Jim Collins: Certainly, one them anyway. One of them. Ok, so let's, this was a great question that got me thinking. So first of all, let's just kind of review the essence of what it is.
Thomas D. Gorman: Right.
Jim Collins: When we looked at the companies that made this inflection, and then sustained it long enough that they earned a position in the analysis. They had a dynasty era. They got very clear on how to channel their energy right into the middle of these three intersecting circles.
One thing is they had great passion. Second is, things that they could truly be the best in the world at. And third is, what truly was the key value the drives the economic engine.
Now, if you think about that, I don't know if this would translate into Chinese well.
If you think about it on an individual level, right?
If you do something that you really love to do and you're passionate about, and you're really good at it. And you add value for what people will pay you, that's a good place to be. And it doesn't strike me that this is something that would go away over time. 200 years ago, 200 years from now, in different part of the world, in the United States, doing things for which you have great passion, because nothing great happens without passion, doing something in which you have a distinctive ability to be exceptional and doing something that you add value that the world will compensate you for so you can actually turn the flywheel, seems to me to likely to apply.
Now, look at this particularly with companies and I'm going to come to a second point, though, about in today's world or in different parts of the world, how this might morph.
I still absolutely believe in the passion and the best sense in the economic circle. I would argue they are even more important.
The world is going to be uncertain, unstable and out of our control and increasingly exhausting. So, if you don't actually have a deep reservoir of passion for what you're doing, an incredible sense of it, no matter how hard this is, I still really believe in it and I really like it, you're going to get destroyed. Because you simply won't have the endurance. Or, you'll quit when you can.
The second is the notion of, doing what you can be the best at, and I very much agree with Michael Porter, you have to define that very clearly and terms of where you have a distinctive and unique capability.
And in today's increasingly brutal world, if you don't have a distinctive and unique capability that really makes you stand out, in some way,that you can't be exchanged for some other alternative; then you're going to get beat. And I believe that's even more true today, so the irony is actually that the Hedgehog's going to be more important.
The third is, adding value that drives your economic engine. It's increasingly difficult to build an economic engine. And it changes in so many different ways and it gets ripped away by growth, or global forces, or technology changes, or whatever it happens to be. And yet, you have to be able to go back and find the real economic engine or at some point you'll perish.
So, you look at what's the challenge immediately today, you can't just have two or three circles, you can have passion and what you can be best at, but if you don't have the economics, (then it's not enough), right?
So you got to find all three, one way or another. So, those I think will be more important.
How I started thinking about, and I don't know if this is true, but I'm wondering if you went into other cultures whether you might see an addition in the Hedgehog Concept.
And this is speculative, but I wonder if what happens as you go from culture to culture that the three circles go across all of them? But, that you might have a cultural specific fourth circle, that is very relevant to that particular environment. So perhaps, it might be that you go into a given country and the fourth circle is your relationship to government. Or the fourth circle might be, relationships, right? And what you have is not only passion and "best at" and the key set of economics, but relationships.
Cause I know, my friends from India have described for me about, relationships that may go back 15 generations, which will trump economics. So in India, what you might have is, you got to have passion and "best at", and the set of economics and then relationships may really have something to do with that fourth circle.
As I stand back and think about this across different cultures, I would not be surprised to discover that there is a culture-specific, a national-specific fourth circle, wherever you might go. And then I started thinking about, well what might that fourth circle be for the United States, it's sort of invisible to us?
But, if we would actually look across multiple cultures, you would see it for the United States. And I think for the United States it's quite possibly our fundamental relationship to the ethic of our entrepreneurship as uniquely ours perhaps. And how that ties into building companies. But, I have to think about it.
But, I think that we may not see the fourth circle, because we're just looking at American companies in contrast to other American ones. Across cultures, I would not be surprised to see a variable fourth circle.
Thomas D. Gorman: That's fascinating.
Jim Collins: I don't know if that makes any sense...
Thomas D. Gorman: I think it does. I think it does. I think you may very well be on to something. I hadn't thought about it before.
Jim Collins: Well you had, because you asked me the question.
Thomas D. Gorman: That's true.
Jim Collins: I hadn't thought about it, till you asked the question. |
|
吉姆·柯林斯：“當然，這最重要的概念之一。”這是一個發人深省的問題。首先，我們來看一下到底什么是刺猬理念。
高德思：好。
吉姆·柯林斯：看一下那些經歷過拐點的公司，在經歷拐點之后繼續表現出色，最終成為我們的分析對象。他們都曾輝煌過。他們非常清楚，如何將精力正確投入到三環的重疊部分（刺猬理念的核心）。
首先，他們充滿熱情。第二，他們都有所擅長，并在所擅長的領域可以做到最好。第三，理解驅動經濟引擎的真正核心價值所在。
我不知道這些話能不能很好地譯成中文。
我們從個人的角度來思考。如果做自己喜歡的事，你就會做得很好。別人為你支付報酬，你能為別人提升價值，這就是一個好的方向。我認為這不會隨時間的推移而消逝。無論是兩百年前，還是兩百年后；無論在世界各地，還是在美國都要做讓自己充滿熱情的事，因為沒有熱情就無法創造卓越；要做自己擅長、并有天賦的事；要做你能夠帶來增值的事，這個世界因此會給予你回報。你就可以因此而推動一個（巨大而沉重的）飛輪，在我看來這個理論是適用的。
現在，從公司角度來看。我要談談第二點，即在當今世界的不同地方，應該如何因地制宜地運用刺猬理念。
我依舊堅信“熱情”和“悟性”在經濟輪回中起到的重要作用。現在他們甚至變得更為重要。
世界會變得越來越不確定、不穩定、難以控制，并且令人精疲力盡。所以，不論多么困難，如果你對所做的事沒有熱情，或者沒有足夠的悟性，我覺得你一定會被摧毀。 因為你不會有足夠的忍耐力。或者說一旦堅持不住，你就會放棄。
第二點，要做你最擅長的。我非常同意邁克爾?波特（Michael Porter）的觀點。他說，你一定要清晰地定位自己，認識到自己獨特的優勢。
在當今這個日益殘酷的世界，如果你沒有一技之長，無法做到讓你自己與眾不同而不被他人替代，那么你就會被淘汰。我相信這個道理在如今越來越適用了。所以諷刺的是，刺猬理念將變得越來越重要。
第三，通過增加價值來驅動經濟引擎。現在建造經濟引擎的工作變得越來越難。它以各種方式變化著，同時受到經濟增長、全球化的力量、技術變革和其它各種外力的影響。然而，你必須能夠找到真正的經濟引擎，不然你早晚會失敗。
所以，看看當今的挑戰，不可能只有兩個環這么簡單。你可能有足夠的熱情，并做著自己擅長的事，但如果沒有經濟引擎，（還是不夠的，）對吧？
所以你無論如何要把這三個環全找到。我覺得這些是更重要的。
雖不知是否正確，但我在想當你研究其他文化時，刺猬理念是不是有了更多的含義？試想，當你跨越了文化，這三個環是否依然能夠涵蓋一切？還是會有與當地環境緊密相關的第四個環。比如說，在某個國家，第四個環就是和政府的關系。或者說各種類型的關系？你不僅要有熱情、特長、主要的經濟驅動力，還要有關系。
我的一些印度朋友跟我講過有些商業關系可以追溯到15代人以前，這些關系甚至超過經濟的作用。所以在印度，你要有激情、特長和經濟驅動力，同時還要有關系，這也許就是第四個環。
回想這些不同的文化背景，自然會發現這第四個環與特定的文化、國情相關，必須考慮進去。然后我就開始思考，這第四個環對于美國意味著什么。它對我們來說就是無形的嗎？
如果觀察一下其他文化，我們不難發現它對于美國的意義。對于美國，這第四個環就是我們與企業家商業道德的基本關系，這是獨一無二的。而這又是怎么和打造公司關聯起來的？我需要考慮一下。
現在我們可能看不到第四個環，因為我們只是在美國公司之間做互相比較。如果跨越了文化，我們就不難發現各種各樣的第四個環。
高德思：這非常有意思。
吉姆·柯林斯：我不確定這是否能夠成立…
高德思：我認為這個觀點是成立的。我覺得你正在揭示一些重要的規律。此前，我可能未曾想過這些。
吉姆·柯林斯：你應該是思考過了，因為正是你向我提出了這個問題。
高德思：事實如此。
吉姆·柯林斯：在你提問之前，我倒是未曾考慮過這些。 |
