家族企業(yè)需要證明自己的優(yōu)越性
家族擁有的企業(yè)以往得不到太多尊重——如果它們被人注意到的話。許多上市公司擁有分散的所有權(quán)，由職業(yè)高管進(jìn)行管理，后者獲得驅(qū)使他們拿出業(yè)績的財務(wù)激勵，并受到維權(quán)股東的持續(xù)壓力。
When many family businesses make the news, it is often because of disputes among relatives, such as the bitter tussle between the Ambani brothers in India, or when the next generation at companies such as News Corp struggle to show they can match the founder or leader.
許多家族企業(yè)登上新聞，往往是因為親屬之間的糾紛，如印度安巴尼(Ambani)兄弟之間的激烈爭斗，或是新聞集團(tuán)(News Corp)等公司的下一代竭力證明自己并不遜于創(chuàng)始人或領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的時候。
But things are changing for family companies. For one thing, the model of capitalism followed since the shareholder revolution of the 1970s and 1980s, is looking tired. As the tenure of chief executives decreases and the clamour from hedge funds for short-term returns increases, doubts are growing about whether this is the best way to build a company’s long-term value.
但對家族企業(yè)來說，事情正在發(fā)生變化。首先，自上世紀(jì)70和80年代股東革命以來遵循的資本主義模式已顯出疲態(tài)。隨著首席執(zhí)行官任期縮短，隨著對沖基金競相要求短期回報，人們越來越懷疑這是不是打造公司長期價值的最佳方式。
Meanwhile, despite their image of being cautious and inward-looking, family-owned businesses on average perform well. Credit Suisse research found that the returns of 1,000 such companies outperformed public markets by 55 per cent between 2006 and this year. This was despite having slacker governance standards and a conservative attitude to risk-taking.
與此同時，盡管給外界以謹(jǐn)慎和保守內(nèi)向的形象，但家族企業(yè)總的來看表現(xiàn)得很好。瑞信(Credit Suisse)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，從2006年至2017年，1000家家族企業(yè)的回報率比上市公司高出55%——這還是在治理標(biāo)準(zhǔn)比較松散、對冒險持保守態(tài)度的背景下。
Another reason to rethink is that the rise of technology giants still controlled by their founders means that some of the world’s most valuable companies are family controlled (Credit Suisse defined this as a family or founder holding a 20 per cent stake or voting control). That includes Alphabet, Google’s parent company, Facebook and Alibaba, the Chinese internet giant, as well as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway.
讓人重新思考的另一原因是，仍由創(chuàng)始人控制的科技巨頭的崛起意味著，全球估值最高的一些公司是由家族控制的(瑞信對此的定義是一個家族或者創(chuàng)始人持有20%股權(quán)或投票控制權(quán))。這些企業(yè)包括谷歌(Google)的母公司Alphabet、Facebook、中國互聯(lián)網(wǎng)巨頭阿里巴巴(Alibaba)以及沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)旗下的伯克希爾哈撒韋公司(Berkshire Hathaway)。
The trend may be reinforced through the rise of Chinese and other Asian family groups. Of the 1,000 studied by Credit Suisse, more than half — 536 — were Asian. Asian family companies tend to be younger than their European equivalents and are based in faster growing economies, which has helped the Korean chaebol and Indian “promoters”, a term often used in India to describe a firm’s founding shareholders.
中國等亞洲國家家族企業(yè)的崛起可能強(qiáng)化這種趨勢。在瑞信研究的1000家家族企業(yè)中，超過半數(shù)(536家)為亞洲企業(yè)。亞洲家族企業(yè)往往比歐洲家族企業(yè)年輕，而且都在增長較快的經(jīng)濟(jì)體，這推動了韓國財閥(chaebol)和印度“發(fā)起人”(promoter，在印度常被用于稱呼一家公司的創(chuàng)始股東)的崛起。
Family companies still have vulnerabilities. A long-running study of management practices at 12,000 companies in 34 countries by academics at London Business School found that family companies scored the lowest on operational excellence. That was often because family members wanted to retain operational control and were unwilling to recruit outside managers with expertise.
家族企業(yè)仍然存在一些脆弱性。倫敦商學(xué)院(London Business School)的學(xué)者對34個國家1.2萬家企業(yè)的管理實踐進(jìn)行的長期研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，家族企業(yè)在運(yùn)營卓越方面得分最低。這往往是因為家族成員希望保留運(yùn)營控制權(quán)，不愿聘用具有專長的外部經(jīng)理人。
Despite that, as a UBS study of family companies found, the positives often outweigh the negatives. Family companies have advantages over those with more dispersed and less loyal shareholders — a keener sense of identity and the essence of the company, the willingness to make long-term investments that will not pay off for some years, as well as more purpose.
盡管如此，正如瑞銀(UBS)對家族企業(yè)的一項研究所發(fā)現(xiàn)的，家族企業(yè)的積極因素往往大于消極因素。相比那些股東更分散、忠誠度較低的公司，家族企業(yè)的優(yōu)勢在于對企業(yè)身份和精髓的強(qiáng)烈認(rèn)同，愿意作出多年后才能收回投資的長期投資，以及更具目的性。
“The most successful business-owning families do not put profit maximisation first,” writes Denise Kenyon-Rouvinez, professor of family business at the IMD business school in Lausanne. “When you spend time with them, you notice that they have an intense pride for the business and its history. They also have a really deep sense of family, unity and mutual support.”
“最成功的商業(yè)家族不會把利潤最大化放在首位，”瑞士洛桑國際管理發(fā)展學(xué)院(IMD)研究家族企業(yè)的丹尼絲•凱尼恩-羅維內(nèi)茲(Denise Kenyon-Rouvinez)教授表示，“當(dāng)你花時間和他們相處時，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們對企業(yè)及其歷史有著強(qiáng)烈的自豪感。他們還擁有十分深厚的家族、團(tuán)結(jié)和相互支持意識。”
This has financial value. Family companies, especially those still based where they were founded, are unlikely to put at risk what they have built over generations by becoming over-stretched or diversifying from their roots. Family shareholders of companies such as Frescobaldi, the Tuscan winemaker that was founded 700 years ago, will stay committed.
這一點具有財務(wù)價值。家族企業(yè)，尤其是那些總部仍位于創(chuàng)始地點的企業(yè)，不太可能由于過度擴(kuò)張或偏離根基的多元化而使幾代人建立的基業(yè)面臨風(fēng)險。擁有700年歷史的托斯卡納葡萄酒釀造商花思蝶(Frescobaldi)等企業(yè)的家族股東將繼續(xù)守業(yè)。
Most businesses start out under family control — the exceptions are those started by, or spun out of, established public companies. Most of them also remain within private and family control: they never reach the size where they are confronted with the prospect of dealing with other shareholders.
大多數(shù)企業(yè)都是在家族控制下起家的——例外的是那些由老牌上市公司創(chuàng)建或剝離的企業(yè)。其中多數(shù)仍處于私人和家族控制之下：永遠(yuǎn)達(dá)不到要與其他股東打交道的規(guī)模。
Even for large companies, retaining familial control has also become easier. There is no shortage of private equity for companies that want to expand without having to go public. Many Silicon Valley venture funds also support the founders retaining control through dual class voting shares if companies go public — they regard that as conducive to long-term growth.
即便對于大企業(yè)，保持家族控制也已經(jīng)變得更加容易。對于那些希望不通過上市進(jìn)行擴(kuò)張的公司來說，私人股本并不稀缺。如果企業(yè)要上市，許多硅谷風(fēng)投基金也支持企業(yè)創(chuàng)始人通過雙重股權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)保留對公司的控制權(quán)——他們認(rèn)為這有利于長期增長。
But the blurring of the line between private family businesses and public companies with dispersed shareholders brings with it new challenges. The founders of companies such as Alphabet and Facebook have made big claims for the benefits of being allowed to retain control. However, controversy at Uber under Travis Kalanick, its co-founder, who resigned this year after a series of scandals that made observers questions his leadership, cast doubt on the wisdom of this.
但是，私人家族企業(yè)與擁有分散股東的上市公司之間界限越來越模糊，也帶來了新的挑戰(zhàn)。Alphabet、Facebook等公司的創(chuàng)始人極力鼓吹自己被允許保留控制權(quán)的好處。然而，優(yōu)步在聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人特拉維斯•卡蘭尼克(Travis Kalanick)執(zhí)掌下曝出的爭議，讓人對這種做法的明智性產(chǎn)生懷疑?？ㄌm尼克今年在一系列丑聞曝光后辭去首席執(zhí)行官職務(wù)，這些丑聞引發(fā)觀察人士質(zhì)疑其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力。
As family companies gain more attention, their benefits and drawbacks will no longer remain of limited interest. Public companies with dispersed shareholders have faced such scrutiny for decades. If families believe they can build businesses more effectively, they will need to prove it.
隨著家族企業(yè)獲得更多關(guān)注，人們對它們的優(yōu)勢和劣勢將不再興趣有限。擁有分散股東的上市公司受到這樣的關(guān)注已有好幾十年。如果家族相信自己能夠更有效地打造企業(yè)，他們將需要證明這一點。
