SCMP | Foreign companies must lose their arrogance to win big in China

Ed Tse

A cover story earlier this year in The Economist featured the headline “China loses its allure”. The key point was that, although in the past 30 years a large number of multinational companies have gone to mainland China to invest, this gold rush is now over, even though opportunities remain.
The key reasons, it said, include the slowdown of China’s economy and continuously rising costs; the fact that, even today, many sectors are still not entirely open for foreign companies; the emergence of local competition that has created new competitive threats; and the fact that China’s diversity across regions requires different strategies and operating models.
But has China really lost its allure? The answer depends on the type of company and its development strategies. In fact, for some multinationals, China may even be providing more allure today.
As China has opened up, so the importance of foreign companies in the nation’s economy has increased. They have brought, among other things, capital, technology, management techniques, business models and ways to develop human resources.
After more than 20 years, the experience of multinationals in China is clearly divided. For quite a number, China has become their most important market in the world, or one of the most important. The most notable case is probably the Yum Group’s KFC; more than half their global revenue and profit now come from China. Other notable examples include General Motors, Volkswagen, BMW and Apple.
At the same time, many others have tried their hand in China and eventually decided to leave. Some better-known cases include Best Buy, Mattel, Media Markt and eBay. Foreign multinationals’ experience spans the entire spectrum. Why?
For many, a common mistake was to assume the China market was the same as their other markets in the rest of the world. They believed that since they have been successful elsewhere, it would be easy to do so in China as well. They tended to apply their global business model to China.
Paradoxically, the more successful a multinational is in the rest of the world, the more confidence it has in applying its usual business model to China. However, after their entry, many discovered that China’s market was often much more complicated than other markets. Their original business model only allowed these companies to penetrate a small part of China’s market; often only the top end of their customer base or product pyramid.
Even worse, some foreign business models didn’t actually work in China. A classic case was Home Depot from the US. Its business model relies on customers who enjoy DIY. However, there’s no such culture in China and so the business never really took off.
The root cause of many multinationals’ dismal performance is, I believe, their “arrogant” DNA. When they expanded their business internationally, many were quite successful. Their products, services, brands and business models often helped them capture advantageous positions. Over time, this led many to believe they had a high probability of success wherever they went.
China’s market, however, has given multinationals an important and costly lesson. Over the past 20 years or more, China’s economy has developed into a complicated, fast-changing and often ambiguous operating environment. There are several reasons for this, including: the transition from a planned to a market economy; a mixed economy that includes state-owned enterprises, private firms, foreign companies and “mixed-equity companies”; and, an isolated country increasingly integrating with the outside world.
In addition, China’s large land mass, its large population and major regional disparities mean it is hard for many multinationals to adjust. Some are now beginning to recognise that if they want to be successful in the Chinese market, they need to fundamentally adjust their attitude about China. They need to change from being arrogant to humble, and be willing to learn and accept China’s differences.
Only with such an attitude and mindset can multinationals develop a strategy that is more appropriate for China. Without such reflection and change, it will be hard for them to achieve sustainable success.
Has China lost its allure? Those multinationals that have come to China, tried and failed, probably feel that way. However, for those that have found the right direction, developed effective strategies and, importantly, the right attitude and mindset, China will continue to present a multitude of opportunities.
Its huge market, fast development, increasing deregulation, improving technology, innovation and intensive competition, will make China even more attractive, as well as making it the breeding ground for the next generation of enterprise leaders.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Multinational companies must lose their arrogance to succeed in China

 

【海鑫应该跟沙钢学什么】

谢祖墀

近来海鑫的故事被社会热议,但纵观其过程其实并不新奇。因为中国改革开放后的这几十年间,大型企业陷入危机的例子屡见不鲜,早有前车之鉴,如德隆、顺驰、巨人等等。每家企业出现困境时的境况各不相同,有其偶然性也有其必然性,也是中国企业从粗陋走向成熟的必要过程。

海鑫钢铁的问题首先在于其创业人及董事长李海仓离开后,企业缺少一个能够在关键时刻拍板和控制局面的人。这是海鑫命运最直观的转折点,这不光是一个关乎人事的问题,更是关乎该企业之后的管理体系、组织架构的问题,从而全盘影响到企业的发展。李兆会虽是董事长,却很少过问实际运营,实业部分的领导层都由李氏家族的亲戚集体领导。对于中国企业而言,集体领导往往会导致无人用心经营,而海鑫的家族型非现代化管理方式显然跟不上时代发展的节奏,导致企业长期无战略方向,无过硬的制度来保障运营。

2008年钢铁行业的下行对本身存在问题的海鑫更加不利。海鑫原本的渠道、产品较为稳定,但对于工业品而言,越是在大环境趋弱的情况下,越是需要核心产品的突破与创新。而海鑫至今生产的还是如螺纹钢筋等较为普通、技术含量较低的产品,在任何市场和渠道都是竞争激烈,并难以形成优势的。

相较于海鑫的主业钢铁生产,董事长李兆会显然更痴迷于投资与资本运作,但并不成功。所以李兆会治下的状况便是其拥有支配资产的权力却并不运营公司的实际业务,在这种情况下,其用于与实业无关的资本运作的资金势必会吞噬占用其钢铁业务所需资金,造成钢铁业务资金的匮乏。也就是说海鑫的战略方向在某种程度上从一家从事钢铁业务的公司变成了一家资本公司,而其这十年来资本运作的不成功,也势必拖累本就处于低迷大环境下的钢铁业务的发展。

在海鑫鼎盛时期,业界常将其与沙钢集团相比较,而在2008年之后所谓的“钢铁业寒冬”,沙钢一改以往的激进战略,转而开始潜心修炼、蓄势待发,让我们看看这些年沙钢做了些什么:在管理方面,沙钢从信息化着手,对内优化管理制度,将流程规范化、标准化,对外加强市场信息分析、精确掌握产品在市场上的动态;在产品方面,沙钢致力于技术创新,开发低成本、高性能产品,在市场低迷时期发展产品的核心价值;在市场方面,沙钢努力构建其全球营销网络体系,全面开拓国际市场;同时沙钢在各高校设立其“产学研”基地,在吸引高端人才的同时,提升了企业的科研能力;与外部合作方面,其与宝钢的合作也为其提升技术与管理提供了不小的帮助。种种积极的革新使沙钢成为了业界津津乐道的典范,同时与海鑫的消极经营形成了鲜明的对比。

许多中国商人在企业实际运营的过程中做决定较为随意,目光短浅且不计后果,毫无战略可言,因为他们相信与他们关系良好的企业及银行在他们困难的时候会鼎力相助。然而,当前中国市场的竞争形势日趋激烈,政府鼓励更多的放松管制的同时,政府其自身角色也在悄然发生变化,这一类企业原有的建立在关系基础上的优势就迅速衰退了。企业战略的制定对于一家大型企业而言是必不可少的,而其关键在于构建核心能力以体现差异化,这才是一家企业真正的优势。如何构建公司的核心能力,并使公司在平稳运转的同时可以从竞争者中脱颖而出是一家大型企业的管理者需要考虑的最基本问题。这个问题的本质其实在于如何精心设计内部流程,使企业自主、高效地运转,并且可以将所积累的经验转化成优势,相信海鑫在这方面并没有下太多功夫。

经营企业的本质其实是相同且没有捷径的,需要投入资源以建立可持续发展的能力。对于眼下的钢铁企业,在市场不景气的情况下更需要像沙钢一样,从内部的管理和流程着手,继而掌握产品和市场,由内而外提升企业竞争力。这种竞争力不会迅速在业绩表面上体现,而是企业自身的“硬功夫”。作为一家大型企业,海鑫首先没有设定公司战略及长期路线,在这种情况下公司缺少的是抵御风险和危机的能力;一家大型企业在内部管理资源及能力不足、且无明确战略的情况下,可以引入外部管理资源对企业所缺乏的能力进行弥补,而海鑫的家族企业的特性决定了外部资源难以进入,抑制了海鑫内部发展管理能力。一家企业无论大小,如果不考虑长期战略、能力得不到提升、无法从外部获得发展资源、发展的资金被占用,势必会被突如其来的危机所击垮。

来源:经济观察报

 

Europe’s World | Don’t belittle China’s innovation potential

Ed Tse 2014-09-25

Is China a breeding ground for innovation? Most people wouldn’t say so, as China is so often associated with copycats, restricted freedom of speech, poor protection of intellectual property rights (IPR), rote-learning education and an overbearing state sector. For some or all of these reasons, outsiders tend to see China as lacking the fundamentals for successful innovation.

But this view is simplistic and superficial. Let’s look at two of these so-called reasons in more detail. Lack of IPR protection is a real issue, but it hasn’t stopped innovation from taking place. Over the past decade, there have been many examples of innovation originating from China, both product and technology innovations as well as business model innovations. One can argue that change is still at a snail’s pace, but China’s IPR protection is improving and in recent years there have been cases where foreign companies successfully sued Chinese companies for IPR infringements.

The dominance of the state economy is another often-cited reason inhibiting innovation in China. Yet even the state sector can create innovations. Large scale examples include China’s space programme, its expanding high-speed rail network, the world’s highest-elevation railway (to Tibet), and the world’s fastest supercomputer. The list goes on and is lengthening. These were all developed under the auspices of the state sector. Regardless of what many people say about the Chinese copying or even stealing technology from others, for projects as complex as these, real innovations clearly do exist, and the dominance of the state economy was able to provide ample funding for these advances.

“Despite the state sector’s role so far, most of China’sinnovation will not be coming from there. It will come from the companies oreven individuals who compete in China’s increasingly open economy”

China’s market economy is still developing, and is now slightly over two decades old. This fundamental transformation away from the fully planned economy so deeply ingrained during the Chinese People’s Republic’s first 30 years is still just a small blip in China’s long history, and nothing that we have seen during the last 20 years is by any means perfect. But the forces shaping the future change need to be fully understood, and the direction and speed of their change recognised and appreciated.

Despite the state sector’s role so far, most of China’s innovation will not be coming from there. It will come from the companies or even individuals who compete in China’s increasingly open economy. And that includes both Chinese and foreign private companies as well as state companies. And as more mixed equity enterprises are formed in response to the needs of a competitive market, the lines separating these different kinds of companies will become more blurred than ever. China is undergoing a measured but definite process of deregulation, sector by sector. Not all sectors of the economy will ever be fully deregulated, but the trend is clear.

The size of China’s market and the potential for profits mean that when the government opens up a sector it becomes an arena for some of the world’s most intense competition. This forces companies to be innovative and to create the best products, services and business models to achieve success. There’s also a strong “why not me?” mentality among Chinese entrepreneurs, so when an opportunity arises they tend to give it a try. Some – maybe even most – may fail, but with a population of 1.4bn, even a small percentage of successes is noteworthy and these are going to encourage many others to try their luck. In short, waves of new entrepreneurs in China will be pushing for greater experimentation and more innovation.

Xiaomi, one of China’s leading smartphone players, is an excellent example of an innovative company in a highly competitive industry. Xiaomi’s leader, Lei Jun, understood the power of the Internet and built his company’s business model by “listening to customers” through social media – the concept known as “crowd-sourcing”. Its strategy is working so well that Xiaomi’s revenues grew from zero in 2010 to $5bn in 2013, with the company now reportedly valued at $10bn. The late Steve Jobs at Xiaomi’s U.S. counterpart, Apple, didn’t believe in focus groups because he felt he knew best, but Lei Jun takes the opposite approach, and is convinced that customers will be the best ones to tell him how his products should be designed and how its service model developed. With millions of fans, Lei Jun claims his business model is not to make money from the hardware, but from services.

At a more basic level of innovation, Haier, a leading Chinese white goods manufacturer, quickly gained market awareness and share by introducing a washer capable not only of cleaning clothes but also potatoes. This sprang from a customer claim and is an example of Haier’s “customer centric” management philosophy. Not every Chinese company will be like this, but the market is changing so rapidly that there are major incentives for Chinese companies to be agile, nimble and innovative.

“There’s also a strong “why not me?” mentality among Chineseentrepreneurs, so when an opportunity arises they tend to give it a try”

To successfully breed innovation, a country must be tolerant of mistakes and failures. These failures will include short-lived innovations, but they are part of the process and in fact often further examples of how innovation will be sustained in China. Tencent’s QQ, for example, was a precursor to WeChat, a fast-growing Twitter/WhatsApp type of platform very popular not only in China but internationally too. Although only two years old, WeChat already has over 600m registered subscribers and over 270m active users and the numbers are growing fast. It introduced voice capability before WhatsApp, along with a more recent payment capability that is undercutting China’s dominant incumbent, Alipay of Alibaba.

Telecom operators see WeChat and Sina’s Weibo as competitors because they eat into their own text messaging businesses and the prevalence of the Internet, in particular wireless internet, is fast cutting out traditional distribution methods. Only a few years ago, Gome and Sunning were the dominant retailers through their “bricks-and-mortar” retail stores and today, Sunning is having to quickly transform itself into an “O2O” (Offline to Online) retailer. The same goes for companies like Haier, while many retailers, especially state-owned ones, are looking at how they must revamp their business strategies to remain competitive.

As China’s economic transformation continues, more and more monopolies will be broken down. It’s unlikely that China will become completely deregulated in the near future, but it’s heading in the right direction, and the new government re-affirmed this trajectory at its recent Third Plenum when it was emphasised that market forces will play a “decisive role” in China’s economic development and non-state capital will gain access to more sectors. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) are set to remain important, but non-state companies were for the first time put on an equal footing with the SOEs. Experimental free trade zones like that of Shanghai are to be established in more cities across China, and an effort will be made to create economic conditions that are conductive to innovation by entrepreneurial companies, both foreign and state-owned.

China’s unique qualities are its complexity and size. Even a small percentage of successes can be significant in the context of global commerce. Europe and the rest of the world will need to keep a close eye on China’s innovations because as well as threats they will bring with them opportunities.

SCMP | Chinese entrepreneurs will lead the next revolution

Edward Tse
2014-09-24

Many people outside China still view the country in a very narrow sense, as a nation with a one-party authoritarian regime where the economy is dominated by large state-owned enterprises. Though it remains true that the country’s biggest companies – its major banks and insurers, oil and energy companies, telecom operators, airlines and leading steel, auto and construction firms – are all government-owned or controlled, the often-overlooked private sector is where China’s largest source of growth resides.

There are about 2.3 million state-owned companies in China today, a staggering-sounding number, but not when you compare this to the total number of businesses. In 2013, the country had more than 12 million private companies and more than 42 million proprietorships.

In 2000, total revenues earned by state-owned and non-state-owned industrial companies were roughly the same, at about 4 trillion yuan (HK$4.6 trillion then) each. By 2013, while total revenues at state-owned companies had risen just over sixfold, those in the non-state sector had risen by more than 18 times.

Increases in profits were even more impressive over the same period: up nearly seven times for state-owned companies, but up nearly 23 times for non-state ones. Like it or not, Chinese entrepreneurship is growing in leaps and bounds.

The rise in Chinese entrepreneurship can be seen as four distinct waves. The first one came in the 1980s soon after Deng Xiaoping started economic reform in 1978 and included companies like Huawei and Legend (the precursor to Lenovo).

The second wave was in 1992, after Deng went on his now legendary “southern tour”. This wave lifted the companies established in the first wave and also served as a launch pad for many others. A number of former government officials decided to xia hai (jump into the sea) to become businessmen, forming the so-called “Gang of ’92”.

By the mid- to late 1990s, a third wave of entrepreneurs had established themselves and these included the now notable internet companies – Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent, collectively known as “BAT”.

The fourth wave started in the late 2000s, fronted by those born in the 1980s and after. Many of these latest start-ups are internet-related, building e-commerce businesses. These young people who grew up in the post-reform era try to copy the successes not just of American internet companies such as Google and Facebook, but also of BAT, China’s home-grown giants. This wave came in a much larger number than its predecessors and many of them aspire to be the next Jack Ma Yun, of Alibaba fame, or Pony Ma Huateng, who founded Tencent.

One remarkable thing about the entrepreneurs of the first two waves of China’s economic reforms is how their companies were able to adapt to the changes during this period. They set up businesses when the economy was still dominated by the state. They survived the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. They fought off competition from the flood of foreign companies that arrived after China joined the World Trade Organisation. And they rode the worldwide downturn that followed the global financial crisis.

Chinese entrepreneurs do not all fit in a cookie-cutter mould. They are of different ages and educational backgrounds, come from a wide spread of hometowns, and have varying degrees of government influence. Most have run small companies, but some come from management backgrounds in giant companies.

Yet they all share this trait: they are willing to take chances and not at all afraid of failure. Almost all have an extraordinary openness to ideas; they seek inspiration from around the world and are willing to use resources from outside China, especially human talent with the right kind of expertise.

At the heart of China’s entrepreneurial spirit lie three core elements: pride, relating to a desire to once again see China rise and be counted among the forefront of nations; ambition, a belief that aspirations can be achieved; and China’s Confucian tradition, shaping aspirations both for and beyond business. The pursuit of the “Chinese Dream” often comes up when these entrepreneurs speak about their motivations.

I believe that today’s China, both in terms of scale and complexity, is a forerunner of how the world’s business environment will evolve. Just see how technology, especially the internet, is breaking down barriers between industries and fostering more cross-sector competition. To survive, businesses must seek new sources of advantage – even if that means moving beyond their traditional area of expertise.

The internet is not unique to China, but its impact on the country, because of the nascent nature of its economy, is greater and more pronounced than in developed economies. Retailing, for example, is being turned on its head as e-commerce allows shoppers in even China’s remotest regions to gain access to goods, long before bricks-and-mortar stores can be built. The country’s e-commerce giants are moving into finance by offering money-market products that offer higher interest rates than banks can.

Other companies are also stretching themselves. Computer giant Lenovo and telecom equipment maker Huawei are both striving to become international players in the smartphone market, for example.

The complexity and speed of change in China puts a premium on improvisation and innovation. To be successful, entrepreneurs need to seize the advantages of China’s scale and dynamism to make their companies fast-growing, powerful and flexible, ever ready to reinvent themselves continuously and repeatedly.

One Chinese entrepreneur has recently been receiving worldwide attention: Jack Ma of Alibaba, which is about to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. According to Bloomberg, Ma is China’s wealthiest person, with a net worth of US$21.9 billion. The second and third on the wealth list are Tencent’s Pony Ma and Baidu’s Robin Li Yanhong. These three men built up their businesses from scratch some 15 years ago to become the leading internet companies in China. As far as most people know, they are not princelings, nor do they have any special government privileges; they came from fairly humble backgrounds.

China has embarked on a transformation, one that will bring both tremendous opportunities and challenges. Amid all this, it will be China’s entrepreneurs who play the key role in (re)forming the economy necessary to create a dynamic society whose citizens and government contribute to shaping a new China.

Dr Edward Tse is founder and CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in Greater China. He is author of The China Strategy

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as The Chinese wave

SCMP | Waves of new entrepreneurs will power Chinese innovation

 

Ed Tse 高风咨询GaoFengAdvisory 2014-09-23

US Vice-President Joe Biden blasted China recently in a speech about foreign policy, arguing that the country hasn’t produced anything innovative. “China – and it’s true – is graduating six to eight times as many scientists and engineers as we have. But I challenge you, name me one innovative project, one innovative change, one innovative product that has come out of China,” he said.
In the same vein, in an article in Harvard Business Review, US academics Regina Abrami, William Kirby and Warren McFarlan sought to explain “Why China can’t innovate”.
Biden and the academics are wrong.
Does China breed innovation? Most who get their information from the Western media wouldn’t think so, as China is often associated with copies, lack of freedom of speech, poor intellectual property rights protection, rote-learning education and an overbearing state sector. Outsiders tend to think China lacks the fundamentals for successful innovation. But this view is both simplistic and superficial.
Lack of intellectual property rights protection is a real issue, but it hasn’t stopped innovation taking place. Over the past decade, there have been many examples of innovation in both product technology and business models.
As for the dominance of the state economy, even that sector can innovate. Large-scale examples include China’s space programme, its expanding high-speed rail network, the world’s highest-elevation railway (to Tibet), and the world’s fastest supercomputer. Like complex world-changing innovations anywhere, they would not have happened without intensive government participation, and it will take years to see their full impact.
However, most of China’s upcoming innovation will not come from the state. It will come from the companies and individuals who compete in China’s increasingly open economy. China is undergoing a measured but definite process of deregulation, sector by sector. The government reaffirmed this trajectory at its third plenum when it was emphasised that market forces will play a “decisive role” in economic development and non-state capital will gain access to more sectors.
The size of China’s market and the potential for profit mean that when the government opens up a sector, it becomes an arena for some of the world’s most intense competition. This forces companies to create the best products, services and business models.
There’s also a strong “why not me?” mentality among Chinese entrepreneurs. They see themselves as innovators, and when an opportunity opens, they go for it. Most may fail, but with such a huge population, even a small percentage of successes will encourage many others to try their luck. In short, waves of new entrepreneurs in China will be pushing for greater experimentation and more innovation.
Xiaomi, one of China’s leading smartphone players, is an excellent example of an innovative company in a highly competitive industry. Xiaomi’s leader, Lei Jun, understood the power of the internet and built his company’s business model by “listening to customers” through social media – the concept known as crowdsourcing. The strategy is working so well that Xiaomi’s revenues grew from zero in 2010 to US$5 billion last year, with the company now reportedly valued at over US$10 billion.
The late Steve Jobs didn’t believe in focus groups; Lei takes the opposite approach, and is convinced customers will be the best ones to tell him how his products should be designed and how its service model should be developed.
At a more basic level of innovation, Haier, a leading Chinese white goods manufacturer, quickly gained market awareness and share by introducing a washer capable not only of cleaning clothes but also potatoes, among many other products. This sprang from a customer complaint and is an example of Haier’s “customer centric” management philosophy.
Some say Chinese companies can’t develop technology. However, in seven years, Shenzhen-based DJI Innovations, started by young entrepreneur Frank Wang Tao, now supplies more than 50 per cent of global demand for unmanned aerial vehicles for the commercial and industrial sectors, and continues to expand.
Not every Chinese company will be like Haier or DJI, but the market is changing so rapidly that there are major incentives for Chinese companies – along with foreign ones and joint ventures – to be agile and innovative.
To successfully breed innovation, a country must be tolerant of mistakes and failures. These failures will include short-lived innovations, but they are part of a process necessary to sustain a culture of innovation. Tencent’s QQ, for example, was a precursor to WeChat, a fast-growing Twitter/WhatsApp type of platform. Although only three years old, WeChat already has over 600 million registered subscribers and over 350 million active users. It introduced voice capability before WhatsApp, along with a more recent payment capability that is undercutting China’s dominant incumbent, Alipay of Alibaba.
Telecoms operators see WeChat and Sina’s Weibo as competitors because they eat into their own text messaging businesses, and the prevalence of the internet, in particular wireless internet, is fast cutting out traditional distribution methods. Only a few years ago, Gome and Suning were the dominant retailers through their “bricks and mortar” stores. Today, Suning is having to quickly transform itself into an “O2O” (online to offline) retailer.
All of this should be seen from a historical perspective. China’s market economy is still developing, and it’s now been slightly over two decades since Deng Xiaoping’s now famous southern tour in 1992. This fundamental transformation from a fully planned economy is still just a small blip in China’s long history.
As China’s economic transformation continues, more and more monopolies will be broken down. Much of this will be driven by the government but some will be driven by the market. State-owned enterprises will remain important, but non-state companies have, for the first time, been put on an equal footing.
Experimental free trade zones like that of Shanghai will eventually be established in more cities, and efforts made to create economic conditions conductive to innovation.
Entrepreneurship is vibrant and omnipresent in China. This spirit and the intensive competition drive innovation, at an unprecedented speed and intensity. An arrogant view that China can’t innovate is not only shortsighted but also untrue.
Edward Tse is founder and CEO of Gao Feng Advisory Company, a global strategy and management consulting firm with roots in Greater China. He is also the author of The China Strategy.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as Bright lights

CEO应是企业文化的直接倡导者

谢祖墀 高风咨询GaoFengAdvisory 2014-09-17

星巴克公司CEO 霍华德 “舒尔茨(Howard Schultz)在他的著作《一路向前:奋力拼搏,并未迷失信仰》中曾有这样的描述:创造一种动人的、谦恭的、互相信任的企业文化并不能一蹴而就,就如同调制一杯最完美的咖啡一样。它融合了目标、过程,以及用心,是一曲必须精心谱写的三重奏。舒尔茨认为,星巴克之所以能够取得如今的成就,与企业员工以及他们培育出的企业文化密不可分。

企业在重塑及应对文化挑战的过程中,CEO应该扮演怎样的角色?我在对不少中国企业进行咨询时,发现企业家们对企业文化建设往往持不同见解。任正非在华为内部一直倡导危机意识,而马云则喜欢向员工描绘美好的“远景”,藉此激发员工的想象力和创造力。透过纷繁的表象,我们不难看到企业家都在结合自身情况,打造相适应的企业文化,使其服务于企业战略目标的实现,进而改变千千万万人的生活。

塑造企业文化的做法和原则归纳起来有四点:一是营造具有积极影响的危机感;二是选取少数关键行为,同时企业家以身作则宣扬正确的行为理念;三是利用“标准从严、与人从宽”的理性和感性影响力,将公司带向新的方向;四是对关键元素保持警觉,以让公司的文化特质得以长期传承。

■ 营造积极影响的危机感

管理者常常认为危机可以刺激高效的企业文化,这个观点背后的逻辑是安于现状的公司只有面对危机才能奋进;但此逻辑与经验和常识相悖。试想人们在真正面对危机的时候会怎样做?他们会逃避。在公司经营中,逃避的方式包括:停止营业、关闭工厂、应付媒体和投资者,或者其他止损方式。

其实,CEO应当营造真实的危机感,而不仅仅是基于逻辑上认为必须改变而创造的危机感。因此,他们应该营造的是一种聚焦在企业整体非常看重的价值上的、情感上的危机感。这些价值包括服务客户的方式,对成长和成功的渴望,对集体的积极影响,以及员工们在入职之初就能感受到的吸引力和热情欢迎。很多优秀的企业都已经把危机意识作为了企业文化的一部分,以鞭策企业员工不断追求卓越。例如海尔创始人张瑞敏形容自己“如履薄冰”,鞭策自己勤奋和葆有制定战略的警惕性;比尔 “盖茨多次提出“微软离破产永远只有18个月”来告诫自己的管理层。

■ 企业家以身作则树立榜样

为了使员工能真正消化企业所提倡的文化精髓,CEO需要选取能彰显企业和企业文化最佳之处的少数关键行为。这些行为一般很微小,但显而易见且重复性高,它们标志着公司当前的动向。例如,四季酒店一直宣传一个故事:一名客人在酒店就餐时寄存了一件衣服,服务人员发现衣服少了一颗纽扣;当客人就餐完时,发现衣服已经钉好了纽扣。通过对正确行为的宣传,能有效促进员工消化文化精髓。

需要强调的是,CEO作为企业的领导者必须以身作则。员工们不仅会留意CEO的言语,还会格外关注他们的举手投足。您最好能协同其他高层领导人,带头向全新的行为方式转变,在保存现有文化元素的同时彰显出文化调整中的关键变化。金宝汤(Campbell Soup)公司CEO道格拉斯 “科南特(Douglas Conant)虽然不善言辞,却通过每天坚持在公司总部园区跑步的方式,在员工中倡导健康生活的文化理念,这就是用实际行动潜移默化地影响企业文化。另外一些企业家,他们是很好的演说家,为企业描绘美好的前景,激发员工的创造激情。没有一种做法是绝对完美的,领导者应建立适合自己的领导风格。

■ 理性和感性影响力

在建构经营战略或行动实例时,将高层领导的理性观点和令人信服的个人层面感性诉求结合是非常重要的。任何一方的缺失都无法维持企业文化与之相辅相成。企业高层一方面应该建立良好的工作标准和绩效激励机制保证所倡导文化的有效执行,另一方面还必须充分利用情感力量把公司带入新的方向。

对大多数商业领袖而言,建立令人信服的理性观点通常比建立令人信服的感性诉求要容易。但因为人们直观的视角与同事的社交支持,感性能量能在私人关系网和常规渠道外的跨组织互动中传播的力量强大。在之前金宝汤公司启动的全面改革中,道格拉斯 “科南特意识到不得不将350名公司高管中缺乏必要技能的300多名替换掉。经过多次讨论和私下谈话,他依然坚持执行这个决定。但他给予那些离开的员工高度的尊重,并为他们提供公司力所能及的帮助。“就算是在那段可怕的时期,”他事后回忆时说道,“我们的员工敬业度评分反而上升了。”

■ 恒久保持警觉延续企业文化

在许多伟大的组织中,文化警惕的接力棒在各届CEO间传承。优秀的公司非常重视文化精髓的代代传承。3M公司在过去40年间平均每五年更换一次CEO,却保留了公司创新文化的精髓:“雇佣最好的员工,让他们以自己的方式工作,并容忍错误。”每位首席执行官都会慎重地保持公司的基础文化特质完整稳定,同时辅助企业应对竞争与市场环境的新动态。联想公司创始人柳传志提出“新人入联想必须入模子,不能有人不遵守”。保持文化特质是企业核心竞争力的一部分。

从担任CEO的第一天,你作为文化领导人的角色就开始了,直至卸任为止。即使在离任后,CEO对正确文化行为的长期强调还是会长久地发挥影响力。这也是为什么许多CEO将建立企业文化作为他们的首要任务,企业文化将成为他们本身在企业中最佳的延续。

【来源】《管理学家》杂志2014年04月刊

 

高风咨询公司
香港
地址:金钟皇后大道东1号太古广场三期3楼27单元
电话: +852 2588 3554
传真: +852 2588 3499
北京
地址:北京市朝阳区西大望路1号温特莱中心B座703室
电话: +86 10 8557 0676
传真: +86 10 8557 0670
上海
上海市长乐路989号世纪商贸广场20楼
电话: +86 21 5117 5853
传真: +86 21 5116 6899

中国真的失去魅力了吗?

谢祖墀 高风咨询GaoFengAdvisory 2014-09-17

《经济学人》2014年1月25日杂志的封面故事是《中国失去了魅力》(China Loses ItsAllure)。该文章的主题是:在过去三十年里,大量外资跨国公司来到中国进行投资,在2008 年金融危机之后,不少跨国公司甚至将中国看成救世主,但现在这个淘金热可能已成过去。
这篇文章列举了跨国公司在中国面临问题的几个主要原因。第一是中国经济的放缓和成本的不断上升,尤其是年轻员工的工资。第二是不少行业仍对外资不完全开放,外资很难进入;加之近期中国政府的一些举措诸如反腐、信息安全等都对一些外资公司构成了很多不便和不快。第三是竞争的白热化;本土企业的崛起对许多外资企业构成了新的竞争威胁。这些原因引致一些外资企业决定退出中国市场,另一些仍然留在中国市场的外资企业则发现他们的业绩出现了明显的倒退。此外,该文章指出,跨国公司已经发现不该将中国看作单一市场。中国幅员辽阔,地域之间差异甚大,所以往往需要根据不同市场的需要来发展适当的战略和具体操作方式。文章总结说,中国仍然蕴含着巨大的机会,但中国市场的黄金时代已经过去。外国公司必须提高他们的生产力,改善治理,以及满足本土市场的“口味”和需求。这篇文章受到了不少外资企业高管、中国政府官员和其他市场从业者的关注,在互联网上也被大量转发。对外资而言,中国市场是否已经失去吸引力?我认为,这主要得看对什么类型的企业而言,以及企业的发展战略如何。我更相信,对一些跨国企业来说,中国是越来越有魅力!
自从1992年邓小平先生南巡讲话之后,中国对外开放的速度快速增加且规模大幅增大。外资在中国进行的投资不断增加,对中国经济的重要性亦逐渐越来越重要。外资普遍带来了资金、技术、管理方法、商业模式和人力培训方式等。在改革初期,外资普遍认为中国是一个潜力庞大的市场,但需要时间和精力来开发,大部分外资都愿意在中国市场进行投资。
经过了二十多年的发展,外资跨国公司在中国的发展已经开始壁垒分明。对不少跨国公司来说,中国已经成为他们全球最重要的市场,或最重要市场之一。最经典的例子应该是肯德基,该公司全球超过一半的营业额和利润都来自于中国。其他类似的例子包括苹果公司、通用汽车、大众、宝马等。同时,亦有不少企业来过中国,在中国尝试了,而最后他们决定退出中国;较著名的例子包括百思买、美泰、MediaMart、eBay 等。外资企业在中国发展的结果如此悬殊,其原因何在?
一些外资公司来中国最大的问题,就是以为中国与他们国际上其他的市场是一样的。他们认为在全球其他市场能站稳脚跟,所以在中国应该同样能够做到。所以他们一般都会倾向将他们的全球业务模式直接带到中国来,用英语来说,这就是所谓的plugand play。吊诡的是,越是在其他市场成功的企业,他们越有信心将他们惯用的业务模式带到中国来。可是许多外资来了之后就发现,原来中国市场环境比其他国际市场更为复杂,本来的业务模式最多只能进入中国整个市场的一小部分,一般只是客户群或产品金字塔的顶端,与许多企业CEO本来预期的中国14亿人口的市场规模有很大的差距。更甚者,一些在国外可行的业务模式来到中国根本行不通,最经典的案例就是美国家得宝(HomeDepot)。家得宝的商业模式是依赖顾客自己亲手在家里组装家具,就是所谓DIY(Do it yourself)。可是一般的中国家居消费者都没此习惯,家得宝在中国的业务当然就裹足不前。
我认为跨国公司失误的原因是他们的“傲慢”DNA。他们在全球发展的时候,不少企业相当顺利,他们的产品、服务、品牌和业务模式往往在许多国家都能占领有利的阵地。不少这样的企业就逐渐形成了一种自信心,以为他们到什么国家、在什么市场都有较大成功的机率。可是中国的市场给许多这样的企业上了一课。中国一方面于过去二十多年来有着极快的经济发展,另一方面却展示了极为复杂、快速改变和经常模棱两可的经营环境。这种环境缘于四个原因:市场经济和计划经济的交错;有长远历史文明同时却只有60年共和国历史及只有20多年的市场经济;同时兼备了国有经济、私营经济、外资企业和混合制经济的经济体系:原本固步自封的政治体,逐渐与全球政治结合。再加上中国本身幅员广阔、人口众多、地方差距庞大使得许多外资企业没法轻易适应。在经历五年、十年甚至更长的时间尝试之后,一部分外资企业才开始意识到,要在中国市场取得成功,他们必须改变原有的对待中国市场的态度,从傲慢转为谦虚,愿意接受中国的差异之处并虚心学习。只有具备了适当的态度和思维方式,一些跨国公司才能发展出一套适合中国市场的战略并有效地将它落地。没有这样的洗礼,跨国公司在中国要取得持续成功是比较困难的。
中国真的失去魅力了吗?对一些已经尝试了失败并决定退出中国市场的跨国公司来说,这可能是说对了。但是对于在中国市场已经找对了方向,制定了有效的发展战略和组织、人才,更重要的是已经具备了适当的心态和思维方式的跨国公司,中国将能提供更多、甚至于无限的机会。巨大的市场、快速的发展、逐步放宽的管制、技术的进步、移动互联网的普及、创意的涌现、激烈的竞争和井喷的企业家数量和精神将会使中国更有魅力,更能成为孕育新一代企业领袖的沃土。
【来源】《管理学家》杂志2014年03月刊

传统战略理论已经过时

读完MBA课程的人都修读过一些企业战略理论,这些理论的发明至今远则三、四十年前,近则十多年。应该说,每一种理论的出现都有其背景,当这些背景情况已经改变的时候,我们需要重新审视这些理论的可行性。

在诸多战略理论中,迈克尔·波特(Michael Porter)的五力模型可能是最经典和广为人接受的。波特认为,一家企业如要取得持续成功,必须在所处行业中寻找到最有利的地位,而当你找到有利地位之后,你的竞争对手就不会战胜你了。波特的理论风靡一时,因为他是第一个将主宰行业竞争状况系统性地描述出来的第一人。他的理论不但影响了大量企业CEO们和他们制定战略的思考方法,同时在全球各MBA课程里,波特教授的理论更是必修课。波特理论有其前瞻性和系统性,但它是建基于几个重要的假设:每一个企业都是处于某一个行业的;该行业的界定是清晰的;同时行业的界定是不会改变的,包括它内面的竞争对手;企业战略是简单的,只有三种类型,成本领先战略、差异性战略和聚焦战略。简单来说波特的理论是“定位论”的鼻祖。

1960年代是企业战略发展的新时代。波士顿咨询公司(BCG)创始人布鲁斯·亨德森(Bruce Henderson)发表了几篇对企业引起了巨大震撼力的文章,在其中一篇里他提出了现在人们称为BCG矩阵的理论。他利用行业的增长速度和企业于该行业的相对市场占用率来将企业的业务组合进行了识别,将业务分为四种类型:现金牛、小狗、明星和问题点。BCG矩阵于六十年代在西方企业界产生了巨大回响,这种新观念亦同时为BCG业务提供了极快的增长,将传统的咨询对手杀了个措手不及。不过,正如波特理论,BCG矩阵亦是建基于一个简单的假设:行业、企业、竞争对手都是静态的,业务的吸引力和竞争力用行业增长速度和相对市场占用率两个简单维度便能充分描述这个业务对企业的重要性。

1990年,两个芝加哥大学管理学教授加里.哈默尔(Gary Hamel)和普拉哈拉德C.K Prahalad在《哈佛商业评论》发表了《公司的核心竞争力》(The Core Competence of the Corporation)。作者提出了核心竞争力的概念,认为企业的成功来自于其核心竞争力。他们对核心竞争力的定义有三个要素:能够为公司进入多个市场提供方便;应当对最终商品为客户带来的可感知价值有重大贡献;竞争对难以模仿。在差不多同一时间,BCG的两位合伙人斯托克(George Stalk)和埃文斯(Philip Evans)发表了《以能力来竞争》(Competing on Capabilities)。作者的概念与哈默和普拉哈拉德的“核心竞争力”雷同,认为企业的持续成功来自企业已建立的内部能力,而战略的精华在于它能否以动应变,从而确立并形成一种他人难以仿效的组织能力。他们提出来了基于能力竞争的四项基本原则:企业战略的基本因素不是产品和市场而是业务流程;要竞争成功就须将公司的主要业务流程化为战略能力,能够不断为顾客提供超值服务;公司获取这些能力是要靠对其基础设施投资,以将传统的战略业务单位及其功能联系起来;由于这种能力是跨职能的,所以基于能力的战略需要得到CEO的全力支持。斯托克和埃文斯以沃尔玛为案列来阐述了企业能力的重要性。按他们的分析,沃尔玛之所以能够做到“每天低价”,是缘于他们有效的供应链管理能力,而这套能力的背后是其IT信息系统能力。这个案例成为经典管理案例,被许多人经常引用来说明能力的重要性。

在过去20多年里,“核心竞争力”抑或“能力”理论几乎支配了整个企业界,尤其是欧美国家企业界。从这理论衍生出的一个重要推论是:企业应该聚焦(focus),不应做太多不相关的业务。这种聚焦观点在当时欧美社会产生了很大的回响。之前不少企业集团式经营(conglomerate),几乎什么都做,业绩各有优劣,但往往当集团规模超过了某个临界点时,集团业绩就会有问题。在能力理论出现之后,不少集团开始进行重组,将业务分析、整合、整顿,成为1990年代欧美企业发展的重要趋势。

到今天,能力理论在企业界还有很大市场。当许多学者和管理顾问还在大力推销能力理论的同时,全球的商业社会正在快速地转变。随着全球一体化的形成,移动互联网的高速发展和普及,和个人认为最重要的因素 ——中国的崛起——已经大大改变了商业世界。在快速增长的市场里,诸如中国或美国硅谷,企业家们和创业家们不断地涌现。他们擅长于在看到(或预测到)未来的市场机会时,在考虑是否应该在目前企业的能力基础上,做适当的伸展(stretch)来争取这些新的机会。在快速增长的市场里,新的市场机会往往是以非线性、突破性出现的。要抓住这些新的机会,企业很少已经会具备所有所需的能力。成功的企业家往往能够做出适当的判断,尝试在目前能力的基础上伸展,以及跳过去。阿里巴巴在这方面就是佼佼者,在过去15年的发展过程中,马云和他的支持者能在不同的折点上,做出此种选择,以及成功地跳跃过去。从B2B到C2C,到淘宝、天猫、支付宝等等都是依赖这种思维和做法赖以成功的。

在中国许多企业家都经历了这些实践的发展路径,在不知不觉中其实他们已经实践了一套新的企业战略理念,比传统西方的静态定位论和能力理论优胜得多。可是目前还没有人将这些不同的实践经验归纳成一套信的管理理论。这需要企业界与学者、咨询界共同探讨。

【来源】《管理学家》杂志2014年05月刊

 

雾霾吓跑人才?

谢祖墀 高风咨询GaoFengAdvisory 2014-09-11

作为世界第二大经济体,中国取得了公认的成就并创造出大量机会。2013年,中国GDP增速达7.8%,虽然较2012年稍有回落,但依然在世界几大经济体中名列第一。近年来多家中国国有企业公开招聘海外高管,吸引了众多海外人才,其中除了华人以外还有外籍人士。中国主权投资基金中投公司成立之初,便在全球招聘人才,世界各地的应聘者络绎不绝。相比国企,民营企业决策灵活,为高管开出的薪酬更具吸引力,因此不少海内外高级人才投靠到民企帐下,这也为民企在近几年来的爆发式成长提供了优秀的智力支持。值得一提的是,伴随着当今移动通讯和互联网的热潮,中国涌现出一批创业者。与以前那些做投机生意或者靠政府关系创业的人不同的是,如今的创业者很多都是懂技术、懂管理的优秀人才,其中不少人有海外留学、工作背景,甚至还有在海外担任高管。在这些中国创业者中不乏外籍人士。

但是,在经济高速发展的同时,中国的环境问题日益严峻。空气污染严重,空气中有害物质远远高于国际健康标准,与国际上同类城市相比,中国城市的空气质量确实糟糕。以北京为代表的中国北方地区是空气污染的重灾区。中国社科院发布的首部《全球环境竞争力报告(2013)》显示,在2012年环境竞争力排行上,中国在133个国家中位列第87位。其中,在生态环境竞争力方面中国排名第124;在空气质量方面中国排名第132。衡量空气污染程度的关键指标,即细颗粒物(PM2.5)、氮氧化物和二氧化硫排放量,中国排名分别为129,132,131位。以PM2.5为例:世卫组织(WTO)PM2.5国际标准为24小时小于25微克,而北京PM2.5长期在24小时100微克以上,顶峰时值超过500微克。污染不仅给国家形象带来负面影响,还削弱了中国的国家竞争力。近一两年来出现了一些因环境污染导致的人才流失现象。一些高学历、高技术、高净值的本土以及海外人才离开中国。同时,我们也看到国外一些人才因为担心污染而不愿意来中国。

面对环境的恶化以及人才的流失趋势,政府已经意识到环境污染的严重性和改善环境的迫切性,并且已经采取了很多措施。今年三月份,李克强总理在政府工作报告中提出“向污染宣战”,表明了政府在解决环境问题上的决心。这是一方面的努力,同时,多数外国企业和个人还是选择在中国把握发展的机遇。根据国家外国专家局的数据,2003年全年来到中国的外国专家约有613,000人,其中有超过60%的专家在中国大陆工作时间超过三个月。美国皮尤研究中心的一项调查表明,绝大多数外国人认可中国在经济方面不断提升的领导地位,以及中国对跨国企业和全球人才的吸引力。尽管中国目前劳动力成本和其他生产成本都有明显上升,但是跨国企业在中国的利润率依然较其他地区高。更重要的是,面对中国独一无二的市场容量和巨大需求,无论是中国本土企业,还是跨国企业都面临很多机会。奥迪汽车从1986年开始进入中国与中国一汽进行合作,在2005年成为奥迪在德国以外的全球第三大市场,2007年成为中国市场上首个实现年销量超过十万辆的高档汽车品牌,奥迪在中国获得了巨大的成功和影响力。诸如此类的案例比比皆是。

我们认为能不能吸引人才、留住人才,关键还是跨国企业自身是不是具备足够的吸引力。

首先要看企业所处的行业景气度和企业在该行业领域里的影响力。如今,在全球范围内互联网和高科技行业具备很高的成长性、行业景气度高、企业利润率高,这类企业正在吸引着全球大量的人才,而行业中的领头羊,诸如谷歌(Google),亚马逊(Amazon),思科(Cisco)等更是人才争先进入的理想企业。2013年,小米成功招揽谷歌(Google)全球副总裁,Android产品部门副总裁雨果·巴拉(Hugo Barra)。相反,传统的制造和加工业对人才的吸引力显得弱了很多。

其次,企业的战略是否清晰、合理。企业战略清晰、合理能够使人们看清楚公司的发展前景以及员工的职业前景,从而提供一个明确可见又可实现的未来蓝图。

第三,领导者的素质和领导力水平影响人才决定是否为其效力。领导者要在工作设计上赋予人才更多的权利,让其充分发挥。传统的领导者,尤其是亚洲领导者倾向于规则、层级以及领导的权威和下级的服从,而如今的领导力水平更应体现在鼓励和引导参与,注重内部共识、团队建设和沟通。

第四,跨国企业全球总部对中国公司的重视程度和支持力度决定了中国公司的发展希望和管理者们的职业前途。中国公司在跨国企业全球布局中的重要地位吸引海内外的人才聚集,而企业总部在中国公司的大量管理投入、资金投入、研发投入等势必会为中国公司的员工提供良好的职业发展空间和机会。以戴姆勒(Daimler)为例,旗下的梅赛德斯奔驰于1986年就进入中国,2006年将地区总部搬至北京,标志着其进一步强化中国业务,如今中国市场在不断投入下成为其全球最大市场和利润来源。在中国的十多年来吸引了众多本土以及海外人才加盟,同时通过中国这块跳板获得更好的职业机会的高级管理人员数不胜数,现任戴姆勒股份公司董事长兼CEO、梅赛德斯奔驰汽车集团总裁的蔡澈(Dieter Zetsche)就是出自其中国市场。i

【来源】《管理学家》杂志2014年07月刊