2014年2月,薩提亞·納德拉接任科技巨頭微軟首席執(zhí)行官時,面對的是令人感到非常不快的企業(yè)文化。微軟創(chuàng)始人比爾·蓋茨以痛斥員工聞名,其繼任者史蒂夫·鮑爾默則延續(xù)了合伙人厭惡的強硬經(jīng)營策略。當(dāng)時,微軟已經(jīng)輸?shù)袅酥悄苁謾C大戰(zhàn),而微軟技術(shù)構(gòu)建的技術(shù)平臺“桌面”正讓位于云計算。
正如我在本人著作《從逐步增長到指數(shù)級增長》中解釋的那樣,鮑爾默繼任者納德拉首先把重點放在改變微軟文化上。作為在印度出生的佛教徒,納德拉決心把公司“無所不知”的世界觀轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤盁o所不學(xué)”的求知欲;同時明確表示,過去那種咄咄逼人的行為不再受歡迎。納德拉對高管會議上生氣或叫喊零容忍,從來沒有對員工或高管提高聲音或表達明顯的憤怒,從未寫過怒氣沖天的電子郵件,不斷努力營造更加舒適的環(huán)境。
隨著文化轉(zhuǎn)變及其帶來的戰(zhàn)略改變,微軟市值從納德拉上任時的3000億美元左右增長到如今的2.5萬億美元,成為了全球兩大最有價值的公司之一。
桑達爾·皮查伊接手谷歌時,同樣面臨企業(yè)文化問題。谷歌以放任的職場文化著稱,高管與員工之間發(fā)生性關(guān)系引發(fā)公司內(nèi)部緊張局面。皮查伊掌舵期間,以溫和而謙遜的印度方式,引導(dǎo)公司駛往平靜水域。他取得了非凡的成就,可與其他科技公司印度首席執(zhí)行官(Adobe的山塔努·納拉延和Arista Networks的雅什利·烏拉爾)相媲美。技術(shù)行業(yè)以外,百事公司的盧英德和萬事達的阿杰伊·班加等印度出生的首席執(zhí)行官也大獲成功。
但公司的高級職位怎么會考慮聘用印度人?印度人成為科技公司創(chuàng)始人的成功原因何在?
1980年,我來到美國,親眼目睹了硅谷領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的演變;在此期間,創(chuàng)立了兩家科技公司,其中一家上市。后來,在美國杜克大學(xué),我研究了像我這樣的印度人擁有優(yōu)勢的原因。
根據(jù)美國加利福尼亞大學(xué)伯克利分校安納李·薩克森尼安教授的一項研究,截至1999年,移民占硅谷科研和工程員工的三分之一,印度首席執(zhí)行官負責(zé)經(jīng)營硅谷7%的高科技公司。2006年,我的研究團隊與薩克森尼安合作,以更新她之前的研究。結(jié)果顯示,硅谷科技公司中,移民創(chuàng)建的初創(chuàng)公司占比已上升至52.4%,其中印度出生高管創(chuàng)建的占15.5%——盡管他們只占硅谷員工人數(shù)的6%。
我們發(fā)現(xiàn),投身工程技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的移民創(chuàng)業(yè)者中,96%擁有學(xué)士學(xué)位,74%擁有碩士或博士學(xué)位。在這個群體內(nèi),印度創(chuàng)業(yè)者曾在不同的大學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)過,其中僅15%的創(chuàng)始人畢業(yè)于名校印度理工學(xué)院。
文化,跟教育背景一樣,也是關(guān)鍵因素
毫無疑問,教育賦予了印度人優(yōu)勢。但這并不能解釋為什么微軟、谷歌、IBM和推特等公司董事會選擇美國以外出生的技術(shù)專家,而不是具備同樣資歷的美國人。答案可能與文化價值、家庭熏陶和奮斗經(jīng)歷有關(guān)。
在印度這個超過10億人口的國度上,大多數(shù)人被腐敗猖獗、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施薄弱和有限的機會所阻礙,光是生存都要付出很多,更不用說出人頭地。印度人學(xué)會了適應(yīng),克服重重障礙,充分利用手邊的一切資源;面對不公正的國家和社會給自己帶來的各種問題,也學(xué)會了變通解決之道。對印度人來說,企業(yè)家精神以及應(yīng)對阻礙所需的創(chuàng)意與謀劃,本來就是生活的一部分。
在缺乏社會保障制度的情況下,家庭價值觀和支持最重要。家庭扮演著關(guān)鍵角色,家人為需要幫助的人提供了各種幫助與指導(dǎo)。
跟全世界的人一樣,印度人有很多種族、人種、性別與種姓歧視。但為了取得成功,印度人學(xué)會了有必要時忽視或適應(yīng)這些偏見。在印度,有六大宗教;印度憲法承認(rèn)22種方言;每個區(qū)域都有自己的風(fēng)俗和特色,人們接納看法與信仰的不同,特別是在商業(yè)環(huán)境中。
另一個因素源自移居到新國家的謙卑。跟幾乎任何一位移民交談,不管他來自哪里,都會分享如何放棄在祖國的社會地位、如何在遷入地從底層一路往上爬的經(jīng)歷。這是個謙卑的過程;從零開始、努力走向成功的道路上,你會得到很多有價值的經(jīng)驗教訓(xùn)。
以上種種都是任何董事會認(rèn)可的特質(zhì)以及價值觀,特別在其他候選人擔(dān)任傲慢的公司創(chuàng)始人、認(rèn)為自己有資格勝任工作時。正是以上特質(zhì)使印度首席執(zhí)行官有能力改變公司文化;在我看來,也賦予了印度首席執(zhí)行官優(yōu)勢。
這也可能是推特董事會一致通過杰克·多西推薦印度出生的帕拉格·阿格拉瓦爾接替其工作的原因。或許此舉恰恰能引發(fā)推特亟需的一場文化轉(zhuǎn)變。
由于企業(yè)文化令人感到非常不快、對平臺濫用反應(yīng)遲鈍,推特已經(jīng)收到連珠炮似的合理批評。另外,杰克·多西只是兼職首席執(zhí)行官,還負責(zé)管理支付公司Square并支持區(qū)塊鏈和加密數(shù)字貨幣業(yè)務(wù)。有一次,我注意到推特大男子主義和全男性董事會有問題,與多西的前任迪克·科斯特羅起過爭執(zhí)。跟很多科技公司首席執(zhí)行官的做法一樣,科斯特羅的反應(yīng)是公開抨擊我,而不是聽取意見。
任何一位我認(rèn)識的印度首席執(zhí)行官不會如此回應(yīng),這也是他們正在被選為美國領(lǐng)先科技公司管理者的原因。(財富中文網(wǎng))
維韋克·瓦德瓦是《從逐步增長到指數(shù)級增長:大公司如何設(shè)想未來并重新思考創(chuàng)新》的合著者。這本新書探討的是公司如何在這個迅速變化的時代蓬勃發(fā)展。
譯者:夏晴
2014年2月,薩提亞·納德拉接任科技巨頭微軟首席執(zhí)行官時,面對的是令人感到非常不快的企業(yè)文化。微軟創(chuàng)始人比爾·蓋茨以痛斥員工聞名,其繼任者史蒂夫·鮑爾默則延續(xù)了合伙人厭惡的強硬經(jīng)營策略。當(dāng)時,微軟已經(jīng)輸?shù)袅酥悄苁謾C大戰(zhàn),而微軟技術(shù)構(gòu)建的技術(shù)平臺“桌面”正讓位于云計算。
正如我在本人著作《從逐步增長到指數(shù)級增長》中解釋的那樣,鮑爾默繼任者納德拉首先把重點放在改變微軟文化上。作為在印度出生的佛教徒,納德拉決心把公司“無所不知”的世界觀轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椤盁o所不學(xué)”的求知欲;同時明確表示,過去那種咄咄逼人的行為不再受歡迎。納德拉對高管會議上生氣或叫喊零容忍,從來沒有對員工或高管提高聲音或表達明顯的憤怒,從未寫過怒氣沖天的電子郵件,不斷努力營造更加舒適的環(huán)境。
隨著文化轉(zhuǎn)變及其帶來的戰(zhàn)略改變,微軟市值從納德拉上任時的3000億美元左右增長到如今的2.5萬億美元,成為了全球兩大最有價值的公司之一。
桑達爾·皮查伊接手谷歌時,同樣面臨企業(yè)文化問題。谷歌以放任的職場文化著稱,高管與員工之間發(fā)生性關(guān)系引發(fā)公司內(nèi)部緊張局面。皮查伊掌舵期間,以溫和而謙遜的印度方式,引導(dǎo)公司駛往平靜水域。他取得了非凡的成就,可與其他科技公司印度首席執(zhí)行官(Adobe的山塔努·納拉延和Arista Networks的雅什利·烏拉爾)相媲美。技術(shù)行業(yè)以外,百事公司的盧英德和萬事達的阿杰伊·班加等印度出生的首席執(zhí)行官也大獲成功。
但公司的高級職位怎么會考慮聘用印度人?印度人成為科技公司創(chuàng)始人的成功原因何在?
1980年,我來到美國,親眼目睹了硅谷領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的演變;在此期間,創(chuàng)立了兩家科技公司,其中一家上市。后來,在美國杜克大學(xué),我研究了像我這樣的印度人擁有優(yōu)勢的原因。
根據(jù)美國加利福尼亞大學(xué)伯克利分校安納李·薩克森尼安教授的一項研究,截至1999年,移民占硅谷科研和工程員工的三分之一,印度首席執(zhí)行官負責(zé)經(jīng)營硅谷7%的高科技公司。2006年,我的研究團隊與薩克森尼安合作,以更新她之前的研究。結(jié)果顯示,硅谷科技公司中,移民創(chuàng)建的初創(chuàng)公司占比已上升至52.4%,其中印度出生高管創(chuàng)建的占15.5%——盡管他們只占硅谷員工人數(shù)的6%。
我們發(fā)現(xiàn),投身工程技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的移民創(chuàng)業(yè)者中,96%擁有學(xué)士學(xué)位,74%擁有碩士或博士學(xué)位。在這個群體內(nèi),印度創(chuàng)業(yè)者曾在不同的大學(xué)學(xué)習(xí)過,其中僅15%的創(chuàng)始人畢業(yè)于名校印度理工學(xué)院。
文化,跟教育背景一樣,也是關(guān)鍵因素
毫無疑問,教育賦予了印度人優(yōu)勢。但這并不能解釋為什么微軟、谷歌、IBM和推特等公司董事會選擇美國以外出生的技術(shù)專家,而不是具備同樣資歷的美國人。答案可能與文化價值、家庭熏陶和奮斗經(jīng)歷有關(guān)。
在印度這個超過10億人口的國度上,大多數(shù)人被腐敗猖獗、基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施薄弱和有限的機會所阻礙,光是生存都要付出很多,更不用說出人頭地。印度人學(xué)會了適應(yīng),克服重重障礙,充分利用手邊的一切資源;面對不公正的國家和社會給自己帶來的各種問題,也學(xué)會了變通解決之道。對印度人來說,企業(yè)家精神以及應(yīng)對阻礙所需的創(chuàng)意與謀劃,本來就是生活的一部分。
在缺乏社會保障制度的情況下,家庭價值觀和支持最重要。家庭扮演著關(guān)鍵角色,家人為需要幫助的人提供了各種幫助與指導(dǎo)。
跟全世界的人一樣,印度人有很多種族、人種、性別與種姓歧視。但為了取得成功,印度人學(xué)會了有必要時忽視或適應(yīng)這些偏見。在印度,有六大宗教;印度憲法承認(rèn)22種方言;每個區(qū)域都有自己的風(fēng)俗和特色,人們接納看法與信仰的不同,特別是在商業(yè)環(huán)境中。
另一個因素源自移居到新國家的謙卑。跟幾乎任何一位移民交談,不管他來自哪里,都會分享如何放棄在祖國的社會地位、如何在遷入地從底層一路往上爬的經(jīng)歷。這是個謙卑的過程;從零開始、努力走向成功的道路上,你會得到很多有價值的經(jīng)驗教訓(xùn)。
以上種種都是任何董事會認(rèn)可的特質(zhì)以及價值觀,特別在其他候選人擔(dān)任傲慢的公司創(chuàng)始人、認(rèn)為自己有資格勝任工作時。正是以上特質(zhì)使印度首席執(zhí)行官有能力改變公司文化;在我看來,也賦予了印度首席執(zhí)行官優(yōu)勢。
這也可能是推特董事會一致通過杰克·多西推薦印度出生的帕拉格·阿格拉瓦爾接替其工作的原因。或許此舉恰恰能引發(fā)推特亟需的一場文化轉(zhuǎn)變。
由于企業(yè)文化令人感到非常不快、對平臺濫用反應(yīng)遲鈍,推特已經(jīng)收到連珠炮似的合理批評。另外,杰克·多西只是兼職首席執(zhí)行官,還負責(zé)管理支付公司Square并支持區(qū)塊鏈和加密數(shù)字貨幣業(yè)務(wù)。有一次,我注意到推特大男子主義和全男性董事會有問題,與多西的前任迪克·科斯特羅起過爭執(zhí)。跟很多科技公司首席執(zhí)行官的做法一樣,科斯特羅的反應(yīng)是公開抨擊我,而不是聽取意見。
任何一位我認(rèn)識的印度首席執(zhí)行官不會如此回應(yīng),這也是他們正在被選為美國領(lǐng)先科技公司管理者的原因。(財富中文網(wǎng))
維韋克·瓦德瓦是《從逐步增長到指數(shù)級增長:大公司如何設(shè)想未來并重新思考創(chuàng)新》的合著者。這本新書探討的是公司如何在這個迅速變化的時代蓬勃發(fā)展。
譯者:夏晴
When Satya Nadella took over as CEO of Microsoft in February 2014, he inherited a toxic culture in a company considered a tech dinosaur. Bill Gates, its founder, had been known for berating employees, and Steve Ballmer, who succeeded Gates, continued the hardball business tactics that partners loathed. Microsoft had lost the battle for smartphones, and the technology platform its technologies were built for, the desktop, was giving way to the cloud.
As I explained in my book From Incremental to Exponential, Nadella chose to focus first on changing Microsoft’s culture. Indian by birth, and with Buddhist beliefs, he was determined to transform the company into one that embraced what he called “l(fā)earn-it-all” curiosity, in contrast to its then “know-it-all” worldview. And he made clear that the old, aggressive behaviors were no longer welcome. Refusing to tolerate anger or yelling in executive meetings, never raising his own voice or showing overt anger toward employees or executives, never writing angry emails, he constantly worked to create a more comfortable environment.
As a result of the cultural shift and the strategy changes it enabled, Microsoft’s market capitalization increased from roughly $300 billion at Nadella’s ascension to $2.5 trillion today, making it one of the two most valuable companies in the world.
Sundar Pichai, too, inherited a company with cultural problems. Google was known for having a permissive workplace culture, where sexual relationships between top executives and employees generated internal tensions. In his gentle, humble Indian manner, Pichai navigated the company into calmer waters. He attained extraordinary success—as did Indian tech CEOs such as Shantanu Narayen of Adobe and Jayshree Ullal of Arista Networks. Beyond the tech sector, other Indian-born CEOs too have left their mark, including Indra Nooyi at PepsiCo and Ajay Banga at Mastercard.
But how do Indians come to be even considered for such senior positions? What accounts for their success as tech-company founders?
I came to the U.S. in 1980 and observed the evolution of the Valley's leadership firsthand while founding two technology companies and taking one of them public. Later, at Duke University, I researched what had given Indians like me such an advantage.
According to research by University of California at Berkeley professor AnnaLee Saxenian, as of 1999 immigrants accounted for one-third of the scientific and engineering workforce in Silicon Valley, and Indian CEOs were running 7% of its high-technology firms. In 2006, my research team collaborated with Saxenian to update her work and found that the percentage of immigrant-founded startups had increased to 52.4%, with Indian-born executives having founded 15.5% of Silicon Valley tech firms—though they constituted only 6% of the Valley’s working population.
We found that 96% of the immigrant entrepreneurs involved in engineering and technology had completed a bachelor's degree, and 74% held master's or Ph.D. degrees. Within that group, Indian founders had been educated in a diverse set of universities; the famed Indian Institutes of Technology, for example, accounted for only 15% of the company founders.
Culture, as much as education, is key
There is no doubt that education gave the Indians an advantage. But this does not explain why the boards of companies such as Microsoft, Google, IBM, and Twitter would choose foreign-born technologists over equally qualified Americans. The answer may lie in cultural values, upbringing, and struggles.
In a land of more than a billion people, most of whom are hampered by rampant corruption, weak infrastructure, and limited opportunities, it takes a lot to simply survive, let alone to get ahead. Indians learn to be resilient, battle endless obstacles, and make the most of what they have. In India, you learn to work around the problems that an unjust state and society create for you. Entrepreneurship, along with the creativity and resourcefulness required to deal with all the obstacles, is part of life.
In the absence of a social safety net, family values and support are everything, and the family takes on a very important role, family members providing all kinds of aid and guidance to those in need.
Indians have many ethnic, racial, gender, and caste biases—as do people all over the world. Yet in order to succeed, they learn to overlook or adapt these biases when necessary. There are six major religions in India, and the Indian constitution recognizes 22 regional languages. Every region in the country has its own customs and character, and people accept differences in attitudes and beliefs, especially in the context of business.
Then there is the humility that comes from moving to new lands. Talk to almost any immigrant, regardless of origin, and he or she will share stories about leaving social status behind in their home country and working their way up from the bottom of the ladder in the adopted land. It's a humbling process; you learn many valuable lessons when starting from scratch and working your way to success.
These are all traits that any board would recognize—and value—especially when the alternatives are arrogant company founders who believe they are entitled to their jobs. And it’s these traits that enable a CEO to transform company culture. This is what I believe has given the Indian CEOs the advantage.
This may be why Twitter’s board unanimously approved the recommendation of Jack Dorsey to appoint Indian-born Parag Agrawal as his replacement. And it is such a cultural transformation that Twitter may need above all else.
Twitter has received a barrage of justified criticism over a toxic work culture and insensitivity to abuses on its platform. Plus, Jack Dorsey was a part-time CEO, also running payments company Square and championing blockchains and cryptocurrencies. Dorsey’s predecessor, Dick Costolo, is someone I personally tangled with when I noted that there was a problem with the company’s chauvinistic culture and all-male board. As many tech CEOs do, his response was to publicly attack me, rather than listen to criticism.
It’s a response that none of the Indian CEOs that I know would make—and that is why they are being chosen to run America’s leading technology companies.
Vivek Wadhwa is the coauthor of From Incremental to Exponential: How Large Companies Can See the Future and Rethink Innovation, a new book on how companies can thrive in this era of rapid change.