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：有時候這個道理顯而易見，回到威廉?麥克奈特建立3M公司的時代，你不覺得（像他這樣）用創新思維來解決問題很酷嗎？如果問他，你這樣做將如何改變世界？他會說：我不知道，我只知道，如果不創新我們可以賺這么多錢，而在創新之下，我們可以賺那么多錢。我們只是覺得發揮創造力是很酷的事。所以這就是我們未來的方向。用陳舊的方法即便賺到更多的錢，我們也不會那樣去做。因為我們需要的就是創造力。
你問耐克（Nike）的員工，他們是要改變世界嗎？不，他們會說只是喜歡競爭和贏的感覺。如果他們有運動員的背景，喜歡擊敗對手，享受勝利的喜悅，那么他們未必是在改變世界，但是仍然有他們明確的目標。
還有早期的索尼（Sony）公司。1945年，這些公司在廢墟上建立。當年日本整個國家處于低谷之時，盛田昭夫（Akio Morita）和井深大（Masaru Ibuka）正值當年。 日本國土滿目瘡痍、國民飽受侮辱，他們說：“我們的目的就是要徹底改變日本產品質量差的國際形象。”從而提升日本的民族文化和地位。1945年，他們在東京市區一幢被炸彈夷平的樓房廢墟里談論著這些話題。當然隨后，他們在最初的階段只是制造電飯煲之類的家電用品。然而，從更廣的意義上看，他們擁有的是與民族利益相關的崇高目標。
還有其他案例，比如雅芳（Avon）。鐘彬嫻（Andrea Jung）是這么講述雅芳的：雅芳對她來說不是化妝品，而是給全世界的女性帶來機遇， 在許多地方，女性沒有創業的機會。現在她們有機會自力更生，活得更自信。
萬豪酒店（Marriott）也是一個例子。萬豪其實就是連鎖酒店，最開始靠餐廳起家。我們回顧一下它的早期歷史……威拉德?萬豪（Willard Marriott）在談到萬豪酒店時說：“想想吧，萬豪的意義在于讓身處異鄉的人們在需要的時候感覺到朋友就在身邊。我們開餐廳時這樣，做酒店也一樣。”
也就是說，我們改變環境是要冒風險的，不管是攀巖還是其他事情。
我們要做有機棉的先鋒，證明其完全可行。我們看到索尼正在提升日本的國家地位。之后又看到了耐克如何讓幾乎所有競爭對手臣服。此言不虛。如果在不去征服對手的情況下賺點錢，我們是不會感興趣的。因為我們喜歡贏的感覺。同時，對其他人來說，這樣（的態度）可以讓他們釋放自身的創造力。
所以，我想說的是，在所有這些案例中，他們都有一些更高的目標，如果你問他們，（他們會說）這就是我們所追求的。
面對“你是否只追求股東價值最大化”這個問題。他們會說：“和擊敗競爭者相比，這并不能令我著迷，并不能給我的生活帶來更多意義。”相比之下，我們更向往用某種方式為全世界的女性提供機會（意指雅芳）；更愿意幫助提升日本的國家地位，或是做些更有創造性的、更酷的事。
我不相信史蒂夫?喬布斯（Steve Jobs）僅僅是為了股東價值最大化，我決不相信。
所以這種力量很強大，也很真實，對公司來說是非常持久的動力。
因為它就像地平線上的星辰，無論你攀登哪座山峰，都能夠回望到那顆星。
一家公司可能曾經擁有過這種高尚的目標，而這一切背后有著很深的淵源，這非常重要。
我最愛舉的一個例子就是紐克鋼鐵（Nucor）；他們的目標不是通過生產鋼鐵讓世界變得更好。真正的原因是肯?埃弗森（Ken Iverson）對等級制度深惡痛絕，憎恨管理層用高高在上的方式對待工人階級。
他認為這就是錯的。他憎恨這樣的態度，覺得這是一種侮辱，這是對人性的摧毀，所以當他在紐克內部組建自己的部門時，將其取名為制球部門。
他開始創造這種球形文化，表達全面平等的文化。我們在同一條船上，有福同享，有難同當。要是哪年業績不好，經理受到的負面影響最大。我們要盡力消除一切階級差別。這是一種耐人尋味的情感，他們用“風雨同舟”的態度挑戰了資本主義。這種情感源于埃弗森的最初的憤怒，他為工人階級遭受恥辱待遇感到忿忿不平。所以埃弗森才要建立一個不一樣的部門，但這僅限于他自己的那個部門，公司其余的部門依然等級森嚴。
紐克同時也做放射性同位素等其它業務，結果瀕臨破產。當時董事會想看看哪個部門的業績更好，發現肯?埃弗森的部門做得有聲有色，非常成功。他們便對肯說：“現在你就是CEO了。”
他們把他推到了CEO的位置上，他接下來怎么做呢？他繼續推行由憤怒而生的平等意識，而正是這份催生生產力的平等意識最終助他獲得了成功。
他將這種平等意識融入整個公司文化。當年是1965年，如今已過去35年。自那時起，該公司沒有一年是不盈利的，這對鋼鐵企業來說是驚人的業績。
他們從災難性的起點出發，成為美國排名第一、盈利能力最強的鋼鐵公司。他們從未失去那份平等的精神，并以各種方式加以體現。
是他（埃弗森）引入了這種精神，并以此為基礎徹底改變了公司文化。而該公司之前并沒有這種精神；紐克成立于20世紀20年代。直到1965年之前，他們一直沒有這種精神。是埃弗森為公司注入了這種精神。自那之后，紐克就成了偉大的公司之一。
美國的鋼鐵企業通常并不成功。這是否從另一個角度說明了：如果一家公司管理思想中的最高目標或唯一目標僅僅是利潤和現金流，那么就只能是一家平庸或至多是一家優秀的公司，而永遠不可能成為卓越的公司？
我認為你必須擁有杰里?波拉斯（Jerry Porras）和我稱之為位于“末梢的天才們”，這些人在各自的領域至臻至善。
大衛?帕卡德（David Packard）非常清楚，惠普最根本的職責是在技術上做出貢獻，讓產品運轉得更好。如果不能在技術上做出貢獻，惠普就不應該去做，這無須多言。他的許多其他特質后來也成了惠普的標志。
但是，如果你聽取帕卡德講述他的觀點，他會說，他們的企業也有很高的利潤和現金流，因為我們不愿意負債。我們要從現金流中獲得資金，因為我們不想仰債務人之鼻息。
把這兩點放在一起看，哪個才是惠普（的文化）呢？一方面，如果庫存積壓，他會來責備你。同時也有這么一個令人吃驚的故事，有一個惠普的部門負責人辭職開了另一家公司，這個人（遭遇車禍）住進了醫院，帕卡德打電話給他說：“別擔心，我們會照顧你，照顧你的家人。”這同時是帕卡德仁慈善良的一面，惠普的處事方式也大致如此。
好了，還是這個人（指惠普的部門負責人），在做一個演講，講為什么惠普在某個特定領域的業務中沒有做到第一。此時帕卡德馬上站起來，非常直接地說，你必須想辦法在這一業務上做到第一，要有不低于10%的利潤和強勁的現金流，否則我就讓更有能力的人頂替你。
所以，如果你問：究竟哪個是大衛?帕卡德呢？他兩者都是，而且都表現得很徹底。我一直非常喜歡彼得?德魯克說過的一句話：“良好的意圖并不是無能的借口。”
（一方面，）如果只是為了賺錢，永遠都不會有卓越和長久的公司。或許在短期會獲得一些成功。但是如果只有目的，而沒有實際結果，也不可能成為卓越的公司。只有將兩者結合，才能使公司屹立不倒、經久不衰。
再回到紐克鋼鐵的例子，它一方面擁有平等的精神，而同時公司沒有一年是不盈利的。沒有其他的鋼鐵企業做到這一點，他們卻做到了。 |
