Tuesday, January 20, 2009

所有企業需要三種人…

蔡東豪月初為壹週刊的特輯寫了一篇「牛年投資哲學的迷思」,其中一句話是這樣的:

所有企業需要三種人:發夢者、生意人、賤人。

我的修為還沒有去到懂欣賞企業中賤人的地步(估計那是指一些功利主義,不惜一切的員工吧。事實上再英明的領導身邊也必然有佞臣,出面為老闆做一些他不方便做的事。),對發夢者與生意人的說法,倒十分認同。

Steve Jobs是發夢者、馬雲是發夢者,Obama也是發夢者。
一個企業如果沒有發夢者,它最多只能做到很不錯,但不會成為第一流。
然而,只有發夢者,沒有生意人的企業,卻無異於一台美侖美奐但開不動的跑車。
發夢者是靈魂,生意人是頭腦與手腳。

許多創業家都是發夢者(否則他不會跑去創業),他們也被賦予光環,而生意人則被視為不夠遠見。正如蔡東豪在同一篇文章裏,說的另一句話:

假如李嘉誠報讀MBA,他現在企業王國的主要業務是生產玩具。

但我認為大家也不必對務實的生意人嗤之以鼻。
就如我的朋友耿春亞,我們毋須把創業家無限神化:創業家可以發明一台偉大的機器,但未必是最適合開機器的人。正如劉翔是短跑能手,卻未必可以跑贏馬拉松。
若不是創業的料,卻喜歡解決疑難雜症,那不妨去唸最好的MBA,將來投身明君,一樣有用武之地。

做人最重要是忠於自己,做自己最擅長的事。

(說到發夢者與生意人之互補,我想起這篇舊文: Nerds and Hippies

***

蔡東豪原文還有極多一針見血的話,我喜歡的尚有這些:

1. 假如莎士比亞在生,他是大行策略師。
(大行策略師=大文豪)

2. 分析員寫長篇大論的分析報告,因為他不夠資料去寫一份簡單的分析報告。

3. 你不會明白一隻股票直至你擁有它。
(正如你不會了解一間公司直至你加入、你也不會明白一個女人直至…)

4. 女人遇到衰運時,她買一對鞋;投資者遇到衰運時,他買一本「投資天書」。
(其實女人買鞋,是不需要理由的;但我確實相信買「投資天書」的人多半正在倒楣)

5. 投資猶如性交,沒性交時你不停去想它,性交時你又去想其他東西。

6. 有點錢,有點閑,有點愛好,有點權,這就是人生。

7. 女性性感內衣生意最大的敵人,不是經濟不景氣,而是婚姻。

8. 股票經紀反正信不過,一定要找一個漂亮的。
港女會想:男人反正信不過,一定要找一個有錢的。)

9. 我最多埋怨自己運氣不好,從不懷疑自己的才華。

10. 一夜成名要經過長年累月的努力。

他還有一句話我很中意:若不喜歡以狗為伴,習慣以書本為伴,總之伙伴千萬不可以是股票。
自己記得曾經送過書給一個小女孩,用的大約也是這句話(當然不包括最尾一句)。
如果沒猜錯,它演變自一句Hemingway的話。

14 comments:

brownie said...

莎士比亞當年的一部分收入是來自賣地,所以我相信他如活在現代,必定是李嘉誠的對手!

南杏 said...

"伙伴千萬不可以是股票"
股票是敵人。XD

s tsui said...

i emphatically disagree with 2, 3, 9, 10. too sleepy to type the reasons now. @_@ O-B-A-M-A!

Anonymous said...

我也認為坊間無須把創業無限神化,創業是社會一項重要動力,但創業並非唯一營商之道,創了業,要賺到錢並且能保持不倒,才是成功的創業,否則,只是一堆美好的夢,夢會醒。

黃世澤 Martin Oei said...

To Leona:

1. 關於2. 簡單分析報告唔係要夠資料去寫,而係要對行業極為熟悉至寫。真係好熟個行業,你只會判斷買定唔買。

2. 關於3. 我在未擁有那隻股票前,可以光顧那間公司的話,我會光顧若干次,效果相若。至於是不是要擁有一個女人,至明白對方,唉⋯⋯

3. 關於7. 這只是香港的丈夫忘記有離婚這回事⋯⋯

4. 關於8. 男人反正信不過,找個有錢都未一定保障到自己,金融海嘯下,多少富豪一夜玩完

5. 我同意10.的。

關於創業,創業是一種求生本領,至少對我的祖宗是,守業更難,但如果視創業是守業的手段,以攻為守我認為符合戰略原則。

connie said...

發夢者多"Kiu"口, 追夢人雖仍不太理想但好像好一點?(老實說,自家中文翻不了這字,只好請教隣座的師兄....只彈不建設不太好嘛:P)

為何7?女為悅己者容--悅己者包括自己啊!買一套Calvin Klein內衣與結婚否有啥關係?喜則要之,不喜則棄,願天下女子互勉之!

Leona said...

brownie:
是嗎?真有趣!

南杏:
蝕錢時是敵人,替你賺錢時又怎麼算?

s tsui:
Interesting. You and I seldom hold contrasting views but these are just the lines I agree most :)
I'm curious about how you think. Go take a nap first and please tell us the reasons afterwards :)

anon:
Your are right. And that's exactly why we need both dream-makers and "business people" to run successful enterprises.

世澤:
任誰也知道守業比創業還難,需要的還是一套完全不同的營商技巧

Connie:
"夢想家"如何?
但好像都不及dream-makers / dreamers ("You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one" - Imagine)來得直接

說到性感內衣,我想起電影"內衣少女"裏面,盧覓雪演那個買了一櫃子性感內衣卻無人欣賞最後鬱鬱而終的女人...取悅自己天經地義,但若只能取悅自己的話,也未免寂寥了些

南杏 said...

不論賺蝕,也應當敵人看待。XD

Kris said...

Calvin Klein?現在是Peach John的年代了。

s tsui said...

Hehe, I'm back.

In general, I'm extremely skeptical of generalizations. They always sound insightful and inspiring, yet more often than not they are useless bullshxt.

2. 分析員寫長篇大論的分析報告,因為他不夠資料去寫一份簡單的分析報告。

Many of the best reports I've read draw conclusions from highly systematic and thorough analyses. "简单就是美" only exists in aesthetics, not in scientific inquiries.

3. 你不會明白一隻股票直至你擁有它。
(正如你不會了解一間公司直至你加入、你也不會明白一個女人直至…)

See Enron, AIG, Tyco, and, dare I say, Citibank, Blackstone, etc?

9. 我最多埋怨自己運氣不好,從不懷疑自己的才華。

That's what all losers think, too.

10. 一夜成名要經過長年累月的努力。

There are different types of artistic achievements (e.g. experimental vs conceptual according to Dr. Galenson @ http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/20/081020fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all, analogous to Sensing and Conceptual in Myers-Briggs). Some people, like Picasso, T.S. Elliot, Orson Welles, are obvious geniuses and manage to achieve fame at relatively tender ages.

On the other hand, there are way too many random people who become famous for their infuriating lack of talent, esp given that they now have a very low cost distribution platform (= the Internet). See 芙蓉姐姐, Star Wars kid, Paris Hilton, etc.

Leona said...

Hi s tsui,

After reading your comment, I understand why it took you a few weeks to sum up your thoughts while the others simply chuckled as they read the entry and gave responses almost instantly.
:)

I like all your points because they are so distinct. Nevertheless -

>Many of the best reports I've read draw conclusions from highly systematic and thorough analyses. "简单就是美" only exists in aesthetics, not in scientific inquiries.

L- Yet these good reports can also be succinct and to the point.

Let me give you an example and quote some text from the book I'm currently reading (Insanely Great by Steven Levy):

"When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simply, with simple solutions, you don't really understand the complexity of the problem. Your solutions are way over simplified.

Then you get into the problem, and you see that it's really complicated, and you come up with all these convoluted solutions. That's sort of the middle, and that's where most people stop...

But the really great person will keep on going and find the key, the underlying principle of the problem. And come up with an elegant, really beautiful solution that works."

When the principle applies to analysis reports, I think it's the third kind of reports that Tony Tsoi's referring to.

Leona said...

>你不會明白一隻股票直至你擁有它。
(正如你不會了解一間公司直至你加入、你也不會明白一個女人直至…)
See Enron, AIG, Tyco, and, dare I say, Citibank, Blackstone, etc?

L - You may be right. But can you assume all insiders know NO more than us do?

>我最多埋怨自己運氣不好,從不懷疑自己的才華。
That's what all losers think, too.

L - :)
You are right. Sometimes I do think I'm a loser.

>一夜成名要經過長年累月的努力。
On the other hand, there are way too many random people who become famous for their infuriating lack of talent, esp given that they now have a very low cost distribution platform (= the Internet). See 芙蓉姐姐, Star Wars kid, Paris Hilton, etc.

L - totally agree. Some time ago I wrote an article about "成名/守名/匿名" to express similar thoughts.
While 一夜成名 could be so random nowadays, a better bench mark is to see whether these people can keep the fame (守名).

s tsui said...

These were my immediate reactions... :P I just wanted to avoid the peak traffic.

2. I remember Feynman had a pretty good discussion on how science are not always simple, intuitive, and beautiful. I have no seen any good reason why truth should inherently equal elegance.

3. I don't think anyone can know everything about a company, just like man can never fully understand a woman. Insiders know more facts than outsiders, but that doesn't mean they necessarily understand a company better. (Btw I don't see any reference to insiders in the original quote?)

9. Me too, and that's how I know. :]

s tsui said...

A little bit more thoughts:

2. For further examples, see Black-Scholes, homo economicus, war on drugs, etc. They are no doubt intuitive and elegant, but THEY DO NOT WORK.