Honeywell CEO David Cole的自传，他带领霍尼韦尔近年实现了非常了不起的成长。英文版读起来还是可以的，读到后面开始看中文版，要稍微枯燥一点。整体而言，还是可读的一本书。
稍有不足的就是理论类的说法比较多，讲道理太多了，故事太少。
领导者就是能够创造性地同时实现两个看似冲突目标的人。这个定义是我目前为止看过的最好的，没有之一。
英文名WINNING NOW WINNING LATER，中文翻译成长期主义感觉有点偏颇。读完全书的话，会发现这两个赢其实是冲突的，大部分管理者选择赢在当下，少数人会选择赢在未来，但本书讲的是“成年人不做选择，都要”。这其中的精髓没有翻译出来，至少这种冲突感没有体现出来。确实这个也非常难了。
照例做些摘录。
Accounting is your primary information system for making decisions, so if that information is bad, your decisions will be bad too. Our leaders were going through the motions, only pretending to run their businesses strategically or even competently. It was all a big mess—short-termism run horribly amuck.
What you do have to do is believe you can achieve two seemingly conflicting things at the same time—short-term performance and investment in the future.
Strong short- and long-term performance only seem mutually exclusive. As a leader, you can and must pursue both at the same time. Unless you do, you and your team or organization will never reach your full potential.
As I sat there pondering, it came to me that I would have to find a way to invest in new products, services, process improvement, geographical expansion, and so on. We would have to do both at the same time—win today and set ourselves up to win tomorrow.
看起来简单的道理，但非常有价值。精准的财务信息是做决策的基础，大多数情况稀里糊涂是个大事，财务是基础，做好也不易。 短期业绩和长期投资看起来是直接冲突的，这也正是Leader的核心工作，把看似冲突的目标完成好，这才有难度和挑战性。好多成就的取得，实际就是把看似冲突的事情变得不仅不冲突，还能齐头并进。
You could have lower inventory levels or high customer satisfaction, but not both. You had to choose between two seemingly conflicting things.
By striving to achieve two seemingly conflicting goals at the same time, instead of just focusing on one goal, we had prompted ourselves to think far more carefully about our business as a whole, and to pose questions nobody had asked before. This fairly intense intellectual process led us to reengineer a significant part of our business so that it functioned better across a range of metrics, not just one. Because our subpar process had been the underlying problem, and because we’d improved that process, we could sustain these gains over time.
如何实现看似冲突的目标，往往需要更高维度的思考，提出前所未有的问题。
It was clear to me: leadership was, at its core, an intellectual activity. Any ninny could improve a given metric—that didn’t take much thought or creativity. The best leaders acknowledge the tensions that pop up all the time in organizations, and they get better results by probing deeper to resolve them.
这段太有意义了。领导者主要靠智力积分，需要发挥聪明才智。那种给定资源、框架就能干的活儿不需要领导者。
To convey how I did that, let me introduce a leadership framework I have long used. As I see it, leadership boils down to three distinct tasks. First, leaders must know how to mobilize a large group of people. Second, they must pick the right direction toward which their team or organization should move. And third, they must get the entire team or organization moving in that direction to execute against that designated goal.
In truth, mobilizing people is only about 5 percent of the leader’s job. The best leaders dedicate almost all their time to the latter two elements: making great decisions and executing consistently with those decisions.
领导者就是5%的动员团队+35%的做争取决定+60%的坚持执行。
To remedy this problem, I spent a great deal of time defining what it meant to make decisions in an honest, informed, deliberate way. The first and best way to do that, I realized, was to model the process of critical inquiry myself. I’d make it clear that, yes, we were going to push ourselves to achieve two conflicting goals at the same time. But rather than simply dictate these goals, I’d start team members down the path to making a sound decision, asking them critical questions about their businesses and prompting them to generate creative solutions.
Absolutely. But, as the old saying goes, progress occurs because of the irrational demands of general management. I firmly believe that. Leaders must be demanding of their people, otherwise they’ll achieve only marginal results.
In challenging other leaders intellectually, I strove specifically to push them beyond the incrementalism that usually exists inside organizations—the tendency to consider the short-term implications of a decision exclusively and to ignore the long term.
创造性的方法实现看似冲突的两个目标，这才是领导者的能力所在。这个定义特别好。
I recommend ending every meeting by establishing the who, what, and when of any follow-up actions. Just because a team reaches consensus on an issue doesn’t mean a decision will actually be implemented. Be clear what the follow-up action is, and when it comes to the “who,” never accept “the team” as an answer. You want the name of someone who will stay awake nights to make sure the required work gets done. On “when,” remember Parkinson’s law, which says that work expands to fill the time allotted.
很好的会议建议。会议要有明确的跟进安排才有效率，才能保持决定的执行，将共识转化为行动。
To maintain the quality of our conversations, I made it clear we rewarded results, not effort. Too often individuals and teams want credit for working a hundred hours a week, irrespective of whether they actually accomplished anything. They confuse activity or effort with results, in the process distracting others from focusing on results and the actions required to achieve them. When people in my meetings tried to get credit for effort, I would always say something along the lines of, “That’s interesting but irrelevant. If there is no result, there is no story.” That might sound harsh, but it’s how the world works. I needed our people to understand that reality if we were to make quality decisions and execute well on them.
In one memorable meeting, members of our HR Benefits team kept arguing against a proposed change, prefacing their opinions with the words “I feel.” I ended the meeting by saying that if this decision came down to feelings, mine would win and we’d go with the proposed change.
奖励结果，而不是过程，这个时刻要坚持。以感觉来说事情的话，就先以我的感觉为准，会议结束。妙招！哈哈。
You might believe it’s too late to implement a specific long-term plan or strategy, and you might be right. But you probably aren’t. I often quoted a popular Chinese proverb when addressing our leaders: “The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is today.”
最好的行动时间就是当下。
The true magic of process improvement is that it enables an organization to evolve and stay flexible over time. When people think of Charles Darwin, they always associate him with the mantra of “survival of the fittest.” In my view, Darwin’s key point was survival of the most flexible.
Revolutionary change sounds good, but it’s not the optimal route to strong short- and long-term performance. If you go with revolutionary change, you’re taking a huge risk, because you can never be exactly sure what the future holds.
Determining the key factors of a culture isn’t rocket science. We defined our culture as underpinned by twelve key behaviors, including growth and customer focus, getting results, fostering teamwork, taking intelligent risks, being self-aware, and having a global mind-set. I used to tell my team all the time that these behaviors were not revolutionary.
过程变更更多需要渐进式的每日进化，慢慢的合适的留下，不合适的改掉，日积月累达到最优，而不是推到重来。
As we recognized, technological innovations don’t become commercially valuable without the injection of marketing expertise. By developing the technology symposium as an opportunity to bring both kinds of experts together, we hoped to get intellectual engagement between them happening earlier in the research and design process.
没有市场导向，技术创新也无法实现商业价值。
详细定义公司文化。霍尼韦尔应该聚焦的五项关键战略举措：增长（客户服务、全球扩张、技术）、生产力、现金、人才、经营赋能器/Organizational enablers （6 sigma；HOS、职能转变）。我们制定了员工的12个关键行为准则：聚焦客户和增长、有效领导Lead impactfully、结果导向Get results、成就他人Make people better、用户变革Champion change、促进团队合作Foster teamwork and diversity、全球思维Adopt a global mind-set、明智地冒险Take risks intelligently、拥有自我认知Be self-aware、有效沟通、整体思考Think in an integrative fashion、成为技术或职能专家。
值得学习和思考的文化，全世界的好企业很大程度上大同小异。
做有实质意义的绩效评估。我们还加强了定期的绩效评估，并将其纳入管理资源评估。这样做是为了告诉所有人：绩效至关重要。以前的绩效评估非常松散：接受评估的员工自己写报告，然后交给他们的上司修订审批。荒谬！我们要求所有的领导者都必须亲自对直接下属的绩效作出评估。我们在绩效评估中加入了对员工12个行为准则的测量，要求每位管理者对下属的评估都必须经过起上级的批准，实行两级考核。
在霍尼韦尔，任何级别的领导者，都需要避免成为我所谓的“业绩不佳者的守护神”。当发现有人无法正常履行其职责，我们就必须采取行动。传统的HR认为老板需要和表现不佳者合作，他们需要坐着这些人身边提供指导和监督。但在我们看来，这恰恰是老板最不应该做的事。
绩效考核才是真通点，主要还是过程没设计好，所以结果不敢太较真。
我们要求所有交易都必须满足三个具体的财务要求：第一，收购完成的第二年，必须能够增加霍尼韦尔的EPS；第二、IRR必须高于10%；三、完全投资回报率（考虑所有成本和现金流）在第五年必须超过10%。随着时间推移，我们逐渐认识到，如果我们的收购出价维持在EBITDA的11-12倍，同时运营成本降低6-8%，我们就能实现目标。考虑到成本协同因素，我们收购的实际成本往往是EBITDA的4-6倍，这就让收购变成了一个巨大的增长杠杆。
战略收购的财务要求。