How hierarchies help & hamper us in creating great organizations | Markus Reitzig | TEDxFHKufstein

Summary

本视频讲述了一个关于童年失败尝试的故事，引出了组织成功的关键因素。演讲者通过自己的经历，分析了为什么一些组织能够实现宏伟目标，而另一些则不能。他指出，组织的成功并非只依赖于个人英雄主义，而是需要团队的共同努力和明确的分工。同时，他也讨论了管理上的误区，如过度强调个人成就和错误的激励机制，以及如何通过合理的组织结构和激励措施，确保每个成员都能在其岗位上发挥最大的潜力。

Takeaways

• 😀 个人童年的失败经历可以成为理解组织成功与失败的重要启示。
• 🏆 组织成功往往需要集体努力，而不仅仅是个人英雄主义。
• 👥 组织中的每个人都扮演着重要角色，无论职位高低。
• 💡 组织中的分工合作是其成功的关键因素之一。
• 🚀 组织中的层级结构可以促进工作结构化，但也可能带来负面影响。
• 🤔 组织中的不确定性和不清晰的决策过程可能导致员工的参与度下降。
• 🔍 层级结构可能导致员工感受到评估焦虑，从而影响他们的决策和行为。
• 🛑 组织中的过度激励可能导致员工只关注个人成就，忽视团队合作。
• 👨‍👧‍👦 家庭和工作场所是人们最常参与的两种组织形式，它们各有其特点和优势。
• 🎯 组织应该鼓励每个成员在其岗位上做到最好，而不是单纯追求升职。
• 🏆 优秀的组织会有效管理层级结构的负面影响，确保员工感到参与和被认可。

Q & A

演讲者分享的童年轶事是什么？

演讲者在童年时与朋友们尝试通过收集软饮料瓶盖上的小图片来做生意，但最终没有卖出任何一张图片。

为什么演讲者认为他们的小生意失败了？

他们的小生意失败主要是因为定价过高，没有考虑到顾客的需求和支付意愿，且所有人都想成为老板而没有专注于销售。

演讲者提到的'船上满是船长没有水手'的比喻意味着什么？

这个比喻意味着组织中每个人都想成为领导者，而没有人愿意做实际的工作，这会导致组织失败。

为什么演讲者认为组织不仅仅是随机组成的团队？

因为组织是多个人系统，成员有各自不同的动机，但共同致力于一个目标，需要有明确的分工和协调。

演讲者如何通过超市的例子解释组织中的分工？

通过超市的例子，演讲者说明了不同角色的人负责不同的任务，如资金管理、选址、商品上架、顾客服务等，体现了组织内分工的重要性。

演讲者提到了哪些因素会导致组织中的层级制度产生负面影响？

演讲者提到了评价恐惧、缺乏控制感、地位优先信号等因素会导致层级制度产生负面影响，如使员工感到不安和向上层级移动的倾向。

为什么演讲者认为组织应该避免'上或出'模型？

因为'上或出'模型会给员工一种错觉，即每个底层职位都是通往顶层的跳板，这可能会导致员工不满足于自己的工作，从而影响组织的整体表现。

演讲者提到的实验是如何揭示层级制度对员工行为的影响的？

通过实验，演讲者展示了当员工面临不确定的决策时，层级制度如何影响他们是否将提案上交给上层管理，以及这种影响如何随着层级数量的增加而加剧。

为什么演讲者认为组织应该认可并提升低层级专家的地位？

因为这样可以确保专家得到应有的认可，同时不必为了提升地位而必须移动到组织的顶层，这有助于维持组织的有效运作和提高员工的满意度。

演讲者最后给出的组织成功的建议是什么？

演讲者建议组织应该让每个人都以自己的方式尽力而为，而不是都试图成为领导者，同时要确保层级制度的负面影响得到控制。

Outlines

00:00

😀 童年失败的启示

本段讲述了演讲者童年时期与朋友们尝试通过收集软饮料瓶盖下的图片来开展小生意的经历。他们试图通过购买并转卖这些图片给其他收藏者来赚钱，但最终因为定价过高和缺乏对市场需求的理解而失败。这个失败的故事引出了组织成功与失败的讨论，以及个人在组织中扮演的角色和动机。

05:00

😐 组织中的角色与激励

这一段深入探讨了组织内部的分工和激励机制。通过一个虚构的超市经营例子，演讲者阐释了组织内部角色的分配及其重要性。他指出，尽管每个人在组织中扮演着不同的角色，但每个人都对组织的成功至关重要。同时，演讲者批评了'上级淘汰'模型，这种模型通过提供晋升至高层的激励来驱动员工，但可能导致员工只关注个人晋升而非组织的整体目标。

10:01

😟 层级结构的负面影响

演讲者通过一系列实验来说明组织中的层级结构可能带来的问题。实验表明，当员工面临来自上级的评估压力时，他们可能会出于对负面反馈的恐惧而避免做出决策，或者将不确定性高的提案推给上级，从而造成决策的堆积和效率的降低。这种现象随着层级的增加而加剧，导致底层员工感到不安和缺乏控制感。

15:03

😡 组织中的层级与优先级

最后一段讨论了层级结构在组织中传递的'地位优先'信号，这种信号可能导致员工为了追求更高的地位而努力晋升，即使这与组织的最佳分工和努力整合无关。演讲者强调，优秀的组织能够通过确保员工参与决策、认可专家的贡献以及避免层级结构的负面影响来实现有效的劳动分工和努力整合。

Keywords

💡组织

组织在视频中指的是由多人组成的系统，他们有着不同的个人动机，但共同致力于一个目标。视频中通过家庭和工作场所的例子来说明组织的概念，并强调了组织中分工的重要性。例如，家庭中的成员可能有不同的需求和想法，但有时会为了共同的目标如度假或建房而团结起来。

💡失败

失败在视频中被用作一个关键概念，用来说明为什么某些组织在追求高目标时能够成功，而其他组织则不能。视频通过讲述一个童年的故事，其中尝试通过收集软饮料瓶盖下的图片来开展业务，但最终没有卖出任何一张图片，从而引出了失败的概念。

💡分工

分工是指在组织中根据个人的能力和角色分配不同的任务和职责。视频中通过超市的例子来说明分工的概念，强调了分工对于组织效率和成功的重要性。例如，一个人可能负责处理技术问题，另一个人处理人员问题，而第三个人则负责协调和激励。

💡激励

激励在视频中被用来描述如何激发组织成员的积极性和创造力。正确的激励方式可以促使人们在各自的岗位上做到最好，而不仅仅是为了达到组织的顶层。例如，视频中提到，如果每个人都想成为第一个登上珠穆朗玛峰的人或从太空跳伞的人，那么组织就无法正常运作。

💡层级

层级是指组织内部权威职位的分层关系。视频中讨论了层级如何影响组织成员的行为和决策，以及如何可能导致人们过度追求上升到组织顶层，即使这与组织的目标并不一致。例如，层级可能会因为评价焦虑或缺乏控制感而产生负面影响。

💡评价焦虑

评价焦虑是指个体在担心自己的行为或决策会受到上级负面评价时所感受到的不安和压力。视频中通过实验来说明评价焦虑如何影响组织成员在传递不确定想法时的行为，以及这种焦虑如何随着层级的增加而加剧。

💡控制感

控制感是指个体对自己决策和行动结果的控制能力。缺乏控制感会导致个体感到不安和脱离组织。视频中提到，当决策过程变得不透明和不可预测时，组织成员可能会感到缺乏控制，从而减少他们传递不确定想法的意愿。

💡地位

地位在视频中被用来描述个体在社会或组织中的位置和重要性。地位有时会导致人们追求上升到组织的更高层次，即使这与他们对组织的实际贡献无关。例如，视频中提到，在普鲁士，一个人除非是军官，否则不能娶他选择的配偶，这反映了地位在个人生活中的重要性。

💡认可

认可是指对个体工作和贡献的肯定和赞赏。视频中强调了在组织中，确保每个层级的专家都能获得他们所需的认可，并能够在不上升到组织顶层的情况下获得地位，这对于维持组织的健康和效率至关重要。

💡动机

动机是指驱动个体行动和决策的内在或外在因素。视频中提到，为了组织能够达到高目标，每个成员都需要有高度的动机，但这并不意味着所有人都应该以相同的方式追求高目标。例如，视频中提到，不是所有人都能成为领导者，但每个人都可以以自己的方式为组织做出贡献。

Highlights

演讲者通过童年轶事引出组织为何在集体目标上成功或失败的讨论。

1980年代德国软饮料公司的促销活动，如何影响演讲者童年的一次失败商业尝试。

失败的教训：没有考虑顾客需求和支付意愿，导致收藏卡片卖不出去。

组织失败的案例分析：一个全是“船长”没有“水手”的组织结构。

个体成就与组织成功的关联，如埃德蒙·希拉里攀登珠峰的例子。

组织不仅仅是随机聚集的人，而是多人系统，共同为一个目标工作。

家庭和工作场所作为组织的例子，以及它们如何运作。

通过虚构的超市案例说明组织中的分工和层级结构。

层级结构如何导致人们趋向顶层，而忽视了组织中每个角色的重要性。

管理错误：过度依赖陡峭的激励机制和上层淘汰模型。

实验展示：不同层级结构对员工决策的影响。

不确定性决策在不同管理层级中如何被处理。

层级结构如何导致员工感到不安和缺乏控制感。

层级结构带来的地位优先信号及其对员工行为的影响。

优秀组织如何正确处理分工和整合努力，避免层级结构的负面影响。

组织成功的关键：确保每个人都能以自己的方式达到高目标。

演讲结束语：我们都可以是贡献者，但并不意味着我们都能成为老板。

Transcripts

[Music]

I'd like to share an anecdote with you

it goes back to my childhood it's about

a miserable failure and for those of you

who start to think HOH University of

Vienna Professor but we weren't

expecting the late zigon Frey let me

appease you or disappoint you it's not

going to be anything like that right

that anecdote merely encapsulates one of

the major reasons why some organizations

tend to do well when they try to aim

high as a collective as opposed to some

organizations that don't get it done so

let me take you back to the 1980s when I

grew up as a kid in the 1980s in what

used to be Western Germany sizable soft

drink corporations had a campaign going

on okay and that campaign was one by

which they were stamping little pictures

underneath the lids of their soft drink

bottles okay and you would have to fill

them out okay then you would get the

picture and you would stick it on a

poster and of course the whole purpose

of this exercise was to get the

collection complete right so what we

were doing three friends of mine at the

time and I we said okay fine let's run a

little business and uh let's try to get

into every sof Ring shop that we can get

into fill out the pictures and then we

sell them to other collectors right that

was the whole

idea loads of things went wrong some of

them are so embarrassing I don't want to

share them but the one thing that I can

share with you is we never sold a single

picture okay not a single one uh and uh

as a matter of fact you know it took me

years and sleepless nights to figure out

that my school friends were simply not

as enthusiastic about them as I was they

were not willing to put up a years of

pocket money for a collection of fiddle

pictures oh well you know anyhow so

ironically the only transaction of a

fiddle picture I would have almost

gotten involved with was 3 days ago when

I realized that my mother had them

thrown all away and I wanted to bring

you one for this presentation I was

auctioning on eBay it was about1 and I

decided that's too much okay so I didn't

bring you the original I didn't I didn't

buy that one okay so I was anyhow so

that fiddle picture organization of

course is just uh you know an example

for trying to make you understand uh why

certain things go wrong of course you

know at the surface what we had gotten

wrong was the pricing and yes we

completely overpriced because there was

no person in this organization thinking

about what a customer wanted what she

was willing to pay and so forth because

us four we were all bosses okay we were

doing great things okay you know

discussion the vision of the company you

know the logo or whatever else this was

job titles and so forth but it had

nothing to do with selling F pictures

and what we had created was an

organization actually that was a boat

full of captains with no Sailors okay

and at boat full of captains with no

Sailors is something that you encounter

quite often when you see that

organizations fail and there are various

reasons for this and I'd like to go

through some of those reasons with you

and of course you have to

distinguish between people who make

these mistakes you know kids as we were

at the time okay or Layman when they

approach uh running an organization and

managing things I believe face problem

number one and problem number one goes

back to the fact that whenever we think

of great human achievements okay we tend

to think of human individual

achievements so let me me just you know

within this beautiful Alpine setup here

and you know true to the motto of the

day Aiming High recall that if you think

of the first person who made it to the

top of Mount Everest of course you're

thinking of Sir adman Hillary okay or

equally famous in Austria perhaps and

you know also mind boggling of course if

you think of a skydiver jumping from

space who do you think of 2012 of course

you would think of Felix bombard now

right now admittedly these are

individuals who were pushing the

envelopes within their disciplines like

no other outstanding individuals but I

think we're not diminishing any of their

accomplishments if we admit to the fact

that that would not have been possible

without the organizations that

surrounded them so in the case of

Hillary of course you know the most

famous wingman his right hand was

tensing nor but let's not forget about

dozens of other shappers helping him up

the summit and in the case of bomgardner

okay six season professionals one of

them a record-breaking skydiver himself

and then myriads of other helpers now

one thing is pretty clear right if

Within These two organizations everybody

would have wanted to be the first man on

Mount Everest or jump from space him or

herself that would not have worked

because again you would have ended up

with that boat full of captains and no

Sailors so what do these organizations

get right that other organizations get

wrong okay so for that we need to talk

about organizations in a bit more detail

because organizations as a matter of

fact are not just some randomly

assembled teams of people and so forth

they're very specific animals okay yes

they are what we call multi-person

systems basically means several people

working together but and that's

important these people do have

individually different

incentives but jointly commit to a

common goal okay now I bet all of you

are members of at least two

organizations the first one being your

family and the second one being your

workplace and uh uh why is your family

uh a family well you know very simple uh

there's mom dad and the kids and they

all think about different things at a

given point in time say watch TV eat

pizza and so forth but then sometimes

they do get their e together and they go

on a joint vacation maybe even build a

house together so if I ask you why are

you a member of your family many of you

will say because I didn't have a choice

okay and that may be true but let's face

it okay there are also some advantages

to this Saturday night okay one person

Cooks the other one washes the

dishes okay division of labor maybe not

the main reason why you stick to your

family but I argue that when you choose

a workplace division of labor is one of

the major reasons as to why you select

into a certain organization as opposed

to another right and um that division of

labor actually creates very interesting

features within these organizations that

I would like to spend a little bit of

time on and uh the best way to highlight

that is to run you through a fictitious

example of you wanting to run a

supermarket okay so what does it take

for you to run a supermarket well first

thing you need is you need some money

okay and then you need a place where you

can set it up once you've got the place

set up negotiate your groceries make

sure the groceries come put them on the

shelves okay then make sure that the

customer comes through the door once the

customer is through the door inform her

make sure she pays and important okay

and then deal with all her

complaints imagine you want to run this

thing together with your brother and

your sister okay you're great people guy

you're a great technical guy and uh your

sister by virtue of having managed the

two of you for 20 years is a great

manager of the two of you okay so how

you going to divide the work very simple

you're going to deal with all the people

issues you know the other person here

deals with all the technical issues and

your sister becomes the manager of this

little

organization here we have a Triad

formation

and in this picture for the very first

time your sister is not playing boss

because she wants to play boss but

because it is actually a useful

reflection of the work that needs to be

done okay technical work customer

related issues and the coordination

incentivization of the two how do you

get from that little Tri to an

organogram of a multinational very

simple you just imagine that your

Supermarket takes off like a rocket you

turn it into a franchise then what

happens is you become the people manager

of loads of people managers you become

become the technical manager of loads of

technical managers your sister becomes

CEO and boom you know you end up with

this

organogram all right what you have here

now and that's an interesting feature

and we need to spend some more time on

this you have a hierarchy and a

hierarchy is nothing but a layered

relationship of authoritative positions

within that organization this hierarchy

is going to keep us busy but before we

go there let me just recall and that was

what the supermarket example was also

about every person within that

organization plays a major role this

level manager just as much as this

person here at the bottom just as much

as the CEO of that

organization so how come that if you

know that okay if you know that you're

putting together an organization for

that purpose there seems to be this

strange gravitation towards the top

right like the FID picture

Corporation problem number one was that

we communicate these things as

individual achievements and people try

to look like great individuals problem

number two sometimes is that managers

actually get it wrong okay and how do

they get it wrong

well they tend to believe in what we

call steep incentives and nowhere else

is this more prominent than in a

so-called upper out model where um

essentially individuals are being given

the illusion that when they enter an

organization every position at the very

bottom is just eras towards the top

eventually right because this is where

you win the cup and that upper out model

Works in certain industries and certain

firms but it hasn't worked a lot across

loads of other organizations

and I guess one of the misconceptions

why managers adhere to this still until

this day is because they are so much

afraid of this here complacency right

that unless you know you actually give

people these incentives they all bum

around and only the boss is working well

admittedly these organizations do exist

right particularly of a size certain

size and certain age you know these

kinds of complacency effects can Prevail

but that doesn't mean here that this is

the solution of course it's not the

solution right to make people

temporarily appreciate what what they do

but only you know under the promise that

eventually they will be CEO one

day if you think of the Hillary

organization if you think of the

bomgarden organization you're actually

allowing the best chaper to be the best

chaper if he wants to be the best chaper

and you're allowing the best say radio

operator to be the best radio operator

you incentivize him to do so you enable

him to do so you appreciate him for what

he's doing or her so the recipe of

creating an organization is of course

course to create an organization where

you try to get the best person for each

job make sure she's happy and then you

structure your pyramid accordingly and

this is where things become really

tricky because of course there are very

many smart managers out there who know

exactly that right and they don't

believe in the upper out model so why

does it still not work so easily the

reason is because these hierarchies

these very hierarchies that you put in

place in order to keep the people where

they should be okay mid-level lower

level higher level and so forth create a

life of their own with toxic side

effects that actually run exactly

counter to what they should be doing

because they pull people to the top okay

so these administrative hierarchies

while necessary distract people make

them aim high in undesired Ways by what

psychologists call exacerbating an

effect of evaluation apprehension or

lack of control and the best way for me

to explain this to you is by sharing

some experiments with you which we ran

in Vienna London the United States you

can replicate them anywhere and uh they

basically look as follows so think of uh

the following setup we're taking a bunch

of experimental subjects these are

people who are being paid for taking

part in an experiment right and what

we're telling these people is well you

know look you're going to be a mid-level

manager of a firm and depending on where

we put you you're going to have either

one boss on top of you or maybe two and

of course this is what we vary because

this is part of the experiment right and

here's your task your task is actually

quite simple from your fictitious

subordinates or employees you're going

to get proposals for things that make

the firm a better place there are some

bad ones please kill kill them there's

some good ones please pass them on to

top management and whenever you're

uncertain well you can decide for

yourself what you want to do with these

so here's the first scenario treatment

as we would call it in the first

treatment we're telling people you're

going to get rewarded financially

rewarded for all the great ideas that

make it to top management and

interestingly enough we're telling them

your bosses are friendly cooperatives

okay

so what happens it's pretty clear what

happens to the bad ideas they get weeded

out it's pretty clear what happens to

the good proposals they get passed on

but what happens to the ones that are

uncertain the ones that are uncertain

actually also get passed on for the most

part and the more so the more bosses are

on top of that particular person how can

that happen it's very simple right if

you think about it the reason is that if

you know that you're going to be

rewarded for all the great ideas that

make it to top management but if you

prematurely kill an idea your boss can

never correct it whereas if you pass on

an idea which was maybe

bad your boss can still correct for it

and since she's a friendly cooperator

that's exactly what she's going to do so

you're using your boss as a so-called

re-checking device okay now now we

modify that example just a little bit

this experiment and we're telling people

look you know you're still getting

rewarded for all the great ideas that

make it to top management but now dare

you if you make a mistake that your boss

sees you will be sanctioned and

sanctioning in a laboratory just means

that we're going to subtract some of

your profits right sounds familiar

sounds familiar to what you guys see

right make a mistake and not so good for

you so what happens now what happens

basically is that in the case of the

uncertain ideas and that are the only

ones that we're really interested in

fewer ideas get passed on to top

management but interestingly so ever

fewer the more bosses you have on top of

you and why is that well very simple if

you are afraid of negative feedback of

your boss you would imagine that your

boss is

negatively predisposition towards the

behavior of her boss boss and so that

effect ultimately you know sort of gets

uh exacerbated by the hierarchy trickles

down through the hierarchy and this

bowing okay towards the hierarchy

becomes worse the more layers you have

on top of you and what has that

hierarchy created now that hierarchy has

created a feeling of unease at the

bottom right it's no fun to be at the

bottom because the further you're down

the more the effect of evaluation

apprehension actually falls on your head

and so what it therefore also creates is

a pull towards the top because the only

place where you don't have to be afraid

of negative feedback by your boss is by

definition at the top and so the

hierarchy is doing something which it

shouldn't be doing it it was supposed to

keep you in place and instead it's

pulling you up which has got nothing to

do with what the purpose was it's got to

do with the behavior of the

people now we're changing that

experiment just one more time okay and

we're making it very realistic and I

hope that several of you can relate to

this what we're doing now is we're

saying you're still going to get

rewarded for all the great ideas that

make it to top man management but guess

what how your bosses make decisions is

pretty unclear to you very erratic okay

you know that feeling right you think

you've done something really well you

pass it on then you wonder what how what

did you do with it okay and it becomes

ever more erratic the more people

revisit that decision that means the

more layers of hierarchy you have on top

of you now what happens now of the

uncertain ideas hardly any get passed on

anymore and that is exactly what

psychologists call lack of control

you're

feeling at an you have a feeling of

unease at the bottom why because you're

not in the driver's seat but you know

one thing whenever that proposal gets

Revisited by someone you're going to get

a call you're going to get an email

there's going to be a memo the work is

going to end up on your desk but you're

not the one deciding whether it actually

gets implemented or not and so what you

do is you detach from the

organization and that effect gets ever

worse the more layers of hierarchy you

have on top of

yourself finally hierarchies have got

oneir

nasty feature and that is they signal

what we call status of priority and

status of priority just means that if

you look at this person here in this

hierarchy at the very bottom she may be

super happy with what she's doing she

may be paid just as much as she needs

okay she may want to stay there if the

world didn't have any other features but

she knows that if she was there she

would have more status meaning that she

would be seen as a person who can

actually command Over All s of outcomes

and that gives her all sorts of what we

would call positive externalities in not

only her professional life but also in

her private life in Old Prussia a man

wouldn't be able to marry the spouse of

his choice unless he was an officer in

the Army so you're trying to move up to

this level for reasons that has got

nothing to do that have got nothing to

do with optimal division of labor and

integration of

effort so again the hierarchy has

created that pull towards the top so

what do great organizations get right

when they're dividing labor and

integrating effort because this is what

organizations are all about they're not

demonizing hierarchies okay as some of

the fashionable magazines and management

so often would make you believe these

are very good instruments for

structuring work but they're making sure

that they're suppressing the toxic side

effects of these hierarchies and that

means they will make sure that they will

be very careful and sanctioning

motivated employees they'll be very very

much devoted to making people feel that

they're in involved in decisions and

what they will also do is they will try

to make sure that specialists at the

lower ranks receive the recognition they

need and can attain status without

moving to the top of the hierarchy which

would have got nothing to do with

increasing corporate performance so my

message for you in a nutshell is for an

organization to reach high of course

everybody needs to reach high and aim

high the motivation is ultimately

important but that doesn't mean that all

the people should do should do that in

the same way they should do this in

their very own ways because we can all

be bummers but it doesn't mean we can

all be bosses thank

you