高德思：你說(shuō)過(guò)卓越的公司在發(fā)展的同時(shí)還能保留自己的核心價(jià)值,。我的問(wèn)題是關(guān)于他們?nèi)绾文軌虺晒ψ龅竭@一點(diǎn),，如何在保留公司核心元素的同時(shí)營(yíng)造出一個(gè)創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境？

吉姆·柯林斯：讓我們首先來(lái)看看一個(gè)在價(jià)值觀上持之以恒,，始終堅(jiān)持一個(gè)目標(biāo),，同時(shí)大力推進(jìn)產(chǎn)品升級(jí)和創(chuàng)新的范例。我認(rèn)為這就是蘋(píng)果公司（Apple）,。我認(rèn)為蘋(píng)果真的是這方面的典范,，因?yàn)楫?dāng)喬布斯重回蘋(píng)果時(shí)，他真的重新找回了蘋(píng)果最初的價(jià)值觀,。那時(shí)他讓公司初創(chuàng)時(shí)的價(jià)值觀重獲生機(jī),。他的想法從未僅限于建立一家電腦公司，而是要?jiǎng)?chuàng)造出很棒的產(chǎn)品,。早在80年代,，他曾經(jīng)談到過(guò)（計(jì)算機(jī)是）“頭腦自行車”（bicycles for the mind）這一觀點(diǎn)。他也談到電子產(chǎn)品和摩爾定律推動(dòng)下的軟件的未來(lái),。但是最酷的還是來(lái)源于自行車是最有效代步工具（這一類比觀點(diǎn),。）如果你好好想想，就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)騎上自行車可以去很多地方，真是一個(gè)奇妙的發(fā)明,。認(rèn)為,，我們就像在做“頭腦自行車”的生意，而不是電腦生意,。電腦恰好就是一種大腦自行車,。他對(duì)此很清楚，一直以來(lái)他就是想給人們一些能力放大器,，讓他們無(wú)論做什么都能感到興奮和自由,。公司創(chuàng)始之初，這種想法就深深根植于企業(yè)精神當(dāng)中,，大家都認(rèn)為這樣做很酷,。后來(lái)蘋(píng)果在沒(méi)有喬布斯掌舵的情況下運(yùn)營(yíng)了一段時(shí)間，接著他又回來(lái)了,。他干了什么呢,？他重新帶回了那個(gè)想法，看看從那時(shí)起,，他們創(chuàng)造了多少成功的產(chǎn)品,。這些就是頭腦的自行車。蘋(píng)果機(jī)到今天還在往這個(gè)方面努力,。但是,，你再看看iPhone、iPod,、iPad,，看看他們所開(kāi)發(fā)的各種各樣的產(chǎn)品。他們總是不停地更新?lián)Q代,，而非一步到位后就止步不前,。

首先擁有一個(gè)核心想法，然后圍繞這個(gè)想法不斷進(jìn)步,，這就是一個(gè)經(jīng)典案例,。當(dāng)然我認(rèn)為這也是一段他的人生旅程，他在個(gè)人旅程中保留了這種不斷進(jìn)步的動(dòng)力,。所以在他的產(chǎn)品和商業(yè)模式中,，你也能看到這些特點(diǎn)。這其中的關(guān)鍵就是：有些事物是恒久不變的,，而在這個(gè)框架下,，你可以充分發(fā)揮創(chuàng)造力。

我知道你在創(chuàng)造鼓勵(lì)創(chuàng)新的環(huán)境,，但我不知道中國(guó)文化在這方面發(fā)揮了哪些影響和作用,。因此,，首先請(qǐng)向我簡(jiǎn)單介紹一下中國(guó)人是怎樣看待創(chuàng)新的，之后我就可以在此基礎(chǔ)上來(lái)分享一下我的想法,。

高德思：這是一個(gè)很不錯(cuò)的問(wèn)題。通常人們認(rèn)為中國(guó)的教育方式在鼓勵(lì)創(chuàng)新方面并不強(qiáng),。主要就是靠死記硬背,。這是大家最經(jīng)常提出的一個(gè)問(wèn)題，至于這說(shuō)的對(duì)不對(duì),，我們可以就此進(jìn)行辯論,，但這確實(shí)是大家最常提出的問(wèn)題。關(guān)于企業(yè)創(chuàng)新,，你會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)許多觀察者會(huì)認(rèn)為這是中國(guó)公司面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn)：往產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈或創(chuàng)新價(jià)值鏈的上端移動(dòng),，扭轉(zhuǎn)低成本供應(yīng)、勞動(dòng)力密集型,、出口導(dǎo)向型,、低附加值、缺乏品牌的局面,。但是在過(guò)去五到十年的時(shí)間里,，我們已經(jīng)看到了許多創(chuàng)新的證據(jù)，特別是在商業(yè)模式方面,。在中國(guó)可以看到許多創(chuàng)新,，但這仍是一個(gè)熱點(diǎn)話題。就像我剛剛說(shuō)的,，一些人會(huì)說(shuō)這是中國(guó)公司面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn),。

另一方面，我知道你最近說(shuō)過(guò),，就美國(guó)而言,，或者說(shuō)就你的研究而言，創(chuàng)新這一點(diǎn)被高估了,。這些是核心的基礎(chǔ)原則,，換句話說(shuō)，就是要一種平衡,。

吉姆·柯林斯：我簡(jiǎn)單就這個(gè)問(wèn)題說(shuō)兩句,，之后再談?wù)勱P(guān)于創(chuàng)造力的幾點(diǎn)看法，這在我看來(lái)是需要強(qiáng)調(diào)的,。首先,，能夠把創(chuàng)新、執(zhí)行力,、創(chuàng)造力和約束力結(jié)合在一起,，這是非同一般的能力,。你并不一定要比別人更有創(chuàng)造力或是更有自我約束力，但是重要的是你能夠把兩者結(jié)合起來(lái),。即便你創(chuàng)造力無(wú)窮,，但是如果缺乏約束力，那你也走不遠(yuǎn),。如果你自律能力很強(qiáng)而卻沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造力,，那你也不會(huì)成功

高德思：是的。?

???

Thomas D. Gorman: One of your observations is great companies can preserve core values while stimulating progress. And I have some questions relating to how they do that successfully,... how do they foster an atmosphere of innovation while preserving the key elements of the core business?

Jim Collins: Let's first of all use a current example of a kind of consistency about values, and purpose and yet tremendous evolution and creativity around the products, and I think that is Apple. I think Apple is a really great example of this because what was very interesting when Steve Jobs came back to Apple, he really grabbed back onto the original founding values of Apple. He was the instigator of the original founding values at that point. And the idea, it was never about a computer company, the idea had to do with doing some very, creating some great products out of ultimately... he used to, way back in the '80's he used to talk about this idea of "bicycles for the mind." And the idea of electronics and ultimately what would happen through Moore's Law and software, but really cool products, the idea that a bicycle is the most efficient form of human movement. You get on a bicycle and you can really go places and it's a really amazing invention, when you think about it. And he thought, we're ultimately kind of like in the bicycles of the mind business; we're not in the computer business. Computers just happen to be one of those. And he understood this very much and it was always about giving these amplifiers to people and these things that would give people a sense of excitement and freedom around what they were doing. This was very deep in the ethos of the company from very early on and the idea of how cool it would be to do that. So, then Apple kind of goes on a journey without him for a period of a time, and then later he comes back. What does he do? He brings back that same idea and then all the products, just look at all of what's happened since then. They're bicycles for the mind. The Mac is still doing that. But, you think about the iPhone, you think about the iPod, you think about the iPad, you think about all the different things that they've been doing and lots of pieces. And there's lots of generations upon them, it's never just one, it's a lot of steps.

That is a classic example of there's a kind of a core idea, and tremendous progress around that idea. And that is, of course I think that's his journey as well, his own journey has been to preserve something -- constant progress. So yes, you can see it play out in products and you can see it also play out in business models.

And the whole idea is that by having something that you hang onto over time, it provides the context within which you do a lot of very creative things. So, now in terms of fostering environments of creativity and innovation and I know that you have, this is a question, and I don't know what the cultural aspects are about this with China. So, first maybe just fill me in a little bit on that from a Chinese perspective on a question of creativity, the question of innovation. And then I'd like to share a couple of thoughts on this based on that.

Thomas D. Gorman: And that's a very good question. I think to focus on commonly held views that Chinese education isn't particularly strong in promoting creativity. It's based on a lot more traditional rote learning. That's a common complaint that one hears, whether it's fair or not, we can debate that, but that's a common complaint. With regards to innovation in the corporate sense, you'll find a fair number of observers will say, that's the biggest challenge Chinese companies face: moving up the chain, or the value chain on innovation, moving away from being a low cost supplier, large pool of labor, export oriented, low value added, not many brands, but now, we've seen a lot of evidence of innovation, particularly in the business model area, in the past five to ten years. So, there's a lot of innovation going on, but it's still a very hot topic over there and as I say, some would say, it's the biggest challenge Chinese companies face.

On the other hand, I know that you've said, in recent times, that it may be somewhat over- rated in the American context or in the context of your research. These are the core fundamental disciplines, in other words, there's a balance there.

Jim Collins: Just a brief comment on that and then I want to come to a couple perspectives on creativity that I would at least like to highlight because I, but first of all, it's really the capacity to blend innovation and execution, creativity and discipline, that is a very special thing. It's not necessarily that you are, have to be more creative or disciplined, it that you have to find a way to put both of those together, and that's, so if you just have a lot of creativity, but you don't have any discipline, you won't go very far. But, if you have a lot of discipline and have no creativity, you also aren't going to go very far.

Thomas D. Gorman: Right.

?

吉姆·柯林斯：讓我再簡(jiǎn)短地談?wù)剟?chuàng)造力,。我剛剛?cè)ニ固垢４髮W(xué)（Stanford University） 教書(shū)的時(shí)候,，頭兩年就有幸教了一門關(guān)于創(chuàng)造力的課。這是由邁克爾·雷和他的同事米歇爾·邁爾斯設(shè)立的課程,。他們?cè)趧?chuàng)造力方面持有有趣的見(jiàn)解,，并且我越想，就越發(fā)覺(jué)得他們是對(duì)的,。他們的觀點(diǎn),，也就是這門課的前提是：創(chuàng)造力不是外部添加的，（換句話說(shuō)）你并不能將創(chuàng)造力賦予他人,。他們的觀點(diǎn)是只要你活著,，你就是有創(chuàng)造力的。

事實(shí)上你可以觀察五歲的孩子,。他們不是在做有創(chuàng)造力的事嗎,？他們不是在玩游戲、搞發(fā)明,、做有創(chuàng)造力的事嗎,？無(wú)論組織機(jī)構(gòu)、學(xué)校,、還是公司,，最后是否抹殺了這種創(chuàng)造力，每個(gè)人天生都是富有創(chuàng)造力的,。

如果你看看歷史,，最近一個(gè)剛剛結(jié)束的課程叫《大歷史》（Big History），有六十講,，很精彩,。它是關(guān)于一切的歷史，從大爆炸前一毫秒直到今天,。這些內(nèi)容來(lái)自《超級(jí)明星老師》（Super Star Teachers）系列,。其中講到一半時(shí)，出現(xiàn)了人類文明,。其主要觀點(diǎn)是,，集體學(xué)習(xí)可以成倍增加創(chuàng)造力,，這種力量引導(dǎo)著我們從游牧農(nóng)耕社會(huì)進(jìn)入了現(xiàn)代革命，并將繼續(xù)伴隨人類社會(huì)的發(fā)展進(jìn)程,，同時(shí)還在不斷加速,。而這源源不斷的新鮮源泉就是人類的創(chuàng)造力。你聽(tīng)了這樣的想法后會(huì)問(wèn),，難道就沒(méi)有證據(jù)證明人類沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造力嗎,？按照這門課程的觀點(diǎn)，人類的歷史說(shuō)明創(chuàng)造力就是人類的自然狀態(tài),。我們生來(lái)就是有創(chuàng)造力的。如果你活著,，你呼吸,，你就有創(chuàng)造力。但問(wèn)題是我們經(jīng)常扼殺或掩蓋創(chuàng)造力,。因此這門課要傳遞的信息就是人人都有創(chuàng)造力,。有些人不讓自己的創(chuàng)造力得到發(fā)揮，因?yàn)樗麄兛偸欠穸ㄗ约??！芭叮也荒苣敲凑f(shuō),，那樣太傻了,。哦，我也不能冒險(xiǎn),，可能會(huì)失敗的,。”或者是其它自我否定的想法,，阻止你嘗試具有創(chuàng)造性的事情,。 或者你老是害怕提問(wèn)，害怕精準(zhǔn)地觀察事物,。精準(zhǔn)地觀察能讓自己學(xué)到很多東西,，關(guān)注自己真正關(guān)注的，而不至于人云亦云,。

有創(chuàng)造力的人通常關(guān)注實(shí)際情況而不是社會(huì)陳規(guī),。所以這門課是基于這樣一種想法：有四個(gè)手段能夠掃清你發(fā)揮創(chuàng)造力的障礙。第一,，你必須要相信你是有創(chuàng)造力的,。因?yàn)槟阋嘈牛热荒闶侨祟惖囊粏T,，你就肯定有創(chuàng)造力,。第二,，減少那種妨礙你發(fā)揮創(chuàng)造力的批判的聲音：釋放自己的創(chuàng)造力。第三,，鍛煉你自己?jiǎn)栍薮绬?wèn)題的能力,。第四，對(duì)實(shí)際現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行精準(zhǔn)觀察的能力,，提出自己的問(wèn)題,，而不是盲目跟隨他人的思想。這些就是讓你克服障礙,，發(fā)揮自身創(chuàng)造力的四個(gè)基本工具,。

我記得我在斯坦福教書(shū)時(shí)，我們會(huì)討論不同的文化,。很多人會(huì)說(shuō),，日本人沒(méi)有什么創(chuàng)造力。而我一直在研究盛田昭夫和井深大,，他們都是極具創(chuàng)造力的人,。那么本田先生呢？還有豐田質(zhì)量體系的創(chuàng)造,？我認(rèn)為有些東西是非常有創(chuàng)造力的,。并不是說(shuō)日本人就沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造力，他們是有的,。中國(guó)人有創(chuàng)造力,，美國(guó)人有，歐洲人也有,，人類都是有創(chuàng)造力的,。如果你在呼吸，你就是有創(chuàng)造力的,。

因此我們現(xiàn)在的問(wèn)題是,，是什么阻礙了創(chuàng)造力的發(fā)揮？這與叫嚷著“我們是一個(gè)沒(méi)有創(chuàng)造力的民族,，或者我就不是個(gè)有創(chuàng)造力的人”完全是兩碼事,。如果我們隨機(jī)挑選地球上的一群人，他們面臨的共同問(wèn)題可能就是創(chuàng)造力被扼殺了,，因?yàn)樽鳛槿祟?，他們本該具有?chuàng)造力。如果中國(guó),、日本和美國(guó)人能夠接受這種想法,，他們將成為無(wú)盡的創(chuàng)新源泉，創(chuàng)造力一直就是存在的,。

Jim Collins: Let me just take on this topic of creativity for a moment.When I first started teaching at Stanford, I had the great privilege for the first two years there, one of the courses I got to teach was a course on creativity. It was a course that was created by Professor Michael Ray and his colleague, Michele Myers. And they had a very interesting take on creativity, that the more I've thought about it, the more I really think is basically right. Their view, their premise and what the premise of this course was, is that creativity is not something that you add, (in other words) the idea that somehow you add creativity to people. Their full view was, if you breathe, you're creative.

That if actually, you look at kids when they're five years old. Do they do creative things? Do they play games, do they kind of invent things, do they, kids do creative things. Until, whether it be organizations, or school systems, or companies, beat it out of them, but they of start out that way.

If you look over the history, a recently finished, wonderful course on what's called, Big History, 60 lectures. And it looks at the history of everything basically from the thing called Super Star Teachers series from the Millisecond Before the Big Bang to Today. And part way through that course you finally get to the rise of human civilization. And the view is you've got basically collective learning as a multiplicative creative force, which leads us from nomadic or agrarian stage to the modern revolution and whatever's going to come next and it keeps accelerating. But, of course, what happens is that is the infinite renewable resource the input is human creativity. And you take these points of view and say, is there any evidence, that basically people are not creative and the view of this course, and the evolution of human history, would suggest that the natural state of the human being is creative. We're born creative, if you're alive you're creative, if you breathe you’re creative, and the problem is we stifle it, we cover it up, and the whole point of this course is basically to say, there isn't such a thing as an uncreative person. What there are, are people who do not allow their creativity to come out because they have a very strong voice of judgment. "Oh, I can't say that, that would be really stupid. Oh, I can't really try that, I might fail." Or that kind of severe self-criticism that prevents you from trying something creative. Or, you're always afraid to ask questions, or to make precise observations in which you learn from your own precise observation rather than whatever everybody else thinks, so that you're paying attention to something directly yourself.

Creative people often look to actual situations rather than social convention. And so this course was based on the idea that there are four things that allow you to remove the barriers to your own creativity. One is, you have to have faith that you are creative. By virtue of the fact that, I am a card-carrying member of the human race, therefore I am creative. Second, you have to work on reducing that voice of critical judgment that prevents you from doing something that might be creative: letting the creativity out. Number three, exercise your ability to ask dumb questions. And number four, the ability to make precise observation of actual phenomena, and ask your own questions on what it means rather than whatever everybody else thinks it means. And these are the four basic tools that allow you to remove the barriers to the creativity that is inside you.

So, this idea that there are, I mean, I remember when I was teaching back at Stanford and we're talking about different cultures and so forth.

And people would say, yeah but the thing with Japan is, you know, the Japanese are just not very creative. And I would sit there and think, well, I've been studying Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka, and these were enormously creative people. What about Mr. Honda? What about the creation of the quality systems of Toyota? I mean, there's some amazingly creative (stuff), it's nothing about, the fact that inherently the Japanese are not creative, they're creative. The Chinese are creative, the American are creative, Europeans are creative, human beings are creative, if you breathe you're creative.

So, I think then the question becomes, what are the things in place that get in the way of that creativity being there? Which is a very different thing than somehow saying, oh, we're not a creative people, or I'm not a creative person. And I guess if we were to take a random sample of any group of people on the planet, now their situation might be one that stifles creativity, but as human beings they are creative. If folks in China and Japan and in parts of the United States embraced that idea, it's the infinitely renewable resource; it's there all the time.