一本新著宣稱，就如何創(chuàng)造震驚世界的商業(yè)創(chuàng)意而言，大多數(shù)傳統(tǒng)觀念都有失偏頗。那么，到底哪些做法應該扔進垃圾堆呢？ 　　

問題得從公司的員工招聘說起。

　　大多數(shù)公司最根本的錄用標準就是“合適”——也就是說，候選人在多大程度上能夠融入現(xiàn)有的企業(yè)文化。隨后，高管們就會向每個人征詢創(chuàng)意，有時候，甚至會舉辦競賽，以決出最后的贏家。當然，要讓員工不斷取得更大的成就，最好的辦法就是在員工做出成績的時候不吝褒揚。

　　是這么回事吧？

　　不過實際上，并不是這么回事。照斯蒂芬?夏皮羅的看法，公司應該聘請的是那些不那么循規(guī)蹈矩的人，他們跟現(xiàn)有的模式有點格格不入；還應聘請“自己不那么喜歡的人”，因為創(chuàng)新要靠不同的觀點來激發(fā)。如果運作得當（提示：提出正確的問題確實大有裨益），問計于民不失為可行之道。但實際上，很多公司得到的創(chuàng)意往往是一團亂麻，根本不切實際，只會攪亂現(xiàn)有的體系。

　　另外，不要因為員工做好了份內工作就表揚他們。夏皮羅說：“如果員工只是因為做了他們受雇該做的事，就能得到公司認可，只會強化一種企業(yè)文化，即維持現(xiàn)狀就可以高枕無憂了。”——這對于任何希望引領行業(yè)風氣之先的公司來說都無異于死亡之吻。

　　夏皮羅是公司創(chuàng)新方面的咨詢專家，客戶包括史泰博公司（Staples），通用電氣公司（General Electric）和美國空軍（U.S. Air Force）等?，F(xiàn)在，他濃縮了自己的經驗，推出了一本名為《最佳實踐不忽悠：從創(chuàng)新競爭中勝出的40個妙招》（Best Practices Are Stupid: 40 Ways to Out-Innovate the Competition）的著作。該書文風清新，沒有拗口的咨詢業(yè)術語，全書充滿了簡明扼要、切合實際的案例研究。

　　你可能覺得不解，舉辦競賽，為最佳員工創(chuàng)意頒獎到底有何不妥。畢竟，思科公司（Cisco），LG電子公司（LG Electronics）和通用電氣公司都辦過這類競賽。但是，如果公司事前已經拿定了主意，比賽必須決出一位優(yōu)勝者，公司就會面臨風險，最終只能收獲一個所謂的“最佳”創(chuàng)意，它在理論上令人嘆服，可卻無法解決緊迫的現(xiàn)實問題。

　　夏皮羅建議，更明智的做法是“懸賞”（bounty hunter）。在線DVD租賃商Netflix公司就曾用這個辦法來改進視頻推薦引擎：該公司懸賞100萬美元，任何人——不管是來自公司內部還是公司外部，只要能解決一系列工程設計上的難題，就能拿到這筆錢。

　　結果，來自美國、奧利地、加拿大和以色列的數(shù)學家和計算機科學家組成了一支僅有7人的團隊，花了3年時間，最終開發(fā)出了可行的算法。夏皮羅認為，這100萬美元的“賞金”真是劃算到家，因為新引擎使銷售增長了幾千萬美元——而且，Netflix公司驗證了勝出團隊的技術達標之后，才支付了這筆賞金。

　　不過，對眾多經理人來說，夏皮羅建議中最讓人難以接受的一條很可能是：有意識地聘用一些這樣的人，他們與現(xiàn)有團隊成員的思維方式完全不同，令人惱火。他承認，黨同伐異是人類的本性。

　　即便如此，如果團隊希望產生真正新鮮有用的創(chuàng)意，就必須保證團隊成員的構成涵蓋所有四種鮮明的人格個性，每種個性至少一人。想知道自己的團隊的情況嗎？邀請同事們做個快速評測，就能探明究竟。夏皮羅的網站提供測試問卷的下載。

　　譯者：清遠

　The trouble starts with who gets hired.

　　In most companies, an essential criterion is “fit” — that is, how well a candidate would blend in with the existing culture. Then, top management asks everyone for ideas, sometimes even setting up contests to crown winners. And of course, the best way to spur people on to greater achievement is to give them plenty of pats on the back for a job well done.

　　Right?

　　Well, actually, no. According to Stephen Shapiro, you should be recruiting iconoclasts who don't fit the existing mold, including “people you don't like,” because innovation depends on divergent points of view. Asking for ideas is fine if done correctly (hint: it helps to ask the right questions), but too often what companies get is a welter of impractical suggestions that just clutter up the system.

　　And by the way, stop congratulating employees for doing their jobs. “When you recognize people for doing what they were hired to do, it reinforces a culture where the status quo is good enough,” Shapiro says -- the kiss of death for any enterprise trying to stay ahead of the game.

　　Shapiro, who has advised clients like Staples (SPLS), General Electric (GE), and the U.S. Air Force on how to innovate, has now distilled his methods into a book called Best Practices Are Stupid: 40 Ways to Out-Innovate the Competition. Refreshingly free of consultantese, it's loaded with succinct, down-to-earth case studies.

　　You might wonder, for instance, what's wrong with running contests that offer a prize for the best employee suggestion. After all, it's been done by Cisco (CSCO), LG Electronics, and GE. But, if you've already decided in advance that there is going to be a winner, you risk ending up with a “best” idea that is impressive in theory but falls short of solving a real, pressing problem.

　　A smarter approach, by Shapiro's lights, is the “bounty hunter” technique that Netflix (NFLX) used to improve its video recommendation engine: The company offered to pay $1 million to anyone — inside or outside its walls — who could develop practical solutions to a specific set of engineering challenges.

　　It took three years, but a 7-person team of mathematicians and computer scientists from the U.S., Austria, Canada, and Israel came up with an algorithm that worked. The $1 million “bounty” was a bargain, Shapiro notes, since the new engine boosted sales by tens of millions — and the company paid the prize money only after the winners proved the technology met Netflix's goals.

　　For many managers, the toughest part of Shapiro's advice might well be the part about deliberately hiring people who think so differently from their teammates as to be downright annoying. It's human nature, the author acknowledges, to want to be around people who are like ourselves.

　　Even so, Shapiro insists, any team that hopes to come up with truly fresh and useful ideas has to include at least one member from each of four distinct personality types. Curious about how your team stacks up? You can find out by asking your colleagues to take a quick assessment test, downloadable from Shapiro's web site.