Jim Collins: Now in some cases, it might just be simply like, when William McKnight was building 3M, don't you just think that solving problems with innovation is just cool? If you would have just sat down and said, how is that going to transform the world? He would say, I have no idea, all I know is that we could make this amount of money that doesn't involve our creativity, or this amount of money using our creativity. We just think that using the creativity is really cool. So, that's what we're going to do. If we could make more money in uncreative ways, we wouldn't want to do it. Because creativity is what it's about.
You go to folks at Nike and are they out to transform the way the world works? No, they just are really turned on by competing and winning. And when they come from athletic backgrounds, and they love to crush competitors, and feel the joy of winning, that's not necessarily transforming the world, but it is very purposeful.
Then you have other companies like, Sony, in its early days. Here they started out in a bombed out building, 1945. Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka, came of age when Japan was on its back. Devastated, humiliated, and they said, our purpose is ultimately to change the image of Japanese products around the world as being of poor quality. And to elevate the Japanese national culture and status. And they were talking about this in a bombed out building in downtown Tokyo in 1945. Sure they initially made products like the rice cooker. Whatever. But, in a broader sense, theirs was a higher purpose related very much to their nation.
And some cases you take say, Avon, Andrea Jung talks about what Avon is about. Avon for her is not about cosmetics, Avon, is about opportunity for women around the world, in places where they might not have entrepreneurial opportunities. And now they have a chance to have a sense of self-sufficiency and to feel better about themselves.
Or, you take somebody like, even the building of the Marriott, a simple hotel chain, which started out in the restaurant business. Go all the way back to the early days of it... Willard Marriott, talking about what it was about, said, "Come to think of it, what's it really about is helping people who are away from home feel like they're among friends when they want it. We did that in restaurants and then we did it in hotels."
So, the idea is, sometimes it might be a very long shot that we're going to change the face of the way we deal with our environment, or rock climbing or whatever else we do.
And we're going to pioneer organic cotton to prove it can be done. And then you got someone like Sony elevating the Japanese national status. And then you got Nike, crushing competitors and that's what it's really about. If we could make more money without winning, we wouldn't do it, because we like to win. And for other people, it's unleashing their creativity.
So the point is though, that in all of these cases in whatever it is, they had something, if you would have said to them, (they would have answered that) well, kind of that's what we're all about.
To the question of: "Is it just about maximizing shareholder value?" They would have said: "Is that really what gets me, provides any sense of meaning to my life, compared to crushing competitors?" It Or, providing an opportunity for women in some way around the world. Elevating the Japanese national stature, or simply doing real cool creative things.
I do not believe that, Steve Jobs is just about maximizing shareholder wealth, I just don't believe it.
And so, that's very powerful if you have it and it's very authentic, and it can be very enduring for your company.
Because it's like a star on the horizon and no matter what mountains you climb, you've got that star to look back to.
Now, a company that might have had it, so there's a long preamble to that, it's important.
One of my favorite examples of this is Nucor; now their purpose wasn't to make the world a better place through steel. What it really was, was that Ken Iverson, had a visceral hatred of hierarchy and of treating people in a managerial class in a way superior to that of the working classes.
He just thought that this was wrong. He hated it, he felt it was demeaning to people, he felt it destroyed people, so when he began building his little division at Nucor, it was called the ball craft division.
He started creating this culture and it was an all around, in an egalitarian sense, we're all in this together, we all share in this, and by the way if we have a bad year, managers are going to do worst. We're going to remove as many class distinctions as possible. And it was this very interesting, almost 'all in it together' meets capitalism, sort of feeling. It grew out of Iverson's sense of outrage at the demeaning way in which working class people were treated. So, Iverson was going to create something separate then, but it was just his division, and the rest of the company didn't have this at all.
It was in doing all these things, radio isotopes things and whatever else, that the company was going bankrupt, so the Board turns and just says, who's doing well? Ken Iverson is down there running this very successful division and they go: "Ken, you?" "You're CEO."
So, they throw him into the CEO role and what does he do, he brings that sense of outrage, and that sense of egalitarianism, which is really that productive egalitarianism that would end up winning.
And he fusses it into the whole company and today, that was 1965, so 35 years later, they have not had an unprofitable year in the steel business from that time, which is remarkable.
They became the number one, most profitable steel company in America, starting from the base of this disaster. And they have never lost that egalitarian spirit, which came to life in a lot of different ways.
And what he did was he brought that and it became the basis that transformed the culture. It was not there before; the company was founded in 1920- something. It went all the way to 1965 without having it and Iverson put it in and since then, it's been one of the greats.
One of the great success stories in America in an industry that we largely haven't done well in. Is another way of stating it that, if the highest purpose or the sole purpose of the management philosophy of a company is profit and cash flow, they're going to be consigned to mediocrity or, perhaps goodness but never get beyond that?
I think what you have to have is, what Jerry Porras and I described as genius in the end, these people are relentless in each of their specific cases.
David Packard, he was very clear that Hip's fundamental role should be to make some technical contributions that somehow would make things work better. And if it wasn't a technical contribution, HP shouldn't do it, period. And he had a number of other things that later became HP hallmarks.
But, if you have to look at David Packard's sort of view of things, he would say, oh, and by the way, we also have an enormously profitable, high cash flow business because we're not going to have debt. And we have to fund from our cash flow because we do not want to be beholden to our debt holders.
So, you put these two together and say, which one was Hewlett Packard? And if inventory started to get bloated, he'd come down on you. And there's this one amazing story, where there this guy who ran an HP division, who later went off and ran another company, this person ended up in the hospital (he had gotten in a car crash) and Packard calls him up and says, don't worry we'll take care of you, we'll take care of your family, it was sort of the benevolent side of David Packard and very much part of the HP way.
Well, this same person was giving a presentation about why they weren't quite yet number one in a particular area of their business. And Packard just stood up and said very directly, you will find a way to be number one in this business, with at least a 10% profit, with robust cash flow, or I will put somebody in the seat who can.
So know if you were to ask, which is David Packard? Well, he was absolutely both right up to the end. This idea that somehow, as Peter Drucker liked to put it, and I've always loved this phrase. "Good intentions are no excuse for incompetence."
If it's only just making money that will never make a great company, an enduring company. It can produce some success in the short term. Also, if there's only just the purpose but no hard nosed results, you're also not going to be a great company. It's when you can put those two together, that you have something that is very, very hard to beat and very durable.
Then, going back to the Nucor case, the egalitarian, yes, and by the way, they have not missed being profitable every single year. No one's done that in the steel business, but they have. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：有时候这个道理显而易见，回到威廉•麦克奈特建立3M公司的时代，你不觉得（像他这样）用创新思维来解决问题很酷吗？如果问他，你这样做将如何改变世界？他会说：我不知道，我只知道，如果不创新我们可以赚这么多钱，而在创新之下，我们可以赚那么多钱。我们只是觉得发挥创造力是很酷的事。所以这就是我们未来的方向。用陈旧的方法即便赚到更多的钱，我们也不会那样去做。因为我们需要的就是创造力。
你问耐克（Nike）的员工，他们是要改变世界吗？不，他们会说只是喜欢竞争和赢的感觉。如果他们有运动员的背景，喜欢击败对手，享受胜利的喜悦，那么他们未必是在改变世界，但是仍然有他们明确的目标。
还有早期的索尼（Sony）公司。1945年，这些公司在废墟上建立。当年日本整个国家处于低谷之时，盛田昭夫（Akio Morita）和井深大（Masaru Ibuka）正值当年。 日本国土满目疮痍、国民饱受侮辱，他们说：“我们的目的就是要彻底改变日本产品质量差的国际形象。”从而提升日本的民族文化和地位。1945年，他们在东京市区一幢被炸弹夷平的楼房废墟里谈论着这些话题。当然随后，他们在最初的阶段只是制造电饭煲之类的家电用品。然而，从更广的意义上看，他们拥有的是与民族利益相关的崇高目标。
还有其他案例，比如雅芳（Avon）。钟彬娴（Andrea Jung）是这么讲述雅芳的：雅芳对她来说不是化妆品，而是给全世界的女性带来机遇， 在许多地方，女性没有创业的机会。现在她们有机会自力更生，活得更自信。
万豪酒店（Marriott）也是一个例子。万豪其实就是连锁酒店，最开始靠餐厅起家。我们回顾一下它的早期历史……威拉德•万豪（Willard Marriott）在谈到万豪酒店时说：“想想吧，万豪的意义在于让身处异乡的人们在需要的时候感觉到朋友就在身边。我们开餐厅时这样，做酒店也一样。”
也就是说，我们改变环境是要冒风险的，不管是攀岩还是其他事情。
我们要做有机棉的先锋，证明其完全可行。我们看到索尼正在提升日本的国家地位。之后又看到了耐克如何让几乎所有竞争对手臣服。此言不虚。如果在不去征服对手的情况下赚点钱，我们是不会感兴趣的。因为我们喜欢赢的感觉。同时，对其他人来说，这样（的态度）可以让他们释放自身的创造力。
所以，我想说的是，在所有这些案例中，他们都有一些更高的目标，如果你问他们，（他们会说）这就是我们所追求的。
面对“你是否只追求股东价值最大化”这个问题。他们会说：“和击败竞争者相比，这并不能令我着迷，并不能给我的生活带来更多意义。”相比之下，我们更向往用某种方式为全世界的女性提供机会（意指雅芳）；更愿意帮助提升日本的国家地位，或是做些更有创造性的、更酷的事。
我不相信史蒂夫•乔布斯（Steve Jobs）仅仅是为了股东价值最大化，我决不相信。
所以这种力量很强大，也很真实，对公司来说是非常持久的动力。
因为它就像地平线上的星辰，无论你攀登哪座山峰，都能够回望到那颗星。
一家公司可能曾经拥有过这种高尚的目标，而这一切背后有着很深的渊源，这非常重要。
我最爱举的一个例子就是纽克钢铁（Nucor）；他们的目标不是通过生产钢铁让世界变得更好。真正的原因是肯•埃弗森（Ken Iverson）对等级制度深恶痛绝，憎恨管理层用高高在上的方式对待工人阶级。
他认为这就是错的。他憎恨这样的态度，觉得这是一种侮辱，这是对人性的摧毁，所以当他在纽克内部组建自己的部门时，将其取名为制球部门。
他开始创造这种球形文化，表达全面平等的文化。我们在同一条船上，有福同享，有难同当。要是哪年业绩不好，经理受到的负面影响最大。我们要尽力消除一切阶级差别。这是一种耐人寻味的情感，他们用“风雨同舟”的态度挑战了资本主义。这种情感源于埃弗森的最初的愤怒，他为工人阶级遭受耻辱待遇感到忿忿不平。所以埃弗森才要建立一个不一样的部门，但这仅限于他自己的那个部门，公司其余的部门依然等级森严。
纽克同时也做放射性同位素等其它业务，结果濒临破产。当时董事会想看看哪个部门的业绩更好，发现肯•埃弗森的部门做得有声有色，非常成功。他们便对肯说：“现在你就是CEO了。”
他们把他推到了CEO的位置上，他接下来怎么做呢？他继续推行由愤怒而生的平等意识，而正是这份催生生产力的平等意识最终助他获得了成功。
他将这种平等意识融入整个公司文化。当年是1965年，如今已过去35年。自那时起，该公司没有一年是不盈利的，这对钢铁企业来说是惊人的业绩。
他们从灾难性的起点出发，成为美国排名第一、盈利能力最强的钢铁公司。他们从未失去那份平等的精神，并以各种方式加以体现。
是他（埃弗森）引入了这种精神，并以此为基础彻底改变了公司文化。而该公司之前并没有这种精神；纽克成立于20世纪20年代。直到1965年之前，他们一直没有这种精神。是埃弗森为公司注入了这种精神。自那之后，纽克就成了伟大的公司之一。
美国的钢铁企业通常并不成功。这是否从另一个角度说明了：如果一家公司管理思想中的最高目标或唯一目标仅仅是利润和现金流，那么就只能是一家平庸或至多是一家优秀的公司，而永远不可能成为卓越的公司？
我认为你必须拥有杰里•波拉斯（Jerry Porras）和我称之为位于“末梢的天才们”，这些人在各自的领域至臻至善。
大卫•帕卡德（David Packard）非常清楚，惠普最根本的职责是在技术上做出贡献，让产品运转得更好。如果不能在技术上做出贡献，惠普就不应该去做，这无须多言。他的许多其他特质后来也成了惠普的标志。
但是，如果你听取帕卡德讲述他的观点，他会说，他们的企业也有很高的利润和现金流，因为我们不愿意负债。我们要从现金流中获得资金，因为我们不想仰债务人之鼻息。
把这两点放在一起看，哪个才是惠普（的文化）呢？一方面，如果库存积压，他会来责备你。同时也有这么一个令人吃惊的故事，有一个惠普的部门负责人辞职开了另一家公司，这个人（遭遇车祸）住进了医院，帕卡德打电话给他说：“别担心，我们会照顾你，照顾你的家人。”这同时是帕卡德仁慈善良的一面，惠普的处事方式也大致如此。
好了，还是这个人（指惠普的部门负责人），在做一个演讲，讲为什么惠普在某个特定领域的业务中没有做到第一。此时帕卡德马上站起来，非常直接地说，你必须想办法在这一业务上做到第一，要有不低于10%的利润和强劲的现金流，否则我就让更有能力的人顶替你。
所以，如果你问：究竟哪个是大卫•帕卡德呢？他两者都是，而且都表现得很彻底。我一直非常喜欢彼得•德鲁克说过的一句话：“良好的意图并不是无能的借口。”
（一方面，）如果只是为了赚钱，永远都不会有卓越和长久的公司。或许在短期会获得一些成功。但是如果只有目的，而没有实际结果，也不可能成为卓越的公司。只有将两者结合，才能使公司屹立不倒、经久不衰。
再回到纽克钢铁的例子，它一方面拥有平等的精神，而同时公司没有一年是不盈利的。没有其他的钢铁企业做到这一点，他们却做到了。 |
