What Management Needs to Become in an Era of Ecosystems生態系統時代的管理如何改變

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.

商業世界一直對生態系統津津樂道。根據世界經濟論壇2019年的一份報告，人們對數字化生態系統的熱情持續高漲。不過，大部分關注的是宏觀經濟影響（例如，麥肯錫管理咨詢公司的研究推測，到2025年，超過30%的全球經濟活動將可通過數字平臺調節），而生態系統時代對管理實踐具有怎樣的意義，則關注較少。

商業生態系統比線性供應鏈復雜得多，是由公司和其他個體（平臺供應商、政府機構、獨立承包人、參與構建的消費者，等等）組成的群落，各方共同發揮作用創造價值。其理念是，如果各方對集體的努力有更加整體的認識，那么每一方都能受益。

盡管很多工作場所已經用到生態系統相關的詞匯和隱喻，但一直沒有太多資料說明管理方法和行為該如何相應演進。哪種領導風格能夠有效統一各方、推動系統更好運作？當今管理人員需要哪些新型架構、工具和流程來擴大協調范圍、確保發展不偏離正軌？

通過研究和實踐，開始有證據表明，在生態系統世界中，管理人員若積極調整方法以適應，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方面轉向了生態系統思維。對外，隨著“物聯網”經驗的積累，海爾發現，由于與消費者的直接聯系，機會和責任已發生變化。對內，海爾進行徹底重組，將公司劃分為上百個創業單元——這些單元目標明確并全部通過同一個基礎平臺運作，從而構成一個生態系統。重點在于，這并不只是個比喻的說法：新的生態系統理念必須貫徹落實到海爾具體的運營細節里，包括制造、績效管理與會計。“這在21世紀尤其重要，”張瑞敏在2018年的一次訪談中強調，“生態系統是我們創造價值的方式。”

在海爾等公司積累生態系統管理經驗的同時，咨詢顧問與管理學者也開始尋找有效模式。例如，波士頓咨詢公司的研究強調，領導人必須轉變角色，從分派任務的高層人員變成有影響力的“協調人”。在領導人無法行使正式權力、集體成績大于個人成績的環境中，他們構建共同體和促進協作的能力必須變得更強。

就像所有管理比喻一樣，在有關商業生態系統的討論中，有評論人士會質疑：這真的是新概念嗎？公司一直以來不都是屬于更大的系統而自身也是由多個內部網絡組成的嗎？管理上的系統思維最早由圣加倫大學的漢斯·烏爾里希、彼得·戈麥斯和弗雷德蒙德·馬利克提出（在美國，最早由杰伊·福瑞斯特、羅素·艾可夫和彼得·圣吉提出），長期以來一直是商學院課程的一部分。而實際上，幾十年前，彼得·德魯克在研究組織運行方式、組織影響及其與社會的融合時，提出了“社會生態學”一詞，用來描述該項研究的性質。

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

要在這個由各種平臺與合作關系構成的時代取得成功，管理人員需要在諸多層面改弦更張。而且，新的生態系統管理實踐勢必帶來新的管理理論，也需要從更大規模的系統層面來調整。實干派與理論派可以從摒棄投入、流程及產出等機械的工業時代模型入手。他們必須以更加動態、有機和發展的眼光去看待組織能力的發展方式和培養辦法。

在努力發現這一新常態所帶來機遇的同時，我們也必須對其黑暗面有所預料并妥善應對。生態系統一詞內涵美好，就好比一座天然花園，自給自足，草木蔥蘢，縱情生長，但現實并非一切都那么美好。更多網絡互聯會帶來新的動態和意外后果，比如閃電崩盤和贏家通吃的市場——前者重創了高度數字化的金融市場，后者的出現則伴隨著網絡效應和規模收益遞增促成現代壟斷企業。

當很多實體集聚于某個標準下、平臺上或愿景中，而其中任何一方都不足以獨自改變它，那就很可能會產生一個有嚴重缺陷、不受變化影響的系統。以股票市場為例，比起短期的價值創造，長期的價值創造更難得到回報。若系統內的遠見卓識者無法另辟蹊徑并存活下來，那么具有巨大影響力的創新就會變得愈發稀少。

經濟特別是資本主義經濟的繁榮，不僅要有恰當的工具，還要有適當的規則。為生態系統時代重建工具與規則是某一群人的當務之急，而這群人本身就構成一個生態系統，包括學者、顧問、監管者，當然還有管理人員，他們的工作極大影響著管理行業的發展。面對高度互聯，我們必須齊心協力，既要想方設法應對其黑暗面，又要發掘其創新和共創價值的潛力。生態系統的未來將由我們共同創造。? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? □

（譯者單位：北京市朝陽區王四營鄉政府）