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(dāng)然,，這最重要的概念之一?！边@是一個(gè)發(fā)人深省的問(wèn)題,。首先，我們來(lái)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(jīng)歷過(guò)拐點(diǎn)的公司，在經(jīng)歷拐點(diǎn)之后繼續(xù)表現(xiàn)出色,，最終成為我們的分析對(duì)象,。他們都曾輝煌過(guò)。他們非常清楚,，如何將精力正確投入到三環(huán)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(zhǎng)，并在所擅長(zhǎng)的領(lǐng)域可以做到最好,。第三,，理解驅(qū)動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎的真正核心價(jià)值所在。
我不知道這些話能不能很好地譯成中文,。
我們從個(gè)人的角度來(lái)思考,。如果做自己喜歡的事，你就會(huì)做得很好,。別人為你支付報(bào)酬，你能為別人提升價(jià)值,，這就是一個(gè)好的方向,。我認(rèn)為這不會(huì)隨時(shí)間的推移而消逝。無(wú)論是兩百年前,，還是兩百年后,；無(wú)論在世界各地，還是在美國(guó)都要做讓自己充滿熱情的事,，因?yàn)闆](méi)有熱情就無(wú)法創(chuàng)造卓越,；要做自己擅長(zhǎng)、并有天賦的事,；要做你能夠帶來(lái)增值的事,，這個(gè)世界因此會(huì)給予你回報(bào),。你就可以因此而推動(dòng)一個(gè)（巨大而沉重的）飛輪，在我看來(lái)這個(gè)理論是適用的,。
現(xiàn)在,，從公司角度來(lái)看。我要談?wù)劦诙c(diǎn),，即在當(dāng)今世界的不同地方,，應(yīng)該如何因地制宜地運(yùn)用刺猬理念。
我依舊堅(jiān)信“熱情”和“悟性”在經(jīng)濟(jì)輪回中起到的重要作用?，F(xiàn)在他們甚至變得更為重要,。
世界會(huì)變得越來(lái)越不確定、不穩(wěn)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(duì)所做的事沒(méi)有熱情，或者沒(méi)有足夠的悟性,，我覺(jué)得你一定會(huì)被摧毀,。 因?yàn)槟悴粫?huì)有足夠的忍耐力?；蛘哒f(shuō)一旦堅(jiān)持不住,，你就會(huì)放棄。
第二點(diǎn),，要做你最擅長(zhǎng)的,。我非常同意邁克爾?波特（Michael Porter）的觀點(diǎn)。他說(shuō),，你一定要清晰地定位自己,，認(rèn)識(shí)到自己獨(dú)特的優(yōu)勢(shì)。
在當(dāng)今這個(gè)日益殘酷的世界,，如果你沒(méi)有一技之長(zhǎng),，無(wú)法做到讓你自己與眾不同而不被他人替代，那么你就會(huì)被淘汰,。我相信這個(gè)道理在如今越來(lái)越適用了,。所以諷刺的是，刺猬理念將變得越來(lái)越重要,。
第三,，通過(guò)增加價(jià)值來(lái)驅(qū)動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎。現(xiàn)在建造經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎的工作變得越來(lái)越難,。它以各種方式變化著,，同時(shí)受到經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng),、全球化的力量、技術(shù)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(jīng)濟(jì)引擎，不然你早晚會(huì)失敗,。
所以,，看看當(dāng)今的挑戰(zhàn)，不可能只有兩個(gè)環(huán)這么簡(jiǎn)單,。你可能有足夠的熱情,，并做著自己擅長(zhǎng)的事，但如果沒(méi)有經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎,，（還是不夠的,，）對(duì)吧？
所以你無(wú)論如何要把這三個(gè)環(huán)全找到,。我覺(jué)得這些是更重要的,。
雖不知是否正確，但我在想當(dāng)你研究其他文化時(shí),，刺猬理念是不是有了更多的含義,？試想，當(dāng)你跨越了文化,，這三個(gè)環(huán)是否依然能夠涵蓋一切,？還是會(huì)有與當(dāng)?shù)丨h(huán)境緊密相關(guān)的第四個(gè)環(huán)。比如說(shuō),，在某個(gè)國(guó)家,，第四個(gè)環(huán)就是和政府的關(guān)系?；蛘哒f(shuō)各種類(lèi)型的關(guān)系,？你不僅要有熱情、特長(zhǎng),、主要的經(jīng)濟(jì)驅(qū)動(dòng)力,，還要有關(guān)系。
我的一些印度朋友跟我講過(guò)有些商業(yè)關(guān)系可以追溯到15代人以前,，這些關(guān)系甚至超過(guò)經(jīng)濟(jì)的作用。所以在印度,，你要有激情,、特長(zhǎng)和經(jīng)濟(jì)驅(qū)動(dòng)力，同時(shí)還要有關(guān)系,，這也許就是第四個(gè)環(huán),。
回想這些不同的文化背景,，自然會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這第四個(gè)環(huán)與特定的文化、國(guó)情相關(guān),，必須考慮進(jìn)去,。然后我就開(kāi)始思考，這第四個(gè)環(huán)對(duì)于美國(guó)意味著什么,。它對(duì)我們來(lái)說(shuō)就是無(wú)形的嗎,？
如果觀察一下其他文化，我們不難發(fā)現(xiàn)它對(duì)于美國(guó)的意義,。對(duì)于美國(guó),，這第四個(gè)環(huán)就是我們與企業(yè)家商業(yè)道德的基本關(guān)系，這是獨(dú)一無(wú)二的,。而這又是怎么和打造公司關(guān)聯(lián)起來(lái)的,？我需要考慮一下。
現(xiàn)在我們可能看不到第四個(gè)環(huán),，因?yàn)槲覀冎皇窃诿绹?guó)公司之間做互相比較,。如果跨越了文化，我們就不難發(fā)現(xiàn)各種各樣的第四個(gè)環(huán),。
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(rèn)為這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)是成立的。我覺(jué)得你正在揭示一些重要的規(guī)律,。此前,，我可能未曾想過(guò)這些。
吉姆·柯林斯：你應(yīng)該是思考過(guò)了,，因?yàn)檎悄阆蛭姨岢隽诉@個(gè)問(wèn)題,。
高德思：事實(shí)如此。
吉姆·柯林斯：在你提問(wèn)之前,，我倒是未曾考慮過(guò)這些,。 |
