讓人驕傲的台灣囡仔！台灣以後就交給你們了！
這是港湖除銹志工團11歲可愛小女生的故事，看她揹著關東旗在街頭當小蜜蜂，真是覺得心疼又感動。
以下引自港湖除銹志工A發文。（我略作修改、編輯）
。。。。。。
昨天小妹妹背著旗子陪我掃街，
遇上一位老翁，問我領多少錢？
耐著性子，我看看他，看看小妹妹，問老翁：「你覺得妹妹能當工讀生？」
這些無禮的粗俗老人，
在小朋友志工面前，
真的好丟臉。
她11歲，在過去這幾個月，她看盡了在台灣最醜陋族群的嘴臉。
她11歲，已經能在包工程貪污議題上侃侃而談。
小妹妹只要看到有人與女志工攀談久一點，就會跑來旁邊確認，
看我們遇到的是鬧事的、還是友善的。
如果是鬧事的，她會去求救，把男生志工拉過來，保護我們。
她沒有因為她很瘦小，就坐等保護，她不是那些無能的投降主義者。
當志工日子以來，她學會與不同的人溝通連署書簽署，她常主動幫長輩看身分證寫地址。
她知道她發貼紙不太會被拒絕，
常常主動要求自己去做。
她學會開收大型客廳帳、蛋捲桌、折背心、收物資，做得比大人還快。
她會等待，她沒有一次不耐煩吵鬧，不管是寒流，還是酷暑。
她說，是她自己要來的。
她是女志工被暴力威脅後的安慰者，她比赤化藍營統促黨鬧事的人有教養，她比無法與人好好說話正常交流的蔥草更成熟。
她是港湖除銹最勤勞的小蜜蜂。
從幾個月前港湖除銹週五與週末，最辛苦的戶外站點，
到新北羅明才選區，與拔羅波志工一起拿著麥克風掃民宅。
再到最近週末與平日夜晚的基隆絕沛，基隆海邊，基隆山上，小朋友體溫高，但站在街頭，她沒有退卻過。
她11歲，她已經懂得什麼是公民，什麼是為人付出。
問她，寫作業怎麼辦？
她說，午休的時侯寫完。
最後一天支援基隆，讓她宣講，她緊張的說她要想一下。
她說：第一次去罷免攤位時，她只是要去買寶可夢，家人要幫忙罷免攤位請她在旁邊等一下。
後來，她就變成了罷團最可愛的寶可夢，給大家充電的暖心小小蜜蜂。
基隆絕沛，37533，123%，
有她一份！
。。。。。。
11歲的台灣女孩，謝謝你。
你是我們的驕傲。
希望我們能留給你們一個更好的台灣。
85歲的管理學大師 Henry Mintzberg依舊風趣。銳利 《經理的職責：民間傳說與事實》出版50年專訪 “The Manager's Job,” 50 Years Later。
Henry Mintzberg | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Born | September 2, 1939 |
| Academic background | |
| Alma mater | McGill University (B.Eng 1961) MIT (Ph.D. 1968) |
| Academic work | |
| Institutions | Desautels Faculty of Managemen |
「對我們的社會來說，沒有哪一種工作比管理者的工作更重要。管理者決定著我們的社會機構能否有效地服務於我們，還是會浪費我們的才能和資源。」50 年前，亨利·明茨伯格 (Henry Mintzberg) 在他的經典 HBR 文章《經理的職責：民間傳說與事實》中寫下了這些傳說，試圖揭穿關於優秀經理人的一些迷思。 HBR特約編輯 Adi Ignatius 最近採訪了仍然活躍於麥吉爾大學的明茨伯格，探討了當今的管理現狀、四種基本組織類型，以及商業世界在他的職業生涯中發生了怎樣的變化。關閉
今年是亨利·明茨伯格的經典文章《經理的職責：民間傳說與事實》發表50週年。這篇文章試圖揭穿關於優秀管理者應具備哪些素質的某些迷思，並因此獲得了當時的麥肯錫獎，該獎項每年頒發給《哈佛商業評論》年度最佳文章。
在過去五十年裡，很多事情都發生了變化，因此我們決定再次聯繫明茨伯格——他現年 85 歲，在蒙特利爾麥吉爾大學的教職崗位上仍然活躍在該領域——以了解他對當今管理狀況的看法。 2025 年 2 月 24 日，明茨伯格與《哈佛商業評論》特約編輯阿迪·伊格納修斯 (Adi Ignatius) 進行了交談，以下是該對話的編輯記錄。
您在管理領域撰寫了許多權威文章和書籍。您如何總結您對該領域的貢獻？
我認為我最擅長的是重新建構事物。我重新制定了策略，以幫助人們將其更多地視為學習而不是計劃的問題。我重新定義瞭如何最好地培訓管理人員的理念，不是透過案例研究，而是透過課堂上的社會學習，管理人員可以分享他們的經驗。我 50 年前為《哈佛商業評論》撰寫的那篇文章，試圖重新建構我們對管理工作的看法。
關於組織結構，我看到您最近更新了您撰寫的有關該主題的書《理解組織》。是什麼讓您想重新審視並修改它？
這種需求從未如此強烈。我們生活在一個由組織主導的世界。從我們出生的醫院到送我們離世的殯儀館，組織塑造著我們的生活。然而，許多人——有時甚至是這些組織的管理者——並不完全了解它們。一位學者將醫院稱為「重點工廠」。誰希望自己的孩子在專門的工廠出生？這種混亂會帶來實際的後果。
詳細說明這困惑。後果是什麼？
許多人把所有組織混為一談，認為一種組織適合所有情況。他們沒有認識到麥當勞和麻省總醫院之間的根本區別。你不能將相同的管理原則應用在兩者上。
我的工作確定了四種基本的組織形式：個人組織，如創業型企業；程序化組織，如麥當勞及其標準化流程；專業組織，如醫院，依賴其專業人員的專業知識；以及圍繞特定專案建立的專案組織，例如電影公司或研究實驗室。
關鍵在於，如果您甚至不了解您正在與哪種類型的組織打交道，那麼您就無法有效地管理。
恰恰！了解組織的真實性質對於做出正確的決策至關重要。它是一切事物的基礎。
您早期的作品強調了「應急策略」的重要性——即策略是學習而來的，而不是計劃而來的。這個概念是否也延伸到結構？
絕對地。我們學習結構，但我們不應該只是從上層強加它。想想公園設計師，他們設計的道路呈現 S 形曲線，但人們直接從 A 走到 B，創造自己的道路。聰明的公園設計師會鋪設人們實際行走的道路。
重組應該遵循同樣的原則：給人們一個一起工作的機會，看看他們如何自然地聯繫起來，然後圍繞這些聯繫構建結構。鋪路！
領導者如何運用這些見解來改善自己的組織？有哪些實用的收穫？
首先要認清你到底是個什麼樣的組織。如果你聘請一位卡車運輸業主管來管理商學院，就像曾經發生過的那樣，你很可能會失去最好的教授。
即使在同一行業，不同形式的組織也可能以非常不同的方式運作。以餐飲業為例：街角的小餐館由老闆控制。你可以吃像麥當勞這樣的速食。你們有專業的美食餐廳。而且您還提供餐飲服務，這是基於專案的。
歸根究底，您如何定義良好的管理？
正如我在工作中試圖表明的那樣，管理不是計劃、組織或協調——這些都只是控制的字詞。引用《紐約時報》對 m 的評論，這是「精心策劃的混亂和可控的混亂」。
“The Manager's Job,” 50 Years Later
Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org › 2025/03 › the-managers-job-50-years-...
Mar 19, 2025 — This year marks the 50th anniversary of Henry Mintzberg's classic article “The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact.”
“No job is more vital to our society than that of the manager. The manager determines whether our social institutions will serve us well or whether they will squander our talents and resources.” Henry Mintzberg wrote these words 50 years ago, in his classic HBR article “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” which sought to debunk some of the myths about what makes a good manager. HBR Editor at Large Adi Ignatius recently caught up with Mintzberg, who is still active at McGill University, to discuss the state of management today, the four fundamental types of organizations, and how the business world has changed throughout his career.close
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Henry Mintzberg’s classic article “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact.” The essay, which sought to debunk some of the myths about what makes a good manager, won what was then called the McKinsey Award, given annually to the year’s best article in Harvard Business Review.
A lot has changed over the last five decades, so we decided to reconnect with Mintzberg—who at age 85 remains active in the field from his faculty post at McGill University in Montreal—to get his thoughts on the state of management today. Mintzberg spoke with HBR Editor at Large Adi Ignatius on February 24, 2025, and this is an edited transcript of that conversation.
You’ve written many canonical articles and books in the management space. How would you summarize your contribution to the field?
I think that what I do best is to reframe things. I reframed strategy, to help people think of it more as a matter of learning than planning. I’ve reframed the notion of how best to train managers, not through case studies but through social learning in classrooms where managers can share their experiences. And with the article I wrote for HBR 50 years ago, I tried to reframe how we think about managerial work.
On organizational structure, I see that you recently updated the book you wrote on the topic, Understanding Organizations. What made you want to revisit and revise it?
The need has never been greater. We live in a world dominated by organizations. From the hospitals where we’re born to the funeral homes that see us off, organizations shape our lives. And yet, so many people—sometimes even those running these organizations—don’t fully understand them. One academic has referred to hospitals as “focused factories.” Who wants their baby delivered in a focused factory? This confusion has real consequences.
Elaborate on that confusion. What are the consequences?
Many people lump all organizations together, assuming one size fits all. They don’t recognize the fundamental differences between, say, a McDonald’s and Mass General Hospital. You can’t apply the same management principles to both.
My work identifies four fundamental organizational forms: the personal organization, like an entrepreneurial start-up; the programmed organization, like McDonald’s with its standardized processes; the professional organization, like a hospital, which relies on the expertise of its professionals; and the project organization, like a film company or a research lab, which is built around specific projects.
The point being that you can’t manage effectively if you don’t even understand which type of organization you’re dealing with.
Precisely! Understanding your organization’s true nature is essential to making the right decisions. It’s the foundation for everything else.
Your earlier work stressed the importance of “emergent strategy”—the idea that strategies are learned, not planned. Does that concept extend to structure as well?
Absolutely. We learn structure, we shouldn’t just impose it from above. Think about park designers who design pathways in an S-curve, but then people walk straight from A to B, creating their own paths. The smart park designer paves those paths that people actually make.
Restructuring should follow the same principle: Give people a chance to work together, see how they naturally connect, and then build the structure around those connections. Pave the pathways!
How can leaders apply these insights to improve their own organizations? What are the practical takeaways?
It starts with recognizing what kind of organization you really are. If you hire a trucking executive to run a business school, as once did happen, you’re likely going to lose your best professors.
Different forms of organizations, even in the same industry, can function in very different ways. Consider the restaurant industry: You have the corner diner controlled by the owner. You have fast food like McDonald’s. You have gourmet restaurants that are professional. And you have catering, which is project based.
At the end of the day, how do you define good management?
As I’ve tried to show in my work, managing is not planning, organizing, or coordinating—which are all just words for controlling. It’s “calculated chaos and controlled disorder,” to quote from a New York Times review of my first book.
So what is it that managers don’t understand about how to be effective?
I think the emphasis on “leadership” is a big part of the problem. People like [leadership scholars] Warren Bennis and Abe Zaleznik have made the argument that leadership is more important than management. I think that’s very destructive. We have too much “lofty” leadership, where what we need is grounded management.
What’s an example of good, grounded management?
There’s an illustrative story about Jack Welch, told to me by one of his assistants. At one stage when he was heading GE, the company was struggling in automating production in its light bulb facility. The division manager kept promising it would be fixed soon, but the problem dragged on.
So Welch flew to the factory—not to the division headquarters, but to the factory itself. He got under the machine with the engineers, and realized they couldn’t deal with an aspect of the software. So he connected them with people in GE’s jet engine division who had greater software skills, and they solved the problem.
The moral isn’t that you need the CEO to fix every problem. It’s that, if you’re managing something, get on the ground to see what’s really going on.
OK, so let’s say an organization realizes it is being poorly managed. What does it do about it?
Selection is key, at all levels. Hiring the wrong person, someone with the wrong mindset, can be disastrous. It’s almost always done from above, and that gives us no shortage of “kiss up and kick down managers.”
A way to avoid this is to give voice to the people who know the candidates best, namely, the ones who have been managed by them. Not to elect them, although consulting companies often have the partners elect the chief, but to get some straight information about how they manage.
Has the business world fundamentally changed since you began studying it?
On the one hand, I think the management of large companies has become much more technocratic—call it remote control managing—while, on the other, there seems to be a resurgence of big-time entrepreneurship.
There is another interesting finding in response to this question: that organizations tend to reflect the age of their founding. Railroads tend to be organized the way they are because of when they started, and the same may be true of automobile companies, and so on and so forth. Most of the industries that grew since World War II, seem to rely on project structure.
Is that really true for newer companies?
Well, think about Amazon. It’s a relatively new company, but it operates in a very machine-like, programmed way because it’s in an old industry, namely retailing. Even though it’s a new form of retailing, it’s still retailing, which is generally a low-wage, mass-service operation.
However, what works for Amazon’s retail operations won’t necessarily translate to Jeff Bezos’s space endeavors. Similarly, having run Tesla is not very helpful for managing X [formerly Twitter].
What about the impact of automation? How does that change organizational structure?
Automation is a game-changer. If you automate mass production, you essentially turn a bureaucracy into an adhocracy. Where before you had to have thousands and thousands of people doing menial work, if you automate all that, you replace them with engineers who design and maintain the new machines. You transform a mass-production organization into a customized project organization. Automation forces you to rethink how you do things.
Adi Ignatius is the editor at large at Harvard Business Review and its former editor in chief.
Post
Post
Share
Save
Buy Copies
Print
Read more on Management or related topics Leadership, Management skills, Business management and Managing people
Recommended For You
Public Speaking
5 Techniques to Build a More Powerful Speaking Voice
Managing Yourself
What Sets Inspirational Leaders Apart
Podcast
How to Earn Respect as a First-Time Manager
Managing Yourself
Who Are You as a Leader?
湯瑪斯·克魯斯·馬波瑟四世（英語：Thomas Cruise Mapother IV，1962—）
紐約時報2024~2025
May 23
Movies
Tom Cruise Really, Really Loves the Movies
One of the industry’s biggest stars is also its most enthusiastic evangelist. He is hoping it pays off for the eighth “Mission: Impossible” film.
By Marc Tracy
PRINT EDITIONScreen Can’t Contain His Love for Movies|May 24, 2025, Page C6
May 23
Magazine
Tom Cruise Understands Something Crucial About Stunts. (And Movies.)
His intense devotion to doing his own stunt work can seem pathological. But it’s part of a more charming devotion to moviegoing itself.
By Ryan Francis Bradley
May 15
Movies
Tom Cruise Gives Cannes a Master Class in Star Power
Whether in “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” or on the red carpet, the 62-year-old actor ensured that all eyes were on him.
By Kyle Buchanan
May 14
Movies
‘Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning’ Review: Tom Cruise Defies All
For the eighth installment of this stunt-spectacular franchise, the star returns to fight off A.I. planetary domination, the bends, gravity and maybe mortality itself.
By Manohla Dargis
PRINT EDITIONThis Time, His Goose Just Might Be Cooked|May 23, 2025, Page C4
PRINT EDITIONJune 1, 2025
Aug. 11, 2024
Olympics
Tom Cruise Jumps Off Stadium Roof to Pass Baton to Los Angeles
Cruise, one of Hollywood’s most well-known movie stars, rappelled down into the Stade de France, and the crowd of Olympians went wild as Paris handed over to the next Summer Games, in Los Angeles.
By Alissa Wilkinson
Aug. 27, 2024
Movies
The Year Tom Cruise Gave Not One but Two Dangerously Vulnerable Performances
Twenty-five years ago, the superstar starred in “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Magnolia,” and opened himself up for the camera in ways he rarely has since.
By Amy Nicholson
PRINT EDITIONA Time When Tom Cruise Was on the Cutting Edge|August 30, 2024, Page C1
May 22
Movies
A ‘Mission: Impossible’ Movie Game
We picked 20 movies, including the new “Mission: Impossible,” and found the headlines that ran with each New York Times review. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to pair them correctly. The world is counting on you.
By Eden Weingart and Aliza Aufrichtig
May 23
Media
Why Is IMAX Suddenly Everywhere?
Movie studios are putting more emphasis on the IMAX brand as it stands out as a bright spot in the theater business.
By Nicole Sperling
April 10
Movies
Wes Anderson and Richard Linklater to Compete at Cannes Film Festival
A sidebar to the competition will feature Scarlett Johansson’s directorial debut.
By Alex Marshall
PRINT EDITIONCannes Festival Unveils Lineup Of Competitors|April 12, 2025, Page C3
Aug. 11, 2024
World
Closing Ceremony Highlights: Paris Sends the Games, Via Tom Cruise, to the Beaches of L.A.
The Summer Olympics, which descended upon Paris’s most famous landmarks for 19 days of spirited competition, were passed on to Los Angeles in an elaborate closing ceremony.
Have feedback? Take a 10 second survey to help us improve the search results.
今年是亨利·明茨伯格的經典文章《經理的職責：民間傳說與事實》發表50週年。這篇文章試圖揭穿關於優秀管理者應具備哪些素質的某些迷思，並因此獲得了當時的麥肯錫獎，該獎項每年頒發給《哈佛商業評論》年度最佳文章。
在過去五十年裡，很多事情都發生了變化，因此我們決定再次聯繫明茨伯格——他現年 85 歲，在蒙特利爾麥吉爾大學的教職崗位上仍然活躍在該領域——以了解他對當今管理狀況的看法。 2025 年 2 月 24 日，明茨伯格與《哈佛商業評論》特約編輯阿迪·伊格納修斯 (Adi Ignatius) 進行了交談，以下是該對話的編輯記錄。
您在管理領域撰寫了許多權威文章和書籍。您如何總結您對該領域的貢獻？
我認為我最擅長的是重新建構事物。我重新制定了策略，以幫助人們將其更多地視為學習而不是計劃的問題。我重新定義瞭如何最好地培訓管理人員的理念，不是透過案例研究，而是透過課堂上的社會學習，管理人員可以分享他們的經驗。我 50 年前為《哈佛商業評論》撰寫的那篇文章，試圖重新建構我們對管理工作的看法。
關於組織結構，我看到您最近更新了您撰寫的有關該主題的書《理解組織》。是什麼讓您想重新審視並修改它？
這種需求從未如此強烈。我們生活在一個由組織主導的世界。從我們出生的醫院到送我們離世的殯儀館，組織塑造著我們的生活。然而，許多人——有時甚至是這些組織的管理者——並不完全了解它們。一位學者將醫院稱為「重點工廠」。誰希望自己的孩子在專門的工廠出生？這種混亂會帶來實際的後果。
詳細說明這困惑。後果是什麼？
許多人把所有組織混為一談，認為一種組織適合所有情況。他們沒有認識到麥當勞和麻省總醫院之間的根本區別。你不能將相同的管理原則應用在兩者上。
我的工作確定了四種基本的組織形式：個人組織，如創業型企業；程序化組織，如麥當勞及其標準化流程；專業組織，如醫院，依賴其專業人員的專業知識；以及圍繞特定專案建立的專案組織，例如電影公司或研究實驗室。
關鍵在於，如果您甚至不了解您正在與哪種類型的組織打交道，那麼您就無法有效地管理。
恰恰！了解組織的真實性質對於做出正確的決策至關重要。它是一切事物的基礎。
您早期的作品強調了「應急策略」的重要性——即策略是學習而來的，而不是計劃而來的。這個概念是否也延伸到結構？
絕對地。我們學習結構，但我們不應該只是從上層強加它。想想公園設計師，他們設計的道路呈現 S 形曲線，但人們直接從 A 走到 B，創造自己的道路。聰明的公園設計師會鋪設人們實際行走的道路。
重組應該遵循同樣的原則：給人們一個一起工作的機會，看看他們如何自然地聯繫起來，然後圍繞這些聯繫構建結構。鋪路！
領導者如何運用這些見解來改善自己的組織？有哪些實用的收穫？
首先要認清你到底是個什麼樣的組織。如果你聘請一位卡車運輸業主管來管理商學院，就像曾經發生過的那樣，你很可能會失去最好的教授。
即使在同一行業，不同形式的組織也可能以非常不同的方式運作。以餐飲業為例：街角的小餐館由老闆控制。你可以吃像麥當勞這樣的速食。你們有專業的美食餐廳。而且您還提供餐飲服務，這是基於專案的。
歸根究底，您如何定義良好的管理？
正如我在工作中試圖表明的那樣，管理不是計劃、組織或協調——這些都只是控制的字詞。引用《紐約時報》對 m 的評論，這是「精心策劃的混亂和可控的混亂」。
“The Manager's Job,” 50 Years Later
Harvard Business Review
https://hbr.org › 2025/03 › the-managers-job-50-years-...
Mar 19, 2025 — This year marks the 50th anniversary of Henry Mintzberg's classic article “The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact.”
“No job is more vital to our society than that of the manager. The manager determines whether our social institutions will serve us well or whether they will squander our talents and resources.” Henry Mintzberg wrote these words 50 years ago, in his classic HBR article “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact,” which sought to debunk some of the myths about what makes a good manager. HBR Editor at Large Adi Ignatius recently caught up with Mintzberg, who is still active at McGill University, to discuss the state of management today, the four fundamental types of organizations, and how the business world has changed throughout his career.close
This year marks the 50th anniversary of Henry Mintzberg’s classic article “The Manager’s Job: Folklore and Fact.” The essay, which sought to debunk some of the myths about what makes a good manager, won what was then called the McKinsey Award, given annually to the year’s best article in Harvard Business Review.
A lot has changed over the last five decades, so we decided to reconnect with Mintzberg—who at age 85 remains active in the field from his faculty post at McGill University in Montreal—to get his thoughts on the state of management today. Mintzberg spoke with HBR Editor at Large Adi Ignatius on February 24, 2025, and this is an edited transcript of that conversation.
You’ve written many canonical articles and books in the management space. How would you summarize your contribution to the field?
I think that what I do best is to reframe things. I reframed strategy, to help people think of it more as a matter of learning than planning. I’ve reframed the notion of how best to train managers, not through case studies but through social learning in classrooms where managers can share their experiences. And with the article I wrote for HBR 50 years ago, I tried to reframe how we think about managerial work.
On organizational structure, I see that you recently updated the book you wrote on the topic, Understanding Organizations. What made you want to revisit and revise it?
The need has never been greater. We live in a world dominated by organizations. From the hospitals where we’re born to the funeral homes that see us off, organizations shape our lives. And yet, so many people—sometimes even those running these organizations—don’t fully understand them. One academic has referred to hospitals as “focused factories.” Who wants their baby delivered in a focused factory? This confusion has real consequences.
Elaborate on that confusion. What are the consequences?
Many people lump all organizations together, assuming one size fits all. They don’t recognize the fundamental differences between, say, a McDonald’s and Mass General Hospital. You can’t apply the same management principles to both.
My work identifies four fundamental organizational forms: the personal organization, like an entrepreneurial start-up; the programmed organization, like McDonald’s with its standardized processes; the professional organization, like a hospital, which relies on the expertise of its professionals; and the project organization, like a film company or a research lab, which is built around specific projects.
The point being that you can’t manage effectively if you don’t even understand which type of organization you’re dealing with.
Precisely! Understanding your organization’s true nature is essential to making the right decisions. It’s the foundation for everything else.
Your earlier work stressed the importance of “emergent strategy”—the idea that strategies are learned, not planned. Does that concept extend to structure as well?
Absolutely. We learn structure, we shouldn’t just impose it from above. Think about park designers who design pathways in an S-curve, but then people walk straight from A to B, creating their own paths. The smart park designer paves those paths that people actually make.
Restructuring should follow the same principle: Give people a chance to work together, see how they naturally connect, and then build the structure around those connections. Pave the pathways!
How can leaders apply these insights to improve their own organizations? What are the practical takeaways?
It starts with recognizing what kind of organization you really are. If you hire a trucking executive to run a business school, as once did happen, you’re likely going to lose your best professors.
Different forms of organizations, even in the same industry, can function in very different ways. Consider the restaurant industry: You have the corner diner controlled by the owner. You have fast food like McDonald’s. You have gourmet restaurants that are professional. And you have catering, which is project based.
At the end of the day, how do you define good management?
As I’ve tried to show in my work, managing is not planning, organizing, or coordinating—which are all just words for controlling. It’s “calculated chaos and controlled disorder,” to quote from a New York Times review of my first book.
So what is it that managers don’t understand about how to be effective?
I think the emphasis on “leadership” is a big part of the problem. People like [leadership scholars] Warren Bennis and Abe Zaleznik have made the argument that leadership is more important than management. I think that’s very destructive. We have too much “lofty” leadership, where what we need is grounded management.
What’s an example of good, grounded management?
There’s an illustrative story about Jack Welch, told to me by one of his assistants. At one stage when he was heading GE, the company was struggling in automating production in its light bulb facility. The division manager kept promising it would be fixed soon, but the problem dragged on.
So Welch flew to the factory—not to the division headquarters, but to the factory itself. He got under the machine with the engineers, and realized they couldn’t deal with an aspect of the software. So he connected them with people in GE’s jet engine division who had greater software skills, and they solved the problem.
The moral isn’t that you need the CEO to fix every problem. It’s that, if you’re managing something, get on the ground to see what’s really going on.
OK, so let’s say an organization realizes it is being poorly managed. What does it do about it?
Selection is key, at all levels. Hiring the wrong person, someone with the wrong mindset, can be disastrous. It’s almost always done from above, and that gives us no shortage of “kiss up and kick down managers.”
A way to avoid this is to give voice to the people who know the candidates best, namely, the ones who have been managed by them. Not to elect them, although consulting companies often have the partners elect the chief, but to get some straight information about how they manage.
Has the business world fundamentally changed since you began studying it?
On the one hand, I think the management of large companies has become much more technocratic—call it remote control managing—while, on the other, there seems to be a resurgence of big-time entrepreneurship.
There is another interesting finding in response to this question: that organizations tend to reflect the age of their founding. Railroads tend to be organized the way they are because of when they started, and the same may be true of automobile companies, and so on and so forth. Most of the industries that grew since World War II, seem to rely on project structure.
Is that really true for newer companies?
Well, think about Amazon. It’s a relatively new company, but it operates in a very machine-like, programmed way because it’s in an old industry, namely retailing. Even though it’s a new form of retailing, it’s still retailing, which is generally a low-wage, mass-service operation.
However, what works for Amazon’s retail operations won’t necessarily translate to Jeff Bezos’s space endeavors. Similarly, having run Tesla is not very helpful for managing X [formerly Twitter].
What about the impact of automation? How does that change organizational structure?
Automation is a game-changer. If you automate mass production, you essentially turn a bureaucracy into an adhocracy. Where before you had to have thousands and thousands of people doing menial work, if you automate all that, you replace them with engineers who design and maintain the new machines. You transform a mass-production organization into a customized project organization. Automation forces you to rethink how you do things.
Adi Ignatius is the editor at large at Harvard Business Review and its former editor in chief.
PostPostShareSaveBuy CopiesPrintRead more on Management or related topics Leadership, Management skills, Business management and Managing people
Recommended For You
Public Speaking
5 Techniques to Build a More Powerful Speaking Voice
Managing Yourself
What Sets Inspirational Leaders Apart
Podcast
How to Earn Respect as a First-Time Manager
Managing Yourself
Who Are You as a Leader?
湯瑪斯·克魯斯·馬波瑟四世（英語：Thomas Cruise Mapother IV，1962—）
紐約時報2024~2025
May 23
Movies
Tom Cruise Really, Really Loves the Movies
One of the industry’s biggest stars is also its most enthusiastic evangelist. He is hoping it pays off for the eighth “Mission: Impossible” film.
By Marc Tracy
PRINT EDITIONScreen Can’t Contain His Love for Movies|May 24, 2025, Page C6
May 23
Magazine
Tom Cruise Understands Something Crucial About Stunts. (And Movies.)
His intense devotion to doing his own stunt work can seem pathological. But it’s part of a more charming devotion to moviegoing itself.
By Ryan Francis Bradley
May 15
Movies
Tom Cruise Gives Cannes a Master Class in Star Power
Whether in “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning” or on the red carpet, the 62-year-old actor ensured that all eyes were on him.
By Kyle Buchanan
May 14
Movies
‘Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning’ Review: Tom Cruise Defies All
For the eighth installment of this stunt-spectacular franchise, the star returns to fight off A.I. planetary domination, the bends, gravity and maybe mortality itself.
By Manohla Dargis
PRINT EDITIONThis Time, His Goose Just Might Be Cooked|May 23, 2025, Page C4
PRINT EDITIONJune 1, 2025
Aug. 11, 2024
Olympics
Tom Cruise Jumps Off Stadium Roof to Pass Baton to Los Angeles
Cruise, one of Hollywood’s most well-known movie stars, rappelled down into the Stade de France, and the crowd of Olympians went wild as Paris handed over to the next Summer Games, in Los Angeles.
By Alissa Wilkinson
Aug. 27, 2024
Movies
The Year Tom Cruise Gave Not One but Two Dangerously Vulnerable Performances
Twenty-five years ago, the superstar starred in “Eyes Wide Shut” and “Magnolia,” and opened himself up for the camera in ways he rarely has since.
By Amy Nicholson
PRINT EDITIONA Time When Tom Cruise Was on the Cutting Edge|August 30, 2024, Page C1
May 22
Movies
A ‘Mission: Impossible’ Movie Game
We picked 20 movies, including the new “Mission: Impossible,” and found the headlines that ran with each New York Times review. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to pair them correctly. The world is counting on you.
By Eden Weingart and Aliza Aufrichtig
May 23
Media
Why Is IMAX Suddenly Everywhere?
Movie studios are putting more emphasis on the IMAX brand as it stands out as a bright spot in the theater business.
By Nicole Sperling
April 10
Movies
Wes Anderson and Richard Linklater to Compete at Cannes Film Festival
A sidebar to the competition will feature Scarlett Johansson’s directorial debut.
By Alex Marshall
PRINT EDITIONCannes Festival Unveils Lineup Of Competitors|April 12, 2025, Page C3
Aug. 11, 2024
World
Closing Ceremony Highlights: Paris Sends the Games, Via Tom Cruise, to the Beaches of L.A.
The Summer Olympics, which descended upon Paris’s most famous landmarks for 19 days of spirited competition, were passed on to Los Angeles in an elaborate closing ceremony.
Have feedback? Take a 10 second survey to help us improve the search results.
沒有留言:
張貼留言