預測商業風險的藝術 爲什麼非專家做的更好
As GM GM -0.32% recalls millions of faulty vehicles, it’s hard not to wonder if the outcome would have been different if its product design team tasked to design ignition switches had involved more non-engineers in the early 2000s? Might they have been able to better predict the social impact and reputational risks associated with technological risks? Is it possible that a different risk group – inspired by broad-minded generalists – could have prevented the recall of more than 28 million vehicles over the last six months at a cost in excess of $1.7 billion?
通用汽車（GM）召回了上千萬輛有缺陷汽車，這很難不讓人們去想，如果在本世紀初負責設計點火開關的設計團隊中有更多的非工程師人員參與，情況是否會有所不同呢？他們是否能更好地預見到和科技風險有關的社會影響以及聲譽風險呢？一個不同的風險評估團隊，或者說一個由更多思路開闊的多面手賦予其靈感的團隊，能否讓通用汽車避免在過去六個月付出超過17億美元的代價召回 2,800多萬輛汽車的厄運呢？More broadly, who is best positioned to assess a company’s risks? Is it critical for a retailer to predict the likelihood of a cyber attack on its payment processing system? Should those in the tobacco industry care about the accuracy of their e-cigarette adoption projections, or the regulatory response to such developments? What about the future price of carbon and the impact it might have on the coal and power production industries?
更寬泛地說，就評估公司風險而言，誰處於最有利的位置？預測自己的支付處理系統遭到網絡攻擊的可能性對一家零售企業來說是個關鍵問題嗎？菸草行業從業者是否應該關注電子煙預測普及率的準確性或者監管部門對人們使用電子煙的反應呢？今後的碳排放交易價格走勢如何？它可能會對煤炭和電力行業產生什麼樣的影響？Increasingly, boardrooms around the world have focused on risk – a task that is essentially one of predicting possible deviations from expectations, but who is really best positioned to make predictions about the future and why? There’s been meaningful research conducted on this topic, but I don’t believe the findings have affected how organizations think about developing their current and future leaders.
全世界的公司董事會都越來越關注風險——這項工作本質上就是預測實際情況和預期之間可能出現的偏差，但在預測未來方面誰處於最佳位置呢？原因是什麼呢？對於這個問題，人們已經進行了有針對性的研究，但我認爲這些研究成果並未對公司培養現任和未來負責人的思路產生影響。
In a quite counter-intuitive finding, convincing academic work suggests that specialized experts may in fact be less accurate in their predictions of developments within their field than non-experts; the more focused the predictor, the less accurate the prediction. One reason this may be the case is that we humans become wedded to our areas of focus. We effectively acquire hammers…and not surprisingly, then find nails everywhere we look.
有說服力的學術研究表明，專家對自身專業領域發展態勢的預測實際上還沒有非專家準確，這和人們的直覺相去甚遠。預測者越專業，所做預期的準確程度就越低。出現這種情況的一個可能原因是我們會拘泥於自己所專注的領域。這就好像我們手裏拿着錘子，然後無論看向哪裏都會發現釘子——這種情況並不讓人感到意外。The history of predictions made by experts is littered with failures. Let’s consider the market for computers and predictions made about them by leading specialists within the computer industry. Thomas Watson, the esteemed chairman of IBM IBM -0.72% , proclaimed in 1943 that he believed there to be “a world market for maybe five computers.” Later in 1977, the president, chairman, and founder of Digital Equipment Corporation Ken Olsen stated, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
專家們的預測史充斥着失敗。讓我們看看計算機市場以及計算機行業中處於領軍位置的專家所做的預測吧。1943年，備受尊重的IBM董事長托馬斯o沃森表示，他相信會出現一個“差不多由五臺計算機構成的全球市場。”1977年，數字設備公司（Digital Equipment Corporation）創始人、總裁兼董事長肯o奧爾森稱：“人們沒有理由產生在家裏擺一臺計算機的想法。”Today, the worldwide market for computers and tablets exceeds several hundred million units per year. Watson and Olsen were true pioneers and believed by many to be industry-leading experts and visionaries, but their predictions were way off the mark.
今天，全球計算機和平板電腦市場每年的規模已經超過數億臺。沃森和奧爾森絕對都是行業先行者，許多人都認爲他們是計算機領域的頂尖專家和預言者，但他們的預測和實際情況有着天壤之別。Experts in communications have not proven any more accurate. Consider that McKinsey’s experts in market sizing projected for AT&T T 1.06% in 1980 that the worldwide market for mobile phones would fail to exceed 1 million subscribers by the year 2000. The actual number proved to be well north of 100 million subscribers. Consider also when tech specialist and then Microsoft MSFT 0.74% CEO Steve Ballmerbluntly made his prediction for the Apple iPhone in 2007: “There’s no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance.” As it turns out, the device had an approximately 41% market share in April this year, according to market research firm comScore. I’ll leave it you to decide if that share is significant.
實踐表明，通信領域專家的預測也準確不到哪兒去。1980年，麥肯錫（McKinsey）的市場規模專家曾針對美國電話電報公司（AT&T）預計，到2000年全球手機市場中的用戶人數不會超過100萬人。而實際情況是，這個數字遠高於1億人。科技行業專家、時任微軟（Microsoft）首席執行官的史蒂夫o鮑爾默2007年曾直率地對蘋果公司（Apple）的iPhone做出這樣的預測：“iPhone絕不會獲得多少市場份額，絕對不會。”結果呢，市場研究機構comScore的數據表明，今年4月份iPhone的市場份額約爲41%。請大家來判斷一下這樣的市場份額算不算大。These stories illustrate a major downside of specialization. I don’t mean to suggest that specialization unto itself is bad; in many functions and domains (surgery, scientific research, etc …), it is essential to success. But when it comes to navigating uncertainty and contemplating probabilistic scenarios, I’d rather have a generalist in charge—someone who has a breadth of experience diverse enough to mitigate the problematic hammer-carrying default setting.
這些事例體現了專業化的一大缺陷。我並不是說專業化本身有問題。在許多工作和領域中（外科、科學研究等），專業化是成功的關鍵。但在應對不確定性和預測可能出現的情況方面，我更願意讓多面手來負責——這類人的經驗多種多樣，足以緩解上文中提到的“自認爲手拿錘子”所引發的問題。One obvious implication for managers at all levels of an organization is to respect and value seemingly unrelated experiences. Don’t dismiss the marketing executive applying for a finance position or the retail leader who thinks she can run a construction firm. And in grooming future leaders, current leaders should encourage a diversity of experience rather than narrow specialization.
對企業中各個層次的管理者來說，以上事例的一個明確含義就是要尊重和珍視那些看似不相關的經驗。不要把應聘財務職位的營銷事務管理人員拒之門外，也不要認爲零售公司負責人不能經營建築公司。培養未來負責人時，現任領導應當鼓勵他們擁有多種多樣的經驗，而不是侷限於某個專業領域。Vikram Mansharamani, PhD, is a lecturer at Yale University in the Program on Ethics, Politics, & Economics, a Senior Fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the author of Boombustology: Spotting Financial Bubbles Before They Burst.
本文作者維克拉姆o曼沙拉馬尼博士在耶魯大學（Yale University）教授倫理、政治和經濟課，他是哈佛大學肯尼迪政府學院（Harvard Kennedy School）穆薩瓦-拉赫瑪尼（Mossavar-Rahmani）商業與政府中心高級研究員，著有《盛衰學：在金融泡沫破裂前發現它們》（Boombustology: Spotting Financial Bubbles Before They Burst）一書。
