《精益创业》15年后:埃里克·莱斯揭示伟大公司衰败的真相 EO 2026-08-14

金融引力:利润名义下的价值毁灭

我是埃里克·莱斯(Eric Ries),大多数人通过《精益创业》这本书认识我。我作为创业者已有约20年,一直致力于帮助世界各地的人们建立伟大的公司和组织。我最近创办了一家AI公司Answer AI,以及长期证券交易所(LTSSE)。我始终以建设者和写作者的双重身份活跃,共同使命是创造一个让人们能够创建伟大公司的环境。我感到非常幸运,一生中有如此多的优秀创业者邀请我参与他们的旅程,涉及数百甚至数千家公司,我已无法计数。但我也看到了这个行业的阴暗面——许多公司未能发挥其潜力,有多少公司被摧毁、被伤害,或偏离了最初使其值得被创造的那束关键火花。特别是,相当多的公司以利润之名被谋杀。仔细想想,这说不通。在我们的经济体系中,公司应该通过竞争创造最大价值,这才是投资者获得最大利润的方式。那么,我们为什么要以利润之名做出极具破坏性的事情?这个谜团一直困扰着我,这本书就是我回答这个谜团的尝试。

我很久以前就诊断出,拥有长期思考的哲学才是公司成功的真正基础。当我谈论成功时,我指的是财务上的成功。是的,公司在世界上做了很多伟大的事情,它们是解决社会问题的重要途径,还能做许多其他美妙的事情。但让我们纯粹从财务角度来评估。索尔·普莱斯(Sol Price)是一位传奇的美国企业家,被许多人视为现代零售业之父——美国式折扣大卖场零售。他是第一个摸索出这套公式的人。FedMart是他于1950年代创立的公司。在成为企业家之前,索尔·普莱斯是一名律师。当律师时,他说:“我是客户的受托人。”这就是他所受的训练。受托人(fiduciary)意味着将客户的利益置于自身利益之前。所以当你在FedMart购物时,有时他会张贴带有竞争对手广告的标牌,让你知道某个产品在别处可以买得更便宜。每次他这样做,人们都认为他疯了——他在放弃利润,他在帮助竞争对手,他为什么要这样做?他说:“最重要的是赢得客户的信任。”人们确实信任他,人们想去那里工作。公司成长并繁荣了20多年。他带领公司上市,成为富人,但他的投资者对他能提供的增长水平从不满意,他们总是想要更多。所以他总是与他们争斗:为什么他要支付高于必要水平的工资?为什么他要收取低于必要水平的价格?他说:“我付高工资不是因为我必须付,而是因为我想付。这就是我的员工信任我的原因。我相信低价不是因为我必须这样做,而是因为我想这样做。我想照顾我的客户和他们的社区。”关于他做这类让投资者感到沮丧的事情,有很多传奇故事。1975年的一天——请记住,他已经经营这家公司20多年了——他来上班,却再也进不了自己的办公室,因为他们换了门锁,因为他不再在那里工作了。索尔·普莱斯被董事会解雇了。他们想要更多利润,他们得到了他们想要的。他们成功地将FedMart转变为更传统的零售模式。最终结果是,到1982年——仅仅七年时间——他们清算并彻底摧毁了这家公司。毁灭比建设容易得多。FedMart就是这种贪婪操纵的牺牲品之一。但我喜欢讲这个故事的原因是,尽管FedMart的遭遇令人悲伤,但故事有一个小小的圆满结局,因为索尔·普莱斯在被FedMart解雇后并没有结束。他立刻重新上马,短暂休假后创办了一家新公司,名为Price Club。如今这家公司不太为人所知,但那是因为他的一位门徒也在他被解雇时愤而离开FedMart,创办了一家公司。当两家公司合并时,我们称之为Price Costco,如今简称为Costco——世界上最大的零售商之一,一家市值4000亿美元的上市公司。即使这么多年过去,Costco仍然保持着索尔·普莱斯的精神气质,他关于如何对待客户和员工的信念。

Original English

My name is Eric Reese. Most people know me as the author of the book, The Lean Startup. I've been an entrepreneur now for something like 20 years and have been working to help people build great companies and great organizations all over the world. I've recently built a company, an AI company called Answer AI, as well as the long-term stock exchange or LTSSE. So, I'm always very active as a builder and as a writer, always in the shared mission of trying to create an environment where people can create great companies. I feel very blessed. I've been so fortunate in my life that so many great entrepreneurs have asked me to be part of their journey in hundreds of companies and thousands of companies. I can't even count anymore. But I've also seen the dark side of this business. I can see how many of those companies failed to live up to their potential. How many of them were destroyed or harmed or driven away from that vital spark that made them worth creating in the first place. And in particular, quite a few of them have been murdered in the name of profit. And if you think carefully about that, it doesn't make sense. In our economic system, companies are supposed to compete to create the most value. That's how investors reap the most profit. So why would we do something immensely value destroying in the name of profit? And that has been the mystery that has driven me crazy. The book is my attempt to answer this mystery.

I diagnosed long ago that having a philosophy of long-term thinking is really the foundation of company success. And when I talk about success, I mean financial success. Yes, companies do a lot of great things in the world. Yes, they are important way to solve social problems and many other wonderful things they can do. But just evaluate on a purely financial basis. Sol Price is a legendary American entrepreneur. Sol is considered by many people in this country as the father of modern retail. You know, discount American style big box retailing. He was the first to figure out the formula. So FedMart was a company he started in the 1950s and before Sol Price was an entrepreneur, he was a lawyer. And when he was a lawyer, he said, "I am a fiduciary to my client." That's how I was trained. Being a fiduciary means you put the client's interest before your own. So when you would shop in a FedMart, sometimes he would put up signs with his competitor's advertisements in them to let you know that you could get a certain product cheaper from somebody else. And every time he did that, people thought he was crazy. He's giving up money. He's helping a competitor. Why would he do that? He said, "Well, the most important thing is to win the trust of my customers." People really trusted him. People wanted to work there. The company grew and thrived for more than 20 years. He took the company public. He became a wealthy man, but his investors were never satisfied with the level of growth that he could provide. They always wanted more. And so he was always fighting with them. Why does he pay wages higher than he has to? Why does he charge prices lower than he has to? And he says, "Well, I don't pay low wages. I pay high wages not because I have to, but because I want to. That's why my employees trust me. I believe in low prices not because I have to, but because I want to. I want to take care of my customers and their communities." And there's a lot of legendary stories about him doing these kinds of things that his investors found frustrating. So one day in 1975, keep in mind he's been running the company now for more than 20 years. He comes to work and he cannot enter his office anymore because they have changed the locks on his door because he doesn't work there anymore. Sol Price has been fired by his board. They wanted more profit. They got what they wanted. They were able to convert FedMart to more conventional retail practices. And the net result is that by 1982, so we're just talking about seven years it took them to liquidate the company. It was completely destroyed. It's much easier to destroy than it is to build. And FedMart was one of those casualties of this kind of greedy manipulation. But the reason why I like telling this story is because although it is quite sad what happened to FedMart, the story has a bit of a happy ending because Sol Price wasn't done when he was fired from FedMart. He got right back on the horse. He got right back to work. He took a short vacation and then he started a new company. He called the Price Club, which today is not that wellknown, but that's because one of his proteges also left FedMart in protest when he was fired. He started a company that when the two companies merged together, we called Price Costco, which today is just called Costco. One of the largest retailers in the world, a $400 billion public company. And Costco maintain Sol Price's ethos, his beliefs about how customers and employees should be treated even all these years later.

治理堡垒:Costco存续而FedMart覆灭的制度密码

为什么投资者会以利润之名摧毁公司?有一个心理学解释,我称之为金融引力(financial gravity)。不幸的是,我们建立了一个奖励短期思维的经济体系。它奖励人们削减成本,却从不让他们为这些削减对品牌、质量、产品、环境等造成的后果负责。因此,我们建立的这个体系具有这种引力,它作用于组织中那些渴望成功的人——正是他们渴望成功的欲望,被我们的经济体系抓住并操纵,让他们去做体系想让他们做的事。我不认为这是构建经济体系的好方法,但这就是我们高度金融化经济的现实。有两点我想说清楚:第一,这不是构建金融体系的唯一方式,我们显然可以建立一个传递不同价值观的金融体系,只是我们恰好拥有现在这个;第二,大多数人第一次听说这种力量时,或者也许他们在自己生活中已经怀疑过它——我旅行时遇到很多人,他们心爱的品牌被摧毁,曾经伟大的公司现在变得糟糕。很多人在食品上有这种感觉,许多食品品牌被私募股权或私人公司接管,然后被毁掉,以利润之名被谋杀。你问他们为什么发生这种事?他们说,这是不可避免的,是人性,是贪婪,是资本主义,诸如此类。但如果这种力量是不可避免的,就不会有例外。然而在世界各地,随处可见这些例外的公司。如果你收集所有似乎违抗了这种力量的公司数据集,就像我们看到的Costco那样,它们有共同点。这不是你所期望的——不是文化,不是战略,不是价值观。它们不来自同一个国家,不来自同一个十年,彼此差异很大,但它们有共同点。它们的共同点是都违抗了我们今天教导创业者如何建立和治理公司的所谓“最佳实践”。它们违反这些标准的事实,恰恰证明了我们现代金融化的商业理论是错误的,更好的东西是可能的。

那么,为什么FedMart被摧毁而Costco存续?你必须看向大多数人从未想过的地方——治理结构、创始文件、那些没人注意的枯燥法律文件。大多数公司建立在非常薄弱的治理结构之上。但Costco是用我所说的治理堡垒(governance fortress)建立的——一系列防止外部干预、防止投资者或任何人欺凌Costco的条款。这就是所有伟大公司的共同点:它们有办法挫败这种试图破坏使命的力量。我称它们为使命守护者(mission guardians)。因此,这些公司中的大多数被认为治理不佳,经常受到批评,被专门研究这些的评级机构评为低分。然而,书里有一个有趣的事实:自2008年以来,治理不佳的公司的表现超过了治理良好的公司。当我与创业者会面、指导他们、帮助他们创办公司时,我总是询问他们的治理文件。老实说,大多数人从未读过。他们不知道。他们签了字,提交了文件,但没读过,不知道这意味着什么或写了什么。我向他们解释,根据我们都生活在其中的现代治理理论——即股东至上(shareholder primacy)理论——公司必须始终出售给出价最高者。这是法律。这是一个疯狂的想法,而且相对较新。这是人们在创办公司时无意中做出的选择。当我告诉人们这些时,他们有点不相信,觉得听起来像夸大其词。你是说如果有人试图以每股比实际价值高出一美元的价格收购我的公司,我就必须卖给他们?是的。在你说我夸大其词之前,请注意这个故事:Vectura是英国巴斯大学的衍生公司,由科学家设计,旨在创造治疗哮喘或COPD等疾病的吸入式疗法。这是一家科学驱动的医疗保健公司,非常成功,在伦敦证券交易所公开上市,表现很好。突然,你最不希望收购的公司——一家吸入式疗法医疗保健公司——来试图收购它们。这家公司是菲利普·莫里斯国际(Philip Morris International),烟草制造商,他们出价每股165便士收购Vectura。同时一家私募股权公司出价155便士。Vectura的董事会面临一个非常简单的选择:选项一,什么都不做——公司不需要被出售,这不是要解决什么商业问题;选项二,卖给私募股权公司获得155便士,或卖给菲利普·莫里斯获得每股165便士。每个人看到这个都会说,这是个糟糕的主意,我们绝不想看到烟草公司拥有肺部健康医疗保健公司,荒谬。但Vectura的董事会不在乎这些。他们开了大概两次会议,然后说,我们无能为力,对菲利普·莫里斯说“是”是我们的受托责任。他们照做了。三年内,公司被彻底摧毁。这个故事的趣味之处在于,我们再次看到公司以利润之名被谋杀的模式。有些人确实赚了钱——我要说清楚,他们确实支付了溢价收购公司,一些投资者肯定赚了钱。但整个交易总体上盈利吗?世界上的价值比之前更多了吗?不,价值被摧毁了。我在书中的一个论点是,我们必须停止把这些巨大的价值毁灭行为称为“盈利”。它们不是。这里有一个蓝图,这个蓝图有两个维度。但我向第一次接触这个想法的人保证,这不是抽象的,这些技巧非常具体。

Original English

Why would investors destroy a company in the name of profit? There is a psychological explanation. It's a force that I call financial gravity. And unfortunately, we have built an economic system that rewards people for short-term thinking. It rewards people for cost cutting without ever holding them accountable for the consequences of those cuts to brand, to quality, to product, to the environment, what have you. So, we have built this system that has this gravitational force. It exerts itself upon people who live in organizations who want to succeed that it's their desire to succeed that our economic system latches on to to manipulate them to do what it wants. I don't think this is a very good way to build an economic system, but this is the reality of our highly financialized economy. So, there's two things I want to make super clear. The first is this is not the only way you could build a financial system. We obviously could build a financial system that transmitted different values than these. We just happen to have this one. And the second thing is most people when they hear about this force for the first time or maybe they've suspected it in their own lives, you know, I meet a lot of people as I'm traveling around, people who have had a favorite brand be destroyed, a company that used to be great and now it's terrible. I mean, a lot of people have this feeling about food. A lot of food products have been taken over by private equity or taken over by a private company and then ruined again. Murdered in the name of profit. You ask them, why is this happening? They say, well, it's inevitable. It's human nature. It's greed. It's our it's capitalism, whatever. But if this force was inevitable, there would be no exceptions. And yet everywhere in the world, everywhere you look, there are these exceptional companies. And if you gather up the data set of all the companies that seem to have defied this force, just like we saw with Costco, they have something in common. And it's not what you'd expect. It's not culture. It's not strategy. It's not values. They don't come from the same country. They don't all come from the same decade. They're quite different from each other, but they have something in common. What they have in common is they all defy the so-called best practices of how we teach entrepreneurs to build and govern companies today. And the fact that they violate these standards is the proof that our modern financed theory of business is wrong and something better is possible.

So, why was FedMart destroyed while Costco endured? You have to look somewhere that most people never think to look. You have to look at the governance, the founding documents, the legal boring stuff that no one ever pays attention to. Most companies are built to a very weak governing structure. But Costco was built with what I call a governance fortress, a series of provisions that prevent outside meddling, prevent investors or anybody else from bullying Costco. And that is something that all these great companies have in common. They have a way to thwart this force which is trying to undermine the mission. I call them mission guardians. As a result, most of these companies are considered to have bad governance. They get criticized routinely. They are rated poorly by the ratings agencies whose job is to study these things. And yet, this is a funny fact that is in the book. Since 2008, companies that have bad governance have outperformed companies that have good governance. When I meet with entrepreneurs, coaching them, helping them start a company, especially I always ask them about their governing documents. And honestly, most of them have never read it. They have no idea. They signed it, they filed it, but they didn't read it. They don't know what it means or what it says. So what I explained to them that according to the modern governance theory that we all live our lives under the theory that is called shareholder primacy. According to this theory, companies must always be sold to the highest bidder. It's the law. This is a crazy idea and it's a relatively new idea. This is a choice that people inadvertently choose when they start their company. And so when I tell people that, they kind of don't believe me. They think that sounds like an exaggeration. Are you saying that if someone tried to buy my company for just a dollar per share more than it's worth, I would have to sell it to them? Yes. Before you say I'm exaggerating, why don't you pay attention to this story? Vectura was a university spinout of the University of Bath in the UK. It was a company designed by scientists to create inhaler therapeutics to treat diseases like asthma or COPD. So, a science-driven healthcare company, very successful, was publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange, was doing very well. All of a sudden, the company that you would least want to buy, an inhaler therapy healthcare company, came to try and buy them. Company was Philip Morris International, the cigarette maker, and they made a bid to acquire Vectura for 165 per share. A private equity firm at the same time bid 155. And so the board of directors of Vectura was faced with a very simple choice. Option one, do nothing. The company did not need to be sold. There's not a business problem that this is trying to solve. Option two, sell to the private equity firm and reap 155 or sell to Philip Morris and receive 165 p per share. Everyone would have looked at this said this is a terrible idea. We never would want to see a cigarette company owning a lung health healthcare company. Absurd. But the board of directors of Vectura didn't care about any of that. They had I think two meetings and they said look it's nothing we can do. It is our fiduciary duty to say yes to Philip Morris and they did. Within 3 years the company was completely destroyed. And what's so interesting about this story is again we see that pattern of a company being murdered in the name of profit. And some people did make some money. I want to be clear like they did pay a premium to buy the company. Some investors made money for sure. But was the transaction overall profitable? Was there more value in the world after than before? No. Value was destroyed. And one of my arguments in the book is we have to stop calling these acts of immense value destruction profitable. They're not. There's a blueprint here. And yes, the blueprint has two dimensions. But I promise for anyone who's encountering this idea for the first time, this is not abstract. These techniques are very concrete and very specific.

精神气质与诚信:构建不可腐蚀公司的双维路径

这个蓝图有两个维度。精神气质(Ethos)指的是公司的品格。它多久尝试做正确的事?行为是否一致?是否代表某种立场?是与人类繁荣对齐,还是仅仅与财务提取对齐?每家公司都有文化,每家公司都有商业模式和战略,但只有一些公司有精神气质。如果你想成为那样的公司,我们必须采用特定的技巧。我们必须建立一种商业模式,使公司只有在实现其宗旨时才能赚钱。我们必须发展我所说的绩效良性循环(virtuous cycle of performance)——我们在实现使命方面越成功,赚的钱就越多,然后就有更多钱投资于使命,这个循环不断累积。当然,我们还必须建立一种文化,让每个员工明白他们的工作就是追求这个使命,即使没有管理者在场。这就是精神气质之路——创建高度一致的使命驱动型公司所需的管理技巧。诚信(integrity)之路也非常重要。公司拥有诚信意味着什么?我指的是结构性的诚信,即做出并信守承诺的能力。重要的是要理解,公司不是一个人,而是大量人的集合。所以,如果一个人,甚至是公司的CEO,向你做出承诺,你不能依赖它,因为CEO可能被替换。因此,公司承诺、组织承诺必须植根于比任何个人的良好意图更深的东西。这就是公益公司(public benefit corporation)之类的维度——改变公司的法律章程以拒绝股东至上。在这个维度上,我们确立了投资者与公司本身的适当关系,并建立了之前提到的使命守护者——谁负责确保公司保持在轨道上,并追究其责任,包括让董事会对实现目标负责。这是大多数创始人难以理解的地方,因为他们只是告诉每个人该做什么。我在书中举了一个例子:德克萨斯州一家名为HEB的杂货店。德克萨斯州发生冰暴,停电了,所有顾客都以为要空手而归。但店长站上柜台,对大家喊道:“嘿,听着。我知道停电了。没关系。推着购物车回家吧。”人们说:“我们怎么付钱给你?”经理说:“你们不用付。没关系。”顾客们被感动了,热泪盈眶。但这并不是某个孤胆反叛者的行为,而是公司灌输和训练的结果——不是专门为冰暴训练,那很难预测,而是训练员工把顾客看作他们服务的对象。这种精神气质以各种可能的方式灌输给员工。在书中我给出了很多技巧,但这需要公司各个层面极其一致的行动,需要董事会、CEO和管理者坚持这种行为并奖励这种行为。你从外部招聘的人会带来他们过去的信念、在之前公司的工作方式,还会带来职场创伤和各种情绪困扰。所以,如果你想让他们理解你的公司真正代表什么,你必须一遍又一遍地反复证明你真正相信这些原则。在书中,我把这个想法称为**“更难即更容易”(harder is easier)。著名的史蒂夫·乔布斯**(Steve Jobs)故事:他曾与工程师们发生争执,争论的是电脑内部线缆的视觉布局——而乔布斯认为客户不应该被允许打开这台电脑的外壳。工程师们说,史蒂夫,这有什么关系?没人会看到这些线缆,没人会知道它是否丑陋、邋遢或缠绕。但史蒂夫会说,但我们会知道。对他来说,设计是绝对的,不是方便时或不得已时才做的事情。这就像索尔·普莱斯对客户受托人的感受一样。所以,重要的是在小事上和大事情上捍卫这些价值观,在周一和周日,在一周中的每一天,在一年中的每个月。你必须一遍又一遍地这样做。这是大量的额外工作,我不想粉饰它,但它会让企业未来面临的每一个其他问题都变得容易得多。

Original English

Ethos refers to a company's character. How often does it try to do the right thing? Is it consistent in its behaviors and does it stand for something or not? Is it aligned to human flourishing or merely to financial extraction? Every company has a culture. Every company has a business model and a strategy. But only some companies have an ethos. If you want to be one of those companies, there are specific techniques we have to adopt. We have to build a business model such that the company can only make money when it is achieving its purpose. We have to develop what I call the virtuous cycle of performance where the more successful we are at achieving our mission, the more money we make and then that gives us more money to invest in the mission and that cycle builds and builds and builds and of course we have to build a culture where every employee understands that their job is to pursue this mission even if no managers are present. So that is the path of ethos. the techniques, the managerial techniques required to create a highly aligned mission-driven company. The path of integrity is also very important. What does it mean for a company to have integrity? I mean like structural integrity, the ability to make and keep a promise. And it's important to understand that to see a company is not a person. It is a huge collection of people. So if a person even the CEO of a company makes you a promise, you can't rely on it because the CEO might be replaced. So promises, corporate promises, organizational promises have to be rooted in something deeper than the good intentions of any individual person. And this is the dimension of things like the public benefit corporation. Changing the legal charter of a company to reject shareholder primacy. This is the dimension where we enshrine proper relationships between the investors and the company itself. And this is where we establish what I mentioned before the mission guardians who has the responsibility for making sure the company stays on track and to holding it accountable including its board of directors accountable to achieving that goal. This is something that most founders struggle with because they just tell everybody what to do. I give an example in the book of a company in Texas called HEB grocery store. There's an ice storm in Texas and the power goes out and all the customers think they're going to have to go home empty-handed. But the store manager gets up on a counter and yells to everybody, "Hey, listen. I know the power is out. It's okay. Take your shopping carts and just go home." People say, "How are we going to pay you?" And the manager says, "You're not going to. It's okay." The customers were moved. They were in tears. But this was not the act of a lone rebel. This is something that the company instills and trains for. Not for ice storms in particular. That was hard to forecast. but rather to see the customer as the person that they are serving. So this ethos is drilled into employees in every way possible and in the book I give a lot of the techniques that require do this but they require extremely consistent action at every level of the company requires the board and the CEO and the managers to be insisting on this behavior and also to be rewarding this behavior. You hire people from the outside. They bring with them their past beliefs, how it worked in their previous company. They bring with them workplace traumas and all kinds of emotional upset. So if you want them to understand what your company truly stands for, you have to repeatedly over and over and over and over again demonstrate that you truly believe in these principles. In the book, I call this idea harder is easier. The famous story of Steve Jobs. He once got into a fight with his engineers. Fight about the layout, the visual layout of the cables and wires inside a computer whose case Steve did not believe customers should be allowed to open. And the engineers were just Steve, what does it matter? Nobody will ever see these cables. No one will ever know if it's ugly or sloppy or twisted or no one will ever know. But Steve would say, but we will know. See, to him, design was an absolute. It wasn't something that you do when it's convenient or when you have to. It was like how Sol Price felt about being a fiduciary to the customer. So, it's important to defend these values in small ways as well as in big ways on Monday as well as on Sunday, on every day of the week, every month of the year. You have to do it over and over and over again. That is a lot of extra work. I don't want to sugarcoat it, but it makes every other problem the business will face in the future that much easier.

宪法治理:从股东至上到使命控制的制度回归

在人类历史上绝大多数时间里——我说的是数百年——地球上存在股份公司的大部分时间里,所有相关方都认为公司应该为追求特定宗旨而存在,而且这个宗旨应该对社会有益。例如,在美国19世纪,每次注册公司都必须获得当地州立法机构批准,公司必须在其章程中说明它将做什么具体事情,以及为什么这符合公共利益。这就是长期以来公司注册的方式。然而,在20世纪的过程中,工业化国家——尤其是美国,但不仅限于美国——受到了这个他们称之为股东至上的新观念的影响:公司不是为了制造任何东西而存在,它们只是为了充实股东而存在。让人们理解这一点非常重要:我们现在认为的最佳实践——有钱人只要想就可以接管公司,仅仅因为他们有钱就改变公司做什么——在19世纪的美国会被视为犯罪。美国发生这种转变的关键日期是1899年,其实并不太久远。而股东至上直到1980年代才扎根,非常非常晚近。这种状况运行得并不好。你可以看到有多少公司正在背弃承诺,坦率地说,有多少公司正在崩溃。发生的情况是,许多国家的改革者一直在努力恢复这个历史规范:公司应该被允许在其章程中声明它们为何存在,除了为股东创造利润之外,它们存在是为了追求什么。在书中,我提出了一个目标:创建宪法治理(constitutional governance),就像从政治哲学中汲取关于制衡、行政分支与其他分支适当角色的思想。创建我所说的使命控制公司(mission controlled companies)——即拥有制度长寿架构的公司,它们有能力在长期内忠于某个特定宗旨。这就是我们的目标。多年来我一直在与公司讨论这个问题。其中一个非常著名的例子是Anthropic。创始人们离开OpenAI后不久就来见我,当时他们正在考虑创办公司。有趣的是,当我开始写这本书时,Anthropic还不出名。我们一起建立的结构经受了严峻的考验,到目前为止——虽然还早——经受住了时间的考验。当我们说一家公司为长寿而构建时,这不一定意味着你同意它做的一切。这意味着你可以尊重他们与自己价值观的一致性。当他们面临背叛这些价值观的压力时,他们常常选择违抗像美国联邦政府这样强大的实体。这对一家营利性公司来说是不寻常的,这是由他们拥有的结构所实现的。除了我们谈到的公益公司身份,除了将明确的公共利益写入其章程从而使他们的AI安全使命渗透到他们所做的一切之外,他们还受到一个使命守护者实体的保护,即他们所谓的长期利益信托(Long-Term Benefit Trust,LTBT)。这是一个双实体结构,一组外部受托人负责任命营利性公司董事会的董事。这不是Anthropic发明的新想法。顺便说一句,巴塔哥尼亚(Patagonia)也有同样的结构。非常相似的结构已经存在了很长时间:德国光学公司蔡司(Zeiss)在1887年就有这种结构。所以这并不新鲜。实际上它如此古老,以至于有一个完整的学术研究分支专门研究这类公司——拥有使命守护者实体的公司。在一项研究中,拥有这种结构的公司被发现平均寿命是传统结构公司的五倍。

Original English

For the vast majority of time, I'm talking for hundreds of years, for the vast majority of time, there have been joint stock corporations on Earth, it was considered quite obvious by everybody involved that corporations should exist to pursue a specific purpose and that this purpose should be society beneficial. So in the United States for example in the 19th century every incorporation had to be approved by the local state legislature and the company had to say in its corporate charter the specific thing it was going to do and why that was in the public interest. So that is how incorporation has been for a long time. And yet in the over the course of the 20th century industrialized countries especially in the United States but not only United States came under the sway of this new idea they called shareholder primacy that corporations don't exist to make anything. They just exist to enrich their shareholders. It's very important for people to understand that what we now consider to be the best practice of like rich people can just take over companies whenever they want and change what they do just cuz they're rich. that would have been considered a crime in 19th century America. The critical date in the US for the transition away from this purposeful incorporation happened in 1899. It's not really that long ago. And the shareholder of primacy didn't take root until the 1980s, very very recently. This state of affairs is not working very well. You can see in the number of companies that are betraying their promises left and right and just how many of them are frankly collapsing. What's happened is a set of reformers in many countries reformers have been trying to to restore this historical norm that companies should be allowed to declare in their corporate charter why they exist. What do they exist to pursue beyond just profits for shareholders? In the book, I lay out a goal which is to create constitutional governance, which is like taking ideas from political philosophy about checks and balances, about the appropriate role of the executive versus other branches. To create what I call mission controlled companies, that is companies that have the architecture of institutional longevity. They have the ability to stay true to some specific purpose over long periods of time. That's our goal. And I've been talking to companies about this for many years. One of them very famously is Anthropic. They came to see me shortly after the founders had left OpenAI as they were thinking about starting the company. And it's funny when I started writing this book, Anthropic was not a well-known company. The structures that we set up together have been tested sorely tested and so far it's early but so far have stood the test of time. When we say that a company is structured for longevity, it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with everything that it does. It means that you can respect them for being consistent with their own values. when they are pressured to betray those values, they often choose to defy entities as powerful as the United States federal government. And that's unusual for a for-profit company. It's enabled by this structure that they have. Now, in addition to being a public benefit corp, like we've talked about, in addition to enshrining a defined public benefit into their corporate charter and and therefore their AI safety mission is infused into everything that they do, they also are protected by a mission guardian entity, what they call the long-term benefit trust or LTBT. And this is a two entity structure where a set of outside trustees have the role of appointing directors to the for-profit company's board. This is not a new idea that Anthropic invented. By the way, you know, Patagonia has the same structure, very similar structure has existed for for a very long time. The German optics company Zeiss had this structure in 1887. So, this is not that new. It's actually so old that there's a whole branch of academic study devoted to these kinds of companies, these companies that have this mission guardian entity. And in one study, companies that had the structure were found to live on average five times longer than companies with a conventional structure.

公众即引力之源:每个人都是价值观的塑造者

到目前为止,我们一直在谈论制度结构。有些听众会说,这跟我有什么关系?我不是CEO,不在任何董事会,也不是投资者。这似乎是别人的问题。但这是错的。这是我们每个人都需要掌握和理解的事情。首先,因为我们都会有职业生涯,有一天会进入权力位置,我们将接受考验,看能否保持诚信。但更重要的是,我们所有人都作为公民、消费者、员工、投资者、社区成员,每天与这些机构互动。我们必须学会运用我们拥有的力量来塑造这些公司的价值观。这本书最重要的一课是:这种将公司拉向其他价值观的引力,我们才是这种力量的发电机。我们公众,而不是那些光鲜的CEO和董事会。他们看起来掌控一切,但实际上他们是在公众要求和需求的支配下运作的。所以,我们必须学会善用这种力量,而不是滥用它。

你知道,距离我写《精益创业》已经15年了。每一代创业者都会来找我,问“构建-衡量-学习”如何改变。他们对我说的第一件事是:因为新技术、新的外包能力、新文化,因为发生了某些事情,我们可以更快地构建。这是否意味着创业可以更快?答案不一定,因为虽然通过新技术,尤其是通过AI学习,构建和衡量可以大幅加速,但我们仍然拥有同样的旧“湿件”(wetware)——学习者的头脑。学习是一件很难外包的事情。我在研究和编辑我的书时经常使用这些工具。我没有用AI来写我的书,这点要说清楚,但我大量使用它来帮助我更好地实现目标。当深度研究(deep research)首次被发明时——先由OpenAI,然后由Google——深度研究的能力是让AI代理出去为你抓取信息。我以为那会解决我所有的研究问题。但当然,它没有。首先,你会得到不准确的信息。但更重要的是,即使它不犯任何错误,仅仅因为我有一份关于某事的10页研究报告,并不意味着我自己理解了研究所显示的内容。所以当我转而使用我们在Answer AI开发的工具时,我可以把那份研究加载到一个上下文中,我可以拿我写的一段内容——一章、一个故事或一个部分——告诉AI:这是我改进这一部分的目标,这是我手头的研究,让我们一起头脑风暴。我会用这个工具帮助我理解研究说了什么,帮助我理解有什么可以整合到那段文本中,然后我们一起工作,最终由我对如何融入那一段拥有最终控制权,然后我们将其提交回更大的项目。所以,不是大规模地派出代理去做工作,而是更像把一个像书这样的大项目分解成人类规模的子任务,我可以与助手一起完成——一个真正出色的编辑和研究助手。不是给我做一个网站,而是教我如何做网站;不是给我做一个产品,而是教我如何做产品;不是衡量客户的想法,而是帮我弄清楚客户的想法。一旦我们学会这种转变,我们就能看到真正旨在加速我们实现验证性学习(validated learning)速率的AI工具。但与此同时,我认为人们需要小心,也许使用他们更了解的旧方法会更好。

Original English

So far, we've been talking about institutional structures. And some people listening to this are going to say that what does that have to do with me? I'm not a CEO. I don't sit on any boards. I'm not an investor. This seems like someone else's problem. But that's wrong. This is something that every one of us needs to master and understand. First of all, because we're all going to have careers in which we will come into positions of power one day, and we will be tested to see if we can maintain our integrity or not. But even more importantly, all of us interact with these institutions every day as citizens, as consumers, as employees, as investors, as members of our community. And we have to learn to wield the power that we all have to shape the values of these companies. This is the biggest and most important lesson of the book is that this gravitational force that draws companies towards other values, we are the generators of this force. We the public, not the fancy CEOs and the board. They seem like they're in control of everything, but they actually operate at the mercy of what the public requires and demands. So, we have to learn to wield that power for good and not for evil.

You know it's been 15 years since I wrote the lean startup. In every generation founders have approached me to ask how build measure learn changes. Number one thing they say to me is like look because of a new technology because of a new outsourcing ability because of a new culture because something has happened. We can build so much faster. Does that mean that entrepreneurship can go faster? And the answer is not necessarily because although building and measuring can be dramatically accelerated through new technology and especially through AI learning, we still have the same old wetware between the ears of the people doing the learning. Learning is a hard thing to outsource. I use the tools quite a bit in the research and editing of my book. I didn't use AI to write my book, okay, just to be super clear, but I use it a lot to help me accomplish my goals better. When deep research first was invented, first by OpenAI and then by Google, deep research was the ability to go and have a AI agent go out into the world and grab information for you. I thought that was going to solve all my research problems. But of course, it didn't because first of all, you get inaccuracies. But more importantly, like even if it didn't make any mistakes, just because I had a 10-page research report about something didn't mean that I myself understood what the research showed. So when I switched over to using this the tool we call solve it uh at answerai where I could load that research into a context where I could take a piece of my writing I would take a chapter or a story or a section and I would tell the AI here are my goals to improve this section here's the research I have available let's brainstorm together and I would use the tool to help me understand what the research says help me understand what is available to be incorporated into that section of text and then we would work on it together ultimately I would have the final control over how that flowed into that section which we would then commit back to the larger project. So instead of sending agents out to do the work on mass, it was more like taking a large project like a book and decomposing it down into human scale subtasks that I could do with the assistant really outstanding editorial and research assistant. Not make me a website but teach me how to make a website. Not make me a product but teach me how to make a product. Not measure what customers think but help me figure out what customers think. Once we learn to make this shift, we're able to see AI tools that are really designed to accelerate the rate at which we achieve validated learning. But in the meantime, I think people need to be careful and and maybe would be better served by using the old methods that they understand better.

创始人的实践清单:定期体检与持续训练

对于创业者,我特别建议:先挑一件事开始。建立一家不可腐蚀的公司不是一夜之间就能完成的,不是“哈,搞定”。不,专注于为自己制定一个清单,并随着时间的推移逐步推进。你不能说:“我今天吃了一顿健康餐,所以我永远不会生病了,我现在很健康。”不,不是这样运作的。你不能说:“我去了一次健身房,现在我可以成为奥运选手了。”不。如果你想取得伟大成就,你必须训练,必须努力。我会要求创始人做的一件事是:每季度或每几个月开一次会——不必每天——与你的联合创始人、董事会、执行团队,无论谁是合适的人选,坐下来问自己:我们的精神气质是否完好?调查你的员工,问他们:你们知道我们代表什么吗?你们认为这家公司的使命是什么?你们认为它的价值观是什么?我们的治理保护是否足以应对我们目前面临的情况?还是我们已经开始看到结构中形成裂缝?最重要的是,向前看:地平线上是否有新的威胁?是否有微小的不一致?把它想象成桥梁或潜艇船体在坍塌前的微裂缝。有时会有我们可以观察到的应力断裂迹象。所以,把这作为常规实践。如果需要,寻求外部支持。我帮助创办了一些公司,试图在这个勇敢的新世界中帮助和支持初创企业。但无论你从我这里还是从任何人那里获得支持,找一个人作为你的伙伴,帮助你思考这些问题,因为我不希望你的公司出现在这本书新版的好意图墓地名单上。

Original English

So for founders in particular, I would just try to pick one thing to get started. So building an incorruptible company is not something you do overnight like ha tada. No, focus on make yourself a checklist and work on that checklist over time. You can't just say, "Well, I ate a healthy meal today. Now I'll never get sick. Now I'm fit." No, that's not how it works. You can't say, "I went to the gym one time. Now I can be an Olympic athlete." No. If you want to achieve greatness, you have to train. You have to work at it. One thing I would ask founders to do, have like a quarterly meeting or every couple of months, doesn't have to be every day, where you sit down with your co-founders, with your board, with your executive team, whoever the right people are, and ask yourself, is our ethos intact? Survey your employees. Ask them, do you know what we stand for? What do you think the mission of this company is? What do you think its values are? Are our governance protections adequate to what we're facing now? Or can we start to see cracks in the structure forming? And most importantly, look ahead. Are there new threats on the horizon? Are there tiny inconsistencies? Think of it like micro fractures in a bridge or in a submarine's hull before it collapses. There sometimes will be the indication of stress fractures that we could observe. So do that as a regular practice. Get outside support if you need it. I've helped start some companies that are trying to help and support startups in this in this brave new world. But whether you get the support from me or anybody, but find somebody who can be your partner in helping you think through these issues because I don't want your company to be on the new edition of this book on our list of the graveyard of good intentions.

📌 文中提及的人物和组织

人物: Eric Ries, Sol Price

公司/组织: Costco, FedMart, Anthropic, Philip Morris International, Vectura

产品/模型: Answer AI

媒体/书籍: The Lean Startup

关键字: corporate-governance shareholder-primacy mission-driven-company long-term-thinking financial-gravity