2023-09-16 Satya Nadella.Why we need re-founders
Refer To：《Why we need re-founders》。
Chapter 1: Do you want to be CEO of Microsoft?
第1章：你想当 Microsoft 的 CEO 吗？
SATYA NADELLA: If you’d asked me even the day before or the hour before, I would have said, “Hey, there’s a chance, but I don’t know who was interviewing, who wanted the job.” There was a lot of, I would say, intrigue around it.
SATYA NADELLA：如果你在前一天，甚至前一个小时问我，我会说：“嘿，是有机会的，但我不知道谁去面试了、谁想要这份工作。” 我会说，围绕这件事有不少波折。
REID HOFFMAN: That is Satya Nadella. And he’s talking about the moment in 2014 when it seemed he might become the next CEO of Microsoft. Satya had been with the company for more than 20 years. But even down to the last minute his promotion was far from certain.
REID HOFFMAN：这位是 Satya Nadella。他在讲 2014 年那个时刻——看起来他可能会成为 Microsoft 的下一任 CEO。Satya 已在公司工作了二十多年。但直到最后一刻，他的升任仍远未板上钉钉。
NADELLA: I remember where one board member asked me, “Do you really want to be a CEO?” I said, “Only if you want me to be the CEO.” And then he said, “Well, that’s not how CEOs are made, right? I mean, CEOs want that job.” And I said, “But that’s how I feel.” I remember talking to Steve about it.
NADELLA：我记得有一位董事问我：“你真的想当 CEO 吗？” 我说：“只有在你们也希望我当 CEO 的情况下。” 然后他又说：“嗯，CEO 不是这么‘成就’出来的，对吧？我的意思是，CEO 自己会渴望这份工作。” 我回答：“但我就是这种感受。” 我记得我也就此跟 Steve 谈过。
COMPUTER VOICE: Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s second CEO.
电脑合成语音：Steve Ballmer，Microsoft 的第二任 CEO。
NADELLA: Steve turns to me and says, “Yeah, it’s too late to change. You are who you are.”
NADELLA：Steve 转过头对我说：“是啊，现在想变也太晚了。你就是你。”
HOFFMAN: Satya was, in fact, very different from either of Microsoft’s previous CEOs, especially the one he’d be replacing.
HOFFMAN：事实上，Satya 与 Microsoft 之前的两位 CEO 都很不同，尤其是他即将接替的那一位。
Where Steve Ballmer projected absolute confidence and assurance, Satya prioritized asking questions. Where Steve saw the job as leading strongly from the top, Satya saw it as building a more open conduit for ideas. He wanted to be the kind of CEO that would make room for feedback, and foster a culture that rewards new ideas.
在 Steve Ballmer 展现出绝对的自信与笃定之处，Satya 则更强调发问。在 Steve 将这份工作视为自上而下强力领导之处，Satya 则把它视为搭建更开放的创意通道。他希望做那种能为反馈留出空间、并培育奖励新想法文化的 CEO。
But as different as Steve was from Satya, Steve was also the one who advised him to be himself.
但尽管 Steve 与 Satya 差异很大，给他“做自己”建议的也正是 Steve。
NADELLA: The best advice I even got from Steve at one point was just “Be yourself, right? You’re never going to be me. So, therefore, don’t try to fill my shoes.”
NADELLA：我从 Steve 那里得到过的最好建议之一就是：“做你自己，对吧？你永远不可能成为我。所以，不要试图去接我的位。”
HOFFMAN: As you probably know, Satya got the job. And he took Steve Ballmer’s advice to heart.
HOFFMAN：如你所知，Satya 最终得到了这份工作。而且他把 Steve Ballmer 的建议真正放在了心上。
NADELLA: Recognize first that I’m not a founder, obviously. Bill and Paul founded the company. Bill and Steve built the company. So, Steve had founder status as far as I’m concerned. I felt like, “Oh, I just can’t be like, ‘Okay, here’s the third guy who just shows up and does what Bill and Steve did.’” It needs a full reset. The reset meant I needed to make both that sense of purpose, mission, and culture first class, and my own.
NADELLA：首先要承认，我显然不是创始人。Bill 和 Paul 创办了公司。Bill 和 Steve 建起了公司。所以，在我看来，Steve 拥有创始人地位。我的感觉是：“哦，我不可能就这样，作为第三个人走进来，然后把 Bill 和 Steve 做过的再做一遍。” 这需要一次全面重启。这次重启意味着，我需要把目标感、使命与文化都放到首要位置，并且让它们成为属于我的东西。
HOFFMAN: I would actually argue that Satya has run Microsoft as a type of founder. You can call it being a “re-founder,” or even a “late stage cofounder.”
HOFFMAN：事实上，我会认为 Satya 以某种“创始人式”的方式经营 Microsoft。你可以称之为“re-founder”，甚至是“late stage cofounder”。
The late-stage co-founder doesn’t need to have been there “in the garage” from day one. And they don’t have to be the CEO, although the CEO often has the most leverage to effect change. What they need is the ability to tease out and articulate what had previously just been implied.
所谓后期的联合创始人，并不需要从第一天就“在车库里”。他们也不一定非得是 CEO，尽管 CEO 往往最有力量推动变革。他们需要的是把此前仅仅暗含的东西梳理出来并清晰表达的能力。
NADELLA: I went through Microsoft. We would talk about culture, but it is never a serious thing. So, I felt like, “What’s the meme to even pick, so that we can even have a rich conversation on it?”
NADELLA：我在 Microsoft 走访下来。我们会谈论“文化”，但它从来不是一件被认真对待的事情。所以我在想：“我们到底该选一个什么样的主题，才能围绕它展开一场足够丰富的对话？”
HOFFMAN: Satya not only started that rich conversation about culture and mission, he made it central to his leadership. And that helped Microsoft kickstart a new phase of growth that continues to this day.
HOFFMAN：Satya 不仅开启了围绕文化和使命的那场深度对话，还把它置于他领导力的核心。而这帮助 Microsoft 启动了一个新的增长阶段，并延续至今。
That’s why I believe companies don’t just need founders… they also need re-founders. As businesses scale, re-founders keep mission and culture on track, and responsive to a changing world.
这就是为什么我认为公司不仅需要 founders……也需要 re-founders。随着业务规模扩大，re-founders 能让使命与文化保持在正确轨道上，并对变化的世界保持敏捷响应。
Chapter 2: Companies need founders — and re-founders
第2章：公司需要 founders —— 也需要 re-founders
HOFFMAN: I’m Reid Hoffman, cofounder of LinkedIn, partner at Greylock, and your host. And I believe companies don’t just need founders… they also need re-founders. As businesses scale, re-founders keep mission and culture on track, and responsive to a changing world.
HOFFMAN：我是 Reid Hoffman，LinkedIn 的联合创始人、Greylock 的合伙人，也是你的主持人。我相信公司不仅需要 founders……也需要 re-founders。随着业务扩张，re-founders 能让使命与文化保持在正确轨道上，并对不断变化的世界保持敏捷响应。
Imagine you’re at your computer, working late at night on a presentation. You’re scanning an article on emperor penguins to find the perfect quote about perseverance. When suddenly, it happens: The screen becomes unresponsive. The scroll bar won’t scroll. The page is frozen.
想象你在电脑前，深夜赶做一个演示。你在浏览一篇关于帝企鹅的文章，想找一句关于毅力的完美引语。突然之间，情况发生了：屏幕没有响应，滚动条不动了，页面卡住了。
What do you do? Well, thanks to the efforts of thousands of programmers since the dawn of the Internet, you probably already know the solution. You just click the circular arrow icon in the corner, and hit refresh. The article reappears, you select your slice of penguin-themed wisdom, and carry on.
你会怎么做？得益于自互联网黎明以来成千上万程序员的努力，你大概早就知道解法。只需点击角落里的圆形箭头图标，进行刷新。文章重新出现，你选好那段关于企鹅的智慧之语，然后继续干活。
The page you refreshed contains the same information as before, but now it’s functional. It’s a way to start again, without starting over.
你刷新的页面包含与之前相同的信息，但现在能正常工作了。这是一种重新开始而无需从头再来的方式。
This is a brilliantly simple metaphor for leadership. Organizations, too, can be sluggish and unresponsive, until you hit “refresh” on things like mission and culture. And by the way, I wasn’t calling my own metaphor “brilliant.” I’ve actually borrowed it from our guest.
这是一个极其简洁的领导力隐喻。组织也会迟缓、无响应，直到你在使命与文化等方面按下“刷新”。顺便说一句，我并不是在夸自己的隐喻“精彩”。实际上，这是我从我们的嘉宾那里借来的。
非常清晰的描述。
I wanted to talk to Satya Nadella about this idea of resetting culture because of how successfully and thoroughly he’s done it for one of the most scaled organizations in the world. As CEO of Microsoft, only the third in its history, he has shifted the company’s focus away from a cutthroat culture and anticompetitive practices towards embracing social networks, collaboration, and cloud.
我之所以想和 Satya Nadella 谈“重置文化”这个想法，是因为他在全球规模最大的组织之一上取得了异常成功而且彻底的成效。作为 Microsoft 历史上的第三任 CEO，他将公司重心从残酷竞争的文化与反竞争做法，转向拥抱社交网络、协作与云。
His book – called, appropriately, Hit Refresh – crystallized ideas about how to kickstart a stagnant culture for the good of employees, and the world they serve. And since he wrote that book in 2017, Microsoft’s success has only elevated. In June, the company hit $2 trillion in value.
他写的那本书——恰如其分地名为 Hit Refresh——将如何为员工及其服务的世界重启停滞文化的理念加以凝练。而自 2017 年写下那本书以来，Microsoft 的成功更上一层楼。到六月，公司市值达到 2 万亿美元。
But you don’t have to be a CEO to trigger a refresh in your business. And you don’t have to be new to a company.
不过，要让你的业务“刷新”，你不必是 CEO；你也不必是公司里的新人。
Chapter 3: The insider’s outsider
第3章：局内的局外人
NADELLA: I always say I am an insider with an objective outsider perspective.
NADELLA：我总说自己是个局内人，但带着客观的局外人视角。
HOFFMAN: Satya was born in Hyderabad, India, and came to the U.S. to study computer science, earning a master’s degree from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1990. He started his career at Sun Microsystems, but it wasn’t long before Microsoft came calling.
HOFFMAN：Satya 出生于印度 Hyderabad，后来来到美国学习计算机科学，并于 1990 年在 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 获得硕士学位。他的职业生涯始于 Sun Microsystems，但很快 Microsoft 就向他发出了邀请。
NADELLA: I was at Sun, and I was planning on going to business school. That was the trajectory I was on. And then I got an offer. And I was convinced that look, you ultimately want to leave business school and come back here. So, why don’t you come here directly?
NADELLA：我当时在 Sun，计划去读商学院——那就是我原本的轨迹。后来我收到了一个 offer。对方说服我说：你最终还是会从商学院出来回到这里，那为什么不直接来这里呢？
HOFFMAN: So Satya went to Microsoft. And he loved it.
HOFFMAN：于是 Satya 去了 Microsoft，而且他爱上了那里。
NADELLA: The thing that struck me, I remember, each week, I would see a new category created, right? One day, it will be Access. The next day, it will be Publisher. The next day, it would be a new release of Visual Basic.
NADELLA：让我印象最深的是，我记得几乎每周都会看到一个新的产品类别诞生，对吧？今天是 Access，第二天是 Publisher，再下一天就是 Visual Basic 的新版本发布。
I mean, it was just so exciting to see the creativity of the developers, whether they were internal or external.
我的意思是，无论那些开发者来自内部还是外部，看到他们的创造力都让人振奋不已。
HOFFMAN: Microsoft wasn’t a brand-new company. Bill Gates and Paul Allen had founded it some 17 years earlier with a mission to put “a computer on every desk and in every home.” But with so many software product launches, one after the other, it still felt like a startup. Speed of growth is often its own enthusiasm-driver for employees. Because at that stage, speed can be a key part of the mission. And Microsoft was growing exponentially.
HOFFMAN：Microsoft 并不是一家全新的公司。Bill Gates 和 Paul Allen 在大约 17 年前创立了它，使命是把“一台计算机放在每一张办公桌上、每一个家庭里”。但随着软件产品一个接一个地发布，它仍然让人感觉像一家初创公司。增长的速度本身常常就能激发员工的热情，因为在那个阶段，速度可能是使命的关键组成部分。而 Microsoft 正在呈指数级增长。
But Satya wasn’t in the buzzy part of the business, at least back then.
但至少在当时，Satya 并不在业务里最热闹的那一块。
NADELLA: I joined what was at that point the fringe of the company, which was the server.
NADELLA：我加入的是当时公司边缘的那一块——服务器业务。
For most of the ’90s, I would say, Reid, we were still in the basement of building out that enterprise credibility. I remember, distinctly, going to New York City, visiting all the banks, and in particular Goldman Sachs. They made me wait in the waiting room and say, “Hey, who is this guy from Microsoft wanting to talk to us about servers?” They thought of us as some toy PC maker.
在 90 年代的大部分时间里，我会这么说，Reid：我们还处在为企业级信誉打基础的“地下室”阶段。我清楚地记得去 New York City 走访各大银行，尤其是 Goldman Sachs。他们让我在等候区等着，还说：“嘿，这个来自 Microsoft 的家伙是谁，居然想跟我们谈服务器？”在他们眼里，我们就是家玩具 PC 厂商。
HOFFMAN: As Satya sat in the Goldman Sachs waiting room, he thought about the reasons why Microsoft was so successful in the pro-sumer market, while still struggling to assert legitimacy with enterprise clients.
HOFFMAN：当 Satya 坐在 Goldman Sachs 的等候区时，他在思考：为什么 Microsoft 在专业消费者市场如此成功，却仍然难以在企业客户那里树立正当性。
NADELLA: It takes long-term commitment, in particular, for enterprise sensibility for what was predominantly a consumer company, because it goes back to trust. It’s not just technology. I see that hubris sometimes in some of the folks here. “I have technology, I’m so smart. So, therefore, the world should come and pray at my altar.” That’s not the way commercial customers want you to even show up.
NADELLA：这需要长期投入，尤其是对于一家主要面向消费者的公司，要去理解企业客户的感知与诉求，因为归根结底，这是信任问题。不仅仅是技术。我有时在这里的一些人身上看到那种傲慢：“我有技术，我很聪明，因此全世界都该来我的祭坛前膜拜。”商业客户根本不希望你以这种姿态出现。
HOFFMAN: That hubris Satya observed would increase with time, even between departments, as he moved up the ranks at Microsoft. It was now the mid 2000s, and Microsoft was operating under its second-ever CEO, Steve Ballmer.
HOFFMAN：随着 Satya 在 Microsoft 的职位不断上升，他观察到的那种傲慢反而与日俱增，甚至出现在各个部门之间。彼时已是 2000 年代中期，Microsoft 正由其第二任 CEO Steve Ballmer 领导。
Chapter 4: To hit refresh, go in search of passion and commitment
第4章：要按下“刷新”，就去寻找热情与承诺
NADELLA: One day, Steve comes to me and says, “You know what? I’ve got an assignment for you. I think you should go run Bing.”
NADELLA：有一天，Steve 走过来对我说：“你知道吗？我有个任务给你。我觉得你该去负责 Bing。”
HOFFMAN: You know Bing. It’s Microsoft’s search engine – then the one that wasn’t the other one.
HOFFMAN：你知道 Bing。它是 Microsoft 的搜索引擎——当时那个不是“另一个”的那个。
NADELLA: At that time, it was not even called Bing. It was called Live Search or what have you. We had had a lot of attrition. Obviously, Google was the behemoth even back in that time.
NADELLA：那时候它还不叫 Bing，叫 Live Search 或类似的名字。我们的人员流失很严重。显然，即便在那时，Google 已经是巨无霸了。
I had to make a decision. So, I went to the parking lot. I drove past the building. It was 8:00 or so in the night. At that point, the reputation of the team, the attrition, all of that was a bit of a challenge, but I saw people were working late in the night. I said, “What the heck are these people doing here?” So, I remember parking, walking around. I just saw all of these folks who were super committed. I said, “God, I got to join this party.”
我得做个决定。于是我去了停车场，开车从楼前驶过。那是晚上大约 8 点。当时团队的名声、人员流失之类的都挺棘手，但我看到大家还在加班。我心想：“这些人到底在这儿干嘛？”我记得我把车停好，四处走了走。眼前全是非常投入的人。我心里说：“天啊，我得加入这个团队。”
HOFFMAN: In that moment, Satya saw the Bing team’s enthusiasm and sense of mission. It reset his expectations for the division, and what was possible.
HOFFMAN：就在那一刻，Satya 看到了 Bing 团队的热情与使命感。这重置了他对这个部门及其可能性的预期。
This is a great example of the power individuals have within a company to hit refresh even if they aren’t in leadership roles. By doubling down on their commitment to the mission, each member of the Bing team had an impact on each other member. And collectively they stirred a greater sense of possibility in their new team leader. This is how good culture spreads – with each person having the ability to affect it.
这很好地说明了：即使并非身居领导岗位，个体也能在公司内部按下“刷新”。通过加倍投入于使命，Bing 团队的每个成员都彼此产生了影响，并共同在他们的新团队领导身上激起了更强的可能性感。这就是良好文化的传播方式——每个人都能对其产生影响。
But as that’s how good culture spreads, that’s how poor culture spreads too.
但好文化如此传播，差文化也同样会蔓延。
Chapter 5: When poor culture gets in the way of good decisions
第5章：当糟糕的文化妨碍做出正确决策
NADELLA: I’ll never forget this. When I was leading Bing, Bill, at that point, he was the Chief Software Architect. He called a meeting, maybe 2009.
NADELLA：这事我永远忘不了。我领导 Bing 的时候，Bill 当时是首席软件架构师。他召集了一次会议，大概是 2009 年。
HOFFMAN: Bill Gates had called the meeting to prepare the team for an upcoming acquisition.
HOFFMAN：Bill Gates 召集这次会议，是为了让团队为一项即将到来的收购做准备。
NADELLA: Our server division was about to acquire a piece of technology basically for parallel data warehouses. Inside of Bing, we were building up essentially, the infrastructure for our data parallel workload, which is essentially a search engine.
NADELLA：我们的服务器部门正准备收购一项面向并行数据仓库的技术。而在 Bing 内部，我们基本上在构建支撑数据并行工作负载的基础设施，本质上就是一个搜索引擎。
HOFFMAN: In other words, Microsoft was about to buy something that Bing was already doing.
HOFFMAN：换句话说，Microsoft 正要买一件 Bing 已经在做的事。
NADELLA: I remember going into that meeting along with a couple of other lead engineers from Bing and sitting across the table from this other group that was solving what was the enterprise data warehouse problem as understood. And then here, we had essentially the same thing but done in a very different way.
NADELLA：我记得和 Bing 的另外几位资深工程师一起走进那次会议，对面坐着另一组人，他们在解决“当时理解的企业数据仓库问题”。而我们这边，做的基本是同一件事，只是方式截然不同。
HOFFMAN: Satya’s about to get technical here. He realized in that moment how Microsoft could use Bing to accelerate their cloud service platform, Azure, to rival Amazon’s version, AWS.
HOFFMAN：接下来要进入技术细节了。就在那一刻，他意识到 Microsoft 可以如何利用 Bing 来加速其云服务平台 Azure，以与 Amazon 的版本 AWS 抗衡。
NADELLA: That is the moment that I think it struck me that what Amazon was doing on the other side of the lake, the idea of as a service infrastructure and the elasticity, but more than just the business model shift, this unit of scale being completely different is what dawned on me. In fact, that is one of the things I look back and say, why didn’t I, at that point, say to Steve or Bill, “You know what? It’s time to fold the Bing infrastructure in order to accelerate Azure.”
NADELLA：就在那一刻，我想我被触动了：Amazon 在湖的另一边所做的——“作为服务”的基础设施及其弹性——不只是商业模式的转变，更重要的是其规模单位完全不同，这一点让我恍然大悟。事实上，这也是我回过头常问自己的事：为什么我当时没有对 Steve 或 Bill 说，“你知道吗？该把 Bing 的基础设施并入进来以加速 Azure 了。”
But yet, I didn’t act, right? I mean, that is a real issue, which is what happens in a large enterprise, even for a senior executive who sees it but doesn’t act?
可我当时并没有行动，对吧？我的意思是，这确实是个问题：在一家大企业里，即便是一位看到了机会的资深高管，也可能不会行动——这就是会发生的事。
HOFFMAN: Why didn’t Satya act? He saw that Bing could be used to support Azure. No new acquisitions needed. He saw it. So why not speak up? Satya has a theory.
HOFFMAN：为什么 Satya 没有行动？他看到了可以用 Bing 来支撑 Azure，不需要新收购。他看到了。那为何不直言？Satya 有自己的看法。
NADELLA: To some degree, it requires both sides. Yeah, I should have been bolder in that role to say, “Hey, I see this. I want to advocate for it.” And then on the other side, the people who are leading our server side would need to have had a growth mindset. Because at that point, they viewed us as Bing, as, “Hey, you’re the loss-making division of Microsoft, so I don’t have time for you.” That is where culture in some sense gets in the way of wisdom prevailing.
NADELLA：在某种程度上，这需要双方共同作用。是的，我在那个角色上本该更大胆地说：“嘿，我看到了这个，我要为它奔走呼吁。” 另一方面，领导我们服务器端的人也得具备成长型心态。因为当时他们把我们看作 Bing，觉得“嘿，你们是 Microsoft 的亏损部门，我没空理你们。” 这就是文化在某种意义上阻碍智慧占上风的地方。
HOFFMAN: Even in that moment of failure, Satya learned something important. Poor culture did get in the way of wisdom. The leaders in the room might not have shot down Satya’s comment. But they also didn’t incentivize him to make it.
HOFFMAN：即便是在那次未能行动的时刻，Satya 也学到了重要的一课。糟糕的文化确实会妨碍智慧。屋里的领导也许不会当场否定 Satya 的意见，但他们也没有激励他把话说出来。
A growth mindset thrives on the diversity of ideas, good and less-good. Meanwhile, a culture that says, “We don’t have time for any bad ideas, so let’s just keep moving!” is missing out on transformational ones as well.
成长型心态依赖于观点的多样性——好的、不那么好的都重要。与此同时，那种“我们没时间理任何糟糕点子，继续往前走！”的文化，也会错过那些具有变革性的想法。
Changing this part of culture usually falls to the leadership team. But it doesn’t have to. If you’re in a position like Satya, where you can see something that everyone else is missing, you can speak up.
改变这种文化通常落在领导团队身上。但也未必如此。如果你处在像 Satya 那样的位置，看到了别人忽略的东西，你就可以直言。
It can be a bit of a high-stakes play. But even if it’s not rewarded in the moment – in fact, even if it’s punished in the moment – you show yourself as someone who puts positive energy toward the company’s mission. That’s an impulse good managers reward.
这可能是一场“高赌注”的举动。但即便当下没有得到奖励——事实上，即便当下受到惩罚——你也展现了自己是把正向能量投入公司使命的人。优秀的管理者会认可这种冲动。
Satya took this lesson with him as he climbed the ladder at Microsoft… all the way to the day he was named CEO. You may remember the advice Steve Ballmer gave him, from the top of the show.
Satya 把这堂课一路带在身上，随着他在 Microsoft 节节攀升……直到被任命为 CEO 的那一天。你或许还记得节目开头 Steve Ballmer 给他的那句建议。
Chapter 6: Advice from Steve Ballmer: Be yourself
第6章：来自 Steve Ballmer 的忠告：做你自己
NADELLA: The best advice I even got from Steve at one point was just “Be yourself, right? I mean, you’re never going to be me. So, therefore, don’t try to fill my shoes.”
NADELLA：我曾从 Steve 那里得到过的最好建议之一就是：“做你自己，对吧？我的意思是，你永远成不了我。所以，不要试图去接我的位。”
HOFFMAN: Satya knew he wanted to lead the company as himself. And he knew what he wanted to prioritize.
HOFFMAN：Satya 清楚他要以自己的方式领导公司。他也清楚自己要优先推进什么。
NADELLA: I felt like, “Oh, I just can’t be like, ‘Okay, here’s the third guy who just shows up and does what Bill and Steve did.’” It needs a full reset. I felt that the reset meant I needed to make both that sense of purpose, mission, and culture first class, and my own.
NADELLA：我的感觉是：“哦，我不可能就这样，‘好吧，第三个人来了，然后把 Bill 和 Steve 做过的再做一遍。’” 这需要一次全面重置。我觉得这次重置意味着，我要把目标感、使命与文化都放到首要位置，并且让它们成为属于我的东西。
[AD BREAK]
【广告插播】
HOFFMAN: We’re back with Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella. We’ve been talking about the ways a leader, or in fact anyone in an organization, can hit the refresh button and reinvigorate stagnating mission and culture.
HOFFMAN：我们回到 Microsoft 的 CEO Satya Nadella。我们一直在讨论，无论是领导者，还是组织中的任何人，如何按下刷新按钮，让停滞的使命与文化重新焕发活力。
To share this episode with a friend, send them to mastersofscale.com/nadella. N-A-D-E-L-L-A. To hear my full, unedited conversation with Satya, become a member by going to mastersofscale.com/membership.
如果你想把本期节目分享给朋友，请发送 mastersofscale.com/nadella 给他们。N-A-D-E-L-L-A。若想收听我与 Satya 的完整、未剪辑对话，请前往 mastersofscale.com/membership 成为会员。
Hitting refresh is something that happens in all kinds of industries, not just in tech. So before we get back to Satya, let’s take a brief detour from Microsoft headquarters, to Hollywood… and the moment another leadership change was about to unfold.
“刷新”发生在各行各业，并非只有科技领域。所以在回到 Satya 之前，让我们从 Microsoft 总部稍作转场，去到 Hollywood……去看另一场领导层更迭即将上演的时刻。
Chapter 7: Leadership change at “Veep”
第7章：在“Veep”的领导层更迭
DAVID MANDEL: When I first got the call that Armando was going to be leaving, it was a bit of a shock. Just as a fan of the show, it was very much like, “Oh my God, wait a minute. Armando is leaving ‘Veep.’”
DAVID MANDEL：当我第一次接到电话说 Armando 要离开时，还是有点震惊。就像一个剧迷的直观反应一样，心里在想：“天啊，等等。Armando 要离开‘Veep’了？”
HOFFMAN: That was TV writer and director David Mandel. He’s known for his work on Emmy Award-winning shows like Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm … and, more recently, as executive producer of the fast-talking, foul-mouthed political satire Veep.
HOFFMAN：这位是电视编剧兼导演 David Mandel。他因参与 Seinfeld、Curb Your Enthusiasm 等获得 Emmy Award 的剧集而知名……而且近年他还是语速飞快、满口脏话的政治讽刺剧 Veep 的执行制片人。
But David didn’t create Veep. That distinction belonged to the show’s original showrunner, Armando Iannucci. David got the call to take over as showrunner in Season Five. And he wanted to put the cast and crew at ease.
不过，David 并不是 Veep 的创造者。这个功劳属于该剧最初的 showrunner、Armando Iannucci。到第五季时，David 接到电话，将接任 showrunner（剧集总负责人）。他希望能让演员与剧组安心下来。
MANDEL: I start sitting down, having breakfast with the cast individually as quickly as I could. He will admit this. Tony was really worried.
MANDEL：我尽快安排和每位演员单独坐下来吃早餐。他自己也会承认这一点。Tony 的确很担心。
HOFFMAN: That would be actor Tony Hale, who played Gary, loyal aide to the show’s lead character, Selina Meyer.
HOFFMAN：说的就是演员 Tony Hale，他在剧中饰演 Gary——女主角 Selina Meyer 的忠诚助手。
MANDEL: Tony was definitely the one that was just like, “Who is this guy, and why is he here?”
MANDEL：Tony 绝对是那个会直截了当地问：“这家伙是谁，为什么他会来？”的人。
HOFFMAN: David needed to earn Tony’s trust, along with the rest of the team. But he also needed to make that team his own, which occasionally proved … challenging.
HOFFMAN：David 需要赢得 Tony 与团队其他成员的信任。但他也需要把这个团队变成“自己的”，而这有时事实证明……颇具挑战。
MANDEL: They made me hire three editors. And I was very confused.
MANDEL：他们让我要雇三个剪辑师。我非常困惑。
HOFFMAN: Three editors, for context, is one more than David was used to. It took time to figure out why.
HOFFMAN：补充一下背景：三个剪辑师，比 David 惯常使用的人数多了一位。他花了一段时间才弄明白原因。
MANDEL: Armando shot a lot and often found the episodes in the editing room. And so the reason he had three editors was he would bounce from edit room to edit room as they were working. They were just constantly trying different things. I definitely do the show just differently. I like to know what the first scene of the season is going to be, and the last scene of the season’s going to be. I lay it all out on a giant board in a conference room, 10 columns, 10 shows. I’m not finding anything in the edit room.
MANDEL：Armando 拍得很多，常常在剪辑室里“找”到一集应有的样子。所以他要配三位剪辑师，是为了能在他们工作时在各个剪辑室之间来回切换。他们几乎不停地尝试不同做法。而我做这部剧的方式截然不同。我喜欢事先明确本季第一场戏是什么、最后一场戏是什么。我会把整季摊开在会议室的一块巨型白板上——10 列、10 集。我不会指望在剪辑室里“找到”什么。
HOFFMAN: Processes that had been set up for Armando didn’t make sense for David. But when he tried to change them, he was often met with a curious answer.
HOFFMAN：为 Armando 设定的一整套流程，对 David 来说并不合适。但当他尝试调整时，经常会收到一个奇怪的答复。
MANDEL: You’d often get hit with this, “It’s Veep.” That was always the answer. It’s Veep. Kind of, “This is how we’ve always done it.” And we did it that way for a year. And it drove us a little crazy, occasionally, the, “It’s Veep.” And then after one year, it was just like, “Yeah, I don’t care anymore.”
MANDEL：你常常会被一句话挡回来：“It’s Veep.” 答复永远就是这个。It’s Veep。差不多就是“我们一直都这么做”。我们也就那样照做了一年。这句“It’s Veep”偶尔会把我们逼疯。然后一年之后，我就想：“好吧，我不在乎了。”
HOFFMAN: “It’s Veep syndrome” might feel familiar to anyone whose organization has gone through a leadership change. It can be difficult to shake loose old habits and established processes. But it’s also completely necessary.
HOFFMAN：“It’s Veep syndrome” 对任何经历过领导更迭的组织来说都不陌生。要摆脱旧习惯和既有流程很难，但这同样是绝对必要的。
MANDEL: If I had tried to do and write exactly Armando’s show, you would have gotten a weird knock off. I can write Veep, but I can’t do an impression of Armando. It just comes off like some weird bootleg, like a weird mimeograph, slightly smudged and purple and not quite as good.
MANDEL：如果我试图把剧做得、写得和 Armando 一模一样，你们得到的只会是一件古怪的“山寨品”。我能写 Veep，但我无法“模仿” Armando。那样出来的就像某种奇怪的盗版，像一张油印件，发着淡紫、边角模糊，而且明显不如原版。
HOFFMAN: David had another challenge, too – the environment around the show was shifting. Sometimes a change in leadership isn’t the only reason a business needs to be reset.
HOFFMAN：David 还面临另一重挑战——剧集所处的外部环境在变化。有时候，企业需要重置，并不只是因为领导层更迭。
MANDEL: So Trump, yes. Whether you like him or not, everything did change.
MANDEL：所以，Trump。无论你喜欢与否，一切的确都变了。
HOFFMAN: In Veep world, Selina Meyer had gone from VP, to president, to former president. In real life, America had gotten a new president too, Donald Trump.
HOFFMAN：在 Veep 的世界里，Selina Meyer 从 VP，到 president，再到 former president。现实中，美国也迎来了新总统 Donald Trump。
MANDEL: So much of Veep early on, before I ever got to it, the show created by Armando was: “This is what politicians really sound like behind closed doors, like when you don’t see them.” Well, that wall, that closed door went away. He just said what was on his mind whenever he wanted to. We did an episode in our first season where the president accidentally tweeted something, and there’s that clip of everybody going, “Oh my god, the president tweeted,” and they ran. I mean that just feels like I’m talking about a telegraph machine, that’s how ancient it feels. Like it feels like a story from pioneer days.
MANDEL：在我接手之前，Veep 的早期——Armando 创作的那版——核心是：“当门关上、公众看不到时，政客们真实的样子与话语。” 可那堵墙、那扇门被拿掉了。他想什么时候说什么就什么时候说。我们在第一季做过一集，讲总统不小心发了一条推文，大家都惊呼：“天哪，总统发推了”，然后一窝蜂冲出去。现在回看，那感觉就像我在谈一台 telegraph machine，一种上古玩意儿，像是拓荒时代的故事。
So, the nature of Veep changed.
所以，Veep 的性质变了。
HOFFMAN: David and his creative team, including the cast and crew, leaned hard in this new direction. What was once a show about the dazzling vulgarity of outwardly respectable politicians, became a story about the terrifying endgame of seeking power without consequences.
HOFFMAN：David 与他的创作团队，包括演员与剧组，顺势大力转向这个新方向。这个曾经讲述外表体面政客、却光怪陆离的粗鄙之处的剧，变成了一个关于“在没有代价的前提下逐权，最终走向可怕终局”的故事。
MANDEL: If Selina really wants to get the White House back, what is she prepared to do? The answer has to be: anything. The show had changed radically, but that was what the show had to be.
MANDEL：如果 Selina 真想夺回 White House，她准备做到什么地步？答案只能是：任何事。这个剧已经发生了根本性转变，但它必须如此。
HOFFMAN: When the show finally ended, having won wild acclaim and multiple Emmys under both Iannucci and Mandel, there was a feeling that Veep had risen to meet the moment.
HOFFMAN：当剧集最终落幕，在 Iannucci 与 Mandel 的带领下赢得广泛赞誉与多座 Emmys，人们感觉 Veep 已与时代同频共振。
MANDEL: I think people in my position or any position where you’re coming in after someone, it’s very… What’s the word I’m looking for? Easy, I guess, to think that I should just do what the other guy did. But if you do that, you fail.
MANDEL：我认为，像我这样的接任者——或者任何在别人之后上任的人——很容易（那个词是什么来着？）对，很容易想着“我就照前任那一套来”。但如果那样做，你会失败。
HOFFMAN: This advice is spot on – whether you’re running a beloved comedy series, or a global business. Relying on what’s been done in the past won’t cut it. You need to be able to reassess, reset, and refresh. Thank you David, for sharing this story.
HOFFMAN：这个建议一针见血——无论你是在经营一部备受喜爱的喜剧，还是一家全球性企业。仅仅依赖过去那一套是行不通的。你需要能够重新评估、重置，并刷新。谢谢你，David，分享了这个故事。
OK, detour is over. Back to Satya.
好了，短暂的岔路到此结束。回到 Satya。
Chapter 8: To refresh a culture, you’ve first got to earn it
第8章：要刷新文化，你得先赢得它
When we left him, Satya Nadella had just become the third CEO in Microsoft’s history. Under its first founders, the company had been scaling with implicit rules and guidelines around mission. As a re-founder, Satya wanted to make these guidelines more explicit, and adapt them to a new age.
当我们把话题停在上一次时，Satya Nadella 刚刚成为 Microsoft 历史上的第三任 CEO。在最初几位 founders 的领导下，公司依循着围绕使命的隐性规则与准则扩张。作为一名 re-founder，Satya 希望把这些准则明确化，并使之适应一个新的时代。
HOFFMAN: Now the other part of it, though – which is a really key thing and ties back to the growth psychology, ties back to the learning – is that you’re not just anointed as co-founder. You have to earn it to some degree. It’s not earned by getting the job. It’s earned by that first year or two of how you’re leading. What were the things that you were doing to say, “Hey, this is our mission. We are the people who could do this awesome mission. Here’s how we’re doing it now”? What were the key moves that you made that other students of hitting refresh would say, “Oh, that’s really important. I should know that now”?
HOFFMAN：不过，还有另一面——这点非常关键，也与成长心理、与学习紧密相关——那就是你不是被“册封”为 co-founder 的。你在某种程度上需要去赢得它。它不是因为拿到这个职位就自动拥有，而是靠上任一两年里你的领导表现所赢得。你当时做了哪些事，来表达“嘿，这就是我们的使命。我们正是能够完成这一伟大使命的人。以下是我们现在的做法”？你采取了哪些关键举措，会让那些研究“如何刷新”的人说：“哦，这非常重要，我应该马上了解”？
NADELLA: In some sense, I always think about this as, if I was, let’s say, an outsider, I would have had to have a very different playbook. I mean, in some sense, whenever I criticize whatever it is that we may have been doing, I was not criticizing somebody else. I was criticizing myself, because I am a consummate insider. Nobody could have said, “Satya, somehow you dropped from the sky.” I mean, God, I was part of the Microsoft culture. I thrived in it.
NADELLA：在某种意义上，我总是这样想：如果我是假设的一位外部人，我就必须采用完全不同的打法。也就是说，在某种意义上，每当我批评我们可能在做的某些事情时，我并不是在批评别人，而是在批评我自己，因为我是一个十足的局内人。没人会说：“Satya 是从天上掉下来的。”天哪，我本就是 Microsoft 文化的一部分，而且在其中如鱼得水。
HOFFMAN: It’s another reminder that hitting refresh on company culture doesn’t have to come from outside. It can come from a consummate insider, as long as that insider: is thinking holistically about the organization, has the humility to consider what is and isn’t working, even if they’ve been part of the problem, and is now in a position to effect change.
HOFFMAN：这再次提醒我们：为公司文化按下“刷新”并不一定要来自外部。只要满足以下条件，它也可以来自一位地道的内部人：能够从整体上思考整个组织，具备谦逊，愿意审视哪些有效、哪些无效，即便他们曾是问题的一部分，且当下身处能够推动变革的位置。
There are so many ways for this to play out. For Satya, it meant showing up with values and priorities that were explicitly defined. It was starting again, without starting over.
这种情形有许多实现路径。对 Satya 而言，这意味着以清晰界定的价值观与优先级现身——是一次“重新开始”，却无需“从头再来”。
HOFFMAN: Let’s start at the most tactile, which is bringing a sense of empathy more into leadership. Talk a little bit about why that became an important value for you and then also, part of where your thought about, “Look, empathy doesn’t mean not making sharp business decisions. It’s actually part of being a really good and sharp leader.”
HOFFMAN：我们先从最直观的部分谈起，也就是把共情更充分地带入领导力。谈谈为什么这会成为你的重要价值观，以及你为何认为：“看，共情并不意味着不做果断的商业决策。相反，它是成为一名真正优秀且敏锐领导者的一部分。”
NADELLA: This notion of empathy is at the core of our learning. We are in the business of meeting unmet, unarticulated needs of customers, right? That’s the source of all innovation, all design thinking. And then you say, “Oh, how does that happen?” That happens because you have empathy for the context, the situation, that unmet, unarticulated need. You’re listening beyond the words. You’re seeing things beyond what is just playing out in front of your eyes. You learn it through your life’s experience. It’s not like I go to work and say, “Oh, I want to turn on my empathy button now, and I’m now going to be very empathetic.”
NADELLA：共情这一观念，是我们学习的核心。我们的事业，是去满足客户未被满足、也未被清晰表达的需求，对吗？那正是一切创新、所有设计思维的源头。接着你会问：“哦，那这如何发生？”它之所以发生，是因为你对所处语境与情境、对那种未被满足且未被表达的需求，心怀共情。你能听到言外之意，你能看到眼前呈现之外的东西。你通过人生经历去习得这种能力。而不是像我上班时对自己说：“哦，我现在要打开我的‘共情按钮’，接下来我要特别有共情。”
Chapter 9: Why Satya Nadella abolished stack ranking
第9章：为什么 Satya Nadella 废除了 stack ranking
You have to tap into the very innate human part of us. In 2014, Microsoft’s culture at that time, which was a little hard edge, quantitative, metric-driven engineering, I felt like this stuff all sounds really soft. But in retrospect, oh my God, was the organization hungry for it.
你必须触达我们身上最本真的那部分人性。到了 2014 年，当时 Microsoft 的文化有点偏强硬、偏量化、由指标驱动的工程风格，我当时觉得这些东西听起来都很“软”。但回头看，天哪，组织对它简直渴求不已。
HOFFMAN: The words used to describe the refresh might have seemed soft, but the refresh itself manifested in concrete and specific ways.
HOFFMAN：用来描述这次“刷新”的语言也许显得柔软，但“刷新”本身体现在具体而明确的举措上。
HOFFMAN: One of the ones that I actually thought was a microcosm of the cultural change was getting rid of stack ranking, right? To say, “Look, not only is there what we should do, there’s also what we shouldn’t do.”
HOFFMAN：我认为能当作文化变革缩影的一件事，就是取消 stack ranking（强制排名），对吧？这在宣示：“看，不仅有我们应该做的事，也有我们不应该做的事。”
NADELLA: It became, at some point, a bad caricature of everything that was wrong in the company.
NADELLA：它在某个时点成了公司一切病灶的糟糕漫画式夸张。
HOFFMAN: For those who’ve never had to navigate it, stack ranking is basically enforced grading on a curve. If you have a team of five people, you have to rank one as exemplary, one as good, one as average, one as below average, and one – let’s call him Kevin – as poor. Even if all five, including Kevin, turned in exemplary work last quarter.
HOFFMAN：对没经历过的人来说，stack ranking 基本就是强制性的“曲线打分”。如果你的团队有 5 个人，你必须把其中 1 人评为卓越、1 人良好、1 人一般、1 人低于平均、以及 1 人——就叫 Kevin 吧——评为差。即便上个季度这 5 个人（包括 Kevin）都交出了卓越的工作。
The reason behind this system is, to oversimplify a little, motivation. If you know there’s a top spot, you want each team member fired up to get it. What can happen in practice, however, is that Kevin treats his very own teammates as competition. If he can beat them, he wins, and they lose.
这个制度背后的理由，简单说，是“激励”。如果你知道有一个“第一名”的位置，你就希望每个团队成员都被点燃去争取它。但在实践中可能发生的是：Kevin 把自己的队友当成对手。如果他击败了他们，他就赢了，而他们就输了。
Regardless of the initial reasons behind it, stack-ranking had become a notorious culture-killer at Microsoft, and it was reviled within the company. So, Satya got rid of it.
不管初衷如何，stack-ranking 已在 Microsoft 变成臭名昭著的“文化杀手”，在公司内部饱受诟病。于是，Satya 把它废除了。
NADELLA: The principal issue of any system like stack rank has, is it doesn’t leave room for judgment, which is, who said that a team cannot have all above-average performers?
NADELLA：此类体系的根本问题在于，它不给判断留空间。换言之，谁规定一支团队就不可能全员都高于平均水平？
We all know that performance is, in some sense, relative. The world measures us that way. But at the same time, you can have periods of people performing in one team extraordinarily well, and they should be rewarded for it. In fact, the stack rank, I think, artificially took away the power of an individual manager in being able to distribute rewards.
我们都知道，绩效在某种意义上是相对的，世界也是这样来评判我们的。但与此同时，一个团队在某些时期可能整体表现格外出色，他们理应因此得到嘉奖。实际上，我认为 stack rank 人为剥夺了个体经理在分配奖励上的权力。
多鼓励正面，更可能的缩小负面的东西。
HOFFMAN: Some of you may be thinking, “Fine, but if I’m not a leader, what can I do to change something like stack-ranking? It’s totally out of my hands.” Well, that’s not the whole story.
HOFFMAN：你们中的一些人可能会想：“好吧，可如果我不是领导，我能做什么来改变像 stack-ranking 这样的事？这完全不由我说了算。” 嗯，事实并非如此简单。
Remember Satya’s experience at the meeting where he wanted to speak up, and didn’t? This is again a place where speaking up is its own small, strategic refresh button. You don’t have to put your career, or your relationship with your boss, at risk to make this happen. Even in the most rigidly structured companies, there are usually some avenues to give feedback, such as project post-mortems or 360 reviews.
还记得 Satya 在那场会议上本想发言却没有开口的经历吗？在这里，发声本身就是一个小而战略性的“刷新按钮”。你不必拿自己的职业生涯或与上司的关系去冒险。即使在结构最为严苛的公司，通常也会有一些反馈通道，比如项目复盘或 360 评估。
That doesn’t mean you’ll see instant change every time you raise your hand. But if you have the means to speak out and speak up, DO. Employee disgruntlement around stack ranking was what let Satya know he should kill it. Their feedback was a crucial step in the refresh.
这并不意味着你每次举手都能立刻看到改变。但如果你有条件表达、敢于发声，就去做。围绕 stack ranking 的员工不满，正是让 Satya 意识到该把它终结的原因之一。他们的反馈是这次“刷新”的关键一步。
Chapter 10: Microsoft takes a fresh approach to acquisitions — including LinkedIn
第10章：Microsoft 在收购上采取了全新路径——包括 LinkedIn
Another way Satya helped reset Microsoft was in his approach to acquiring new companies, including LinkedIn.
Satya 帮助重置 Microsoft 的另一种方式，是他在收购新公司（包括 LinkedIn）上的做法。
HOFFMAN: Another thing that I’ve seen in your leadership – and personally seen from my own experience – is a very intelligent approach to M&A and acquisitions. There’s obviously the LinkedIn side, which started with some very early conversations of just “get to know you” and saying, “Hey, let’s establish a relationship.” I think this is part of your partnership background. It’s like, “Look, let’s just talk and help each other and then see where the conversation goes.”
HOFFMAN：我在你的领导中看到的另一件事——也是我亲身经历过的——是对并购（M&A）的非常聪明的处理方式。很明显，LinkedIn 就是这样，最初从非常早期的“彼此了解”式对话开始，说：“嘿，我们先建立关系。” 我觉得这与您过往的合作伙伴背景有关。就像：“来吧，先聊起来、彼此相助，再看对话会把我们带向何处。”
But it isn’t just LinkedIn, of course. There’s everything from Minecraft to GitHub and all of the others. Okay, let’s take a first principles rethink and a cultural evolution. How has that shaped your approaches to M&A in terms of what kinds of companies but also how to do it, how to evaluate it, how to make it successful?
当然不止 LinkedIn。还有从 Minecraft 到 GitHub 等一系列公司。好，我们以第一性原理和文化演进来重新思考。这如何塑造了你的并购路径——既包括收购哪些类型的公司，也包括如何实施、如何评估、以及如何让并购取得成功？
NADELLA: Yeah, I mean, in a fairly major way, I distinctly obviously remember my first set of conversations with you. I mean, you were clear. I remember first broaching the subject, and you were clear, “Hey, look, we are enjoying building LinkedIn. We have no interest in any conversation about acquisition.” But as you said, you mostly wanted to start to talk about, “Hey, what do you care about? What are you doing at Microsoft? Here’s what we’re doing at LinkedIn. Is there really stuff for us to talk about that is meaningful to our members?” So, I’ve looked at M&A as at the meta level, it needs to do two things.
NADELLA：是的，而且影响还相当大。我清楚地记得我们第一次的一系列对话。你的态度很明确。我第一次提起这个话题时，你就明确表示：“看，我们很享受建设 LinkedIn。我们对任何关于被收购的讨论都不感兴趣。” 但正如你所说，你更想先聊的是：“嘿，你关心什么？你在 Microsoft 在做什么？我们在 LinkedIn 在做什么？有没有对我们的 members 真正有意义、值得一起讨论的事情？” 所以，在更高层次上，我认为并购需要同时满足两点。
One is it needs to be something that we can clearly say, “It fits our mission. It fits our identity,” or “We can be a better owner,” which is a very narrow way to talk about it. But can we say, “Oh, as part of Microsoft, will a LinkedIn, a GitHub, a Minecraft fit, thrive, and flourish?” Then the second aspect, which is also equally important to me is, “How will Microsoft change because of a LinkedIn, a Minecraft, and a GitHub?”
其一，必须是我们能清楚地说“它契合我们的使命，契合我们的身份”，或者“在我们旗下会是更好的归宿”的东西——虽说这是一种相对狭义的表述。但我们能否说：“作为 Microsoft 的一部分，LinkedIn、GitHub、Minecraft 会适配、会成长、能繁荣？” 其二，同样重要的是：“因为 LinkedIn、Minecraft、GitHub，Microsoft 自身将会怎样改变？”
LinkedIn应该属于微软，与此类同的还有YouTube和Google，Kindle和Amazon，也包括巨灾险和BRK。
HOFFMAN: This more symbiotic approach to M&A contrasts sharply with what the Microsoft of old might have done.
HOFFMAN：这种更具“共生性”的并购思路，与旧日的 Microsoft 可能采取的做法形成了鲜明对比。
NADELLA: There’s no such thing as a static company that can somehow survive the changing circumstances. So, to me, that’s what it represented. One theme that was clear is, “What was Microsoft weak at?” We didn’t get networks. We didn’t get communities. We did not understand what virality meant at scale. Also, the business model implications of it. We were weak in all that it meant. So, therefore, it is very important for us. Even though Minecraft, yes, was a game, I saw it as a metaverse. I didn’t see it, “Oh, here is just another game.”
NADELLA：没有哪家静止不动的公司，能在不断变化的环境中存活下去。对我而言，并购所代表的是：我们要直面一个清晰主题——“Microsoft 的短板在哪里？” 我们不懂 networks，不懂 communities；我们不了解在大规模下 virality 意味着什么，以及由此带来的商业模式含义。凡此种种，我们都偏弱。因此，这对我们至关重要。即便 Minecraft 是款游戏，我把它看作一个元宇宙，而不是“又一款游戏”而已。
HOFFMAN: This is exactly the type of perspective that re-founders bring. A first founder can get a company to a powerful place in society. The re-founder has to – and gets to – ask, how do we earn keeping it?
HOFFMAN：这正是 re-founder 带来的视角。第一任创始人可以把公司带到社会中的强势位置；而 re-founder 必须——也有资格——追问：我们如何配得上把它长期守住？
Chapter 11: How do we earn the right to play a big role in society?
第11章：我们如何配得上在社会中扮演重要角色？
HOFFMAN: This is a good place to ask you to highlight something I’ve heard you say a lot internally, which I think is a very good part of leadership and as a reflection of part of what growth psychology and growth mindset really means, which is: How do we earn the right to be the provider here? How do we earn the right to play this role in society?
HOFFMAN：这里正好可以请你强调一件我在内部经常听你说的话。我认为这体现了领导力的一个很好的方面，也反映了成长心理与成长型思维的核心含义之一：我们如何“赢得资格”成为这里的提供者？我们如何赢得在社会中扮演这一角色的权利？
NADELLA: When I think about the license to operate for a company, where does that come from? I am very deeply influenced by this statement by Colin Mayer in his book called Prosperity, which I think is a good description of, “What is the social contract of a corporation?”, which is to find profitable solutions to the challenges of people and planet. The two keywords being that profitable solutions, but the other one being the challenges of people and planet.
NADELLA：当我思考一家公司的“经营许可”来自何处时，我受到 Colin Mayer 在其著作 Prosperity 中一段话的深刻影响。我认为那很好地描述了“公司的社会契约是什么”：为人类与地球所面临的挑战找到可盈利的解决方案。这里有两个关键词：其一是“可盈利的解决方案”，其二是“人类与地球的挑战”。
So, whenever I think about Microsoft, I feel like, hey, we get to operate as a multinational company in all the countries we operate in by ensuring that there is real symmetry between us doing well and the world around us doing well.
因此，每当我想到 Microsoft，我会觉得：我们之所以能在各个运营所在国以一家跨国公司的身份开展业务，前提是要确保“我们发展良好”与“我们周围的世界发展良好”之间存在真正的对称关系。
HOFFMAN: I couldn’t agree more. Pursuing symmetry between the health of your business and the health of the world around you is how you earn the right to be a provider at scale. It’s a measure of how well you are living your values as a company. That doesn’t mean you’re bad if you happen to be succeeding in an economic downturn. But your definition of success should include the success of the community around you.
HOFFMAN：我完全同意。追求企业健康与外部世界健康之间的对称性，是你赢得“规模化提供者”资格的路径，也是衡量公司是否真正践行其价值观的标尺。这并不意味着在经济低迷时取得成功就是“坏事”。但你的成功定义应当包含你所在社群的成功。
And by the way, the CEO isn’t the only one who determines this. Any employee can and should regularly ask, “Do our daily operations make the world around us better? Are we acting in a way that serves the mission?” Making a regular practice of asking that question is acting like a re-founder.
另外，这不只由 CEO 决定。任何员工都可以、也应该经常自问：“我们的日常运营是否让我们周围的世界更好？我们的行动是否服务于使命？”把这种追问变成常规实践，就是以一名 re-founder 的姿态在行事。
Part of Satya’s re-founder mission has been to prioritize collaboration over exclusivity, in moves that might have shocked the Microsoft of the late 1990s – like partnering to build AI applications with a nonprofit company.
作为 re-founder，Satya 使命的一部分，是把协作置于排他之上——这些举措在 1990 年代末的 Microsoft 看来可能会令人震惊，比如与一家非营利公司合作构建 AI 应用。
HOFFMAN: One of the things that I think is something you would do that neither Bill nor Steve would have done is the partnership with OpenAI and the focus on that being the play. Obviously, we both have 100 out of 10 respect for both Bill and Steve. So, this is not a criticism of them. It’s simply a different way of playing the game. Say a little bit about how you thought about, “This is why it’s important for Microsoft. This is why it’s important for the right outcomes in the world. Here are the kinds of things we’re doing by partnering with an external technological organization that is actually in fact a 501(c)(3) about how we’re navigating these joint missions together.”
HOFFMAN：我认为你做的一件事，是 Bill 与 Steve 都不会去做的——那就是与 OpenAI 的合作，并把它作为战略重点。显然，我们二人对 Bill 和 Steve 都是“满分 10 分打 100 分”的尊敬，所以这并非对他们的批评，而只是不同的打法。谈谈你的思考：为什么这对 Microsoft 很重要？为什么这对世界达成正确结果很重要？我们如何与一个外部技术组织（实际上是 501(c)(3)）合作，共同推进这项联合使命？
NADELLA: One of the things that influenced me a little bit was I’ve never heard this directly from Bill, but when he set up Microsoft Research, one of the social contracts of Microsoft Research was, after all, Microsoft wouldn’t have existed if it was not for the broad contributions of the research community at large, which led to the internet and led to all of the technologies that made it possible for Microsoft to exist.
NADELLA：影响我一点的是——我从未直接从 Bill 那里听到，但当他创立 Microsoft Research 时，其中一个社会契约就是：毕竟，没有更广泛研究共同体的贡献（促成了互联网与一切使 Microsoft 得以存在的技术），就不会有 Microsoft 的存在。
So, you always had as a percentage of some R&D, we’ve got to do fundamental research with in some sense, no strings attached so that we can contribute back. So, that has always stuck with me. If AI is going to be one of the most defining technologies, what is an organization that is going to do work? And then how are we then going to be able to partner with that organization to even further democratize it?
因此，我们总要把一部分 R&D 用于在某种意义上“无附加条件”的基础研究，以便回馈。这点我一直铭记在心。如果 AI 将成为最具决定性的技术之一，那么会是哪类组织来推进它？接着我们又该如何与该组织合作，进一步推动它的民主化？
I think of it as a continuation of, “How do we stand for being that platform company, that developer tools company, with a broad mission to democratize the most defining technologies?” In fact, I say, if it was, oh, wow, the two companies in the world or three companies in the world have AI, that’s not a world that any of us want to live in. In fact, that’s a world that won’t exist. No country will allow that. It is a silly way to even conceptualize it. So, therefore, this thing about sometimes when people say, “Oh, you know what? We are the AI company,” I say bullshit to that, because the world doesn’t need you to have AI. The world needs AI.
我将其视为这样一种延续：“我们如何坚守作为一家平台公司、开发者工具公司的定位，并以‘让最具决定性的技术更广泛普及’为宏大使命？”事实上，如果世界上只有两三家公司拥有 AI——那不是我们任何人愿意生活的世界。实际上，那样的世界也不会存在，没有任何国家会允许。这种构想本身就很荒谬。所以，当有人说：“你知道吗？我们是那家 AI 公司。”我的回应是：那是胡扯。世界并不需要“你拥有 AI”，世界需要的是“AI 的普及”。
HOFFMAN: Yes, we are bringing AI to the world, but not only us and only us.
HOFFMAN：是的，我们在把 AI 带给世界，但不是只有我们、也不是只能我们。
NADELLA: Exactly.
NADELLA：没错。
HOFFMAN: Incredibly, a company that was once hauled before Congress to defend a monopoly on how people get online is now partnering with OpenAI, and working towards global access. And this shift away from a need to dominate has, actually, made Microsoft more successful than ever.
HOFFMAN：令人惊叹的是，一家曾被带到 Congress 作证、为其“人们如何上网”的垄断辩护的公司，如今正与 OpenAI 合作，致力于全球可及。而从“必须主宰”转向“以开放协作取胜”的转变，实际上让 Microsoft 比以往任何时候都更成功。
NADELLA: Going back to your fundamental thesis, at some point if you’re successful, you will outlast your founders as a company. If you are going to outlast that founder, that handoff is going to be super critical.
NADELLA：回到你的基本论点：当一家公司足够成功，总有一天它会比创始人更长久。如果你要超越创始人的时间跨度，那么“交接”就会至关重要。
HOFFMAN: Successful businesses are meant to outlast their founders, which is why re-founders need to be part of the design. So wherever you can, look for those re-founders, and take on that founder mindset, wherever in the company you are.
HOFFMAN：成功的企业理应超越其创始人的寿命——这也正是为什么需要把 re-founders 纳入组织设计。无论你身处公司何处，都要寻找这些 re-founders，并以创始人心态投入。
I’m Reid Hoffman. Thanks for listening.
我是 Reid Hoffman。感谢收听。
热门主题
Recent Articles
2003-02-21 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2003-02-21 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2002 was $6.1 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2004-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2004-02-27 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2003 was $13.6 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2005-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2005-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2004 was $8.3 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2006-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2006-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2005 was $5.6 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders
Refer To：《2007-02-28 Warren Buffett's Letters to Berkshire Shareholders》。 To the Shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.: Our gain in net worth during 2006 was $16.9 billion, which increased the per-share book value of both our Class A and Class B ...