商界領(lǐng)袖不可不學(xué)的軍事創(chuàng)新機制
|
????我剛剛從奧蘭多參觀全世界最大的軍用模擬和訓(xùn)練技術(shù)展回來。那里的一切都圍繞著一個核心：幫助戰(zhàn)士掌握至關(guān)重要的技巧——開戰(zhàn)斗機,、戰(zhàn)場救護(hù),、狙殺人質(zhì)劫持者、與村民領(lǐng)袖談判——在這樣的情況下他們可以犯錯,，但不會傷害到任何人,。我親身體驗過的一些模擬技術(shù)，真實程度令人觀止,。我就不具體說我的表現(xiàn)了,，但是說到模擬在航母上降落F-35戰(zhàn)斗機，我的確還有很多事情要做,。 ????通過模擬大幅提高個人表現(xiàn)的商業(yè)機會顯而易見,，但是了解這點的商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖卻少之又少。應(yīng)用軍隊這套培訓(xùn)體系,，第一步——甚至在討論技術(shù)之前——不妨聽一聽掌管全國模擬中心（National Center for Simulation）的退役空軍將軍湯姆?巴布提斯的意見,。“各種類型的模擬,，所有學(xué)習(xí)部分都來自事后的討論,，”他這樣對我說?！暗怯行┤瞬辉敢膺@么做,。” ????他說的是這種做法，每場訓(xùn)練（以及實地行動）后,，所有參與人員開誠布公地討論,，哪些行得通，哪些行不通,。誰的表現(xiàn)差,？怎樣才能避免？誰的表現(xiàn)好,？如何推廣開來,？少了這種討論，個人和團隊都學(xué)不到東西,。 ????最大的問題是,，那些身居高位的人物，通常認(rèn)為這個過程中自己失去的要比得到的要多,。醫(yī)療救助模擬環(huán)節(jié)十分真實,，絕非紙上談兵，一些外科醫(yī)生對被錄像及事后就自己的表現(xiàn)評頭論足毫無興趣,。模擬戰(zhàn)斗情形下,，高級指揮官通常由替身扮演，因為真正的高官不愿意參與,。原因是他們失去的太多,，而得到的又不夠。 ????除非他們的團隊損失慘重,。如果這些領(lǐng)袖認(rèn)為團隊好不了,，團隊注定就好不了。他們的團隊也不會與其良性互動,。團隊成員會明白這個組織看重的到底是什么東西,，顯然它看重的不是改善和進(jìn)步。 ????于是就引出了針對商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖的幾個尖銳問題：在我們組織中,，我們是否真的能就業(yè)績表現(xiàn)開誠布公,、真正平等的討論？在我們文化中,，我們真的有可能做到這樣嗎,？我正在塑造的是不是真的是我希望看到的行為模式?只有上述問題都找到了正確答案，組織才會變得越來越好,。那么,，你的組織表現(xiàn)到底怎么樣？（財富中文網(wǎng)） ????譯者：鄧婕?? |
????Just back from Orlando, where I was touring the world's largest trade show of simulation and training technology for the military. It's all based on the same central idea: helping warfighters learn critical skills -- piloting a fighter jet, treating injuries on the battlefield, shooting bad guys who are holding hostages, negotiating with a village leader -- in settings where they can make their mistakes without hurting anyone. The technology, some of which I tried out, is often stunningly realistic. I won't report on my performance except to say that when it comes to landing an F-35 on an aircraft carrier, I have quite a lot of work to do. ????The opportunities for businesses to improve people's performance dramatically through simulation are glaringly obvious, yet few business leaders know anything about them. As a first step toward capitalizing on what the military has learned about training -- before even thinking about the technology -- consider a remark by Tom Baptiste, a retired Air Force general who heads the National Center for Simulation. "In simulation of any kind, all the learning comes in the after-action review," he told me. "But some people just won't do it." ????He's talking about the practice, after every training exercise (and every real engagement), of gathering all those involved and reviewing with unsparing frankness what worked and what didn't. Who screwed up? How can it be avoided? What worked great? How can it be expanded? Without that discussion, individuals and teams don't learn. ????A big problem is that those at high levels may figure they have more to lose than to gain from the process. In medical simulations, which have become highly realistic and are not for the squeamish, some surgeons have zero interest in being videotaped and hearing their performance scrutinized afterward. In battle simulations, top officers are sometimes portrayed by surrogates because the actual brass won't participate. Too much to lose, not enough to gain. ????Except that their teams are losing in a big way. If those leaders think they can't get any better, they're guaranteed not to get any better. Their teams won't learn to work better with them. Team members will learn what their organization really values, and it isn't improvement. ????Which leads to a few hard questions for leaders: In our organization do we hold truly honest, no-rank-in-the-room discussions of our performance? Is it culturally even possible? Am I modeling the behavior I want to see? ????No organization will get much better until the answers to those questions are right. How is yours doing??? |
最新文章