跟伊梅尔特不同，GE新老板值得投资者期待

随着杰夫·伊梅尔特即将离职，由约翰·弗兰纳里接任通用电气（GE）首席执行官的消息传出，许多人都在问：伊梅尔特的离开对通用电气的表现而言意味着什么？公司在股价萎靡16年之后，是否能重振雄风？很多人似乎都如此认为。

高管办公室的巨大变动会对公司的表现带来怎样的影响？证据鱼龙混杂，不过那些最严谨的研究发现了一些有趣的模式。意料之中的是，结果并不简单。领导力总是与情境相关的，而继任后事情的进展也取决于许多因素。管理学的学者们倾向于关注两大变量：企业是否处于危机之中，明显需要改变方向；新领袖是来自外部还是从内部提拔。

根据这些研究的发现，通用电气做出的选择似乎能在如今状况下产生最佳效果。当公司不需要在战略和/或运营上进行彻底改变时，聘用内部的候选者会带来最好的业绩。如果新任首席执行官与前任首席执行官共事过，这种内部人员的优势则会被放到最大。弗兰纳里就属于这种情况。（详见张燕和南迪尼·拉贾戈帕兰关于首席执行官继任的研究。）不过，这类情况下的增长往往不够明显，主要也集中在股东回报上。（拉克什·库拉纳和尼汀·诺瑞亚的研究发现，平均来看，资产收益率实际上并没有提升。）

不过另一种途径可以更清楚地展望弗兰纳里的继任前景。那就是考虑通用电气最迫切地需要实现什么，要如何实现它，而弗兰纳里是否是实现它的合适人选。

显然，通用电气需要的是增长。尽管并购是实现增长的一种方式，但让公司变得更具创新能力是一种更好的办法。几十年来，我的研究议题都专注于搞清为什么一些领袖可以做到这一点。随着时间的推移，我注意到快速增长的公司的领袖倾向于参与和鼓励提问题，无论是在质量还是数量上。这很有道理，考虑到具有重大影响力的创新往往来源于灵光一现，这些突破几乎也都可以回溯到某些人试图重新构造他们希望解决的问题。提出更好的问题，可能就会开辟出一条寻找更好答案的全新道路。

首席执行官本人不一定要提出所有更好的问题（更不用说想出所有的答案）。实际上，更棒的办法是创造条件让其他人提出具有挑战性的问题，并仔细倾听其中可能会带来促进作用，甚至改变格局的问题。弗兰纳里显示了擅长于此的迹象。在发表声明后的首次采访上，他强调自己首先会了解公司的各个业务，听听员工想要告诉他的事情。

弗兰纳里在通用电气工作期间，有着在美国国外工作的丰富经历，这也符合我对于首席执行官国际经验和公司业绩的研究。平均来看，首席执行官大量的海外经历，会让公司的股价表现提高3%至4%。对于这一发现，我的解释是这些高管浸入式体验了不同的文化，他们学会了从多种角度看待问题。他们会意识到自己（和其他人）的设想可以被更有成效地挑战，因此他们是更好的决策者。

当我与杰夫·戴亚、克雷·克里斯坦森为《创新者的DNA》（The Innovator’s DNA）一书分析采访、研究案例时，发现有证据显示，在多个行业和/或地点工作过的领导者，更有可能问出有益于提高生产力的问题，也就是说，这些问题会鼓励人们进行最好的思考，而不是让他们防御性地挤出一些具有价值的新点子。其他人的研究则凸显了“视角选取”在寻找新颖解决方案上的重要性——而海外工作经验丰富的人往往会拥有这项技能。

简而言之，根据我从弗兰纳里话语和工作中收集的信息，把他归类为“典型的公司人”似乎是错误的。他职业生涯大部分时间都远离总部，待过公司的许多部门，所以我们可以对他有更多的期待。

十年前，哈佛商学院（Harvard Business School）的乔·鲍尔出版了《内部的CEO》（The CEO Within）一书，其中以研究为基础，阐述了他说的“内部局外人型”领袖。这些高管在公司内部成长起来，因此知道如何搞定工作，但他们又有能力以局外人的眼光审视问题——例如，作为刚刚收购公司的一方。鲍尔总结道，内部的局外人可以带领公司取得更好的表现。他们干得不错的原因之一，在于他们会问出基本的问题，并营造出空间让基本的推测得到反复检查。

在接下来几个月里，许多人都会密切关注弗兰纳里的做法，我也一样。考虑到他的国际经历，以上就是我的推测。其他人可能会迫不及待地看看他给通用电气提供的答案，而我则会听听他对公司提出的问题。（财富中文网）

本文作者赫尔·葛瑞格森是麻省理工学院领导力中心（MIT Leadership Center）的常务董事，以及麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院（Sloan School of Management）领导力和创新专业的高级讲师。他还撰写了著作《打破CEO泡沫》和《创新者的DNA：掌握颠覆式创新者的五项技能》。

译者：严匡正

With the news this week that Jeff Immelt is stepping down as CEO of GE (ge) and John Flannery is stepping up to the job, plenty of people are asking: What will Immelt’s departure mean for GE’s performance? After 16 years of stock-price malaise, will the company get energized again? Many seem to think so.

The evidence is mixed on how effective a big change in the corner office is to company performance, but some interesting patterns emerge from the most rigorously conducted studies. Unsurprisingly, there is no simple answer. Leadership is always contextual, and how things go in the aftermath of a succession depends on multiple factors. Management scholars have tended to focus on two big variables: whether the business was in crisis, obviously needing a change of direction; and whether the new leader was recruited from the outside vs. promoted from within.

Based on these studies’ findings, GE appears to have done what tends to work best in its situation. Internal candidate appointments generally deliver the greatest performance gains when a company does not need radical change in its strategy and/or operations. The insider edge is sharpest when the new CEO has spent time working directly with the past CEO, as Flannery certainly has. (See Yan Zhang and Nandini Rajagopalan’s research on “relay” CEO successions.) Yet gains in such situations are usually modest and centered on shareholder returns. (Indeed, researchers Rakesh Khurana and Nitin Nohria found, on average, no improvement in return on assets.)

There is a second way, however, to see Flannery’s prospects more clearly, and that is to think about what in particular GE needs to achieve, what it takes to achieve that, and whether Flannery is the right person to make it happen.

What GE needs, clearly, is growth. And while acquisitions provide one way to achieve that, turning the company into more of an innovation engine is an even better path to follow. For decades, my own research agenda has focused on figuring out how some leaders do just that. Over the years, I’ve noticed that leaders in fast-growing companies tend to engage in and encourage a higher level of questioning—both in terms of quantity and quality. This makes sense, given that high-impact innovation always proceeds from some flash of insight—and it is almost always possible to trace these breakthroughs back to someone’s reframing of a problem they are trying to solve. Asking a better question can unlock a whole new pathway to finding a better answer.

The CEO doesn’t personally have to come up with all of the better questions (let alone all of the answers). In fact, it’s far better to create the conditions where others give voice to assumption-challenging questions—and to listen carefully for the ones that might prove catalytic, even game-changing. Flannery shows signs of being capable of this. In his first interviews post-announcement, he has stressed that he will start by getting out to the far reaches of his organization, and listening to what people have to tell him.

Flannery’s background at GE, rich in assignments outside of the United States, also resonates with research I’ve done on CEO international experience and firm performance. On average, substantial international experience in a CEO’s career correlates with 3% to 4% higher share performance. My interpretation of that finding is that these executives have learned through their immersions in different cultures to look at issues from multiple perspectives. They recognize that their (and others’) assumptions can be productively challenged, and are, as a result, better decision-makers.

When Jeff Dyer, Clay Christensen, and I analyzed interviews and case studies for The Innovator’s DNA, we found evidence suggesting that leaders who have worked in multiple industries and/or geographies are twice as likely to ask generative questions—that is, the kind that invite people’s best thinking rather than put them on the defensive, and manage to elicit valuable new ideas. Research by others highlights the importance of “perspective taking” in any attempt to find a novel new solution—and that is a skill one often gains as an expat.

In short, based on what I gather from Flannery’s words and work, it seems wrong to pigeonhole him as “the quintessential company man.” He has spent much of his career working far away from headquarters, and been part of many different units at the company, so we can hope for something more.

A decade ago, Joe Bower of Harvard Business School published The CEO Within, which made a research-based case for what he called the “inside-outside” leader. These executives grow up in a company and therefore know how to get things done in it, yet they have also acquired the capacity to look at it with the eyes of an outsider—say, as a party who just acquired the company. Inside outsiders, Bower concludes, lead their companies to higher performance. One reason they do so well is that they ask basic questions, and create the space for basic assumptions to be reexamined.

In months to come, as plenty of people keep close watch on what Flannery is doing, this is what I’ll be looking for. And given his international experience, it’s what I’ll be expecting. Others will be anxious to see what answers he has for GE, but I’ll start by listening for the questions.

Hal Gregersen is executive director of the MIT Leadership Center and a senior lecturer in leadership and innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is the author of Bursting the CEO Bubble and The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators.