平台严格禁止发布违法/不实/欺诈等垃圾信息，一经发现将永久封禁帐号，针对违法信息将保留相关证据配合公安机关调查！
2010-5-30 06:08
I have worked with partners my entire business career. For me, it has always been preferable to share the journey than to direct affairs as a sole trader. Perhaps I have made less money than I might have but I believe the experience has been more fun, and I've got involved in far more projects than I could have working alone.
A partner helps relieve the loneliness of being the boss and the stress of judging risks. While firms cannot function as democracies, pure dictatorships are vulnerable to all the whims and failings of an individual personality: overreach, emotions, limitations and favouritism. The easiest partnership is a 50/50 deal, each contributing the same capital and effort, and starting at the same point in the life of an enterprise. But such arrangements may well not be feasible or fair. Often one party has more cash or time or know- how, or has already initiated the operation. Either way it means the partnership will not be equal, but that should not undermine its success. The best partnerships are based on mutual respect, complementary skills and aligned objectives. Most partnerships have a life span. My old colleague at PizzaExpress, David Page, reckoned the typical set-up lasts 10 years; I think it varies according to the circumstances. The trigger for the dissolution is usually the sale of the joint undertaking. Frequently, one side has the urge to continue the chase, while the other wants to sit back and enjoy their wealth. Sometimes it is death, divorce or simply diverging priorities that lead to a break-up. As with marriage, ideally such partings are not rancorous; but envy and festering resentments mean bitterness and litigation can flare up when things finish. There are many talent pairings. I like the combination of an accountant and a salesman (or woman). Other great teams can comprise smooth negotiator and hard nut (Mr Nice and Mr Nasty) or a brilliant creative brain matched with a first-class commercial mind. So often the prime mover is an inventor of some sort, while the partner brings street smarts or finance, or simply energy and confidence. Curiously, when hiring high-level staff companies, will undertake extensive referencing and even psychometric testing to ensure the candidate's suitability for a post. But who carries out such rigorous analysis when going into partnership with someone? All too often, we fall into business with someone because we enjoy their company, or because we are friends. But the best qualifications are that a person is competent and reliable in business matters. How on earth do partners meet? I came across my partner Gary in the early 1990s when I tried and failed to buy his recruitment business; I met my partner Paul when I invested in the retail company he ran. William Hewlett met David Packard when they both played for the Stanford football team. Charles Rolls, the aristocratic motor trader, met the engineer Henry Royce through a mutual friend called Henry Edmunds at the Midland Hotel, Manchester, in 1904. Often it seems that the way prospective tycoons come together is almost random. There should be a high-profile online introductory service that precisely marries up would-be partners in business. Surely there is demand for such a tool. Partnerships are most vital when times are tough. There is no substitute for being able to discuss confidential affairs in detail with a colleague of equal rank and understanding. Advisers, subordinates, spouses and friends are simply not as likely to be as engaged – or as honest. For many entrepreneurs, forging a partnership defeats the purpose of working for yourself. It means you cannot control your own destiny to the same degree and take the same level of pride, credit and creative satisfaction. But most of us accept we have shortcomings, and realise that an equity partner will try harder and bring more to the relationship than any employee. Very few of us have the genius of a Henry Ford or Sam Walton: for us, a partnership is one big way to improve the odds. 在我的整个商业生涯中，我都在与人合伙。对我来说，与人并肩同行，总是比独自主事更为可取。也许我因此少赚些了钱，但我认为，这样的经历更为有趣，而我也得以参与了比单干更多的项目。
合作伙伴有助于减轻当老板的孤独感和判断风险的压力。虽然公司不是实行民主的地方，但如果完全独断专行，很容易因各种怪念头和个性缺陷——不自量力、情绪化、局限和偏好——而遭致失败。 最轻松的合作关系是对等合作：各出一半资金，付出同样的努力，同一时间投入一项事业。但这样的安排往往不可行或者不公平。往往是一方有着更多资金、时间或技能，或已经创立了业务。 总之，这意味着合作关系不会平等，但不应致使合作失败。最好的合作关系建立在相互尊重、能力互补和目标一致的基础之上。 多数合作都有时限。我在PizzaExpress的前同事戴维•佩奇(David Page)认为，合作期限一般会持续10年。但我认为，合作时间长短因具体情况而不同。 分手的导火索往往是出售双方共同创立的业务。经常是一方希望继续追逐，而另一方想抽身享用财富。 有时，导致合作破裂的原因是死亡、离异，或者仅仅是意见分歧。与婚姻一样，理想的分手是无怨无恨。然而，妒忌与积怨可能使双方关系变得苦涩，甚至导致对簿公堂。 有许多才能互补型的合作。我喜欢会计师与销售人才的组合。处事圆滑的人与刺儿头能组成好搭档（一个唱红脸，一个唱白脸），创造性人才与一流商业头脑也是良配。通常，发起者是某种类型的创造者，合作伙伴会带来技巧、资金，或者仅仅是活力与信心。 令人感到奇怪的是：在招聘高层员工时，企业会广为征询意见，甚至进行心理测试，以确保候选人适合相关职位。但是在与某人建立合作关系时，谁来进行这种缜密的分析呢？我们与某个人共同创业，往往是因为我们喜欢与这个人相处，或者因为我们是朋友。但最佳的合作人选，是在商业事务上既有才能又可靠的人。 合作伙伴到底是怎么撞到一起的？我遇见我的合作伙伴加里(Gary)是在上世纪90年代初，当时我试图收购他的招聘业务，但没有成功。我遇见另一个合作伙伴保罗(Paul)是在投资他经营的零售公司时。 威廉•休利特(William Hewlett)与戴维•帕卡德(David Packard)的相识，是在斯坦福橄榄球队打球时。贵族出身的发动机商人查尔斯•罗尔斯(Charles Rolls)与工程师亨利•莱斯(Henry Royce)，1904年通过共同的朋友亨利•埃德蒙(Henry Edmunds)，在曼彻斯特的Midland饭店相识。 似乎未来的巨头往往是偶然地走到了一起。应该有一种广为人知的网络介绍服务，精准地为准商业伙伴配对。这种服务肯定有需求。 合作关系在艰难时期最为重要。在详细讨论机密问题时，没有人能代替与同等级别、知情程度相同的伙伴。顾问、下属、配偶和朋友，都不会同样地用心——或诚实。 对许多企业家来说，缔结合作关系背离了“为自己工作”的目标，意味着不能与后者同样程度地掌握自己的命运，享有骄傲、荣誉和创造带来的满足感。但我们多数人都承认自身存在不足，也都认识到，股权合作伙伴会比任何一个员工都更努力，能够给双方关系带来更多益处。 我们很少有人具备亨利•福特(Henry Ford)或萨姆•沃尔顿(Sam Walton)的天赋。对我们来说，合作是提高成功几率的重要途径。 译者/岱嵩 |