基業長青的祕密 What helps companies endure longer than others

In 2001, while interviewing executives at Nokia, I was introduced to the Finnish word. It meant humility, I was told, but humility with a quiet self-assurance. That self-assurance seemed well-deserved. Nokiawas then the giant of the mobile phone world, controlling 35 per cent of the global market.

2001年，在採訪諾基亞(Nokia)高管時，有人跟我提到了一個芬蘭詞 。 有人告訴我，它的意思是謙遜，是帶着默默自信的謙遜。這種自信似乎當之無愧。諾基亞當時是全球手機行業的巨擘，控制着全球手機市場35%的份額。

Could it last, I asked in the articles I wrote at the time. We now know that it did not. After being eclipsed by Apple’s iPhone and by Android-based Asian handsets, Nokia last year handed over its much-weakened mobile phone business to Microsoft. But Nokia has not disappeared. It is now a mobile networks operation, has a digital mapping business and owns a host of patents.

我在當時寫的文章中問道，它能長期屹立不倒嗎？我們現在知道，它不能。在被蘋果(Apple)的iPhone和基於安卓(Android)系統的亞洲手機奪去光彩後，諾基亞去年將其實力大大減弱的手機業務售予微軟(Microsoft)。但諾基亞沒有消失。它現在經營着移動網絡業務，擁有數字地圖業務和很多專利。

Reinventing itself is not new to Nokia. It has done so repeatedly since it began life in 1865 as a paper manufacturer. It has since been a maker of rubber boots, raincoats, cables and television sets. It has been an electricity generator, was once Ireland’s leading producer of toilet paper and the world’s only supplier of studded bicycle tyres.

重塑自身對於諾基亞並不新鮮。自從1865年作爲一家造紙商創建以來，它曾多次這麼做過。之後諾基亞生產過橡膠靴、雨衣、電纜和電視機。諾基亞做過發電商，曾經是愛爾蘭主要衛生紙製造商，也曾是全球自行車防滑釘輪胎的唯一供應商。

This is unusual. Few companies change their businesses as dramatically and only a minority last as long. In an influential book, The Living company, first published in 1997, Arie de Geus asked why some companies endured while others died young. The average multinational company lasted less than 50 years, but some, such as Nokia, were well over 100 years l Dutch Shell, where Mr de Geus worked for 38 years, began in 1833. A few had been around for centuries, he wrote. The Sumitomo Group of Japan could trace its origins to a copper casting shop founded in 1590.

這不同尋常。很少有企業會進行如此劇烈的業務轉型，而且只有少數能夠存活這麼長時間。在1997年首次出版的頗具影響力的《長壽公司》(The Living Company)中，阿里德赫斯(Arie de Geus)問道，爲什麼一些公司可以長壽，另一些公司卻英年早逝。跨國企業的平均壽命不到50年，但諾基亞等一些公司的歷史卻遠遠超過了100年。德赫斯爲之工作了38年的荷蘭皇家殼牌(Royal Dutch Shell)是在1833年創建的。他寫道，很少有企業會存活幾個世紀之久。日本住友集團(Sumitomo Group)的起源可以追溯到1590年創建的一家鑄銅店。

In no other type of organisation, whether universities, armies or churches, was there such a disparity between the shortest and longest-living institutions.

其他任何類型的組織（不管是大學、軍隊還是教堂），壽命最長和最短者之間都不會出現如此巨大的差異。

Does it matter whether companies live centuries or not? Is not the death of companies and the birth of new ones the way economies and societies progress – through what Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction”?

公司能否存活數個世紀是否重要？老公司的滅亡和新公司的誕生，不是經濟和社會通過約瑟夫訠籱祟(Joseph Schumpeter)所稱的“創造性破壞”進步的方式嗎？

Yes. Companies can become complacent, as Nokia was about the arrival of the smartphone. Many are replaced by quicker, more alert competitors. But Mr de Geus and others have argued that long-living companies perform a valuable role.

是的。公司可能會變得自滿，諾基亞對於智能手機的出現的態度就是如此。很多公司被行動更迅速且更警覺的競爭對手取代。但德赫斯和其他一些人認爲，長壽公司發揮着重要作用。

They lay down roots. They establish links with communities, provide employment and memories to successive generations of workers and act as an important social glue. As families have become more fragmented and people more mobile, long-living companies provide a sense of cohesion and communal solidarity.

它們會紮下根基。它們與社會建立聯繫、爲一代代員工提供就業和回憶，同時充當一種重要的社會粘合劑。在家庭變得更爲分散且人們的流動性變得更強之際，長壽公司提供了一種凝聚感和社會團結感。

When they die, neighbourhoods are often left desolate, longstanding suppliers lose business and former employees and their families are deprived of their workday memories.

當這些公司滅亡時，臨近的社區通常會變得荒涼起來，長期供應商會丟掉業務，以前的員工和他們的家人會喪失他們對於工作的回憶。

So why do some companies manage to last so long?

那麼，爲什麼一些公司能夠存活很長時間呢？

In his book, Mr de Geus pointed to four characteristics of long-lived companies. First, they were sensitive to changes in the business environment and in their societies. Second, they had a strong sense of identity. Third, they were “tolerant”, by which he meant that they were not over-centralised and allowed experiments and eccentricities among their staff. Finally, they were conservative in their financing – “they knew the usefulness of having spare cash in the kitty”.

德赫斯在書中指出了長壽公司的4個特點。第一，它們對商業環境和所處社會的變化相當敏感。第二，它們有強烈的認同感。第三，它們“寬容”，他的意思是它們並不過分集權，允許員工試驗和特立獨行。最後，它們在融資方面相當保守，“它們知道留有備用現金的用處。”

There are other questions we can ask.

我們還可以提出其他問題。

Is ownership important? Some companies survive because they are family-owned, educating each new generation to take a role and become executives. But family ownership is no panacea. It is difficult to instil hunger for success, hard work and managerial savvy in successive generations. And not all of the oldest companies are family-owned.

所有權是否重要？一些公司存活下來的原因是它們由家族所有，他們會教育新一代人承擔角色併成爲高管。但家族所有權並非萬能藥。很難將成功的渴望、勤奮和管理頭腦連續植入幾代人。而且並非所有歷史最長的公司都由家族所有。

Does the industry matter? Is it easier to survive in the resources business, say in mining, than in the tech industry? It is difficult to judge. The technology industry is too young for us to know whether, for example, Apple, Microsoft or Facebook are going to show real staying power. Certainly, companies that were once big names in technology – Wang and ICL, for example – are no longer around.

行業是否重要？在資源行業（例如礦業）是否要比在科技行業更容易存活？現在很難判斷。科技行業還太年輕，我們無法瞭解蘋果、微軟或Facebook是否會展示出真正的持久力。當然，科技行業那些曾經的巨擘（例如，Wang和ICL）都已消失。

And, most important, can large companies keep innovating or are they inevitably undermined by new arrivals with smaller bureaucracies, no pension liabilities and less of an investment in older technologies and ways of operating?

最重要的是，大公司能否保持創新，或者是否會不可避免地受到新公司的削弱？新公司官僚主義較少、沒有養老金義務，而且在較老的技術和經營方式方面投資較少。

Over the next few months, the Financial Times (which itself is 127 years old) will be examining what helps some companies last so long – and how they can fend off decline. We will be running events and broadcasting videos from the leading business cities on four continents: Hong Kong, Johannesburg, New York and London.

未來幾個月，英國《金融時報》（本身有127年曆史）將考察是什麼幫助一些公司存活那麼長時間，以及它們是如何抵禦衰落的。我們將舉辦各種活動，並播放來自位於四個大陸的領先商業城市的視頻：香港、約翰內斯堡、紐約和倫敦。

Each of these financial and commercial centres has companies that have been around for decades or centuries, as well as thriving start-ups. We will be interviewing executives from both types of companies, as well as academic experts.

這些金融和商業中心都擁有具有幾十年或幾百年歷史的企業以及蓬勃發展的初創企業。我們將採訪這兩類企業的高管和學術專家。

But we also want to hear from you, the FT reader. Do you think long-living companies are valuable to our societies and, if so, what do you think helps them endure? Do you work or for a company that has been around forever, or do you work for a recent corporate arrival – or perhaps you have worked for both? How do you think the most successful older companies have done it? Please join in the debate by posting your thoughts here or follow # Twitter.

但英國《金融時報》的讀者，我們也希望聽到你的看法。你是否認爲長壽公司對我們的社會很重要？如果是的話，你認爲它們長壽的祕訣是什麼？你是在爲一家歷史悠久的公司工作，還是在爲一家最近才誕生的公司工作，或者你曾經爲兩種公司都工作過？你認爲最成功的歷史較長的公司是如何做到的？請加入我們的辯論，在這裏提出你的看法，或者在Twitter上關注#FTLongevity。