文章授权转载自公众号：TED英语演讲精选
hello 大家好，我是达达。
为什么很多人觉得工作很痛苦，一点也不想投入？“因为今天的企业变得愈来愈复杂，且令人昏头转向——而传统的管理支柱已经过时”，伊夫.莫里耶这样说。
于是员工陷在错综复杂、相互依存的关系中。在这篇铿锵有力的演说中，莫里耶提出了六条「简单明了的智慧型」规则。一起来看看！
演说者：Yves Morieux
演说题目：

As work gets more complex, 6 rules to simplify

当工作越来越复杂，给你6个简化守则
中英对照演讲稿
I have spent the last years trying to resolve two enigmas: Why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advances -- computers, I.T., communications, telecommunications, the Internet. 
近几年， 我都在尝试解开两个谜：为什么在所有我工作过的公司生产力都如此令人失望？我和超过 500 家公司打过交道，尽管（这些公司有）所有的技术进步 — — 计算机、 信息技术、 通讯、 电信、 和互联网。
Enigma number two: Why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaging their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams.
第二个谜：为什么（员工）在工作中的投入这么少？ 为什么人们觉得如此难受， 甚至主动抽离出来呢？疏离他们的同事， 和其公司的利益背道而驰， 不管（公司安排）了多少归属活动， 庆典，以人为本的倡议， 用以培训管理人员更好地激发他们的团队的领导力发展项目。
At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: Because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars. The hard -- structure, processes, systems. The soft -- feelings, sentiments, interpersonal relationships, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now, we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is -- and this is the answer to the two enigmas -- these pillars are obsolete. 
一开始，我以为这是个 “鸡和蛋”的问题：因为不投身于工作的人，生产力会相对低下，反之亦然。因为他们生产力较低， 承受了更多压力，以致他们较不投入工作，但是当我们进行了分析， 我们意识到这两个问题的根源是一致的， 我们意识到这两个问题的根源是一致的， 事实上，这涉及到管理的基本支柱，我们组织的方式基于两大支柱：硬性支柱 — — 结构、 进程、 系统，软性支柱 — — 感情、 情绪、人际关系、 性状、人格。每当一家公司整顿、 重组，重新设计，或进行文化转型的项目，都要选择这两个支柱。现在，我们试着完善它们，我们试着将它们合并。真正的问题 — 正是那两个谜题的谜底 — 这些支柱是过时的。
Everything you read in business books is based either on one or the other or their combination. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirements, structures, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. 
商务书籍中看到的一切，都是基于这个支柱或那个支柱，或它们的组合，它们已经过时了。当你面对新的复杂型业务，试着使用这些方法时， 这些方法是如何运行的？硬件方式基本上是这样开始：战略、 要求、 结构、 流程、 系统、 关键绩效指标、 记分卡、 委员会、 总部、 枢纽、 群体，随你说吧。我忘了说那些测量方式、 激励措施、 委员会、 中间办事处和接口 基本上都在图的左边（文：战略，要求），你面对更多的复杂性，新业务的复杂性我们需要质量、 成本、 可靠性、 速度。
And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization.
然而每一次有一项新要求，我们都使用相同的方法。我们创建专用的结构处理系统以解决新业务的复杂性。硬性办法在组织内产生的只有复杂性，硬性办法在组织内产生的只有复杂性。
Let's take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Properties. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? 
让我们看一个例子：一家汽车公司，工程部 是一个五维矩阵。如果您打开的矩阵的任意一个元素， 您可以找到另一个20维矩阵。你有“噪音先生”，”汽油消耗先生”， “防撞性能先生” 对任何新的要求， 你有一个专用的职能，负责把工程师对应到新的规定上。当新规定出现时，会发生什么呢？
Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the new requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the new requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive. That came on top of 25 other KPIs. 
几年前，一个新的要求在市场上出现 — “保修期的长度问题”。因此新的要求就是（提高）修理的易度， 使汽车容易修复，不然，当你把车开到修车厂来修灯， 如果你要拆除引擎才能修理车灯。这辆车将不得不在车库里呆上一周，而不是两个小时，那么保修预算就会不够用。那么，如何使用硬件方法来解决这个问题呢？如果“修理易度”是新的要求，解决方案是创建一个新的职能 叫它“修理易度先生” ，“修理易度先生”建立一个“修理易度“进程，利用“修理易度”记分卡与“修理易度”矩阵，还有最终的”修理易度“激励，位居其它25个关键绩效指标之上。
What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their actions, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact.
这些人中有多少比例领取可变薪酬呢？最多有20%，除以26个关键绩效指标， 修理易度只占有0.8%的重要性。这是否影响了员工的行为？影响了他们选择简化流程？完全没有 但为了这个不存在的影响，发生了多少事？“修理易度”先生、 生产过程、 记分卡、 评价、 协调，还有其他25个协调员最终没有任何影响。
Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing boxes with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connections, the interactions, the synapses. It is not the skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem. When you design cars, please take into account the needs of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garages. When we don't cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more systems, more teams. We need -- When procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don't cooperate we need more stock, more inventories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholders? Customers? No, they will refuse.
现在，面对新的复杂型业务， 唯一的解决办法不是条条框框和报告路线，而是相互作用。各种路径如何在一起工作 （包括那些）连接、 互动、 突触。它不是条框的骨架，它是应性和智慧的中枢神经系统。你知道，你可以就叫它合作。每当人们进行合作， 他们使用更少的资源，包括一切资源。你知道，修理易度的问题就是合作的问题。当你设计汽车时，请你考虑一下那些在售后车库修理汽车的工人的需求，那些在售后车库修理汽车的工人的需求，当我们不合作，我们需要更多的时间、更多的设备、 更多系统、 更多的团队。我们需要 — — 当采购、 供应链、 制造互相不合作，我们就需要更多股票，更多的库存，更多的周转资金。谁将为此付出代价呢？股东吗？客户吗？不，他们会拒绝。
So who is left? The employees, who have to compensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation? The hard: In banks, when there is a problem between the back office and the front office, they don't cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office. 
那么还剩谁呢？雇员们，他们必须以加倍的个人努力来补偿所缺乏的合作、压力、 职业倦怠，他们不堪重负，意外事故（频发），难怪他们无法投身于工作中。如何促进硬件和软件方式的合作？硬性办法：在银行里， 当后台办公室和前台之间出现问题， 他们不合作。解决方案是什么呢？他们创建了一个中间办公室。
What happens one year later? Instead of one problem between the back and the front, now I have two problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.
一年后会发生什么呢？以前只有一个问题，在前台和后头办公室。现在我有两个问题：后台与中间（的问题）， 还有中间和前台之间（的问题），再加上要付中间办公室的费用。硬性办法不能促进合作，它只会加上新框框，在骨架中加入新的骨头。
The soft approach: To make people cooperate, we need to make them like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people like each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally wrong. It is even counterproductive. Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. (Laughter) Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. 
软性办法：若要使人合作，我们需要让他们喜欢对方。改善人与人之间的感情，人们越喜欢对方，他们就会越合作。这是完全错误的。它甚至会适得其反。瞧，我有两台电视在家里。为什么呢？正是为了不需要和我的妻子合作。（笑声） 不需要让我的妻子（在我和电视之间）选择。我不想逼我的妻子选择正是因为我爱我的妻子。
If I didn't love my wife, one TV would be enough: You will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? (Laughter) The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration. Definitely, these approaches are obsolete.
如果我不爱我的妻子，一台电视就足够：你就看我最喜欢的足球赛， 如果你不高兴，不如看本书或者走人吧？（笑声） 我们越喜欢对方， 我们就越避免真正的合作。艰难的权衡会使我们的关系紧张，所以我们去买第二台电视，或者我们让更权威的机构定夺。当然，这些方法已经过时。
To deal with complexity, to enhance the nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: Understand what others do. What is their real work? We need to go beyond the boxes, the job descriptions, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. 
为了应对复杂性，为了改善一种新型系统， 我们创建了我们称之为”智能简化“的方法，它基于一些简单的规则。第一条简单的原则：了解其他人做的是什么。人们真正的工作是什么？我们需要超越条条框框、 工作说明，超越表层， 以理解真实的内容。
Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reenforce integrators. Integrators are not middle offices, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. How can you reinforce your managers as integrators? By removing layers. When there are too many layers people are too far from the action, therefore they need KPIs, metrics, they need poor proxies for reality. They don't understand reality and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs. 
我，设计者，如果我把一根导线放在这里，我知道这将意味着我们将不得不拆除引擎才能修理到灯。第二，需要加固联系枢纽，联系枢纽不是中间的办事处，他们是管理人员，对现有管理人员进行加强，让他们有权力，有动力让其他人进行合作。你如何能把您的经理训练为联系枢纽？通过消除阶层。当有太多阶层时， 人离实际行动太远， 所以他们需要业绩指标，矩阵， 他们需要空洞的指标来代替现实，他们不了解现实，同时他们增加了矩阵指标的复杂性。
By removing rules -- the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers. And we do the opposite -- the bigger we are, the more rules we create. And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules. You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence. You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage. 
通过去除规则 — 组织越是大，我们越需要联系枢纽，因此我们必须有更少的规则， 把权力分给管理人员。但我们却做了相反的事 — — 组织越是大，我们却创造了更多的规则，最终我们有了大英百科全书一样的规则。我们需要增加权力的数量，从而可以让每个人有权利使用他们的判断、他们的智力，我们必须给大家手里放入更多的”牌“ ，给他们足够的”牌“ 让他们愿意需承担合作的风险，走出阻隔。否则，他们将会退出。他们将会抽离。
These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology. You can increase the shadow of the future. Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions. This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact. They said to the design engineers: Now, in three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face. (Laughter) 
这些规则，他们来自博弈论和组织社会学。您可以增加未来的阴影。建立反馈循环，暴露人们行动的后果。这是汽车公司所做的，当他们看到”简易度先生“并没有产生影响，他们对设计工程师说: 三年后，在新车上市时，你将移到售后网络，并负责保修期内的修理预算，如果保修预算透支，你就没好日子过。（笑声） 
Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation. You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear. We will cooperate. Remove the second TV. There are many second TVs at work that don't create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency. You need to reward those who cooperate and blame those who don't cooperate. 
这可比0.8%可变薪酬厉害得多。您还需要增加互惠原则去除使我们能自给自足的缓冲区。当你把这些缓冲区拿掉， 你我唇亡齿寒。我们将进行合作，拿掉第二个电视... 在工作有很多的第二个电视，他们不创造价值，它们只是提供功能失调的自给自足。我们需要奖励那些合作的人，并指责那些不合作的人。
The CEO of The Lego Group, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, has a great way to use it. He says, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help. It changes everything. Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weaknesses, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help. When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design. You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines; you look at their interplay. It has a lot of implications on financial policies that we use. On human resource management practices. 
乐高集团的首席执行官 乔根•魏•诺斯托（Jorgen Vig Knudstorp）就有不错的应用方法。他说，被指责的不应是失败，应该是不寻求帮助。这改变了一切：突然间，将我的弱点和预测透明化，变得对我有益。因为如果失败了，我知道我不会受到责备，但如果我不寻求帮助，我会被责备。当你这样做时，对组织设计 有很大的意义，你停止画框框、 虚线、直线，你看着他们相互作用。它对我们的财政政策有很大的意义，它影响到人力资源管理的实践。
When you do that, you can manage complexity, the new complexity of business, without getting complicated. You create more value with lower cost. You simultaneously improve performance and satisfaction at work because you have removed the common root cause that hinders both. Complicatedness: This is your battle, business leaders. The real battle is not against competitors. This is rubbish, very abstract. When do we meet competitors to fight them? The real battle is against ourselves, against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness. 
当你这样做时，你可以管理复杂性，新的复杂型业务，而不需要弄得复杂。你能够以较低成本创造更多价值。同时提高了工作表现和工作满意度，因为你已删除了阻碍两种复杂性的根源。这是你们这些商界领袖的战争，真正的战斗不是对抗竞争对手，这是废话，非常的抽象。我们什么时候和竞争对手见面，和他们打？真正的战斗是对抗我们自己，针对我们的官僚作风，我们的复杂性。
Only you can fight, can do it. Thank you. (Applause)
只有你才能打倒它们，只有你才能做到 谢谢大家！（掌声）

继续阅读
阅读原文