When Sam originally sent an email for me to do this course, he said "Ben can you teach a fifty minute course on management?" And I immediately thought to myself, "Wow, I just wrote a three hundred page book on management.
山姆最初给我发邮件邀请我做这门课时，他说："本，你能讲一堂50分钟的管理课吗？"我立刻想到："哇，我刚写了一本三百页的管理学书。 So that book was entirely too long
这本书太长了."

I didn't actually have time to collapse the three hundred pages into fifty minutes. Like Mark Twain, I didn't have time to write a good short letter, so I'm going to write a long letter.
实际上，我没有时间把三百页的内容压缩成五十分钟。就像马克-吐温一样，我没有时间写一封好的短信，所以我要写一封长信。 But in this case, I am going to teach exactly one management concept.
但在这里，我要讲授的正是一种管理理念。

I see CEO's mess up this one management concept more consistently than anything else. From when they're very, very early to when they're very, very big as a company. It's the easiest thing to say and the most difficult to master. The concept in musical form is from Sly and the Family Stone. "Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong. My beliefs are in my song. No difference what group I'm in.
我看到首席执行官们总是把这一管理理念弄得一团糟。从他们创业初期，到公司发展壮大，都是如此。这是最容易说，也是最难掌握的。音乐形式的概念来自 "狡猾的石头 "乐队（Sly and the Family Stone）。"有时我是对的，有时我可能是错的。我的信念就在我的歌里。我在哪个团体都一样。"

That's the musical version of today's lesson. For those of you who are musical, you can leave now.
这就是今天课程的音乐版。喜欢音乐的同学可以走了。

When you're making a critical decision, you have to understand how it's going to be interpreted from all points of view. Not just your point of view and not just the person you're talking to but the people who aren't in the room, everybody else. In other words, you have to be able, when making critical decisions, to see the decision through the eyes of the company as a whole
当你做出一个重要决定时，你必须了解所有观点会如何解读这个决定。不仅仅是你自己的观点，也不仅仅是与你谈话的人的观点，还包括不在房间里的其他人的观点。换句话说，在做出关键决策时，你必须能够从整个公司的角度来看待决策。. You have to add up every employee's view and then incorporate that into your own view
.您必须将每位员工的观点加在一起，然后纳入自己的观点中。. Otherwise your management decisions are going to have weird side effects and potentially dangerous consequences.
.否则，你的管理决策就会产生奇怪的副作用和潜在的危险后果。 It's a hard thing to do because at the point when you are making a decision, you're often under a great deal of pressure.
这是一件很难的事情，因为在你做出决定的时候，你往往承受着巨大的压力。

Let's get into the agenda. I am going to cover four cases. First, I am going to cover demotions, which are very emotional. Then raises, which are also emotional. Then we are going to evaluate one of Sam's blog posts
让我们进入议程。我将介绍四个案例。首先是降职，这是非常情绪化的。然后是加薪，这也很情绪化。然后，我们将评估萨姆的一篇博文, which is news to Sam. I figured I'd tease him since he invited me to do a fifty minute management class after I wrote a three hundred page book.
这对山姆来说是个新闻。我想既然他在我写了一本三百页的书后邀请我去上一堂五十分钟的管理课，那我就逗逗他吧。

Then I'm going to talk about history's greatest practitioner at this
接下来，我将谈谈历史上最伟大的实践者。, I'm wearing a shirt with him on it
我穿着印有他的衬衫, and how he used it to do something that nobody had ever done and has ever done since in human history
以及他如何利用它做出了人类历史上前无古人、后无来者的事情. Basically complete mastery of the technique I am going to talk about.
.基本上完全掌握我要讲的技术。

So, first business example, you've got an executive, and do you demote or do you fire him? This comes from an actual conversation, an actual real life situation that I was working on with a CEO. The basic situation was this: he had a great executive he had hired. He was working harder than anybody else in the company and was doing everything he was supposed to. Everybody liked him because he worked so hard and was a generally a smart person, but he was in over his head knowledge-wise. He did not have the knowledge and the skills to do what the company needed him to do or really compete against the competition. So he couldn't actually keep him in the job, but he was a great guy. So the question is, should I fire this person or can I just move him into a lower role and bring in a person above him. That would be cool. Let's look at how
那么，第一个商业案例，你有一位高管，你是要降职还是要解雇他？这来自于一次真实的对话，是我与一位首席执行官合作时遇到的真实情况。基本情况是这样的：他聘用了一位优秀的高管。他在公司里比任何人都努力工作，做了他应该做的一切。大家都很喜欢他，因为他工作非常努力，而且总体上是个聪明人，但他在知识方面却力不从心。他没有足够的知识和技能来完成公司需要他做的事情，也无法真正与竞争对手竞争。因此，他实际上无法让他继续工作，但他是个很好的人。所以问题是，我是应该解雇这个人，还是可以把他调到低一级的职位，再找一个高于他的人。这样就很酷了。让我们看看 you make that decision.
你做出这个决定。

You are, in this case, the CEO. It's really hard if somebody comes to work every day at six AM, is working until ten PM, and is working harder than anybody in the company. It's really hard to just say, "Well sorry, nice effort but you don't get an A for an effort. You get an F because I fired you."
在这种情况下，你就是首席执行官。如果有人每天早上六点上班，一直工作到晚上十点，比公司里任何人都努力，这真的很难。你很难对他说："对不起，你干得很好，但你的努力得不到 A。你得的是 F，因为我炒了你"。

Nobody wants to have that conversation. A demotion is kind of neat because from a CEO's point of view, he can keep him in the company. He works so hard. He's a great example of somebody who gives great effort. He's got a lot of friends in the company, so from a cultural stand point it's a win/win because he gets to stay. Then I can bring in somebody who can solve my problem but I don't have to create another problem.
没有人愿意进行这样的对话。降职是件好事，因为从首席执行官的角度来看，他可以把他留在公司。他工作非常努力。他是努力工作的好榜样。他在公司里有很多朋友，所以从文化角度来看，这是一个双赢的结果，因为他可以留下来。这样，我就可以引进一个能解决我的问题的人，但我不必再制造另一个问题。

If you think about it from the executive's perspective, it's like, "I don't want to be demoted but I really don't want to be fired because if I get fired, that’s a way harder more complicated thing to explain to my next employer that I got demoted. Getting demoted is, well I didn't really get demoted. I got a new job, a smaller title."
如果你从高管的角度考虑，就会觉得 "我不想被降职，但我真的不想被炒鱿鱼，因为如果我被炒鱿鱼了，要向我的下一任雇主解释我被降职了，就会变得更加困难和复杂。被降职，其实我并没有真的被降职。我得到了一份新工作，一个小头衔"。

The last thing it enables, theoretically: the company values all of our employees. We brought you in. We made a commitment
最后一点，从理论上说：公司重视所有员工。我们把你们带进来。我们承诺 to you as an employee and it will enable you to keep growing with the company. This was the conversation I was having with the CEO and I said, “Well, wait a minute. Let me ask you this. What's the equity package that this executive has?" He goes, “Well, what do you mean?" I was like, “Well I would like to see direct level of compensation? Does he get a Vice President level of compensation? Does he have 1.5%? Does he have 0.4%?"
作为一名员工，它能让你与公司一起不断成长。这就是我和首席执行官的对话，我说："好吧，等一下。我问你。这位高管的股权待遇是多少？"他说："什么意思？"我说："我想知道直接的薪酬水平？他的薪酬是副总裁级别的吗？他有 1.5%吗？还是 0.4%？"

That gave the CEO pause. He's like, “Well, he does have 1.5% of the fully-diluted equity of the company." And I was like, “Ok. So you're an engineer in your company. How do you feel about somebody who used to be the head of sales who brought in with 1.5%? What do your engineers get? Do they get 0.1% of the company? 0.2%? What are they getting at this point? How are they going to feel about somebody who is NOT the Head of Sales with one point five percent of the company?" And he was like, " Uh oh." And I was like, “Yeah! Uh oh. Because how fair is that? Are you going to take the equity away? Are you up to do that? Are you up to go back and take back his compensation? How productive do you think he'll be if you take away his compensation? Secondly, will people give him the same respect now that you've demoted him? Because they knew him as this
这让首席执行官停顿了一下。他说："嗯，他确实拥有公司全部稀释股权的 1.5%"。我就说："好吧，你是公司的工程师。你怎么看待一个曾经是销售主管的人带来 1.5% 的股份？你们的工程师能得到什么？他们能拿到公司的 0.1%？0.2%?他们现在能得到什么？如果有人不是销售主管，却拿着公司 1.5%的股份，他们会怎么想？他说 "哦"我说，"是啊！哦这多公平啊？你要把股权拿走吗？你能做到吗？你能回去收回他的补偿金吗？如果你剥夺了他的报酬，你觉得他还能有多高的生产力？其次，你把他降职了，人们还会给他同样的尊重吗？因为他们知道他是这样的 and now he's that
现在他是. "I knew you when you were Head of Sales now you're the Regional Manager and you're telling me what the f*** to do? You're telling me I need to make that call? It seems to me you got demoted. Who are you to talk to me? I am the up and comer. I am going to be the next VP of Sales at the company."
."你当销售主管的时候我就认识你了 现在你是区域经理了 你还告诉我他妈的该怎么做？你是说我要打那个电话？在我看来你被降职了你凭什么跟我说话？我是后起之秀我要成为公司下一任销售副总裁。"
All these things come into play. When you look at the end, you may think you are dealing with one person. You may think that this is a demotion or a firing of one person. What does it mean according to that one person? But what you are really doing is saying, what does it mean to fail on the job? Particularly the highest paid, the highest compensated job in the company from an equity standpoint. And then, what's required to maintain your equity? Is it good enough to put in an effort or do you have to get a result? In different situations at different levels, the answers will be different. If this had been a person who was not an Executive brought in from the outside, but someone you promoted past where they should have been and didn't ever get that equity, maybe you make a different decision but you have to understand what it's going to mean to everybody, not just the person you're talking to.
所有这些都会发挥作用。当你看到最后，你可能会认为你面对的是一个人。你可能认为这是降职或解雇一个人。对那个人来说，这意味着什么？但你真正要做的是说，工作失败意味着什么？尤其是从公平的角度来看，这是公司里收入最高、报酬最高的工作。然后，怎样才能保持你的权益？是付出努力就够了，还是必须要有结果？在不同级别的不同情况下，答案会有所不同。如果这个人不是从外部引进的高管，而是你提拔的人，他已经超过了本应达到的水平，但却没有获得股权，也许你会做出不同的决定，但你必须明白这对每个人都意味着什么，而不仅仅是你正在交谈的那个人。

Example two: An excellent employee asks for a raise. A good employee, this isn't like the last employee. First thing you think is they're really good, they asked me for a raise, they didn't ask me for no reason. They asked me because they think they deserve it. I want to retain them. I want to be fair! They've done a great job. I know that if I give them this raise, it's going to be all love coming my way. If I give you a raise we're good. You got a raise! It's awesome.
例子二：一位优秀员工要求加薪。一个优秀的员工，这和上一个员工不一样。你首先想到的是他们真的很优秀，他们向我提出加薪，他们不是无缘无故向我提出加薪的。他们要求我加薪是因为他们认为这是他们应得的。我想留住他们。我想公平对待！他们做得很好。我知道，如果我给他们加薪，他们会对我充满爱意。如果我给你加薪，我们就好了。你加薪了太棒了

From your perspective you know what you want to do when somebody asks you for a raise. What about from their perspective? How would they take it if you gave them the raise. You have to remember, for them to get to point where they ask you for a raise, they did not wake up one morning and say, "I am going in and asking him for a raise." This is something they've thought about a lot. They've compared their other options. They may have an offer from another company. It’s something their spouse probably has been talking to them about. It's a serious thing. If you give it to them, they're very likely to feel very good about it. They may be paranoid, like " Why you giving me a raise?" But very unlikely. Much more they'll feel like...
从你的角度来看，你知道当别人要求你加薪时你想怎么做。那么从他们的角度来看呢？如果你给他们加薪，他们会如何接受。你必须记住，他们之所以会向你提出加薪要求，并不是在某个早晨醒来后说 "我要去找他加薪"。他们是经过深思熟虑的。他们比较过其他的选择。他们可能有另一家公司的报价。他们的配偶可能也一直在跟他们谈这件事。这是一件严肃的事情。如果你给了他们，他们很可能会感觉很好。他们可能会疑神疑鬼，比如 "你为什么要给我加薪？"但可能性很小他们会觉得......

(Plays "The Shmoney Dance" video)
(播放 "Shmoney Dance "视频）

For those who don't know, that's Bobby Shmurda and Rowdy Rebel doing the Shmoney Dance
不知道的人还以为是 Bobby Shmurda 和 Rowdy Rebel 在跳 Shmoney 舞呢. That's the reaction you'll get. So there is a lot of momentum to say, “Yes look. You know they've read Sheryl's book
.这就是你会得到的反应。所以说，"是的，你看。你知道他们读过 Sheryl 的书. They've leaned in .他们已经靠了过来 and I'm going to reward them for doing all that."
我要奖励他们所做的一切"。

By the way, that book has very good advice. I'm not knocking Sheryl
顺便说一句，那本书的建议非常好。我不是在批评 Sheryl, I don't want you to misinterpret me. However, you knew there was going to be a however, you have to think about it from the point of view of the employee who did not ask for a raise. They may be doing a better job than the employee who did ask for the raise and in their mind they are going, “Ok, so I didn't ask for a raise and I didn't get a raise. They asked for a raise and they got a raise. What does that mean?" One, you're not really evaluating people's performance. You're just going, whoever asks, gets.
我不想让你误解我的意思。然而，你知道会有这样的结果，但你必须从没有要求加薪的员工的角度来考虑。他们可能比要求加薪的员工做得更好，他们心里会想："好吧，我没要求加薪，我也没得到加薪。他们要求加薪，他们得到了加薪。这意味着什么？"第一，你并没有真正评估员工的表现。你只是在说，谁要求加薪，谁就加薪。 That means I either need to be the guy who asked for the raise, though that's not how I feel. I do my work and I don't necessarily want to ask for a raise. Or I just need to quit and go to a company that actually evaluates performance. You can really make the person who doesn't get the raise feel pretty pissed about it Don't think that when someone is walking through your company doing the "Shmoney Dance," that other people aren't going to notice.
这意味着我要么是那个要求加薪的人，尽管我不是这么想的。我做我的工作，不一定要要求加薪。要么我就辞职，去一家真正能评估业绩的公司。不要以为有人在你的公司里跳 "Shmoney 舞"，其他人就不会注意到。

They are going to be fired up about that raise. You can say it is highly confidential that I am giving you this raise. It's not confidential.
他们会为这次加薪而兴奋不已。你可以说我给你加薪是高度机密。这不是机密。

The cultural conclusion is that everybody in your company is going to feel that they now have a fiduciary responsibility to their family to ask for a raise all the time because if they don't, they may be missing out on a raise that they would have otherwise gotten. Talk to any experienced CEO and they will tell you this is true. If you give out raises when people just ask you for them, you will have a lot of people asking you for raises. That is called encouraging behavior.
文化上的结论是，公司里的每个人都会觉得，他们现在对自己的家人负有信托责任，必须一直要求加薪，因为如果不这样做，他们可能会错过本可以得到的加薪机会。与任何一位经验丰富的首席执行官交谈，他们都会告诉你这是事实。如果你在别人向你提出加薪要求时就给予加薪，那么就会有很多人向你提出加薪要求。这就是所谓的鼓励行为。

What do you do? The right answer is you have to be formal to save your own culture. I know this is always this is the thing that causes people running startups fits because it's like, " Well I don't want a lot of formalities. I don't want a lot of process. I want it to be organic. We want to do yoga. We want to only smoke organic weed." Sorry that was a Peter Thiel kind of way. Peter got very focused on who was smoking weed a little while ago.
你该怎么办？正确的答案是，你必须拘泥于形式，以保存自己的文化。我知道，这一直是初创企业的经营者最头疼的问题，因为他们会说："我不想有太多的形式主义。我不想要太多的流程。我希望它是有机的。我们想做瑜伽。我们只想抽有机大麻抱歉，这是彼得-蒂尔的风格彼得刚才非常关注谁在抽大麻。

But the process actually protects the culture
但这一过程实际上保护了文化 because what it does it says, look we're going to look at all inputs. We are going to have a formal way of saying anybody who wants a raise, come talk to me. I'm not going to give you a raise but I am happy to hear your story. I'm going to talk to all the people you work with so I get like a understanding. I am going to evaluate all the work that you've done, so I know where I actually rate and what my actual opinion is. I am going to do it periodically, I'm not going to do it daily. If I were fast moving I would do it every six months or even once a quarter. At the end of that process I will tell you what your raise is, I will tell you if you're getting one or if you're not getting one, but I'm not going to do things off cycle. I'm not going to do things when asked. There is one process and that's it.
因为它的意思是，我们会考虑所有的意见。我们将以正式的方式告诉大家，谁想要加薪，就来找我谈。我不会给你加薪，但我很乐意听听你的故事。我将与所有与你共事的人交谈，以便了解你的情况。我会评估你所做的所有工作，这样我就能知道我的实际评价和实际意见。我会定期这样做，不会每天都这样做。如果我的工作进展很快，我会每半年甚至每季度做一次。在这个过程结束时，我会告诉你你的加薪幅度，我会告诉你是加薪还是不加薪，但我不会做非周期性的事情。我不会按要求办事。只有一个程序，就是这样。

When I used to be CEO and I had executives, the bigger you become the harder this gets because the more aggressive the people working for you are. To be an executive it turns out you have to often be pretty aggressive. In most companies that's how you get to that level. I would go, “Look, you can lobby me all you want after the process is and I give you your raise, but you know what? I am not hearing it. I already went through my process. I got your input going in. I got everybody else's input. I've got so many people and so much money and you got what I believe is right."
我以前担任首席执行官时，手下有很多高管，规模越大，难度就越大，因为为你工作的人越咄咄逼人。事实证明，要想成为一名高管，你必须经常表现得非常激进。在大多数公司里，你都是这样晋升到那个级别的。我会说："听着，你可以在我给你加薪之后尽情游说我，但你知道吗？我不会听你的。我已经走完了我的程序。我得到了你的意见。我得到了其他人的意见。我有这么多人和这么多钱，而你得到了我认为正确的东西。"

Having a process gets people to be more comfortable because they don't have to always be on edge about, “Am I asking for what I deserve? Or am I getting aced out because of who I am, what I look like? I am not buddy buddy. I'm not at the golf course with you or I'm not doing whatever you like to do? I don't have to worry about any of that because I know your process. You're going to evaluate everybody and then you are going to give them what's fair." That's a much better way to handle that and it means that you're actually understanding what everybody thinks, not just the people you are talking to at the moment.
有了这样一个过程，人们就会更自在，因为他们不必总是提心吊胆："我是在要求我应得的东西？还是因为我的身份、长相而被拒之门外？我不是哥们儿哥们儿。我没有和你一起去高尔夫球场，或者我没有做你喜欢做的任何事情？我不用担心这些，因为我知道你的流程。你会评估每个人，然后给他们公平的待遇"。这是一种更好的处理方式，它意味着你真正了解了每个人的想法，而不仅仅是此时此刻与你交谈的人。

Now we are going to get into some fun stuff. We are going to evaluate Sam's blog post. There are some very good things in it and there are some things I am going to discuss.
现在，我们将进入一些有趣的环节。我们将对山姆的博文进行评估。其中有一些非常好的东西，也有一些我要讨论的东西。
This is the excerpt. 摘录如下 "Most employees have only have 90 days after they leave a job to exercise their options. Unfortunately this requires money to cover the strike price and the tax bill..." I'll explain this a little more later, but I want to read it first. “... for the year of exercise. This is often more cash than what the employee has." This is the key. The employee often has to choose between leaving the job and walking away from the vested options i.e. the money that she has because she can't afford to exercise or being locked into staying with the company for all the wrong reasons. So it's a particularly bad situation when an Employee gets terminated. And I'll get into that and that's a really key point. "This doesn't seems fair. The best solution I have I've heard is from Adam D'Angelo, “ a very, very smart guy "at Quora
"大多数员工在离职后只有 90 天的时间来行使期权。不幸的是，这需要钱来支付行权价和税费......"我稍后再解释，但我想先读一读。"......行权当年的税费。这通常比雇员拥有的现金要多。"这是关键所在。员工往往不得不在离职和放弃既得期权（即她拥有的钱，因为她没钱行权）之间做出选择，或者因为所有错误的原因而被锁定留在公司。因此，当雇员被解雇时，情况会特别糟糕。这一点是非常关键的。"这似乎不公平。我听到的最好的解决方案来自亚当-德安杰洛，"他是一个非常非常聪明的人，"他在 Quora 上说。. The idea is to grant options that are exercisable for 10 years from the grant date, which should be nearly all the cases. There's some tricky issues to this." Blah, blah, blah. “But it's still far better than just losing the assets. I think that this is policy that all startups should adopt."
.我们的想法是授予自授予日起 10 年内可行使的期权，这几乎是所有的情况。这其中有一些棘手的问题"。胡说八道"但这总比失去资产要好得多。我认为这是所有初创企业都应该采用的政策。"

Was Sam right? Is this a policy that all startups should adopt? Let me first explain again what the policy is. Currently, the way almost every stock option package in startup world is this: you get stock that vests over a period of time. When you leave you have, and it depends on the company, 90 days. If you do not buy your stock in that period, it's gone! It's not yours anymore. Which, depending on when you entered the company, could be a big problem. A lot of companies today that have a high valuation, like an Airbnb or an Uber
山姆说得对吗？这是所有初创企业都应该采取的政策吗？首先，让我再解释一下这项政策是什么。目前，几乎所有初创公司的股票期权方案都是这样的：你获得的股票会在一段时间内归属。当你离职时，你有 90 天的时间，这取决于公司。如果你在这段时间内没有购买你的股票，它就会消失！它就不再属于你了。根据你进入公司的时间，这可能是个大问题。如今，很多公司的估值都很高，比如 Airbnb 或 Uber, when they bring you in they go “Wow, if you look at your 409A price compared to the preferred price, the stock we're giving you right now, the options are already worth 10 million dollars." And you're like" Woooo! 10 million dollars. I'm rich."
当他们把你找来的时候，他们会说："哇，如果你看看你的 409A 价格和优先股价格相比，我们现在给你的股票，期权已经值 1000 万美元了。你会想 "哇哦！1000 万美元。我发财了"。

What they don't necessarily tell you is in order for you to get that money, because the preferred is worth 10 million dollars, your options are probably going to cost you 2.5 million dollars
他们不一定会告诉你的是，为了让你拿到这笔钱，因为首选价值 1000 万美元，你的选择可能会让你花费 250 万美元 when you leave. If you don't have that 2.5 million dollars
当你离开时。如果你没有那 250 万美元 in 90 days, it's gone! You just lost all your money. So Sam is like, wow! That's fucked up! And so he wrote a blog post and he said everybody should change it.
90 天后，它就会消失！你的钱就这么没了所以山姆想，哇！这太糟糕了于是他写了一篇博文，说每个人都应该改变它。

The first question that you have to ask yourself is, "This has kind of been around since the 80's, so why has a rule like this been around for 30 years?" It turned out, Sam, I don't know whether he figured this out or just intuited it, but he was right. Something actually had changed
你要问自己的第一个问题是："这在上世纪80年代就已经存在了，为什么这样的规则会存在30年？"事实证明，山姆，我不知道他是想明白了还是凭直觉，但他是对的。实际上，有些东西已经改变了. Up until 2004, there used to be a law called APB Opinion Number 25
.直到 2004 年，一直有一条名为 APB 第 25 号意见的法律. That law was the old way to account for stock options. It's also the law that all the guys went to jail on. I know a lot of people who caught a case
.该法是股票期权的老办法。所有的人都是根据这条法律进的监狱。我知道有很多人因为这个案子 on APB 25, so I'm glad it's gone. It's a very confusing law. A lot people did not understand it and they literally went to jail.
所以我很高兴它消失了。这是一条非常混乱的法律。很多人不理解，结果真的进了监狱。

When that was a law, if you gave somebody 10 years to exercise their options, you would never have been able to go public and you would never have been able to be acquired
如果法律规定给某人 10 年的时间来行使期权，你将永远无法上市，也永远无法被收购。 because you were taking an expense that was tied to your stock price. The more your stock went up, the more compensation expense you'd have to take. The worst thing is you wouldn't know what it was going to be. It was totally unpredictable, so you could never forecast earnings. Ever! Because your earnings would be a function of your stock price. The more your stock price went up, the more money you would lose. In those days, people did not look through stock option expenses. It just wasn't doable. That's why everybody's agreement was written at 90 days. That's why it's there. So absolutely it's the right thing to question it being there. Are you guys following? You get this?
因为你的支出与股票价格挂钩。你的股票涨得越多，你必须承担的补偿费用就越多。最糟糕的是，你不知道这笔费用会是多少。这是完全无法预测的，所以你永远无法预测收益。永远无法预测因为你的收益是股价的函数。股价涨得越多，你损失的钱就越多。在那个年代，人们不会去看股票期权的费用。这是不可能的。这就是为什么每个人的协议都写着 90 天。所以才会有这个规定。所以质疑它的存在是绝对正确的。你们明白吗？你们明白了吗？ This is more complicated than the first two examples, but it's a very important one.
这个例子比前两个例子复杂，但非常重要。

Your perspective on this, if you have employees, is you want to be fair. Nobody wants to say to a hire,"Hey you got all this stock in 4 years... SIKE!" Especially when you fire someone. "Hey you're fired! I feel real bad about it BUT guess what? You know, I am also going to take all your money too!"
如果你有员工，你的观点就是要公平。没有人愿意对雇员说："嘿，你在 4 年里得到了这么多股票......"。"嘿，你在 4 年里得到了这么多股票..."尤其是当你解雇一个人的时候"嘿，你被解雇了！我真的很难过，但你猜怎么着？我还要拿走你所有的钱！"

That's a problem. This is the thing that you have to keep in mind, you have to think about the people who are staying and you want to reward the people who are staying. The perspective of the Employee who leaves, and this is really critical because this is your reputation, is I worked a year, where's my years pay? Now you're telling me about this 90 day exercise? I know it was in the small print of my stock option agreement
这是一个问题。这是你必须牢记的一点，你必须考虑留下来的人，你要奖励留下来的人。从离职员工的角度来看，这一点非常关键，因为这关系到你的声誉，我工作了一年，我的年薪在哪里？现在你又跟我说什么 90 天锻炼？我知道我的股票期权协议上写着呢 but my Hiring Manager never told me about that
但我的招聘经理从未告诉过我这一点. They never told me I was going to need 2 million dollars to get my stock. Which I don't have. So if I was rich I'd get my stock? That's not fair. So now I am fired and then I'm screwed. Guess what? I am going to tell EVERYBODY how you screwed me over. That's a real reputation problem. That's something that you have to consider for policy.
.他们从没告诉过我需要 200 万美元才能拿到股票。而我没有如果我有钱就能拿到股票？这不公平所以现在我被解雇了，然后我就完蛋了。你猜怎么着？我要告诉所有人你是怎么坑我的。这是一个真正的声誉问题。这是你必须考虑的政策问题。

You also have to consider the employee who stays. One thing that they're going to ask themselves is, look they're leaving and every time anybody leaves it’s like, was that smart? Your Employees know each other better than they know you. In any company, I don't care what company you are. Often the person they're really working with is going to be the person they know more. If that person leaves they're going to go " Well, should I leave too? What did they get and how does that compare to my deal?"
你还必须考虑留下来的员工。他们会问自己的一件事是，你看他们要走了，每次有人离开时都会想，这样做明智吗？你的员工比你更了解彼此。在任何公司，我不在乎你是什么公司。通常情况下，他们真正共事的人是他们更了解的人。如果那个人离开了，他们会想："那我也应该离开吗？他们得到了什么，与我的交易相比如何？"

If we look at the situation and analyze it, there are a lot of components. First, companies tread a lot of people around here, the average is somewhere around 10 percent
如果我们看一下情况并加以分析，就会发现有很多组成部分。首先，公司在这里踩点的人很多，平均约占 10%。. It's probably getting higher, particularly if you are in San Francisco just because of the culture there. Silicon Valley companies dilute like 6-8 or even 10 percent a year
.可能会越来越高，特别是如果你在旧金山，因为那里的文化。硅谷的公司每年稀释 6%-8%，甚至 10%。 for employee options. You have to keep in mind that as mean as it is, if that employee leaves and can't exercise their options, those options come back to the pool where you can potentially give them to people who are already there. You're actually taking less dilution. That's something that you have to think about. I am not saying you have to act on it but it's something that you have to think about it.
员工期权。你必须牢记，尽管这很卑鄙，但如果员工离职而无法行使他们的期权，这些期权就会回到池子里，你可以把它们交给已经在那里工作的人。你实际上减少了稀释。这是你必须考虑的问题。我并不是说你一定要这样做，但这是你必须考虑的问题。

Secondly, losing all your stock is a very big incentive to stay. That could be good news or bad news. It could be good news in that you get to keep somebody you might have lost. It could be bad news in that you kept them for the exact wrong reason: they have handcuffs on
其次，失去所有股票也是留下的一大动力。这可能是好消息，也可能是坏消息。可能是好消息，因为你留住了可能失去的人。也可能是坏消息，因为你留住他们的理由完全错误：他们戴着手铐。. You may get an Employee that is worse than not having an Employee. On the other hand, a 10 year option on a highly volatile security, for those of you who have taken that class, is valuable. 10 years option, volatility and length, that's the value of an option
.你可能会得到一个比没有雇员还糟糕的雇员。另一方面，对于那些上过这门课的人来说，一种波动性很大的证券的 10 年期权是很有价值的。10 年期权、波动率和期限，这就是期权的价值。.

10 years on a Startup stock, that's a valuable thing. Remember the employee who stays doesn't get that. The employee who stays just gets a stock. They don't get the new job and the new stock. They get one thing but they don't get both things. You have to weigh that in. This is a hard one. It should be reevaluated by every company. I wouldn't go as far as Sam and say it should be adopted by every company. You have to think about what you want. I would offer two Alternative Cultural Statements. One is, we treat employees with straight forwardness. We're going to be fair and therefore you get 10 years to exercise your stock. What we said we're going to give you, you’re going to get regardless of how rich or poor you are. That's just a done deal.
在创业公司股票上工作 10 年，这是一件很有价值的事情。记住，留下来的员工不会得到这些。留下来的员工只能获得股票。他们得不到新工作和新股票。他们只能得到一样东西，却不能同时得到两样东西。你必须权衡这一点。这是一个难题。每家公司都应该重新评估。我不会像山姆那样说每家公司都应该采用。你必须考虑清楚自己想要什么。我想提出两个备选文化声明。其一，我们以坦诚的态度对待员工。我们要做到公平，因此你有 10 年的时间来行使你的股票。我们说给你什么，你就会得到什么，无论你是富是穷。就这么定了。

The second way to handle it - no companies do this, which is why I actually really like this post that he wrote - is you can say up front
第二种处理方法--没有公司会这么做，这也是我非常喜欢他写的这篇文章的原因--就是你可以直接说, " Look you are guaranteed to get your salary but for your stock to be meaningful, these are the things that have to happened. You have to have vested. Two, you have to stay until we get to an exit. Untile the company makes it. You've got other money." Finally, the company actually has to be worth something. Because 10 percent of nothing is nothing. The reason we set the policy this way is we really value people who stay
听着，你的薪水是有保证的，但要让你的股票有意义，这些事情必须发生。第一，你必须有归属权。第二，你必须待到我们退出为止。直到公司成功退出你还有其他的钱。"最后，公司必须有实际价值因为一无所有的 10% 就是一无所有。我们之所以这样制定政策，是因为我们非常看重留下来的人. So don't join this company if you are going to join another one in 18 months because you're going to get screwed. Our policy guarantees you're going to get screwed.
.所以，如果你打算在 18 个月内加入另一家公司，就不要加入这家公司，因为你会被坑。我们的政策保证你会被坑。

Those are two ways to handle it. It really depends on you and how you want to run your culture. With all these things, it's critical to think it through from everybody's prospective because when push comes to shove, that's going to matter. That's going to change the outcome of your company.
这是两种处理方式。这真的取决于你，取决于你想如何管理你的文化。对于所有这些事情，关键是要站在每个人的角度去思考，因为一旦迫不得已，这就很重要。这将改变你公司的结果。
Sam: I am actually revising my recommendation slightly.
萨姆：实际上，我正在对我的建议稍作修改。

Ben Horowitz: Let’s hear it.
本-霍洛维茨Let's hear it.

Sam: No, it's that I think there needs to be more incentive to stay. If someone gets fired, I still think they get screwed a lot of the time.
萨姆：不，我认为需要有更多的激励机制来留住员工。如果有人被解雇了，我还是觉得很多时候他们会被坑。

Ben Horowitz: The other thing that's really important, that Sam pointed out, is how much money you have. If you have the money, you don't get screwed. You can buy your stock. You do take some risks, but you can buy your stock. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money.
本-霍洛维茨萨姆指出，另一件非常重要的事是你有多少钱。如果你有钱，你就不会被坑。你可以买股票。你确实要承担一些风险，但你可以买股票。如果你没有钱，你就没有钱。

Now we're getting to the person on my shirt: Toussaint
现在我们来谈谈我衬衫上的那个人：图桑. He was the best at this and I want to take you through some examples because they're very powerful. Toussaint was born a slave.
.他是这方面的佼佼者，我想给你们举几个例子，因为这些例子非常有力。图桑是奴隶出身。 He wasn't just born a slave, he was born a slave in the most brutal place to be a slave, which was the Colony of Santa Domingo, now known as Haiti. This was a much more severe form of slavery, as were all the sugar growing areas, then in the US, which was historically a very brutal form of slavery. To give you some numbers, over the course of slavery, somewhere like 400 years, a million slaves were brought to the US. At the end of slavery, there were four million slaves in the US. In that same period, in the sugar growing countries in the Caribbean, two million slaves were brought over and at the end of slavery there were seven hundred thousand left. From just a quantitative perspective, nearly 10 times more brutal. I am going to read this to you. I don't know if I quite have time but I don't care. I'll read you a description of slavery in Toussaint's area.
他不仅生来就是奴隶，而且是在最残酷的地方出生的奴隶，那就是圣多明戈殖民地，也就是现在的海地。这是一种更为严重的奴隶制形式，所有的蔗糖种植区都是如此，而在美国，奴隶制在历史上也是一种非常残酷的奴隶制形式。给你一些数字，在奴隶制过程中，大约 400 年间，有一百万奴隶被带到美国。奴隶制结束时，美国有 400 万奴隶。同一时期，在加勒比地区的蔗糖种植国，有 200 万奴隶被运到美国，奴隶制结束时还剩下 70 万。仅从数量上看，就比奴隶制残酷近 10 倍。我要把这段话读给你们听。我不知道我是否有时间，但我不在乎。我会给你们读一段关于图桑所在地区奴隶制的描述。

Whipping was interrupted in order to pass a piece of hot wood on the buttocks of the victim. Salt, pepper, citrus, cinders, aloes and hot ashes were poured into bleeding wounds. It's not to heal them. This is to make it worse. Mutilations were common. Limbs, ears and sometimes private parts to deprive them of the pleasures which they could indulge without expense. Their masters poured burning wax on their arms and hands and shoulders. Emptied the boiling king sugar over their heads. Burning them alive. Roasting them on the slow fires. Filled them with gun powder and blew them up with a match. Buried them up to their neck and smeared their head with sugar that that the flies might devour them. Fastened them to the nest of ants or wasps. And made them eat the excrement, drink the urine, lick the saliva of other slaves. One Colonist was known `in moments of anger to throw himself on a slaves and stick his teeth into their flesh.'
为了将一块热木头放在受害者的臀部，鞭打会被打断。盐、胡椒、柑橘、煤渣、芦荟和热灰烬被倒入流血的伤口。这不是为了愈合伤口。这是让伤口恶化。肢解很常见。肢体、耳朵，有时是私处，以剥夺他们的快乐，而这些快乐他们可以不花钱就能享受到。他们的主人在他们的胳膊、手和肩膀上浇上燃烧的蜡。把沸腾的王糖倒在他们头上。活活烧死他们。把他们放在慢火上烤往他们身上灌火药，用火柴把他们炸死。把他们埋到脖子里，在头上涂满糖，让苍蝇把他们吃掉。把他们绑在蚂蚁或黄蜂的窝里。让他们吃其他奴隶的粪便、喝其他奴隶的尿液、舔其他奴隶的唾液。据说有一个殖民者 "在愤怒的时候会扑到奴隶身上，用牙齿咬他们的肉"。

That's the slavery that he grew up in. It's really important to understand this because to get out of that perspective was not easy. But he had a vision that was threefold. One, he wanted to end slavery. Two, he wanted to actually take control of the country and run the country. And three, he wanted it to be a world-class country. Not one in which he had simply freed the slaves but one that could compete on a worldwide basis. That was his mindset going in. What I read was the environment he came from.
他就是在这种奴隶制中长大的。理解这一点真的很重要，因为要摆脱这种观点并不容易。但他有一个三方面的愿景。第一，他想结束奴隶制。第二，他想真正控制国家，管理国家。第三，他希望这个国家成为一个世界级的国家。不是简单地解放奴隶，而是能够在世界范围内竞争的国家。这就是他的初衷。我读到的是他所处的环境。

A management example is conquering the enemy. The sequence of battles that occurred in Haiti were, he first had to defeat the locals. Once he defeated the locals, there were several countries that were very, very interested in taking control of Haiti. Principally Spain, England and France. He had to defeat those armies as well. When he conquered them, he had to decide what to do with the conquered soldiers and the leaders on the other side. He took into perspective three different points of view. One, his soldier’s point of view. Two, his enemies point of view. And finally ,the point of view of the resulting culture. What kind of country was he building? The army was going to be the seed corn for the culture of the whole country.
管理方面的一个例子是征服敌人。在海地发生的战斗顺序是，他首先必须打败当地人。一旦他打败了当地人，有几个国家对控制海地非常非常感兴趣。主要是西班牙、英国和法国。他也必须打败这些国家的军队。当他征服这些国家后，他必须决定如何处理被征服的士兵和对方的领导人。他考虑了三种不同的观点。其一，他的士兵的观点。二是敌人的观点。最后是文化的角度。他要建设一个什么样的国家？军队将成为整个国家文化的种子。

From the soldier’s perspective: do we get to pillage? Soldiers like to pillage. It’s something for their work. The second thing is they're trying to kill us so we should kill them. That's a basic perspective of the people who are fighting for him, the most important people to Toussaint. I put pillage up there, a couple of things to know, one I didn't put rape up there. Very interestingly, not only did he not allow rape among his army, but he didn't even allow his officers to cheat on their wives. If they did he would get rid of them because he was so concerned about the resulting culture. What was it going to be? Was it going to be productive? Was it going to be the best in world? Or was it going to be something less than that? That was his mindset going in. His army was actually famous for not pillaging. They were already actually used to this. This was one of the most surprising things to the conquered people to the point where where even the white people were very impressed because he would go into their city and not pillage even though he would win. Again, this is because he took a long view of the culture.
从士兵的角度看：我们可以掠夺吗？士兵喜欢掠夺。这是他们的工作。第二件事是他们想杀我们，所以我们应该杀了他们。这就是为他而战的人的基本观点，他们是图桑最重要的人。我把掠夺放在这里，有两件事要知道 第一，我没有把强奸放在这里。非常有趣的是，他不仅不允许在军队中强奸，甚至不允许他的军官欺骗他们的妻子。如果他们出轨，他就会把他们赶走，因为他非常担心由此产生的文化。这会是什么文化？会是富有成效的吗？会是世界上最好的吗？还是会变得不那么好？这就是他的出发点。他的军队实际上以不掠夺而闻名。他们其实早已习惯于此。这对被征服者来说是最令人惊讶的事情之一，甚至连白人都对他印象深刻，因为他进入他们的城市后，即使会获胜，也不会掠夺。同样，这也是因为他从长远的角度看待文化。

This is an important subtle point. He believed the culture of Haiti, because it was a slave culture, sugar plantation culture, was pretty low grade compared to what he had experienced in Europe when he dealt with the Europeans. He thought that slave culture was even more broken than Haitian culture because it's the kind of culture where, "Oh you don't do what I tell you? I'm going to beat you to death. I am going to blow you up with gun powder." If you think about the behavior that ensues from that, that was the culture he knew he needed to replace. He knew he needed to upgrade.
这是一个重要的微妙之处。他认为，与他在欧洲与欧洲人打交道时的经历相比，海地的文化，因为是奴隶文化、糖种植园文化，是相当低级的。他认为，奴隶文化比海地文化更加残缺不全，因为在这种文化中，"哦，你不按我说的做吗？我会打死你。我要用火药炸死你"。如果你想想随之而来的行为，那就是他知道需要取代的文化。他知道他需要升级。

His solution when he conquered the British, or the Spanish, or he conquered the French, was he would take the very best people from the opposing side and he would make them generals in his army. You probably didn't expect that. Here are the guys trying to kill him. He's leading a slave evolution and when he conquers the enemy, he actually incorporates them into his army and makes them part of it. He wanted the expertise and he wanted the culture to be at a much higher level.
当他征服英国人、西班牙人或法国人时，他的解决办法就是从对方挑选最优秀的人，让他们成为自己军队中的将军。你可能没想到这一点。这就是那些想要杀他的人。他领导的是奴隶进化论，当他征服敌人时，他实际上是把他们编入自己的军队，使他们成为军队的一部分。他要的是专业技能，他要的是更高水平的文化。

The second question he had, this even more complicated, was what do you do with the slave owners? You're leading slave revolution, you take control of the country,what do you do with the slave owners? Three perspectives again. For the slaves, you want to kill the slave owners. There is no question. That's your land now. You won. F them. From Toussaint's perspective, it was more complicated because he wanted Haiti to be a first world country and sugar was really important. The whole slave economy was the sugar economy. On the other hand, he was a slave and he had to have been pretty upset. Particularly given the type of slavery. But he didn't know how to run a sugar plantation and he didn't have any business relationships for trading sugar. So what to do? If you look at the slave owner perspective, it's pretty interesting because they're coming at it - and this is the point of view that he actually had the discipline to understand - they were coming from a cost structure that was predicated on slave labor. Their business didn't work without slave labor. If they had to pay people their cash flow wouldn't work. They paid a lot of money for the slaves up front and they paid a lot of money for the land. In their mind, that was how business worked. You can't just change the economics and have it still work. They knew they had some power because of the position they were in.
他的第二个问题更加复杂，那就是你该如何处置奴隶主？你在领导奴隶革命，你控制了国家，你怎么处置奴隶主？又是三个角度。对奴隶来说，你要杀死奴隶主。这是毫无疑问的。那是你们的土地了你们赢了杀了他们从杜桑的角度来看，情况更复杂 因为他希望海地成为第一世界国家 而蔗糖真的很重要整个奴隶经济就是蔗糖经济。另一方面，他也是一名奴隶，他一定很不高兴。特别是考虑到奴隶制的类型。但他不知道如何经营蔗糖种植园，也没有任何交易蔗糖的商业关系。那该怎么办呢？如果你从奴隶主的角度看问题，就会发现这很有趣，因为他们是站在奴隶制的角度来考虑问题的--这也是他实际上有能力理解的观点--他们的成本结构是以奴隶劳动为前提的。没有奴隶劳动，他们的业务就无法运转。如果他们必须付钱给别人，他们的现金流就无法运转。他们为奴隶支付了大量的预付款，也为土地支付了大量的费用。在他们看来，这就是商业运作的方式。你不能只是改变经济状况，让它仍然起作用。他们知道，由于他们所处的地位，他们拥有一定的权力。

So what was the answer for the slave owners? The solution was one, to end slavery. Two, let the slave owner keep their land. Three, make them pay their workers. There was no more slave labor. In order to fund that, lower their taxes. You guys ought to be kind of impressed with that.
那么奴隶主的答案是什么呢？答案是：一，结束奴隶制。第二，让奴隶主保留他们的土地。第三，让他们给工人发工资。不再有奴隶劳动。为了提供资金，降低他们的税收。你们应该对此印象深刻。

Lower the taxes of the slave owners after you defeat the slave owners and end slavery. But the bigger goal was he wanted a stronger culture. The way he treated those slave owners, the need to keep the economy going was important. Let's look at the results. First of all, Toussaint's revolution is the only successful slave revolution in the history of mankind. There has never been another one and, hopefully we won't have slavery in a big way, there won't be another one. He's it. Two, the plantation owners kept their land. Three he defeated Napoleon
在打败奴隶主并结束奴隶制之后，降低奴隶主的税收。但更大的目标是，他想要一个更强大的文化。他对待奴隶主的方式，以及保持经济发展的需要都很重要。让我们来看看结果。首先，杜桑的革命是人类历史上唯一成功的奴隶革命。再也没有下一次了，希望我们不会再大肆推行奴隶制，也不会再有下一次了。就是他。第二，种植园主保住了他们的土地。第三，他打败了拿破仑. He had a booming economy and a world class culture. Under Toussaint, Haiti had more export revenue than the United States. That's how successful he was in the revolution. This is the power of looking at a situation not just from your point of view, but from the point of view of all the constituents. Even the people you hate.
.他拥有繁荣的经济和世界级的文化。在杜桑的领导下，海地的出口收入超过了美国。这就是他革命的成功之处。这就是不只是从你的角度看问题，而是从所有选民的角度看问题的力量。即使是你讨厌的人。 Which is hard to do when you are a CEO and harder to do when you are leading the revolution.
当你是首席执行官时很难做到这一点，而当你领导革命时就更难做到了。

In conclusion, the most important thing that you can learn, and one of the hardest things to do, is you have to discipline yourself to see your company through the eyes of the employees
总之，你能学到的最重要的东西，也是最难做到的事情之一，就是你必须约束自己，通过员工的眼睛来看待你的公司。, through the eyes of your partners, through the eyes of the people you are not talking to and who are not in the room.
通过你的合作伙伴的眼睛，通过你没有与之交谈或不在房间里的人的眼睛。

Thank you. 谢谢。

Now I will take questions.
现在我来回答问题。

Q: If you have to fire or demote an executive, how do you have the conversation and then how do you explain it to everyone else
问：如果你必须解雇或降级一位高管，你该如何进行谈话，然后如何向其他人解释？?

Ben Horowitz: Right, this is great question. Clearly it's some kind of failure. You failed on hiring. You failed on integrating. They failed at their job. The first thing when firing the person is to really try to be honest. You're feeling like you failed. Common reactions are, you suck and so I am firing you. Screw off. That's not good because it's not really true. You may be feeling that way. Another common mistake is to be too mushy. It's not you it's me. This feels like a weird break up with an ex-boyfriend that you really didn't like.
本-霍洛维茨对，这是个好问题。显然，这是某种失败。你在招聘上失败了。你的整合失败了。他们的工作失败了。解雇员工的第一件事就是要诚实。你觉得自己失败了。常见的反应是：你太差劲了，所以我要解雇你。滚开。这样说不好，因为这不是真的。你可能有这种感觉。另一个常见的错误是过于肉麻。不是你的问题，是我的问题。这感觉就像你和一个你很不喜欢的前男友奇怪地分手了。

Generally when you hire people, you try to hire the very best. You hire people who are qualified to do the job. The reason they fail on the job is you made some mistake in the hiring process and you didn't match them to the needs of your company accurately enough. That's the number one reason why this fails and so that's generally a good place to start. To say look, here's how we are and here's what I didn't recognize about us and about you when I made the decision. It is what it is. We're going to have to move on.
一般来说，当你雇用员工时，你会尽量雇用最优秀的员工。你雇用的人都有资格胜任这份工作。他们工作失败的原因是你在招聘过程中犯了一些错误，没有将他们与公司的需求进行足够准确的匹配。这是失败的首要原因，因此，这通常是一个好的开始。听着，这就是我们的情况，这就是我在做决定时没有认识到的我们和你。事实就是这样。我们必须继续前进。

When you talk to the Employees about it, it's different. You can take somebody's job, you have to take their job, but you don't to take their dignity. This is something Bill Campbell
当你和员工谈起这件事时，情况就不一样了。你可以夺走别人的工作，你必须夺走他们的工作，但你不能夺走他们的尊严。这是比尔-坎贝尔 taught me. It's not necessary to get up in front of the company and say, "I blew that mother fucker out. I capped his ass."
教会了我没必要站在公司面前说："我把那混蛋轰出去了。"我打爆了他的头"

In fact it's not good. Nobody feels good about that.You might feel proud of yourself but nobody else feels good about that. The right thing to do is thank them for their work. Like let people know that they're moving on. You don't have to explain all their personal details. It's more important to leave them with their dignity and let them go on to live another day. What you say at that meeting is their reputation, because everybody in your company is going to call on that person when they try and get their next job. If you start saying a bunch of BS about them, that's not going to be good and it's not going get interpreted as we screwed up, it's going get interpreted as he screwed up. You have to be very honest with them but you have to make sure you preserve their dignity when you talk to the company.
事实上，这并不好。你可能会为自己感到自豪，但没有人会为此感到高兴。正确的做法是感谢他们的工作。比如让人们知道他们正在继续前进。你不必解释他们所有的个人细节。更重要的是给他们留下尊严，让他们继续新的生活。你在那次会议上说的话就是他们的名声，因为公司里的每个人都会在这个人尝试下一份工作时拜访他。如果你开始说他们的坏话，那就不好了，不会被理解为我们搞砸了，而会被理解为他搞砸了。你必须对他们非常坦诚，但在与公司交谈时，你必须确保维护他们的尊严。

Q: I was reading your book yesterday. How did you deal with all the stress? Was it meditating? Hip Hop?
问：我昨天在读你的书。你是如何应对所有压力的？是冥想吗？街舞？

Ben Horowitz: The answer is I used to be 6 foot 4 and good looking so clearly not very well. I get asked that a lot and I have a great answer for it. I have a wonderful wife who is sitting right here. I will oar and he borrowed that technique from him but applied it in a much kind of more dramatic context. He had British, French, Spanish, slaves and mulattoes, most of the mulattoes in Haiti at that time were pro-slavery. That was another issue, but his leadership was so great, everybody wanted to join him.
本-霍洛维茨答案是我曾经身高 6 英尺 4 英寸，长得很帅，所以显然不太好。我经常被问到这个问题，我有一个很好的答案。我有一个很好的妻子，她就坐在这里。我将桨，他借用了他的技术，但应用在一种更戏剧化的背景下。他手下有英国人、法国人、西班牙人、奴隶和黑白混血儿，当时海地的大多数黑白混血儿都支持奴隶制。这是另一个问题，但他的领导力是如此伟大，每个人都想加入他。

Q: How do you incorporate Toussaint's ideology and get people who were previously against you on your side?
问：你如何融入图桑的思想，并让以前反对你的人站在你这一边？

Ben Horowitz:What he did in general is the right thing. You have to show them a better way, as a leader, if somebody's your enemy and you need to convert them
本-霍洛维茨：总的来说，他的做法是正确的。作为领导者，如果有人是你的敌人，而你需要转化他们，你就必须向他们展示更好的方式。. This happens in business too. Somebody is a competitor and you want to bring them over but you don't want to bring in, ethically, people who switch from one competitor to another. Your culture has to be elevated, your mission has to be elevated. Your way of doing things has to be just better. That was what was so compelling for the rest of the army.
.这种情况在商业中也会发生。有人是你的竞争对手，你想把他们拉拢过来，但从道德角度讲，你不想拉拢那些从一个竞争对手转投另一个竞争对手的人。你的文化必须提升，你的使命必须提升。你的做事方式必须更好。这才是军队其他成员所信服的。

Q: I am curious to learn how you have built a culture around people and among the entrepreneurs that you work with that has differentiated you in the market from all the other venture capital firms.
问：我很想知道，你们是如何在人与人之间以及在与你们合作的企业家之间建立起一种文化，使你们在市场上有别于所有其他风险投资公司的。

Ben Horowitz: Probably not the best question for me. I can ask Sam that. I don't know. The question is how we do build a culture out at Andreessen Horowitz that is differentiated us from all other VC's. I feel like that is certainly the goal. We have been around for 5 years now. The attempt that we made, it's for the rest of the world to judge if we succeeded, was this: in the old days of VCs, when I was a entrepreneur, the basic idea was you have an entrepreneur or inventor and they get a company to a point and at that point they either are ready to be CEO or you would go find a CEO to replace them and build "the company." Our cultural philosophy is that the founder and inventor are special. We're going to design the firm and the culture of the firm to help the founder develop into a CEO.
本-霍洛维茨这对我来说可能不是个好问题。我可以问山姆。我也不知道。问题是我们如何在 Andreessen Horowitz 建立一种文化，使我们有别于其他所有风险投资公司。我觉得这当然是我们的目标。我们已经成立 5 年了。我们所做的尝试是这样的：在过去的风险投资时代，当我还是一名创业者时，我们的基本理念是，你有一个创业者或发明家，他们把公司发展到一定程度，到那时，他们要么准备好担任首席执行官，要么你去找一个首席执行官来取代他们，建立 "公司"。我们的文化理念是，创始人和发明家是特殊的。我们将设计公司和公司文化，帮助创始人发展成为首席执行官。 We do a lot of systematic things different. The two biggest are all of our partners are founders or CEOs. It's an original model where some sort of experience is required. That's a joke.
我们做了很多系统性的不同事情。最大的两点是，我们所有的合伙人都是创始人或首席执行官。这是一个需要某种经验的原创模式。这是一个笑话。

If you are an advisor to a CEO you have to have have been a CEO. Imagine that. That's why I like Sam, he used to be a CEO. He doesn't talk about it that much but he was a CEO and was good at it. The second part is that a professional CEO will bring in, in the old days, a network of people that knows. Guys who brought technology in big corporations to important partners in the field to people in the press. We try to build that network on your behalf at the firm. I think we do a better job of that than anybody else. Those are the ways that we try to be different.
如果你是首席执行官的顾问，你就必须当过首席执行官。想象一下吧。这就是我喜欢萨姆的原因，他曾经是一名首席执行官。他不常提起这件事，但他当过首席执行官，而且很在行。第二部分是，专业的首席执行官会带来熟人网络，在过去是这样。这些人把大公司的技术带入了重要的合作伙伴领域，也带入了新闻界。我们会在公司为你建立这样的网络。我认为我们在这方面做得比任何人都好。这就是我们与众不同的地方。

Q: Putting yourself in other people's shoes is very important. Can you give us some tips?
问：设身处地为他人着想非常重要。您能给我们一些建议吗？

Ben Horowitz: Putting yourself in other people’s shoes is difficult in management. It's hard in daily life. It's even harder in management because it's the stress at the moment. If a great employee is asking you for a raise, it is very hard for not to respond because you do not want to lose them and they are not asking you for a raise randomly, they are asking you for a reason. If you don't have a process in place to go stop back out, you have to pause yourself. If somebody comes to you with something that you know is important, you want to feel like you have all the answers. Right now you guys are asking me questions and if I don't know the answer I will make something up because I want you guys to think I am smart.
本-霍洛维茨设身处地为他人着想在管理中很难做到。在日常生活中也很难。在管理中更难，因为此时此刻压力很大。如果一名优秀员工向你提出加薪要求，你很难不做出回应，因为你不想失去他们，而且他们并不是随意向你提出加薪要求，而是有原因的。如果你没有一套程序来阻止他们，你就必须暂停自己的工作。如果有人来找你，而你又知道这件事很重要，你就会觉得自己掌握了所有的答案。现在你们在问我问题，如果我不知道答案，我就会胡编乱造，因为我想让你们觉得我很聪明。

The most importan thing is to pause
最重要的是暂停. If you know something is really important and you haven't thought it through, just to say, "I am taking this really seriously but I have to pause because I have to think it through from all perspectives. I’m going to come back." I end up doing that a lot just because there are a lot of things that you run into that you have never seen before. Most CEO's, including myself, learn this the hard way. You go ok, I'm going sneak away with this. Nobody's going to see me give them the raise. I'm going to do it and it’s going to be all under the covers. Confidentiality baby. Then it blows up in your face three weeks later and you're like, "Oh my God. What have I done?" Or three months later or even a year later. Then once it's a year later, it's a huge problem.
.如果你知道某件事情非常重要，但你还没有考虑清楚，你就可以说："我非常认真地对待这件事，但我必须暂停一下，因为我必须从各个角度考虑清楚。我会回来的"。我经常这样做，因为你会遇到很多以前从未见过的事情。大多数首席执行官，包括我自己在内，都是这么过来的。你会想，好吧，我要偷偷地把这个拿走。没人会看到我给他们加薪。我要这么做，而且一切都要藏在被子里。保密宝贝三周后，你就会大吃一惊 "天啊，我都干了些什么？我都干了些什么？"或者三个月后 甚至一年后一旦过了一年，问题就大了

You've taken what was a little emotional problem and you've turned it into a forest fire. We call it a Kimchi problem. The deeper you bury it the hotter it gets
你把一个小小的情绪问题变成了森林大火。我们称之为泡菜问题。你埋得越深，它就烧得越旺. It's a Korean joke. It takes practice. It’s very difficult to do. My friend Bill Campbell, this is his big skill. People always trying to describe him to me and I’m like that is not him at all. That’s not what he’s good at. He’s good at seeing the company through the eyes of the employees. If you are good at that, you will very likely be an elite leader.
.这是一个韩国笑话。需要练习很难做到我的朋友比尔-坎贝尔 这是他的拿手好戏人们总是试图向我描述他 而我觉得那根本不是他这不是他擅长的。他擅长通过员工的眼睛看公司。如果你擅长这一点，你就很有可能成为一名精英领导者。

Thank you. 谢谢。