????上周，我給MBA班的學生上了一節案例分析課，探討諾基亞（Nokia）的衰敗。我問他們：“為什么諾基亞在短短不到五年的時間里，從曾經的行業領袖墮入現在如此落魄的境地？”學生們的答案不外乎以下幾點：

????有人說：“諾基亞與消費者的需求脫節了。”沒錯，但有意思的是，在本世紀初，諾基亞正是因它以客戶為中心的營銷和設計能力而廣受贊譽（這一點似乎無需贅述）。

????也有人說：“他們沒能開發出必要的技術。”不盡然，諾基亞在iPhone上市前就已經有了一款觸屏手機樣機。而且他們當時的智能手機技術要勝過上世紀90年代的蘋果（Apple）、三星（Samsung）和谷歌（Google）等公司。

????還有人說：“他們沒有意識到競爭已經從硬件之爭轉到手機生態系統競爭。”同樣，也不盡然。“生態系統”之戰從本世紀初就開始了，當時諾基亞聯合愛立信（Ericsson）、摩托羅拉（Motorola）以及Psion數字技術公司建立了塞班系統的技術平臺，用以牽制微軟（Microsoft）。

????那個時期，諾基亞人已經意識到了周圍發生的變化，他們內部不乏尖端技術和出色的營銷人員。困難在于，諾基亞一直無法將這種意識轉變成行動，缺乏果斷堅定推動變革的能力。

????企業巨頭無法隨著環境的變化而靈活變通，這一直是商業界的一個基本難題。有時候，一項真正“顛覆性”技術的到來能摧毀整個行業，如數字成像技術。但失敗的根本原因往往平淡無奇，而且可以避免。它們是：對已開發出的新技術置之不理；對客戶需求變化的傲慢漠視；對新競爭對手的自得松懈。

????在這些情況下，失敗的最終責任在于企業的CEO。但如果要避免這些失敗，很明顯不能單靠CEO一個人。公司的全體員工都應該留心業界的變化，主動推進新想法，挑戰現有的工作方式。做到這一點顯然并不容易，但如果能對問題有更好的理解，就更有可能進行改進。

????那么在企業中應該注意哪些可能影響應變的障礙呢？我列出以下“五大類”：

????僵化的管理制度。大公司都是通過管理制度運行的，這些制度涵蓋預算與規劃、績效管理以及接班人計劃等。這些制度的建立使工作簡單有序，但也同時不斷自我強化，變得根深蒂固。例如，幾年前，我受邀出席為一家大型出版公司舉辦的網絡研討會。他們讓我簽一份長達20頁的合同，才允許我用一小時的時間介紹我的研究。這么做的原因并不難理解，他們那墨守成規的圖書出版流程完全是“無人駕駛”模式，最大化地扼殺了基于網絡的各種新計劃可能帶來的生機。那么該怎樣應對這樣的僵化管理制度呢？首先，找出、剔除那些不再創造價值的制度，然后在現有制度框架以外試驗所有的新計劃。

????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.

????? "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.

????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.

????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":

????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.