Comments 4

管理被破坏的年代

Jun 5, 2015 Richard Dobbs , James Manyika, Jonathan Woetzel

纽约——仅凭直觉就大胆预测很少会是好主意。1973年撒切尔夫人任教育大臣时，曾众所周知地断言英国在她有生之年不可能选出一位女首相。IBM总裁托马斯·J·沃森曾在1943年宣称“世界市场可能需要五台电脑。”而当有声电影于1927年首次亮相时，华纳兄弟影业的哈利·华纳质问，“究竟谁想听演员讲话？”

值此四大力量破坏全球经济、颠覆我们绝大多数假设时，像这样从过去经历中总结出来的直觉其错误的可能性甚至更大。所谓四大“破坏力”本身都是转型性力量，它们无时无刻不在放大着各自的效果，为世界带来前所未有且不可预知的根本性变化——这些变化会证明我们的直觉错误。

最重要的破坏性力是经济活动转移到新兴市场城市。就在2000年， 95％的全球财富500强企业总部还设在发达国家。而截止到2025年，近半数全球财富500强企业的总部将设在新兴经济体，其中设在中国的总部数量将超过美国和欧洲。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 in all 4 Comments on this article

Samridhi Subedi Aug 25, 2015

Emerging Markets are vanguard to the shifts. Many global executives do not know these cities exist.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Saurabh Sircar Jul 25, 2015

I believe that there is yet another force of disruption: the growth of entrepreneurism across the globe. As more and more people want to take control of their destinies, there are inevitable shifts in loyalties causing social and economic fissures. Perhaps, there is goodness in this: new growth prospects may sprout out of these very fissures. The downside is that this causes the cycles of consolidations and divestitures (not unlike the cycles of economic booms and busts) that get hard to manage at individual levels.

Moving to the question of "managing" disruptions, the only way seems to be practising what Prof. Sull (at MIT) calls a continual "reconnaissance into the future". Armed with an understanding, there may be a possibility of taking appropriate actions.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jun 7, 2015

Easily the most fascinating insights articulated on global megatrends that perhaps ought to guide the evolution of financial architectures that do justice to the emergence of demand mountains, that the erstwhile architecture is unable to perceive and proactively respond to. There is no paucity in demand worldwide. The paucity that exists is in the capacity and willingness to shape the world that it's billions demand. Gone are the days when One New England will suffice. Gone are the days when One Hongkong will suffice. Beijing alone amongst the Headquarters in Emerging Economies grasped the need to build 100 Hongkongs & Singapores within China, just like it was The Anglosphere that grasped the need to build 100 New Englands - Whereas Europe vented its spleen in more old-fashioned bloodbaths instead and India's Sovereign Economics remained headquartered in the Hongkongs left behind by Colonial Masters rather than rediscover its Beijing that builds 100 New Hongkongs. The authors have articulated the shape of a world that needs institutionalized platforms that can proactively respond rather than react to meltdowns the current architecture is unable to forestall. The Bretton Woods architecture needs to understand the reasons why China alone could create an AIIB - Economic geography needs to change to script financial history, before being overwhelmed. The world's Private Sector will do what it can, but there are challenges that only the Public Sector can surmount perhaps multilaterally.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Procyon Mukherjee Jun 6, 2015

Some excellent points are made; the management of disruption needs to understand what is open to change and transformation and what is not. While so many things have changed, some have not. For example while the internet changed the way buying and selling is to be done, the fact that goods have to be moved has not changed much. So some traditional businesses have remained the same and have strengthened like logistics, for example, while some businesses like organized retail is under tremendous threat.Similar is the case with retail banking or financial services, these may not have a future at all.

What has a future and has not has become so fundamental in determining which businesses to invest in; this was not the case even five years back.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.