第十四讲：乱世之下，坚守原则为先
《财富》（中文版）
2011-03-15
如果你没有能够在核心的位置上引入正确的人，你一定会失败！只要你的核心业务没有改变，就不能停止对它的发展，否则一定会失败！如果你停止关注自己擅长并能创造附加价值的方向，你一定也会失败！
| 双语访谈实录： |
Thomas D. Gorman: You wrote an article in Inc. Magazine back in 1995 and in that you wrote, "In a world of constant change, the fundamentals are more important than ever." Does that still hold true? It's sort of obvious, but in today's environment, we have to ask.
Jim Collins: Yeah.
So, let's just first of all, let's just look at a number of, ones that we know, in the United States. Look up the Hewlett Packard turnaround under Mark Hurd. Did he go back to some very disciplined fundamentals?
Yes.
Let's look at the IBM turnaround under Lou Gerstner -- a, tremendous time of turmoil. I mean, the rise of distributed computing, the threat to the mainframe business. The challenges they had, they hadn't even come up with the idea of broad services yet. IBM on the cover of magazines as a dinosaur, did he go back to fundamentals of really great people, really good evidence-based analysis, deciding with great rigor how to allocate resources, building a team of 300?
Look at the challenges that Blake Nordstrom faced when he took over Nordstrom, a family business. And ask what it took to get them back on track. He had a company with a great history which had lost sight of some basic fundamentals, starting with things like great customer service and good systems. They were facing tremendous change in the retail industry, a world in complete flux, plus new competition like the Gap and whoever else. In the face of all that, he took them back to fundamentals.
|
高德思：你1995年曾在《Inc》杂志上写过一篇文章，你说，“在一个不断变化的世界中，基本原则比以往任何时候都更重要。”现在依然如此吗？这似乎是显而易见的，但是在今天的环境下，我们必须要在此提出这个问题。
吉姆·柯林斯：是的。
那么，首先我们来看看美国一些家喻户晓的公司。看看惠普在马克•赫德（Mark Hurd）的带领下如何逆转。他是否回归了一些严格的基本原则呢？
是的。
再看看郭士纳（Lou Gerstner）领导下IBM如何翻盘，当时情况非常混乱。我是指，分布式计算兴起，对主机业务构成了挑战。而IBM的挑战是：他们当时甚至还没有想到要广泛转向服务业。当时杂志封面都把IBM描述为恐龙，而郭士纳不也正是回归了那些最基本的原则吗？这些基本原则包括（引入）优秀的员工，进行以实证为基础的优秀分析，及其严格地决定如何分配资源，建立一个300人的团队等等。
看看布雷克•诺德斯特龙（Blake Nordstrom）掌管诺德斯特龙这家族公司的时候都面对了哪些挑战。然后想想他们采用了什么方法回到正确的发展轨道？诺德斯特龙公司有伟大的历史，但是此前忽略了一些最基本的原则，比如一切都要从卓越的客户服务开始，同时必须拥有优秀的系统。当时的零售业市场正发生着整体的变化，还诞生了新的竞争对手，比如Gap公司等等。面对这些，诺德斯特龙带领公司回归了基本原则。
| |
Jim Collins: Look at Xerox, when Anne Mulcahy took over. Everything was beginning to fall apart around her. The world was in flux, their technology being outpaced. Did she go back to fundamentals? Yes.
All of these cases happened in times of great turmoil, tremendous change, and difficult situations. So you ask: did these companies get into trouble because they abandoned the fundamentals; and did they get out of trouble by returning to the fundamentals? And the answer to both questions is: yes!
I cannot escape the verdict of history.
Will there be new fundamentals out there, and some things we don't understand yet? Yes, of course.
But if we consider the verdict of history -- business history -- and we now have over 6,000 years of combined company history in our database. And we ask this one question, a multiple choice question, about how these companies got into trouble.
The choice is between answer "A", because they failed to embrace new things;
Or answer "B", because they lost the fundamental disciplines that we've known up to this point.
The correct answer is "B".
So the verdict of history is "B"; that they lost the fundamental disciplines.
There may be things we don't know yet, but we know for certain that if you grow beyond your ability to put the right people in the key seats, you will fail. If you fail to renew your core business -- as long as it's still your core business -- you'll fail. If you lose focus on what you can be the best at, where you can add value, have passion for -- and maybe a 4th circle -- you'll fail. We know these things.
There are two people in my world whom I have always looked up to: Peter Drucker and Michael Porter. If you read their works, both emphasize over and over again the importance of certain key points. Does Michael Porter ever say that the "5 Forces" are obsolete? No, just that we've forgotten them. Does Peter Drucker ever say that "Management by Objectives" is obsolete? No, just that we've forgotten about it. I very much believe that our first task is to make sure we get our basics right. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：再来看看安妮•马尔卡希（Anne Mulcahy）领导下的施乐公司（Xerox）。当时她的公司正处在分崩离析的状态。而外部环境在变迁。此外，他们的技术能力也被其他公司超越了。那么，安妮•马尔卡希回过头去抓住最基本的原则了吗？是的。
他们的共同点是都处于混乱的年代，巨大的变革，或是艰苦的境遇之中。由此想到：他们有没有因为放弃基本原则而陷入麻烦呢？是否又因为回归了最基本原则而走出了困境呢？两个问题的答案均为：是的！
我无法忘掉这些历史事实。
那么接下来是否会产生一些新的基本原则呢？其中是否有一些会超出了我们的理解范畴呢？是的，当然会的。
如果我们以史为鉴，尤其是谈到商业历史，我们现在有合计超过6000年的公司历史保存在资料库中。基于这些（历史），我们会问自己一个问题，一个多项选择题：这些公司是如何陷入困境的？
A. 因为他们没有能够把握住新的机遇。
B. 因为他们没有坚持我们当前所认识到的基本原则。
正确答案是B。
历史告诉我们的回答是B：他们忽略了最基本的原则。
虽然对我们来说未知因素尚存，但是可以确定的是：如果你超出了自身的能力而没有能够在核心的位置上引入正确的人，你一定会失败！只要你的核心业务没有改变，就不能停止对它的发展，否则一定会失败！如果你停止关注自己擅长、有附加价值、并且有热情的方向（也许还有第四个环；译著：参考三环理论），你一定也会失败！我们对此可以确定。
世界上有两位我一直很敬仰的人：彼得•德鲁克（Peter Drucker）和迈克尔•波特（Michael Porter）。读了他们的作品以后发现，他们都反反复复地强调了一些核心观点的重要性。迈克尔•波特会认为“五种竞争力量”的理论过时了吗？不会。但是我们忘了这五种力量。德鲁克会说“目标管理”过时了吗？不。而我们又忘记了这些原则。所以我非常坚信我们的首要任务是确保把握最基本的原则。 | |
| >>显示全部 |
