Disruption Isn’t the Only Path to Innovation
发布时间 2023-05-02 21:00:09 来源
摘要
Disruptive innovation has proven such a powerful idea that many people now equate innovation with market disruption. But INSEAD strategy professor Renée Mauborgne says there's a powerful way to create new markets without destroying jobs, companies, and communities: "nondisruptive creation." She explains how some entrepreneurs and companies have been able to grow billion-dollar businesses that are new markets rather than displacements of existing ones. Two examples are the microfinance industry and the firm Square. And she explains how leaders can seek out these opportunities to foster profitable growth with less social harm. With fellow INSEAD professor W. Chan Kim, Mauborgne wrote the new book Beyond Disruption: Innovate and Achieve Growth without Displacing Industries, Companies, or Jobs.
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
Do you want to go deeper on business strategy? I want to suggest HBR's new podcast feed, HBR on Strategy. HBR editors like me hand select the best strategy case studies and conversations from across HBR's podcasts, videos and beyond. Listen for free to HBR on Strategy wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes every Wednesday.
你想更深入地了解商业策略吗？我想建议你使用HBR的新播客订阅，名为HBR on Strategy。像我这样的HBR编辑会仔细挑选出最好的策略案例研究和跨越HBR播客、视频和其他渠道的对话。在你获取播客的任何地方免费收听HBR on Strategy。每周都会有新的剧集。
Welcome to the HBR Idea Cast from Harvard Business Review. I'm Kurt Nickish. We interviewed Jim McElvy back in episode 730. He told his story of co-founding the mobile payments company Square. He had been annoyed to lose a sale when his independent glass blowing studio couldn't take a credit card.
欢迎来到《哈佛商业评论》的HBR Idea Cast。我是库尔特·尼基什。我们在第730期采访了吉姆·麦克埃尔维。他讲述了他共同创立移动支付公司Square的故事。当他的独立玻璃吹制工作室无法接受信用卡而导致失去了一笔销售时，他感到非常烦恼。
Basically back then, if you sold less than $10,000 a year, accepting credit cards just wasn't economical. Square made it possible for individuals in small merchants to take credit cards with the mobile phone or tablet and Visa and Mastercard were happy about it because it was bringing them brand new business they didn't have before. As McElvy said in that interview, the most interesting part of a market is where it ends because that's where anyone can expand the zone and create a new market.
基本上，在过去，如果你一年销售额少于10000美元，接受信用卡就不具有经济效益。Square让小商家通过手机或平板电脑接受信用卡支付成为可能，而Visa和Mastercard很高兴，因为这为他们带来了全新的业务。正如马克尔维在那次采访中所说，市场最有趣的部分就是终点，因为这是任何人都可以扩展区域并创造一个新市场的地方。
Today's guest says that Square, now a multi-billion dollar business, is a great example of non-disruptive creation and that more companies can grow in a way that moves beyond a destructive wind-lose competitive mindset and in a way that creates value without destroying jobs and industries.
今天的嘉宾说，现在已成为多亿美元企业的Square是非破环性创造的很好例子，更多的公司可以以一种超越破坏性风险的竞争思维增长，以一种创造价值、不摧毁就业和产业的方式成长。
Renee Moporn is a professor of strategy and management at INSEAT where she co-directs with Chan Kim, the Blue Ocean Strategy Institute. Together there, the co-authors of the new book Beyond Disruption innovate and achieve growth without displacing industries, companies for jobs. Renee, thanks for coming on the show. Glad to be here Kurt.
蕾妮·莫波恩（Renee Moporn）是英士国际商学院（INSEAT）战略和管理的教授，她与陈金（Chan Kim）共同主持蓝海战略研究所。他们是新书《超越破坏》的合著者，致力于创新并实现企业成长，同时不会取代产业、公司和工作岗位。蕾妮，感谢您出席节目。很高兴在这里和您交流，库尔特。
So why take another look at where we are with innovation today? What's wrong with this thing that we understand fairly well and teach in every business school disruptive innovation? Well, disruption is an important concept. The underlying assumption is that in order to create, you must disrupt or destroy and that even comes from the father of innovation, Joseph Shumpeter creative destruction.
为什么要再次审视如今的创新状况呢？我们为什么要对我们已经很清楚并在每个商学院教授的“颠覆性创新”这个概念进行重新思考？颠覆是一个重要的概念。其基本假设是，为了创造，你必须进行颠覆或破坏，这甚至是创新之父约瑟夫·熊彼特所主张的创造性破坏。
But when we looked at our research, what we found is that you don't only need to destroy to create. You can also create with no disruption and no displacement. And that allows companies to not only innovate, but in doing so, achieve social good and not social good in how I spend money, but in the very way that I make money. And so that is opening up a new terrain. Why should we only focus on disruption and destruction? When we can create all new markets without disruption or destruction, we don't have to tear down and destroy to open up profit, opportunity, and have an impact in society.
然而，当我们对研究进行了分析后，我们发现不仅需要摧毁才能创造，我们也可以毫无干扰和置换地创造。这使得公司不仅可以创新，而且在这样做的同时实现社会效益，不仅体现在我花钱的方式上，而且体现在我赚钱的方式上。因此，这开辟了新的领域。为什么只关注干扰和破坏呢？当我们可以无需打破或破坏就能创造全新的市场时，我们就不必拆除和摧毁以开辟利润、机会并对社会产生影响。
Why would we shut ourselves off from all those opportunities? Just the way you discuss Square opened up a billion dollar business. Why would we ever shut those opportunities off? And therefore, why are we not having conversations on us? That is what excited us. How can we double the terrain in the field of innovation so that we see more opportunity on the horizon for all of us?
为什么我们要错过那么多机会呢？就像您讨论Square开创了一项价值十亿美元的业务一样，为什么我们要失去这些机会？因此，为什么我们不在我们自己身上进行交流？这就是让我们兴奋的地方。我们如何将创新领域的领域扩大一倍，从而让我们所有人在更广阔的机会中看到更多的机会？
Do you feel like the social costs of disruption are, I guess, underestimated when jobs are disrupted, people like to point out that new jobs are being created and new value and it's freeing people up to do newer and better things. And there's a lot of rationalizing, I guess, of the social costs. Do you feel like some of that is lip service and that these costs are more damaging and real than the business world maybe lets on?
你是否认为当工作被打乱时，社会成本被低估了呢？人们喜欢指出新的工作正在被创造出来，新的价值正在被创造，这使得人们可以去做更新更好的事情。同时，人们可能会去合理化一些社会成本的问题。你是否认为这些言论只是形式上的，而社会成本实际上比商业世界所信任的更加严重和真实？
You know, I think it's an interesting point you're raising, but I think that when you have an industry that's no longer efficient, no longer effective, disruption provides a useful mechanism and yes, there's social costs. That's one thing. There's this whole other area which is that you can create without destroying. Now, if I am a company and I have an opportunity to create without destroying and to be able to achieve economic and social good, which we understand society at the highest levels actually increasingly are saying we need to go beyond just shareholder concerns, to stakeholder concerns matter.
你说的是一个有意思的观点，但我认为当一个行业不再高效，不再有效时，打破原有的规则会提供一种有用的机制。当然，这其中存在一些社会成本。但还有一些其他的领域，可以通过创造而不是摧毁来实现目标。如果我是一家公司，我有机会实现经济和社会的利益，就像我们知道的那样，越来越多的社会高层要求我们不仅关注股东的利益，也要重视所有利益相关方的利益。
And I can do that in a profitable way. As an executive or a business person, I would be a fool not to understand and consider that dimension there. So if I walk down the streets of Manhattan right now and I'm on the busiest streets, let's say Madison Avenue, I see shuttered store after shuttered store after closed store.
我可以盈利地做到这一点。作为一位高管或商人，如果我不理解并考虑这个因素，那我会是一个傻瓜。如果我现在走在曼哈顿的街上，比如麦迪逊大道，我会看到一个个下了锁的商店，一个接一个地关闭。
Does that wear on the psyche of people? To some extent? Yes, it does. When I find out that Rochester, New York when Kodak was completely disrupted by digital photography and Kodak went from some 80,000 employees down to less than 10,000, do I not think that's devastating impact on the employees, the community, and the society? Yes, I do. Now was that needed? Was that going to happen? Perhaps it was.
这会对人的心理造成影响吗？在某种程度上是的。当我发现纽约罗切斯特市柯达公司因数字摄影完全被打乱，由大约80,000名员工减少到不到10,000名，我不认为这对员工、社区和社会的影响很严重吗？是，我认为是的。那这样做必要吗？这种情况会发生吗？也许是的。
What we're saying is, what are the non-destructive opportunities that we might have been missing? So we need to understand, just as we say there's competing and creating their complementary, the purpose of the book isn't to destroy disruption. We're not destructive. We're positive some. It is to open up another horizon that offers billion dollar businesses, huge impact and that people haven't been giving enough consideration to.
我们想要表达的是，我们可能一直在错过哪些非破坏性的机遇？因此，我们需要明白，正如我们所说的竞争和创造是互补的，本书的目的并不是破坏性的干扰。我们不是破坏性的，我们是积极的。它的目的是开拓新的视野，提供价值数十亿美元的商业机会，产生巨大的影响，而人们却没有给予足够的考虑。
Let's get into some more examples and talk more specifically about non-destructive creation. So let me, let's first get some definitional terms here. So when I disrupt, I offer a breakthrough solution to an existing problem. So I create a new market that displaces in existing. So what is non-destructive creation? It's creation without destruction. It's when I will create a brand new market outside the bounds of existing industries.
让我们举些更具体的例子来谈谈非破坏性创造。所以让我先定义一些术语。当我打破现有问题提供突破性解决方案时，我就会引入一个新的市场，从而取代现有的市场。那么什么是非破坏性创造呢？它是没有破坏的创造。当我创造一个全新的市场且不在现有行业范围内时，就是非破坏性创造。
So there are no existing industries nor market players to disrupt nor displays. So I look at microfinance. No one ever thought that you could offer financing to people earning less than $2 a day with no stable job, no credit history, no collateral, and no one of any wealth to put their name behind in guarantee for them. Microfinance opened up a billion dollar industry. But then you know we look here in the US, well what about 23 and me? It opens up a brand new non-destructive billion dollar industry for us to understand our genetics and our DNA back, trace back our genealogy.
这句话的意思是，没有现有的产业、市场玩家或展示物，可以被打乱。因此，我关注了小额信贷行业。没有人曾想过，可以向每天收入不到2美元、没有稳定工作、没有信用记录、没有抵押品，也没有任何有财富的人来担保的人提供融资。小额信贷打开了一个价值十亿美元的行业。但是，我们现在看看美国，23andMe呢？它为我们了解我们的基因和DNA，追溯我们的族谱，开辟了一个全新的非破坏性价值十亿美元的行业。
Another broad non-destructive look at eSports, brand new industry taking off outside the existing video game industry doesn't disrupt displays anyone, whether in physical sports like football or soccer, or in the gaming industry, creates a whole new market for people to come together in huge stadiums, 50,000 more with 200,000 young people online and old watching video game players, multi-game players, and teams exciting for big game prizes.
电子竞技是一个全新的行业，与现有的视频游戏行业相互独立，它并不会破坏任何形式的娱乐比如足球或足球等的参与方式，也不会影响游戏行业。电子竞技创造了一个全新的市场，使得无数人聚集在大型体育场馆内观看电子游戏玩家、多人游戏选手和团队为争夺大奖而精彩比拼，同时，还有200,000名青少年和老年人在线观看比赛。
So the opportunities, whether in developing markets or bottom of the pyramid markets, are huge for companies. And let me back up a minute too. You know you were mentioning Kurt that okay let's just look at social costs but not disruptive creation is more than that. As I said I can create without displacing industry's companies or jobs and as we know increasingly employees want to believe that the company they work for your brand image is doing something good for society. They want to believe that you're adding so let's not forget the image impact. But there's also as we articulate in our book for very important operational advantages that come with non-destructive creation or for disruption. And that is what organizations need to take into account.
因此，对于公司来说，无论是在发展型市场还是在金字塔底层市场，机遇都是巨大的。让我稍微回顾一下。你知道，库尔特，你刚刚提到了社会成本，但破坏性创造不只是那些社会成本。正如我所说，我可以在不影响行业公司或就业的情况下进行创造，而我们都知道，越来越多的员工希望相信他们工作的公司或品牌形象正在为社会做出贡献。他们希望相信你正在增加一些价值，所以不要忘记形象的影响力。但是，正如我们在书中所表述的那样，非破坏性创造或协调性创造也带来了非常重要的运营优势。这是组织需要考虑到的。
So there's practical as well as image and as well as societal implications. So a lot of reasons to expand the zone here and find new ways to create economic value where there just wasn't anything before.
因此，扩大此地区的范围并寻找新的经济价值创造方式有实际意义、形象意义和社会意义。因此，有许多原因要在这里扩大区域，找到以前没有的经济价值创造方式。
True creation. It's creating new markets by looking to problems that people have that have been unaddressed and people have taken for granted as simply the way things are. For example lack problem of generational poverty had long existed. It didn't just suddenly emerge right but people took for granted that's just a simple fact of poverty that you just can't have access to credit. Until someone, Muhammad Yunus said no wait a minute. Is there a way that I can lock that opportunity so that I can create a thriving business that's a profitable growth, it's a for profit business and at the same time help these people transition and create a better life for themselves or their families.
“真正的创造”，是指通过寻找人们一直忽视并认为是理所当然的问题来创造新市场。例如，代际贫困的问题长期存在但人们一直认为不能获得贷款只是贫困的简单事实，直到穆罕默德·尤努斯提出：等等，我能不能找到一种办法，创造一个繁荣的营利性企业，同时帮助这些人转型，为自己或家人创造更好的生活呢？
So one way to create a non-destructive market is to look for all the existing but unexdored problems that exist in the world that we take for granted, can't be solved or just a nuisance to put up with and to solve them. And the other thing is to look at emerging opportunities in the world that are arising because of economics, demographics, societal, technological shifts that we could create a brand new opportunity for or new aspirations or solve a brand new problem.
创建一个非破坏性市场的一个方法是：寻找我们认为理所当然但未被开发的问题、无法解决或只是令人讨厌的问题，并加以解决。另一个方法是关注现正在出现的机遇，这些机遇由于经济、人口、社会和技术变化而出现，我们可以为其创造全新的机遇，或者解决全新的问题。
So let me give you an example of that. Today I'm reading in the papers the real problem about commercial real estate, right? After COVID, no one's coming back. The vacancy rates are huge for these commercial real estate in the major cities around. That's an emerging new problem didn't exist 10 years ago. Now the question is, if we apply non-destructive thinking, what is an effective way that we can reconsieve of what this office space can be? If I am the holder and the owner of this commercial real estate and I know that I have mortgages on it, but the second that those leases are up, I'm not likely able to release those buildings and I'm going to have a shortfall in my clash, I want to start thinking now.
让我举个例子。今天我在报纸上看到关于商业房地产的真正问题，对吧？在COVID疫情之后，没有人回来。主要城市的商业房地产空置率很高，这是一个十年前不存在的新问题。那么现在的问题是，如果我们采用非破坏性思维，有什么有效的方式可以重新构思这个办公空间可以成为什么？如果我是持有商业房地产的所有者，我知道我有按揭贷款，但一旦那些租约到期，我不太可能重新出租那些建筑物，我将在我的冲突中有不足，我想现在开始思考。
How can I start thinking non-destructively, emerging problems to reconceive that space to create a whole new opportunity for my buildings and for my own profit and for the communities that I serve because vacant commercial buildings don't serve anybody? So that's just an example of where there could be a huge non-destructive opportunity in the future.
我应该如何开始非破坏性思维，找出潜在的问题，并重新构想这个空间，为我的建筑、我的利润以及我所服务的社区创造全新的机会，因为空置的商业建筑对任何人都没有好处。这只是一个例子，未来可能存在巨大的非破坏性机会。
Does it take a different kind of thinker to see these opportunities? So most companies, when they're thinking about innovating, they start with a world the way that it is and they use that to tee off and set their ideas for what is possible and probable. What actions can I take? But non-destructive creators don't start with a world as it is. They start with their imagination.
需要不同的思考者才能看到这些机会吗？当大多数公司考虑创新时，他们会以当前世界为基础，来启发他们的理念，从而确定谁可能行动。但不具破坏性的创作者不这么做，他们从他们的想象力开始。
They start to think of what could be what should up, it should be in despite of what is. And because of that, they start to raise fundamentally different questions and reimagine what is possible.
他们开始思考可能是什么，应该是什么，尽管现实是什么。正因如此，他们开始提出根本不同的问题，重新想象可能性。
We started this interview with Square and it was funny reading the book. I kept thinking back to that interview with Jim McElvie, just reminded me so much of what he was talking about. It's one of my favorite episodes and interviews because it was just so freeing to listen to how he thought about new markets and new opportunities. And then lo and behold, Square pops up as an example in your book.
我们开始了关于Square的访谈，看完书就觉得很有意思。我一直在想起我和Jim McElvie的那个访谈，因为这本书正好提到了他所讲的话。这是我最喜欢的一个节目和访谈，因为倾听他对新市场和新机会的看法是如此让人感到自由。结果，Square出现在你的书中作为一个例子，真是神奇。
I think about this, Kurt, you've got these major credit card issuers. You have these at MasterCard, Merik, and Express, all these major players. You've got these huge payment providers that process the credit cards, right? Now you're a glass blower, you missed your sale. And then you say, I don't know, I wish I could accept credit cards.
我想说的是，Kurt，你应该考虑以下这些主要的信用卡发卡公司，包括MasterCard、Merik和Express，这些大型玩家。这些信用卡需要由巨型支付服务提供者进行处理。现在，假设你是一个玻璃工艺品制造商，如果你错过了销售机会，你就会想，“我真希望能够接受信用卡支付”。
If I start with what is, I'll say, oh yeah, but you know, that's just a natural hassle that goes with being a small guy, being an individual. I got to wait till I'm a big guy, be or a big girl before I have the opportunity to have that advantage, right? But no, he doesn't think like that. He thinks that doesn't make sense.
如果我从现实出发，我会说，哦，是的，但你知道，这只是作为一个小人而必须面对的自然麻烦，作为一个个体。我必须等到我成为一个大人，或者一个大女孩，才有机会拥有那种优势，对吧？但他不这么想。他认为这是没有意义的。
Why should small and micro businesses less than $10,000 or even individuals, the babysitters, not be able to have the most convenient form of accepting payment? Why shouldn't they? What would that be? And how could that be to do that?
为什么小额微型企业和个人，如保姆，不能拥有最便捷的接受付款方式呢？为什么不能呢？那会是什么呢？又该如何实现呢？
So if you think about Jim McElvie there, he didn't accept the world as it was. He knew that with his own actions and his independent thinking, he could shape that world to create a market because he saw the need and he saw that it was unaddressed, right? So an existing issue that was unexplored and he set out to explore it. And that's one of the paths to non-destructive creation.
如果您想了解Jim McElvie的背景，他并不接受世界的基本现状。他知道，凭借自己的行动和独立思考，他可以塑造这个世界，创造出一个市场，因为他看到了需求，也看到了这个需求没有得到解决，对吧？因此，他着手去探索一个尚未被探索的现有问题。这是实现非破坏性创造的一条途径。
And if more companies started to think this way, there'd be more billion dollar businesses in their different industries that could be created. Which is encouraging, right? I mean, just the same way that we can learn to be more entrepreneurial in the same way that people can seek out disruption at organizations. That's got to mean that you can learn to do non-destructive creation at companies too.
如果更多公司开始这样思考，就会在它们不同的行业中建立更多亿万美元的企业。这是令人鼓舞的，对吗？我的意思是，就像人们可以寻求组织的颠覆一样，我们也可以学习更具创业精神。这必然意味着你可以学习在公司中进行非破坏性的创造。
When most people use their imagination, unfortunately, they use it the wrong way. They use it to imagine why something can't happen, why something can't be done. When you use your imagination and non-destructive creation, you use it to focus on how you can make it happen.
很不幸，当大多数人使用他们的想象力时，他们用错了方式。他们用它来想象为什么某件事情无法发生，为什么某件事情无法完成。然而，当你使用你的想象力和非破坏性创造时，你便会用它来关注如何使它发生。
How does non-destructive creation fit into other trends that you're seeing in business right now? And I'm thinking here of AI, chat, GPT, for instance, a lot of people think of that as disruptive. It's going to replace jobs in a lot of cases, clerical jobs, knowledge, worker jobs, white color jobs. Is that inevitable?
非破坏性创造如何与当前商业中的其他趋势相融合？我正在考虑AI、聊天、GPT等。许多人认为它们具有破坏性，会在很多情况下取代文员工作、知识工人工作、白领工作。这是不可避免的吗？
近年来，AI和机器学习成为了许多公司不可或缺的一部分，如在自动化和客户服务方面。然而，同样在不断增长的需求是改善员工效率，通过非破坏性创造来实现更高质量的工作。与替代性技术不同，非破坏性创造通过赋予员工更多的自主权、创意和创造性来改善流程。在某些情况下，虽然一些工作可能会被替代，但可补偿的领域和机会的增加为员工提供了更广阔的发展空间。因此，公司正在试图满足员工的需求，增加非破坏性创造的使用。
So let me just step back. We started out on this research on non-destructive creation, because we saw one, we don't have to disrupt in this place. There's this whole other space that we can look into. But the second thing is, we not only saw it as important, but growing in importance in the future.
因此，让我先退后一步。我们开始进行这项非破坏性创造的研究，是因为我们发现，我们不必打断这个空间。那里有另外一个完全可以研究的地方。但第二个原因是，我们不仅认为这很重要，而且在未来变得越来越重要。
One of the reasons it's growing in importance is for the precise reason you say. If you look at the world today, we're introducing or being ushered into what we call the fourth industrial revolution, where there's all new forms of AI and smart machines, robotics.
它越来越重要的原因之一就是正如你所说的那样。如果你看看今天的世界，我们正在引进或被推入我们所谓的第四次工业革命，那里有各种新形式的人工智能和智能机器，机器人。
And all these smart machines, AI and robotics are on track to displace many people say hundreds of millions of jobs. The exact number no one knows, but the numbers that are thrown irrespective of the study are large, whether they displace them completely or significantly pair down.
所有这些智能机器、人工智能和机器人都有可能导致数以亿计的工作岗位被取代。具体数字无人能预测，但不论研究结果如何，被取代的人数都将是庞大的，无论是完全取代还是大幅度削减。
Now the question is, where will all the new jobs come from to absorb all the humans that get released from their jobs? Of course, on the one hand, technology always brings with it new jobs we can't even imagine. And we all hope that'll be the case.
现在的问题是，所有被解雇的人将去哪里找到新工作？当然，一方面，技术总是带来我们甚至无法想象的新工作。我们都希望这将会是真的。
But this might not be the case often the displacement occurs faster than the new jobs are created to absorb them. That's kind of the worry here with this technological revolution, right?
然而，经常情况并非如此，因为人员置换发生得比新工作岗位创建得更快。这就是对于这次技术革命存在的担忧，是吧？
That unlike previous ones where we all sort of learn not to be farmers, most of us, over many generations, this is happening very quickly. Yes, I think that the speed at which this new technological revolution is unraveling is unprecedented. And so the real question becomes about creating the jobs as people get displaced.
与以往的情况不同，我们都不需要像以前那样学习如何成为农民，大多数人在很多代人之间，这个过程正在非常快速地发生。是的，我认为这个新技术革命的速度是前所未有的。因此，真正的问题变成了如何在人们失去工作的情况下创造就业机会。
And when we look to it, how do historically, if we look to the theory of innovation and economics, new jobs get created, it's through new markets. So what are the paths to create new markets, sir, too? Historically, we think of disruption. It's created new markets again and again. But it does so in the short and medium term in the process of displacing yet more existing jobs, right?
当我们看它的时候，如果我们从创新和经济理论的角度来看，新的工作岗位是通过新市场创造的。那么，创造新市场的途径是什么呢？历史上，我们认为是破坏性的变革。这一过程一次又一次地创造了新市场。但在这个过程中，它短期和中期内会取代更多现有的就业岗位，对吗？
So when self-driving cars come in, they start to displace all the drivers in this industry, truck drivers in America, bus drivers, car drivers. That is one of the largest employment in many states in America. So the question is where are they going to get those jobs? The power of non-destructive creation is it creates new jobs and new industries and new companies without displacing others.
当自动驾驶汽车进入市场时，它们开始取代这个行业中的所有司机，如美国的卡车司机、公交车司机、私家车司机等。这是美国许多州中最大的就业行业之一。问题是他们将从何处得到这些工作？非破坏性创造力的力量在于它可以创造新的工作、新的产业和新的企业，而不会取代其他行业。
So if I am a government, I'm in charge of a community. What I want to start thinking about is how can I start encouraging people to start thinking non-destructive so we can have the jobs out there as people get released to be absorbed. So that's one key reason that we believe non-destructive is likely to become even more important in the future.
如果我作为政府，负责管理一个社区。我要开始考虑的是如何鼓励人们开始持有非破坏性的思想，以便我们可以在人们被释放出去时有更多的就业岗位吸收他们。因此，我们认为非破坏性将在未来变得更加重要是一个关键原因。
Once people or organizations have imagined new markets and new opportunities that are wholly new spaces, where the stumbling blocks when it comes to seizing those and realizing them. So in our book, we outline what is the process to be able to do that. One of them is, and we talk about, this is where non-destructive has a advantage because it actually is emotionally more politically easier and emotionally more acceptable, especially in large, established companies to pursue that which is non-destructive than that which is disruptive and potentially threatens my existing livelihood and my existing revenue stream.
一旦人们或组织设想出完全崭新的市场和机遇，就出现了确保抓住并实现这些机遇的绊脚石。因此，在我们的书中，我们概述了实现这一目标的过程。其中之一是，我们讨论了非破坏性方法的优势，因为它实际上在政治和情感上更容易被接受，尤其是在大型成熟公司中追求非破坏性方法，而不是潜在威胁我现有的生计和现有收入来源的破坏性方法。
So that's in the process of how do I create, how do I reframe and find a way to unlock and how do I realize. And it's all about how do I build a collective confidence and competence. What can be done? What are some of those steps? One thing I think people don't realize is once you start thinking about non-destructive creation, what you start realizing is that it's more prevalent than you begin to imagine.
那么这就是我创造的过程，在这个过程中，我如何进行重新定义、寻找解锁的方法以及如何实现。这一切都与如何建立一种集体信心和能力有关。有什么可以做的？有哪些具体步骤？我认为人们没有意识到的是，一旦你开始思考非破坏性创造，你就会发现它比你想象的更普遍。
It's in front of you everywhere. So what do I mean by that? You think about something like an industry of pet Halloween costumes. They're very big. It's a $500 million industry. It's a non-destructive industry. Life coaching, one of the fastest growing industries in America, non-destructive industry, environmental consulting, non-destructive industry, not disrupting other prior consulting industries that are out there.
这个东西随处可见，就在你面前。那我是什么意思呢？比如说，宠物万圣节装行业，非常庞大，达到了5亿美元产值，这是一个非破坏性的行业；人生辅导是美国增长最快的行业之一，也是一个非破坏性的行业；环境咨询也是一个非破坏性的行业，并不会破坏其他咨询行业的存在。
Yeah, I was kind of surprised to learn that the cruise ship industry was a non-destructive creation because that just didn't exist before. It never existed before. And at that point in time, Americans and the world, there were just the ocean liners and then jet travel for the very, very wealthy started. And so the idea of traveling to different countries and being at the ocean and sea at that point in time that was completely non-destructive.
是的，我有点惊讶地发现，游轮行业是一种非破坏性的创造，因为之前根本不存在这种形式。以前从未有过这样的形式。在那个时候，美国和世界上只有海洋班轮以及很少数非常富有的人可以乘坐飞机旅行。所以在那个时候，旅行到不同的国家，在海洋和海上旅行是完全非破坏性的想法。
So I guess the dishwasher non-destructive just stopped us from washing with our hands. Sanitary napkins that women use on a monthly cycle, non-destructive, right? Sesame Street, non-destructive, it unlocked the preschool entertainment industry. So I think what you need to realize is we are so trained, the economist John Hicks said that our theories are often blinkers or rather rays of light that illuminate part of the target, leaving the rest in the dark.
我猜洗碗机的非破坏性操作使我们不能再用手洗碗了。女性每月使用的卫生巾，也非破坏性对吧？《芝麻街》也是非破坏性的，它开启了学前娱乐产业。因此，我认为你需要意识到我们是如此受训，经济学家约翰·希克斯说我们的理论经常像是目标的盲区或者说明部分的光线，使其他部分处于黑暗状态。
And as we use them, we divert our eyes from other things which are important. We have been trained and John Kurt, I noticed in your first question, trained to think, everything is disruption because that is a lens we've been looking or theory comes from shimperter and disruption. But once we now have a language system, we have a clear definition of what it is and we recognize its importance when you start to look at the world, you start to see non-destructive opportunities and you realize how many non-destructive opportunities are out there.
当我们使用它们时，我们会将目光从其他重要的事物上转移开。我们一直接受着培训，约翰·科特（John Kurt）在你的第一个问题中提到了，培训我们认为一切都是破坏，因为这是我们一直寻找的视角或理论来自于创新和破坏。但是一旦我们拥有了语言体系，我们就有了一个明确的定义，并且我们认识到它的重要性。当你开始观察这个世界时，你会开始看到非破坏性的机会，你会意识到有多少非破坏性的机会在那里。
So this is what we need to start thinking like. You know, Renee, a venture capitalist once told me that there are two kinds of innovation, better faster, cheaper and brave new world. And you've given us a glimpse of that brave new world that more companies can be going after, thanks so much for coming on the show to talk about it.
所以这是我们需要开始思考的方式。你知道，Renee，风险投资家曾告诉我，有两种创新，更好、更快、更便宜和勇敢的新世界。你给我们展示了更多公司可以追求的勇敢新世界，非常感谢你来节目上谈论它。
Thank you so much Kurt. That's Renee Mauborn, a strategy and management professor at INSEAD and a co-author of the new book Beyond Disruption, Innovate and Achieve Growth without displacing industries, companies or jobs.
非常感谢你的 Kurt。这是 INSEAD 的一位策略与管理教授 Renee Mauborn，也是新书《超越颠覆：创新与实现增长，无需动摇产业、公司或就业》的合著者。
And we have more episodes and more podcasts to help you manage your team, your organization and your career, find them at hbr.org slash podcast or search hbr, an Apple podcast, Spotify or wherever you listen.
我们有更多的剧集和播客，帮助您管理团队、组织和职业，您可以在hbr.org/podcast或在Apple podcast、Spotify或您喜欢的任何听音频的平台上搜索HBR查找它们。
This episode was produced by Mary Doe. We get technical help from Rob Eckhart, our audio product manager is Ian Fox and Hannah Bates as our audio production assistant.
本集节目由玛丽·多（Mary Doe）制作。我们得到了罗布·埃克哈特（Rob Eckhart）的技术帮助，我们的音频产品经理是伊恩·福克斯（Ian Fox），汉娜·贝茨（Hannah Bates）则担任我们的音频制作助理。
Thanks for listening to the HBR IDA cast. We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I'm Kurt Nickish.
感谢您收听HBR IDA 播客，我们会在下周二推出新的一期节目。我是库特·尼基什。
Hi, it's Allison. Before you go, I have a question. What do you love about hbr? I worked at newspapers before I came to hbr and the thing that has impressed me most is the amount of attention and care that goes into each and every article. You know, we have multiple editors working on each piece. They put their all into translating these ideas typically from academia or from companies in practice into advice that will really change people's lives in the workplace.
嗨，我是艾莉森。在你离开之前，我想问一个问题。你喜欢哈佛商业评论的哪些方面？在来哈佛商业评论之前，我曾经在报纸上工作过，最让我印象深刻的就是每篇文章都付出了大量的关注和关心。我们有多个编辑在每篇文章上工作。他们全力以赴将这些从学术界或公司实践中得出的思想转化为真正改变人们在工作中生活的建议。
If you love hbr's work, the best thing you can do to support us is to become a subscriber. You can do that at hbr.org slash subscribe IDA cast, all one word, no spaces. 0to3. or slash subscribe, IDA cast. Thanks.
如果你喜爱hbr的作品，最好的支持方式就是成为我们的订阅者。你可以在hbr.org/subscribe IDA cast（全为一个单词，没有空格）或0to3.com/subscribe IDA cast这两个网址进行订阅。谢谢你的支持！