魅力型領袖已經過時了嗎

It used to be that calling someone a “good manager” was to damn with faint praise. But we may have had a surfeit of charisma and be ready for some nuts-and-bolts leadership.

過去說某人是個“好經理”其實是明褒暗貶。但我們或許已經見過太多的魅力型領袖，現在我們期待有一些腳踏實地的領導者。

Sanofi’s Chris Viehbacher is the latest larger-than-life chief executive to be ousted by his board for a direct, go-it-alone style and spotty execution. Fund manager Pimco quickly disassociated itself from “bond king” Bill Gross’s temperamental leadership style after his departure, with a marketing campaign that highlights a reasoned, team-centric approach.

賽諾菲(Sanofi)的魏巴赫(Chris Viehbacher)成爲因管理直率、喜歡單幹以及執行力存在瑕疵而被董事會罷免的最新一位魅力型首席執行官。基金管理公司太平洋投資管理公司(PIMCO)在“債券之王”比爾•格羅斯(Bill Gross)離職後，也迅速放棄了格羅斯的喜怒無常的領導風格，並推行一種注重理性、以團隊爲核心的市場營銷策略。

Perhaps more tellingly, 24 of Harvard Business Review’s latest list of the world’s 100 best-performing CEOs have degrees in engineering. Nitin Nohria, dean of Harvard Business School, comments in an accompanying article that an engineering background signals practicality and pragmatism: “Engineering is about what works, and it breeds in you an ethos of building things that work – whether it’s a machine or a structure or an organisation.” Ultimately, he concludes: “It makes you think about costs versus performance.”

或許更能說明問題的是，在《哈佛商業評論》(Harvard Business Review)最新出爐的世界前100位最佳CEO的榜單上，24人獲得過工程學學位。哈佛商學院院長尼廷•諾里亞(Nitin Nohria)在榜單附文中評論，工程學背景意味着實用性和務實性。“工程學與實用性有關，它能培育一種建造實用事物的氛圍，無論是機器、架構還是組織。”最後，他總結道：“它讓你考慮成本與效益的關係。”

Spencer Stuart headhunter James Citrin adds that engineers “excel at ‘architectural thinking’ and logical problem solving”. So much for visionary rhetoric.

史賓沙管理顧問公司(Spencer Stuart)的獵頭詹姆士•西特林(James Citrin)補充稱，工程師“擅長‘架構性思維’和解決邏輯問題。”我們聽過太多關於未來的豪言壯語了。

Ideas on leadership tend to change over time, and the pendulum seems to be swinging away from egocentric, inspirational stagecraft toward steady, competent execution. New Intel CEO Brian Krzanich’s roots in engineering initially worried some investors who wondered whether he had the necessary oomph. He has since emerged as a practical leader with a shrewd approach that is steadily repositioning the company to compete in a post-PC world. Google’s famous experiment in manager-free organisation was not only shortlived, but paved the way for a talent management system designed to rely more on procedure than instinct.

關於領導力的看法往往會隨着時間改變，而這一次，鐘擺似乎從以自我爲中心、鼓舞人心的表演型領導者轉向了穩重能幹的執行者。在英特爾(Intel)新任CEO布萊恩•克蘭尼克(Brian Krzanich)上任之初，一些投資者擔心工程學專業出身的他是否具備必不可少的領袖魅力。克蘭尼克後來成了一個務實的領導者，實施了明智的策略，平穩地調整了公司在後PC時代的競爭定位。谷歌(Google)進行的著名管理實驗——“無經理組織”不僅曇花一現，而且還爲一種更依賴程序而非直覺的人才管理體制鋪平了道路。

From the start of the 20th century, scholars toiled to identify universal personal traits of successful leaders – the “great man” theories. But no such characteristics were found. It was not until the 1960s that “situational leadership”, the notion that different kinds of organisations and business environments need different kinds of executives, took hold. Big manufacturers, the theory held, were best led by command and control and small, knowledge organisations, by collegial collaboration.

從20世紀初開始，學者們一直不辭辛苦地界定成功領導者共有的個性特徵——也就是“偉人”理論。但他們沒能找到這種特質。直到20世紀60年代，“情境型領導力”的觀念才站穩了腳跟，即不同類型的組織和企業環境需要不同類型的管理者。該理論認爲，大型製造企業最好依靠命令和控制來管理，而小型知識型組織最好依靠合議和協作進行管理。

In the 1990s, as organisations became more complex and executives job-hopped with increasing frequency, attention again turned away from context and back to the individual. We developed the distinction between “managers” and “leaders” – one succeeding on efficiency of process and procedure, the other leading the charge to change them.

到20世紀90年代，隨着組織變得越來越複雜，高管跳槽也日益頻繁，關注點又從情境轉回到個人身上。我們對“管理者”和“領導者”進行了區分——前者擅長有效執行流程和程序，而後者則負責調整這些流程和程序。

Aspiring leaders got the message that it was best for their career to shun the “boring” manager role. When Jean-Francois Manzoni, faculty director of a leadership course for senior executives at Insead, asked how they allocated their time, he found they spent most of it “doing” and “mobilising people” (as visionaries are wont to do), much less on “strategising” and even less on “architecting” processes and structures.

有抱負的領導者認識到，避免“無聊”的管理者角色最有利於他們的職業生涯。歐洲工商管理學院(INSEAD)負責領導力高管課程的系主任讓-弗朗索瓦•曼佐尼(Jean-Francois Manzoni)曾詢問高管們如何分配時間，結果發現這些高管花了絕大部分時間“做事”和“鼓舞人心”(遠見者傾向於做這些事情)，他們花在“制定戰略”上的時間較少，花在“構建”流程和架構上的時間就更少了。

In 2011, inspired by a scene in the film Amadeus, when a charismatic Mozart dazzles an audience by composing a sonata on the spot that is better than his rival Salieri’s piece, researchers Maia Young, Michael Morris, and Vicki Scherwin set out to find the sources of managers’ mystique. In a study published in the Journal of Management, they found that people attribute “mystical” qualities to managers when they seem to succeed effortlessly, thanks to extraordinary personal qualities. Managers who were seen as visionary attracted a greater following because people wanted to be associated with them. Those whose success seemed to derive from visible causes, such as long hours, careful analysis or deliberate procedure, attracted fewer followers.

電影《莫扎特傳》(Amadeus)中有這樣一個場景，富有非凡魅力的莫扎特(Mozart)現場譜了一曲讓觀衆心醉神迷、令對手薩列裏(Salieri)相形見絀的奏鳴曲。2011年，受此啓發，研究者馬婭•揚(Maia Young)、邁克爾•莫里斯(Michael Morris)和維基•謝爾溫(Vicki Scherwin)開始着手研究人們爲何對管理者感到神祕。他們在發表於《管理學期刊》(Journal of Management)上的研究報告中指出，人們認爲那些憑藉非凡的個人品質、似乎不費吹灰之力就能取得成功的管理者具有某種“神祕的”品質。被視爲具有遠見卓識的管理者能吸引更多追隨者，是因爲人們想要和他們關聯在一起。而那些似乎依靠可見手段，比如長時間工作、仔細分析或者採取審慎程序而成功的人吸引的追隨者較少。

It seems that many leaders now want to leave the hands-on management work to others, preferring to convey their authenticity instead of rolling up their sleeves to transform antiquated company structures. But, as the Pimco and Sanofi changes remind us, the time may have come to recognise the value of efficient systems and robust controls rather than inspirational messaging.

現在有許多領導者似乎想把需要親力親爲的管理工作留給別人，自己更喜歡傳達正確性，而不是捲起袖子改變業已過時的公司架構。但是，正如賽諾菲和太平洋投資管理公司的變革提醒的那樣，現在有必要認識到，高效體系和穩健控制比提出鼓舞人心的願景更有價值。