沃顿商学院全套笔记-二十五-

沃顿商学院全套笔记（二十五）

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P83：6_招聘.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

So let's talk about another issue in managing people and one that gets a lot of attention。

these days。 That's the question of hiring。 One of the reasons it gets so much attention is just a lot more hiring going on。

partly， because there's less internal development， promotion from within， and much more filling。

positions from the outside。 So if you thought that management was really everything。

then it wouldn't matter who you， hired， it's all about how you manage them。

We don't think that's true， but we also don't think it's true， a theory that became popular。

a decade or two ago， that it's really about the quality of the players coming in。

We'll talk more about this a little later， the idea that they're A players and really， good players。

B players average performers and C players， lousy ones。 And it's all about hiring。

That's not true either。 So hiring matters is not the only thing that matters。

Management matters a lot as well。 There are two steps in hiring and the first one is recruiting。

That is the people you get to apply to work for you。 And the second is selection。

When you look at the applicant pool， who you're going to pick， we spend way too much。

time focused on selection， I think。 That gets all the attention。

And the problem with selection is it's， first of all， if you've got the wrong applicant pool。

you can't hire the right people if they're not in your pool to begin with。

And selection is just really hard to do。 And the reason it's hard to do is because candidates lie。

They don't tell you the truth。 And they want a job。 They want you to hire them at that point。

They've applied to work for you。 And if you ask them things like。

does this company look like the kind of place you want， to be， they say， oh， yeah。 If you ask them。

what's your biggest problem or biggest drawback to working with you， they， say things like。

I work too hard， right？ They're trying to spin you a story。

So it's very difficult to get past that at the point of selection。 Let's talk about recruitment。

I think all employers ought to spend more time crafting an accurate description of what。

their job is like。 One of the biggest reasons people quit is they say。

I didn't know what I was getting into。

This is not what I wanted。 That's completely preventable。

And I think frankly the reason it happens is employers are kind of afraid to show people。

what their job is really like。 They want them to only see the good things when they're applying。

But then the problem is they got to live together afterwards and they discover the reality and。

poof they quit。 This is kind of like if you're going to live together with somebody or get married and。

you're hiding a whole bunch of stuff and you're hoping after you're married that they'll all。

be okay with it。 It typically doesn't work very well。 It doesn't work very well in hiring either。

So what you want is a description of what your job is like that is accurate and also one。

that will probably scare away people who don't fit。 Because you don't want those people applying。

Every person applies costs you money and every chance that somebody gets in it really， doesn't fit。

Every time that happens it increases the probability you're going to make a bad hire。

So you want a statement some people call this the employee value proposition about what's。

different working for us than other companies maybe that are in the same industry plus side。

and minus side what's different about working for us。 And you want that to be accurate。

Now one way to do this is with internships。 You might think that the typical reason for internships is the candidate can scope you。

out and decide or you can scope the candidate out rather and decide whether this is the kind。

of person you want。 But a lot of companies have figured out that the more important use of that is the candidate。

can scope you out。 So that if you offer them a job and they say yes they know what they're getting into。

So it's kind of a retention device to make sure you're not going to lose people as soon。

as you hire them。 So remember you know not hiring somebody is a problem if you can't hire that certainly a。

problem but hiring somebody who ends up quitting is arguably a worse problem because you've。

gone through all the costs of bringing them in and if they're unhappy and quit they're。

making the people around them unhappy and then you got to repeat the process anyway。

So if we take that more seriously we spend more time on recruitment。

Now on selection what do we know is a huge literature on this but let me summarize it， briefly。

The things that matter the most are things associated with past behavior tends to be the。

best predictor of future behavior。 If you could actually find out how they performed in a similar job before that would be great。

That would be maybe the best thing you could get。 It's hard to get that in many countries hard to get good references from people。

If you could get that though that would be wonderful。

That's partly why internal moves of people who already work for you are so good。

Much better than hiring from the outside typically because you know a lot about that person already。

and information is pretty accurate。 So that's really good。

Other things that are really good skill tests work。

If it's important to know whether this person has the skills to program。

Give them a programming problem and see if they can solve it。

The problem is you can only do skills tests generally for more of the simpler basic sorts。

of skills。 Conscientiousness out of personality matters that's the only thing that consistently matters。

out of personality。 IQ seems to matter a bit but when we talk about these things mattering it's important to recognize。

how much are we talking about and it turns out not very much。

So for some of these things you might see a correlation between let's say personality。

test conscientiousness and job performance of 0。3。

You might say oh that looks pretty good right but we need to remember from statistics that。

the amount of variation that explains is the square R squared right。

Correlation is R the amount of variation explained is R squared。

So that personality test only explains 9% of the variation in performance 0。3 times 0。3。

And that's only the case if you don't have other things in there already that might be。

correlated or similar to personality。 If you've got past job performance in there the amount that you add by throwing in personality。

or IQ or something else is even smaller than that。

So the punchline there is we're not that great at being able to predict on average how well。

any particular candidate is going to do which is why recruitment is so important。

And the last issue about hiring is the idea about how it drives organizational culture。

This is a theory people call attraction selection attrition and the reason they call it that。

is here's how it works。 If you've got a company with a particular culture candidates come they see the culture。

or they know about what the company is like people start to self select that's what you， want。

So the people who end up applying are already pretty similar to your standard and then your。

company or your organization picks from that applicant pool people it likes things are。

going to succeed they tend to pick people who are like themselves it's not crazy those。

people have succeeded。 And then the people who are the most different feel they don't fit are the ones that leave。

What do you end up with at the end of the day a group of people who are very similar。

in terms of norms and values maybe that's fine。 It also reminds us why we don't get diversity in organizations though because this process。

which happens more or less everywhere tends to replicate the type of organization you've。

already got。 So one of the lessons from this is if you want diversity you got to build it in as a priority。

because the natural process like this which plays out at all hiring tends to work against， that。

Okay。 Now unfortunately the reality of hiring doesn't look much like textbook descriptions there's。

a lot of textbooks that describe complicated models of hiring that begins with filling out。

descriptions of jobs and then how they fit into organizational hierarchies and the competencies。

and all this kind of stuff。 Fencing applications or posting positions posting applications all that stuff。

The reality of technology is changing this a lot。 So this last year in the United States for example a Federal Reserve calculated the majority。

of people who move jobs we're not looking for a job at all。

Somebody came and got them and this is because of technology like LinkedIn and other sources。

where you can look at people where they work their record and go ping them and say I think。

you would be a good fit for us。 The applicant process is now driven by computers technology called applicant tracking systems。

where computers screen resumes so to get through that process your resume has to have。

the right words on it which is another complication。

It's also possible that you can outsource the whole hiring process firms called in an industry。

called recruitment process outsourcing we'll just do the whole thing for you。

And of course it's also possible to not hire anybody at all but to engage labor through。

staffing agencies you lease the employees of a staffing company you're not hiring them。

you're not really managing them directly。 There's all kinds of ways in which you can get labor now that doesn't involve hiring anybody。

at all。 So there's a lot of choices now about how you might manage things and it increases the。

complexity of all this requires a deeper dive into all these things and unfortunately the。

standard sources and the textbooks are not really up to speed as to the reality of how。

people get hired today。 。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P84：7_管理绩效.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

We're going to talk about a different aspect of management now when it's related to motivation。

and this is managing performance and the process of performance appraisals。

This is something which is now ubiquitous in most parts of the world。

In the US it's been in place for a long time。 Let's talk a little bit about the history of this。

It started in England in the 1800s when Robert Owens' cotton mills were in business and。

apparently you got a colored spindle in front of your weaving machine to indicate how well。

you've been performing。 Everybody could walk past and get a sense of how good a performer you were by the color。

of your spindle。 The US this was a World War II invention and we started to see a lot of legislation coming。

in place to require it for the federal governments and also to make sure it doesn't discriminate。

against people。 There's pretty good evidence that there is something certainly to performance appraisals。

They do something that's work。 It's not completely biased。 There's a lot of bias in it。

but it's really unpopular。 Let's talk a little bit about why it's so unpopular， particularly now。

I think the reason is we've asked it to do a lot of things。

In the past when it was first started there were three things performance appraisals were。

supposed to do， supposed to assess your past performance and reward you for it， sort of。

the incentive model a little bit。 It was supposed to help you get better at your current job and improve your performance。

It was supposed to in the corporate world help you plan your career path and get better。

at a bunch of skills so that you could take on bigger jobs and were valuable over time。

In the 1950s the big focus was on the planning your development part and they weren't paying。

much attention to your performance at all。 But over time that started to shift toward assessing performance and we started to see。

again you can look in textbooks now a model of performance management which is pretty mechanical。

Company sets goals， the goals cascade down to the departments which then move to the individuals。

or you're supposed to develop individual goals， goal setting。

For this year which fit into the company's goals for this year then we move toward models。

of competency base performance appraisal where your supervisor is supposed to assess you。

not just on your overall performance but the extent to which you manifest certain competencies。

or skills。 And lots of complex scales and forced rankings which are kind of a tournament based system。

in order to try to force distributions of people all in the goal of trying to do more。

to assess your past performance。 There's a lot of reasons why this doesn't work very well and you can look down the list。

on the slide here and you can see the gap between something you did and what the supervisor。

tells you about it， concludes about it。 At the end of the year it's kind of like that game of telephone where information is passed。

around lots of different people。 In this case there's a big time delay especially if the performance exercise is the end of。

the year。 It's pretty difficult for a supervisor to remember everything you did accurately and let。

alone to give you feedback about that。 The reason people dislike performance appraisals so much is because it creates conflict or you。

might say it just brings to the surface a pretty obvious conflict and here's the conflict。

You can see this is a bell shaped distribution， a normal distribution and if this is performance。

we're talking about the average employee by definition is in the middle， the 50th percentile。

zero in this case on the scale on the x axis。 What is the average employee believe they are？

The average employee believes they are in the 80th percentile so the average employee。

believes they're well above average。 Why is that？ It's a bias called the overconfidence bias and particularly where we don't know much。

about what we're doing we are way over confident about how well we are doing it。

People who are given in a laboratory context a task to perform where it looks like they。

got a 50% chance of doing it well or winning if it's a game they believe their odds of。

winning are 75% right。 We're systematically over confident and we're more over confident about the things we know。

the least about。 So you're a supervisor and you see me after a year and you say you call me in and I'm an。

average performer and you tell me you're doing fine， pretty okay， you're an average performer。

and I think I'm in the 80th percentile。 What happens。

well cognitive dissonance in my head and I'm not happy about it。

I'm not happy about the fact that you believe I'm average when I think I'm above average。

and it's easier for me to just blame you for this than it is for me to maybe adjust my。

view of myself。 So I'm angry at you for the next year right。 So supervisors don't like to do this。

The employees often believe they're going to be told something that they don't like to。

hear and so these conversations don't go well。 Nobody wants to do them which is why human resource departments have to bang on people。

to get performance appraisals done in the first place。

That's the unfortunate and uncomfortable nature of performance appraisals and it's also worth。

noting that supervisors are not always completely accurate about their assessments of people。

There are a bunch of biases that we know affect performance scores。

Maybe the most important is something called the fundamental attribution error and this。

is a bias that we have when we look at human behavior to assume that the behavior is the。

result of dispositions。 If somebody does something bad it's because they're a bad person rather than the circumstances。

So classic story about this， if you're driving at home in traffic at night and everything。

is stop and go and somebody comes zip and buy you on the shoulder of the road， what's。

your first reaction？ I bet you think， oh that guy's a jerk。

rather than think she's probably on the way to the， hospital it's an emergency。

We never imagined that it could be circumstance。 We're inclined to write that person off because of what they're doing。

attribute their bad， behavior， apparently bad behavior to who they are as a person。

So in the performance appraisal context this means supervisors are kind of inclined to。

write off poor performance by saying it's the result of the person they're a bad performer。

and as a result they tend not to manage them carefully anymore and kind of blow them away。

And a second aspect of bias which is just as important is self-fulfilling prophecies and。

that means if we've got an employee coming into our workplace who we believe is a very， good worker。

people tell say great things about them， we tend to manage them differently。

We give them more opportunities， we don't settle for poor performance from them， we push。

them harder to improve their performance。 If we think they're good worker coming in we manage them in ways that make them better。

And the opposite is also true if we get somebody in who we think is not so great， somebody。

who we don't think cleared the hurdle for hiring by much， somebody says bad things about。

them when they come in。 We don't manage them the same way。 We're more tolerant of poor performance。

we don't push them as hard， maybe we think， they're not capable of as much。

we don't give them opportunities to shine， we don't devote。

as much attention to them and they don't perform as well。

So the supervisor is causing the performance differences here。

And we also know there's a lot of biases related to relationships。

We give better scores to people who are more like us， we give better scores to people who。

are physically more attractive， etc。 So the supervisors are not perfect at assessing employees at all。

which is another part of， the problem。 So we see a model emerging which again is very different than what you might see in。

contemporary textbooks。 About a third of companies are moving in the direction of they're already there。

this is， US companies anyway， toward a model which gets rid of formal appraisals altogether。

The end of the year there's no sit down， there's no form to fill out， there's no score。

What they've got instead is a model where you and your supervisor are having conversations。

frequently like all the time about how things are going。

And they're doing this in part because the model of accountability is just not that important。

that is holding people accountable for how things performed last year。

Partly because they're recognizing the incentive model doesn't work all that well， especially。

in a period that we've been in for decades now where merit pay increases are pretty small。

a couple of percent。 So how many hoops you're going to jump through for an increase which is not going to be that。

much different than you would have gotten anyway， at least in terms of dollar amounts。

And also I think a lot of companies are recognizing that the annual business cycle doesn't make。

sense anymore。 They don't have annual business plans that matter。

you can't cascade down to individual， goals from those plans and so forth。

That a conversational model is much more flexible and helps people talk because the conversation。

is all the time， not just into the year， about things when they happen and how to fix them。

Now it's an interesting bet as to how this is going to play out。

It's a bet the companies are making， there's a lot of big companies in this， Microsoft， IBM， GE。

that are betting that they can through organization culture get managers to lead these。

conversations with subordinates and do them all the time in a way that a rule we used to。

have at the end of the year， one conversation， one scale， one assessment didn't seem to help， us。

So it would be interesting to watch how this plays out but for a lot of firms and particularly。

a lot of leading firms， they've given up on the performance appraisal model altogether。

This alternative model of check-ins but also the model of regular performance appraisals。

involves giving feedback and that means the supervisors got to give the employees feedback。

about how they're doing， try to get them to perform better in a way that they can actually。

take in and listen。 And a key aspect here is the idea of psychological safety as psychologists refer to this。

We might think of it as kind of common sense。 I'm not going to tell you the boss something that you're going to punish me for。

So the end of the year when you're meeting at me and we're talking about my performance。

and you're going to give me merit pay increase as it was after this conversation， you asked。

me how things went this year， I'm not going to tell you about problems。

It's like talking to Santa Claus， right？ Your Santa Claus is asking you if you've been good this year and it's going to give you。

presents afterwards。 I'm not going to tell you I was a jerk this year， right？

So you don't get much of a conversation at that point。

So can we create a context where there really is a discussion and I'm going to tell you。

the truth that only happens if there's no consequences， bad ones for me revealing problems， right？

And that means not in the context of merit pay increases。

There's also something called a negativity bias which is hard to get our hands around。

and that means that people really do worry about bad feedback。

If there's a piece of negative information about us， we disproportionately focus on it。

seven times or more as much attention paid to a piece of negative information as we would。

give to an equivalent piece of positive feedback， right？

So this means that we ought to think about how people are going to interpret what we， tell them。

not just give them straight up feedback and then let them worry about it because。

we know the way they process it is going to be heavily weighted toward whatever negative。

things we say so we got to be pretty careful about how we code all that up and present。

it to them。 As a supervisor， there's probably nothing more important than giving employees feedback。

It's a way of first of all helping them get better at their current job which is really。

important for the organization。 It is a way to help them build their career and for the business and particularly the。

belief in the importance of incentives， it is the way in which we let them know how they're， doing。

So if you're a supervisor， I would say the single most important thing to worry about。

is getting better at giving people feedback in a way that they can take it in that doesn't。

threaten them。 They're really listening to what you say and they're going to change their behavior because。

of it。 So we think about all the topics around management。

A couple of the biggest ones we've talked about today， motivation and managing performance。

In our next edition here we're going to talk about some other more macro level organization。

level issues around managing people。 That is how to bundle a lot of these things together into systems that fit with business。

operating models and fit with business strategy。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P85：8_任务与工作.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Welcome back。 I'm Peter Capelli， Professor of Management here at the Wharton School and。

Director of our Center for Human Resources。 We're going to talk in this part of the program。

about designing jobs， how we structure them， what we put in them， what it is that we want。

people to do in individual jobs。 And we're going to talk about the logic that drives。

that from the perspective of organizations and from businesses， those who are for profit。

the strategy that drives the business and then drives the way we design jobs。 So we're。

going to talk maybe first about some terms， maybe some definitions to help us understand。

the content that we'll follow。 And it begins with the notion of what is a task。 So people。

are going to talk about tasks pretty often in this literature。 A task means the individual。

thing that you are doing。 So if you are working as a carpenter， a carpenter might be a job。

There are a series of tasks that carpenters perform， framing doors， for example， or putting。

up drywall。 Each of those tasks is independent。 They may require different sets of skills。

And they bundle together into a job。 So if somebody says， what is a job， it is organized。

around a series of separate tasks。 And we hope the tasks have a bunch of things in common。

Often jobs become a little quirky if the tasks are really unrelated to each other。 In which。

case it's difficult to find anybody to do the job。 And it may be difficult for a person。

to actually perform well in it because they require such different things。 So how do we。

determine what goes in a job？ Well， there used to be whole literature around this a topic。

was called job analysis where experts would come in and study your workplace。 I think these。

days for the most part you just ask the people who are doing the work right now。 Somebody who。

is an incumbent in the job in question， you ask them， what do you do？ How do you spend， your time？

Maybe you could follow them around and watch。 But that's pretty much how it's， done today。

It's not so precise。 Maybe it doesn't matter quite so much because the sharp definitions。

that we saw in jobs a few years ago， and we'll talk about in a couple minutes， are largely， gone。

We arrange jobs together to form an organizational chart。 So if you put jobs in their。

relationship to each other， an organizational chart will tell you reporting relationships。

That means who in which job reports to whom to what other job。 So it gives you the hierarchy。

in the organization。 And the hierarchy tells you something about decision rights。 And that。

means who gets to decide on what and who gets to boss whom around。 So that's what an organization。

chart tells you it's made up of jobs， which in turn are made up of tasks。 We're going。

to be talking a lot about the task level， the actual work that gets done， and how we should。

think about that。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P86：9_如何设计工作.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Now， this question of how to design jobs maybe doesn't matter that much if you're working。

by yourself， right？ So here's a problem over there。 Just go do it。

You figure out how to get it done。 Something has to be put together。 You do it。

But once people start working together with other people， then the definition of jobs。

matters a lot because it affects how those people interact with each other。 Who does what？

Jobs are designed poorly。 There may be tasks that aren't designed either one。

And so you end up with problems。 Things just aren't being done。

You might end up with jobs that are designed in such a way that one is causing problems。

for another。 So it starts to become complicated then。 We got a video I want you to see here。

It's one of the earliest pieces of film available that looks at factory work。

This I think is about from the year 1913。 So take a look at how factory life functioned then。

The late 19th century factory was noisy， cluttered， and chaotic。

A collection of small workshops employing hundreds or even thousands of people under one roof。

Craftsmen like machinists and millurites decided which tools were best for a particular job。

and how they should be used。 So what you saw in that factory is chaos， right？

There's piles of parts all over the place or people having to climb over the parts in。

order to get to different parts of the factory。 There's a lot of people standing around not doing anything in that particular factory。

And there's some things that you couldn't observe but I can tell you about about how， it worked。

One of the reasons why it was so chaotic was because in early factories like that they。

actually outsourced a lot of stuff。 So inside that building there were several work stations and it's quite possible that。

each workstation was run by an independent contractor who hired their own people and did。

their own work and didn't have much of anything to do with the team right next to them。

The turnover of employees in a factory like this one would be enormous。

So there might be turnover rates of two and three hundred percent。

No matter how could they function like that。 Well at the very beginning of the video you saw some people working with their hands。

you， know， sawing stuff and hammering stuff。 People doing some of that kind of work could just come in and out every day。

You could have a different group tomorrow。 It's not going to matter that much。

The work wasn't skilled。 It didn't have to fit together in any way。

It's like working by yourself really。 The big problem though of this place was it was incredibly chaotic。

It took a long time to get stuff done and the ability to plan and even figure out what。

was going on was really difficult。 In fact the earliest engineers trying to figure this stuff out what they would do is just put。

some tags on parts and try to follow them through the plant to see where they were going。

because no one really knew。 You know， didn't even know how things flowed inside these organizations。

So one of the most important developments of the 20th century is an effort to figure this， out。

So the guy who tries to figure this out first， one of the most important developments of。

the 20th century were his efforts。 He's a guy named Frederick Winslow Taylor who was a lecturer at the Wharton School and。

his great patron was the CEO of Bethlehem Steel， a guy named Joseph Wharton。

So Joseph Wharton brought Frederick Taylor to the Wharton School but Frederick Taylor。

was a guy from Philadelphia from son of a rich Quaker family and it's a strange story。

but he was on his way to an Ivy League education and he developed ice strain or so they said。

probably some sort of stress related mental illness and the doctors at the time prescribed。

manual work for him as a solution to this problem。

So you could imagine this rich Ivy League sort of kid ends up in one of these factories。

Well he sides obviously with the owners of the factories and trying to figure out what。

the issues are and for him the big problem was why isn't this place more productive？

Why is it that we can't get more done and when he would ask the workers， particularly。

the lead workers， right？ So there would be a lot of people who were just lifting stuff and a few key workers who。

really knew how things were done。 He'd ask them why can't you move faster and they just blow them off and tell me you can't。

do it faster and he just didn't believe that， right？

So he undertook his life's work which to figure out how to reorganize factories in a way that。

would allow them to be more productive， you know， kind of a noble goal but the way he。

ends up doing it becomes incredibly important for the way work is organized not just in the。

US but then around the world and interestingly one of the biggest proponents of Federal Taylor's。

methods was the Soviet Union where they really thought that he had done some terrific stuff。

This was his idea was to figure out how to design individual jobs and what he really。

was thinking are the tasks that jobs perform， performed in jobs in ways which are the easiest。

to do。 So you might think about this in part as the first maybe the earliest notion of ergonomics。

and that is how do we design something simple like lifting heavy pieces of iron which was。

one of the things that he did first in ways that is easiest for the workers to do or another。

way to say it so they could lift the most， right？ So some of it was that。

Another part of it though was to look at complicated jobs so if you looked at what a machinist。

did for example working on a lay there's something like that， you know it's highly skilled work。

and what he realized was that you could take that highly skilled work and you could break。

it down into a series of individual tasks， some of those tasks actually weren't that。

hard to do and maybe you could give those tasks to lower skilled workers。

Now what does this mean in practice？ Well imagine this you're going to get your haircut and you go to a very small shop and。

there's only one person in there and that person is the stylist， right？

So what happens when you walk in the door？ They greet you， they ask you to sit down。

they get things ready， then they talk to you， about what it is that you want done and then they take you back maybe and wash your hair。

they cut your hair， they blow your hair out and at the end they take your money， maybe。

make another appointment for you and out you go， right？

That stylist is doing a bunch of separate tasks。 Well Frederick Taylor might go into that place and say there's a bunch of things the stylist。

is doing that don't require stylist skills and if you went into a bigger shop， here's。

what you'd find。 You walk in the door the person who meets you is not the stylist。

It is a low skilled， low wage person who meets you at the door， asks you to sit down。

find your name， figures out who's going to cut your hair that day。

And then the stylist maybe meets with you for a couple minutes to find out what you want， say hello。

et cetera。 Somebody else， another person who's kind of low skilled， lower skilled and lower paid。

takes you back and washes your hair and brings you back to the stylist who then cuts your。

hair and maybe somebody else at the end of that blow dries your hair for you and after。

that you go up to the front， you see the receptionist again and they take your money。

make an appointment， again， send you out the door。 So what happens there？

The stylist is only doing the work that requires a stylist skills。

Everything else has been hived off to lower skilled workers。 So for the employer。

why does this help？ Well， let's say stylist get paid more money。

Now you're only paying the stylist for the skills， the tasks that use their skills and。

you got a bunch of other people at lower wages doing the other work。 So per haircut。

now as an employer or as a company， it's costing you way less to do if。

you're the boss here because you're not having to pay as much for as much of the work that。

was done。 So Frederick Taylor's ideas were kind of that。 Some people call this descaling。

You take a job that was done by somebody with high skill and you break it up into a part。

that is high skill but a lot of other parts that are kind of low skill。

Now the second thing about Taylor's approach to this was he's telling everybody exactly。

how their job should be performed。 And typically it was engineers that were doing this。

they would figure out the best way for， you to perform your job and they were telling you here's how you've got to do it。

So you lost all control over this。 So the idea of time and motion studies which were developed in part here at the University。

of Pennsylvania by a guy named Meyerbridge who worked on stop action photography of people。

and how they moved。 You could slow it down and see how people were performing tasks。

how they actually did it。 The idea of time and motion studies was like a stopwatch and a camera to watch how you。

performed your job and to figure out among other things how long it took you to perform。

each task and then they would hold people accountable for how many of those tasks they。

got done per hour because they had a standard now that they were watching people they could。

figure out sort of how much you could do。 Now you can imagine what this does to you if you went back to this factory image we just。

saw earlier a lot of chaos right。 One thing you would see now is a lot of structure。

You wouldn't see people walking around and performing different tasks in different places。

You would be in one place， you weren't spending your time walking around just performing that。

one task。 You'd be doing it in a standard way over and over and over same way every time you got。

consistency and you got efficiency from this。 Now Taylor added one other piece sort of what's in it for the workers and that piece。

was payments that were designed to share the productivity gains with the workers and his。

idea was piece rate right。 Piece rate means every time you perform this task you made so much money so you had an incentive。

to do more of these tasks right。

So that was his system。 It was adopted first in manufacturing but it really hit its stride with the rise of assembly。

lines right and assembly lines use the time and motion studies and Frederick Winslow Taylor's。

idea which was called scientific management to break down jobs into their simplest parts。

You see this all around the world it spreads across the world from US multinational companies。

going abroad。 Ford Motor Company in particular takes these techniques to Europe and to other countries。

and from there they spread。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P87：10_工作设计的缺陷和反思.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

So， what's a drawback to this？

Well， the drawback to Taylor's approach and this engineering approach to designing jobs。

is that people hated doing these kinds of jobs。 And one of the reasons they hated them was because they were so boring。

So the very beginnings many people believe of management research happened at Western， Electric。

the company that made telephones and telephone equipment， where they had people。

there working on tasks that were designed more or less with scientific management approaches。

and their paid piece rates， so much for each task they performed。

And they discovered that people weren't working very hard here。

And a bunch of engineers and researchers came in to study them and try to figure out what。

was going on。 And there's a lot of debate as to what they really found。

but the general conclusion was， that the workers there cared about things other than just the piece rates。

And one of the key things they cared about was their social interactions with each other。

Part of what they were doing was systematically holding down effort， even though it was costing。

them individually money。 And I think part of the reason was the belief that if they worked harder。

then the bosses， would just cut the piece rates。 And so they wouldn't end up making any more money。

This goes back to our earlier discussion about motivation and particularly the idea of expectancy。

Do you believe that the employer will actually do what they say？

And here they believe they would not。 So if we worked harder and started producing more and making more money。

the company would， just cut the rates so that we don't make more money and then we'd be stuck having to work。

faster and harder。 Now the biggest problem with this scientific management approach though comes a generation。

later in the 1970s and particularly in these assembly operations， the most important of。

which were in the auto industry。 And it arises from the fact that people hated their jobs。

And the poster child for this problem， although it was happening around the world， not just。

in the US， was General Motors plant in the city of Lordstown， Ohio。

A plant that made Chevrolet Vegas， an early car that was designed to compete with the Japanese。

fuel efficient car。 I owned one really lousy car to be honest and really not very safe。

The car had enormous quality problems。 So in a typical car plant。

they have what's known as a rework area。 Car comes off the assembly line。

They turn the key to start it。 If it doesn't start。

it goes over to a rework area where some multi-skilled people will。

plunge in on it and see if they can fix what's wrong。 The Vega plant didn't have a rework area。

It had a rework parking lot because so many cars would come off the assembly line and not， work。

And when they opened the hood to try to look inside the car and see what was wrong， they'd。

see bunch of stuff missing， like no carburetor， or they would see things that look like sabotage。

washers thrown in the throat of the carburetor， upholstery slashed， things like that。

A thousand or so cars at a time that really weren't working。

And they tried to figure out what was going on here。

So they looked into the factory and it didn't look that much different than other factories。

except it was even more automated。 The assembly line moved even faster。

which meant that people had to do those repetitive， tasks more of them over the course of the day。

The big thing was the workforce was pretty young and was actually had some college。

So the average worker had been to school at least a year or so of college。

Problem was the work was really boring。 Another time as they perfected scientific management。

the work got even more boring and， you had a generation of people going into these jobs who were going to do this for the。

rest of their life。 And unlike their parents who had come out of the Great Depression。

this didn't seem like， such a great deal to them。 Now the reason this mattered is because the quality problems were really bad。

especially， for cars compared to the Japanese system， which was much better built cars。

And quality translates into money。 So quality problems were causing performance problems。

which were causing financial problems。 And we're ultimately going to cause the entire US auto industry a lot。

market share， business， jobs， everything。 So we had to do something about this。

And so what did we do？ So what happened during the 1970s， at least toward the end of the 1970s。

was an effort， to rethink job design， to look at how we were organizing work and the performance of these。

tasks at the level of the worker in these big assembly plants。

The reason we're doing this is because it was costing the companies a lot of money and。

the workers were miserable too。 A lot of strikes over little things， turnover problems， et cetera。

And so the new approach was to think about these jobs from， you might say， a human perspective。

rather than an engineer's perspective。 So the engineer's perspective。

we're thinking about fitting people to the machines。 And the more human perspective was saying。

okay， what are the people like and how might， you adapt the work to accommodate the needs and the interests of the people。

at least， a bit。 So what is it we learned about people and what they liked about their work and what。

they hated about their work？ Well in general， one of the things that people like about work is social interactions。

You're with other people。 And often we like the people we work with。 And if we do。

that's a big reason for going to work and one of the things we liked about， it。

One of the things we learned from those Western Electric studies was that， that the people。

in these assembly operations in Western Electric wanted to talk to each other and paid a lot。

of attention to what everybody else was doing。 The other thing we learned about jobs and what people liked about them was a series of。

things about the tasks and how they were performed beyond simply getting a paycheck at the end。

And there's kind of a list of these upon which there's general agreement now。

And the first of these might be the idea of autonomy which you can think about as control。

How do I control about my work？ Do I get to decide for example when I get to take a break？

Do I get to decide how I perform this particular task？

Well under the scientific management approach of Frederick Taylor， the answer to every one。

of those questions is going to be no。 You don't control anything。

The engineers that designed your job specified everything about it and we figured out on average。

the best way to do everything so we don't need any of your help。 Thank you very much。

Well it turns out that even if what they're doing is not optimal from a design point of， view。

individuals really like to have control。 The more control they've got， the happier they are。

the more control they've got， the， less stress they feel about things。 So autonomy is one big thing。

A second thing that they really value is variety。 People get bored doing the same thing over and over。

There's a phrase for this in psychology called habituation which means that we turn off stimulus。

which is repetitive and doesn't seem to matter very much to us。

You probably know this if you've ever moved into a new place and particularly if it's maybe。

someplace where there's a lot of noise around。 You woken up early in the morning because the garbage trucks come in or there's a big。

pot hole in front of your house and you can't sleep the first few nights。

And then after that you find that you can sleep and then you're okay with it。

Your brain is just tuned it out and you don't even notice it anymore until you get a visitor。

who stays with you and then they're up all night and they say I couldn't sleep。

That stupid pot hole in front of your house and you're saying what are you talking about？ Well。

your brain has tuned it out and the problem with repetitive work always the same。

over and over and over is that our brain begins to tune the workout and we're just not paying。

attention to it anymore。 And for workers this is pretty dangerous especially if you're working with machinery that is heavy。

and powerful and you could rip yourself off pretty good。

If you're worried just about the quality of the work you're doing it's not good for that。

either because you're not paying attention to things and it's easy to start making mistakes。

or ignore quality problems as they're coming along。

So from the human perspective variety matters a lot。

The third thing that seems to matter a lot is do we understand and appreciate how what。

we're doing fits into the bigger picture of what maybe the company is doing or the agency。

we're working for。 What is the significance of my work？

So in the field of healthcare for example some famous studies looking at hospital induced。

infections， real problem in terms of hospital stays you get sick in the hospital and you're。

already not in great shape which is why you're there in the first place and then you pick。

up an infection which has been bred and perfected in the hospital and it's really hard to get。

rid of and you know a lot of people have great complications including death from these hospital。

induced infections。 Well what's the cause of these bacteria and viruses in the environment of the hospital？

What could you do to control this？ Clean the place up right？

Kill germs on the walls on the floors on the equipment everything around。 Who's in charge of that？

Well if there's one group it's probably the janitorial staff which is the group of employees。

that are often ignored lowest of the pecking order in the organizational chart。

Well in these studies what they did is they explained to the janitors the significance。

of their work。 Here's hospital induced infections， here's what they look like when people get sick。

they're， killing a lot of people it's a terrible thing。

The cause is bacteria on the walls and equipment if we wipe that out and here's how we wipe。

it out then these guys don't get sick。 And once they were able to not just explain but show the janitors what this meant then。

the janitors were much more effective at cleaning the rooms， hospital induced infection rates。

fell and the reason for this is the janitors cared more about their work。

They were more motivated you might say but it was really something about their appreciation。

for what they were doing that caused them to do the jobs better。

Another thing which is actually related to the significance question is can I get feedback。

about the tasks I perform can I see how it's going。

And back to the janitors for a minute when they could get information on how well they。

had cleaned rooms that come in maybe and do swabs and check for bacteria accounts and。

they could tell when they did a good job and when they did a poor job they were paying。

more attention to the work it made the work more interesting for people turn over rates。

fell employee satisfaction improved commitment to the organization that is caring about doing。

a good job went up as well and these are four of the big factors and they all relate to how。

the job is performed。 None of this has anything to do with money nor does it have anything to do with benefits。

or anything like that。 It's all about how the tasks themselves are performed。

[BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P88：11_工程师与心理学家-设计工作的战争.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

So let's talk a little bit about what job design might look like。

With an example that we see a lot at the Wharton School， and that's the job of junior analysts。

these are people who leave college and go to work for investment banks。

What do those jobs look like？ Well at least in a lot of places。

the students find them pretty miserable， and the common， theme about them is job design。

So what they find that they are doing is spreadsheet analysis。

They get some data and they're told to manipulate it and excel and do some various kinds of。

calculations with it。 And that might not be bad except that they do that every day， all day。

usually the same， kind of analysis once they figure out how to do it。

They just do it over and over and over and over。 There's no variety in that。

And there's no real control over how they do it either， or when they do it。

It's dropped on their desk。 We need this by tomorrow morning。 And here's how you got to do it。

Everything is exactly the same。 This most surprising thing is that they've got no idea what they're actually working on。

Typically nobody tells them， they just give them the data。

So this idea of the significance of what they're doing， they might be working on something。

really big for a country or something， they never know。 And how well they do on these tasks。

They often don't know that either。 They hear maybe somebody comes in yells at them if there's a problem。

but otherwise， they never know whether they've done a good job or a bad job。

And you think about the consequence of that， the fact that they hate their jobs means in。

order to get them to do these jobs and to stay there you got to pay them a ton of money。

which was the deal。 You got a really boring job， you're not going to like very much and it's incredibly hard。

and lots of hours and demanding but we pay you a ton of money。

Now if you think about how you would fix that job， it's not that hard to do。 Simple way to fix it。

simple as thing to do is to just tell people what are you working， on。

It takes 10 seconds to tell them this is a bond issue for the kingdom of Jordan or something。

like that。 So you know what it is。 And then when you're doing the final presentation maybe you let them sit in the back of the room。

so that they get a sense of why this matters。 They also get some feedback。

does the client like this whole project or not。 And maybe if they got to do spreadsheet analysis at least you could have them do different analyses。

over the course of a week so it's not the same one all the time。

And could you give them a little control over when they do it at least schedule and maybe。

to some extent how。 It's not that hard to fix this kind of work in ways that would make people like it better。

and when they like it better quality goes up and people stay longer and performance improves。

as well。 So I have a little video here I'd like to show you something that went viral in an airline。

So take a look at this。 Good evening folks welcome aboard Southwest Airlines flight 372 service to Oklahoma City。

Those of you that have flown us before know that we do things a little bit differently。

in Southwest。 Some of us tell jokes， some of us say some of us just stand there look beautiful。

I unfortunately can do none of those。 So here's the one thing that I do know how to do。

We're going to shake things up a little bit。 I need a little audience participation otherwise this is not going to go over well at all。

So here's what I need especially you guys in the front because you know what's coming。

Alright I need a beat。 All I need you to do is stomp and clap and I'm going to do the rest because I've had。

five flights today and I just cannot do the regular boring announcement again otherwise。

I'm going to put myself to sleep。 So you guys with me？ Alright so give me a stomp clap， stomp clap。

come on stomp clap， stomp clap， they don't。

be there。 There you go keep that going。 This is right 372 on SWA the flight attendants on board serving you today。

So recent in the middle David in the back my name is David and I'm here to tell you that。

shortly after takeoff first things first they're soft drinks and coffee they're quenched to。

first but if you want another kind of drink then just holler。

Alcoholic beverage is a B four dollars if a monster finish a drink as your plan that。

a B three dollars and you get the whole game we won't take your cash you gotta pay with。

plastic if you have a coupon then that's fantastic。

We know you're ready to get the new places open up the bins put away your suitcases carry。

on items go under the seat in front of you so none of you are things by your feet。

If you have a seat on the road with the exit we're going to talk to you so your mind is。

well expected you gotta help evacuate in case we need you。

If you don't want to them we're going to reseach you before we leave our advice is put away。

your electronic devices fast in your seat belt then put your praise up press the button。

to make the seat back raise up sit back relax have a good time。

It's almost time to go so I'm done with the line thank you for the fact that I wasn't。

ignored this is Southwest Airlines welcome aboard。

Thank you very much for my be I appreciate that you will not get that on United Airlines。

I guarantee。 So in that video you could see that the flight attendant was doing exactly what flight attendants。

always have to do there's certain information they're required by the Federal Aviation Administration。

to convey to you about the flight and about safety but they get to do it in a way that。

taps maybe into their own creativity a little bit and they like it better and turns out。

the passengers liked it better as well。 So I think what we've had is a result of these lessons which began in the 1970s and progressed。

through the 1980s about how to design jobs differently is a kind of a battle that went。

on between engineers who designed jobs and psychologists who designed jobs and on the。

same campus at universities you could go into an engineering department and meet the industrial。

engineers who were designing jobs as if Frederick Taylor was more or less still around guiding。

them time in motion studies you know the one best way to do stuff fitting people to the。

machines and the logic of the production process and then you could cross the campus and go。

talk to the psychologist who would be explaining to you why that method of designing jobs was。

a disaster and you had these two kind of fighting and frankly the engineers were winning most。

of the time maybe because they were already in place but after we started to see things。

like the Lordstown， Ohio factory and those problems spread across the US economy and into Europe。

as well started to cost companies a lot of money not just in turnover but especially in。

quality and having to make up and try to fix quality problems is really expensive but especially。

competition from foreign producers where they didn't seem to be having these problems really。

made US companies and then European companies as well start to take all this much more seriously。

Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P89：12_日本和美国汽车行业的教训.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

So let's find out what they did。

And the lessons begin in the auto industry， and particularly the rise of the Japanese。

auto industry in the US。 It gets going in the 1970s because of the oil price shocks。

OPEC raised oil prices in 1973 and again in 1979 by a lot。

And that meant that if you had a car that used a lot of gas， it suddenly became very。

difficult for you to pay for it。 And more to the point。

some of those periods we actually had rationing in the United States。

If you had a car with an even license plate， you could only buy gas on Tuesday。

Thursday and Saturday。 So suddenly having a car that was fuel efficient really mattered。

The Japanese cars came into the US because they were smaller， much more fuel efficient。

and they started to take market share away from US cars， which were big。

But the other thing that US consumers learned， and eventually US auto companies as well。

was that the Japanese cars were not only more fuel efficient。 The quality of them。

the build quality especially， was way better。 The cars lasted long and they didn't have nearly the problems that US cars had。

It used to be kind of a， it wasn't really a joke， it was true， a practice in the US。

that you could order a car and you could decide what day of the week the car you're ordering should be built。

And you wanted a Wednesday car。 And the reason you wanted a Wednesday car was by Thursday and especially Friday people were starting to party in the plants before the weekend。

And some of them also were just cutting out of work and so they were trying to throw replacement workers in to get that work done。

So quality was lousy on Friday。 And on Monday a lot of people were hung over and would come in in rough shape for the first day or two。

So you didn't want a Monday or Tuesday car either。 You wanted a Wednesday car。

Unless you bought a Japanese car and then it didn't matter because the quality was pretty good for those cars。

So we started to pay some attention to what are the Japanese know that we don't。

And here's one of the most important industrial stories of the 20th century and it happened at General Motors。

In the early 1980s the US auto industry is whacked by Japanese competition。 Ford is struggling。

Chrysler is bankrupt and is bailed out by the government。

General Motors has still got some money and they're trying to figure out what they should do to address the problem of Japanese competition。

So they went to Japan and they toured the plants there and they came back with this profound sense of how engaged the Japanese workers were。

In their view engaged with management to produce high quality cars。 How hard they worked。

how diligent they were and particularly how concerned they were about quality。

And they came back to the US looked at their own workforce and concluded there's no way we're going to compete with the Japanese because their workers are just so much better than ours are。

So we just can't compete with the Japanese car companies on that。

The only way we're going to be able to make it is to automate。

We're going to bring in robots to replace as many workers as possible。

So GM embarked on a huge industrial experiment to put robots in their factories。

They spent a ton of money， as I recall about $43 billion putting robots into their factories。

Now the reason I figured that matters is because it was more than the entire value of Toyota Motor Company at that time。

So General Motors could have bought Toyota for the amount of money they spent putting robots into plants to get rid of workers。

That's the experiment they start down in the early 1980s。 At the same time something quirky happens。

General Motors got an empty plant in Fremont， California。

Toyota needs to start building cars in the US because of protectionist concerns。 Auto workers。

auto companies particularly lobbying Congress to put constraints on the imports of Japanese cars because they're taking all our business。

So Toyota is looking around for place to build cars and General Motors got this empty factory in Fremont。

So they agreed to basically lease the plant to Toyota。

Toyota is going to run it and they're going to produce a car that they will sell through Chevrolet。

And the car is going to be the Nova。 And it's really going to be a Toyota Corolla except it's got a Nova badge stamped on it。

Toyota design， Toyota manufacturer。 Toyota sends over its managers and starts this plant up again。

It uses the equipment of General Motors， so a 1970 style equipment， no robots in this plant。

But what's different is the way they manage the employees。

They hire back most of their workforce from the old GM workforce。 But they hire them in differently。

They bring them in slowly and carefully。 They spend a lot of time training them and persuading them that the plant needs to run in a different way。

It includes sending some of these workers to Japan so they can look around and see how Japanese plants work and persuade them that you really could do things differently。

Well， to cut to the chase of this story， within a short period of time。

the plant in Fremont called the new United Motors Manufacturing Incorporated， or NUMI。

this plant is now the most productive plant in the General Motors chain。

It is also the highest quality plant in the General Motors chain。

So if you're the General Motors treasurer and you're thinking about this and you just put $43 billion into plants to get rid of workers。

and you've got Toyota that has come in and taken your former workers and your former plant and is building cars with higher quality and higher productivity than your robots are。

you've got to recognize that you've made a profound mistake。 And to some extent。

many people in the U。S。 sort of got this。 Not everybody and not everybody in the auto industry got this。

but it was a pretty powerful lesson。 So let's talk about what the Japanese approach looked like from the perspective of just of work。

There are other courses in the program that talk a little bit about what the Japanese Toyota system of lean production meant for inventory issues and organization of the plant。

But from the perspective of work， the big changes were that the individual workers in their teams now controlled the decisions that Frederick Taylor's engineers used to make about how to design their jobs。

They got lots of feedback about quality and productivity of their particular part of the assembly operation。

So not each worker by themselves， maybe five or six of them in one part of the assembly line。

they get to control at least a large part of how their work gets done。

And they see how they're doing in terms of the quality of their inputs and how much they're able to turn out on their part of the assembly line。

So the control they're given is to redesign their jobs in ways that improve quality and improve productivity。

They're in charge。 They kind of own this。 And the interesting thing about this is the tasks that they design are just as boring as the ones that Frederick Taylor would have designed。

but they control them。 They have to do them in exactly the same way every time in order to know when they introduce an innovation。

whether it's an improvement or not。 So they're really standardized， but they control it。

And this and a bunch of other reasons， like the fact that the management team treated them a little more like peers。

common cafeteria， common uniform for everybody， meant that the employees were much more engaged in their work。

Turnover was low， quality in particular was way higher。

and the employees are striving to improve productivity almost all the time。

So this is the lesson of Japanese management that it turned out that Frederick Taylor wasn't right。

that trying to get engineers to design the jobs for people was not optimal。

and that they could probably do a better job themselves。 And if nothing else。

they were at least much more engaged in it。 Now， what's the downside of this Toyota Lean production system？

The downside for management is that the workers are in control now。

You don't have a group of engineers who are part of management designing everything。

The workers in the plant are in charge。 And one of the things that Japanese-style management does very differently and noticeably on assembly lines is it gives the individual worker the power to stop the line。

if there are quality problems， because they want them fixed then。

they don't want more cars coming off with quality problems。

And the idea of letting an individual worker shut down an assembly line to US managers seemed insane。

It costs about $50，000 a minute to shut down an assembly line。

But the idea of giving them the control to do that seemed crazy。 And that's the trade-off。

If you engage workers， you have to give them some control over what they're doing。

And in that sense， it's very much the opposite of the story we told at the beginning of this series about mothers' restaurant in New Orleans。

the one where you had people standing over the shoulder of the cashier trying to make sure nobody's cheating。

In the Toyota system， the Lean production， the supervisors are not there watching people。

The employees are making the decisions themselves。 And if they decided to screw things up。

it would be really hard to stop them。 If they started stopping the assembly line just to irritate the management team。

it would be really difficult。 So some of the resistance that US managers brought to adopting these practices from Japan were partly not invented here。

just common。 But also， we don't trust the workers enough to give them the control that would be necessary to get them to perform in a much more effective way。

So where else do we see organizations adopting models like this， like the Lean production system？

Well， you see it a lot in healthcare now， where there's a recognition that teams of workers are really the important unit。

The nurses and doctors have to work together with technicians。

They've got to be talking to each other。 They ought to be making decisions about the best way to provide care at the patient's bed。

You see it in some notable other examples， one of them is Southwest Airlines。

which is a company that has a very different way of doing things。

Their particular problem， which initiated almost randomly。

was that they were about to go out of business， and they had to sell one of their airplanes the very early days of the airline。

They had four planes and they had to sell one of them。 And they went to the employees and said。

"We've got to figure out a way to operate the same route schedule with three planes rather than four。

"， And the only way you could do that is if you turn the planes around faster at each airport。

So you're not spending as much time at the gate， you're getting in， you're getting out fast。

And if you can do that， it's incredibly cheaper， more productive。 You don't need as many planes。

Plane is a really expensive thing。 So the employees figured out how to do that。

and it's really a way of just cooperating with each other。

Different work groups that under the tailor system would never talk to each other。 Bagged handlers。

gate agents， pilots， each separately， managed and in their own little world。

Now trying to work together in order to solve problems and coordinate。

So one of the things you notice about Southwest， which you don't notice for a lot of other airlines。

is that you rarely pull up to the gate and surprise the crew there。

It's often the case of other airlines you pull in and nobody is there to greet the plane。

Because they're in a separate work group following their own schedule。

Maybe the plane got in a little early。 You would like these people to be able to talk to each other and communicate。

And to do that， you can't have supervisors necessarily standing over them and telling them what to do。

Well that also means， again， if the employees are in charge and they're in control。

that they better be happy and if they get unhappy with you， you got a big problem， right？

Because they could shut the thing down in a heartbeat。

So Southwest in particular spends a lot of time making sure their employees are happy。

and making sure that they're happy with the airline so that they will engage their discretionary effort。

Which is a key phrase in management。 That is the kinds of things they could do if they wanted to do。

but they probably don't have to do， and it's hard to make them do it， right？

And that is solve problems when they see them happening without a supervisor having to come over and tell them what to do。

But for management， this is often pretty scary because you are given up control to the employees。

particularly the employees that you're supposed to be supervising。 Now if you can do it。

you see an enormous productivity improvement like this。

and that productivity improvement is you don't need as many supervisors， right？

And they're pretty expensive。 [ Silence ]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P9：8_产品中心方法的裂痕.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

[MUSIC]。

Okay， so we've reviewed the product-centric approach to business。

We understand that for most companies， again， those focusing on performance。

priority or operational excellence， it's all about coming with that， blockbuster idea。

reducing a lot of it， keeping the cost down， and， using appropriate metrics for it。

and we call that product-centricity。 Now， we're going to start talking about some alternative approaches。

but， I don't want to suggest that product-centricity is doomed to fail。

I don't want to suggest that all companies must move away from product-centricity。

I don't want to suggest that that's a recipe for disaster。

But I do want to suggest that there are some aspects of product-centricity。

that make it not quite as great as it used to be。 So as you can see on this slide over here。

I'd like to say that there are some， cracks in product-centricity。

There's just a number of trends going on today， things that didn't really exist， say。

15 or 20 years ago， that make the product-centric approach just a little。

bit less guaranteed successful than it was back then。 In fact。

I'd like you to just take a minute or two to think about， what are some of。

the changes today compared to 15 or 20 years ago that make product-centricity。

just a little bit different that takes some of the shine off of it， that takes。

some of that automatic kaching away from being product-centric？

What would be some of the emerging trends， most of which are trends that are， here to stay。

that might make a company think twice about whether they want to。

focus on product-centricity or start looking towards a different kind of， strategy？

Take a moment and think about that， and then we'll run down a list of。

some of the leading factors that take some of the edge off of product-centricity。

So I bet first and foremost on everyone's list is the idea of commoditization。 See。

back in the old days， it was so hard to come up with and manufacture a new。

product or deliver a service that you would stay steps ahead of all of your。

competitors for a long period of time before they could come up with an equivalent， idea。 But today。

because of technology， things commoditize much more quickly。 Product lifecycles are getting much。

much shorter。 Companies know that as soon as they， launch something new。

they have to have the next new thing already in process。

So this idea of commoditization takes away some of the goodness of product-centricity。

Here's a way of thinking about it。 In the product-centric world， every company is。

counting on some kind of natural monopoly。 We are doing something that's going to。

keep us ahead of all of our competitors for a long period of time。 And that's what's。

going to let us focus on developing the best or delivering the most efficient。

But as those lifecycles shorten， as things commoditize， it takes away some of that。

natural monopoly power。 But that's just one reason。 It's a big one， but by no means， the only。

Another important reason would be changes on the customer side。 Our customers are so much smarter。

more informed than ever before。 It used to be， that our customers were much more passive。

They would take whatever products or， services that we would give them and they would say， "Oh。

that's great。 Terrific。 Thanks very much。 I'll figure out how to use it。

" But today's customers are much， different than yesterday's customers。 They're much more informed。

they're much， more demanding， and they're much savvier。 And again， a big reason for this is the。

internet， information technology。 Customers are so much more aware of options that。

are available to them or options that might not yet be available to them， but。

that they clamor for than they ever were before。 Again， the customers aren't。

passive like they used to be。 So smarter customers put much more demands on。

companies and make it harder for them to extract as much value out of the。

products and services that they deliver。 And a third way that technology makes。

life a little bit more difficult for product-centric companies is the idea that。

products are now available everywhere instantaneously。 If you think about what。

FedEx or DHL or UPS does， they take away some of that natural monopoly power that， a company had。

In the old days， companies would rely on the fact that no one else had， a product like them。

But even if other companies did have a product like them， customers wouldn't be aware of it。

And even if customers were aware of it， customers wouldn't have access to it。 But today。

because distribution technology， brings everything， everywhere， overnight if you want it。

it's much harder to， protect yourself from other products and services that are available in the。

other regions。 So there's all kinds of ways that technology takes some of the edge。

off of product-centricity。 But by no means is it limited to technology。 Part of it is， a mindset。

People are thinking globally much more than ever before。 So customers。

are much more actively looking for products and services from other regions than。

they ever were before。 And then there's the issue of deregulation。 Again。

regulation was a way that gave companies monopoly power， that they were the only。

game in town and customers had no choice。 But as one industry after another， deregulates。

companies need to be much more competitive and it's much harder to， stay a step ahead。

And in some cases， it's not deregulation， but it's， a re-regulation。

It's regulations that are making markets much more competitive。 So again。

that's another reason why product-centricity just isn't what it used， to be。

A sixth reason comes back to the customer again。 Not only is the customer， smarter。

but as I mentioned before， customers are far more demanding than they， ever were before。

So in the old days， it was good enough just to let the customer。

take a bunch of products and services and figure out what they're going to do， with it。

Figure out how those different products and services are going to help。

them solve the problems that they have。 Today's customer is much more demanding。

It's insisting that companies not only deliver them one product or service at a， time。

but bundle together products and services， sometimes including products and。

services that the company might not make any money on。 It is now much more。

imperative than ever was before for companies to be seen as a trusted advisor。

To be providing full-fledged solutions to the customer and not just piecemeal。

products and services that the customer will figure out how to combine together。

One of the great stories along these lines is that of IBM。 IBM， which of course。

stands for international business machines， used to be one of the ultimate， product-centric firms。

They were just the best at coming up with and developing， certain kinds of products。

business machines， computers and so on， better than， anybody else。

But they had a revelation in the mid-1990s。 They could actually make。

more money being a trusted advisor instead of saying， "Here， customer， buy our。

machine telling a customer what set of machines and services to be buying。"。

That they're actually higher margins， especially as computers and other。

information technology equipment commoditizes。 They can actually do better。

being a solution advisor。 And slowly but surely， as many of you know， IBM spun。

off many of his business machines。 They no longer manufacture personal， computers。

Their presence in most other hardware areas has diminished。 But。

where they're making their money today is from being a customer-centric solution， provider。

It's going to the customer and saying， "Here are the set of products。

and services you should be buying。" And that kind of expertise doesn't。

commoditize nearly as much as any one product might。 And so that idea of moving。

away from just selling products to being a full-scale solution provider is a major。

change in the last 15 to 20 years。 And there's one more point that I want to， talk about with you。

And it's not necessarily the most important crack in， product centricity。

but it's one that I like to think about a lot。 And that's the， data。 See。

today's technology enables us to collect and manage and utilize data。

about customers in a way that we just could have never imagined before。 So if you。

think about old companies， think about Henry Ford， who was one of the real。

originators of product centric thinking， he had no idea how many customers he had。

He didn't know whether he was selling one car to each of 10 million。

different people or whether he was selling 10 million cars to one person。 He， didn't know。

And frankly， he didn't care that much because he was so product-centric。

in his thinking that it was just a matter of turning that crank of pushing， products out the door。

of keeping the volumes up and keeping the costs down。 But， today。

given these other cracks in product centricity， it's much more。

important for companies to be using the data about their customers， to be。

understanding who's buying what and for how long and what other products that， they're buying。

So the information systems give us the possibility of。

developing business models that were unimaginable before， but could actually。

be more successful than the product-centric approach。 And I want to give you a。

couple of examples of that。 [MUSIC]。

[BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P90：13_工作系统.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

So our last big point is to talk about systems of work。 We've been talking about individual。

practices， motivation early on， job design now in this section， how they fit together。

in ways that create synergies that make them even more powerful。 So one simple example。

of this is that we know that profit sharing and stock options for employees at a broad。

base level for the workforce as a whole seem to have very little effect on employee performance。

If you combine profit sharing with employee participation， then you get a much bigger， effect。

And why is that？ Well， profit sharing might give you a motivation or a sense of。

identification with a company that creates some sense of willingness to help the company。

but unless you have involvement in participation so you can make some decisions， autonomy is。

it worth， you got no way to exercise that motivation。 You put these two together and then you start。

seeing some effects。 We teach a couple of cases here at the Wharton School about how。

these practices bundled together can actually drive the competitiveness of the whole firm。

We see this easiest in the for profit area， but you can see it almost anywhere。 We teach。

a case for a company that we've named to hold chemical。 It's not the real name of the company。

And this was a student project of our MBA students many years ago。 What happens in hold。

chemical is this is a company that was in the specialized chemical business competing。

in its bigger companies that had lower costs。 But what hold was able to offer was customer。

service that was really good。 How do they do that？ First of all， they didn't hire professional。

salespeople。 They hired chemical engineers。 And when they hired those chemical engineers。

they put them to work first in the factory， their chemical plants， so that they would。

get some understanding of what the chemicals felt like， looked like， worked like。 And also。

they knew who made the chemicals in the plant and who were the experts in the plant on those。

chemicals。 Only then did they go out in the field and start dealing with customers。 They'd。

stay with customers more or less for life， or at least their life in the company。 They。

were paid a straight salary， no commission。 They had no incentive to push different kinds。

of chemicals on clients， so that clients started to trust them。 And because they were chemical。

engineers， they were already oriented toward solving problems with chemicals， which is。

different than chemists， or interested in chemistry per se， right？ Pretty simple set of， practices。

but it produced something that helped sustain the company in its competitive advantage。 That is。

its customers were willing to pay a premium to buy chemicals from Holt in order。

to get their customer service， which was really just salespeople who were effectively， consultants。

They knew a lot about the chemicals， they knew a lot about their clients， and they。

knew what would work where。 The problem at Holt Chemical is they called in a consulting。

company that was giving them advice on how to improve profitability。 And the advice turned。

on giving these salespeople incentives to sell more chemicals that were more profitable。 As。

soon as they did that， the customers started to notice that you couldn't necessarily trust。

what the salespeople were pushing on you。 And the first thing that happened is some of。

the salespeople themselves noticed this and quit because they didn't like this new arrangement。

they didn't see themselves as salespeople primarily。 The second thing that happened was。

the customers started to bolt because they didn't trust Holt's service so much anymore。

and the products of competitors were cheaper。 So Holt's entire competitive strategy begins。

to unravel because of a change in management practice is actually just one change， which。

then broke up the synergy between their other practices and made them as a company not so。

successful anymore。 Another quick example out of the world of retail is the folks at Nordstrom。

who have for decades now had the most profitable department store， sales per square foot， how do。

they do it？ They sell more or less the same stuff that everybody else does。

They sell their own brands， but they sell fashion。

And the way they do it is their competitive advantage。 And that is。

salespeople who tailor the experience to individual customers， give them whatever they need。

How do they do that？ Partly hiring， they try to hire people who are enthusiastic。

they don't bother training people because there's not much training you need。 You don't need to。

know the polymer count and the sweaters， you just need to be able to tell people， "Oh。

that looks great， on you， and let me let you know when something's on sale and I'll bring this to your house。

" The， other reason they don't train them is they don't want you to have a standard way to deal with。

customers。 They want you to do whatever it takes to make that customer happy。 And they have huge。

commissions in terms of a percentage of their pay。 They wash through a lot of people， people who。

don't fit get pushed out pretty soon。 But because they're not spending a lot of money hiring or。

training people and they lose them， it's not that big a deal。 But the ones they keep figure out how。

to please Nordstrom customers， they maintain their own customer base。 And they got a big financial。

incentive back to motivation to sell well。 So in that case， it's not a series of complicated。

practices and it's not often things that you might call best practice， no training， no careful。

selection。 But it fits together in ways that work for that company given where their business is。

And I think that leads us to a conclusion here from this part of the course。 And the conclusion is。

if you do the management of people correctly， it's not just about being able to keep your cost down。

or able to implement and execute strategy or whatever the processes are the company wants。

It is possible that you can actually create the competencies that drive the strategy of the business。

And this is going to tie our section of course into other sections on strategy you're going to。

hear about in a little bit。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P91：14_及时而明智的决策.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Welcome back to the third topic in this broader terrain of human and social capital。

And we're going to focus now for the next few minutes on making good and timely decisions。

And I just want to stress at the outset that there's an emphasis on and we want good and。

timely decisions。 And here's why two factors in our estimate are making for shorter cycle times and how。

products are developed， how long they last in the market， what kind of a service somebody。

wants and how long that will be in the market in a viable way。

It puts a premium on managers like you making a good and timely decision whether it's for。

a service， a product or maybe just how you get the job done itself。

And the two factors that we think are pushing the need for more good and timely decision-making。

is first of all， so many organizations have themselves innovated and found ways of getting。

products out there more quickly than in the past。 So if your competitors are becoming good at developing a product。

getting it out， getting， it in a store or maybe a hospital service to your patients。

it kind of leaves nobody， a choice but to begin to match that time cycle。

Making it number two though more challenging so to speak is the fact that in many markets。

there's greater complexity， many more different kinds of products for example and greater。

uncertainty。 Partly regulatory， partly customers are more fickle， all that being said。

It does put a premium， this is why it's a third critical topic in managing people at。

work on becoming good at timely decision-making。

I'd like you to think just for 50 seconds or so about a decision you have seen in your。

own organization in the last， let's make it the last two years that took too long for。

it to be made。 You might have been part of it， you might have watched it。

it might have been your own， just， pick a decision that whatever it was took longer than it should have。

It was no better having been delayed and there might have been some costs and ask yourself。

what slowed that decision down？ What were the hidden causes and often anticipating what you're thinking right now？

There might have been too many people that had to sign off。

Some people maybe were fearful of making a decision because they anticipated they'd get。

cut off at the knees if they made it wrong。 All these are part of the human tableau。

These are factors we need as a manager to be cognizant of and then work around。

Maybe to make the point more directly， I have a photograph here of John Chambers who for。

20 years ran Cisco Systems， the maker of the hardware of the internet。

We all have had our digital messages go down something that John Chambers and his large。

company of more than 30，000 people these days have made for wherever we work， the hardware。

the backbone of the internet。 I encountered John Chambers at an event a couple years ago。

He stepped down now but he was chief executive then of the Silicon Valley high tech company。

Cisco Systems。 And I said， "John， all my academic colleagues say you're great at making good and timely。

decisions when it comes to acquisitions。 Cisco has grown to use the parlance here partly inorganically。

That is through acquisitions， partly organically just by adding more customers and more revenue。

to existing products。 On the inorganic side though。

John Chambers has an enviable record of picking winners， and avoiding losers。

Hard to do when it comes to mergers and acquisitions。 His hit rate is way above average。

Back to my question， John， what's the secret of your success in making these very difficult。

decisions in a changing market where cycle time is getting shorter？

And he said， "Well actually one of my secrets was a person's hand。

He right next to me， right next to him at the time， Larry Carter， chief financial officer， of Cisco。

"， And I said， "Oh， that's great。 So tell me why Larry Carter， how is he your secret weapon？"。

John Chambers explained it as follows。 He said， "Larry Carter， chief financial officer。

he knows this place as well as I do when it， comes to understanding what destroys value or what adds value。

But equally， when I turn to him for advice and I do turn to him for informal， offline。

consulting before I make the final judgment call on a tough $3 billion acquisition， I。

know that when he gives me advice it's coming with a certain authenticity， a certain credibility。

because he doesn't want my job。"。

And I actually had to say， "John， I don't understand the point。 I'd like you to work on the point。"。

And here's what John said in response to my question， "Well， what were you saying with。

that？"， He said， "Human nature being human nature。

people are sworn to uphold the purpose or the mission， of the enterprise， of course。

But sometimes hidden agendas， sometimes even unconscious bias can cloud their judgment。

And since he didn't want my job， I knew almost by definition， no chance would he give me。

a answer that maybe was not a great answer， anticipating if I faltered he might get my。

job。 And with that being said， began to look around for evidence that backed that up， came on a。

great study by a faculty member at Stanford University， Kathleen Eisenhart。

And here on the left side of the screen that you can see is what she discovered at a group。

of companies in Silicon Valley that she looked at that were quick to get products out into。

the market。 And then she compared the fast tribe， just to use that phrase， to a slow tribe， other。

companies， very similar in scale， very similar in product that took twice as long typically。

to get a product out。 It was no better。 It just took twice as long。 So fast versus slow。

And then she asked， "Well， what's the difference between the fast movers and the people who。

are relatively slower by comparison？"， All pretty fast， of course， after all， at Silicon Valley。

The fast movers she found， look at the red there that has highlighted one point， are。

the companies that have， like John Chambers， an inside experienced counselor， somebody。

who is able to give unbiased， non-self-serving advice。

Let's make that more affirmative in the form of a management suggestion。

Good to have somebody close to you， maybe a person who used to have your job， who's willing。

to sit with you and just think out loud about a decision you're going to， you're facing and。

you have to make。 And that's a way of saying that as we begin to solve the problem that John Chambers reminded。

us of， that having a counselor inside， maybe outside a good idea， take a look at the first。

bullet at the top of that list。 I'm not going to go through them all。

Just want to get your attention to that。 And that is， "Collect active real-time data。"。

Don't send somebody out to bring data back three weeks from now。 I said， "Look， we need it now。

We want it today。"， That's， again， one of the findings on that particular fast versus low comparison。

Like you had to hang onto those five factors there。 Just take a look at them。

I'm going to ask you to apply them in a minute。

And now I'm going to add information on decision-making or really guidance on decision-making。

from the U。S。 Marine Corps。 U。S。 Marine Corps， I think we all know what his charter is。

is to get in， get the job， done， and get out。 And to appreciate that for more than a decade now。

we take our MBA students down about， 190 total in the course of a year for a day and a half with the U。

S。 Marine Corps on timely， and good decision-making。

We wanted to know how does the Marine Corps think about that， how do they instruct in。

that？ The topic we're focusing on right now。 Four answers emerged as they're conveyed to our students。

You can see the photographs here that have our MBA students looking at in the center photograph。

for example， at a marine instructor。 And the marine instructors are saying the following。

Four key points。 Add these to what we had on that prior slide with five key points。 Number one。

instructors know， sorry， marine officers are instructed to know to make a。

decision in the field with 70% of the information you need， 70% confidence， 70% consensus。

Now it's a metaphor。 Keep that in mind。 But the key point is it's more than 50%。

Ideas don't shoot from the hip。 That's timely but not good。 Conversely。

don't wait for 99% certainty that you have all the data because somebody else。

is going to be on the high ground before you get there physically， literally。

And thinking just now is a metaphor。 70% get analysis done， gather data， build agreement。

but don't wait for perfect agreement， or perfect data。 Number two。

a separate but really important point。 A manager needs to learn or a marine officer needs to learn to convey what a marine would。

call commander's intent， what in business or other organizations we tend to call strategic， intent。

Here's what I want， says you the manager to people around you and then don't try to。

micromanage what they do。 Leave your subordinates to work out the detail。

There's a phrase that captures that point。 I think it's a great phrase。 Eyes on， hands off。

That leads to the third point， again， a kind of formulation for making good and timely。

decisions which is to develop a tolerance， even a round of applause for the people that。

work for you when they make a mistake the first time。

They're going to make mistakes because 70% means they don't have perfect understanding。

of the situation。 And you've told them what your intent is and then you've not told them how to do it。

you're better than they are by definition as their manager。

So they're going to have to learn by making mistakes， by learning， by doing。 And the statement is。

it's a great statement from the Marine Corps and many organizations。

that Peter Capel and I work with is that you have to develop a tolerance for first time。

mistakes and after action review to come back on what happened， how can we make certain。

it does not happen again。 And of course， no tolerance for the same kind of mistake made a second time。

And I love the phrase， indecisiveness is a fatal flaw。

For the US Marine Corps that has a certain literal meaning in combat areas in organizations。

that we're talking about today， take that as a metaphor and maybe just to sum it up。

I'm going to offer up a statement that probably describes a certain number of you listening。

And that is， if you work for a boss who just couldn't get a decision made， couldn't get。

paper off her or his desk， it started going nuts。 You knew decisions had to get made and an indecisive manager can be failed for their。

career， it can be fatal for their career， it can be very detrimental for the organization。

Keep those four points from the US Marine Corps in mind。

Keep the five points on the left hand side of the information from Silicon Valley in mind。

Keep in mind what John Chambers said about having somebody close to you to whom you can。

turn for guidance。 I'm going to ask you to calculate the cost。

the jewelers total lost with the information， in front of you。 Take 60 seconds。

be mindful of those factors。 The whole point of this course is to put some factors in the back of our head we can。

apply。 Take 60 seconds。 I'm going to ask you what your answer is。

write it down on a piece of paper in front of， you。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。

沃顿商学院《商务基础》｜Business Foundations Specialization｜（中英字幕） - P92：15_做出及时而明智的决定.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1R34y1c74c

Now that you've had a chance to give very quick thought， our topic here is good and timely。

On this particular decision， I know from prior experience that some of you have written down。

$39。 A few of you have $22。 Others， other rooms have $83。

Remember at $161， and I know from prior experience， they're probably at least if we put 25 people。

in a room together， there are at least seven or eight different answers。 That's a statement。

by the way。

This is a very tough problem。 But if we now took the next step going back to， let's say。

John Chambers and the work。

of Kathy Eisenhart， we have made our own decision。 We've written down the answer。

but at this point we haven't communicated。 We haven't talked with a trusted advisor， a counselor。

So what I would do， we're not going to do it here， but what I ordinarily would do， I'd。

recommend in your office that you do this later today， is before you make the final concluding。

judgment call， turn to somebody else whose advice you know is informed and you trust。

and try this out with them。

And we do that in a room pretty quickly。 Discussion explodes as these people， for example， at $61。

wants to know from the $39， or maybe， from the $161， why the others are wrong in the room。

But in the process of that consultation， the discussion you're thinking will evolve。

And let me bring in that， I labeled it strategic intent， commander's intent factor as well。

As we look at this problem here， my guess is sitting in your office looking at this here。

some of you probably did wonder， should I take into account a bad check fee， or maybe。

opportunity costs？ Or what about reputational damage？ And a question back to you is。

should those be in your thinking or out of your thinking？

And since I didn't make that clear at the outset， I have failed to be clear in my strategic， intent。

which makes it tougher for you to make this decision。

I should have been clear， I'll be clear now， take everything out aside from just cash in。

and cash out。 No reputational damage， nothing else。 And then finally， my strategic intent。

not yet fully clarified， here's my final clarification。 If we had time。

I would have you get into a room with people， share your answers， talk， them back and forth。

And then I'm going to say， my purpose in this exercise， my intent was not that you get the。

right answer。 It felt that way， but actually that was not my intent。 My intent was that you。

the people in the room collectively， jointly， have the right， answer。

And all we needed is 70% to go back on that Marine Corps provision to call it a， call it。

quits once we get to 70% agreement， we're done。 And with that statement that the objective。

the intent is for not for you to be right， but for the organization， the community group。

the company， the hospital， the university that， you may be managing， to be right， I've noticed that。

call it human behavior in the room， it。

materially changes。 Up until that point， people are kind of taking their own counsel。

kind of puzzling through。

their own thinking。 As soon as I say， my intent is for you collectively or at least 70% to have the right answer。

then， people begin to step forward， people will go to a blackboard or a whiteboard， begin to。

track it through。 With that being said， as you look at the answer that you have written down。

just keep that， in mind。 And now I'm going to walk us through what is， quote， the right answer。

This is such a tough problem that we decided to adjudicate， decide what is the right answer。

by asking professionals who do this for a living to take a look at the problem and give。

it their best shot。 Thus we arranged for 30 certified public accountants。

people who look at cash in and cash out， of companies and organizations through their career。

To take a look at this problem， we gave them one minute to write down their best shot， the。

30 people working individually。 And at the end of that 60 seconds。

there were 13 different answers in the room， believe it。

or not。

Some were at 22， somebody a couple were at 39， others at 61， some were at 161， one said， zero。

one said more than 200。 Now we might take that to be a criticism of the profession that there's disagreement among。

professionals， but we gave them a few more minutes to work this through now collectively。

And they actually sat and began to cross talk。 I encourage people who didn't agree with others in the room to spend time talking across the。

room。 We also made it clear that the agenda here was for the 30 CPAs to have the right answer。

not just individually to have reached a tentative conclusion。

And with that additional time with strategic intent made clear with discussions among other。

people， in a sense， metaphorically trusted counselors， the certified public accountants。

after about five or six minutes， they did say in their professional judgment， the correct。

answer is $61。 Very briefly， $39 out to buy the necklace， $22 in change。

the jewelry received $100 from。

the neighbor， returned $100， put those four numbers together， and it's a $61 loss。

Now with that， all this is meant to drive home the five points from the work in Silicon。

Valley comparing fast and slower moving， in this case firms in the software industry。

Keep in mind those four concepts out of the US Marine Corps。

Keep in mind what John Chambers said just to amplify that point of having a trusted counselor。

Several of those factors， not all， but several of those factors we've seen at work here to。

sum this up once I've clarified strategic intent in several different ways。

That's an important idea。 That was number two on that Marine Corps list。

And once we talk with others in a room in whom we have a lot of trust and faith and confidence。

and one strategic intent that it's not an individual outcome we want but a we want something。

that's going to benefit the organization， be optimal for the organization， then predictably。

groups like I just described will end up almost always at $61。

Most people aren't that when they look at it individually。

Most call it a team if there's cross collaboration here。 Most cross collaborating teams。

good people in a room do end up at $61。 Kind of a confidence builder that these factors for the Marine Corps in the Valley。

Silicon。

Valley and for John Chambers indeed are practical and in fact impactful。

[BLANK_AUDIO]。