【英语生活】走出管理学的中世纪

One problem with studying management is that no one seems to know much about it. We don't have the foggiest idea of why good companies are good. We don't even know why individual managers are good – or, indeed, if they are. We have no decent units of measurement and we change our minds all the time.

For a decade we all thought that John Browne was an example of a golden manager and that BP was a model company. Then suddenly we all about-turn and decide he was pretty hopeless and the company a shambles.

The root of the trouble is that we don't really know how organisations work. We know that the “soft side” – the business of people rubbing along together – matters but we don't know which bits are important or how to measure it. As we don't know this, we don't know who to hire, and even when we have hired them, we don't know who is any good. All in all, we aren't really doing very well. If I were giving out grades for the study of management, I'd give it a D for attainment, though an A for effort.

Last week, I read something in the current issue of Strategy and Business magazine that suggests our performance may be about to improve dramatically. Scientists in the US have been developing sensors that can map all human interactions in an organisation so that some sense can be made of them.

The article suggests that these little electronic devices could bring the study of management out of the dark ages and do for it what the microscope did for the natural sciences a few centuries ago.

The idea is that all managers and all employees would be tagged by portable electronic sensors that would track their wearers' precise whereabouts as well as their body movements and changes in vocal tone. Once these data are analysed, we could start to understand the answers to some of the most basic questions.

Not only will we know who is talking to whom, but how effective that talk is. By picking up differences in tones of voice and body language, the sensors can detect if what the person is saying is being met with interest or not.

This information would get to the bottom of something that usually goes unnoticed: the social networks that underpin organisational life.

Scientists from MIT Media Lab have already done some interesting experiments in a call centre. By tracking tones of voice they have found that people whose voices fluctuated in a certain way were overwhelmingly better at selling than
those whose voices were flat. The effect
was similar to that of a mother singing to
a baby.

In another experiment, sensors were put on people in meetings. Within the first few minutes they could predict with 90 per cent accuracy who would emerge victorious after an hour's meeting. In this case, a constant, emphatic tone – implying confidence – was what sorted out the winners.

These sensors can also be used to see how teams behave. It becomes quickly apparent when people aren't talking to each other or when two people are talking too much to the exclusion of the rest. They are also good at picking up stress. By looking at changes in a person's movements and voice they can detect stress before the person is prepared to admit that something is amiss.

Some companies are already dabbling a bit. A big German bank has used them to see what makes its employees happy. An early finding: that people who socialise a lot – either through e-mail or old-fashioned talking – are happier and more productive than those who just get on with the work.

This is a brave new world indeed. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like to be tagged and my first thought is that it would be horrid. Indeed, the invasion of privacy would be so great that surely it will never catch on.

On second thoughts, if the benefits seemed big enough, people might go along with it. If your sensor could analyse results in real time and could bleep to tell you that you had lost in a negotiation, it would save you the trouble of ploughing on.

Personally, I quite welcome the idea of being tagged. Since I spend so much time talking and I never talk in a deadpan voice, I have high hopes of getting some recognition this way. What really frightens me is less the lack of privacy, more the transparency of it all. At the moment we know we are operating in the dark and that our own efforts are lost among everyone else's. To emerge into a harsh light in which we know at once how good we are and how effective might not be a future we are ready for.

The future is frightening, but so is the present. For now, instead of turning to machines for help with non-verbal communication, managers are turning to animals. I've just been invited to meet a horse next month and whisper to it, thereby apparently learning a lot about leadership and business.

More bizarre still, a training consultancy has joined up with London Zoo and is taking groups of managers to scrub the teeth of pygmy hippos. This raises the possibility of further courses in the zoo. Conflict resolution skills: spend a night in a cage with Guy the gorilla. Which makes electronic tagging seem rather less scary after all.

在研究管理学的过程中，有个问题就是似乎没有人对它有多少了解。好公司为什么好？我们完全摸不着头脑。我们甚至也不知道一个经理人为什么出色——或者说，或许他们真的很出色。我们没有像样儿的衡量标准，一会儿一个主意。在这十年里，我们都认为约翰•布朗(John Browne)是极其出色的经理人榜样，而英国石油公司(BP)是一家典范公司。然而突然之间，我们全都来了个大转向，认为他简直无药可救，这家公司也是一个烂摊子。

问题的根源在于，我们并没有真正明白组织运作的方式。我们知道，“软因素”（人们勉强共处）很重要，但是，我们不知道哪些具体细节是重要的，也不知道应该怎样去衡量它们。由于我们不知道这个问题，也就不知道应该雇谁，就算我们雇了一些人，我们也不知道谁好在哪里。总之，我们做得不怎么样。如果要我给管理学研究打分的话，我会给“达到程度”打D，不过，在“努力程度”上可以打A。

最近，我在最近一期《策略与商业》(Strategy and Business)杂志上看到一篇文章说，我们在管理学研究方面的表现也许很快就会突飞猛进。美国的科学家开发了传感器，可以描绘出一个组织里所有人的相互作用，以此对人们做出合理判断。

文章指出，这些小小的电子装置可以把管理学研究带出黑暗时代，它对管理学研究起到的作用，堪比几个世纪以前显微镜对自然科学的作用。

其想法是，所有经理人和所有雇员都戴上便携式电子传感器，这些传感器会追踪佩戴者的具体方位、身体移动和语调变化。一旦对这些数据进行分析，我们就可以开始知晓某些最基本问题的答案。

我们不仅会知道谁跟谁交谈，还会知道谈话有没有效率。通过汇集语调和身体语言的不同，这些传感器可以发现一个人说的话是否符合别人的兴趣。

这种信息会触及通常不被人注意的深层问题：社交网络支撑着组织生活。

麻省理工学院媒体实验室(MIT Media Lab)的科学家已经在一个呼叫中心进行了有趣的实验。通过追踪语调，他们发现，声音跌宕起伏的人，在销售方面远远胜过那些语调平缓的人。这种效果跟母亲给婴儿唱歌类似。

在另一项实验中，传感器安置在正在开会的人们身上。在最初几分钟，它们以90%的准确率预测到了在一个小时的会议之后获得胜利的那些人。在这个案例里，坚定、强调的语调（这暗示着信心）决定了哪些人脱颖而出。

这些传感器也可以用来研究团队的表现。它们能明显表现出人们互相不说话，或两个人交谈过多、不跟他人的说话情况。它们还善于探测到压力。通过观察一个人动作和声音的变化，它们能在一个人准备承认出错之前，探测到压力的存在。

一些公司对此已经略有涉足。一家大型德国银行已经利用传感器，来研究什么能让自己的雇员感到快乐。一个初期的发现是：社交频繁的人（不管是通过电子邮件还是通过传统的谈话方式）要比那些只知道工作的人更快乐，也更多产。

这确实是一个“美丽新世界”。我努力想象戴上传感器将会是什么样子。第一个念头就是：太可怕了。实际上，这种做法会严重侵犯隐私，肯定流行不起来。

再一转念，如果好处足够大的话，人们也许真能这么做。如果你的传感器能够实时分析结果，那就可以呜里哇啦地告诉你，你已经在谈判中失败了，那么就会给你省去费劲儿的麻烦。

就个人而言，我非常赞成戴传感器的这个主意。因为我要花很多时间说话，而且腔调决不是死气沉沉的，因此我非常希望能以这种方式获得某种认可。真正令我觉得恐怖的，与其说是缺少隐私，还不如说是它的透明性。现在我们知道自己在摸黑干活，也知道自己的努力埋没在其他所有人的努力之中。突然暴露在刺眼的聚光灯下，冷不丁地得知自己是多么出色、多么有效率，可能并不是我们已经准备好面对的未来。

这种前景令人恐惧，但现有的情况也好不到哪里去。眼下，经理人们非但没有以非口头交流方式向机器寻求帮助，反而求助于动物。我刚刚受到邀请，在下个月去看一匹马，还要和它窃窃私语，很明显，从中可以学习许多关于领导和商业的知识。

更怪异的是，一家培训咨询机构已与伦敦动物园(London Zoo)合作，让好几批经理人去给矮河马刷牙。这提升了在动物园进一步开设各种课程的可能性。冲突解决技能：在笼子里与大猩猩共度一夜。看来，还是佩带电子传感器让人感觉好一些。

译者/何黎

《FT商学院》