第 362 期·中文精讀

金妮·羅梅蒂:IBM CEO 談領導力、權力與逆境

Ginni Rometty: IBM CEO on Leadership, Power, and Adversity

IBM 前 CEO 談領導力的養成、權力該如何使用,以及企業在逆境轉型中的判斷與取捨。

官方音訊00:00 / --:--
中文精讀由 AI 基於原始訪談改寫,非官方翻譯,可能存在偏差或錯誤;表述以原音訊與官方文稿為準。說明

2012 年,金妮·羅梅蒂(Ginni Rometty)正式接手 IBM。她做的第一件事是徹底檢查:全公司二十八萬人裡,真正具備未來所需技能的到底有多少。

答案是十分之二。

一家活了一百年的公司,有三千多人的研究院,有讓機器在棋盤上贏過世界冠軍的記錄,有把人類送上月球的合同。然後你回頭清點,發現只有兩成的人手裡拿的是下一場仗要用的武器。

她在 Lex Fridman 的播客裡講這件事時,語氣裡還帶著當時的不適感。因為 IBM 這類公司沒法慢慢來。全世界銀行的賬、鐵路的排程、社保系統的底賬,都跑在它的機器上。出錯不會只是丟掉一個季度的營收。

這就是整場對話的底色:一個人怎麼在龐然大物裡做改變,而她要改的物件,從來都是幾十萬人每天做事的方式,業務本身反倒排在後面。

改什麼,不改什麼

Lex 問她,管這麼大一家公司,最大的挑戰是什麼。

她的回答把問題的方向扭轉了:管起來並不算最難的,難的是改它。

而改變之前還有一件更難的事,搞清楚哪些東西該留下來。

人們不太問這個問題。什麼應該延續下去,哪怕它需要被現代化。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

Lex 提到了 IBM 那些讓人印象深刻的時刻,深藍(Deep Blue)擊敗卡斯帕羅夫,沃森(Watson)在《危險邊緣》上贏過人類冠軍。他說這些大概只是 IBM 很小的一部分,是面向公眾的、引人注目的那部分。

她糾正了這個說法:研究部門本身就有三千多人,不算小。

但她承認,Lex 說的方向是對的。真正應該留下來的東西,藏在看不見的地方。

三十年代,IBM 給美國做社會保障系統的底賬。六十年代,它參與了把人送上月球的專案。到今天,銀行不開門是因為它,鐵路不跑也是因為它。這家公司的核心業務,是做那些一旦停擺世界就會出問題的事。

她用了一個詞來概括這個定位:be essential,成為不可或缺的那個。

我喜歡這個詞,因為我不能自稱不可或缺。得由別人來判定。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這句話是整場對話裡最見功底的一句。一個組織的自我評價如果沒有外部驗證,就會迅速退化成自我感動。她把這個詞當成方向,不當成勳章。

IBM 的業務形態已經換了好幾輪。Lex 提到很多人會問,IBM 現在到底做什麼。她說,今天它是一家軟體加諮詢的公司,諮詢佔三分之一,軟體全部押在混合雲和人工智慧上。二十年前完全不是這個結構。

業務在變,能力在變,客戶在變。留下來的只有那句“做世界離不開的事”。

你的流程不是你的客戶

公司一旦變大,就會出現一種特定的失敗方式。

她說,很多大公司裡的人,慢慢把流程本身當成了客戶。

我總跟人說,你的流程不是你的客戶。這裡有一個真實的客戶,你是因為他而存在的。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這件事之所以容易發生,是因為流程會反過來訓練人。你每天打交道的物件是審批單、是系統、是跨部門協調會,久而久之,這些就成了工作的全部內容。真正的客戶被抽象成一個出現在 PPT 首頁的名詞。

變大的另一個代價是速度。她說 2012 年接手時,很多趨勢同時爆發,而且是前所未有地同時爆發。雲端計算、大資料、移動、社交,全擠在一個時間視窗裡。

她當時的做法非常直接,開會時反覆說快點、快點、再快點。

說實話,我把他們累垮了。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

就是在這裡,她學到了那個後來反覆講的道理。

穿登山靴跑馬拉松

她說,當公司大到這個體量,怎麼做事(how)可能比做什麼事(what)更重要。

如果不改變工作方式,不給新工具,不補技能,人們只會用同樣的方法把事情做得更快一點。而“更快一點”在結構性問題面前毫無意義。

她打了個比方。你讓一個人去跑馬拉松,他腳上穿的是登山靴。他說我跑不了,鞋不對,跟想不想跑沒關係。

大公司改鞋子,第一招她稱為“鈍器”。所有人都會做的那幾件事,直接把管理層級砍掉一半。

數學很簡單:決策點少了,事情自然快。附帶的好處是自主權下放,方向傳達的鏈條變短,不再經過七八層過濾才到執行的人手上。

但鈍器只解決第一層。草地會再長回來,層級會重新長出來,這是組織的自然規律,得反覆修剪。

真正難的是第二層,敏捷。這個詞被說爛了,但她說,真做和假做是兩件事。真要在一個二十多萬人的組織裡推行,就得訓練幾十萬人,教他們正確的方法:小型跨職能團隊,從外向內做,設定中間步驟,拿反饋,轉向,再迭代。而且不只用在產品上,很多型別的活都能這麼幹。

大家總說,我這兒有個四十人的敏捷小組。但當你管著二十萬人的時候,你得讓很大一批人都這麼工作。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她還提到一個組織病,很多人應該都見過:沒人能說 yes,人人都能說 no。

砍層級、推敏捷、改流程,本質上都是在拆掉那些“能說不”的節點。

人氣競賽,沒有一個崗位是

Lex 問了一個尖銳的問題:講“我們”的領導方式很好聽,但有沒有必須獨斷、必須做不受歡迎決定的時刻。

她的回答沒有繞:當然有。

有屬於某個時代的領導者,也有屬於某個具體處境的領導者。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

一家要再活一百年的公司,一定會做讓人不高興的事。為了長期犧牲短期,可能是崗位調整,可能是裁員,可能是把半導體的整套做法推倒重來。

她說了一句很乾脆的話:這些工作都不是人氣競賽。不管你管一個人還是五十萬人。

但她也承認心理上很難。一個新 CEO 走進來,面對的是幾十年的傳統,是一群在各自領域確實比你懂的人。你要站進去說,我們得換個做法。

她特別提醒了一點:改的時候,很容易想當然地把所有舊東西一起扔出去。而她從接手第一天就知道要改的很多,越做越發現要改的更多,但“什麼必須留下”這條線始終得畫著。

一個專家做了三十年同一件事

關於人的判斷,她的觀點變過四次,每一次都是被現實推動的。

四十年前剛開始招人,她滿腦子想的是趕緊把坑填上,面試排得密密麻麻,快點招進來幹活。

後來有人跟她說,你要招最好的人給你幹活,你的日子會輕鬆很多。她覺得有道理,開始在這件事上花時間。

再往後是“招專家”。這個階段她待了很久,也確實招了很多專家。

真正的轉折發生在帶隊做技能轉型的時候。

如果一個人在某件事上做了三十年專家,他真心想大改的機率相當低。在一個劇烈變化的行業裡,這就是問題。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這個觀察不客氣,但它解釋了很多公司的轉型困局。這並不說明老員工不努力,他們的整套判斷都建立在舊地圖上,而舊地圖越精確,越難換成新的。

她還講了一個招不到人的故事。當時 IBM 急需網路安全人才,她出去一看,美國的失業率接近 10%,市場上有大量找不到工作的人,可這個崗位就是招不滿。

問題出在教育上,學校教的東西不對口。

轉折來自一次偶然。她在審閱企業社會責任專案時,注意到一所剛起步的學校,位置在低收入社群,高中和社群大學合辦。IBM 給了實習機會,也給課程方向提了建議。

結果發現,這些孩子可以直接招進來用。

這哪是什麼企業社會責任,我發現了一個新的人才池。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這句話改變了她的用人觀。當時 IBM 有 99% 的招聘來自大學本科和博士,她自己是這個體系的受益者,現在是西北大學的校董,一點也不反對高等教育。

但她看到了另一件事:能力不等於機會。

那些孩子沒有機會,但他們有能力。於是她把整個招聘邏輯轉向“技能優先”,不只看學歷,看這個人會什麼、能學什麼。

贏家是願意互相學習的人

如果只能看一個特質招人,她現在看的是學習的意願。

好奇心,以及願意學新東西的勁頭,她說這個勝過其他一切。面試的問題、聊天的方向、評估的方式,全都圍繞這一點設計。怎麼測?她說他們用了很多辦法從不同角度交叉驗證。

這個轉向背後是一個更根本的心態變化:別想著買技能,要想著建技能。

她提到很多國家有大量被甩在勞動力市場外面的人。要把他們帶回來,唯一的辦法是給他們當代的技能,而不是等他們自己長出學歷。

雲和 AI 轉型那幾年,這個判斷被驗證得非常清楚。當時 IBM 從外面招了大批人進來,她開玩笑說“帶著新車味兒的人,進來吧”。

結果分成兩類。

一類做得非常好。另一類進來就說,讓我給你們講講應該怎麼做。他們沒意識到 IBM 乾的是關鍵任務的活,一個疏忽可能讓銀行系統崩掉,也不理解這個行業對安全性和可審計性的要求有多硬。

同時她也看到了另一面。一些 IBM 的老員工說,這個我其實可以學。另一些人說,這個我真不會,那正好是個該學的東西。

最後沒有哪一組贏。贏的是願意互相學習的人。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這個觀察放在今天特別應景。Lex 說,AI 這件事現在沒人真正看得清,IBM 五十年後什麼樣、Google 五十年後什麼樣,都是未知數。她在這一點上完全同意:根本沒人有這個領域的成熟技能,因為領域本身還在成形。

所以唯一穩定的能力,是持續把自己變成新手的能力。

能指出問題,不等於應該指出

書裡有一段自我剖析,Lex 引了出來。

我追求完美的驅動力,常常讓我只看到需要改變的地方,而不承認已經做對的部分。這會讓人們不再信任自己。我花了很久才學會,我能指出一個問題,不代表我應該指出來。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她仍然會看到錯誤,區別在於她會更有意識地選擇說什麼、把什麼退回去改。

她也收斂了自己微觀管理的習慣,讓自己容忍別人用不同的方式執行。她過去的預設假設是,自己的方法就是最好的,甚至是唯一的方法。

後來她明白,把控制權交出去會建立別人的信心,而持續的控制慾會摧毀它。

那麼界限在哪裡?Lex 問,什麼時候該指路,什麼時候該讓人自己找路。

她給了一個很誠實的答案:公司越大,你越沒得選,必須放手讓人自己走。但有幾件事領導者必須一直親手做,一直親自示範。

第一件是價值觀,以及基於價值觀的決策。

年輕公司在這一塊很吃力,因為價值觀的根扎得不深。風暴一來,很容易被連根拔起。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她講了第一次當經理時的故事。那是八十年代初,一位男同事對別人講黃色笑話,冒犯了在場的幾位女同事。她去找自己的老闆,那時她剛做管理,不知道怎麼處理。

老闆的回答一點不含糊:立刻停止,否則開除。而那個人是團隊裡的高績效員工。

這個故事的分量在於,它劃出了一條線:有些事不看績效,不看資歷,不看這個人有多難替代。

第二件必須親自做的事是示範學習。IBM 有一句用了很久的口號,Think。她把它變成了制度:每個月的第一個週五,全公司強制學習,不管你在什麼崗位。整個公司要轉型,每個人就都得沾一點這件事。

她自己教第一個小時,教了四年。

我得先學會點什麼。而且我想,如果我能教,那掃地的人也能教。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這句話聽著像玩笑,其實說到了領導示範的本質。承諾沒法只在嘴上說,你得自己先坐進教室。

準備是為了在場

對話中間有一段關於“準備”的閒聊,反而透出很多她的性格。

Lex 說自己幾乎不準備,什麼都拖到最後一刻,總是差點遲到,可能是焦慮在推著表現。她笑了,說對某些人確實如此。

她說自己是準備型的人,原因有三層,一層比一層深。

第一層是小時候。她從小就不是靠記憶學習的人,她哥哥讀一遍就記住了。所以她要理解一件事的來龍去脈,不滿足於拿到答案,她要能自己推出來,這樣才不用死記。

第二層是七十年代的工學院。她是班上唯一的女生。

到現在還有人跟我說,我記得你。我說……我說,抱歉我不記得你。你們有三個人,我只有一個。

她說,從那時起她就懂了一件事:在這個教室裡,她說的每句話都會被記住,不管是好是壞。所以必須學紮實。這在早期是一個關於底氣的自我防禦。準備得越充分,心裡越穩。

第三層是後來才演化出來的,也是她覺得最要緊的一層。

如果我準備得很充分,那麼當下這一刻,我就能真的聽你說話。因為我不用腦子裡一邊聽一邊手忙腳亂地組織語言,我可以把已經掌握的東西拿出來,幫著把這件事往前推。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

這個說法把準備的意義整個翻了過來。多數人以為準備是為了輸出,為了講得漂亮、答得周全。她說恰恰相反,準備是為了騰出注意力,把它完整地交給對面的人。

她順帶提了一句丈夫,說她觀察他,那是個完全不做準備的人,自封 type Z,而她自己是 standard A。兩人結婚四十三年,這套配置居然運轉良好。

曾祖母在箭牌大廈擦地板

演講裡常有人說,努力工作會把人燒乾。Lex 把這個問題擺給她:勤奮在你身上是不是也有負面的一面,還是說它恰恰是讓你快樂的東西。

她說她享受。但她馬上補了一句,說得很小心:別因為我這樣,就以為每個人都該這樣。通往同一個地方的路不止一條。

然後她講了三代女性的故事。

曾祖母從俄國來,一輩子沒說過英語,在芝加哥的箭牌大廈做清潔工。她攢下每一個銅板。如果不是那些銅板,羅梅蒂的母親在後來那場災難裡連個落腳的地方都沒有。

祖母的一生同樣坎坷。四十年代、五十年代,她做燈罩,一週幹七天。她教羅梅蒂縫衣服,因為家裡買不起。

母親的人生是第三個故事。父親離開,留下四個孩子、沒有錢、沒有食物、沒有房子,母親此前一天都沒在外面工作過。然後她從那個坑裡爬了出來。

我想到勤奮,想到的就是這些堅強的女性。勤奮意味著你永遠有能力照顧自己。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她也提了一句自己大一時的那段日子。那一年快結束時,她身上只剩 25 美分。她把那枚硬幣放進桌上的透明塑膠盒,盯著它看,心裡想,就這些了,沒有更多了。

Lex 問她,那種被逼到牆角的經歷,是不是她後來能走到那裡的原因之一。她說這個問題很難答。她剛和一個美國大公司的 CEO 聊過,對方說自己的成功有一部分來自那些糟糕的事。

我不能說人必須經歷悲劇。但它確實教會你一件很重要的事:總有往前走的路,而且那在你自己手裡。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她也提到朋友們的另一種焦慮。很多為人父母的人問她,我的孩子從來沒吃過苦,怎麼辦。她說不知道這是不是必需品,但吃苦肯定不虧。

成長與舒適從不共存

這句話是她書裡最常被引用的一句,她說是從丈夫那裡拿來的,而且她自己也是毫不客氣地照搬。

故事發生在她職業生涯中期。她當時已經在管一塊很大的業務,她彙報的那位領導要升職了。他打電話給她,說這個位置我想給你。

她當場拒絕。她說我不行,我還有很多東西要學,這個崗位要管全球所有產品線的研發,所有職能,我幹不了。

他說,我覺得你應該去面試。

第二天她去了,對方當場給她 offer。她說我想回去想想,跟我丈夫商量一下。

回家後她把前因後果講了一遍,丈夫聽完問她:你覺得一個男人會這麼回答嗎?

然後他說,我瞭解你,六個月後你就會無聊透頂,腦子裡只剩自己不會的那些東西。而那些別人,技能遠不如你,卻認為自己幹得了。為什麼?

她把這層心理說得很透。她說她要用一個刻板印象來解釋,但很多人會有共鳴:女性常常是自己最嚴厲的批評者。

我只有在自己感到不適的時候才會成長。當然,這不意味著我必須把這份不適表現出來。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

故事的結尾她講了,因為她覺得那才是重點。她接受了那份工作,回去見那位一直在替她著想的導師。他看著她說:以後別再這樣了。

她明白了:感到不適是正常的,但不需要把它變成一場公開的自我懷疑,也不需要拿它當擋箭牌。現在她的做法是盤點自己能做什麼,然後主動去找那些會讓自己緊張的位置。

太自信和不夠自信之間

Lex 在這裡做了一個很好的推拉。他說自批判這件事,常被講成女性的特質,但他自己也有,而且他不認為它是純粹的壞事,因為那種焦慮正是成長的入口。

她說這是個好觀點,這中間需要一種平衡。

如果一個人極度自信,別人對他的評價會更高,這在短期內很重要。但如果自信過了頭,短期可能有收益,長期就不會成長了。(金妮·羅梅蒂)

她補充了自己的判斷標準,這一條很實用。她說每次接一個新崗位,別人問她什麼時候才算準備好了,她的答案是:如果她願意問大量問題,並且已經理解得足夠多,那就夠了。

這個標準把“勝任”從“我什麼都會”改成了“我知道自己缺什麼,並且知道怎麼問出來”。它同時也解釋了為什麼她後來變得那麼看重好奇心:在一個沒人有現成答案的領域裡,提問的能力就是全部的能力。

關於權力的三個環

書名叫《Good Power》,這個片語本身就是對立的。她解釋了為什麼會用這個說法。

她說她問過很多人,你想要權力嗎。大多數人的第一反應是躲開:不要,我更想做好事。

她的結論是:你恰恰需要權力才能做成好事。

她說人們對“權力”這個詞的反感,多半來自新聞裡那些濫用它的例子。但一個想推動改變的人如果手上沒有資源、沒有影響力、沒有能拍板的位子,善意最後只會停在心裡。

她把這套想法按自己的人生分成了三個同心環,像石子落水。

最裡面一環是“我的權力”,關於照顧自己,先讓自己站穩。第二環擴散出去,是“我們的權力”,關於和他人一起做事。最外面一環是“為社會的權力”,影響的範圍超出個人和組織的邊界。她現在共同主持一個有一百一十名成員的團體,位置已經在那最外一環上。

這套結構解釋了她的一個矛盾。她既強調“我們”、強調協作、強調放權,又堅持領導者在某些時刻必須獨斷。因為權力從來都只是手段,它是讓那個人能繼續做事的條件。要看的,是你用它的時候,注意力放在自己身上,還是放在那件事上。

她也講了自己那段反差。父親離開,母親帶著四個孩子無家可歸。很多年後,她成了這家美國標誌性公司的第九任 CEO。這段路上她學到的最大的東西是:你可以用正向的方式,做成非常艱難而且有意義的事。

這句話是她整本書的論點。它不否認艱難,也不否認代價,只是拒絕接受“做成大事必須變冷”這個故事。

把注意力放在哪裡

整場對話談的事情很多,規模、速度、技能、權力、家庭。而貫穿的一條線索是她反覆回到的那個問題:什麼該變,什麼該留。

大多陣列織把這個問題答反了。業務模式、組織架構、考核方式,這些本該跟著時代改的東西被供起來,一動就有人說是背叛傳統。而那些真正構成身份的東西,比如“做世界離不開的事”,比如不看績效的價值觀底線,反而在最需要堅持的時候被拿去換短期利益。

她給出的方法無關管理技巧,是一個順序問題:先想清楚什麼必須留下來,再談要改什麼。這個順序反過來做,改到最後公司會變成一個誰都不認識的空殼,效率可能提高了,但沒有人再說得清自己為什麼在這。

另一個值得帶走的東西是關於人的判斷。她做了四十年才把這件事看清:一個在某件事上做了三十年的專家,很難真的換一套做法。而在一個沒有人有現成答案的領域裡,唯一可靠的資產是願意學。

她說她招人現在只看這一點。這已經超出招聘標準的範疇,它意味著組織對經驗的定價方式要整個重排。老員工的價值從“他懂這個”變成“他還能學這個”。前者會貶值,後者不會。

最後是她關於不適的那句話。成長和舒適不能同時存在。她把這句話講成了一個非常具體的場景:一個她覺得自己不配的 offer,一個說她六個月後就會無聊的丈夫,一句“以後別再這樣了”。

她也在對話裡當場演示了這件事。Lex 問她,第一次見面緊不緊張。她說緊張,但還撐得住。然後她說:緊張說明你在學東西。

一個管過二十八萬人、被稱作全球最有影響力的女性之一的人,在六十幾歲接受一次訪談時還會緊張,而且不打算掩飾。這比任何一段關於勇氣的話都更有說服力。

可以立刻用起來的幾件事

  • 給“什麼該留下”寫一份清單。別寫成價值觀口號,要寫成具體判斷:出了危機時,哪些底線無論如何都不拿來交易。這份清單得在危機之前寫好,風暴裡沒人寫得出來。
  • 檢查一次真實技能庫存。別問員工簡歷上有什麼,問他們下一場仗要用的東西會多少。如果答案低於某個讓你不安的比例,那要改的是培養方式,別把責任推給人。
  • 面試時把“願不願意學”放在專業能力前面。專業能力可以補,好奇心補不了。別問“你愛學習嗎”,讓他講一個最近從零學起的東西,以及中間卡住的那一段。
  • 區分你指出的問題和你能指出的問題。看到錯誤是本能,說出口是選擇。每次想糾正別人之前,先問自己:這個改動帶來的收益,是否高於對方失去的掌控感。
  • 把準備的目的從“講得好”改成“聽得進去”。準備到能騰出腦子的程度,剩下的注意力全部給對面的人。這一條會立刻改變你在會議裡的表現。
  • 主動去找一次不適。接一個你覺得自己還差一點的位置,或者在一個你明顯不是最懂的房間裡開口提問。判斷標準是:如果這件事讓你有點緊張,它大概值得做。
  • 建一個能照顧自己的底線。可以是錢,可以是技能,可以是隨時能重新開始的能力。有了這條底線,你才敢在別的地方冒險,因為你知道輸了不會掉到底。

訪談接近尾聲時,她提到自己正在寫的那本書,講丈夫在書裡是怎麼突然出現的。那個細節很輕,但能聽出她講這些往事時的鬆弛。一個從 25 美分的透明塑膠盒裡走出來的人,四十三年後坐在麥克風前談權力和逆境,語氣裡沒有苦,也沒有炫耀。她只是把該做的事情做完,然後一件一件講給你聽。

文稿由本站用語音識別模型(基於官方釋出音訊)機器轉寫,可能有識別錯誤,人名與數字請以音訊為準。
Lex Fridman Podcast #362 – Ginni Rometty: IBM CEO on Leadership, Power, and Adversity Machine transcription by Qwen3-ASR 0.6B (MLX, local, Apache-2.0). May contain recognition errors. The following is a conversation with Genie Vermetti, who was a long-time CEO, president, and chairman of IBM, and for many years she was widely considered to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She's the author of a new book on power leadership and her life story called Good Power, coming out on March 7th. She is an incredible leader and human being, both fearless and compassionate. It was a huge honor and pleasure for me to sit down and have this chat with her. And now a quick few second mention of each sponsor. Check them out in the description. It's the best way to support this podcast. We got Athletic Greens for health, ExpressVPN for privacy and security and InsideTracker for biological monitoring. Choose wisely, my friends. Also, if you want to work with our team, we're always hiring. Go to lexfreeman dot com slash hiring. And now onto the full ad reads. As always, no ads in the middle. I try to make this interesting, but if you skip them, please still check our sponsors. I enjoy their stuff, maybe you will too. This show is brought to you by Athletic Greens and the AG One Drink, which is an all in one daily drink to support better health and peak performance. I've drank it twice already. It's delicious and it's a refreshing start. For usually the second work session of the day, I start the day with a cup of coffee and just deep deep deep focus on the hardest task of the day, and then I break the fast with Athletic Greens either with a workout before or if I'm not working out that day. Just with a kind of mental break. A friend of mine has recently been pushing me to meditate, and so I've been taking that midday, a point as a kind of another opportunity to return to what I usually do in the morning, which is repeat the mantra for the day. But I do it less montralike and more just calming my mind and thinking about all the things I'm grateful for, really focusing on the gratitude part. Anyway, so that's associated with Athletic Greens and also later on the day, usually I'll take another Athletic Greens and I'll do the same what I'm traveling. I got the travel packs and I got I guess the non travel pack version at home. They'll give you one month supply of fish oil when you sign up at athleticgreens dot com slash lex. This show is also brought to you by ExpressVPN. I've used them for many years to protect my privacy on the internet. It actually takes me back to the early days of the internet for me, my own personal experience and that it was shady and darker and more dangerous but also more exciting and it was unclear what the internet is going to become. And so there's that hacker, I guess ethic. There's also kind of deep sense of freedom. Before big companies came in and tried to figure out how to make a lot of money and really through that process of capitalism, able to get kind of control. But I'm actually very very happy to a degree that internet has maintained its freedom, but still I think some of the initial days of the real kind of almost anarchic freedom has dissipated somewhat. I think about that sometimes, and I think that's what a VPN represents to me. Is a kind of statement of freedom of protecting your identity of respecting your privacy. To me, it's a powerful statement. It's an important one to remember, and it's one I'll probably return to time and time again. Anyway, go to expressvpn dot com slash lexpod for an extra three months free. This show is also brought to you by InsideTracker, a service I used to track biological data. They take a blood test from you and that blood test gives you a bunch of information about your body. And there's all kinds of information you can get from blood data, DNA data, fitness tracker data, all that kind of stuff, and basically analyze. What can be optimized about your body? I think there's a lot of interesting approaches to the way you optimize your body. It's important to have that data and it's important to make the right decisions based on that data, but not over obsess about the data and that's a really nice balance. Now if you're just completely blind and just kind of hope everything is going to turn out okay until you end up in a hospital, that's not the way to go. So the balance there for me is you should be taking blood tests like with InsideTracker and getting information about your body that you can get from that data and then make decisions based on that and then that's it. Pick the low hanging fruit of that fruit tree that represents the problems of life. I guess what that horrible metaphor means is that you should fix the easy problems and that means the things that are obviously wrong based on the data you collect from your blood. Okay, get special savings for a limited time when you go to insidetracker dot com slash lex. This is the lexfreeman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now dear friends, here's Genie Vermetti. You worked at IBM for over 40 years, starting as a systems engineer and you ran the company as chairman president CEO from 2011 to 2020. IBM is one of the largest tech companies in the world with. Maybe you can correct me on this with about 280 thousand employees. What are the biggest challenges running the company of that size? Let's start with a sort of big overview question. The biggest challenges I think are not in running them, it's in changing them. And that idea to know what you should change and what you should not change. Actually, people don't always ask that question. What should endure, even if it has to be modernized. But what should endure, and then I found the hardest part was changing how work got done at such a big company. What was the parts that you thought should endure? The core of the company that was beautiful and powerful and could persist through time that it should persist through time. I'd be interested. Do you have a perception of what you think it would be? Do I have a perception? Well, I'm romantic for a history of long running companies, so there's kind of a tradition as a AI person to me. IBM has some epic sort of research accomplishments. Yes, where you show off you know Deep Blue and Watson, just impressive big moonshot challenges and accomplishing those. But that's I think that's probably a small part of what IBM is. That's mostly like the. The sexy public facing part. Yeah, no, well certainly the research part itself right is over three thousand so it's not that small. That's a pretty big research. But the part that should endure ends up being. You know, company that does things that are essential to the world, meaning the who you know. Think back, you said you're romantic. It was the 30s, the social security system. It was putting the man on the moon. It was you know to this day banks don't run, you know railroads don't run. That is at its core, it's doing mission critical work, and so that part I think is at its core it's a business to business company. And at its core, it's about doing things that are really important to the world becoming running and being better. Running the infrastructure of the world, so doing it at scale, doing reliably. Yes, secure in this world that's like everything. In fact, when I started, I almost felt people were looking for what that was, and together we sort of in a word was to be essential. And the reason I loved that word was, I can't call myself essential. You have to determine I am right, so it was to be essential even though some of what we did is exactly what you said is below the surface. So many people because people say to me well what does IBM do now right, and over the years it's changed so much and today it's really a software and consulting company. Consulting's a third of it, and the software is all hybrid cloud and AI. That would not have been true as you well know back even two decades ago right, so it changes. But I think at its core it's that be essential. You said moonshot can all be moonshots because moonshots don't always work, but mission critical work. So, given the size though, when you started running it, did you feel the sort of thing that people usually associate with size which is bureaucracy. And maybe the aspect of size that hinder progress or hinder pivoting, did you feel that? You would, if for lots of reasons. I think when you're a big company, sometimes people think of process as the client themselves, or the you know I always say to people your process is not your customer. There is a real customer here that you exist for, and that's really easy to fall into because they're you know people are a master or to this process and that's not right. And when you're big, the other thing in boy there's a premium on it is speed right that in our industry, you got to be fast and go back like when I took over and it was 2012. You know we had a lot of catching up to do and a lot of things to do and it was moving so fast and as you well know all those trends were happening at once which made them go even faster and so pretty unprecedented actually for that many trends to be at one time and I used to say to people go faster go faster go faster and honestly. I've tired them out. I mean, it kind of dawned on me that when you're that big, that's a really valuable lesson, and it taught me like the how's perhaps more important than the what because. If I didn't do something to change how work was done, like change those processes or you know give them new tools, help them with skills, they couldn't they'll just like do the same thing faster. If someone tells you you know you got hiking boots and they're like no go run a marathon, you're like I can't do it in those boots, but so you've got to do something and at first. I think the ways for big companies I would call them like blunt clubs. You do what everyone does. You reduce layers because if you reduce layers, decisions go faster. There's just it's math. If there's less decision points, things go faster. You do the blunt club thing and then after that though it did lead me down a you know a long journey. Of they sound like buzzwords, but if you really do them at scale, they're hard around things like agile. And because you really got to change the way work gets done, and we ended up training god hundreds of thousands of people on that stuff to really change it correctly on how to do it correctly. That's right versus because everybody talks about it, but the idea that you would really have small multidisciplinary teams work from the outside in set those sort of interim steps you know take the feedback pivot and then do it on not just products do it on lots of things. Was it's a hard to do at scale. People always say oh I got this agile group over here of 40 people, but not when you're a couple hundred thousand people you got to get a lot of people to work that way. The blunt club thing you're talking about so flatten the organization as much as possible. Yeah, yeah, I probably reduce the layers of management by half, and so that does that has lots of benefits right time to a decision, more autonomy to people because and then the idea of like faster clarity of of where you're going because you're not just filtered through so many different layers and I think it's the kind of thing a lot of companies if you're big have to just keep going through it's kind of like grass grows you know it just comes back and you got to go back down and and work on it so it's a natural thing. But I hear so many people talk about it lex this idea of like okay well who makes a decision you've often heard nobody can say yes and everybody can say no and that's actually what you're trying to get out of a system like that. So I mean your book in general the the way you lead is very much about we and us you know the the power of we, but is there times when a leader has to step in and be almost autocratic take control and make hard unpopular decisions. Oh I am sure you know the answer to that and and it is of course yes fun to hear you say fun to say it yeah you know because I actually a there's a leader for a time but then there's a leader for a situation right and so I've had to do plenty of unpopular things. I think anytime you have to run a company that endures a century and has to endure another century you will do unpopular things you have no choice and I often felt I had to sacrifice things for the long term and whether that would have been you know really difficult things like you know job changes or reductions or whether it would be things like hey you know we're going to change the way we do our semiconductors and a whole different philosophy. You have no choice. I mean and in times of crisis as well you got to be I would say it's not a popularity contest so that's none of these jobs are popularity contests. I don't care if your company's got one person or half a million they're not popularity contests. But psychologically it's difficult to to sort of step in as a new CEO and. To because you're fighting against tradition against all these people that act like experts of their thing and they are experts of their thing to step in and say we have to do differently. When you got to change a company, it's really tempting to say throw everything else out back to that what must endure right, but I know when I took over to start I knew how much had to change more I got into it I could see wow a lot more had to change right because we needed a platform we'd always done our best when we had a platform a technology platform you will go back in time and you'll think of the mainframe systems you'll think of the PC you'll think of perhaps middleware you know you could even call services a platform. We needed a platform, the next platform here to be there. Skills when I took over if I we inventoryed who had modern skills for the future it was two out of 10 people for the future not that they didn't have relevant skills today but for the future two out of 10 yikes that's a big problem right. The the speed at which things were getting done that has to so you got so much to do and you say is that is that a scary thing yes do you have to sometimes dictate yes but I did find and it is worth it I know every big company I know my good friend that runs General Motors as she's had to change. Go back to what is them them you know and when you do that that back to be essential we kind of started with hey it's be essential then the next thing I did with the team was say okay now this means new era of computing new buyers are out there and eh we better have new skills okay now the next thing how do you operationalize it and it just takes some time. But you can engineer that and get get people to build belief. And for the skills that that means that means hiring and that means training. Yes, yeah oh boy that's a long skills is a really long topic in and of itself. I try to put my view in it. I learned a lot and I changed my view on this a lot. I'll go back at my very beginning say 40 years ago I I would have said at that point okay I was always in a hurry of I was interviewing to hire people I don't know how you hire people 40 years ago I'd be like okay I got to fit in these interviews I got to hire someone to get this done okay then time would go on I'm like oh that's not very good in fact someone once said to me hey hire the best people to work for you and your job gets a lot easier okay I should spend more time on this topic spend more time on it then it was like okay hire experts okay okay hired a lot of experts over my life. And then I was really like an epiphany and it really happened over my tenure running the company and having to change skills. If someone's an expert at something and has just done that for 30 years, the odds of them really wanting to change a lot are pretty low, and when you're in a really dynamic industry that's a problem. And so okay that was like kind of my first revelation on this and then when I looked at hiring, I can remember when I started my job we needed cyber people and I go out there and I look unemployment in the U S was almost 10 can't find them okay it's 10 and I can't find the people okay what's the issue okay they're not teaching the right things. That led me down a path and it was serendipity that I happened to do a review of social corporate social responsibility. We had this one little fledgling school in a low income area and high school with a community college. We gave them internships, direction on curriculum. Behold, we could hire these kids. I said, hmm, this is not CSR like I just found a new talent pool, which takes me to now what I'm doing in my post you know post retirement. I'm like this idea that don't hire just for a college degree. We had 99 of our hires were college and PhDs and I'm all for it. So you're very don't don't I'm deeply offended. No, you should not be and I you know I'm vice chair at Northwestern one of the vice chair but but I said I just really like aptitude does not equal access. These people didn't have access but they had aptitude. It changed my whole view to skills first and so now for hiring that's kind of a long story to tell you the number one thing I would hire for now is somebody's willingness to learn you know and you can test you can try different ways but their curiosity and willingness to learn hands down I will take that trait over anything else they have. So the interview process the questions you ask everything changed the kind of things you talk to them about is try to get at how curious they are about what. Testing and I mean there's we triangulated around it lots of ways and now look they're at the heart of it what it would do is change you don't think of buying skills you see you think of building skills and when you think that way with so many people and I think. This country many developed countries being disenfranchised, you got to bring them back into the workforce somehow and they got to get some kind of contemporary skills and if you took that approach you can bring them back into the workforce. Yeah, I think some interesting combination of humility and passion because like you said, experts sometimes lack humility. If they call themselves an expert for a few too many years, so you have to have that beginner's mind and a passion to be able to aggressively constantly be a beginner at everything and learn and learn and learn. You know I I saw it firsthand when we were beginning this path you know down the cloud and AI and we said and people would say oh IBM you know it's existential they got to change and all these things and and I did hire a lot of people from outside very willing to learn new things come on in come on in. And I sometimes say shiny objects trained in shiny objects come on in, but I saw something it was another one of these you're not a shiny object I'm not saying that it's a but I learned something okay some of them did fantastic and others they're like well let me school you on everything but they didn't realize like we did really mission critical work and they break a bank I mean they would not understand the certain kind of security and the auditability and everything they had to go on and then I watched IBM people say. Oh, I actually could learn some. Some are like yeah okay I don't know how to do that's a really good thing I could learn and in the end there was not like one group was a winner and one was a loser. The winners were the people who were willing to learn from each other. I mean it was to me it was very stark example of that point and I and I saw it firsthand. So that's why I'm so committed to this idea about skills first and that's how people should be hired promoted paid you name it. Yeah, the AI in general it seems like nobody really understands now what the future will look like we're all trying to figure it out so like what you know IBM will look like in 50 years. In relation to the the software business to AI is unknown what Google will look like what all these companies are trying to figure it out out and that means constantly learning taking risks all of those things and nobody is really skilled in AI because you're absolutely right that's right I couldn't agree more with you on that you you wrote in the book speaking of hiring quote my drive for perfection often meant I only focused on what needed to change without acknowledging the positive this could keep people from trusting themselves it could take me a while to learn that just because I could point something out didn't mean I should I still spotted errors but I became more deliberate about what I mentioned and sent back to get fixed I also tried to curtail my tendency to micromanage and let people execute I had to stop assuming my way was the best or only way I was learning that giving other people control builds their confidence and that constantly trying to control people destroys it so what's the right balance between showing the way and helping people find the way that is a good question because like a really flip answer would be as it gets bigger you have no choice but to just you know you can't do it you have to you have to tell or show I mean you've got to let people find their way because it's so big you can't right that's an obvious answer scope of work bigger it gets okay I've got to let more stuff go but I have always believed that a leader's job is to do as well and I think there's like a few areas that are really important that you always do now doesn't mean you're showing so like when it has to do with values and value based decisions like I think it's really important to constantly show people that you you walk your talk on that kind of thing is super important and I actually think it's a struggle young companies have because the values aren't deeply rooted and when a storm comes it's easy to uproot and so I always felt like when it was that time I showed it I got taught that so young is it at IBM and even General Motors that in fact I write I do write about that in the book first time I was a manager I had a gentleman telling dirty jokes and not to me but to other people and it really offended people and some of the women this is this is the very early 80s and they came said something I talked to my boss I'm a first time manager and he was unequivocal with what I should do he said and this was a top performer it stops immediately or you fire him so there are a few areas like that that I actually think you have to always continue to role model and show right that to me isn't the kind that like when do you let go of stuff right so the values and relationships with with clients yeah whatever you're in service of and and and the other thing was I really felt is really important to role model learning right so you know I can remember when we started down the journey and we went on to this thing called it think Academy IBM's longtime motto had been think and we said okay I'm going to make the first Friday of every month compulsory education and okay I mean everybody like everybody I don't care what your job is okay when the whole company has to transform everybody's got to get kind of have some skin in this game and understand it I taught the first hour of every month for four years now nice okay I had to learn something so but it made me but I've like okay if I can teach the shoe can do it right I mean you know kind of thing so it was a compulsory Thursday night education for you a little I'm a little bit better prepared than that yes you're so right yes so you you prepare yeah so like personality habits you like to prepare yeah but there's roots in that go back deeply deeply deeply deeply and I think it's an interesting reason so why do why are you you're prepared my friend yes you are you prepare for your interviews ah sure the rest you wing yeah I wing but that's okay I mean you don't have to prepare everything I don't prepare everything either no but I I unfortunately wing stuff I save it to last minute I push everything I'm always almost late and I don't know why that is I mean there's some deep psychological thing we should probably investigate but it's probably the anxiety brings out the performance that can be that's very true with some people I mean so I'm a programmer engineer at heart and so so programmers famously overestimate or underestimate sorry how long that something is going to take and so I just everything always underestimate and it's almost as if I want to feel this chaos of anxiety of a deadline or something like this otherwise I'll be lazy sitting on a beach with a pina colada and relaxing yeah I don't know so that we have to know ourselves but for you for me you like to prepare yeah it came from a few different places I mean one would have been as a as a kid I think I was not a memorizer and my brother is brilliant he can he read it once boom done and so I always wanted to understand like how something happened didn't matter what it was I was doing whether it was algebra theorems I always wanted don't give me the answer don't give me the answer you know I want to figure it out figure so I could reproduce it again and didn't have to memorize so it started with that and then over time okay so I was in university in the 70s when I was in engineering school I was the only woman yeah I meet people still to this day and they're like oh I remember you I'm like yeah sorry I don't remember you there were three of you one of me and I think you already get that feeling of okay I better really study hard because whatever I say is going to be remembered in this class good or bad and it started there so in some ways I did it for two reasons early on I think it was a shield for confidence the more I studied the more prepared I was the more confident that's probably still true to this day the the second reason I did it evolved over time and became different to prepare um if I was really prepared then when we're in the moment I can really listen to you see because I don't have to be doing all this stuff on the fly in my head and I could actually take things I know and maybe help the situation so it really became a way that I could be present in in the moment and I think it's something a lot of people that in the moment I I learned it from my husband he doesn't prepare by the way at all so that's not it but I but I watch the in the moment the negative example no no no and I'm not going to change that as he says he's a type Z I'm an A okay how love works yeah and I have been married 43 years that seems to work so but that idea that you could be in the moment with people is a really important thing yeah so the preparation gives you the freedom to really be present so just a linger on the you mentioned your brother and it seems like in the book that you really had to work hard when you studied to to sort of given that you weren't good at memorization you really truly deeply want to understand the stuff and you put in the hard work and that seems to persist throughout your career so you know hard work is often associated with sort of has negative associations with maybe with burnout with dissatisfaction is there some aspect of hard work at the core of who you are that led to happiness for you did you enjoy it I enjoyed it so I will be the first and and I'm I'm really careful to say that to people because I don't think everyone should associate G to do what you did you have to there's only one route there right and that's just not true and I I do it because I like it in fact I'm careful and as time goes on you have to be careful as more and more people watch you whether you like it you're a role model or not you are a role model for whether you know it like it want it does not matter I learned that the hard way and I would have to say people hate just because I do this does not mean I do it for these reasons right it should be really explicit and I'd come to believe usually when people say the word power I don't know do you have a positive or negative notion when I say the word power we just do probably negative one yeah for some stereotype or some view that that somebody's abused it in some way you can read the newspaper somebody's doing something personal people like I ask people do you want power and they're like oh no I'd rather do good yeah and I think the irony is you need power to do good and so that sort of led me down to in it was I thought about my own life right because it's it starts in a like many of us you know you don't have a lot but you don't know that because you're like everybody else around you at that time and on one end tragedy right my father leaves my mother homeless no money no food nothing four kids she's never worked a day in her life outside of a home and I the irony that I hear I would end up as the ninth CEO of one of America's iconic companies and now I co chair this group 110 and that journey I said the biggest thing I learned was you could do really hard meaningful things in a positive way so now you ask me about why do I work so hard I ended up writing the book in three pieces for this reason when you really think of your life in power I thought it kind of fell like a pebble in water like there's a ring about you really care about yourself and like the power of yourself power of me there's a time it transcends to that you are working within four others in another moment when it becomes like about society so my hard work I'd ask you one day sit really hard and think about when you close your eyes who do you see from your early life right and what did you learn and maybe it's not that hard for you I mean it was it's funny the things then if I really looked at it it's no surprise what I do today and that hard work part my great grandma as you and I were comparing notes on on Russia right and never spoke English spoke Russian came here to this country was a cleaning person at the Wrigley Building in Chicago yet if she hadn't saved every dime she made my mother wouldn't have a home and wouldn't have a head car right what did I learn from that hard work in fact actually she when I went to college she's like you know you really should be on a farm you're so big and strong you know that was her view and then my grandmother another tragic life what did she do though and think how long that's in the 40s the 50s she made lampshades and she taught me how to sew right so I could sew clothes when we couldn't afford them but my my my memory of my grandma is working seven days a week sewing lampshades and then here comes my mom in her situation who who climbs her way out of it so I associate that with well strong women by the way all strong women and I associate hard work with how you are sure you can always take care of yourself and so I think that the roots go way back there and they were always teaching something right my great grandma was teaching me how to cook how to work a farm even though I didn't need to be on a farm my grandmother taught me you know here's how to sew here's how to run a business and then my mother would teach us that look with just a little bit of education look at the difference it could make right so anyways that's a long answer too I think that hard work thing is really deeply rooted from that background it gives you a way out from hard times yeah you know I think I've seen you on other podcasts say I thought I did do you want a plan B didn't you say no you would not like a plan B yeah I don't because you're like I would prefer my back up against in my remembering story like that you seem to like at least certain moments in your life seem to do well in desperate times true enough true enough that's true I I learned that very well but I also think that maybe this isn't the same kind of plan B I think of it as like I was taught like always be able to take care of yourself don't have to rely on someone else and I think that to me so so that's my plan B I can take care of myself and it's it's even after what I lived through with my father I thought well this set a bar for bad after this nothing's bad and and that it's a very freeing thought the being able to take care of yourself is that you mean practically do you mean just a self belief that I'll figure it out I'll figure it out and practically both right so you wrote quote I vividly remember the last two weeks of my freshman year when I only had 25 cents left I put the quarter in a clear plastic box on my desk and just stared at it this is it I thought no more money so do you think there's some aspect of that financial stress even desperation just being hungry did that play a role in that drive that led to your success to be the the CEO you know one of the great companies ever it's a really interesting question because I was just talking to another colleague who's CEO of another great American company this weekend and he mentioned to me about all this adversity and he said I said to him I said do you think part of your successes because you had bad stuff happen and he said yes you know and so I I guess I'd be lying if I didn't say I don't think you have to have tragedy but it does teach you like one really important thing is that there is always a way forward always and it's in your control I think there's probably wisdom for mentorship there or whether your parent or a mentor that easy times don't result in growth yeah I've heard a lot of my friends and they they worry this I'm gee my kids have never had bad times and so what you know what happens here so I don't know is it is it required and why you end up not required but it sure doesn't hurt you had this good line about a advice you were given that growth and comfort never coexist growth and comfort never coexist and you have to get used to that thought if someone said that they think of me like one of the more profound sort of lessons I had in the irony is it's from my husband and which is even more you know funny actually you could just steal it I mean you don't oh I have I have shamelessly he'll he'll as he'll tell you okay so the story behind growth and comfort never coexist but honestly I think it's been a really freeing thought for me and it's helped me immensely since mid career and as I write about it in the book I'm mid career and I've been running a pretty big business actually in the fella I work for is going to get a new job he's going to get promoted he calls me and he says hey you're going to get my job I really want you to have it and I said to him no way I said I'm not ready for that job I got a lot more things I got to learn that is like a huge job around the world every product line development you name it every function I can't do it he looked at me he says well I think you should go to the interview I went to the interview the next day blah blah blah guy says to me looks at me and he says I want to offer you that job and I said I would like to think about it I said I want to go home and talk to my husband about it kind of looked at me okay I went home my husband is sitting there and he says to me I went on and on about the story et cetera and he says do you think a man would have answered it that way and I said he says I know you he's like six months you're going to be bored and you all you can think of is what you don't know and he said I know these other people you have way more skill than them and they think they could do it and he's like why why and and for me it internalizes feeling that and it it I'm going to I am going to say something as a stereotype that it resonates with many many women and I'll ask you if it does after is that either the most harsh critic of themselves and so this idea that I won't grow unless I can feel uncomfortable doesn't mean I always have to show it by the way so that's why meant growth and comfort can never coexist so I got I was like he's exactly right now the end of that story is I went in I took the job when I went back to the man who was really my mentor looking out for me and he he looked at me he said don't ever do that again and I said I understand because it was okay to be uncomfortable I didn't have to use I mean now I would take stock of the things I can do right and really think or I look for times to be uncomfortable because I know if I am nervous like I don't know if you were nervous to meet me we never met in real person no I'm still terrified no you're not but then you're means you're learning something right holding it together so well I also that to me matters I think it's interesting the maybe you could speak to that the sort of the self critical thing inside your inside your brain because I think sometimes it's talked about that women have that but I have that definitely and I think that's not just solely a property of women in the workplace but I also want to sort of push back on the idea that that's a bad thing that you should silence because I think that anxiety that leads to growth also that's like this discomfort so there's this weird balance you have to have between that self critical engine and confidence yeah I think that's a good point you have to kind of dance because if you're super confident people will value you higher that's important but if you're way too confident maybe in the short term you'll gain but in the long term you won't grow very good point so I can't really disagree with that and and to me even when I took on jobs I always felt people say well is it you know what point are you confident enough and I came to sort of believe again a theme of my beliefs that if I was willing to ask lots of questions and understood enough that's all I needed to know let me ask you about your husband a little bit so you write in the book you're writing the book he's just jumping

本集資源與出處