????維塞爾引用的另一個(gè)例子是施樂(lè)公司（Xerox）的帕洛阿爾托研究所（PARC），也就是這家知名復(fù)印機(jī)公司的研發(fā)部門(mén),。正是它在20世紀(jì)70年代開(kāi)發(fā)了個(gè)人電腦,、圖形用戶界面、鼠標(biāo)和以太網(wǎng),，后來(lái)卻無(wú)一繼續(xù)開(kāi)發(fā),，均告流產(chǎn)。將該部門(mén)的總部放在美國(guó)大陸的另一側(cè)——加州的帕羅阿托實(shí)屬明智之舉,，因?yàn)檫@樣就能免得公司總部那些斤斤計(jì)較的管理人員對(duì)它過(guò)度關(guān)注,。而且施樂(lè)非常富有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)地預(yù)見(jiàn)到了即將到來(lái)的信息革命。維塞爾借此表達(dá)了一個(gè)主要觀點(diǎn)：“如果貴公司內(nèi)部已經(jīng)有了那些準(zhǔn)備摧毀任何新嘗試的抗體,，你就需要走出公司去克服它們的消極影響,。”

????但是到了需要為自己的個(gè)人電腦阿爾托（Alto）開(kāi)展?fàn)I銷(xiāo)時(shí),，施樂(lè)卻只是簡(jiǎn)單地把產(chǎn)品往已有的銷(xiāo)售渠道里一塞了事,。它沒(méi)有向公司高管和私營(yíng)企業(yè)主（或是家庭市場(chǎng)）去推銷(xiāo)，而是試著把阿爾托賣(mài)給那些購(gòu)買(mǎi)施樂(lè)復(fù)印機(jī)的中層管理者,。結(jié)果導(dǎo)致一敗涂地,。

????但是，像施樂(lè)這么專注,、創(chuàng)新和聰明的公司,，怎么會(huì)在推銷(xiāo)自己的新技術(shù)時(shí)三次都宣告失敗呢？正是因?yàn)橛锌贵w作祟,。就在個(gè)人電腦行將推向市場(chǎng)之際,，施樂(lè)在復(fù)印機(jī)市場(chǎng)上正面臨來(lái)自佳能公司（Canon）和其他公司的激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，使公司的盈利預(yù)期壓力倍增,。面對(duì)那些高聲叫嚷著要攫取利潤(rùn)的投資者,，施樂(lè)只得將阿爾托匆匆推向市場(chǎng)以取悅他們。維塞爾稱,，如果施樂(lè)采取了“謹(jǐn)慎的試驗(yàn)性方法”,，（這段話出現(xiàn)在該文最讓人沮喪的段落）“避開(kāi)投資者的注意的話”，結(jié)果很可能會(huì)截然不同,。

????但是“謹(jǐn)慎的方法”能催生出同樣的創(chuàng)新成果嗎,？維塞爾并未就此給出案例,。而且很明顯,，避開(kāi)自己的投資者去做生意總不能算是理想的做法,。

????而至少在某些情況下，更好的方法似乎是對(duì)投資者直言相告：我們關(guān)注的是長(zhǎng)期收益,，如果你們只對(duì)短期利潤(rùn)感興趣,，也許應(yīng)該去選擇利率互換產(chǎn)品或其他類(lèi)似的金融產(chǎn)品。

????對(duì)那些取得過(guò)重大創(chuàng)新成果的大公司來(lái)說(shuō),，它們至少有一次對(duì)自己那些投資者的短期獲利欲望是不予理睬的：蘋(píng)果公司（Apple）,，聯(lián)邦快遞（FedEx），美國(guó)電話電報(bào)公司（AT&T）（通過(guò)貝爾實(shí)驗(yàn)室）,，豐田汽車(chē)（Toyota）,，通用電氣（General Electric），索尼公司（Sony）,。還有很多,，不勝枚舉。這并不是說(shuō),，投資開(kāi)展創(chuàng)新毫無(wú)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，或者應(yīng)該對(duì)其一味放任，對(duì)投資者也不管不顧,。但是,，當(dāng)考慮股東的感受成了頭等大事時(shí)，創(chuàng)新基本上無(wú)從談起,。

????譯者：清遠(yuǎn)

????Another example he cites is Xerox PARC, the copier-maker's famous research division, which in the '70s developed a personal computer, the graphical user interface, the mouse, and Ethernet, and proceeded to capitalize on none of them. It was a great idea to situate the division's headquarters a continent away in Palo Alto, Calif., to prevent the bean-counters at corporate HQ from paying too much attention. And Xerox (XRX) was truly visionary in anticipating the coming information revolution. This is one of Wessel's main points: "If antibodies already exist within your organization to destroy new endeavors, you need to go outside of the organization to overcome them."

????But when it came time to market its PC, the Alto, Xerox simply jammed the thing into its existing sales channels. Rather than marketing to corporate executives and self-employed entrepreneurs (or possibly the home market), Xerox tried to sell the Alto to the same mid-level decision-makers who bought the company's copiers. Massive fail.

????But why, given how committed, innovative and smart Xerox clearly was, did it fail on all three counts when it came time to sell its new technology? The antibodies. Just as the PC was being readied for market, Xerox was facing all kinds of competition in the copier market from Canon (CAJ) and others, putting pressure on margins. Xerox rushed the Alto to market to appease investors who were clamoring for profits.

????Wessel says Xerox would have done better to employ a "lean approach to experimentation" that would (in the essay's most depressing phrase) "fly under the radar of investors."

????But would a "lean approach" have yielded the same innovations? Wessel doesn't make a case that it would have. And clearly, hiding from your own investors isn't an ideal way to do business.

????A better approach, in at least some cases, seems to be to tell investors that you're in it for the long haul, and if they're interested only in short-term profits, maybe they should check out interest-rate swaps, or something.

????One need only look at the list of big companies that have, at least at one time or another, implemented major innovations, often despite the short-term wishes of their own investors: Apple (AAPL), FedEx (FDX), AT&T (T) (via Bell Labs), Toyota (TM), General Electric (GE), Sony (SNE). Many more. Which is not to say that investing in innovation is risk-free or should be undertaken with wild abandon and zero thought for investors. But innovation rarely arises when shareholder sentiment is the primary consideration.