领导力 良好判断的要素 如何改进决策 通过 安德鲁·利基尔曼爵士 | 百度翻译

Here is the link.  

总结

根据Noel Tichy和Warren Bennis（作者判断：获胜的领导者如何做出伟大的决定)在缺乏明确、相关的数据或明显的路径的情况下，这是一个合理的选择。Likierman认为，更精确地理解什么能给人一个好的判断，可能会使人们学习和改进它。他接触了一系列公司的首席执行官，从一些世界上最大的右翼企业到初创企业，以及行业领袖：法律和会计事务所的高级合伙人、将军、医生、科学

必须做出决定。事实我们已经收集了，支持和反对这两种选择的论据已经阐明，但没有明确的证据支持任何一种选择。现在，围坐在桌子旁的人都转向了首席执行官。他们所要寻找的是一种好的判断，一种对指向正确选择的证据的解释。

根据Noel Tichy和Warren Bennis（作者判断：获胜的领导者如何做出伟大的决定)在缺乏明确、相关的数据或明显的路径的情况下，这是一个合理的选择。在某种程度上，我们都有形成观点和解释证据的能力。当然，我们需要的是好的判断。

为了理解什么是好的判断，我们已经花了很多笔墨。一些专家将其定义为后天习得的本能或“直觉”，在某种程度上将深刻的经验与无意识层次的分析技能结合起来，产生一种洞察力或认识到别人忽视的模式。在高层次上，这一定义具有直观的意义；但是，从理解什么是判断到知道如何获得甚至认识它是很困难的。

为了应对这一挑战，我与多家公司的首席执行官进行了交谈，从一些世界上最大的企业到初创企业。我也接触过行业领袖：律师事务所和会计事务所的高级合伙人、将军、医生、科学家、牧师和外交官。我让他们分享他们对自己和他人判断能力的观察结果，这样我就可以确定哪些技能和行为共同创造了获得新见解的条件，并使决策者能够识别出其他人忽略的模式。我也看过相关的文献，包括领导力和心理学。

我发现，具有良好判断力的领导者往往是很好的倾听者和读者，能够听到别人的实际意思，从而能够看到别人没有的模式。他们有广泛的经验和关系，使他们能够认识到别人错过的相似或类比，如果他们不知道什么，他们就会认识一个知道的人，并依靠那个人的判断。他们可以认识到自己的情绪和偏见，并将其排除在等式之外。他们善于扩大考虑范围。最后，他们仍然立足于现实世界：在做出选择时，他们也会考虑其实现。

领导者可以采用的实践，他们可以培养的技能，以及他们可以建立的关系将为他们的判断提供信息。在本文中，我将介绍良好判断的六个基本组成部分，我称之为它们学习，信任，经验，超然，选择，和传送-并提出改进建议。

学习：专心听讲，批判性阅读

好的判断力要求你将知识转化为理解。这听上去很明显，但与以往一样，魔鬼在于细节，在这个例子中，你的学习方法。许多领导者匆忙做出错误的判断是因为他们无意识地过滤他们收到的信息，或者对他们所听到或读到的信息没有足够的批判。

不幸的是，事实是，我们中很少有人真正吸收我们所收到的信息。我们过滤掉我们不期望或不想听的东西，这种趋势不一定会随着年龄的增长而改善。（例如，研究表明，孩子们会注意到成年人没有注意到的东西。）结果，领导者们只是错过了大量可用的信息，而优秀的员工尤其容易受到这种弱点的影响，因为成功往往伴随着过度自信。

当然，也有例外。我第一次见到约翰·布坎南是在他长达40年的杰出职业生涯中，他成为英国石油公司的首席财务官，施乐辉公司的董事长，沃达丰公司的副董事长，以及阿斯利康、Alliance Boots和必和必拓的董事。在我们相识的整个过程中，令我印象深刻的是，他对我和其他每个人都一心一意的关注。许多有着他成就记录的人早就不再听他说话了，而倾向于自命不凡。

具有良好判断力的领导者往往是好的倾听者和读者。

布坎南不仅仅是一个好的倾听者，他善于引出人们可能不会自愿提供的信息。他的问题旨在引出有趣的回答。例如，他告诉我，在决定是否接受董事职位时，他会问一些问题，比如“你会把这家公司置于白纸黑字的光谱中？”他说：“起初，这听起来像是一种经典的管理方法，很聪明，但毫无意义。”。“然而，它的开放性足够大，可以就广泛的主题作出答复，而且有足够的指向性，足以产生有意义的答复。”

信息过载，尤其是书面材料，是另一个问题。首席执行官们需要大量的电子邮件和大量的时间来获得他们的关注。作为一家大型上市公司的董事，在一次大型会议之前，我都会拿出上百万字来阅读。面对这样的洪流，我们很容易去浏览，只记住那些能证实我们信仰的材料。这就是为什么聪明的领导者要求质量而不是数量。下一次大会议要300页？亚马逊和英格兰银行的议程项目最多6页。

在阅读方面，超负荷并不是唯一的挑战。一个更微妙的风险是将书面文字视为表面价值。当我们听别人说话时，我们会（有意识或无意识地）寻找关于我们所听到内容质量的非语言线索。在阅读时，我们缺乏这种语境；而在一个“假新闻”这个词很常见的时代，决策者需要格外注意他们所看到和听到的信息的质量，特别是同事过滤的或通过搜索引擎和社交媒体交流获得的材料。你真的在评估和过滤的时候像你应该的那样小心，知道质量有多不稳定吗？如果你认为你从来没有无意识地筛选出信息，那么考虑一下你是否选择了一份与你的想法一致的报纸。

有良好判断力的人对没有意义的信息持怀疑态度。如果不是有一个叫斯坦尼斯拉夫·彼得罗夫的苏联中校，我们今天可能就没人活着了。1983年，当苏联导弹跟踪中心的值班军官时，彼得罗夫才得知苏联卫星探测到美国对苏联的导弹攻击。他认为100%的概率读数难以置信地高，并且没有像他的指示那样向上报告信息。相反，他报告了一个系统故障。“我掌握了所有的数据（暗示导弹袭击正在进行），”他在2013年告诉BBC的俄罗斯服务。“如果我把我的报告送到指挥系统，没有人会反对它。”结果是卫星把云层反射的阳光误认为是导弹发动机。

要改进：

 

积极倾听，包括了解不说和解释肢体语言，是一项值得磨练的技能，有很多建议存在。小心你自己的过滤器和防御或侵略性，可能会阻止其他论点。如果你在听的时候感到无聊和不耐烦，就提出问题并检查结论。如果你被书面的简报材料搞得不知所措，那就把重点放在讨论问题和问题的部分，而不是那些总结你将在会上听到的陈述的部分。（太多的板子里塞满了演讲稿的预告稿。）在所说或写的内容中寻找差距或差异。仔细考虑底层数据的来源以及提供这些数据的人员的可能利益。如果可以的话，从一个争论的多个方面，特别是那些你通常不同意的人那里得到输入和数据。最后，确保你所依赖的数据的标准和代理是正确的；寻找指标中的差异并尝试理解它们。

信任：寻求多样性，而不是验证

领导不应该是一个单独的努力。领导者在做出决定时可以借鉴他人的技能和经验，也可以借鉴自己的技能和经验。这些顾问是谁以及领导者对他们的信任程度，对领导者的判断质量至关重要。

不幸的是，许多首席执行官和企业家都会带一些人加入进来，而这些人只是附和并验证他们的观点。初创公司Theranos的名誉扫地的高管伊丽莎白·霍姆斯（Elizabeth Holmes）和桑尼·巴尔瓦尼（Sunny Balwani）认为，任何提出担忧或反对意见的人都是愤世嫉俗者和反对者。“坚持这样做的员工通常会被边缘化或被解雇，而拍马屁的人则会被提拔。”《金融时报》。最近被判入狱18年的中国安邦保险集团创始人兼领军人物吴晓晖建立了一个多元化的国际帝国，购买了包括纽约华尔道夫阿斯托利亚酒店在内的主要资产。一名员工对英国《金融时报》表示，他身边还有“不起眼的人，他们只会听从他的命令，不质疑他们。”。

历史学家多丽丝·卡恩斯·古德温在她的书中竞争对手，他指出，亚伯拉罕·林肯组建了一个由他尊敬的专家组成的内阁，但这些专家并不总是相互同意。麦肯锡长期以来一直将义务（不是一个建议)持不同意见是其经营方式的核心部分。亚马逊的领导原则规定，领导者应该“寻求不同的视角，努力打乱他们的信仰。”

阿里巴巴的马云也是这么想的。马云认识到自己对技术的无知（他第一台电脑时才33岁），于是聘请雅虎（Yahoo）的吴宇森（John Wu）担任首席技术官，并评论道：“对于一家一流的公司，我们需要一流的技术。当约翰来的时候，我可以睡得很香。”马云并不是唯一一个寻找具有组织和个人素质和经验的顾问来填补自己的空白的超级企业家。Facebook的马克•扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）雇佣谢丽尔•桑德伯格（Sheryl Sandberg）也是出于类似的原因。而在线时尚零售商Net-a-Porter的创始人娜塔莉•马塞内（Natalie Massenet）则聘请了年纪大得多的Mark Sebba，“低调的Net-a-Porter首席执行官，以罗伯特•德尼罗（Robert De Niro）的方式为这家电子商务初创企业带来秩序实习生“根据时代伦敦的。我的哥哥迈克尔告诉我，他的公司的眼镜连锁店，品牌GrandOptical，成为法国最大的一个原因是他与丹尼尔·阿比坦（Daniel Abittan）合作，后者的卓越运营补充了迈克尔的创业眼光和战略技能。

要改进：

 

培养值得信赖的建议来源：那些会告诉你你需要知道而不是你想听的人。当你在招聘那些你会依赖他们的建议的人时，不要把结果当作他们良好判断的代表。在评估和晋升决定中，把判断作为一个明确的因素。担任英国最高级司法任命机构主席的乌莎•普拉沙（Usha Prashar）指出，有必要进行调查怎样候选人做事，而不仅仅是他或她所做的。麦肯锡的多米尼克·巴顿告诉我他在寻找不有人说：到目前为止，人们是否没有提到他们职业生涯中的任何“真正”困难、挫折或失败？一位首席执行官说，他曾询问过人们在哪些情况下没有足够的信息或相互矛盾的建议。不要被候选人“与众不同”的评价所拖累，与你意见相左的人可以为你提供所需的挑战。

经验：使其相关但不狭隘

除了与决策相关的数据和证据外，领导者在做出判断时也要运用他们的经验。帮助我们识别潜在的挑战并预测解决方案。如果他们以前遇到过像当前这样的挑战，那么领导者们就可以找出他们需要集中精力和资源的领域。

穆罕默德阿拉巴尔，迪拜埃马尔地产的董事长，中东最成功的企业家之一，给了我一个例子。他1991年在新加坡发生的第一次重大房地产危机，让他认识到在经济低迷时期和房地产行业中进行高度杠杆化所带来的脆弱性，只有那些在第一次危机中吸取过度负债教训的人才能长期存活下来。自那以后，阿拉巴一直在迪拜的经济周期中游刃有余，如今拥有的投资组合包括世界最高的建筑哈利法塔（Burj Khalifa）和世界最大的购物中心之一迪拜购物中心（Dubai Mall）。

但这是一个很大的问题，但如果经验是狭隘的，熟悉可能是危险的。如果我的公司计划进入印度市场，我可能不会相信一个只在美国推出产品的人的判断。我可能不会那么担心那些在中国和南非也推出新产品的人，因为这样的人不太可能忽视重要的信号。

此外，在某一特定领域拥有丰富经验的领导者可能会陷入常规，出于习惯、自满或过度自信做出判断。通常需要一个外部危机来揭露这种失败，为此缺乏救生艇泰坦尼克号对于许多显然无懈可击的巨头来说，2008年的金融危机是永恒的象征吗。今天，与之相当的是那些低估了环境问题转移到中心舞台的速度，需要切实应对的领导人。

要改进：

 

首先，评估一下你如何利用自己的经验做出决定。首先，通过你重要的判断电话来确定哪些事情做得好，哪些事情做得不好，包括你是否吸取了正确的经验，以及你所做的类比是否恰当。记录错误和正确。这很难，而且很容易改写历史，这就是为什么与教练或同事分享你的结论是有帮助的，因为他们可能对同一经历持有不同的看法。试着招募一个聪明的朋友，他可以是一个中立的批评家。

在某一特定领域拥有丰富经验的领导者可能会陷入一种习惯。

第二，尤其是如果你是一个年轻的领导者，努力扩展你的经验。试着在国外或公司的关键职能部门（如财务、销售和制造）获得职位。让自己加入一个大型交易的收购团队。作为一名CEO，你能给高潜力经理的一个重要支持就是有更多的机会，所以要参与职业规划。这不仅会给年轻的管理者带来好处；这将有助于公司，也很有可能帮助你，因为它将拓宽你可以利用的经验。

超然：识别偏见，然后挑战偏见

当你处理信息并利用你自己和他人知识的多样性时，了解并解决自己的偏见是至关重要的。尽管对目标和价值观的热情是一种优秀的领导品质，可以激励追随者做出更大的努力，但它也会影响你处理信息、从经验中学习和选择顾问的方式。

因此，在智力和情感上分离的能力是良好判断的重要组成部分。但这是一项很难掌握的技能。近年来，行为经济学、心理学和决策科学的研究表明，诸如锚定、确认、风险厌恶或过度风险偏好等认知偏差普遍影响着人们的选择。

德国公用事业公司RWE提供了一个值得警惕的例子。该公司首席财务官在2017年的一次采访中透露，该公司在五年内投资100亿美元建造常规发电设施，其中大部分必须注销。RWE进行了一次事后分析，以了解为什么在能源行业转向可再生能源的时候选择了对传统电力技术的投资。它确定了决策者在评估投资环境时表现出现状和确认偏差。调查还发现，在许多情况下，等级偏见一直在起作用：那些怀疑老板判断的下属们保持沉默，而不是与他们意见相左。最后，这位首席财务官说，莱茵集团遭受了“大量以行动为导向的偏见，比如过度自信和过度乐观。”

正是因为他们能够抵制认知偏差，保持决策的超然，我们经常看到首席财务官和律师升任首席执行官，特别是当一个组织处于危机时期，人们的工作受到威胁时。国际货币基金组织（imf）在其前任多米尼克•斯特劳斯-卡恩（Dominique Strauss-Kahn）于2011年因一桩骇人听闻的丑闻而戏剧性离职后，国际货币基金组织（imf）选择克里斯蒂娜•拉加德（Christine Lagarde）担任董事后，这种素质受到了广泛赞扬。尽管拉加德对IMF总裁来说并不是一个不同寻常的经济学家，但她展示了自己作为法国财政部长的能力，尽管她没有什么政治经验。而且，毫无疑问，作为一家大型国际律师事务所的合伙人，她有能力以超然的态度对待谈判——在全球金融体系面临严重压力的时候，这是一种至关重要的能力。

要改进：

 

理解、澄清和接受不同的观点。鼓励人们参与角色扮演和模拟，这迫使他们考虑自己以外的议程，并为不同意见提供安全的空间。例如，如果鼓励员工扮演竞争对手的角色，他们可以尝试一个他们可能不愿意向老板建议的想法。

领导力发展项目是一个很好的论坛，在这个论坛上，人们可以与来自不同文化和地理位置的同事交流，这些同事以不同的观点参加讨论

最后，具有良好判断力的人要确保他们有适当的流程，让他们意识到偏见。在发现有多少价值被摧毁后，莱茵集团建立了新的实践：重大决策现在要求在讨论之前将偏见摆在桌面上，必要时，还需要魔鬼代言人参与。承认错误会发生，并怀疑那些认为不会犯错的人的判断。

选项：对提供的解决方案集提出质疑

在做决定时，领导者通常需要在至少两个选项中做出选择，这些选项由他们的倡导者制定和提出。但聪明的领导人不会接受这样的事实：只有这些选择。在2008-2009年金融危机期间，奥巴马总统敦促财政部长盖特纳解释为什么他不考虑将银行国有化。盖特纳回忆道：“我们曾经有过一次非常艰难的对话。你有信心这会成功吗？你能让我放心吗？你为什么有信心？我们有什么选择？我告诉他，我当时的判断是，我们别无选择，只能把我们启动的事情进行下去。”

“我们只有一个或更多的选择，否则我们只能选择一个或更多的选择，”但“我们只能选择一个或更多的选择，而我们只能选择一个或更多的选择。”，或者进行限时试验或者试点实施。英国金融服务公司Legal&General的前首席执行官蒂姆•布里顿（timbreedon）向我描述说，这是“没有被事物呈现方式所束缚”

事后看来，许多错误的判断是不可避免的，仅仅因为重要的选择和意外后果的风险从未考虑过。这种情况的发生有多种原因，包括提供潜在答案的人的风险规避。这就是为什么彻底探索解决方案集是领导者判断的关键。提出所有的选择并不是首席执行官的职责。但他或她可以确保管理团队提供各种可能性，消除导致团队自我编辑的恐惧和偏见。当所有的选择都可以辩论时，判断就更有可能是正确的。

要改进：

 

要求澄清不清楚的信息，如果你认为遗漏了重要的事实，就向你的员工提出质疑。质疑他们的论点所依赖的变量的权重。如果时间安排是一个关键的考虑因素，那就确定它是合法的。考虑到与新解决方案相关的风险压力和过度自信，并通过试点寻找缓解这些风险的机会。使用建模、三角测量和人工智能提供的机会。跟随所罗门王（一位受欢迎的候选人，回答我的问题“你认为谁有良好的判断力？”）挖掘出人们在最终决定中的利害关系。一个明显的迹象是在某个特定的结果上被过度抛售。如果他们的解决方案成功或失败，他们（和你）的个人后果是什么？咨询你信任的人。如果没有人，或者没有足够的时间，试着想象你信任的人会做什么。弄清楚规则和道德问题，因为它们会帮助你过滤你的选择。最后，不要害怕考虑激进的选择。讨论它们可以让你和其他人意识到一些不那么激进但很值得考虑的问题，可能会鼓励其他人直言不讳。

交付：执行可行性的因素

你可以做出所有正确的战略选择，但如果你不判断如何以及由谁来执行这些选择，最终还是会失败。1880年，法国外交官兼企业家费迪南德莱塞普斯说服投资者支持在巴拿马挖一条连接大西洋和太平洋的运河。因为德莱塞普斯刚刚完成了苏伊士运河的建设，投资者和政客们未能理解，通过沙子建造运河并不符合你在丛林中修建运河的资格，这并没有使他的计划得到应有的审查。他的方法被证明是灾难性的不合适，这是留给美国政府通过采取一个非常不同的方法完成运河。

在审查项目时，聪明的领导者会仔细考虑实施的风险，并敦促项目倡导者予以澄清。这对小决定和大决定一样重要。

一个具有良好判断力的领导者在确定了一个过程之后预测风险，并知道谁最能管理这些风险。这可能不是提出这个想法的人，特别是如果提议者与特定的愿景结合在一起，就像德莱塞普斯的情况一样。更普遍地说，天资、创造力和想象力并不总是伴随着交付能力，这就是为什么小科技公司常常难以利用他们的灵感，并被创新能力较弱但组织更好的巨头收购。

要改进：

 

在评估一个提案时，要确保推荐投资的人的经验与它的背景密切相关。如果他们指出他们以前的工作，请他们解释为什么这项工作与目前的情况有关。让倡导者通过参与“事前”讨论来质疑他们的假设，在这些讨论中，参与者会试图找出导致提案失败的原因。RWE现在将此作为其项目评估过程的一部分。

结论

领导者需要许多品质，但这些品质的基础是良好的判断力。那些有抱负但没有判断力的人会耗尽金钱。那些有魅力但没有判断力的人会把追随者引向错误的方向。那些有激情但没有判断力的人会把自己扔到错误的道路上。那些有动力但没有判断力的人早起做错事。纯粹的运气和你无法控制的因素可能会决定你最终的成功，但良好的判断力会给你带来有利的影响。

这篇文章的一个版本出现在2020年1月至2月发行哈佛商业评论.

安德鲁·利基尔曼爵士他是伦敦商学院的教授，同时也是伦敦泰晤士报和比兹利集团的董事。他曾担任伦敦商学院院长，并曾任英国央行（bankofengland）董事

Leadership | The Elements of Good Judgment | How to improve your decision-making by Sir Andrew Likierman | From the Magazine (January–February 2020) | My 20 minutes to study decision making

Oct. 4, 2021

Introduction

I have to learn how to make good judgement on business decision. I googled and found this article to read. I like to ask my friends to give me some recommendations. 

The Elements of Good Judgment | 20 minutes to read 

Here is the article. I like to highlight concepts to learn based on my understanding level. 

Summary.   

Judgment—the ability to combine personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience to form opinions and make decisions—is “the core of exemplary leadership,” according to Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis (the authors of Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls). It is what enables a sound choice in the absence of clear-cut, relevant data or an obvious path. Likierman believes that a more precise understanding of what exactly gives someone good judgment may make it possible for people to learn and improve on it. He approached CEOs at a range of companies, from some of the world’s largest right down to start-ups, along with leaders in the professions: senior partners at law and accountancy firms, generals, doctors, scientists, priests, and diplomats. He asked them to share their observations of their own and other people’s exercise of judgment so that he could identify the skills and behaviors that collectively create the conditions for fresh insights and enable decision makers to discern patterns that others miss. As a result, he has identified six key elements that collectively constitute good judgment: learning, trust, experience, detachment, options, and delivery. He describes these elements and offers suggestions for improvement in each one.

A decision must be made. The facts have been assembled, and the arguments for and against the options spelled out, but no clear evidence supports any particular one. Now people around the table turn to the CEO. What they’re looking for is good judgment—an interpretation of the evidence that points to the right choice.

Judgment—the ability to combine personal qualities with relevant knowledge and experience to form opinions and make decisions—is “the core of exemplary leadership” according to Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis (the authors of Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls). It is what enables a sound choice in the absence of clear-cut, relevant data or an obvious path. To some degree we are all capable of forming views and interpreting evidence. What we need, of course, is good judgment.

A lot of ink has been spilled in the effort to understand what good judgment consists of. Some experts define it as an acquired instinct or “gut feeling” that somehow combines deep experience with analytic skills at an unconscious level to produce an insight or recognize a pattern that others overlook. At a high level this definition makes intuitive sense; but it is hard to move from understanding what judgment is to knowing how to acquire or even to recognize it.

In an effort to meet that challenge, I’ve talked to CEOs in a range of companies, from some of the world’s largest right down to start-ups. I’ve approached leaders in the professions as well: senior partners at law and accountancy firms, generals, doctors, scientists, priests, and diplomats. I asked them to share their observations of their own and other people’s exercise of judgment so that I could identify the skills and behaviors that collectively create the conditions for fresh insights and enable decision makers to discern patterns that others miss. I have also looked at the relevant literatures, including leadership and psychology.

I’ve found that leaders with good judgment tend to be good listeners and readers—able to hear what other people actually mean, and thus able to see patterns that others do not. They have a breadth of experiences and relationships that enable them to recognize parallels or analogies that others miss—and if they don’t know something, they’ll know someone who does and lean on that person’s judgment. They can recognize their own emotions and biases and take them out of the equation. They’re adept at expanding the array of choices under consideration. Finally, they remain grounded in the real world: In making a choice they also consider its implementation.

Practices that leaders can adopt, skills they can cultivate, and relationships they can build will inform the judgments they make. In this article I’ll walk through the six basic components of good judgment—I call them learning, trust, experience, detachment, options, and delivery—and offer suggestions for how to improve them.

Learning: Listen Attentively, Read Critically

Good judgment requires that you turn knowledge into understanding. This sounds obvious, but as ever, the devil is in the detail—in this case your approach to learning. Many leaders rush to bad judgments because they unconsciously filter the information they receive or are not sufficiently critical of what they hear or read.

The truth, unfortunately, is that few of us really absorb the information we receive. We filter out what we don’t expect or want to hear, and this tendency doesn’t necessarily improve with age. (Research shows, for example, that children notice things that adults don’t.) As a result, leaders simply miss a great deal of the information that’s available—a weakness to which top performers are especially vulnerable because overconfidence so often comes with success.

Exceptions exist, of course. I first met John Buchanan early in a distinguished four-decade career during which he became the CFO at BP, the chairman of Smith & Nephew, the deputy chairman of Vodafone, and a director at AstraZeneca, Alliance Boots, and BHP Billiton. What struck me immediately and throughout our acquaintance was that he gave me and everyone else his undivided attention. Many people with his record of accomplishment would long ago have stopped listening in favor of pontificating.

Leaders with good judgment tend to be good listeners and readers.

Buchanan was more than a good listener—he was adept at eliciting information that people might not otherwise volunteer. His questions were designed to draw out interesting responses. He told me that when deciding whether to accept a directorship, for example, he would ask questions such as “Where would you place this company on a spectrum of white to gray?” “At first this sounds like a classic piece of managementese that is clever but meaningless,” he said. “Yet it is sufficiently open-ended to draw out replies on a wide range of subjects and sufficiently pointed to produce a meaningful response.”

Information overload, particularly with written material, is another problem. It’s not surprising that CEOs with huge demands on their time and attention struggle to get through the volume of emails and briefing papers they receive. As a director of a large listed company, I would get up to a million words to read ahead of a big meeting. Confronted with such a deluge, it’s tempting to skim and to remember only the material that confirms our beliefs. That’s why smart leaders demand quality rather than quantity in what gets to them. Three hundred pages for the next big meeting? It’s six pages maximum for agenda items at Amazon and the Bank of England.

Overload is not the only challenge when it comes to reading. A more subtle risk is taking the written word at face value. When we listen to people speak, we look (consciously or unconsciously) for nonverbal clues about the quality of what we’re hearing. While reading, we lack that context; and in an era when the term “fake news” is common, decision makers need to pay extra attention to the quality of the information they see and hear, especially material filtered by colleagues or obtained through search engines and social media exchanges. Are you really as careful in assessing and filtering as you should be, knowing how variable the quality is? If you believe that you never unconsciously screen out information, consider whether you choose a newspaper that agrees with what you already think.

People with good judgment are skeptical of information that doesn’t make sense. We might none of us be alive today if it weren’t for a Soviet lieutenant colonel by the name of Stanislav Petrov. It came to light only after the fall of communism that one day in 1983, as the duty officer at the USSR’s missile tracking center, Petrov was advised that Soviet satellites had detected a U.S. missile attack on the Soviet Union. He decided that the 100% probability reading was implausibly high and did not report the information upward, as were his instructions. Instead he reported a system malfunction. “I had all the data [to suggest a missile attack was ongoing],” he told the BBC’s Russian service in 2013. “If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it.” It turned out that the satellites had mistaken sunlight reflected from clouds for missile engines.

To improve:

 

Active listening, including picking up on what’s not said and interpreting body language, is a valuable skill to be honed, and plenty of advice exists. Beware of your own filters and of defensiveness or aggression that may discourage alternative arguments. If you get bored and impatient when listening, ask questions and check conclusions. If you’re overwhelmed by written briefing material, focus on the parts that discuss questions and issues rather than those that summarize the presentations you’ll hear at the meeting. (Far too many board packs are stuffed with advance copies of presentations.) Look for gaps or discrepancies in what’s being said or written. Think carefully about where the underlying data is coming from and the likely interests of the people supplying it. If you can, get input and data from people on more than one side of an argument—especially people you don’t usually agree with. Finally, make sure the yardsticks and proxies for data you rely on are sound; look for discrepancies in the metrics and try to understand them.

Trust: Seek Diversity, Not Validation

Leadership shouldn’t be a solitary endeavor. Leaders can draw on the skills and experiences of others as well as their own when they approach a decision. Who these advisers are and how much trust the leader places in them are critical to the quality of that leader’s judgment.

Unfortunately, many CEOs and entrepreneurs bring people on board who simply echo and validate them. The disgraced executives Elizabeth Holmes and Sunny Balwani of the start-up Theranos regarded anyone who raised a concern or an objection as a cynic and a naysayer. “Employees who persisted in doing so were usually marginalized or fired, while sycophants were promoted,” according to the Financial Times. Recently jailed for 18 years, Wu Xiaohui, the founder and leading light of China’s Anbang Insurance Group, had built up a diverse international empire, buying major assets that included New York’s Waldorf Astoria hotel. He also surrounded himself with “unimpressive people who would just follow his orders and not question them,” one employee told FT.

The historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her book Team of Rivals, noted that Abraham Lincoln assembled a cabinet of experts he respected but who didn’t always agree with one another. McKinsey has long included the obligation (not a suggestion) to dissent as a central part of the way it does business. Amazon’s Leadership Principles specify that leaders should “seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs.”

Alibaba’s Jack Ma thinks along the same lines. Recognizing his own ignorance of technology (he was 33 when he got his first computer), Ma hired John Wu of Yahoo as his chief technology officer, commenting, “For a first-class company we need first-class technology. When John comes, I can sleep soundly.” Ma isn’t the only mega-entrepreneur who has looked for advisers with organizational and personal qualities and experience to fill a void in himself. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg hired Sheryl Sandberg for a similar reason. And Natalie Massenet, founder of the online fashion retailer Net-a-Porter, hired the much older Mark Sebba, the “understated chief executive of Net-a-Porter who brought order to the ecommerce start-up in the manner of Robert De Niro in The Intern,” according to the Times of London. My brother Michael told me that one reason his company’s chain of opticians, under the brand GrandOptical, became the largest in France is that he partnered with Daniel Abittan, whose operational excellence complemented Michael’s entrepreneurial vision and strategic skills.

To improve:

 

Cultivate sources of trusted advice: people who will tell you what you need to know rather than what you want to hear. When you are recruiting people on whose advice you will rely, don’t take outcomes as a proxy for their good judgment. Make judgment an explicit factor in appraisals and promotion decisions. Usha Prashar, who chaired the body that makes the UK’s most-senior judicial appointments, pointed to the need to probe how a candidate did things, not just what he or she had done. Dominic Barton of McKinsey told me that he looked for what was not being said: Did people fail to mention any “real” difficulties or setbacks or failures in their careers to date? One CEO said he asked people about situations in which they’d had insufficient information or conflicting advice. Don’t be put off by assessments that a candidate is “different.” Someone who disagrees with you could provide the challenge you need.

Experience: Make It Relevant but Not Narrow

Beyond the data and evidence pertinent to a decision, leaders bring their experience to bear when making judgment calls. Experience gives context and helps us identify potential solutions and anticipate challenges. If they have previously encountered something like a current challenge, leaders can scope out areas in which to focus their energy and resources.

Mohamed Alabbar, the chairman of Dubai’s Emaar Properties and one of the Middle East’s most successful entrepreneurs, gave me an example. His first major property crisis, in Singapore in 1991, had taught him about the vulnerability that comes with being highly geared in a downturn—and in real estate, only those who learn the lessons of overgearing in their first crash survive in the long term. Alabbar has since navigated Dubai’s often dramatic economic cycles and today owns a portfolio that includes the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building, and the Dubai Mall, one of the world’s largest shopping malls.

But—and it’s a big but—if the experience is narrowly based, familiarity can be dangerous. If my company is planning to enter the Indian market, I might not trust the judgment of a person whose only product launches have been in the United States. I would probably be less worried about someone who had also launched new products in, say, China and South Africa, because such a person would be less likely to ignore important signals.

In addition, leaders with deep experience in a particular domain may fall into a rut, making judgments out of habit, complacency, or overconfidence. It usually takes an external crisis to expose this failure, for which the lack of lifeboats for the Titanic is the enduring symbol and the 2008 financial crisis the moment of truth for many apparently unassailable titans. The equivalent today are those leaders who have underestimated the speed with which environmental issues would move center stage and require a tangible response.

To improve:

 

First, assess how well you draw on your own experience to make decisions. Start by going through your important judgment calls to identify what went well and what went badly, including whether you drew on the right experience and whether the analogies you made were appropriate. Record both the wrong and the right. This is tough, and it’s tempting to rewrite history, which is why it can be helpful to share your conclusions with a coach or colleagues, who might take a different view of the same experience. Try also to recruit a smart friend who can be a neutral critic.

Leaders with deep experience in a particular domain may fall into a rut.

Second, especially if you’re a young leader, work to expand your experience. Try to get postings abroad or in key corporate functions such as finance, sales, and manufacturing. Get yourself on an acquisition team for a major deal. And as a CEO, a crucial support you can give high-potential managers is more-varied exposure, so get involved in career planning. That will not just do the young managers a favor; it will help the company and very possibly you, because it will broaden the experience into which you can tap.

Detachment: Identify, and Then Challenge, Biases

As you process information and draw on the diversity of your own and other people’s knowledge, it’s critical that you understand and address your own biases. Although passion about objectives and values is a wonderful leadership quality that can inspire followers to greater efforts, it can also affect how you process information, learn from experience, and select advisers.

The ability to detach, both intellectually and emotionally, is therefore a vital component of good judgment. But it’s a difficult skill to master. As research in behavioral economics, psychology, and decision sciences has shown in recent years, cognitive biases such as anchoring, confirmation, and risk aversion or excessive risk appetite are pervasive influences in the choices people make.

The German utility RWE provides a cautionary example. In a 2017 interview its chief financial officer revealed that the company had invested $10 billion in constructing conventional power-generation facilities over a five-year period, most of which had to be written off. RWE conducted a postmortem to understand why an investment in conventional power technology had been chosen at a time when the energy industry was switching to renewables. It determined that decision makers had displayed status quo and confirmation biases in evaluating the investment context. It also found a number of cases in which hierarchical biases had been in play: Subordinates who doubted the judgment of their bosses had kept quiet rather than disagree with them. Finally, the CFO said, RWE had suffered from “a good dose of action-oriented biases like overconfidence and excessive optimism.”

It is precisely for their ability to resist cognitive biases and preserve detachment in decision-making that we often see CFOs and lawyers rise to the CEO position, especially when an organization is in a period of crisis and people’s jobs are under threat. This quality was widely praised after the International Monetary Fund chose Christine Lagarde as its director following the dramatic exit in 2011 of her predecessor, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, in the wake of a lurid scandal. Although Lagarde was not an economist—unusual for an IMF chief—she had demonstrated her abilities as France’s finance minister despite little political experience. And, undoubtedly, having been a partner in a major international law firm equipped her to approach negotiation with detachment—a critical capability at a time when the global financial system was under severe stress.

To improve:

 

Understand, clarify, and accept different viewpoints. Encourage people to engage in role-playing and simulations, which forces them to consider agendas other than their own and can provide a safe space for dissent. If employees are encouraged to play the role of a competitor, for example, they can experiment with an idea that they might be reluctant to suggest to the boss.

Leadership development programs are a great forum in which to challenge assumptions by exposing people to colleagues from different cultures and geographies, who come to the discussion with different views.

Finally, people with good judgment make sure they have processes in place that keep them aware of biases. After discovering how much value had been destroyed, RWE established new practices: Major decisions now require that biases be on the table before a discussion and, when necessary, that a devil’s advocate participate. Acknowledge that mistakes will occur—and doubt the judgment of anyone who assumes they won’t.

Options: Question the Solution Set Offered

In making a decision, a leader is often expected to choose between at least two options, formulated and presented by their advocates. But smart leaders don’t accept that those choices are all there is. During the 2008–2009 financial crisis, President Obama pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to explain why he wasn’t considering nationalizing the banks. Geithner recalls, “We had one of those really tough conversations. Are you confident this is going to work? Can you reassure me? Why are you confident? What are our choices? I told him that my judgment at the time was that we had no option but to play out the thing we’d set in motion.”

Obama was doing what all good leaders should do when told “We have no other option” or “We have two options and one is really bad” or “We have three options but only one is acceptable.” Other options almost always exist, such as doing nothing, delaying a decision until more information is available, or conducting a time-limited trial or a pilot implementation. Tim Breedon, formerly the CEO of the UK financial services company Legal & General, described it to me as “not being boxed in by the way things are presented.”

In hindsight, many bad judgment calls were inevitable simply because important options—and the risk of unintended consequences—were never even considered. This happens for a variety of reasons, including risk aversion on the part of people supplying potential answers. That’s why thoroughly exploring the solution set is key to a leader’s exercise of judgment. It’s not the CEO’s job to come up with all the options. But he or she can ensure that the management team delivers the full range of possibilities, counteracting fears and biases that cause the team to self-edit. When all the options can be debated, the judgment is more likely to be right.

To improve:

 

Press for clarification on poorly presented information, and challenge your people if you think important facts are missing. Question their weighting of the variables on which their arguments depend. If timing appears to be a key consideration, determine that it’s legitimate. Factor in the risks associated with novel solutions—stress and overconfidence—and look for opportunities to mitigate them through piloting. Use modeling, triangulation, and the opportunities afforded by artificial intelligence. Follow King Solomon (a popular nominee in answer to my question “Who do you think has/had good judgment?”) and dig out people’s stakes in the final decision. A telltale sign is being oversold on a particular outcome. What are the personal consequences to them (and to you) if their solution works or fails? Consult those you trust. If there isn’t anyone, or enough time, try to imagine what someone you trust would do. Get clear about rules and ethical issues, because they will help you filter your choices. Finally, don’t be afraid to consider radical options. Discussing them could make you and others aware of some that are less radical but well worth considering and may encourage other people to speak up.

Delivery: Factor in the Feasibility of Execution

You can make all the right strategic choices but still end up losing out if you don’t exercise judgment in how and by whom those choices will be executed. In 1880 the French diplomat and entrepreneur Ferdinand de Lesseps persuaded investors to support digging a canal in Panama to link the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Because de Lesseps had just completed the Suez Canal, investors and politicians—failing to understand that building a canal through sand does not qualify you to build one through jungle—did not give his plans the scrutiny they deserved. His approach proved disastrously unsuitable, and it was left to the U.S. government to complete the canal by taking a very different approach.

When reviewing projects, smart leaders think carefully about the risks of implementation and press for clarification from a project’s advocates. This is as important for small decisions as it is for big ones.

A leader with good judgment anticipates risks after a course has been determined and knows by whom those risks are best managed. That may not be the person who came up with the idea—particularly if the proposer is wedded to a particular vision, as was the case with de Lesseps. More generally, flair, creativity, and imagination aren’t always accompanied by a capability to deliver—which is why small tech firms often struggle to capitalize on their inspiration and are bought out by less-inventive but better-organized giants.

To improve:

 

In assessing a proposal, make sure that the experience of the people recommending the investment closely matches its context. If they point to their prior work, ask them to explain why that work is relevant to the current situation. Get the advocates to question their assumptions by engaging in “premortem” discussions, in which participants try to surface what might cause a proposal to fail. RWE now does this as part of its project-evaluation process.

CONCLUSION

Leaders need many qualities, but underlying them all is good judgment. Those with ambition but no judgment run out of money. Those with charisma but no judgment lead their followers in the wrong direction. Those with passion but no judgment hurl themselves down the wrong paths. Those with drive but no judgment get up very early to do the wrong things. Sheer luck and factors beyond your control may determine your eventual success, but good judgment will stack the cards in your favor.

A version of this article appeared in the January–February 2020 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Sir Andrew Likierman is a professor at London Business School and a director of Times Newspapers and the Beazley Group, both also in London. He has served as dean at LBS and is a former director of the Bank of England.

Breakfast and learn: Bringing billions of eBay listings together using Cloud Bigtable to support new shopping experiences

 

好膽固醇 壞膽固醇 怎麼看？ 基因遺傳 飲食 有氧運動 是關鍵

 Oct. 1, 2021

#好膽固醇 #壞膽固醇 #高密度脂蛋白 膽固醇過高怎麼辦 ？ 好膽固醇 壞膽固醇 怎麼看？ 基因遺傳 飲食 有氧運動 是關鍵！【江P醫件事#69】

Here is the link. 

膽固醇有分好壞？ #好膽固醇 #壞膽固醇 要怎麼看呢？ 有人天生 #高密度脂蛋白 就比較多？基因遺傳有關係？ 沒有天生麗質沒關係～ 藉著 好的飲食 有氧運動 也能幫助身製造好膽固醇喔 【#江P醫件事】關心健康所有事～ 現在訂閱《健康2.0》➔https://bit.ly/2IBSoRr TVBS新聞台(56台) 每週二、三、五上午10點，週六、週日晚間7點！ 主持人：鄭凱云、江坤俊、韋汝 看更多健康文章資訊：https://health.tvbs.com.tw/ 加LINE🔍健康資訊馬上看▶http://bit.ly/2CpUdzT 按讚FB粉絲頁：http://bit.ly/2gg2c4b

快速瘦肚子,燃燒腹部脂肪,瘦肚子3方法!!柏格醫生dr berg

Oct. 1, 2021

Here is the link. 

您是否正在努力減少腹部脂肪？這是有關減肥最快方法的分步指南！ 0:00 如何快速減掉腹部脂肪 0:49 快速燃燒腹部脂肪的基本知識 3:41 補充哪些物質可以燃燒腹部脂肪 6:19 避免這些東西妨礙燃燒腹部脂肪 9:43 總結 柏格醫生說明如何快速燃燒腹部脂肪、整體減少腹部脂肪的指南。 這包括三個部分：1.要做的事情，2.應添加的內容 3.應該避免的。 1.基本方法： •每日3餐，無零食 •每餐3-6盎司蛋白質 每餐7至10杯蔬菜 •不吃糖 •食用健康脂肪 Basics: • 3 meals with no snacks: https://youtu.be/ZKpiH7R8HS8 • 3-6 oz of Protein per Meal 7 to 10 cups of Veggies Per Meal: https://youtu.be/F1_I80tze60 • Cut out sugar • Consume healthy fats: https://youtu.be/VlB3K6o5BQo 2.加速減重： •MCT（中鏈甘油三酸酯） •攝取足夠的鉀 •服用/使用AVC（蘋果醋） •攝取鉻(chromium ) •獲取大量維生素B群（吃營養酵母） •進行HIIT（高強度間歇訓練） •更多睡眠 •不要忘記運動後等恢復（不要過度運動） MCTs (medium-chain triglycerides): https://youtu.be/aHKaygC0PnQ • Get plenty of potassium: https://youtu.be/q2vPQYP0dpI • Take/use AVC (apple cider vinegar): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTzxf... • Take chromium: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RABTh... • Get plenty of B-vitamins (nutritional yeast): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAVSm... • Do HIIT (high-intensity interval training): https://youtu.be/fevi1lmDPEU • Get more sleep: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu1ld... *More • Don't forget recovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m5uy... 3.要避免： •失眠: https://youtu.be/V3rGIIFdAVA •腹脹: https://youtu.be/A_PaHwx8p54 •生理期問題: https://youtu.be/wWGzfNaVHiE •壓力: https://youtu.be/rZb-t2jr7FI •味精（味精/改性玉米澱粉): https://youtu.be/pFfkC-7xIPU •避免餐廳裡成份未知的餐點 •避免運動過度 •便秘: https://youtu.be/Fi0PLevPrbk 柏格醫生中文 健康知識： 生酮飲食入門（中文）：https://youtu.be/VVZQIMKUWvU 第2步,吃的內容（中文）：https://youtu.be/Nd1RNTymyvM 斷食的方法（中文）: https://youtu.be/VVZQIMKUWvU 斷食的體內變化(中文) : https://youtu.be/SlzBMJvtGHo 柏格醫生臉書(中文): https://www.facebook.com/柏格醫生中文-健康知識-... 艾瑞克柏格(Dr Eric Berg)醫生介紹： 55歲，脊椎醫生， 他是弗吉尼亞州、加利福尼亞州和路易斯安那州的3州脊椎科醫生，執照一直維持有效。他是全球知名的健康生酮飲食和斷食專家，也是《新體型指南》和KB Publishing出版書作者。 他曾在霍華德大學（Howard University）擔任兼職教授，教授學生營養學。 近年忙碌於媒體教育，他無暇親自看病人。 柏格醫生商店： http://www.drberg.com/blog 聯繫柏格團隊：m.me/DrEricBerg 關於柏格醫生： http://www.drberg.com/dr-eric-berg/bio