【英语社会】企业应该把谁放在首位？

Who should come first in a business: customers, shareholders or staff? This question is the corporate version of the parlour game I outlined last week concerning power, money and reputation – who wins the triangular struggle for priority?

At Johnson & Johnson, the fabulously successful healthcare business, the answer is, apparently, customers, customers, and customers. Serving them well over many decades has clearly worked for the other stakeholders – its shares have performed outstandingly in the long run, while its staff have enjoyed the security of working at an expanding and reputable company.

However, this formula does not necessarily apply in other industries. For example, supermarket suppliers are notoriously bullied by their customers, the retailers, and they tend to make low margins. I recently met the owner of one supplier who refuses to work much for any British grocer save Waitrose, because the others demand such onerous terms. It is surely no coincidence that Waitrose is part of the John Lewis Partnership, where the owners are also the staff – so there are only two elements in the bargain, rather than three.

At the other extreme, a friend told me that when he worked at the British conglomerate Hanson Trust, its overriding motto was shareholders first, second and third. All other interests were subordinated to the demands of the providers of capital: an increasing share price, and a progressive dividend policy. This philosophy guided the group in an acquisition spree over two decades. But eventually the stock rating declined, and takeover targets resisted its entreaties. Without mergers to enhance earnings, Hanson's raison d'être dissipated, and it was broken up.

Meanwhile, British Airways is another category altogether. There, thanks to power-crazed unions and a defined benefit pension scheme, the hierarchy is clearly staff, staff, staff. The entire undertaking has become but a device to keep the staff pension plan solvent. The flight crew's aborted strike was a self-destructive attempt to defend partisan interests at the expense of everyone else – even if it meant obliterating the entire enterprise. It is useful to know how little BA staff think of the customers who provide their revenue. There can be no question that a bankruptcy of BA would actually be a rational outcome for the travelling public. It would permit the business to shed legacy liabilities and invest for the future as a competitive airline – rather than cling on, ever weaker, as a hostage to its past as a state monopoly.

There is an argument that for a number of financial services businesses, such as RBS and Merrill Lynch, at least some of the staff and management must have similarly concluded that the whole operation was designed exclusively to enrich them: that heritage, stockholders, customers and society could go to hell. No wonder both banks had to be rescued.

Great leaders are brilliant jugglers of these competing interests. They judge value and adjust pricing so as to offer attractive goods at a bearable margin. In doing so, they generate sufficient surplus to fund investment and reward loyal owners. And they treat staff well to motivate them to work hard and deliver excellent service. Thus a virtuous, reinforcing cycle proceeds for ably managed concerns.

The ideal arrangement is for the three constituents to co-operate for their mutual benefit. Such profitable and harmonious partnerships are very hard to maintain, since each party tends to expect a growing slice – and the pie is shrinking almost everywhere. But, as Samuel Goldwyn said: “Ninety per cent of the art of living consists of getting on with people one cannot stand.” It is a matter of compromise and balance.

In spite of popular suspicion, no company – save a monopoly – survives for long if it consistently treats customers badly, for at its heart every organisation relies on repeat business. This is the profound truth in favour of choice and the market. And no enterprise can function without its people or funding. Thomas Macaulay, the historian, put it well: “It is evident that many great and useful objects can be attained in this world only by co-operation.”

企业应该把谁放在第一位：客户、股东还是员工？我上周曾大致讲述过一个关于权力、金钱和声望的猜谜游戏——在这三方的座次争夺战中，谁该赢得“头把交椅”？而今天的问题则是一个“企业版”的游戏。

在强生(Johnson & Johnson)这家极为成功的医疗企业，这个问题的答案显然是“客户至上”。在过去的数十年里，强生为客户提供了优质的服务，而该公司的其他利益相关方显然也从中受益——强生股价的长线表现十分出色，其员工也享受着效力于一家不断扩张且声名显赫的企业的安全感。

但这一模式并不一定适用于其它行业。例如，超市供应商就出了名的受到客户（即零售商）的压榨，它们往往只能赚取较低的利润。我最近遇到一家供应商的老板，他拒绝向除维特罗斯(Waitrose)之外的任何一家英国杂货店供应大量商品，因为那些杂货店的条件十分苛刻。决非巧合的是，维特罗斯是John Lewis Partnership的子公司，后者的员工就是所有者——因此，这里参与讨价还价的只有两方，而不是三方。

下面的例子走了另一个极端，一位朋友曾告诉我，他在英国企业集团汉森信托(Hanson Trust)工作时，该集团至高无上的信条就是“股东至上”。其它所有利益都要服从于资本提供者提出的要求：股价不断上涨，奉行激进的派息政策。在这一理念的指引下，该集团在过去20年里大举收购。但最终，该集团股票评级被下调，收购对象也抵制它的收购请求。没有了并购来推高收益，汉森信托也就失去了存在的理由。该公司后来被分拆。

与此同时，英国航空(British Airways)则完全属于另一类模式。在那里，得益于醉心权力的工会和确定收益(defined benefit)养老金计划，地位最高的显然是员工。整个企业完全成为了一个保持员工养老金计划偿付能力的工具。英航空勤人员夭折的罢工，是一次自我毁灭的尝试，它为捍卫一部分人的利益而牺牲了其它所有人的利益——即便这意味着要毁掉整个企业。英航员工如此不为作为他们衣食父母的客户着想，我们知道这一事实是有用处的。毋庸置疑的是，英航破产对广大乘客来说实际上是一种合理的结果。英航将因此得以剥离历史遗留债务，并为日后成为一家有竞争力的航空公司进行投资——而不是原地踏步、每况愈下，像一家国有垄断企业一样无法摆脱自己的过去。

有人认为，在许多金融服务企业中——例如苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)和美林(Merrill Lynch)，至少有一部分员工和管理人士得出了相同的结论：整个企业存在的目的只是为了让他们变得富有，企业传统、股东、客户乃至社会都可以靠边儿站。难怪这两家银行不得不接受纾困。

伟大的企业领导者可以娴熟地协调这些相互竞争的利益。他们判断价值并调整价格，以便在可承受的利润水平上提供有吸引力的商品。如此一来，他们就创造了足够的剩余盈利，可以用于投资和同时回报忠诚的业主。他们善待员工，激励他们努力工作并提供优质的服务。于是，对这类管理出色的企业来说，就建立起了一个良性且不断强化的循环。

理想的模式是上述三方为了共同的利益携手合作。这种有利、和谐的合作关系很难维持，因为每一方都倾向于期待自己分得的份额越来越大，而在几乎所有地方，“饼”都越来越小。不过，正如塞缪尔•高德温(Samuel Goldwyn)所言：“在生活的艺术中，90%的内容都是关于如何与那些极难相处的人搞好关系。”这是一个妥协与平衡的问题。

尽管许多人都对此表示怀疑，但没有任何一家企业（除了垄断企业）在始终恶待客户的情况下长期生存，这是因为，每家企业归根到底都要依赖“回头生意”。这是一条深刻的真理，它有利于选择、有利于市场。此外，也没有任何一家企业能够在没有员工和资金的情况下运转。历史学家托马斯•麦考利(Thomas Macaulay)说得好：“在这个世界上，许多伟大和有益的目标只能通过合作来实现。”

译者/汪洋