Jim Collins: Two very different questions.
Thomas D. Gorman: Yes.
Jim Collins: So, I was thinking about the one you had raised about the, the question of when we wrote this, Jerry Useem and I, and it was really, really great to do that with Jerry, and I think we might spend a little time on some of those people, they are really interesting people.
Thomas D. Gorman: Yes.
Jim Collins: And we all need models and they're still models for us.
But first, let's address this question of American business and American businesses as models.
I do not believe that American Business is the model. There are many mediocre or average American businesses. I find this, for example, when I go to the social sectors, and people say, well, the whole key is to import the principals of the American business into the social sectors and they'll work better. Well, no, that's sort of a myopic view, it's a very arrogant view to simply say that American business or businesses in particular, kind of have a monopoly on wisdom. I don't believe that.
The really critical question is not, American business versus Chinese business, European business versus Latin American business. The real question is, great versus good.
And if you go in our work, you'll keep in mind, with all of our great companies we've got the contrast, we have lots of American businesses that are the ones you don't want to be, they're the comparison cases. And so, if you think of it as great American companies in contrast to not great American companies, then the words "American companies" drop out of the equation. What's left is great in contrast to not great.
I actually think there's a very, very interesting question, and I'll put it as a question, I don't have the answer to it, which is now if we take great Chinese companies in contrast to not great Chinese companies, great European companies in contrast to not great European companies, would the nationality drop out... do you see any differences?
My belief is that you would see some things we haven't seen so far, but the things we have seen so far, would still hold.
There's nothing to lead me to conclude otherwise, based on, well, I'm a student of history.
Thomas D. Gorman: Right.
Jim Collins: I love "The Rise And Fall Of Civilization"; I'm fascinated by what happened to Greece twenty-five hundred years ago.
I'm fascinated by the rise and fall, twice of Egypt, twenty-five hundred BC. Fascinated by Rome, and Rome's evolution and I'm fascinated by the rise of the great world religions. I'm fascinated by anything related to human systems, that rises and falls and comes and goes , and what you see.
Nothing in any of that would lead me to conclude that leaders who are really trying to build something that's more than themselves would be a bad idea in any culture.
There is nothing that would lead me to conclude that the idea that, a genius with a thousand helpers can work for a short while, like emperors. But, the problem is, they don't last.
It's not a sustainable model.
So if you have any kind of social system that is a genius with a thousand helpers, when that genius ceases to a genius, or when that genius disappears, you don't a system behind it.
The real great systems were like the royal legions, right?
They were like Greece during its best time, they're like a great company. What they have is the capacity to develop leaders, to develop managers and to pick people and to build all of this. Is there anything that would lead me to conclude that doesn't apply in China, Latin America, Russia, Brazil, India? No.
That said, I think if you go into different cultures, when you put that contrast on, I think we would see some things we don't see here.
I don't know what they are yet.
So, that's my frame, look for great companies, what great companies can teach, not just from one country.
Thomas D. Gorman: Right.
Jim Collins: Now your first questions, I believe was about these people, these leaders.
Let's just kind of pause for a moment about who's some of these remarkable people were.
It's just so fascinating to look at them.
If I recall correctly, we had on that list, let see if I can remember, we had David Packard of HP, we had Katherine Graham of the Washington Post, we had Darwin Smith of Kimberly Clark, we had David Maxwell of Fannie Mae, which is an interesting one. Who I still think is a great CEO. We had Bill Allen of Boeing; we had Charles Coffin of GE.
Thomas D. Gorman: He was number one, I think?
Jim Collins: He was number one.
We had Sam Walton, for his amazing ability to do succession.
That gives us seven.
We had George Merck of Merck... we're still missing two.
What were the other two we had picked at that time?
Well, they'll pop to me in a moment; I'm sort of working backwards through the list.
But, if you think about some of those remarkable people; oh, William McKnight, of 3M and Jim Burke.
And so each of these had certain elements, but they are great role models and they would be great models for today, each one had different pieces.
Charles Coffin took on the idea of; he was the real architect of GE. GE is probably the most consistently successful company in the 20th century, why? Because he built, what was his great invention? Management development, he invented management development. Now you can say, you can invent light bulbs, you can invent turbines, you can, but invent management development, and that really explains the success of GE.
Look at Bill Allen of Boeing, here's a person who is the Corporate Attorney. The CEO dies, the company's in crisis by the end of the Second World War, losing 93% of its revenue over night.
They turn to him and they say, here, you take it, and now what does he do, he doesn't sit still, he sits back and says, Boeing is all about doing really big cool things. And he moves the company and confronts the fact, that with just military bombers, it's the end of the story, and he makes a huge bold move.
Now if you met, Bill Allen, would you find a great personality, a towering, charismatic figure? No, but he bet on the 707 and he bet on 747, after a lot of empirical validation, led the world into the jet age.
Look at William McKnight, here's a person who invented the idea, of innovation as a systematic replicable process in a company. That idea had never been invented before, an extraordinary contribution. Really visionary in a social sense, as opposed to, just a product sense.
You look at Jim Burke, who understood, we all know about the Tylenol crises, we had here in the United States, and how J&J did an amazing thing. But the amazing thing about this story there is that Jim Burke understood that it was all about having the values in place and the people in place, before a crisis. So when that turbulent shock came, all the hard work had been done and it wasn't at all confusing about what to do. Not because they figured it out when it came, but because they figured it out long before it came.
Look at Darwin Smith and his courage to sell the mills, right? Cancer in your arm, you have to have the guts to cut off your arm.
Katherine Graham, whose embodiment of the idea of courage, is not the absence of fear. She was a fearful, terrified person most of the time, you read her own books and she describes being frightened and freaked and terrified.
Thomas D. Gorman: Yeah.
Jim Collins: And yet, she had the courage to stand up to an entire presidential administration, whatever the costs might be.
You look at David Packard, who invented so many of the aspects we consider key to a modern technology company, it was sort of the founding architecture of Silicon Valley.
These were people who did so much more, now we stand back and ask the question, this is my challenge for the Chinese generation up and coming. Which of you are going to be David Packard and Katherine Graham and Charles Coffin and Bill Allen and William McKnight?
The ones that when somebody writes about the great CEO's who did something that was so visionary, but it worked, wasn't dreaming, it worked. And thereby did something that fundamentally alters the course of the world that they touched, and every one of these CEO's did just that.
The ones who made just a bunch of money and retired, you never saw them here. They're not on this list.
And you asked the question, is that still a model?
Those people are models.
And of course, we'll see a similar group come from China and Russia and Latin America and Europe. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：這是兩個非常不同的問題。
高德思：是的。
吉姆·柯林斯：能與杰里?烏西姆合寫那篇文章是一件很好的事。我們可以研究文章中提到的那些CEO，他們都是非常有趣的人。
高德思：是的。
吉姆·柯林斯：我們都需要榜樣，而他們?nèi)匀皇俏覀兊陌駱印?br/>
不過首先，讓我們來討論一下美國企業(yè)作為榜樣的問題。
我不認為美國企業(yè)是最好的榜樣。美國有許多平庸的企業(yè)。我研究公立機構時，有人會說，如果把美國企業(yè)的那一套移植到公立機構，他們就會干得更好。并非如此。這種觀點有些目光短淺。難道只有私營企業(yè)才具有商業(yè)智慧？我不贊同這種非常自大的看法。
問題的關鍵不是將美國企業(yè)與中國企業(yè)對比，或是將歐洲企業(yè)與拉美企業(yè)對比。問題的關鍵是將卓越與優(yōu)秀對比。
如果你參加了我們的研究，你就會牢記一點，對于所有卓越的公司，我們都有相對比的企業(yè)。我們同時有許多失敗的案例，你永遠不想成為那樣的企業(yè)，而他們就是對比案例。所以，如果你把卓越的美國企業(yè)和不卓越的美國企業(yè)進行對比，那么“美國企業(yè)”這四個字就可以從等式兩邊同時劃掉了，剩下的只是卓越和不卓越之間的對照。
有一個非常有趣的問題，我把它提出來，但是先不必回答：如果我們把卓越的中國企業(yè)和不卓越的中國企業(yè)進行對比，把卓越的歐洲企業(yè)和不卓越的歐洲企業(yè)進行對比，是不是也可以把國籍從等式兩邊劃去。這其中能看出什么不同嗎？
我相信你將會發(fā)現(xiàn)一些迄今還沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)象，但我們已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)的規(guī)律仍將成立。
我以前是學歷史的，就此看來，沒有什么能讓我改變結論。
高德思：對。
吉姆·柯林斯：我非常喜歡《文明的興衰》（The Rise And Fall Of Civilization）這本書。我癡迷于2500年前發(fā)生在希臘的故事。我也癡迷于埃及在公元前2500年左右的兩度興衰。我還癡迷于羅馬和羅馬的演化，以及偉大的世界性宗教的興起。我癡迷于一切和人類社會體系相關的事，它們前赴后繼、興衰更替。
如果有這么一批領導者，他們想建立一些超越個人利益的事物，那么對于任何文明來說這都不會是壞事。
“一個天才加一千個幫手”的管理理念在短時間內(nèi)會奏效。我對此并不反對。因為許多帝王的朝政就是類似的案例。但問題是這種方式無法長久。這不是一個可持續(xù)的模式。
對于采用了“一個天才加一千個幫手”管理模式的社會系統(tǒng)，一旦這個天才江郎才盡，一旦這個天才消失了，這套體系便會分崩離析。
真正卓越的系統(tǒng)如同一個龐大的皇家軍團，就好像鼎盛時期的希臘軍隊。卓越的公司就是如此。他們的過人之處在于懂得如何挑選人才，并且把他們塑造成優(yōu)秀的領導人、經(jīng)理人。這一點是否有可能不適用于中國、拉丁美洲、俄羅斯、巴西和印度呢？答案是：不可能。
如果你仔細研究不同的文化，并且將它們進行比較，就會發(fā)現(xiàn)一些之前沒有注意到的現(xiàn)象。
目前我還不清楚這些現(xiàn)象是什么。
所以尋找卓越的公司，探究我們可以向卓越的公司學習什么，而不是只向某個國家的企業(yè)學習，這就是我的基本觀點。
高德思：沒錯。
吉姆·柯林斯：我想，你的第一個問題正是關于這一類人，關于企業(yè)領導者們。讓我稍稍停頓一下，看看這些了不起的人物都有誰。向他們學習是非常有意思的事情。
如果我沒記錯，我們的名單上有惠普的大衛(wèi)?帕卡德、《華盛頓郵報》（Washington Post）的凱瑟琳?格雷厄姆（Katherine Graham）、金佰利的達爾文?史密斯、還有房利美（Fannie Mae）的戴維?麥克斯韋爾（David Maxwell）。麥克斯韋爾出現(xiàn)在這個名單上，可能顯得有些奇怪，但我仍然認為他是一位卓越的CEO。名單上還有波音的比爾?艾倫、通用電氣的查爾斯?科芬（Charles Coffin）。
高德思：我記得他好像排在第一?
吉姆·柯林斯：是的，他排第一名。
還有山姆?沃爾頓，他挑選接班人的能力實在驚人。
到目前有7個人了。
還有默克公司（Merck）的喬治?默克（George Merck）。還差兩個。
我們選的另外兩個人是誰呢？
沒關系，他們一會兒會提示我的。我們只是回顧一下名單。
噢對了，還有3M公司的威廉?麥克奈特（William McKnight）和強生公司的詹姆士?伯克（Jim Burke）。
如果你仔細觀察這些優(yōu)秀的人物，他們每人都有一些過人之處，都是我們今天可以效仿的卓越典范，每個人都有值得我們學習的地方。
查爾斯?科芬是通用電氣真正的總設計師。通用電氣也許是20世紀最持續(xù)成功的公司。為什么？因為查爾斯?科芬是一名企業(yè)建設者。他最大的創(chuàng)舉是什么？他首創(chuàng)了管理發(fā)展模式。你可以發(fā)明燈泡，發(fā)明渦輪，你還可以發(fā)明管理發(fā)展模式，這充分解釋了通用電氣成功的原因。
再看波音的比爾?艾倫，他是企業(yè)律師出身。當時，CEO剛剛?cè)ナ溃ㄒ艄驹诙?zhàn)結束后陷入危機，一夜之間損失了93%的收入。他們找到比爾?艾倫，對他說：你來接手吧。比爾是怎么做的呢？他并沒有坐以待斃，而是表示波音要做的是真正了不起的事情。他推動公司變革，直面嚴峻的現(xiàn)實：如果只生產(chǎn)軍用轟炸機，波音就沒有未來。他做出了一個非常大膽的舉動。
如果你遇到比爾?艾倫，你看到的會是一位具有非凡人格魅力的偉人嗎？不會。但正是這樣一個人把賭注押在了707和747飛機上，經(jīng)過多次實證檢驗后，波音將全世界帶入了噴氣機時代。
再來看看威廉?麥克奈特。此人首創(chuàng)了系統(tǒng)的、可復制的流程化企業(yè)。在那之前，從來沒有人提出過這樣的想法，這是對人類的偉大貢獻。從社會進步的角度看，而不是僅僅從產(chǎn)品的角度看，這是個高瞻遠矚的創(chuàng)舉。
至于詹姆士?伯克，我們都知道美國發(fā)生的泰諾林感冒藥（Tylenol）危機，強生公司在這次事件中應對得非常漂亮。但這個故事最精彩的部分在于，危機發(fā)生前詹姆士?伯克就想到了最重要的是樹立正確的價值觀，并選拔合適的人才。這樣，當危機發(fā)生時，他們早有準備，應對起來從容不迫。這里的關鍵不是在危機發(fā)生時他們?nèi)绾握业綉獙k法，而是遠在危機未到來之前就準備了對策。
再來看看達爾文?史密斯，他必須有極大的勇氣才能賣掉工廠。如果胳膊上有了惡性腫瘤，你必須有勇氣斷臂自救。
凱瑟琳?格雷厄姆也具有極大的勇氣，但她并不是無所畏懼的。她在大多數(shù)時候都心存畏懼。在她的自傳里，描述了她如何的害怕、恐懼和擔憂。
高德思：是的。
吉姆·柯林斯：但是，她有勇氣面對一個龐大的權力機構，不論代價是什么。
再看看大衛(wèi)?帕卡德，他創(chuàng)造了很多管理方法，成為現(xiàn)代高科技公司效仿的典范，有點類似硅谷的初創(chuàng)構架。
這些人做了超乎常人的事情，現(xiàn)在回過頭來，我們要問的是，積極進取的中國新一代企業(yè)家應該做些什么？你們當中，誰會成為大衛(wèi)?帕卡德、凱瑟琳?格雷厄姆、查爾斯?科芬、比爾?艾倫、或者戴維?麥克斯韋爾？
這些卓越的CEO們雖然高瞻遠矚，但是他們也會踏踏實實地將夢想實現(xiàn)，而不是流于空想。他們的工作從根本上改變了世界的進程，他們每一個人都做到了這一點。
而那些僅僅為了賺夠錢就退休的人，他們的名字不會出現(xiàn)在這個偉大的名單上。
你會問：這樣的人也可以效仿嗎？
我認為那些胸懷大志的企業(yè)家才是應該被效仿的榜樣。
當然，我們將看到中國、俄羅斯、拉丁美洲和歐洲會出現(xiàn)類似的人物。 |
