Managers must talk about work efficiency. "Making a certain job produce benefits" and "finishing a certain job" are synonyms.No matter what kind of institution he works in, whether he is in a company or a hospital, in a government agency or a labor union, in a university or in the army, as a manager, he must first do his job on time. To do what he should do, that is to say, he must be efficient. However, some managers often lack work efficiency.They are generally highly intelligent, imaginative, and possess a considerable level of knowledge.But these talents, knowledge and imagination do not seem to be necessarily related to a person's productivity.Some people are brilliant, but their productivity is often staggeringly low.They don't understand that being able to look deeply at a problem is not in itself a great achievement.They also don't know that it takes hard and systematic training to turn a person's insight into work efficiency.On the other hand, no matter what institution you are in, you will always find some productive hard workers.While others are busy coming and going, (many talented people often confuse this kind of useless busyness with "being creative",) these hard workers take one step at a time, In the end they get the job done first, which reminds us of the fable of the tortoise and the hare.

Intelligence, imagination, and knowledge are important resources, but they can only be turned into results through the productive work of managers.In terms of achieving goals.The resources themselves still have certain limitations. This question can be said to be self-evident.In our day and age, when books and articles on management abound, so little attention is paid to the effectiveness of managers. Why? One reason to overlook efficiency is that efficiency is only a special skill of some knowledge workers within an organization.In the past, there were not many such knowledge workers. For manual labor, all we need is efficiency, that is, only the ability to do things well, and you don't need to choose which things to do.There are well-defined quantitative and qualitative criteria for measuring the efficiency of manual labor.In the past 100 years, we have learned how to measure the efficiency of manual labor and how to specify the quality requirements for manual labor.This makes it possible for us to substantially increase the output per worker.

In the past, men who did manual work—whether workers operating machinery or soldiers fighting on the front lines—ruled over all institutions.Therefore, there are not many efficient people, only those who call the shots at the top need efficiency.They make up only a small percentage of the agency's staff, and we can tentatively consider them to be efficient, whether tenable or not.This can be said to be a gift of "God", because in every field, there are always a few people who have mastered what others have to learn through hard work. This situation is not limited to corporations and the military.A hundred years ago, the "government" during the American Civil War was composed of only a few people, which is simply incomprehensible to people today.President Lincoln's combat neighborhood has only the following 50 civilian personnel, most of whom are neither "managers" nor decision makers, they are just radio operators.Around the afternoon of 1900, when Theodore Roosevelt was the president of the United States, the number of all government workers combined was not too much.As long as any one of the many US government office buildings currently located on the lawn in front of the Capitol is taken out for them, it will be more than enough.

Hospitals of the past never had any "health service professionals," x-ray and laboratory technicians, nutritionists, therapists, social workers, and so on.Hospitals today need to employ as many as 250 of these for every 100 patients.In the past.Apart from a few nurses, the hospital employs only cleaners, cooks and maids.Only doctors are knowledge workers, and nurses are their assistants.In other words, the key to the institutions in the past was how to make these manual workers do their jobs well according to the requirements, and knowledge workers were only a very small number in the institutions at that time.

In fact, the early knowledge workers were very small—some of them worked in institutions, and most of them were self-employed as professionals, and the better ones could even hire a clerk to help.The level of their work efficiency often only involves and affects them themselves. Today, however, the situation is different, and there are institutions that do intellectual work everywhere, and all of them are of considerable size.Modern society is an organized society of large institutions.In every large institution, including the military, the center of gravity has shifted to knowledge workers, who do their jobs with more wits than brawn or dexterity.Those who are educated and know how to use knowledge, theories, and concepts gradually replace those who require physical skills as the work force in institutions.When they can contribute to the organization in their respective fields, they tend to be very efficient.

Today, productivity issues can no longer be taken for granted, and can no longer continue to be ignored. A system of mandatory testing that we set up for manual labor—from engineering design to quality control—is less applicable to mental labor.If the engineering department continues to produce a large number of beautiful drawings for a product that is not selling well, the waste is almost ridiculous.Doing what needs to be done is the key to making mental work effective.It is absolutely impossible to measure mental work by the yardstick of physical work. We are unable to closely and meticulously supervise knowledge workers.We can help them, but they must manage themselves, complete tasks consciously, make contributions consciously, and pursue work benefits consciously.

Some time ago, a magazine called "The New Yorker" published a cartoon depicting an office with a string of words on the door: Charles Smith, sales general manager of Ajax Soap Company.There is only one big sign hanging on the wall in the room, and the word "Thinking" is written on the sign.The man sitting in the office put his feet up on the desk and was blowing smoke rings directly at the ceiling.Two elderly men happened to pass by outside the door, and one of them asked, "Do you think Smith is thinking about selling soap? Truth be told, we have a hard time figuring out what knowledge workers are thinking about—however, thinking about problems is what they do; that's how they do their work.

The work motivation of a knowledge worker depends on his work effectiveness, and on whether he can achieve something in his work.If one's work is unproductive, one's enthusiasm for doing a good job and contributing quickly fades, and one becomes a 9-5 p.m. person who kills time every day. The output of knowledge workers does not generate benefits in itself.They don't produce a tangible product, like a pair of shoes or a piece of machinery.They produce knowledge, ideas and information.By themselves these "products" are useless.Only when another person with knowledge level takes these "products" as his input, and finally transforms them into output.They will have real value.Even the greatest wisdom is nothing more than meaningless data unless it is put into practice.Therefore, knowledge workers have to do things that manual workers never have to do, and knowledge workers must talk about work efficiency.They cannot make their output as ready for use as a well-made pair of shoes.

Knowledge workers are a special "factor of production" through which some highly developed social and economic entities, such as the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, have achieved and maintained strong competitiveness. The United States is a typical example in this regard, and education is a major competitive advantage that the United States has in terms of resources.While American education leaves much to be desired, its investment is unmatched by other countries.Education is the most expensive investment, and it takes $100,000 to $200,000 of social investment to train a Ph.D. in natural sciences.Even training a junior college student without any special vocational skills will cost more than US$50,000.This is something only a very wealthy society can do.

Education is therefore a real advantage of the United States, the wealthiest country in the world.Of course, whether this advantage can be fully utilized also depends on whether the work of knowledge workers is productive.The productivity of knowledge workers is really their ability to do what they are supposed to do.This is their work efficiency. In a modern enterprise organization, every knowledge worker may become a "manager" depending on his status and knowledge. He may be promoted to a responsible position and make his own contribution to improving the organization's operational capabilities and obtaining results.The operating capability mentioned here may refer to the ability of a company to launch a new product, or the ability to occupy a larger market share.It can also refer to a hospital's ability to provide ward services to patients, etc.He (or she) must also be in charge of making decisions; he cannot just follow through on orders from his boss.He must accept the responsibility to contribute.Because of his profound knowledge, he was considered the most suitable for decision-making work.His decision may be reversed, or he may be demoted or dismissed.But as long as he is in the position of a manager for a day, he must stick to his own goals and standards, and must make his own contribution.

The vast majority of managers are managers, although some are not necessarily.In today's society, many non-managers are also becoming managers.As we already know.In the past few years, some half-brained institutions have needed both "managers" and contributing "professionals" to take charge, make decisions and call the shots. This situation may be fully explained from an interview report in a recent newspaper.The subject of the interview was a young American infantry captain who participated in the Vietnam War. When a reporter asked: "How do you exercise your authority in such a chaotic situation?" the young captain replied: "In our place, I am only in charge. If they encounter the enemy in the jungle Don't know what to do, and I was too far away from them to tell them what to do. My job is to let them know what to do, and what they do will depend on the situation and can only be left to them to judge. The responsibility lies with me, but it is up to the individuals present to decide what to do." In guerrilla warfare, everyone is a "manager." There are also many managers who are not managers.In other words, many people are the bosses of other people—often quite a few in his name—but he does not have a great influence on the ability of the institution to function.A foreman in a manufacturing plant falls into this category.According to the literal meaning of the word, they are "overseers".If they're "managers," it's because they manage other people's work.However, they have neither responsibility nor jurisdiction over the direction, content, quality, or methods of their work.We can still test and evaluate their work according to the requirements of efficiency and quality, and the scales we have developed for testing and evaluating manual workers are still applicable to them. In contrast, whether a knowledge worker is a manager does not depend on whether he manages others.A market researcher in one company may have 200 people on his staff, while a market researcher in a competitor's company is alone with only one secretary.There should be no difference between them in terms of contributing to the enterprise.The number of people is just some details of administrative work.Of course, 200 people can do more work than one person, but this does not mean that the benefit and contribution of 200 people must be greater than that of one person. For mental work, neither can it be measured by quantity, nor can it be judged by how much it is invested.The fruits of intellectual labor should be judged primarily by the results, not by the size or rank of the institution. There may be benefits to having many people working in the market research department, such as deeper insight, richer imagination, and higher quality work, which will undoubtedly increase the company's potential for rapid growth and success.If this is the case, then 200 labor is still quite cheap.However, another situation can also happen: Since 200 people are working together, all kinds of problems will arise, and if they all bring problems to work, then the manager will be overwhelmed by these problems, Too busy "solving" these issues all day long to take care of the market research and therefore fail to make any fundamental decisions.He may be busy checking numbers all day long.There's simply no time to think about what's going on with "our market."In this case, he may ignore some major changes in the market.And it was these changes that ultimately led to the downfall of his company. Of course, there will be a difference between significant and insignificant results for independent market researchers.He may become a source of knowledge and a fertile imagination, and his company prospers.Or, he will spend a lot of time searching for some details, which are mistaken by scholars as research results, but he will turn a blind eye to the market itself, let alone use his brain to think about the problem. In every institution of mental work there are people who are managers who do not manage others.We'd be hard-pressed to find another example like the jungles of Vietnam, where any one member of the unit at any time had to make certain decisions that were life and death for the whole.A chemist working in a laboratory often makes decisions based on his own research ideas. When he does so, he may be making a corporate decision, which may be decisive for the future of his company. influences.He may be the director of the laboratory, or he may be just an ordinary chemical technician.Not responsible for any management.In the same way, how to make a decision on a certain product from a financial point of view can be the responsibility of the senior vice president of the company.However, younger people can still make such decisions.In today's large organizations, this situation can be said to be common. I call these knowledge workers, managers, and professionals "managers." Because of their status or knowledge, they are expected to make decisions in their jobs that have a profound impact on overall effectiveness.They do not account for the majority of knowledge workers, because mental work, like some other fields, always has a part of routine work that does not require any skills.But among knowledge workers, the actual proportion of the number of people who really play a managerial role is often much higher than that announced by any previous institution. People are starting to realize this, and it's reflected in the fact that many managers and professionals are immediately valued and rewarded for their contributions.But so far, not too many people have a clear idea of ​​the following question: how many people in even the most ordinary institutions are making some important and irreversible decisions? In fact, the authority of knowledge and The authority of the office is likewise legitimate.Decisions made by professionals should be of the same nature as those made by top management. (This is Mr. Kapoor's main point.) We all know now that even a grassroots manager can do the same work as a company president or a government agency manager: planning, organizing, synthesizing, mobilizing enthusiasm, and measuring work results.The frontier manager may have rather limited jurisdiction, but within his purview, he is indeed a manager. By the same token, every decision maker does the same thing as the president of a company or the head of an executive agency, except perhaps on a rather limited scale.Although his name and jurisdiction do not appear on agency charts or in the agency's internal phone book, he is certainly an administrator. Therefore, no matter you are the number one leader or a newcomer, you must pay attention to work efficiency. Many of the examples cited in this book come from the work and experience of key leaders in government, military, hospitals, enterprises and other units.The advantage of this is that such information is often documented in the public record and is therefore relatively easy to obtain.In addition, big things are always easier to analyze than small things.Easy to explain the problem. However, this book is not about what people at the top do or should do.This book is written for those knowledge workers who are responsible for the actions and decisions that contribute to the effective functioning of organizations. It is written specifically for those whom I call "managers." The real situation faced by the manager is that he is required to be competent and effective, but it is difficult for him to do so.Unless he can deliberately work on being productive, his circumstances will force him to do nothing. To better understand this issue, let's first look at the actual context of knowledge workers outside of institutions.Generally speaking, a physician will have no productivity problems.When a patient comes to see a doctor, he already has all the factors that enable the doctor to make full use of his knowledge.During the time with the patient, the doctor can usually eliminate all distractions.Give all your energy to the patient.It is clear at a glance what the patient wants the doctor to do.As for whether something is important, it must be considered around the etiology.The doctor decides what must be done first and what can be delayed based on the patient's self-report.The doctor's goal is clear: to restore the patient's health, or at least to alleviate his suffering.Physicians don't need to be organized, but we rarely hear of them being productive. Managers within organizations face a completely different situation.He usually encounters four situations, basically out of his control.These situations are caused by internal factors of the institution and are inseparable from his daily work.Out of desperation, he had to deal with these unavoidable circumstances.However, each situation puts pressure on him to push the work to ineffectiveness.make the organization malfunction. These four situations are; 1.The working time of managers often only belongs to others, not to themselves.If you want to define a "manager" from a business perspective, you have to define the manager as a "prisoner of the organization."Everyone can come and take his time.And the managers themselves seem to have no way to do it.He couldn't reach out to the nurse like a physician could and say, "Please don't let me be disturbed for the next half hour." When the phone on the manager's desk rang, he had to pick it up to speak to an important client of the company, or to speak to a high-ranking city official or his own boss -- and the next half hour was wasted. up. 2.Managers are often forced to work "the old way" unless they dare to take action to change everything around them. In the United States, it is common to hear complaints that a company president or other senior executive is still in charge of sales or factories, although he is now in charge of the entire enterprise.He should have spent his time improving the overall profitability of the business.This inadequacy is sometimes attributed to the fact that American managers are usually promoted from functional professionals who cannot immediately discard long-standing formed a habit.Even in some countries where the promotion channels are completely different, we can also hear similar complaints.For example, in a predominantly Germanic country, the avenue to top management positions is usually the core secretariat, since people working there must be generalists with a wide range of interests.However, even in some companies in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, one can still hear criticism that top managers focus on specific business rather than overall management.And this tendency isn't just confined to the top; it's widespread at all levels of management.There must be other reasons for this phenomenon besides the promotion channels of managers and the force of people's habits. The fundamental reason lies in the real environment in which managers live.Unless he makes a conscious effort to change this environment, he will have a list of things to do before him that will keep him too busy to attend to them. It's normal for a physician to do well with the litany of things that lie ahead of him.As soon as the patient comes in, the doctor will raise his head and ask, "What's the matter with you today?" Then the patient will describe the relevant situation to the doctor.When a patient says, "Doctor, I can't sleep. I haven't slept well for three weeks." The patient is letting the doctor know what the main problem is.Even if, on further examination, the doctor discovers that the insomnia is a secondary symptom of a more serious illness, he will do something to allow the patient to sleep peacefully for a few nights. But the chain of jobs facing the manager rarely tells him anything, let alone hints at what the real problem is.For doctors, the patient's self-report is the center of the problem, because it is directly related to the patient's pain and itching.The situation faced by managers is much more complicated than that of doctors.It is not immediately obvious which things are important, which the manager must do, and which things will only distract him.They also don't provide the doctor with the clues a patient's description of symptoms would. If the manager is swayed by the oncoming stream of business affairs and plunged into the pile of business affairs, he will spend his time in these specific business affairs.He may be an outstanding talent.But then his knowledge and talent would certainly not be useful, and some of the efficiency he could have achieved would be lost.What the manager needs are some criteria to help him identify which jobs are really important to him, which jobs can help him improve his efficiency, and which jobs can help him make more contributions, even though you can't find these criteria in the middle of that chain of events. 3.A third reality that makes a manager unproductive is because he is inside an organization.This means that his work is only effective if others can use his contribution.Organizations are a means to add value to individual strengths. Once individual knowledge is absorbed by the organization, it can become the motivation and resource for other knowledge workers to do a good job, and even help them develop new ideas.Knowledge workers often cannot work together in lockstep because they do knowledge work. Each of them has his own specialty and cares about his own business.Some people may be interested in taxation, others are obsessed with bacteriology, or have a passion for training future key officials in the city government.And the other one who works next to him may only be interested in some details of cost accounting, or only interested in the operation of the hospital, or only in the legality of the franchise issued by the government.Each of them needs to use the work of the other. Generally speaking.The people most closely related to a manager's productivity are often not those directly controlled by the manager; they are often people who work in other areas.From an organizational point of view, they are simply "people from other departments," or they are managers' superiors.Unless the manager can actively reach out to these people and make his contribution have some effect on them, otherwise the manager will have no work efficiency to talk about. 4.Finally, the manager is within the organization and is limited by the organization.Whether his organization is a business, a research institute, a government agency, a university, or the Air Force, a manager always sees what is going on within his organization as the most practical and important reality.If he still wants to observe the outside world, he can only get some distorted images through a thick set of lenses.What is happening in the outside world, it is difficult for managers to get first-hand information.Managers often understand the external situation through the internal reports of the organization. After subjective processing, these reports have imposed some internal standards on the external objective situation, and often become very abstract. But organization itself is an abstract concept.Mathematically, it represents only a point, with neither size nor extension.Even the largest organizations can appear elusive compared with the reality of their environment. Specifically, no results are produced within the organization, only results exist outside the organization.For example, only when the customer is willing to exchange his purchasing power for the company's products or services, the customer will convert your cost and the company's efforts into income and profit. Therefore, the only result of the company is produced by the needs of the customer.Customers start from the standpoint of consumers and make decisions based on market supply and demand.If the client is a socialist government, it regulates supply and demand largely without regard to economic value, and makes decisions from that standpoint.In either case, the decision makers are outside the enterprise, not inside the enterprise. The result produced by the hospital is mainly manifested in the patient, which is similar to the above situation.But the patient is not a member of the medical machine channel.When a patient is treated there, the hospital is "visible and tangible" to him, and his greatest wish is to leave the hospital as soon as possible and return to the original land. All that happens within the organization is labor and cost.We like to talk about the "profit center" of a business, but that's just a polite euphemism for what really is an artificial center in an organization.The less an organization has to do to achieve a given effect, the more efficient it will be.If 100,000 people are to be used to produce the cars or steel that the market needs, it is fundamentally a serious blunder of planning.Enterprises have fewer staff.The smaller the size and the more limited the internal activities, the closer to perfection the organization whose only reason for being is to provide a good service to its surroundings. This external environment is the real environment we are facing today. It is very difficult to effectively control this environment from the inside.For example, this is the case with wars, whose outcome is often the result of actions and decisions taken by the opposing sides.In business, people may influence customers' values ​​and choices of goods through promotion and advertising.Except in situations of extreme scarcity of goods like a wartime economy, the customer still has the final say and the most effective veto.However, for managers, it is the inside of the organization that can be seen most clearly.Internal affairs are what he needs to consider first, such as internal relationships, contacts, problems and challenges. He can also hear internal different opinions and gossip at any time.Unless he makes a special effort to keep himself in direct contact with the outside world, he sinks deeper and deeper into internal affairs and thinks only from within.The higher his position in the organization, the easier it is to be attracted by some internal problems and challenges, and the less likely he is to see the development of the outside world. Organizations are an artefact that exists in society and are quite different from biological organisms.But it is also subject to the same law that governs the growth of plants and animals: the area is proportional to the square of the radius, and the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius.The larger the animal, the more resources it consumes. Every part of the amoeba is in direct contact with the surrounding environment at all times.Therefore, it does not need any special organs to perceive its surroundings or to connect its various parts into a whole.But a large and complex animal, such as a human, needs a complete skeleton to support the body.He also needs a variety of special organs to absorb and digest, to complete the functions of breathing and emitting, to supply oxygen to the tissues of the whole body, to reproduce, and so on.The most important thing is that people need brain organs and many complex nervous systems.Most of the bodies of amoebas are directly related to survival and reproduction, while most of the bodies of higher animals, including their energy reserves, food supply, energy supply and internal tissues, are designed to overcome the complexity of the structure and make up for the isolation from the outside world And served. Organizations, unlike living things, do not have an essential purpose in existence, nor do they count as success simply to keep their species alive.An institution is an organ of society, and what it should accomplish is to make its own contribution to the external environment.However, as the organization grows bigger and more successful on the surface, there will be more internal affairs in the organization, which may occupy more energy, interest and talents of managers, and eventually make the He can't take into account his real mission and can't provide effective service to the outside world. With the advent of computers and information technology, this situation is becoming more and more out of hand.Computers are mechanical idiots, they can only process quantifiable data, and they process it quickly, accurately, and rarely make mistakes.Therefore, it can provide you with A large amount of information has not been obtained so far.But generally speaking, computers currently only process information within the organization, such as cost and production data, hospital patient statistics, training reports, and so on.The relevant information about the outside is not yet available in quantitative form, so it cannot be processed on the computer, and it is often too late to discover it. This is not because our ability to collect information from the outside world lags behind the technical capabilities of computers.If this is the case, then it is simple, then we only need to strengthen the statistical work, and computers can help us effectively overcome this limitation.The real problem is this: Those important and relevant external situations often have qualitative aspects, but they are difficult to quantify.They are not yet "facts".As "facts", that is defined and categorized by someone after all.Especially has been given some kind of relevance.Before it can be quantified, it is necessary to have a concept. It is necessary to abstract the concept of a specific aspect from countless phenomena and name it, and finally it can be calculated. An example is the tragedy caused by the use of thalidomide, which caused many fetuses to be deformed.When the doctors in continental Europe began to realize that the number of deformed fetuses had greatly exceeded the normal number in the face of sufficient statistics, they felt that there must be some special new reason.By then the severity of the problem is realized, and it is often too late because the damage has already been done.In the United States, no such damage occurred, because a doctor in a public hospital noticed a qualitative change—a slight skin tingling after the drug—and compared this phenomenon to Earlier events were linked, and alarm bells sounded before the drug became widely available. Ford's Edzel is another similar example.They gathered all the quantitative data they could get before launching the Ezer.These data fully show that it was the best time to bring this car to the market.As for whether American consumers have undergone a qualitative change in their thinking when purchasing consumer goods such as cars, whether they have shifted from considering income to only considering interests and hobbies, statistics do not provide convincing evidence for this .By the time there were enough data to tell, it was too late, and the Ezel had been put on the market and failed to sell. With regard to external conditions, what is really important is not its tendency but changes in that tendency.Because these changes ultimately determine the success or failure of institutions and their work.Such changes must be perceived; they cannot be counted, defined, or classified.Even if it is done, the result is still those data, just like Ford did for the Ezel model, but such data is no longer consistent with the actual situation. A computer is a logical machine, and that's where its power lies, but it also brings limitations.Important external conditions cannot be entered in a form acceptable to the computer.Although human logic is not strong, he has awareness, which is where his strength lies. The danger is that managers may dismiss information that is not yet accepted by computer logic and language.Managers may focus on facts and ignore detectable changes.这样一来，大量的计算机信息反而会使他与外界的实际隔离开来。 计算机是潜在的最有用的管理工具，最终它将会使管理者意识到这种隔离，帮他们从内部事务中解脱出来，将更多的时间和精力花在外部事态的发展上。可是，在当前，还存在着“迷恋”只会处理内部事务的计算机的危险，对计算机一旦迷恋上之后，再要想摆脱也是很难的。 计算机只能反映已存在在眼前的情况，而管理者出于无奈不得不在机构内部生话和工作。因此，除非管理者能主动地去了解外界的情况，否则内部的事务会使他忙得无暇顾及外部的现实。 这四种现实环境是管理者无法改变的。它们是管理者赖以生存的必然条件。然而管理者必须明确：除非他能努力地去学习如何提高效率，要不他的工作将会是徒劳无益的。 不断提高效率也许是大幅度改善管理者工作绩效、取得更大成绩、使工作达到令人满意程度的唯一可行的办法。 我们当然可以使用各方面能力更强的入，也可以使用知识面更宽的人。不过我得承认、在这两方面已没有太多的潜力可以挖掘，过不多久我们就会发现，我们正在试图做一件不可能办到的事，或者是想做一件原本就是无利可图的事。我们不可能为此专门培养出一批新的超人来，我们还得用现有的这些人来管理我们的机构。 不少关于经理培训的书籍都把“未来的经理”描绘成真正的“全能者”。我们被告知，高级经理必须要有非凡的分析和决策能力，他应善于与人相处，通晓组织、机构中的权力关系，对数学有很深的造诣，对艺术有很强的洞察力，既有创造性又有想像力。看来是想要一个全才，而全才总是非常难觅。人类的经验可以雄辩地证明：你随时可以找到的人肯定不会是全才。于是，我们就 只好用一些在某个方面能力较强者来管理我们的机构。这些人只有某个方面的基本专长，而对其他方面却很可能是一无所知。 我们必须学会这么一种筹建机构的方式：若某人在某一重要方面有一技之长、那就让他充分发挥这一长处(本书第四章将详细讨论这一问题)。然而，如果我们一味拔高管理者的能力标准，那是没法提高管理者的工作绩效的。如果把希望寄托在全才上，那更是不会有任何结果。我们只有通过改进他们工作中必须使用的一些工具的办法来充分发挥人的能力，而不应该把希望寄托在人的能力的重大突破上， 这一情况或多或少也适用于知识。不管我们对更有知识以及有更好知识的管理者是多么急需，为实现重大改进而作出的努力往往未能取得应有的效果。 15年前，当“运筹学”刚刚开始出现时，有些年轻有为的业内人士为未来的运筹学者开出了一张必须达到的条件清单。他们提出的要求是：他必须是一位通晓一切的、在各个知识领域都能完成高级和独创性的工作的广见博识者。有一份研究报告认为，运筹学者必须具备大约62门先进的自然科学与人文科学方面的知识。要真能找到这样一个人，并让他来做库存水平或生产规划方面的研究，我倒真觉得那实在是天大的浪费。 经理的培训计划当然不会像培养运筹学者那样地雄心勃勃，但它也要求经理具备会计、人事、营销、价格、经济分析、行为科学(诸如购买心理学)等一大堆知识技能，他还要了解从物理学到生物学到地质学等一系列自然科学方面的知识。我们当然也希望他们还能懂得当代的技术发展动态，了解现代世界经济和政府的复杂性。 其实上述的两个方面都是一个大领域。有些人把他们毕生的精力都花在某个领域亡也不见得就能怎么样。一些学者只敢就其中的某一个领域里的某些细小方面从事专门研究，就是他们都不敢自吹自己已经获得了多少这方面的知识。 当然，我的意思并不是说我们连各个领域里的一些基本知识都不必再去掌握了。 今天一些受过高等教育的年轻人有一个通病：不管他们是企业界的，还是医务界的，或者是政府部门的，他们陶醉于精通某项面很窄的专业，而对其他领域的知识却装出一副不屑一顾的样子。作为一名会计师，他当然不必详细地之了解“人际关系学”方面的具体做法；当一名工程师，也不必去了解如何促销某个新产品。但他至少有责任要了解那些是什么样的领域，为什么要设立那些领域，那些领域想要完成什么任务。一个称职的泌尿科医生并不—定要精通精神病的治疗，但他还是应该了解精神病学是一门什么样的学科。农业部的官员不一定要熟悉国际法．但他还是需要懂得一点国际政治，以免他会制订出地方保护主义的农业政策，对国际关系造成损害。 不过这与全才专家可不是一回享。全才专家是没有的，而我们需要学会的恰恰就是如何充分发挥在某个方面有专长的人员的积极性，这就等于提高了工作效益。既然不能增加资源的供应量，那就只得设法增加资源的产出量。提高工作效益就是让能力和知识资源产生出更多更好结果的一种方法。 考虑到机构的需要，管理者的卓有成效应该受到高度重视。它也是管理者完成任务，取得成绩的必要手段，因此，提高管理者的有效性理应占有更为重要的位置。 假如卓有成效能像音乐或绘画天赋一样是生来就有的话，那么事情就糟了。谁都知道，每个领域里有天赋的人总是极少数。于是我们不得不去找那些在效率方面有很大潜力的神童，早早对他们加以培养，让他们充分发挥自己的才能。不过以这种方式根本无法找到足够的人才来满足现代社会对管理者的需要。另外，如果卓有成效只是一种天赋的话，那么我们今天的文明社会如果还不至于一触即溃的话，那也一定会是非常脆弱的。大机构的文明取决于是否有大批能讲点效益、并有可能成为管理者的人。 假如卓有成效是可以学到的，人们也许会提出这样的问题：卓有成效应该包括哪些方面?我们应该学些什么?怎么个学法?那是不是一种必须通过概念才能学到的知识?还是必须通过系统学习才能获得的知识?或是要像学徒那样学习才能学到这一技术?要不就是得通过反复实践来养成习惯? 好多年来我不停地在思考这些问题。我为许多机构的管理者当顾问，为他们提供咨询，因此，卓有成效对我来说起码有两方面的意义。首先，当顾问顾名思义只是做智囊，而没有任何权力。所以做起事来必须要讲效益，要不就会一事无成。其次，最有效益的顾问也得仰仗机构里的人来把事情做好。因此，顾问工作效益的高低就决定了他最终是否能有所贡献，是否能对别人有所帮助，还是只当一名光花钱而不起作用的宫廷小丑而已。 我很快便了解到，世界上根本没有什么“高效率者的共同个性”。就我所知，称职的管理者的脾气、能力、业务范围、工作方法、个性、知识以及兴趣都是各不相同的。在他们中间，只有一点是共同的，那就是他们有把该干的事情干好的能力。 在我所认识的卓有成效的管理者中，有的件格外向、善于交际，有的洁身自好、超然离群，有的甚至病态似的害怕陌生人。有些是侵入，有些则是循规蹈矩者。有些是胖的，有些则很瘦。有的总是忧心仲仲，有些则悠然自得。有的视酒如命，有的滴酒不沾。有的充满激情和魅力，有的待人十分冷淡。其中也有些人根符合“受欢迎的领袖”的标准、有些人却显得毫无吸引力。有些是学者．有些则几乎没有受过什么教育。有些兴趣十分广泛．有些除了自己的专业领域，对外界的—切既一无所知又从不过问。有些人虽算不上自私、但考虑问题时总以自己为中心，而有些人却慷慨豁达。有些人将自己的工作放到高于—切的位置，有些人的兴趣却在工作之外——诸如对公益工作、教区工作、学中国诗歌或对现代音乐感兴趣。在他们之中，有些擅长逻辑和分析，有些则相信自己的感觉和直觉。有些人做决策轻而易举，有些人在每次采取行动之前总要经历一番犹豫不决。 这就是说，卓有成效的管理者相互之间也各有不同，这就如同医生、中学教师或小提琴手之间完全不同是一样的道理。卓有成效的管理者与不称职的管理者部有各种不同的类型，如果光从类型、个性和才智上去鉴别，那是很难把两者区分开来的。 卓有成效的管理者有一个共同点，那就是他们在实践中都经历过一段训练。这一训练使他们工作起来都讲效益，不管他们是在企业里，还是在政府机关，还是在医院里或者是在大学里当系主任。不管他们是干什么的，这些训练的内容却是一样的。 我的发现是：无论一个人的才智有多高，知识有多广，是多么勤奋以及富于想像力，只要他没有做过这些训练，那么他在工作效益上总是有缺陷的。 从另外—个角度讲，讲究工作效益是一种习惯，是一套练习，是可以学到的。这—套东西看上去很复杂，其实十分简单。就是对7岁的小孩也不会有理解上的因难。不过这些练习要做得好也并不太容易，那需要你慢慢地养成习惯．就好像我们背乘法口诀一样，你反复背诵，直到6×6＝36脱口而出，成为—种条件反射，成为你自己的一个根深蒂固的习惯。这些训练就是要通过反复的练习来达到目的。 小时候，我的钢琴教师对我说过的一番话也许可以被应用到这种训练上来。他说道：“你不可能像阿瑟?施纳贝尔那样将莫扎持的乐曲演奏得那么生动、但这并不等于说你就不能按他的练习办法来练钢琴。”我的教师还忘了一点——她也许认为那是不言而喻的——即使是施纳贝尔，如果他当初不进行持之以恒的音阶练习，那么他今天也不可能将莫扎持的乐曲演奏得那么漂亮、动听。 这也就是说，没有任何道理不让普通人通过练习来获得胜任某项工作的能力。若要将什么东西掌握到炉火纯青的地步是不容易的，那也许需要有特殊的天赋。但卓有成效所要求的只是能够胜任，它只需要做钢琴手们通常所做的那种音阶练习。 这主要是指以下五种练习——作为—个卓有成效的管理者，必须在思想上养成如下五种习惯： 1.卓有成效的管理者必须懂得如何有效地利用他们的时间。他们会利用自己所能控制的点点滴滴时间开展有条不紊的工作。 2.卓有成效的管理者重视对外界的贡献。他们不满足于埋头工作，比较注意如何使自己的努力产生必要的成果。他们一接手工作，不是立刻一头钻进上作里去，也不是马上考虑工作的办法和手段，而是首先白问道：“别人希望我做出什么样的成果来?” 3.卓有成效的管理者善于利用长处，不光善于利用他们自己的长处，而旦也知道如何利用上司、同事及下属的长处。他们还善于抓住形势提供的机会做他们想做的事。他们不会把工作建立在自己的短处相弱点上面，也决不会去做自己做不了的事情。 4.卓有成效的管理考知道如何将自己的精力集中在一些重要的领域里．这样一来，上佳的表现便能结出丰硕的成果。他们会按照工作的轻重缓急，制订出先后次序，重要的事先做，不重要的事放一放，除此之外也没有别的办法，不这么做必然会一事无成。 5.最后，卓有成效的管理者善于做出有效的决策。他们知道，要这样做首先要解决条理和秩序问题，这就是如何按正确的次序采取正确的步骤。他们也知道，有效的决策总是在不同意见讨论的基础上作出的—种判断，它决不会是“大家意见一致”的产物。他们认为在很短的时间内作出很多的决策，就难免会出现错误。机构真正需要的只是数量不多的决策，但它们却是些根本性的决策。组织真正需要的是正确的战略，而不是大轰大嗡那—套。 以上这些便是管理者卓有成效的要素，也是本书的主要内容。