????至少當時除了前行，已無路可退：2008年桑賈伊?杰哈加入摩托羅拉(Motorola)、出任手機部門主管時，該部門虧損高達數十億美元，瀕于倒閉。刀鋒(RAZR)系列的成功已成過眼云煙，蘋果(Apple)的iPhone引發了手機行業革命，而經濟衰退又極大地抑制了手機需求。摩托羅拉手機部門的員工普遍感到沮喪和不滿，12年內部門總裁已走馬燈似地換了10位。杰哈的任務是挽救這項業務。

????生于印度、在英國受教育的杰哈在接到摩托羅拉的電話時已升任手機芯片設計公司高通(Qualcomm)的首席營運官。他到任后迅速拋棄了摩托羅拉自己的手機操作系統，改用谷歌(Google)的Android系統【參見《億萬Android 粉絲不會搞錯》(One Hundred Million Android Fans Can't Be Wrong】，推出了一系列創新產品(如最近的Xoom平板電腦)，在市場上也引起了不少轟動。但總體進展并不順利；無論是以銷量、還是銷售額計，摩托羅拉的全球市場份額表現平平。48歲的杰哈如今已開始獨立掌舵Motorola Mobility Holdings——今年1月，主攻智能手機和機頂盒業務的Motorola Mobility Holdings從摩托羅拉剝離，獨立掛牌交易。近日，杰哈接受了《財富》雜志(Fortune)Geoff Colvin的采訪，談到了如何在競爭激烈的市場中保持特色、他面臨的最嚴峻挑戰、人們對手機的依賴等等。下面是經過編輯的對話摘要：

????《財富》：今年是平板電腦之年，1月份你們推出的Xoom獲得了好評。但自那以后，我們已看到了iPad 2、RIM的PlayBook、宏達國際（HTC）的Flyer、T-Mobile的G-Slate以及很多其他平板電腦。你們如何有別于競爭對手？

????桑賈伊?杰哈：我們所能做的頭等大事是考慮我們的目標客戶群。我們預計大公司將把整個IT系統轉向平板電腦。首席信息官看好平板電腦的一個原因是它能提供云計算服務，使用簡便。消費者喜歡它，企業用戶喜歡它，皆因互動的即時性。其次，我們要提供最佳的瀏覽體驗。我們支持Flash 10（媒體播放器），這一點非常重要，它使得大部分網頁都可以瀏覽，而其他都一些設備（特別是iPad，不支持Flash播放器）就做不到。第三，我們相信用戶一定希望能在移動環境下瀏覽所有內容，無論這些內容保存在哪里。我們已進行了一些收購，方便用戶接入平板電腦上的所有內容。當然，大小和格式總是很重要的，我們的品牌在美國、拉美和中國都具有重要地位，在歐洲的影響也與日俱增。

????貴公司非常重視出品的平板電腦在大公司環境中的高度適用性，原因何在？

????目前，企業網絡中的設備，主要是平板電腦和智能手機，有約65%事實上是消費者個人購買的，因為首席信息官的預算遭到削減。因此，這些設備一定要對消費者具有吸引力，同時在安全性上必須達到首席信息官的標準。

????當員工將個人設備帶到公司時，首席信息官們往往非常緊張。

????確實如此。我們將這股趨勢稱之為企業的消費者化。曾幾何時，首席信息官們說“你不能將那臺設備帶到公司來。”但現在他們越來越愿意接受這些設備，我們也在和首席信息官們合作，希望提供足以讓他們感到安心的安全保障。

????許多經理人都沒有充分認識到平板電腦和智能手機對業務的幫助。你們在Motorola Mobility中如何應用這些便攜設備?

????我們是一家全球性公司，我們對通過可視會議進行合作非常感興趣。在過去，老實說電話會議優于可視會議。現在，有了高清顯示，你可以看到肢體語言，這在任何會議中都能傳遞大量的信息。而且，我們的員工越來越不局限于坐在辦公室內，因此能用平板電腦或智能手機參加可視會議非常重要。此外，我們的絕大部分服務通過云服務實現。這也很重要。當然，還有日常的安全電子郵件功能，平板電腦一旦落入他人之手，我們可完全抹去該設備內的記錄——這些我們功能都在使用。

????包括摩托羅拉在內，大約有20家生產商正在生產或將要生產Android智能手機。要在這樣的競爭環境中脫穎而出一定是一大挑戰。

????的確如此。（但這）可能是我一生中最大的科技業商機。人們在說，到2015年亞太（各類）手機保有量將達到30億臺。一些預測人士稱，到2014年智能手機將達到10億臺。復合年增長率超過35%——這是一個巨大的商機。但我們并不是這個市場中的唯一廠商。我們決定注重消費體驗以及簡化人們的生活。不能簡化人們生活的科技不能長期贏得共鳴。我們非常重視設計流程。這涉及到巨量的消費者測試。我們的設計人員幾乎總是在和消費者互動，找到最能引發共鳴的點。而且，企業和多媒體也是我們希望有別于競爭對手的兩個重要領域。

????這就涉及到一個很重要的問題，因為你們所做的所有這些都是基于向所有人開放的Android平臺。最近有位分析師稱，“Android是一個大宗商品化平臺，競爭需要規模。他們[摩托羅拉] 目前顯然還做不到。”這種擔憂是否有根據？如果確實如此，你們如何應對？

????每項業務都會涉及到規模。但過去30年，企業的盈利能力與市場份額的關聯度顯示較弱，而與消費者忠誠度的關聯度更高。企業希望消費者能回來不斷地購買自己的產品。J.D. Power的數據顯示，我們在智能手機市場獲得的消費者忠誠度排名第二。因此，規模是一個因素，但我認為規模不是決定性的因素。過去很多公司規模很大，但最終卻迷失了方向。我們需要創新，需要不斷滿足消費者的期望，這將是我們關注的重點。

????在你進入摩托羅拉之前，摩托羅拉歷史上曾有過出色的創新，但缺乏持續性。刀鋒系列在2005年大獲成功，但此后一直青黃不接。你能使企業保持持續的創新嗎？

????創新本身是不夠的——我有時稱之為企業娛樂。在美國公司中，很多事都被冠以創新之名。如果不能解決消費者的問題，那就是在浪費金錢。我試圖在摩托羅拉推行的一個重要觀點就是我們如何解決關鍵的問題。問題必須是獨特而重要的，我非常重視這一點。創新往往與獨特性相關。然而，僅僅獨特性還不夠。沒有一成不變的創新方式。必須創造一種文化，讓人們為偶爾的失敗做好準備。如果沒有做好失敗的準備，就不會有持續成功的機會。因此，我們會冒險嘗試。我們創造的文化是讓人們做好準備，認同20%的時間里“這是一項高風險的業務提議或高風險的科技提議。”我們將全身心投入。我們建立了所謂的回顧式評價流程。我們視情況而定，獎勵那些做出決定和采取行動的人們，而非設立目標的人。我們也設立目標，但我們更關注人們如何通過行動來實現這些目標。

????你來到摩托羅拉時公司虧損達數十億美元，情況危急。當時你的首要任務是什么？

????我的第一要務是做出清晰的業務決策，為公司設定觀注的目標。在我到任前，摩托羅拉追逐的是市場份額、規模以及眾多并不清晰的目標。我一上任就說90天內將就公司方向做出決定。我們做出的一項核心決定就是選擇Android作為平臺。當時Android能否勝出自然還不清楚，也沒有達到今日的規模。很多人感覺我是斷了后路，孤注一擲。我信奉不入虎穴，焉得虎子。而且，如果你不下定決心選擇一條路，肯定會失敗。如果你選了太多路，也很難實現成功。專注的目標非常重要。我們必須更專注，在產品中更清晰地傳遞出摩托羅拉精神以及其有別于競爭對手的特質。

????怎樣應對那些對自身未來不確定，因為缺乏了解，對你同樣不確定的員工? 你如何能讓他們相信能重塑輝煌，并改變公司士氣？

????這是最大的挑戰。我們舉行了全員大會，最先問到的問題就包括“我們憑什么相信你？”我的回答是，“沒有理由。我會對你們做出承諾，如果我兌現了承諾，你們就應該開始信任我。”但信任我是一回事。信任他們自己將再創輝煌是另外一回事，我們在這方面小有成功。我們設立了一些小目標，當我們開始看到財務狀況良好、生產的產品令人自豪，這對我們非常重要。挑戰在于我計劃削減50億美元成本——這一任務無法一蹴而就。因此，每個人都有職位不保之虞，這對員工的忠誠度是一大考驗。我認為，我的做法獲得了普遍的認可。但是，一邊要求人們賣力工作，一邊卻要進行2-3輪裁員，做到這一點非常困難。

????個人科技產品發展最終會完全落到手機身上嗎？

????我相信人們一直隨時攜帶的手機遠比平板電腦重要，我們中大多數人有約30%的時間會攜帶手機。而且，我絕對相信手機將成為最出色的電腦，因為它總是在你身邊。它將成為最出色的照相機，因為你需要時它總是在手邊。它將是最出色的音樂播放器，因為它總是在你身邊。我們進行了調查，有時會將手機從人們身邊拿走，他們就會開始大叫。他們對手機投入了大量的精力。手機成了人們日常生活的數字樞紐。因此，我認為這是最大的商機：移動，互聯網，內容，運算——所有這些都融入了手機這一臺設備。

????有人認為，手機業是一項流行產品業務——產品要么轟動一時，要么泯然眾人。這樣的業務起伏很大，因此投資者對其估值會有所保留。有沒有辦法避免這一點？

????我想是有的。在手機業務歷史上，諾基亞(Nokia)曾經實現了這一點。如今，蘋果也實現了這一點。不過，你說這是一項流行產品業務，是對的。這很像好萊塢電影或制藥業務。我們需要一套商業體系，能夠持續提供適度的利潤率，在此基礎上再提供熱門產品。問題不是是否有波動性。這項業務絕對有波動性。你永遠沒法保證下一款產品如何。但我們有完整的產業鏈，分銷、供應鏈、開發、品牌包裝和上市推都能產生一定的利潤率。我認為有可能保證這個業務體系具備足夠的效率，在此基礎上，進行20%或30%的創新押注，其中有些可能會成為轟動一時的產品。

????歷史告訴我們，手機這樣的行業會不斷整合，最終形成幾家獨大的局面。你認為會出現這樣的情況嗎？摩托羅拉會保持獨立并存活下來嗎？

????我預計會出現行業整合。我們的客戶在整合，我們的供應商也在整合。但我的觀點是目前的整合方式很有意思。我并不認為手機生產商收購其他生產商是為股東創造價值的最佳途徑。跨越內容提供商、硬件和軟件生產商——整合的方式多種多樣，都能為股東創造價值，為行業帶來不同架構。惠普(HP)收購手持設備生產商Palm已經不是新聞，這項收購非常有意思，它促成了硬件和軟件資產的融合。微軟(Microsoft)和諾基亞之間的關系也是如此。我們認為摩托羅拉會保持獨立嗎？現在我還不知道。我非常希望保持獨立。我相信我們的戰略是正確的，能為股東提供所承諾的價值。

????聽起來似乎摩托羅拉與某一類軟件公司整合也并非不可想象。

????我們有很多機會去整合不同的資源，為股東創造更多的價值。

????股市似乎認為蘋果將一統天下——它是美國市值第二大公司，僅次于埃克森美孚(Exxon Mobil)。蘋果公司的弱點何在？

????我非常不愿意去點評一家極其成功的、提供世界級產品的公司有何弱點。但另一方面，我得說，規模和創新往往不相容。（一旦達到一定的規模，）往往就會出現捍衛市場份額和其他的防御性行動，而中層管理者則開始強調一家公司的文化和戰略。我相信蘋果公司的員工一定深知這些，并已做好準備，確保不會出現此類情況。但如果泛泛而論，伴隨著巨大成功而來的規模擴張往往是下坡路的開始。

????你是管理著一家世界性企業的首席執行官。你認為美國在世界經濟中保持競爭力的關鍵是什么？

????創新和教育體系。我們擁有——或一直以來擁有——全球最好的中等和（大學）教育體系，我們總的來說改變了世界——不僅僅是我們自己，還有英格蘭和其他地方。我們毫無疑問一直鼓勵全世界最聰明的人來到美國進行創新。但我們的一些移民政策稍稍違背了這一方向。我們應關注這個問題，加大投資，首先是我們的教育體系，其次是大學里的競爭前研究。當年我們把人類送到月球上時，研究支出在GDP中的占比遠高于當今。很重要的一點是要回到基礎研究的根本，然后在此基礎之上謀求制勝。

????At least there was no place to go but up: When Sanjay Jha joined Motorola as chief of its cellphone business in 2008, the division was losing billions and on the verge of failure. The RAZR phone's success had evaporated, Apple's (AAPL, Fortune 500) iPhone had revolutionized the industry, and the recession was pounding down demand. The division's employees were depressed and cynical, having seen 10 presidents in 12 years. Jha's assignment was to fix the business.

????Born in India and educated in Britain, Jha had risen to COO of Qualcomm (QCOM, Fortune 500), which designs chips for cellphones, when Motorola called. He quickly abandoned Motorola's own cellphone operating system in favor of Google's (GOOG, Fortune 500) Android (see "One Hundred Million Android Fans Can't Be Wrong") and created a little more marketplace buzz by introducing innovative products, most recently the Xoom tablet. But progress remains a struggle; Motorola is still an also-ran in global market share by units and by revenue. Jha, 48, is now captain of his own ship -- Motorola Mobility Holdings (MMI) separated from the rest of the company in January and is publicly traded. He talked recently with Fortune's Geoff Colvin about differentiating in a crowded market, his toughest challenge, why people cry when their cellphones are taken away, and

????FORTUNE: It's the year of the tablet, and you introduced the Xoom to good reviews in January. We've since seen the iPad 2, RIM's PlayBook, the HTC Flyer, T-Mobile's G-Slate, and many others. How do you differentiate yourself?

????SANJAY JHA: The biggest thing we could do is think about what audience we're addressing. We see large corporations switching entire IT systems to tablets. One reason CIOs like the tablet is that it delivers cloud-based computing and renders it very easily. Consumers love it, and enterprise users love it, because of the immediacy of interaction. Second, we need to deliver the best browsing experience. We support Flash 10 [a media player], and that makes a huge difference. A large portion of the web is now viewable, where in some other devices [notably iPads, which do not support the Flash player] it's not viewable. Third, we believe you must be able to view all your content, anywhere you keep it, in a mobile environment. We've made some acquisitions that will allow you to access all your content on your tablets. Of course, size and form factor are always important, and our brand name has always played an important role in the U.S., Latin America, China, and increasingly in Europe.

????Why focus so much on making your tablets highly useful in a big enterprise setting?

????About 65% of the devices -- tablets and smartphones -- that show up on an enterprise network are actually purchased by consumers, because CIOs' budgets have been cut. These devices must be attractive for consumers and must also have the security to meet the CIOs' standards.

????CIOs get terribly nervous when people bring their personal devices into the business.

????That's right. We call this trend consumerization of the enterprise. There was a time when CIOs said, "There's just no way you can bring that device." But increasingly they're accepting the devices, and we work with CIOs to deliver the security that makes them comfortable.

????A lot of managers don't fully understand the business usefulness of tablets and smartphones. How do you use mobility in Motorola Mobility?

????We're a global company, and we're really interested in collaborating through videoconferencing. In the olden days audioconferencing quite frankly was better than videoconferencing. Now, with high definition, you can see body language, and that's a huge amount of the communication in any meeting. And increasingly our people are not in their offices, so being able to participate in videoconferencing using their tablets or smartphones is very important. In addition, the vast majority of our services are being delivered through cloud services. That's also very important. Of course the normal capabilities of secure e-mail, the ability to wipe the tablet clean if it falls into the wrong hands -- we're using all those things.

????Something like 20 manufacturers, including Motorola, are making or will be making Android-based smartphones. Distinguishing yourself in that environment has to be a challenge.

????It certainly is. [But it is] probably the largest opportunity in technology in my lifetime. People are saying that in the Asia Pacific by 2015 there will be 3 billion phones [of all types]. Some predictors are saying there will be a billion smartphones in 2014. The compound annual growth rate is over 35% -- a great opportunity. But we're not the only ones playing in this marketplace. We've chosen to focus on delivering consumer experiences and simplifying people's lives. Technology that doesn't simplify people's lives is not a technology that resonates over a long period. We're very focused on our design process. It involves a huge amount of consumer testing. Our designers are nearly always interacting with consumers to find out what will resonate. And again, enterprise and multimedia are two very important areas where we want to differentiate ourselves.

????That gets to a really important issue, because you're doing all this on the Android platform, which is available to anyone. An analyst said recently, "Android is a commodity platform, and to compete, you need scale. They [Motorola] clearly don't have it now." Is that a valid concern, and if so, what do you do about it?

????Scale is a factor in every business. But over the past 30 years the correlation of a company's profitability with market share is weak. The stronger correlation is actually with consumer loyalty. You want your consumers to come back and buy your devices over and over. J.D. Power recently showed us to have the second-highest loyalty in the smartphone market. So scale is a factor, but I do not believe that scale is a determining factor. Lots of companies used to have very large scale, and they lost their way. We need to innovate and meet consumer expectations, and that's going to be our focus.

????Before you came to Motorola it had a record of strong innovations, but they were intermittent. The RAZR phone was a big success in 2005, but there was nothing to follow it up. Can you keep a business continually innovative?

????Innovation itself is not enough -- I sometimes call it corporate entertainment. Lots of things in American corporations are done in the name of innovation. It's wasted money unless it solves consumer problems. The central thing I have tried to bring to Motorola is how we solve the right problems. It has to be unique and relevant, and I'm very focused on that. Very often, innovation is associated with being unique. Unique is not enough. There's no one way of doing innovation. You have to create a culture where people are prepared to fail once in a while if you're not prepared to fail, there's no chance of success in a sustained way. So we're taking more chances. We're creating a culture where people are prepared to say 20% of the time, "This is a high-risk business proposition or a high-risk technology proposition." We will engage with it. We have what we call a retrospective review process. We reward people on how -- given the circumstances -- they made decisions and acted, as opposed to setting objectives. We set objectives too, but we look at how people acted toward accomplishing those objectives.

????You came to Motorola when it was losing billions of dollars. This was an emergency situation. What were your top priorities?

????My No. 1 priority was to make some clear business decisions and focus the organization on objectives. Before my arriving here, we were chasing market share, scale, and a number of different objectives that weren't clear. As soon as I arrived, I said that within 90 days we'll make some decisions about the direction of the organization. One of the core decisions we made was to select Android as our platform. It certainly wasn't clear that Android was a winner, and it didn't have the scale it does today. Lots of folks felt I had burned my boats and had chosen one path. I believe in making your bets. I believe you fail if you don't decide which path to choose. If you take too many paths, sometimes there's no path to success. That decision to focus made a big difference. We still have to focus more, so that what Motorola stands for and how it differentiates itself show more clearly in our products.

????What about dealing with employees who were uncertain about their future and uncertain about you, because they didn't know you. How could you help them understand they could be winners again, and change the psychology of the place?

????That was the largest challenge. We had a town hall meeting, and one of the first questions I got was, "Why should we trust you?" My response was, "You shouldn't. I will promise you a certain number of things, and if I deliver them, then you should begin to trust me." But it was one thing to trust me. Trusting themselves to be winners was another issue, and we did it with small successes. We set small objectives, and as we began to see ourselves doing well financially and delivering products we could all be proud of, that made a big difference. The challenge was that I was taking $5 billion of costs out -- it was done not in one fell swoop. So everyone had some uncertainty about their position, and it's a testament to the commitment of the employees that they stuck with it. I think it's broadly recognized as having been the right course of action. But it was very difficult to have two or three cycles of layoffs while you're asking people to work harder.

????Does personal infotech over time end up focused almost entirely on the phone?

????I believe the device you carry with you at all times is much, much more important than a tablet, which most of us will carry about 30% of the time. And I absolutely believe that the phone is going to be the best computer, because it's with you at all times. It's going to be the best camera, because it's there when you need it. It will be the best music player because it's with you at all times. We do surveys and sometimes take phones away from people, and they start crying. They have that amount of personal investment in the relationship. It becomes the digital hub of your life. So I think this is the biggest opportunity. Mobility, Internet, content, computing -- all of that is converging into this device.

????There's an argument that this business is fundamentally a hit business -- each product is a hit or it's not. Such businesses are fundamentally volatile, and investors discount their value for that reason. Is there a way to escape that?

????I think there is. In the history of this business Nokia (NOK) accomplished that, and todayApple has accomplished it. You're right though in saying this is a hit business. It's very much like a Hollywood movie business or a drug selection business. What we need is a business machine that works at a modest profitability level at all times, and then on top of that you can have hits. The question isn't whether there's volatility. There is definitely volatility in this business. You're only as good as your last product. But we have a distribution machine, a supply-chain machine, a development machine, a branding machine, a go-to-market machine, which delivers a level of profitability. I think it's possible to get that machine to be efficient enough, and then on top of that you take this 20% or 30% innovative bet that some of them could be hits.

????History says an industry like this eventually consolidates to a handful of players. Do you expect that to happen, and does Motorola survive as an independent company?

????I expect consolidation to occur. Our customers are consolidating, and our supply base is also consolidating. But my view is that consolidation occurs in some interesting ways. I'm not convinced that handset manufacturers acquiring other manufacturers is the best way for value to be created for shareholders. Consolidation across content manufacturers and hardware and software manufacturers -- I see a bunch of different ways for this consolidation to occur, to create shareholder value and create different structures to the industry. You've already seen the acquisition of Palm by HP (HPQ, Fortune 500), a very interesting acquisition that brought software and hardware assets together. The relationship between Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) and Nokia (NOK) also speaks to that. Do we expect Motorola to be an independent company? I don't know yet. I hope very much that we are. I believe our strategy is the right strategy and will deliver the shareholder value we've promised.

????It sounds as if Motorola consolidating possibly with a software outfit of some kind is not unimaginable.

????There are lots of opportunities for us to combine different resources and create more shareholder value.

????The stock market seems to think Apple is going to rule the world -- it's the second most valuable company in America, after Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500). What are Apple's vulnerabilities?

????I'm loath to comment on vulnerabilities of a company that has been incredibly successful in delivering world-class products. On the other hand, I would say that scale and innovation very often don't mix. Defense of market share and other defensive actions very often set in, and middle management begins to drive the culture and strategy of a company. I'm certain the folks at Apple are very cognizant and are prepared to make sure that doesn't occur. But not speaking about Apple in particular, the scale that comes with that level of success is very often the beginning of a decline.

????You're a global CEO running a global business. What's the key to America's competitiveness in the world economy?

????Innovation and the education system. We have -- or we've had -- the best secondary- and [college]-education system in the world, and we by and large changed the world -- not just ourselves, but also England and some other places. We definitely want to encourage the brightest people in the world to come and innovate here in America. Some of our immigration policies are slightly counter to that direction. We ought to look at that and also invest much more heavily in, first, our education system, and second, what I call pre-competitive research in our universities. When we put a man on the moon, we were spending far more of our GDP on research than we are doing today. It's important that we go back to the roots of doing fundamental research and then winning on the basis of that.