世界上唯一不變的就是變化，而且，變化還很復雜、困難、往往勢不可擋。

提升我們自身引領變革的技能是個不小的挑戰，而要幫助企業從我們的知識和經驗中獲益更是難上加難。那么，究竟應該采用什么新方法來引領復雜且持續的變革，才能幫助企業在真實世界中激流勇進呢？

印度有句俗語稱，幫正要站起來的大象站起來，比幫一頭正要坐下的大象站起來更容易。如果你的企業正在思考這個課題，并且已經設計了一些靈活性因素來幫助員工更好地完成工作，那么，你們將領先于其他企業。

讓我們用幾個例子對照一下。幾年前，我和同事為了避免克里夫蘭市一家工廠陷入關門停產的境地，決定發動員工參與到企業的改革之中。工廠母公司的高管們也表示，如果我們真能提高這家工廠的產能并降低成本，他們可能就不再考慮將生產轉移到海外。

這家工廠已經有年頭了，設備已經過時，實行的是傳統的等級文化。人們被局限在狹窄的工作職責里，大多數崗位基本上沒有讓人發揮創造力的機會。盡管如此，廠長還算是個樂意改革的人，對我們的嘗試表示支持。

在幾個員工工作組的幫助下，我們勤奮地工作了幾個星期，根據輕重緩急，列出了一張需要變革的任務清單。到執行變革方案的時候，我們打算在工廠中招募志愿者來幫忙。讓我們感到驚訝的是，沒有一個人報名！

我們進行了深入調查，發現由于工廠可能關停的消息已經散布出去幾個月了，員工們都已經對未來另有打算。沒人有熱情在這家老舊、骯臟、難受的工廠里多待幾年。這家工廠以前沒讓他們參與過變革，他們現在也沒有任何動力去變革它。他們深知，要改變工廠的文化，改革企業的管理模式，重新定義工作職責，引進新技術，讓高管層重拾信心，難度有多么大。直接退出比繼續前進更容易，所以，這家工廠終究還是關閉了。

我們再拿谷歌、Facebook或其他硅谷創業公司的例子來做對比。這些公司的文化極富創業精神，變革是常態，職責也定義得很寬松，人們都樂于自動學習。一旦有新的創意出來，或者一旦競爭對手有了新動向，企業的戰略就會相應地做出迅速改變。

這些企業雖然也有各種架構和流程，但它們的設計都是為了促進持續的創新。企業希望員工們貢獻他們的創意。在這樣的企業里，領導力同時存在于多個方向，從上至下，從下至上，甚至橫向。

在以上案例中（克里夫蘭工廠與硅谷創業公司），誰更容易采取新的方法來領導復雜且持續的變革呢？答案是明顯的。

當僵化的企業面臨復雜的變革挑戰時，他們想要控制自己的反應，會把自己的反應分割成一系列獨立的項目，每個項目都有自己的計劃、日程和領導人。他們想要詳盡的計劃和經常性的流程監測，這樣當問題發生時，領導才好進行干預。他們想讓一切都可控，仿佛復雜的變革真的能被控制似的。

具有創業精神的企業則總是準備迎接變革，其組織結構和文化就是為了適應變革而設計的。他們期待員工共同參與變革，同時仍然留出足夠的空間，讓員工無需等待最高領導層發出指令便能迅速做出反應。在進行重大新項目、并購、制定戰略等重大決策時，這種企業會廣泛聽取意見并集中進行決策，但這種企業基本上沒有或只有極少的微觀管理。人們知道自己能為公司帶來什么，但他們不知道自己未來的具體工作將是什么，因為公司的工作重心將發生變化。企業各部門、團隊和級別之間的邊界并不是密不透風。比起爭權奪利，員工們更關心企業的健康和持續存在。

面臨變革時，這種具有創業精神的企業并不會試圖設立預算、時間期限和考核標準都十分精確的項目。他們會直接針對問題開展工作，然后看看會發生什么。項目規模是增長還是縮水，取決于它能夠展現出什么樣的前景，或者有多么令人興奮。公司的優先工作雖然會變化，但員工對公司最終成功的信心和付出不會變化。沒人感覺自己是在高壓管制下的流水線上工作。

每個人可以自由地發表意見，每個人都可以自由地貢獻他所了解的最佳方法。

并不是說，富有創業精神的企業必然好于結構嚴密的企業。這兩種企業的設計都是為了滿足特定的目標。只是當面臨復雜而持續的挑戰時，具有創業精神的企業才能夠顯現優勢。如果你在一家結構嚴密的企業工作，是不是就沒希望了？并非如此。

邁克爾?塔什曼和查爾斯?奧雷利就所謂的“兩面型企業”這一課題撰寫了大量文章。所謂的“兩面型企業”，是指根據情勢需要，企業既能夠以結構嚴密的方式運作，也能在更為寬松的模式下運作。雖然學做一家“兩面型企業”并不容易，但這并非不可能。它只不過需要強烈的目的性和努力。那么，是什么在阻礙企業成為“兩面型企業”？不是自然法則，而是那些愛說“我們不能”或“我們不會”的領導。

為了在企業的靈活性上實現突破，領導者需要積極參與發現、決策、執行和辨識等方面的工作，從而幫助企業不斷學習進步。企業就和人一樣，只有通過練習才能學習和進步，前提是學習過程得到正確的指導和有力的支持。

領導者需要推動企業實現更大的“兩面性”，因為其他人無權改變企業的規則。一開始的時候，不需要對企業規則做出永久性改變，老規矩只需要暫停一段時間，讓員工大膽嘗試不同的方法來鼓勵持續性變革。一旦企業對有效和無效的方法有了深刻認識，就可以考慮制定長期規則。只有那樣，在應對復雜且持續的變革時，企業才會實現真正的突破。（財富中文網）

本文節選自比爾?帕斯莫爾的《引領持續變革》一書。

譯者：樸成奎

審校：任文科

Change may be the only constant, but it’s also complex, difficult, and often overwhelming.

Improving our individual skills to lead change can be challenging. Helping our organizations benefit from what we have learned can be even tougher. What does it take to apply new ways of leading complex, continuous change to help our organizations navigate churn in the real world?

There’s an old Indian saying that it is easier to help an elephant get up if it’s already in the process of getting up rather than in the process of sitting down. If your organization is concerned about this issue, and has already designed some flexibility into how people approach their work, you’ll be ahead of the curve.

Let’s contrast a couple of examples. Some years ago colleagues and I decided to see if we could keep a manufacturing plant in Cleveland from closing, by engaging employees in transforming the operation. Executives of the corporation that owned the plant agreed that if we could improve productivity and reduce costs, they would reopen their decision to relocate production offshore.

The plant was very old, with outdated equipment and a traditional hierarchical culture. People were slotted into narrow jobs, most of which allowed little opportunity for creativity. Despite this the plant manager was a student of change and was interested in supporting our experiment.

We worked diligently for several weeks with the help of a number of employee task forces to come up with a prioritized list of changes to pursue. To our surprise, when it came time to implement the changes, we asked for volunteers to help with the implementation—and no one signed on! When we investigated further, we found that employees, having heard months earlier that the plant would close, had already made other plans for their futures. No one was excited about extending their time in a setting that they experienced as old, dirty, and unpleasant. They had little energy for trying to change an organization that had not engaged them in change before. They knew how difficult it would be to shift their culture, change the organization’s approach to management, redefine their jobs, introduce new technology, and win the confidence of senior leadership. It was easier to simply exit and move on. The plant closed.

Contrast this example with Google , Facebook , or Silicon Valley startups. Their cultures are entrepreneurial, change is constant, roles are loosely defined, and people are dedicated to learning. Strategies shift as new ideas are explored or competitors make moves. Structures and processes are introduced but are designed to allow continuous innovation. People are expected to contribute their ideas. Leadership is top-down, bottom-up, and sideways, all at the same time.

Which of these examples (the plant in Cleveland or a Silicon Valley startup) would be more receptive to adopting new approaches to leading complex, continuous change? The answer is obvious. When rigid organizations face complex change challenges, they want to control how they respond. They want to divide their response into a series of independent projects, each with its own plans, schedules, and leaders. They want elaborate plans and regular progress metrics so that leaders can intervene when issues arise. They want to keep things under control, as if complex change can actually be controlled.

Entrepreneurial organizations expect change to happen and design for it. They leave room for people to react without central guidance, although they expect people to engage one another as they do so. Big decisions about major new projects, acquisitions, or company strategies are made centrally with a lot of input, but there is little or no micromanagement. People know what they bring to the table, but they don’t know what work they will be doing in the future because priorities will change. Boundaries are permeable across units, teams, and levels in the organization. People are more concerned about the well-being and continued existence of the organization than accumulating power and influence.

When faced with change, these entrepreneurial companies do not try to formulate projects with precise budgets, deadlines, and metrics. They start working on things and see what happens. Projects shrink or grow with the promise they show and the excitement they generate. Priorities shift but not people’s commitment to the ultimate success of the company. No one feels like he or she is working on a production line under tight constraints.

Everyone is free to comment and to try to contribute in the best way he or she knows how.

It is not that entrepreneurial organizations are better than more tightly structured companies. Each is designed to be fit for a purpose. Yet when it comes to being ready for complex, continuous change, the entrepreneurial organization has the clear advantage. If you are in a tightly structured company, is the situation hopeless? No. Michael Tushman and Charles O’Reilly have written extensively on the topic of ambidextrous organizations, by which they mean that organizations should develop the capability of operating in a tightly structured manner when they need to and in a looser fashion when that is called for. Although learning to become ambidextrous isn’t easy, there’s no law against it. It just requires intention and effort. What keeps organizations from becoming more ambidextrous? Not laws of nature but rather leaders who say “we can’t” or “we won’t.”

To achieve breakthroughs in organizational agility, leaders need to help their organizations learn by engaging in Discovering, Deciding, Doing, and Discerning. Just like individuals, organizations learn from practice, provided the learning is well directed and well supported.

Leaders need to support greater ambidexterity because no one else has permission to change the rules. At first the rules don’t need to be changed permanently; they just have to be suspended for a period of time as people are invited to experiment with different approaches to continuous change. Once an organization gains greater insights into what works and what doesn’t, more-permanent rule changes can be considered. Only then will true breakthroughs in responding to complex, continuous change occur.