How hierarchies help & hamper us in creating great organizations | Markus Reitzig | TEDxFHKufstein
Summary
TLDR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
😀 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。
😐 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。
😟 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。
😡 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。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡组织
💡失败
💡分工
💡激励
💡层级
💡评价焦虑
💡控制感
💡地位
💡认可
💡动机
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
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)