企业文化必须动真格

    格雷格•史密斯从高盛（Goldman Sachs）辞职一事闹得沸沸扬扬，如今，事情已经过去了几周时间。华尔街的反应大多是认为史密斯心怀不满才做出这么出格的举动，这种事可能发生在我们任何一个人身上。从这种反应来看，这起事件中最重要的教训似乎完全被忽视了，而它恰恰是最不能动摇的商业法则。

    事实上，软文化和硬数据一样重要。如果不想让公司文化流于形式，就必须公开惩戒那些胆敢破坏公司文化的员工。我们知道，这并不容易。但建立健康正直的企业文化绝非儿戏。由于各种原因，太多太多的领导者认为，公司价值观只是人力资源部和新员工之间的五分钟谈话，又或者他们认为，公司文化只是大厅匾牌上的文字游戏，比如我们是“敬重”我们的客户，还是“尊重”他们？简直是胡扯。

    企业文化与用词无关。它与行为以及行为的后果有关。它意味着每个管理者深知自己的关键职责是捍卫企业的价值观，就像捍卫萨班斯-奥克斯莱法案一样。它是每次对员工进行业绩考评既看业绩数字，也看价值观。考核只有四类结果。

    首先是业绩数字和价值观都优秀的员工——留用，晋升。数字和价值观都糟糕的员工——出局。

    价值观优秀但业绩平平的员工——再给一次机会，接受进一步培训。良好的行为让他赢得了第二次机会。

    剩下来的，就是那些总是让公司无奈让步的员工：业绩数字优秀但价值观糟糕的员工。这些员工从不和同事分享想法，背后瞧不起客户，对上级溜须拍马，对下属骄横跋扈——但同时又业绩斐然。

    90%的情况下管理者会让这些人轻松过关。“我知道吉姆就是个大混蛋，”他们说。“但在经济形势稳定下来之前，我需要他。”或者“没错，萨莉的态度让每个人都不高兴，但我已经和她谈过了。我想她会改的。”

    事实上，吉姆和萨莉的所作所为都给其他员工发出了一个大大的信号：我们公司的价值观纯粹就是一句空话。唯一的纠正办法是让吉姆和萨莉离职，而且不能用律师和人力资源部惯用的措辞：“他们希望能有更多的时间来陪伴家人。”而是要说出真相：“吉姆和萨莉的业绩非常出色，”但同时要告诉所有人，“但他们没有体现公司的价值观。”我们保证这样的公开“声明”会比首席执行官发表一百遍演讲，反复强调“我们的价值观真的、真的非常重要”还要来得更有效果。

    史密斯事件发生在华尔街，但我们讨论的问题已远远超出了曼哈顿下城范围。从东海岸到西海岸，“价值观失衡”在各行各业的公司中都普遍存在。员工们要么不知道公司的价值观是什么，要么认为公司价值观履不履行无所谓。不管是哪一种，结果都是公司容易受到来自内部和外部的冲击，而且理应如此。

    众所周知，所有的管理学课程都说，一家公司手中最有效的竞争武器是强大的企业文化。但问题在于执行的细节。如果执行环节出了问题，就必须付出惨重的代价。

    译者：早稻米

    It has been weeks now since Greg Smith's blistering public resignation from Goldman Sachs (GS). But based on Wall Street's reaction -- that Smith was a disgruntled rogue, and that it could have happened to any one of us -- it seems that perhaps the case's most important lesson is being missed. And it happens to be one of the most immutable rules of business.

    In fact, soft culture matters as much as hard numbers. And if your company's culture is to mean anything, you have to hang -- publicly -- those in your midst who would destroy it. It's a grim image, we know. But the fact is, creating a healthy, high-integrity organizational culture is not puppies and rainbows. And yet, for some reason, too many leaders think a company's values can be relegated to a five-minute conversation between HR and a new employee. Or they think culture is about picking which words -- do we "honor" our customers or "respect" them? -- to engrave on a plaque in the lobby. What nonsense.

    An organization's culture is not about words at all. It's about behavior -- and consequences. It's about every single individual who manages people knowing that his or her key role is that of chief values officer, with Sarbanes-Oxley-like enforcement powers to match. It's about knowing that at every performance review, employees are evaluated for both their numbers and their values, and that only four outcomes exist.

    First, for employees with good numbers and good values -- onward and upward. For those with bad numbers and bad values -- you're outta here.

    As for employees with good values but mediocre numbers -- the stance should be, we'll give you another chance with more coaching. Your behavior has earned you that.

    Which leaves the type of employee who most commonly brings companies to their knees: the one with the great numbers and crummy values. The employee who doesn't share ideas with co-workers, who belittles customers behind their backs, who kisses up to the hierarchy but kicks down his own people -- all while bringing in the numbers.

    Ninety percent of the time, managers give these people a big fat pass. "I know Jim can be a real jerk," they say, "but I just need him until the economy stabilizes." Or "Sure, Sally's attitude upsets everyone, but I've spoken to her. I think she's going to come around."

    Actually, all Jim and Sally are doing is sending a big fat message to every other employee: Our company's values are a joke. And the only antidote is that Jim and Sally need to be sent home, and not with the usual "They want to spend more time with their families" BS out of the lawyers and HR, but with the truth. "Jim and Sally had great numbers," everyone needs to be told, "but they didn't demonstrate the values of this company." We guarantee that such a public "diss play," to put it more politely, will have more impact than a hundred "Our values really, really matter!" speeches by the CEO.

    The Smith case occurred on Wall Street, but, to be clear, we're talking about a problem that exists well beyond the canyons of lower Manhattan. "Values drift" is pervasive in companies of every ilk, from sea to shining sea. Employees either don't know their organization's values, or they know that practicing them is optional. Either way the result is vulnerability to attack from inside and out, and rightly so.

    Look, it's Management 101 to say that the best competitive weapon a company can possess is a strong culture. But the devil is in the details of execution. And if you don't get it right, it's the devil to pay.