沃顿商学院全套笔记-二十六-

沃顿商学院全套笔记（二十六）

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P93：16_美国案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

I'm going to have us look now very briefly a kind of an application and then we're going。

to get into a much deeper dive into some very tough set of decisions。

For the application， I'm going to have us briefly take a look at Charlene Barchevsky。

upper left-hand corner there。 She's with the Zhurangi， the then premier of China。

Charlene Barchevsky is the U。S。 Trade Representative。

She's in the presidential cabinet with that position。

And her job is on behalf of the United States to work out agreements with other countries。

in this case China， and in particular in this case to help bring China into the World Trade。

Organization and conversely at the same time to open up China to U。S。 products， everything。

from Hollywood films to Boeing aircraft。 And she with the Zhurangi negotiated extensively primarily in Beijing a deal。

The two of them， Zhurangi flying from Beijing to Washington， went in to see the then-president。

Bill Clinton and despite a long 14-hour nonstop flight bringing Nezhoo from Beijing to Washington。

by the time he arrived， the administration， Bill Clinton， the president shown here， had。

decided not itself to sign the agreement。 A rather unfortunate moment。

much criticized in the public media。 Somehow the premier of China was allowed to fly to Washington to sign an agreement that。

in the end Washington was not ready to sign。

Here's the point I'm going to have us focus on for just a minute。

Charlie Barchevsky publicly criticized and newspapers and beyond for this problem said， to herself。

"Okay， I believe in what we're trying to do， which is to open up more trade。

with China。 And now I quickly and in a good sense， good and timely， have got to get myself up， dust。

myself off and get right back into the game。"， Part of that day after Bill Clinton said he's not going to honor the deal。

it was not ready， to yet to sign。 She called up Zhur。

got a discussion going and talked in turn with members of both houses， on Capitol Hill。

talked and turned to the AFL-CIO， the big labor organization， talked。

and turned to all kinds of enterprise around the country on why free trade or open trade。

with China with a lot of downsides that are known in advance on balance。

Net net would be a good thing for this country。 Six months later。

now with a signing actually in Beijing， Charlie Barchevsky， there she is， in the bottom photograph。

having made a whole range of good and timely focus here on timely， especially decisions。

brought this debate， this discussion to a close。 That helped bring China into the World Trade Organization。

Of course today we know the consequence， the amount of trade between China and the United， States。

just an enormous flow these days compared to a trickle back then。

Let me add one more point and I'm going to reference here Ann Livermore at the time when。

the photograph was taken who was a senior VP or executive VP at Hewlett Packard， the big。

maker of technology products including home computers。 And Charles E。

Latchy who again when the photograph was taken ran what's called jet propulsion。

laboratory JPL。 We know less about that， although we know what it does by seeing what some of the consequences。

of what they put into space when missions go to Mars for example or out to find Neptune。

or to see the moons of Jupiter without people on board。

It is the jet propulsion laboratory that puts together the hardware， arranges for the launch。

through Vanessa。 So this is the organization when there's no people on board that sends for example the。

rover mission to Mars。 Charles E。 Latchy， a scientist and engineer or physicist。

worried a lot about a decision。

making mindset that would be good and timely at jet propulsion laboratory。

And in a famous example that he often cited well known to the outside world he had arranged。

he had authorized two of his senior engineers to send two separate missions to Mars。

They were going to land at separate times and both of the missions failed for technical， reasons。

The engineering had some issues in it and the two engineers separately decided。

to walk into Charles E。 Latchy's office to say a big error here and we hear by resign。

And Charles E。 Latchy told them and he's retold the story many times。

I've seen him tell it directly that we just spent $400 million for you to make that decision。

that didn't work so well。 Go back to the Marine Corps precept there。

You've got to tolerate decisions that aren't so good for the first time。

So now that you've learned from those you're going to not resign you're going to work for。

me and we're going to get two more missions to Mars。

And these are the two engineers that put together what are called as missions spirit。

and separately opportunity。 Two missions that did land on Mars and if you've looked at a。

photo of the surface of Mars or seen an IMAX film in recent years about that these two。

engineers did it。 They solved the problem。 Charles E。 Latchy says to his 4，000 employees。

repeatedly I want you to make exacting decisions。 I want you to make them timely and I'm not。

looking here for perfect。 You're going to learn from mistakes。

So it's an illustration just to anchor that one more time of that again Marine Corps formulation。

of getting to 70% getting out there make a good make the decision make it timely。

And Livermore back here at Tila Packard often said when she was there she's no longer with。

the company that I want decisions to be fast enough。 They don't have to be super fast。

Don't just get into it and make it。 We're going to make mistakes but I don't want them。

to be perfect and taking too long on the flip side of that。 The point I'm going to make。

is that in management we recognize that people are we're all worried about making an error。

in a fast moving world cycle time shorter and the management challenge is to recognize。

that and to do something about it to manage it so the people around you once you've delegated。

a course can make good and timely decisions。

A couple more thoughts before we then take a deeper dive I'd like you to absorb these。

as well on being ready to make good and timely decisions as we're about to see when a lot。

of fate hangs on getting them right and hangs on getting them in a timely fashion。

Lots of research and behavioral psychology behavioral economics well summed up in a book。

called Thinking Fast and Slow。 It's a book that pulls together a lot of research。 It's great。

on the factors that lead people for example take a look at the second bullet here predictably。

lead people to be over confident in judgments when they're kind of new to the area。 They。

start feeling good about themselves even too good about themselves。 Think about a person。

you've hired that six months into the job since we know that there's that tendency for people。

the predictable tendency for people to be over confident this is indeed something we can。

do something about as a manager。 Most worrisome of all by the way of all these behavioral call。

them recognized shortcomings of the human condition we're not computers we're not automatons is。

what I've got captured in the box at the bottom of the screen there almost like a surgeon general's。

warning。 It's a little bit ironic because it says this if you've had a great quarter a terrific。

year watch out because some of these behavioral shortcomings so well summed up in this book。

that I've already referenced thinking fast and slow Daniel Kahneman the author of that book。

and things are going swimmingly well there is a tendency for all these suboptimal problems。

to become more acute people become if it's been a good year a great quarter over confident。

hubris sets in we're doing great we don't have to make any changes when maybe some of。

that greatness is literally the luck of the draw and the last bottom paragraph there in。

that box for me is one of the most profound statements about what we have to do as a manager。

of people in an organization with a good strategy and that is guard against over optimism and。

by the way over pessimism we have to manage that over optimism hubris sets in over optimism。

we don't do anything there's a middle ground and just to make maybe make that tangible by。

way of illustration the great Japanese automaker Toyota for years has adopted the mantra I think。

we all know it of continuous improvement we've got a great auto they've often dominated the。

world industry in terms of price and quality but don't let that don't rest on your laurels we've。

got to think about what are the four improvements that still need to be made continuous improvement。

and that's a managed culture I've gone into Toyota talk with the people who I challenged。

them on that and he said of course we had a great year Mike but in fact we're really worried。

about four new problems and that's where we're focused。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P94：17_灭火.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Let's go back to John Chambers， Silicon Valley。

Those four good precepts from the Officer Candidate School of the U。S。 Marine Corps at。

Quantico， Virginia。 Think about Charlene Barchevsky。 Think about the problem with necklace trading。

And now we're going to do a bit of a deeper dive into a very difficult circumstance。

Take me about five minutes to describe it。 And then I've got four or five questions I'm going to throw at you。

So absorb the information as we go forward in that I'm going to take all that we've done。

up to this point and ask you to apply what we learned from Silicon Valley， from John， Chambers。

from the U。S。 Marine Corps， from Charlene Barchevsky， from Ann Livermore， from。

Charles Iolacchi and beyond to interpreting the good and timely decisions that are going。

to be made as the team drops。 There's the DZ， the drop zone you see now。

And as they are on the ground and I'll do this a non-metric， the drop zone is about one。

mile from the fire。 The fire again scoped very small by Western U。S。 fire standards。

It's about 30 acres， small fire。 Fires like this start all the time with a lightning strike。

That's what happened here。 It's a very dry and combustible area。 It's late early August rather。

And thus as you hit the ground， the drop zone， with a total of 16 firefighters， you're going。

to be heading towards that fire about a mile away and a relatively routine operation they've。

been doing this dozens of times across the summer months。 As I said already， it's August 5th。

And at five o'clock after the team is on the ground at four， the team leader， the team， manager。

The TU， aged 33， his name is Wagner Dodge， simply turns to the other 15 members of his。

team and says， "Let's go。 Three words。 Let us go。 Let's go。"， And the team heads down。

There's the arrow towards the fire about a half mile on its way to the fire area。

And now the manager of this team， without explaining himself， in fact behind the scenes。

other firefighters refer to him as a man of few words。 Technically brilliant。

but very often almost saying nothing。 And true to form when he gets to that one mile， sorry。

half mile point between the drop， zone and the fire， he turns to the team and he says。

"All right everybody， stay here。 Eat something。 I'll be back。"。

And now to add to a point to anybody's good and timely decision-making template， he heads。

towards the fire， the team leader， the team manager， to do what， to give it a fancy or。

maybe a more academic phrase， his due diligence。 What that means is nothing more than knowing what our strategy is。

which is to safely put， out the fire。 I'm now going to check to see， is。

can we do it from this side？ Out of the fire conditions I should be savvy about due diligence。

By the way， he's doing that by himself。 Keep note of that。 As he comes close to the fire。

his name is Wagner Dodge， age 33， nine years of experience。

He abruptly turns around and goes back to where the team is finishing off their sandwiches。

And to give that a time point， the lunch spot， that first arrow， they began at five o'clock。

and they get to the head of that first arrow at about five twenty。

He's now come back and he says to the team without explaining what he saw， which was， very bad news。

I'll come to that in just a second。 I want you to go directly down on the chart here。

I want you to go down the mouth of the gulch to River's edge。 By the way。

the river is the Missouri River。 It originates in Montana， most Americans， myself included。

didn't appreciate that until I went， there。 And thus he sent fifteen firefighters without himself down to River's edge。

In the meantime， he's going back to the drop zone and that's that upper wavy arrow that。

actually has an arrow head back at the DZ just to the right。 He doesn't explain that。

He doesn't explain why the firefighters have been sent down to the mouth of the gulch and。

that's characteristic of Wagner Dodge。 What he says behind his back who worked with him。

he's a man of few words。 Technically brilliant， nine years of experience for frontline five years now as a team manager。

and he knows how fire behaves。 But he never seems to really want to put that into words in any form whatsoever。

And thus the team begins to head down to the mouth of the gulch without the boss。

The team manager has gone back to the drop zone for reasons unexplained。 That's that upper arrow。

Now if you were on that team， let's say a person being managed by Wagner Dodge， I'd like。

you to now calculate or maybe just try to understand why has he sent you down to the。

mouth of the gulch。 If we had an opportunity to talk about that pretty quickly。

we're all saying that because， there I didn't mention this。

I'll mention it now because of a wind very strong gusty blow。

that's coming from the lower right hand corner heading up to the upper left hand corner is。

probably hitting 40 miles per hour。 This fire is very dangerous。 Could blow up。

And what Wagner Dodge also discovered when he got close to the fire doing his due diligence。

good that he found this out is that the material on the ground is very dry， very thick， very。

combustible， more so more dangerous than what he could see from the aircraft as he circled。

twice around the drop zone。 So he's got 16 people now in potentially a lot of harm's way。

So the firefighters are now heading to the mouth of the gulch to come back to my question。

I'd like you to think for a second， the first of five questions。

Why have you been sent down to the mouth of the gulch？ Well。

some of you are thinking no doubt that it's to get around the call it the leeward， side of the fire。

The fire is blowing away from you harder to stop it， but a whole lot safer。 Secondly though。

very important firefighters then knew this。 If you have a stream， a lake， swimming pool。

an ocean close by， if the fire goes nuts， begins， to spread。

blows up to use the phrase of that particular profession， then you simply get。

into the water， become a firefighter ironically at that time， you have to pass a swimming test。

and you will survive any fire condition。 So the firefighters， they are thinking。

as I hope you thought too， we're going to the。

leeward safer side， consistent with the strategy。

Safety first is the top of the strategy for a firefighter and also we are thinking about。

worst case scenario。 Part of the manager's template， if you will， got to think about worst case。

what can go， wrong and we got a guard against that。

Got to be ready to bring over optimism down so it's extremely realistic。 With that being said。

I'm going to take us now to the next point。 Wagner Dodge。

that's the name of the firefighter in charge。 The manager of the steam gets up to the drop zone。

comes racing back and overtakes the， team at about 5。20 pm。 So there's a final arrow I've drawn。

a little hard to see there in the middle of the gulch。

They're almost to water's edge and now Wagner Dodge， the team manager， has resumed his。

place at the front of his 16， a total of 16 firefighters。 And by the way， for the last few minutes。

the number two person， momentarily， this is going， to figure into the architecture of the moment。

the number two person， first name is Bob。 When the incident commander as the title goes。

when Wagner Dodge went back to the drop zone， the number two person temporarily becomes number one。

That's the protocol。 The number two person's name is Bob， Robert Sally， French Canadian name。

is feeling probably， pretty good about the fact that even though he's age 17。

he's actually the front leading， firefighter， only temporarily。 But for a moment。

he's the team manager。 But now it's 5。40。 And again， thinking strategically， for strategic intent。

where does the intent come？ Well， we've got to think strategically。

I'd like you to take just a couple seconds here。 And if you're the team manager。

what are you thinking？ Right now it's 5。40 PM on this fateful day， August 5th of summer。

What are you thinking about in light of what we've talked about so far and even go back。

to this section of this whole course on strategy？ So just take a second。

think through what's on your mind or should be on your mind。 Good。 Sure enough。

you're thinking about the condition of the people behind you。

Got to worry about the people in our organization。

Are they fit？ Are they staying with us？ Got to think about where we can hunker down at nighttime。

kind of forward planning。 Got to understand what the fire is doing。

I have to appreciate do we have the right equipment？ And is there a need maybe for backup？

More firefighters because this fire with a 40 mile an hour wind threatens to become a。

much larger inferno。 And unfortunately， in a few minutes we just paused ever so briefly to think strategically。

and make our next good and timely decision that fire misbehaved。

Just like humans， sometimes fires are unpredictable。

And instead of going up towards the upper left hand corner， that fire has cut off our。

escape to the river。 We're not getting to that water。 And now speaking of good and timely decisions。

Wagner Dodge， 540PM abruptly turns and begins， to head actually back up towards the drop zone。

And in his head now are grave concerns about their， in a sense， entrapment behind a wall， of fire。

It's about a hundred feet vertical。 It's about a thousand degrees Fahrenheit。

It's got a big wind coming。 It's up its backside。 And so he doesn't hesitate to take action。

Good and timely decisions here。 He says to number two， remember his name is Bob。 Bob。

drop everything。 Get rid of it。 Throw it down and now stay with me。

It's going to be a run for our lives。 You got that Bob？ Pass it down the line。 Well。

can you imagine？ Got some summer volunteers。 They're all firefighters。

but a few people have only been at this business for eight or， nine weeks。

They haven't heard this before。 Word passes down the line and they are really moving now up towards the drop zone。

really。 Where else can they go？ And at this point。

Wagner Dodge though makes a final terrible discovery。 He kind of knew this， of course。

but just didn't put it all in a broader context that， he's coming out now of a forest。 And so far。

no problem in a sense because a fire will cut through a forest， a stand of。

trees， at about four， five， six miles an hour。 Most people can outrun that on a sustained basis。

even going uphill， which is what they've， been doing， of course。 But now all of a sudden。

Wagner Dodge， everybody else strung out behind him some feet away appreciates。

that he's leaving the forest and he's coming into an open area that is populated， covered。

with thick， shoulder high， bone dry， prairie grass。 I think intuitively we know the problem。

He knew it technically。 A fire and prairie grass can spread through it at 15 to 20 miles an hour。

It feels like the grass is blowing up。 It's not。 The fire just moves at a pace。

Nobody can outrun under the circumstances。 We're uphill。 We've got big boots on。

If you do a four minute mile， you're doing 15 miles an hour， you've got to do 20 miles。

an hour going uphill， thick grass， heavy combat boots on。 You're not going to do it。

And so for the moment， Wagner Dodge stops right now probably 549 PM and takes a match out。

of his pocket and starts a small fire right there。

A little red dot fires spreads out through the grass， becomes a burning ring of grass。

Wagner Dodge steps back， takes a running dive through that burning ring untouched by。

the flames really。 And now he's in the middle。 He's a man of few words。

so he's not going to explain his actions。 But Bob， the number two guy， can see that the boss。

the team manager， is starting to， fire up in the grass。

And it spreads out very quickly。 And the boss now has gotten inside a burned out area。

I'd like you to take just a moment to think about what's the purpose of that fire。 Unexplained。

but you can imagine Bob is trying to understand what's the boss doing。

We've got plenty of fire coming up our tailpipe。 Why does Wagner Dodge want to put more in a landscape in front of us？

Couple seconds pass， Wagner Dodge signals to Bob。 Bob， get in here now。 And Bob。

for reasons I'm going to have you think about， start thinking right now about， this decision。

decides to go left and he goes up over a cliffside or kind of a cliff crest。

and plunges into the next valley over to the left of the screen there。

The third firefighter today in this line， sort of like circus elephants almost， is named。

Walter Rumsey。 And Walter takes a look。 Does he follow the guy he's been following？

Does he follow the team manager？ You。 He doesn't understand necessarily what that fire is all about。

And whatever the thinking is， Walter decides to go with Bob。 So very physically。

the red dot now has one person， the team manager。 Two people have broken away from the team manager and they're now down on the other side。

of a crest。 The other 13 with fire increasingly coming up their backside。

their shirts are beginning， to smolder from the radiant heat。

And I'm going to sum it up with three final arrows right here。 The final 13。

represented by three arrows only， take a look at Wagner Dodge and a small， burned out area。

They kind of appreciate we think that two ahead of them had gone over to the left。

But they're in a thick prairie grass when the fire does overtake them。 And thus the summary。

terrible tragedy I'm going to ask you now to interpret what happened， the after action review。

looking back on decisions so we can make them better next time。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P95：18_事后复盘和总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

The after action review as a way of a focal summary finds that at probably 549， 555。51。

PM， August 5th on this particular day， two firefighters have found a rock slide in the。

next canyon。 One firefighter has burned out an empty zone， a safe zone for himself， and。

13 others for whatever reason now no longer having confidence in the management of Wagner。

Dodge。 They decide to find their own place of salvation。 They won't find it。 The grass。

becomes an inferno。 They're overtaken。 That's a terrible tragedy。 One of the worst ever。

in the history of the U。S。 Forest Service， United States government employees here。 And。

with that， we actually know quite a bit about the details of what happened in the same。

sense that we look back， for example， a challenger in Colombia， the space shuttle disasters。 And。

with that， looking back， our purpose is though to look forward for making good and timely。

decisions。 So think for a minute。 Really my final question here。 And then we're going。

to sum up why when Wagner Dodge opened up that little fire， it created about a 75-yard， open zone。

All the grass is burned。 Totally safe。 Why did Bob not agree to go with the。

manager of his team when it would have made a difference？ Here's why it would have made。

a difference for everybody。 After action review here， looking back on a decision we want to。

make differently the next time back to the Marine Corps。 Look at decisions， learn from， them。

Bob took a look， decided he didn't， he no longer trusted Wagner Dodge。 Since he。

survived， we can ask him directly as the investigators did。 And Bob decided that with。

three or four decisions that weren't so good and three or four decisions that were never。

explained that the intent of my commanding incident commander here， the team manager。

this wasn't clear to me what he wanted or why we should do it。 And thus although Wagner。

Dodge in a moment of total brilliance came up with a lifesaving solution， this is kind。

of a Steve Jobs moment where he had invented literally with the pressure on him around， 549 p。m。

on August 5th invented a tactic that's used now by firefighters all over the world。

ever before known to the US for firefighting services that was going to save the team。 Plenty。

of room， 75 yard diameter。 Big fire was going to sweep around it as it did。 But somehow。

he couldn't manage his team， could not draw them into that zone。 And with that is this。

terrible human disaster that followed。 Here's the last question that we're going to sum， up。

I said I might have one more。 Here it is。 The final question。 Wagner Dodge was sent。

in with a team here， understanding fire behavior。 What might he have done or what might others。

have done to help him also appreciate human behavior in its form。 For example of a team。

manager who's very quiet， introvertish。 A lot of us are introvertish of course。 But when。

you're responsible for managing other people， the failure to communicate your strategy。

your decisions to explain what you're doing， in this case proved fatal for 13 people。 I don't put。

the blame on Wagner Dodge though for this because you've got to ask then a separate question。

And this is it。 I'll quickly just lay out a final line of argument here that Wagner Dodge。

was given 15 other firefighters on his team， trained in fire behavior。 But there was no training at。

the time in human behavior。 Strategy put out the fire。 Technically note what the heck you're doing。

But coming back to the whole point of this part of our course， we also have to understand the human。

equation， which normally is pretty good。 But there are some days like here when things can go。

pretty badly。 And that's why today people who replace Wagner Dodge before they are sent into。

the wilderness， California， Arizona， Australia for that matter， Western Europe， when fires like。

this break out， team leaders， team managers are trained in fire behavior and also human behavior。

Such that when it comes to making a good and timely decision， they're ready for some of those。

shortcomings that are right there in front of them。 I have a slide here。

I'm going to really bring it， our topic to an end not by going through it。

I really have that for your own future reference， a kind of summary of the main points we've been through。

But all these points sum up in that graph， at the bottom as follows。

We want good and timely decisions because cycle time is getting shorter。

the world's getting more complex and unpredictable。 And thus our competitors are out there becoming。

better at this。 We've really got to move in the same direction of making good and timely decisions。

And what does that take？ Well， think about John Chambers' comment on Larry Carter as CFO。

Think about the research in Silicon Valley。 Think about the four precepts for being an effective。

team leader for combat Marines that we also draw upon now。 Keep those in mind。 Maybe a dozen。

items for your own template。 Back to your thinking。 The graph here， lower right hand corner。

also adds， this point。 If we can pull people into a pretty good team。

a cohesive team as the phrase I use， they know each other， they've worked together before。

they appreciate your strengths and your， shortcomings。

We know from ample research evidence that cohesive teams under the most， trying of circumstances。

the pressure is on。 Time is short。 When the pressure goes up， that's the lower。

the horizontal axis at the bottom， when stress goes up， cohesive teams actually get better。

and not worse。 There is no panic point。 They stay focused， they get the job done。

Good and timely decisions， critical to make it happen on your own part。 And we've identified。

probably close now to at least 10， maybe 12 items for your own personal management template。

for good and timely decision making。

Thank you。 you。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P96：19_设计和改变架构.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Welcome back。 I'm Mike Cusima。 As you know， I'm on the faculty here at the Wharton School。

and our fourth and final module on human and social capital， the managing of people around。

you at work， is designing and changing an organization's architecture， designing and。

changing。 So we want to think about design， and we've got to think about the， in some， sense。

even more difficult problem of changing a design once we have it in place。 So we're。

going to begin with design， and really there's nothing more than thinking about， and I like。

the word architecture for this， how people are organized， divided， how they report up。

to one boss or maybe several bosses。 And we're not going to touch on more than a few concepts。

on the particular slide you see right now。 I have several of those in red that will be。

in our conversation as we go forward， but I put that in front of us， all the concepts。

just as a kind of a reference to issues you're going to want to think about， as you do think。

about organizational architecture or changing the design that you have in place。 And to。

get us going on this， I'm going to have you work here for a company called Rose Company。

It's a manufacturing firm， and it has just to use the nomenclature of the field here。

It has a very functional organization in the sense that there are a number of production。

facilities， and the VP for， let's say， finance in a given facility reports directly up to。

the executive vice president for finance at headquarters。 The plant manager has some。

influence on control over that local VP for finance， but not completely。 And as a result， of that。

in this particular case， some of these production facilities aren't doing too well。

And the company thus decided， looking now， moving from the top diagram to the bottom。

diagram to change the organizational design by grouping all those functions， by which we。

mean these more technical skill areas like accounting and finance and marketing and operations。

to group them together under an umbrella at the top of which is the plant manager。 So。

it's a rather significant and almost radical break from the past。 The plant manager can。

hire and fire his or her own chief financial officer。 The CFO at headquarters is going to。

weigh in on that， of course。 But the plant manager is delegated responsibility for everything。

and they have to think to use a phrase here， like a general manager， they got to manage。

everything about the people in their setting。 And to make it a bit more challenging， they're。

also responsible now for results。 So we're going to pinpoint accountability and responsibility。

in a new plant manager is called the Jackson plant there。 And as we make that move， everything。

else be an equal。 You've got motivated employees， you've got a pay system that makes sense。 You're。

set to make good and timely decisions。 The work is interesting。 How you organize people。

what the reporting relations are separately also has a profound impact on the willingness。

of people to give their all to get the right job done。 With that being said， as a kind of。

a preamble for where we're going， I'm going to take us into a particularly difficult situation。

at a process food maker。 If you've ever bought a bottle for a child of puree carrots or potatoes。

the company here， name change to protect the identity of the company， makes that kind of， product。

The problem that the company is facing at the very top is that the market for this。

form of baby food is quote mature。 Growth is slow。 Investors， especially those that love。

to see companies grow are beginning to get out of the stock because there's companies， doing fine。

but there's not much growth a couple percent per year compared to some companies。

that can grow 5% or 8% or 12% per year。 And thus， now to bring this down to a particular， setting。

there is a lot of pressure on a regional sales manager。 Her name is Brenda Cooper。 She's。

in the tan box on the right hand side of the image there。 As she takes over the job here。

of running the southeast region for housing or food。 She's got a great job。 She's been。

trained in management。 She is new to the company。 But it's a great job because if she does well。

she's on a track to move up， be paid more and take greater responsibility over time。 Within。

her operating area， here's an organizational design statement。 The teams are organized， the。

sales teams are organized state by state。 You see right here the Florida sales team， for， example。

That's the way it works。 It kind of makes sense because we sell geographically， Florida。

South Carolina， Mississippi and so on。 And so each sales team is responsible for the。

sales in a given region。 Brenda's job is to ensure that the nationally set targets for a given year。

maybe a 4% growth are achieved by each of her state sales teams。 So she's at the office。

let's make it to Atlanta， Georgia， headquarters for that region。 And she looks at the sales numbers。

for the various region， sorry， various state sales teams in her region。 And she's startled to learn。

that one in particular Florida is just a wonderful success。 They for the last several years running。

have always had the best sales results， which means they get a free trip。 The whole team。

complements of the company， it's sent to Las Vegas for a week as a reward for setting the best。

growth in sales for that year。 And she also notices something a little bit odd， doesn't really。

in a sense， lead to more than kind of a， well， I wonder what that is。 She notices that this sales。

team always is number one， but a little bit oddly。

they always get to 10% above the nationally set sales， quarter for that year。

10% above what they were expected。 But oddly， they don't get to 11% or 12%。

Her bigger concern though today， your concern is what is it about this team that you might learn。

from how it manages its own work， the job design， the pay for performance。

Everything else that might， be out there that leads some people to perform better than others。

If you can find out the secret， of their success， the Florida sales team， well。

you'll take it to South Carolina and over to。

Louisiana and thus a brand for career， but maybe more importantly for the stockholders and owners。

and really the customers of the company， you have a lot of potential now there。 If you can unlock。

the secret of the human and social talent management that Jan Boyer， take a look at her team there。

has somehow brought to the table， at least we know what the results are。

We don't know the inner secret。 So Jan Boyer calls up， sorry， Brenda Cooper calls up Jan and says。

"Hey Jan， I'm your new boss， nice to meet you by phone。 You guys down there in Florida。

you're an amazing team because you always。

get way above nationally set quotas which go up every year。

You always seem to do at least 10% better。 In fact， you're always right about 10% better。

What's the secret of your success？" So think what。

Brenda， this is you。 I like you to be in Brenda's shoes now， what you're doing。

You're going to look， for some good ideas， call them better human management practices that you might export once。

you can find out what they are。 Unfortunately， Jan who's got a phone next to her ear， eyes kind of。

rolling up， looking at the ceiling then the floor says this， "Brenda， good to meet you by phone。

To be honest， down here in Florida， we get those sales figures by hard work。" Well， everybody works。

hard。 That's told you nothing about a better human and social capital practice。 And so think。

about this。 Many of you have done exactly this。 If people won't tell you on the phone， maybe won't。

even tell you in person， you've got to go down in this case， spend time with them。

look them in the eye， talk with them for a couple obvious reasons。

They may not want to tell you what the secret is。

And of course， a lot of people have no idea what the secret is because they're just doing what they're。

doing without quite appreciating。 They've got a pretty clever set of steps for motivating the。

team and getting the job done。 So Brenda Cooper， just to make this a bit more physical。

gets on a hog。

a big Harley Davidson motorcycle， she's got one， big jacket， tears down to Florida， arrives。

and says to Jan， "Jan， here I am。 I'm the new regional sales manager。 Tell me face-to-face how。

you guys do it。" Well， she gets the same brush off from Jan and thus she takes the next almost。

predictable logical step of saying， "Jan， I'm going to be here for a couple weeks。

Suppose I join you。

and your sales teams when they start making sales calls to wherever you sell the darn stuff。

Jan says， "Fine， that's great。 Come on along。" A couple weeks later， Brenda， that's you。 You found。

nothing when it comes to people practices， some idea of how to get the best behavior。

the best results out of the people that you're responsible for， nothing that's tangible and。

helpful。 And after really three weeks， the end of the third week， everybody's out one evening。

Mary at the very bottom of the chart there， turns to Brenda and says， "Brenda， you know。

you're pretty hopeless down here。 You've got to appreciate， I know what you want to know。

that hard work， of course， is part of it。 But a huge part of it is the following。" Now。

before I give， you what Mary says， I'd like you to think about how Mary is going to explain the exceptional。

the way above average performance of this one of several state sales teams。 Mary says。

"This is Florida。 I think who's in Florida demographically。 Got lots of babies。 Of course。

we have lots of retired people。 And we have discovered。

it's amazing that if we go into a retirement home and assisted living， headquarters and say， "Look。

we got great food for those whose dentures are not great。

we can sell a whole lot not to babies but to the elderly。" We've also discovered that bodybuilders。

like the kind of PURE products that we create， thus we've gone to gyms， homesick college students。

amazingly true， but it is true sometimes by baby food。 I guess that somehow takes them home。

I'm not， quite certain what's the explanation。 Dog owners， sometimes by baby food for their pets。

And it's also a fact that some Gourmet restaurants， five stars。

they occasionally will buy our products， add them to something else that they list on the menu。

That's always worried me about what restaurants， might be serving。

but the point that Mary has made is she and her team led by Jan have discovered。

five markets for baby food that in a sense， largely don't go with the label， baby food。

And Brenda has two conflicting thoughts。 I'd like you to work through your own。

thoughts and conflict and resolve them。 The first thought is fantastic。 I've kind of stumbled over。

now and an innovative team。 They've opened up new markets。 This is great。 I'm going to take their。

ideas。 I might even send Jan to train teams throughout the region。 I've got a best practice。

I don't know how they've become knowledgeable about these other markets。 I'm going to find that out。

because after all in South Carolina， there may be still other customers you wouldn't think of。

But then Brenda Cooper's second thought is this。 Hold on a second。 Jan Boyar has known about these。

markets and has never told my predecessor and has not even told me。 And by the way， who does Jan。

work for？ Well， for me and I work for a VP who ultimately works for the owners and the stockholders。

of the company。 And thus Jan Boyar a little bit problematic because that person's been holding off。

holding out。 And now coming back to that 10%。 We always get to that team。

always gets to 10% above quota， but not more。 Brenda says， well， why do you guys always stop at 10%？

And the answer from Mary is that， well， look， if we get to 12% next year， the big VP for marketing。

and sales is going to require us to do that much better next year。 We're going to work a lot harder。

And we don't get anything more for it。 Right now， if we get to 10%， we know that's going to be best。

region in this， best state in a region。 We're going to get the free trip to Las Vegas。

which by the way， is fantastic。 And thus we hold back。

And so Brenda Cooper to add to the second half of the， thinking here is thinking， whoa。

not only have I got a sales team whose managers somehow。

are working against the company by holding back innovative information， they're actually holding。

back sales。 So let me make that a more sharp edge question to you。 If you're Brenda Cooper。

and think about the theories behind your thinking right now， would you keep Jan Boyar or would you。

fire the second half of the argument I made？ Well， maybe she ought to be pushed out kind of。

unethical behavior。 The first half is an amazing innovator。 And you want to get out， what that is。

Just work on that for a couple of seconds here。 And ask yourself， what are the。

underlying precepts or concepts that lead to one outcome or another？ As you work that through。

I'm going to offer up what I've seen in many， many settings， both classroom and then。

with organizations like your own in a room， let's make it a 50 people， typically about a quarter。

or maybe a third say Jan Boyar is of a temperament that won't work at this company。

unethical behavior。

you have to send a message， she's gone。 The other whatever the remaining fraction might be， two。

thirds， three quarters somewhere in there will say no， there's something about this company。

something about the design， the organizational architecture of this company that led Jan to。

do what she's doing in a logical almost predictable way。 The problem is not Jan。

The problem really is， the company。 Brenda Cooper comes down on the side as a modest majority of most rooms will。

on working with Jan on two premises that are very important for this module， which is number one。

people bring in a host of ideas， they have an ethical compass， they know how to do their job。

but once they are in our architecture， our system， the way we reward， the way we promote。

separately has an independent impact on what they do。 So we are what we are when we arrive。

but the architecture can encourage the right kind of action or discourage it or misalign it in this。

case and thus change the organization， change the design， the architecture， we're going to change。

the people。 Most people， a majority anyway， will come out with a ladder， I'm not going to。

take a strong stand on this myself， but let's just take the implication of what we said for the ladder。

and that is organizational design。 The fourth part of this particular module of this course here。

is about how we can make for better arrangements so that people work hard， bring ideas forward。

don't gold brick， don't hold back and do the best for the company。

With that being said， let's take one more look at this chart and if you look at the education。

background of the salespeople in Florida， here's what's striking， at least to my eye。

I'd like you to reach your own conclusion on this and that is Brenda Cooper has not come up。

through the best sales team。 She actually is a horizontal， a lateral hire。 She came in。

she actually did an MBA degree in a business school at a university brought in， she's actually。

never sold baby food in that particular sense。 That's fine， we often hire people， we see people。

come in above us， happens all the time， it's happened to me many times。 That being said。

what's striking to me is we look at the education column and then the left column just to the left。

of that on the years with the company， Jan Boyar has been there for 30 years and runs the best sales。

team in the company， actually in the whole company， not just the region and yet she's never。

been promoted， maybe she didn't want to go up but on the face of it it looks to me like we may be。

looking at a glass ceiling to use that well-known phrase， people can look up but because they are。

not a college graduate， they're not going up。 Probably not gender in this case but who knows that。

may be a factor， maybe there's other demographic inhibitors in this particular company and thus to。

turn this around， maybe the first statement about organizational architecture we ought to hang onto。

is this， that the way we put incentive systems in place， the first topic of our course。

and then number two， the way we promote people up through the hierarchy， however it's defined。

can have profound independent impact on their actions， their behavior and thus organizational。

designs for better or for worse can indeed make their actions on behalf of the company。

[BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P97：20_绩效支付与晋升.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Organizational design， if we want performance， we want to reward people for performance。

If we want performance in our organizational design， we want promotion， not just pay to。

go with the performance that we're expecting。 And arguably the pay and promotion policies at this company。

glass ceiling， that 10% quota。

were not the kind of design elements that led to optimal action on behalf of this Florida。

sales team for the company as a whole。 With that being said， we now run into a new problem。

something we also have to manage。 And to get to the problem。

I'm going to have you all think for a moment， even if you've。

ever never seen a national basketball association game， I'm going to have you think about what。

happens on a floor of the NBA or maybe a college or high school team that you've seen。

But let's focus on the National Basketball Association and the fact that now focusing。

on pay and not promotion for performance， that NBA players are relatively， we would all say。

well compensated。 In recent years， a floor has been $500，000。 If you're in uniform。

you never see playing time， but you're there at the bench。

Your compensation is half a million dollars a year。

Nobody's going to shed a tear if we say some players are underpaid。

But some players feel underpaid because of a contract they've been locked into or maybe。

an agent that wasn't very good that is now compared to the metrics we would use to appraise。

their performance， the metric an NBA player would use to perform his own performance。

Think about the women's league as well。

The underpaid quote， underpaid players are looking at other players， say on the team， or elsewhere。

and they're paid quite a bit more。 But the key statistics points scored。

Questions taken， assists provided would say just statistically， look at the numbers， I'm。

underpaid compared to Fred Jones over here who had a better agent。

So here's my question with that felt sense of inequity。 And by felt。

I mean we look at others that we respect to maybe compare ourselves to and。

not a whole lot of other possibilities like your average person out there like myself。

when it comes to knowing if you're under or even overpaid for that matter。

Question。 Let's think now about behavior。 The topic here is how organizational architecture can drive behavior or misdirect it。

If you're an underpaid NBA player and you get on the court， what are you going to do。

that's maybe a little bit different from the NBA player whose statistics from the last。

season map pretty well into the pay for this season。 My guess is you're thinking in some cases， oh。

the player who is underpaid is going to。

get out there and want to show certainly the team management， the people upstairs that。

they're actually worth more than they're getting paid。 Others might think。

and it's a completely legitimate argument as well， I kind of drawn， to them both。 Look。

if they're going to underpay me， I'm going to underperform。

So if I'm not getting paid what I'm able to do， I'm going to do less。 Either way that goes。

we got a problem。 The evidence， this one of those nice research questions where the answer is not necessarily。

easy to forecast， the evidence goes this way that， quote， underpaid NBA players on the court。

do tend， statistically speaking， to want to prove to the team management that they are。

worthy of better compensation。 How do they do that？ They take the ball more often。

They shoot more frequently。 Unfortunately， because they've taken the ball more often than statistically might be appropriate。

they shoot more often for the same reason with that same downside， they shave about a point。

off the team score in a given game that costs the team about a point。

That's the way of saying， as we move to pay and promotion as a design feature of the organization。

that we run， we want people， regardless of background， gender， racial identity， anything。

you can think of that doesn't relate directly to performance。 Once we move in that direction。

lots of evidence says it's a great way to go。 Companies all over the world are moving in that direction as well。

We open up a kind of Pandora's box of the demotivation that can come within equity。

Just to now reflect on the fact that this is a two-sided problem in the NBA， it has one， side。

a wonderful study that looked at what happened temporarily when insurance underwriters。

at a specific company had to move out of their offices， which were allocated according to。

their performance and seniority into temporary offices while their original offices were。

being remodeled。 It's that simple as a rationale for what's happening。

Some of those underwriters ended up in a very big office。 They had to go somewhere。

Some ended up in a very small office。 Then the question was， over time。

do the underwriters change their underwriting？ Do they become more or less successful？

An amazing product。 You can see it right in front of you right there of the inequity in the positive sense。

or in a negative sense。 Those who are suddenly over-rewarded start performing better。

Those who are under-rewarded start performing less well。

My guess is most people never thought about that， never said anything about I'm going。

to just hold back or I'm going to be really good because I got a large office。

Going back to behavioral psychology， behavioral economics and Daniel Kahneman and his great。

book that sums a lot of this up， one more example of how we need to be in our organizational。

design mindful of the shortcomings and the assets on the positive side of how people will。

behave according to our pay for performance， promotion for performance， or in this case。

literally the size of the office。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P98：21_组织设计.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Pulling several strands together of our last 20 or 25 minutes of thinking is through actually。

together。 I'd like you to be thinking actively about your own management and work setting as we。

go forward。 Of course， that organizational design along with the way we create jobs。

the way we incentivize， people， the organizational design， think of the people at Howser Foods。

The Dan Boyer in particular can be altered or misdirected or aligned or maybe in a more。

positive sense we can get a lot more， pay no more， not really changing the job but just。

the way we knit all these pieces together。 How people report， how we promote up through a hierarchy。

all part of the， just to use， the phrase of the design of the organization。

the architecture of the enterprise。

With that being said， here's the last problem I'd like us to think about in this general。

area of putting in place an organizational design that serves you。 Sometimes though。

what we have serving us well， maybe even not perfectly， a couple years。

ago may no longer do so。 And now we run into just a classic problem of organizational life。

Everybody knows about it。 I'm going to say the blindingly obvious here that as we solve a problem this year and build。

out， we hire people， build out a design， create jobs， provide an incentive system that seems。

to solve the problems of， let's say， last year， go ahead five years。

Market changes， the internet arrives， digital everything is here。

We now got to serve customers in India and China， not just the US。

The problem we've got now is we've built an architecture which serves the problem of last。

year or five years ago。 And an architecture once constructed， add on a culture to go with it。

a topic that another。

of my colleagues is going to take up。 We now face the problem of call it inertial guidance。

If you think about a big flywheel， just a big steel wheel is turning。

This that gets turning very hard to slow it down， it has a lot of inertial momentum to， it。

And thus， in a sense， once you've got the architecture going for you as the manager。

you can actually。

take off Fridays for a while， because it just kind of manages itself。

That's inertial guidance。 That's what good architecture does。

But when the world changes， that architecture of yesteryear may no longer works so well。

now we've got just a huge impediment。

That is just what we do， the flywheel rotating the inertial momentum that's been built up。

That makes it difficult to change。

To say the obvious， we've hired people because we're doing X， we're focused on the US。

But now we want to open up in India， or let's make it Brazil。

Well they didn't come to work for you because they thought one day they might be transferred。

to India。 But now you need people to run the office in New Delhi or Mumbai。

And if we start going down that particular avenue， the problems multiply quickly， if we。

don't make the change， aren't ready to have people take on these new tasks。 But the people we hired。

almost everything we do， militates against that kind of change。

Change is one of the great enemies of organizational design。

So we're going to take a few minutes now and think briefly about what gets in the way of。

the design we've created such that as a manager， once we recognize what gets in the way we can。

do something about it。

So let's go right here to the work of a well-known observer and consultant on organizational。

change。 Again， what does that mean？ We've got a design， we want to make it better。

John Carter has identified eight forces just to pull them out and make them more managerial。

irrelevant that seem to get in the way of making changes。

So take a look at number one here for instance。 You， the manager， don't make a compelling case。

Look everybody， we've got a change because the world's changing and nobody， everybody。

salutes great idea and goes back to work the way they've already always done it。

Let's go down to number four。 He has found， I've seen the same thing myself。

that for people who are saying we've got to， really just flatten the organization。

put people more in touch with customers， maybe， reorganize like we saw at that rose company making plants independently responsible for。

everything， that we have to say what we want again and again because the first time it's。

not believed or it's questioned， second and third time it takes on a certain traction。

and people are wondering okay boss， do you really want this because the costs are going。

to be high making to change。 So that's the number four。 Just briefly take a look。

I'm not going to enumerate or expand out word wise with the。

other six say but for our purposes right now we're going to try to do an organizational。

restructuring or redesign， I'd like you to take a look at those eight factors， ask yourself。

which of those have you seen， well executed maybe by yourself or others that you manage。

with but get them much in mind because I want them to inform where we're going the next。

few minutes。

Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P99：22_戴维·波特拉克和查尔斯·施瓦布案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Let's go very briefly out to San Francisco。

And we see there the chief executive of a company， well I think we all know it because。

there are many ads that ask us to talk with Chuck， Charles Schwab， a very， very large。

what's called discount retail broker。 His famous company historically in this category is Merrill Lynch。

To make it straightforward if you wanted to buy a thousand shares of let's make it。

Cisco can't call up the New York Stock Exchange to acquire the shares you call up Merrill。

Lynch on one of thousand shares。 Merrill says great。

At that time cost around $129。 Charles Schwab is a discount broker offering the same services。

more efficient， a little。

bit like Walmart that offers high quality goods given the price point they're at very。

well but they're not a high end retail store。 They do something different。

That's what retail brokerage here is。 They're providing service that is full but more efficiently and thus less expensively。

such that Schwab can charge $80 for a thousand share purchase of a given stock。

At the time， David Potruk， a gentleman on the right， chief executive officer， Charles Schwab。

himself is the executive chair which means he comes to work every day， has a big voice。

at the table but so much day-to-day action with 15，000 employees goes through this manager。

that we're looking at， David Potruk in his office in San Francisco。

What David has begun to mull over is the fact that he had advocated that Schwab develop， a。

at that time， a very simple internet service where you go on， it's called "E Schwab" order。

a thousand shares of Make it Cisco and because it's the internet now， $29。

Who doesn't want to pay $29 when you could have paid $80？ Of course。

there's less there and that's the business model。 If it's "E Schwab" where you buy your shares。

you can talk to one of the customer service， experts per month。

Now if you're a full service customer at $80， you can call them up eight times today and。

they'll take the call and give you some guidance。 So a little bit less expensive。

quite a bit less expensive and less service。 There's a logic to that。 David Potruk。

excellent manager that he is， is acutely sensitive about a past function， that he has performed。

He comes out of marketing， isn't touched with a lot of customers。

As a result， always a good idea for anybody， regardless of the kind of organization and。

he's hearing this。 Customers are saying， "David， we've got a problem because with E Schwab。

we love to save， the money， about a 70% discount over $80 and you're better than some of the competition。

at the high end。"， That's true。 But since you've already got your customer service representatives well-trained。

they're， expert， they put out reports， "Why can't we talk to more or why can't we at least read。

their research？"， And David says， "Well look， if you want the full service， you got to pay $80。

That's our business model。"， Well， some of the customers are saying。

"But it says Schwab in both programs， aren't you， one company？"， Even more worrisome is this。

Most people don't see it。 David's already spotted it because he's a very analytic guy。

He works the numbers。 He sees that some of the customers， clever people they are。

are keeping open at full service， account， leaving a few dollars in it， moving $995。

000 into the E Schwab account where they're。

doing their active trading。 They got it both ways。

Full service， they can talk to a customer service representative， they can get all the， reports。

but then they use that information to trade actively at $29。 Just to borrow a well-known phrase。

we've got cannibalism， but in this case it's internal。

There's not somebody eating us out from the outside。 As happened， for example。

to eBay and China was really attacked directly by Alibaba。

In this case， we got a problem on the inside， we're cannibalizing ourselves。

David turns around though， and being mindful not explicitly with the eight factors they。

can get in a way of organizational redesign， knows or is concluded that this company has。

to make a radical change or somebody else is going to change the company。

In particular now， he's worried about a bunch of young upstarts， companies that got names。

like E-Trade that are full online traders。

There's no bricks and mortar to go with them， and they're offering trades often at $19 a。

trade。

Not much research， not much behind it， but for people who are thinking about keeping a few。

dollars in the Schwab account， why not even go over to E-Trade sooner or later with the。

boom of the internet， it's going to change everything as we know so well。

David figures we're going to be out of business。 Unfortunately。

being mindful now of the factors on a prior image， he's also thinking， whoa。

nobody's going to want to change here because I've looked at the numbers for the last four。

years and we've been doing extremely well。 This goes back to an early idea on good and timely decision making when we're doing well。

we tend to become more suboptimal in how we think about decisions。

Well David is saying we've got that problem now。 We're getting 24% year on year in growth and revenue。

Customer assets are up 40% in the last year。 Everybody is thinking we've got a great business model。

Don't foul it up。 They would say privately since David's chief executive。

they probably won't say that to， his face。

With that being said， let's move it on now and I'm going to ask you to think ever so briefly。

after you've decided your David Potrock gentleman in the middle of the screen， Chuck Schwab。

Charles， Schwab is boss to his right， both smiling before you say what you're about to say， Chuck。

is smiling because you've decided that this company has to go from $80 full service overnight。

on one day down to $29 full service。 You've got to take your product you're selling and now imagine an airline discounting a seat。

from New York to Los Angeles by 70%。 That's going to be a huge draw for customers。

It's also going to be a huge hemorrhage in terms of money coming in。 Keep that in mind。

David Potrock decides literally in the privacy of his office， he talks to his direct reports。

about a dozen people that report directly to him。 As chief executive。

he's decides tells them and forms them， asks for their guidance of。

course on how to enact the decision。 He says， okay everybody， January 15th of the coming year。

we're going to have to go， to cut our service costs。

We're going to have to cut the price of the service by 70% got to cut our costs as well， obviously。

By 70%， imagine if American airlines cut by 70% the cost of a seat from New York City。

to Los Angeles。 Well， there'd be a boom in air travelers。 Of course。

everybody can see that's a great attraction。 On the other hand。

you've got 70% less revenue coming in to hire a pilot and put gas in the， aircraft。

so you're going to have to think about this on both sides。 Even worse。

when it comes to the way the world works， if you're a publicly traded enterprise。

and everybody's got a kind of a public to worry about even if you're not publicly traded。

publicly traded companies are listed on the New York Stock Exchange or elsewhere， I have。

a particular problem and that is investors have come into you for what you've been doing。

and not necessarily where you want to go。 And thus。

David concludes that as they go to a 70% discounted， for all service trade， $29 per trade。

January 15th， the following year， that the equity analysts that appraise， companies。

the big investors， some of the big pension funds， for example， that invest。

in companies aren't going to have any confidence that this 70% cost or loss of income is somehow。

going to be made up for by the move that David has made。 And as a result of that。

David Potrock forecasts that the pre-tax drop in profits will be at， least 20%。

So if let's make it Apple， if Apple takes a 20% sudden drop in its after-tax profitability。

the market's going to have a lot of negative reaction on that。

David forecasted it as it turns out correctly here to be about 20 to 25%。

The day he announces in January 15th full trade， it's going to be a lot of sell orders， going out。

investors are stampeding to get out of the stock。

So he sits down and let's think about now the art of managing， that's our topic， managing， people。

he sits down with probably the most important person he has to manage。

Oddly， his boss。

[BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P1：0_简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk

Hi， welcome to the success course。

My name is Richard Shell。 I'm a senior professor here at the Wharton School。

I've been here for decades。 I've taught many courses。

I'm probably best known for teaching courses on negotiation and persuasion。

I also teach a course on responsibility。 But the course we're going to work on together。

the course we're going to do together， is， a course that I teach and have taught for 10 years called the literature of success。

It's really a course on what success means for each individual student who takes it。

And we're creating this online experience for you to give you a chance to join us in。

a Wharton setting。 I'm going to be treating this as if you were coming to my office hours。

We're going to be talking about all the different elements of success and how we explore that。

You'll be getting assessments。 You'll be getting some sort of self-analysis tools that will help you understand a little。

bit more about what this big word success means to you。

And as we work together throughout this course， I think you're going to find that I'm going。

to be asking you to challenge yourself， to think about the values that you really hold。

to think about the family of influences that have affected who you are and why you are。

what you are。 And hopefully begin to gather some ideas about what your genuine heartfelt meaning is for。

this word success and then how individually you can go about achieving it in the best way。

for yourself。 We're going to do it through a series of classes on different topics。

You'll be doing some work on values。 You'll be doing some work on your capabilities and your unique talents。

We'll be looking deeply at how people achieve things， what achievement actually means。

We'll be looking at some depth at a word that the culture that we live in thinks a great。

deal of but doesn't really know much about and that word is happiness。

And then I'm going to be doing what I can to help you to contextualize what we've talked。

about in a way that you can use， take action on， begin to formulate specific goals on by。

the end of the class so that you're beginning to have some clear ideas about who you are。

what you do well and the direction that you want to take at this stage of your life。

So I look forward to working with you。 We're sitting， as I said。

in my office right here and this is going to be the place where， we handle the whole course。

So good luck。 Grab your seatbelt in。 I think you're going to find it a lot of fun and somewhat challenging。

So I look forward to it。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P10：9_我的故事.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk

I was someone who was very， very deeply aware of this at an early age， but almost involuntarily。

But it is a big reason why this subject is important to me and why I teach it。

I was raised in the military。 My father was a general in the Marines。

He was moved every year when I was a kid to a different place， France， Hawaii， South Carolina。

New Portland Island。 I was taken as part of our family。 I had two older sisters and me。

That was just the world I was in。 Every place we moved had a base with a guard and as far as I knew。

everybody lived like， that。 As I grew up， it wasn't a question of whether I was going to go in the military as my career。

It was just a question of which military academy I would attend and which service I would pick。

As I got into high school and began thinking about college， I realized I really didn't。

want to go to either West Point or Annapolis， but I was totally committed to the military。

as a career。 I ended up making a compromise with my family and I ended up getting a full military scholarship。

to another college， not to West Point or Annapolis。 So I was signed up。

I was in Navy Razzi and I was on my way to being an officer in the Navy for at least six years。

after I graduated。 Everything is normal。 I'm in my water， swimming along。

And then I was in the Vietnam War era in my college years and in the junior year of college。

everything around me virtually exploded。 United States invaded Cambodia。

campuses all over the country lit up with protests。 My own campus had shut down all of its classes。

And for the first time in my life， I was actually called to try to take a stand on what I had。

signed up to do， which at that moment I realized was to go kill Vietnamese people that I had。

no quarrel with。 And I suddenly realized that that was just something I couldn't do。

And so I faced a big choice。 I realized that my family values were not things that I could endorse in this era。

in， this context， but I love my family。 So I was in a crisis。 In the end。

I finally decided to become a war resistor。 I resigned my scholarship。

but I had to have a very difficult conversation with my father， about my choices。

And I had that conversation。 He was not angry with me。 And in fact。

the most upsetting thing about it for me was the fact that he only asked a。

simple question in my conversation with him。 He said， "Richard， are you sure？"。

And I absolutely could not be sure at the age of 21 and walking away from everything my。

family had stood for。 It wasn't just my dad。 My dad's dad had been in the military。

My mother's father had been in the military。 My older sister had married a career military officer。

So I was surrounded by these values。 But with him at that moment， I had to be sure。 And so I said。

"Yes， I'm sure。"， And what I didn't know at the time and what took me over a decade to sort out was that。

when you break with your family in this way and walk away from everything that you've。

been raised with that they've stood for， you find yourself in a kind of limbo。

You essentially cut the narrative chord of your life story。

And you're no longer the person that you were。 You don't recognize the childhood you had。

And I can tell you from first-hand experience that if you don't have a past， it's impossible。

to recognize and imagine the future。 So I finished college。 I became a conscientious objector。

a pacifist， worked in the ghettos of Washington， D。C。 as， a social worker。 Very。

very uncertain about who I was or where I stood other than that I was still sure I。

had made the right choice。 But the kind of alienation between me and my own cultural and family values was such that。

in the end I just left the country。 I spent almost two years traveling with a backpack living very close to the ground。

working in， different places where I could work for free just to try to or live for free。

try to sort， it out。 And over those two years I ended up living in monasteries in Sri Lanka and in South Korea。

I had some wonderful teachers who introduced me to the actual experience of being myself。

and the values that I had come to embrace in a much more deep way。 And finally。

at the age of almost 30， I returned home。 My family welcomed me back。

I lived in their basement and sold insulation door-to-door in Southwestern Virginia while。

I tried to figure out what the next thing to do was。

And that experience I think is a lot of why this course material is so important to me。

because I recognize that until I had identified those cultural forces that I was living as。

a result of and taken control of my own life and my own values and stood up for them， embraced them。

presented them to my family。 My family loved me irrespective of our differences。

I was actually privileged to be with them。 My parents all the way through their lives was with them each when they died and felt。

the deep love that comes when you work on your relationships in your family in important， ways。

So I feel like sooner or later， one way or the other， people come to confront the values。

that their families have endowed them with， the values that their culture has endowed， them with。

and come to terms with those as a very important waystation on the journey， to what success means。

And I feel that way because it's the way it worked for me。

I didn't start working at Wharton until I was 37。 I was a brand new assistant professor here at that age。

So anybody who's watching this who thinks that they're kind of a late bloomer， rest assured。

that they're still properly， plenty of time， just sort this out。

I genuinely believe it's more important to get this right and to come to terms with who。

you really are than it is to always be living someone else's life and not be aware of the。

underlying motivations that are actually powering who you are。 So share that story。

I think it's important for you to know something about who I am and， where I'm coming from。

But the course isn't about me， the course is about you。

So just understand that the structure of this is designed to help you come to your own realizations。

and come to terms with your own values so that you can feel on a firm foundation for。

the decisions you make in the years ahead。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P100：36_基本结果.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk

In this lecture， we'll look at the results of the leverage inventory。

We've been collecting these for almost 10 years now with MBAs， executive MBAs。

some executive ed students， and we can make some sense of it now。

And it'll help you make sense of your results。 To begin with。

let's remember that the response scale for these is behavioral and， it's about frequency。

how often you do each of these things。 So the response scale is from one to four， rarely or never。

to almost always。 And again， we have four to six questions， behaviors that add up to the score for。

each of these 12 tactics。 So the report looks something like this where we've listed the tactics along。

the Y axis from allocentrism down to ethos。 And then we've reported your result。

your frequency along the X axis from rarely to， always。 The first is your self assessment。

These are your scores according to the four to six items for each of these behaviors。

The second piece here is the class average or the benchmark， whatever benchmark we happen to use。

And it might have been the MBAs or the executive MBAs or， the participants in this MOOC。

but it's some benchmark。 So the intention here is to kind of， this is a self assessment。

So it's kind of like putting a mirror up in front of you and saying， hey。

this is what you think is going on。 And yet we're going to put it in the language of the theory and。

the literature and give you a framework for thinking about it so。

that if you do want to change these， dial something up， dial something back。

you'll you can think about it in a more focused way。 We sometimes do more than just self assessment。

Sometimes we assess people's behaviors with a group of folks they've worked with， bosses。

subordinates， peers， we call these 360 evaluations or third party evaluations。

And we've learned some over time about how the third party evaluations。

relate to the self assessments。 You have the self assessment。

so we thought we might share with you a little bit about， what the third parties look like。

The big picture is they're highly correlated。 The correlations across all 12 are on average or something like 0。

57。 Most of the classes we do we see between 0。5 and 0。6。 Correlation between the scales。

the scale averages for， self assessments versus the scale averages for 360s。

Here are the summaries for a pretty large sample hundreds of students。

And you can see that the self assessments lie below the third party assessments for。

almost every tactic。 And this is this kind of wrinkle we see with every population where people report。

doing fewer of these things or doing them less frequently。 Then do 360 raters。

the third party raters who sometimes provide surveys to us。 So we don't know what truth is。

We don't know whether people are doing more of these things than just not aware of it。

Or that people believe or infer that others are doing them more than they actually are。

But we do see a little bit of a bias。 So you could rest assured that the odds are if you had 360 raters that you would have。

a little bit higher scores across the board。 Some of these are， deltas are bigger than others。

So for example， on exchange， there's not much of a bias。 On allocentrism， not much of a bias。

Note that these are behaviors that are a little bit more observable。 On intentionality， for example。

the gap is higher。 On might， the gap is a little bit higher。

So you might use this to add little context and adjust or imagine what the results would。

be like if we ask your peers and bosses and subordinates to rate you。

You might wonder about differences between men and women。

Certainly my students often ask me this question。 So here's one sample， one year。

We have 108 people in this sample。 These are means across the 12。 And what you see is broadly。

there are no differences。 So where we do see differences， there are the stereotypical differences。

So for example， on might， men are rated as exercising might a little more frequently。

than women are。 On allocentrism， the opposite。 Women are rated as exercising allocentrism。

this understanding of others， trying to understand， others a little more how to be men are。

This is kind of consistent with this stereotype， right？

Which underlines the fact that we don't know what truth is。

We don't know for a fact what they're actually doing。

It could be that the ratings are just being consistent with stereotypes。 But the big picture is。

maybe to a surprising extent， that behaviors are rated similarly， across the sexes。

Men and women aren't seen as acting that differently， at least in the MBA and executive MBA samples。

that we've primarily collected。 Now we've talked so far in terms of 12 tactics and we built the survey around those 12 tactics。

That's where the theory is。 But it could be that we can talk about it in a simpler way。

We can kind of aggregate those。 One way to aggregate them is think about hard power and soft power。

So traditionally people have talked about power in these ways。 For millennia。

they talked about one way of one form of power， hard power， military might， the economic might。

More recently， mostly because of Joseph Nye， people started talking about soft power。

So Nye has a quote here from The Economist。 He was certainly writing about this before then。

But in this piece， right after 9/11， Nye writes， "Throughout history， coalitions of countries。

have arisen to balance dominant powers and the search for traditional shifts in the balance。

of power and new state challengers is underway。"， While potential coalitions to check American power could be created。

it's unlikely they'd， become firm alliances unless the US handles its hard course of power in an overbearing。

unilateral manner that undermines its soft or attractive power， the important ability。

to get others to want what you want。 So he was writing right on the heels of 9/11。

basically cautioning the US about how they， used hard power because it might impact their soft power。

He had been talking for decades at this point about the impact of soft power， the importance。

of soft power， the argument basically being that one of the reasons the US had been so。

influential in the world in the 20th century was not just because of economic and military。

might but because of their soft power。 Other countries， other people wanted to be like the US。

So others have talked about it broadly this way。 The organizational scholar Jeff Pfeffer who has written a lot on power talks about some。

individual traits that are conducive to power and he organizes them in two buckets。

He organizes them as the capacity to garner support and allies in this bucket。

He puts sensitivity to others flexibility and the ability to submerge your ego。

And a second bucket is the ability to survive in a competitive arena。

In this bucket he puts energy and physical stamina， focus， the ability to tolerate conflict。

This looks a lot like hard power in the second bucket and soft power in the first bucket。

So this is clearly the way people have been thinking about power。

We might be able to divide our 12 tactics into that。 But we can also ask the data。

What is the right way to simplify？ Maybe we can reduce from 12 down to 2。

Or maybe we can reduce all the way down to 1。 Or maybe we shouldn't go that far。

Maybe we should only reduce down to 3。 You can answer that question using a technique called factor analysis。

This is a way to reduce the dimensionality of data。

We can distill 12 or if we had 20 or 30 we could distill those down to maybe 2 attributes。

or 3 attributes。 This method will tell us how far down you can go before you start losing。

before you start， throwing away information。 It will also help us identify key patterns in the data。

So we're going to use factor analysis to see can we simplify your report for you essentially。

You have to remember 12 or can you distill it down to something less。

This is what we find when we use factor analysis on these reports。

It tells us that there are three factors in the data and this has been robust across a。

number of samples at this point。 A factor is basically a weighted average。

So it's going to take each of these 12 tactics and it's going to give each tactic a certain， weight。

A tactic might have a lot of weight for some factors and not much weight on another factor。

These are the weights for the three factors in our data。 So factor A。

big weights on ethos and might， low weights， actually negative weights on。

alloscentrism and everything else is kind of in the middle。 Factor B， the middle factor。

Big weights on team， networks， coalitions， pathos， exchange and alloscentrism。

A little bit on essay and agency but mostly it's those six kind of relationship tactics。

in the middle。 And on the third factor， factor C， we see most of the weight comes from these bottom four。

in tensionality， logos， situation awareness and agency。 So what does that look like？

One of the things about factor analysis， it doesn't tell you what these things are。

It doesn't give you names for these things。 It just tells you what the weighted averages are。

So if you look at the first， it looks a lot like hard power。 So we call it hard power。

If you look at the second， these are all these relationship tactics。 It looks a lot like soft power。

So we call it soft。 We were expecting those two。 The interesting bit is this third factor。

It is these three meta tools， intentionality， situation awareness and agency with the addition。

of logos。 We didn't know that logos would necessarily travel with these other three but it does。

And we end up calling this smart power and we end up with these three factors。

We can distill your 12 down to three broader strategies。 Hard power， soft power and smart power。

We borrowed the term again from Joseph Nye。 So this is more recent work from him in a book a few years ago。

He published called The Future of Power。 He has a chapter on smart power。

And it was the first time we were exposed to the terminology。

It turns out the Obama administration had been talking about that for years。 In fact。

he quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her confirmation hearings as saying。

"You must use what has been called smart power。 The full range of tools at our disposal， diplomatic。

economic， military， political， legal， and， cultural。

picking the right tool or combination of tools for each situation。"。

So this fits very well with our notion of meta tools。

And it maps almost perfectly onto the three that we have in that bin that meta tool bin。

And then additionally our data say， "Well， you should also have logos in there， this logical。

reasoning。"， So that is the first cut on our data and a description of the data。

And in the next section we'll want to ask， "Okay， fine， but how does that relate to influence？"。

[ Silence ]。