隨著杰夫·伊梅爾特即將離職，由約翰·弗蘭納里接任通用電氣（GE）首席執(zhí)行官的消息傳出，許多人都在問：伊梅爾特的離開對通用電氣的表現(xiàn)而言意味著什么？公司在股價萎靡16年之后，是否能重振雄風(fēng)？很多人似乎都如此認為。

高管辦公室的巨大變動會對公司的表現(xiàn)帶來怎樣的影響？證據(jù)魚龍混雜，不過那些最嚴謹?shù)难芯堪l(fā)現(xiàn)了一些有趣的模式。意料之中的是，結(jié)果并不簡單。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力總是與情境相關(guān)的，而繼任后事情的進展也取決于許多因素。管理學(xué)的學(xué)者們傾向于關(guān)注兩大變量：企業(yè)是否處于危機之中，明顯需要改變方向；新領(lǐng)袖是來自外部還是從內(nèi)部提拔。

根據(jù)這些研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)，通用電氣做出的選擇似乎能在如今狀況下產(chǎn)生最佳效果。當(dāng)公司不需要在戰(zhàn)略和/或運營上進行徹底改變時，聘用內(nèi)部的候選者會帶來最好的業(yè)績。如果新任首席執(zhí)行官與前任首席執(zhí)行官共事過，這種內(nèi)部人員的優(yōu)勢則會被放到最大。弗蘭納里就屬于這種情況。（詳見張燕和南迪尼·拉賈戈帕蘭關(guān)于首席執(zhí)行官繼任的研究。）不過，這類情況下的增長往往不夠明顯，主要也集中在股東回報上。（拉克什·庫拉納和尼汀·諾瑞亞的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，平均來看，資產(chǎn)收益率實際上并沒有提升。）

不過另一種途徑可以更清楚地展望弗蘭納里的繼任前景。那就是考慮通用電氣最迫切地需要實現(xiàn)什么，要如何實現(xiàn)它，而弗蘭納里是否是實現(xiàn)它的合適人選。

顯然，通用電氣需要的是增長。盡管并購是實現(xiàn)增長的一種方式，但讓公司變得更具創(chuàng)新能力是一種更好的辦法。幾十年來，我的研究議題都專注于搞清為什么一些領(lǐng)袖可以做到這一點。隨著時間的推移，我注意到快速增長的公司的領(lǐng)袖傾向于參與和鼓勵提問題，無論是在質(zhì)量還是數(shù)量上。這很有道理，考慮到具有重大影響力的創(chuàng)新往往來源于靈光一現(xiàn)，這些突破幾乎也都可以回溯到某些人試圖重新構(gòu)造他們希望解決的問題。提出更好的問題，可能就會開辟出一條尋找更好答案的全新道路。

首席執(zhí)行官本人不一定要提出所有更好的問題（更不用說想出所有的答案）。實際上，更棒的辦法是創(chuàng)造條件讓其他人提出具有挑戰(zhàn)性的問題，并仔細傾聽其中可能會帶來促進作用，甚至改變格局的問題。弗蘭納里顯示了擅長于此的跡象。在發(fā)表聲明后的首次采訪上，他強調(diào)自己首先會了解公司的各個業(yè)務(wù)，聽聽員工想要告訴他的事情。

弗蘭納里在通用電氣工作期間，有著在美國國外工作的豐富經(jīng)歷，這也符合我對于首席執(zhí)行官國際經(jīng)驗和公司業(yè)績的研究。平均來看，首席執(zhí)行官大量的海外經(jīng)歷，會讓公司的股價表現(xiàn)提高3%至4%。對于這一發(fā)現(xiàn)，我的解釋是這些高管浸入式體驗了不同的文化，他們學(xué)會了從多種角度看待問題。他們會意識到自己（和其他人）的設(shè)想可以被更有成效地挑戰(zhàn)，因此他們是更好的決策者。

當(dāng)我與杰夫·戴亞、克雷·克里斯坦森為《創(chuàng)新者的DNA》（The Innovator’s DNA）一書分析采訪、研究案例時，發(fā)現(xiàn)有證據(jù)顯示，在多個行業(yè)和/或地點工作過的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，更有可能問出有益于提高生產(chǎn)力的問題，也就是說，這些問題會鼓勵人們進行最好的思考，而不是讓他們防御性地擠出一些具有價值的新點子。其他人的研究則凸顯了“視角選取”在尋找新穎解決方案上的重要性——而海外工作經(jīng)驗豐富的人往往會擁有這項技能。

簡而言之，根據(jù)我從弗蘭納里話語和工作中收集的信息，把他歸類為“典型的公司人”似乎是錯誤的。他職業(yè)生涯大部分時間都遠離總部，待過公司的許多部門，所以我們可以對他有更多的期待。

十年前，哈佛商學(xué)院（Harvard Business School）的喬·鮑爾出版了《內(nèi)部的CEO》（The CEO Within）一書，其中以研究為基礎(chǔ)，闡述了他說的“內(nèi)部局外人型”領(lǐng)袖。這些高管在公司內(nèi)部成長起來，因此知道如何搞定工作，但他們又有能力以局外人的眼光審視問題——例如，作為剛剛收購公司的一方。鮑爾總結(jié)道，內(nèi)部的局外人可以帶領(lǐng)公司取得更好的表現(xiàn)。他們干得不錯的原因之一，在于他們會問出基本的問題，并營造出空間讓基本的推測得到反復(fù)檢查。

在接下來幾個月里，許多人都會密切關(guān)注弗蘭納里的做法，我也一樣。考慮到他的國際經(jīng)歷，以上就是我的推測。其他人可能會迫不及待地看看他給通用電氣提供的答案，而我則會聽聽他對公司提出的問題。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

本文作者赫爾·葛瑞格森是麻省理工學(xué)院領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力中心（MIT Leadership Center）的常務(wù)董事，以及麻省理工學(xué)院斯隆管理學(xué)院（Sloan School of Management）領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力和創(chuàng)新專業(yè)的高級講師。他還撰寫了著作《打破CEO泡沫》和《創(chuàng)新者的DNA：掌握顛覆式創(chuàng)新者的五項技能》。

譯者：嚴匡正

With the news this week that Jeff Immelt is stepping down as CEO of GE (ge) and John Flannery is stepping up to the job, plenty of people are asking: What will Immelt’s departure mean for GE’s performance? After 16 years of stock-price malaise, will the company get energized again? Many seem to think so.

The evidence is mixed on how effective a big change in the corner office is to company performance, but some interesting patterns emerge from the most rigorously conducted studies. Unsurprisingly, there is no simple answer. Leadership is always contextual, and how things go in the aftermath of a succession depends on multiple factors. Management scholars have tended to focus on two big variables: whether the business was in crisis, obviously needing a change of direction; and whether the new leader was recruited from the outside vs. promoted from within.

Based on these studies’ findings, GE appears to have done what tends to work best in its situation. Internal candidate appointments generally deliver the greatest performance gains when a company does not need radical change in its strategy and/or operations. The insider edge is sharpest when the new CEO has spent time working directly with the past CEO, as Flannery certainly has. (See Yan Zhang and Nandini Rajagopalan’s research on “relay” CEO successions.) Yet gains in such situations are usually modest and centered on shareholder returns. (Indeed, researchers Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria found, on average, no improvement in return on assets.)

There is a second way, however, to see Flannery’s prospects more clearly, and that is to think about what in particular GE needs to achieve, what it takes to achieve that, and whether Flannery is the right person to make it happen.

What GE needs, clearly, is growth. And while acquisitions provide one way to achieve that, turning the company into more of an innovation engine is an even better path to follow. For decades, my own research agenda has focused on figuring out how some leaders do just that. Over the years, I’ve noticed that leaders in fast-growing companies tend to engage in and encourage a higher level of questioning—both in terms of quantity and quality. This makes sense, given that high-impact innovation always proceeds from some flash of insight—and it is almost always possible to trace these breakthroughs back to someone’s reframing of a problem they are trying to solve. Asking a better question can unlock a whole new pathway to finding a better answer.

The CEO doesn’t personally have to come up with all of the better questions (let alone all of the answers). In fact, it’s far better to create the conditions where others give voice to assumption-challenging questions—and to listen carefully for the ones that might prove catalytic, even game-changing. Flannery shows signs of being capable of this. In his first interviews post-announcement, he has stressed that he will start by getting out to the far reaches of his organization, and listening to what people have to tell him.

Flannery’s background at GE, rich in assignments outside of the United States, also resonates with research I’ve done on CEO international experience and firm performance. On average, substantial international experience in a CEO’s career correlates with 3% to 4% higher share performance. My interpretation of that finding is that these executives have learned through their immersions in different cultures to look at issues from multiple perspectives. They recognize that their (and others’) assumptions can be productively challenged, and are, as a result, better decision-makers.

When Jeff Dyer, Clay Christensen, and I analyzed interviews and case studies for The Innovator’s DNA, we found evidence suggesting that leaders who have worked in multiple industries and/or geographies are twice as likely to ask generative questions—that is, the kind that invite people’s best thinking rather than put them on the defensive, and manage to elicit valuable new ideas. Research by others highlights the importance of “perspective taking” in any attempt to find a novel new solution—and that is a skill one often gains as an expat.

In short, based on what I gather from Flannery’s words and work, it seems wrong to pigeonhole him as “the quintessential company man.” He has spent much of his career working far away from headquarters, and been part of many different units at the company, so we can hope for something more.

A decade ago, Joe Bower of Harvard Business School published The CEO Within, which made a research-based case for what he called the “inside-outside” leader. These executives grow up in a company and therefore know how to get things done in it, yet they have also acquired the capacity to look at it with the eyes of an outsider—say, as a party who just acquired the company. Inside outsiders, Bower concludes, lead their companies to higher performance. One reason they do so well is that they ask basic questions, and create the space for basic assumptions to be reexamined.

In months to come, as plenty of people keep close watch on what Flannery is doing, this is what I’ll be looking for. And given his international experience, it’s what I’ll be expecting. Others will be anxious to see what answers he has for GE, but I’ll start by listening for the questions.

Hal Gregersen is executive director of the MIT Leadership Center and a senior lecturer in leadership and innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is the author of Bursting the CEO Bubble and The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators.