人们传统上认为，当领导就会走上两种极端，要么成为一个独裁者，要么成为手下人的代表，而没有中间地带。《上下一心》一书回避了这种观念，而是给出了八种领导模型，利用诸如指挥家与乐队、地主与佃户、建筑师与建筑工人等职业关系，来阐释不同的管理模式。《财富》杂志最近采该了奎励杰，探讨了他的领导力理念，以及他对美国的竞争力的展望。
《财富》：你为什么现在出版这本书?是因为美国当前工作环境中的某些问题令你觉得有必要出版这本书吗?
奎励杰：市面上已经有很多关于这个问题的调查了，例如盖洛普公司(Gallup survey)的调查或Synotac公司的调查。他们的调查结果显示，企业员工对工作的投入程度正在下降。也就是说，在你的公司里，越来越多的员工虽然身在岗位，但并没有全心投入、做到最好。他们对工作目标没有激情，心不在焉。躯体虽在公司，魂儿却留在家里。如果你可以让你的团队焕发激情，你就会成功。
你如何劝说领导者，让他们相信现在是该改变管理方式的时候了?
你可以坐在会议室里，把事实摆在他们面前。如果我们找到我们的客户，对他们说他们的领导者和员工之间匹配得不好，他们会不会不承认?可能一开始几分钟他们会否认。不过如果你把事实摆在他们面前，并且对他们所选择的人进行调查，然后把调查结果也摆在他们前面，那么他们就不可能一直否认下去了。
作为一名管理者，你是如何说服你的员工和你的公司，让他们相信现在应该进行一次痛苦的转变了?
最常用也是最有效的方法就是经典的“平台着火法”。如果你想让你的团队从A平台转移到B平台上，最有效的方法就是让他们相信A平台着火了。只要他们相信他们所处的平台着了火，他们就会转移的。
而更困难的挑战，是利用雄心勃勃的语言，让一个原本已经很成功的企业转移到C平台上去。这种企业原本就处于B平台，而且他们在B平台上待得很舒服。而现在你要雄心勃勃地挑战你的团队，令团队做出变化。改变一个成功的企业，这才是最大的挑战。
你真的可以教一个人成为优秀的领导者或管理者吗?
有些人的成长环境使他们相比其他人拥有极大优势。不过我之所以热衷于领导力，是因为我认为领导力是可以习得的。而且我认为，领导者们都有机会决定是否改变他们的领导方式和行为方式。
为什么我们欣赏通用电气公司(GE)的领导艺术?是因为他们成功地雇佣了一群具有强劲领导力的人吗?还是因为我们真的认为，通用电器的领导力发展模式确实会培养出一些极为出色的人才?通用电气的首席执行官杰夫•伊梅尔特究竟是个天生的领导者，还是通过在通用电气工作的经历，才逐步成长为一个领导者的?我认为很大程度上是后者。
很多人认为年轻一代不愿接受传统的领导模式。你怎么看?
我觉得这种说法有些真实性。不过我认为他们并不是全盘拒绝这些领导模式。我认为如果这些年轻人觉得没人真正关心他们，或没人关心他们的想法，他们就会工作中心不在焉。这就是为什么激发员工的工作专注度如此重要。
如果你是一家金融机构的首席执行官，你会用什么模式来促使员工遵守规章?除了零瑕疵的管理模式之外，你是否真的承受得起其它模式?因为如果管理出了问题，监管机构是可以让你关门的。此外，如果你是在这家金融机构里工作的所谓X世代或Y世代人，在遵守规章的问题上，我想你可能期待的是一种指令型的管理模式，以及围绕这种模式打造的责任和义务。
关于美国管理的未来，你最关心的是什么?
我最关心领导者们是否有能力广泛地适应当下的竞争环境。而且企业要真正、切实地理解这些转变的重要性。不管是知识工人的供需情况，还是总体工作人口的规模，都会对商业模式和企业的成功模式造成显著的影响。
此外，我认为另一个已经发生了的重要转变，是公共部门与私营部门之间的关系。我认为要想获得成功，需要公共和私营部门之间建立建设性的合作关系。
像中国或韩国这样的市场，他们的数理化教育做得很好，仅凭单方面的力量是否可以产出这种成果?这是私营部门的功劳，还是公共部门的功劳?还是公共、私营部门携手发展教育的结果?
我认为这正是我们在美国所需要做的。当你研究任何一个经济体的基本竞争力时，你会发现，那些以人才驱动创新，并能够就此创造出就业岗位和财富的经济体，将会获得竞争优势。
译者：朴成奎 What makes a leader effective? How can a leader adapt to a changing environment? And what do you do when the people you are expected to manage have no interest in cooperating? Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CEO Jim Quigley and Mehrdad Baghai recently published As One: Individual Action， Collective Leadership， which argues that leaders can take several different approaches to their craft， with the goal of inspiring collective action.
As One sidesteps the concept that a leader can either be a dictator or a representative of the people and nothing in between. Instead， the book offers eight models of leadership， using professional relationships like conductor-orchestra， landlord-tenant， and architects-builders， to illustrate different management styles. Fortune recently sat down with Quigley to discuss his concept of leadership and his outlook on American competitiveness.
Fortune: Why publish this book now? Is there something about the current American work environment that convinced you to publish this book?
Quigley:There have been any number of surveys， whether it''s the Gallup survey or the Synotac， and what they found is the degree of engagement of the workforce is declining. So a higher percentage of your workforce year after year is coming to work but they are not really bringing their very best， they are not bringing their passion to what it is they are trying to achieve. They''re just simply disengaged. They''re bringing their arms and legs but their heart and mind is staying behind. And if you can obtain that passion from your team， you''re going to win.
How do you convince a leader that it''s time to change the way they have been managing?
You sit down in the conference room and you put the facts right in front of them. And so will clients be in denial if we come to them and suggest that they have a leader and follower mismatch? They might spend a few minutes in denial. But if you put the facts in front of them and the results of a survey of people they selected， they can''t stay in denial.
As a manager， how do you convince your staff， your company， that it''s time to make a painful change?
The most common， and sometimes the most effective [approach] is the classic burning platform. If you want to get your team to move from platform A to platform B， the most effective way to do that is convince them that platform A is on fire. And as soon as they''ve think they''re on that burning platform， they''re going to move.
The harder change to drive is to take a successful organization and then convince them with aspirational language to move to platform C. They''re on platform B and they''re pretty comfortable. Now you challenge your team to change aspirationally. Changing a successful organization， that is the biggest challenge.
Can you actually teach someone to be a great leader or manager?
The environment in which some of us are born just gives us enormous advantages over some others. But the reason I am so passionate about leadership is I think it can be learned. And I think leaders have the opportunity to decide that they are going to change how they lead and how they behave.Why do we think the way we do about leaders from GE (GE)? Is it because they were successful at hiring a bunch of people who had strong leadership attributes? Or do we actually think the leadership development model at GE actually produces some pretty talented people? Was Jeff Immelt born as a leader? Or did he develop as a leader as he came through GE? I think it was largely the latter.
There''s a lot of talk that the younger generation is unwilling to accept traditional leadership models. What''s your take?
I think there''s definitely some truth in that. But the thing that I reject is that they are unwilling to accept any one of these leadership models. I do think they are disengaged， if they feel that no one really cares about them and their ideas. And that''s where moving that [employee] engagement number up becomes so critical.
If you were a CEO of a financial institution， what model would you use to try to drive regulatory compliance? Could you actually afford anything other than a zero-defects approach? Because a regulator could shut you down. And so if you were a Gen X''er or Gen Y''er inside that financial institution， when it came to regulatory compliance， I think you''d expect quite a directive [leadership] model and accountability built around that.
What''s most concerning to you when it comes to the future of American management?
The ability for leaders broadly to be able to adjust to the environment that we are now competing in. To really， truly understand the significance of those shifts. Whether that''s simply the availability of knowledge workers and the scale of the number of working age adults， that''s going to have a significant impact on how business is done and how businesses are able to succeed.
I also think that another significant shift that has occurred is the relationship between the public and private sectors. And I think success is going to require a constructive public-private partnership.
Are markets like Korea or China， are they able to produce those science and math education results alone? Is it the private sector that''s doing that? Is it the public sector? Or is there a private-public partnership that is committed to education?
That''s what I think we need to do in the United States. When you look at the fundamental competitiveness of any economy， the winning edge is going to be obtained by talent-driven innovation and the ability to create the jobs and wealth that go with that.
星巴克
中兴
肯德基
加多宝
美团
凡客诚品
