不过,在政治上似乎奏效的东西在商业中受到怀疑。任命在某个领域拥有专长的人执掌另一个领域的一家公司或部门,仍被认为是危险的。深层知识仍是加入许多公司董事会的先决条件。
Yet, at the risk of endorsing politician Michael Gove’s daft dictum, ahead of the Brexit referendum, that Britain had “had enough of experts”, there is something to be said for knowing nothing. As think-tank Tomorrow’s Company puts it in a new report, “the board does not need experts on topics”.
然而,冒着为政客迈克尔?戈夫(Michael Gove)在英国退欧公投之前的愚蠢言论(英国人“受够专家了”)背书的风险,不懂专业并不等于一无是处。正如智库Tomorrow’s Company在一份新报告中所言,“董事会里不需要了解具体主题的专家”。
What is more, studies suggest a surfeit of specialists can be actively dangerous.
更有甚者,一些研究表明,专家过多可能反而是危险的。
One key to achieving the right mix of know-alls and know-nowts is distinguishing between expertise and experience. One rule of thumb: it is better to hire experienced non-experts than inexperienced specialists.
恰当搭配专才和通才的一个关键是区分专长与经验。一条法则是:宁可聘用经验丰富的非专家,也不要聘用经验不足的专家。
Many pundits wondered, for instance, whether Carolyn McCall would be able to transfer skills learnt running the media group that owns the Guardian newspaper to easyJet. Yet she and the budget airline have thrived since she took the controls in 2010.
【让专才和通才各得其所】相关文章:
★ 战略卧室、早睡奖金……为了让员工多睡觉 日本企业也是操碎了心
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15