问答题 人们说,不劳则无获。然而,要是劳而无获呢?不管走到美国什么地方,你都能听到公司复苏的故事。但是,更加难以确定的是商家自认为他们为提高生产效益而进行的这场革命是否真的名副其实。
官方的统计数字多少有些令人沮丧。数据表明,如果把制造业和服务业放在一起,自1987年以来,生产率平均每年上升1.2%,这是1978—1987年度平均增长指数的两倍。令人困扰的是,近来出现的增长一定程度上是因为在每个商业周期运作中,出现常见的反弹造成的。因此,还不能以此作为结论性的证据来证明在这趋势的背后呈现出经济复苏的态势。正如财政部长罗伯特·鲁宾所言,商业界大量神话说生产率大幅度提高了,这与官方统计数字所显示的情景并不符合。
有些是很好的解释。组织工作场所的新办法——这一切包括机构重组和缩小规模——只是促进某一经济实体的综合生产率水平的一项措施,还有许多其他因素驱动生产率的提高。比如,对机械设备的联合投资、采用新技术、教育培训投资。另外,公司进行的大多数改革以赢利为目的,这一要求并不总是意味着提高生产率,转入新的市场或提高产品质量可以收到同样的效果。
另外两种解释就更是纯理论的了。一种解释认为,近年来一些企业的改组并未奏效;另一种解释说,即使奏效了,也没有像人们想象的那样广泛推广。
哈佛大学学者伦纳德·施莱辛格是迅速壮大的美味面包连锁店的前任总裁。他说,大多数的“企业改组”都不成熟。他还认为,多数企业效益上的损失远远超出成本的降低。他的同事迈克尔·比尔说,为数更多的公司以简单机械的方式进行机构重组,降低了成本,但是,对长期赢利缺乏充分考虑。BBDO的阿尔·罗森赛恩更不客气,他对重组顾问们做的大量工作不屑一顾,因为那些完全是垃圾——典型的“劳而无获”。
【正确答案】
【答案解析】Well, no gain without pain, they say. But what about pain without gain? Everywhere you go in America, you hear tales of corporate revival. What is harder to establish is whether the productivity revolution that businessmen assume they are presiding over is for real.
The official statistics are mildly discouraging. They show that, if you lump manufacturing and services together, productivity has grown on average by 1.2% since 1987. That is somewhat faster than the average during the previous decade. And since 1991, productivity has increased by about 2% a year, which is more than twice the 1978-1987 average. The trouble is that part of the recent acceleration is due to the usual rebound that occurs at this point in a business cycle, and so is not conclusive evidence of a revival in the underlying trend. There is, as Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary, says, a "disjunction" between the mass of business anecdote that points to a leap in productivity and the picture reflected by the statistics.
Some of this can be easily explained. New ways of organizing the workplace all that re engineering and downsizing—are only one contribution to the overall productivity of an economy, which is driven by many other factors such as joint investment in equipment and machinery, new technology, and investment in education and training. Moreover, most of the changes that companies make are intended to keep them profitable, and this need not always mean increasing productivity: switching to new markets or improving quality can matter just as much.
Two other explanations, are more speculative. First, some of the business restructuring of recent years may have been ineptly done. Second, even if it was well done, it may have spread much less widely than people", suppose.
Leonard Schlesinger, a Harvard academic and former chief executive of Au Bong Pain, a rapidly growing chain of bakery cafes, says that much "re engineering" has been crude. In many cases, he believes, the loss of revenue has been greater than the reductions in cost. His colleague, Michael Beer, says that far too many companies have applied re engineering in a mechanistic fashion, chopping out costs without giving sufficient thought to long term profitability. BBDO"s A1 Rosenshine is blunter. He dismisses a lot of the work of re engineering consultants as mere rubbish—"the worst sort of ambulance cashing."