Sathnam Sanghera: Defining the X factor
As well as being a television talent show starring a man with blow-dried hair, high-waist trousers and a fetish for insulting contestants, X Factor is a management course that aims to teach delegates about inspirational leadership.
I attended the course last week. Or rather, I would have attended had Catalyst, the management consultancy that developed the training, not been very keen to protect the privacy of its high calibre delegates. “We've had people cry on this programme,” they said, explaining why trainees might not want journalists around.
Instead, last Monday, I attended an abridged version of the ￡6,000, five-day course at Twickenham Stadium in West London with two other reporters.
The TV show and management programme turned out to have more in common than a title: like X Factor's music-impresario judge Simon Cowell, Catalyst's managing director and X Factor course leader, Mark Reynolds, had a penchant for blow-dried hair and high-waist trousers.
He welcomed us with a warm handshake and an enthusiastic introduction to a “programme” which he said was unique because it trained sports coaches and business executives alongside one another. When it ran for the first time last year, delegates included executives from Epson and Ford, as well as coaches from the Rugby Football Union. This year's course would be attended by managers from English Premiership football clubs as well as business people who have had to deal with issues such as “9/11 and shop floor workers trying to stab each other”.
The aim of the course, added Mr Reynolds, was to enable delegates to develop the factor that makes leaders “truly inspirational”. To get us started, he had sent us the week before a questionnaire asking us to identify our own X factor person. “You will have been inspired by them. It may be your father/mother, an old boss, a friend, a politician, your doctor . . .”
I had thought about this hard. After eliminating my mum on the grounds that she was too obvious, Clark Kent (too fictional) and Kurt Cobain (suicidal), I had opted for Morrissey, known for cheerful ditties such as “Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now” and “We Hate it When Our Friends Become Successful”.
I was looking forward to telling the group how Morrissey had inspired me with his relentless misery and uncompromising bitterness. But the opportunity did not arise. Instead, we were treated to pictures and quotes from people who Catalyst thought had the X factor, notably Jack Welch and Sir Clive Woodward, the coach who led the England rugby team to World Cup victory.
As the day progressed, Mr Reynolds clicked through countless PowerPoint slides, talked about such things as “vertical skills” and “followship”, introduced us to some impenetrable Venn diagrams and “performance grids”, and made endless analogies between business and sport.
It was like most management courses: hard to follow and a bit boring. The only way I could stay awake was by writing down the absurdities: 1) “Most successful people thrive on discipline”; 2) “What counts is performance and leadership under pressure”; 3) “Business is happy to accept mediocrity: sport isn't”; 4) “Sports delegates could run rings around most British managers”; 5) “It's clarity around what makes you successful”.
Points one to four were absurd, simply because they were demonstrably untrue. Point five, considered so profound it was posted on a wall, made no sense. I thought it ironic that a statement apparently about the importance of clarity should itself be so unclear. But between such comments, an argument did emerge: business can learn lots about leadership by looking at sport.
Not an uncommon thesis. My desk is littered with books on the theme, such as Mind Games: Inspirational Lessons from the World's Biggest Sports Stars and Leadership the Sven-Goran Eriksson Way: How to Turn Your Team into Winners. And in a superficial way at least, the analogy between business and sport is valid - though I would say business is an infinitely harder, more complicated, more meaningful slog than sport.
My misgivings about the course lay not in the underlying analogy, but in the fact that Catalyst did not seem to appreciate what is meant by the phrase “X factor”. When someone is said to have the X factor, what is usually meant is that the person has an indefinable star quality. Catalyst say themselves that the X factor is a “mystery ingredient”.
If this is the case, why on earth do they devote so much effort trying to define the X factor? In typical management consultant style, Catalyst even lists the characteristics you need to have it: principle-based decision-making; awareness of self and others; futurism (vision/trust); coaching style; and emotional intelligence.
It is as silly to suggest that there is a formula for inspirational leadership as it is to suggest that there is a formula for talent or charisma. You either have it or you do not. It is even sillier to suggest that people with the X factor share a set of characteristics. My mum has the X factor, but she has it in an entirely different way to that of Jack Welch, Sir Clive Woodward, Clark Kent, Kurt Cobain and Morrissey.
I suspect that such quibbles will do little to dent the enthusiasm of managers wanting to enrol on a course which Catalyst claims will take your “organisation and it's (sic) performance from good to great”. Such courses will always be popular because they are a tax-deductible way for executives to spend time with their sporting heroes.
寻找神秘X因素
“X因素”（X Factor）是个才艺大赛秀电视节目，其主持人总是一头新吹过的头发，穿条高腰裤，特别喜欢挖苦参赛选手。“X因素”也是一门管理课程，课程的目的是教学员学习感召式领导艺术（inspirational leadership）。
我上周参加了本课程。其实也不是参加了全部课程，因为开发本课程的管理顾问公司Catalyst公司热衷于保护那些能干的学员。“我们这课上都有人哭过。”他们说。这是在解释为什么学员不希望有记者在旁边。
于是，上星期一，我和另外两位记者前往伦敦西部的特威肯汉体育馆（Twickenham Stadium）, 参加了该课程的缩减版。课程的完全版为期五天，学费6000英磅。
“X因素”艺能秀节目和“X因素”培训课程的相同之处，还不仅仅是题目的雷同。就如“X因素”音乐裁判西蒙?柯维尔（Simon Cowell）一样，“X因素”课程讲师马克?雷诺兹（Mark Reynolds）也把头发吹得溜光，穿一条高腰裤。
他和我们热烈地握手，热情地介绍起课程，说这课很独特，因为有体育教练和企业经理一起参加。去年第一次开课的时候，参加的学员有爱普生（Epson）、福特（Ford）的经理人员，也有从橄榄球总会来的教练。今年的课程有英超足球俱乐部的经理，也有其他各种管理者，这些管理者要对付的问题“大到9’11，小到车间工人想互捅刀子。”
雷诺兹先生又补充说，课程的目的是帮助学员培养“真正有感召能力”的素质。为了让我们进入角色，他于一周前给我们发送来一份问卷，让我们找出自己认为具有“X因素”的人。“你应该被他们感召过。他可以是你的父亲/母亲，一个过去的老板，一位朋友，一位政界人士，你的医生……”
这问题我寻思良久。我首先把我妈妈排除了，因为选她太明显了，我还排除了克拉克?肯特（Clark Kent，他太戏剧化）、柯特?柯本恩（Kurt Cobain,他太具自杀倾向），最后我选择了歌手莫里斯（Morrissey）。他常唱些广为人知的快乐小调，如 “天都知道我现在很悲惨”和“我们的朋友成功时，我们全都恨得不行。”
我准备告诉全班学员，莫里斯是怎样用他那毫不无遮掩的悲惨和不折不扣的辛酸感召着我。可惜我没有等到这个机会。相反，授课者给我们看图片，看名言，图片上的人物和名言的作者都是Catalyst公司认为具有X因素的人，特别是杰克?韦尔奇（Jack Welch）和克莱夫?伍德沃德勋爵（Clive Woodward）。克莱夫?伍德沃德勋爵曾带领英国橄榄球队赢得了世界杯。
一天下来，雷诺兹先生播放了无数张PowerPoint幻灯片，说了些诸如“纵向技能”、“下属能力”之类的东西，介绍了些让人摸不着头脑的韦恩表（Venn Diagram）和“绩效矩格”（performance grids）”, 然后不断拿商业和体育作比较。
这和大部分管理培训课程很相似：难懂，而且有点乏味。只是在记录一些荒谬说法的时候，我才能保持片刻的清醒：1）“最成功的人因严于律己而成功”；2）“最重要的是在压力下保持绩效和领导力”；3）“商业就是乐于接受平庸，而体育不是”；4）“英国经理人和体育人士相比，简直就是小巫见大巫”；5）“清晰的无处不再导致成功”。
第一条到第四条都很荒唐，因为都可以用实例来证明，它们并不正确。第五条讲师还拿出来当高深理论，专门贴到了墙上，但它没有意义。我觉得这很有讽刺性，明明是说“清晰”的重要性，而话本身却说得如此模糊。但是在这些说法的字里行间却有个论点：商业界可以向体育界习领导。
这个说法并不新鲜。我的桌子上就堆满了这类主题的书，比如《头脑里的比赛：世界顶尖体育明星给我们的感召》（Mind Games: Inspirational Lessons from the World’s Biggest Sports Stars and Leadership），还有《埃里克森之路：如果将你的团队打造成赢家》（the Sven-Goran Eriksson Way: How to Turn Your Team into Winners）。至少从表层看，将商业和体育比较是有效的，我只是觉得商业本身更难，更复杂，更有意义。
我对课程的担忧还不在这个基本的类比，而是Catalyst公司似乎不清楚“X因素”一词的意义。当我们说某人有“X因素”的时候，我们通常是说此人具有无可明状的明星潜质。Catalyst公司自己说“X因素”是“神秘因素”。
如果真是神秘因素，干吗他们花这么大力气想对X因素下定义呢？和其他管理顾问一样，Catalyst公司甚至列出了形成“X因素”的基本特征： 以原则为基础的决策；自我意识和他人意识；未来导向（远景/信任）；辅导风格；情商。
给感召式领导力列出公式是件很愚蠢的事情，因为这等于是说才干和魅力都有公式可套。这东西你有就有，没有就没有。说具有X因素的人有些共同特征这就更傻了。我妈妈就有X因素，但她的X因素和杰克?韦尔奇、克莱夫?伍德沃德勋爵、克拉克?肯特、柯特?柯本恩和莫里斯的完全不同。
不过我怀疑，我再怎么唱反调，经理们还是要兴冲冲去报名参加这个号称将你的“组织和它是（原文如此）绩效从优秀带向卓越“的课程。这些课程总会是受欢迎的，因为经理人可以花时间和自己喜爱的体育英雄们在一起，而且花的钱可以免税。
