理查德·施特勞布

The business world cant stop talking about ecosystems. According to a 2019 World Economic Forum report， excitement over digitally enabled ecosystems is on the rise. While most of the focus has been on macroeconomic implications （for example， McKinsey research speculates that by 2025 over 30% of global economic activity could be mediated by digital platforms）， what gets less attention is what this era of ecosystems means for the practice of management.

Much more complex than linear supply chains， business ecosystems are groups of companies and other actors （platform providers， government agencies， independent contractors， co-creating customers， and so on） whose contributions come together to produce value. The idea is that each of these parties could benefit if they took a more holistic1 view of their collective efforts.

As much as workplaces have adopted the vocabulary and metaphor of the ecosystem， there hasnt been much information about how management approaches and behaviors should evolve in response. What leadership styles will be effective in getting others aligned2 and making the system work better？ What new structures， tools， and processes will managers now need to enable broader coordination and keep progress on track？

From research and practice， we are beginning to see evidence that managers who adjust their approaches to fit an ecosystems world are better able to succeed in it. Take Zhang Ruimin， the force behind the dramatic rise of appliance manufacturer Haier. At the Global Peter Drucker Forum last year， he described the companys turn to ecosystem thinking on two fronts. Looking externally， as the firm gains experience with the “internet of things，” it sees how opportunities and responsibilities have changed thanks to direct connections to consumers. Internally， it has radically restructured the company into hundreds of entrepreneurial cells—an ecosystem of focused units， all leveraged by a common platform infrastructure. The point here is that this is not just metaphorical talk： the new ecosystems perspective had to be carried through to the nuts and bolts of Haiers operations—its manufacturing， performance management， and accounting. “This is especially important for the twenty-first century，” Zhang stressed in a 2018 interview. “Ecosystem is how we create value.”

As Haier and others gain experience with ecosystem management， consultants and management scholars are starting to find the patterns in what works. For example， research from Boston Consulting Group underscores how leaders must move from being high-ranking delegators to influential “orchestrators3.” In environments where leaders cant exercise formal authority， and where collaborative triumphs trump individual achievements， they must become sharper in their ability to build communities and inspire alignment.

As with all management metaphors， talk of business ecosystems has some commentators asking： Is this really new？ Werent companies always embedded in4 larger systems， and also made up of internal networks？ Systems thinking in management， as pioneered by Hans Ulrich， Peter Gomez， and Fredmund Malik at St. Gallen University （and in America， by Jay Forrester， Russell Ackoff， and Peter Senge） has long been part of business school curricula5. Indeed， Peter Drucker himself， decades ago， came up with the term “social ecology” to describe the nature of his work as he studied the workings of organizations and their impacts and integration with society.

What has changed is the technology that has us more connected and immersed in data than ever before. In todays world of networking and collaboration software， big data， analytics， and AI， managers simply cannot continue to assume a carved-out model of the firm for the convenience of seeing how to manage it. Now that firms activities are so intertwined and their successes so interdependent， the old tools and techniques no longer work.

To succeed in the era of platforms and partnerships， managers will need to change practice on many levels. And with the new practices of ecosystem management must come new management theory， also reoriented around a larger-scale system-level view. Both practitioners and scholars can begin by dispensing with6 mechanistic， industrial-age models of inputs， processes， and outputs. They will have to take a more dynamic， organic， and evolutionary view of how organizations capacities grow and can be cultivated.

As we all work to see the opportunities of this new normal， we will also have to anticipate and deal with its dark side. Ecosystem is a word with happy connotations—like a verdant garden thriving on self-sustaining natural processes—but in reality， not all is rosy. More interconnected networks bring new dynamics and unintended consequences—such as the flash crashes that shocked highly digitized financial markets and the winner-take-all markets that have emerged as network effects and increasing returns to scale give rise to modern monopolies.

When many entities converge on a certain standard， platform， or vision of the future， but none of them individually has enough power to alter it， the result can be a deeply flawed system that is impervious to change. Just take the resistance of stock markets to reward long-term versus short-term value creation. If a visionary actor within a system cannot strike out in an unexpected direction and survive， high-impact innovation becomes much more rare.

An economy， and in particular a capitalist economy， thrives not only when it has the right tools but when it has the right rules. Recrafting these for the era of ecosystems must be the priority of a group that is an ecosystem in itself—the scholars， consultants， regulators， and of course managers whose work shapes the enterprise of management. Together， we must find ways to combat the dark side of dense interconnectivity， and find its potential for innovation and cocreation of value. The future of ecosystems will be what， all together， we make it.

商業(yè)世界一直對(duì)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)津津樂(lè)道。根據(jù)世界經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇2019年的一份報(bào)告，人們對(duì)數(shù)字化生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的熱情持續(xù)高漲。不過(guò)，大部分關(guān)注的是宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)影響（例如，麥肯錫管理咨詢公司的研究推測(cè)，到2025年，超過(guò)30%的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)將可通過(guò)數(shù)字平臺(tái)調(diào)節(jié)），而生態(tài)系統(tǒng)時(shí)代對(duì)管理實(shí)踐具有怎樣的意義，則關(guān)注較少。

商業(yè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)比線性供應(yīng)鏈復(fù)雜得多，是由公司和其他個(gè)體（平臺(tái)供應(yīng)商、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、獨(dú)立承包人、參與構(gòu)建的消費(fèi)者，等等）組成的群落，各方共同發(fā)揮作用創(chuàng)造價(jià)值。其理念是，如果各方對(duì)集體的努力有更加整體的認(rèn)識(shí)，那么每一方都能受益。

盡管很多工作場(chǎng)所已經(jīng)用到生態(tài)系統(tǒng)相關(guān)的詞匯和隱喻，但一直沒(méi)有太多資料說(shuō)明管理方法和行為該如何相應(yīng)演進(jìn)。哪種領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格能夠有效統(tǒng)一各方、推動(dòng)系統(tǒng)更好運(yùn)作？當(dāng)今管理人員需要哪些新型架構(gòu)、工具和流程來(lái)擴(kuò)大協(xié)調(diào)范圍、確保發(fā)展不偏離正軌？

通過(guò)研究和實(shí)踐，開(kāi)始有證據(jù)表明，在生態(tài)系統(tǒng)世界中，管理人員若積極調(diào)整方法以適應(yīng)，就更能獲得成功。以張瑞敏為例，家電制造商海爾正是在他的帶領(lǐng)下迅速崛起。在2018年的彼得·德魯克全球論壇上，張瑞敏聲稱海爾從兩個(gè)方面轉(zhuǎn)向了生態(tài)系統(tǒng)思維。對(duì)外，隨著“物聯(lián)網(wǎng)”經(jīng)驗(yàn)的積累，海爾發(fā)現(xiàn)，由于與消費(fèi)者的直接聯(lián)系，機(jī)會(huì)和責(zé)任已發(fā)生變化。對(duì)內(nèi)，海爾進(jìn)行徹底重組，將公司劃分為上百個(gè)創(chuàng)業(yè)單元——這些單元目標(biāo)明確并全部通過(guò)同一個(gè)基礎(chǔ)平臺(tái)運(yùn)作，從而構(gòu)成一個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。重點(diǎn)在于，這并不只是個(gè)比喻的說(shuō)法：新的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)理念必須貫徹落實(shí)到海爾具體的運(yùn)營(yíng)細(xì)節(jié)里，包括制造、績(jī)效管理與會(huì)計(jì)?！斑@在21世紀(jì)尤其重要，”張瑞敏在2018年的一次訪談中強(qiáng)調(diào)，“生態(tài)系統(tǒng)是我們創(chuàng)造價(jià)值的方式?！?/p>

在海爾等公司積累生態(tài)系統(tǒng)管理經(jīng)驗(yàn)的同時(shí)，咨詢顧問(wèn)與管理學(xué)者也開(kāi)始尋找有效模式。例如，波士頓咨詢公司的研究強(qiáng)調(diào)，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人必須轉(zhuǎn)變角色，從分派任務(wù)的高層人員變成有影響力的“協(xié)調(diào)人”。在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人無(wú)法行使正式權(quán)力、集體成績(jī)大于個(gè)人成績(jī)的環(huán)境中，他們構(gòu)建共同體和促進(jìn)協(xié)作的能力必須變得更強(qiáng)。

就像所有管理比喻一樣，在有關(guān)商業(yè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的討論中，有評(píng)論人士會(huì)質(zhì)疑：這真的是新概念嗎？公司一直以來(lái)不都是屬于更大的系統(tǒng)而自身也是由多個(gè)內(nèi)部網(wǎng)絡(luò)組成的嗎？管理上的系統(tǒng)思維最早由圣加倫大學(xué)的漢斯·烏爾里希、彼得·戈麥斯和弗雷德蒙德·馬利克提出（在美國(guó)，最早由杰伊·福瑞斯特、羅素·艾可夫和彼得·圣吉提出），長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直是商學(xué)院課程的一部分。而實(shí)際上，幾十年前，彼得·德魯克在研究組織運(yùn)行方式、組織影響及其與社會(huì)的融合時(shí)，提出了“社會(huì)生態(tài)學(xué)”一詞，用來(lái)描述該項(xiàng)研究的性質(zhì)。

已然改變的是技術(shù)，它讓我們比以往聯(lián)系得更加密切，也更加專注于數(shù)據(jù)。在今天這個(gè)處處可見(jiàn)互聯(lián)與協(xié)作軟件、大數(shù)據(jù)、分析和人工智能的世界，管理人員不能再假想一種現(xiàn)成的公司模式來(lái)弄清如何管理。既然各家公司的活動(dòng)如此交織錯(cuò)雜，成敗也都息息相關(guān)，那么以前的工具與技巧就不再奏效。

要在這個(gè)由各種平臺(tái)與合作關(guān)系構(gòu)成的時(shí)代取得成功，管理人員需要在諸多層面改弦更張。而且，新的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)管理實(shí)踐勢(shì)必帶來(lái)新的管理理論，也需要從更大規(guī)模的系統(tǒng)層面來(lái)調(diào)整。實(shí)干派與理論派可以從摒棄投入、流程及產(chǎn)出等機(jī)械的工業(yè)時(shí)代模型入手。他們必須以更加動(dòng)態(tài)、有機(jī)和發(fā)展的眼光去看待組織能力的發(fā)展方式和培養(yǎng)辦法。

在努力發(fā)現(xiàn)這一新常態(tài)所帶來(lái)機(jī)遇的同時(shí)，我們也必須對(duì)其黑暗面有所預(yù)料并妥善應(yīng)對(duì)。生態(tài)系統(tǒng)一詞內(nèi)涵美好，就好比一座天然花園，自給自足，草木蔥蘢，縱情生長(zhǎng)，但現(xiàn)實(shí)并非一切都那么美好。更多網(wǎng)絡(luò)互聯(lián)會(huì)帶來(lái)新的動(dòng)態(tài)和意外后果，比如閃電崩盤(pán)和贏家通吃的市場(chǎng)——前者重創(chuàng)了高度數(shù)字化的金融市場(chǎng)，后者的出現(xiàn)則伴隨著網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng)和規(guī)模收益遞增促成現(xiàn)代壟斷企業(yè)。

當(dāng)很多實(shí)體集聚于某個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下、平臺(tái)上或愿景中，而其中任何一方都不足以獨(dú)自改變它，那就很可能會(huì)產(chǎn)生一個(gè)有嚴(yán)重缺陷、不受變化影響的系統(tǒng)。以股票市場(chǎng)為例，比起短期的價(jià)值創(chuàng)造，長(zhǎng)期的價(jià)值創(chuàng)造更難得到回報(bào)。若系統(tǒng)內(nèi)的遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)卓識(shí)者無(wú)法另辟蹊徑并存活下來(lái)，那么具有巨大影響力的創(chuàng)新就會(huì)變得愈發(fā)稀少。

經(jīng)濟(jì)特別是資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)的繁榮，不僅要有恰當(dāng)?shù)墓ぞ撸€要有適當(dāng)?shù)囊?guī)則。為生態(tài)系統(tǒng)時(shí)代重建工具與規(guī)則是某一群人的當(dāng)務(wù)之急，而這群人本身就構(gòu)成一個(gè)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，包括學(xué)者、顧問(wèn)、監(jiān)管者，當(dāng)然還有管理人員，他們的工作極大影響著管理行業(yè)的發(fā)展。面對(duì)高度互聯(lián)，我們必須齊心協(xié)力，既要想方設(shè)法應(yīng)對(duì)其黑暗面，又要發(fā)掘其創(chuàng)新和共創(chuàng)價(jià)值的潛力。生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的未來(lái)將由我們共同創(chuàng)造。? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? □

（譯者單位：北京市朝陽(yáng)區(qū)王四營(yíng)鄉(xiāng)政府）