真正的商戰寶典不是《孫子兵法》，而是《道德經》！

10年前，創新者開始把顛覆作為前進口號，并引用《孫子兵法》中的觀點加以佐證。這批剛剛出現的顛覆者把這本中國古典哲學著作奉為起步指南。

借鑒中國古典哲學是對的，但他們找錯了書。

其實，另一部中國古典著作《道德經》提出的創新模式遠比《孫子兵法》寬泛，也更具革命性。和《孫子兵法》一樣，《道德經》也有2000多年的歷史，其內容神妙莫測，發人深省。它同樣告訴人們看似弱小的一方如何以弱勝強。不過，二者相似之處也只有這一點。

《孫子兵法》認為，不循規蹈矩，采取出人意料的策略，軍事將領就可以戰勝看似處于優勢地位的對手——商業領袖也是如此，就像大衛用不起眼的彈弓來對付笨重呆滯的歌利亞。不過，《孫子兵法》認為，顛覆者必須考慮戰場實際地形等因素，而且要采取穩定且一致的招數對付敵人。

與之相反，《道德經》認為我們不應該在既定、可預測的領域實施創新策略，無論是戰場、餐桌、董事會會議室還是鋼鐵行業。《道德經》提出，世界一直處于變化和運動之中。

在大多數情況下，包括最普通的日常活動中，我們都傾向于接受一個穩定的世界。然而，總會有一些愛抬杠的尖刻同事喜歡跟人較真兒，傷人感情。有時候，我們可能會用不同的方式來跟這種人打交道。比如，態度更堅決，看看能不能鎮住；或者，我們可能會按照《孫子兵法》所說，用“以柔克剛”的手段搞定他。

《道德經》的觀點則和上述兩種方法截然不同。它的重點不是對立雙方的關系，而是從大局出發，尋找改變整體局勢的方法。結果是，我們根本沒必要跟愛抬杠的同事較勁。關鍵在于理解一條基本原則，就是盡管我們傾向于認為事物都很穩定，因為這樣更容易把握，但實際上，任何情況都源于很多不斷變化、關系相互交織的人群之間相互作用。

我們通常都會對他人的行為做出反應，對方也是如此。比如，別人突然皺一下眉，就會讓我們心情變差，和別人分享歡樂則讓我們感覺充滿活力。我們也會對看起來很穩定的事物做出反應，比如，在一個沒有窗戶的封閉房間里呆一會就會燥熱難耐，后來跟一個重要客戶打電話結果完全沒法溝通，覺得煩躁不已，兩種感覺如此一致不是很正常嗎？

正是出于這個原因，《道德經》式的創新不會基于一成不變的情況，無論是格局、關系，還是某個行業，也不會建議在穩定的環境下采取新策略來搞定對手。

《道德經》式創新的基礎是認識如果所有事物都由不斷變化的部分組成，細微的舉動就足以改變世界，甚至徹底顛覆。《道德經》式創新者認為，改變可以在不知不覺中完成，新秩序會迅速成為常態。

《道德經》式創新者把無為作為準則：看似無所作為，實則順勢而動達到無不為之境。他們可能相當積極主動，沒準相當有勢力，甚至可能位高權重。但他們之所以是《道德經》式創新者，原因在于他們看似在管理，但管的并非如我們所見。

現如今，人人會對全天候接觸新聞資訊習以為常。但這在幾十年前還無法想象。CNN創始人泰德?特納改變了這一切。他所做的不只是通過開發技術挑戰當時的媒體網絡及其對信息的把控，更重要的是通過改變潛在的認識，讓媒體網絡的運營環境發生變化。在他創造的新世界中，新聞不再屬于幾家電視臺，每天也不會只能看幾個小時，人們意識到每時每刻都應該能看到實時新聞。

亞馬遜也是起步于經典的顛覆性舉動，就是用新技術（互聯網和網站）改革以實體書店為基礎的圖書銷售行業。貝索斯沒有沉浸于一次策略成功帶來的盈利，他不斷地進入一個又一個行業，經常代價慘重，有時甚至看起來很愚蠢。

雖然表面上看，貝索斯也許只是想顛覆更多的行業，但他真正的顛覆行為是創造了一個全新的世界。在這個世界里，所有人做任何事都要先去亞馬遜。貝索斯并不是在顛覆圖書銷售行業，也沒有顛覆其他行業。在他創造的新世界中，行業已經沒那么重要，因為通過亞馬遜的網站可以滿足大量購物需求。

而讓創新者異常強大的一點是，我們進入由他人開創的新世界時都毫無意識。想想一個眾所周知的案例，就是iPhone的問世。iPhone擊敗了Palm Pilot，基本上消滅了黑莓手機，搖身變成智能手機領域的霸主。盡管提出顛覆理論的克萊頓?克里斯坦森錯誤地預計iPhone將遭遇失敗，但他后來辯解說，錯誤的原因并不是理論存在缺陷，而是他沒意識到iPhone顛覆的是筆記本電腦行業，而非他當初認為的智能手機行業。

實際情況表明，iPhone并沒有顛覆筆記本電腦行業。大多數人仍然在愉快地同時使用兩種設備。iPhone也沒有真正顛覆智能手機行業。從《道德經》的角度來看，iPhone最大的意義在于開創了一個全新的世界，人們都習慣了身邊要有個人電腦。實際上，當初硅谷開發觸屏技術時，喬布斯可以選擇走平板電腦路線。畢竟，配備實體鍵盤的筆記本電腦總是有些累贅，而使用觸屏的平板電腦應該能顛覆筆記本電腦行業。

然而，喬布斯決定把這項新技術用于手機。在顛覆理論看來，這樣做并不明智，原因是大家都已經有手機了。按照《道德經》的觀點，喬布斯創造新世界的方法就是把我們已經在用而且隨時都帶在身邊的日常用品徹底改造。隨著人們用上這款新手機，就慢慢開始習慣手上隨時有個電腦。這種改變并未顛覆諾基亞或者黑莓，只是讓那些產品變得很落伍。在此之后，和iPhone抗衡的不再是Palm Pilot，而是安卓，一種同樣適用新世界法則的手機系統，一個如今我們覺得很自然的世界。

所以，想創新的人看待世界時最好還是根據《道德經》而不是《孫子兵法》。如果把人生比作一盤棋，踐行《孫子兵法》的人會竭盡全力取勝，前提是棋盤、棋子和對手都不變；而《道德經》式創新者則清楚地知道，棋盤隨時都可以打翻，所以，他們會完全轉向另一種游戲，而且沒人會意識到出現變化。（財富中文網）

邁克爾?普伊特和克莉絲汀?格羅斯-羅共同撰寫了《道路：中國哲學能教給我們的幸福生活》（ The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us about the Good Life）一書（Simon & Schuster出版社，2016年）

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

When disruption became the rallying cry for innovators a decade ago, they seized on ancient work of Chinese philosophy to prove their point. In Sun-Tzu’s Art of War, a new class of business disrupters claimed to have found the original manual.

They were right about ancient Chinese philosophy, but wrong about the manual.

As it turns out, another text from China, the Laozi, actually offers a much more expansive—and revolutionary—vision of innovation. Like the Art of War, the Laozi is a 2000-year-old text full of inscrutable and aphoristic sound bites. It too teaches how the seemingly weaker can defeat the more powerful. But that is where the similarities end.

The Art of War says that victory comes to a general—read, a business leader—who avoids following conventional strategies and instead uses surprising tactics to unsettle a seemingly dominant opponent: David wielding his humble slingshot against a clueless, stodgy Goliath. But it assumes that the disrupter has to take into account things like the actual terrain on which he is fighting and that he must treat his adversary as stable and unchanging.

The Laozi, by contrast, questions the very idea that we should try to come up with innovative strategies within a defined, predictable arena, whether that is the battlefield or dinner table, the boardroom or the steel industry. Instead, the Laozi assumes a world in constant flux and motion.

In most situations, including the most mundane daily interactions, we tend to assume stability. Our pugnacious and abrasive coworker is, by and large, always pugnacious and abrasive. We might change how we approach him at times—trying out a more assertive demeanor to see if that works against him. Or we might try the approach the Art of Waradvocates, and act in a softer way to try to neutralize him.

But the Laozi diverges from both of these approaches completely. It doesn’t focus on the relationship between two potential opponents. It focuses instead on the big picture—on what it would take to change the situation altogether so that the result would be that we wouldn’t have to deal with a pugnacious colleague at all. The key lies in understanding one basic idea: although we tend to think of things as stable because that makes them easier to grasp, every situation that ever arises actually results from interactions between sets of constantly shifting, interweaving worlds.

We mostly react to other people, and they to us: we get dispirited by someone’s unexpected frown or we feel energy from sharing a laugh. We also react to things that we assume are stable—like, say, an airless room with no window. Is it any surprise that we emerge from it feeling cranky, a mood that becomes the undercurrent to a disastrous phone call later that day with an important client?

That’s why innovation in Laozian terms doesn’t come from seeing a given situation—a landscape, a relationship, an industry—as unchanging, and then coming up with a fresh tactic within that stable situation to neutralize an opponent.

Instead, Laozian innovation comes from an awareness that if everything is composed of moving parts, subtle actions allow one to alter or even make the world into something new. And Laozian innovators see this happening so seamlessly that the new order quickly becomes taken for granted.

This kind of innovator acts according to wu-wei, or the principle of non-action: seeming not to act while actually directing everything. These innovators may be active and even overtly powerful. They can even be in positions of considerable power. But what makes them Laozian is that while they look as though they are directing something, it’s not what we think they are directing.

No one today questions the right to news information 24 hours a day. But a few short decades ago this was, of course, unimaginable. Ted Turner changed all that. He didn’t just use developing technologies to challenge the networks and their hold on the news. He changed the world they were operating in, by changing the assumptions behind it. He created a new one that crushed the idea that the news belonged to a few TV channels and a few hours of the day, and thus helped pave the way for the day when everyone can assume news is delivered instantly and around the clock.

Amazon, too, began with a classic disruption move: using new technology (the internet and a website) to disrupt a book industry based upon physical bookstores. But instead of enjoying the profitability that could result from such a classic strategy, Bezos kept moving into industry after industry, often at great and seemingly foolish financial cost.

Though it may have appeared that he was simply disrupting more industries, his real subversive move was to create a new world altogether, where Amazon would simply become the first place anyone would ever go for anything. Bezos did not disrupt the book industry or even several industries. He created a new world where those industries became less relevant because a large amount of shopping would now be done through this one website.

It’s that we don’t realize that we are entering these new worlds created by others that makes them so powerful. Think of one well-known example—the introduction of the iPhone, which brought down the Palm Pilot, practically annihilated the Blackberry, and went on to become the go-to product in the smartphone industry. Even though Clayton Christensen, the creator of disruption theory, incorrectly predicted that the iPhone would be a failure, he argued later that his mistake had not been due to a flaw in the theory itself, but to his having failed to recognize that the iPhone was disrupting the laptop industry, not the smartphone industry as he’d originally assumed.

As it turns out, the iPhone did not disrupt the laptop industry. Most of us happily use both a laptop and an iPhone. It did not really disrupt the smartphone industry either. What it really did, in Laozian terms, was generate an entirely new world, one in which we now take for granted that personal computers should always be by our side. In fact, when touchscreen technologies were being developed in Silicon Valley, Jobs could have gone the tablet route. Indeed, a touchscreen tablet would have disrupted a laptop industry constrained by the burdensome shape required to accommodate a keyboard.

But Jobs decided to use the new technology on a phone, which from the perspective of disruption theory looked unwise, since everyone already owned one. In Laozian terms, Jobs created a new world simply through completely reinventing a daily object we already used and carried around all the time. As we used this “phone,” we slowly began to take it for granted that we would always have a personal computer within our palm at any given moment. This didn’t disrupt Nokia or Blackberry; it simply rendered their products irrelevant. Thereafter, competition with an iPhone wouldn’t come from a Palm Pilot; it would come from an Android, which was operating within this new world; a world we now take as natural.

That’s why those who aspire to innovate are better off seeing the world through a Laozian, not Sunzian, lens. If life is like a game of chess, Sunzians concentrate all their effort towards winning in a situation in which the board, the pieces, and the opponent are immutable. Laozian innovators know the chessboard can be tipped over at any moment. So they shift to another game entirely without anyone even realizing what is being changed.

Michael Puett and Christine Gross-Loh are the authors of The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us about the Good Life (Simon & Schuster, 2016)