商業英語世界觀-世界公民文化中心

Fashion是把時代穿在身上，Buzzword則是把時代說出來。說英文不只有對和錯，很多時候新的流行用詞會創造耳目一新的對話。這裡是隨著新生活型態誕生的幾個字，你會忍不住覺得，終於有懂你的字了!
 


Show-rooming 去實體店體驗後，在網路上用更低的價錢購買商品
e.g. Show-rooming is going mainstream ahead of the holiday season.
實體體驗、網路消費的現象在假期之前大流行。
Staycation 在家渡假、宅度假
由stay-at-home-vacation而來，和vacation一樣，介係詞用on。
e.g. Take your family on a fun Staycation because of the shape of the economy.
現在的經濟狀況，還是和家人來個有趣的宅度假吧。
Sharents 分享父母
指的就是忍不住在Facebook或其他社群網站發布寶貝照片和近況的父母們
e.g. I laugh at the sharents on my Facebook now, but I’m sure I’ll become one of them once I have a baby!
我現在還會笑那些一直分享寶寶近況的爸媽，但等到有了寶寶我一定會和他們一樣。
Hate-watching 為了痛批討厭的電視節目而去看電視
e.g. I'm not a hate-watcher. I am a professional television critic.
我不是只為狂罵而看電視的人，我是專業的電視節目評論家。
Selfie 自拍照
On Instagram, there are currently over 53 million photos tagged simply with the hashtag #selfie.
在社交網站Instagram，超過5千3百萬張照片標註為自拍照。  

 
含有英文名字的慣用語
 Jack、Jones、Tom、Henry、Thomas、Dick....你的英文在這裡面嗎? 別人喊到這些字的時候，可不一定是在叫你呢！英文裡有不少帶英文名字的慣用語，深究其背後意義，可以發現不少歷史典故或傳說故事呢！以下列舉幾個含有英文名字的慣用語，讓我們一起來感受英語的趣味：

Rush Hour: Hail a Cab Or Take a Taxi?
尖峰時間：計程車都去哪了？
Ever feel as if you can't get a cab during rush hour?  
曾經有這樣的感覺嗎？交通尖峰時間招不到計程車嗎？

文/Jessie湯

"There isn't anything about the process of innovation per se, that makes it unpredictable." – Clayton Christensen

管理學之父彼得．杜拉克（Peter Drucker）說：「不創新，就等死！」（innovate or die!），而美國哈佛商學院教授克雷頓．克里斯汀生（Clayton Christensen）則提出更進一步的說法，認為企業光是「創新」還不夠，必須發動以「夠好」（good enough）為核心精神的「破壞性創新」（disruptive innovation），才能確保企業永續生存。克里斯汀生也因為這項「破壞性」的創見，被譽為「當代最具影響力的創新大師」。

克里斯汀生是在1997年出版《創新者的兩難》（The Innovator’s Dilemma）一書時，提出「破壞性創新」理論，其基本定義如下：

Disruptive innovation describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves “up market”, eventually displacing established competitors.

An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill. 

克里斯汀生在接受記者訪問時，做了如下更清楚的解釋：

“A disruptive innovation brings to market a product not as good as the products in the current market, and so it cannot be sold to the mainstream customers. But it is simple and it is more affordable. It takes root in an undemanding portion of the market, then improves from that simple beginning to intercept with the needs of customers in the mainstream later.”

“I call that a disruptive innovation not because it's a breakthrough from a technological sense, but instead of sustaining the trajectory of improvement that has been established in a market, it disrupts it and redefines it by bringing to the market something that is simpler.”

“Internet telephony--the packet-switching technology developed by Cisco and others--wasn't good enough to be used in the voice telecommunications market, so it took root in a less demanding application, data transmission. Little by little, it got better and better and now you can send a voice signal over the Internet. That's a good example of a disruptive innovation.”

克里斯汀生指出，過去企業習慣在原有產品的發展下，維持「漸進式」（Incremental）的創新（讓產品不斷改善及更新），或者是「激進式」（Radical）的創新（發展不同的技術），不論「漸進式」或「激進式」創新，目的都是在改善既有產品的性能，因此統稱為「延續性創新」（sustaining innovation），「延續性創新」自然而然地會驅使企業逐步往高階市場發展。

Because companies tend to innovate faster than their customers’ lives change, most organizations eventually end up producing products or services that are too good, too expensive, and too inconvenient for many customers. By only pursuing “sustaining innovations” that perpetuate what has historically helped them succeed, companies unwittingly open the door to “disruptive innovations”.

反觀許多沒有大資本、高階技術和「成功包袱」的小企業，就比較有機會和意願，推出「比既有產品更差」或「只比沒有好一點」的產品，許多「破壞性創新」的成果因而冒出頭來，包括：網路電話skype、電子閱讀機Kindle、世界最大的B2B網站阿里巴巴、華碩電腦首掀的小筆電創舉Eee PC、在中國掀起風潮的山寨機、低價聞名的印度塔塔汽車，以及全球發燒的社群網站Facebook。毫無疑問地，「破壞性創新」改變了企業之間的競爭模式，強者不見得更強，新進者也不見得永遠處於弱勢。

隨著市場汰舊換新速度加快、企業之間競爭激烈，克里斯汀生的理論益發獲得各產業領導者的重視，不斷思考，要怎樣才能催生出「破壞式創新」的產品或服務？

克里斯汀生認為，要產生「破壞式創新」，必須從客戶的生活情境去思考，推出符合客戶使用情境的產品，以增加產品推出的成功率。畢竟，「A customer will never lead you to develop a product which that customer cannot use.」他說。

但是，他也發現，許多頂尖的企業無時無刻不保持警覺，專心聆聽客戶的聲音，積極地投資新科技來滿足客戶需要，但是在面對科技與市場結構的變遷時，仍喪失了既有的領導地位，其原因就在於它們把所有的投資與科技都集中在開發現有重要客戶最需要、可以創造最大利潤的產品上，許多能決定企業存續的「突破性科技」（disruptive technology），則因遭到這些主流客戶的排斥而放棄。

“If you're looking to start a new-growth business, very often, the most important customers to understand are non-customers. Because if you figure out why it is they're not customers, and then bring an innovation that allows them now to become customers, that's what growth comes from.”

這就是創新的兩難－貼近主流客戶的需求對現在的成功非常重要，但是長期的成長與獲利卻是依靠另一種完全不同的經營模式。因此，管理者為了要創造出這個新的事業模式，必須發展另外一個不同的組織，讓這個組織專心進行「破壞」。

“If the organization or the business unit charged with serving the installed base is also asked to go after non-customers with the more affordable, simpler product, they can't do it. Because the business models are so different, and small customers with the lower priced product -- it's not an attractive financial -- it doesn't solve the financial goals of an established business unit. Almost always, this new game begins before the old game ends. If you somehow create a strong economic incentive for the management of the existing business unit to go after the new disruptive opportunity, you take your eye off the main profit and cash engine of the company, and you stumble very quickly. And yet, while that is still going, you've got to get your foothold in the new market. And that's why it's just really important to set up a separate unit.”(本文同步刊於99/9/25工商時報)

“紐約時報俱樂部團體課程”要教你讀紐約時報，讀到它的information成為你的knowledge，讀到它professional的英文從你的口中自然說出來，讀到它的style成為你的style。現在就點此報名甄選。

 

 

The Crowd: Intelligent or Stupid?

小編悄悄話：這是上週六我們刊登在工商時報”世界公民weekly”--我的世界觀--單元的一篇文章，連續幾週的世界觀洗禮，希望這一系列的內容對您都有幫助！請持續鎖定接下來的精彩內容，每個禮拜六我們工商時報上見！

文/Jessie湯
“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” -- Eric Steven Raymond
“No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." -- H. L. Mencken
Outsourcing？這個字已經落伍了，把工作交給印度或中國人已經是2003年的事了。現在有新的概念crowdsourcing：全世界各地用自己空閒時間創造內容、解決問題，甚至一起進行研發的每個人。《連線》（Wired）雜誌編輯Jeff Howe和Mark Robinson幾年前就共同提出了一個創新名詞－「群眾外包」（crowdsourcing），因為他們不斷看到各行各業的大企業開始將重要工作外包給網上的個人或群體，他們預言，「群眾外包」這種「運用（網上）群眾的潛在能力」，將快速滲透到所有商業層面，成為經營模式的一項新選擇。
當年，還有一個重要事件，就是「開放程式碼」（open sourcing）的風行。鼓吹者Eric Steven Raymond就提出「Linux’ Law」－「只要參與的人夠多，任何有問題處都會現形。」（“Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.”）這個觀念也鼓吹「群眾外包」的魅力，推翻了過去認為群體思維只是取最大公因數、群體決策容易失敗的印象。試想：全球超過〸億名個人在網路上彼此討論你的問題，其中包括了你的供應商和顧客，其凝聚的智慧和能力，怎不讓競爭者黯然失色？
之後，有一本書也開始探討這個話題，書名叫作《我們比我聰明》（We Are Smarter than Me）。此書大力倡導「群眾智慧」（wisdom of crowd）和「群眾外包」的神奇，認為看似如散沙般的群眾智慧，將在各行各業中進行創新改革，令人驚豔！值得一提的是，這本書的撰寫過程也是「群眾外包」和「群眾智慧」的具體實踐－整本書是由華頓商學院與史隆商學院的教授、學生們，利用短短一年的時間，在網路的開放空間中撰文討論，最後集結而成，顛覆了由作者自行蒐集資料寫作的傳統出書模式。
《群眾的智慧》（The Wisdom of Crowds）作者James Surowiecki相信，群眾的智慧絶對大於個人，無論這個「個人」有多麼smart！他說：
“Experts, no matter how smart, only have limited amounts of information. They also, like all of us, have biases. It's very rare that one person can know more than a large group of people, and almost never does that same person know more about a whole series of questions. The other problem in finding an expert is that it's actually hard to identify true experts. In fact, if a group is smart enough to find a real expert, it's more than smart enough not to need one.”
不過，他也知道，群眾的力量要充分發揮，必須有一些先決條件：
“There are four key qualities that make a crowd smart. It needs to be diverse, so that people are bringing different pieces of information to the table. It needs to be decentralized, so that no one at the top is dictating the crowd's answer. It needs a way of summarizing people's opinions into one collective verdict. And the people in the crowd need to be independent, so that they pay attention mostly to their own information, and not worrying about what everyone around them thinks.”
已經有不少企業應用某種形式的網路社群來「汲取」「群眾智慧」，進行「群眾外包」。亞馬遜網路書店（Amazon.com）可能是史上第一個。該公司在網站上建立讀者書評功能，書評沒有稿費，公司也不干預，原本的考量只是想藉此吸引一群忠實顧客前來，卻意外幫助亞馬遜發展出其他獲利模式。
英國的ZOPA則是「群眾外包」概念應用於金融業的例子。ZOPA是一家直接金融網路公司，提供一個網路平台，讓想存款賺取利息的人（lender）或想借錢的人（borrower），都能到這個平台上來直接議價撮合，免除傳統銀行居間賺取利差的機會，使存借雙方皆能得到更為優惠的利率。ZOPA為Zone of Possible Agreement的縮寫，意即「可能的成交區間」。買賣雙方在議價中訂定可接受的範圍，雙方的範圍若有重疊，即代表有ZOPA存在，也就是存在著成交的可能。
不過，水能載舟亦能覆舟，「群眾外包」也有許陷阱和缺點。一篇名為「The wisdom (and danger) of crowds」文章中即指出：
“It's difficult for web-based organizations to screen crowd-sourced helpers. The result is often a glut of subpar work. Then, there’s the issue of accountability. Without a contract, set hours or direct supervision, volunteer tasks tend to be low-priority. Most worrisome of all is the risk of malice and mischief…The corruption of data would be problematic for any organization, but it is disastrous for those whose projects are used in crisis situations where lives are at stake.”
Surowiecki也說：
“Essentially, any time most of the people in a group are biased in the same direction, it's probably not going to make good decisions. So when diverse opinions are either frozen out or squelched when they're voiced, groups tend to be dumb. And when people start paying too much attention to what others in the group think, that usually spells disaster, too. For instance, that's how we get stock-market bubbles, which are a classic example of group stupidity: instead of worrying about how much a company is really worth, investors start worrying about how much other people will think the company is worth. The paradox of the wisdom of crowds is that the best group decisions come from lots of independent individual decisions.”
With hundreds of millions of new people coming online through the distribution of cell phones and handheld computing, crowdsourcing will continue to expand globally.
然而，群眾的心理因素肯定影響決策的正確性，因此想要運用「群眾智慧」的企業體必須特別避免群眾迷思的情況發生。

歡迎訂閱我們的電子報！請”點此”免費訂閱！

 

文/Jessie湯

 

 

“The social entrepreneur changes the performance capacity of society.” –Peter F. Drucker (management expert)

 

“Social entrepreneurs are not content just to give a fish or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.” -Bill Drayton (CEO, chair and founder of Ashoka)

 

“As a journalism student, I was taught that news could be defined as ‘destabilizing information’. If so, the social entrepreneurs are news-worthy. They are destabilizing forces: Wherever they crop up, they pose serious threats to the status quo.” –David Bornstein (famous journalist)

 

一直以來，成功商場人士的形象經常是融合了才幹、毅力和智慧，懂得在資本世界中，運用最小的資源，為自己滾動最大的財富，一般大眾也熱衷以研究分析的角度來檢視和學習商場人士的成功之道；至於社會工作者，或者志工，則往往被塑造成人道主義者或聖賢，他們充滿理想，視金錢為無物，無情的現實使他們所領導的公益組織面臨資源不足、入不敷出的困境，但正因為這些重重困難，使他們的奮鬥故事更能令人們感動。在一般人的認知裡，經由訓練、學習可以教導一個人建立成功的企業（這可以解釋為何商學院MBA學位始終熱門，且企管叢書總是熱賣），但要讓一位社會工作者真正對社會產生重大影響，卻只能碰運氣。

 

「社會企業家」（Social Entrepreneur）的出現改寫了這種刻板印象，模糊了社會工作者與商場人士之間的界線，使人們了解到：「善」與「利」可以連結並存，「志工」與「企業家」兩個名詞可以合而為一，成為一個新職業。

 

「社會企業家」到底是什麼？

 

Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.

 

They discovered what the business sector learned long ago: There is nothing as powerful as a new idea in the hands of a first-class entrepreneur. Therefore, they maintained visionary. However, in order to make their new ideas work, they become ultimate realistic, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.

 

換言之，「社會企業家」與過去社會工作者的不同點，在於他們學會了集合資源、重視成本、追求效率和目標導向，不再只有需要外界捐助的孱弱形象，而能以更企業化、規模化的方式，長遠地解決社會的重大問題。

 

The organizations led by “traditional” citizen sectors increasingly are being pressed to demonstrate their efficacy. Faced with a wave of energetic social entrepreneurs who are building organizations that are strategic and fast moving, people managing sluggish, outdated institutions no longer find “business as usual” to be a safe stance. In fact, it is getting riskier by the day to remain static or to coast on reputation. The arrival of entrepreneurialism and competition represents an early, but fundamental, change in the dynamics of the citizen sector, one that history has shown in highly conducive to innovation.

 

「社會企業家」為了能夠自給自足、把創辦其組織的理念長久而徹底地落實，他們有的會透過經營營利事業來帶進收益，也有的是以其公益事業的「績效」來競逐外界善款，其績效壓力甚至不亞於一般商業企業家。

 

“We need to actuate and cause change. Even if the inspiration is romantic, it desires material results, a re-colored reality.”－一位「阿育王」（Ashoka，註）會員如此說。 

 

他們的競爭壓力也確實引起外界的關注和認同，美國總統夫人Michelle Obama就主導成立了支持社會企業家的基金。她在記者會上如此說：

 

“(We’ll) find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country. By focusing on high-impact, results-oriented non-profits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust.”

 

如同暢銷企管書《追求卓越》（In Search of Excellence）所探討的一些美國最成功公司的領導人，「社會企業家」通常擅長溝通、具說明力、行動積極、活力充沛，充滿創意而富進取心，一心想要改變現行的遊戲規則，也對人類行為和人性有務實而深刻的理解，他們願意花許多時間思考，想辦法讓他們訴求的對象（客戶）接受他們提出的觀念（產品）。

 

Each social entrepreneur presents ideas that are user-friendly, understandable, ethical, and engage widespread support in order to maximize the number of local people that will stand up, seize their idea, and implement with it. In other words, every leading social entrepreneur is a mass recruiter of local change-makers—a role model proving that citizens who channel their passion into action can do almost anything.

 

「社會企業家」擅長使用商業企業的管理和手法，他們的許多特質也與成功的企業領導人多有雷同，他們所領導的組織也可能營利。由於有的商業企業家也會贊助公益活動來回饋社會，那麼「社會企業家」與這些商業企業家的差別在哪裡呢？ 

 

Of course, there are overlaps: social entrepreneurs often earn profits through social enterprises, and businesspeople are frequently concerned with social responsibility. Both types of entrepreneurship require vision, initiative, organization building and “marketing.” In terms of skill and temperament, social and business entrepreneurs are strikingly similar. But their primary objectives are different.

 

The difference between business and social entrepreneurship has to do with purpose, or what the enterprise is trying to maximize. For social entrepreneurs, the bottom line is to maximize some form of social impact, usually by addressing an urgent need that is being mishandled, overlooked or ignored by other institutions. For business entrepreneurs, the bottom line may be to maximize profits or shareholder wealth, or to build an ongoing, respected entity that provides value to customers and meaningful work to employees.

 

換言之，一個製鞋公司負責人的夢想是建造全球最大的球鞋公司，還是讓全世界的兒童都有鞋穿，決定了他是一位商業企業家，還是「社會企業家」。 

 

The world needs both kinds of entrepreneurship; one should not be deemed superior to the other, although social entrepreneurship is often more challenging because it tackles problems that have defied governmental approaches and for which market solutions have not yet been demonstrated.

 

**註：美國環保署（U.S. Environmental Protection Agency）助理署長德雷頓（Bill Drayton）於1978年創立的組織，以創投公司的運作方式來支持全球各地具領導地位的社會企業家。目前已在亞洲、非洲、美洲與中歐運作，幫助超過1400名社會企業家。

 

 

本文刊於7/31工商時報世界公民weekly單元。企業英語教室電子報每週一出刊，歡迎訂閱！請點此訂閱。