People first brings profit
The award for the most dismal attempt at employee motivation in recent years must go to Neal Patterson, chief executive of Cerner Software.
In an e-mail entitled "Fix it or changes will be made" - which found instant, unintended fame on internet bulletin boards - he told managers that he planned to increase productivity at the company's Kansas City headquarters by introducing a "clocking on/clocking off" procedure, closing the gym during working hours, cutting 5 per cent of the workforce and suspending all promotions.
"My measurement will be the parking lot: it should be substantially full at 7.30am and 6.30pm," he wrote. "I will hold you accountable. You have allowed this to get into this state. You have two weeks. Tick tock."
You do not need to be well versed in organisational psychology to see that such tactics are unlikely to succeed. As the late Frederick Herzberg argued in his classic 1968 Harvard Business Review article, this kind of kick-in-the-ass (KITA) management may produce "movement" in the short term but it will not result in the motivation required for sustained results.
Yet many companies behave in a similar - albeit less extreme - fashion. Internet sites such as
www.internalmemos.com are chock full of examples of callous, small-minded and thoughtless management. The economic downturn has made matters worse: clumsily handled dismissals, intense pressure to perform, less feedback, fewer incentives.
Not surprising? Well, students of management have for 40 years been collecting data to show that treating people well leads to improved productivity, profits and stock market value.
"There are probably 100 studies out there showing that you get a 30 to 40 per cent productivity and profit advantage by treating people in the right way," says Jeffrey Pfeffer, professor of organisational behaviour at Stanford business school.
Among the most convincing are those carried out in the 1990s by Brian Becker and Mark Huselid. Their large-scale surveys of US public companies found a strong correlation between "high-performance work practices" and improved shareholder value.
Their list of best practices included incentive plans, regular performance appraisals, extensive training and promotion based on merit rather than seniority. Companies that implemented a broad array of such practices appeared substantially to outperform those that used only a few. The implication was that some companies had found a way to turn effective people management into a competitive advantage.
These results came as no surprise to Prof Pfeffer. In Competitive Advantage Through People, published in 1994, he argued that many traditional sources of competitive advantage - market share, proprietary technology, access to capital, regulated markets - were becoming less powerful. He warned: "As other sources of competitive success have become less important, what remains as a crucial differentiating factor is the organisation, its employees and how they work."
Prof Pfeffer was not alone in making this observation. The "organisational learning" and "knowledge management" movements, two of the biggest management fads of the 1990s, were also based on the notion that intangible assets such as skills, experience and the ability to adapt were becoming the overriding sources of competitive advantage.
With such convincing evidence on hand, why do companies continue to treat people in ways that are not only painful for individuals but also damaging to their own long-term performance?
"The fundamental reason is that people have not changed their mindset," says Prof Pfeffer. "If you look for success in the wrong places you will not find it."
On this view, the obsession of managers with mergers and acquisitions, downsizing and strategy prevents them from seeing the more sustainable gains from managing human capital.
Is this the fault of business schools for mis-educating modern managers? Says Prof Pfeffer: "Before I would blame business schools I would blame business journalists. They contributed mightily to the cult of celebrity CEOs and the idea that you can achieve success through these quick fixes."
Fortunately, it is still possible to find companies that pay more than lip-service to the idea that people are their most important asset.
Xilinx, a California-based maker of microchips, last year consulted employees before instituting a pay cut across the board rather than make forced redundancies. SAS Institute, the largest privately held software company, has continued to hire through the downturn on the grounds that dismissals at other companies represent a once-in-a-cycle opportunity to recruit good people.
Both companies operate in the information technology sector, which has been through the deepest trough in memory. But while the companies have a lot in common, their management methods differ in important respects.
SAS Institute provides staff with on-site childcare, healthcare and an "elder care" programme to help employees deal with the burden of elderly relatives. "How we treat employees is a mirror image of how we treat customers. We have a customer retention rate of 98 per cent and an employee turnover rate of about 4 per cent. It is all about long-term relationships," says Jeff Chambers, vice-president for human resources.
Xilinx offers fewer such benefits and concentrates instead on creating a culture of openness, trust and, by Silicon Valley standards, egalitarianism.
Ed Lawler, veteran professor of organisational behaviour at the University of California's Marshall School of Business, believes that the contrast illustrates important changes taking place in the market for human capital. In his new book, Treat People Right, Prof Lawler argues that the same economic forces that are making human capital more important - deregulation, globalisation, intense competition - are also changing the implicit contract between companies and workers.
In this more volatile world, out go SAS Institute-style paternalism and the expectation of long-term employment; in comes a more free-wheeling world in which notions of loyalty are replaced by constant competition for talent.
While Treat People Right is a rich compendium of best practice, covering everything from recruitment and remuneration to job design, Prof Lawler's brand of people management has a hard edge. He describes a future in which employees will need to shoulder responsibility for managing their own careers and keeping their skills current.
"The old-style 'loyalty contract' is in many ways counter-productive. It tends to attract people who want secure, predictable employment rather than those who want to be part of a rapidly changing, entrepreneurial organisation," he says.
Prof Pfeffer disagrees. "If [as an employer] I don't expect you to be here very long, I'm not going to be very interested in training you, sharing information with you and all the other things that would go on any list of best practice."
Bear in mind, however, that this difference of opinion is - like the difference between SAS Institute and Xilinx - minuscule compared with the gulf that exists between companies that seek to manage people well and companies that look for success elsewhere.
If data from the 1990s are any guide, investors as well as workers should be searching out the good guys.
Postscript: Neal Patterson, who apologised to employees for the e-mail soon after it became public, remains chairman and chief executive of Cerner Software. The company's shares, trading at $40 in March 2001 before the e-mail, now stand at $36.
Frederick Herzberg: One More Time: How do you Motivate Employees? Harvard Business Review, January/February 1968
Edward E. Lawler: Treat People Right! How Organisations and Individuals can Propel each Other into a Virtuous Spiral of Success. Published by Jossey-Bass.
以人为本 公司盈利
近年来，在激励员工方面做得最糟糕的非Cerner软件公司首席执行官尼尔?帕特森(Neal Patterson)莫属。
他的一封题为“好好干，不然就要作出改变”的电子邮件一不小心在互联网上激起了巨大反响。在信中，他告诉经理们，他打算在位于堪萨斯州的公司总部安装自动打卡机，工作时间内关闭健身房，裁员5%，暂停一切员工升迁，以此来提高生产率。
“我衡量的标准将是停车场：上午7点30分和下午6点30分时，停车场应该是很满的，”他写道：“我会让你们对这件事负责，是你们让事情变成这样的。你们有两周时间。行动吧。”
你不需要十分精通组织心理学，就能发现这样的策略不太可能成功。正如已故的弗雷德里克?赫茨伯格(Frederick Herzberg) 在 1968年发表于《哈佛商业评论》上的经典著作所阐述的那样，这种“踢他一脚”的(KITA) 管理方式可能会在短期内推动员工“前进”，但不会产生可持续发展所需要的激励作用。
但是，许多公司采取的方式虽然没有那么极端，却也比较相似。在诸如
www.internalmemos.com等网站上，冷漠无情、鼠目寸光和缺乏考虑的管理案例比比皆是。经济的低迷让事情变得更糟：处理不当的裁员，过分的施压，员工反馈和激励措施的减少。
不奇怪吗？好吧，４０年来，一批又一批管理专业的学生收集的数据显示，善待员工能够提高生产率，增加利润和提升股价。
“大约有100项调查显示，如果你善待员工，生产率和利润都能比对手高出30%至40%，”斯坦福商学院组织行为学教授杰弗里?普赛弗(Jeffrey Pfeffer)说。
在上述调查中，最具说服力的是90年代由布赖恩?贝克 (Brian Becker)和马克?哈思理德(Mark Huselid) 针对美国 上市公司进行的大型调查。该调查显示，“高效率的工作方式”与增加股东价值密切相关。
他们的最佳做法清单中包括激励计划，定期绩效评估，大量培训，以及基于业绩而非资历的职位晋升制度。事实证明，全面推行这类方法的公司表现要远远胜过那些只推行少数几种做法的公司。也就是说，一些公司已经找到了将有效的人员管理变成一种竞争优势的途径。
这些调查结果对于普赛弗教授来说毫不意外。在他1994年发表的《通过人才实现竞争优势》(Competitive Advantage Through People)一书中，他提出，许多传统的竞争优势来源（例如：市场份额，专利技术，资本渠道，市场管制）所起的作用正变得越来越小。他警告说：“由于其它的竞争优势来源已经变得越来越不重要，因此现在最重要的区别就在于组织机构，员工和他们的工作方式。”
不只普赛弗教授一个人做出这样的结论。90年代涌现出的“组织的学习”和“知识管理”两大管理狂潮也是基于这种理念，即技能、经验和适应能力等无形资产已成为最重要的竞争优势来源。
既然有那么多令人信服的证据，那公司为什么还要继续对员工采取那种不但令个人痛苦而且会损害公司长期业绩的做法呢？
“最根本的原因在于他们没有改变思维模式，”普赛弗 教授说：“如果你找错了地方，你就找不到成功之道。”
这样看来，经理们因为整天忙于兼并收购、裁员和战略制定，却未能发现妥善管理人力资本能使公司获得更长久的回报。
这应归咎于商学院对现代经理人的误导吗？普赛弗教授表示：“以前，我会责怪商学院，责怪商业杂志记者。在很大程度上，是他们引导公众对著名CEO顶礼膜拜，也是他们让大家以为这些权宜之计能够取得成功。”
幸运的是，我们仍能找到那些真正把员工当作最重要资产的公司，他们没有把这个想法仅仅停留在口头上。
去年，总部位于加州的微芯片制造商Xilinx在开始实施降薪计划前曾与员工进行沟通，而不是强制执行裁员计划。但最大的私人软件公司赛仕软件研究所 (SAS Institute) 在经济低迷时仍继续雇佣新员工，因为他们认为其它公司的裁员是他们招聘优秀人才千载难逢的良机。
IT行业跌入有史以来的最低谷，这两家IT公司也无法幸免于难。但是，尽管这两个公司有许多相似之处，但在许多重要方面，管理模式存在很大的不同。
赛仕软件研究所为员工提供公司幼儿园服务，卫生保健服务，并推出了一个“老年护理”计划，旨在帮助员工减轻照顾年老家属的负担。“我们如何对待员工也反映出我们如何对待客户。我们的客户稳定率为98%，员工流动率为4%。这些都是长期关系，”人力资源部副总裁杰夫?钱伯斯( Jeff Chambers)表示。
Xilinx在这类福利方面做得比较少，更多的是致力于营造一种开放、信任和〔就硅谷的标准而言〕平等的文化氛围。
加州马歇尔商学院组织行为学资深教授埃德?劳勒(Ed Lawler) 认为，这一反差说明，人力资本市场发生着重要 的变化。在他的新书《善待员工》中，劳勒博士写道，象解除管制，全球化和激烈的竞争等经济因素正在让人力资本变得更为重要，也同时改变着公司和员工之间隐性的契约关系。
在这个越来越不稳定的世界里，赛仕软件研究所的家长式管理和对长期雇佣关系的期望已经退出舞台，取而代之的是一个更加随心所欲的世界。在这个世界里，忠诚度理念被持续的人才大战所取代。
尽管《善待员工》是对最佳做法的重要概括，几乎涵盖了从招聘、薪资到职位设计的所有内容，但是，劳勒教授提倡的员工管理方式很有自己的特点。在他描绘的未来中，员工必须承担起规划自己职业生涯和不断更新技能的责任。
“原来的‘忠诚合同’在许多方面是有碍生产率提高的。它吸引的员工一般来说只想要一份稳定的工作，可以看得见未来，而无法吸引那些想要加入一个迅速变化的创新企业的人才，”他说。
普赛弗教授则表示了不同意见。“如果（作为一个雇主）我不指望你在这里待很长时间，我就不会有兴趣培训你，与你共享信息，以及其它所有被大家认为是最好的做法。”
然而，要记住的是，这种观念上的差别，与寻求如何管理好员工的公司和在别处寻找成功的公司之间的鸿沟相比，显得微乎其微，就象与赛仕软件研究所和Xilinx之间的差别一样。
如果90年代的数据具有一定的指导价值，那么投资者应该能找到合适的人才，员工也应该能找到合适的公司。
附言：尼尔?帕特森在其电子邮件被公众
