????我們生活在一個紛繁多變的世界里，越來越難以根據過去預測未來。變革是多方面的、無情的、顛覆性的，有時甚至是令人震驚的。

????在變革這個大漩渦中，長期存在的政權、古老的機構和歷經百年的商業模式都將面臨風險。如今，對于所有的組織來說，最重要的問題就是：我們能否跟上時代變遷的腳步？

????對于大多數組織機構來說，答案都是否定的。長江后浪推前浪，變革大潮中的弄潮兒往往是后起之秀，而不是老牌巨頭——是谷歌（Google），而不是微軟（Microsoft）；是現代汽車（Hyundai），而不是克萊斯勒（Chrysler）；是蘋果（Apple），而不是諾基亞（Nokia）；是亞洲航空（Air Asia），而不是日本航空（JAL），諸如此類，不勝枚舉。

????然而，面對不斷變化的世界，暫時勝出的行業先鋒與他們曾經擊敗的對手一樣脆弱。戰略實施周期日益縮短，成功變得前所未有的短暫——麥肯錫（McKinsey）2005年的一份研究報告表明：龍頭企業（在某個行業營收排名前20%的企業）在五年內被取而代之的可能性為30%。這個概率是幾十年前的三倍多。

????我們唯一能確定的預測就是：將來，也許很快，任何一家企業都不得不以前所未有的方式進行革新。

????問題是，企業成立的初衷并不是為了去適應變化。一百年前的管理先驅們想到的只是創立紀律嚴明、而不是富有彈性的公司。他們明白，程序化是效率的源泉。而適應性則需要偶爾放棄這些程序的意愿——大多數企業很少有這樣的激勵機制。

????這也就是為什么變革往往只會以兩種形式出現：微不足道的變革和元氣大傷的變革。回顧普通公司的歷史，我們會發現它們長期進行著微不足道的增量變革，偶爾因出現危機而被動進行大舉變革。為什么有的公司一定要在迷失方向、市值蒸發數十億美元后才開始認真思考變革呢？

????We live in a world that seems to be all punctuation and no equilibrium, where the future is less and less an extrapolation of the past. Change is multifaceted, relentless, seditious, and occasionally shocking.

????In this maelstrom, long-lived political dynasties, venerable institutions, and hundred-year-old business models are all at risk. Today, the most important question for any organization is this: are we changing as fast as the world around us?

????For most organizations, the answer is no. In industry after industry, it's the insurgents, not the incumbents, who've been riding the waves of change -- it's Google (GOOG), not Microsoft (MSFT); Hyundai, not Chrysler; Apple (AAPL), not Nokia (NOK); Air Asia, not JAL; and so on.

????The vanguard, though, are just as vulnerable to change as their victims. Strategy life cycles have been shrinking, and success has never been more fleeting -- a 2005 McKinsey study indicated that market leaders (defined as being in the top quintile by revenue in a given industry) stand a 30% chance to be "toppled" within 5 years. This probability is over three times what it used to be a few decades ago.

????The only thing that can be safely predicted is that sometime soon your organization will be challenged to change in ways for which it has no precedent.

????Problem is, our organizations were never built to be adaptable. Those early management pioneers, a hundred years ago, set out to build companies that were disciplined, not resilient. They understood that efficiency comes from routinizing the nonroutine. Adaptability, on the other hand, requires a willingness to occasionally abandon those routines -- and in most organizations there are precious few incentives to do that.

????That's why change tends to come in only two varieties: the trivial and the traumatic. Review the history of the average corporation and you'll discover long periods of incremental fiddling punctuated by occasional bouts of frantic, crisis-driven change. Why should an organization have to lose its way and surrender billions of dollars in market value before getting serious about change?