我刚刚从奥兰多参观全世界最大的军用模拟和训练技术展回来。那里的一切都围绕着一个核心：帮助战士掌握至关重要的技巧——开战斗机、战场救护、狙杀人质劫持者、与村民领袖谈判——在这样的情况下他们可以犯错，但不会伤害到任何人。我亲身体验过的一些模拟技术，真实程度令人观止。我就不具体说我的表现了，但是说到模拟在航母上降落F-35战斗机，我的确还有很多事情要做。

    通过模拟大幅提高个人表现的商业机会显而易见，但是了解这点的商业领袖却少之又少。应用军队这套培训体系，第一步——甚至在讨论技术之前——不妨听一听掌管全国模拟中心（National Center for Simulation）的退役空军将军汤姆•巴布提斯的意见。“各种类型的模拟，所有学习部分都来自事后的讨论，”他这样对我说。“但是有些人不愿意这么做。”

    他说的是这种做法，每场训练（以及实地行动）后，所有参与人员开诚布公地讨论，哪些行得通，哪些行不通。谁的表现差？怎样才能避免？谁的表现好？如何推广开来？少了这种讨论，个人和团队都学不到东西。

    最大的问题是，那些身居高位的人物，通常认为这个过程中自己失去的要比得到的要多。医疗救助模拟环节十分真实，绝非纸上谈兵，一些外科医生对被录像及事后就自己的表现评头论足毫无兴趣。模拟战斗情形下，高级指挥官通常由替身扮演，因为真正的高官不愿意参与。原因是他们失去的太多，而得到的又不够。

    除非他们的团队损失惨重。如果这些领袖认为团队好不了，团队注定就好不了。他们的团队也不会与其良性互动。团队成员会明白这个组织看重的到底是什么东西，显然它看重的不是改善和进步。

    于是就引出了针对商业领袖的几个尖锐问题：在我们组织中，我们是否真的能就业绩表现开诚布公、真正平等的讨论？在我们文化中，我们真的有可能做到这样吗？我正在塑造的是不是真的是我希望看到的行为模式?只有上述问题都找到了正确答案，组织才会变得越来越好。那么，你的组织表现到底怎么样？（财富中文网）

    译者：邓婕  

    Just back from Orlando, where I was touring the world's largest trade show of simulation and training technology for the military. It's all based on the same central idea: helping warfighters learn critical skills -- piloting a fighter jet, treating injuries on the battlefield, shooting bad guys who are holding hostages, negotiating with a village leader -- in settings where they can make their mistakes without hurting anyone. The technology, some of which I tried out, is often stunningly realistic. I won't report on my performance except to say that when it comes to landing an F-35 on an aircraft carrier, I have quite a lot of work to do.

    The opportunities for businesses to improve people's performance dramatically through simulation are glaringly obvious, yet few business leaders know anything about them. As a first step toward capitalizing on what the military has learned about training -- before even thinking about the technology -- consider a remark by Tom Baptiste, a retired Air Force general who heads the National Center for Simulation. "In simulation of any kind, all the learning comes in the after-action review," he told me. "But some people just won't do it."

    He's talking about the practice, after every training exercise (and every real engagement), of gathering all those involved and reviewing with unsparing frankness what worked and what didn't. Who screwed up? How can it be avoided? What worked great? How can it be expanded? Without that discussion, individuals and teams don't learn.

    A big problem is that those at high levels may figure they have more to lose than to gain from the process. In medical simulations, which have become highly realistic and are not for the squeamish, some surgeons have zero interest in being videotaped and hearing their performance scrutinized afterward. In battle simulations, top officers are sometimes portrayed by surrogates because the actual brass won't participate. Too much to lose, not enough to gain.

    Except that their teams are losing in a big way. If those leaders think they can't get any better, they're guaranteed not to get any better. Their teams won't learn to work better with them. Team members will learn what their organization really values, and it isn't improvement.

    Which leads to a few hard questions for leaders: In our organization do we hold truly honest, no-rank-in-the-room discussions of our performance? Is it culturally even possible? Am I modeling the behavior I want to see?

    No organization will get much better until the answers to those questions are right. How is yours doing?