企业巨头缘何应变乏力

Q168

上周，我给MBA班的学生上了一节案例分析课，探讨诺基亚（Nokia）的衰败。我问他们：“为什么诺基亚在短短不到五年的时间里，从曾经的行业领袖堕入现在如此落魄的境地？”学生们的答案不外乎以下几点：
    有人说：“诺基亚与消费者的需求脱节了。”没错，但有意思的是，在本世纪初，诺基亚正是因它以客户为中心的营销和设计能力而广受赞誉（这一点似乎无需赘述）。
    也有人说：“他们没能开发出必要的技术。”不尽然，诺基亚在iPhone上市前就已经有了一款触屏手机样机。而且他们当时的智能手机技术要胜过上世纪90年代的苹果（Apple）、三星（Samsung）和谷歌（Google）等公司。
  Last week, I taught a case study on the decline of Nokia to my MBA students. I asked them, "Why did Nokia fall from industry leadership to also-ran status in the space of less than five years?" Their answers were predictable:
    ? "They lost touch with their customers." True, but almost tautological -- and interesting to note that this is the same Nokia that in the early 2000s was lauded for its customer-centric marketing and design capabilities.
    ? "They failed to develop the necessary technologies." Not really true -- Nokia (NOK) had a prototype touchscreen before the iPhone was launched, and its smartphones were technologically superior to anything Apple (AAPL), Samsung, or Google (GOOG) had to offer during the late 1990s.

Q168

还有人说：“他们没有意识到竞争已经从硬件之争转到手机生态系统竞争。”同样，也不尽然。“生态系统”之战从本世纪初就开始了，当时诺基亚联合爱立信（Ericsson）、摩托罗拉（Motorola）以及Psion数字技术公司建立了塞班系统的技术平台，用以牵制微软（Microsoft）。
    那个时期，诺基亚人已经意识到了周围发生的变化，他们内部不乏尖端技术和出色的营销人员。困难在于，诺基亚一直无法将这种意识转变成行动，缺乏果断坚定推动变革的能力。
? "They didn't recognize that the basis of competition was shifting from the hardware to the ecosystem." Again, not really true -- the "ecosystem" battle began in the early 2000s, with Nokia joining forces with Ericsson (ERIC), Motorola, and Psion to create Symbian as a platform technology that would keep Microsoft (MSFT) at bay.
    Through this period, the people at Nokia were aware of the changes going on around them, and they were never short of leading-edge technology or clever marketers. Where they struggled was in converting awareness into action. The company lacked the capacity to change in a decisive and committed way.

Q168

企业巨头无法随着环境的变化而灵活变通，这一直是商业界的一个基本难题。有时候，一项真正“颠覆性”技术的到来能摧毁整个行业，如数字成像技术。但失败的根本原因往往平淡无奇，而且可以避免。它们是：对已开发出的新技术置之不理；对客户需求变化的傲慢漠视；对新竞争对手的自得松懈。
  The failure of big companies to adapt to changing circumstances is one of the fundamental puzzles in the world of business. Occasionally, a genuinely "disruptive" technology, such as digital imaging, comes along and wipes out an entire industry. But usually the sources of failure are more prosaic and avoidable -- a failure to implement technologies that have already been developed, an arrogant disregard for changing customer demands, a complacent attitude towards new competitors.

Q168

在这些情况下，失败的最终责任在于企业的CEO。但如果要避免这些失败，很明显不能单靠CEO一个人。公司的全体员工都应该留心业界的变化，主动推进新想法，挑战现有的工作方式。做到这一点显然并不容易，但如果能对问题有更好的理解，就更有可能进行改进。
    那么在企业中应该注意哪些可能影响应变的障碍呢？我列出以下“五大类”：
In such cases, the ultimate responsibility for failure rests with the CEO. But if such failures are to be avoided, it is clear that the CEO cannot do it on his or her own. People across the firm must keep their eyes open to changes in their business, and to take responsibility to push their new ideas and challenge existing ways of working. Obviously, this isn't easy to do, but if there is a better understanding of the problem then there is a chance for improvement.
    So what are the enemies of agility you should be looking out for in your organization? Here are my "big five":

Q168

僵化的管理制度。大公司都是通过管理制度运行的，这些制度涵盖预算与规划、绩效管理以及接班人计划等。这些制度的建立使工作简单有序，但也同时不断自我强化，变得根深蒂固。例如，几年前，我受邀出席为一家大型出版公司举办的网络研讨会。他们让我签一份长达20页的合同，才允许我用一小时的时间介绍我的研究。这么做的原因并不难理解，他们那墨守成规的图书出版流程完全是“无人驾驶”模式，最大化地扼杀了基于网络的各种新计划可能带来的生机。那么该怎样应对这样的僵化管理制度呢？首先，找出、剔除那些不再创造价值的制度，然后在现有制度框架以外试验所有的新计划。
Ossified management processes. Things get done in big firms through management processes -- budgeting and planning, performance management, succession planning. These processes create simplicity and order, but they also become entrenched and self-reinforcing. One example: I was asked to put on a webinar for a big publishing company a couple of years ago, and they asked me to sign a 20-page contract for the right to talk about my research for an hour. The reason wasn't hard to fathom -- their antediluvian book-publishing process was running on autopilot, and doing its best to suck the life out of any new Web-based initiatives. What's the solution here? First, identify and kill off the processes that no longer add any value. Second, pilot all new initiatives outside the existing processes.

Q168

陈旧狭隘的指标。虽然所测即所得，但我们测量标准的更新却不够频繁，因此出现了大量盲点。等到诺基亚开始把苹果和谷歌当作竞争对手看待的时候，已经太晚了。我的一个朋友在本世纪初是英国一家大型全国性报社的负责人，他花了一年多时间才说服同事把谷歌加到竞争对手名单里，这家报社用竞争对手表现作为检测自我表现的基准。那么该怎样制定指标呢？把相关市场定义得越广泛越好，这样你的市场份额就会更少。另外，对消费者行为要特别仔细地衡量——他们的忠诚度是否降低了？转向了哪些品牌？为什么会发生转变？
Old and narrow metrics. What gets measured gets done, but we don't refresh our choices of measures frequently enough, and we end up with massive blind spots. Nokia didn't think of Apple and Google as competitors until it was too late. A friend of mine took the reins at a major national newspaper in the U.K. in the early 2000s, and it took him more than a year to persuade his colleagues that Google should be added to the list of competitors they used to benchmark their performance. The solution here? Define your relevant market as widely as possible, so that your market share is as low as possible. And measure customer behavior very carefully -- are they defecting? To whom? And why?

Q168

无权的一线员工。对行业环境变化的第一手卓识来自于前线员工——销售员、与第三方共事的研发人员以及采购经理人。但他们的想法很多没有提出，即使提出的那部分，也总是淹没于管理层需要注意的其他纷杂事务中。解决这个问题方法相当复杂，但应该包含依托于技术的系统，能将一线信息与公司高层快速共享；同时还要有非正式渠道和跨部门特别小组来应对具体威胁和机遇。
A disenfranchised front line. The first insights into changes in your business environment come from the people on the "front line" -- salespeople, developers working with third parties, purchasing managers. But their voice -- if it is raised at all -- typically gets drowned out among all the others clamoring for executive attention. The solutions here are far from easy, but they include technology-based systems for sharing front-line information quickly with those at the top, as well as informal networks and cross-cutting task forces designed to address specific threats and opportunities.

Q168

缺乏多样性。诺基亚的高级管理人员都是差不多年龄和背景的芬兰人，这绝对影响了他们对不断变化的经营环境的理解力。当然，我们都会觉得，和世界观相似的人工作更愉快，结果就出现了不可避免的盲点。如何解决这个问题？录用参照系与我们不同的员工，或者起码要想办法把他们的见解拿来讨论。上世纪90年代，印孚瑟斯（Infosys）实施了一个名为“青年之声”的项目，以期使平均年龄约为50岁的管理团队人员能听到30岁以下员工的见解。
Lack of diversity. Nokia's top executives were all Fins of similar age and background, and this surely hampered their ability to make sense of their changing business environment. Of course, we are all more comfortable working with people with similar worldviews and as a result we end up with inevitable blind spots. The solution? Hire people with different frames of reference from our own, or at least find a way to bring their point of view to the table. In the late 1990s, Infosys (INFY) had a program called "Voice of Youth" designed to bring the insights of the under-30 crowd to the attention of the 50-something executive team.

Q168

对失败不够宽容。当一个公司越来越大，越来越成功时，就会越厌恶风险。管理者们说他们想创新产品、创新服务，但他们指望所有的尝试都能成功。不用说，这种态度会导致员工过于谨慎呆板。这个问题的解决方法很清晰：营造一种鼓励尝试、宽容错误的文化。谷歌、亚马逊（Amazon）以及在线影片租赁商Netflix都是很好的例子——他们都有过失败的产品，但大家都能接受，把它们当做尝试的一部分。Intolerance of failure. The bigger and more successful a firm becomes, the more risk-averse it becomes. Executives say they want innovative new products and services, but they expect them all to succeed. And, needless to say, this attitude breeds caution and rigidity. The solution here is clear: you need to find ways to develop a culture that encourages trial and error. Google, Amazon (AMZN), and Netflix (NFLX) are all great examples -- they have all had their share of dud products, but everyone accepts them as part of the package.
你认为建立一个适应性强的企业会有哪些障碍？来分享你的故事吧！What do you think gets in the way when it comes to creating an adaptable organization? Share your story -- and help us hack HR by joining the Building an Adaptability Advantage hackathon (registration required), a joint production of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) in the UK and the MIX.
    Julian Birkinshaw is Professor of Strategic and International Management at London Business School. He is co-Founder and Research Director of the Management Lab (MLab).