是卻忽略掉這故事還有另外一個超級大重點:幸島上依舊有15%的猴子自始至終、不願意學習「用水洗蕃薯」這招!

日本京都大學研究人員非常哀怨地發現這僅佔15%、「堅持抗拒改革」的老猴子居然全部是公的,而且年齡全部都超過12歲。如果我們用人類年齡來換算的話,這群猴子就是相當於人類的45歲。更糟糕的是:這群猴子居然清一色都是猴子裡頭有權有勢的領導階層。

如果這群15%的猴子可以套用於人類的話,那麼就代表45歲以上的高階男性主管普遍拒絕進步、拒絕嘗試新鮮事物、也不願意接受新觀念。唉∼這真是一個讓人心有戚戚焉的結論!

幸好這群猴子的例子無法完全類比到人類,也讓我鬆了八口氣,總之,「幸島的一百隻猴子」還是非常勵志,勉勵我們大家要相信心的力量,做好自己的本份,進一步把我們的心量帶給他人、影響全世界,最重要的是:千萬別當那15%、抗拒一切改變的老猴子啊!(2010年10月~Catherine Yen 台灣文學藝術獨立聯盟貼文)