خلاقیت را چگونه مدیریت کنیم؟، سخنرانی کوتاه لیندا هیل: تفاوت بین نسخه‌ها

از دانشنامه کارآفرینی
پرش به ناوبری پرش به جستجو
(اضافه کردن متن انگلیسی)
سطر ۶۹۷: سطر ۶۹۷:
  
 
  <div align="left">   
 
  <div align="left">   
−
==متن انگلیسی==
+
==English text==
 +
Linda Hill: How to manage for collective creativity
 +
 
 +
 
 
I have a confession to make.
 
I have a confession to make.
 +
 
I'm a business professor
 
I'm a business professor
 +
 
whose ambition has been
 
whose ambition has been
 +
 
to help people learn to lead.
 
to help people learn to lead.
 +
 
But recently, I've discovered
 
But recently, I've discovered
 +
 
that what many of us
 
that what many of us
 +
 
think of as great leadership
 
think of as great leadership
 +
 
does not work when it comes
 
does not work when it comes
 +
 
to leading innovation.
 
to leading innovation.
 +
 
I'm an ethnographer.
 
I'm an ethnographer.
 +
 
I use the methods of anthropology
 
I use the methods of anthropology
 +
 
to understand the questions
 
to understand the questions
 +
 
in which I'm interested.
 
in which I'm interested.
 +
 
So along with three co-conspirators,
 
So along with three co-conspirators,
 +
 
I spent nearly a decade observing
 
I spent nearly a decade observing
 +
 
up close and personal
 
up close and personal
 +
 
exceptional leaders of innovation.
 
exceptional leaders of innovation.
 +
 
We studied 16 men and women,
 
We studied 16 men and women,
 +
 
located in seven countries
 
located in seven countries
 +
 
across the globe,
 
across the globe,
 +
 
working in 12 different industries.
 
working in 12 different industries.
 +
 
In total, we spent hundreds
 
In total, we spent hundreds
 +
 
of hours on the ground,
 
of hours on the ground,
 +
 
on-site, watching these leaders in action.
 
on-site, watching these leaders in action.
 +
 
We ended up with pages and pages
 
We ended up with pages and pages
 +
 
and pages of field notes
 
and pages of field notes
 +
 
that we analyzed and looked
 
that we analyzed and looked
 +
 
for patterns in what our leaders did.
 
for patterns in what our leaders did.
 +
 
The bottom line?
 
The bottom line?
 +
 
If we want to build organizations
 
If we want to build organizations
 +
 
that can innovate time and again,
 
that can innovate time and again,
 +
 
we must unlearn our conventional
 
we must unlearn our conventional
 +
 
notions of leadership.
 
notions of leadership.
 +
 
Leading innovation is not
 
Leading innovation is not
 +
 
about creating a vision,
 
about creating a vision,
 +
 
and inspiring others to execute it.
 
and inspiring others to execute it.
 +
 
But what do we mean by innovation?
 
But what do we mean by innovation?
 +
 
An innovation is anything
 
An innovation is anything
 +
 
that is both new and useful.
 
that is both new and useful.
 +
 
It can be a product or service.
 
It can be a product or service.
 +
 
It can be a process
 
It can be a process
 +
 
or a way of organizing.
 
or a way of organizing.
 +
 
It can be incremental,
 
It can be incremental,
 +
 
or it can be breakthrough.
 
or it can be breakthrough.
 +
 
We have a pretty inclusive definition.
 
We have a pretty inclusive definition.
 +
 
How many of you recognize this man?
 
How many of you recognize this man?
 +
 
Put your hands up.
 
Put your hands up.
 +
 
Keep your hands up,
 
Keep your hands up,
 +
 
if you know who this is.
 
if you know who this is.
 +
 
How about these familiar faces?
 
How about these familiar faces?
 +
 
(Laughter)
 
(Laughter)
 +
 
From your show of hands,
 
From your show of hands,
 +
 
it looks like many of you
 
it looks like many of you
 +
 
have seen a Pixar movie,
 
have seen a Pixar movie,
 +
 
but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,
 
but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,
 +
 
the founder and CEO of Pixar --
 
the founder and CEO of Pixar --
 +
 
one of the companies
 
one of the companies
 +
 
I had the privilege of studying.
 
I had the privilege of studying.
 +
 
My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,
 
My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,
 +
 
when they were working on "Ratatouille,"
 
when they were working on "Ratatouille,"
 +
 
that provocative movie about
 
that provocative movie about
 +
 
a rat becoming a master chef.
 
a rat becoming a master chef.
 +
 
Computer-generated movies
 
Computer-generated movies
 +
 
are really mainstream today,
 
are really mainstream today,
 +
 
but it took Ed and his
 
but it took Ed and his
 +
 
colleagues nearly 20 years
 
colleagues nearly 20 years
 +
 
to create the first
 
to create the first
 +
 
full-length C.G. movie.
 
full-length C.G. movie.
 +
 
In the 20 years hence,
 
In the 20 years hence,
 +
 
they've produced 14 movies.
 
they've produced 14 movies.
 +
 
I was recently at Pixar,
 
I was recently at Pixar,
 +
 
and I'm here to tell you
 
and I'm here to tell you
 +
 
that number 15 is sure to be a winner.
 
that number 15 is sure to be a winner.
 +
 
When many of us think
 
When many of us think
 +
 
about innovation, though,
 
about innovation, though,
 +
 
we think about an Einstein
 
we think about an Einstein
 +
 
having an 'Aha!' moment.
 
having an 'Aha!' moment.
 +
 
But we all know that's a myth.
 
But we all know that's a myth.
 +
 
Innovation is not about solo genius,
 
Innovation is not about solo genius,
 +
 
it's about collective genius.
 
it's about collective genius.
 +
 
Let's think for a minute about
 
Let's think for a minute about
 +
 
what it takes to make a Pixar movie:
 
what it takes to make a Pixar movie:
 +
 
No solo genius, no flash of inspiration
 
No solo genius, no flash of inspiration
 +
 
produces one of those movies.
 
produces one of those movies.
 +
 
On the contrary, it takes about
 
On the contrary, it takes about
 +
 
250 people four to five years,
 
250 people four to five years,
 +
 
to make one of those movies.
 
to make one of those movies.
 +
 
To help us understand the process,
 
To help us understand the process,
 +
 
an individual in the studio
 
an individual in the studio
 +
 
drew a version of this picture.
 
drew a version of this picture.
 +
 
He did so reluctantly,
 
He did so reluctantly,
 +
 
because it suggested that the process
 
because it suggested that the process
 +
 
was a neat series of steps
 
was a neat series of steps
 +
 
done by discrete groups.
 
done by discrete groups.
 +
 
Even with all those arrows,
 
Even with all those arrows,
 +
 
he thought it failed to really tell you
 
he thought it failed to really tell you
 +
 
just how iterative, interrelated
 
just how iterative, interrelated
 +
 
and, frankly, messy their process was.
 
and, frankly, messy their process was.
 +
 
Throughout the making of a movie
 
Throughout the making of a movie
 +
 
at Pixar, the story evolves.
 
at Pixar, the story evolves.
 +
 
So think about it.
 
So think about it.
 +
 
Some shots go through quickly.
 
Some shots go through quickly.
 +
 
They don't all go through in order.
 
They don't all go through in order.
 +
 
It depends on how vexing
 
It depends on how vexing
 +
 
the challenges are
 
the challenges are
 +
 
that they come up with when they
 
that they come up with when they
 +
 
are working on a particular scene.
 
are working on a particular scene.
 +
 
So if you think about that scene in "Up"
 
So if you think about that scene in "Up"
 +
 
where the boy hands the piece
 
where the boy hands the piece
 +
 
of chocolate to the bird,
 
of chocolate to the bird,
 +
 
that 10 seconds took one animator
 
that 10 seconds took one animator
 +
 
almost six months to perfect.
 
almost six months to perfect.
 +
 
The other thing about a Pixar movie
 
The other thing about a Pixar movie
 +
 
is that no part of the movie
 
is that no part of the movie
 +
 
is considered finished
 
is considered finished
 +
 
until the entire movie wraps.
 
until the entire movie wraps.
 +
 
Partway through one production,
 
Partway through one production,
 +
 
an animator drew a character
 
an animator drew a character
 +
 
with an arched eyebrow that
 
with an arched eyebrow that
 +
 
suggested a mischievous side.
 
suggested a mischievous side.
 +
 
When the director saw that
 
When the director saw that
 +
 
drawing, he thought it was great.
 
drawing, he thought it was great.
 +
 
It was beautiful, but he said,
 
It was beautiful, but he said,
 +
 
"You've got to lose it;
 
"You've got to lose it;
 +
 
it doesn't fit the character."
 
it doesn't fit the character."
 +
 
Two weeks later, the director
 
Two weeks later, the director
 +
 
came back and said,
 
came back and said,
 +
 
Let's put in those few seconds of film.
 
Let's put in those few seconds of film.
 +
 
Because that animator
 
Because that animator
 +
 
was allowed to share
 
was allowed to share
 +
 
what we referred to
 
what we referred to
 +
 
as his slice of genius,
 
as his slice of genius,
 +
 
he was able to help that director
 
he was able to help that director
 +
 
reconceive the character
 
reconceive the character
 +
 
in a subtle but important way
 
in a subtle but important way
 +
 
that really improved the story.
 
that really improved the story.
 +
 
What we know is, at the heart
 
What we know is, at the heart
 +
 
of innovation is a paradox.
 
of innovation is a paradox.
 +
 
You have to unleash the talents
 
You have to unleash the talents
 +
 
and passions of many people
 
and passions of many people
 +
 
and you have to harness them
 
and you have to harness them
 +
 
into a work that is actually useful.
 
into a work that is actually useful.
 +
 
Innovation is a journey.
 
Innovation is a journey.
 +
 
It's a type of collaborative
 
It's a type of collaborative
 +
 
problem solving,
 
problem solving,
 +
 
usually among people
 
usually among people
 +
 
who have different expertise
 
who have different expertise
 +
 
and different points of view.
 
and different points of view.
 +
 
Innovations rarely get created full-blown.
 
Innovations rarely get created full-blown.
 +
 
As many of you know,
 
As many of you know,
 +
 
they're the result,
 
they're the result,
 +
 
usually, of trial and error.
 
usually, of trial and error.
 +
 
Lots of false starts,
 
Lots of false starts,
 +
 
missteps and mistakes.
 
missteps and mistakes.
 +
 
Innovative work can be
 
Innovative work can be
 +
 
very exhilarating,
 
very exhilarating,
 +
 
but it also can be
 
but it also can be
 +
 
really downright scary.
 
really downright scary.
 +
 
So when we look at why it is
 
So when we look at why it is
 +
 
that Pixar is able to do what it does,
 
that Pixar is able to do what it does,
 +
 
we have to ask ourselves,
 
we have to ask ourselves,
 +
 
what's going on here?
 
what's going on here?
 +
 
For sure, history
 
For sure, history
 +
 
and certainly Hollywood,
 
and certainly Hollywood,
 +
 
is full of star-studded teams
 
is full of star-studded teams
 +
 
that have failed.
 
that have failed.
 +
 
Most of those failures are attributed
 
Most of those failures are attributed
 +
 
to too many stars or too many
 
to too many stars or too many
 +
 
cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.
 
cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.
 +
 
So why is it that Pixar,
 
So why is it that Pixar,
 +
 
with all of its cooks,
 
with all of its cooks,
 +
 
is able to be so successful
 
is able to be so successful
 +
 
time and time again?
 
time and time again?
 +
 
When we studied
 
When we studied
 +
 
an Islamic Bank in Dubai,
 
an Islamic Bank in Dubai,
 +
 
or a luxury brand in Korea,
 
or a luxury brand in Korea,
 +
 
or a social enterprise in Africa,
 
or a social enterprise in Africa,
 +
 
we found that innovative organizations
 
we found that innovative organizations
 +
 
are communities that
 
are communities that
 +
 
have three capabilities:
 
have three capabilities:
 +
 
creative abrasion, creative
 
creative abrasion, creative
 +
 
agility and creative resolution.
 
agility and creative resolution.
 +
 
Creative abrasion is about being able
 
Creative abrasion is about being able
 +
 
to create a marketplace of ideas
 
to create a marketplace of ideas
 +
 
through debate and discourse.
 
through debate and discourse.
 +
 
In innovative organizations,
 
In innovative organizations,
 +
 
they amplify differences,
 
they amplify differences,
 +
 
they don't minimize them.
 
they don't minimize them.
 +
 
Creative abrasion is not
 
Creative abrasion is not
 +
 
about brainstorming,
 
about brainstorming,
 +
 
where people suspend their judgment.
 
where people suspend their judgment.
 +
 
No, they know how to have very
 
No, they know how to have very
 +
 
heated but constructive arguments
 
heated but constructive arguments
 +
 
to create a portfolio of alternatives.
 
to create a portfolio of alternatives.
 +
 
Individuals in innovative organizations
 
Individuals in innovative organizations
 +
 
learn how to inquire, they learn how
 
learn how to inquire, they learn how
 +
 
to actively listen, but guess what?
 
to actively listen, but guess what?
 +
 
They also learn how to
 
They also learn how to
 +
 
advocate for their point of view.
 
advocate for their point of view.
 +
 
They understand that
 
They understand that
 +
 
innovation rarely happens
 
innovation rarely happens
 +
 
unless you have both
 
unless you have both
 +
 
diversity and conflict.
 
diversity and conflict.
 +
 
Creative agility is about being able
 
Creative agility is about being able
 +
 
to test and refine that portfolio of ideas
 
to test and refine that portfolio of ideas
 +
 
through quick pursuit,
 
through quick pursuit,
 +
 
reflection and adjustment.
 
reflection and adjustment.
 +
 
It's about discovery-driven learning
 
It's about discovery-driven learning
 +
 
where you act, as opposed to plan,
 
where you act, as opposed to plan,
 +
 
your way to the future.
 
your way to the future.
 +
 
It's about design thinking where
 
It's about design thinking where
 +
 
you have that interesting combination
 
you have that interesting combination
 +
 
of the scientific method
 
of the scientific method
 +
 
and the artistic process.
 
and the artistic process.
 +
 
It's about running a series of
 
It's about running a series of
 +
 
experiments, and not a series of pilots.
 
experiments, and not a series of pilots.
 +
 
Experiments are usually about learning.
 
Experiments are usually about learning.
 +
 
When you get a negative outcome,
 
When you get a negative outcome,
 +
 
you're still really learning something
 
you're still really learning something
 +
 
that you need to know.
 
that you need to know.
 +
 
Pilots are often about being right.
 
Pilots are often about being right.
 +
 
When they don't work,
 
When they don't work,
 +
 
someone or something is to blame.
 
someone or something is to blame.
 +
 
The final capability
 
The final capability
 +
 
is creative resolution.
 
is creative resolution.
 +
 
This is about doing decision making
 
This is about doing decision making
 +
 
in a way that you can actually combine
 
in a way that you can actually combine
 +
 
even opposing ideas
 
even opposing ideas
 +
 
to reconfigure them in new combinations
 
to reconfigure them in new combinations
 +
 
to produce a solution
 
to produce a solution
 +
 
that is new and useful.
 
that is new and useful.
 +
 
When you look at innovative organizations,
 
When you look at innovative organizations,
 +
 
they never go along to get along.
 
they never go along to get along.
 +
 
They don't compromise.
 
They don't compromise.
 +
 
They don't let one group
 
They don't let one group
 +
 
or one individual dominate,
 
or one individual dominate,
 +
 
even if it's the boss,
 
even if it's the boss,
 +
 
even if it's the expert.
 
even if it's the expert.
 +
 
Instead, they have developed
 
Instead, they have developed
 +
 
a rather patient and more inclusive
 
a rather patient and more inclusive
 +
 
decision making process
 
decision making process
 +
 
that allows for both/and
 
that allows for both/and
 +
 
solutions to arise
 
solutions to arise
 +
 
and not simply either/or solutions.
 
and not simply either/or solutions.
 +
 
These three capabilities are why we see
 
These three capabilities are why we see
 +
 
that Pixar is able to do what it does.
 
that Pixar is able to do what it does.
 +
 
Let me give you another example,
 
Let me give you another example,
 +
 
and that example is the
 
and that example is the
 +
 
infrastructure group of Google.
 
infrastructure group of Google.
 +
 
The infrastructure group
 
The infrastructure group
 +
 
of Google is the group
 
of Google is the group
 +
 
that has to keep the website
 
that has to keep the website
 +
 
up and running 24/7.
 
up and running 24/7.
 +
 
So when Google was about
 
So when Google was about
 +
 
to introduce Gmail and YouTube,
 
to introduce Gmail and YouTube,
 +
 
they knew that their data storage
 
they knew that their data storage
 +
 
system wasn't adequate.
 
system wasn't adequate.
 +
 
The head of the engineering group
 
The head of the engineering group
 +
 
and the infrastructure group at that time
 
and the infrastructure group at that time
 +
 
was a man named Bill Coughran.
 
was a man named Bill Coughran.
 +
 
Bill and his leadership team,
 
Bill and his leadership team,
 +
 
who he referred to as his brain trust,
 
who he referred to as his brain trust,
 +
 
had to figure out what to do
 
had to figure out what to do
 +
 
about this situation.
 
about this situation.
 +
 
They thought about it for a while.
 
They thought about it for a while.
 +
 
Instead of creating a group
 
Instead of creating a group
 +
 
to tackle this task,
 
to tackle this task,
 +
 
they decided to allow groups
 
they decided to allow groups
 +
 
to emerge spontaneously
 
to emerge spontaneously
 +
 
around different alternatives.
 
around different alternatives.
 +
 
Two groups coalesced.
 
Two groups coalesced.
 +
 
One became known as Big Table,
 
One became known as Big Table,
 +
 
the other became known
 
the other became known
 +
 
as Build It From Scratch.
 
as Build It From Scratch.
 +
 
Big Table proposed that they
 
Big Table proposed that they
 +
 
build on the current system.
 
build on the current system.
 +
 
Build It From Scratch proposed
 
Build It From Scratch proposed
 +
 
that it was time for a whole new system.
 
that it was time for a whole new system.
 +
 
Separately, these two teams
 
Separately, these two teams
 +
 
were allowed to work full-time
 
were allowed to work full-time
 +
 
on their particular approach.
 
on their particular approach.
 +
 
In engineering reviews,
 
In engineering reviews,
 +
 
Bill described his role as,
 
Bill described his role as,
 +
 
"Injecting honesty into
 
"Injecting honesty into
 +
 
the process by driving debate."
 
the process by driving debate."
 +
 
Early on, the teams were encouraged
 
Early on, the teams were encouraged
 +
 
to build prototypes so that they could
 
to build prototypes so that they could
 +
 
"bump them up against reality
 
"bump them up against reality
 +
 
and discover for themselves
 
and discover for themselves
 +
 
the strengths and weaknesses
 
the strengths and weaknesses
 +
 
of their particular approach."
 
of their particular approach."
 +
 
When Build It From Scratch shared
 
When Build It From Scratch shared
 +
 
their prototype with the group
 
their prototype with the group
 +
 
whose beepers would have
 
whose beepers would have
 +
 
to go off in the middle of the night
 
to go off in the middle of the night
 +
 
if something went wrong
 
if something went wrong
 +
 
with the website,
 
with the website,
 +
 
they heard loud and clear about the
 
they heard loud and clear about the
 +
 
limitations of their particular design.
 
limitations of their particular design.
 +
 
As the need for a solution
 
As the need for a solution
 +
 
became more urgent
 
became more urgent
 +
 
and as the data, or the
 
and as the data, or the
 +
 
evidence, began to come in,
 
evidence, began to come in,
 +
 
it became pretty clear
 
it became pretty clear
 +
 
that the Big Table solution
 
that the Big Table solution
 +
 
was the right one for the moment.
 
was the right one for the moment.
 +
 
So they selected that one.
 
So they selected that one.
 +
 
But to make sure that
 
But to make sure that
 +
 
they did not lose the learning
 
they did not lose the learning
 +
 
of the Build it From Scratch team,
 
of the Build it From Scratch team,
 +
 
Bill asked two members of that team
 
Bill asked two members of that team
 +
 
to join a new team that was emerging
 
to join a new team that was emerging
 +
 
to work on the next-generation system.
 
to work on the next-generation system.
 +
 
This whole process took nearly two years,
 
This whole process took nearly two years,
 +
 
but I was told that they were
 
but I was told that they were
 +
 
all working at breakneck speed.
 
all working at breakneck speed.
 +
 
Early in that process, one of the
 
Early in that process, one of the
 +
 
engineers had gone to Bill and said,
 
engineers had gone to Bill and said,
 +
 
"We're all too busy
 
"We're all too busy
 +
 
for this inefficient system
 
for this inefficient system
 +
 
of running parallel experiments."
 
of running parallel experiments."
 +
 
But as the process unfolded,
 
But as the process unfolded,
 +
 
he began to understand
 
he began to understand
 +
 
the wisdom of allowing talented
 
the wisdom of allowing talented
 +
 
people to play out their passions.
 
people to play out their passions.
 +
 
He admitted, "If you had forced us
 
He admitted, "If you had forced us
 +
 
to all be on one team,
 
to all be on one team,
 +
 
we might have focused on proving
 
we might have focused on proving
 +
 
who was right, and winning,
 
who was right, and winning,
 +
 
and not on learning and discovering
 
and not on learning and discovering
 +
 
what was the best answer for Google."
 
what was the best answer for Google."
 +
 
Why is it that Pixar and Google
 
Why is it that Pixar and Google
 +
 
are able to innovate time and again?
 
are able to innovate time and again?
 +
 
It's because they've mastered
 
It's because they've mastered
 +
 
the capabilities required for that.
 
the capabilities required for that.
 +
 
They know how to do
 
They know how to do
 +
 
collaborative problem solving,
 
collaborative problem solving,
 +
 
they know how to do
 
they know how to do
 +
 
discovery-driven learning
 
discovery-driven learning
 +
 
and they know how to do
 
and they know how to do
 +
 
integrated decision making.
 
integrated decision making.
 +
 
Some of you may be sitting there
 
Some of you may be sitting there
 +
 
and saying to yourselves right now,
 
and saying to yourselves right now,
 +
 
"We don't know how to do
 
"We don't know how to do
 +
 
those things in my organization.
 
those things in my organization.
 +
 
So why do they know how to
 
So why do they know how to
 +
 
do those things at Pixar,
 
do those things at Pixar,
 +
 
and why do they know how to
 
and why do they know how to
 +
 
do those things at Google?"
 
do those things at Google?"
 +
 
When many of the people
 
When many of the people
 +
 
that worked for Bill told us,
 
that worked for Bill told us,
 +
 
in their opinion, that Bill was one
 
in their opinion, that Bill was one
 +
 
of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,
 
of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,
 +
 
we completely agreed;
 
we completely agreed;
 +
 
the man is a genius.
 
the man is a genius.
 +
 
Leadership is the secret sauce.
 
Leadership is the secret sauce.
 +
 
But it's a different kind of leadership,
 
But it's a different kind of leadership,
 +
 
not the kind many of us think about
 
not the kind many of us think about
 +
 
when we think about great leadership.
 
when we think about great leadership.
 +
 
One of the leaders I met with
 
One of the leaders I met with
 +
 
early on said to me,
 
early on said to me,
 +
 
"Linda, I don't read books on leadership.
 
"Linda, I don't read books on leadership.
 +
 
All they do is make me feel bad."
 
All they do is make me feel bad."
 +
 
(Laughter)
 
(Laughter)
 +
 
"In the first chapter they say
 
"In the first chapter they say
 +
 
I'm supposed to create a vision.
 
I'm supposed to create a vision.
 +
 
But if I'm trying to do something
 
But if I'm trying to do something
 +
 
that's truly new, I have no answers.
 
that's truly new, I have no answers.
 +
 
I don't know what
 
I don't know what
 +
 
direction we're going in
 
direction we're going in
 +
 
and I'm not even sure I know
 
and I'm not even sure I know
 +
 
how to figure out how to get there."
 
how to figure out how to get there."
 +
 
For sure, there are times
 
For sure, there are times
 +
 
when visionary leadership
 
when visionary leadership
 +
 
is exactly what is needed.
 
is exactly what is needed.
 +
 
But if we want to build organizations
 
But if we want to build organizations
 +
 
that can innovate time and again,
 
that can innovate time and again,
 +
 
we must recast our understanding
 
we must recast our understanding
 +
 
of what leadership is about.
 
of what leadership is about.
 +
 
Leading innovation is about
 
Leading innovation is about
 +
 
creating the space
 
creating the space
 +
 
where people are willing
 
where people are willing
 +
 
and able to do the hard work
 
and able to do the hard work
 +
 
of innovative problem solving.
 
of innovative problem solving.
 +
 
At this point, some of you
 
At this point, some of you
 +
 
may be wondering,
 
may be wondering,
 +
 
"What does that leadership
 
"What does that leadership
 +
 
really look like?"
 
really look like?"
 +
 
At Pixar, they understand
 
At Pixar, they understand
 +
 
that innovation takes a village.
 
that innovation takes a village.
 +
 
The leaders focus on building
 
The leaders focus on building
 +
 
a sense of community
 
a sense of community
 +
 
and building those three capabilities.
 
and building those three capabilities.
 +
 
How do they define leadership?
 
How do they define leadership?
 +
 
They say leadership
 
They say leadership
 +
 
is about creating a world
 
is about creating a world
 +
 
to which people want to belong.
 
to which people want to belong.
 +
 
What kind of world do people
 
What kind of world do people
 +
 
want to belong in at Pixar?
 
want to belong in at Pixar?
 +
 
A world where you're
 
A world where you're
 +
 
living at the frontier.
 
living at the frontier.
 +
 
What do they focus their time on?
 
What do they focus their time on?
 +
 
Not on creating a vision.
 
Not on creating a vision.
 +
 
Instead they spend
 
Instead they spend
 +
 
their time thinking about,
 
their time thinking about,
 +
 
"How do we design a studio that has
 
"How do we design a studio that has
 +
 
the sensibility of a public square
 
the sensibility of a public square
 +
 
so that people will interact?
 
so that people will interact?
 +
 
Let's put in a policy that anyone,
 
Let's put in a policy that anyone,
 +
 
no matter what their level or role,
 
no matter what their level or role,
 +
 
is allowed to give notes to the director
 
is allowed to give notes to the director
 +
 
about how they feel
 
about how they feel
 +
 
about a particular film.
 
about a particular film.
 +
 
What can we do to make sure
 
What can we do to make sure
 +
 
that all the disruptors, all the
 
that all the disruptors, all the
 +
 
minority voices in this organization,
 
minority voices in this organization,
 +
 
speak up and are heard?
 
speak up and are heard?
 +
 
And, finally, let's bestow credit
 
And, finally, let's bestow credit
 +
 
in a very generous way."
 
in a very generous way."
 +
 
I don't know if you've ever looked
 
I don't know if you've ever looked
 +
 
at the credits of a Pixar movie,
 
at the credits of a Pixar movie,
 +
 
but the babies born during
 
but the babies born during
 +
 
a production are listed there.
 
a production are listed there.
 +
 
(Laughter)
 
(Laughter)
 +
 
How did Bill think about
 
How did Bill think about
 +
 
what his role was?
 
what his role was?
 +
 
Bill said, "I lead
 
Bill said, "I lead
 +
 
a volunteer organization.
 
a volunteer organization.
 +
 
Talented people don't want
 
Talented people don't want
 +
 
to follow me anywhere.
 
to follow me anywhere.
 +
 
They want to cocreate
 
They want to cocreate
 +
 
with me the future.
 
with me the future.
 +
 
My job is to nurture the bottom-up
 
My job is to nurture the bottom-up
 +
 
and not let it degenerate into chaos."
 
and not let it degenerate into chaos."
 +
 
How did he see his role?
 
How did he see his role?
 +
 
"I'm a role model,
 
"I'm a role model,
 +
 
I'm a human glue,
 
I'm a human glue,
 +
 
I'm a connector,
 
I'm a connector,
 +
 
I'm an aggregator of viewpoints.
 
I'm an aggregator of viewpoints.
 +
 
I'm never a dictator of viewpoints."
 
I'm never a dictator of viewpoints."
 +
 
Advice about how you exercise the role?
 
Advice about how you exercise the role?
 +
 
Hire people who argue with you.
 
Hire people who argue with you.
 +
 
And, guess what?
 
And, guess what?
 +
 
Sometimes it's best to be
 
Sometimes it's best to be
 +
 
deliberately fuzzy and vague.
 
deliberately fuzzy and vague.
 +
 
Some of you may
 
Some of you may
 +
 
be wondering now,
 
be wondering now,
 +
 
what are these people thinking?
 
what are these people thinking?
 +
 
They're thinking,
 
They're thinking,
 +
 
"I'm not the visionary,
 
"I'm not the visionary,
 +
 
I'm the social architect.
 
I'm the social architect.
 +
 
I'm creating the space where
 
I'm creating the space where
 +
 
people are willing and able
 
people are willing and able
 +
 
to share and combine
 
to share and combine
 +
 
their talents and passions."
 
their talents and passions."
 +
 
If some of you are worrying now
 
If some of you are worrying now
 +
 
that you don't work at a Pixar,
 
that you don't work at a Pixar,
 +
 
or you don't work at a Google,
 
or you don't work at a Google,
 +
 
I want to tell you there's still hope.
 
I want to tell you there's still hope.
 +
 
We've studied many organizations
 
We've studied many organizations
 +
 
that were really not
 
that were really not
 +
 
organizations you'd think of
 
organizations you'd think of
 +
 
as ones where a lot of innovation happens.
 
as ones where a lot of innovation happens.
 +
 
We studied a general counsel
 
We studied a general counsel
 +
 
in a pharmaceutical company
 
in a pharmaceutical company
 +
 
who had to figure out how
 
who had to figure out how
 +
 
to get the outside lawyers,
 
to get the outside lawyers,
 +
 
19 competitors,
 
19 competitors,
 +
 
to collaborate and innovate.
 
to collaborate and innovate.
 +
 
We studied the head of marketing
 
We studied the head of marketing
 +
 
at a German automaker
 
at a German automaker
 +
 
where, fundamentally, they believed
 
where, fundamentally, they believed
 +
 
that it was the design engineers,
 
that it was the design engineers,
 +
 
not the marketeers,
 
not the marketeers,
 +
 
who were allowed to be innovative.
 
who were allowed to be innovative.
 +
 
We also studied Vineet Nayar
 
We also studied Vineet Nayar
 +
 
at HCL Technologies,
 
at HCL Technologies,
 +
 
an Indian outsourcing company.
 
an Indian outsourcing company.
 +
 
When we met Vineet,
 
When we met Vineet,
 +
 
his company was about, in his
 
his company was about, in his
 +
 
words, to become irrelevant.
 
words, to become irrelevant.
 +
 
We watched as he turned that company
 
We watched as he turned that company
 +
 
into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation.
 
into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation.
 +
 
At HCL technologies,
 
At HCL technologies,
 +
 
like at many companies,
 
like at many companies,
 +
 
the leaders had learned to see
 
the leaders had learned to see
 +
 
their role as setting direction
 
their role as setting direction
 +
 
and making sure that
 
and making sure that
 +
 
no one deviated from it.
 
no one deviated from it.
 +
 
What he did is tell them
 
What he did is tell them
 +
 
it was time for them
 
it was time for them
 +
 
to think about rethinking
 
to think about rethinking
 +
 
what they were supposed to do.
 
what they were supposed to do.
 +
 
Because what was happening
 
Because what was happening
 +
 
is that everybody was looking up
 
is that everybody was looking up
 +
 
and you weren't seeing
 
and you weren't seeing
 +
 
the kind of bottom-up innovation
 
the kind of bottom-up innovation
 +
 
we saw at Pixar or Google.
 
we saw at Pixar or Google.
 +
 
So they began to work on that.
 
So they began to work on that.
 +
 
They stopped giving answers, they
 
They stopped giving answers, they
 +
 
stopped trying to provide solutions.
 
stopped trying to provide solutions.
 +
 
Instead, what they did
 
Instead, what they did
 +
 
is they began to see
 
is they began to see
 +
 
the people at the bottom of the
 
the people at the bottom of the
 +
 
pyramid, the young sparks,
 
pyramid, the young sparks,
 +
 
the people who were
 
the people who were
 +
 
closest to the customers,
 
closest to the customers,
 +
 
as the source of innovation.
 
as the source of innovation.
 +
 
They began to transfer
 
They began to transfer
 +
 
the organization's growth
 
the organization's growth
 +
 
to that level.
 
to that level.
 +
 
In Vineet's language, this was
 
In Vineet's language, this was
 +
 
about inverting the pyramid
 
about inverting the pyramid
 +
 
so that you could unleash
 
so that you could unleash
 +
 
the power of the many
 
the power of the many
 +
 
by loosening the stranglehold of the few,
 
by loosening the stranglehold of the few,
 +
 
and increase the quality
 
and increase the quality
 +
 
and the speed of innovation
 
and the speed of innovation
 +
 
that was happening every day.
 
that was happening every day.
 +
 
For sure, Vineet and all the
 
For sure, Vineet and all the
 +
 
other leaders that we studied
 
other leaders that we studied
 +
 
were in fact visionaries.
 
were in fact visionaries.
 +
 
For sure, they understood
 
For sure, they understood
 +
 
that that was not their role.
 
that that was not their role.
 +
 
So I don't think it is accidental
 
So I don't think it is accidental
 +
 
that many of you did not recognize Ed.
 
that many of you did not recognize Ed.
 +
 
Because Ed, like Vineet, understands
 
Because Ed, like Vineet, understands
 +
 
that our role as leaders
 
that our role as leaders
 +
 
is to set the stage, not perform on it.
 
is to set the stage, not perform on it.
 +
 
If we want to invent a better future,
 
If we want to invent a better future,
 +
 
and I suspect that's why
 
and I suspect that's why
 +
 
many of us are here,
 
many of us are here,
 +
 
then we need to reimagine our task.
 
then we need to reimagine our task.
 +
 
Our task is to create the space
 
Our task is to create the space
 +
 
where everybody's slices of genius
 
where everybody's slices of genius
 +
 
can be unleashed and harnessed,
 
can be unleashed and harnessed,
 +
 
and turned into works
 
and turned into works
 +
 
of collective genius.
 
of collective genius.
 +
 
Thank you.
 
Thank you.
−
</div>
+
</div>
  
 
==منبع==
 
==منبع==

نسخهٔ ‏۶ اوت ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۱:۳۷

سخنرانی کوتاه لیندا هیل در سایت تد (Ted.com)، در مورد: خلاقیت جمعی را چگونه مدیریت کنیم؟

موضوع سخنرانی

راز شکوفاییِ خلاقیت پنهان و فرصت دادن به ایده‌های گران‌بها در کار روزانه‌تان چیست؟ استاد دانشگاه هاروارد، لیندا هیل، یکی از نویسندگان کتاب «نبوغ جمعی» ، با مطالعه برخی ازخلاق‌ترین شرکت‌های دنیا، مجموعه ای از ابزارها و شیوه‌هایی را، جهت به جریان انداختن ایده های ارزشمند در ذهن تک تک کارکنان شرکت - و نه فقط نوآوران از پیش تعیین شده - معرفی کرده است:

متن سخنرانی

می‌خواهم اعترافی کنم.

من استاد کسب و کار هستم،

(دارای کرسی استادی دردانشگاه هاروارد)

کسی که هدفش کمک به دیگران برای یادگیری چگونه رهبری کردن است.

اما اخیرا متوجه شده‌ام

که آنچه بسیاری از ما به عنوان رهبریِ عالی می‌شناسیم،

زمانی که برای رهبریِ نوآوری به کار می‌رود، کارآیی ندارد.

من یک مردم‌نگارم.

متد انسان‌شناسی را

برای فهم سوالاتی که به آنها علاقه‌مندم استفاده می‌کنم.

بنابراین همراه با سه همکار دیگر

یک دهه را صرف مشاهده نزدیک و شخصی

رهبرانِ برجسته‌ی نوآوری کردیم.

ما ۱۶ زن و مرد را

در هفت کشور دنیا ازسراسر جهان مطالعه کردیم.

که در ۱۲ صنعت مختلف کار می‌کردند.

در مجموع صدها ساعت را

در محل کار آنها صرف مشاهده‌ی رفتارهای این رهبران کردیم.

صفحات بسیاری را پیاپی با یادداشت‌هایمان

از مشاهده و آنالیز، برای یافتن الگویی درباره آنچه رهبران انجام می‌دادند، پر کردیم.

نتیجه چه بود؟

اگر می‌خواهیم سازمان‌هایی بنا کنیم که بتوانند نوآوری داشته و آن‌را تکرار کنند،

می‌باید مفاهیم قراردادی رهبری را فراموش کنیم.

رهبری نوآوری ربطی به ایجاد چشم انداز

و الهام‌بخشی به دیگران جهت اجرای آن ندارد.

اما منظور ما از نوآوری چیست؟

نوآوری [ایجاد] هرآن‌چیزی است که جدید و مفید باشد.

می‌تواند محصول یا خدمت،

فرآیند یا شیوه سازماندهی باشد.

می‌تواند افزایشی(تدریجی) یا ناگهانی باشد.

یک تعریف بسیار فراگیر داریم.

چند نفر از شما این مرد را می‌شناسد؟

دست‌تان را بالا ببرید.

اگر این مرد را می‌شناسید، دست‌تان را بالا نگهدارید.

درباره این چهره‌های معروف چطور؟

(خنده حضار)

آن‌طور که دست‌های شما نشان داد،

بسیاری از شما فیلم‌های کمپانی پیکسار را دیده‌اید

اما تعداد بسیار اندکی از شما «اد کاتمال» را می‌شناسید

موسس و مدیرعامل پیکسار،

یکی از شرکت‌هایی که اجازه مطالعه‌شان را داشتم.

اولین بازدید من از پیکسار در سال ۲۰۰۵ بود

زمانی که آن‌ها روی «موش سرآشپز» کار می‌کردند

یک فیلم هیجان‌انگیز درباره موشی که تبدیل به یک سرآشپز می‌شود.

امروزه جریان اصلی تولیدات، فیلم‌های تولید شده با کامپیوتر هستند

اما «اد» و همکارانش را نزدیک به بیست سال مشغول خود کرد،

تا اولین فیلم تماما کامپیوتری را تولید کنند.

در بیست سال پس از آن

آنها ۱۴ فیلم تولید کردند.

من اخیرا در پیکسار بودم

و می‌خواهم اینجا به شما بگویم

پانزدهمی حتما برنده خواهد بود.

وقتی بسیاری از ما به نوآوری فکر می‌کنیم، اگرچه

به یاد لحظه‌ی "آها!" گفتنِ انیشتین می‌افتیم،

اما می‌دانیم که یک افسانه است.

نوآوری محصول کار فردی یک نابغه نیست،

محصول مجموعه‌ای از نوابغ است.

بیایید یک دقیقه فکر کنیم، ساخت یک فیلم برای پیکسار چه مراحلی دارد:

هیچ نابغه‌ی یک‌ تنه‌ای درکار نیست،

هیچ الهام لحظه‌ای هم باعث تولید هیچ یک از این فیلم‌ها نشده.

در عوض، این کار، حدود ۲۵۰ نفر را برای ۴ تا ۵ سال درگیر می‌کند

تا یکی از این فیلم‌ها تولید شود.

برای کمک به درک این فرآیند،

یک نفر در استدیو نسخه‌ای از این تصاویر را ترسیم می‌کند.

او این کار را با نهایت بی‌میلی انجام می‌داد.

طرح شسته رفته‌ای که فرآیند را به شکل مرحله به مرحله

که توسط گروههای مجزا انجام می‌گیرند، نشان می‌دهد.

او فکر می‌کرد حتی تمام این پیکان‌ها

نمی‌تواند به شما بگوید

روابط و تکرارها چگونه است

و رک و پوست کنده، فرآیند آنها به هم ریخته بود.

در پیکسار داستان فیلم در مسیر ساخت تکامل می‌یابد.

درباره‌اش فکر کنید.

بعضی تصاویر به سرعت عبور می‌کنند

همه آنها با نظم و ترتیب نیستند.

بستگی به این دارد که چالشی که هنگام کار روی سکانسی خاص

با آن مواجه می‌شوند، چقدر آزار دهنده است.

اگر به آن سکانس در فیلم "آپ" فکر کنید

که پسر به پرنده شکلات تعارف می‌کند

همان ۱۰ ثانیه، ۶ ماه وقت یک انیماتور را گرفت تا کامل شود.

نکته دیگری درباره فیلمهای پیکسار

این است که هیچ یک از بخش‌های فیلم پایان یافته تلقی نمی‌شود،

تا زمانی که کل فیلم ادامه دارد.

در بخشی از تولید، یک انیماتور کاراکتری را ترسیم کرد،

با یک ابروی قوسی که حالت شیطنت‌آمیزش را ارائه می‌داد،

وقتی کارگردان آن طرح را دید. فکر کرد که عالی است.

طرح زیبایی بود، اما او گفت

«باید بندازیش بیرون. با کاراکتر جور نیست.»

دو هفته بعد کارگردان بازگشت و گفت

«بیا اون چند ثانیه رو توی فیلم بذاریم»

زیرا آن انیماتور اجازه به اشتراک گذاشتنِ

آنچه که ما به آن تکه‌ی نبوغ او می‌گوییم را داشت.

او قادر بود به کارگردان کمک کند تا به طریقی نامحسوس اما مهم،

کاراکتر را دوباره تصور کند و داستان واقعا بهبود یافته است.

چیزی که می‌دانیم این است که قلب نوآوری تضاد است.

باید استعدادها و احساسات بسیاری از افراد را آزاد کنید

و آنها را در جهت کاری واقعا مفید مهار کنید.

نوآوری یک سفر است.

نوعی حل مسئله اشتراکی است.

معمولا در میان افرادی با تجربیات مختلف

و دیدگاه های متفاوت [رخ میدهد].

نوآوری‌ها به ندرت به صورت کامل و به یکباره ایجاد می‌شوند

چنانچه بسیار از شما می‌دانید

نوآوری‌ها معمولا نتیجه آزمون و خطا هستند

شروع‌های نادرست، گام‌های خطا و اشتباه‌های بسیار.

کار نوآورانه می‌تواند بسیار هیجان‌انگیز باشد

اما در عین حال می‌تواند واقعا ترسناک هم باشد.

پس وقتی نگاه می‌کنیم چرا پیکسار می‌تواند به این شکل عمل کند

باید از خودمان بپرسیم آنجا چه می‌کنند؟

مطمئنا تاریخ و قطعا هالیوود

پر از تیم‌هایی از ستاره های بزرگ است که شکست خورده اند

بسیاری از این شکست ها

به حضور بیش از حد ستاره‌ها یا دو تا شدن آشپز مربوط می‌شود

پس چرا پیکسار با آن‌همه آشپز

می‌تواند هر بار به این میزان موفق باشد؟

وقتی بانک اسلامی دوبی را مطالعه می‌کردیم

یا برند لاکچری کُره و یا جامعه کارآفرینی آفریقا را

دریافتیم که سازمان‌های نوآور

اجتماع‌هایی هستند که سه قابلیت دارند:

سایش خلاق، چابکی خلاق و حل خلاق.

سایش خلاق به معنای قادر بودن به ایجاد یک بازار ایده‌ها

از طریق بحث و گفتگو است.

در سازمان‌های نوآور تفاوت‌ها را برجسته می‌کنند

و سعی در کاهش آنها ندارند.

سایش خلاق به معنای طوفان فکری نیست

که در آن افراد قضاوت یکدیگر را معلق نگهدارند.

نه. آنها می‌دانند چگونه بحثهای داغ اما سازنده‌ای

برای ایجاد سبد ایده‌های جایگزین داشته باشند.

افراد در سازمان‌های نوآور

می‌آموزند که چگونه تحقیق کنند، چگونه فعالانه گوش کنند و اما حدس بزنید!

همچنین یاد می‌گیرند که چطور از دیدگاه خودشان دفاع کنند.

آنها می‌فهمند که

نوآوری به ندرت رخ می‌دهد

مگر آنکه تنوع و تضاد را، هر دو باهم داشته باشید.

چابکی خلاق به معنی توانایی آزمودن و پالایش مجموعه‌ای از ایده‌ها

از طریق پیگیری سریع، بازخورد و اصلاح است.

به معنی یادگیری با انگیزه اکتشاف است

که در آن بر خلاف برنامه به سوی آینده حرکت می‌کنید.

این به معنای تفکر طراحی است که در آن ترکیبی جذاب

از روش علمی و فرآیند هنری را با هم دارید.

به معنای اجرای مجموعه‌ای از آزمایشات و نه مجموعه‌ای از اجراهای اولیه است.

آزمایشات معمولا به یادگیری مربوط هستند.

وقتی که نتیجه منفی بگیری

باز هم واقعا در حال یادگیری آنچه نیاز داری بدانی هستی.

اجراهای اولیه معمولا به درست بودن ربط دارد.

وقتی درست از آب درنیایند چیزی یا کسی سرزنش می‌شود.

آخرین قابلیت حل خلاق است.

این به معنی عمل تصمیم‌گیری

به شیوه‌ای است که می‌توانید در واقع حتی [ایده‌هایتان را] با ایده های مقابل هم ترکیب کنید

برای پیکربندی جدید آنها در ترکیبی جدید

برای تولید راه‌حلی که جدید و مفید است.

وقتی به سازمان‌های نوآور نگاه می‌کنید،

آنها هرگز برای پیشگیری از تعارض با کسی موافقت نمی‌کنند.

اهل مصالحه نیستند.

اجازه نمی‌دهند یک گروه یا فرد مسلط شود

حتی اگر رئیس باشد

حتی اگر خبره باشد

در عوض به توسعه‌ی

فرآیند تصمیم گیری جامع تر و بردبارانه تر می‌پردازند

که اجازه می‌دهد هم راه‌حل‌ها ایجاد شوند

و هیچ راه‌حلی نیز به سادگی رد یا قبول نشود.

این سه قابلیت دلیل این است که می‌بینیم

پیکسار قادراست چنین کارهایی را انجام دهد.

اجازه بدهید مثال دیگری بزنم

و آن مثال تیم زیرساخت گوگل است.

تیم زیرساخت گوگل گروهی است

که باید وبسایت را ۷ روز هفته و به طور ۲۴ ساعته فعال نگهدارد.

وقتی گوگل نزدیک به معرفی جی‌میل یا یوتیوب بود

می‌دانستند که سیستم‌های ذخیره‌سازی اطلاعاتشان کافی نیست.

سرپرست گروه مهندسی و تیم زیرساخت در آن زمان

مردی به نام بیل کاران بود

بیل و تیم تحت رهبری‌اش

که به قدرت تفکرشان اعتماد داشت

ناچار به کشف راه حلی برای آن بودند.

مدتی درباره آن فکر کردند.

بجای تشکیل یک گروه برای رویارویی با این وظیفه،

تصمیم گرفتند اجازه دهند که گروه‌ها خود به خود

حول ایده های مختلف جایگزین ایجاد شوند.

دو گروه همراه شدند.

یکی با نام «جدول بزرگ»

و دیگری با عنوان «ایجاد از ابتدا»

«جدول بزرگ» پیشنهاد کرد که آنها روی سیستم فعلی ساخته شوند.

«ایجاد از ابتدا» پیشنهاد کرد که الان زمان یک سیستم کاملا جدید است.

اجازه داده شد این دو تیم به صورت جداگانه و تمام وقت

روی دیدگاه مختص به خودشان کار کنند.

در بازنگری مهندسی بیل نقش خودش را به این شکل تشریح کرد:

«تزریق صداقت در فرآیند توسط پیشبرد بحث.»

در ابتدا دو تیم تشویق به ساخت تمونه‌های اولیه شدند که بتواند

"با واقعیت مواجه شوند و

ضعف‌ها و قوت‌های دیدگاه مختص خودشان را اکتشاف کنند."

وقتی «ایجاد از ابتدا» مدلش را با گروهی در میان گذاشت،

که مسئول رفع مشکلات سایت

به شکل شبانه روزی بودند،

صحبت‌هایی بلند و واضح درباره محدودیت‌های طرحشان شنیدند.

درباره اینکه نیاز به راه حلی فوری‌تر وجود دارد

و همانطور که داده‌ها و شواهد وارد شدند

معلوم شد که راه حل «جدول بزرگ»

برای آن زمان راه حل درست بود.

پس آن‌ها آن‌ راه‌حل را انتخاب کردند.

اما برای اطمینان از اینکه چیزی از یادگیری را

در خصوص تیم «ایجاد از ابتدا» از دست نمی‌دهند،

بیل درخواست کرد که دو عضو آن تیم، به تیم جدیدی که

برای کار بر روی نسل بعدی سیستم ایجاد می‌شد بپیوندند.

کل این پروسه نزدیک به دو سال طول کشید،

اما به من گفتند که آنها همه با سرعت بسیار وحشتناکی کار می‌کردند.

در ابتدای آن فرایند یکی از مهندسین به سراغ بیل رفت و گفت

"همگی ما به خاطرِ این سیستمِ ناکارآمدِ

اجرای آزمایش‌های همزمان، بسیار درگیر شده‌ایم."

اما با آشکار شدن فرآیند، او دانست که

آزاد گذاشتن استعدادهای افراد برای بروز احساساتشان چه حکمتی داشته.

او اذعان کرد "اگر ما را مجبور می‌کردید همه در یک تیم باشیم

شاید مجبور می‌شدیم تایید نماییم حق با کیست و برنده می‌شدیم

اما یادگیری و اکتشافی که بهترین پاسخ برای گوگل بود را از دست می‌دادیم."

چرا پیکسار و گوگل می‌توانند هر بار نوآور باشند؟

به این خاطر که آنها بر قابلیت‌های مورد نیاز برای این امر تسلط یافته‌اند.

می‌دانند که چگونه مشترکا مسائل را حل کنند

می‌دانند چگونه یادگیری اکتشافی داشته باشند

و می‌دانند چطور تصمیمات یکپارچه اخذ کنند.

بعضی از شما شاید بنشینید و همین الان با خودتان بگویید

"من نمی‌دانم این چیزها در سازمان من چطور عمل می‌کند.

پس چرا آنها می‌دانند چگونه در پیکسار عمل می‌کند

و چرا آنها می‌دانند این چیزها در گوگل چطور عمل می‌کند؟"

وقتی بسیاری از افراد که برای بیل کار می‌کردند به ما گفتند

به نظر آنها بیل یکی از بهترین رهبران سیلیکون ولی بود

ما کاملا موافق بودیم، آن مرد یک نابغه بود.

رهبری کردن مثل یک دستور تهیه سس سری است.

(راز موفقیت مثل فوت کوزه گری است که به راحتی نمی‌توان یاد گرفت.)

اما این گونه متفاوتی از رهبری است.

مانند چیزی که بسیاری از ما درباره رهبری می‌اندیشیم نیست.

یکی از رهبرانی که در ابتدا با او ملاقات کردم به من گفت

"لیندا! من درباره رهبری کتاب نمی‌خوانم.

آنها فقط حال من را خراب می‌کنند."

(خنده حضار)

"در فصل نخست می‌گویند هدف من ایجاد یک چشم انداز است.

اما اگر تلاش کنم کاری انجام دهم که واقعا نو باشد هیچ پاسخی ندارم.

نمی‌دانم به کدام جهت می‌رویم

حتی مطمئن نیستم که می‌دانم چگونه به آنجا برسم."

مطمئنا زمان‌هایی هست که رهبران با بصیرت

دقیقا همان چیزی است که با آن نیازمندیم.

اما اگر می‌خواهیم سازمانی ایجاد کنیم که بتواند بارها نوآوری انجام دهد

می‌باید درک‌مان را از رهبری بازآفرینی کنیم.

رهبریِ نوآوری به معنی ایجاد فضایی است

که در آن افراد مایل و قادر به سخت کار کردن

روی حل مسائل نوآوری باشند.

در این نقطه شاید بعضی از شما تعجب کنید،

"این نوع رهبری واقعا چگونه است؟"

در پیکسار فهمیده‌اند که نوآوری یک کار جمعی است.

رهبران تمرکز بر ایجاد یک حس جمعی

و ساخت آن سه قابلیت را دارند.

آنها چطور رهبری را تعریف می‌کنند؟

می‌گویند رهبری به معنای ایجاد دنیایی است

که افراد می‌خواهند به آن تعلق داشته باشند.

افراد چه نوع جهانی را می‌خواهند تا به پیکسار تعلق داشته باشند؟

جهانی که در آن شما در خط مقدم زندگی می‌کنید.

زمان‌هایشان را به تمرکز روی چه چیزی می‌گذرانند؟

نه برای ایجاد چشم انداز

به جای آن زمان‌شان را به تفکر درباره این می‌گذرانند که

"چگونه استدیویی را با حساسیت یک میدان عمومی طراحی کنیم

به طوری که افراد روابط متقابل داشته باشند؟"

بیایید سیاستی بگذاریم که هر کسی

صرف نظر از جایگاه و نقشی که دارد

اجازه داشته باشد درباره احساسش

در خصوص یک فیلم به کارگردان تذکر بدهد.

چه باید بکنیم تا مطمئن شویم

که تمام مخالفین و صداهای جزئی در سازمان

حرف می‌زنند و شنیده می‌شوند؟

و در نهایت به شکلی سخاوتمندانه به آنها قدر بنهید."

نمیدانم آیا شما هرگز به سپاسگزاریهای فیلم‌های پیکسار [در تیتراژ] توجه کرده‌اید

در مدت نمایش لیست آنها زمان کافی برای تولد چند بچه هم هست.

(خنده حضار)

بیل درباره اینکه نقش او چیست چگونه می‌اندیشد؟

بیل می‌گوید: "من یک سازمان داوطلبی را رهبری می‌کنم.

افراد با استعداد به هیچ عنوان نمی‌خواهند دنباله رو من باشند.

آنها می‌خواهند به همراه من آینده را بسازند.

کار من پرورش به سوی تعالی است

و پیشگیری از انحطاط آن در هرج و مرج."

نقشش را چگونه می‌دید؟

من یک الگو هستم، یک ملات انسانی،

ارتباط دهنده، تجمیع کننده نظرات

هیچ‌گاه در بیان دیدگاه خودم دیکتاتور نیستم."

درباره چگونگی اجرای این نقش مشاوره می‌خواهید؟

افرادی را استخدام کنید که با شما بحث کنند.

و حدس بزنید؟

گاهی بهترین روش، مبهم و نامشخص بودن است

بعضی از شما ممکن است شگفت زده شوید

این ها چه فکری می‌کنند؟

آنها فکر می‌کنند

"من خیالباف نیستم، معمار اجتماعی‌ام.

فضایی را ایجاد می‌کنم که افرداد مایل و قادرند

استعدادها و احساساتشان را در آنجا به اشتراک گذاشته و ترکیب کنند."

اگر بعضی شما ناراحتید که حالا در پیکسار یا

گوگل کار نمی‌کنید.

می‌خواهم به شما بگویم هنوز امید هست.

ما شرکت‌های زیادی را مطالعه کردیم

که واقعا شرکت‌هایی نبودند که فکر کنید،

نوآوری‌های خیلی زیادی در آنها اتفاق می‌افتد.

ما یک مشاور عمومی در یک شرکت دارویی را مطالعه کردیم

که باید معین می‌کرد چگونه از میان ۱۹ رقیب

برای همکاری، وکلای خارجی را انتخاب کند.

سرپرستی بازاریابی در یک خودروسازی آلمانی را مطالعه کردیم

که اساسا اعتقاد داشتند که این مهندسان طراح بودند

نه بازاریابان که به نوآوری اجازه ظهور می‌دادند.

همچنین وینیت نایر در HCL Technologies

را در شرکت برون سپاری شده‌ای در هند مطالعه کردیم.

وقتی ما وینیت را ملاقات کردیم

شرکت او به تعبیر خودش به شکلی "نامربوط" درآمده بود

مشاهده کردیم او شرکت را به صحنه پر تکاپوی

بین المللی در عرصه نوآوری‌های فناوری اطلاعات می‌برد.

در HCL technologies مانند بسیاری شرکت‌ها

رهبران آموخته بودند که نقش خود را

به عنوان هدایت کننده ببینند

و مطمئن شوند کسی از این جریان منحرف نشود.

کاری که آنها می‌کردند این بود که

به افراد بگوینداین زمانی است که

برای بازاندیشیِ آنچه می‌باید انجام می‌د‌ادند در اختیارشان است.

زیرا آنچه اتفاق می‌افتاد این بود که همه در حال جستجو بودند

و خبری از آن نوع نوآوری جزء به کل

که در پیکسار یا گوگل می‌دیدی در آنجا نبود.

پس آنها شروع به کار روی آن کردند.

ارائه پاسخ‌ها و تهیه راه حل‌ها را متوقف کردند.

به جای این کار، شروع به دیدنِ

کارکنانِ پایینِ رده هرم سازمانی، جرقه‌های جدید

و نردیک ترین کارکنان به مشتریان

به عنوان منابع نوآوری کردند.

شروع به انتقال رشد سازمانی

به آن طبقات کردند.

به بیان وینیت این تقریبا برعکس کردن هرم بود

که می‌توانستی با این کار نیروی بسیاری را

با باز کردن راهِ نفس برای عده ای اندک، آزاد کنی.

و باعث افزایش کیفیت و سرعت بخشیدن به نوآوری

به شکل هر روزه شوی.

مطمئنا وینیت و همه رهبران دیگری که مطالعه کردیم

در واقع رویاپرداز بودند.

اما مطمئنا آنها فهمیده بودند که این نقش آنها نیست.

من فکر نمی‌کنم این اتفاقی باشد که بسیاری از شما "اِد" را نمی‌شناسید.

زیرا اِد، مانند وینیت، می‌فهمد که نقش آنها به عنوان رهبر

صحنه آرایی است نه بازی روی آن.

اگر می‌خواهیم آینده بهتری را ابداع کنیم

و فکر می‌کنم بسیاری از ما به همین علت اینجا هستیم،

پس باید وظایف‌مان را بازاندیشی کنیم.

وظیفه ما ایجاد فضایی است

که هر تکه از نبوغ همه افراد

بتواند آزاد شود و مهار گردد

و تبدیل به آثار نبوغ جمعی گردد.

سپاسگزارم


English text

Linda Hill: How to manage for collective creativity


I have a confession to make.

I'm a business professor

whose ambition has been

to help people learn to lead.

But recently, I've discovered

that what many of us

think of as great leadership

does not work when it comes

to leading innovation.

I'm an ethnographer.

I use the methods of anthropology

to understand the questions

in which I'm interested.

So along with three co-conspirators,

I spent nearly a decade observing

up close and personal

exceptional leaders of innovation.

We studied 16 men and women,

located in seven countries

across the globe,

working in 12 different industries.

In total, we spent hundreds

of hours on the ground,

on-site, watching these leaders in action.

We ended up with pages and pages

and pages of field notes

that we analyzed and looked

for patterns in what our leaders did.

The bottom line?

If we want to build organizations

that can innovate time and again,

we must unlearn our conventional

notions of leadership.

Leading innovation is not

about creating a vision,

and inspiring others to execute it.

But what do we mean by innovation?

An innovation is anything

that is both new and useful.

It can be a product or service.

It can be a process

or a way of organizing.

It can be incremental,

or it can be breakthrough.

We have a pretty inclusive definition.

How many of you recognize this man?

Put your hands up.

Keep your hands up,

if you know who this is.

How about these familiar faces?

(Laughter)

From your show of hands,

it looks like many of you

have seen a Pixar movie,

but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,

the founder and CEO of Pixar --

one of the companies

I had the privilege of studying.

My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,

when they were working on "Ratatouille,"

that provocative movie about

a rat becoming a master chef.

Computer-generated movies

are really mainstream today,

but it took Ed and his

colleagues nearly 20 years

to create the first

full-length C.G. movie.

In the 20 years hence,

they've produced 14 movies.

I was recently at Pixar,

and I'm here to tell you

that number 15 is sure to be a winner.

When many of us think

about innovation, though,

we think about an Einstein

having an 'Aha!' moment.

But we all know that's a myth.

Innovation is not about solo genius,

it's about collective genius.

Let's think for a minute about

what it takes to make a Pixar movie:

No solo genius, no flash of inspiration

produces one of those movies.

On the contrary, it takes about

250 people four to five years,

to make one of those movies.

To help us understand the process,

an individual in the studio

drew a version of this picture.

He did so reluctantly,

because it suggested that the process

was a neat series of steps

done by discrete groups.

Even with all those arrows,

he thought it failed to really tell you

just how iterative, interrelated

and, frankly, messy their process was.

Throughout the making of a movie

at Pixar, the story evolves.

So think about it.

Some shots go through quickly.

They don't all go through in order.

It depends on how vexing

the challenges are

that they come up with when they

are working on a particular scene.

So if you think about that scene in "Up"

where the boy hands the piece

of chocolate to the bird,

that 10 seconds took one animator

almost six months to perfect.

The other thing about a Pixar movie

is that no part of the movie

is considered finished

until the entire movie wraps.

Partway through one production,

an animator drew a character

with an arched eyebrow that

suggested a mischievous side.

When the director saw that

drawing, he thought it was great.

It was beautiful, but he said,

"You've got to lose it;

it doesn't fit the character."

Two weeks later, the director

came back and said,

Let's put in those few seconds of film.

Because that animator

was allowed to share

what we referred to

as his slice of genius,

he was able to help that director

reconceive the character

in a subtle but important way

that really improved the story.

What we know is, at the heart

of innovation is a paradox.

You have to unleash the talents

and passions of many people

and you have to harness them

into a work that is actually useful.

Innovation is a journey.

It's a type of collaborative

problem solving,

usually among people

who have different expertise

and different points of view.

Innovations rarely get created full-blown.

As many of you know,

they're the result,

usually, of trial and error.

Lots of false starts,

missteps and mistakes.

Innovative work can be

very exhilarating,

but it also can be

really downright scary.

So when we look at why it is

that Pixar is able to do what it does,

we have to ask ourselves,

what's going on here?

For sure, history

and certainly Hollywood,

is full of star-studded teams

that have failed.

Most of those failures are attributed

to too many stars or too many

cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.

So why is it that Pixar,

with all of its cooks,

is able to be so successful

time and time again?

When we studied

an Islamic Bank in Dubai,

or a luxury brand in Korea,

or a social enterprise in Africa,

we found that innovative organizations

are communities that

have three capabilities:

creative abrasion, creative

agility and creative resolution.

Creative abrasion is about being able

to create a marketplace of ideas

through debate and discourse.

In innovative organizations,

they amplify differences,

they don't minimize them.

Creative abrasion is not

about brainstorming,

where people suspend their judgment.

No, they know how to have very

heated but constructive arguments

to create a portfolio of alternatives.

Individuals in innovative organizations

learn how to inquire, they learn how

to actively listen, but guess what?

They also learn how to

advocate for their point of view.

They understand that

innovation rarely happens

unless you have both

diversity and conflict.

Creative agility is about being able

to test and refine that portfolio of ideas

through quick pursuit,

reflection and adjustment.

It's about discovery-driven learning

where you act, as opposed to plan,

your way to the future.

It's about design thinking where

you have that interesting combination

of the scientific method

and the artistic process.

It's about running a series of

experiments, and not a series of pilots.

Experiments are usually about learning.

When you get a negative outcome,

you're still really learning something

that you need to know.

Pilots are often about being right.

When they don't work,

someone or something is to blame.

The final capability

is creative resolution.

This is about doing decision making

in a way that you can actually combine

even opposing ideas

to reconfigure them in new combinations

to produce a solution

that is new and useful.

When you look at innovative organizations,

they never go along to get along.

They don't compromise.

They don't let one group

or one individual dominate,

even if it's the boss,

even if it's the expert.

Instead, they have developed

a rather patient and more inclusive

decision making process

that allows for both/and

solutions to arise

and not simply either/or solutions.

These three capabilities are why we see

that Pixar is able to do what it does.

Let me give you another example,

and that example is the

infrastructure group of Google.

The infrastructure group

of Google is the group

that has to keep the website

up and running 24/7.

So when Google was about

to introduce Gmail and YouTube,

they knew that their data storage

system wasn't adequate.

The head of the engineering group

and the infrastructure group at that time

was a man named Bill Coughran.

Bill and his leadership team,

who he referred to as his brain trust,

had to figure out what to do

about this situation.

They thought about it for a while.

Instead of creating a group

to tackle this task,

they decided to allow groups

to emerge spontaneously

around different alternatives.

Two groups coalesced.

One became known as Big Table,

the other became known

as Build It From Scratch.

Big Table proposed that they

build on the current system.

Build It From Scratch proposed

that it was time for a whole new system.

Separately, these two teams

were allowed to work full-time

on their particular approach.

In engineering reviews,

Bill described his role as,

"Injecting honesty into

the process by driving debate."

Early on, the teams were encouraged

to build prototypes so that they could

"bump them up against reality

and discover for themselves

the strengths and weaknesses

of their particular approach."

When Build It From Scratch shared

their prototype with the group

whose beepers would have

to go off in the middle of the night

if something went wrong

with the website,

they heard loud and clear about the

limitations of their particular design.

As the need for a solution

became more urgent

and as the data, or the

evidence, began to come in,

it became pretty clear

that the Big Table solution

was the right one for the moment.

So they selected that one.

But to make sure that

they did not lose the learning

of the Build it From Scratch team,

Bill asked two members of that team

to join a new team that was emerging

to work on the next-generation system.

This whole process took nearly two years,

but I was told that they were

all working at breakneck speed.

Early in that process, one of the

engineers had gone to Bill and said,

"We're all too busy

for this inefficient system

of running parallel experiments."

But as the process unfolded,

he began to understand

the wisdom of allowing talented

people to play out their passions.

He admitted, "If you had forced us

to all be on one team,

we might have focused on proving

who was right, and winning,

and not on learning and discovering

what was the best answer for Google."

Why is it that Pixar and Google

are able to innovate time and again?

It's because they've mastered

the capabilities required for that.

They know how to do

collaborative problem solving,

they know how to do

discovery-driven learning

and they know how to do

integrated decision making.

Some of you may be sitting there

and saying to yourselves right now,

"We don't know how to do

those things in my organization.

So why do they know how to

do those things at Pixar,

and why do they know how to

do those things at Google?"

When many of the people

that worked for Bill told us,

in their opinion, that Bill was one

of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,

we completely agreed;

the man is a genius.

Leadership is the secret sauce.

But it's a different kind of leadership,

not the kind many of us think about

when we think about great leadership.

One of the leaders I met with

early on said to me,

"Linda, I don't read books on leadership.

All they do is make me feel bad."

(Laughter)

"In the first chapter they say

I'm supposed to create a vision.

But if I'm trying to do something

that's truly new, I have no answers.

I don't know what

direction we're going in

and I'm not even sure I know

how to figure out how to get there."

For sure, there are times

when visionary leadership

is exactly what is needed.

But if we want to build organizations

that can innovate time and again,

we must recast our understanding

of what leadership is about.

Leading innovation is about

creating the space

where people are willing

and able to do the hard work

of innovative problem solving.

At this point, some of you

may be wondering,

"What does that leadership

really look like?"

At Pixar, they understand

that innovation takes a village.

The leaders focus on building

a sense of community

and building those three capabilities.

How do they define leadership?

They say leadership

is about creating a world

to which people want to belong.

What kind of world do people

want to belong in at Pixar?

A world where you're

living at the frontier.

What do they focus their time on?

Not on creating a vision.

Instead they spend

their time thinking about,

"How do we design a studio that has

the sensibility of a public square

so that people will interact?

Let's put in a policy that anyone,

no matter what their level or role,

is allowed to give notes to the director

about how they feel

about a particular film.

What can we do to make sure

that all the disruptors, all the

minority voices in this organization,

speak up and are heard?

And, finally, let's bestow credit

in a very generous way."

I don't know if you've ever looked

at the credits of a Pixar movie,

but the babies born during

a production are listed there.

(Laughter)

How did Bill think about

what his role was?

Bill said, "I lead

a volunteer organization.

Talented people don't want

to follow me anywhere.

They want to cocreate

with me the future.

My job is to nurture the bottom-up

and not let it degenerate into chaos."

How did he see his role?

"I'm a role model,

I'm a human glue,

I'm a connector,

I'm an aggregator of viewpoints.

I'm never a dictator of viewpoints."

Advice about how you exercise the role?

Hire people who argue with you.

And, guess what?

Sometimes it's best to be

deliberately fuzzy and vague.

Some of you may

be wondering now,

what are these people thinking?

They're thinking,

"I'm not the visionary,

I'm the social architect.

I'm creating the space where

people are willing and able

to share and combine

their talents and passions."

If some of you are worrying now

that you don't work at a Pixar,

or you don't work at a Google,

I want to tell you there's still hope.

We've studied many organizations

that were really not

organizations you'd think of

as ones where a lot of innovation happens.

We studied a general counsel

in a pharmaceutical company

who had to figure out how

to get the outside lawyers,

19 competitors,

to collaborate and innovate.

We studied the head of marketing

at a German automaker

where, fundamentally, they believed

that it was the design engineers,

not the marketeers,

who were allowed to be innovative.

We also studied Vineet Nayar

at HCL Technologies,

an Indian outsourcing company.

When we met Vineet,

his company was about, in his

words, to become irrelevant.

We watched as he turned that company

into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation.

At HCL technologies,

like at many companies,

the leaders had learned to see

their role as setting direction

and making sure that

no one deviated from it.

What he did is tell them

it was time for them

to think about rethinking

what they were supposed to do.

Because what was happening

is that everybody was looking up

and you weren't seeing

the kind of bottom-up innovation

we saw at Pixar or Google.

So they began to work on that.

They stopped giving answers, they

stopped trying to provide solutions.

Instead, what they did

is they began to see

the people at the bottom of the

pyramid, the young sparks,

the people who were

closest to the customers,

as the source of innovation.

They began to transfer

the organization's growth

to that level.

In Vineet's language, this was

about inverting the pyramid

so that you could unleash

the power of the many

by loosening the stranglehold of the few,

and increase the quality

and the speed of innovation

that was happening every day.

For sure, Vineet and all the

other leaders that we studied

were in fact visionaries.

For sure, they understood

that that was not their role.

So I don't think it is accidental

that many of you did not recognize Ed.

Because Ed, like Vineet, understands

that our role as leaders

is to set the stage, not perform on it.

If we want to invent a better future,

and I suspect that's why

many of us are here,

then we need to reimagine our task.

Our task is to create the space

where everybody's slices of genius

can be unleashed and harnessed,

and turned into works

of collective genius.

Thank you.

منبع

https://www.english-video.net/v/fa/2210 https://www.ted.com/talks/linda_hill_how_to_manage_for_collective_creativity?language=fa تاریخ: 2014-09-12

برگرفته از «https://wiki.entreneed.ir/index.php?title=خلاقیت_را_چگونه_مدیریت_کنیم؟،_سخنرانی_کوتاه_لیندا_هیل&oldid=1019»