Jim Collins: Look at Xerox, when Anne Mulcahy took over. Everything was beginning to fall apart around her. The world was in flux, their technology being outpaced. Did she go back to fundamentals? Yes.
All of these cases happened in times of great turmoil, tremendous change, and difficult situations. So you ask: did these companies get into trouble because they abandoned the fundamentals; and did they get out of trouble by returning to the fundamentals? And the answer to both questions is: yes!
I cannot escape the verdict of history.
Will there be new fundamentals out there, and some things we don't understand yet? Yes, of course.
But if we consider the verdict of history -- business history -- and we now have over 6,000 years of combined company history in our database. And we ask this one question, a multiple choice question, about how these companies got into trouble.
The choice is between answer "A", because they failed to embrace new things;
Or answer "B", because they lost the fundamental disciplines that we've known up to this point.
The correct answer is "B".
So the verdict of history is "B"; that they lost the fundamental disciplines.
There may be things we don't know yet, but we know for certain that if you grow beyond your ability to put the right people in the key seats, you will fail. If you fail to renew your core business -- as long as it's still your core business -- you'll fail. If you lose focus on what you can be the best at, where you can add value, have passion for -- and maybe a 4th circle -- you'll fail. We know these things.
There are two people in my world whom I have always looked up to: Peter Drucker and Michael Porter. If you read their works, both emphasize over and over again the importance of certain key points. Does Michael Porter ever say that the "5 Forces" are obsolete? No, just that we've forgotten them. Does Peter Drucker ever say that "Management by Objectives" is obsolete? No, just that we've forgotten about it. I very much believe that our first task is to make sure we get our basics right. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：再來看看安妮?馬爾卡希（Anne Mulcahy）領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的施樂公司（Xerox）,。當(dāng)時(shí)她的公司正處在分崩離析的狀態(tài),。而外部環(huán)境在變遷。此外,，他們的技術(shù)能力也被其他公司超越了,。那么，安妮?馬爾卡?；剡^頭去抓住最基本的原則了嗎,？是的。
他們的共同點(diǎn)是都處于混亂的年代,，巨大的變革,，或是艱苦的境遇之中。由此想到：他們有沒有因?yàn)榉艞壔驹瓌t而陷入麻煩呢,？是否又因?yàn)榛貧w了最基本原則而走出了困境呢,？?jī)蓚€(gè)問題的答案均為：是的！
我無法忘掉這些歷史事實(shí),。
那么接下來是否會(huì)產(chǎn)生一些新的基本原則呢,？其中是否有一些會(huì)超出了我們的理解范疇呢？是的,，當(dāng)然會(huì)的,。
如果我們以史為鑒，尤其是談到商業(yè)歷史,，我們現(xiàn)在有合計(jì)超過6000年的公司歷史保存在資料庫中,?；谶@些（歷史），我們會(huì)問自己一個(gè)問題,，一個(gè)多項(xiàng)選擇題：這些公司是如何陷入困境的,？
A. 因?yàn)樗麄儧]有能夠把握住新的機(jī)遇。
B. 因?yàn)樗麄儧]有堅(jiān)持我們當(dāng)前所認(rèn)識(shí)到的基本原則,。
正確答案是B,。
歷史告訴我們的回答是B：他們忽略了最基本的原則。
雖然對(duì)我們來說未知因素尚存,，但是可以確定的是：如果你超出了自身的能力而沒有能夠在核心的位置上引入正確的人,，你一定會(huì)失敗,！只要你的核心業(yè)務(wù)沒有改變,，就不能停止對(duì)它的發(fā)展，否則一定會(huì)失??！如果你停止關(guān)注自己擅長(zhǎng)、有附加價(jià)值,、并且有熱情的方向（也許還有第四個(gè)環(huán),；譯著：參考三環(huán)理論），你一定也會(huì)失??！我們對(duì)此可以確定。
世界上有兩位我一直很敬仰的人：彼得?德魯克（Peter Drucker）和邁克爾?波特（Michael Porter）,。讀了他們的作品以后發(fā)現(xiàn),，他們都反反復(fù)復(fù)地強(qiáng)調(diào)了一些核心觀點(diǎn)的重要性。邁克爾?波特會(huì)認(rèn)為“五種競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力量”的理論過時(shí)了嗎,？不會(huì),。但是我們忘了這五種力量。德魯克會(huì)說“目標(biāo)管理”過時(shí)了嗎,？不,。而我們又忘記了這些原則。所以我非常堅(jiān)信我們的首要任務(wù)是確保把握最基本的原則,。 |
