現有企業與創新天生是冤家
A colleague recently minted a new word by accident — “incumbation”. It won’t catch on but its fleeting appearance made me wonder what such a term, if it existed, might define: the opposite of innovation.
一位同事最近意外造出了一個新詞“incumbation”。這個詞不可能流行，但它的拼法讓我一下子想到，如果這個詞存在的話，它的意思可能是：創新的反義詞。
As grimy layers of admin accrete on the original bright ideals of their founders, incumbent companies become prone to inertia and what Gary Hamel, the management thinker, has called “bureausclerosis”. Such complacency is bad. But some of the methods that established companies use to protect themselves are worse.
隨着一層層粘膩的行政層級在創始人最初的美好理想上堆積，現有企業很容易產生惰性，管理思想家加里•哈梅爾(Gary Hamel)稱之爲“官僚硬化症”。這種自滿是糟糕的。但現有企業使用的一些保護自己的方法更糟糕。
My list would include: spending as much on lobbying and public relations as on research and development; fighting to prolong patent cover to the detriment of legitimate new entrants, and destroying potential competitors by undercutting them or buying them out, only to kill off their innovative alternative products.
這些方法包括：花在遊說和公共關係上面的錢與花在研發方面的錢一樣多；奮力延長專利保護期以對合法新進者不利，通過壓價或收購消滅潛在競爭對手，最終扼殺它們的創新替代產品。
Leaders of incumbents also defend the status quo internally. They suffocate diversity or hold back change at the top, ramp up executive pay and construct hierarchies that blight creativity and encourage barons to build fief-like mini-incumbents inside the bigger company.
現有企業的高管還從內部維護現狀。他們會扼殺多樣性或阻礙高層變革、上調高管薪資、建立損害創造性的等級制度、鼓勵企業內大佬在更大的公司內部組建封地式的微型現有企業。
At the extreme, a dominant company may shore up its position through anti-competitive acts, such as dumping, predatory pricing or the massage or misstatement of earnings.
從極端的意義來看，占主導地位的公司可能會通過反競爭行爲支撐其地位，例如傾銷、掠奪性定價或者美化或錯報盈利。
Tesco’s mistreatment of suppliers between 2013 and 2015 following an accounting scandal is typical of such behaviour. According to its regulator, the dominant UK supermarket deliberately delayed payment as it sought to meet targets. Tesco, which is still under investigation from the Serious Fraud Office for accounting irregularities, has said it is now “a very different company”. The fine imposed last week on GlaxoSmithKIine for illegally stifling the launch of a cheap rival antidepressant is another example. (The UK pharmaceuticals group may appeal against the ruling.)
2013年至2015年，在一樁會計醜聞後，樂購(Tesco)對供應商的不公正對待就是典型的類似行爲。據監管機構稱，這家佔據主導地位的英國超市運營商爲了達到業績目標，故意拖延付款。樂購現在仍在因會計違規行爲接受英國嚴重欺詐辦公室(Serious Fraud Office)的調查。該公司表示，它現在已“完全不同”以前。最近，葛蘭素史克(GlaxoSmithKline)因非法阻止競爭對手的廉價抗抑鬱藥品的推出而受到罰款，這是另一個例子。（這家英國製藥集團可能會就這項裁決提出上訴。）
No company wants to give up a profitable position in its market. Leadership is often hard-won. But maintaining it without adopting the dark arts of incumbation is difficult.
企業都不希望放棄其在市場中的有利獲利地位。領導地位往往來之不易。但在不採用“incumbation”的黑魔法的情況下維持這種地位很難。
Google illuminates an alternative route. Larry Page set up Alphabet, its new holding company, to make the “moonshot” subsidiaries that sit alongside the core search business more transparent. Mr Page believes most ventures fail because they keep doing the same thing. They need to cultivate “zero billion dollar companies” — radically innovative enterprises that could eventually command unicorn-sized valuations.
谷歌(Google)闡釋了另一種路線。拉里•佩奇(Larry Page)創建了新的控股公司Alphabet，旨在讓與核心搜索業務並駕齊驅的“登月計劃”(moonshot)子公司更透明。佩奇認爲，多數公司破產的原因是他們持續做同一件事。他們需要培育“零十億美元公司”(zero billion dollar companies)——具有真正的創新性、最終可能會取得“獨角獸”企業規模估值的公司。
Alphabet aspires to a balanced approach, as outlined by Vijay Govindarajan of Dartmouth’s Tuck business school in a new book, The Three Box Solution. Inspired by the Hindu gods Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma, who stand respectively for preservation, destruction and creation, he says companies must assign core operations to box one, put stuff they need to forget, sell or close in box two, and develop the future in box three.
正如塔克商學院(Tuck School of Business)教授維賈伊•戈文達拉揚(Vijay Govindarajan)在新書《三盒解決方案》(Three Box Solution)中所概述的那樣，Alphabet希望採取一種均衡戰略。受印度神毗溼奴、溼婆和梵天（分別代表保持、毀滅和創造）的啓發，他表示，企業必須把核心業務歸入第一個盒子，把他們需要忘記、出售或關閉的業務放入第二個盒子，在第三個盒子裏發展未來。
Google, for instance, still generates 99.4 per cent of Alphabet revenues and the profits from internet search can easily fuel its moonshots. “They’ve created teams around virtual reality, self-driving cars and so on, which are separate from box one, allowing box three [activities] to take root,” Prof Govindarajan says.
例如，Alphabet收入的99.4%仍由谷歌創造，來自互聯網搜索的利潤能夠輕易促進其“登月計劃”。戈文達拉揚教授表示：“他們圍繞虛擬現實、無人駕駛汽車等業務建立了團隊，這些與第一個盒子相獨立，讓第三個盒子的（活動）可以開始紮根。”
A box one obsession, however, can lead to short-termism, barge aside other strategic priorities and tempt companies into time-consuming defensive battles. Technology groups are not immune. Anti-poaching deals between Silicon Valley companies, including Google and Apple, were rife before the US Department of Justice clamped down on them in 2010. Uber and Amazon have armed up in recent years by hiring political lobbyists to deal with regulatory pressure.
然而，對第一個盒子的迷戀可能會導致短期主義、擱置其他戰略優先任務並誘惑企業打耗時的防禦戰。科技集團無法倖免。在2010年美國司法部開始打擊之前，包括谷歌和蘋果( Apple)在內的硅谷公司之間的地盤互不侵犯協議頗爲猖獗。最近幾年，優步(Uber)和亞馬遜(Amazon)加大了防禦，聘用政治說客來應對監管壓力。
Meanwhile, they neglect Shiva’s appetite for destruction at their peril: if Mr Page does not have the self-discipline to ditch underperforming ventures, they will clutter the route to the launch pad for his more promising projects.
與此同時，它們忽略了溼婆的毀滅慾望，後果很危險：如果佩奇沒有放棄業績不佳業務的自律，那麼這些業務將阻礙他推出更有希望的項目。
Recumbent incumbents are almost always doomed. The good news is that technology and transparency have already cut away at the distribution and information monopolies that used to shelter large, lazy companies. The bad news is that survivors will continue to use foul means as well as fair to protect themselves. Their misguided attempts at self-preservation can hobble the advance of more original, more innovative competitors.
懶惰的現有企業幾乎總是註定會滅亡。好消息是，科技和透明度已減少了曾經庇護大型懶惰企業的分銷和信息壟斷。壞消息是，倖存者將繼續使用合理的和不正當的手段來保護自己。他們那些致力於自我保護的誤入歧途的嘗試，可能會阻礙更原創、更創新的競爭對手的前進。
