你的计划是什么? / What’s Your Plan?

你的计划是什么?

“不计划未来的国家，未来也难成大业。”

——《纽约时报》“往昔岁月（The Way We Were）” 专栏作家托马斯•弗里德曼（曾三次获普利策奖）。

数月前，弗里德曼在其专栏中，谴责了华盛顿史无前例的两党政治僵局给美国未来规划及政策制定带来的瘫痪性影响。

美国在创新、能源、企业家精神、多元化、制造业复兴等方面显现出积极的势头，但“超级党派之争”却在阻碍美国的进步。这种反差至少是令人担忧的。

虽然作者在专栏中关注的主要是国家层面，但他在文章的后半段也顺便言及企业，阐述了在同理之下，企业长于计划比规划不足的前景更加光明。

道理当然是显而易见的，但似乎还可以补充几句，例如这些关于国家和企业规划的法则同样也适用于个人。

这让我想起几个与中国有关的问题。

首先，中国的五年计划确实要在国际上作更好的宣传。目前国外对“五年计划”存在很多误解，普通外国人即或能对它有零星概念，也会把它和过去高度集中的苏式计划经济联系在一起。

此外，来自党代会、全会、全国人大的公报内容复杂，有时还掺杂了一些遣词造句的不连贯和费解。

当然，对中国有经验和感兴趣的跨国投资者都有自己的专家和顾问，不仅早已将十二五计划烂熟于心，还开始提前占卜十三五计划。对待十八届三中全会的工作报告也是如此。

和十年前相比，中国最大的变化就是参与全球市场的程度，包括资本、商品和其他任何你可以说得出的东西。最佳例证就是在三中全会首份公报发表翌日，世界主要资本市场出现了暴跌。

交易者和分析人士曾高度期盼公报会对新一轮经济及市场深化改革作出重点披露。但由于公报的内容模糊，对许多重要政策问题避而不谈，故而引发了市场的跳水。

了解中国的人都知道，全会精神一般不会在首份公告中详述，通常都会等到一周后随工作报告一并公开。遗憾的是，世界上误会中国的人远远多于了解它的人，这是个难题。

十年前市场并没有做出同样的跳水反应，一部分是因为当时中国尚未具备如今对全球经济的影响力和密切相关程度，另一部分是由于对近十年的领导班子过渡之预测仍存在不确定性；还有一部分是由于新一代领导层正面临诸多经济和其他难题的困扰。

不确定性带来了巨大的经济损失。

自上世纪70年代中期我首次造访中国以来，中国一直在切实推进透明化的进程，但仍亟需进一步增加透明度，并坚持不懈地做好对外沟通。

我在香港居住了近40年，最近在当地的一次午餐会上我曾公开表示，和二、三十年以前相比，我似乎更看不懂中国了。这倒不是假谦虚，我真是这么想。

按弗里德曼的理论，五年计划及人际关系十年计划等相关计划就是例证。这并不是说每个五年计划都能全盘实现，或者每个计划都能及时发布。但是，五年计划是一个高度健全和精细的规划工具，对指导经济决策具有重大的影响力。

实际与国际上的普遍认知相左，中国引入有中国特色的市场经济（它在部分程度上是中国改革开放时代的延续）并没有抹煞五年计划的重要性。远远没有。

甚至可以说如今五年计划的作用与过去相比有过之而无不及。

中国需要改进的是，如何持续不断地向外界传递这个信息。这么做并不单纯是为了外国投资者和外商的利益，从很多原因考虑，也是为了让中国能够在这个全球化的时代得到更多的理解。

虽然弗里德曼写的是国家，但我感觉在个人层面，中国青年可能更关心的是职业规划和人生规划的建议。

有幸获得高等教育的青年纠结很多问题：选择什么专业？实习有多重要？怎么找到实习机会？如今市场还看重高学历吗？

我对年轻朋友的建议是：多听取长辈的意见，对自己的前景、机遇和最佳路径加强理解。不幸的是，学校在提供广泛的就业指导方面往往做得差强人意。

家族或个人“关系”固然重要，但如果过度依赖也可能存在风险。这种关系确实可以为你打开一扇门，找到一份工作，但也会让你背负某种包袱和责任。最终还是要靠自己，除非你想一辈子都当个不能自立的小孩。如果是这样，选择什么职业就无所谓了，除非是超出了你的自尊可以接受的范围。

我记得上大四时和梵文老师有过一次对话，他是位受人尊敬的老教授，以前我从未和他单独聊过天。他问我毕业后有什么打算，我记得我的回答不是非常连贯，因为我还没有想好怎么将我的梦想和就业市场的现实接驳。

老师问我是否下象棋，我说是，但水平不高。他说没关系，只要我能把下棋中“走一步，看三步”的方法用在职业规划上就好，永远要多想一步、两步，甚至更多。

当时这好像是最好的建议，后来我发现事实也的确如此。

马年伊始，是该想想要让这匹马载着我们奔向何方了，同时也别忘了和需要知情的人分享一下旅途的计划。

对企业和领导者而言也是如此。

What’s Your Plan?

“Countries that don’t plan for the future tend not to do well there.”

-- Thomas Friedman, in a NY Times column entitled “The Way We Were”

In this column, published a few months back, Friedman decries the paralyzing impact of unprecedented bi-partisan political deadlock in Washington over the planning and policy decisions essential to charting America’s future.

This “hyper-partisanship” blocks America’s progress, despite a host of other very positive trend lines involving innovation, energy, entrepreneurship, diversity, revitalization of the manufacturing sector, and so on. The paradox is worrying, to say the least.

His focus in this column is mainly America as a country, although he makes a passing reference late in the piece to companies, implying a clear (and obvious) parallel for the relatively positive prospects of companies which plan well for the future versus those who fail to do so.

This is obvious, yet it seems worth commenting on. What applies to countries and companies insofar as planning ahead also applies to individuals.

There are several points which strike me about this as relates to China.

First, China’s Five-Year Plan (FYP) really needs a better international communications effort. Outside of China, it is widely misunderstood. The average foreigner -- if they have any idea of what a Five Year Plan entails -- associates it with a bygone era of highly centralized Soviet-style economic planning.

Add to that the communiques and work plans which emerge from Party Congresses, Plenums and NPC meetings, and it’s a complex picture, sometimes involving inconsistent and confusing rhetoric.

Of course, experienced and interested multinational investors in China have executives and consultants very well-versed by now in the 12th Five-Year Plan, already beginning to read the tea leaves on the 13th. The same goes for the work plan which emerged from the Third Plenum of the 18th Party Congress.

One big difference today compared with ten years ago is the degree to which China moves global markets: equities, commodities, you name it. A perfect example was the sharp plunge in most world equity markets the day after the initial communique of the Third Plenum was released.

Traders and analysts had high expectations that this document would provide highlights of bold new financial and market reforms. Markets tanked because the contents were considered vague, and omitted many important policy questions.

Those who understand China well would have known that the details of a Plenum’s decisions are not contained in the initial communique, but in the work report which normally follows a week or so later. Unfortunately, around the world, those who misunderstand China vastly outnumber those who understand it. Therein lies the rub.

Markets didn’t plunge the last time this happened, ten years ago, in part because China had not yet reached the level of global economic influence and integration which she enjoys today; in part because of the mood of uncertainty which preceded the recent ten-year leadership transition; and in part because of the vexing economic and other challenges which the new leadership faced.

Uncertainty carries significant economic costs.

China has come a long way indeed in terms of transparency since my first visits in the mid-1970s, but there is still a pressing need for more transparency and a better ongoing external communications program.

I said publicly at a recent luncheon presentation in Hong Kong that after nearly 40 years here, I still find China a very confusing place, more so than I did 20-30 years ago. That wasn’t false humility. I mean it.

The 5 Year Plan and related plans like the ten-year human relations plan are examples -- in the context which Friedman was discussing -- of China’s strong points. That’s not to say that all the goals of each Five-Year plan are achieved, or even that the plan itself has always been launched in a timely manner. Still, it is a well-established, highly detailed planning tool with tremendous impact in guiding economic decision-making.

Contrary to widespread perceptions outside China, the embrace of market economics with so-called Chinese characteristics -- part and parcel of the ongoing open door and reform era -- did not erase the importance of the Five-Year Plan. Far from it.

I think it could be argued that the FYP is even more important today than it was before.

What needs to be improved is telling this story to the world outside, on an ongoing basis. This is not purely for the benefit of foreign investors and business people. It is in China’s best interest to be better understood in this era of globalization, for multiple reasons.

Although Friedman was writing about countries, my sense is at the individual level, younger Chinese are keenly interested in career-planning and life-planning advice.

For those fortunate enough to attend college, they wrestle with a host of questions: which major field of study to pursue? How important are internships, and how do you find one? Is an advanced degree essential in today’s market?

My suggestion to younger friends is to keep asking questions of a wide variety of older people, to gain a better understanding of your prospects, opportunities, and the best paths forward. Unfortunately, schools generally don’t do a very good job of providing wide-ranging career advice.

Family or personal “guan-xi” is great, but over-reliance on it can be risky. Of course it can open doors and find jobs, but it also carries a certain amount of baggage and obligation. Ultimately, you’re on your own, unless you want to be a dependent child for life. If that’s the case, then your career choices are not so important anyway, except insofar as your own self-respect goes.

I recall a conversation in my senior year of college with my Sanskrit teacher, a very distinguished older Professor with whom I had never previously had a one-on-one conversation. He asked me about my plans post-graduation. As I recall, my response was not very cohesive because I hadn’t quite figured out how to bridge the gap between what I dreamed of doing, and the reality of the job market.

He asked me if I played chess. I said, yes, but not to a high standard. He said that did not matter, as long as I applied the strategic thinking process of chess to my career planning. Always think and plan one, two, three or more moves ahead.

It seemed like good advice at the time, and I’ve since discovered it was very good advice indeed.

As the Year of the Horse begins, it’s a good time to think about planning where we want the horse to take us, while not forgetting to effectively share our trip plans with those who need to know.

The same goes for companies, and their leaders.