Turnaround Strategies for Small Firms
梳理小企业失败原因，提出分类框架和通用应对策略，并举例说明如何转化为具体行动，适合研究小企业生存与管理的学者参考。
At any given time, between 20 and 30 percent of all companies are in need of a turnaround (Murphy 1986). Turnaround management is a process that involves establishing accountability, conducting diagnostic analyses, setting up an information system, preparing action plans, taking action, and evaluating results (Di Primio 1988). The need for turnarounds is, in part, attributable to factors such as increased competition, overinvestment in technology, more knowledgeable shareholders, and a willingness to gamble on the part of managers (Heany 1985). This need often is felt most in the small business sector, which is particularly distressing because small firms contribute so much to our economy. For the purposes of this article, a small business is defined as a company with fewer than 100 employees and sales of less than $5 millon (Bracker and Pearson 1986). Such companies comprise] 97 percent of all enterprises in the United States and employ more than 58 percent of the labor force (Keats and Bracker 1988). Between 1976 and 1986, small firms created more than three million new jobs (Bracker and Pearson 1986). However, despite these accolades, all is not rosy in the small business sector. The failure rate among small firm is high, although the exact rate is not known. Some researchers suggest that 67 percent of new businesses fail within four years (Cooper, Dunkelberg, and Woo 1989). Others state that nearly one-half of startups fail within 18 months (Ireland and Van Auken 1987). Furthermore, although an extensive review of the literature has produced little information concerning turnaround strategies for small firms, a common theme has been detected. The purpose of this article is to: (1) propose a typology for categorizing causes of small business failure, (2) propose a set of generic approaches to counteract the causes of failure identified within the typology, and (3) provide examples of how the generic approaches translate into specific actions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a majority of businesses have failed because of internal factors affected by managerial action and discipline. Examples include failure to control operational costs and failure to analyze financial statements. In fact, the literature indicates few business failures can be attributed to competion and other outside (external) forces (e.g., national, regional, or industrial economic downturn). To establish primary causes of business failure, 30 articles were reviewed. These articles, published between 1972 and 1989 in 20 different publications, represented the work of 44 authors. They included case studies, empirical research, and anecdotal reports extracted from more than 100 potential sources of business failure literature. The literature review yielded 24 factors that are considered by the practitioners and researchers to contribute toward failure of small firms (see table 1). PROPOSED TYPOLOGY The 24 factors identified through the literature search can be analyzed from a number of different perspectives. Some of the obvious typologies include categorizing factors by: (1) business functions such as finance, marketing, and human resources; (2) whether they originate internally or externally, (3) whether they are strategic or operational (short- or long-term) in nature, and (4) whether they are within or outside of the firm's control. A simple yet elegant way to capture the value of all these perspectives was to develop a 2 x 2 matrix (see figure 1). The vertical axis of the Environment/Response matrix divides the factors based on whether they are part of a firm's internal environment (under management's control) or its external environment (beyond management's control). The horizontal axis distinguishes among the factors based on whether they are administrative or strategic in nature. Administrative factors include short-term operational activities, such as scheduling procedures, managing employees, and analyzing reports. …