What Management Needs to Become in an Era of Ecosystems生态系统时代的管理如何改变

理查德·施特劳布

The business world cant stop talking about ecosystems. According to a 2019 World Economic Forum report， excitement over digitally enabled ecosystems is on the rise. While most of the focus has been on macroeconomic implications （for example， McKinsey research speculates that by 2025 over 30% of global economic activity could be mediated by digital platforms）， what gets less attention is what this era of ecosystems means for the practice of management.

Much more complex than linear supply chains， business ecosystems are groups of companies and other actors （platform providers， government agencies， independent contractors， co-creating customers， and so on） whose contributions come together to produce value. The idea is that each of these parties could benefit if they took a more holistic1 view of their collective efforts.

As much as workplaces have adopted the vocabulary and metaphor of the ecosystem， there hasnt been much information about how management approaches and behaviors should evolve in response. What leadership styles will be effective in getting others aligned2 and making the system work better？ What new structures， tools， and processes will managers now need to enable broader coordination and keep progress on track？

From research and practice， we are beginning to see evidence that managers who adjust their approaches to fit an ecosystems world are better able to succeed in it. Take Zhang Ruimin， the force behind the dramatic rise of appliance manufacturer Haier. At the Global Peter Drucker Forum last year， he described the companys turn to ecosystem thinking on two fronts. Looking externally， as the firm gains experience with the “internet of things，” it sees how opportunities and responsibilities have changed thanks to direct connections to consumers. Internally， it has radically restructured the company into hundreds of entrepreneurial cells—an ecosystem of focused units， all leveraged by a common platform infrastructure. The point here is that this is not just metaphorical talk： the new ecosystems perspective had to be carried through to the nuts and bolts of Haiers operations—its manufacturing， performance management， and accounting. “This is especially important for the twenty-first century，” Zhang stressed in a 2018 interview. “Ecosystem is how we create value.”

As Haier and others gain experience with ecosystem management， consultants and management scholars are starting to find the patterns in what works. For example， research from Boston Consulting Group underscores how leaders must move from being high-ranking delegators to influential “orchestrators3.” In environments where leaders cant exercise formal authority， and where collaborative triumphs trump individual achievements， they must become sharper in their ability to build communities and inspire alignment.

As with all management metaphors， talk of business ecosystems has some commentators asking： Is this really new？ Werent companies always embedded in4 larger systems， and also made up of internal networks？ Systems thinking in management， as pioneered by Hans Ulrich， Peter Gomez， and Fredmund Malik at St. Gallen University （and in America， by Jay Forrester， Russell Ackoff， and Peter Senge） has long been part of business school curricula5. Indeed， Peter Drucker himself， decades ago， came up with the term “social ecology” to describe the nature of his work as he studied the workings of organizations and their impacts and integration with society.

What has changed is the technology that has us more connected and immersed in data than ever before. In todays world of networking and collaboration software， big data， analytics， and AI， managers simply cannot continue to assume a carved-out model of the firm for the convenience of seeing how to manage it. Now that firms activities are so intertwined and their successes so interdependent， the old tools and techniques no longer work.

To succeed in the era of platforms and partnerships， managers will need to change practice on many levels. And with the new practices of ecosystem management must come new management theory， also reoriented around a larger-scale system-level view. Both practitioners and scholars can begin by dispensing with6 mechanistic， industrial-age models of inputs， processes， and outputs. They will have to take a more dynamic， organic， and evolutionary view of how organizations capacities grow and can be cultivated.

As we all work to see the opportunities of this new normal， we will also have to anticipate and deal with its dark side. Ecosystem is a word with happy connotations—like a verdant garden thriving on self-sustaining natural processes—but in reality， not all is rosy. More interconnected networks bring new dynamics and unintended consequences—such as the flash crashes that shocked highly digitized financial markets and the winner-take-all markets that have emerged as network effects and increasing returns to scale give rise to modern monopolies.

When many entities converge on a certain standard， platform， or vision of the future， but none of them individually has enough power to alter it， the result can be a deeply flawed system that is impervious to change. Just take the resistance of stock markets to reward long-term versus short-term value creation. If a visionary actor within a system cannot strike out in an unexpected direction and survive， high-impact innovation becomes much more rare.

An economy， and in particular a capitalist economy， thrives not only when it has the right tools but when it has the right rules. Recrafting these for the era of ecosystems must be the priority of a group that is an ecosystem in itself—the scholars， consultants， regulators， and of course managers whose work shapes the enterprise of management. Together， we must find ways to combat the dark side of dense interconnectivity， and find its potential for innovation and cocreation of value. The future of ecosystems will be what， all together， we make it.

商业世界一直对生态系统津津乐道。根据世界经济论坛2019年的一份报告，人们对数字化生态系统的热情持续高涨。不过，大部分关注的是宏观经济影响（例如，麦肯锡管理咨询公司的研究推测，到2025年，超过30%的全球经济活动将可通过数字平台调节），而生态系统时代对管理实践具有怎样的意义，则关注较少。

商业生态系统比线性供应链复杂得多，是由公司和其他个体（平台供应商、政府机构、独立承包人、参与构建的消费者，等等）组成的群落，各方共同发挥作用创造价值。其理念是，如果各方对集体的努力有更加整体的认识，那么每一方都能受益。

尽管很多工作场所已经用到生态系统相关的词汇和隐喻，但一直没有太多资料说明管理方法和行为该如何相应演进。哪种领导风格能够有效统一各方、推动系统更好运作？当今管理人员需要哪些新型架构、工具和流程来扩大协调范围、确保发展不偏离正轨？

通过研究和实践，开始有证据表明，在生态系统世界中，管理人员若积极调整方法以适应，就更能获得成功。以张瑞敏为例，家电制造商海尔正是在他的带领下迅速崛起。在2018年的彼得·德鲁克全球论坛上，张瑞敏声称海尔从两个方面转向了生态系统思维。对外，随着“物联网”经验的积累，海尔发现，由于与消费者的直接联系，机会和责任已发生变化。对内，海尔进行彻底重组，将公司划分为上百个创业单元——这些单元目标明确并全部通过同一个基础平台运作，从而构成一个生态系统。重点在于，这并不只是个比喻的说法：新的生态系统理念必须贯彻落实到海尔具体的运营细节里，包括制造、绩效管理与会计。“这在21世纪尤其重要，”张瑞敏在2018年的一次访谈中强调，“生态系统是我们创造价值的方式。”

在海尔等公司积累生态系统管理经验的同时，咨询顾问与管理学者也开始寻找有效模式。例如，波士顿咨询公司的研究强调，领导人必须转变角色，从分派任务的高层人员变成有影响力的“协调人”。在领导人无法行使正式权力、集体成绩大于个人成绩的环境中，他们构建共同体和促进协作的能力必须变得更强。

就像所有管理比喻一样，在有关商业生态系统的讨论中，有评论人士会质疑：这真的是新概念吗？公司一直以来不都是属于更大的系统而自身也是由多个内部网络组成的吗？管理上的系统思维最早由圣加伦大学的汉斯·乌尔里希、彼得·戈麦斯和弗雷德蒙德·马利克提出（在美国，最早由杰伊·福瑞斯特、罗素·艾可夫和彼得·圣吉提出），长期以来一直是商学院课程的一部分。而实际上，几十年前，彼得·德鲁克在研究组织运行方式、组织影响及其与社会的融合时，提出了“社会生态学”一词，用来描述该项研究的性质。

已然改变的是技术，它让我们比以往联系得更加密切，也更加专注于数据。在今天这个处处可见互联与协作软件、大数据、分析和人工智能的世界，管理人员不能再假想一种现成的公司模式来弄清如何管理。既然各家公司的活动如此交织错杂，成败也都息息相关，那么以前的工具与技巧就不再奏效。

要在这个由各种平台与合作关系构成的时代取得成功，管理人员需要在诸多层面改弦更张。而且，新的生态系统管理实践势必带来新的管理理论，也需要从更大规模的系统层面来调整。实干派与理论派可以从摒弃投入、流程及产出等机械的工业时代模型入手。他们必須以更加动态、有机和发展的眼光去看待组织能力的发展方式和培养办法。

在努力发现这一新常态所带来机遇的同时，我们也必须对其黑暗面有所预料并妥善应对。生态系统一词内涵美好，就好比一座天然花园，自给自足，草木葱茏，纵情生长，但现实并非一切都那么美好。更多网络互联会带来新的动态和意外后果，比如闪电崩盘和赢家通吃的市场——前者重创了高度数字化的金融市场，后者的出现则伴随着网络效应和规模收益递增促成现代垄断企业。

当很多实体集聚于某个标准下、平台上或愿景中，而其中任何一方都不足以独自改变它，那就很可能会产生一个有严重缺陷、不受变化影响的系统。以股票市场为例，比起短期的价值创造，长期的价值创造更难得到回报。若系统内的远见卓识者无法另辟蹊径并存活下来，那么具有巨大影响力的创新就会变得愈发稀少。

经济特别是资本主义经济的繁荣，不仅要有恰当的工具，还要有适当的规则。为生态系统时代重建工具与规则是某一群人的当务之急，而这群人本身就构成一个生态系统，包括学者、顾问、监管者，当然还有管理人员，他们的工作极大影响着管理行业的发展。面对高度互联，我们必须齐心协力，既要想方设法应对其黑暗面，又要发掘其创新和共创价值的潜力。生态系统的未来将由我们共同创造。                          □

（译者单位：北京市朝阳区王四营乡政府）