تغییرات

پرش به ناوبری پرش به جستجو

خلاقیت را چگونه مدیریت کنیم؟، سخنرانی کوتاه لیندا هیل (نمایش مبدأ)

نسخهٔ ‏۶ اوت ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۱:۳۴

۱۵٬۷۰۹ بایت اضافه‌شده ،  ‏۶ اوت ۲۰۲۱، ساعت ۱۱:۳۴
اضافه کردن متن انگلیسی
سطر ۶۹۶: سطر ۶۹۶:       −
تاریخ: 2014-09-12
+
<div align="left"> 
 +
==متن انگلیسی==
 +
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.
 +
</div>
    
==منبع==
 
==منبع==
 
https://www.english-video.net/v/fa/2210
 
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/ویژه:تفاوت_گوشی_همراه/1018»

منوی ناوبری