培养适应动荡时代的领导者：密歇根领导力模式

前言

在Course学习领导力课程，第一周的课程最后一部分给了一个文档：https://webuser.bus.umich.edu/spreitze/Pdfs/DevelopAdaptLeaders.pdf

试着阅读这个文章，于是就了这篇翻译，虽然是机翻，也做一个记录。

文章里的观点及熟悉又陌生，文章的核心观点是领导力是对他人生活的积极影响，这个观点是结合目前世界的复杂形势和通过研究很多公认的具有领导力的历史人物得出的。

下面我们看看文章具体内容。

 

正文

In complex and dynamic times, the Michigan Model of Leadership enables leaders to recognise and effectively manage competing tensions in organisational life. 

Leaders who utilise the process of Mindful Engagement learn to balance these tensions and make an impact in a world where there are no easy answers. 

We need leaders with empathy, drive, integrity, and courage – across society and throughout organisational hierarchies – whose core purpose is to make a positive difference in the lives of others.

Our generation has been witness to revolutionary advancements in industrial and information technology. 

Yet, modern organisations face challenges that are unprecedented in complexity and scale. 

The globalisation of international trade is creating more complex flows of people, goods, funds, and technology across national and political boundaries. 

Economic institutions that were historically independent are now part of a global ecosystem that, upon its collapse in 2008-2009, erased $14.5 trillion, or 33 percent, of the value of the world’s companies in only 6 months.

Furthermore, the addition of 80 million people each year to an already overcrowded planet is exacerbating the problems of pollution, desertification, underemployment, epidemics, and famine. 

Two billion people lack access to clean water, 80% of people live on $10 or less per day, only 53% of students in U.S. cities graduate high school, and climate change threatens to alter our way of life. 

These challenges will define the future of business and society, but how business and society respond to these challenges will define our generation’s legacy. 

Leadership has always been important, but the need for leaders who embrace this responsibility and can mobilise collective action in service of bringing about positive change has never been greater.

Historically, societies have looked to leaders as heroic figures with the charisma to charm the hearts of people and show them the way forward. 

Think about Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the United States, or Winston Churchill leading the United Kingdom during the Second World War. 

Unfortunately, Adolf Hitler had similar charismatic qualities that allowed him to capture the hearts of the Nazi party, leading to the death of millions. 

To address the political, economic and social challenges of our generation, we need more than charismatic figures. 

We need leaders whose core purpose in life is to make a positive difference in the lives of others, and who embody the courage, empathy, integrity and drive that is necessary to tackle tough challenges. 

Moreover, people routinely confuse leadership with formal or hierarchical power, expecting leadership only of those who hold lofty titles or positions of authority. 

Instead, we need leadership from all corners of society and at all levels of organisations. 

Today’s challenges are simply too complex and the need too immediate for people to be waiting for direction from a single leader.

Leadership is not a right that is afforded to some but not others. 

Neither is leadership merely a position. 

Rather, leadership is a set of actions that anyone can engage, and we need each person to have a bias towards action with a commitment to the collective good. 

Finally, most people look to leaders for answers, but given the challenges we face, leaders must understand that there is rarely a single answer. 

Rather, there is a competing set of tensions and trade-offs that must be considered, and leadership is about making tough choices and balancing those competing tensions.

We need leaders whose core purpose in life is to make a positive difference in the lives of others, and who embody the courage, empathy, integrity and drive that is necessary to tackle tough challenges.

Our purpose in this article is to introduce a model of leadership that illustrates the core purpose, values and actions that are necessary for leading in today’s complex and dynamic world. 

在复杂多变的时代，密歇根州的领导力模型使领导者能够认识并有效地应对组织生活中相互竞争的紧张关系。

善用敬业度的领导者学会平衡这些紧张关系，并在没有简单答案的世界中产生影响。

我们需要在整个社会和整个组织层次结构中具有同理心，驱动力，正直和勇气的领导者，其核心目的是为他人的生活带来积极的改变。

我们这一代见证了工业和信息技术的革命性进步。

但是，现代组织面临的挑战是前所未有的复杂性和规模。

国际贸易的全球化正在创造跨越国家和政治边界的更复杂的人员，货物，资金和技术流。

历来独立的经济机构现在已成为全球生态系统的一部分，该生态系统在2008-2009年崩溃后，仅在6个月内就抹去了14.5万亿美元，占全球公司价值的33％。

此外，每年已经给人满为患的星球增加了8000万人，这加剧了污染，荒漠化，就业不足，流行病和饥荒的问题。

20亿人缺乏清洁水，80％的人每天的生活费在10美元或以下，只有53％的美国城市的学生高中毕业，气候变化威胁着改变我们的生活方式。

这些挑战将定义商业和社会的未来，但是商业和社会如何应对这些挑战将定义我们这一代人的遗产。

领导力一直很重要，但是对承担这种责任并能够动员集体行动以实现积极变革的领导者的需求从未如此强烈。

从历史上看，社会一直将领导者视为具有魅力的英雄人物，以吸引人们的心灵并为他们指明前进的方向。

想想1960年代美国民权运动中的小马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King Jr.），或者第二次世界大战期间领导英国的温斯顿·丘吉尔（Winston Churchill）。

不幸的是，阿道夫·希特勒（Adolf Hitler）具有类似的超凡魅力，使他能够抓住纳粹党的心，导致数百万人死亡。

为了解决我们这一代的政治，经济和社会挑战，我们需要的不仅仅是魅力人物。

我们需要领导者，他们的人生核心目标是对他人的生活产生积极的影响，并体现出应对严峻挑战所必需的勇气，同情心，正直和动力。

而且，人们通常将领导与正式或等级制权力相混淆，只期望拥有高尚头衔或权威的人担任领导。

相反，我们需要社会各个角落和组织各个层面的领导。

今天的挑战太复杂了，人们迫切需要等待一位领导者的指示。

领导权不是赋予某些人的权利，而不是赋予其他人的权利。

领导也不只是职位。

相反，领导力是任何人都可以参与的一系列行动，而我们需要每个人都对行动有偏见，对集体利益有承诺。

最后，大多数人都向领导者寻求答案，但是鉴于我们面临的挑战，领导者必须理解很少有一个答案。

相反，必须存在一系列相互竞争的紧张关系和权衡取舍被考虑，而领导就是做出艰难的选择并平衡那些相互竞争的紧张局势。

我们需要领导者，他们的人生核心目标是对他人的生活产生积极的影响，并体现出应对严峻挑战所必需的勇气，同情心，正直和动力。

我们在本文中的目的是介绍一种领导模型，说明领导在当今复杂多变的世界中所必需的核心目标，价值观和行动。

In the 1950s, scholars from the University of Michigan -- Daniel Katz, Robert Kahn, and Rensis Likert -- conducted ground-breaking leadership research that spawned the Human Relations movement. 

Based on their research, managers were encouraged to adopt leadership styles that were less job-oriented and more employee-oriented by showing consideration for the needs of employees and enabling their participation in organisational decisions.

What may sound obvious today was revolutionary in the 1950s, at which point leadership was mostly about providing structure and ensuring jobs were completed within specification. 

In this article, we hope to stand on the shoulders of Katz, Kahn and Likert (and others) to introduce a new way of thinking about leadership as a means to positive change in business and society. 

This new model -- called the Michigan Model of Leadership -- brings to the foreground the core purpose of making a positive impact on business and society, and articulates the values and actions that are
needed to balance tensions between stability and change, and internal versus external stakeholders. 

After introducing the model, we identify strategies and practices for developing tinresponsible, purpose-driven leaders in your organisation.

The Michigan Model of Leadership

The Michigan Model of Leadership (MMoL) explains how people can lead positive change in their lives, teams, organisations, and society. 

The MMoL is deeply embedded in the leadership research conducted by many prominent scholars across an array of organisations, market sectors and national boundaries.

To be clear, we make several assumptions about leadership in the 21st century. 

First, leadership is not defined as a position or title. 

Instead, it is a set of actions that anyone can engage in regardless of where they sit in an organisational hierarchy.

What do we mean by positive difference?
It is about impact and legacy -- leaving your team, organisation, or even the world a better place than you found it. 

As Robert Quinn (University of Michigan) describes in his research on the fundamental state of leadership, at any time, each of us can choose to be and act as a leader. 

Second, effective leaders do not lead by commanding compliance of others.

Instead, effective leaders empower, challenge, and support others to accomplish shared goals. 

In this sense, leadership is not something you do to people, but rather is about how you work through other people to enable excellence. 

Third, effective leaders are acutely aware of their personal strengths and how to leverage those strengths to bring out the best in themselves and others. 

No leader is perfect. All leaders have weaknesses, but the effective ones understand how to complement their weaknesses and leverage their strengths to enable their own and others’ best selves. 

These assumptions are important because they make leadership accessible to people young and old, with power and without it. 

Leadership is a choice, and all of us can choose to lead.

At the centre of the MMoL is a core purpose: to make a positive difference in the world. 

What do we mean by positive difference? It is about impact and legacy -- leaving your team, organisation, or even the world a better place than you found it. 

Researchers such as Adam Grant (University of Pennsylvania) have shown that focusing people on the impact of their work -- for example, the positive impact on customers -- is not only motivating and inspiring, but it also results in sustainable performance improvement. 

We are teaching leaders to visualize the impact of their work, use that positive impact as a calling to mobilise their teams, and ultimately achieve greater performance by embracing as their own purpose to make a positive difference in the world.

Surrounding this core purpose -- what we refer to as the positive core -- is a set of values describing how the mission is achieved. 

Our research shows that the most effective leaders 

(1) are empathetic and committed to seeing the world through others’ eyes 

(2) are driven and routinely stretch to achieve challenging goals; 

(3) have integrity and are committed to doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing; and finally 

(4) are courageous and consider risk. 

and failure to be necessary ingredients for innovation. 

These values form a strong foundation for action and serve as guideposts for leaders as they work to make a positive difference in the world.

With the core purpose and values as its foundation, the MMoL then describes the leadership actions that are necessary for thriving in today’s global, dynamic and complex environments. 

Leadership is not only about painting inspirational visions, or structuring organisational processes for execution, or fostering collaboration and innovation. 

All of these actions are important, but to be effective, leaders must balance a set of competing forces. 

在1950年代，密歇根大学的学者丹尼尔·卡茨（Daniel Katz），罗伯特·卡恩（Robert Kahn）和里斯·李克特（Rensis Likert）进行了具有开创性的领导力研究，从而催生了人际关系运动。

根据他们的研究，鼓励管理人员通过考虑员工的需求并促使他们参与组织决策，采取较少以工作为导向，以员工为中心的领导风格。

今天听起来显而易见的是1950年代的革命，那时领导力主要是提供结构并确保工作在规范范围内完成。

在本文中，我们希望站在卡兹（Katz），卡恩（Kahn）和李克特（Likert）（及其他）的肩膀上，提出一种新的思维方式，将领导力视为实现企业和社会积极变革的手段。

这种称为密歇根州领导力模型的新模型将对企业和社会产生积极影响的核心目的置于前台，并阐明了价值观和行动。
需要平衡稳定与变化之间以及内部与外部利益相关者之间的紧张关系。

引入模型后，我们将确定在组织中培养负责任，以目标为导向的领导者的策略和实践。

密歇根州领导模式
密歇根州领导力模型（MMoL）解释了如何
人们可以领导他们的生活，团队，组织和社会的积极变化。

MMoL深深地嵌入了由许多著名学者在组织，市场部门和国界中进行的领导力研究中。

明确地说，我们对21世纪的领导力作了一些假设。

首先，领导力不被定义为职位或头衔。

相反，这是一组任何人都可以参与的操作，无论他们在组织层次结构中的位置如何。

我们所说的积极差异是什么意思？
它涉及的是影响力和传承-使您的团队，组织甚至整个世界都比您发现的更好。

正如罗伯特·奎因（密歇根大学）在其关于领导力基本状态的研究中所描述的那样，我们每个人随时都可以选择成为领导者并充当领导者。

第二，有效的领导者不能通过命令他人顺从来领导。

相反，有效的领导者可以授权，挑战和支持他人以实现共同的目标。

从这个意义上说，领导力不是您对他人所做的事情，而是您如何与他人合作以实现卓越成就。

第三，有效的领导者敏锐地意识到自己的个人优势，以及如何利用这些优势发扬自身和他人的才能。

没有领导者是完美的。所有领导者都有弱点，但是有效率的领导者懂得如何弥补自己的弱点，并利用自己的优势来实现自己和他人的最佳自我。

这些假设很重要，因为它们使有能力和没有权力的年轻人和老年人都能获得领导才能。

领导是一种选择，我们所有人都可以选择领导。

MMoL的核心目标是：在世界上产生积极的影响。

我们所说的积极差异是什么意思？它涉及的是影响力和传承-使您的团队，组织甚至整个世界都比您发现的更好。

宾夕法尼亚大学的亚当·格兰特（Adam Grant）等研究人员表明，让人们关注工作的影响（例如，对客户的积极影响）不仅是激励和鼓舞，而且还可以持续改善绩效。

我们正在教导领导者形象化地发挥工作的影响力，利用这种积极影响力来调动团队力量，并通过拥抱自己为世界带来积极影响的目的最终实现更高的绩效。

围绕这个核心目标（我们称为积极核心）的是一组描述任务如何实现的价值观。

我们的研究表明，最有效的领导者

（1）善解人意，并致力于通过他人的眼光看世界

（2）有动力并经常进行伸展运动以实现具有挑战性的目标；

（3）有正直并承诺做正确的事，即使这不是流行的事；最后

（4）有勇气并考虑风险。

以及未能成为创新的必要要素。

这些价值观为行动奠定了坚实的基础，并为领导者努力在世界上发挥积极作用提供了指导。

MMoL以核心目标和价值观为基础，描述了在当今全球，动态和复杂环境中蓬勃发展所必需的领导行动。

领导力不仅仅在于描绘鼓舞人心的愿景，或者组织执行的组织过程，或者促进协作与创新。

所有这些行动都很重要，但要想发挥作用，领导者必须平衡一系列竞争力量。

Leaders must simultaneously balance the stability required for execution with the change required for innovation.

Leaders must balance the need for internal collaboration and community with external performance pressures from outside the team. 

Building on research by Robert Quinn and Kim Cameron (University of Michigan), we have identified four leadership archetypes that embody these competing tensions. 

Each archetype has inherent strengths and weaknesses. 

Only by juxtaposing and managing the competing tensions can leaders create sustained effectiveness over time.

Robust Results (blue) represents the actions that leaders engage in to foster competition, perform under pressure, and deliver short-term results. 

This archetype is often in direct tension with Collaborative Communities (yellow), which represents the actions involved in building high-quality relationships, empowering people, and cultivating trust and cohesion within teams.

In many organisations, competition and an emphasis on short-term performance undermine collaboration and the importance of community.

Yet, in other organisations, too much of an emphasis on harmony within the community produces a happy yet under-performing culture where people are unwilling to challenge each other in service of achieving higher performance.

Strategic Structures (red) represents the actions that leaders engage in to establish accountability, ensure reliable processes, and optimize efficiency.

This archetype is often in direct contrast with Creative Change (green), which represents the actions required to enable change, inspire innovation and co-create new opportunities. 

In manyorganisations, an over-emphasis on structure and process can root out innovation, but at the same time, too much emphasis on innovation and change can produce inefficiencies or even organisational chaos that keeps the organisation from implementing new ideas.

Unlike traditional models of leadership that prescribe a menu of leadership behaviours, the MMoL illustrates how well-intended leadership behaviours can solve one problem while introducing a new problem. 

Consider the contrast between Steve Jobs, the legendary founder of Apple, and current Apple CEO Tim Cook. 

Jobs, strong in the green Creative Change quadrant, was a prolific visionary with numerous pathbreaking products to his name. 

But he neglected key issues regarding Apple’s supply chain (witness the repeated problems with Apple’s Chinese suppliers). 

Cook, in contrast, lacks the brilliant mind of a designer, but he brings important strengths in the red Strategic Structures quadrant. 

He streamlined Apple’s supply chain, reduced inventory levels and increased margins while building confidence in the integrity of suppliers. 

The implication for leadership development is profound. 

Every person has a unique set of strengths, but in line with these competing tensions, those strengths will inevitably introduce a unique set of weaknesses that can undermine sustainable performance. 

It is a rare person who can perform all of these leadership functions well. 

What we need are leaders who not only recognize the competing tensions but also understand that their role as a leader is not to resolve the tension. 

Rather, leadership is about helping the organisation dynamically manage these paradoxes.

Building leaders with the cognitive and behavioural complexity of the Michigan Model of Leadership is difficult. 

In this next section, we introduce our approach -- called Mindful Engagement -- to developing leaders who learn from experience how to navigate the choices and trade-offs required to thrive in today’s complex and dynamic environment.

领导者必须在执行所需的稳定性与创新所需的变更之间取得平衡。

领导者必须在内部协作和社区需求与团队外部的外部绩效压力之间取得平衡。

在罗伯特·奎因（Robert Quinn）和金·卡梅伦（Kim Cameron，密歇根大学）的研究基础上，我们确定了体现这些竞争张力的四种领导力原型。

每种原型都有其固有的优点和缺点。

领导者只有通过并置和管理相互竞争的紧张关系，才能随着时间的推移创造持续的效力。

稳健的结果（蓝色）表示领导者为促进竞争，在压力下的表现并提供短期结果而采取的行动。

这种原型通常与协作社区（黄色）直接相关，该协作社区代表着建立高质量关系，赋予人们权力以及在团队内部建立信任和凝聚力所涉及的行动。

在许多组织中，竞争和对短期绩效的重视破坏了合作和社区的重要性。

但是，在其他组织中，过分强调社区内部的和谐会产生一种幸福却表现不佳的文化，在这种文化中，人们不愿意为了实现更高的绩效而互相挑战。

战略结构（红色）表示领导者为建立问责制，确保可靠的流程并优化效率而采取的行动。

这种原型通常与“创意变革”（绿色）形成鲜明对比，“创意变革”代表实现变革，激发创新和共同创造新机遇所需的行动。

在许多组织中，过分强调结构和过程会根除创新，但与此同时，过分强调创新和变更可能会导致效率低下甚至组织混乱，从而使组织无法实施新想法。

与规定领导行为菜单的传统领导模型不同，MMoL说明了有计划的领导行为如何在引入一个新问题的同时解决一个问题。

考虑一下传奇的苹果创始人史蒂夫·乔布斯与现任苹果首席执行官蒂姆·库克之间的对比。

乔布斯（Jobs）在绿色的“创意变革”象限中表现出色，他是一位多产的梦想家，他拥有无数突破性产品。

但是他忽略了与苹果供应链有关的关键问题（目睹了苹果在中国的供应商屡次出现的问题）。

相比之下，库克缺乏设计师的聪明才智，但他在红色的“战略结构”象限中发挥了重要的作用。

他简化了苹果的供应链，降低了库存水平，提高了利润，同时建立了对供应商诚信的信心。

领导力发展的意义是深远的。

每个人都有一套独特的优势，但与这些相互竞争的紧张局势一致，这些优势将不可避免地引入一系列独特的劣势，这些劣势可能会破坏可持续发展绩效。

能够很好地履行所有这些领导职责的人很少。

我们需要的是领导人，他们不仅认识到竞争中的紧张局势，而且了解他们作为领导者的作用不是解决紧张局势。

相反，领导力是关于帮助组织动态管理这些悖论。

用密歇根州领导模式的认知和行为复杂性来培养领导者是困难的。

在下一部分中，我们向发展中的领导者介绍我们的方法（称为“认真参与”），他们将从经验中学习如何在当今复杂多变的环境中蓬勃发展所需的选择和权衡取舍。

Mindful Engagement: A Process for Developing Leaders Who Thrive in Complex Environments Drawing from research in for-profit companies and governmental agencies around the world, with Susan Ashford (University of Michigan), we developed an approach to leadership development called Mindful Engagement. 

This approach is appropriate for developing leaders who thrive in complex environments where there is no single answer and the primary source of learning is experience. 

The process of Mindful Engagement is based on three basic principles: (1) Readying for Growth, (2) Taking Action to Learn, and (3) Reflecting to Retain.

Readying for Growth.

Readying for growth is about preparing oneself to learn in complex, dynamic environments. 

It includes three specific steps: (1) building an awareness of strengths in context, (2) identifying specific, learning goals, and (3) developing a learning mind-set.

Leaders must be aware of and understand how to leverage their own strengths. 

To build this awareness, we use a series of strengths-based assessments and exercises such as the Reflected Best Self (http://www.centerforpos.org/the-center/teaching-andpractice-materials/teaching-tools/reflectedbest-self-exercise/). 

Best-self stories help individuals discover their strengths and realise their own potential and possibility as leaders. 

At the same time, leaders must understand that too much emphasis on any particular strength can create an opposing and countervailing force.

For example, we are currently coaching an executive who has insatiable drive and an unparalleled commitment to results, but his singular focus on results is reducing cohesion in his senior management team. 

In complex and turbulent environments, leaders must find a way to leverage their strengths while making sure those strengths do not escalate to become the singular focus of their leadership. 

For many, this process is difficult because their strengths are exactly the reason they have been so successful. 

To address this mental hurdle, in our assessments, we not only identify individuals’ strengths but also provide real-life examples that offer insight into the potential risks and trade-offs associated with those strengths. 

We also routinely pair leaders with contrasting strengths to help them develop an appreciation for the risks of their own leadership style.

The second step is the development of specific learning goals. 

Clearly, if someone is strong in the red Reliable Results quadrant, a natural learning goal will be to learn the core skills in a different quadrant, maybe the green Creative Change quadrant. 

But we emphasise a different approach.

We ask leaders to commit to learning goals that emphasize, not a particular quadrant, but rather goals focused on learning how to navigate the tensions and trade-offs among the four MMoL quadrants. 

Learning does not happen within quadrants -- learning occurs as leaders focus on and navigate the tensions across quadrants. 

A recent example comes from an executive who focused her learning goal on stakeholder analysis as a way to understand the distinctive and sometimes conflicting needs and concerns of different stakeholders.

The third step is to develop a learning mind-set. 

Carol Dweck (Stanford University) suggests that people either have a performance mind-set (focused on achievement focused on proving yourself) or a learning mind-set (focused on the belief that everyone can change and grow through experience). 

A performance mind-set values perfection or looking smart. 

A learning mind-set values experimentation and pushing the boundaries of our comfort zones.

In a world where competing forces and trade-offs are the norm, perfection is a myth and thus a performance mind-set impedes leader development. 

A learning mind-set, in contrast, encourages leaders to get out of their comfort zone and trying new things. 

Mistakes in today’s complex world are inevitable.

The challenge is to make sure you and your team learn from the mistake, and never make the same mistake twice.

认真参与：培养在复杂环境中蓬勃发展的领导者的过程借鉴Susan Ashford（密歇根大学）在全球范围内营利性公司和政府机构的研究成果，我们开发了一种称为“认真参与”的领导力发展方法。

这种方法适用于在复杂环境中壮成长的领导者，这些环境中没有单一答案，学习的主要来源是经验。

正念参与的过程基于三个基本原则：（1）为成长做好准备；（2）采取行动学习；以及（3）反思以保持。

为成长做准备。

为成长做好准备就是准备自己在复杂，动态的环境中学习。

它包括三个具体步骤：（1）在上下文中建立对优势的认识，（2）确定具体的学习目标，以及（3）培养学习心态。

领导者必须意识到并了解如何利用自己的优势。

为了建立这种认识，我们使用了一系列基于优势的评估和练习，例如Reflected Best Self（http://www.centerforpos.org/the-center/teaching-andpractice-materials/teaching-tools/reflectedbest-self -锻炼/）。

最佳自我的故事可以帮助个人发现自己的优势，并实现自己作为领导者的潜力和可能性。

同时，领导者必须理解，过分强调任何一种特定的力量都会产生对立和抵消的力量。

例如，我们目前正在培训一位高超的经理人，他具有无限的动力和对结果的无与伦比的承诺，但是他对结果的过分关注降低了其高级管理团队的凝聚力。

在复杂而动荡的环境中，领导者必须找到一种方法来利用自己的优势，同时确保这些优势不会升级为他们领导的重点。

对于许多人来说，这个过程很困难，因为他们的优势恰恰是他们如此成功的原因。

为了解决这一心理障碍，我们在评估中不仅确定了个人的长处，而且还提供了现实生活中的示例，这些示例提供了与这些长处相关的潜在风险和权衡取舍的见解。

我们还定期将具有不同优势的领导者配对，以帮助他们逐渐意识到自己的领导风格所带来的风险。

第二步是制定具体的学习目标。

显然，如果有人在红色的“可靠结果”象限中很强，那么一个自然的学习目标就是在另一个象限中学习核心技能，也许是在绿色的“创意变革”象限中。

但是我们强调另一种方法。

我们要求领导者致力于学习目标，而不是强调特定象限，而是着重于学习如何应对四个MMoL象限之间的紧张关系和权衡目标的目标。

学习不会在象限内发生-学习是在领导者专注于并克服象限之间的紧张关系时发生的。

最近的一个例子来自一位高管，该高管将学习目标集中在利益相关者分析上，以此来理解不同利益相关者独特且有时相互冲突的需求和关注。

第三步是培养学习心态。

斯坦福大学的卡罗尔·德威克（Carol Dweck）建议人们要么具有表现型思维（专注于证明自己的成就），要么具有学习型思维（专注于每个人都可以通过经验改变和成长的信念）。

表现思维定式重视完美或显得精明。

学习的思维定式重视实验并突破舒适区的界限。

在当今世界，竞争和权衡取舍是常态，完美是神话，因此表现型思维定势阻碍了领导者的发展。

相反，学习型思维会鼓励领导者走出自己的舒适区并尝试新事物。

在当今复杂的世界中，错误是不可避免的。

面临的挑战是确保您和您的团队从错误中吸取教训，并且永远不会两次犯相同的错误。

Taking Action to Learn.

Taking action to learn is about transforming the leader into his or her own R&D lab, where the leader is proactively experimenting with new ways of leading and taking steps to learn from those experiments. 

It is “skunk works” for proactive, self-directed leader development. 

To motivate taking action to learn, follow these steps:First, leaders need to see, feel and experience the competing forces inherent in the MMoL. 

High-impact experiences are high-stakes (blue quadrant) and require individuals to organise diverse groups of people with limited time and resources (yellow and red quadrants) in service of facilitating innovation and change (green quadrant). 

At the Ross School of Business, for example, we created the Ross Impact Challenge where 48 student teams have six days to develop a new, for-profit venture that creates economic and social value in Detroit, MI. 

The teams are composed of 500 people from 36 countries, granted limited time and resources, and challenged to create real impact that is visible in the Detroit community. 

To excel, the teams must navigate the need for innovation with the need for structure, and the need for team cohesion with a need for results.

As individuals work to transcend above the competing tensions rather than compromising amongst the competing tensions, deep learning occurs.

Second, taking action for learning requires that leaders commit to personal experimentation. 

At Ross, we encourage our students to see each and every experience, no matter how big or small, as an opportunity to experiment with new ways of leading. 

Recognising that experimentation will sometimes result in failure and mistakes -- think about a pharmaceutical firm experimenting with new drug possibilities -- we encourage leaders to commit to multiple, small
experiments and to fail fast and early. 

Of course, the organisational culture and reward systems must allow and even support failure when that failure is in service of learning.

Third, leaders must commit to a set of actions focused on seeking feedback. 

Learning only occurs when leaders have deep insight into how their actions affect, positively and negatively, the willingness and ability of others to achieve organisational goals. 

The problem is that most organisations provide too little feedback, or feedback that is not constructive for learning how to lead in complex, dynamic environments. 

Rather than trying to change the feedback system, we find that a more effective point of intervention is teaching people how to proactively seek feedback that leads to deep insight and personal change. 

Basic principles include (a) create a routine question or prompt for feedback such as “What input can you give me on...?”; (b) seek feedback as close to the event in question as possible; (c) make it routine and part of your “style”; and (d) seek input from people besides your supervisor or subordinate, such as your customer or peers.

Reflecting to Retain.

Reflecting to retain is about practices that enable people to capture and apply the lessons of experience for self-improvement. 

The roadblock to learning for most people is themselves -- the psychological biases that create excuses, flawed attributions, or blinders that get in the way of learning from experience. 

To address these challenges, we developed and validated a structured reflection process that attacks the biases and enables people to learn in complex, dynamic environments. 

Most people and organisations avoid reflection altogether, focusing instead on the next task or the next emergency without giving much thought to the past. 

Even more problematic is that, according to our research, the typical reflection conversation (“What happened? How did it go? What did we learn?”) does not foster learning. 

Drawing from the military’s after-event review procedure, we develop a new structured process for reflection. 

The process asks leaders to: (a) describe the experience; (b) explain their reactions to the experience; (c) discuss “what if ” scenarios that test alternative explanations for their performance; (d) identify insights about new behaviours that would improve performance; and (e) commit to at least two behaviour changes and specific milestones for making those behaviour changes. 

We have begun using this structured reflection process to build learning communities of peers where they routinely discuss their experiences, test assumptions about their own performance, and help each other identify insights and actions steps that will enable positive behaviour change in the future. 

采取行动学习。

采取行动学习是关于将领导者转变为他或她自己的研发实验室，领导者正在积极地尝试新的领导方式，并采取步骤从这些实验中学习。

这是主动，自我指导的领导者发展的“臭鼬作品”。

为了激发采取行动进行学习，请遵循以下步骤：首先，领导者需要观察，感受和体验MMoL固有的竞争力。

高影响力的体验是高风险的（蓝色象限），要求个人在有限的时间和资源（黄色和红色象限）中组织不同的人群，以促进创新和变革（绿色象限）。

例如，在罗斯商学院，我们发起了罗斯冲击挑战赛，其中48个学生团队有6天的时间来开发一个新的，以营利为目的的企业，在密西根州的底特律创造经济和社会价值。

这些团队由来自36个国家/地区的500人组成，他们被分配了有限的时间和资源，并受到挑战以创造在底特律社区中可见的真实影响。

为了出类拔萃，团队必须将创新的需求与结构的需求，团队凝聚力的需求与结果的需求相结合。

当个人努力超越竞争张力而不是在竞争张力之间妥协时，就会发生深度学习。

其次，采取行动进行学习需要领导者致力于个人实验。

在罗斯，我们鼓励学生不论大小，都应体会每一次的经历，以此来尝试新的领导方式。

认识到实验有时会导致失败和错误-考虑一家制药公司尝试新药的可能性-我们鼓励领导者致力于多种多样，规模较小的
实验，并尽早失败。

当然，组织的文化和奖励制度必须允许甚至支持失败，而这种失败是为学习服务的。

第三，领导者必须采取一系列旨在寻求反馈的行动。

只有当领导者深入了解自己的行为如何积极或消极地影响他人实现组织目标的意愿和能力时，才会发生学习。

问题在于，大多数组织提供的反馈太少，或者对于学习如何在复杂，动态的环境中领导无益。

我们发现，与其尝试更改反馈系统，不如说是更有效的干预方法，它教会人们如何主动寻求可带来深刻见解和个人改变的反馈。

基本原则包括：（a）提出例行问题或提示反馈的内容，例如“您能给我提供什么...？”； （b）尽可能在有关事件附近寻求反馈； （c）使其成为日常活动，并成为您的“风格”的一部分； （d）向您的主管或下属以外的人员（例如您的客户或同行）征求意见。

反映保留。

反映保留是关于使人们能够捕获和应用经验教训以进行自我完善的实践。

对于大多数人来说，学习的障碍本身就是-造成借口，缺陷归因或盲目的心理偏见，它们阻碍了从经验中学习。

为了应对这些挑战，我们开发并验证了一种结构化的反思过程，该过程可以克服偏见，并使人们能够在复杂，动态的环境中学习。

大多数人和组织完全避免思考，而是将注意力集中在下一个任务或下一个紧急情况上，而没有对过去进行过多考虑。

更有问题的是，根据我们的研究，典型的反思对话（“发生了什么？它是如何进行的？我们学到了什么？”）并不能促进学习。

根据军方事后审查程序，我们开发了一种新的结构化流程进行反思。

该过程要求领导者：（a）描述经验； （b）解释他们对经历的反应； （c）讨论“假设情况”场景，以测试其性能的替代解释； （d）找出有关可改善绩效的新行为的见解； （e）承诺至少要进行两次行为更改以及做出这些行为更改的特定里程碑。

我们已开始使用这种结构化的反思过程来建立同龄人的学习社区，他们在该社区中例行讨论他们的经验，测试关于他们自己的绩效的假设，并互相帮助确定能使未来行为发生积极变化的见解和行动步骤。

The holy grail for most organisations is building a learning culture where individuals commit not only to their own personal growth but also the personal growth of their colleagues. 

Our research shows that building structured reflection practices into the normal course of work is one way of building a learning organisation that cultivates leaders who can thrive in complex, dynamic environments.

Our world is filled with challenges. 

More than ever before, we need leaders who commit to living a life of mindful engagement in reach of their best selves.

We need leaders who understand how to leverage the competing values inherent to business, who elevate society to higher ideals and standards. 

Finally, we need leaders with empathy, drive, integrity, and courage – across society and throughout organisational hierarchies – whose core purpose is to make a positive difference in the lives of others.

Are you that kind of leader?

About the Authors
D. Scott DeRue is a management professor at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business.

Reported by CNN/Money to be one of the top 40 business school professors under the age of 40, Scott’s teaching and research focus on how leaders and teams learn, adapt, and develop in complex and dynamic environments.
([email protected])

Gretchen Spreitzer is a management professor at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business. She is the author of four books on leadership and is a thought leader in the new field of Positive Organisations. 

Her research focuses on employee empowerment and leadership development, particularly within a context of organisational change and decline. ([email protected])

Brian Flanagan is managing director of the Ross Leadership Initiative at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M. Ross School of Business. 

His work applies cutting-edge leadership research to development programs for students.

He is interested in developing leaders who mobilize the highest potential in people, organisations, and society.
([email protected])

Benjamin Allen is former assistant director of the Ross Leadership Initiative (RLI) at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business and current talent management specialist at Chrysler, LLC.

During his tenure at RLI, Ben developed, planned, and executed leadership programs for students. 

He seeks to maximize the potential impact of all leaders and organisations. 
([email protected])

 

大多数组织的圣杯正在建立一种学习文化，个人不仅要致力于自己的个人成长，而且还要致力于同事的个人成长。

我们的研究表明，在正常的工作过程中构建结构化的反思实践是构建学习型组织的一种方式，该组织可以培养能够在复杂，动态环境中蓬勃发展的领导者。

我们的世界充满挑战。

我们比以往任何时候都更需要领导者，他们要致力于尽心尽力地参与进来，尽自己最大的努力。

我们需要领导者，他们必须了解如何利用业务固有的竞争价值，并将社会提升到更高的理想和标准。

最后，我们需要在整个社会和整个组织层次结构中具有同理心，驱动力，正直和勇气的领导者，其核心目的是为他人的生活带来积极的改变。

你是那种领导者吗？

关于作者
D. Scott DeRue是密歇根大学Stephen M. Ross商学院的管理学教授。

根据CNN / Money的报道，斯科特是40岁以下的40名商学院教授之一，他的教学和研究重点在于领导者和团队如何在复杂而动态的环境中学习，适应和发展。
（[email protected]）

格雷琴·斯普雷泽（Gretchen Spreitzer）是密歇根大学史蒂芬·罗斯大学商学院的管理学教授。她是关于领导力的四本书的作者，并且是积极组织新领域的思想领袖。

她的研究专注于员工赋权和领导力发展，尤其是在组织变革和衰退的背景下。 （[email protected]）

布莱恩·弗拉纳根（Brian Flanagan）是密歇根大学斯蒂芬·罗斯大学商学院罗斯领导计划的董事总经理。

他的工作将前沿的领导力研究应用于学生的发展计划。

他对培养能够动员人们，组织和社会的最大潜力的领导者感兴趣。
（[email protected]）

本杰明·艾伦（Benjamin Allen）是密歇根大学斯蒂芬·罗斯大学商学院罗斯领导力计划（RLI）的前助理主任，也是克莱斯勒有限公司的人才管理专家。

Ben在RLI任职期间，制定，计划并执行了针对学生的领导力计划。

他力求最大程度地发挥所有领导者和组织的潜在影响。
（[email protected]）

看完有些印象，记住了三个原则：1、为成长做准备。2、采取行动学习。3、保持反思。最后发现这些道理和方法并不复杂，或者难懂，但是要每天实践，打破自己的固有的节奏才是最难的。