Innovation: Top-down or Bottoms-up?
(From Mitch Barn’s Blog)

Curtis Carlson is the CEO of SRI International (SRI stands for “Stanford Research Institute”). Here is what he was quoted as saying recently about the comparison between “bottom up” innovation vs. “top down” innovation:

“Innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but “dumb”. On balance, the sweet spot* for innovation today is moving down, not up.”

His thought seems relevant to Nielsen’s recent “Emerging Product Ideas” contest, which opens up the opportunity for everyone … anyone … in the company to put forward an idea for a new product innovation. More than 100 people in Greater China submitted their ideas, and most of these came from people who are not yet to the “manager” level in our organization. In other words, a lot of “bottoms up” innovation.

If you did not submit an idea to the Emerging Product Ideas contest, that is OK. It is not your only way to get involved in bottoms up innovation. In fact, we don’t want bottoms up innovation to occur only when we have a contest. Instead, we want it to become part of every-day life for Nielsen in Greater China. The opportunity is always out there for you to imagine how something could be made better, to create something new, to propose a change… Don’t rely on the senior managers to have all of the ideas. To be at our best, we need ideas and innovation from all points in our team. And as Curtis Carlson says above, winning organizations are relying on bottoms-up innovation more and more.

What is your next idea?

创新：自下而上还是自上而下？

Curtis Carlson 是 SRI International的 CEO (SRI 表示“斯坦福研究所”)。以下引用了他最近说的关于“自下而上”和“自上而下”的创新方式比较：

“自下而上的创新一般是凌乱但比较灵活的，自上而下的创新是秩序井然的但沉闷的。权衡之下，现如今的最优创新方式是将重心向下移动而不是向上。”

他的想法和Nielsen最近“Emerging Product Ideas”评比不谋而合，给每一个人，任何一个人一个公平的机会来表达自己对于新产品创新的想法。大中华区有超过100位同事提交了自己的想法，并且其中很大一部分是在这个组织中还未达到经理级别的同事。总之，是许多“自下而上”的创新。

如果你还没有提交“Emerging Product Ideas”评比的想法，也没关系。这不是你参与到这个自下而上的创新的唯一途径。相反我们更希望这能成为Nielsen大中华区日常工作的一部分。你始终有这个机会可以去想象如何让一些事情变得更好，或者创造一些新的东西，或者提议做一些改变……不要依赖高层经理来给所有的想法。要做到最好，我们就需要来自团队中所有角落的点子。并且就像Curtis Carlson在上述说得那样，越是成功的组织越是依靠“自下而上”的创新方式。

那么你的下一个点子是什么？

4 Obsessions of Effective Leaders

– From Mitch Barn’s Blog

Patrick Lencioni leads an organization called, “The Table Group”. He is also the author of the best-selling book, “Five Dysfunctions of a Team”. His most recent book is called, “The Four Obsessions of Effective Leaders”, and the paragraphs below provide a brief summary:
1. A leader should be obsessed with building a cohesive team. Cohesive teams rely on trust between members. Teams with trust avoid negative politics; they operate operate openly, efficiently, and flexibly. Cohesive team members are secure enough with each other to engage in constructive debate / conflict—sometimes they argue with one another, but it is always about issues, not personalities. Cohesive teams have meetings that are intense, passionate, often exhausting — but never boring. The members of cohesive teams hold one another accountable for values, commitments, effort, and sharing risk. Members of cohesive teams support the decisions of the team even if the member personally did not vote in favor of the decision.
2. A leader should be obsessed with creating organizational clarity. Why does our organization exist? What are our key values and cultural norms? How is our business defined, and who are our relevant competitors? How are we unique? What are our short term and long term goals? Who is responsible for what? The leader should know the answers to these questions, and so should the leadership team. But the ideal is for all employees at all levels to be crystal clear on these points. Organizations that achieve this have an incredible sense of focus, power, and efficiency. Over time, employees in these organizations grow to have a greater sense of autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
3. A leader should strive to over-communicate organizational clarity. This is the simplest of the four, but it is also the most commonly underachieved. Why? Because leaders usually over-estimate the awareness and understanding of the “average person” in the organization. The leader knows the message so well her-/himself that she/he loses the ability to know whether others also know and/or remember it.
4. A leader should reinforce organizational clarity through HR processes. Organizations and teams sustain their health by establishing simple processes, frameworks, and guidelines to support the way they make decisions, evaluate job candidates, manage performance, and reward employees. For us, team management, panel interviewing, PPR and HR1/HR2, leadership development, meritocracy are some of these key processes and frameworks. Leaders should ask themselves, “How fully have I immersed myself into these? How hard do I work to link these back to the ‘organizational clarity’ that I am working so hard to achieve? How serious am I – really – about these? Am I aiming simply to get a box checked or do I view these as integral to our progress and success?”

——————————————————————————————-

高效领导者的四大准则

Patrick Lencioni领导着一个叫“圆桌集团”的组织。他也是畅销书《团队领导的五大障碍》的作者。他最新的一本书叫《The Four Obsessions of Effective Leaders》，以下是简短的总结：

1. 领导者必须致力于创建一个有凝聚力的组织。有凝聚力的组织依靠团队成员之间的互相信任。充满信任的团队能够避免不良的政策；他们开放、高效、自由地合作。有凝聚力的团队会放心地加入有建设性的辩论、甚至冲突——有时候他们也会和彼此争吵，但是总是对事不对人。有凝聚力的团队的会议总是紧张、热情高涨、通常也是很累人的，但是从来不会觉得无聊。有凝聚力的团队成员之间对彼此之间的价值、承诺、努力和风险都承担责任。有凝聚力的团队成员会支持团队的每一个决定，尽管有时候自己并不赞成这个决定。
2. 领导者必须致力于创建一个透明的组织。为什么我们的组织可以存在着？我们的核心价值和文化规范在哪里？我们的业务是如何定义的，我们的竞争对手是谁？我们凭什么脱颖而出？我们的短期和长期的任务是什么？谁来对哪些任务负责？领导者需要了解这一切问题的答案，而且领导层都必须了解。但是更理想的状态是公司每一个层级的员工都了解这些答案。组织要做到这些需要难以置信的聚焦、能力和高效。随着时间的推移，在这个组织中的员工会逐渐形成自治、控制和目标性的意识。
3. 领导者应该努力对组织透明这一点多多沟通。这一点是四点当中最简单的，但是却是现实当中最少做到的。为什么？因为领导者总是高估了组织中意识和理解力的“平均水平”。领导者自己对这些信息往往太了解，以至于难以判断别人是不是也能理解/或者记住了这些信息。
4. 领导者应该通过HR流程进一步强化组织的透明度。组织和团队通过创建简单的流程、框架和纲要来支持他们做出的决定，评估应聘者，管理工作表现，激励员工。对我们来说，团队管理，小组面谈，PPR和HR1/HR2，领导力开发，精英计划是我们的核心流程和框架。领导者应该扪心自问：“我对这些投入了多少？我花了多少精力来把它们和我一直努力要达成的组织令透明度联系起来？ 我对这件事情的态度有多严肃—真的有这么严肃吗？我只是想把这些任务做完还是把它视做我们进步和成功的必要组成？”

Jim Collins on the “Keys to Success” and “Leaders”

– From Mitch Barns Blog

Here are some ideas that I have accumulated from various books and talks by Jim Collins, the author of several best-selling business books, including Built to Last, How the Mighty Fall, and Good to Great.
On the keys to success:
• Greatness comes from the values and “DNA” of an organization, NOT from “incentives”.
• Discipline is key to greatness. “Discipline” is not a business idea…business didn’t invent it. But in business, greatness validates the importance of discipline over and over again.
• It is important to have good measures of success.  In some organizations, money is both a primary input and a primary output, and so “ROI” is fairly clear. In other organizations, money is a clear input, but not a clear output. For example, an Art Museum or an Orchestra; or a market research department at one of our clients. In most cases, these types of organizations don’t try hard enough to measure effectiveness. They should try harder. Example: the Cleveland Orchestra. They chose “success measures” like the number of standing ovations, the number of people who attended from outside of the Cleveland metropolitan area, the number of other cities’ orchestras that patterned programming after Cleveland’s, etc. Clever! (and useful)
What does a great business leader look like?
• The best leaders often are often quiet and humble and quick to give credit to others and to “luck” for their success.
• They are people that put the interest of the overall business ahead of their personal interests.
• They are people who manage not to succumb to the seduction of being seen as the leader.
• The best leaders are fanatically driven to produce results.
• The best leaders can get people to do things even when they don’t have the power to MAKE them do it.
• The best leaders rely on high standards more than personal charisma. They are rigorous, but not ruthless.
• The best leaders view themselves as being within a constellation of colleagues rather than atop a hierarchy.
• And perhaps the biggest irony of all … the best leaders ensure they have a successor so that when they leave, the business will continue to succeed without them.
These qualities might not describe the kind of “great leaders” in business that people often hear about, but in my opinion, these nevertheless are the qualities that describe the best leaders.

——————————————————————————————-

Jim Collins的“成功关键”和“领导者”

Jim Collins撰有数本经济类畅销书，包括《基业长青》、《强大企业的兴衰》和《从优秀到卓越》。以下是我从Jim Collins著作和谈话中收集下来的关于成功关键的看法：
• 卓越是从组织的“DNA”中找到的价值，不是从“激励”中来的。
• 训练成就卓越。“训练”不是一个商业理念……商业没有创造这个概念。但是在商业中，卓越一再地证明了训练的重要性。
• 对成功的衡量是很重要的。在一些组织中，钱在最初的投入和产出中都是很重要的，也因此“投资回报率”相对清楚。在另一些组织中，钱是很清楚的投入，但产出不是。比如说，一个艺术博物馆或管弦乐队；又比如说我们某一家客户的市场研究部门。大多数时候，很多类型的组织都不曾努力地衡量效率。他们应该更努力。比如：克利夫兰交响乐团。他们以掌声如雷的次数、站在克里夫兰中心区域以外的人数、继克里夫兰交响乐之后在其他城市模仿其设计的乐队数量等等衡量成功，多么聪明！（并且有用）
一个优秀的商业领袖看起来像什么？
• 最优秀的领袖往往是安静、谦逊、并且对他人讲信誉，给别人的成功带来“运气”。
• 他们把对商业整体的兴趣放在个人兴趣之前。
• 他们让自己抵御住被他人视作领袖的诱惑。
• 优秀的领袖很狂热地创造结果。
• 优秀的领袖可以让别人做事情，即使他们没有“权力”让他们去做。
• 最优秀的领袖总是依赖高标准而不是个人魅力。他们是严格的但不是无情的。
• 最优秀的领袖将自己视作同事之间的一些杰出的人，而不是凌驾于等级制度之上的人。
• 并且最讽刺的是……最优秀的领袖要保证有一位继承人，在他们离开之后让公司继续成功下去，即使已经没有他们的存在。
这些品质或许不足以描绘我们经常听到的“优秀领导者”，尽管如此，这是我观念中的对最优秀领袖的品质的描述。

The 4 C’s

– From Mitch Barns Blog

Competence, Chemistry, Character, and Culture.  The 4C’s is one of HR’s principles during interview:

• Competence:  Does this person have the level of intelligence, skills, and experience that we require for the role? When in doubt, keep the bar high.
• Character:   Does this person have the integrity and standards to do what is ‘right’ for our Clients and Nielsen – always?  Are we confident in how he/she will respond under pressure?  There should be no doubt here.
• Chemistry:  This is simple. Is this someone who you would (very) happy to work with on a regular basis?  Is there a good rapport, an easy “connection”? (See below for some more thoughts on “chemistry”.)
• Culture:  This one is about “fit” with our company’s way of operating and our values, including open, simple, integrated.  Further, does this person show energy, optimism, kindness, a team-first attitude, and a bias for action?  Will this person add to, or subtract from, the inspiration of the team?
I like this framework because it is simple, easy to remember and use, and it helps me to be sure to form a well-rounded assessment of a candidate (vs. focusing too much on just one area…for instance, “competence”).
A few more words about “Chemistry”.  I’ve read that at Google, when the company was growing fast in its early years, the two founders would interview almost every candidate to join the company.  After the interview, they would ask themselves whether the candidate passes the “Airport Test”.  They way defined the “Airport Test” was like this:  “If I were at the airport with this person and we just learned that our flight was delayed for 3 hours, how would I feel?  Would I dread being stuck with this person for the next 3 hours, or would I look forward to it?”
What do you think of the 4C’s?  Do you like the idea of the “Airport Test”?

2010/10/28

——————————————————————————————-

4C原则

竞争力，化学，性格，文化，是HR遴选应聘者的标准之一。

• 竞争力：这个人是否有这个职位所需的智慧、能力和经验？如果其中一点有怀疑的话，就保持高要求。
• 性格：这个人能不能始终如一地在面对客户和公司的时候表现出诚恳、正直的态度？我们对于他在压力下的表现是不是有信心？这一点应该是毫无疑问的。
• 化学：这一点很简单。每天和TA在一起工作，你会不会（很）快乐？你们之间是不是很和谐，很容易相处？（请参考后面说到的关于“化学”的一些想法）
• 文化：这一点说的是是否能够适合公司在运作中的一些价值观，比如Nielsen的“开放、简单和整合”。另外，这个人是否表现出充满活力、乐观、善良和集体第一的态度，并且也会如此行动？TA会增加、还是减弱团队的士气？

我喜欢这个框架因为它简单，容易被记住和运用，而且它能帮助我全方位地评价一个应聘者（而不是过多地偏向于某一个方面，比如说“竞争力”）
这里再说一些关于“化学”的。我查过Google，在公司高速发展的前两年，两个创始人会面试每一位加入公司员工。面试之后，他们会问他们自己这些应聘者有否通过“机场测试”。他们对“机场测试”是这样定义的：“如果我们在机场并且刚刚得知航班要晚3个小时，我会感觉如何？我会不会很害怕和这个人相处接下来的3个小时，还是我会很向往这样？”
你觉得4C原则怎么样？你喜欢“机场测试”的想法吗？

Inspiration

-From Mitch Barns Blog

When people are asked, “What do you want from a leader?” one of the most common replies is, “Inspiration.” What does it mean? What does it look like?
The quality of being “inspiring” can take many different forms. Some are overt, while others are more subtle. Here are ten varieties of “inspiring”.
1. Confidence. The type of confidence that many find inspiring is “poise,” which I think of as the combination of confidence and calmness.
2. Optimism. Optimism is about seeing a future that is better than today’s reality. At some level, it’s a choice.
3. Energy. One of energy’s many forms is optimism put into motion in a way that energizes others.
4. Courage. Courage is about rising above fear and acting. It is inspiring to see someone to do that. (Note: If no fear, then no need for courage. So fear can be inspiring too.)
5. Clarity. Stating our objectives with sophisticated words might sound impressive, but the result is often abstract and not so inspiring. Inspiring missions are usually concrete, simple, and crystal clear. For example, which is more clear and inspiring? “We want to achieve topline growth that is significantly above the rate of our competitive peer group,” or “We want to double the business in 3 years.”
6. Decisiveness. Enough said.
7. Perseverance. There are almost always more paths to failure than to success. There are almost always more reasons to stop than to continue. When you keep going anyway and somehow find a way through it all, you are inspiring (or crazy!).
8. Integrity. Opportunities abound to take (inappropriate) shortcuts to gain an advantage. Sometimes, the situation is such that “no one will ever know”. When a person resists those temptations and insists on “winning the right way”, that is incredibly inspiring.
9. Sacrifice. When a leader suffers for the cause or puts the group’s interests above his/her own…it stirs something inside of us. It inspires us.
10. Balance. It is exciting to see someone achieve success. It is inspiring to see that same success achieved in the context of a balanced life. It tells us, “Sacrifice is not a chronic condition required for success,” … and that is both reassuring and inspiring.
What do you find inspiring in a leader?

2010/10/25
——————————————————————————————-

启迪 

当有人被问到：“你想从领袖那里得到什么？”“启迪”是很常见的答案之一。这意味着什么？这看起来像什么？

“启迪”的形式可以有很多种。有一些是明显的，也有一些是微妙的。以下是10种不同的“启迪”：

1. 自信。这种自信是一种平衡，我认为是一种自信和冷静地结合。
2. 乐观。乐观是相信比现实更美好的未来。有些情况下，这是一种选择。
3. 活力。活力的其中一种形式是积极地让身边的人充满活力。
4. 鼓励。鼓励是让人看到害怕并因此行动起来，这也是一种启迪。（注：如果没有害怕，也就不用鼓励行动。所以害怕也是一种启迪。）
5. 透明。把目标形容得精美绝伦也许听起来令人印象深刻，但结果是通常太抽象也无法启发他人。能够让人受启发的目标往往比较专注、简单、并且和水晶般透明。举个例子，以下哪一样比较清晰让人有启迪？是“我们要让我们的业务大幅地提高，要比起竞争者增长的多得多”还是“我们要在三年里让业务翻番”？
6. 果断。已经说过很多了。
7. 坚持。失败的路总是比成功的路多。停下来的理由总是比继续下去的多。当你不顾一切地往前走并且终于有一天找到了走出去的路，你就获得了启迪。（好疯狂！）
8. 正直。获得优势的机会很多时候出现在（不正当的）捷径当中。有时候，情况是“没有人会知道”。当你抵挡住诱惑并且坚持“赢在正确的路上”的时候，你毫无疑问已经得到了启迪。
9. 牺牲。当一个领袖疲于把集团利益放在自己之前的时候，有些东西在我们心中被唤醒。它可以给我们启迪。
10. 平衡。看到一个人成功是让人兴奋的。这让我们想到，能否在生活保持平衡的状态下获得成功。“牺牲自己不是成功必须的长期状态”这就是一种启迪和安慰。

 你们有没有发现什么启迪领袖的想法？

Are you bored?

-From Mitch Barns Blog

At a few points throughout my career, I have sought a change when I began to feel “bored” with what I was doing.   Sometimes that was the right thing to do.  But sometimes, maybe not. 
In a recent column in Forbes, Amity Shlaes* writes, “My father gave me the best career advice I ever heard:  ‘There will come a moment when you are bored … and you will want to try something new.  But that boredom is the signal you’ve achieved mastery.  You’ll be quitting at the moment when it’s most costly to do so.  Only a mastered trade can be properly monetized.’ ”
Next time you are “bored” with your role, ask yourself whether it would be better to seek a change to a new role, or whether it is a signal that you are ready to more fully capitalize on what you know, to increase your impact, and/or to drive change and improvement right where you are.  Either way, your boredom should quickly disappear. 
Are you bored?

——————————————————————————————-

你厌倦了吗？

 -摘自Mitch Barns博客

当我的职业生涯走了好几段之后，我开始对自己正在做的事情有些厌倦，于是开始寻求一些改变。有些时候这种做法是对的，但有些时候并不是。

在近期的Forbes栏目中，Amity Shlaes他写到：“我父亲给了我一个我至今觉得最好的职业意见，那就是‘有一天你会发现你厌倦了，然后你要去找一些新东西。但厌倦是你精通的信号。这时候退出意味着要付出最大的代价。只有娴熟的手艺才能真正地变成财富。’”

如果下次你觉得厌倦了就问一下自己，确实应该找一个新的环境了呢，还是这说明你已经可以把你的所学变成财富和影响力呢，还是就现在的情况作出改变或改善。不管选择其中哪一条，你的厌倦都很快会消失的。

那么你厌倦了吗？