|
尽管他们具有非常大的复杂性，但是现代商业组织不论大还是小，都倾向于有个唯一的目标：那就是赢利，有利可图。不同的商业运作模式会有不同的特定目标，但是任何一家无论持续存在多久的公司都会不复存在。这就使得他们不会在任何目标上都能成功。所以，在描绘管理方法的本质上，我们不能忽略一个核心问题，那就是提出意见和建议：我们如何能高效盈利？
基于这个基本点，商业中存在的问题自然会涉及自身的运营战略问题，而非短期意图。私营管理者会经常的从一个公司跳槽到另一个公司，头一天他们在关于汽车的销售，或许第二天他们就会试图为国防部安排如何制造武器了。或许这些工作的性质大不相同，但是经理们任会面临一个同样的问题：对企业内经济运营的提案如何被采纳？这些提案如何和其他同类提案进行对比？很大程度上来说，经理们并不负责汽车销售所带来的价值问题以及制造武器的重要性问题。
Despite their great complexity, modern business organizations, large or small, all tend to have one singular objective: to be profitable. Certainly different businesses have different specific goals, but any business that remains in the red for any length of time will eventually cease to exist, and it will then be unable to pursue any specific goal whatever. So in characterizing the nature of management issues, we cannot ignore the central question that arises about any claim or proposal: How will this affect profitability?
Given this fundamental point, business issues naturally involve considerations of strategy rather than problems for timeless contemplation. Individual managers often move from one organization to another, one day being concerned with the sales of automobiles, the next with trying to arrange to build weapons for the Department of Defense. Although the details of each endeavor may be quite different, the manager is still faced with the same issue: How wiIl acceptance of any proposal contribute to the economical operation of the organization? And how does it compare with other coexisting proposals? In large measure, managers are not charged to inquire about the value of selling cars or the importance of building weapons.
The organization typically does not require managers to think deeply about the question, How will selling more cars (or building weapons) make better children? Just as a military leader is required to develop strategies for pursuing policies already decided by the government, rather than spending time contemplating the merits or demerits of those policies, so the business manager is required to devise strategies for operating the organization economically and profitably, within the framework of whatever organization he is serving.
Given the competitive environment of most business, this analogy with the military can be carried further. For the strategist, the primary issues concern matters of fact. The soldier needs intelligence: Where are the enemy, what is their strength, what are their plans, what is their frame of mind? The soldier also needs data about the friendly forces: What are the comparative capabilities of our weapons? What are the strengths and weaknesses of our forces? Only once reliable data are available can strategies be set. The business manager-as strategist also deals with issues of fact: What is the position of our competitors? What are the sources of our raw materials? What is happening in new technology? What organizational problems do we have? Which markets are growing and which declining? What is the availability of capital? What new lines are our competitors developing? How well are our own products competing? Working with factual estimates about all these matters, the business manager can then turn to strategic issues:
If we add a new product, will it sell?
If it sells, will our competitors counter?
If so, can we spend additional money on advertising so that sales will increase enough to make it worthwhile?
If we invest in a new plant, will it eventually lead to greater profit?
If we acquire a new addition to our company, will it pay off in the long run, or in the short run, or not at all?
Obviously the critical task for a manager is to make claims involving reliable projections into the future. (Such claims are comparable to a political claim that if some law is enacted, certain predictable outcomes will come to pass.) The manager, however, is required to make more specific projections than the politician, and his predictions are subject to much more immediate evaluation. When a manager argues for the adoption of any specific policy, she or he must state clearly just what the expected consequences will be for both initial and ultimate productivity, or sales, or overall performance, and just what contribution it will make to the organization as a whole.
The business manager and the legislator are comparable in one other respect. Both of them make substantive policy decisions subject to budgetary constraints. (In the running of any large-scale organization, the two ultimate scarce commodities are time and money.) These money decisions constitute the most potent measure of modalities, and the allocation of money to various elements in a business organization is a continuing management problem. Any decision to go into a new product line will initially mean less money for established lines. If the new product does not initially sell, it will be necessary to choose: Should one put still more money into advertising, packaging, marketing, and production facilities, or should one write the new line off as a loss and save the money for more successful lines? However attractive a proposal may be in technical terms, the manager must face the question of how the resulting expenditure can be justified to the board of directors or the shareholders
|
