经济学人下载:IBM vs 卡耐基基金会

Why, by contrast, has the Carnegie Corporation seen its influence decline? There are many possible explanations. While it has stayed the same during the past 50 years, governments and private companies have grown far bigger. Alan Pifer, the foundation’s president after Gardner, has likened traditional foundations such as his to the dodo, saying that they now need to develop “slim bodies and well-developed wings”. This meant focusing on “critical points of leverage”, where a foundation’s grants could have a disproportionately large effect by influencing the money and power of other institutions, not least government. Today’s leading philanthropists, from Bill Gates down, also talk the language of leverage—but there are grounds to think they are doing better at it than the Carnegie Corporation is.

为什么与之相比卡耐基基金会的影响力却下降了呢？可能的解释有很多。虽然它在过去的50年里几乎没怎么变，但是政府和私人公司却扩大了很多。加德纳的继任者阿兰??派弗（Alan Pifer）把传统基金会和渡渡鸟联系在一起，说称基金会现在需要锻炼“苗条的身体和发达的翅膀”。这意味着集中精神于“杠杆的关节点”，一个基金会的资金可以通过影响其他机构的资金和力量、特别是政府的，来达到不成比例的巨大效果。今天的慈善领头羊从比尔盖茨算起也谈到了杠杆的作用——但是有理由相信他们现在做的比卡耐基基金会做的更好。

Another reason for Carnegie’s relative decline may be that 100 years is too old for a philanthropic foundation. The absence of an existential threat may have made it too comfortable. IBM transformed itself under Lou Gerstner when it nearly ran out of cash in the early 1990s, and again more recently under Mr Palmisano when Indian rivals threatened to steal its business. By contrast, it is not clear what, if anything, keeps the people in charge of the Carnegie Corporation awake at night. The passage of time saps a foundation of the unique energy of its founder. Carnegie said of the unknown future leaders of his foundation that “they shall best conform to my wishes by using their own judgment.” That much they have done, but he would probably have fared better.

卡耐基相对下降的另一个原因可能是100岁对于一个慈善机构来说太老了。没有威胁存在也许使它太舒坦了。90年代初IBM在几乎用尽现金的情况下，在郭士纳（Lou Gerstner）的管理下改变，最近又在印度竞争者威胁到要夺取它的业务时在彭明盛先生领导下转变。与之相比，还不清楚到底什么让领导卡耐基基金会的人一直保持清醒。时间的流逝使一个基金会创始人独特的能量逐渐消逝。卡耐基提到未知的他的基金会的未来领导人时说“他们最好利用自己的判断遵循我的遗嘱。”他们确实做了很多，但是他可能做的更好。

No wonder many of today’s philanthropists aim, as Carnegie did, to give away all their money by the time they die, or at least put a time limit on the lifespan of their foundation after their death. The Gates Foundation will have to be wound down 50 years after the second of Bill and Melinda Gates dies.

难怪今天很多慈善家像卡耐基那样立志在离开人世前散尽家财，或者至少为他们死后其基金会的寿命画上一个时间界限。在比尔和梅琳达盖茨都离开人世后，盖茨基金会将继续50年。

The achievements of IBM and the Carnegie Corporation are impossible to quantify mathematically. What seems clear, though, is that as it enters its second century, IBM can plausibly hope that its best years lie ahead. Alas, that seems most unlikely for Carnegie.

IBM和卡耐基基金会的成就无法用数字衡量。不过比较明确的是随着IBM进入第二个百年，它可以希望未来会更好。哎，对于卡耐基基金会来说这似乎不太可能了。