Jim Collins: And as we stood back and looked at it we came to see that there are these stages. And I've been influenced by kind of a staging thing thinking that most people are at one time or another, their lives are touched by cancer, whether it be cancer, whether it be someone in their family, whether it be themselves, or somebody they know. And it's a staging process and the thing that's very scary is you can look healthy on the outside, but then be actually sick on the inside.
I started thinking that is what happens to companies too that actually you're looking healthy on the outside, but you're already in a stage of decline. And it actually turns out that, at least in the cases we studied and how they fell, that turns out to be the case. And we found these five stages and you don't actually visibly fall to where the rest of the world knows you're in trouble until stage four. So, in fact you do look healthy for the first three of five stages of your decline.
And then in that sense, I think it is a really sobering thing to look at, but very worthwhile to look at if your company had a spurt in growth and success.
The other thing that jumps out, I just want to briefly circle back to the cancer analogy.
Basically, the big difference, though, is that cancer's not self-inflicted. And self-destruction of an enterprise which brings the company down, or social system down -- that is self-inflicted at least through the lenses of the analysis that we did.
So, the first stage in that process is not success per se. The idea had been that success is inevitably followed by some sort of regression to the mean, and all sort of great periods of success are followed by decline and that's the inevitable cycle. Well, maybe over very long periods of time that might be true, but we have cases as we talked about that stretch back well over 100 years, maybe going on 200 years and that hasn't happened to them yet.
In capital systems in rapidly changing markets, in fact, there's no law that says, if you have been successful you're going to fall. It's when the successes are followed by a very high degree of arrogance (that failure can follow).
And I've always loved the definition of hubris that was articulated by a classics professor, J. Rufus Fears. Which is: "outrageous arrogance that inflicts suffering on the innocent." And of course, that goes back to a first perspective of the ancient Greeks. So, this idea of arrogance leading to decline is so universal that it goes back thousands of years in conceptual understanding. And certainly if you go back to very ancient literature, you see it. So, I think it's a very universal thing.
Now, in the realm of companies, what might you look at that might be indicators that you're in this stage of hubris and one of them is, if you just cease to be afraid. And if you don't always kind of feel like, our doom could be just around the corner. We may not be that good, we may have just been lucky and what happens if our luck runs out? If you begin to actually think that your success is deserved, that somehow it really was all you, that you really are that good. That you look in the mirror and you say, "we're successful because we're so great," then you're in trouble already.
I'm reminded of a conversation I had with one of chief executives in one of our studies who actually asked before we published the book, if we could take them out of the book. And I said, "You're one of the great companies, you're what we're studying." And he said, "Well, all the more reason I don't want to be in the book." And they were there because they made all the financial cuts and so forth.
But, it was very interesting because he felt that it would ultimately be a disservice to the company to be featured in a book about great companies. Because he said, "the moment you think you're great, you're not." By definition, the moment you think you're great, you're not.
So, I think the first step is to always kind of distrust everything good that has happened. And to realize that you may be actually weak, might have just been lucky, your luck's going to run its course. And you really weren't that good, and you had the wind at your back and all of these sorts of things, and basically (you'd better ) be fearful all the time.
The other things that we begin to see in terms of behavior patterns that would show up in this early stage... and I think there are two that are really crucial.
One is really becoming arrogant about what you do, rather than accepting and understanding why you do what you do, so you can change it.
And so, if you have a great company like Southwest Airlines, which has this thing about turning its airplanes around every 20 minutes. It's a very important part of what runs its system.
But, the critical thing is not to basically to get fixated on that, but to always be able to say, why? Why? Why do we do we do that?
Why do we have business divisions where business is driven by ethos at Johnson & Johnson?
Why do we grow our own managers at General Electric?
Why do we have all these financial things in place?
Why do we have a one-page memo at Procter & Gamble?
Why do we have a 15% rule at 3M, where people get 15% of their time to do creative things?
The point is not the doing of them; it's the understanding why you do them, and why they produce results.
So, that later we can say, that we're not just thinking we do these things, therefore we're successful. You look at them and can say, you know, conditions have changed; we ought to think about evolving perhaps, under what conditions do they no longer work?
A second thing that jumps out to me, and I think is one of the most interesting things about the analysis. So, entrepreneurs by nature love opportunity and they get all excited and want to go grow something new and do something aggressive and that's actually part of what makes something go. But, never forget that the next big thing is very likely the big thing you already have.
And that, if you've started to build something that's very successful, if you then basically say, ok that's successful. Now, what I'm going to do is to leap over here to a new adventure, a new journey, a new thing, and I'm just going to let this run on autopilot, which is a very arrogant thing to do, it's so successful I can just let it run.
So, in "How The Mighty Fall" we write about the demise of a Circuit City and Best Buy continuing to be successful. And the folks at Circuit City essentially started looking elsewhere for new adventures and new opportunities, not that those were bad. But what they find renewing themselves as doing something new and let the big thing run on autopilot. Which is very different than what Best Buy did, which is they said, well we may do some new things but the most important thing is to pay attention to the primary flywheel, which is their electronic super stars, and to keep it renewed.
So, if you inflict neglect of any kind, arrogant neglect of any kind, that is a very high level of hubris that will bring you down.
I would imagine in China, that there are some very successful entrepreneurs who have added new businesses and have lots of expansions and lot of energy and they're very opportunistic and they see something and they seize it and that's a big part of their success.
This isn't necessarily bad but if in that reaching for the new thing you neglect the core flywheel that made you successful. And what if that new thing turns out not to be as glittery as you thought and then you turn back and this one's in decline, you're in trouble. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：退一步看这种演变，就会看到这个过程是分阶段的。而我一直受到这种阶段性现象的影响。大多数人的生活中或早或晚都会接触到癌症，不论患病的是家庭成员、自己还是他们认识的人。这就是一个阶段性现象，令人害怕的是你外表看起来可能很健康，可事实上已经生病了。
于是我开始思索，对于企业而言情况是否也是如此：外表看起来一切正常，可是内部已经在走下坡路。我们的研究最终表明那些衰落的公司的确经历了这样的过程。而且我们发现了五个阶段，其中直到第四阶段，外界才会看出公司处于困境之中。也就是说在五个衰落阶段的前三个阶段，公司从外部看来都是健康的。
从这个意义上来讲，我认为如果在你公司成长很快的同时，仔细地进行自省是很很明智的做法，而且也会有好的回报。
还有一个问题，我简短地回到那个癌症类比上。
基本上来说，癌症和公司衰落的很大不同就在于，癌症不是由自身原因造成的。而如果一家公司的自我毁灭拖垮了公司，甚至社会体系——那么至少从我们的研究视角来看，这完全是咎由自取。
因此，衰落的第一阶段并不是（如人们所说的）成功本身。人们一直认为成功之后必然是某种倒退，各种伟大的成功时期之后都跟随着衰落期，而这是不可避免的周期性规律。也许从很长的发展时间看，这是有道理的。但是我们的案例中也有跨越上百年，甚至两百年，却仍然没有陷入这种周期的公司。
所以事实上在快速变化的资本市场，没有什么定律表明你成功之后必然会走下坡路。但是人们在成功之后若变得非常高傲自大（则的确可能招致失败）。
我一直很欣赏经典历史教授杰•鲁夫斯•菲尔斯对于骄傲自大的定义， 那就是“会对无辜者造成伤害的蛮横的傲慢态度”。当然了，这可以追溯到古希腊的早期思想。由此看来，这个“谦受益，满招损”的理念十分普遍，可以追溯到上千年前。当然了，如果你翻看十分古老的文学作品，也能看到这个理念。因此，我认为这是放之四海而皆准的。
说到公司环境，骄傲自大的状态是有迹可循的，其中一种迹象就是你变得无所畏惧。你不再有失败的危机感。不再怀疑自己是否真的强大、不再怀疑是否是好运气在帮忙。如果你开始真心认为你的成功是理所应当的，而且这种成功源自你自身的强大，当看着镜子中的自己，你说“我们很成功因为我们是伟大的”，那么你已经有麻烦了。
我想起了和一位研究对象公司总裁的对话。在我们的研究成果出版之前，他曾请求我们将有关该公司的内容撤掉。我说：“你们的公司是卓越的公司，正是我们研究的对象。”他说：“那么，我就更有理由拒绝出现在书中。”那家公司进行了很多诸如缩减财政开支的举措，因此榜上有名。
但是这个情况很有意思，这位总裁认为该公司出现在一本专门谈论卓越公司的书中，归根结底是对公司的某种伤害。因为他说：“当你认为自己很卓越时，你就不那么卓越了。”而这是卓越定义的一部分。
因此，第一步是总是应该对于已经获取的成功抱有一定的怀疑。认识到你的力量可能是薄弱的，可能只是走运，但是运气会用完。而你其实没那么厉害，只是身处顺境。总体来说，就是要心有所畏。
我们在（衰落的）早期阶段显现出来的行为模式中还会看到其他内容。我认为有两点至关重要。
第一就是对于自己所作所为非常自傲，而不是接受并理解你工作的原动力，从而可以设法改进做法。
如果你的公司像西南航空（Southwest Airlines）一样强大，每二十分钟就有一架飞机起降，那么如何运营这个系统是至关重要的。
但是关键在于不要拘泥于此，而是要不断提出问题，问自己“为什么？为什么？为什么我们要这样做？”
为什么在强生（Johnson & Johnson）这样的企业，是企业精神驱动着公司不同的业务部门？
为什么通用电气（General Electric）自己培养经理？
为什么我们有这样的财务规章制度？
为什么宝洁（Procter & Gamble）的工作备忘不能超过一页纸？
为什么在3M 公司，员工可以获得15%的工作时间用于自主创新？
关键不在于做这些事，而是在于明白为何而做、为何这样的做法会产生好的效果。
我们以后可以说，（当初）正因为我们并不只是盲目地工作，所以我们可以取得成功。而现在，你看着当初的做法，深知时过境迁了；而且我们知道在哪些情况下这些过去的手段会失去效力，所以应该开始考虑发展变革了。
此外第二点，也是这个分析中最有趣的一点。企业家们天生向往各种机遇，他们往往情绪激昂想要开拓新的业务，开创新的领域，这事实上也的确推动着业绩的增长。但是千万要铭记一点，对你来说下一个伟大的目标很可能是你现实中已经成功的业务。
如果你已经有了很成功的事业，心想，这已经算是成功了，我现在要跨越过去开始新的商业探险，眼下的业务完全可以让它自行运转，思量着“这么成功的业务，应该可以放任不管了”，那么你就太刚愎自用了。
因此，在《巨人如何倒下》一书中， 我们写到了电路城（Circuit City）公司的衰落和百思买（Best Buy）的持续成功。电路城在寻求新的冒险领域和机遇，这并没有错，但是他们将自我重塑看作是新的业务机会，而将已有的庞大业务撒手不管。这和百思买的做法完全不同。百思买认为，我们也许可以拓展新的业务，但是最重要的是立足于最基础的“飞轮”，也就是那些明星电子产品业务，使其保持推陈出新。
因此，一旦你有所疏忽，无论是什么类型的高傲自大态度都会将你拖垮。
在我的想象中，中国一些很成功的企业家创办了新的企业，进行了大量扩张，投入了很多精力。他们高度乐观，看到新机遇就牢牢抓住，这是助其成功的重要原因。
这种做法未必不可取，但是如果在探寻新领域的过程中放弃了自己得以起家的核心“飞轮”，而新领域不如预想的那样光鲜，回头发现传统业务已经衰落了，那么你就陷入了窘境。 |
