????我們大多數人都可以輕而易舉地舉出幾個下面這樣的例子，有些公司未能全力以赴抓住重大的發展機遇【比如英特爾（Intel）之于移動設備芯片】，原有業務難以為繼但卻拖延不決【比如柯達（Kodak）之于數字攝影】，難以割舍鐘愛但日漸衰亡的策略【比如通用汽車（General Motors）之于過于龐大的品牌組合】。我遇到過的大多數戰略慣性案例中，人力資源(HR)部門并不是罪魁禍首，但也不是推動變革的最強大力量。

????我們與英國特許人事和發展協會(CIPD)的朋友們發起了一項在線問題解答活動，我們相信HR能在加強公司適應變革方面起到非常積極的作用。

????我一直喜愛拉爾夫?沃爾多?愛默生的這句名言：“事物總是有兩方面——過去和將來，靜與動。”問題是，HR部門屬于哪一方？假設拿下面這個問題來問貴公司里的每個人：

????下面兩種描述哪一種能最準確地描述貴公司的HR部門？

????1.HR是促進變革的強大力量。

????2.HR是變革的主要阻礙。

????如果貴公司有90%以上的員工都選擇1，無疑是最理想的結果。但我懷疑如果你今天進行這項調查，不太可能會是這樣的結果。我們首先需要明確一點，我們試圖要建立的是什么樣的組織？

????我所說的策略適應性不同于咨詢界人士和商界大佬常常談到的經營靈活性。經營靈活性意味著能在現有商業模式的框架下，對需求變化和客戶偏好做出迅速反應。體現經營靈活性的一個典型案例是大眾集團（Volkswagen Group）的新MQB(模塊化橫向矩陣)生產策略。 通過MQB架構，大眾集團實現了在少量平臺上生產眾多品牌車型(奧迪,西雅特,斯柯達和VW)的目標。

????相比之下，策略適應性指的是一家公司重塑自身業務理念的能力。比如，我們都體驗過亞馬遜(Amazon)的經營靈活性——它能從幾萬、幾十萬庫存單位中快速提取出每位客戶的訂單產品，一兩天之內就能送到。但談到策略適應性，亞馬遜也是一個值得研究的案例。亞馬遜在短短這些年的歷史中已經經歷了從圖書銷售網站到在線零售平臺，再到數字媒體巨頭的轉型，最近又成為了云計算領域的領先者。

????亞馬遜非常獨特的一點在于它商業模式的變革并不是因為迫于危機。通常，重大的策略轉變都是受到財務危機或連年回報率低迷的推動。大企業中深層變革的發生往往類似于治理不善的獨裁政權——難得一見，姍姍來遲，無法遏制；而且原因也相似——從上至下的權力架構抑制了從下至上的變革。很多時候，等到一個問題變得大到足以引起CEO注意時，不管是機會、還是威脅，要想行動都已為時太晚，只能被動應對。等到谷歌(Google)高層驚覺必須認真對待社交媒體時，Facebook早已建立起了近乎無法超越的領先地位。絕大多數企業“變革”計劃都是“追趕”計劃。

????Most of us have no trouble coming up with examples of companies that failed to mobilize around a major new opportunity (Intel (INTC) and chips for mobile devices), or procrastinated when confronted with a wrenching discontinuity (Kodak and digital photography), or struggled to let go of a beloved but dying strategy (General Motors (GM) and its bloated brand portfolio). In most of the cases of strategic inertia I've come across, HR wasn't the primary culprit, but neither was it a powerful force for change.

????We've launched a hackathon with our friends at CIPD because we believe HR can play a hugely positive role in helping companies to become adaptable at their core.

????I've always loved this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson: "There are always two parties -- the party of the past and the party of the future, the establishment and the movement." The question is, to which party does the HR function belong? Imagine posing the following survey question to everyone in your company:

????Which of these two statements most accurately describes the HR function in this organization?

????1. HR is a powerful catalyst for change.

????2. HR is a major impediment to change.

????Ideally, more than 90% of your associates would pick statement No. 1, but I suspect this might not be the case if you ran the survey today. Let's first get clear about the sort of organizations we are trying to build.

????I like to make a distinction between what consultants and business types call operational agility and strategic adaptability. Operational agility implies an ability to respond quickly to shifts in demand or customer preference within the boundaries of an existing business model. A great example of an initiative focused on agility would be Volkswagen Group's new MQB manufacturing strategy. (Translated into English, Modularer Querbaukasten means Modular Transverse Matrix.) The MQB architecture allows a wide range of vehicles (Audis, Seats, Skodas and VWs) to be produced on a small number of platforms.

????Strategic adaptability, by contrast, refers to a company's capacity to reconfigure its underlying business concept. To take an example, we've all experienced Amazon's operational agility -- it's ability to rapidly assemble our unique order from tens of thousands of SKUs and deliver it to us in day or two. But Amazon is also a case study in strategic adaptability. During its brief history, it has morphed from a web-based bookseller, to an online retail platform, to a digital media powerhouse and, most recently, to a leader in cloud computing.

????Amazon (AMZN) is rather unique in that it has changed its business model in the absence of a crisis. Usually, major strategic shifts are driven by a financial meltdown, or years of substandard returns. Deep change in big companies usually happens the same way it happens in poorly governed dictatorships -- infrequently, belated, and convulsively; and for the same reason -- a top-down authority structure frustrates bottom-up change. All too often, by the time an issue gets big enough to attract the CEO's attention, whether an opportunity or a threat, it's too late to do anything but react. By the time Google's (GOOG) top brass roused themselves to do something serious about social media, Facebook (FB) had already built a nearly insurmountable lead. The vast majority of corporate "change" programs are "catch-up" programs.