员工培训英文文献及译文 第3页
5、让位居要职的庸禄之辈去职
或许企业在人才培训上所能做的最大努力，就是将表现平庸者、缺乏潜力者、以及不具启发能力的主管，从关键职位上除名。因为即便允许极少数的平庸者担任企业内的部份前200个高阶职务，都会将整个系统能量消耗殆尽。
当企业内20%的管理职务因剔除无潜力的主管而空出时，将会一下子释放出许多可观的发展机会，尤其是那些以人才发展名闻遐迩的公司，更会原文请找腾讯752018766辣-文'论.文^网
http://www.751com.cn 题是不可能的。然而企业若能真正导入能带动人才发展的工作经验模式，将会加快高阶主管成长的成效。要培训人才并没有其它的诀窍，只有当企业的高阶领导者能下定承诺，并审慎地经营公司高阶主管人才库，方可为公司培训出杰出的未来领袖。
2 Emploree training: How executives grow
From:《The Mckinsey Quarterly》
Most companies are poor at developing their executives, and most of them acknowledge this: only 3 percent of the 6,000 executives occupying the top 200 positions at 50 large US corporations examined by a recent McKinsey survey strongly agreed that their organizations developed talent quickly and effectively.1 In no area of executive development—job rotation, traditional internal and external training, or mentoring—did a majority of these executives believe that their employers were doing a good job (Exhibit 1).
Some companies feel that their high performers will rise to the top naturally, like cream. Others, believing that talent can be bought, try to recruit executives from such sources as General Electric, a famous developer of people. In fact, though businesses should look for senior-level talent outside their own organizations, they themselves must also be good at developing it. In the first place, as talent becomes scarcer—and demography suggests that it will—the "buy-only" strategy becomes risky and expensive. Moreover, recruiting all of a company's senior executives externally sacrifices cultural cohesion and institutional memory. In any case, companies that can't develop their own talent find it hard to attract good people from the outside.
Job experience drives executive development
Companies develop executives in various ways: by giving them feedback, coaching, mentoring, and training. But more than anything else, executives need on-the-job experience in appropriate positions. What makes positions appropriate? Four considerations are crucial.
The first is the way a job is structured: the executive who holds it should have both headroom (authority and responsibility) and elbow room (scope and variety). Organizations that are decentralized or that have many "P&L jobs"—in which the holder's decisions are linked to, and measured by, the company's profit or loss—therefore create more opportunities for development than organizations that do not.
Second, people with high potential should move through a series of challenging jobs, for after two or three years the learning curve in any position tends to flatten out, and capable people start to chafe. How long any one person should stay put varies with the business, the extent of the challenge, and that person's ability to grow. One company's line executive held 18 positions in 24 years, and though not everyone can or should move so quickly, companies tend to leave executives in jobs much too long.
Third, this series of jobs should provide a range of challenges. Working in different geographic regions or with a variety of bosses requires executives to master new contexts. Leading a turnaround, stimulating a stagnant business, and influencing a company from a staff position draw on different skills.
Finally, executives need to learn their craft from highly skilled colleagues as well as superiors. The ability to lead can in part be acquired through apprenticeship, and apprentices learn more from world-class experts and leaders than from mediocre ones. Success, moreover, breeds success, so good people are likelier to stay with an organization that has many other good people.
The role of job experience in driving growth is fairly well understood. Thus, it is striking that only 10 percent of the 6,000 executives McKinsey surveyed thought that their companies used job assignments effectively. The problem is that the people who control the process—senior line executives—don't adequately factor development into their decisions. A division president naturally finds it safer to appoint an experienced, highly qualified candidate to a key position than to take a chance and stretch a possible future leader. Furthermore, that division president might not know how to use job experience to develop people: in the McKinsey survey, 48 percent of human-resources executives said that most executives think development is simply a function of training programs.
Except for action learning and early training in managerial skills, training programs just are not capable of producing truly great executives
Such programs are often favored because they are highly visible, as well as simple to create and run, and by establishing them an HR department can show that it is doing its bit to nurture people. But with two exceptions—action learning, built around real work projects, 原文请找腾讯752018766辣-文'论.文^网http://www.751com.cn to a small group of promising people, and in fact result in action. One project in a GE executive development course required a team to assess the company's investment strategy in South Korea. After four weeks partly spent in that country, the team presented its recommendations to GE's top 28 executives, who based the company's investment decisions largely on those recommendations.
Other kinds of training programs may be worthwhile as well. First-class corporate universities such as Motorola University and GE's Crotonville can help create strong corporate cultures, align companies with their strategies, disseminate best practices, build personal networks, and spur programs for corporate change. But these are not the engines that drive the development 上一页 [1] [2] [3] [4] 下一页
员工培训英文文献及译文 第3页下载如图片无法显示或论文不完整，请联系qq752018766
