精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

近年來，人們對企業的期望發生了巨大變化，麥肯錫也需要改變。

我清楚地記得在麥肯錫參加的第一個“價值觀日”。各個部門的合伙人聚集在一起，討論身為顧問的行為指導原則。

一位合伙人充滿激情地談到，如何鼓起“勇氣”向客戶建議裁員以增加盈利。還有一位分享稱 “無論后果如何”，都要與客戶開誠布公。

那天，大家熱情洋溢的分享讓我印象深刻。之前我一直以為麥肯錫客戶至上的價值觀只是為了業務需要。但是，價值觀日的經歷讓我感受到，客戶至上還是公司的道德使命：我們之所以能成為嚴守道德的顧問，正是因為堅持不懈地服務客戶。

有些初級顧問會提出疑問。2008年時，我們的客戶包括石油公司和煙草公司。如果鼓起勇氣建議業績不佳的煙草公司采取更激進的營銷策略，也能算作踐行價值觀嗎？ 如果算，這么做真的有價值么？

在麥肯錫工作了兩年，之后又研究了公司十年，我個人的結論是：麥肯錫的人都很好，但是價值觀有問題。

從個人角度出發，我在麥肯錫的同事們都很關心如何讓世界變得更美好。大多數人都在非營利組織兼職，還為慈善事業慷慨解囊。與身邊的人相處時真誠而尊重，尤其是對弱勢群體。而且只要有機會，同事們就會參加與社會或環境相關的項目，即使可能稍微拖累自身職業發展。

但是，當我們在保密前提下為傳統客戶服務時，客戶至上的價值觀就會占據上風。最近幾個月，我們都發現只顧追求客戶利益造成的危害，多篇調查性新聞報道顯示，在客戶至上價值觀指導下，公司曾經建議向移民限量供應食品，還建議加快阿片類藥物的銷售。

面對相關調查性報道的指責，麥肯錫應該靜心反思。近年來，人們對企業的期望發生了巨大變化，麥肯錫也要改變。大衰退、千禧一代的崛起，以及對政府解決社會上嚴峻挑戰能力的信心下降，都讓人們轉而期待企業有所作為，即企業獲得經濟回報的同時，也要產生積極的社會和環境影響。

事實上，愛德曼公關公司的研究表明，三分之二的雇員希望雇主“一起采取行動解決社會問題”。與此同時，德勤的研究顯示，超過四分之三的企業高管認為“社會影響”對公司戰略“至關重要”。甚至美國頂尖公司的首席執行官云集的“商業圓桌會議”最近也重新定義了企業的宗旨，從服務股東轉變為建立“為全人類服務的經濟”。

近期各項研究都證實了我在課堂上的發現。過去六年，我在芝加哥洛約拉大學和美國西北大學教授未來商業領袖課程，我發現學生更關心企業的社會責任報告，而不是公司年報。當代伴隨著宗教信仰的衰退、推遲組建家庭以及對政府信任急劇下降，千禧一代不太可能在“上帝、家庭和國家”中找到使命，所以比以往任何時候都更希望在工作中尋找使命。

身處新環境，麥肯錫還要宣稱使命是“協助客戶在業績上實現獨特、持久和實質性改進”就顯得尤為空洞。為什么如此卓越的公司使命卻如此平凡？

目前，對麥肯錫而言最突出的問題就是改變現狀。我在公司觀察到的絕大多數案例中，都能為客戶創造巨大的社會價值、環境價值以及財務價值。而且，從性別平等到氣候變化，公司研究和客戶工作在當代最重要問題上都取得了重大進展。

其實麥肯錫可以將共同目標置于客戶利益之上，仍然能非常成功。廣泛的學術研究表明，使命更高遠的公司發展前景也較好，因為在利益相關者中忠誠度更高，也更受員工和客戶熱愛。

值得稱贊的是，麥肯錫似乎正逐漸進步。2019年12月9日，麥肯錫允許市長皮特·布蒂吉格公開其客戶信息，透明度提升方面走出重要一步，也適當地將民主需求放在公司標準政策之上。作為麥肯錫的前雇員，我收到了一封真誠的電子郵件，內容關于公司如何努力從相關調查報道中吸取教訓。

但我仍然擔心，向來自傲的麥肯錫改正錯誤的緊迫感可能沒有那么強。去年早些時候，我又收到麥肯錫向前員工通報的調查回應，一上來就稱“不管以什么標準，我們都是各家公司中最受尊敬的員工群體。” 類似的措辭表明，麥肯錫的領導層仍然更關注公司優秀的一面，而不是善良。希望社會上的質疑能說服他們：現在人們都期望企業肩負社會使命，努力做好事才能成為真正偉大的公司。（財富中文網）

賽斯·格林是芝加哥洛約拉大學的 鮑姆哈特社會企業和責任中心的創始主任。

譯者：梁宇

審校：夏林

Expectations for business have changed dramatically in recent years and McKinsey needs to change too.

I vividly remember my first “Values Day” at McKinsey and Company. Partners from across our firm came together to talk about the principles that guide us as consultants.

One partner talked passionately about how he gained the “courage” to tell his client to make cuts so that the company could be more profitable. Another shared his commitment to having frank conversations with clients “no matter the consequences.”

What struck me most about that day was the ardor that surrounded it. I had always interpreted McKinsey’s value of putting clients’ interests first as a business imperative. But Values Day infused that imperative with a moral purpose: what made us ethical consultants was our relentless commitment to our clients.

Some of us junior consultants had questions. At that time in 2008, our client list included oil and tobacco companies. Would having the courage to tell an underperforming tobacco company to pursue more ambitious marketing tactics be an example of our values in action? If so, are these really values at all?

After two years at McKinsey and a decade of following the firm since, here’s my personal takeaway: McKinsey is filled with good people and problematic values.

As individuals, my colleagues at McKinsey cared deeply about making the world a better place. Most served on nonprofit boards and gave generously to philanthropic causes. They treated others around them with sincere respect—especially those who had less money or power. And, when given the chance, colleagues jumped at the opportunity to serve on projects that had a social or environmental dimension, even when it meant their career growth at the firm might be slightly slower.

But when we served traditional clients in the secrecy of our confidential relationships, one value prevailed: the client’s interests. In recent months, we have seen the human toll of this strict adherence to clients’ interests, as numerous investigative news stories have shown how these interests compelled the firm to recommend rationing food for migrants and accelerate the sales of opioids.

These investigative stories should lead to a reckoning at McKinsey. Expectations for business have changed dramatically in recent years and McKinsey needs to change too. The Great Recession, the rise of the millennial generation, and the decline of faith in government’s ability to solve society’s biggest challenges have dramatically raised our expectations for businesses to deliver positive social and environmental impacts alongside financial returns.

Indeed, research from Edelman indicates that two in three employees now expect their employers to “join them in taking action on societal issues.” Meanwhile, research from Deloitte indicates that more than three in four business executives now see “social impact” as “important or very important” to their company strategy. Even the Business Roundtable—a collection of America’s foremost CEOs—recently redefined the purpose of corporations from serving shareholders to building “an economy that serves all.”

All of this recent research affirms what I’ve seen in my own classrooms. Teaching future business leaders at Loyola University Chicago and Northwestern over the last six years, I’ve found that my students are more likely to ask about a company’s corporate social responsibility report than about its annual report. In a time of declining religious faith, later family development, and plummeting trust in government, millennials are less likely to find their purpose in “God, family, and country.” More than ever, they intend to find their purpose at work.

In this new environment, McKinsey’s stated mission “to help our clients make distinctive, lasting, and substantial improvements in their performance” feels especially hollow. Why would such an extraordinary firm have such an ordinary mission?

What is most striking about McKinsey’s current situation is that it need not be this way. The vast majority of the cases I observed at the firm added significant social and environmental value alongside financial value for our clients. And on many of the most important issues of our time—from gender equity to climate change—the firm’s research and client work has led to significant progress.

McKinsey could place a shared purpose above its clients’ interests and still be a highly successful firm. Indeed, extensive academic research now shows that higher purpose companies are dramatically higher performing over the long term because they have higher loyalty among their stakeholders, especially employees and customers.

To its credit, McKinsey appears to be taking steps forward. On December 9, 2019, McKinsey gave Mayor Pete Buttigieg permission to publicly share his clients at the firm, offering important transparency and appropriately putting our democracy’s needs above the firm’s standard policy. And as an alum of the firm, I have received heartfelt emails on how the firm seeks to learn from the investigative stories about it.

But I still worry that McKinsey’s pride in all it does right may lessen the sense of urgency to correct what is wrong. Earlier last year, I received an alumni update regarding the firm’s response to the investigations that opened by calling us “the most esteemed alumni group of any institution, by any measure.” Such language suggested that our firm’s leadership was still more focused on our greatness than on our goodness. Hopefully the current scrutiny can help persuade McKinsey’s leaders that—in this new era where business is expected to have social purpose—only firms committed to doing good can truly be great.

Seth Green is the Founding Director of the Baumhart Center for Social Enterprise and Responsibility at Loyola University Chicago.