【英语生活】寻找正确决策

When I was a student, Penguin published several collections of classic articles on economics and business. They were an indispensable resource. The first book on business strategy I ever read was the title in that series edited by Dr H. Igor Ansoff. Recently I re-opened it and understood how much changes in the way we think about business strategy – and how much remains the same.

Only one article found there is still widely cited. It was written by the American political scientist Charles Lindblom and published in 1959 under the title The Science of Muddling Through. Prof Lindblom contrasted what he called the “root” method of decision-making with the “branch” approach. The root method required comprehensive evaluation of options in the light of defined objectives. The branch method involved building out, step-by-step and by small degrees, from the current situation. Prof Lindblom claimed “the root method is in fact not usable for complex policy questions”. The practical man must follow the branch approach – the science of muddling through.

Ansoff included Prof Lindblom's article mainly to poke fun at those who acted on this advice. He told students the article was instructive, since “it describes a widely prevalent state of practice in business and government organisations”. We can imagine sniggering MBA students.

They would be chortling when Ansoff turned his attention to France's Saint-Gobain, the glass and materials group. “Saint-Gobain, for all the modernity of its headquarters building, will remain something of an old lady, likely to move only with the slow deliberate steps of great age.”

America, and Ansoff, were pointing to the road ahead. Prof Lindblom, he explained, “is wrong when he claims the ‘root' method to be impossible”. Ansoff's analysis of TRW, the US conglomerate, “shows how one of the world's most dynamic corporations goes about a methodical exploration of wide vistas of opportunities in the process of formulating its corporate strategy”. The future held no bounds. Senior management “feels that the corporation hasn't begun to exploit the opportunities . . . they believe that TRW is equipped, for example, to play a three-sided role in technological programmes for the solution to such pressing problems as urban renewal, mass transportation, and pollution”.

But Ansoff's highest praise was reserved for Litton Industries,
another US conglomerate. Litton – “a proverbial success story by any conceivable yardstick” – was the creation of Tex Thornton, the leader of the “whiz kids”. This group of brilliant young men had made an important contribution to US military organisation in the second world war. A letter from Thornton to Henry
Ford II led Ford to hire the entire group to help the Ford Motor Company recover from the chaos left by war and its irascible founder. Robert McNamara, the most famous whiz kid, was the company's president before being recruited by John Kennedy as US defence secretary.

Ansoff died in 2002. History has not been kind to him, or to the whiz kids. Even as Ansoff was putting together his collection in 1968, the future of Litton Industries was being questioned. Like many acquisitive conglomerates, it experienced a rapid ascent and sharp fall. Its reputation and share price rose steadily before a setback to earnings made its stock less attractive. Acquisitions became impossible. The business gradually unwound. Tex Thornton is today forgotten, McNamara was driven from the defence department by public hostility and his private doubts. He went on to preside over a substantial expansion of lending – much of it never repaid – at the World Bank. Today, he reminisces on his experiences – and the virtues of muddling through.

TRW, like Litton, would be forced to slim operations and ambition and return to its modest roots in automobile parts supply. Saint-Gobain, by contrast, is a successful multinational, with 200,000 employees worldwide. Prof Lindblom, still muddling through at 92, celebrates the 50th anniversary of his article. We should celebrate too – and applaud the relevance of his insight.

当我是一名学生时，企鹅(Penguin)出版了几部关于经济学和商学的经典文章集。它们都是不可或缺的资源。我读过的有关企业战略的第一本书，就是由伊戈尔•安索夫博士(H. Igor Ansoff)编辑的那个系列中的主题著作。最近，我重新打开了这本书，感悟到我们在思考企业战略的方式上有了多少改变——以及有多少没有改变。

我在那里面只发现了一篇文章仍在被广泛引用。它就是美国政治学家查尔斯•林德布卢姆(Charles Lindblom)所写的发表于1959年的《渐进决策科学》(The Science of Muddling Through)。林德布卢姆将被他称为决策过程的“根”方法与“分支”方法进行了对比。根方法要求依据界定的目标，对各种选项进行全盘评价。分支方法主要是在当前形势的基础上逐步、小幅度地增加和补充。林德布卢姆认为，“根方法实际上不适用于复杂的政策问题”。务实的人必须采用分支方法，即渐进决策科学。

安索夫把林德布卢姆的文章选取进来的目的，主要是为了嘲笑那些采纳了这一建议的实践者。他告诉他的学生说，这篇文章具有启示性，因为“它描述了商业和政府组织当中普遍流行的实践情况”。我们可以想象得出那些MBA学生一定在偷偷发笑。

当安索夫将注意力转向法国玻璃和材料集团圣戈班(Saint-Gobain)时，他们可能会放声大笑。“尽管圣戈班的总部大楼充满了现代性，但它仍会像一名老妇人，很可能只会以老年人那种缓慢而慎重的步伐前进。”

当时，美国，还有安索夫，才指出了未来发展方向。安索夫解释称，林德布卢姆“有关‘根'方法不可能适用的观点是错误的”。安索夫对美国企业集团天合(TRW)的分析“展示了全球最具活力的公司之一是如何在形成自身的公司战略过程中，对广泛的机遇展望进行系统性探索的。”前途无量。高管层“觉得，公司还未开始挖掘机遇……例如，他们相信，天合已经整装待发，要在解决城市改建、公共交通和污染等极其紧迫问题的技术项目中发挥三方面的作用。”

但安索夫把最高赞美留给了另一家美国企业集团利顿工业公司(Litton Industries)。利顿——“一个众所周知的按照任何标准衡量都很成功的故事”——是“神童队”队长特克斯•桑顿(Tex Thornton)创造的。这个智慧超群的青年团队在二战时期对美国的军事组织作出了重要的贡献。桑顿写给亨利•福特二世(Henry Ford II)的一封信促使福特雇佣了整个神童队，帮助福特汽车(Ford Motor Company)从战争及其性情急躁的创办者遗留下来的烂摊子中获得复苏。最出名的神童罗伯特•麦克纳马拉(Robert McNamara)在被约翰•肯尼迪(John Kennedy)聘请担任美国国防部部长之前，曾经是福特的总裁。

安索夫于2002年去世。历史对他，或那些神童一直不友善。当安索夫在1968年汇编他的文章集时，人们就已经对利顿工业的未来提出了质疑。像许多贪婪的企业集团一样，它也经历了大起大落。它的名誉和股价都曾稳步上升，直到利润下滑削弱了其股票的吸引力。收购变得不可能了。这个集团逐渐变得松散。特克斯•桑顿如今已被遗忘，麦克纳马拉因公众反对和他个人的疑虑而被驱逐出了国防部。在世界银行(World Bank)，他又主导了放贷的大举扩张——其中大部分从未得到偿还。如今，他开始回首自己的经历——以及渐进式做法的好处。

与利顿一样，天合后来也被迫精简业务和野心，回归其作为汽车零部件供应商的谦虚根基。而圣戈班则成了一家成功的跨国公司，在全球拥有20万名雇员。92岁的林德布卢姆仍在“渐进”中，庆祝他的文章发表50周年。我们也应该庆祝——并称赞其中肯的洞见。

译者/董琴