I'm a business professor

我是一位商學教授，

whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead.

我亟欲教導人們如何當個領導者。

But recently, I've discovered

但最近我發現，

that what many of us think of as great leadership

大多數人觀念中優秀的領導能力

does not work when it comes to leading innovation.

在創新這方面並不適用。

I'm an ethnographer.

我是一名民族誌學者。

I use the methods of anthropology

我運用人類學

to understand the questions in which I'm interested.

來了解我感興趣的問題。

So along with three co-conspirators,

因此，我與三位夥伴一起，

I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal

花了將近十年，仔細觀察

exceptional leaders of innovation.

優秀的創新領導者。

We studied 16 men and women,

我們研究了16位男性與女性，

located in seven countries across the globe,

他們分布於世界上七個不同國家，

working in 12 different industries.

投身於十二種不同產業。

In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground,

我們總共花了幾百個小時在現場，

on-site, watching these leaders in action.

觀察這些領導人的工作情形，

We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes

記錄下一頁又一頁的實地考察筆記，

that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did.

並且分析這些領導者是否有特定領導模式。

The bottom line?

重點是？

If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again,

若我們想創立一個能夠持續進行創新的機構，

we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.

我們就必須跳脫傳統領導觀念的框架。

Leading innovation is not about creating a vision,

創新領導不只是創造新視野，

and inspiring others to execute it.

並且激勵他人來執行。

But what do we mean by innovation?

我們所謂創新，究竟是什麼？

An innovation is anything that is both new and useful.

創新可以是任何新穎、有用的東西。

It can be a product or service.

可以是產品，或是服務，

It can be a process or a way of organizing.

可以是過程，也可以是組織的方法，

It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough.

可以是提升，也可以是突破。

We have a pretty inclusive definition.

我們對其有許多定義。

How many of you recognize this man?

在座有多少人知道此人？

Put your hands up.

知道的請舉手。

Keep your hands up, if you know who this is.

如果你們也知道這是誰，請繼續舉手。

How about these familiar faces?

那⋯這些熟面孔呢？

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

From your show of hands,

從大家這些高舉的手，

it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie,

看來很多人都看過皮克斯動畫，

but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull,

但很少人能認出艾德·凱特穆，

the founder and CEO of Pixar --

也就是「皮克斯動畫」的創辦人兼執行長

one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.

——那是我有幸能研究的幾家公司之一。

My first visit to Pixar was in 2005,

我第一次拜訪皮克斯動畫是在2005年，

when they were working on "Ratatouille,"

當時他們正在製作《料理鼠王》，

that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef.

這部備受討論的電影講述一隻老鼠變成大廚的故事。

Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today,

在今天，電腦動畫電影儼然已成主流。

but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years

但艾德和他的同事花了將近20年時間，

to create the first full-length C.G. movie.

才完成第一部完整長度的電腦動畫電影。

In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies.

此後20年，他們又製作了14部電影。

I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you

我最近也去了皮克斯公司，我可以告訴你：

that number 15 is sure to be a winner.

第十五部電影一定會造成轟動。

When many of us think about innovation, though,

當我們想到「創新」時，

we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment.

腦中可能是愛因斯坦靈光一現時的樣子。

But we all know that's a myth.

但我們都知道那只是我們的想像。

Innovation is not about solo genius,

創新指的不是一個孤立的天才，

it's about collective genius.

它指的是集體才華。

Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie:

讓我們想想看，需要多少努力才能造就一部皮克斯動畫電影。

No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies.

單一才華、片刻靈感皆無法完成任何一部動畫電影。

On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years,

相反地，大約250人花上四、五年

to make one of those movies.

才能完成一部動畫電影。

To help us understand the process,

為了讓我們了解製作過程，

an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture.

一位皮克斯工作室員工畫了這麽一張圖。

He did so reluctantly,

他做得很不情願，

because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps

因為從這張圖我們就可以看出：製作過程由一系列繁瑣的步驟構成，

done by discrete groups.

每個步驟都被嚴謹地分組完成。

Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you

即使有這些箭頭的標注，他仍然覺得這張圖無法真正讓你認識到

just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.

這個流程有多麼的迭代、相互關聯，而且⋯說實話，很混亂。

Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves.

皮克斯在做電影的過程中，故事會不斷演化。

So think about it.

所以我們想一下：

Some shots go through quickly.

有些鏡頭過得很快⋯⋯

They don't all go through in order.

他們的工作不全是按順序進行的。

It depends on how vexing the challenges are

這取決於他們製作時遇到的挑戰有多惱火。

that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene.

在製作不同場景時，遇到的挑戰也會不同。

So if you think about that scene in "Up"

所以，例如《天外奇蹟》裡的一個情景

where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird,

就是那個小男孩遞給鳥巧克力的畫面，

that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.

那十秒的鏡頭，花了一個繪製師將近六個月去完善它。

The other thing about a Pixar movie

關於皮克斯電影的另外一件事是：

is that no part of the movie is considered finished

電影的任何部份都不會被當做成品

until the entire movie wraps.

直到整個電影製作完工。

Partway through one production, an animator drew a character

製作到一半時，繪製師給人物

with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side.

畫了一根拱形的眉毛，以體現他淘氣的一面。

When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great.

當導演看到繪圖的時候，他覺得很棒。

It was beautiful, but he said,

很漂亮。但是他說：

"You gotta lose it; it doesn't fit the character."

「你要裁掉它，它與角色的設定不符」

Two weeks later, the director came back and said,

兩個星期後，導演回來又說：

"Let's put in those few seconds of film."

「讓我們把那個眉毛放幾秒鐘在電影裡吧」

Because that animator was allowed to share

因為那位繪製師有機會分享

what we referred to as his slice of genius,

他的天才點子，

he was able to help that director reconceive the character

使他能夠幫助導演重新塑造這個角色。

in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.

用微小但是重要的方式切實地改善了故事。

What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox.

所以我們從這裡知道，創新的核心是矛盾的。

You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people

你既要釋放大家的才能和激情，

and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful.

又要控制他們去做有效的事。

Innovation is a journey.

創新是場旅程。

It's a type of collaborative problem solving,

是一種協作式的解決方案，

usually among people who have different expertise

它通常發生在一個成員各有所長、

and different points of view.

視角多元化的團隊中。

Innovations rarely get created full-blown.

創新很少是一開始就成熟的。

As many of you know,

正如你們大多數人所知

they're the result, usually, of trial and error.

創新本身其實是個「結果」，是多次試錯之後的結果。

Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes.

很多很多錯誤的開始、錯誤的步驟，還有大量的失誤。

Innovative work can be very exhilarating,

創造性的工作可以特別過癮，

but it also can be really downright scary.

也可以特別可怕。

So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does,

所以當我們在思考「皮克斯是怎麼做到的」，

we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?

我們要問我們自己，究竟發生了什麼？

For sure, history and certainly Hollywood,

當然，無論是歷史上還是好萊塢裡，

is full of star-studded teams that have failed.

充滿了曾經失敗過的星級團隊。

Most of those failures are attributed

幾乎所有的失敗，都歸結於

to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen.

團隊裡有過多的明星，就像一個廚房裡塞進了太多的廚師。

So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks,

所以為什麼皮克斯和它的廚師們，

is able to be so successful time and time again?

可以一次又一次地獲得成功？

When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai,

當我們在杜拜研究一個伊斯蘭銀行，

or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa,

或在韓國研究一個奢侈品牌，或在非洲研究社交網絡創業公司時，

we found that innovative organizations

我們發現這些創新組織，

are communities that have three capabilities:

都擁有三種能力：

creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution.

「創意摩擦」、「創造的靈活性」和「創造性的解決方案」。

Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas

「創意摩擦」是通過辯論和討論，創造一個「創意」的交流平台。

through debate and discourse.

「創意摩擦」是通過辯論和討論，創造一個「創意」的交流平台。

In innovative organizations, they amplify differences,

在創新機構裡，他們將差異放大，

they don't minimize them.

他們並不將差別減小。

Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming,

創意摩擦不是腦力激盪。

where people suspend their judgment.

人們只把想法丟出來

No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments

不，他們知道如何進行激烈而有意義的爭論

to create a portfolio of alternatives.

來創造出大量的不同構想。

Individuals in innovative organizations

在創新機構裡的個人，

learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what?

要學會如何詢問，學會如何時刻聆聽。但是你知道嗎？

They also learn how to advocate for their point of view.

他們還學著如何主張他們自己的觀點。

They understand that innovation rarely happens

他們知道：如果你不在團隊中保持多樣性和衝突，

unless you have both diversity and conflict.

創新就很難發生。

Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas

「創造的靈活性」是指，能夠通過快速的追索、反應和調整，來檢驗和提煉那些創想。

through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment.

「創造的靈活性」是指，能夠通過快速的追索、反應和調整，來檢驗和提煉那些創想。

It's about discovery-driven learning

這是一種探索式的學習，

where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future.

你不必按照計劃行事，未來的事沒有什麼是安排好的。

It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination

是一種結合了科學方法和藝術過程

of the scientific method and the artistic process.

的有趣的設計思維。

It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.

它是進行一系列的實驗，而不是制定一系列的指導規範。

Experiments are usually about learning.

「實驗」往往就是學習的過程。

When you get a negative outcome,

當你得到負面結果時，

you're still really learning something that you need to know.

你至少學到了這樣做是行不通的。

Pilots are often about being right.

而指導規範往往意味著絕對正確，

When they don't work, someone or something is to blame.

如果你不按照指導的去做，就有人或事要被責怪了。

The final capability is creative resolution.

最後一點是「創造性的解決方案」。

This is about doing decision making

這是關於決策制定的。

in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas

你甚至要把截然相反的創想結合起來，

to reconfigure them in new combinations

重新塑造它們，做成新的組合。

to produce a solution that is new and useful.

從而產生一個既新穎又有用的解決方案。

When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along.

當你在研究創新機構時，你會發現他們既不與人隔絕，也不好好相處，

They don't compromise.

他們就是不妥協。

They don't let one group or one individual dominate,

他們不讓任何一個人或者團隊做主，

even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert.

即使是老闆也不行，即使是專家也不行。

Instead, they have developed

相反，他們創造了

a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process

一種更加有耐心和包容力的決策方式，

that allows for both/and solutions to arise

使得最後的解決方案不僅僅是從幾個創想中挑出一個，

and not simply either/or solutions.

還有可能是同時用上好幾個創想。

These three capabilities are why we see

這三種能力，

that Pixar is able to actually do what it does.

就是皮克斯能夠做到現在這樣的原因。

Let me give you another example,

我來給你們另外一個例子，

and that example is the infrastructure group of Google.

那是Google的基礎設施部門。

The infrastructure group of Google is the group

Google的基礎設施部門

that has to keep the website up and running 24/7.

負責網站每天24小時都運作。

So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube,

所以當Google要推出 Gmail 和 YouTube 時，

they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate.

他們意識到，他們現有的數據存儲容量不夠用了。

The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time

當時，工程組和基礎設施組的組長

was a man named Bill Coughran.

是一個叫Bill Coughran的人。

Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust,

Bill和他的領導小組——也就是他的智囊團，

had to figure out what to do about this situation.

需要想方法解決這個問題。

They thought about it for a while.

他們想了一段時間。

Instead of creating a group to tackle this task,

最終，他們不是為此建一個小組去處理問題；

they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously

而是讓大家根據自己支持的觀點，自然地分組。

around different alternatives.

而是讓大家根據自己支持的觀點，自然地分組。

Two groups coalesced.

結果他們合併出了兩個組合。

One became known as Big Table,

一個被成為 Big Table (大桌子)，

the other became known as Build It From Scratch.

另一個叫 Build it From Scratch (無中生有)。

Big Table proposed that they build on the current system.

Big Table小組建議他們在現有的系統基礎上再建，

Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system.

Build it From Scratch小組則覺得是時候把整個系統換成全新的了。

Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time

這兩組分別投入時間

on their particular approach.

去按照各自的想法工作。

In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as,

從工程的角度來看，Bill 稱他的角色是

"Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."

「通過引起辯論，向工作進程中注入真誠」。

Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could

早些時候，每隊被鼓勵去造出樣品，

"bump them up against reality and discover for themselves

這樣他們就能和現實做比較，並且發現他們自己

the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach."

和對手之間的強項和弱點。

When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group

當Build it From Scratch分享他們的模型時

whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night

（如果網站出現問題時，它通過傳呼機報警。但如果發生在半夜，有些人的傳呼機是關閉的）

if something went wrong with the website,

（如果網站出現問題時，它通過傳呼機報警。但如果發生在半夜，有些人的傳呼機是關閉的）

they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design.

他們被明確的告知這個設計缺陷。

As the need for a solution became more urgent

當對解決方案的需要越來越緊急時，

and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in,

——而且大量數據已經開始進入系統，

it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution

很明顯的，Big Table的解決方案

was the right one for the moment.

是對當前來說更適合的。

So they selected that one.

所以他們選擇了Big Table。

But to make sure that they did not lose the learning

但是為了確保他們沒有丟失

of the Build it From Scratch team,

向Build it From Scratch小組學習的機會，

Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging

Bill讓Build it From Scratch的兩名隊員和Big Table一起組建了一個新的團隊，

to work on the next-generation system.

去開發下一代系統。

This whole process took nearly two years,

這整個過程花了將近兩年，

but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.

但我聽說他們每個成員都在極速工作。

Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said,

過程的早期，一個工程師曾對Bill說：

"We're all too busy for this inefficient system

「這個沒有效率的平行實驗，

of running parallel experiments."

讓我們每個人都忙得焦頭爛額。」

But as the process unfolded, he began to understand

隨著工作進程的展開，他也開始明白了這種，

the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions.

讓有才能的人發揮自己熱情的智慧。

He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team,

他承認，「如果你只讓我們關注一個小組，

we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning,

我們有可能只會關注誰對誰贏，

and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."

而不會去學習和發現對Google最有利的答案」

Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again?

所以，為什麼皮克斯和Google可以不斷地創新？

It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that.

這是因為他們已經掌握了所需的能力。

They know how to do collaborative problem solving,

他們知道如何創造協同解決方案，

they know how to do discovery-driven learning

他們知道如何探索性地學習，

and they know how to do integrated decision making.

而且他們還知道如何做整合性的決策。

Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now,

你們中有些人有可能正坐在那裡，對自己說：

"We don't know how to do those things in my organization.

「我們並不知道怎麼在我的機構裡做那些事情。

So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar,

所以，為什麼皮克斯會知道那麼做？

and why do they know how to do those things at Google?"

為什麼Google也知道該這麼做？」

When many of the people that worked for Bill told us,

當很多為Bill工作過的人告訴我們，

in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley,

他們覺得，Bill是矽谷最出色的領導人之一。

we completely agreed; the man is a genius.

我們完全贊同，那個人是個天才。

Leadership is the secret sauce.

領導力是一種秘密調料。

But it's a different kind of leadership,

但那是一種不一樣的領導力，

not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership.

不是那種，我們都會想到的偉大的領導力。

One of the leaders I met with early on said to me,

我之前見到的一位領導者告訴我，

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

「Linda，我不看講領導力的書。

All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter)

它們只會讓我感覺不好。」(笑聲)

"In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision.

「第一章 他們說我應該創造一個景象。

But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers.

但是如果我是真的在嘗試新的東西，我想像不出來。

I don't know what direction we're going in

我不知道我們的方向，

and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there."

而且我都不知道怎麼達到目標。」