Athick layer of clouds blocked out any light. There were no stars and there was no moon. Just black. The team slowly made its way through the valley, the rocky terrain making it impossible to go any faster than a snail’s pace. Worse, they knew they were being watched. Every one of them was on edge. 濃厚的雲層遮蔽了任何光線。沒有星星,也沒有月亮。只有黑暗。團隊緩慢地穿越山谷,崎嶇的地形使他們無法超過蝸牛的速度。更糟的是,他們知道自己正被監視著。他們每個人都非常警惕。
A year hadn’t yet passed since the attacks of September 11. The Taliban government had only recently fallen after taking a pounding from U.S. forces for their refusal to turn over the Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. There were a lot of Special Operations Forces in the area performing missions that, to this day, are still classified. This was one of those teams and this was one of those missions. 自從九一一事件發生後，還不到一年的時間。塔利班政府在拒絕交出基地組織領導人奧薩瑪·本拉登後不久才倒台，遭到美國武力的猛烈打擊。當地有大批特種部隊執行至今仍被列為機密的任務。這就是其中的一支小分隊和一次執行任務。
All we know is that the team of twenty-two men was operating deep inside enemy territory and had recently captured what the government calls a “high-value target.” They were now working their way through a deep valley in a mountainous part of Afghanistan, escorting their high-value target to a safe house. 這個團隊由二十二名男子組成,正在深入敵後地區活動,最近攔截了政府所謂的「高價值目標」。他們現正經過阿富汗一個多山地區的深谷,護送這個高價值目標前往安全屋。
Flying over the thick clouds that night was Captain Mike Drowley, or Johnny Bravo, as he is known by his call sign or nickname. 飛越那晚厚重的雲層的是梅克·德蘿利船長,或是他的呼號和暱稱喬尼·布拉沃。
Except for the whir of his engines, it was perfectly peaceful up there. Thousands of stars speckled the sky, and the moon lit up the top of the clouds so brightly it looked like a fresh layer of snow had fallen. It was beautiful. 除了他引擎的轟鳴聲之外,那裡很安逸。數千顆星星點綴著天空,月光照亮了雲層頂部,就像剛下了一層新雪一樣明亮。那景象很美麗。
Johnny Bravo and his wingman were circling above in their A-10 aircraft, waiting should they be needed below. Affectionately known as the Warthog, the A-10 is not technically a fighter jet; it’s an attack aircraft. A relatively slow-flying, single-seat armored plane designed to provide close air support for troops on the ground. Unlike other fighter jets, it is not fast or sexy (hence the nickname), but it gets the job done. 強尼·布拉沃和他的副機長正在他們的 A-10 攻擊機上盤旋,等待下方若有需要。這架被親切稱為野豬的 A-10 不是技術上的戰鬥機;它是一架攻擊機。這款單座裝甲飛機設計緩慢飛行,用於為地面部隊提供近距離空中支援。與其他戰鬥機不同,它不快也不性感(因此有這個暱稱),但它能完成任務。
Ideally, both the A-10 pilots in the air and the troops on the ground would prefer to see each other with their eyes. Seeing the plane above, knowing someone is looking out for them, gives the troops below a greater sense of confidence. And seeing the troops below gives the pilots a greater sense of assurance that they will be able to help if needed. But given the thick cloud cover and the mountainous terrain that night in Afghanistan, the only way either knew the other was there was through the occasional radio contact they kept. Without a line of sight, Johnny Bravo couldn’t see what the troops saw, but he could sense how the troops felt from what he heard over the radio. And this was enough to spur him to act. 理想情況下,空中的 A-10 飛行員和地面的部隊都希望能夠親眼看到對方。看見頭頂上的飛機,知道有人在關注他們,讓地面部隊更加自信。而看到地面部隊,也讓飛行員更有信心能在需要時提供援助。但在阿富汗那晚,濃厚的雲層和崎嶇的地形,他們唯一的聯繫就是偶爾的無線電聯絡。沒有直接視線,約翰尼·布拉沃無法看到地面部隊的情況,但他能從無線電中感受到他們的處境,這已足夠讓他採取行動。
Following his gut, Johnny Bravo decided he needed to execute a weather letdown, to drop down below the clouds so he could take a look at what was happening on the ground. It was a daring move. With the thick, low-hanging clouds, scattered storms in the area and the fact that Johnny Bravo would have to fly into a valley with his field of vision reduced by the night-vision goggles, performing the weather letdown under these conditions was extremely treacherous for even the most experienced of pilots. 跟隨他的直覺,強尼·布拉沃決定他需要執行一次天氣放下,降到雲層下方,以便他能看看地面上發生了什麼。這是一個大膽的舉動。由於厚重的低垂雲層、區域內散佈的暴風雨,以及強尼·布拉沃不得不在使用夜視鏡的情況下飛進山谷,在這些條件下進行天氣放下對於即使是經驗最豐富的飛行員來說也極為危險。
Johnny Bravo was not told to perform the risky maneuver. If anything, he probably would have been told to hang tight and wait until he got the call to help. But Johnny Bravo is not like most pilots. Even though he was thousands of feet above in the safe cocoon of his cockpit, he could sense the anxiety of the men below. Regardless of the dangers, he knew that performing the weather letdown was 約翰尼·布拉沃不被要求執行危險的機動。如果有任何事情,他可能會被告知保持警惕並等待獲得協助的命令。但約翰尼·布拉沃並非大多數飛行員。儘管他在安全的機艙中高空飛行,但他能感受到下方人們的焦慮。儘管存在危險,他知道執行天氣下降是
the right thing to do. And for Johnny Bravo, that meant there was no other choice. 做正確的事。對於約翰尼·布拉沃而言,這意味著別無選擇。
Then, just as he was preparing to head down through the clouds into the valley, his instincts were confirmed. Three words came across the radio. Three little words that can send shivers down a pilot’s neck: “Troops in contact.” 然後,就在他準備穿過雲層進入谷地的時候,他的直覺得到了證實。通過無線電傳來三個單詞。三個小小的單詞,可以讓飛行員背後發涼:「部隊接觸敵軍」。
“Troops in contact” means someone on the ground is in trouble. It is the call that ground forces use to let others know they are under attack. Though Johnny Bravo had heard those words many times before during training, it was on this night, August 16, 2002, that he heard the words “troops in contact” for the first time in a combat situation. 地面部隊遇敵
Johnny Bravo had developed a way to help him relate to the men on the ground. To feel what they feel. During every training exercise, while flying above the battlefield, he would always replay in his mind the scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan when the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy. He would picture the ramp of a Higgins boat dropping down, the men running onto the beach into a wall of German gunfire. The bullets whizzing past them. The pings of stray shots hitting the steel hulls of the boats. The cries of men hit. Johnny Bravo had trained himself to imagine that that was the scene playing out below every time he heard “Troops in contact.” With those images vividly embossed in his mind, Johnny Bravo reacted to the call for assistance. 約翰尼·布拉沃發展了一種方法來幫助他與地面上的人產生共鳴。感受他們的感受。在每次訓練演習期間,當他在上空飛過戰場時,他總是會在腦海中重演電影《拯救大兵瑞恩》中的場景,當盟軍攻佔諾曼底海灘時。他會想像一艘希金斯船艇的斜板落下,士兵們跑到滿是德國炮火的沙灘上。子彈呼嘯而過。偶發的子彈撞擊船艇鋼殼發出的聲音。受傷士兵的哀號。約翰尼·布拉沃已經訓練自己,只要聽到「接觸敵軍」,就能立即想象出這樣的場景。有了這些生動的畫面在腦海中揮之不去,約翰尼·布拉沃就能做出迅速反應,提供援助。
He told his wingman to hang tight above the clouds, announced his intentions to the flight controllers and the troops below and pointed his aircraft down into the darkness. As he passed through the clouds, the turbulence thrashed him and his aircraft about. A hard push to the left. A sudden drop. A jolt to the right. Unlike the commercial jets in which we fly, the A-10 is not designed for passenger comfort, and his plane bounced and shook hard as he passed through the layer of cloud. 他告訴他的副機長在雲霧上方保持緊張,向飛行控制員和下方的軍隊宣布了他的意圖,並將他的飛機指向黑暗。當他穿過雲層時,亂流撕扯著他和他的飛機。向左猛推。突然下降。向右一跳。與我們乘坐的商業客機不同,A-10 不是為乘客舒適而設計的,他的飛機在穿過雲層時劇烈彈跳和搖晃。
Flying into the unknown with no idea what to expect, Johnny Bravo focused his attention on his instruments, trying to take in as much information as he could. His eyes moved from one dial to the next followed by a quick glance out the front window. Altitude, speed, heading, window. Altitude, speed, heading, window. "Please. Let. 不知所踪,飛越未知。Johnny Bravo 專注於檢查儀錶,試圖盡可能多地收集資訊。他的目光從一個錶盤移到另一個錶盤,快速瞥了一眼前窗。高度、速度、航向、窗外。高度、速度、航向、窗外。「請。讓。」
This. Work. Please. Let. This. Work," he said to himself under his breath. 這個工作。請讓這個工作。他在自己的呼吸下對自己說。
When he finally broke through the clouds, he was less than a thousand feet off the ground, flying in a valley. The sight that greeted him was nothing like he had ever seen before, not in training or in the movies. There was enemy fire coming from both sides of the valley. Massive amounts of it. There was so much that the tracer fire -the streaks of light that follow the bullets-lit up the whole area. Bullets and rockets all aimed at the middle, all aimed squarely at the Special Operations Forces pinned down below. 當他最終突破雲層時,他離地面不到一千英呎,在一個谷地中飛行。迎接他的景象與他以往在訓練或電影中見過的完全不同。谷地兩側有敵人火力攻擊。大量的火力。彈道火光-子彈飛行的光點-照亮了整個區域。子彈和火箭全部瞄準中間,全部瞄準被困在下方的特種作戰部隊。
In 2002 the avionics in the aircraft were not as sophisticated as they are today. The instruments Johnny Bravo had couldn’t prevent him from hitting the mountain walls. Worse, he was flying with old Soviet maps left over from the invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. But there was no way he was going to let down those troops. “There are fates worse than death,” he will tell you. “One fate worse than death is accidentally killing your own men. Another fate worse than death is going home alive when twenty-two others don’t.” 二零零二年,航空電子設備還沒有今天的複雜程度。Johnny Bravo 所駕駛的儀器無法防止他撞上山壁。更糟糕的是,他正飛行時使用的是遺留自一九八零年代阿富汗入侵的蘇聯舊地圖。但他絕對不會放棄那些部隊。「死亡之外還有更糟的命運,」他會告訴你。「比死亡更糟的命運是意外殺死自己的戰友。比死亡更糟的命運是,而你卻活下來,另有二十二個人沒有。」
And so, on that dark night in August, Johnny Bravo started counting. He knew his speed and he knew his distance from the mountains. He did some quick calculations in his head and counted out loud the seconds he had before he would hit the valley walls. “One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand . . .” He locked his guns onto a position from which he could see a lot of enemy fire originating and held down the trigger of his Gatling gun. “Four one thousand, five one thousand, six one thousand . . .” At the point he ran out of room, he pulled back on the stick and pulled a sharp turn. His plane roared as he pulled back into the cloud above, his only option to avoid smacking into the mountain. His body pressed hard into his seat from the pressure of the G-forces as he set to go around again. 在 8 月的那個黑暗夜晚,強尼·布拉沃開始數數。他知道自己的速度,也知道離山有多遠。他在腦海中快速計算,大聲數著在撞擊谷壁之前的秒數。「一千一,二千一,三千一...」他將他的槍鎖定在能看到大量敵火的位置,並按住加特林機槍的扳機。「四千一,五千一,六千一...」當他發現沒有足夠的空間時,便拉起操縱桿,轉了一個銳角。他的飛機咆哮著拉回到雲層上方,這是避免撞擊山壁的唯一選擇。當他准備再次繞圈時,他的身體在 G 力的壓力下深深地壓進座椅中。
But there was no sound on the radio. The silence was deafening. Did the radio silence mean his shots were useless? Did it mean the guy on the radio was down? Or worse, did it mean the whole team was down? 但是收音機上沒有任何聲音。寂靜是耳聾的。收音機的寂靜意味著他的射擊是無用的嗎?這是否意味著收音機上的人已經倒下了?或者更糟糕的是,整個團隊都倒下了嗎?
Then the call came. “Good hits! Good hits! Keep it coming!” And keep it coming he did. He took another pass, counting again to avoid 然後電話來了。「好的打擊!好的打擊!繼續保持下去!」他就是這樣繼續下去。他再次進行傳球,再次計數以避免
hitting the mountains. “One one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand . . .” And another sharp turn and another run. And another. And another. He was making good hits and he had plenty of fuel; the problem now was, he was out of ammo. 猛擊山脈。「一千一, 二千一, 三千一...」另一個急轉彎和另一個衝刺。再一次。再一次。他擊中了很多目標,而且還有足夠的燃料;現在的問題是,他已經用完彈藥了。
He pointed his plane up to the clouds to fly and meet his wingman, who was still circling above. Johnny Bravo quickly briefed his partner on the situation and told him to do one thing, “Follow me.” The two A-10s, flying three feet apart from each other, wing to wing, disappeared together into the clouds. 他把飛機指向雲朵,開始飛行,前往與他的機翼戰友會面,那名戰友仍在上空盤旋。強尼·布拉沃迅速向他的夥伴簡要說明了情況,並告訴他做一件事,"跟著我走"。兩架 A-10 戰鬥機並肩飛行,相距僅三英尺,一起消失在雲層之中。
When they popped out, both less than a thousand feet above the ground, they began their runs together. Johnny Bravo did the counting and his wingman followed his lead and laid down the fire. “One one thousand. Two one thousand. Three one thousand. Four one thousand . . .” On cue, the two planes pulled high-G turns together and went around again and again and again. “One one thousand. Two one thousand. Three one thousand. Four one thousand.” 當他們彈出時,離地面不到一千英尺,他們開始一起進行。強尼·布拉沃進行計數,他的機翼手跟隨他的領導並開始射擊。「一千一。二千一。三千一。四千一...」應訊號,兩架飛機一起進行高 G 轉彎,並一次又一次地飛繞。「一千一。二千一。三千一。四千一。」
That night, twenty-two men went home alive. There were no American casualties. 那晚,二十二名男子平安回家。沒有美國人傷亡。
The Value of Empathy 同理心的價值
that August night over Afghanistan, Johnny Bravo risked his life so that others might survive. He received no performance bonus. He didn’t get a promotion or an award at the company off-site. He wasn’t looking for any undue attention or reality TV show for his efforts. For Johnny Bravo, it was just part of the “J.O.B.” as he puts it. And the greatest reward he received for his service was meeting the forces for whom he provided top cover that night. Though they had never met before, when they finally did meet, they hugged like old friends. 那個 8 月夜晚在阿富汗,約翰尼·布萊沃冒著生命危險,使其他人得以倖存。他沒有獲得任何績效獎金。他沒有得到升職或公司離場時的獎勵。他並不是在尋求任何不當注意或真人秀節目來認可他的努力。對於約翰尼·布萊沃來說,這只是他所謂的「工作」的一部分。而他獲得的最大回報是與當晚他提供最高掩護的部隊相遇。儘管他們從未見過面,但當他們最終相見時,他們像老朋友一樣擁抱。
In the linear hierarchies in which we work, we want the folks at the top to see what we did. We raise our hands for recognition and reward. For most of us, the more recognition we get for our efforts from those in charge, the more successful we think we are. It is a system that works so long as that one person who supervises us 在我們工作的線性階層中,我們希望最高層的人能看到我們的成果。我們舉手尋求認可和回報。對於我們大多數人來說,我們從主管那裡獲得越多對我們工作的肯定,我們就認為自己越成功。這是一個只要那個監督我們的人
stays at the company and feels no undue pressure from above-a nearly impossible standard to maintain. For Johnny Bravo and those like him, the will to succeed and the desire to do things that advance the interests of the organization aren’t just motivated by recognition from above; they are integral to a culture of sacrifice and service, in which protection comes from all levels of the organization. 留在公司並感受不到來自上層的過度壓力,這是幾乎不可能達到的標準。對於強尼·布拉沃和其他類似的人來說,追求成功和促進組織利益的意願,不僅源於來自上層的肯定,更是一種犧牲和服務的文化的一部分,在這種文化中,保護來自於組織的各個層面。
There is one thing that Johnny Bravo credits for giving him the courage to cross into the darkness of the unknown, sometimes with the knowledge that he might not come back. And it’s not necessarily what you would expect. As valuable as it was, it isn’t his training. And for all the advanced schooling he has received, it isn’t his education. And as remarkable as the tools are that he has been given, it isn’t his aircraft or any of its sophisticated systems. For all the technology he has at his disposal, empathy, Johnny Bravo says, is the single greatest asset he has to do his job. Ask any of the remarkable men and women in uniform who risk themselves for the benefit of others why they do it and they will tell you the same thing: “Because they would have done it for me.” 約翰尼·布拉沃將勇氣歸功於一件事物,使他能夠進入未知的黑暗,有時知道自己可能無法返回。這並不是你所期望的。儘管這很寶貴,但這不是他的訓練。雖然他接受了先進的學習,但這並非他的教育。儘管他擁有精密的工具,但這並非他的飛機或任何複雜的系統。儘管他擁有先進的技術,約翰尼·布拉沃說,同情心是他完成工作的最大資產。問問那些身穿制服的傑出男女,他們為他人的利益而冒險,他們會告訴你同樣的事情:"因為他們會為我這樣做。"
Where do people like Johnny Bravo come from? Are they just born that way? Some perhaps are. But if the conditions in which we work meet a particular standard, every single one of us is capable of the courage and sacrifice of a Johnny Bravo. Though we may not be asked to risk our lives or to save anybody else’s, we would gladly share our glory and help those with whom we work succeed. More important, in the right conditions, the people with whom we work would choose to do those things for us. And when that happens, when those kinds of bonds are formed, a strong foundation is laid for the kind of success and fulfillment that no amount of money, fame or awards can buy. This is what it means to work in a place in which the leaders prioritize the well-being of their people and, in return, their people give everything they’ve got to protect and advance the wellbeing of one another and the organization. 強尼布雷沃可能來自何方?他們是天生如此的嗎?也許有些人就是如此。但是,如果我們工作的環境符合特定標準,我們每個人都有勇氣和犧牲精神,像強尼布雷沃一樣。雖然我們可能不被要求冒生命危險或拯救別人,但我們會很高興分享榮耀並協助我們工作的人取得成功。更重要的是,在適當的條件下,我們工作的人會選擇為我們這樣做。當這種 bond 形成時,會為成功和滿足感奠定堅實的基礎,這是金錢、名聲或獎項無法購買的。這就是在一個以員工福祉為優先的環境中工作的意義,而員工也會全力以赴來保護和促進彼此以及組織的福祉。
I use the military to illustrate the example because the lessons are so much more exaggerated when it is a matter of life and death. There is a pattern that exists in the organizations that achieve the greatest success, the ones that outmaneuver and outinnovate their competitors, the ones that command the greatest respect from inside 我使用軍事來說明這個例子,因為當涉及生死問題時,教訓會被極度誇張。在取得最大成功的組織中,存在著一種模式,這些組織能夠操控和超越競爭對手,贏得最高敬意。
and outside their organizations, the ones with the highest loyalty and lowest churn and the ability to weather nearly every storm or challenge. These exceptional organizations all have cultures in which the leaders provide cover from above and the people on the ground look out for each other. This is the reason they are willing to push hard and take the kinds of risks they do. And the way any organization can achieve this is with empathy. 組織內部和外部,擁有最高忠誠度和最低流失率,且能應對幾乎所有風暴或挑戰的人。這些出色的組織都有文化,領導者從上而下提供保護,地面的人相互照應。這就是他們願意努力拼搏、承擔風險的原因。任何組織都可以通過同理心來實現這一點。
CHAPTER 2 第二章
Employees Are People Too 員工也是人
Before there was empathy at the company, going to work felt like, well, work. On any given morning, the factory employees would stand at their machines waiting to start at the sound of the bell. And when it rang, on cue they would flip the switches and power up the machines in front of them. Within a few seconds, the whir of the machinery drowned out the sound of their voices. The workday had begun. 公司還沒有同理心之前,上班就像單單做工。在任何一個早晨,工廠員工會站在他們的機器前等待鈴聲響起開始工作。當鈴聲響起,他們會按照指令立即開啟機器開始運轉。幾秒之內,機器的轟鳴聲就蓋過了他們的聲音。工作日就這樣開始了。
About two hours into the day, another bell would ring, announcing the time the workers could take a break. The machines would stop and nearly every worker would leave their post. Some went to the bathroom. Some went to grab another cup of coffee. And some just sat by their machines, resting until the bell told them to start work again. A few hours later, the bell would sound again, this time to let them know they were now allowed to leave the building for lunch. This was the way it had always been done. 大約在一天的前兩個小時裡,另一顆鐘聲將響起,宣布工人們可以休息了。機器將停止運轉,幾乎每個工人都會離開崗位。有些人去了洗手間,有些人去拿另一杯咖啡,有些人則坐在機器旁休息,直到鐘聲告訴他們再次開始工作。幾個小時後,鐘聲將再次響起,這次是為了讓他們知道現在可以離開建築物去吃午餐了。這一直是這樣的做法。
“I didn’t know any better,” said Mike Merck, an assembly team leader with a thick Southern drawl who had been with HayssenSandiacre for fourteen years. “I think anyone in the building would have told you the same thing.” 我不知道有更好的方法,」邁克·梅克說,他是一名組裝團隊領導,口音濃厚,來自南方,在海森·桑迪亞克工作了十四年。「我認為大樓裡任何人都會告訴你同樣的事。
But things would change after Bob Chapman took over the South Carolina company. Chapman is CEO of the equally cumbersomely named Barry-Wehmiller, a collection of predominantly manufacturing companies that Chapman had been steadily buying over the years. Most of the companies that Chapman bought were in distress. Their financials were weak and, in some cases, their cultures were worse. HayssenSandiacre was his latest acquisition. Other CEOs may have brought with them a team of consultants and a new strategy, ready to tell everyone what they had to do to “return the company to profitability.” What Chapman brought, in stark contrast, was a 但事物在鮑勃·查普曼接管南卡羅萊納州公司後會發生變化。查普曼是同樣笨拙命名的 Barry-Wehmiller 公司的首席執行官,這是一家由許多以製造為主的公司組成的集團,查普曼多年來一直在收購這些公司。查普曼購買的大多數公司都陷入困境。它們的財務狀況很差,在某些情況下,它們的企業文化更糟。HayssenSandiacre 是他最近收購的公司。其他首席執行官可能會帶來一群顧問和一個新的策略,準備告訴每個人他們需要做什麼才能"恢復公司的盈利能力"。與之相反,查普曼帶來的是
willingness to listen. As he did with every company he acquired, he started by sitting down to hear what employees had to say. 樂意聆聽。正如他對每家收購的公司所做的那樣,他首先坐下來聆聽員工的意見。
Ron Campbell, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the company, had just returned from three months in Puerto Rico, where he had been responsible for installing HayssenSandiacre’s manufacturing equipment in a customer’s plant. Sitting in the room with Chapman, Campbell was hesitant to talk about what life was like at the company. “First of all,” Campbell asked, “if I tell the truth, will I still have a job tomorrow?” Chapman smiled. “If you have any trouble tomorrow about what you say today,” he assured him, “you give me a call.” 羅恩·坎貝爾，一位在公司工作了二十七年的老臣,剛從波多黎各三個月的出差回來,在那裡他負責為客戶安裝海森·桑迪亞克的製造設備。坐在與查普曼的房間裡,坎貝爾猶豫是否談論公司內部的生活。「首先,」坎貝爾問,「如果我說實話,我明天還會有工作嗎?」查普曼微笑地說:「如果你今天說的話明天會給你帶來麻煩,你就打給我。」
And with that, Campbell started to open up. “Well, Mr. Chapman,” he started, “it seems like you trust me a lot more when you can’t see me than when I’m right here. I had more freedom while I was away at a customer site than I do here,” he said, referring to his time away in Puerto Rico. “As soon as I stepped in the plant, it’s like all my freedom just slipped away. It feels like someone has their thumb on me. I had to punch a time clock when I walked in and again when I left for lunch, came back and when I was done for the day. I didn’t have to do that in Puerto Rico.” This was nothing Chapman hadn’t heard before at other factories. 坎貝爾開始敞開了心扉。「嗯,查普曼先生,」他開口說,「看來當我不在你眼前時,你對我更有信任。我在客戶現場的時候比在這裡擁有更多自由。」他提到了他在波多黎各的經歷。「一踏進廠裡,我的自由就像被掠奪了一樣。感覺有人在壓迫我。我必須在進出時打卡,包括午餐時間。在波多黎各就不需要這樣做。」這對查普曼來說並不陌生,他在其他工廠也聽過這樣的抱怨。
“I walk in the same door with engineers, accountants and other people who work in the office,” Campbell went on. “They turn left to go to the office and I go straight into the plant and we are treated completely differently. You trust them to decide when to get a soda or a cup of coffee or take a break; you make me wait for a bell.” 我與工程師、會計師和其他在辦公室工作的人一起走進同一個門。他們往左走去辦公室,而我直接進入工廠,我們受到完全不同的對待。你信任他們決定何時喝汽水、喝咖啡或休息;但你要我等待鈴聲。
Others felt the same. It was like there were two different companies. No matter how much effort they put in, those who stood by the machines didn’t feel like the company trusted them simply because they stood on a factory floor instead of sitting at desks. If an office employee needed to call home to let their kids know they would be late, they would simply pick up the phone and call them. On the factory floor, however, if a worker needed to do the same thing, they had to ask permission to use the pay phone. 其他人有同感。這就像有兩家不同的公司。不管他們付出多少努力,那些站在機器旁邊的人都感覺公司並不信任他們,只因為他們站在工廠地板上而不是坐在辦公桌前。如果辦公室員工需要打電話回家告知孩子他們會遲到,他們只需拿起電話打電話即可。然而,在工廠地板上,如果工人需要做同樣的事,他們必須獲得許可才能使用公用電話。
When Campbell finished, Chapman turned to the personnel leader and told him they needed to take down the time clocks. The bells were to go too. Without making any grand proclamations and 當坎貝爾完成時,查普曼轉向人力資源領導者,告訴他們需要拆除打卡鐘。鐘也要一起取下。沒有做出任何重大宣言的情況下
without asking for anything in return from the employees, Chapman decided that things were going to be different from now on. And that was just the start. 不求任何回報,Chapman 決定從現在開始一切都會改變。這只是開始而已。
Empathy would be injected into the company and trust would be the new standard. Preferring to see everyone as human instead of as a factory worker or office employee, Chapman made other changes so that everyone would be treated the same way. 同理心將注入公司,信任將成為新的標準。寧願將所有人視為人類,而非工廠工人或辦公室員工,Chapman 做出其他改變,使所有人得到同樣的對待。
Spare machine parts had always been kept inside a locked cage. If a worker needed a part, they would have to stand in line outside the cage and ask a parts employee to get what they needed. Workers were not allowed to go into the cage themselves. This was management’s way of protecting against theft. It may have prevented theft, but it was also a powerful reminder that management didn’t trust people. Chapman ordered all the locks removed and all the fences taken down and allowed any employee to go into the area to check out any part or tool they felt they needed. 備用機械零件一直被保存在一個上鎖的籠子裡。如果一名工人需要一件零件,他們必須在籠子外面排隊,並要求零件員工取得他們所需的零件。工人們不被允許自己進入那個籠子。這是管理層為了防止被盜竊而採取的措施。它可能防止了被盜竊,但它也強烈地提醒人們,管理層不信任員工。查普曼命令拆除所有鎖和圍欄,允許任何員工進入該區域,取走他們認為需要的任何零件或工具。
Chapman took out all the pay phones and made company phones available that any employee could use at any time. No coins needed, no permission required. Any employee would be allowed to go through any door and visit any part of the company whenever they wanted. Every employee would be treated the same way regardless of whether they worked in the administrative offices or on the factory floor. This was going to be the new normal. 查普曼移除了所有的付費電話,並提供可隨時供所有員工使用的公司電話。不需要硬幣,也不需要許可。任何員工都可以自由進出任何門,參訪公司的任何地方。不管是在行政辦公室或是工廠車間,所有員工都將得到平等的對待。這將成為新的常態。
Chapman understood that to earn the trust of people, the leaders of an organization must first treat them like people. To earn trust, he must extend trust. He didn’t believe that simply because someone went to college or was good at accounting they were more trustworthy than someone who had a GED and was good with their hands. Chapman believed in the fundamental goodness of people and he was going to treat them as such. 查普曼了解,為了贏得人們的信任,一個組織的領導者必須首先把他們當作人對待。為了贏得信任,他必須伸出信任。他不相信,僅因為某人上過大學或擅長會計,就比擁有高中同等學歷並善於動手的人更值得信任。查普曼相信人性的根本善良,他打算以此對待他們。
In a short period of time, the company started to feel more like a family. Simply by changing the environment in which people worked, the same people started acting differently toward each other. They felt like they belonged and that enabled them to relax and feel valued. People started to care for others as they felt cared for. This caring environment allowed people to fully engage “their heads and 公司在短時間內變得更像一個家庭。僅通過改變人們工作的環境,同樣的人開始對彼此採取不同的行為方式。他們感到自己屬於這裡,這使他們能夠放鬆下來並感到被重視。人們開始關心彼此,因為他們感到自己也受到關懷。這種關懷的環境使人們能夠全心投入「他們的頭腦和
hearts,” as Chapman likes to say, and the organization began to thrive. 正如 Chapman 所說,「心靈」,組織開始蓬勃發展。
An employee in the paint department faced a personal crisis. His wife, a diabetic, was going to lose her leg. He needed time to help her, but as an hourly worker, he could not afford to lose any pay. He couldn’t afford not to work. But this was a different company now. Without being asked, his fellow employees quickly came up with a plan: to transfer their own paid vacation days so he could have more days off. Nothing like this had ever been done before at the company. What’s more, it was in clear violation of official company policy. But that didn’t matter. “We’re thinking about other people more,” Merck said. And so with the help of those in the administrative office, that is exactly what they did. 一位身在油漆部門的員工面臨個人危機。他的妻子是糖尿病患者,即將失去她的腿。他需要時間去照顧她,但作為時薪工人,他負擔不起失去任何工資。他負擔不起不工作。但如今這家公司已大不相同。未經要求,他的同事們迅速制定了一個計劃:轉讓自己的有薪假期天數,讓他能有更多休假時間。公司從未有過這樣的做法。更重要的是,這明顯違反了公司的正式政策。但這並不重要。「我們正在更多地考慮他人。」梅克說。在行政辦公室的協助下,他們真的這樣做了。
“I never thought you could enjoy a job,” said Campbell. “When you have people who trust you, they’re going to do a better job for you to earn or keep that trust.” In the more than ten years since the chain-link fence came down, there has been almost no theft. And if an employee has a personal problem, they know the leaders of the company-and their fellow employees-will be there for them. 我從未想過你會享受工作,坎貝爾說。當你有人相信你時,他們會為你做得更好,以賺取或保持那種信任。自從鏈條圍欄拆除以來,幾乎沒有發生任何盜竊案。如果員工有個人問題,他們知道公司領導和同事會在那裡支持他們。
Employees didn’t just become more willing to help each other solve problems, however. They also looked after their machines better. This meant fewer breakdowns and fewer work stoppages (which also meant expenses were kept in check). The changes were not only good for the people, they were good for the company too. In the period since Chapman took over, HayssenSandiacre saw revenue increase from $55\$ 55 million to $95\$ 95 million, which reflected organic and acquisition growth. They grew without any debt and without the help of a management consultant-driven reorganization. The company grew because of the people who already worked there. They had a renewed commitment to the organization, and it didn’t come as a result of any promises of bonuses or threats. They were more committed because they wanted to be. A new culture of caring allowed the people and strategies to flourish. 員工不僅僅變得更願意互相幫助解決問題,而且也更好地照顧他們的機器。這意味著更少的故障和工作停擺(也意味著費用得到控制)。這些變化不僅對人有利,對公司也有利。自 Chapman 接管以來,HayssenSandiacre 的收入從 $55\$ 55 百萬增加到 $95\$ 95 百萬,這反映了有機和收購的增長。他們在沒有債務和沒有管理顧問驅動的重組的情況下實現了增長。公司之所以發展,是因為已經在那裡工作的人。他們對組織的承諾有了新的動力,這並不是由於任何獎金承諾或威脅。他們更投入,是因為他們想這樣做。一種新的關懷文化使人與策略得以蓬勃發展。
This is what happens when the leaders of an organization listen to the people who work there. Without coercion, pressure or force, the people naturally work together to help each other and advance the company. Working with a sense of obligation is replaced by 當組織領導聆聽工作人員時會發生這種情況。在沒有脅迫、壓力或強制的情況下,人們自然會互相合作,互幫互助,推動公司發展。取代了出於義務工作的感覺。
working with a sense of pride. And coming to work for the company is replaced by coming to work for each other. Work is no longer a place to dread. It is a place to feel valued. 以自豪的心情工作。來公司工作不再是,而是為彼此而來。工作不再是令人畏懼的地方,而是一個感到被重視的地方。
We See What We Want to See 我們看到我們想看到的
CHAPMAN LIKES TO tell the story about the first time he visited HayssenSandiacre, which was five years before the transition that Mike Merck and Ron Campbell talk about. It was shortly after Chapman had acquired the company. As the new CEO, no one knew who he was or paid any attention to him as he sipped a cup of coffee before his first meeting. They just went about their business as usual, waiting for the day to start. And it was what Chapman saw while sitting in the cafeteria that March morning in 1997 that started his experiment with the company. He saw something he had never seen before in all of his years in business. It was a scene powerful enough to force him to reexamine nearly every lesson he had ever learned about how to run a company. What he did at HayssenSandiacre would become the basis for how Chapman would run his entire operation. More important, it would transform how he managed the people who worked for him. 查普曼喜歡講述他第一次造訪海森桑迪艾克的故事,那是在邁克·梅克和羅恩·坎貝爾所說的轉型前五年。那是在查普曼收購該公司後不久。作為新任 CEO,沒有人認識他或者在他喝咖啡等待首次會議開始時注意到他,他們則繼續像平常一樣處理自己的事務,等待一天的開始。而在 1997 年 3 月上午,查普曼在自助餐廳看到的情況,開始了他對該公司的實驗。他看到了自己在商業生涯中從未見過的情景,這幕景象強大到迫使他重新審視自己學到的幾乎所有有關如何經營公司的經驗。他在海森桑迪艾克所做的事,成為查普曼管理整個運營的基礎。更重要的是,它將改變他如何管理為他工作的人。
As he sat there, Chapman watched a group of employees having their morning coffee together before work . . . and they were having fun. Joking, laughing like they were old friends. They were placing bets for the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament airing that night. They were getting along and seemed to really enjoy each other’s company. But as soon as they stood up to start their day, Chapman noticed a dramatic change in their demeanor. As if on cue, their smiles were replaced with sullenness. The laughing stopped. The camaraderie evaporated. “The energy seemed to drain from them,” said Chapman. 在那裡坐著,Chapman 觀察到一群僱員在上班前一起喝著早晨的咖啡,他們玩得很開心。開玩笑,大笑像是老朋友一樣。他們正在下註參加那天晚上播出的 NCAA March Madness 籃球賽。他們相處融洽,似乎真的很享受彼此的陪伴。但就在他們站起身開始工作的時候,Chapman 注意到他們的態度發生了戲劇性的變化。就像按下暫停鍵一樣,他們的笑容被沮喪取代。笑聲也停止了。團結感也消失了。"氣氛似乎從他們身上消失了,"Chapman 說。
Chapman was overcome with a feeling of despair. He had bought distressed companies like this before. He had been around their employees before. But, for some reason, he had never been able to see what he saw that day. He couldn’t help but feel touched by what 張明受到絕望的感覺所困擾。他以前曾買下過這樣的困難公司。他以前也接觸過這些公司的員工。但是,不知為什麼,他那天看到的卻完全不同。他無法抑制被那天所看到的事物所感動的心情。
he just witnessed, which spurred a thought: Why can’t we enjoy ourselves at work like we do when we’re not at work? 他剛目睹的,引發了一個想法:為什麼我們在工作時不能像在非工作時一樣享受自己呢?
Up until that day, Chapman had been exactly the kind of executive we teach our MBAs to be. He was good with numbers and he loved the game of business. He made decisions based on data, market conditions and financial opportunities. He was tough when he needed to be and could charm the pants off someone, if that’s what was required. He thought business was something that was measured on spreadsheets, and he saw people as one of the many assets he had to manage to help him achieve his financial goals. And as that kind of executive, he was very effective. 查普曼直到那天一直是我們在 MBA 課程中教導學生要成為的那種高管。他擅長數字,熱愛商業遊戲。他根據數據、市場狀況和財務機會做出決策。在需要的時候他很強硬,也能在有需要時迷人地誘惑他人。他認為商業就是要在電子表格上計算,並將人視為要管理的資產之一以實現財務目標。作為這樣的高管,他很有成效。
Before that moment in the cafeteria, Chapman was able to make hard decisions far too easily. The St. Louis-based company with the hard-to-spell name was saddled with debt and close to bankruptcy when Chapman took over after his father died in 1975. And given the dire situation, he did what any responsible CEO would do in his position. He laid off employees when he felt it was needed to achieve the desired financial goal, renegotiated his debt obligations, was dependent on banks to support growth and took big risks that would create growth that any high-flying executive would have understood. And as a result the company slowly built back up to profitability. 在那次自助餐廳的時刻之前,Chapman 能夠輕易地做出艱難的決定。這家總部在聖路易斯的公司名稱難拼,在 Chapman 在 1975 年父親去世後接任 CEO 時,正陷入債務困境,瀕臨破產。鑑於嚴峻的局勢,他採取了任何負責任的 CEO 在其處境下會採取的措施。他在認為有需要達到預期的財務目標時裁員,重新協商債務義務,依賴銀行支持增長,並採取任何高階主管都會明白的巨大風險來創造增長。結果公司得以緩慢地恢復盈利。
Chapman left the cafeteria and headed to his first meeting. It was supposed to be a meet-and-greet, a simple formality. He, the new CEO, was to introduce himself to the customer service team, and they were to bring the new CEO up to speed. But based on what Chapman saw that morning, he realized that he and his team had the power to make the company a place people wanted to go every day. So he set out to create an environment in which people felt they could express themselves honestly and be recognized and celebrated for their progress. This is the basis of what Chapman calls truly human leadership. 查普曼離開了自助餐廳,前往他的第一次會議。這是一個簡單的見面禮儀。作為新任 CEO,他要向客戶服務團隊自我介紹,並讓團隊了解他。但是根據查普曼當天早上的觀察,他意識到他和他的團隊有能力讓公司成為人們每天都想去的地方。所以他決定創造一個環境,讓人們能夠誠實地表達自己,並為他們的進步得到認可和慶祝。這就是查普曼所謂的真正人性化領導的基礎。
When the people have to manage dangers from inside the organization, 當組織內存在危險時,人們必須加以管理
the organization itself becomes less able to face the dangers from outside. 組織本身變得不太能夠面對外來的危險。
Truly human leadership protects an organization from the internal rivalries that can shatter a culture. When we have to protect ourselves from each other, the whole organization suffers. But when trust and cooperation thrive internally, we pull together and the organization grows stronger as a result. 真正的人類領導能保護一個組織免受內部競爭對手的破壞,這可能會破壞一個文化。當我們不得不自保時,整個組織都會受到影響。但是當內部充滿信任和合作時,我們會團結一致,組織也會因此變得更強大。
Nearly every system in the human body exists to help us survive and thrive. Thousands of years ago, other hominid species died off while we lived on . . . and on and on. And even though we have been on the planet for a relatively short period of time compared to other species, we have fast become the most successful and the only unrivaled animal on earth. So successful, in fact, that the decisions we make affect the ability of other animals-even other human beings-to survive or thrive. 幾乎人體每個系統都存在於幫助我們生存和繁榮。數千年前,其他人形類物種已經絕跡,而我們卻一直生存至今。與其他物種相比,我們在地球上生存的時間較短,但我們已成為最成功和唯一無敵的動物。事實上,我們的決定已影響其他動物乃至人類本身的生存或繁榮能力。
The systems inside us that protect us from danger and encourage us to repeat behavior in our best interest respond to the environments in which we live and work. If we sense danger our defenses go up. If we feel safe among our own people, in our own tribes or organizations, we relax and are more open to trust and cooperation. 我們體內保護我們免於危險和鼓勵我們重複有利於我們的行為的系統,會對我們生活和工作的環境做出反應。如果我們感到危險,我們的防禦就會升高。如果我們在自己的人群、部落或組織中感到安全,我們就會放鬆並更願意信任和合作。
A close study of high-performing organizations, the ones in which the people feel safe when they come to work, reveals something astounding. Their cultures have an eerie resemblance to the conditions under which the human animal was designed to operate. Operating in a hostile, competitive world in which each group was in pursuit of finite resources, the systems that helped us survive and thrive as a species also work to help organizations achieve the same. There are no fancy management theories and it is not about hiring dream teams. It is just a matter of biology and anthropology. If certain conditions are met and the people inside an organization feel safe among each other, they will work together to achieve things none of them could have ever achieved alone. The result is that their organization towers over their competitors. 高表現組織的仔細研究顯示,在這些組織中,人們在到工作時感到安全。這些組織的文化與人類動物被設計來運作的條件驚人地相似。在一個充滿敵意和競爭的世界中運營,每個群體都在追求有限的資源,幫助我們作為一個物種生存和茁壯的系統,也有助於組織實現相同的目標。這與昂貴的管理理論無關,也不是關於招聘夢想團隊。這只是生物學和人類學的一個問題。如果滿足某些條件,組織內部的人彼此感到安全,他們將共同努力,實現任何一個人單獨都無法實現的事情。結果是,他們的組織遠勝過競爭對手。
This is what Chapman did at Barry-Wehmiller. Quite by accident, he created a work environment and company culture that, biologically, gets the best out of people. Chapman and others like him didn’t set out to change their employees-they set out to change the conditions in which their employees operate. To create cultures that inspire people to give all they have to give simply because they love where they work. 這就是查普曼在巴里-威姆勒所做的。純屬意外,他創造了一個工作環境和公司文化,在生物學上,這能激發出人們最好的一面。查普曼和其他人並非刻意要改變他們的員工,而是努力改變員工工作的環境。創造一種文化,激勵人們全心全意地投入工作,僅僅因為他們熱愛自己的工作。
This book attempts to help us understand why we do what we do. Almost all of the systems in our bodies have evolved to help us find food, stay alive and advance the species. However, for a lot of the world, and certainly throughout the developed world, finding food and avoiding danger no longer preoccupy our days. We no longer hunt and gather, at least not in the caveman sense. In our modern world, advancing our careers and trying to find happiness and fulfillment are the definition of success. But the systems inside us that guide our behavior and decisions still function as they did tens of thousands of years ago. Our primitive minds still perceive the world around us in terms of threats to our well-being or opportunities to find safety. If we understand how these systems work, we are better equipped to reach our goals. At the same time, the groups in which we work are better able to succeed and thrive as well. 這本書試圖幫助我們理解我們為什麼做我們所做的事情。我們身體中的大部分系統都已進化到幫助我們尋找食物、保持生存和推進物種。然而,對於世界上的很多地方,尤其是在發達國家,尋找食物和避免危險不再是我們日常生活的重中之重。我們不再像洞穴人一樣狩獵和採集。在我們的現代世界裡,發展事業、努力尋找幸福和實現自我成就感才是成功的定義。但是,指引我們行為和決策的內部系統仍然如同數萬年前一樣運作。我們原始的心智仍然以威脅我們健康或尋找安全機會的方式來感知周圍的世界。如果我們了解這些系統的運作方式,我們就能更好地實現我們的目標。與此同時,我們工作的群體也能更好地取得成功和蓬勃發展。
Yet sadly in our modern world, given the systems we’ve developed to manage our companies, the number of organizations that inspire employees to truly commit themselves is a slim minority. The cultural norms of the majority of companies and organizations today actually work against our natural biological inclinations. This means that happy, inspired and fulfilled employees are the exception rather than the rule. According to the Deloitte Shift Index, 80 percent of people are dissatisfied with their jobs. When people don’t even want to be at work, progress comes at much greater cost and effort . . . and often doesn’t last. We don’t even bother measuring a company’s success in decades, instead we focus on successive quarters. 然而,令人遺憾的是,在我們現代的世界中,考慮到我們已經建立起來管理公司的體系,鼓勵員工真正投入自己的組織數量,都只是少數。如今大多數公司和組織的文化規範,實際上正在阻礙我們本能的生物傾向。這意味著,快樂、有激情和自我實現的員工,是例外而非常態。根據德勤的轉型指數,80%的人對自己的工作感到不滿意。當人們都不想待在工作崗位上時,進步的代價和需要付出的努力就會大大增加……而且通常也無法持久。我們甚至不再花心思衡量一家公司的成功史可以追溯到幾十年,而是把焦點集中在連續幾個季度上。
A business environment with an unbalanced focus on short-term results and money before people affects society at large. When we struggle to find happiness or a sense of belonging at work, we take that struggle home. Those who have an opportunity to work in 在以短期利润和金钱而非人员为主的不平衡商业环境中,会影响整个社会。当我们在工作中寻找幸福或归属感的困难时,这种挣扎会带回到家里。那些有机会在
organizations that treat them like human beings to be protected rather than a resource to be exploited come home at the end of the day with an intense feeling of fulfillment and gratitude. This should be the rule for all of us, not the exception. Returning from work feeling inspired, safe, fulfilled and grateful is a natural human right to which we are all entitled and not a modern luxury that only a few lucky ones are able to find. 將這些組織視為需要被保護的人類,而非可被開發利用的資源的企業,他們在工作結束時會感到內心充實和感激。這應該是我們所有人的準則,而不是個別案例。從工作中歸來,感到被啟發、安全、充實和感恩,這是我們所有人的天賦人權,而不是只有少數幸運者才能獲得的現代奢侈品。
There was no “one thing” that Chapman did to transform his organization. It was a series of little things that, over time, dramatically affected how his company operates. Lots and lots of little things, some successful, some less so, but all focused on what he understood in his gut needed to happen. It wasn’t until years later, while attending a wedding, that Chapman was able to articulate in much clearer and more human terms what was driving his decisions. Given his love and tenacity for business, how Bob Chapman explains why he made the course change he did may surprise you. 查普曼並沒有做出任何一件「一件事」來改變他的組織。而是一系列小事情,隨著時間的推移,極大地影響了他公司的運營方式。大量的小事情,有些成功,有些不太成功,但全都集中在他直覺感到需要發生的事情上。直到多年後,在出席一場婚禮時,查普曼才能更清晰和更人性化地道出他的決策動機。鑒於他對商業的熱愛和堅韌,鮑勃·查普曼解釋他為何會做出這樣的方向變更,可能會讓人感到驚訝。
The Awesome Responsibility 了不起的責任
SITTING IN THE pews of a church, Chapman and his wife watched a wedding ceremony unfold. The groom stood, staring at his approaching bride. The feeling of love the two had for each other was palpable. Everyone there could feel it. And then, as tradition dictated, the father handed his daughter, his baby girl, to her future husband. 坐在教堂的长椅上，查普曼和他的妻子观看了婚礼仪式的展开。新郎站立那里，凝视着即将来到的新娘。他们彼此之间的爱意显而易见。在场的每个人都能感受到。然后，如传统所定，新娘的父亲将他的女儿，他的小女儿，交给了她未来的丈夫。
“That’s it!” Chapman realized. A father who would do anything to protect his daughter now ceremonially hands the responsibility of that care to another. After he gives her hand away, he will take his place in the pews and trust that her new husband will protect her as he did. “It’s exactly the same for a company,” Chapman realized. 「這就是它!」Chapman 意識到。一個父親會為了保護他的女兒做任何事情,現在他正式將這種關懷的責任交給另一個人。在他將她的手交出去之後,他會在長椅上坐下,相信她的新丈夫會像他一樣保護她。「對於一家公司來說,情況正好相同,」Chapman 意識到。
Every single employee is someone's son or someone's daughter. Like a 每個單獨的員工都是某人的兒子或某人的女兒。就像是
parent, a leader of a company is responsible for their precious lives. 公司領導,負責他們珍貴的生命。
Every single employee is someone’s son or someone’s daughter. Parents work to offer their children a good life and a good education and to teach them the lessons that will help them grow up to be happy, confident and able to use all the talents they were blessed with. Those parents then hand their children over to a company with the hope the leaders of that company will exercise the same love and care as they have. “It is we, the companies, who are now responsible for these precious lives,” says Chapman, as he balls his hands into fists with the conviction of a devoted preacher. 每一個員工都是某人的孩子。父母為了給予孩子美好的生活和良好教育,教導他們長大後能成為快樂、自信並善用天賦的人。父母將孩子交託給公司,期望公司的領導能像父母般給予愛護和關懷。「現在,我們公司有責任照顧這些寶貴的生命。」Chapman 說,雙手握成拳頭,信念如虔誠的傳教士。
This is what it means to be a leader. This is what it means to build a strong company. Being a leader is like being a parent, and the company is like a new family to join. One that will care for us like we are their own . . . in sickness and in health. And if we are successful, our people will take on our company’s name as a sign of the family to which they are loyal. Those who work at BarryWehmiller talk of their “love” for the company and each other. They proudly wear the logo or the company’s name as if it were their own name. They will defend the company and their colleagues like they were their own flesh and blood. And in the case of nearly every one of these kinds of organizations, the people use the company’s name as a very symbol of their own identity. 這就是成為領導者的意義。這就是建立一家強大公司的意義。作為一個領導者就像是做父母,而公司就像是一個新的家庭去加入。一個會像照顧自己人一樣照顧我們的家庭,無論是健康還是生病。如果我們成功了,我們的員工會把公司的名字當作他們忠誠的家族標誌。那些在 BarryWehmiller 工作的人談論他們對公司和彼此的「熱愛」。他們自豪地穿著公司的標誌或名稱,就好像那是他們自己的名字一樣。他們會捍衛公司和同事,就像捍衛自己的血肉一樣。在這種組織中,幾乎每個人都把公司的名字當作自己身份的象徵。
The great irony of all this is that capitalism actually does better when we work as we were designed-when we have a chance to fulfill our very human obligations. To ask our employees not simply for their hands to do our labor, but to inspire their cooperation, their trust and their loyalty so that they will commit to our cause. To treat people like family and not as mere employees. To sacrifice the numbers to save the people and not sacrifice the people to save the numbers. 偉大的諷刺在於,當我們按照設計而活時,資本主義實際上會做得更好。要求員工不僅為我們的勞動提供雙手,而是啟發他們的合作、信任和忠誠,讓他們致力於我們的事業。將人視為家人,而非僅僅是員工。不要為了保護數字而犧牲人員,而是為了拯救人員而犧牲數字。
Leaders of organizations who create a working environment better suited for how we are designed do not sacrifice excellence or performance simply because they put people first. Quite the contrary. These organizations are among the most stable, innovative and 組織領導者創造更適合我們設計的工作環境,並不會因為把人放在首位而犧牲卓越或績效。恰恰相反,這些組織是最穩定、創新和
high-performing companies in their industries. Sadly, it is more common for leaders of companies to see the people as the means to drive the numbers. The leaders of great organizations do not see people as a commodity to be managed to help grow the money. They see the money as the commodity to be managed to help grow their people. This is why performance really matters. The better the organization performs, the more fuel there is to build an even bigger, more robust organization that feeds the hearts and souls of those who work there. In return, their people give everything they’ve got to see the organization grow . . . and grow . . . and grow. 在其所在行業中表現出色的公司。 遺憾的是,更常見的是公司領導人將人視為推動數字的手段。 偉大組織的領導者並不將人視為需要管理以助於增加金錢的商品。 他們將金錢視為需要管理以助於培養他們的人才的商品。 這就是為什麼績效真的很重要。 組織的表現越好,就越有資源建立一個更大、更强大的組織,滋養那些在那裡工作的人的心靈和靈魂。 作為回報,他們的員工會全力以赴地幫助組織不斷發展。
To see money as subordinate to people and not the other way around is fundamental to creating a culture in which the people naturally pull together to advance the business. And it is the ability to grow one’s people to do what needs to be done that creates stable, lasting success. It is not the genius at the top giving directions that makes people great. It is great people that make the guy at the top look like a genius. 把金錢視為次於人民,而非相反,這是建立一種文化的根本,在這種文化中,人民自然地團結起來推動企業發展。能夠培養自己的員工去完成所需要做的事情,這才是創造穩定、持久成功的能力。不是頂尖管理層的指引才令人民出色,而是優秀的員工令上層領導看似英明。
I cannot be accused of being a crazy idealist, of imagining a world in which people love going to work. I can’t be accused of being out of touch with reality to believe in the possibility of a world in which the majority of company leaders trust their people and the majority of people trust their leaders. I can’t be an idealist if these organizations exist in reality. 我無法被指責為一個瘋狂的理想主義者,想象一個人們熱愛上班的世界。我不能被指責與現實脫節,相信大多數公司領導層信任他們的員工,而大多數員工也信任他們的領導的可能性。如果這些組織確實存在於現實中,我也就無法是一個理想主義者。
From manufacturing to high tech, from the United States Marine Corps to the halls of government, there are shining examples of the positive results an organization will enjoy when the people inside are willing to treat each other not as adversaries, competitors or opposition but rather as trusted allies. We face enough danger from the outside. There is no value in building organizations that compound that danger by adding more threats from the inside. 從製造業到高科技,從美國海軍陸戰隊到政府大廳,都有組織在內部人員願意視對方不是對手、競爭者或反對者,而是值得信賴的盟友時,所能獲得良好成果的鮮明例證。來自外部的危險已經夠多了,沒必要再通過在內部製造更多威脅來加深這種危險。
Only 20 percent of Americans “love” their jobs. Chapman and those like him have called upon us to join them to make that metric grow. The question is, do we have the courage? 只有 20%的美國人"熱愛"他們的工作。Chapman 和那些像他一樣的人已經呼籲我們加入他們,讓這個指標增長。問題是,我們有勇氣這樣做嗎?
We need to build more organizations that prioritize the care of human beings. As leaders, it is our sole responsibility to protect our people and, in turn, our people will protect each other and advance the organization together. As employees or members of the group, 我們需要建立更多以人為本的組織。作為領導者,我們有責任保護我們的人民,而我們的人民也將互相保護並共同推進組織的發展。作為僱員或團體成員
we need the courage to take care of each other when our leaders don’t. And in doing so, we become the leaders we wish we had. 當我們的領導者不願意照顧對方時,我們需要有勇氣去照顧彼此。通過這樣做,我們成為自己所希望擁有的領導者。
CHAPTER 3 第 3 章
Belonging 屬於
From "Me" to "We" 從「我」到「我們」
“FROM THIS DAY on,” he shouted, “words like ‘I,’ ‘me,’ 'my’ will no longer be in your vocabulary. They will be replaced with words like ‘we,’ ‘together’ and ‘us.’” 從今天起,"他喊道,"像'我'、'我的'這樣的字將不再出現在你的詞彙中。它們將被'我們'、'一起'和'我們'這樣的詞取代。"
This is how it begins. 這是它開始的方式。
George’s mind raced. He was completely confident when he decided to go, but now that he was actually there, he felt he had made the biggest mistake of his life. But it didn’t matter now. Any thoughts he had about what he could have done or should have done would be interrupted by someone yelling inches from his face. Any feelings of excitement he may have felt before were instantly replaced by feelings of stress, isolation and helplessness. 喬治的思緒飛快。他在決定去的時候非常自信,但現在他真的到了那裡,他覺得這是他一生中最大的錯誤。但這已經不重要了。他可能曾經想過自己應該做什麼或本應該做什麼的任何想法,都會被某人在他臉上大喊打斷。他之前可能感到興奮的任何感受,都立即被壓力、孤獨和無助的感受取代了。
George was part of a process that has happened thousands of times before him and will continue countless times after him. A process honed by years of trial and error. The process of transforming someone into a United States Marine. 喬治是一個過程的一部分,這個過程在他之前已經發生了數千次,並將在他之後無數次繼續進行。這是一個經過多年試錯歷練而精進的過程。將一個人變成美國海軍陸戰隊士兵的過程。
It starts in the wee hours of the morning when a new group of recruits, tired and disoriented, arrive at one of two boot camps, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast. The recruits are greeted by red-faced drill instructors, their voices permanently hoarse from years of straining their vocal cords, who quickly make it abundantly clear who’s in charge. Here’s a hint: it’s not the recruits. 凌晨時分,一群嶄新的新兵疲憊不堪、惶恐不安地到達東西兩岸的兩個新兵訓練營之一。面帶通紅臉龐的教官,嗓音沙啞如常,立即清楚地表明誰掌控一切。這裡有一個暗示:那並非新兵。
Thirteen grueling weeks later, each Marine will be given their Eagle, Globe and Anchor pin, the symbol that they have completed the process and earned their place inside the organization. Many will grasp the pin tightly in their fist and feel a pride so intense it will bring them to tears. When they arrived at boot camp, each recruit felt 三十三個艱苦的星期後,每位海軍陸戰隊員將獲得他們的鷹狀徽、地球徽和錨徽,這是他們完成了這一過程並獲得了組織內地位的標誌。許多人會緊緊握住徽章,感到一種如此強烈的自豪感,以至於會流淚。當他們到達基礎訓練營時,每位新兵都感到
insecure and responsible only for themselves. Upon leaving, they feel confident in their own ability, a commitment to and responsibility for their fellow Marines, and a certainty that their fellow Marines feel the same for them. 不安全和只對自己負責。離開時,他們對自己的能力有信心,對他們的戰友有承諾和責任,並確信他們的戰友對他們也有同樣的感情。
This feeling of belonging, of shared values and a deep sense of empathy, dramatically enhances trust, cooperation and problem solving. United States Marines are better equipped to confront external dangers because they fear no danger from each other. They operate in a strong Circle of Safety. 這種歸屬感、共同價值觀和深厚同理心,大大增強了信任、合作和解決問題的能力。美國海軍陸戰隊的成員能更好地應對外部危險,因為他們不存在彼此之間的恐懼。他們在一個堅實的安全圈中運作。
The Circle of Safety 安全的圈子
A lion used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four. 獅子常在一處有四頭牛的田野中徘徊。牠多次試圖攻擊它們,但每當它接近時,牛們便把尾巴湊在一起,不管獅子從哪個方向靠近,都會遭到其中一頭牛的角攻擊。最終,牛們紛爭起來,各自分散到田野的不同角落覓食。於是獅子得以一頭一頭地攻擊並殲滅了全部四頭牛。
-Aesop, sixth century B.C. 伊索，公元前六世纪。
MARINE BOOT CAMP is not just about running, jumping, shooting and warfare. Like the skills on our résumés, those skills may be part of the job description, but they are not what make Marines so effective. And though Marines will need to learn those skills, just as we are taught skills to help us in our jobs, those things do not build the trust required for the kind of teamwork and cooperation that gets the job done better than everyone else. Those things are not what make high-performing groups perform so remarkably. The ability of a group of people to do remarkable things hinges on how well those people pull together as a team. And that doesn’t happen in a vacuum. 海軍陸戰隊訓練營不僅僅關於奔跑、跳躍、射擊和戰爭。就像我們簡歷上的技能一樣,這些技能可能是工作描述的一部分,但它們並不是讓海軍陸戰隊如此有效的原因。儘管海軍陸戰隊需要學習這些技能,就像我們在工作中學習技能一樣,但這些並不能建立完成工作所需的信任和團隊合作。這些並不是使高績效團隊表現卓越的原因。一群人能夠做出卓越成就的能力,取決於他們團結合作的程度。而這並非憑空而來。
The world around us is filled with danger. Filled with things trying to make our lives miserable. It’s nothing personal; it’s just the way it is. At any time and from anywhere, there are any number of forces that, without conscience, are working to hinder our success or even kill us. In caveman times, this was literally the case. The lives of early humans were threatened by all sorts of things that could end their time on earth. Things including a lack of resources, a sabertoothed tiger or the weather. Nothing personal, it’s just life. The same is true today-the threats to our survival are constant. 世界周圍充滿了危險。充滿了想要使我們的生活痛苦的事物。這不是個人的事情;這就是現狀。在任何時候和任何地方,都有許多沒有良心的力量在努力阻礙我們的成功或者甚至殺死我們。在穴居人時代,情況正是如此。早期人類的生命受到各種各樣的事物的威脅,這些事物可以終結他們在地球上的生命。包括資源缺乏、獨角獸虎或天氣。這不是個人的事情,這就是生活。今天也是如此 - 我們生存的威脅是持續的。
For our modern-day businesses and organizations, the dangers we confront are both real and perceived. There are the ups and downs of the stock market that can affect a company’s performance. A new technology could render an older technology or an entire business model obsolete overnight. Our competitors, even if they are not trying to put us out of business, even if they aren’t trying to kill us, are still trying to frustrate our success or steal our customers. 對於我們現代的企業和組織而言,我們面臨的危險既是真實的也是感知的。股市的漲跌可能會影響一家公司的業績。新技術可能會在一夜之間使舊技術或整個商業模式陳舊不堪。我們的競爭對手,即使他們不是在試圖把我們趕出商業,甚至不是在試圖要殺死我們,也仍然在努力挫敗我們的成功或搶奪我們的客戶。
And if that’s not enough, the urgency to meet expectations, the strain of capacity and other outside pressures all contribute to the constant threats that a business faces. At all times, these forces work to hinder growth and profitability. These dangers are a constant. We have no control over them, they are never going to go away and that will never change. That’s just the way it is. 如果這還不夠,要滿足期望的迫切性、能力的壓力和其他外部壓力都會加劇企業面臨的持續威脅。在任何時候,這些力量都在阻礙增長和盈利能力。這些危險是持續的。我們無法控制它們,它們永遠不會消失,這也永遠不會改變。這就是現狀。
There are dangerous forces inside our organizations as well. Unlike the forces outside, the ones inside are variable and are well within our control. Some of the dangers we face are real and can have immediate impact, like layoffs that may follow a bad quarter or an underperforming year. Some of us face the very real threat of losing our livelihoods if we try something new and lose the company some money. Politics also present a constant threat-the fear that others are trying to keep us down so that they may advance their own careers. 我們組織內部也存在危險的力量。與組織外部的力量不同,內部的力量是可變的,我們可以完全控制。我們面臨的一些危險是真實的,並可能產生即時影響,例如在季度業績不佳或年度表現不達標後可能發生的裁員。如果我們嘗試新事物並使公司損失金錢,我們也面臨失去生計的真切威脅。政治也一直是一種潛在的威脅-我們害怕別人正試圖壓制我們,好讓自己得以晉升。
Intimidation, humiliation, isolation, feeling dumb, feeling useless and rejection are all stresses we try to avoid inside the organization. But the danger inside is controllable and it should be the goal of leadership to set a culture free of danger from each other. And the way to do that is by giving people a sense of belonging. By offering them a strong culture based on a clear set of human values and beliefs. By giving them the power to make decisions. By offering trust and empathy. By creating a Circle of Safety. 恐嚇、羞辱、孤立、感到笨拙、感到無用及遭到拒絕都是我們在組織內部努力避免的壓力。但內部的危險是可控的,領導層應以建立一個沒有彼此危險的文化為目標。實現這一目標的辦法是賦予人們歸屬感。建立以明確的人類價值觀和信念為基礎的強大文化。賦予他們做決定的權力。提供信任和同理心。創造一個安全的圈子。
By creating a Circle of Safety around the people in the organization, leadership reduces the threats people feel inside the group, which frees them up to focus more time and energy to protect the organization from the constant dangers outside and seize the big opportunities. Without a Circle of Safety, people are forced to spend too much time and energy protecting themselves from each other. 在組織中為人們建立安全圈,領導力可以減低成員所面臨的內部威脅,讓他們能集中更多時間和精力來保護組織免受外部不斷的危險,並抓住重大機會。若缺乏安全圈,成員將被迫過於耗費時間和精力來自我防護。
It is the company we keep, the people around us, who will determine where we invest our energy. The more we trust that the people to the left of us and the people to the right of us have our backs, the better equipped we are to face the constant threats from the outside together. Only when we feel we are in a Circle of Safety will we pull together as a unified team, better able to survive and thrive regardless of the conditions outside. 我們所選擇的公司,周圍的人,將決定我們把精力投放在何處。只要我們相信身邊的人都有我們的背書,我們就能更好地共同面對來自外界的持續威脅。只有當我們感到置身於一個安全圈時,我們才能作為一支團結一致的團隊,無論外界環境如何,都能生存和蓬勃發展。
The Spartans, a warrior society in ancient Greece, were feared and revered for their strength, courage and endurance. The power of the Spartan army did not come from the sharpness of their spears, however; it came from the strength of their shields. Losing one’s shield in battle was considered the single greatest crime a Spartan could commit. “Spartans excuse without penalty the warrior who loses his helmet or breastplate in battle,” writes Steven Pressfield in his account of the Battle of Thermopylae (the battle upon which the movie 300 is based), “but punish the loss of all citizenship rights the man who discards his shield.” And the reason was simple. “A warrior carries helmet and breastplate for his own protection, but his shield for the safety of the whole line.” 斯巴達人,古代希臘的一個戰士社會,以其力量、勇氣和耐力而備受畏懼和敬仰。然而,斯巴達軍隊的力量並非來自他們矛尖的銳利,而是來自他們盾牌的強大。在戰鬥中丟失盾牌被認為是斯巴達人可能犯下的最嚴重的罪行。史蒂文·普雷斯菲爾德在記述熱烈尼比亞之戰(即《300 壯士》電影的原型)時寫道,"斯巴達人可以寬恕戰鬥中丟失頭盔或鎧甲的戰士,但會懲罰丟棄盾牌而失去全部公民權利的人。"原因很簡單,"戰士佩戴頭盔和鎧甲是為了自身的保護,但盾牌則是為了整個隊伍的安全。"
Likewise, the strength and endurance of a company does not come from products or services but from how well their people pull together. Every member of the group plays a role in maintaining the Circle of Safety and it is the leader’s role to ensure that they do. This is the primary role of leadership, to look out for those inside their Circle. 同樣地,一家公司的力量和耐力並不來自於產品或服務,而是來自於他們的員工團結的程度。團隊中的每個成員在維持安全圈扮演著一定的角色,而領導者的責任就是確保他們都能做到這一點。這是領導的首要職責,就是要照顧好那些在他們的安全圈內的人。
Letting someone into an organization is like adopting a child. 讓某人加入一個組織就像收養一個孩子。
As gatekeepers, leaders establish the standards of entry-who should be allowed into the Circle and who should be kept out, who belongs and who doesn’t. Are they letting people in because of their grades in college or where they worked before or because of their character and whether they fit the culture? Letting someone into an organization is like adopting a child and welcoming them into your home. These people will, like everyone else who lives there, have to share in the responsibility of looking after the household and the others who live in it. The standards a leader sets for entry, if based on a clear set of human values, significantly impact people’s sense of belonging and their willingness to pull together and contribute to the team. 作為把關者,領導者確立了入場標準 - 誰應該被允許進入圈子,誰應該被阻擋在外,誰屬於此地,誰不屬於此地。他們是因為入學成績,還是之前的工作經歷,還是因為個性特質和是否符合文化而讓人進入嗎?讓某人加入一個組織,就像收養一個孩子,歡迎他們進入你的家庭。這些人將,像其他所有居住在那裡的人一樣,必須分擔照顧家庭和其他居民的責任。如果領導者的入場標準是基於明確的人類價值觀,那將會對人們的歸屬感和團結合作、為團隊做出貢獻的意願產生重大影響。
Leaders are also responsible for how wide the Circle of Safety extends. When an organization is small, by the nature of its size it is 領導者也負責安全圈的範圍有多廣。當一個組織規模較小時,由於其規模的特性,
more susceptible to the dangers outside. It is also much simpler to manage the Circle. A small business is often a collection of friends who already know and trust each other. There is little need for bureaucracy to keep those in the Circle safe from internal dangers. As an organization grows, however, the leaders at the top must trust the layers of management to look out for those in their charge. However, when those inside the bureaucracy work primarily to protect themselves, progress slows and the entire organization becomes more susceptible to external threats and pressures. Only when the Circle of Safety surrounds everyone in the organization, and not just a few people or a department or two, are the benefits fully realized. 更容易受到外界危險的影響。管理圈子也更簡單。小企業通常是一群已互相認識和信任的朋友的集合。沒有太多官僚程式去保護圈內的人免受內部危險。然而,隨著組織的成長,最高層的領導者必須相信各層管理層能照顧好屬下。但是,如果內部官僚主要為自己謀福利,進度就會放緩,整個組織也更容易受到外部威脅和壓力。只有當「安全圈」覆蓋組織內的每個人,而不只是少數人或幾個部門時,這些好處才得以全面實現。
Weak leaders are the ones who only extend the benefits of the Circle of Safety to their fellow senior executives and a chosen few others. They look out for each other, but they do not offer the same considerations to those outside their “inner circle.” Without the protection of our leaders, everyone outside the inner circle is forced to work alone or in small tribes to protect and advance their own interests. And in so doing, silos form, politics entrench, mistakes are covered up instead of exposed, the spread of information slows and unease soon replaces any sense of cooperation and security. 弱勢領導者是那些只將安全圈的利益延伸至其他高級主管及少數特選者的人。他們彼此照應,但未能給予他們「內部圈」以外的人同等的關懷。沒有領導人的庇護,圈外的每個人都被迫獨自或以小型部落的方式來保護和推進自己的利益。於是部門分離、政治矛盾加深、錯誤被掩蓋而不是暴露於光天化日,資訊傳播減緩,合作與安全感也隨之消失。
Strong leaders, in contrast, extend the Circle of Safety to include every single person who works for the organization. Selfpreservation is unnecessary and fiefdoms are less able to survive. With clear standards for entry into the Circle and competent layers of leadership that are able to extend the Circle’s perimeter, the stronger and better equipped the organization becomes. 強有力的領導者則相反,將安全圈擴大至組織中每一個人。自我保護是不必要的,封建主義的能力也會降低。有明確的進入安全圈標準,以及具備能力的領導層能擴大安全圈範圍,組織就會變得更強大和更好裝備。
It is easy to know when we are in the Circle of Safety because we can feel it. We feel valued by our colleagues and we feel cared for by our superiors. We become absolutely confident that the leaders of the organization and all those with whom we work are there for us and will do what they can to help us succeed. We become members of the group. We feel like we belong. When we believe that those inside our group, those inside the Circle, will look out for us, it creates an environment for the free exchange of information and effective communication. This is fundamental to driving innovation, preventing problems from escalating and making organizations 我們能夠感受到這種安全感,因此很容易知道自己身處在安全圈內。我們感到同事們重視我們,上司們也關心我們。我們對組織領導和同事們都充滿信心,相信他們會盡力幫助我們取得成功。我們成為團隊的一份子,感覺自己屬於這裡。當我們相信團隊內的人會維護我們的利益時,就會形成一個自由交流信息和有效溝通的環境。這是推動創新、防止問題升級和提高組織效率的基本要素。
better equipped to defend themselves from the outside dangers and to seize the opportunities. 更好地裝備自己,以免受外來危險的威脅,同時把握機會。
Absent a Circle of Safety, paranoia, cynicism and self-interest prevail. The whole purpose of maintaining the Circle of Safety is so that we can invest all our time and energy to guard against the dangers outside. It’s the same reason we lock our doors at night. Not only does feeling safe inside give us peace of mind, but the positive impact on the organization itself is remarkable. When the Circle is strong and that feeling of belonging is ubiquitous, collaboration, trust and innovation result. 在缺乏安全圈的情況下,偏執、冷嘲熱諷和自私自利將統治。維持安全圈的目的就是讓我們把所有時間和精力用來防範外界的危險。這就是我們晚上鎖門的原因。不僅讓我們在內心感到安全,對組織本身也有著非凡的積極影響。當安全圈很強而歸屬感無處不在時,協作、信任和創新就會出現。
This is an important point. We cannot tell people to trust us. We cannot instruct people to come up with big ideas. And we certainly can’t demand that people cooperate. These are always results-the results of feeling safe and trusted among the people with whom we work. When the Circle of Safety is strong, we naturally share ideas, share intelligence and share the burdens of stress. Every single skill and strength we have is amplified to better compete and face the dangers in the world outside and advance the organization’s interests vastly more effectively. 這是一個重要的觀點。我們不能告訴人們相信我們。我們不能指示人們提出大想法。我們當然也不能要求人們合作。這些一直都是結果 - 我們與他人共事時,感到安全和受信任的結果。當安全圈很強大時,我們自然會分享想法、分享情報,並分擔壓力。我們擁有的每一項技能和才能都被放大,以更有效地競爭、應對外部世界的危險,並大大提升組織的利益。
But there’s a twist. 但是有一個轉折。
Leaders want to feel safe too. No matter what place we occupy in the pecking order, every single one of us wants to feel like we are valued by the others in the group. If we are having a bad day at work and our performance is suffering, instead of yelling at us, we wish our bosses would ask us, “Are you okay?” And likewise, we as members of the Circle have a responsibility to our leaders-that’s what makes us valuable to them, not our numbers. So when our boss comes down hard on us and we don’t know the reason, it is equally our responsibility to express concern for their well-being. That’s how the Circle of Safety stays strong. 領導者也想感到安全。無論我們在等級階層中的位置如何,我們每個人都希望感受到自己在團隊中受到重視。如果我們在工作上遇到艱難的一天,表現不佳,我們希望老闆不要對我們大聲呼喊,而是問我們「你沒事吧?」同樣地,我們作為圈內成員也有責任關心我們的領導者 - 這才是使我們對他們有價值的原因,而不是數量。所以當老闆嚴厲地對待我們,我們卻不知道原因時,我們同樣有責任表達對他們福祉的關切。這就是安全圈保持強大的方式。
Whether you’re in a leadership role or not, the question is, how safe do you feel where you work? 不管您是否在領導角色,問題是您在工作中的安全感有多強?
CHAPTER 4 第 4 章
Yeah, but . . . 是的,但是......
Ken is a midranking executive who works in operations for a large multinational bank. He makes a good living, though he is not as rich as some of the analysts and traders at the company. He lives in a lovely home in the suburbs with his wife and two kids. From the outside looking in, he should be happy. And, for the most part, he’s fine. He wouldn’t say he loves his job; “Il’s fine” is how he generally thinks about it. Ken likes the idea of quitting to do something else, but with kids and a mortgage to pay, that day may have passed. Right now, he needs to be a responsible husband and father. And if that means not loving his work, that’s the price he’s willing to pay. 肯是一位在一家大型跨國銀行從事營運的中階主管。他生活富裕,雖然不如公司內的一些分析師和交易員那麼富有。他和妻子以及兩個孩子住在郊區一處漂亮的房子裡。從外表看,他應該是個幸福的人。大部分時候,他也確實沒什麼不滿。他不會說他熱愛自己的工作;他通常這樣想:「還好吧」。肯喜歡辭職去做其他的事情,但考慮到孩子和房貸,這一天可能已經過去了。現在,他需要成為一個負責任的丈夫和父親。如果這意味著不必熱愛自己的工作,那是他願意付出的代價。
What an amazing thought to love our jobs. To feel safe at work. To work for a company that actually cares how we feel about ourselves and the work we do. The number of leaders of companies who work hard to make their employees feel safe when they come in is, sadly, fewer than most of us would like to admit. Work is, well, work. 熱愛我們的工作竟是如此驚人的想法。在工作中感到安全。為一家真心關注我們自己和工作的公司工作。當我們到來時,公司領導竭力讓員工感到安全的數量,遺憾的是,比我們大多數人願意承認的要少。工作是工作。
The kind of idealism I speak about is fine for books that wax on about what our jobs could be like, but the reality is most of us, even if inspired by stories of companies like Barry-Wehmiller, aren’t in a position to change anything. We have bills to pay. We have kids to feed. College educations to fund. There is just too much on our plates. And the world out there, the great unknown, is a dangerous place. So we stay put. 我所談論的那種理想主義對於那些描述我們工作可能是怎樣的書籍來說是很好的,但現實情況是,即使受到像巴里-韋密勒這樣公司的故事啟發,我們大多數人也無法改變任何事情。我們有賬單要付,有孩子要養,有大學學費要支付。我們的日程太滿了。而外面的世界,那未知的世界,是個危險的地方。所以我們留在原地。
Equally so, the idea of running a company in which nearly everyone feels safe and works to take care of each other sounds great. Most leaders intellectually understand the importance and value of putting the well-being of people first. It is the subject of books and many articles in the Harvard Business Review. We all 同樣地,在幾乎每個人都感到安全並努力相互照顧的公司裡運營的想法聽起來很棒。大多數領導者在智力上都理解把人們的福祉放在首位的重要性和價值。這是哈佛商業評論雜誌上的一個熱門話題。我們都
write about this stuff like no one knows it. But the reality of running a business, big or small, private or public, makes it nearly impossible to do the things folks like me write about. The pressures from Wall Street, corporate boards and the threats from our competition are intense. And for a small business, just finding enough clients to help keep the doors open is hard enough. What’s more, this stuff is expensive, hard to measure and often seems “soft” or “fluffy.” And the ability to prove ROI can be near impossible . . . at least in the short term. For any organization that is looking to hit annual goals or simply stay alive, the choice to put people first just can’t be a priority. And understandably so. The threats from the outside are just too great to worry about how people feel inside. 就像沒人知道似的寫這些東西。但經營企業的現實(不管是大小、私人還是公營)使得做我們這些人所寫的事情幾乎不可能。來自華爾街、企業董事會的壓力,加上來自競爭對手的威脅都非常強烈。對於一個小企業而言,光是找到足夠的客戶來維持營運就已經夠艱難了。而且,這些東西都很昂貴,很難衡量,而且往往被認為「軟」或「華而不實」。證明其 ROI 更是近乎不可能,至少在短期內是如此。對於任何想要實現年度目標或僅僅保持生存的組織而言,把員工置於首位的選擇並不能成為優先事項。這是可以理解的。來自外部的威脅實在是太大,以至於無法顧及員工內心的感受。
As nice as it sounds to build a company like Barry-Wehmiller, the reality is it’s just not happening. And without those companies it is going to be harder for us to find a job in a company that truly does care about our well-being. So, we tell ourselves, what we have will have to do. What would be the point of rocking the boat or taking unnecessary risk? The risk is just too high that we may land somewhere worse or get more of the same. So why change? But there is always a cost for the decisions we make. 就像建立一家像巴里-韋米勒這樣的公司一樣好聽,但現實是這並不會發生。沒有那些公司,我們要在一家真正關心我們福祉的公司找到工作會更加困難。所以,我們告訴自己,我們現在擁有的就足夠了。搞破壞或承擔不必要的風險有什麼意義呢?風險太高了,我們可能會陷入更糟糕的境地或得到同樣的結果。那為什麼要改變?但我們做出的決定總是會付出代價。
Our ability to provide for our kids, make ends meet or live a certain lifestyle sometimes comes at the cost of our own joy, happiness and fulfillment at work. That’s just reality. And for many of us, that’s okay. We convince ourselves that the outside, the unknown, is always dangerous (which it is). At least inside there is a hope of feeling secure. A hope . . . 為我們的孩子提供所需,維持生計或過上某种生活方式,有時會以我們自己在工作中的快樂、幸福和實現為代價。這就是現實。而對於我們很多人來說,這是可以接受的。我們說服自己,外面,未知的世界總是危險的(事實如此)。至少在內部,我們有希望感到安全。一個希望……
But there is more to that reality than most of us know about. The price we pay for a perception of stability comes at its own cost. And that cost is far greater than happiness. It’s actually a matter of health. Of life and death. 但是,那個現實遠比我們所知道的更加複雜。我們為了維持一個穩定的認知而付出的代價是相當之大。這種代價遠遠超過了幸福,事實上是關乎生死健康的問題。
First, that sense of safety we may have now is, for many of us, a lie we tell ourselves. The ease with which many companies use layoffs to help manage expenses to meet annual projections means that we’re a lot less safe than we used to be-and certainly less safe than we think we are. If it were a true meritocracy, we could tell ourselves that if we work hard and do well, our jobs will be safe. But this is hardly the case. Although that may be true some of the time, it 對很多人來說,我們現在感受到的安全感,只是一個自己編織的謊言。許多公司為了達到年度預測,都會用裁員來幫助管理開支,這意味著我們比以前更不安全,而且遠遠沒有我們想象中的那麼安全。如果真的是一個公正公平的社會,我們就可以告訴自己,只要努力工作做好,我們的工作就會是安全的。但事實並非如此。雖然有時這可能是真的,
is not something we can bank on. For the most part, especially for larger organizations, it’s a matter of arithmetic. And sometimes the cost to keep us employed simply falls on the wrong side of the equation. And at many companies, that equation is reevaluated annually, which means every year we are at risk. 這並非我們可依賴的事物。對大部分組織而言,這純屬算術問題。有時維持我們就業的成本偏離了算式的正面。在許多公司中,這項算式每年都會被重新評估,意味著我們每年都面臨風險。
But the myth of job stability may be the least of our concerns. A 2011 study conducted by a team of social scientists at the University of Canberra in Australia concluded that having a job we hate is as bad for our health and sometimes worse than not having a job at all. Levels of depression and anxiety among people who are unhappy at work were the same or greater than those who were unemployed. 但是工作稳定的神話可能是我們最不該關心的事情。2011 年,一個來自澳大利亞堪培拉大學社會科學家團隊的研究發現,做自己討厭的工作對健康的傷害程度,有時也可能超過沒有工作。工作不愉快的人患有抑鬱和焦慮的程度,與失業者相同甚至更高。
Stress and anxiety at work have less to do with the work we do and more to do with weak management and leadership. When we know that there are people at work who care about how we feel, our stress levels decrease. But when we feel like someone is looking out for themselves or that the leaders of the company care more about the numbers than they do us, our stress and anxiety go up. This is why we are willing to change jobs in the first place; we feel no loyalty to a company whose leaders offer us no sense of belonging or reason to stay beyond money and benefits. 工作壓力和焦慮主要源於管理和領導力的不足,而非工作本身。當我們知道工作中有關心我們的人時,壓力水平會降低。但是,當我們感覺到有人在為自己著想,或公司領導更重視數字而非員工時,壓力和焦慮便會升高。這就是我們願意換工作的原因;我們對不關心我們歸屬感和留下理由(除了金錢和福利)的公司,缺乏任何忠誠度。
Another study, conducted by researchers at University College London that same year, found that people who didn’t feel recognized for their effort at work were more likely to suffer from heart disease. The reason, they surmised, “is largely due to feelings of control [or lack thereof],” said Daryl O’Connor, professor of health psychology at the University of Leeds. “If you feel you’ve put in a lot of effort and it has not been rewarded,” he explained, “this increases stress and, in turn, the risk of heart disease.” And . . . it’s also bad for business. 倫敦大學學院研究人員同年進行的另一項研究發現,在工作中未被認可努力的人更易患心臟病。他們推斷,「這主要是由於感受到控制力(或缺乏控制力)」,正如利茲大學健康心理學教授 Daryl O'Connor 所說的。「如果您感覺付出了很多努力卻未得到回報,」他解釋道,「這會增加壓力,進而增加心臟病的風險。」而且,這對企業也是不利的。
Misery may love company, but it is the companies that love misery that suffer 困苦可能喜歡伴侶,但是那些喜歡苦難的公司才是受苦的
the most. 最高。
According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2013 called “State of the American Workplace,” when our bosses completely ignore us, 40 percent of us actively disengage from our work. If our bosses 根據 2013 年進行的"美國工作場所現狀"調查,當我們的上司完全忽視我們時,40%的人積極地從工作中脫離。如果我們的上司
criticize us on a regular basis, 22 percent of us actively disengage. Meaning, even if we’re getting criticized, we are actually more engaged simply because we feel that at least someone is acknowledging that we exist! And if our bosses recognize just one of our strengths and reward us for doing what we’re good at, only 1 percent of us actively disengage from the work we’re expected to do. Added to the fact that people who go to work unhappy actually do things, actively or passively, to make those around them unhappy too and it’s amazing that anyone gets anything done these days. I would like to say that misery loves company, but in this case, it is the companies that love misery that suffer the most. 批評我們,22%的人會積極脫離。意即,即使我們受到批評,我們實際上會更加投入,因為我們感覺至少有人承認我們的存在!如果我們的老闆認可我們的某些長處,並獎勵我們擅長的工作,只有 1%的人會積極脫離預期的工作。此外,不快樂地去工作的人,會主動或被動地做一些事情,使周圍的人也不快樂,這令人驚訝這些天仍有人能夠完成工作。我想說,痛苦喜歡結伴,但在這種情況下,最受痛苦折磨的是那些痛苦的公司。
The Whitehall Studies 白禧爾研究
OUR INSTINCTS TELL us the higher we climb up the ladder, the more stress we feel and the weaker our feeling of safety. Consider the stereotype of the high-strung executive facing relentless pressure from shareholders, employees and the firm’s largest customers. We are hardly surprised when one of them suddenly drops dead of a heart attack before hitting fifty. It even has a name: “executive stress syndrome.” So maybe it’s not so bad toiling away in middle management, or even the mailroom. At least our health won’t suffer . . . we think. 我們的本能告訴我們,越是爬得高,我們感到的壓力就越大,安全感也越弱。考慮一下高度緊張的高層行政人員,他們面臨著來自股東、員工和主要客戶的無情壓力。我們並不感到驚訝,當其中一人突然在 50 歲前就猝死於心臟病。它甚至有個名字:「高管壓力症候群」。所以也許在中層管理或者甚至郵務室工作並不是那麼糟糕。至少我們的健康不會受到影響...我們這麼認為。
Decades ago, scientists in Britain set out to study this link between an employee’s place on the corporate ladder and stress, presumably in order to help executives deal with the toll stress was taking on their health and their lives. Known collectively as the Whitehall Studies, the studies’ findings were both astounding and profound. Researchers found that workers’ stress was not caused by a higher degree of responsibility and pressure usually associated with rank. It is not the demands of the job that cause the most stress, but the degree of control workers feel they have throughout their day. The studies also found that the effort required by a job is not in itself stressful, but rather the imbalance between the effort we give and the reward we feel. Put simply: less control, more stress. 幾十年前,英國的科學家開始研究員工在公司階梯上的地位與壓力之間的聯繫,這樣做的目的大概是為了幫助高管應對壓力對他們健康和生活的負面影響。這些研究統稱為「白廳研究」,其結果既令人驚訝又深刻。研究人員發現,工人的壓力並非由於通常與職位等級相關的更大責任和壓力所造成。造成最大壓力的並非工作本身的需求,而是員工感覺到自己在整個工作日中所擁有的控制度。研究還發現,工作所需的努力本身並不會帶來壓力,壓力來自於我們付出的努力和我們獲得的回報之間的失衡。簡單地說:控制權越少,壓力越大。
The Whitehall Studies are seminal because the scientists studied government employees who have equal health benefits. This meant they were able to control for variances in healthcare standards, which may not be the case if they were to have studied a large public company in the U.S. Though even U.S.-based studies show similar results. 惠特霍爾研究是開創性的,因為科學家研究了享有平等健康福利的政府員工。這意味著他們能夠控制醫療標準上的差異,如果他們研究美國一家大型公共公司,可能就無法做到這一點。雖然美國的研究也得出了類似的結果。
In 2012, a similar study conducted by researchers at Harvard and Stanford examined the stress levels of participants in Harvard’s executive MBA program. In this study, researchers looked at participants’ levels of cortisol, the hormone the body releases during times of stress, and compared those to levels found in employees who hadn’t made it to the top. Leaders, the study showed, have overall lower stress levels than those who work for them. 哈佛和斯坦福的研究人員在 2012 年進行了一項類似的研究,研究了哈佛大學行政人員工商管理碩士課程參與者的壓力水平。在這項研究中,研究人員檢查了參與者的皮質醇水平,即人體在壓力下釋放的激素,並將其與未能晉升到高層的員工的水平進行了比較。該研究顯示,領導者的整體壓力水平低於為他們工作的人。
“It’s possible, in other words, that the feeling of being in charge of one’s own life more than makes up for the greater amount of responsibility that accompanies higher rungs on the social ladder,” wrote Max McClure, of the Stanford News Service, in announcing the findings. 管控生活的感覺可能超過攀登社會階梯所承擔的更多責任,正如史丹福新聞服務的馬克斯·麥克勒爾所寫。
The findings of the Whitehall Studies are even more dramatic when you consider the connection between job stress and health. The lower someone’s rank in the organizational hierarchy, the greater their risk of stress-related health problems, not the other way around. In other words, those seemingly strung-out top executives were, in fact, living longer, healthier lives than the clerks and managers working for them. “The more senior you are in the employment hierarchy, the longer you might expect to live compared to people in lower employment grades,” said a report based on the studies that was conducted in 2004 by public health researchers at University College London. And the discrepancy is not a small one. Workers lowest in the hierarchy had an early death rate four times that of those at the top. Jobs that gave workers less control were linked to higher rates of mental illness as well. 惠特霍爾研究的發現在考慮工作壓力與健康的聯繫時更加戲劇性。組織等級越低的人,壓力相關健康問題的風險越大,而不是相反。換句話說,那些看似痛苦的高管實際上比在他們麾下工作的文員和經理活得更長、更健康。「在職業等級中,你的地位越高,可能的預期壽命就越長,相比較低職業等級的人」,根據 2004 年倫敦大學學院公共衛生研究人員進行的一項研究得出此結論。這種差異並非小事一樁。階層最低的工人早死的比率是頂層人員的 4 倍。工作控制力越低的工人,精神疾病發病率也越高。
It’s not just in humans that we find this-non-human primates that live in social groups display higher rates of disease and illness, and greater levels of stress-related hormones, when they’re lower in the hierarchy. But this is not about our place in the hierarchy per se. For one, we’re evolutionarily programmed for hierarchies and we can’t 人不僅僅如此,我們也發現在生活在社群中的非人類靈長類動物中,在階層中較低的個體,疾病和疾病的發生率更高,以及更高水平的與壓力相關的激素。但這不僅僅關乎我們在階層中的地位。首先,我們在進化上被編程成適合階層,我們無法
get rid of them. More important, the hierarchy is not the solution. Simply earning more money or working our way up the ladder is not a prescription for stress reduction. The study was about our sense of control over our work and, indeed, our lives. 摆脱他们。更重要的是,层级不是解决方案。仅仅赚更多的钱或攀登职业阶梯并不能缓解压力。这项研究探讨了我们对工作和生活的控制感。
What this means is that the converse is also true. A supportive and well-managed work environment is good for one’s health. Those who feel they have more control, who feel empowered to make decisions instead of waiting for approval, suffer less stress. Those only doing as they are told, always forced to follow the rules, are the ones who suffer the most. Our feelings of control, stress, and our ability to perform at our best are all directly tied to how safe we feel in our organizations. Feeling unsafe around those we expect to feel safe-those in our tribes (work is the modern version of the tribe)fundamentally violates the laws of nature and how we were designed to live. 這意味著這個相反的也是真的。一個支持性和良好管理的工作環境對個人健康有利。那些感覺自己有更多控制權,感覺有權力做決定而不需要等待批准的人,承受的壓力較少。那些只是按指令行事,永遠被迫遵守規則的人,才是受苦最多的。我們對控制、壓力和充分發揮最佳表現能力的感受,都與我們在組織中的安全感直接相關。在我們期望感到安全的人(在我們的部落中,工作是現代部落的版本)周圍感到不安全,從根本上違背了自然法則,以及我們被設計用來生活的方式。
The Whitehall Studies are not new, and their findings have been confirmed over and over. Yet even with the preponderance of data we still do nothing. Even when we know that feeling insecure at work hurts our performance and our health, sometimes even killing us, we stay in jobs we hate. For some reason, we are able to convince ourselves that unknown dangers outside are more perilous than the dangers inside. And so we adapt and put up with uncomfortable work environments that do not make us feel good or inspire our best work. We have all, at some time, rationalized our position or our place and continued doing exactly what we were doing. 白厅研究並非新事,其结果屡次得到证实。然而,即使有大量数据,我們仍然沒有採取任何行動。即使我們知道在工作中感到不安全會損害我們的績效和健康,有時甚至會導致我們死亡,我們仍然留在我們討厭的工作中。不知何故,我們能夠說服自己,未知的外部危險比內部危險更危險。因此,我們適應並忍受不舒適的工作環境,這些環境並不令我們感到良好,也無法激發我們最好的工作。我們所有人都曾經理性化過我們的立場或地位,並繼續做着我們一直在做的事情。
Human resources consultancy Mercer LLC reported that between fourth quarter 2010 and first quarter 2011, one in three employees seriously considered leaving their jobs, up 23 percent from five years prior. The problem was that less than 1.5 percent of employees actually voluntarily left. This is one of the issues with a bad working environment. Like a bad relationship, even if we don’t like it, we don’t leave. Maybe it’s the feeling of the devil-you-know-is-better-than-the-devil-you-don’t or maybe it’s something else, but people seem to feel stuck in unhealthy work environments. 美世有限責任公司的人力資源諮詢公司報告指出,從 2010 年第四季到 2011 年第一季,每三名員工中就有一名認真考慮離職,比五年前增加 23%。問題在於,實際自願離職的員工不到 1.5%。這是糟糕的工作環境所造成的問題之一。就像糟糕的關係一樣,即使我們不喜歡,也不會離開。也許是「熟悉的惡魔比不熟悉的惡魔好」的感覺,又或許是其他原因,但人們似乎感到被困在不健康的工作環境中。
That a third of all employees want to leave their jobs but don’t tells us two things. One, it says that an uncomfortably high number of people would rather be working somewhere else, and two, that 所有員工中三分之一希望離開他們的工作,但卻沒有這麼做,這告訴我們兩件事。其一,這說明了一個不舒適的高比例的人希望在其他地方工作,其二,
they see no other option to improve how they feel about their jobs beyond quitting. There is an alternative route, however. One much simpler and potentially more effective, and it doesn’t require us to quit our jobs. Quite the contrary. It requires that we stay. 他們沒有其他選擇來改善他們對工作的感受,除了辭職。然而,有另一條路。一個簡單得多且可能更有效的路徑,而且不需要我們辭職。恰恰相反。它要求我們留下。
But that doesn’t mean we can get away with doing nothing. We will still need to change the way we do things when we show up at work. It will require us to turn some of our focus away from ourselves to give more attention to those to the left of us and those to the right of us. Like the Spartans, we will have to learn that our strength will come not from the sharpness of our spears but from our willingness to offer others the protection of our shields. 但這並不意味著我們可以逃脫什麼都不做的情況。當我們出現在工作場合時,我們仍然需要改變我們做事的方式。這將要求我們將一些注意力從自己身上轉移開來,更多地關注我們左右的人。就像斯巴達人一樣,我們必須學會,我們的力量不會來自於矛尖的銳利,而是來自我們願意為他人提供保護的盾牌。
Some say a weak job market or bad economy is the reason to stick it out, in which case leaders of companies should want to treat their people better during hard times to prevent a mass exodus as soon as things improve. And in a good economy, leaders of companies should also want to treat their people well so that their people will stop at nothing to help the company manage when the hard times return (which, inevitably, they will). The best companies almost always make it through hard times because the people rally to make sure they do. In other words, from a strictly business standpoint, treating people well in any economy is more cost effective than not. 有人說弱勢的就業市場或是糟糕的經濟是堅持不放手的原因,在這種情況下,公司的領導應該希望在艱難時期更好地對待員工,以防止在情況改善後員工集體離職。在好的經濟環境下,公司的領導同樣應該希望好好對待員工,以確保員工在經濟困難時期全力以赴地幫助公司渡過難關(這種困難時期是不可避免的)。最優秀的公司幾乎總是能度過艱難時期,因為員工團結起來確保了這一點。換句話說,從純粹的商業角度來看,在任何經濟環境下都對員工好是比不好對待更具成本效益的。
Too many leaders are managing organizations in a way that is costing them money, hurting performance and damaging people’s health. And if that’s not enough to convince us that something has to change, then perhaps our love for our children will. 太多的領導者以一種損害他們的金錢、降低績效和損害人們健康的方式來管理組織。如果這還不足以說服我們必須改變,也許我們對孩子的愛將成為動力。
A study by two researchers at the Graduate School of Social Work at Boston College found that a child’s sense of well-being is affected less by the long hours their parents put in at work and more by the mood their parents are in when they come home. Children are better off having a parent who works into the night in a job they love than a parent who works shorter hours but comes home unhappy. This is the influence our jobs have on our families. Working late does not negatively affect our children, but rather, how we feel at work does. Parents may feel guilty, and their children may miss them, but late nights at the office or frequent business trips are not likely the 波士頓學院社會工作研究所的兩位研究人員發現,孩子的幸福感受不太受到父母工作時長的影響,而更多地取決於父母下班後的情緒狀態。相比工作時數較少但下班後情緒低落的父母,孩子反而更幸運擁有一個熱愛工作但下班時間更長的父母。我們的工作環境對家庭的影響就在於此。工作到深夜本身並不會對孩子產生負面影響,關鍵在於我們在工作中的感受。父母可能會感到內疚,孩子也可能會想念父母,但長時間加班或頻繁出差往往並非問題的根源。
problem. Net-net, if you don’t like your work, for your kids’ sake, don’t go home. 如果你不喜歡自己的工作,為了你孩子的緣故,就別回家了。
So what is the price we pay for not demanding that our leaders concern themselves with our well-being? We are not, as we think, putting up with miserable so that we may provide for our children. By putting up with miserable, we may be doing them harm. 我們為什麼不要求領袖關心我們的福祉而要付出代價?我們並非如我們所想的,為了給孩子們提供而容忍痛苦。容忍痛苦,可能反而會傷害他們。
As for the leaders of companies who think that it’s OK to save a number before saving a person, consider the chain of events that ensues as a result. 對於那些認為保存數字比保存人類生命更重要的公司領導者,請考慮一下後果。
There is only one way we can solve this problem. By building and maintaining Circles of Safety where we work. Pointing fingers is not the solution, pulling together and doing something is. And the good news is, there are powerful forces that can help us. If we can learn to harness these seemingly supernatural forces, we can put right what is so wrong. This is no soapbox rambling. It is just biology. 我們只有一種方法能夠解決這個問題。通過建立和維護我們工作的安全圈。指責他人不是解決方案,而是團結合作和採取行動。而且好消息是,有強大的力量可以幫助我們。如果我們能學會利用這些看似超自然的力量,我們就能夠矯正眼下的錯誤。這不是在做無謂的說教,這只是生物學。
[ POWERFUL FORCES ] 強大的力量
CHAPTER 5 第 5 章
When Enough Was Enough 當足夠已經足夠
To say it was a rough neighborhood is an understatement. It was about the worst place anyone would want to live. It was incredibly dangerous. There was no such thing as heating in the winter and there certainly wasn’t any air-conditioning in the summer. There were no supermarkets of any sort; the residents were left to forage or hunt for any food they could find. Survival, under these conditions, was something people really had to think about. Every moment of every day, there could always be something out there that could do them harm. Worrying about an education or getting a job wasn’t even on the radar. There were no classrooms, and there were no hospitals. As things stood, there were no jobs to be had. None. And for good reason, there were no companies. There weren’t even any countries yet. That stuff was so far off in the future, they didn’t need to think about it. This is not some post-apocalyptic Mad Max scenario. The time is fifty thousand years ago and modern man, Homo sapiens, is taking his first steps out in the world. This is where we come from. 要說這是一個惡劣的鄰里,那是一種委婉說法。這可能是任何人都不想居住的最糟糕的地方。這裡非常危險。這裡冬天沒有供暖,夏天也沒有空調。這裡沒有任何超市;居民們只能自己尋找或獵捕任何能找到的食物。在這種環境下生存,是人們必須要考慮的事情。在每一天的每一刻,都可能會有某些東西會傷害他們。教育或工作根本就不在考慮範圍之內。這裡沒有教室,也沒有醫院。鑒於現狀,根本就沒有可以做的工作。一個也沒有。出於某種原因,這裡也沒有公司。甚至連國家都還沒有。那些東西離現在太遙遠了,他們根本不需要考慮。這不是什麼末日瘋狂的情景。這是在五萬年前,現代人類,智人,走出世界的第一步。這就是我們的起源。
Our ancestors were born dirt poor. Opportunities didn’t come their way because of the schools they went to or who their parents knew. Any opportunities came from their will and hard work to create them. And create them they did. Our species was built to manage in conditions of great danger and insufficient resources. 我們的祖先生來貧困。機會沒有來到他們那裡,因為他們去了哪所學校或他們的父母是誰。任何機會都來自他們的意志和努力創造。而他們確實創造了。我們這個物種是建立在應對巨大危險和資源不足的條件下的。
Life in Paleolithic times was not like the aftermath of a hurricane. That’s not scarcity, that’s destruction. Our ancestors were not the stereotypical cavemen we like to imagine. They didn’t have oversized brows or walk around hunched over carrying a club. They looked like we do today and were just as smart and capable as we are today. The only things they didn’t have yet were all the advancements and advantages of our modern world. Other than that, they were just like you and me. 舊石器時代的生活並非颶風後的結果。那不是缺乏,而是破壞。我們的祖先並非我們所想像的典型洞穴人。他們沒有過大的眉毛,也沒有駝背拿著棍棒到處走。他們看起來跟我們今天一樣,同樣聰明和能幹。他們唯一缺乏的只是我們現代世界的一切進步和優勢。除此之外,他們就像你我一樣。
Nearly everything about humans is designed to help us survive and perpetuate the species through tough times-very tough times. Our physiology and our need to cooperate both exist with our survival in mind. We are at our best when we face danger together. Unfortunately, there are too many leaders of companies who believe, in the face of external challenges, that the best way to motivate their people is by creating a sense of internal urgency or pressure. Based on our biology and anthropology, however, nothing could be further from the truth. 人类的绝大多数特性都是为了帮助我们在艰难时期生存和延续种族而设计的。我们的生理结构和合作需求都是为了生存而存在的。当我们共同面对危险时,我们发挥最佳状态。但遗憾的是,有太多公司的领导者认为,面对外部挑战,最好的激励方式是营造内部紧迫感或压力。然而,根据我们的生物学和人类学,这完全背离事实。
When we feel like we belong to the group and trust the people with whom we work, we naturally cooperate to face outside challenges and threats. When we do not have a sense of belonging, however, then we are forced to invest time and energy to protect ourselves from each other. And in so doing, we inadvertently make ourselves more vulnerable to the outside threats and challenges. Plus, with our attention facing inward, we will also miss outside opportunities. When we feel safe among the people with whom we work, the more likely we are to survive and thrive. That’s just the way it is. 當我們感覺到我們屬於群組,並信任我們工作的人時,我們自然而然地合作去面對外部的挑戰和威脅。然而,當我們缺乏歸屬感時,我們就被迫花費時間和精力來保護自己免受彼此的傷害。而在這樣做的過程中,我們無意中讓自己更容易受到外部威脅和挑戰。另外,當我們的注意力集中在內部時,我們也會錯過外部的機會。當我們在工作中的人群中感到安全時,我們就越有可能生存並蓬勃發展。這就是現實。
In the Beginning . . . 起初。。。
THERE IS SOMETHING about Homo sapiens that makes us much better adapted to survive and prosper in the austere conditions into which we were born, even better than some of the other hominid species that were bigger and stronger than we were. Part of our advantage is thanks to the neocortex-our complex, problem-solving brain. It also gives us the ability for sophisticated communication. Unlike other animals able to communicate, we’re capable of syntax and grammar. But another critical reason we survived was thanks to our remarkable ability to cooperate. We are a highly social species whose survival and ability to prosper depend on the help of others. 現有什麼關於智人使我們更適應生存並在我們誕生的嚴酷環境中繁榮的原因,甚至比其他更大更強壯的原始人物種還要好。我們的優勢部分是由於新皮質(我們複雜的解決問題的大腦)。這也使我們具有複雜溝通的能力。與其他能夠溝通的動物不同,我們具有語法和語法。但我們得以生存的另一個關鍵原因是我們出色的合作能力。我們是一個高度社會的物種,我們的生存和繁榮能力取決於他人的幫助。
Our ability to work together, to help and protect each other, worked so well, in fact, that our populations did more than survive, they thrived. Elephants survived also, but the life of an elephant today is largely the same as it was millions of years ago. But not us. Our lives are completely different than they were fifty thousand years ago. Though our species was molded to suit our environment, we were so good at working together and solving problems that we found ways to mold our environments to suit us. The better we did, the better we got at changing our conditions to suit our needs instead of being changed to suit the conditions. The problem is, our basic genetic coding remains the same. We are an old-fashioned bunch living in a modern, resource-rich world. This has its obvious advantages but, like everything, comes at a cost. 我們共同努力、互相幫助和保護的能力,事實上發揮得非常出色,以至於我們的人口不僅得以存活,還蓬勃發展。大象也得以生存,但今天的大象生活與數百萬年前大致相同。而我們卻不同。我們的生活與五萬年前截然不同。雖然我們的物種已適應環境,但我們擅於合作和解決問題,找到了塑造環境以適應我們的方法。我們做得越好,就越善於改變條件以迎合我們的需求,而不是被迫適應環境。問題在於,我們的基因編碼仍然保持不變。我們這些老派的物種生活在一個現代化、資源富裕的世界。這確實有其優勢,但與此同時也付出了代價。
It's All About the Group 這是關於團體的一切
LIVING IN COMMUNITIES that maxed out at about 150 people, we knew everyone and trusted that the people in our group understood it was in their own interest to help the group. The men went out and hunted together and the whole community worked together to raise the young, care for the sick and the elderly and look out for each other. 生活在最多 150 人的社區中,我們認識所有人,相信我們群組中的人了解,去幫助群組是他們自身利益。男性外出一起打獵,整個社區共同工作,撫養年輕人,照顧病弱和老人,相互照應。
There was conflict, of course, just like there is conflict in any group. But when push came to shove, they put all their differences aside and worked together. Just as we may have serious issues with one of our siblings, if someone else threatens them, we will rise up to 當然會有衝突,就像任何群體一樣。但當情況惡化時,他們將所有分歧擺在一旁,共同努力。正如我們可能與兄弟姐妹有嚴重的問題,但如果有人威脅他們,我們將站起來
defend them. We always protect our own. Not to do so goes against what it means to be human and ultimately does damage to a group’s ability to survive and thrive. This is one of the reasons that treason is punishable in the same way as murder. Given its importance to our ability to survive, we humans take this trust thing really seriously. Our success proves it. Cooperation and mutual aid work better than competition and rugged individualism. Why add another degree of difficulty by fighting against each other when we were already forced to struggle against the hardships of nature, limited resources or other outside threats? 捍衛他們。我們總是保護自己人。不這樣做違背了成為人類的意義,最終會損害團體生存和繁榮的能力。這就是叛國和謀殺同罪的原因之一。鑒於對我們生存能力的重要性,我們人類對這種信任非常重視。我們的成功證明了這一點。合作和互助比競爭和堅韌的個人主義更有效。為什麼要增加另一層難度,互相搏鬥,而我們已經被迫與自然、有限資源或其他外部威脅作鬥爭?
This cooperative village life existed from the Amazonian rain forests to the open plains of Africa. In other words, it was not the physical environment that determined our best chance for survival and success-it was the very biology of our species, the design of the human being itself. The manner in which we evolved-to help each other-worked regardless of where we came from or the unique hardships we may have encountered. Every single human on the planet, regardless of culture, is naturally inclined to cooperate. 這個合作式的村莊生活從亞馬遜熱帶雨林到非洲開闊的平原都存在。換句話說,決定我們生存和成功最佳機會的不是物理環境,而是我們物種的基本生物學特性,即人類本身的設計。我們進化的方式——互相幫助,無論我們從何處來或遭遇何種獨特困難,都能發揮作用。不論文化背景,地球上的每一個人都自然傾向於合作。
As we’d expect, it wasn’t all hard work. We are social animals, and being social was as important to us thousands of years ago as it is today. It was a significant way we built and maintained trust and the way we got to know each other. The time we spend getting to know people when we’re not working is part of what it takes to form bonds of trust. It’s the exact same reason why eating together and doing things as a family really matters. Equally as important are conferences, company picnics and the time we spend around the watercooler. The more familiar we are with each other, the stronger our bonds. Social interaction is also important for the leaders of an organization. Roaming the halls of the office and engaging with people beyond meetings really matters. 我們早就料到,工作並非全是辛苦。我們是社交性動物,數千年前的我們就像今天一樣,社交是非常重要的。這是我們建立和維護信任的重要方式,也是我們相互了解的途徑。在工作之外,我們相互了解的時間,是建立信任紐帶的一部分。一同用餐和家庭活動同樣重要。同樣重要的還有會議、公司野餐和水機旁的交流。我們越熟悉彼此,紐帶也就越牢固。社交互動對於組織的領導者來說也很重要。走訪辦公室,與人超越會議的互動,意義深遠。
Perhaps the closest example of a modern system that mimics our ancestral kinship societies is the college dorm. Though students may have their own rooms (which are usually shared), doors are often left open as students socialize between the rooms. The hallway becomes the center of social life and rooms are for homework and sleeping (and sometimes not even that). The bonds of friendship that 也許最接近我們祖先親屬社會的現代系統是大學宿舍。儘管學生可能擁有自己的房間(通常是共用的),但門通常是敞開的,因為學生在房間之間社交。走廊成為社交生活的中心,房間則用於做作業和睡覺(有時連睡覺都不用)。友誼的紐帶
form in those dorms are vital. That’s where college students tend to develop their closest friendships-not in classrooms. 宿舍中的社交生活至關重要。大學生最親密的友誼往往是在宿舍中發展的,而非在課堂上。
Our success as a species was not luck-it was earned. We worked hard to get to where we are today and we did it together. We’re built to work together. We are, at a deeply ingrained and biological level, social machines. And when we work to help each other, our bodies reward us for our effort so that we will continue to do it. 我們作為一個物種的成功並非運氣 - 而是努力得來的。我們一直努力工作,才會達到今天的成就,這全是靠我們共同努力。我們天生就是為了協作而設計的。在深層次的生物學層面上,我們是社交性的機器。當我們努力幫助彼此時,我們的身體也會獎賞我們的努力,使我們會繼續這麼做。
Our Chemical Dependency 我們的化學依賴
THANKS TO THE trial and error of evolution, almost every detail about our physiology is there for a reason. Mother Nature did not provide us with highly tuned taste buds simply so we could enjoy a fine glass of wine from the Staglin Family Vineyard or savor every bite of a pork bun from Momofuku Ssäm Bar. Our taste buds tell our digestive systems which enzymes to release to best deal with the food that is on its way down, just like our sense of smell helps us detect if food is spoiled or not. Similarly our eyebrows were designed to help channel sweat away from our eyes when we were running toward prey-or running away to avoid becoming prey. Everything about our bodies was designed with one goal-to help us survive. This includes the feelings of happiness. 感謝進化的試錯過程,我們身體上幾乎每個細節都有其存在的理由。大自然並非僅是為了讓我們能夠品嚐斯泰格林家族酒莊的頂級葡萄酒或是享受來自 Momofuku Ssäm Bar 的豬肉包,而賦予我們敏銳的味覺感受。我們的味覺能夠告訴消化系統該釋放哪些酵素才能最好地處理進入身體的食物,就像我們的嗅覺能幫助我們判斷食物是否變質一樣。同樣地,我們的眉毛也是被設計用來在我們朝獵物奔跑,或是逃離成為獵物時,將汗水引離眼睛。我們身體的一切都是為了達成一個目標-幫助我們生存下去。這包括快樂的感受。
Just as any parent, teacher or manager knows, if they offer the promise of bounty, like candy, gold stars or performance bonusesor the threat of punishment-they can get the behavior they want. They know we will focus our attention on tasks that produce the results that earn us rewards. Kids aren’t aware that their behavior is being conditioned, but as adults, we’re completely aware of what our companies are doing when they offer us incentives. We know that we earn our bonuses only when we get the results they want. And for the most part, it works. It works really well, in fact. 就像任何父母、老師或管理者都知道的那樣,如果他們承諾會給予大量的獎賞,像是糖果、金星或績效獎金;或者是威脅要懲罰,他們就能得到他們想要的行為。他們知道我們會把注意力集中在能賺取我們獎勵的任務上。孩子們不知道自己的行為正在被調節,但是作為成年人,我們完全意識到公司在提供我們激勵時正在做的事情。我們知道,只有當我們得到他們想要的結果時,我們才會賺取獎金。而且在很大程度上,這種方式是有效的。事實上,它非常有效。
Mother Nature figured out a lot earlier than our bosses, however, to use an incentive system to condition us to do certain things to achieve desired results. In the case of our biology, our bodies 自然界比我們的老闆早很久就發現了利用獎勵機制來調節我們的行為以達到預期的結果。就我們的生物學而言,我們的身體
employ a system of positive and negative feelings-happiness, pride, joy or anxiety, for example-to promote behaviors that will enhance our ability to get things done and to cooperate. Whereas our bosses might reward us with an end-of-year bonus, our bodies reward us for working to keep ourselves and those around us alive and looked after with chemicals that make us feel good. And now, after thousands of years, we are all completely and utterly chemicaldependent. 運用正面和負面情感 - 快樂、自豪、歡欣或焦慮等 - 來促進有助於我們完成事情和合作的行為。我們的老闆可能會給予年終獎金作為獎勵,而我們的身體則會通過釋放使我們感到良好的化學物質來獎賞我們照顧好自己和周圍的人。如今,數千年來,我們已完全依賴這些化學物質。
There are four primary chemicals in our body that contribute to all our positive feelings that I will generically call “happy”: endorphins, dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. Whether acting alone or in concert, in small doses or large, anytime we feel any sense of happiness or joy, odds are it is because one or more of these chemicals is coursing through our veins. They do not exist simply to make us feel good. They each serve a very real and practical purpose: our survival. 我們體內有四種主要化學物質會產生我們所有正面情緒,我泛稱它們為"快樂",分別是內啡肽、多巴胺、血清素和催產素。無論單獨作用還是共同作用,無論劑量大小,只要我們有任何幸福或喜悅的感受,都很可能是因為這些化學物質在我們血管中流動。它們的存在並非僅為讓我們感覺良好,而是為了服務於非常真實和實際的目的:我們的生存。
The Paradox of Being Human 人性的悖論
HUMAN BEINGS EXIST as individuals and as members of groups at all times. I am one and I am one of many . . . always. This also creates some inherent conflicts of interest. When we make decisions, we must weigh the benefits to us personally against the benefits to our tribe or collective. Quite often, what’s good for one is not necessarily good for the other. Working exclusively to advance ourselves may hurt the group, while working exclusively to advance the group may come at a cost to us as individuals. 人類存在於各種團體之中,一直如此。我是個體,同時也是群體的一份子。這也造成了某些根本性的利益衝突。當我們作出決策時,必須衡量個人利益與集體利益的平衡。很多時候,對個人有利的,並不一定對集體有利;反之亦然。單單為自己謀取利益可能會傷害集體,而單單為集體謀求利益可能會損害個人。
This tension often weighs on our consciences when we make decisions. I appreciate the irony that we even debate, as individuals and as groups, which one is primary. Some believe we should always put others first-that if we don’t look out for the group, the group won’t look out for us. Others believe we should always put ourselves first and that if we don’t take care of ourselves first, then we would be of no use to anyone else. The fact is, both are true. 這種緊張局勢經常會在我們做決定時影響我們的良心。我理解,我們作為個人和群體,正在辯論何者更為首要的事實,這其中存在著諷刺。有些人認為我們應該總是把他人放在首位 - 如果我們不顧及群體,群體也不會顧及我們。其他人則認為我們應當首先顧及自己,如果我們不先照顧好自己,便無法幫助他人。事實是,這兩種觀點都是正確的。
Even in our own biology, there exists this seeming conflict of interest. Of the four primary chemical incentives in our bodies, two evolved primarily to help us find food and get things done while the other two are there to help us socialize and cooperate. The first two chemicals, endorphins and dopamine, work to get us where we need to go as individuals-to persevere, find food, build shelters, invent tools, drive forward and get things done. I like to call these the “selfish” chemicals. The other two, serotonin and oxytocin, are there to incentivize us to work together and develop feelings of trust and loyalty. I like to call these the “selfless” chemicals. They work to help strengthen our social bonds so that we are more likely to work together and to cooperate, so that we can ultimately survive and ensure our progeny will live on beyond us. 即使在我們自己的生物學中,也存在這種看似利益衝突的情況。在我們體內四種主要化學激勵物中,有兩種主要是為了幫助我們尋找食物和完成任務,而另外兩種則是為了幫助我們社交和合作。第一兩種化學物質,內啡肽和多巴胺,作用是幫助我們作為個體完成所需的事情-堅持下去、尋找食物、建造住所、發明工具、前進並完成任務。我喜歡稱它們為"自私"的化學物質。另外兩種,血清素和催產素,則是為了激勵我們一起工作,並培養信任和忠誠的感情。我喜歡稱它們為"無私"的化學物質。它們的作用是加強我們的社會聯繫,使我們更有可能共同工作和合作,從而最終得以生存,並確保我們的後代會活下去。
E.D.S.O.
Without Selfish Chemicals, We Would Starve to Death 如果沒有自私的化學物質,我們將會餓死
IT’S COMMON KNOWLEDGE that we shouldn’t go to the supermarket when we’re hungry. We always end up buying too much and buying things we don’t really need. We buy too much because everything we see we want to eat now . . . because we’re hungry, that’s obvious. But the more interesting question is, why do we go to the supermarket when we’re not hungry? 這是一個人盡皆知的事實,我們在肚子餓的時候不應該去超市。我們總會買太多東西,以及一些我們並不需要的東西。我們這樣做是因為看到什麼都想立刻吃掉,這很明顯是因為我們餓了。但更有趣的問題是,我們為什麼會在不餓的時候去超市呢?
Our ancestors of the Paleolithic era lived in times when resources were either scarce or hard to come by. Imagine if every time we felt hungry, we had to go hunting for a few hours . . . with no guarantee that we’d catch anything. Odds are our species would not have survived very well with a system like that. And so our bodies, in an effort to get us to repeat behaviors that are in our best interest, came up with a way to encourage us to go hunting and gathering on a regular basis instead of waiting until we were starving. 舊石器時代的祖先生存在資源稀缺或難以獲得的時代。想像每次我們感到飢餓時,都必須狩獵數小時...但卻無法保證獲得任何獵物。我們的物種依靠這種系統很可能難以生存。因此,為了令我們重複有益行為,我們的身體產生了一種機制,鼓勵我們定期進行狩獵採集,而不是等到快要餓死時才行動。
Two chemicals-endorphins and dopamine-are the reason that we are driven to hunt, gather and achieve. They make us feel good when we find something we’re looking for, build something we need or accomplish our goals. These are the chemicals of progress. 多種化學物質-內啡肽和多巴胺-是驅使我們尋獵、採集和達成目標的原因。當我們找到所尋物、製造所需或完成目標時,這些化學物質會讓我們感到愉悅。這些便是進步的化學物質。
E Is for Endorphins: The Runner's High 「E Is for Endorphins: The Runner's High」
ENDORPHINS SERVE ONE purpose and one purpose only: to mask physical pain. That’s it. Think of endorphins as our own personal opiate. Often released in response to stress or fear, they mask physical pain with pleasure. The experience of a “runner’s high,” the feeling of euphoria many athletes experience during or after a hard workout, is in fact the endorphin chemical surging through their veins. This is one of the reasons runners and other endurance athletes continue to push their bodies harder and harder. It is not simply because they have the discipline to do so; they do it because it actually feels good. They love and sometimes crave the amazing high they can achieve from a hard workout. The biological reason for endorphins, however, has nothing to do with exercise. It has to do with survival. 內啡肽只有一個用途,那就是掩蓋身體的疼痛。這就是它的全部功能。把內啡肽想像成是我們自己的鴉片。通常在應對壓力或恐懼時會釋放,它們以快感掩蓋身體的疼痛。「跑步高」的體驗,許多運動員在或後一次劇烈訓練時感受到的歡欣感,其實就是內啡肽在他們血液中激增造成的。這也是為什麼跑步者和其他耐力運動員會不斷推動自己更努力訓練的原因之一。這並不僅僅是因為他們有這種紀律,而是因為這樣做實際上感覺良好。他們喜歡並有時渴望從艱苦的訓練中獲得這種難以置信的高漲感。然而,內啡肽的生物學作用與運動無關,它與生存有關。
The caveman application of the chemical feel-good is far more practical. Because of endorphins, humans have a remarkable capacity for physical endurance. Save for all the marathoners out there, most of us can’t imagine running for miles and miles on a regular basis. But that’s exactly what gave our ancestors an edge while hunting during the Paleolithic era. They were able to track an animal over great distances and then still have the stamina to make it home again. If the trusty hunters gave up at any time simply because they were exhausted, then they, and those in their tribe, would not eat very often and would eventually die off. And so Mother Nature designed a clever incentive to encourage us to keep goinga little endorphin rush. 穴居人對化學愉悅感的應用更為實際。由於內啡肽的緣故,人類擁有出色的體力耐力。除了那些馬拉松選手,我們大多數人無法想象定期跑幾英里。但這正是我們的祖先在舊石器時代狩獵時佔優勢的原因。他們能夠在很長的距離上追蹤動物,而且仍然有足夠的體力回到家。如果可靠的獵人因為疲憊而隨時放棄,他們和他們部落中的人就很難經常進食,最終會死亡。因此,大自然設計了一個聰明的激勵機制,鼓勵我們再接再厲,那就是一陣強烈的內啡肽高潮。
We can actually develop a craving for endorphins. That’s why people who are in the habit of regular exercise sometimes crave going for a run or getting to the gym to help them relax, especially after a stressful day at work. Our ancestors probably wanted to go hunting and gathering not simply because they knew they had to, but because it often felt good to go. Again, the human body wants us to feel good when we go looking for food or when we are doing the hard work of building shelter so that we will more likely do it. Thanks to cars and supermarkets, however, we live in a world with readily available and abundant resources. The body no longer rewards the search for food, at least not with endorphins. In this day and age, we 我們實際上可能會對內啡肽產生渴望。這就是為什麼經常鍛鍊的人有時會渴望跑步或去健身房以幫助他們放鬆,尤其是在工作壓力大的一天之後。我們的祖先可能不只是因為知道必須去做,而是因為經常覺得去狩獵採集很愉快。再次強調,人體想讓我們在尋找食物或從事建造 shelter 的艱苦工作時感到良好,這樣我們就會更有可能這麼做。然而,由於有了汽車和超市,我們如今生活在一個有豐富可用資源的世界。身體不再獎勵尋找食物的過程,至少不會產生內啡肽。如今
basically get our endorphin hits from exercise or manual labor. With at least one notable exception. 我們基本上從運動或體力勞動中獲得內啡肽的刺激。除了一個明顯的例外。
Stephen Colbert, political satirist and host of The Colbert Report, commented during an interview on the importance of laughter in tense times. “You can’t laugh and be afraid at the same time,” he said. And he’d be right. Laughing actually releases endorphins. They are released to mask the pain we’re causing to ourselves as our organs are being convulsed. We like laughing for the same reason runners like running-it feels good. But we’ve all had the experience of laughing so much we want it to stop because it starts to hurt. Like the runner, the hurt actually began earlier, but thanks to the endorphins, we didn’t feel it until later. It is the high we get, which continues after the laughing has ceased, that makes it hard to be, as Colbert says, afraid at the same time. During tense times, a little lightheartedness may go a long way to help relax those around us and reduce tensions so that we can focus on getting our jobs done. As President Ronald Reagan famously joked with the chief surgeon on March 30, 1981, as he was wheeled into the operating room at George Washington University Hospital, after being shot by John Hinckley J…, “I hope you’re all Republicans.” (To which the surgeon, a self-described liberal Democrat, replied, “We’re all Republicans today, Mr. President.”) 政治諷刺家兼《柯柏特報告》主持人史蒂芬·柯柏特在接受訪問時,談到了在緊張時期笑的重要性。他說:「你不可能又害怕又大笑。」他說得很對。笑會釋放內啡肌。這些內啡肌會被釋放出來,掩蓋我們因器官抽搐而造成的痛苦。我們喜歡笑,就像跑步者喜歡跑步一樣,因為這感覺很好。但我們都有過這樣的經歷,笑得太厲害想讓它停下來,因為它開始讓人痛。就像跑步者一樣,痛其實早就開始了,但由於內啡肌的作用,我們直到後來才感受到。正是這種高昂的情緒,在笑聲停止後仍繼續存在,使得我們無法像柯柏特所說的那樣,同時感到害怕。在緊張時期,稍微輕鬆一下可能對於讓周圍的人放鬆下來、減輕張力很有幫助,這樣我們就能專注於完成我們的工作。正如里根總統在 1981 年 3 月 30 日被約翰·辛克利射擊後,在喬治華盛頓大學醫院手術室裡開玩笑地對主刀外科醫生說的那樣:「我希望你們都是共和黨人。」(外科醫生回答說:「今天我們都是共和黨人,總統先生。」)
D Is for Dopamine: An Incentive for Progress 多巴胺之 D
DOPAMINE IS THE reason for the good feeling we get when we find something we’re looking for or do something that needs to get done. It is responsible for the feeling of satisfaction after we’ve finished an important task, completed a project, reached a goal or even reached one of the markers on our way to a bigger goal. We all know how good it feels to cross something off our to-do list. That feeling of progress or accomplishment is primarily because of dopamine. 多巴胺是我們找到我們正在尋找的東西或完成任務時所感受到的愉快感的原因。它負責在我們完成重要任務、完成一個項目、達到目標或甚至達到通往更大目標的里程碑後的滿足感。我們都知道把某件事從待辦清單上劃掉的感覺有多好。這種進步或成就感主要都是由於多巴胺的作用。
Long before agriculture or supermarkets, humans spent a good portion of their time in search of the next meal. If we couldn’t stay focused on completing basic tasks, like hunting and gathering, we wouldn’t last very long. So Mother Nature designed a clever way to help us stay focused on the task at hand. One way we get dopamine is from eating, which is one of the reasons we enjoy it. And so we try to repeat the behaviors that get us food. 在農業或超級市場出現之前,人類用大量時間尋找下一餐。如果我們無法集中精力完成基本任務,如狩獵和採集,我們將無法長久生存。因此,自然界設計了一個巧妙的方式來幫助我們專注於當下的任務。我們獲得多巴胺的一種方式是進食,這也是我們喜歡進食的原因之一。所以我們試圖重複獲得食物的行為。
It is dopamine that makes us a goal-oriented species with a bias for progress. When we are given a task to complete, a metric to reach, as long as we can see it or clearly imagine it in our mind’s eye, we will get a little burst of dopamine to get us on our way. Back in the Paleolithic era, if someone saw a tree filled with fruit, for example, dopamine was released to incentivize them to stay focused on the task and go get the food. As they made progress toward that fruit tree, they would see it getting slightly bigger, an indication they were getting closer. And with each sign of progress, they would get another little hit of dopamine to keep them on their way. And another, and another until they got a big hit when they finally reached their goal. Eureka! 多巴胺驅使我們成為以目標為導向的物種,並偏好進步。當我們被賦予一項任務或是要完成某個指標時,只要我們能看見或想像出目標,就會獲得一股多巴胺的力量,推動我們邁向目標。在舊石器時代,如果有人看見一棵結滿果實的樹,多巴胺就會被釋放,激勵他們保持專注,前往取食。隨著他們接近果樹,樹木會漸漸變大,表示他們離目標越來越近。每有一點進展,他們就會獲得更多多巴胺的獎勵,直到最終抵達目標時獲得巨大的滿足感。萬歲!
It’s the same for us. As we get closer to our goals, the metrics tell us we’re making progress and we get another little hit to keep us going. Then finally, when we reach our goal, that intense feeling of “got it” is a big hit of dopamine, our biological reward for all that hard work. Each milestone we pass is a metric, a way to see that the fruit tree is getting closer and closer. Like a marathon runner who passes each mile marker toward the finish line, our bodies reward us with dopamine so that we will keep going, working even harder to reach that huge pot of dopamine, that intense feeling of accomplishment at the end. Obviously the bigger the goal, the more effort it requires, the more dopamine we get. This is why it feels really good to work hard to accomplish something difficult, while doing something quick and easy may only give us a little hit if anything at all. In other words, it feels good to put in a lot of effort to accomplish something. There is no biological incentive to do nothing. 對我們來說,都是一樣的。當我們更接近目標時,指標告訴我們我們正在取得進展,並給我們一些小小的獎賞來鼓勵我們繼續前進。最終,當我們達到目標時,那種強烈的「做到了」的感覺就是一大筆多巴胺,這是我們辛勤工作的生物學上的回報。我們每一次通過里程碑都是一個指標,一種看到果樹越來越接近的方式。就像馬拉松跑者每通過一個里程碑就越接近終點線一樣,我們的身體會用多巴胺來獎勵我們,讓我們繼續前進,更加努力地去達到那個巨大的多巴胺獎賞,達到最後那種成就感。顯然,目標越大,所需的努力越多,我們獲得的多巴胺就越多。這就是為什麼努力完成一件困難的事情會感覺很好,而做一件快速而簡單的事情可能只會給我們一些微小的獎賞,或者根本沒有。換句話說,付出大量努力來完成某件事是令人愉悅的。沒有生物學上的誘因讓我們什麼都不去做。
Our Goals Must Be Tangible 我們的目標必須是實在的
WE ARE VERY visually oriented animals. We seem to trust our eyes more than any of our other senses. When we hear a bump in the night we want to see that nothing is there before we can relax and go back to bed. When someone we are getting to know makes a promise or claims they have accomplished something, we want to “see it to believe it.” 我們是非常重視視覺的動物。我們似乎比任何其他感官更信任我們的眼睛。當我們在夜間聽到一聲撞擊聲時,我們希望看到那裡沒有任何東西,然後才能放鬆下來回到睡眠中。當我們正在認識的某人做出承諾或聲稱他們已經完成了某件事時,我們希望能'看到它才相信它'。
This is the reason we’re often told to write down our goals. “If you don’t write down your goals,” so the saying goes, “you won’t accomplish them.” There is some truth to this. Like seeing that fruitfilled tree in the distance, if we are able to physically see what we are setting out to accomplish or clearly imagine it, then we are indeed, thanks to the powers of dopamine, more likely to accomplish that goal. 這是我們經常被告知要記下目標的原因。「如果你不寫下目標」,俗話說,「你就不會完成它們。」這話的確有一定道理。就像看到遠處的那棵碩果纍纍的樹木一樣,如果我們能夠實際看到我們要達成的目標,或者清楚地想象它,那麼感謝多巴胺的力量,我們確實更有可能實現這個目標。
This is the reason we like to be given a clear goal to achieve to receive a bonus instead of being given some amorphous instructions. It’s not very motivating or helpful to be told that we will receive a performance bonus if we achieve “more.” How much more? Give us something specific to set our sights on, something we can measure our progress toward, and we are more likely to achieve it. This is why people who balance their checkbooks or maintain a budget are more likely to save or not overspend. Saving is not a state of mind; it is a goal to be achieved. 這是我們喜歡獲得明確目標以獲得獎金而不是被賦予模糊指示的原因。被告知如果我們實現「更多」就會獲得績效獎金這並不太有動力或有益。給我們一些具體的目標設定我們的視線,某些我們可以衡量進展的東西,我們更可能實現它。這就是為什麼平衡支票簿或制定預算的人更有可能存錢或不會過度消費。儲蓄不是一種心態;它是一個要實現的目標。
It is also the reason why a corporate vision statement must be something we can see in our mind’s eye. That’s why it’s called a “vision,” because we need to be able to “see” it. Like the amorphous instructions, having a vision of “being the most respected company in our category” is useless. Respected by whom? The customers? The shareholders? The employees? The CEO’s parents? If we are unable to adequately measure progress toward that vision, then how will we know if we’re making worthwhile progress? Visions of being the “biggest” or “the best” or any other words that so often show up in vision statements are, on a biological level, pretty useless if we want to inspire people to work hard to achieve those visions. 這也是為什麼公司願景聲明必須是我們在腦海中可以看見的東西。這就是為什麼它被稱為「願景」,因為我們需要能「看見」它。就像那些模糊的指示一樣,有一個「成為我們行業中最受尊敬的公司」的願景是沒有用的。受到誰的尊敬?客戶?股東?員工?首席執行官的父母?如果我們無法充分衡量向該願景的進展,那麼我們如何知道是否取得了有意義的進展?成為「最大」或「最好」或其他常常出現在願景聲明中的詞語的願景,從生物學的角度來看,如果我們想激勵人們努力實現這些願景,則是相當無用的。
A good vision statement, in contrast, explains, in specific terms, what the world would look like if everything we did was wildly successful. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told us that he had a dream. That one day, “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.” We can imagine that; we can see what that looks like. And if we find that vision inspiring and worthy of our time and energy, then we can more easily plan the steps we need to take to achieve that vision. Short or long term, the clearer we can see what we are setting out to achieve, the more likely we are to achieve it. It’s exciting, thanks to dopamine. This is why the best visions offer us something that, for all practical purposes, we will never actually reach, but for which we would gladly die trying. Each point in our journey is an opportunity to feel like we’re making progress toward something bigger than ourselves. 一個良好的願景陳述,相反地,以具體的術語解釋,如果我們所做的一切都取得了令人難以置信的成功,這個世界會是什麼樣子。馬丁·路德·金博士告訴我們,他有一個夢想。有一天,「小黑童子和黑女孩將能夠和小白童子和白女孩一起手牽手,像姐妹和兄弟一樣。」我們可以想像那個景象;我們可以看到那是什麼樣子。如果我們發現這個願景令人鼓舞,值得我們投入時間和精力,那麼我們就更容易規劃實現這個願景所需要採取的步驟。無論是短期還是長期,我們越清楚地看到自己要實現的目標,就越有可能實現它。這很令人興奮,多歸功於多巴胺。這就是為什麼最好的願景為我們提供了一些東西,從實際目的來說,我們永遠也不可能真正達到,但為了這個目標,我們也會竭盡全力去嘗試。我們的每一個旅程都是一個機會,讓我們感到自己正在朝著比我們自己更大的目標前進。
When the system works as designed, we stay well fed, get our work done and make progress. What’s more, we are better able to support and provide for those in our family and tribe. Dopamine can help us get through college, become a doctor or work tirelessly to realize an imagined vision of the future. 當系統如設計般運作時,我們就能保持營養豐富,完成工作並取得進步。此外,我們更能夠支持和照顧家庭和部落的人。多巴胺能助我們完成大學學業,成為醫生,或不屈不撓地實現對未來的想像。
But there is some fine print at the bottom of the bottle that is often missed. Dopamine is also highly, highly addictive. As helpful as it is, we can also form neural connections that do not help us survive-in fact, they may do the complete opposite. The behaviors we reinforce can actually do us harm. Cocaine, nicotine, alcohol and gambling all release dopamine. And the feeling can be intoxicating. The chemical effects notwithstanding, the addictions we have to these things (and lots of other things that feel good) are all basically dopamine addictions. The only variation is the behavior that is reinforced that gives us the next hit of dopamine. 但瓶底常被忽略的細小字跡。多巴胺亦高度成癮。盡管它有助於我們,但它也能形成不利於生存的神經連結,甚至相反。我們強化的行為實際上可能會傷害我們。可卡因、尼古丁、酒精和賭博都會釋放多巴胺,而這種感覺可能令人神往。不論化學效應如何,我們對這些(以及許多其他讓人感覺良好的事物)的成癮,實際上都是多巴胺成癮。唯一的變化是,強化了會給我們下一劑多巴胺的行為。
There is another thing to add to that list of things that can hijack our dopamine reward system: social media. Texting, e-mail, the number of likes we collect, the ding, the buzz or the flash of our phones that tell us “You’ve got mail,” feels amazing. As it should. We have associated the dopamine-releasing feeling of “ooh, something for me” with getting a text or e-mail or the like. Yes, it’s true, we hate all that e-mail, but we live for the ding, the buzz or the flash that tells 還有另一件事可以添加到那個可以劫持我們多巴胺獎勵系統的清單:社交媒體。發短信、電子郵件、我們收集的讚數、手機上的叮咚聲、嗡嗡聲或閃光,告訴我們「你有郵件」,這感覺很棒。這是應該的。我們已經把「哦,有東西給我」的多巴胺釋放感覺與收到短信或電子郵件等聯繫起來。是的,這是真的,我們討厭所有的電子郵件,但我們活著是為了那個叮咚聲、嗡嗡聲或閃光,告訴我們
us something’s there. Some of us have formed neural connections that drive us to carry our phones in our hands at all times, often looking down and hitting refresh a few times, even though nothing has come in. Gimme dopamine! 我們有一些神經連接讓我們時刻握著手機,並不斷刷新,儘管沒有新消息。給我多巴胺!
It is said that if you wake up in the morning and the first thing you crave is a drink, you might be an alcoholic. If you wake up in the morning and the first thing you do is check your phone to read e-mail or scan through your social media before you even get out of bed, you might be an addict. Craving a hit of chemical feel good, we repeat the behaviors that we know can produce that hit. In the case of alcohol or gambling, we are aware of it. In the case of our love of our devices and social media, we are less aware of the addictive qualities. 據說,如果你早上醒來,第一件想做的事就是喝一杯酒,那你可能是個酒精成癮者。如果你早上醒來,第一件事就是拿起手機查看電子郵件或瀏覽社交媒體,即使還沒下床,你可能就是個成癮者。渴望獲得化學性的快感,我們重複那些可以帶來這種感覺的行為。在酒精或賭博的情況下,我們很清楚這一點。但在我們對設備和社交媒體的熱愛方面,我們對其成癮的特質則較不了解。
In a performance-driven organization in which dopamine is the primary means of reward-hit the goal, get the money-like gambling, we can become addicted to “making the numbers.” The only question is: are our modern addictions innocent or are there unintended side effects that are causing us harm? But I will save that discussion for later. 在目標導向的組織中,多巴胺是主要的獎勵手段,實現目標就能賺錢,就像賭博一樣,我們可能會對「達成數字目標」上癮。問題是:我們現代的癖好是無害的,還是存在不可預見的負面影響?不過我們將在稍後討論這個問題。
It is because of dopamine that, in our modern day, we like shopping or collecting things-though there is no rational benefit to most of our hobbies, we enjoy them because they satisfy our prehistoric foraging desires. If we get addicted and can’t stop, like any dopamine addiction, as good as it may feel, it often comes at a high cost. We spend more time and money than is wise and sometimes sacrifice our relationships just so we can get another hit. 多多巴胺導致我們喜歡購物或收集事物,即使我們的興趣沒有理性利益。如果我們上癮並無法停止,即使感覺良好,也常常付出高昂代價。我們花費過多時間和金錢,有時犧牲關係,只為再獲得一次刺激。
Accomplishment may be fueled by dopamine. But that feeling of fulfillment, those lasting feelings of happiness and loyalty, all require engagement with others. Though we may not reminisce about that goal we hit a decade ago, we will talk about the friends we made as we struggled to make it. 成就可能由多巴胺推動。但那種充實感、持久的幸福和忠誠感,都需要與他人互動。雖然我們可能不會回憶起我們十年前達成的目標,但我們會談論在努力實現目標的過程中所結識的朋友。
The good news is we also have chemical incentives that reward us with positive feelings when we act in ways that would earn us the trust, love and loyalty of others. All we have to do to get those feelings is give a little. Which is pretty handy, because, as we all know, we can get even more done together, working with people we trust, than we can alone. 好消息是,我們也有化學激勵措施,當我們採取能贏得他人信任、愛與忠誠的行為時,會獲得正面感受。要獲得這種感受,我們只需付出一點點。這很方便,因為眾所周知,與我們信任的人一起工作,我們可以比獨自工作做得更多。
Endorphins and dopamine work together to ensure our survival as it relates to food and shelter. They help us get things done so that we will be housed and fed. It’s not an accident that we say we need our jobs to “survive.” We really do feel that way. Without endorphins to give us the edge we need to keep going, we would not keep striving even when we were tired and exhausted. Dopamine rewards us with a chemical rush when we’ve accomplished something, making us want to do it again and again, which is exactly what it takes to find things, build things and get things done. But it’s harder to do all things alone, especially the big things. Together is better. 內啡肽和多巴胺共同作用,確保我們在食物和住房方面的生存。它們幫助我們完成任務,使我們擁有居所和食物。我們說需要工作來"生存",這並非偶然。沒有內啡肽給我們堅持下去的動力,即使疲倦和精疲力盡,我們也不會繼續努力。多巴胺在我們完成某事時給予化學刺激,使我們想再次重複,這正是尋找、建造和完成事物所需要的。但單獨完成所有事情,尤其是大事,是很困難的。一起合作更好。
The Selfless Chemicals 無私的化學品
FINDING, BUILDING AND achieving are only part of our story. It is the manner in which we make progress that is core to our ability to do well in a dangerous world. It is the selfless chemicals that make us feel valued when we are in the company of those we trust, give us the feeling of belonging and inspire us to want to work for the good of the group. It is the selfless chemicals that keep the Circle of Safety strong. 發現、建立和實現只是我們故事的一部分。關鍵在於我們如何取得進步,這是我們在危險世界中做好事情的核心能力。是無私的化學物質使我們在被信任的人陪伴時感到受重視,並給予我們歸屬感,激勵我們為集團的利益而工作。是無私的化學物質使安全圈保持強大。
Without Social Chemicals We'd Be Cold-Blooded 沒有社交化學物質 我們就會成為冷血動物
A CARCASS OF a wildebeest floats down a tributary of the Zambezi River in Botswana. The soon-to-be meal passes two hungry crocodiles that both call this part of the river home. Seeing the food, they both lunge at it . . . but only one will win. The faster, stronger of the two will be the one to eat that day. Acting completely out of instinct, it will consume the carcass and swim away with a full stomach and absolutely no care in the world about the other crocodile. And though the other crocodile may swim away hungry, it 在博茨瓦納贊比西河的支流上,一具角馬屍體正隨流而下。這即將成為餐食的角馬屍體經過了兩隻餓極了的鱷魚的地盤。看到食物,它們都撲向了它......但只有一隻會勝出。速度更快、力量更強的那一隻將成為那天的獲食者。在完全受本能驅使的情況下,它將吞噬屍體,並以飽腹游走,對另一隻鱷魚毫不在意。而雖然另一隻鱷魚可能會空腹而逃,但它
will harbor no ill will toward its adversary. There is no part of the crocodile’s reptilian brain that rewards any cooperative behavior. The animals have no positive feelings when cooperation is offered and thus no incentive to cooperate. They are, by design, cold-hearted loners. That’s just how they were designed to work. Nothing personal. All instinct. And, for a crocodile, it works. 「它將對其對手沒有任何不善意。鱷魚的爬蟲類大腦沒有任何部分能獎勵任何合作行為。動物在合作被提出時沒有任何積極的感受,因此沒有任何誘因去合作。他們被設計成冷血的孤獨者。這就是他們被設計來運作的方式。一點也不個人。全是本能。而對於鱷魚來說,這樣就很有效。」
We, however, are not like crocodiles. Though we may share the primitive, reptilian portion of our brain with them, our brain continued to grow beyond its reptile roots. We are anything but loners. The addition of the mammalian layer of our brain helped us to become highly functioning social animals. And for good reason. If we weren’t adapted to live in tribes and cooperate, we would have died off ages ago. We don’t have thick, scaly skin to make us less vulnerable to attack. We don’t have rows of sharp teeth like a great white shark, able to keep chomping even after we lose a few. We’re just not strong enough to survive alone, let alone thrive. Whether we like to admit it or not, we need each other. That’s where serotonin and oxytocin come in. They are the backbone of the Circle of Safety. 我們雖然與鱷魚分享原始的爬行動物大腦部分,但我們的大腦卻繼續超越爬行動物的根源而成長。我們並非獨行者。哺乳動物層的增加使我們成為了高度社交的動物。這是有原因的。如果我們未適應在部落生活並合作,我們早已消失在歷史長河。我們沒有厚實的鱗甲皮膚讓自己不易受到攻擊。我們也沒有像大白鯊般的尖牙,即便失去幾顆也能繼續啃咬。我們並不足以單獨生存,更遑論茁壯。不管我們承認與否,我們需要彼此。這就是血清素和催產素的用武之地。它們是安全圈的根基。
There to encourage pro-social behavior, serotonin and oxytocin help us form bonds of trust and friendship so that we will look out for each other. It is because of these two chemicals that we have societies and cultures. And it is because of these chemicals that we pull together to accomplish much bigger things than if we were to face the world alone. 為了鼓勵親社會行為,血清素和催產素幫助我們建立互信和友誼的紐帶,使我們彼此照應。正是由於這兩種化學物質,我們才有了社會和文化。正是由於這些化學物質,我們團結一致,成就遠大於單打獨鬥的事業。
When we cooperate or look out for others, serotonin and oxytocin reward us with the feelings of security, fulfillment, belonging, trust and camaraderie. When firing at the right times and for the right reasons, they can help turn any one of us into an inspiring leader, a loyal follower, a close friend, a trusted partner, a believer . . . a Johnny Bravo. And when that happens, when we find ourselves inside a Circle of Safety, stress declines, fulfillment rises, our want to serve others increases and our willingness to trust others to watch our backs skyrockets. When these social incentives are inhibited, however, we become more selfish and more aggressive. Leadership falters. Cooperation declines. Stress increases as do paranoia and mistrust. 當我們合作或關注他人時,血清素和催產素會給予我們安全、滿足、歸屬感、信任和情誼的感受。當在適當的時候及出於正當理由激發時,它們能幫助我們中的任何一個成為一位鼓舞人心的領導者、忠誠的追隨者、親密的朋友、可信賴的夥伴,一位信徒……一位強尼·布拉沃。當這種情況發生時,當我們發現自己身處在一個安全圈內時,壓力下降,滿足感上升,我們服務他人的意願增加,我們願意信任他人照看我們的後背也大幅提高。然而,當這些社會誘因受到抑制時,我們變得更加自私和更加好戰。領導能力下降。合作減少。壓力增加,偏執和不信任也隨之增加。
If we work in environments that make it harder to earn these incentives, then our desire to help our colleagues or the organization diminishes. And, absent the presence of commitment, any desire our colleagues may have to help us also declines. A vicious cycle is set in motion. The less our colleagues and leaders look out for us, the less we look out for them. The less we look out for them, the more selfish they become and, as a result, the more selfish we become. And when that happens, eventually everyone loses. 如果我們在環境中工作,使我們很難獲得這些獎勵,那麼我們幫助同事或組織的願望就會減弱。此外,如果缺乏承諾,我們同事想幫助我們的願望也會下降。一個惡性循環由此產生。我們的同事和領導者越不注意我們,我們也越不注意他們。我們越不注意他們,他們就越自私,相應的我們也越自私。當這種情況發生時,最終每個人都將失去。
Oxytocin and serotonin grease the social machine. And when they are missing, friction results. When the leaders of an organization create a culture that inhibits the release of these chemicals, it is tantamount to sabotage-sabotage of our careers and our happiness and sabotage of the success of the organization itself. 催產素和血清素潤滑社會機器。而當它們缺失時,摩擦就會產生。當一個組織的領導者創造一種抑制這些化學物質釋放的文化時,這等同於阻礙-阻礙我們的事業和幸福,以及阻礙組織本身的成功。
The strength of the culture, and not its size or resources, determines an organization’s ability to adapt to the times, overcome adversity and pioneer new innovations. When the conditions are right, when a strong Circle of Safety is present and felt by all, we do what we do best. We act in the manner for which we are designed. We pull together. 文化的力量,而非其規模或資源,決定了一個組織適應時代、克服逆境和開創新創新的能力。當條件合適,當一個強大的安全圈存在並被所有人感受到時,我們發揮我們最擅長的方式。我們按照設計的方式行動。我們團結一致。
S Is for Serotonin: The Leadership Chemical 5-羥色胺：領導力化學
“I HAVEN’T HAD an orthodox career and l’ve wanted more than anything to have your respect,” said Sally Field as she stood on the stage gripping the Oscar she’d just won for her role in the film Places in the Heart. The year was 1985. “The first time I didn’t feel it,” she admitted, “but this time I feel it, and I can’t deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!” 我沒有過正統的職業生涯,我比任何事物都更渴望獲得您的尊重。 薩利·費爾德在領取她剛從電影《心在何處》中獲得的奧斯卡金像獎時於舞台上如是說。那是 1985 年。「第一次我並未感受到,」她承認道,「但這一次我感受到了,我無法否認您現在喜歡我,就是喜歡我!」
What Sally Field was feeling was the chemical serotonin seeping through her veins. Serotonin is the feeling of pride. It is the feeling we get when we perceive that others like or respect us. It makes us feel strong and confident, like we can take on anything. And more 沙莉·菲爾德所感受到的是化學血清素在她血管中流淌。血清素是自豪的感覺。當我們感覺到他人喜歡或尊重我們時,就會產生這種感覺。它使我們感到強大和自信,好像我們可以克服任何困難。以及更多
than confidence boosting, it raises our status. The respect Sally Field received from the community significantly impacted her career. An Oscar winner is able to make more money to appear in a film, will have more opportunities to pick and choose the films they would prefer to work on and will command greater clout. 比提升自信更重要的,是提升我們的社會地位。莎莉·菲爾德獲得社區的尊重,對她的事業產生了巨大影響。奧斯卡獲得者能賺到更多錢出演電影,將擁有更多選擇自己想參與的電影的機會,並且會有更大的影響力。
As social animals, we more than want the approval of those in our tribe, we need it. It really matters. We all want to feel valuable for the effort we put forth for the good of others in the group or the group itself. If we could get that feeling alone, then we wouldn’t have awards ceremonies, company recognition programs or graduation ceremonies. And there certainly would be no need for any counters to display all the “likes” we get on Facebook, how many views we get on YouTube or how many followers we have on Twitter. We want to feel that we and the work we do are valued by others, especially those in our group. 作為社會性動物,我們不僅需要獲得我們部落中人的認可,我們更是需要它。這真的很重要。我們都希望能為團體或團體本身的利益而付出的努力而感到有價值。如果我們能單靠那種感覺就足夠,那麼我們就不會有頒獎典禮、公司嘉獎計畫或畢業典禮。也必然不會有任何計數器來顯示我們在 Facebook 上獲得的「讚」數、YouTube 上的觀看量或 Twitter 上的追隨者數。我們希望感受到我們自己和我們做的工作都受到他人的重視,尤其是我們所屬群體的成員。
It is because of serotonin that a college graduate feels a sense of pride and feels their confidence and status rise as they walk across the stage to receive their diploma. Technically, all a student needs to graduate is to pay their bills, fulfill their requirements and collect enough credits. But graduation probably wouldn’t feel the same if we received only an e-mail with a generic letter of congratulations and a downloadable attachment of the diploma. 由於血清素的緣故,大學畢業生會感到自豪和自信,當他們走上舞台領取畢業証書時,地位也會提高。從技術上講,學生只需要繳納學費、滿足要求並取得足夠的學分就可以畢業。但如果只收到一封電子郵件附上一封標準的道賀信和可下載的畢業證書,畢業儀式可能就不會有同樣的感覺。
And here’s the best part. At the moment that college graduate feels the serotonin course through their veins as they receive their diploma, their parents, sitting in the audience, also get bursts of serotonin and feel equally as proud. And that’s the point. Serotonin is attempting to reinforce the bond between parent and child, teacher and student, coach and player, boss and employee, leader and follower. 在這一刻,大學畢業生感受到血液中塞羅通的流動,當他們接過畢業證書時,在觀眾席上的父母也會感到一陣陣的塞羅通興奮,他們同樣感到自豪。這就是關鍵所在。塞羅通試圖強化父母與子女、老師與學生、教練與球員、老闆與員工、領導與追隨者之間的聯繫。
That’s why when someone receives an award, the first people they thank are their parents, or their coach, their boss or Godwhoever they felt offered them the support and protection they needed to accomplish what they accomplished. And when others offer us that protection and support, because of serotonin, we feel a sense of accountability to them. 當有人獲得獎項時,他們首先感謝的人往往是父母、教練、老闆或上天,因為是他們提供了支持和保護,使得得獎者得以實現成就。而當他人給予我們這種保護和支持時,由於血清素的作用,我們會對他們產生一種責任感。
Remember, these chemicals control our feelings. That’s why we can actually feel the weight of responsibility when others commit 記住,這些化學物質控制我們的感受。這就是為什麼當別人承擔責任時,我們實際感受到責任的重量。
time and energy to support us. We want them to feel that the sacrifices they made for us were worth it. We don’t want to let them down. We want to make them proud. And if we are the ones giving the support, we feel an equal sense of responsibility. We want to do right by them so that they can accomplish all that they set out to do. It is because of serotonin that we can’t feel a sense of accountability to numbers; we can only feel accountable to people. 花時間和精力支持我們。我們希望他們感到,他們為我們所做的犧牲是值得的。我們不想讓他們失望。我們想讓他們感到自豪。而如果我們是提供支持的人,我們也會感到同等的責任感。我們想以正確的方式對待他們,讓他們實現他們所設定的一切目標。正是因為血清素,我們無法對數字感到責任感;我們只能對人類感到責任感。
This helps explain why it feels different to cross a finish line alone, without spectators, compared to when a crowd cheers as we break the tape. In both cases, the accomplishment is the same, the time is the same, even the effort is the same. The only difference is that in one case, there are others there to witness and cheer for us. 跨越終點線獨自完成,與群眾歡呼慶祝完成賽事,感受不同的原因即在於此。兩次成就相同,成績時間一樣,付出的努力也相同,唯一不同的是,後者有他人在場見證和歡呼。
I felt this when I ran the New York City Marathon a few years ago. One of the things that kept me going was knowing that my friends and family had come out to support me. They spent their valuable time and energy to brave the traffic and crowds simply to get a quick glimpse of me as I ran past. We even planned when and where I would be because it made them proud to see me out there doing something hard. And it inspired me to keep pushing myself, simply knowing they were there. I wasn’t just running for me anymore; I wasn’t just running for the rush of endorphins and dopamine. Because of serotonin, I was now running for them too. And it helped. 我在幾年前跑紐約馬拉松時,就有這種感受。支持我的是朋友和家人。他們花費寶貴的時間和精力,面對交通和人群,只為能一瞥我跑過的身影。我們甚至計劃好在哪裡和何時能看到我,因為看到我努力完成一件艱難的事,他們感到自豪。知道他們在那裡,激勵我不斷向前。我不再只為自己而跑,也不再只為內啡肽和多巴胺。因為有了血清素的支持,我也為他們而跑。那幫助了我。
If all I wanted to accomplish was to run 26.2 miles, if all I wanted was the dopamine thrill of accomplishment, I could train and do that on any given weekend. But I didn’t. I ran on the day my family came out to support me. The day the organizers offered me a crowd to cheer me on. Better still, I got to wear a medal, a symbol of the accomplishment, which made me feel proud when I wore it around my neck. Serotonin feels good. 如果我所想要達成的,只是跑完 26.2 英里,如果我所想要的,只是成就感的多巴胺刺激,我可以在任何週末進行訓練和完成這件事。但我沒有這樣做。我在家人出來支持我的那一天跑步。主辦方給了我一群為我歡呼的人群的那一天。更好的是,我得到了一枚獎牌,這是成就的象徵,當我戴在脖子上時,會讓我感到自豪。血清素感覺很好。
The more we give of ourselves to see others succeed, the greater our value to the group and the more respect they offer us. The more respect and recognition we receive, the higher our status in the group and the more incentive we have to continue to give to the group. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work. Whether we are a boss, coach or parent, serotonin is working to encourage us to serve those for whom we are directly responsible. And if we are the 我們越是付出自己來幫助他人成功,我們對於群體的價值就越大,他人提供給我們的尊重也就越多。我們越受到尊重和認可,在群體中的地位也就越高,我們就越有動力繼續為群體付出。至少這就是應該運作的方式。不論我們是老闆、教練還是父母,血清素都在鼓勵我們去服務那些我們直接負責的人。如果我們是
employee, player or the one being looked after, the serotonin encourages us to work hard to make them proud. 員工、玩家或被照顧的人,血清素鼓勵我們努力工作,以讓他們感到驕傲。
Those who work hardest to help others succeed will be seen by the group as the leader or the “alpha” of the group. And being the alpha-the strong, supportive one of the group, the one willing to sacrifice time and energy so that others may gain-is a prerequisite for leadership. 為他人成功而最努力工作的人,將被群體視為領導者或群組的"首領"。成為首領-群組中堅強、支持性的一員,願意犧牲時間和精力以使他人獲益-是領導的先決條件。
O Is for Oxytocin: Chemical Love 氧化發酵素：化學愛
OXYTOCIN IS MOST people’s favorite chemical. It’s the feeling of friendship, love or deep trust. It is the feeling we get when we’re in the company of our closest friends or trusted colleagues. It is the feeling we get when we do something nice for someone or someone does something nice for us. It is responsible for all the warm and fuzzies. This is the feeling we get when we all hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” together. But oxytocin is not there just to make us feel good. It is vital to our survival instincts. 催產素是大多數人最喜歡的化學物質。它是友誼、愛或深厚信任的感覺。當我們與最親密的朋友或受信任的同事在一起時,就會有這種感覺。當我們為別人做些好事或別人為我們做些好事時,也會有這種感覺。這種感覺是溫暖和溫馨的來源。當我們一起牽手唱"Kumbaya"時,就會有這種感覺。但催產素不僅僅是為了讓我們感到良好。它對我們的生存本能至關重要。
Without oxytocin, we wouldn’t want to perform acts of generosity. Without oxytocin there would be no empathy. Without oxytocin, we wouldn’t be able to develop strong bonds of trust and friendship. And without that, we wouldn’t have anyone we could rely on to watch our backs. Without oxytocin, we would have no partner to raise our children; in fact, we wouldn’t even love our children. It is because of oxytocin that we trust others to help us build our businesses, do difficult things or help us out when we’re in a bind. It is because of oxytocin that we feel human connections and like being in the company of people we like. Oxytocin makes us social. 沒有催產素,我們就不會想要表現慷慨大方。沒有催產素,就沒有同情心。沒有催產素,我們就無法建立牢固的信任和友誼關係。沒有這些,我們就無法倚靠任何人來守護我們的後背。沒有催產素,我們就沒有伴侶來撫養我們的孩子;事實上,我們甚至不會愛自己的孩子。正是因為催產素,我們才會相信別人來協助我們建立事業、完成艱難的事情,或是在我們陷入困境時伸出援手。正是因為催產素,我們才會感受到人際連繫,喜歡與喜歡的人在一起。催產素使我們變得更加社交。
As a species that can accomplish more in groups than as individuals, we need to have the instinct to know whom to trust. In a group, no one person has to maintain a constant state of vigilance to make sure they are safe. If we are among people we trust and who trust us, that responsibility can now be shared among the entire group. In other words, we can fall asleep at night confident that someone else will watch for danger. Oxytocin is the chemical that 作為一個群體能比個人做出更多成就的物種,我們需要有能力知道該相信誰。在一個群體中,每個人都不需要時刻保持警惕以確保自己的安全。如果我們身處於信任我們的人之中,那麼這種責任就可以由整個群體共同承擔。換句話說,我們可以安心入睡,因為有其他人會為我們看守危險。催產素是
helps direct how vulnerable we can afford to make ourselves. It is a social compass that determines when it’s safe to open up and trust or when we should hold back. 幫助我們決定自己可承受的脆弱程度。它是一個社交指南針,決定何時安全地敞開心扉並信任,或何時應該保持警惕。
Unlike dopamine, which is about instant gratification, oxytocin is long-lasting. The more time we spend with someone, the more we are willing to make ourselves vulnerable around them. As we learn to trust them and earn their trust in return, the more oxytocin flows. In time, as if by magic, we will realize that we have developed a deep bond with this person. The madness and excitement and spontaneity of the dopamine hit is replaced by a more relaxed, more stable, more long-term oxytocin-driven relationship. A vastly more valuable state if we have to rely on someone to help us do things and protect us when we’re weak. My favorite definition of love is giving someone the power to destroy us and trusting they won’t use it. 與多巴胺不同,催產素是持久的。我們與某人相處的時間越長,我們就越願意在他們面前暴露自己的脆弱。當我們學會信任他們,並獲得他們的信任回報時,催產素就會流動。隨著時間的流逝,我們會意識到,我們已經與這個人建立了深厚的聯繫,猶如魔法般。多巴胺帶來的瘋狂、興奮和即興被一種更放鬆、更穩定、更持久的催產素主導的關係所取代。如果我們必須依靠某人來幫助我們做事並在我們軟弱時保護我們,這將是一種更有價值的狀態。我最喜歡愛的定義是,給予某人摧毀我們的力量,並相信他們不會使用它。
It’s the same in any new relationship. When we first show up to a new job, we’re excited, they’re excited, everything is perfect. But the trust we need to feel that our colleagues would watch our backs and help us grow, to really feel like we belong, takes time and energy. Personally or professionally, all the same rules of relationship building apply. 在任何新的人際關係中,都是如此。當我們初次到某個新的工作環境時,我們都感到興奮,他們也感到興奮,一切都非常完美。但是我們需要建立的信任感,讓我們感覺到同事會支持我們,幫助我們成長,真正讓我們感到歸屬,需要時間和精力去累積。無論是個人或職業方面,所有的人際關係建立都遵循同樣的規則。
Inside a Circle of Safety, we feel like we belong. 在安全圈內,我們感到自己屬於其中。
As much as we want to stand out and consider ourselves individuals, at our core, we are herd animals that are biologically designed to find comfort when we feel like we belong to a group. Our brains are wired to release oxytocin when in the presence of our tribe and cortisol, the chemical that produces the feeling of anxiety, when we feel vulnerable and alone. For our prehistoric ancestors, as well as all social mammals, our sense of belonging and confidence that we can face the dangers around us literally depend on feeling safe in our group. Being on the periphery is dangerous. The loner on the edge of the group is far more susceptible to predators than one who is safely surrounded and valued by others. 我們雖然渴望突出重圍並視自己為獨特個體,但本質上我們仍是群居動物,生物上設計為尋求歸屬感的慰藉。當我們感到屬於某個群體時,大腦便會釋放催產素;而當我們感到脆弱和孤獨時,則會釋放皮質醇,產生焦慮感。對於我們的遠古祖先以及所有社交哺乳動物而言,歸屬感和相信自己可以面對周圍威脅的自信,直接取決於是否感到安全地屬於某個群體。處於邊緣位置是危險的。孤單的個體比被安全包圍並受到他人重視的成員更容易遭到捕食者的攻擊。
Someone who feels like a bit of a social misfit because of an unusually high love of Star Wars or superheroes finds great camaraderie when attending Comic Con or some other fan convention. To be around others like us makes us feel like we belong and gives us a sense of safety. We feel accepted as part of the group and no longer suffer the anxiety of feeling like we are on the edges. There are few feelings that human beings crave more than a sense of belonging . . . the feeling of being inside a Circle of Safety. 有一個人因為對《星球大戰》或超級英雄的熱愛程度過高而感到自己是個社會格格不入的局外人,但在參加漫畫展或其他粉絲大會時,卻找到了很好的同伴情誼。與那些和我們一樣的人在一起,讓我們感到自己屬於這個群體,並獲得一種安全感。我們感受到被接納成為群體的一部分,不再承受邊緣感帶來的焦慮。擁有歸屬感是人類最渴望的感受之一......感受到自己在一個安全圈之中。
Generosity and Other Ways to Build Trust 慷慨與其他建立信任的方法
I WAS WALKING down the street with a friend of mine when the backpack of a man walking in front of us opened up, spilling papers onto the sidewalk. Without a thought, we bent down and helped him gather up his papers, and I pointed out to him that his bag was open. That tiny favor, that little expense of time and energy, with no expectation of anything in return, gave me a small shot of oxytocin. It feels good to help people. The man we helped also got a small shot of oxytocin, because it feels good when someone does something nice for us too. We stood up and continued walking. 我正沿著街道與朋友同行,突然在我們前頭有個人的背包打開了,紙張散落在人行道上。我們毫不猶豫地彎下身子幫他撿回那些紙張,並告訴他背包打開了。這微小的好意,僅僅花費一點點時間和精力,沒有任何回報的期望,卻給了我一些催產素的釋放。幫助他人讓人感到很好。我們所幫助的那個人也獲得了一些催產素,因為有人為我們做好事同樣令人愉悅。之後我們站起身繼續走路。
When my friend and I reached the end of the block, we stood and waited for the light to change so we could cross the street. As we stood there, another man standing in front of us turned around and said, “I saw what you did back there. That was really cool.” And that’s the best thing about oxytocin. Not only does the person performing even the tiniest act of courtesy get a shot of oxytocin, not only does the person on the receiving end of an act also get a shot, but someone who witnesses the act of generosity also gets some chemical feel good. Simply seeing or hearing about acts of human generosity actually inspires us to want to do the same. I can almost promise you that that guy who turned around to tell us he had seen what we had done very likely did something nice for someone that day. This is one of the reasons we find movies or news stories of 當我的朋友和我到達街區的盡頭時,我們停下來等待紅綠燈改變,以便我們能夠穿越馬路。當我們站在那裡時,另一個站在我們前面的男子轉過身來說:"我看到你剛才做的事了。那真的很酷。"這就是催產素的最好之處。不僅是執行即使是最微小的禮貌行為的人會獲得一股催產素,接受這一行為的人也會獲得一股,但是目睹這一慷慨行為的人也會獲得一些化學上的愉悅感。僅僅看到或聽說有關人類慷慨行為的事件就真的能鼓舞我們也想去做同樣的事。我可以向你保證,那個轉過身告訴我們他看到我們做了什麼的人,很可能那天也為某人做了一些好事。這就是我們會發現電影或新聞報導中
incredible selfless acts so inspiring. This is the power of oxytocin. It actually makes us good people. The more good things we do, the more good we want to do. This is the science behind “paying it forward.” 難以置信的無私行為令人振奮。這就是催產素的力量。它實際上使我們成為善良的人。我們做更多好事,就越想做好事。這就是「付出就是回報」背後的科學道理。
Oxytocin is also released with physical contact. That warm feeling we get when we hug someone we like for a few seconds longer-that’s oxytocin. It is also the reason it feels nice to hold hands with someone and the reason young children seem to always want to touch and hug their mothers. In fact, there’s lots of evidence that children who are deprived of human contact, deprived of sufficient doses of oxytocin, have trouble building trusting relationships later in life. It is also part of the reinforcing bond between athletes, for example, when they high-five, fist-bump or smack each other. It reinforces the bond they share and the commitment they have to work together for their common goal. 催產素也隨著身體接觸而釋出。那種我們與喜歡的人擁抱幾秒鐘時所產生的溫暖感覺-那就是催產素。這也是為什麼與他人牽手感覺很好,以及為什麼小孩子似乎總是想要觸摸和擁抱他們的母親的原因。事實上,有很多證據表明,那些被剝奪人際接觸、缺乏足夠劑量的催產素的孩子,日後在建立互信關係方面會有困難。這也是運動員之間高五、碰拳或拍打彼此時產生的強化連結的一部分。它強化了他們共享的紐帶,以及他們為共同目標而共同努力的承諾。
Suppose you are about to seal a deal with someone. They have agreed to all the terms laid out in the contract. Just before you sign the contract you stick out your arm to shake your soon-to-be partner’s hand. “No, no,” they say, “I don’t need to shake your hand. I agree to all the terms laid out and I’m excited to do business with you.” 假設您即將與某人達成一項交易。他們已同意合約中列明的所有條款。在簽署合約之前,您伸出手臂與即將成為的合作夥伴握手。「不,不」,他們說,「我不需要握手。我同意所有列明的條款,並對與您共事感到興奮。」
“Great,” you reply, “so let’s shake on it.” 太好了,我們握手成交吧。
“We don’t need to,” they say again, “I agree to everything and am ready to sign and start doing business.” Rationally speaking, you just got everything you wanted in the contract, but their simple refusal to make physical contact, to shake your hand, to reinforce the social bond with a little chemical trust, means one of two things will happen. You will either call the whole deal off or you will go into the deal a little more nervous. That’s the power of oxytocin. That’s the reason it is a big deal when world leaders shake hands-it is a sign to each other and all who witness that they can do business together. If our president were ever seen shaking hands at a UN event with some horrible dictator, it would cause a massive scandal. A simple handshake. But it’s not just a simple handshake; physical contact demonstrates a sign of our willingness to trust . . . even more than the terms of the deal. 他們再次說："我們不需要,"我同意所有內容並準備好簽字開始做生意。從理性的角度來看,您在合同中得到了您想要的一切,但他們簡單地拒絕身體接觸,不與您握手,不以一點化學信任強化社會紐帶,這意味著會發生以下兩種情況之一。您要么會取消整個交易,要么會在交易中變得有些緊張。這就是催產素的力量。這就是世界領導人握手的重要原因——這是一個互相和所有見證者表示他們可以共同做業務的信號。如果我們的總統在聯合國活動中與某個可怕的獨裁者握手,就會引發巨大的醜聞。一個簡單的握手。但這不僅僅是一個簡單的握手;身體接觸表明我們願意互相信任,甚至超過交易條款。
Oxytocin really is magical stuff. Not only is it behind the feelings of trust and loyalty, it also makes us feel good and inspires us to do nice things for others. Mother Nature wants the ones who give to others to keep their genes in the gene pool. That may be one of the reasons oxytocin actually helps us live longer. A person who is good to others in the group is good for the species. 催產素確實是神奇的東西。它不僅帶來信任和忠誠的感覺,也會讓我們感到良好並激勵我們為他人做好事。大自然希望那些對他人給予的人能夠保持他們的基因在基因庫中。這可能是催產素幫助我們更長壽的原因之一。一個對群體中的其他人很好的人對這個物種是有益的。
According to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011, people who claim to be happy live 35 percent longer than less happy people. The study of 3,800 men and women aged fifty-two to seventy-nine found that those who rated their happiness the highest were far less likely to die in the following five years than those who were the least happy, even after accounting for demographic factors such as wealth, occupation and health-related behavior such as smoking and obesity. 根據 2011 年發表於《美國國家科學院院刊》的一項研究,自稱快樂的人比不太快樂的人壽命長 35%。這項研究調查了 52 歲至 79 歲的 3,800 名男女,結果發現自評幸福感最高的人,相較於最不快樂的人,在接下來的五年內死亡率大幅降低,即便在考慮了諸如財富、職業和吸煙、肥胖等人口統計因素。
Oxytocin boosts our immune systems, makes us better problem solvers and makes us more resistant to the addictive qualities of dopamine. Unlike dopamine, which is largely responsible for instant gratification, oxytocin gives us lasting feelings of calm and safety. We don’t need to check in to see how many likes or followers we have on Facebook to feel good. Because of oxytocin, just knowing our friends and family are there, just looking at a picture of the people whom we love and who love us, make us feel good and not feel alone. And when that happens, we want more than anything else to do what we can to help them feel the same way. 催產素增強我們的免疫系統,使我們成為更出色的問題解決者,並使我們對多巴胺的成癮性質更有抵抗力。與多巴胺不同,後者主要負責瞬時滿足,催產素給我們帶來持久的平靜和安全感。我們不需要查看在 Facebook 上獲得的喜歡或關注者的數量來感到良好。因為催產素,僅僅知道我們的朋友和家人在那裡,只是看一張我們所愛的人,以及愛我們的人的照片,就會讓我們感到良好,而不會感到孤單。當這種情況發生時,我們最想做的就是盡自己所能幫助他們感受到同樣的感受。
CHAPTER 7 第七章
The Big C 大 C
1t was warm and sunny out. A day just like one would expect for that time of year. There was a calm, gentle breeze that broke the intensity of the sun. It was, by all accounts, a perfect day. 那天天氣溫暖晴朗。正如人們所期望的那樣的時節。有一陣輕柔的微風,緩解了陽光的強烈。無疑,這是一個完美的日子。
All of a sudden, out of the corner of an eye, the calm was shattered. Perhaps it was a rustle of the grass or maybe he thought he saw something. He couldn’t be sure, but, frankly, it didn’t matter. All that mattered was that there might have been something out there. Something dangerous. Something deadly. 突如其來,從眼角的一隅,平靜被打破了。也許是草木的沙沙聲,又或者他以為看到了什麼。他不能確定,但無論如何,那都不重要。重要的是,那裡可能有什麼東西。某些危險的東西。某些致命的東西。
The anxiety alone was quite enough for the gazelle to stop grazing and immediately lift its head to try to see what it hoped was not a lion. Another gazelle noticed that one of the members of its group was alerted to a possible threat and it too immediately stopped eating to look up-two sets of eyes are better than one. Before long, the whole group had joined in. None of them knew what specifically they were looking for-they only knew that if one of the members of the group felt threatened, they should all feel threatened. 瓦斯綷臧奧疎棄憺愎悚曜爪虮壩蚯匮桿渫悉嗣籙妍枳粥嶼篁鰻董渝訓昜遣齏灶菘皦諶謀切芴鼾蚨疋殡濦魃癇羅縮萬禰媨脤簿輾扉蟹逕槺瑢珍邵摳戍斂凜卒覿噪踫咆驅薈殺聳凰矍鶴
Then, in an instant, one of the gazelles, one that wasn’t originally alerted to the potential threat, saw the lion about to pounce and instinctively made a mad dash in the opposite direction. Whether they also saw the lion or not, all the gazelles in the herd followed in the same direction, all running at full speed. The lion attempted to give chase, but couldn’t run for long before it ran out of energy. The surprise attack was foiled and all the gazelles got to live another day. This is one of the primary benefits of group living-every member of the group can help look out for danger. If one individual in the group senses danger, the whole group can help spot it before it’s too late. 然後,頃刻之間,其中一隻瞪羚,原先未被警覺到潛在危險,看見獅子正準備撲擊,本能地朝相反方向狂奔。不管是否也看見獅子,整個獸群的瞪羚都跟著同一個方向逃亡,全力奔跑。獅子試圖追趕,但能量耗盡後無法繼續。這次奇襲失敗,所有瞪羚都得以活過那一天。這就是群居的主要好處之一-群組中的每個成員都可以共同警惕危險。如果群組中的某個個體感到危險,整個群組就可以在來不及之前發現它。
It is a familiar scene played out in many a nature documentary. Sometimes the lion makes the kill and sometimes it doesn’t. But the response from the gazelles is always the same. First, one or a few of 羚羊的反應總是一樣的。首先,一隻或幾隻羚羊
them sense something is amiss. Then they try to get a bead on the threat, and if there is a threat, they run for their lives. It is that initial feeling, that sense that something might be out there that would do them harm, that sets the whole scene in motion, and at the end of the day, gives the herd a greater opportunity for survival. 牠們感覺到事情不對勁。然後他們試圖掌握這個威脅,如果有威脅,他們會為了生命而逃跑。這種最初的感覺,就是感覺到可能會傷害他們的東西存在,這就設置了整個場景,結果,讓這群動物有更大的生存機會。
That feeling that something is wrong is a natural early warning system all social mammals have, including us. It is designed to alert us to threats and heighten our senses to prepare for possible danger. Absent that feeling, we would only be alerted to danger when we actually saw something or when the attack had already begun. And from a survival standpoint, that would probably be too late. 那種感覺某事不對勁是所有社會哺乳動物包括我們所擁有的自然預警系統。它被設計用來警示我們面臨威脅並提高我們的感官,為可能出現的危險做好準備。若沒有這種感覺,我們只能在真正看到什麼或攻擊已經開始時才會被警覺到危險。從生存的角度來看,那可能太晚了。
Those twenty-two Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan that Johnny Bravo risked his life to protect are a perfect example. They could feel something wasn’t right that night. That “gut feeling” that they, the gazelle and the rest of us get that something dangerous is lurking is caused by a chemical called cortisol. Cortisol is responsible for the stress and anxiety we experience when something goes bump in the night. It is the first level of our fight or flight response. Like a high-security alarm system that automatically calls the police, cortisol is designed to alert us to possible danger and prepare us to take extra measures to protect ourselves to raise our chances of survival. 阿富汗的那二十二名特種部隊是一個完美的例子。他們當晚有不對勁的感覺。我們和羚羊會有那種感覺,是因為有一種名為皮質醇的化學物質。皮質醇會引起我們在夜裡遇到威脅時所感受到的壓力和焦慮。這是我們戰鬥或逃走反應的第一級。就像高度安全警報系統自動報警一樣,皮質醇的作用是警示我們可能存在危險,並準備採取額外措施來保護自己,提高生存機會。
Apply the same scene of the gazelles to an office scenario. One person hears a rumor that there are going to be layoffs. He tells a friend at work. And before too long, just like the herd of gazelles, one by one, the word spreads and the whole office starts chatting and worrying, anxious about the impending layoffs. All the employees have a heightened sense of alertness thanks to the cortisol flowing through their veins. The stress they feel will distract them from getting anything else done until they feel that the threat has passed. 將這個羚羊群場景應用於辦公室場景。一個人聽說即將有裁員消息。他告訴了辦公室裡的朋友。不久之後,就像羚羊群一樣,一個接一個地,消息開始傳開,整個辦公室都開始議論和擔心,對即將到來的裁員感到焦慮。所有員工都因腎上腺素的流通而感到高度警惕。他們感受到的壓力將使他們無法專注於其他工作,直到他們感覺到這個威脅已經過去。
In the event of an actual threat, like police responding to an alarm, adrenaline is released into our bloodstream, giving us energy to get away or boosting our strength to face our foe. (If you’ve ever heard of stories of mothers who suddenly gain superhuman strength to save their children-that comes from adrenaline.) But if there is no 在實際威脅的情況下,如警察對警報作出反應,腎上腺素會被釋放到我們的血液中,為我們提供逃離或面對敵人的力量。(如果你曾聽說過母親為拯救孩子而突然獲得超人力量的故事,那就是來自於腎上腺素。)但是如果沒有
threat, we take a deep breath, wait for the cortisol to leave our bloodstream, allow our heart rate to return to normal and relax again. 面對威脅,我們深深吸氣,等待皮質醇從血液中流失,讓心率回復正常,再次放鬆。
Cortisol is not supposed to stay in our systems; it is supposed to fire off when we sense a threat and then leave when the threat has passed. And for good reason. The stress on our bodies is serious. The manner in which it reconfigures our internal systems can cause lasting damage if we have to live in a perpetual sense of fear or anxiety. 皮質醇不應該在我們的系統中持續存在;它應該在我們感到威脅時激發,然後在威脅消失時離開。這也有很好的理由。我們身體所受的壓力非常嚴重。它重新配置我們內部系統的方式,如果我們必須存在於持續的恐懼或焦慮感中,可能會造成持久的損害。
We all know what cortisol feels like when we fear for our wellbeing. But it is also behind the feelings of anxiety, discomfort or stress we have at work. Unlike gazelles, humans have sophisticated neocortices, the part of our brain responsible for language as well as rational, analytical and abstract thought. Whereas a gazelle reacts to the cortisol in their bodies, we as humans want to know the cause of our stress, to understand or make sense of our feelings. We often try to find the source of what we think is threatening us, real or perceived, to explain our unease. We may blame a boss who lies to us. We may blame a colleague who we fear would stab us in the back to advance their own career. We may beat ourselves up for speaking out of turn at a meeting. We cycle through any number of things we did or did not do to help us understand why we feel anxious. The paranoia cortisol creates is just doing its job. It is trying to get us to find the threat and prepare for it. Fight, run or hide. 我們都知道在害怕自己的健康時會有皮質醇的感受。但它也是我們在工作中焦慮、不適或壓力的感受。不同於瞪羚,人類擁有複雜的新皮質,這是我們大腦負責語言以及理性、分析和抽象思維的部分。而瞪羚對體內的皮質醇有反應,我們作為人類則希望了解我們壓力的原因,去理解或解釋我們的感受。我們常常試圖找出我們認為威脅我們的源頭,無論是真實的還是想像的,來解釋我們的不安。我們可能會責備對我們說謊的老闆。我們可能會責備我們擔心會在職業發展上跟我們作對的同事。我們可能會責備自己在會議上發言不當。我們會循環思考自己做或沒做的任何事情,以幫助我們理解為什麼會感到焦慮。皮質醇所造成的偏執恐懼只是在完成它的工作。它正試圖讓我們找到威脅並為之做好準備。戰鬥、逃跑或隱藏。
Whether the danger is real or imagined, the stress we feel is real. Unlike our rational minds, our bodies do not try to assess what the danger is. We simply react to the chemicals flowing through our bloodstreams to prepare us for what might be lurking. Our Paleolithic brain doesn’t care about understanding the threat. It just wants us to increase our chance of survival. What’s more, our bodies don’t understand that we work in offices and not in the open savannahs. Our ancient early warning system doesn’t understand that the “danger” we face is hardly life threatening. Which is why, in an effort to help us protect our interests, that system prompts us to react as if it were. 不管危險是真實還是想像,我們所感受到的壓力都是真實的。與我們理性的思維不同,我們的身體並不試圖評估危險的性質。我們只是對流通在我們血液中的化學物質做出反應,為可能潛伏的危險做好準備。我們的舊石器時代大腦並不關心理解威脅。它只想讓我們增加生存的機會。更重要的是,我們的身體並不明白我們是在辦公室工作,而不是在開闊的大草原上。我們古老的預警系統並不明白我們面臨的"危險"並非真的威脅生命。正因為如此,為了幫助我們保護自身利益,這個系統促使我們做出如同面臨生死的反應。
A friend of mine who works at Columbia University went to an office to fill out some administrative paperwork. He was polite and friendly to the young woman sitting at the desk, but she wasn’t that 友人在哥倫比亞大學工作,前往辦公室填寫一些行政文件。他對坐在辦公桌旁的年輕女士很有禮貌和友好,但她卻不太友善。
polite or friendly back. Though she didn’t say anything rude or wrong, he could sense that she wasn’t that concerned about him or his needs. She answered his questions with a word or two and didn’t give him any extra help or directions beyond what was minimally required, even when he asked. When he engaged with the next person, again, he felt like he had somehow bothered or upset him simply by asking him to do what was his job. Although, as employees of the same organization, it was in their mutual interest to assist him, the clerical staff seemed ambivalent about, even resistant to, cooperating. 彬彬有禮或友好地回應。儘管她沒有說任何粗魯或錯誤的話,但他感覺到她並不太關心他或他的需求。她只用一兩個字回答他的問題,即使他詢問,也沒有給他任何額外的幫助或指引,超出最低要求。當他與下一個人接觸時,他再次感覺到他僅僅是要求他做自己的工作就已經困擾或惹怒了他。雖然作為同一組織的員工,協助他是他們的共同利益,但文書人員似乎對合作持 ambivalent,甚至抗拒的態度。
In an office like the one my friend stepped into, people would prefer to keep to themselves, engage only when necessary, do their work and then go home at the end of the day. There is no sense that anyone would risk themselves or go out of their way to offer protection to another. And because of this, though there is no threat of layoffs and the work stress is low, there is a constant low-grade anxiety. As social animals, we feel stress when we feel unsupported. That subconscious unease, the feeling that we are responsible for ourselves and no one else is there to help, the feeling we get that most of the people with whom we work care primarily about themselves, is, to our primitive brain, quite scary. And the problem is not with the people, it is with the environment. 在我朋友進入的辦公室裡,人們寧願獨處,只在必要時才互動,完成工作後就回家。沒有人冒險或主動幫助他人。雖然沒有裁員威脅,工作壓力也不大,但卻存在持續的低度焦慮。作為社會動物,當我們感到缺乏支持時會感到壓力。這種潛意識的不安全感,即自己負責卻沒有人幫助,大多數同事只顧自己的感受,對原始大腦來說都是可怕的。問題不在於人們,而在於環境。
When a gazelle senses trouble, it alerts the rest of its herd, increasing the chances of the survival of all. Unfortunately, many of us work in environments where members of the group don’t care much about one another’s fate. Which means that valuable information, like impending danger, is often kept secret. As a result, bonds of trust among employees or between leaders and workers are weak, if they exist at all. We are left almost without an option but to put ourselves first. If we fear our boss doesn’t like us; if we are constantly worried that if we make a mistake, we will get in trouble; if we think that someone we work with will try to take credit for something we did or stab us in the back to get ahead; if we pay attention to too much media hype; if we fear the company isn’t going to make its numbers this year and layoffs may be around the corner; if people are generally disengaged; if we do not feel the Circle of Safety, cortisol starts to seep through our veins. Drip. Drip. Drip. 當一隻羚羊感到危險時,它會警醒它的群眾,提高所有生存的機會。遺憾的是,我們許多人工作在成員不太關心彼此命運的環境中。這意味着,即將到來的危險等有價值的信息往往被隱瞞。結果是,員工之間或領導者與工人之間的信任紐帶很脆弱,甚至根本不存在。我們除了把自己放在首位之外,幾乎沒有其他選擇。如果我們害怕老闆不喜歡我們;如果我們一直擔心犯錯會惹上麻煩;如果我們認為某個同事會試圖佔我們的功勞或從背後捅我們一刀以獲得晉升;如果我們過度關注媒體炒作;如果我們擔心公司今年完不成目標而可能有裁員;如果人們普遍無所事事;如果我們沒有感受到安全圈,皮質醇就會開始滲透我們的血管。滴答。滴答。滴答。
This is a serious problem. For one thing, cortisol actually inhibits the release of oxytocin, the chemical responsible for empathy. This means that when there is only a weak Circle of Safety and people must invest time and energy to guard against politics and other dangers inside the company, it actually makes us even more selfish and less concerned about one another or the organization. 這是一個嚴重的問題。首先,皮質醇實際上抑制催產素的釋放,催產素是負責同理心的化學物質。這意味著,當安全圈很弱,而人們必須投入時間和精力來防範公司內部的政治鬥爭和其他危險時,實際上會使我們變得更加自私,對彼此或組織更加漠不關心。
Working in an unhealthy, unbalanced culture is a lot like climbing Mount Everest-we adapt to our surroundings. Even though the conditions are dangerous, climbers know to spend time at base camp to adapt. In time, their bodies will get accustomed to the conditions so that they can persevere. We do the same thing in an unhealthy culture. If the conditions were violent or shocking, with a threat of layoffs every single day, we would never stay. But when the conditions are more subtle, things like office politics, opportunism, occasional rounds of layoffs and a general lack of trust among colleagues, we adapt. 在不健康、不平衡的文化中工作就像攀登珠穆朗瑪峰—我們適應自己的環境。儘管環境很危險,但登山者知道要在基地營花些時間來適應。隨著時間的推移,他們的身體會適應這種環境,這樣他們就能堅持下去。我們在不健康的文化中也做同樣的事。如果環境暴力或令人震驚,每天都有裁員的威脅,我們是絕對不會留下來的。但當環境更微妙時,比如辦公室政治、機會主義、偶爾的一輪裁員以及同事之間普遍缺乏信任,我們也會適應。
Like being at base camp on Everest, we believe that we are fine and can cope. However, the fact remains that the human animal is not built for these conditions. Even though we may think we’re comfortable, the effects of the environment still take their toll. Just because we become accustomed, just because it becomes normal, doesn’t mean it’s acceptable. On Everest, even after we’ve adapted, if we spend too long on the mountain, our internal organs start to break down. In an unhealthy culture, it’s the same. Even though we can get used to living with stress and low, regular levels of cortisol in our bodies, that doesn’t mean we should. 就像在聖艾弗勒斯山的營地一樣,我們相信自己很好,可以應對。然而,事實是人類動物並不是為這種環境而生的。即使我們可能認為自己很舒適,環境的影響仍然會帶來代價。僅僅因為我們習慣了,僅僅因為它變成了正常,並不意味著它是可以接受的。在聖艾弗勒斯山上,即使我們已經適應,如果我們在山上待太久,我們的內臟也會開始失去功能。在一個不健康的文化中也是如此。即使我們可以習慣於生活在壓力和體內皮質醇水平較低的環境中,但這並不意味著我們應該如此。
A constant flow of cortisol isn’t just bad for organizations. It can also do serious damage to our health. Like the other selfish chemicals, cortisol can help us survive, but it isn’t supposed to be in our system all the time. It wreaks havoc with our glucose metabolism. It also increases blood pressure and inflammatory responses and impairs cognitive ability. (It’s harder to concentrate on things outside the organization if we are stressed about what’s going on inside.) Cortisol increases aggression, suppresses our sex drive and generally leaves us feeling stressed out. And here’s the killerliterally. Cortisol prepares our bodies to react suddenly-to fight or run as circumstances demand. Because this takes a lot of energy, 皮質醇的持續流動不僅對組織有害。它也可能對我們的健康造成嚴重損害。像其他自私的化學物質一樣,皮質醇可以幫助我們生存,但不應該一直存在於我們的系統中。它破壞我們的葡萄糖代謝。它也會增加血壓和炎症反應,並損害認知能力。(如果我們對組織內部的情況感到壓力,就很難集中注意力於組織外的事物。)皮質醇會增加攻擊性,抑制我們的性欲,並使我們整體感到壓力。更重要的是,皮質醇讓我們的身體準備好突然做出反應——根據情況需要去戰鬥或逃跑。因為這需要大量能量,
when we feel threatened, our bodies turn off nonessential functions, such as digestion and growth. Once the stress has passed, these systems are turned on again. Unfortunately, the immune system is one of the functions that the body deems nonessential, so it shuts down during cortisol bursts. In other words, if we work in environments in which trust is low, relationships are weak or transactional and stress and anxiety are normal, we become much more vulnerable to illness. 當我們感到受威脅時,我們的身體會關閉非必要的功能,如消化和生長。一旦壓力過去,這些系統就會再次開啟。不幸的是,免疫系統是身體認為非必要的功能之一,因此在皮質醇激增期間會關閉。換句話說,如果我們在缺乏信任、人際關係薄弱或交易性,以及壓力和焦慮是正常情況的環境中工作,我們就會更容易生病。
Whereas oxytocin boosts our immune system, cortisol compromises it. That our modern world has seen high rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other preventable illnesses may not be a coincidence. Today these conditions are far more likely to kill us than threats like violent crime or terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center estimates that more than 12,500 people were killed worldwide by terrorists in 2011. According to FBI statistics, about 165,000 people were murdered in the United States between 2000 and 2010, more than two thirds of them with a firearm (FBI statistics do not include Florida). Compare those numbers to the 600,000 people who die every year in the United States from heart disease and the additional nearly 600,000 people who died of cancer in 2012, and the evidence becomes stark. Think about that, seven times more people die each year from heart disease and cancer than all the people murdered in a decade! 催產素能增強我們的免疫系統,而皮質醇卻會損害它。我們現代世界出現高率的癌症、糖尿病、心臟病和其他可預防疾病,這可能並非巧合。如今,這些條件比暴力犯罪或恐怖主義等威脅更容易殺死我們。國家反恐中心估計,2011 年全球有超過 12,500 人被恐怖分子殺害。根據聯邦調查局的統計數據,2000 年至 2010 年間,美國有約 165,000 人被謀殺,其中超過三分之二是槍殺(聯邦調查局的統計數據不包括佛羅里達州)。將這些數字與每年在美國死於心臟病的 600,000 人以及 2012 年因癌症死亡的近 600,000 人相比,證據就非常明顯了。想想看,每年死於心臟病和癌症的人數是謀殺案受害者十年總和的 7 倍!
Of course, stress alone is not causing all these deaths, but the numbers are so huge and growing, it seems only responsible for the leaders of organizations to take some accountability for how they may be contributing. That something as simple as a corporate incentive system or a corporate culture is actually contributing to those statistics is horrifying. Our jobs are literally killing us. 當然,壓力並非造成所有這些死亡的唯一原因,但數字如此巨大且持續增加,對於組織領導者來說,承擔一定責任,了解他們可能的貢獻似乎是唯一負責任的做法。一個簡單的公司獎勵機制或企業文化竟然會對這些統計數據帶來貢獻,這是令人震驚的事實。我們的工作正在字面意義上殺害我們。
In contrast, a strong organizational culture is good for our health. The environment in which we work, and the way we interact with one another, really matters. A good working environment helps ensure that we can build the bonds of trust required for effective cooperation. Because our ancient legacy systems can’t distinguish between the threats we may have faced in the wilds of the Paleolithic Era and the perceived threats we face in a modern work environment, the response is the same. Our bodies release cortisol 我們工作環境與相互互動方式對健康很重要。良好的工作環境有助於建立必要的信任紐帶,促進有效合作。由於我們的古老系統無法區分史前時代的威脅與現代工作環境中的感知威脅,因此反應是一樣的。我們的身體會釋放皮質醇。
to help us stay alive. If we work in an environment in which leadership tells the truth, in which layoffs are not the default in hard times and in which incentive structures do not pit us against one another, the result, thanks to the increased levels of oxytocin and serotonin, is trust and cooperation. 為了幫助我們活下去。如果我們在一個領導者說實話的環境中工作,在艱難時刻裁員不是常態,激勵措施不會讓我們互相競爭,那麼結果,由於 oxytocin 和 serotonin 水平的提高,就是信任和合作。
This is what work-life balance means. It has nothing to do with the hours we work or the stress we suffer. It has to do with where we feel safe. If we feel safe at home, but we don’t feel safe at work, then we will suffer what we perceive to be a work-life imbalance. If we have strong relationships at home and at work, if we feel like we belong, if we feel protected in both, then the powerful forces of a magical chemical like oxytocin can diminish the effect of stress and cortisol. With trust, we do things for each other, look out for each other and sacrifice for each other. All of which adds up to our sense of security inside a Circle of Safety. We have a feeling of comfort and confidence at work that reduces the overall stress we feel because we do not feel our well-being is threatened. 這是工作與生活平衡的意義。它與我們工作的時數或承受的壓力無關。它關乎我們感到安全的地方。如果我們在家裡感到安全,但在工作中卻不安全,我們就會感受到工作與生活的失衡。若我們在家裡和工作中都有強大的關係,我們有歸屬感,在兩個環境中都受到保護,那麼強大的化學物質如催產素的作用就能減少壓力和皮質醇的影響。有了信任,我們會為彼此付出、守望相助、犧牲奉獻。這些都有助於我們在一個安全圈中獲得安全感。我們在工作中會有舒適和自信的感覺,因為我們不會感到自身福祉受到威脅,從而減輕整體壓力。
Fire Your Children 炒掉你的子女
CHARLIE KIM COULD sense the tension. Like clockwork, as the end of each fiscal year approached, the feeling around the office would change. It was fear. Fear that if the company didn’t make its numbers, some of the people might not make it to the next year. Kim, who founded Next Jump nearly twenty years ago, has been through many ups and downs with the company and knows full well the stunting effects that fear or paranoia can wreak on a business. And so he made a bold decision that would dramatically enhance the Circle of Safety at Next Jump. 金查理能感受到緊張氣氛。就像時鐘般,每當財政年度結束時,辦公室的氣氛就會改變。那是恐懼。恐懼如果公司未能達到目標,可能有人未能續留至下一年。金查理創立 Next Jump 近二十年,經歷了公司的多個高潮與低谷,深知恐懼或偏執會對企業造成嚴重影響。因此,他做出了一個大膽的決定,大大提升了 Next Jump 的安全圈。
“We want Next Jump to be a company that our mothers and fathers would be proud of us for building,” says Kim. And a large part of making our parents proud comes in the form of being a good person and doing the right thing. And so he implemented a policy of Lifetime Employment. Next Jump might be the only tech company in the country to do such a thing. No one will get fired to balance the 次躍公司要成為我們的父母感到自豪的公司,金說道。而我們能讓父母感到自豪的一個重要方式,就是成為一個善良正直的人。因此,他實施了終身僱傭政策。次躍公司可能是全國唯一一家實施此政策的科技公司。不會有人被開除以維持
books. And even costly mistakes or poor individual performance are not grounds for dismissal. If anything, the company will spend the time to help figure out what the problem is and help its people overcome it. Like an athlete who goes through a slump, a Next Jumper doesn’t get fired, they get coached. About the only situation in which an employee would be asked to leave is if someone worked outside the company’s high moral values or if someone actively worked to undermine their colleagues. 書籍。即使是昂貴的錯誤或個人表現不佳,也不能成為解僱的理由。相反,公司會花時間幫助解決問題並幫助其員工克服困難。就像一名經歷低迷期的運動員,下一個巨人不會被解雇,而是獲得指導。唯一可能被要求離開的情況是,如果有人違背公司的高尚道德價值觀,或者積極破壞同事。
It’s not as crazy as it sounds. Because it is nearly impossible to get fired once you’re in, Next Jump takes much more time and is a lot more discerning about who they hire than a lot of other companies in their industry. They don’t just consider skills and experience; they spend a lot of time evaluating the character of the candidates who want to work there. For every one hundred candidates, only one will get a job. “If a leader was told from here on you cannot fire anyone,” Kim explains, “but you must still meet consistent growth in revenue and profits, despite market conditions, they would have no choice but to turn to other variables within their control like hiring, training and development.” Once someone gets in, the leaders of Next Jump make it their priority to help that person grow. 這不如聽起來那麼瘋狂。因為一旦進入后,幾乎不可能被解雇,Next Jump 需要花費更多時間,對他們想要聘用的人更加慎重。他們不僅考慮技能和經驗,還花很多時間評估想在那裡工作的候選人的品格。每一百個候選人中,只有一個會得到工作。「如果一個領導者從現在開始被告知不能解雇任何人」,金解釋說,「但仍必須在市場狀況下實現收入和利潤的持續增長,他們除了聘用、培訓和發展等可控變量,別無選擇。」一旦有人進入,Next Jump 的領導者將把幫助那個人成長設為首要任務。
If they are offering an opportunity for lifetime employment for those who want it, then the leaders of the company have to work hard to bring in the right people. “Firing is an easy option,” Kim says. “Tough love, coaching, even a program to help people find a job somewhere else if they decide our company is not for them are all much more effective, but require much more time and attention from the company.” 如果他們提供全職終身就業機會,那麼公司的領導者就必須努力聘請合適的人才。金說:「解僱是一個簡單的選擇。嚴厲的愛、教練指導,甚至幫助員工找到其他工作的計劃,都更有效,但需要公司投入更多時間和精力。」
To Kim, raising children has many lessons for running a company. Both require a balancing of short-term needs and long-term goals. “First and foremost, your commitment to them is for life,” Kim says. “Ultimately, you want them to become better people.” Kim thinks of his employees exactly the same way. He knows most people would never get rid of their children during hard times, so “how can we lay off our people under the same conditions?” he asks. “Despite how much we may fight with our siblings, we can’t get rid of family. We have to make it work.” Though he may not be the perfect boss or the 對金氏來說,養育子女對於經營公司有許多啟示。兩者都需要在短期需求與長期目標之間保持平衡。「首先最重要的是,你對他們的承諾是終生的」,金氏說。「最終,你希望他們能成為更好的人。」金氏對待員工的方式恰恰相同。他知道大多數人在艱難時期絕不會摒棄自己的孩子,所以「在相同條件下,我們為何要裁員呢?」他問道。「儘管我們可能會與兄弟姐妹爭吵不休,但我們無法擺脫家人。我們必須讓它運轉。」雖然他可能並非完美的老闆,或是
perfect parent-none of us are-few can dispute how much Kim cares and how hard he works to do the right thing. Even if that sometimes means admitting when he gets it wrong. 完美的父母-我們中沒有人可以否認金的關心有多深,他工作有多努力來做正確的事。即使有時候這意味著承認自己做錯了。
One engineer at the company said that he initially thought the Lifetime Employment policy was a nice idea for some of the lowerperforming people, but not of much consequence for him, one of the top performers; he wasn’t afraid that he would lose his job. What he didn’t expect, however, was how much the policy would help him as a group leader. After the policy was implemented, his team started communicating much more openly. Mistakes and problems were pointed out more quickly, long before they escalated. Information sharing and cooperation increased too. Simply because his team no longer feared for their jobs, this group leader saw the performance of his team skyrocket. In fact, the performance of the whole company skyrocketed. 該公司一名工程師表示,他最初認為「終身就業」政策對於一些表現較差的人來說是個不錯的想法,但對於他這樣的頂尖員工來說並沒有太大影響;他並不害怕會失去工作。然而,他沒有料到這項政策會幫助他作為團隊領導的工作。在該政策實施後,他的團隊開始更加坦誠地溝通。錯誤和問題被更快地指出,遠在問題升級之前。資訊共享和協作也有所增加。僅僅是因為他的團隊不再害怕失去工作,這位團隊領導就看到了團隊的表現突飛猛進。事實上,整家公司的表現都出現了飛躍。
In the years before the new policy, average revenue growth at Next Jump was 25 percent per year. With no other major changes since Lifetime Employment was offered, revenue growth has jumped to 60 percent per year and shows no signs of slowing. Even though many of the engineers at Next Jump get job offers from Google or Facebook or other big tech companies, they don’t leave. Next Jump used to see a 40 percent turnover among their engineers, a number on par with the industry. With a greater focus on building their people, Next Jump now has a turnover rate of just 1 percent. It turns out, even when offered big titles and bigger salaries, people would rather work at a place in which they feel like they belong. People would rather feel safe among their colleagues, have the opportunity to grow and feel a part of something bigger than themselves than work in a place that simply makes them rich. 在新政策出台之前,Next Jump 公司的平均收入增长率为每年 25%。自「终身雇佣」政策推出以来,未发生其他重大变化,收入增长率跃升至每年 60%,且仍在持续上升,毫无放緩的迹象。尽管 Next Jump 公司的许多工程师都收到谷歌、脸书或其他科技巨头的工作邀约,但他们仍然没有离开。过去,Next Jump 公司的工程师流失率为 40%,与整个行业水平持平。如今,该公司更加注重培养人才,工程师的流失率仅为 1%。事实证明,即使被提供更高的职位头衔和更高的薪资,人们仍更愿意在一个让他们有归属感的地方工作。相比于一个只能让自己致富的地方,人们更愿意在一个他们感到安全,有成长机会,并能成为更大事业的一部分的环境中工作。
This is what happens when human beings, even engineers, are put in an environment for which we were designed. We stay. We remain loyal. We help each other and we do our work with pride and passion. 這個是人類,甚至是工程師,被放置於我們設計的環境中會發生的情況。我們停留。我們保持忠誠。我們互相幫助,以自豪和熱情完成我們的工作。
When the time is taken to build proper relationships and when leaders choose to put their people before their numbers, when we can actually feel a sense of trust for each other, the oxytocin released in our bodies can reverse many of the negative effects of 當我們的領袖選擇把人民置於數字之前,建立良好關係時,當我們感受到互相信任,我們體內釋放的催產素可以逆轉許多負面影響
operating in a high-stress, cortisol-soaked environment. In other words, it’s not the nature of the work we do or the number of hours we work that will help us reduce stress and achieve work-life balance; it’s increased amounts of oxytocin and serotonin. Serotonin boosts our self-confidence and inspires us to help those who work for us and make proud those for whom we work. Oxytocin relieves stress, increases our interest in our work and improves our cognitive abilities, making us better able to solve complex problems. It boosts our immune systems, lowers blood pressure, increases our libido and actually lessens our cravings and addictions. And best of all, it inspires us to work together. 在高壓、充滿皮質醇的環境中運作。換句話說,我們所做的工作性質或工作時數不會幫助我們減輕壓力和實現工作生活平衡;它是增加催產素和血清素的數量。血清素提高我們的自信,激勵我們幫助為我們工作的人,並讓我們為之工作的人感到自豪。催產素緩解壓力,增加我們對工作的興趣,並提高我們的認知能力,使我們更好地解決複雜問題。它增強我們的免疫系統,降低血壓,增加我們的性慾,實際上減少我們的欲望和成癮。最重要的是,它激勵我們團結合作。
This is the reason people who “love their jobs” (a very oxytocin thing to say) can easily turn down a job that pays more to stay at the job they love. Compared to a culture in which the leaders incentivize reactionary decisions or activities that focus on immediate gratification, a culture in which the selfless chemicals can flow more freely results in greater organizational stability and better long-term performance. And when that happens, our bonds grow stronger, our loyalties grow deeper and the organization gains longevity. Best of all, we go home happier and live longer and healthier as a result. 這是「熱愛工作」的人（這種用詞可以增加催產素分泌）會輕易放棄較高薪資的工作機會而留在自己熱愛的工作崗位上的原因。相比於一個由領導者鼓勵短期決策或追求即時滿足的文化,在一個能夠讓無私化學物質更自由流動的文化中,組織更容易保持穩定並獲得更好的長期績效。當這種情況發生時,我們的聯繫會更加緊密,忠誠度也會更深,組織也會獲得更長久的生命力。最重要的是,這樣我們回家後會更快樂,生活也會更健康長壽。
This kind of culture is possible in any industry of any size. As long as there are human beings brought together for a common cause, leaders can choose to set any kind of culture they want. There is no upheaval or layoffs required for this. The talent pool does not need to be replaced. Those who don’t embrace the values that define the culture may feel the cortisol in their bodies telling them that they don’t belong. Feeling the anxiety of being an outsider in the group, they may decide to leave to find a place in which they are a better fit. The others, in contrast, will feel safe among their colleagues. They will feel like they have found a home. 這種文化可以在任何行業的任何規模中實現。只要有人類聚在一起追求共同目標,領導者就可以選擇建立他們想要的任何類型的文化。這不需要引發動盪或裁員。人才庫不需要被取代。那些不認同文化中價值觀的人可能會感受到身體發出的信號,告訴他們自己不適合這裡。感到作為局外人的焦慮,他們可能會決定離開,去尋找更適合自己的地方。相比之下,其他人會感到在同事中的安全感。他們會感覺到找到了歸屬。
All that is required to accomplish this is for the leaders of a company to make the decision to do it. They have the power to create an environment in which people will naturally thrive and advance the good of the organization itself. Once the culture and values are clearly defined, it becomes the responsibility of all those who belong, whether in a formal position of leadership or not, to act 要完成這項任務,只需要公司領導作出決定去實行。他們有能力創造一個環境,讓人們自然而然地茁壯成長,推動組織本身的利益。一旦文化和價值觀明確定義,不論是否擔任正式領導職務,所有參與者都有責任去行動。
like leaders, work to uphold the values and keep the Circle of Safety strong. 像領導者一樣,努力維護價值觀並保持安全圈的強大。
CHAPTER 8 第 8 章
Why We Have Leaders 為什麼我們需要領導者
The hunters returned victorious. After a long day of tracking, a journey that took them miles from home, they were able to kill a deer big enough to feed everyone. Upon their return, many of their tribe rushed in to congratulate them and take the carcass to be prepared for the feast that would soon come. But there was a problem. Everyone was hungry and anxious to eat. When living in populations of about 100 to 150 people, as our ancestors did, clearly the whole tribe couldn’t just rush in and grab food; chaos would ensue. So who gets to eat first? Fortunately, the social chemicals inside our bodies direct our behavior to help solve this problem, too. 獵人們勝利而歸。在漫長的追蹤之旅中,他們走了數英里遠離家鄉,終於能夠獵到足以餵飽全部人的一隻鹿。他們回到部落後,許多部落成員趕來祝賀他們並將屍體帶去準備即將到來的宴會。但是卻出現了一個問題。所有人都餓了,急切地想要進食。當我們的祖先生活在約 100 至 150 人的群落中時,顯然整個部落不能擁擠上前搶奪食物,這會引發混亂。那麼誰先吃呢?幸運的是,我們體內的社會化學物質指引我們的行為,以幫助解決這個問題。
Companies and organizations are our modern tribes. Like any tribe, they have traditions and symbols and language. The culture of a company is like the culture of any tribe. Some have strong cultures and some have weak cultures. We feel like we belong to some more than others, that we more easily “click” with the people in one culture over another. And, like all tribes, some have strong leaders and some have weak leaders. But they all have leaders. 公司和組織是我們現代的部落。像任何部落一樣,它們都有傳統、符號和語言。一個公司的文化就像任何部落的文化。有的文化很強,有的文化很弱。我們感覺自己更屬於某些文化,與某些文化的人更容易「點頭」。而且,像所有部落一樣,有的有強大的領導者,有的有軟弱的領導者。但是它們都有領導者。
Almost everything about us is purpose-built to help increase our opportunities for survival and success, and our need for leaders is no exception. An anthropological look at the history of leadership-why we have leaders in the first place-reveals some objective standards as to what makes a good leader . . . and what makes a bad one. And, like some of the other systems inside our bodies that influence our behavior, our need for hierarchies is linked to food and protection. 我們幾乎一切的存在都是為了增加我們生存和成功的機會,我們對領導者的需求也不例外。從人類學的角度看領導力的歷史,瞭解我們為什麼首先需要領導者,這揭示了什麼是好領導人,什麼是壞領導人的一些客觀標準。就像我們身體內影響行為的其他系統一樣,我們對階層結構的需求,與食物和保護息息相關。
As much as we all like the idea of being equal, the fact is we are not and never will be . . . and for good reason. Without some rules of order, when the hunters brought back the fresh kill to the tribe, everyone would rush in to eat. There would be a lot of pushing and 儘管我們都喜歡平等的理念,但事實是我們並不平等,也永遠不會平等......而且這是有原因的。如果沒有一些秩序規則,當獵人們把新鮮的獵物帶回部落時,每個人都會爭先恐後地去吃。這會有很多推擠和
shoving. Invariably, the ones who were lucky enough to be built like linebackers would get to eat first, whereas the “the artist of the family” would consistently get shoved aside or hurt. This is not a very good system if Mother Nature is trying to keep the species alive. The ones who were shoved aside would likely be less willing to trust or work closely with someone who had punched them earlier that afternoon. So to solve the problem, we evolved into hierarchical animals. 猛推。不變的是,那些幸運到身材像 linebacker 的人會先吃飯,而「家裡的藝術家」則經常被推到一旁或受傷。如果大自然試圖保住這個物種,這絕對不是一個很好的系統。被推到一旁的人很可能不太願意相信或與先前下午打過他們的人密切合作。因此,為了解決這個問題,我們演化成階層性的動物。
When we perceived someone as dominant to us, instead of fighting them for food we voluntarily stepped back and allowed them to eat first. And thanks to serotonin, those to whom we showed deference could feel their status rise in the group, letting them know that they were the alphas. That’s how hierarchy works. 當我們把某人視為支配於我們之上時,我們不會與之爭奪食物,而是自願讓開,讓他們先吃。多虧了血清素,那些我們表現出屈從的人,可以感受到他們在群體中的地位升高,知道自己是首領。這就是階層制度的運作方式。
Among other advantages, like getting first choice of mate, the alphas were also offered first choice of meat. After they were done eating, the rest of the tribe would get to eat. And though the others would not get the best cuts of meat, they would get to eat eventually and they wouldn’t have to get an elbow in the face when they did. This is a system much more conducive to cooperation. 在其他優勢中,像是首選配偶,首先可選擇肉類。他們吃完後,部落的其他成員才可以進食。儘管其他人無法選到最好的肉塊,但終會得到食物,不必擠挤取食。這是一種更有利於合作的制度。
To this day, we are perfectly comfortable with the alphas in our society (assessed in terms relative to our modern community and not just physical strength) getting certain advantages. We have no problem with someone who outranks us at work making more money than us, getting a bigger office or a better parking space. We have no issue with celebrities getting a table in the hard-to-get-into restaurants. We have no problem with the rich and famous getting the best-looking guy or girl on their arm. In fact, we are so comfortable with alphas getting preferential treatment, on some occasions some of us may even get upset or offended if they didn’t. 此至今日,我們對於社會中的"阿爾法"(根據現代社區標準而非單純的體力而評估)獲得某些優勢完全感到舒適。我們不會對於在工作場所地位高於我們的人賺取比我們更多的錢、擁有更大的辦公室或更好的停車位而有任何問題。我們也不會對名人在難預定的餐廳獲得座位而有任何問題。我們對於富有和有名的人能夠與最出眾的異性同行也沒有任何問題。事實上,我們對於"阿爾法"獲得優先對待如此習慣,在某些情況下,如果他們沒有獲得優待,我們甚至可能會感到生氣或被冒犯。
Many of us would find it strange, or even disrespectful, if the President of the United States had to carry his own luggage. Regardless of party, we would be uncomfortable with the notion simply because he is a leader in our political hierarchy. He’s the President, after all; he shouldn’t have to do that. Some of us would even volunteer to carry the luggage. It is an honor in society to do things to help our leaders. And perhaps at a later date, if they remember or recognize us, they may even throw us a bone while 許多人會覺得奇怪或甚至不敬,如果美國總統必須自己攜帶行李。不管所屬政黨,我們都會不舒服這種想法,只是因為他是我們政治階層的領導者。畢竟,他是總統;他不應該做那種事。我們中的一些人甚至會自願攜帶行李。在社會中為領導者做事是一種榮譽。也許在未來的某一天,如果他們記得或認出我們,他們甚至可能會給我們一些回報。
everyone else is watching. And if they did, we would feel a burst of serotonin and feel our status and confidence rise as a result. 每個人都在觀看。如果他們這樣做,我們會感受到血清素的沖擊,並隨之感到地位和自信的提升。
It is because of the advantages an alpha gets in a society that we are always trying to improve our own place in the pecking order. We primp and puff ourselves up when we go to bars, with the hope that others will see us as healthy and attractive. Worthy of keeping our genes in the gene pool. We like to talk about our accomplishments, hang our diplomas on our walls and put our trophies on a shelf for all to see what we’ve achieved. Our goal is to be seen as smart and strong and worthy of the advantages of an alpha. Worthy of the respect of others. All to raise our status in our community. 在社會中,阿爾法獲得的優勢是我們一直努力提升自身地位的原因。我們在酒吧時會修飾和裝扮自己,希望別人會認為我們健康而有吸引力。值得將我們的基因留存在基因池中。我們喜歡談論自己的成就,在牆上掛我們的文憑,在架子上擺放獎杯,讓所有人看到我們的成就。我們的目標是被視為聰明、強壯,值得享有阿爾法的優勢。值得獲得他人的尊重。這一切都是為了提高我們在社區中的地位。
This is the whole idea behind status symbols (which, because of serotonin, actually do boost our sense of status). There is a reason the logos are on the outside of most expensive items. We want people to see the red stripe down the side of our Prada sunglasses, the double Cs on our Chanel bags or the shiny Mercedes emblem stuck on the front of our cars. In our capitalist society, conspicuous displays of wealth may indicate to others that we are doing well. As symbols of our strength and capacity, they can earn us respect and boost our position in the hierarchy. It’s no wonder some of us try to fake our status. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work. Though a good fake may trick others into thinking we are more successful than we are, this is biology and we can’t fool ourselves. 地位象徵背後的整個思想。標誌位於大多數昂貴物品的外部,這有其原因。我們希望人們看到普拉達太陽眼鏡側面的紅色條紋、我們的香奈兒包上的雙 C,或是貼在汽車前的閃亮梅賽德斯標誌。在我們的資本主義社會中,明顯展示財富可能會向他人表明我們正在做得很好。作為我們力量和能力的象徵,它們可以贏得我們的尊重,並提升我們在階層中的地位。難怪我們有些人試圖假造自己的地位。不幸的是,這是行不通的。儘管一件好的仿製品可能會讓別人以為我們比實際情況更成功,但這是生物學問題,我們無法欺騙自己。
A 2010 study by three psychology scientists-Francesca Gino of Chapel Hill, Michael Norton of Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke-showed that people who wear phony couture clothing actually don’t feel the same burst of pride or status as those who wear the real thing. Faking it, it turns out, makes us feel phony, as if we are cheating. Status is biological, we have to earn it to feel it. The same study also concluded that those who attempted to cheat their biology were actually more inclined to cheat in other aspects of their lives as well. 衣錦還鄉,恢弘展翅
Even though we can indeed raise our status with material goods, the feeling doesn’t last. There is no social relationship associated with that burst of serotonin. Again, the selfless chemicals are trying to help us strengthen our communities and social bonds. To find a 即使我們確實可以通過物質商品提高地位,但這種感覺並不持久。這股血清素的爆發並沒有與任何社會關係相關。再次強調,無私的化學物質正試圖幫助我們加強我們的社區和社會紐帶。要找到
lasting sense of pride, there must be a mentor/parent/boss/coach/leader relationship to back it up. 永久的自豪感,必須有導師/父母/老闆/教練/領導者的支持。
Leadership status is not just reserved for people; we also offer it to the tribes themselves. Just as we work to raise our individual status within our tribes, companies are constantly trying to raise their status in their respective industries. They tell us how many J. D. Powers awards they have won; they report their ranking on the FORTUNE 1000 list. Smaller companies are quick to share if they are an Inc. 5,000 company, a ranking of the fastest-growing small businesses. The reason we love rankings is because we’re hierarchical animals and there are perks to being higher in the pecking order. 領導地位並非僅限於個人;我們也將其提供給部落本身。就像我們致力於提升自己在部落中的地位一樣,公司也不斷努力提升在各自行業中的地位。他們告訴我們他們獲得了多少 J.D. Powers 獎項;他們報告了在《財富》1000 強榜單上的排名。較小的公司也會很快分享他們是 Inc. 5,000 強企業的事實,這是對增長最快的小型企業的排名。我們喜歡排名是因為我們是等級制的動物,在等級序列中處於較高位置會有一些好處。
However, all the advantages of leadership do not come for free. In fact, they come at quite a steep price. And it is this part of the equation that is too often forgotten in many of our organizations today. It is true that the alpha may really be “stronger” than the rest of us. We know that all our respect and adoration really does boost their self-confidence. That’s good. Because when the group faces a threat from the outside, we expect the leader, who really is stronger, better fed and oozing with confidence from all the serotonin in their body, to be the first one to rush toward the danger to protect the rest of us. “The cost of leadership,” explains Lieutenant General George Flynn of the United States Marine Corps, “is self-interest.” That’s also the reason we give our alphas first choice of mate. If they die early while trying to defend us, we want to make sure all those strong genes stay in our gene pool. The group isn’t stupid. We wouldn’t give them all those perks for nothing. That wouldn’t be fair. 然而,領導力的所有優勢並非一無所付。事實上,它們需要付出相當高的代價。這部分常常被我們組織中的許多人忽略。我們知道,這名 alpha 確實比我們其他人"更強大"。我們知道,我們對他的尊重和崇敬確實增強了他的自信心。這很好。因為當團體面臨來自外部的威脅時,我們希望這名領導者,也就是真正更強大、飽食、充滿自信的人,會成為第一個朝危險衝去保護我們其他人的人。"領導的代價是自我利益,"美國海軍陸戰隊中的喬治·弗林中將解釋。這也是我們給予 alpha 首選配偶的原因。如果他們在試圖保衛我們時早逝,我們希望確保這些優良基因留在我們的基因池中。這個群體並非愚蠢。我們不會因為什麼都不得的代價而給予他們所有這些特權。這是不公平的。
This is the reason we are so offended by the exorbitant and disproportionate compensations of some of the leaders of investment banks. It has nothing to do with the numbers. It has to do with this social contract deeply ingrained in what it means to be human. If our leaders are to enjoy the trappings of their position in the hierarchy, then we expect them to offer us protection. The problem is, for many of the overpaid leaders, we know that they took the money and perks and didn’t offer protection to their people. In some cases, they even sacrificed their people to protect or boost their own interests. This is what so viscerally offends us. We only 這位領袖對我們如此不公平和不成比例的報酬深感不滿。這不是關於數字的問題,而是關乎人性深層的社會契約。如果我們的領袖要享受階層地位的特權,我們希望他們也能給予我們應有的保護。問題在於,許多高薪的領袖拿了錢和特權,卻沒有為他們的人民提供保護。在某些情況下,他們甚至犧牲了自己的人民來保護或提升自己的利益。這就是我們如此本能地感到被冒犯的原因。我們只
accuse them of greed and excess when we feel they have violated the very definition of what it means to be a leader. 指責他們的貪婪和過度,當我們感覺他們違反了領導者所應具備的本質定義。
Few would be offended if it were decided to give Nelson Mandela a $150\$ 150 million bonus. If it were announced that Mother Teresa was awarded $250\$ 250 million at the end of the fiscal year, few if anyone would make a stink about it. We know that they upheld their side of the social contract. They were willing to make sacrifices for the good of those who chose to follow them. They considered the well-being of others before themselves and sometimes suffered as a result. And in those cases, we are perfectly happy with our leaders receiving all the perks we feel they have earned. The same goes for companies. They earn their reputations by being willing to do the right thing for their people and their customers or clients. That reputation suffers when they break the social contract of leadership. 納爾遜·曼德拉獲得 $150\$ 150 百萬獎金也不會引起太多反感。若公開特蕾莎修女獲得 $250\$ 250 百萬年終獎金,也鮮有人會大發牢騷。我們知道他們都履行了社會契約,願意為追隨者犧牲自己,將他人的利益置於己上,有時甚至付出慘痛代價。在這些情況下,我們對於領導人獲得所有應得回報感到十分高興。對於企業而言亦是如此,他們願意為員工和客戶做出正確決定,因此贏得了良好聲譽。一旦違反了這種領導力的社會契約,聲譽就會受損。
If we consider how we treat celebrities or the wealthy in our materialistic, reality-TV-saturated society, all this science seems to make sense. Some people who inherit money, coerce the system or gain celebrity thanks to the modern media system are afforded certain perks simply because they would appear to have a status higher than ours. But fame is supposed to be a by-product of alpha status, not a way to achieve it. The same is true for financial wealth. It is supposed to be the by-product of accomplishment, not a standard for leadership status alone. 如果我們考慮在我們物質主義、現實電視飽和的社會中,我們如何對待名人或富人,所有這些科學似乎都是有道理的。一些因繼承財富、勒索系統或通過現代媒體系統獲得名聲的人,僅僅因為他們似乎擁有比我們更高的地位,就能享受到某些特權。但名望應該是阿爾法地位的副產品,而不是實現它的方式。財富也是如此。它應該是成就的副產品,而不是領導地位的唯一標準。
Unless someone is willing to make personal sacrifices for the good of others to earn their place in the hierarchy, they aren’t really “alpha material.” Simply acting the part is not enough. Just like the phony couture wearer, they may feel insecure about their position, or work extra hard to compensate or try to prove to the public (and themselves) that they are deserving of all the advantages they get. 除非有人願意為他人的利益做出個人犧牲以確立在階層中的地位,否則他們並非真正的「Alpha 材料」。單純扮演這個角色是不夠的。就像那些假冒的時尚服飾的穿戴者一樣,他們可能會對自己的位置感到不安全,或努力工作以彌補或試圖向公眾(和自己)證明,他們應得到所有的優勢。
This is one of the reasons a publicist may recommend to a celebrity client that they get involved in charitable work. In our modern world, that’s the game. It is important to uphold the appearance of maintaining that deeply seeded social contract-that our alphas are supposed to serve us. And though there are definite benefits to a celebrity using their bully pulpits to bring attention to a cause or plight, if they really cared, they wouldn’t need to publicize 這是一個公關顧問向名人客戶建議參與慈善工作的原因之一。在我們現代的世界裡,這就是遊戲規則。維護表面上的社會契約很重要 – 我們的領袖應該為我們服務。儘管名人利用自己的影響力來引起人們對某個事物或處境的關注的確有利益,但如果他們真的在乎,就不需要透過公關宣傳。
every time they did something. Perhaps one of the sacrifices they could make is the spotlight. 每當他們做某事時。也許他們可以做出的犧牲之一是光芒。
The same is true for politicians during election cycles. It is fun to watch the politicians who announce that if elected they will do all these good things because they care about us. And if they lose their election, many go on to do none of those things. The rank of office is not what makes someone a leader. Leadership is the choice to serve others with or without any formal rank. There are people with authority who are not leaders and there are people at the bottom rungs of an organization who most certainly are leaders. It’s okay for leaders to enjoy all the perks afforded to them. However, they must be willing to give up those perks when it matters. 同樣的情況也適用於選舉週期的政治人物。很有趣可以觀察那些宣稱當選後會為我們做好事的政治人物。如果他們敗選,許多人都不會去做任何事情。職位的高低並不決定一個人是否為領導者。領導是選擇去服務他人,不論是否有正式的職位。有些擁有權力的人並非領導者,而有些人在組織中的地位很低卻確實是領導者。領導者可以享受所有的好處是可以的。然而,當有必要時,他們必須願意放棄那些好處。
Leaders are the ones willing to look out for those to the left of them and those to the right of them. They are often willing to sacrifice their own comfort for ours, even when they disagree with us. Trust is not simply a matter of shared opinions. Trust is a biological reaction to the belief that someone has our well-being at heart. Leaders are the ones who are willing to give up something of their own for us. Their time, their energy, their money, maybe even the food off their plate. When it matters, leaders choose to eat last. 領導者願意關注他們左右的人。他們通常願意為我們犧牲自己的舒適,即使他們與我們意見不一致。信任不僅僅是一個共同的意見問題。信任是一種生物學反應,我們相信某人真心為我們著想。領導者願意為我們放棄一些自己的東西。他們的時間、精力、金錢,甚至是他們盤子裡的食物。在重要的時候,領導者選擇最後進食。
By the objective standards of leadership, those who aim to raise their own status simply so they can enjoy the perks themselves without fulfilling their responsibilities as leaders are, plain and simple, weak leaders. Though they may achieve alpha status and rise in the ranks, though they may possess talents and strengths that could earmark them for alpha status, they only become leaders when they accept the responsibility to protect those in their care. If they choose to sacrifice those in their tribe for personal gain, however, they will often struggle to hold on to their position once they’ve got it. Again, the group is not stupid. The people always have the power. 客觀領導準則衡量,那些僅為享受特權而不履行領導責任者,明明白白就是軟弱的領導者。雖然他們可能達到 alpha 的地位並晉升,儘管他們擁有可標誌 alpha 地位的才華和優勢,但只有當他們接受保護所託付之人的責任時,他們才能真正成為領導者。若他們為了個人利益而犧牲部落中的人,他們在得到位置後往往難以維持。再次重申,群眾並非愚笨。人民永遠掌握著力量。
The leaders of organizations who rise through the ranks not because they want it, but because the tribe keeps offering higher status out of gratitude for their willingness to sacrifice, are the true leaders worthy of our trust and loyalty. All leaders, even the good ones, can sometimes lose their way and become selfish and power hungry, however. Intoxicated by the chemicals, they can sometimes forget that their responsibility as a leader is to their people. 組織領導者通過努力工作而非追求權力而晉升,因為部族出於感激他們的犧牲精神而提供更高的地位,這樣的領導者才是值得我們信賴和忠誠的真正領導者。然而,即使是好的領導者,也有時會迷失方向,變得自私和貪婪。被藥物迷惑的他們有時會忘記,作為領導者的責任是為了他們的人民。
Sometimes these leaders are able to regain their footing, but if they don’t, we have little choice but to look past them, lament what they have become, wait for them to move on and look to someone else to lead us. 有時這些領導者能夠重新站立,但如果他們做不到,我們也別無選擇,只能擺脫他們,悲傷他們的變化,等待他們離開,並尋找其他人來領導我們。
What makes a good leader is that they eschew the spotlight in favor of spending time and energy to do what they need to do to support and protect their people. And when we feel the Circle of Safety around us, we offer our blood and sweat and tears and do everything we can to see our leader’s vision come to life. The only thing our leaders ever need to do is remember whom they serve and it will be our honor and pleasure to serve them back. 優秀領導者的特質在於,他們避開聚光燈,而是專注於花時間和精力去完成必要的事情,以支持和保護他們的人民。當我們感受到安全圈時,我們會毫無保留地提供自己的血汗淚水,盡力去實現領導者的願景。領導者唯一需要做的就是記住他們所服務的對象,這將是我們的榮譽和樂事來回報他們。
The Ceramic Cup 陶瓷杯
I HEARD A story about a former Under Secretary of Defense who gave a speech at a large conference. He took his place on the stage and began talking, sharing his prepared remarks with the audience. He paused to take a sip of coffee from the Styrofoam cup he’d brought on stage with him. He took another sip, looked down at the cup and smiled. 我聽說過一個前國防次卿在一個大型會議上發表演講的故事。他站上舞台並開始講話,向觀眾分享他事先準備好的演講詞。他停下來啜飲了一口他帶到舞台上的一次性咖啡杯中的咖啡。他又喝了一口,低頭看著杯子,露出微笑。
“You know,” he said, interrupting his own speech, “I spoke here last year. I presented at this same conference on this same stage. But last year, I was still an Under Secretary,” he said. “I flew here in business class and when I landed, there was someone waiting for me at the airport to take me to my hotel. Upon arriving at my hotel,” he continued, “there was someone else waiting for me. They had already checked me into the hotel, so they handed me my key and escorted me up to my room. The next morning, when I came down, again there was someone waiting for me in the lobby to drive me to this same venue that we are in today. I was taken through a back entrance, shown to the greenroom and handed a cup of coffee in a beautiful ceramic cup.” 你知道,他說,打斷了自己的講話,我去年曾在這裡演講。我在同一個舞臺上,參加了這個會議。但是去年,我還是一名副部長,他說。我乘坐商務艙飛來,到達後,有人在機場等著我,送我到酒店。抵達酒店後,又有人在等著我。他們已經幫我辦理了入住,所以他們把我的鑰匙遞給我,並陪我上樓到房間。第二天早上,當我下來時,大堂裡再次有人在等著我,開車送我來到今天所在的這個場地。我是從後門進入的,被帶到休息室,並被遞給一杯美麗陶瓷杯裝的咖啡。
“But this year, as I stand here to speak to you, I am no longer the Under Secretary,” he continued. “I flew here coach class and when I arrived at the airport yesterday there was no one there to meet me. I 但今年,当我站在这里对你讲话时,我不再是副国务卿。我在经济舱飞来,昨天到达机场时也没有人来接我。
took a taxi to the hotel, and when I got there, I checked myself in and went by myself to my room. This morning, I came down to the lobby and caught another taxi to come here. I came in the front door and found my way backstage. Once there, I asked one of the techs if there was any coffee. He pointed to a coffee machine on a table against the wall. So I walked over and poured myself a cup of coffee into this here Styrofoam cup,” he said as he raised the cup to show the audience. 我搭了一輛計程車到飯店,當我到達那裡時,我自己辦理入住手續,並自己前往我的房間。今天早上,我來到大廳,再搭了一輛計程車到這裡。我從前門進來,找到後台的路。一到那裡,我問其中一名技術人員是否有咖啡。他指向靠牆的桌子上的咖啡機。所以我走過去,給自己倒了一杯咖啡到這個發泡膠杯子裡,他邊說邊舉起杯子給觀眾看。
“It occurs to me,” he continued, "the ceramic cup they gave me last year . . . it was never meant for me at all. It was meant for the position I held. I deserve a Styrofoam cup. 「我意識到」,他繼續說道,「他們去年給我的陶瓷杯子...根本不是為我而設的。它是為我所擔任的職位而準備的。我應該得到一個發泡膠杯。
“This is the most important lesson I can impart to all of you,” he offered. “All the perks, all the benefits and advantages you may get for the rank or position you hold, they aren’t meant for you. They are meant for the role you fill. And when you leave your role, which eventually you will, they will give the ceramic cup to the person who replaces you. Because you only ever deserved a Styrofoam cup.” "這是我可以傳授給你們所有人的最重要的課程,"他說。"你可能因你所擔任的職位或地位而得到的所有特權、利益和優勢,它們並不是為你而設的。它們是為了你所擔任的角色而設。當你離開你的角色時,你最終會這樣做,他們會將陶瓷杯子交給接替你的人。因為你只值得一個發泡膠杯。"
Eating Last Is Repaid with Loyalty and Hard Work 後吃的人獲得忠誠和辛勤工作的回報
WHEN THE STOCK market crashed in 2008, like so many other companies, Barry-Wehmiller got hit pretty hard. The old-fashioned American manufacturing company that Chapman was transforming saw an almost immediate 30 percent drop in machine orders. The company makes large industrial machinery, the kinds of machines a large packaged goods company would buy to make the cardboard boxes for their products. The machines that Barry-Wehmiller makes are among the first things to get cut when a company slashes its capital expenditures budget in hard times and opts instead to make do with their aging machines. 當股市在 2008 年崩潰時,就像其他許多公司一樣,Barry-Wehmiller 遭到了嚴重打擊。Chapman 正在改變的這家傳統的美國製造公司,機器訂單幾乎立即下降了 30%。該公司生產大型工業機械,這種機器是大型包裝消費品公司用來製造產品包裝紙箱的。當一家公司在經濟低迷時期削減資本支出預算,選擇用老舊的機器凑合時,這些由 Barry-Wehmiller 製造的機器是首當其衝的受害者。
Chapman and his team were faced with a blunt truth: they were no longer able to afford to keep all their employees. They simply didn’t have the work or the revenue to justify keeping everyone on 查普曼和他的團隊面臨一個直白的事實:他們已不再有能力維持所有員工。他們根本沒有足夠的工作或收入來維持所有人。
board. And so, for the first time in a long time, the subject of layoffs was raised. 董事會。因此,在很長一段時間之後,裁員問題終於被提及。
For many companies, the option would seem obvious, even if unsavory. But Chapman refused to sack people simply because the company was having a hard year. More and more he came to see his company as a family, as a group of people to serve and keep safe and not just as a labor force to be used to serve the company. “We would never dream of getting rid of one of our children in hard times,” he says. If anything, the whole family would come together, maybe suffer together, but ultimately work through the hard times together. 對許多公司來說,這個選擇似乎很明顯,即使令人不快。但 Chapman 拒絕解雇員工,僅僅因為公司經歷了一年艱難時期。他越來越把公司視為一個家庭,一群需要服務和保護的人,而不僅僅是為了服務公司的勞動力。「我們從未想過在艱難時期拋棄我們的孩子」,他說。無論如何,全家人都會團結在一起,也許會一起承受,但最終會共同渡過艱難時期。
And so, instead of layoffs, the company implemented a mandatory furlough program. Every employee, from CEO to secretary, would have to take four weeks of unpaid time off. They could take the weeks off whenever they wanted and the weeks did not have to be taken consecutively. But it was how Chapman announced the program that proved his leadership bona fides. “It is better that we all suffer a little,” he told his people, “so that none of us has to suffer a lot.” 因此,公司採取了強制無薪休假計劃,而非裁員。從首席執行官到秘書的每一位員工都必須休假四週。他們可以自主安排休假時間,不必連續休假。但是 Chapman 在宣布該計劃時展現了其出色的領導力。他對員工說:"我們都稍微受點苦,總比讓其中某些人遭受巨大痛苦好。"
The protection Chapman offered his people had a massive impact. Unlike in a company that announces layoffs, sending everyone into self-preservation mode, at Barry-Wehmiller the people spontaneously, and completely on their own, set out to do more for each other. Those who could more afford the time off traded with those who could afford it less. Though they were under no obligation to do so, they took off more unpaid time than required just to help someone else out. The overwhelming feeling across the company was one of gratitude for the security they had been given. I suspect in other companies that face hard times, most of the people would also rather lose a month’s pay than lose their job. 查普曼為其人民提供的保護產生了巨大影響。 與宣佈裁員的公司不同,在巴里·韋米勒,人們自發且完全自主地 為彼此做更多事情。 能夠更多休息時間的人與無法休息的人交易。 雖然無需如此,但他們比要求多休無薪假期,只為幫助別人。 公司上下充滿了感激,因為獲得了安全感。 我想,在其他面臨艱難時期的公司中,大多數人也寧願失去一個月的工資也不願失去工作。
As soon as things started to pick up again, the furlough program was done away with and the 401(k)401(\mathrm{k}) contributions that the company had stopped paying in the tough times were not only restored, but were back paid to when the tough times began. The result was astounding. The leaders fulfilled the anthropological obligation of an alpha, to protect the tribe, and in return, the people repaid that protection with an intense loyalty, wanting to do whatever they can to 隨著事情開始再次熱絡,停薪假計劃被取消,公司在艱難時期停止支付的 401(k)401(\mathrm{k}) 供款不僅恢復,而且追溯到困難時期開始時一併支付。其結果令人驚訝。領導人履行了作為首領的人類學義務,保護部落,作為回報,人們以強烈的忠誠回報了這種保護,他們想盡自己所能做些什麼
help the company. Few from Barry-Wehmiller ever leave just for more money. 幫助這家公司。來自 Barry-Wehmiller 的人很少僅為了賺更多錢而離開。
To human beings, the safety a strong tribe provides its members makes the tribe stronger and better equipped to deal with the dangers and uncertainty of the outside world. The reason good leaders do well in hard times is obvious. Their people willingly commit their blood, sweat and tears to see the tribe, the company, advance and grow stronger. They do so not because they have to . . . but because they want to. And as a result, the stronger tribe, the stronger company, is able to guarantee a greater sense of safety and protection to even more people for even longer. Fear, in contrast, can hurt the very innovation and progress so many leaders of companies claim they are trying to advance with every re-org. 對人類而言,強大部落為其成員提供的安全使部落更加強大,並更好地應對外界的危險和不確定性。優秀領導者在艱難時期表現出色的原因很明顯。他們的人民自願投入鮮血、汗水和淚水,以推動部落或公司前進和變得更加強大。他們這樣做,不是因為他們必須這樣做,而是因為他們想這樣做。結果,更強大的部落或公司能夠為更多人提供更長時間的安全和保護感。相反,恐懼可能會損害許多公司領導者聲稱他們正努力推進的創新和進步。
E.D.S.O. Revisited 卡拉 年中總結
EACH OF THE feel-good chemicals is essential for our survival as individuals and as populations. They play a role based on our needs and the environments in which we work. Our ability to work hard and muscle through hard labor is thanks to endorphins. Our ability to set goals, focus and get things done comes from the incentivizing powers of dopamine. It feels good to make progress, and so we do. 每一種 feel-good 化學物質都對我們個人和人口的生存至關重要。它們是根據我們的需求和所處的環境而發揮作用的。我們能夠努力工作並通過體力勞動取得成果,這要歸功於內啡肽。我們能夠設定目標、專注並完成任務,這是由於多巴胺的激勵性能力。取得進步的感受使我們繼續前進。
Serotonin is responsible for the pride we feel when those we care for achieve great things or when we make proud the people who take care of us. Serotonin helps to ensure we look out for those who follow us and do right by those who lead us. And the mysterious power of oxytocin helps us form bonds of love and trust. It helps us form relationships so strong we can make decisions with complete confidence that those who care about us will stand by our side. We know that if we need help or support the people who care about us will be there for us, no matter what. Oxytocin keeps us healthy. It opens our minds. It biologically makes us better problem solvers. Without oxytocin, we would only ever make short-term progress. Leaps of greatness require the combined problem-solving ability of people who trust each other. 5-羟色胺負責我們在那些我們關心的人取得偉大成就時或我們使我們照顧我們的人感到自豪時所感受到的自豪感。5-羥色胺有助於確保我們照顧那些跟隨我們的人,並善待那些領導我們的人。而神祕的催產素的力量則有助於我們建立愛與信任的紐帶。它有助於我們建立如此強大的關係,以致我們可以完全有信心地做出決定,知道那些關心我們的人會站在我們這一邊。我們知道,如果我們需要幫助或支持,那些關心我們的人無論如何都會在那裡。催產素使我們保持健康。它開啟我們的思維。它在生物學上使我們成為更優秀的問題解決者。沒有催產素,我們只能取得短期的進步。偉大的飛躍需要彼此信任的人群的共同問題解決能力。
Like all things human, it is not a perfect system. The chemicals do not fire in equal quantities and in strict allotments. They sometimes release together and they are released in varying amounts. What’s more, we can short-circuit the system to release the chemicals for the wrong reasons. The selfish chemicals, endorphins and dopamine, give us short-term rewards to which we can, under the right conditions, become addicted. The selfless chemicals, serotonin and oxytocin, take time to build up in our systems before we can enjoy their full benefits. Though we may enjoy the thrill of reaching a goal or winning a race, that feeling won’t last. To get more of that feeling we need to win another race and reach a more distant goal. The bonds of love and trust and friendship take time to feel. 同所有人類事物一樣,它並非完美無缺的系統。化學物質並非以等量和嚴格分配的方式運作。它們有時會共同釋放,釋放量也各不相同。更有甚者,我們可以短路這個系統,以錯誤的原因來釋放化學物質。那些自私的化學物質,如內啡肽和多巴胺,會給我們帶來短暫的回報,在某些條件下我們可能會上癮。而那些無私的化學物質,如血清素和催產素,需要時間在我們的系統中累積,我們才能享受到它們全部的益處。雖然我們可能會享受到達成目標或贏得比賽的刺激,但那種感覺是短暫的。要獲得更多這種感覺,我們需要再次獲勝,並實現更遙遠的目標。愛、信任和友誼的紐帶需要時間去感受。
We cannot motivate others, per se. Our motivation is determined by the chemical incentives inside every one of us. Any motivation we have is a function of our desire to repeat behaviors that make us feel good or avoid stress or pain. The only thing we can do is create environments in which the right chemicals are released for the right reasons. And if we get the environment right, if we create organizational cultures that work to the natural inclinations of the human animal, the result will be an entire group of self-motivated people. 我們無法真正激勵他人。我們的動力是由體內化學激勵物的作用決定的。任何我們擁有的動力都是源於我們重複令自己感到愉悅、避免壓力或痛苦的行為的欲望。我們所能做的唯有創造一個環境,讓適當的化學成分因正確的原因而釋放。若我們能正確掌握環境,創造出契合人性自然傾向的組織文化,就會出現一整群自我驅動的人。
The goal for any leader of any organization is to find balance. When dopamine is the primary driver, we may achieve a lot but we will feel lonely and unfulfilled no matter how rich or powerful we get. We live lives of quick hits, in search of the next rush. Dopamine simply does not help us create things that are built to last. When we live in a hippie commune, the oxytocin gushing, but without any specific measureable goals or ambition, we can deny ourselves those intense feelings of accomplishment. No matter how loved we may feel, we may still feel like failures. The goal, again, is balance. 任何組織領導者的目標是尋找平衡。當多巴胺是主要驅動力時,無論我們多富有或強大,我們都會感到孤獨和沒有成就感。我們生活在追求刺激的生活中。多巴胺無法幫助我們創造持久的事物。當我們生活在自由主義的公社中,被幸福感包圍但沒有具體的可測量目標或野心時,我們可以否認自己那種強烈的成就感。不論我們有多受愛戴,我們仍可能感到失敗。目標,再次,是平衡。
When the system is in balance, however, we seem to gain almost supernatural ability. Courage, inspiration, foresight, creativity and empathy, to name a few. When those things all come to bear, the results and the feelings that go with them are simply remarkable. 當系統處於平衡狀態時,我們似乎獲得了近乎超自然的能力。勇氣、靈感、遠見、創造力和同情心,僅舉其例。當這些事物全部發揮作用時,其結果和所伴隨的感受都是非凡的。
[ REALITY ] 實在
CHAPTER 9 第九章
The Courage to Do the Right Thing 做正確事情的勇氣
Know When to Break the Rules 知道何時打破規則
“HOW MANY SOULS on board?” the air traffic controller asked. As if we were still traversing the globe in wooden ships with tall masts, the archaic terminology referring to the number of people aboard the vessel is a standard question asked when an aircraft declares an inflight emergency. 「船上有多少靈魂?」航空交通管制員問道。彷彿我們仍在乘坐高桅帆船逐球而行,這種古老的術語來指稱船上人數,是飛機在空中緊急情況下常被問到的標準問題。
“One hundred twenty-six souls,” replied the pilot. 一百二十六靈魂
The Florida-bound flight was somewhere over Maryland, at an altitude of 36,000 feet, traveling at about 560 miles per hour, when smoke started to pour into the cockpit. Smoke on board an aircraft is one of the most terrifying emergencies a pilot will ever face. They don’t always know the cause of the smoke. They don’t know if there is a fire. They don’t know if the emergency is contained or if it is going to spread . . . and spread out of control quickly. The smoke itself can make seeing or breathing difficult and it is sure to cause panic among the passengers. No matter how you look at it, it’s bad. 佛羅里達飛往的航班在馬里蘭州上空,海拔 36,000 英尺,時速約 560 英里,冒起濃煙進入機艙。機上煙霧是飛行員面臨最令人恐懼的緊急事故之一。他們不知道煙霧的原因,也不知道是否有火災,是否可控或會迅速失控蔓延。煙霧本身會妨礙視線和呼吸,必定會引起乘客恐慌。無論如何,這都是糟糕的情況。
“Center, KH209,” the pilot radioed when he realized the problem. “KH209, go ahead,” replied the controller monitoring the air space. 中心,KH209,飞行员发射无线电时发现问题。 "KH209,请继续,"监控空域的指挥员回应。
“KH209, I need to descend immediately. I can’t maintain altitude,” was the abrupt call from the pilot. 「KH209,我必須立即下降。我無法維持高度,」飛行員突然發出呼救。
But there was a problem. There was another flight, also flying to Florida, 2,000 feet directly below the troubled aircraft. The FAA rules are simple enough: no two aircraft flying en route may pass each other any closer than 1,000 feet, above or below, or five miles around each other. The rules are there for good reason. Traveling at three quarters the speed of sound, it becomes very difficult to maneuver aircraft without creating a serious risk of collision. 但是出現了一個問題。還有另一架航班,也前往佛羅里達,在該問題航機的正下方 2,000 英呎。聯邦航空管理局的規則很簡單:在航線上沒有兩架飛機可以相互通過小於 1,000 英呎的上下距離,或者 5 英里的距離。制定這些規則是有原因的。以音速的三分之二的速度飛行,航機操控變得非常困難,會造成嚴重的碰撞風險。
To make matters worse, the two planes were flying on a narrow route toward their destination. Because of a military exercise that was going on in the area, the airspace was restricted to a narrow band, much like a lane of a highway. And though there were other lanes on this highway, there was other traffic in them at the time. 事態越來越糟,兩架飛機正沿著狹窄的航路飛往目的地。由於該區域正進行軍事演習,航空空間被限制在一個狹窄的區域,就像高速公路上的單車道。儘管這條高速公路上還有其他車道,但當時那些車道上也有其他車輛在行駛。
The air traffic controller replied to the pilot’s request to descend immediately, “KH209, turn fifteen degrees right and descend.” 航空管制員回覆飛行員立即下降的要求說:"KH209,向右轉十五度並下降。"
Not only had the air traffic controller ordered the distressed airplane to enter restricted airspace, but telling the pilot to descend would mean he would pass well within the five-mile buffer of the plane flying beneath him. 不僅空中交通管制員命令遭受困難的飛機進入受限空域,但是告訴飛行員下降將意味著他將通過他下方飛機的五英里緩衝區。
Modern airplanes are equipped with collision alarms that alert a pilot when another airplane flies within that 1,000 foot, five-mile buffer. When the alarm sounds, knowing the limited time they have, pilots are trained to react to what could be an impending disaster. The proximity by which these two planes would pass each othertwo miles, to be exact-would surely set off the collision alarm of the flight traveling at 34,000 feet. And that would create another problem. 現代飛機配備有防撞警報器,當另一架飛機進入 1,000 英呎、5 英里的緩衝區時,會提醒飛行員。當警報響起時,知道自己所剩不多的時間,飛行員會接受培訓,應對即將發生的災難。這兩架飛機的接近距離,精確為 2 英里,必定會激活正巡航於 3 萬 4 千英呎高度的航班的防撞警報。這會造成另一個問題。
But this was a very experienced air traffic controller sitting at the console that day. He was fully aware of all the aircraft in the area. What’s more, he was very aware of all the rules and restrictions. He radioed the pilot of the other aircraft and spoke in very clear, plain English. “AG1446, there is an airplane flying above you. He has declared an emergency. He is going to descend through your altitude 降落於您的高度
at approximately two miles off your right front. He needs to descend immediately.” 大約在你正前方兩英里的地方。他需要立即下降。
This same message would be repeated again as the troubled vessel passed through the airspace of another three aircraft as it made its way down. 此同樣訊息將再次重複,當受困的船隻通過另三架飛機的空域時,它在下降的過程中。
On that clear day over Maryland, 126 souls were saved because one very experienced air traffic controller decided to break the rules. Keeping people alive was more important than maintaining boundaries. 在馬里蘭州的那個晴朗的日子裡,126 位靈魂被拯救,因為一位非常有經驗的航空管制員決定打破規則。讓人們存活比維持界限更為重要。
There were over 9.8 million scheduled domestic and passenger flights on U.S. airlines in 2012. That’s nearly 26,800 flights per day. The numbers are staggering. These numbers don’t even include the unscheduled, cargo and foreign flights that crisscross America every year. 美國航空公司於 2012 年總共有超過 980 萬次預定的國內及客運航班。這幾乎相當於每天 26,800 次航班。這個數字相當驚人。這些數字並未包括每年在美國往返的無預定航班、貨運及國外航班。
More than 815 million passengers each year entrust their lives to the pilots who transport us, the mechanics who ensure the aircraft are airworthy and the FAA, which develops the regulations to ensure everything runs as safely as possible. 每年有超過 8 億 1,500 萬名旅客將生命託付給 transport 我們的飛行員、確保飛機適航的機械師,以及制定確保一切安全運作的規定的聯邦航空管理局。
And then there are the air traffic controllers. We trust these relatively few people to obey the rules to ensure that all those aircraft are kept moving safely across the skies. But in the case of flight KH209, the controller broke the rules. He disobeyed the clear lines set to ensure our safety. 空中交通管制員。我們信任這些相對較少的人遵守規則,確保所有這些航空器在天空中安全地移動。但在 KH209 航班的情況下,控制器打破了規則。他違背了確保我們安全的明確準則。
And that’s what trust is. We don’t just trust people to obey the rules, we also trust that they know when to break them. The rules are there for normal operations. The rules are designed to avoid danger and help ensure that things go smoothly. And though there are guidelines for how to deal with emergencies, at the end of the day, we trust the expertise of a special few people to know when to break the rules. 信任就是這樣。我們不僅信任人們遵守規則,我們也相信他們知道何時打破規則。規則是為了正常運作而設計的。規則旨在避免危險,並幫助確保事情順利進行。雖然有應對緊急情況的指南,但最終我們仍然相信少數專業人士知道何時打破規則。
Organizations that offer people an opportunity to fully commit work tirelessly to train their people. This goes beyond the occasional class on how to write a better PowerPoint or be a more effective presenter; these organizations offer endless opportunities for selfimprovement. The more training they offer us, the more we learn. The more experienced and confident we become, the more the organization is willing to give us greater and greater responsibility. 致力於讓人有機會全心全意工作的組織不懈努力培訓他們的人員。這不僅僅是偶爾的如何編寫更好的 PowerPoint 或成為更有效演講者的課程;這些組織為我們提供了無窮無盡的自我提升機會。他們提供給我們的培訓越多,我們就學到越多。我們越有經驗和自信,組織就越願意給予我們越來越大的責任。
And ultimately, the organization-our management and our colleagues-is willing to trust us to know when to break the rules. 最終,我們的組織-管理層和同事們-願意相信我們知道何時打破規則。
We cannot “trust” rules or technology. We can rely on them, for sure, but trust them? No. Trust is a very special human experience, produced by the chemical oxytocin in response to acts performed on our behalf that serve our safety and protection. True trust can only exist among people. And we can only trust others when we know they are actively and consciously concerned about us. A technology, no matter how sophisticated, doesn’t care about us at all-it simply reacts to a set of variables. And the rulebook, no matter how comprehensive, cannot consider every eventuality. 我們無法"信任"規則或技術。我們可以依賴它們,沒錯,但信任它們?不行。信任是一種非常特殊的人類經驗,由化學物質縱糖生成,作為對我們的安全和保護有所服務的行為的反應。真正的信任只能存在於人與人之間。我們只有在知道別人積極且有意識地關心我們時,才能信任他人。無論再如何先進,技術都不會關心我們-它只是對一系列變量做出反應。無論多全面,規則手冊都無法考慮到每一種情況。
Imagine if every time we had a fight with a loved one, they reacted to a set of variables or deferred to the rulebook for advice. How long do you think that relationship would last? This is the reason we find bureaucrats infuriating. They simply default to the rules with no consideration for the people those rules were designed to help or protect. In other words, they don’t care. There is no algorithm for a successful relationship-between people or with companies. 假設每次和心愛的人爭吵時,他們都會根據一套變量或參考手冊尋求建議。你認為這樣的關係能維持多久?這就是我們為什麼會覺得官僚主義令人沮喪的原因。他們總是簡單地追隨規則,完全不考慮這些規則是為了幫助或保護那些人而設計的。換句話說,他們根本不在乎。沒有任何演算法可以保證人與人之間或人與公司之間的關係是成功的。
The true social benefit of trust must be reciprocal. One-way trust is not beneficial to the individual or the group. What good is a company in which management trusts labor, but labor doesn’t trust management? It is hardly a strong marriage in which the wife trusts the husband, but the husband doesn’t trust the wife. It’s all fine and good for a leader to expect the people to trust them, but if the leader doesn’t trust the people, the system will fail. For trust to serve the individuals and the group, it must be shared. 信任的真正社會效益必須是互惠的。單向的信任對個人或群體都沒有益處。一間公司的管理層信任勞工,但勞工不信任管理層,這有什麼好處呢?妻子信任丈夫,但丈夫不信任妻子,這算是一段強有力的婚姻嗎?領導期望人們信任他們,這很好,但如果領導不信任人民,這個制度就會失敗。要讓信任服務於個人和群體,它必須是共享的。
The responsibility of leaders is to teach their people the rules, train them to gain competency and build their confidence. At that point, leadership must step back and trust that their people know what they are doing and will do what needs to be done. In weak organizations, without oversight, too many people will break the rules for personal gain. That’s what makes the organizations weak. In strong organizations, people will break the rules because it is the right thing to do for others. 領導者的責任是教導人民規則,培養他們的能力,並建立他們的自信。到那個時候,領導者必須退後並相信他們的人民知道自己在做什麼,並將完成所需要的事情。在缺乏監督的弱組織中,太多人會為了個人利益而違反規則。這就是組織變弱的原因。在強大的組織中,人們會因為這是為他人做正確的事情而違反規則。
Think about it. Would you feel comfortable watching your family board a plane knowing there was a qualified pilot or controller who 你可以放心。你的家人可以安全地登機。
will do everything by the book no matter what? Would you let your family get on a plane knowing that the pilot or air traffic controller cared only about what they need to do to get their next bonus? Or would you rather watch your family board a plane knowing there were confident pilots and controllers with lots of experience who will know what rules to break if something should go wrong, possibly putting their bonus at risk as a result? The answer is so plainly obvious. We don’t trust rules, we trust people. 不管發生什麼情況,我們都會嚴格遵守規則。你會讓家人登上一架由只關心獎金的飛行員或航空管制員操控的飛機嗎?還是你寧願讓家人登上有經驗的飛行員和管制員操縱的飛機,即使他們可能會為了確保安全而違反某些規則?答案非常明顯。我們不相信規則,而是相信人。
The responsibility of a leader is to provide cover from above for their people who are working below. When the people feel that they have the control to do what’s right, even if it sometimes means breaking the rules, then they will more likely do the right thing. Courage comes from above. Our confidence to do what’s right is determined by how trusted we feel by our leaders. 領導者的責任是為下方工作的人提供來自上方的掩護。當人們感覺到他們有能力去做正確的事情,即使有時意味著違反規則,那麼他們更有可能做出正確的行為。勇氣來自於上方。我們做正確事情的信心取決於我們被領導者信任的程度。
If good people are asked to work in a bad culture, one in which leaders do not relinquish control, then the odds of something bad happening go up. People will be more concerned about following the rules out of fear of getting in trouble or losing their jobs than doing what needs to be done. And when that happens, souls will be lost. 如果好人被要求在一個糟糕的文化中工作,一個領導者不願放棄控制的文化,則發生壞事的機率就會增加。人們更關注遵守規則,害怕遭到麻煩或失去工作,而不是去做應該做的事。當這種情況發生時,靈魂就會迷失。
CHAPTER 10 第 10 章
Snowmobile in the Desert 沙漠中的雪地車
et’s face it, we’re good. We’re really good. I mean, we’re the best thing that ever lived. This is not the rambling of an egomaniac, just look at the world around us. Other animals just go about their days, looking for food, procreating and operating on instinct. But not us. We do so much more than operate to survive or grow our population (though we also do that well). 讓我們面對現實吧,我們很優秀。我們真的很優秀。我的意思是,我們是有史以來最棒的東西。這不是一個自大狂的唠叨,只要看看我們周圍的世界。其他動物只是過著自己的日子,尋找食物,繁衍生息,依照本能行事。但我們不同。我們做的遠遠超過生存或增加人口的範疇(雖然我們在這方面也做得很好)。
We invent, build and achieve things unachievable by any other species on our planet. Gazelles didn’t build the pyramids, we did. Gorillas didn’t figure out the combustion engine, we did. And it’s all because of our remarkable neocortex-the part of our brain that separates us from all the other mammals. It is our neocortex that gives us the ability to think rationally and critically about our world and solve complex problems. It is because of our neocortex that we can speak and communicate in a way vastly more sophisticated than any other species on the planet. It is this ability that allows us, among many other things, to pass on our lessons to others so they don’t need to relearn everything we have learned. Each generation is able to build on the lessons of the previous generations so that we can make real progress in the world. This is what it means to be human. We are achievement machines. 我們發明、建造及達成了其他任何物種無法實現的事物。 羚羊沒有建造金字塔,是我們做到的。大猩猩沒有發明內燃機,也是我們做到的。這全是因為我們 remarkable 的新皮質層,這是使我們與其他哺乳動物分隔的大腦部位。正是新皮質層賦予我們理性思考及批判性地看待我們世界,解決複雜問題的能力。正是因為我們的新皮質層,我們才能以比其他任何物種更加複雜的方式進行交談和溝通。這種能力使我們得以將所學傳授給他人,免於他們重新學習我們已經學習的一切。每一代人都能在前人的經驗教訓上加以發展,從而在這個世界上取得真正的進步。這就是人之所以為人的意義。我們是成就機器。
However, as great as our neocortex is at helping us get things done, it is our primitive limbic brain that controls our feelings. Our ability to trust. Our ability to cooperate. Our ability to socialize and build strong communities. It is our limbic brain that feeds the gut reactions and gut decisions that drive our behavior. It gives us the ability to form strong emotional bonds with others. And these strong social bonds allow us to work together to do all the things our Homo sapien neocortices can dream up. If we weren’t able to trust each other and work together, no matter how smart we were, we would die 然而,儘管我們的新皮質在幫助我們完成事情方面非常出色,但是是原始的邊緣系統大腦控制我們的感受。我們信任的能力。我們合作的能力。我們社交和建立強大社區的能力。是我們的邊緣系統大腦餵養了我們行為背後的直覺反應和直覺決策。它賦予我們與他人建立強烈情感紐帶的能力。而這些強大的社會紐帶使我們能夠團結合作去完成我們智人新皮質所能夢想的一切。如果我們無法互相信任並合作,無論我們有多聰明,我們都會死亡。
young and alone. We would never feel the joy of being in relationships, have the feeling of being in a circle of people with whom we share the same values and beliefs or the intense feeling of goodness that comes from doing something for someone else. 年輕與獨自。我們永遠無法感受到人際關係的喜悅、擁有與志同道合的人一起分享價值觀和信念的感受,或從幫助他人中獲得的內心善意感受。
As much as we like to think that it is our smarts that get us ahead, it is not everything. Our intelligence gives us ideas and instructions. But it is our ability to cooperate that actually helps us get those things done. Nothing of real value on this earth was built by one person without the help of others. There are few accomplishments, companies or technologies that were built by one person without the help or support of anyone else. It is clear that the more others want to help us, the more we can achieve. 我們雖然喜歡認為是我們的智慧讓我們取得進步,但這並非全部。我們的智力給了我們想法和指示。但是我們合作的能力實際上幫助我們完成了這些事情。沒有他人的幫助,地球上沒有任何真正具有價值的東西是單一個人建造的。沒有任何人的幫助或支持,沒有一個人能獨自完成任何成就、公司或科技。很顯然,只要其他人願意幫助我們,我們就能取得更大的成就。
And it is our ability to get things done together that has produced one of the greatest paradoxes of the modern era. In our pursuit to advance, we have, without intending to, built a world that is making it harder and harder for us to cooperate. The symptoms of this cruel irony are easy to feel in the developed world. Feelings of isolation and high stress have fueled industries that are profiting from our search for happiness. Self-help books, courses and any number of pharmaceuticals make up multibillion-dollar industries designed to help us find that elusive happiness, or at the very least to reduce our stress. In only a few decades, the self-help business alone has grown to $11\$ 11 billion. The biggest thing the self-help industry seems to have helped is itself. 現在我們之所以能夠共同完成事情,正是現代社會最大的悖論之一。在我們努力前進的過程中,我們無意中建造了一個越來越難以合作的世界。這種殘酷的矛盾在發達國家中顯而易見。孤獨感和高度壓力滋養了從我們尋求幸福中獲利的行業。自助書籍、課程和各種藥物組成了數十億美元的產業,旨在幫助我們找到那些難以捉摸的幸福,或至少減輕我們的壓力。短短幾十年內,自助行業本身就已成長為數十億美元的規模。自助行業似乎最幫助到的,就是自己。
Our search for happiness and connection has also led us to seek professional advice. In the 1950s, few of us went to weekly sessions with a therapist. Today in the U.S., according to the Hoover Institute, there are 77,000 clinical psychologists, 192,000 clinical social workers, 105,000 mental health counselors, 50,000 marriage and family therapists, 17,000 nurse psychotherapists, and 30,000 life coaches. The only reason the field continues to grow is because of increasing demand. The more we try to make ourselves feel better, the worse we seem to feel. 我們為了尋求幸福和聯繫而尋求專業建議。在 1950 年代,我們中很少有人每週與治療師進行會談。今天在美國,根據胡佛研究所的數據,有 77,000 名臨床心理學家、192,000 名臨床社會工作者、105,000 名心理健康諮詢師、50,000 名婚姻及家庭治療師、17,000 名護理心理治療師和 30,000 名生活教練。這個領域持續增長的唯一原因是需求增加。我們越努力想讓自己感覺更好,似乎反而感覺越糟。
That only a minority of employees feel fulfilled and truly happy at work is our own doing. We have built systems and constructed organizations that force the human animal to work in environments in which it does not work best. With an excess of dopamine to drive us 僅少數員工在工作中感到充實和真正快樂,這是我們自己造成的。我們建立了系統並構建了組織,使人類不得不在最適宜的環境中工作。我們過度分泌多巴胺,驅使我們
and cortisol flowing when we don’t need it, we have actually shortcircuited our system to do the opposite: to encourage us to look out for ourselves first and be suspicious of others. 當我們不需要時，腎上腺素和皮質醇就會流動,我們已經讓我們的系統短路來做相反的事情:鼓勵我們首先關注自己,並對他人產生懷疑。
If the human being is a snowmobile, this means we were designed to operate in very specific conditions. Take that machine designed for one kind of condition-snow-and put it in another condition-the desert, for example-and it won’t operate as well. Sure, the snowmobile will go. It just won’t go as easily or as well as if it were in the right conditions. This is what has happened in many of our modern organizations. And when progress is slow or innovation is lacking, leaders tinker with the machine. They hire and fire in hopes of getting the right mix. They develop new kinds of incentives to encourage the machine to work harder. 如果人類是一部雪地摩托車,這意味著我們被設計用於特定條件下運作。將設計用於某種條件(雪地)的機器放在另一種條件(沙漠)中,它就無法像原來設計的那樣良好地運作。雪地摩托車當然還是可以行駛,只是不會像在適當的環境中那樣輕鬆自如。這就是許多現代組織所發生的情況。當進展緩慢或缺乏創新時,領導者會去調校這台機器。他們不斷地招聘和解雇,希望找到最合適的組合。他們制定新的激勵措施,希望讓這台機器更加努力地運作。
Trust is like lubrication. It reduces friction and creates conditions much more conducive to performance. 信任就像潤滑劑。它減少了摩擦,創造了更有利於績效的條件。
With an incentivizing cocktail of dopamine, the machines will, indeed, work harder and maybe even go a little faster in the desert. But the friction is great. What too many leaders of organizations fail to appreciate is that it’s not the people that are the problem. The people are fine. Rather, it’s the environment in which the people operate that is the problem. Get that right and things just go. 在多巴胺激励的雞尾酒下,機器確實會更加努力工作,甚至可能在沙漠中加速。但摩擦很大。許多組織領導者未能體會的是,問題並非在於人,而是人所處的環境才是問題所在。解決好環境,事情就會順利進行。
To a social animal, trust is like lubrication. It reduces friction and creates conditions much more conducive to performance, just like putting the snowmobile back in the snow. Do that and even an underpowered snowmobile will run circles around the most powerful snowmobile in the wrong conditions. It’s not how smart the people in the organization are; it’s how well they work together that is the true indicator of future success or the ability to manage through struggle. 對於社會性動物來說,信任就像潤滑劑。它減少了摩擦,並創造了更有利於表現的條件,就像把雪地車放回雪地一樣。這樣做,即使是動力不足的雪地車,在錯誤的條件下也能比最強大的雪地車跑得更快。關鍵不在於組織中的人有多聰明,而是他們如何合作,這才是未來成功或管理艱難局面的真正指標。
Trust and commitment are feelings that we get from the release of chemical incentives deep in our limbic brain. And as such, they are inherently hard to measure. Just as we can’t simply tell someone to be happy and expect them to be happy, we can’t just tell someone to trust us or to commit to something and expect they will. There are 信任和承諾是我們從大腦邊緣系統中釋放出的化學獎勵而產生的感受。因此,它們本質上很難衡量。就像我們不能簡單地告訴某人去快樂並期望他們會快樂一樣,我們也不能告訴某人去信任我們或承諾某事,並期望他們會這樣做。
all sorts of things we need to do first before someone will feel any sense of loyalty or devotion. 我們需要先做各種各樣的事情,然後才會有人感到忠誠或敬畏。
There are some basic tenets that all leaders of organizations must obey to build deep trust and commitment among the people who work for them. And, in a very un-dopamine way, it will take time, energy and the will of people for these things to work. 所有組織領導者都必須遵守的基本原則,以建立深厚的信任和承諾。這需要時間、精力和人的意願,這是一種非多巴胺的方式。
All this begs the question, how did we get ourselves into the desert in the first place? 這一切引起了疑問,我們究竟是如何首次來到沙漠的?
[ HOW WE GOT HERE ] 我們是如何到達此處的
CHAPTER 11 第 11 章
The Boom Before the Bust 繁景之前的沉寂
Times were good. Really good. Everyone was making money . . . and everyone was spending it. The result was unprecedented growth. In fact, the total wealth in the country more than doubled in fewer than ten years. There were new technologies and a new kind of media that allowed news and ideas to spread like never before. These were unprecedented times, indeed. This was not the 1980s or the 1990s. This was the 1920s. The Roaring Twenties. 繁榮昇平。蒸蒸日上。人人都賺錢...人人都 spend 錢。結果是前所未有的成長。事實上,國家的總財富在不到十年內增加了一倍多。有新技術和新媒體,讓消息和想法前所未有地傳播。這確實是前所未有的時代。這不是 1980 年代或 1990 年代。這是 1920 年代。欣欣向榮的二十年代。
The period after World War I was the time when America first truly became a consumer society. For the first time in years, Americans were relatively wealthy, and with the wealth came good times. With all that disposable income they were able to buy luxuries and new technologies-all the new inventions that could improve the quality of life. Electric refrigerators, telephones, cars and movies all saw their introduction and rise in popularity during the 1920s. And let’s not forget about new forms of media that were introduced. In 1920 there was one commercial radio station in the United StatesKDKA out of Pittsburgh. Three years later there were over five 第一次世界大戰後的時期是美國首次真正成為消費社會的時期。在多年以來,美國人是相對富裕的,隨著財富而來的是美好的時光。由於擁有可支配收入,他們能夠購買奢侈品和新技術 - 所有能夠提高生活質量的新發明。電冰箱、電話、汽車和電影都在 1920 年代出現並普及。我們也不能忘記新的媒體形式的出現。1920 年,美國只有一個商業無線電台 KDKA 在匹茲堡。三年後,已經有超過五家。
hundred stations across the country. And by the end of the decade, there were more than 12 million households with radios. 全國有超過一百個廣播電台。十年之後,有超過一千二百萬家庭擁有收音機。
This new national media allowed for news to be broadcast like never before. It also allowed for national advertising to be broadcast in a way that was previously impossible. Combined with the introduction of chain stores, the popularity of the radio meant that people on one coast could now buy the same things as people on the other coast. And with the arrival of the movies, more and more media focused on the lives of movie stars and sports heroes. We dreamed of living glamorous lives like theirs. With national attention, celebrity was no longer a by-product of success, it became a thing to achieve itself. Fame became a new way to achieve alpha status. It was a time of aspiration. 這個新的全國性媒體使新聞能夠以前所未有的方式播放。它也使全國廣告能夠以以前無法做到的方式廣播。結合連鎖店的引入,收音機的普及意味著沿海一方的人們現在也能買到和另一方一樣的東西。而隨著電影的到來,越來越多的媒體關注於電影明星和體育英雄的生活。我們夢想擁有和他們一樣的奢華生活。隨著全國性的關注,名人已不再是成功的附帶產品,而成為一種要追求的東西。名聲成為一種新的實現上層地位的方式。這是一個追求的時代。
Thanks to all these new technologies and modern conveniences, the period also gave rise to entirely new industries. Just like the Internet created a need for IT consultants, the automobile created a need for gas stations, for example. It all sounds eerily reminiscent of our modern times-new technologies, new media, new industries, an obsession with the lives of celebrities, the increase of wealth and consumerism and, most significant, thanks to all that excess, a preponderance of waste. 多亏这些新技術和現代便利設施,這個時期也誕生了全新的行業。就像互聯網創造了對 IT 顧問的需求,汽車也創造了對加油站的需求。一切聽起來都令人異常懷念我們現代的時代 - 新技術、新媒體、新行業,對名人生活的痴迷,財富和消費主義的增加,最重要的是,由於這一切過度,產生了大量的浪費。
Then something happened. It all suddenly stopped. As much as people try to beat the laws of nature, there is always a correction. Nature abhors imbalance. Nothing can grow forever. And so, despite the expectation of never-ending good times, on October 29, 1929, it all came to a sudden and abrupt halt. 然後突然發生了什麼事。一切突然停止了。儘管人們努力打破自然法則,但總會有改正。大自然厭惡失衡。任何事物都不能永遠增長。因此,儘管人們期待永無止境的好時光,但在 1929 年 10 月 29 日,一切都突然戛然而止。
“Black Tuesday,” as the crash was called, was a huge “correction” in the stock market. The weight of imbalance and overvaluations had to, at some point, right itself and find balance again. Though corrections are not uncommon, in this case the imbalance was so extreme that the correction was significant enough to start the Great Depression-a period marked by a loss of nearly 90 percent of the stock market’s value and unemployment rates that left as many as a quarter of the country jobless. 「黑色星期二」,這次崩盤被稱之為,是股市巨大的「調整」。不平衡和高估的重量,在某個時候必須調整自己,並再次找到平衡。儘管調整並不罕見,但在這種情況下,失衡是如此極端,以至於調整足以開啟大蕭條-這一時期標志著股市價值損失近 90%,失業率高達國家四分之一。
Unlike their parents, those born during most of the 1920s were too young to actually enjoy the 1920s. They were raised in one of the most austere times in American history. And as our anthropology 不像他們的父母,1920 年代出生的大多數人還太小,無法真正享受 1920 年代。他們是在美國歷史上最嚴酷的時期中成長的。而我們的人類學家
dictates, with resources scarce, the generation learned to work together and help each other to make ends meet. Waste and excess just weren’t an option anymore. The Depression lasted for over a decade and didn’t end until nearly 1942. It was the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, that forced America into World War II and pulled it out of the Depression. 資源稀缺,憑藉學習共同努力,互相幫助維生。浪費和過度已不再是選項。大蕭條持續十年以上,直到 1942 年才結束。直至 1941 年 12 月 7 日珍珠港遭受攻擊,迫使美國投入第二次世界大戰,才走出大蕭條陰影。
The generation that grew up during some of the worst economic times in the country came of age just in time to be drafted and shipped off to do battle with Hitler’s armies. The entire country went straight from the Great Depression into a great war. 在這個國家最嚴重的經濟時期成長的一代,正好趕上被徵召的時候,被派到前線與希特勒的軍隊作戰。整個國家從大蕭條直接進入了一場大戰。
By the time America entered World War II, the population of the United States was about 133 million, of which about 16 million marched off to war. That’s about 12 percent of the population. Today America’s population is more than 315 million and less than 1 percent serve in the military. That includes active duty, civilian, guard and reserve forces. (Of course, these are different times and we are not involved in a world war-a war in which we would bear any burden or pay any price to protect what we believed in.) During World War II, given the sheer volume of people who put on a uniform, nearly everyone knew someone who served in the military. Many parents watched their own sons march off to battle. Today, simply because most of us aren’t friends with someone in the military, we have trouble understanding how people can maintain such a deep sense of selfless service. 當美國進入第二次世界大戰時,美國人口約為 1 億 3300 萬,其中約 1600 萬人參加戰爭。這相當於當時人口的 12%。如今,美國人口已超過 3 億 1500 萬,但參軍人數不到 1%,包括現役軍人、民間人員、國民警衛隊和後備軍人。(當然,這是不同的時代,我們沒有捲入一場世界大戰,那是一場我們願意付出任何代價來捍衛我們所相信的事物的戰爭。)在第二次世界大戰期間,由於穿上制服的人數眾多,幾乎每個人都認識一個曾服過役的人。很多父母目睹自己的兒子前往戰場。如今,由於我們大多數人都沒有認識軍人的人,我們很難理解人們如何保持如此深厚的無私奉獻精神。
Unlike today’s conflicts, World War II wasn’t a war that happened at a distance. It wasn’t viewed on television or on a computer screen. It was a war that touched the lives of most of the country. The entire nation was involved in the war effort. According to The War, the seminal World War II documentary by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick, 24 million people relocated to take defense jobs. And millions of women, African Americans and Latinos found unprecedented opportunities in the workforce. Many others bought war bonds to help finance the war. Buying a war bond gave those who couldn’t offer physical support the feeling that they too were a part of the effort. And for those who couldn’t afford war bonds, they contributed by planting victory gardens, growing fruit and vegetables to help reduce the burden of rationing. This is one of the reasons we call this 與今日的衝突不同,第二次世界大戰並非發生在遙遠之地的戰爭。它不是透過電視或電腦螢幕來觀看的戰爭,而是影響到國家大多數人生活的戰爭。整個國家都參與了戰爭努力。根據肯·伯恩斯和林恩·諾維克拍攝的《戰爭》這部關於第二次世界大戰的紀錄片,有 2400 萬人為了取得防衛工作而遷移。數百萬名婦女、非裔美國人和拉丁裔人在勞動力市場獲得前所未有的機會。許多其他人購買了戰爭公債來幫助為戰爭融資。購買戰爭公債給予那些無法提供實際支持的人一種他們也參與了這項努力的感覺。對於無法負擔戰爭公債的人,他們透過種植勝利之園、種植水果和蔬菜來幫助減輕配給的負擔而作出貢獻。這就是我們稱這一時期為
generation the Greatest Generation. It was defined not by excess and consumerism, but by hardship and service. 偉大世代。它並非定義於過度和消費主義,而是定義於艱難和服務。
This was not a time when the country sat back and complained, pointed fingers and debated if we should or should not be at war. This was a time when the whole country came together. According to a poll published in the November 1942 issue of Life magazine, over 90 percent of the country believed that America should keep fighting in the war. This was a population that overwhelmingly supported the draft before the war and continued to believe that military training should be compulsory after the war. As a nation, we believed in service. And nearly everyone, in some way, shape or form, sacrificed and served for the good of each other. Nearly all Americans felt a part of something bigger than themselves. 這不是一個國家坐回去抱怨、指責他人並辯論是否應該參戰的時期。這是一個整個國家團結一致的時期。根據《生活》雜誌 1942 年 11 月號刊登的一項民意調查,超過 90%的國民認為美國應該繼續在戰爭中作戰。這是一個在戰前大力支持征兵,並在戰後繼續相信軍事培訓應該是強制性的人口。作為一個國家,我們相信服務。幾乎每個人以某種方式、或某種形式為彼此的福祉作出犧牲和服務。幾乎所有的美國人都感到自己是一個比自己更大的事物的一部分。
When the war was finally won, the men who survived the battles returned home to parades and parties. But the celebration wasn’t just for those who had risked their lives on the front lines; rather, it was for all who had participated and sacrificed in their own way. Almost everyone shared the feeling of accomplishment and sense of relief that came with the Allied victory. As well they should have. They had worked hard for that feeling. They earned it. 當戰爭最終獲勝時,存活下來的士兵回到家鄉,受到遊行和派對的歡迎。但慶祝活動並不只為前線戰士而設,而是為所有以自己的方式參與和犧牲的人而設。幾乎所有人都有一種成就感和解脫感,因為同盟國取得勝利。他們應該這樣想,因為他們為此努力奮鬥,並應得到這種感受。
With the war behind them and the economy booming, the men and women of the Greatest Generation, those raised during the Depression then sent off to war, felt that they had missed out on their youth, many were even bitter. They felt that they had already spent so much of their lives sacrificing that they wanted to try to reclaim some of what they had lost. And so they got to work. 經過戰爭的洗禮,經濟也進入了繁榮時期,偉大一代人,即那些在大蕭條時期成長,後來又被派往戰場的人,感到他們已錯過了青春年華,許多人甚至感到憤怒。他們覺得,他們已經犧牲了生命的大部分,希望能找回一些已失去的東西。於是他們開始了努力工作。
The importance of hard work, the necessity of cooperation and the value of loyalty-everything they knew about getting things done -defined how companies operated when this generation ran them. The 1950s were defined as an era of giving one’s entire life to one company and of one company expecting their people to work there for their entire lives. At the end of a long career, an employee would receive their proverbial gold watch, the ultimate symbol of gratitude for a life of service to the company. And it worked . . . for a while. 辛勤工作的重要性、合作的必要性和忠誠的價值-他們所知道的一切關於事情完成的方式-定義了當這代人經營的公司的運營方式。1950 年代被定義為一個將整個生命奉獻給一家公司,以及一家公司期望其員工終其一生為公司工作的時代。在漫長的職業生涯結束時,員工會收到他們的象徵感激的金表,這是終生為公司服務的終極象徵。這個模式曾經起作用…一段時間。
The Eight-Hundred-Pound Boomer in the Room 八百磅的嬌客
EVERY GENERATION SEEMS to confound or rebel against the generation before it. Each new generation embodies a set of values and beliefs molded by the events, experiences and technologies of their youth . . . which tend to be a little different from those of their parents. And when populations grow at a steady pace, the push and pull between the generations, the impulse of a new generation to change everything and the desire of an older generation to keep things the same work like a system of checks and balances. It offers a natural tension that helps to ensure we don’t break everything while also allowing us to make progress and change with the times. One point of view or a single, uncontested power is rarely a good thing. Like the visionary and the operator inside a company, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, the Soviets and Uncle Sam in geopolitics, even mom and dad at home, the value of two opposing forces, the tension of push and pull actually keeps things more stable. It’s all about balance. 每一代人似乎都要對前一代人的價值觀和信念展現反抗或顛覆。每一代人都擁有由青春時的事件、經歷和科技塑造而成的一套價值觀和信念,這些通常與父母一代有所不同。當人口穩定增長時,各代人之間的矛盾推拉,新一代想要改變一切的衝動與老一輩想要保持現狀的願望,就像一個制衡系統一樣發揮作用。這種自然的張力能確保我們不會破壞一切,同時也允許我們與時俱進地做出改變。單一的觀點或無可辯駁的權力很少是一件好事。就像公司內部的遠見者和操作者、國會民主黨人和共和黨人、蘇聯和美國在地緣政治上,甚至家裡的爸媽,兩種對立力量的張力實際上使事物更加穩定。這就是平衡的關鍵所在。
But something happened at the end of the Second World War that upset the normal system of checks and balances. A break in the natural order that would quite literally and quite by accident set America on an entirely new course. Returning from war, people celebrated. And celebrated. And celebrated. And nine months later, there began a period of population growth never seen before in the United States: the Baby Boom. 但是在第二次世界大戰結束時發生了一些事情,打亂了正常的制衡系統。自然秩序的中斷,將美國完全意外地置於全新的道路上。戰爭歸來,人們歡慶。歡慶。歡慶。九個月後,美國出現了前所未見的人口增長期:嬰兒潮。
U.S. BIRTHS PER 1,000 POPULATION 每千人出生人數
In 1940, there were 2.6 million children born. In 1946, the number of children born was 3.4 million. There was a small boom at the end of World War I, but it was the massive spike in births that began after World War II that tipped the balance. A disparity that was compounded by the relatively slow birth rate during the Depression and the war. 1940 年出生了 260 萬小孩。1946 年出生了 340 萬小孩。第一次世界大戰末期出現了小規模的出生高峰,但第二次世界大戰後出生高峰崛起規模巨大,導致失衡。該失衡由於大蕭條和戰爭期間出生率相對緩慢而加劇。
The end of the Boomer generation is typically regarded as 1964, the year the number of births dipped below 4 million for the first time in more than a decade. All told, the Boomers added 76 million people to the population, a growth rate of nearly 40 percent (compared to a less than 25 percent increase between 1964 and 1984). 嬰兒潮世代的結束通常被視為 1964 年,那年出生人數首次在 10 多年內跌破 400 萬。總的來說,嬰兒潮世代為人口增加了 7,600 萬人,增長率接近 40%(而 1964 年至 1984 年的增幅不到 25%)。
AVERAGE U.S. INCOME 美國平均收入
And the dramatic change doesn’t stop there. Unlike their parents, who were raised during a time of economic depression and war rations, the Boomers were raised in times of rising affluence and prosperity. Starting at the end of the war, wealth and GDP in America did nothing but grow at a steady pace. This was a good thing for all those Boomers. The parents who fought or sacrificed were now able to give their children a life completely opposite to their own. Whereas the Greatest Generation was defined by the need to serve others, the Boomer generation started on a path of taking for themselves. As our wealth and attitudes changed, we started to transform from a country that would fight to protect a way of life into a country that would fight to protect the way we prefer to live. 繁體中文:
浪潮並未止步於此。與父母不同,他們在經濟大蕭條和戰時配給制下成長,嬰兒潮世代則在日益富裕和繁榮的時代中成長。戰後,美國的財富和國內生產總值穩步增長。這對所有嬰兒潮世代人來說都是好事。那些參戰或犧牲的父母如今能夠為子女提供一種與自己完全不同的生活。而大戰勝利世代被定義為為他人服務的需要,嬰兒潮世代則開始走上為自己索取的道路。隨著我們的財富和態度的改變,我們從一個願意為生活方式而戰鬥的國家,逐步變成一個願意為我們偏好的生活方式而戰鬥的國家。
Growing up under the protection of their newly wealthy parents, the first group of Boomers became teenagers in the 1960s. And, like all good teenagers, they rebelled against their parents’ push for them to work hard and devote themselves to a job or a company until they got that gold watch. They rejected the quiet suburbs and their 平靜的郊區和他們
parents’ focus on material wealth. Leave It to Beaver was not their idea of “the good life”; individualism, free love and narcissism were. 父母注重物質財富。《請讓我來照看》並非他們心中「美好生活」的概念;個人主義、自由愛情和自戀才是。
In 1960s America, however, the hippies who chose to live a life with less than they needed did so for the simple fact that, as a country, we had more than we needed. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the Greatest Generation was perfect. In fact, they had some serious problems. At the same time that Americans were saving the world from the tyranny of Nazism, they were struggling with issues of racism and inequality. The American Dream was the picture of harmony as long as you were white, Christian and male. Back in the U.S., women were still considered unqualified for public life or the executive suite. African Americans wouldn’t be embraced as full citizens until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nearly twenty years after the war had ended. And even then, it passed with nearly 30 percent of the Senate voting against it. 在 1960 年代的美國,然而,那些選擇過著少於所需生活的嬉皮士這樣做是因為,作為一個國家,我們擁有比所需更多。我不是在說偉大的一代是完美的。事實上,他們面臨一些嚴重的問題。同時,當美國人正在拯救世界脫離納粹主義的暴政時,他們也在與種族主義和不平等的問題作鬥爭。只要你是白人、基督教徒和男性,美國夢就是和諧的圖景。回到美國,女性仍被認為不適合參與公共生活或擔任高級職位。非裔美國人直到 1964 年民權法案通過才被視為完全的公民,距離戰爭結束近二十年。即便如此,這部法案在參議院也有近 30%的議員投票反對。
When the Boomers were young, it was they who forced civil rights on an older generation bent on maintaining an unhealthy and unjust status quo. It was, indeed, the young Boomers who demanded better pay for women and refused to blindly accept the injustices that prevailed in our society. They might have become the second Greatest Generation had they continued on that path. But that’s not how it went. 當嬰兒潮世代年輕時,正是他們強迫較年長的一代接受民權法案,因為此前的舊秩序是不健康且不公平的。年輕的嬰兒潮世代確實要求為女性提供更好的薪酬,並拒絕盲目接受社會中普遍存在的不公正現象。如果他們一直沿著那條道路前進,他們或許會成為第二個最偉大的一代。但是事情並非如此發展。
As the disproportionately large generation of Boomers started aging, they changed course. And that’s when our modern-era problems started to arise. The maturing Boomers, as a generation, started to operate in different ways . . . in more selfish ways. They now set out to protect the world with which they were most familiara world of rising wealth and affluence. 嬌生慣養的嬰兒潮世代開始衰老,他們改變了方向。這就是我們現代時代問題開始出現的時候。作為一個世代,成熟的嬰兒潮族群開始以不同的方式運作,更為自私的方式。他們現在力圖保護他們最熟悉的世界 - 一個財富和繁榮不斷增長的世界。
By the 1970s, the older Boomers were now graduating from college and starting to make their way into the workforce. In a decade marked by an unpopular war and the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon seemed to offer a foreboding look at the generation he served. His own selfish ambitions drove decisions that were at best unethical and at worst illegal. 到了 1970 年代,較年長的嬰兒潮世代已經從大學畢業,並開始邁入職場。在這個被不受歡迎的戰爭和水門事件所特徵的一個十年裡,Richard Nixon 似乎為他所服務的一代人帶來了一種令人不安的看法。他自私的野心驅使他做出了最多只是不道德,最少也是違法的決定。
The Boomers witnessed events that only reinforced their early beliefs that “government can’t be trusted,” “we have to look out for ourselves” and “we need to change the way things are done.” Forget 嬰兒潮世代見證了一些事件,這些事件只是加強了他們早期的信念:「政府不值得信任」、「我們必須為自己著想」以及「我們需要改變現況」。忘掉
the status quo-the Boomers aspired to self-realization. Having a spiritual guru was like going to the gym today. They learned to disco. They wore polyester. And they sealed their reputation as the generation that defined, as Thomas Wolfe described in a 1976 issue of New York magazine, the “Me” decade. They became a group that seemed to be more concerned about their own happiness and wellbeing than the happiness or well-being of those around them. 現狀-嬰兒潮世代嚮往自我實現。擁有一位靈性導師就像現在去健身房。他們學會跳迪斯可舞。他們穿著聚酯纖維。正如托馬斯·沃爾夫在 1976 年的一期《紐約雜誌》中描述的,他們成為了界定「我」這個時代的那一代人。他們成為一個群體,似乎比關心周圍人的幸福和福祉更關心自己的幸福和福祉。
As the Boomers grew older and started to enter the workforce, making their own contribution to our economy, they brought all this self-centeredness and cynicism with them. Except, in this case, there were vastly fewer of the previous generation to balance the ideals of this new me-before-we generation. 嬉生族隨年紀增長而進入職場,為經濟作出自己的貢獻,但他們帶來了自我中心主義和冷嘲熱諷。然而,在這種情況下,上一代人的理想很少能平衡這個新的「我先於我們」一代。
The late seventies also saw the introduction of new theories about how to conduct business. Shaken by the Vietnam War, a presidential scandal, an oil crisis, the rise of globalization and, near the end of the decade, a revolution in Iran that involved American lives, economic theories became more protectionist in nature. They tended to focus on how to safeguard our rising wealth rather than to share it or use it to support causes of national importance, like the War Bonds of earlier generations. Service to others as part of our national identity was slowly being replaced by service to ourselves as a national priority. 晚期的七十年代也見證了新商業理論的出現。受越戰、總統醜聞、石油危機、全球化興起以及伊朗革命牽涉美國公民生命等事件的影響,經濟理論趨向保護主義。它們傾向於關注如何維護我們不斷增長的財富,而非分享或用於支持具有國家重要性的事業,如早年的戰時公債。作為國家身份的一部分為他人服務,正逐漸被以自我為中心的國家優先順序所取代。
U.S. GDP IN REAL DOLLARS, IN BILLIONS 美國實際國內生產總值，數十億美元
Throughout this time, America’s household affluence continued to skyrocket. Gross domestic product grew from $3.87\$ 3.87 trillion in 1965 to $4.7\$ 4.7 trillion in 1970 to $6.52\$ 6.52 trillion in 1980, that’s 68 percent growth in fifteen years. It looked like a steep slope up with barely a bump in the road. We were getting wealthier and wealthier, as individuals and as a country. Though the wealthiest Americans were getting wealthier at a disproportionately higher rate than the rest of the country, even the poorest Americans at least stayed the same or even rose by a small degree. The point is, no segment of the population got significantly poorer. 在這段期間,美國家庭富裕度持續急劇上升。國內生產總值從 1965 年的 $3.87\$ 3.87 萬億美元,增長到 1970 年的 $4.7\$ 4.7 萬億美元,再到 1980 年的 $6.52\$ 6.52 萬億美元,即 15 年內增長 68%。這看起來是一個陡峭的上升斜率,道路上幾乎沒有任何障礙。我們,無論作為個人還是作為一個國家,都變得更加富裕。儘管最富有的美國人的富裕程度以不成比例的高速增長,但即使是最貧窮的美國人,他們至少也保持了相同的水平,甚至還小幅上升。關鍵在於,沒有任何人口群顯著變得更加貧窮。
With the 1970s coming to a close, Americans started to replace their bell-bottom jeans with Members Only jackets and to rip up their shag carpeting. The Baby Boomers were finally coming of age. They started to work at more senior levels at companies and in government. The coddled Boomers, the ones who didn’t have to suffer much, the ones who grew up in a society that could afford for 隨著 1970 年代的結束,美國人開始用 Members Only 夾克取代他們的喇叭褲牛仔褲,並且撕掉了他們的長毛地毯。嬰兒潮世代終於成長為成年人。他們開始在公司和政府機構擔任更高級的職位。這些被寵壞的嬰兒潮世代,那些並未受太多苦難的人,那些在一個富裕的社會中成長的人
them to put themselves first, were now starting to take positions in which they could affect political, business and economic theory en masse. It’s worth noting that it was when the Boomers arrived that relationships in Congress really started to suffer. Until the early 1990s, members of the opposing parties, while still prone to the same theatrics they are today, were able to sit down together with the goal of reaching a compromise. They may not have agreed, but they tried. And for the most part they behaved with civility. Their children went to school together, and their families knew each other. They even socialized on weekends. And as a result, Congress functioned. 他們開始以自己的利益為重心,現正開始佔據可影響政治、商業和經濟理論的地位。值得注意的是,當嬰兒潮世代到來時,國會內部關係開始惡化。直到 1990 年代初,反對黨成員仍然容易表現同樣的戲劇表演,但他們能夠坐下來共同尋求妥協。他們或許並不完全認同彼此,但仍然努力嘗試。而在大部分時候,他們表現得很有禮貌。他們的孩子一起上學,家人也互相認識。他們甚至在週末社交。而這正是國會運作正常的原因。
The Boomer generation would emerge bigger and more powerful than any opposing force that could help keep things in check. Without a balancing tension, the impulses and desires of one group would prove to be hard to restrain. Like the unchecked power of America after the fall of the Soviet Union, like the dictator who overthrows his predecessor, like legislation passed when one party has a supermajority in Congress, the Boomers would start to impose their will on the world around them, surrounded only by outnumbered voices telling them they couldn’t. By the 1980s and 1990s, this “shockwave,” this “pig in the python,” as the Baby Boom is sometimes described because of its sheer size and force, this demographic bulge able to remodel society as they passed through it, was fully in charge. 嬰兒潮世代會比任何反對勢力更強大和更有力量,這些反對勢力無法遏制他們。沒有平衡的張力,一個群體的衝動和欲望將難以抑制。就像美國在蘇聯解體後無拘無束的權力,就像推翻前任獨裁者的獨裁者,就像當一個政黨在國會中擁有絕對多數時通過的立法,嬰兒潮世代將開始將自己的意志強加於世界,只有聲音微弱的反對者告訴他們不可以。到了 1980 年代和 1990 年代,這個"衝擊波"、這個"藏在蟒蛇中的豬"(嬰兒潮有時被描述為如此,因為它的龐大規模和力量),這個人口高峰正在主導著社會的重塑。
CHAPTER 12 第 12 章
The Boomers All Grown Up 嬰兒潮世代已長大
The 1980s were now upon us and we were no longer a country trying to figure out how to rally a population and win a war; we were now trying to figure out how to capitalize on the amazing boom years in which we were living-the Roaring Eighties. 1980 年代已降臨,我們已不再是一個試圖動員人口並贏得戰爭的國家;我們現在正在努力弄清如何在驚人的繁榮時期中獲利——咆哮的八十年代。
During this period, new economic theories were being proposed to protect the wealth the Boomers were accumulating-a classic symptom of excess. Where the radio, automobile and electric refrigerator were the “must have” items of the 1920s, another new technology became all the rage in the 1980s. The IBM PC, MS-DOS, Apple’s Macintosh and Microsoft Windows all contributed to the rise and spread of the personal computer. “A PC on every desk,” as Bill Gates, the young founder of Microsoft, envisioned. We no longer needed to go to work to have power-we could have power alone at home too. The individual could compete against the corporation. Even the new technologies of the day supported the desire for more individualism. 在這段時期,新的經濟理論被提出以保護嬰兒潮世代積累的財富——這是過度的典型症狀。在 1920 年代,收音機、汽車和電冰箱是「必備」物品,而在 1980 年代,另一項新技術成為風靡一時的流行。IBM PC、MS-DOS、Apple 的 Macintosh 和 Microsoft Windows 都推動了個人電腦的崛起和擴散。正如微軟年輕創辦人比爾·蓋茨所設想的那樣,「每張桌子上都有一台 PC」。我們不再需要去上班就能擁有力量,我們也可以在家獨立擁有力量。個人可以與企業競爭。即使是當時的新技術也支持了對個人主義的渴望。
We were also becoming more and more comfortable with products having shorter lifespans. Other inventions of the 1980s included the disposable camera and disposable contact lenses. Disposability, another symptom of our excess, was now an industry to be pioneered. We were actually looking for more things we could throw out. And there was one other thing we started to view as disposable: people. 我們也越來越習慣擁有較短使用壽命的產品。1980 年代的其他發明包括一次性相機和一次性隱形眼鏡。可丟棄性，我們過度消費的另一個症狀，現已成為一個有待開發的產業。我們實際上正在尋找更多我們可以丟棄的東西。還有一件事我們開始視為可丟棄的:人。
The Day We Embraced Layoffs 我們擁抱裁員的那一天
AUGUST 5, 1981. That’s the date it became official. 1981 年 8 月 5 日。那就是正式成立的日期。
It’s rare that we can point to an exact date when a business theory or idea becomes an accepted practice. But in the case of mass layoffs, we can. August 5, 1981, was the day President Ronald Reagan fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers. 大規模裁員已成為一種廣為人知的做法。1981 年 8 月 5 日,時任美國總統的羅納德·里根解雇了超過 11,000 名航空管制員。
Demanding more pay and a shorter workweek, PATCO, the air traffic controllers’ union at the time, was embroiled in a vicious labor dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration. When the talks broke down, PATCO threatened to go on strike, ostensibly shutting down airports and causing the cancellation of thousands of flights during one of the busiest travel periods of the year. 要求加薪和縮短工作週的航空交通管制員工會(PATCO)陷入了與聯邦航空總署的激烈勞資糾紛。談判破裂後,PATCO 威脅發動罷工,暫時關閉機場並取消數千個航班,這是當年最忙碌的旅遊高峰時期。
Such a strike is illegal, according to the sometimes controversial Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. The act essentially prohibits any labor strike to cause unfair harm to those not involved in the dispute or to do any damage to any commerce that would negatively affect the general welfare. This is the reason police and emergency room nurses are forbidden to strike. The damage such a strike would cause is believed to outweigh any grievances over unfair pay or hours. 根據 1947 年有時有爭議的塔夫特-哈特利法案,此類罷工是非法的。該法案基本上禁止任何勞工罷工,以致對非爭議人士造成不公平損害,或對會對一般福祉產生負面影響的任何商業造成損害。這就是警察和急診室護士禁止罷工的原因。這種罷工造成的損害被認為超過任何不公平工資或工時的不滿。
Without an acceptable deal and, worse, without the ability to find common ground, on August 3, PATCO’s members refused to go to work. Given the strike’s impact on the country, President Reagan got personally involved, ordering the air traffic controllers back to work. Meanwhile, contingency plans were put into place, with supervisors (who were not members of the union), a small group of controllers who had chosen not to strike and military air traffic controllers enlisted to cover the losses. Though not a perfect solution, these temporary workers were able to keep the majority of flights going. The effect of the strikes was not as severe as expected, and so, on August 5, 1981, President Reagan fired 11,359 air traffic controllers, nearly every controller working for the FAA at the time. And it didn’t stop there. 在沒有可接受的交易,更糟的是沒有找到共同點的情況下,8 月 3 日,PATCO 的成員拒絕上班。考慮到罷工對國家的影響,雷根總統親自介入,命令航空交通管制員重返工作崗位。同時,緊急應變計劃被制定,由非工會成員的主管人員、少數選擇不罷工的管制員以及軍事航空交通管制員來接替損失的崗位。雖然並非完美解決方案,但這些臨時工人能夠確保大部分航班正常運行。罷工的影響並沒有預期的那麼嚴重,因此在 1981 年 8 月 5 日,雷根總統解雇了 11,359 名航空交通管制員,幾乎是當時所有為聯邦航空局工作的管制員。而這並沒有就此結束。
Reagan banned every one of the strikers from ever working for the FAA again for the rest of their lives, a ban that remained in effect until President Clinton lifted it in 1993. Many of the air traffic controllers who were fired that day were war veterans (which is where they learned the trade) or civil servants who had worked hard to earn their middle-class incomes. Because of the ban and the fact 里根禁止所有罷工者永遠不得再次為聯邦航空總署工作,直到柯林頓總統於 1993 年解除此禁令。當天被解雇的許多航空管制員都是戰爭退伍軍人(這是他們學習該行業的地方)或是勤勉工作以賺取中產階級收入的公務員。由於該禁令及事實
that their skills were hardly transferable to other industries (there’s not a huge demand for air traffic controllers outside of the FAA), many of them found themselves in poverty. 他們的技能很難轉移到其他行業(FAA 以外的航空管制員需求並不大),許多人陷入貧困。
This is not a story about whether Reagan should or should not have fired the air traffic controllers. This is not a story about labor disputes and the right of unions to stand up to management. This is a story of something quite diabolical. This is a story about the longterm repercussions when a leader sets a new tone about what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior inside an organization. 這不是一個關於里根是否應該或不應該解雇空中交通管制員的故事。這不是一個關於勞資糾紛和工會權利的故事。這是一個相當邪惡的故事。這是一個關於領導者對組織內可接受或不可接許行為設定新基調所造成的長期影響的故事。
In an attempt to alleviate one short-term strain on our country, President Reagan inadvertently created a new, longer-lasting one. By firing all the air traffic controllers, he sent a message to business leaders across the nation. He unwittingly blessed the swift and even aggressive decision to use mass layoffs to guard against a shortterm economic disruption. Though I am certain Reagan never intended it as such, some eager CEOs interpreted his actions as permission for them to do the same. There was now a precedent for protecting commerce before protecting people. And so, for the first time ever, the social conventions that had restrained many a CEO from doing something that many may have wished they could in the past were instantly gone. 試圖緩解我國的一種短期壓力,雷根總統無意中創造了一種新的、持續時間更長的壓力。通過解雇所有空中交通管制員,他向全國的商界領袖傳遞了一個信息。他無意中支持了迅速和甚至積極的決定,即使用大規模裁員來防範短期經濟中斷。儘管我確信雷根從未有意如此,但一些雄心勃勃的首席執行官將其行為視為他們也可以這樣做的許可。現在有了一個先例,可以在保護人民之前先保護商業。就這樣,過去一直約束很多首席執行官的社會習俗,在一瞬間消失了。
With the tacit approval from on high, the practice of laying off people in mass numbers to balance the books started to happen with greater frequency. Layoffs had existed before the eighties, but usually as a last resort and not an early option. We were now entering a time in which even meritocracy mattered less. How hard someone worked or how much they sacrificed or contributed to the company no longer necessarily translated into job stability. Now anyone could be laid off simply to help balance the books for that year. Careers ended to make the numbers work. Protecting the money, as economic theory, replaced protecting the people. Under such conditions, how can we ever feel safe at work? How can we ever feel committed to the jobs we have if the leaders of our companies aren’t committed to us? 在上層的隱含批准下,大規模裁員以平衡帳目的做法開始越來越頻繁地出現。裁員在八十年代之前是存在的,但通常只是最後的手段,而不是早期的選擇。我們現在進入了一個 even meritocracy matter less 的時期。一個人的工作努力程度或犧牲多少,或對公司的貢獻並不一定意味著工作穩定性。現在任何人都可能被裁員,只是為了幫助當年的帳目平衡。為了使數字運作,職業生涯就此終結。保護金錢,作為經濟理論,取代了保護人民。在這樣的條件下,我們怎能在工作中感到安全?如果公司的領導者對我們不忠誠,我們又怎能對工作產生承諾?
The very concept of putting a number or a resource before a person flies directly in the face of the protection our anthropology says leaders are supposed to offer. It’s like parents putting the care 維護人性尊嚴優先於數字或資源
of their car before the care of their child. It can rip apart the very fabric of the family. Such a redefining of the modern leader wreaks the same havoc on relationships in our companies (or even our society) as it does in our families. 在關愛子女之前,他們更關注自己的車輛。這可能會撕裂家庭的根基。這種對現代領袖的重新定義,也對我們公司(甚至整個社會)中的人際關係造成同樣的破壞,就如同對家庭關係的破壞一樣。
Starting in earnest in the 1980s, public institutions and industries succumbed to this new economic perspective. The consumer products industry, the food industry, the media, banking, Wall Street, even the Congress of the United States have all, to varying degrees, abandoned the people they exist to serve in favor of more selfish priorities. Those in positions of authority and responsibility more readily allow outside constituents-sometimes unengaged constituents-to influence their decisions and actions. By agreeing to offer a supply to meet the demands of outsiders, these leaders who act like followers may make the profit they expect, while harming the people they claim to be serving. Long-term thinking gives way to short-term thinking and selfish replaces selfless, sometimes even in the name of service. But it’s service in name only. 自 1980 年代初期起,公共機構和行業屈從於這種新的經濟視角。消費品行業、食品行業、媒體、銀行、華爾街,甚至美國國會,都在不同程度上拋棄了他們所存在的人民,轉而追求更自私的優先事項。那些有權力和責任的人更容易讓外部利益相關者,有時甚至是未參與的利益相關者,影響他們的決策和行動。通過同意提供供應以滿足外部人的需求,這些行為像是追隨者的領導者可能會獲得預期的利潤,但卻傷害了他們聲稱要服務的人民。長遠思考被短期思考所取代,自私取代了無私,有時甚至以服務之名。但這種只是名義上的服務。
This new leadership priority rattles the very foundation upon which trust and cooperation are built. This has nothing to do with restricting a free market economy. This has to do with forgetting that people-living, breathing people, those who will play a greater role in our ability to innovate, make progress and beat our competition-are now no longer viewed as our most valuable asset as we aim to compete with the numbers. If anything, prioritizing performance over people undermines the free market economy. 這新的領導優先事項動搖了建立信任和合作的基礎。這與限制自由市場經濟無關。這是關於忘記人們—生活、呼吸的人們,那些將在我們創新、取得進步和打敗競爭對手的能力中發揮更大作用的人—不再被視為我們最寶貴的資產,因為我們旨在與數字競爭。如果說什麼的話,將績效置於人員之上會削弱自由市場經濟。
The better the products, services and experiences a company is able to offer its customers, the more it can drive demand for those products, services and experiences. And there is no better way to compete in a market economy than by creating more demand and having greater control over the supply-which all boils down to the will of those who work for us. Better products, services and experiences are usually the result of the employees who invented, innovated or supplied them. As soon as people are put second on the priority list, differentiation gives way to commoditization. And when that happens, innovation declines and the pressure to compete on things like price, and other short-term strategies, goes up. 產品、服務和體驗越好,公司能為客戶提供的越多,就越能推動這些產品、服務和體驗的需求。在市場經濟中,沒有比創造更多需求和對供給擁有更大控制權更好的方式了,這一切都歸結於為我們工作的人的意願。通常,更好的產品、服務和體驗都是由發明、創新或提供它們的員工產生的。一旦人們在優先順序中被置於次要地位,差異化就會讓位於同質化。當這種情況發生時,創新就會下降,靠價格等短期策略來競爭的壓力就會上升。
In fact, the more financial analysts who cover a company, the less innovative the company. According to a 2013 study that appeared in the Journal of Financial Economics, companies covered by a larger number of analysts file fewer patents than companies covered by fewer analysts. And the patents those companies do generate tend to have lower impact. The evidence supports the idea that “analysts exert too much pressure on managers to meet short-term goals, impeding firms’ investment in long-term innovative projects.” Put simply, the more pressure the leaders of a public company feel to meet the expectations of an outside constituency, the more likely they are to reduce their capacity for better products and services. 事實上,越多的財務分析師覆蓋一家公司,該公司的創新性就越低。根據 2013 年出現在《金融經濟學》雜誌上的一項研究,被更多分析師覆蓋的公司申請的專利數量少於被較少分析師覆蓋的公司。而這些公司所產生的專利往往也往往影響較小。該研究結果支持了這一觀點,即「分析師對管理者施加過大的壓力,要求他們達成短期目標,妨礙了企業投資長期創新項目」。簡而言之,公眾公司的領導人為滿足外部利益相關方的預期而感受到的壓力越大,他們提升產品和服務質量的能力就越弱。
When Leaders Eat First 當領導者先吃
SINCE THE BOOMERS took over the running of business and government, we have experienced three significant stock market crashes. One in 1987 that corrected for a period of excessive speculation and, some argue, an overreliance on computer programs to make trades instead of people. One in 2000, after the burst of the dot-com bubble. And one in 2008 that followed the collapse of the overvalued housing market. Before 1987, there hadn’t been a stock market crash since the Great Depression, which itself followed the excess and overvaluations of the 1920s. If we do not find ways to correct the imbalance ourselves, the laws of nature will always balance it for us. 自從 baby boomers 接管了商業和政府的運作,我們經歷了三次重大的股市崩盤。1987 年的一次,糾正了一段過度投機和過度依賴電腦交易程式而不是人工交易的時期。2000 年的一次,在互聯網泡沫破裂後。2008 年的一次,緊隨著房地產泡沫的崩塌。在 1987 年之前,自大蕭條以來還沒有發生過股市崩盤,而大蕭條本身則是源於上世紀 20 年代的過度和資產泡沫。如果我們不能自行糾正這種失衡,自然法則總會為我們做出平衡。
Too many of the environments in which we work today frustrate our natural inclinations to trust and cooperate. 我們今天工作的環境中,太多反對我們信任和合作的自然傾向。
For a species born in a time when resources were limited and dangers were great, our natural inclination to share and cooperate is complicated when resources are plenty and outside dangers are few. 對於出生在資源有限且危險重重的時代的物種而言,當資源豐富且外部危險稀少時,我們自然傾向於分享和合作的傾向變得複雜。
When we have less, we tend to be more open to sharing what we have. A Bedouin tribe or nomadic Mongolian family doesn’t have much, yet they are happy to share because it is in their interest to do so. If you happen upon them in your travels, they will open up their homes and give you their food and hospitality. It’s not just because they are nice people; it’s because their survival depends on sharing, for they know that they may be the travelers in need of food and shelter another day. Ironically, the more we have, the bigger our fences, the more sophisticated our security to keep people away and the less we want to share. Our desire for more, combined with our reduced physical interaction with the “common folk,” starts to create a disconnection or blindness to reality. 當我們擁有更少時,我們傾向更願意分享我們所擁有的。貝都因族或游牧蒙古家庭並不擁有太多,但他們很樂意分享,因為這符合他們的利益。在旅途中遇到他們,他們會敞開家門,提供食物和款待。這不僅是因為他們是善良的人,而是因為他們的生存需要分享,因為他們知道自己有朝一日也可能成為需要食物和庇護的旅行者。諷刺的是,我們擁有的越多,我們的圍牆就越高,我們的保安就越複雜,為了防止他人靠近,我們也就越不願意分享。我們對於更多的渴望,以及我們與「普通百姓」的實際互動減少,開始導致我們與現實產生脫節或視而不見。
Unfortunately, too many of the environments in which we work today do more to frustrate than to foster our natural inclinations to trust and cooperate. A new set of values and norms has been established for our businesses and our society-a system of dopamine-driven performance that rewards us for individual achievement at the expense of the balancing effects of serotonin and oxytocin that reward us for working together and building bonds of trust and loyalty. It is this imbalance that causes stock markets to crash. It is this imbalance in corporate cultures that affects the stability of large organizations. (Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and Lehman Brothers are just a few examples of large, “stable” organizations that collapsed because of imbalances in their cultures.) The seeming lack of effort to want to change this system only creates greater imbalance of the chemicals. And so the vicious cycle continues. Our health is at risk. Our economy is at risk. The stability of our companies is at risk. And who knows what else. 非常可惜,我們今天工作的環境太多會挫折而不是培養我們對信任和合作的自然傾向。一套新的價值觀和規範已為我們的企業和社會建立起來——一個獎勵個人成就而忽略了白質素和催產素平衡效果的多巴胺驅動型績效系統,這些白質素和催產素獎勵我們共同工作並建立信任和忠誠的紐帶。正是這種失衡引發了股市崩盤。正是這種企業文化的失衡影響到大型組織的穩定性。(安然、泰科、WorldCom 和雷曼兄弟都是大型「穩定」組織,由於其文化失衡而崩潰的幾個例子。)對這一制度缺乏改變的努力只會造成化學物質失衡更加嚴重。於是惡性循環持續下去。我們的健康受到威脅。我們的經濟受到威脅。我們公司的穩定性受到威脅。別無他物。
The big Boomer generation has, by accident, created a world quite out of balance. And imbalance, as history has proven over and over, will self-correct suddenly and aggressively unless we are smart enough to correct it ourselves slowly and methodically. Given our inclination for instant gratification and the weak Circles of Safety in our organizations, however, our leaders may not have the confidence or patience to do what needs to be done. 大型嬰兒潮世代偶然創造了一個大大失衡的世界。歷史已一次次證明,如果我們自己不聰明地慢慢有條不紊地修正,失衡的局面會突然並強硬地自行修正。然而,鑑於我們對即時滿足的傾向及我們組織中安全圈的脆弱性,我們的領導人可能沒有信心或耐心去做必須做的事。
Obviously, we can’t simply blame an entire generation for the ills we face today. Nor can we blame an industry, any particular CEO or 我們不能簡單地將今日的諸多問題歸咎於整個世代。我們也不能將其責怪於任何一個行業、任何特定的 CEO 或是
“the corporations.” There aren’t comic book-style archenemies running companies, trying to take over the world, who we can simply set our sights on overthrowing to right all that is wrong. But there is a lack of empathy and humanity in the way we do business today. There are smart executives running companies and managing systems, but there seems to be a distinct lack of strong leaders to lead the people. 企業。今天,我們無法簡單地瞄準那些以企圖統治世界為目標的漫畫反派來糾正一切錯誤。然而,我們在做商業時缺乏同理心和人性。企業中有聰明的高管在運營系統,但似乎缺乏堅強的領導者來帶領員工。
As Bob Chapman, CEO of Barry-Wehmiller, is fond of saying, “No one wakes up in the morning to go to work with the hope that someone will manage us. We wake up in the morning and go to work with the hope that someone will lead us.” The problem is, for us to be led, there must be leaders we want to follow. 巴里-韋米勒的首席執行官鮑勃·查普曼常說,「沒有人早上起床去上班,希望有人管理我們。我們早上起床去上班,希望有人領導我們。」問題在於,要被領導,必須有我們願意追隨的領導者。
Dehumanization 脫人性化
OUR INTERNAL WIRING, though complicated and messy in practice, is pretty straightforward in intention. Designed during a time when we lived in small groups with limited resources and great dangers around us, our chemical incentive system was built to help us manage and thrive in what was a very tangible world. We knew all the people with whom we lived and worked. We saw the things we needed and we worked together to get them. We saw the things that threatened us and we worked together to protect each other from them. 我們內在的布線,雖然在實踐中複雜與凌亂,但其本意卻是相當簡單直接。它是在我們生活於小型群體、資源有限且周遭危險重重的時代設計的,我們的化學獎賞系統旨在幫助我們管理並在這個實在有形的世界中茁壯。我們認識生活和工作中的所有人。我們知道所需的東西,並共同合作取得。我們也看見威脅我們的事物,並共同努力保護彼此。
The problem now is that we have produced an abundance of nearly everything we need or want. And we don’t do well with abundance. It can short-circuit our systems and actually do damage to us and to our organizations. Abundance can be destructive not because it is bad for us, per se. Abundance can be destructive because it abstracts the value of things. The more we have, the less we seem to value what we’ve got. And if the abstraction of stuff makes us value it less, imagine what it does to our relationships. 我們現在生產幾乎所有我們需要或想要的東西都過剩了。而我們不擅長處理過剩。這可能會損害我們和我們的組織。過剩並非壞事。但過剩可能會抽象化事物的價值。我們擁有越多,我們似乎越不重視我們所擁有的。如果物質的抽象化使我們對它們的重視降低,那麼想想它對我們的人際關係會產生什麼影響。
The scale at which we are able to operate today is sometimes too big for us to wrap our heads around. By its very nature, scale creates distance, and at distance, human concepts start losing their 常失真。
meaning. A consumer is just that: an abstraction of a person who we hope will consume whatever we have to offer. We try to guess what this “consumer” wants so that they will consume more of what we have. And if they do, we will keep track of lots of metrics so that we may better manage the process. And as our processes, metrics and scale continue to grow, we employ technology to help us operate at greater speed and scale. In other words, the human beings, the end users of all this, become so far removed from the people who mean to serve them that they simply become just another metric to be managed. The more distance there is between or the more things we do that amplify the abstraction, the harder it becomes to see each other as human. It is not the abundance we need to manage or restrict, it is the abstraction. 消費者。消費者只是這樣一個抽象概念:我們希望他們能夠消費我們所提供的一切。我們試圖猜測這個「消費者」想要什麼,以便他們能夠消費更多我們所擁有的東西。如果他們這麼做了,我們就會追蹤大量的指標,以便我們能夠更好地管理這個過程。而隨著我們的流程、指標和規模不斷增長,我們也會運用技術來幫助我們以更快的速度和更大的規模來運作。換句話說,最終使用者 - 人類本身,與那些本來是想要為他們服務的人變得越來越遠,以至於他們只不過是另一個需要管理的指標。我們之間的距離越大,或者我們做的事情越多,就越能放大這種抽象化,我們就越難將彼此視為人類。我們需要管理或限制的,不是豐富的產品,而是這種抽象化。
We no longer see each other as people; we are now customers, shareholders, employees, avatars, online profiles, screen names, email addresses and expenses to be tracked. The human being really has gone virtual. Now more than ever, we are trying to work and live, be productive and happy, in a world in which we are strangers to those around us. The problem is, abstraction can be more than bad for our economy . . it can be quite deadly. 我們不再把彼此視為人;我們現在是顧客、股東、員工、化身、線上個人檔案、線上名稱、電子郵件地址和須追蹤的開支。人類的本質已經變成了虛擬。現在比任何時候都更需要在一個陌生人環繞的世界裏工作和生活,保持生產力和幸福。問題是,抽象化不僅對我們的經濟有害,事實上還可能相當致命。
[ THE ABSTRACT CHALLENGE ] 抽象挑戰
CHAPTER 13 第十三章
Abstraction Kills 抽象殺害
“Let me out of here!” he shouted. “Let me out! Let me out!” Kept in a small room with no windows, he started banging on the wall to get the attention of the others. “You have no right to hold me here!” he screamed. "讓我離開這裡!"他喊道。"讓我離開!讓我離開!"被關在一間沒有窗戶的小房間裡,他開始敲打牆壁想引起其他人的注意。"你們無權把我困在這裡!"他尖叫。
The man enlisted to help that day sat at the control console. He started to get nervous. He could hear the muffled pleas from the other room. He looked up at the man in charge, and, as if stating something not already terribly obvious, said, “He’s in pain.” 這名男子在當天報名參與幫助。他坐在控制台前開始感到緊張。他能聽到隔壁房間傳來的嗚咽求救聲。他抬頭看向主管,彷彿在陳述一些已經十分明顯的事情,說道:「他在痛苦。」
But the man in charge showed no emotion. Nothing. He said only one thing: “The experiment requires that you continue.” And so the man enlisted to help that day turned back to the control panel, muttering to himself, “lt’s got to go on. It’s got to go on.” He flipped the switch and administered another electric shock to the stranger in the other room. 但負責人毫無表情。什麼也沒有。他只說了一句話:「這項實驗要求你繼續。」於是那天提供協助的人又轉回控制台,自言自語地說:「必須繼續進行。必須繼續進行。」他翻動開關,對另一個房間的陌生人施加了另一次電擊。
“You have no right to hold me here!” shouted the man in the other room again. But no one answered him and the experiment continued. “Let me out!” he continued to scream hysterically. “My "你無權把我留在這裡!"那個在另一個房間裡的男人再次喊道。但是沒有人回答他,實驗繼續進行。"讓我出去!"他繼續歇斯底里地尖叫。"我
heart’s bothering me! Let me out!” Then suddenly, the screaming stopped and the experiment was over. 心裡讓我困擾!讓我出去!」然後突然,尖叫停止了,實驗結束了。
As World War II was moving toward its conclusion, the main architects of the Nazi movement-Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Joseph Goebbels-managed to escape capture by committing suicide. Others were not able to avoid justice. They were rounded up and put on trial for their roles in the systematic genocide committed during the war. Crimes against humanity was one of the charges levied against the twenty-four most senior Nazis captured, most of whom were found guilty for their respective roles. But there was one man who was conspicuously absent during the Nuremburg Trials. 在第二次世界大戰接近尾聲時,納粹運動的主要設計者-阿道夫·希特勒、海因里希·希姆萊和約瑟夫·戈培爾斯,透過自殺逃脫了被捕的命運。其他人則無法逃避正義的制裁。他們被逮捕並受審,就其在戰時所犯下有系統的種族滅絕罪行承擔責任。二十四名被捕的納粹高官大多被判有罪,其中有一人在紐倫堡審判期間引人注目地缺席。
Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer, or lieutenant colonel, Adolf Eichmann played a significant role in the organizing of the Holocaust. He was responsible for managing the logistics of rounding up and deporting mass numbers of Jews and other unwanted groups to the ghettos and concentration camps across Eastern Europe. He was the one who oversaw the process that sent innocent men, women and children, young and old, to the death camps. But after the war, using falsified papers, he was able to escape Germany and make his way to Argentina. For fifteen years Eichmann lived a relatively normal, suburban life under the name Ricardo Klement until he was captured by Israeli agents in 1960 and brought back to face trial in Jerusalem. 納粹 SS-Obersturmbannführer,或上尉,阿道夫·艾希曼在組織大屠殺中擔任重要角色。他負責管理集合和驅逐數以百計的猶太人和其他不受歡迎群體到東歐的貧民窟和集中營的後勤工作。他是監督這一過程的人,他將無辜的男女老少送往死亡集中營。但在戰爭結束後,他使用偽造的文件逃離德國,前往阿根廷。15 年來,艾希曼在里卡多·克萊門特的化名下過著相對正常的郊區生活,直到 1960 年被以色列特工捕捉並押解到耶路撒冷接受審判。
Eichmann’s capture reignited debate over how the Holocaust could have happened in the first place. It wasn’t possible for just a few warped minds to have effectively committed genocide on such a remarkable scale. That amount of planning and organization and logistics required the help of thousands if not millions of people. It required the involvement of all levels of soldiers perpetrating the actual crimes and millions of ordinary Germans willfully turning a blind eye. 艾希曼的被捕重新引發了對大屠殺如何在一開始就發生的論辯。僅憑少數扭曲的心智是不可能有效地在如此巨大規模上犯下種族滅絕罪行的。如此龐大的計劃、組織和後勤需要數千甚至數百萬人的幫助。需要所有層級的士兵參與犯罪的實施,以及數百萬個普通德國人自願視而不見。
Some believed that there was a collective intent, that an entire population had abandoned all humanity and morality. Others saw it differently. The common defense that many Nazis and Germans offered after the war was less dramatic. “We had no choice,” they said, “we were just following orders.” That was the mantra. Whether they were senior officials held accountable for their roles, or ordinary 有人相信存在集體意圖,整個民族拋棄了全人類和道德。其他人則看得不同。許多納粹和德國人戰後提出的共同辯護並不那麼戲劇化。「我們別無選擇,」他們說,「我們只是在服從命令。」那就是他們的口號。不管是高級官員為其角色負責,還是普通人。
soldiers and civilians who tried to rebuild a sense of normalcy after the upheaval of the war, they were able to rationalize their actions, avoiding personal responsibility by holding their superiors accountable. This is what they would tell their grandchildren. “We were just following orders.” 戰後,士兵和平民試圖重建正常生活,他們能夠合理化自己的行為,推卸個人責任,將責任歸咎於上級。這就是他們會告訴孫輩的話:「我們只是在服從命令。」
Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, wanted to understand more. Were we humans such lemmings that if someone who outranked us, someone in a position of authority, ordered us to do something entirely counter to our moral code, our sense of right and wrong, we would simply obey? Sure it’s possible on a small scale, but on such a mass scale? 斯坦利·米格拉姆,一位耶魯大學心理學家,想要更深入地理解人性。我們人類是否真的如同萌猥一般,只要被凌駕於我們之上,擁有權威地位的人下令做某些違背我們道德準則、對錯感的事情,我們就會無條件服從?這樣的情況可能在小規模中發生,但會在大規模中發生嗎?
So in 1961, just a few months after Adolf Eichmann’s trial began in Israel, Milgram designed an experiment to understand our obedience to authority. The experiment was relatively simple. In each enactment, there were two volunteers. One would play the role of the teacher and the other would play the role of the student. The person who played the student was actually another scientist involved in the experiment. (To assign the roles, the real volunteer was asked to pick a piece of paper out of a hat that indicated if they would be the teacher or the student. In fact, both folded pieces of paper said teacher on them, giving the illusion to the volunteer that their role was picked by chance.) 所以在 1961 年,就在阿道夫·艾希曼在以色列接受审判的几个月后,米爾格拉姆設計了一個實驗,以了解我們對權威的順從。這個實驗相當簡單。在每個表演中,都有兩個志願者。一個人扮演教師的角色,另一個人則扮演學生的角色。扮演學生角色的人實際上是參與實驗的另一位科學家。(為了分配角色,真正的志願者被要求從帽子裡抽出一張紙,上面寫明他們是教師還是學生。事實上,兩張折疊的紙條都寫著教師,給志願者一種由機會決定角色的錯覺。)
The volunteers who played the role of the teachers, recruited from a newspaper ad and told they were taking part in an investigation into memory and learning, sat at a console with a series of switches. Each one was told that a series of questions would be asked of the student. If the student got the wrong answer or refused to answer the question, the teacher was to flip a switch on the console to administer an electric shock to the student. In fact, the only electric shocks administered during the entire experiment were mild, 15 -volt shocks given to the teachers just so they could have a sense of what it felt like. 擔任教師角色的義工,是從報紙廣告招募而來,被告知他們是參與一項關於記憶和學習的調查,他們坐在一台配有一系列開關的控制台前。每個人被告知,會被問一連串問題。如果學生答錯或拒絕回答問題,老師就要翻動控制台上的開關,向學生施加電擊。事實上,在整個實驗過程中,唯一施加的電擊是輕微的 15 伏特電擊,且只提供給老師,讓他們能感受一下電擊的感覺。
There were thirty switches on the console, labeled from 15 volts to 450 volts. With each switch labeled in 15 -volt increments, it was made very clear to the teacher that with each switch the shocks would get increasingly more severe. To make sure that the teacher understood the implications of the increasing severity of the shocks, 控制台上有三十個開關,標有從 15 伏特到 450 伏特的標籤。每個開關的標籤都是 15 伏特的增量,這讓老師非常清楚地知道,隨著每個開關,電擊會越來越嚴重。為了確保老師了解電擊嚴重性不斷增加的含義,
there were also labels placed above certain ranges. The voltage range of 15 to 75, for example, was labeled “Slight Shock.” Written above the 75 -to-120-volt range of switches was “Moderate Shock.” The 135-to-180-volt range was labeled “Strong Shock.” “Very Strong Shock,” “Intense Shock” and “Extreme Intensity Shock” covered the next few ranges until the voltages reached “Danger: Severe Shock” above the 375 -to- 420 -volt switches. The final range, 435 to 450 volts, was painted red and marked simply “XXX.” There was no confusion as to what the switches meant. 有些範圍上方也放置了標籤。例如 15 至 75 伏特的電壓範圍被標記為「輕微電擊」。75 至 120 伏特範圍的開關上寫著「中度電擊」。135 至 180 伏特範圍被標記為「強烈電擊」。「非常強烈電擊」、「強烈電擊」和「極強度電擊」覆蓋了接下來的一些範圍,直到電壓達到 375 至 420 伏特開關上的「危險:嚴重電擊」。最後的 435 至 450 伏特範圍被漆成紅色,簡單標記為「XXX」。這些開關的含義一目了然。
The 160 volunteers were put through the experiment with four variations, 40 volunteers for each setup. In one variation, the scientist playing the student sat right next to the teacher and the teacher had to physically place the student’s hand onto a shock plate. In another variation, the student was in the room with the teacher. The teacher could see and hear the student’s reactions after each shock was administered. There was no uncertainty about the impact of each successive decision to flip a switch. 美國 160 名志願者參與了四種不同的實驗,每種實驗 40 名志願者。其中一種情況下,扮演學生角色的科學家坐在老師旁邊,老師必須親手把學生的手放到電擊板上。另一種情況下,學生與老師在同一個房間,老師能看到和聽到學生每次電擊後的反應。每次決定打開開關並不存在任何不確定性。
In another variation, the student was kept in a separate room. Though the teacher was unable to see the effects of the shocks, they could clearly hear the student’s protests and screams through the walls. In all of these variations, the teacher could hear the scientist playing the role of the student pretending to express discomfort at first and then shouting and pleading for the experiment to end as it progressed. “Stop!” they would scream. “This hurts!” In yet one more variation, however, the student was kept in another room, and but for thumping on the walls, the teacher could neither see nor hear the student’s reactions to the shocks. 在另一個變型中,學生被關在一個單獨的房間裡。雖然老師無法看到電擊的效果,但他們可以清楚地通過牆壁聽到學生的抗議和尖叫聲。在所有這些變型中,老師都能聽到科學家在扮演學生的角色,起初假裝表現不適,然後大喊大叫求實驗停止。"停下來!"他們會尖叫。"這很痛!"然而,在另一種變型中,學生被關在另一個房間,除了在牆壁上敲打之外,老師既看不到也聽不到學生對電擊的反應。
As expected, all the volunteers expressed concern. As they realized or believed they were causing pain to the student, they would look up to the scientist, standing next to them in a white lab coat with clipboard in hand, and ask if they should continue despite the pain they were knowingly inflicting. The first time the volunteer expressed a desire to stop the experiment or no longer be a part of it, the scientist would say, “Please continue.” If the volunteer expressed a desire to stop a second time, the scientist would always say, “The experiment requires that you continue.” 正如預期,所有的志願者都表示關切。當他們意識到或相信他們正在給學生造成痛苦時,他們會抬頭看向身穿白色實驗衣手握剪貼板的科學家,並詢問他們是否應該在明知造成痛苦的情況下繼續實驗。當志願者第一次表達停止實驗或不再參與的意願時,科學家會說「請繼續」。如果志願者第二次表達停止的意願,科學家總會說「實驗要求你必須繼續」。
As they went further and further down the line of switches, some of the volunteers started to get nervous. Very nervous. They started sweating and shaking. Although extremely uncomfortable, most went on with the experiment. Upon the third request to halt the experiment, the scientist replied coldly, “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” After a fourth protest, the scientist responded simply, “You have no other choice, you must go on.” If any other protests were expressed, the experiment would immediately end. 在他們沿著開關逐漸深入的過程中,有些志願者開始感到緊張。非常緊張。他們開始出汗和顫抖。儘管感到極度不舒服,大多數人仍繼續進行實驗。在第三次要求暫停實驗後,科學家冷冷地回答說:「繼續進行是絕對必要的。」在第四次抗議後,科學家簡單地回應:「你別無選擇,你必須繼續。」如果再有任何其他抗議,實驗將立即結束。
How far do you think you would go? How much pain could you cause someone before you would stop? Most of us would say we would not go very far and that we would have quit long before we believed we had caused any serious harm to someone. And the scientists expected the same thing. Before the experiment, they predicted that 2 percent to 3 percent would go all the way, and those people would exhibit psychopathic tendencies. But the actual results were horrifying. 你認為你會走多遠?你能在停下來之前對某人造成多大的痛苦?我們大多數人會說,我們不會走太遠,我們會在認為自己對某人造成任何嚴重傷害之前就放棄。科學家也預期會是這樣的結果。在實驗開始前,他們預測 2%到 3%的人會一直堅持到底,而這些人會表現出精神病傾向。但實際結果令人震驚。
When the volunteers had to physically place the student’s hand on the shock plate, 70 percent quit the experiment without going very far. When the volunteers were in the same room but didn’t have to physically touch the student, the number went down slightly, with 60 percent refusing to continue. But when they could neither see the students in pain nor hear their cries, only 35 percent refused to continue. That means 65 percent of the volunteers were able to go through the entire experiment, reach the final switch and, for all intents and purposes, kill someone. 當義工必須將學生的手放在電擊板上時,70%的人在實驗進行不久就退出了。當義工與學生在同一房間但不必身體接觸時,拒絕繼續的人數略有下降,為 60%。但當他們既看不到受痛苦的學生,也聽不到他們的呼救聲時,只有 35%的人拒絕繼續。這意味著 65%的義工能夠完成整個實驗,達到最終開關,從各方面來看,都是在殺害某人。
The experiment has been criticized for being unethical, and for good reason. Nearly eighty people who woke up that morning with the belief they were good people went home that day with the knowledge they could kill someone. Though they expressed concern, though they were nervous, though they had a sense that what they were doing could have a negative impact, even a seriously negative impact, the majority still went all the way. 這個實驗因為不道德而受到批評,而且理由很充分。那天早上認為自己是善良的人的近八十人,回家那天知道自己可以殺死某人。雖然他們表達了擔憂,雖然他們感到緊張,雖然他們感覺到他們的行為可能會產生負面影響,甚至嚴重的負面影響,但大多數人仍然堅持到底。
Upon the conclusion of the experiment, despite believing that the student may be hurt or worse, the volunteers expressed concern for their own culpability, insisting that they should not be held responsible. Not a single volunteer showed any concern for the 學生的福祉。
student’s well-being. None asked to look in the other room. They were more concerned with their own skins. 學生的福祉。無人要求查看另一個房間。他們更關注自己的皮膚。
Eventually, the volunteers were debriefed and shown that the student, who was played by a scientist, was fine and unhurt. They were assured that no shocks were given and that no pain was caused at any time. Some of those who obeyed, who went all the way, now felt remorse for what they had done. They had a sense of personal responsibility. Others who went all the way, in contrast, justified their actions by blaming the scientists. If there were any repercussions, they reasoned, it would be the guys in charge, not them, who would be held responsible. After all, they were just doing as they were told. Some even went so far as to transfer blame to the student. “He was so stupid and stubborn,” said one volunteer trying to come to terms with his actions, “he deserved to be shocked.” 最後,志願者被詢問過,並被告知該學生,原來是由一位科學家扮演的,一切都很好,沒有受傷。他們獲得保證,沒有給予任何電擊,也沒有造成任何痛苦。有些服從命令徹底完成任務的人,現在對自己的所作所為感到懊悔。他們有自己的個人責任感。相反,其他徹底完成任務的人,則把責任歸咎於科學家。他們認為,如果有任何後果,應該由負責人來承擔,而不是他們,畢竟他們只是在照做指示。有些人甚至把責任轉嫁到學生身上。「他太愚蠢和固執了,」一位志願者試圖解釋自己的行為,「他應該被電擊。」
Interestingly, nearly all those volunteers who refused to continue to take part in the experiment once they realized they were causing pain to someone else felt accountable to a greater moral imperative. Some were religious but all of them felt they were accountable to a higher authority than the scientists in the room. 有趣的是,幾乎所有那些當意識到自己正在造成他人痛苦時,拒絕繼續參與實驗的志願者,都感到有責任去遵守一個更高尚的道德命令。有些人是宗教人士,但他們全都感到自己對比房間裡的科學家更受到一個更高權威的約束。
The reality is, Milgram’s experiment is being carried out every single day in offices across the country and around the world. The cycle of abstraction endemic to our brand of capitalism is easily seen when we take a broader view of Milgram’s conclusions. Abstraction is no longer restricted to physical space; it also includes the abstracting nature of numbers. The bigger our companies get, the more physical distance is created between us and the people who work for us or buy our products. At such scale, we can no longer just walk into the aisles and count the cans of soup on the shelf either. Now we rely on documents that report the numbers of what we’ve sold and how much we’ve made. When we divorce ourselves from humanity through numerical abstraction, we are, like Milgram’s volunteers, capable of inhuman behavior. Just like the conditions Milgram set in his experiment, the physical separation between us and those on the receiving end of our decisions can have a dramatic impact on lives . . . the lives of people who cannot be seen or heard. The more abstract people become, the more capable we are of doing them harm. 米爾格拉姆的實驗每天都在全國各地和世界各地的辦公室中進行。當我們更廣泛地看待米爾格拉姆的結論時,我們的資本主義品牌所固有的抽象循環就很容易看到。抽象性不再局限於物理空間;它也包括數字的抽象性質。我們的公司越大,我們與為我們工作或購買我們產品的人之間的物理距離就越大。在這種規模上,我們也不再能夠直接走進貨架上查看湯罐的數量。現在,我們依賴文件來報告我們銷售的數量和收益。當我們通過數字抽象將自己與人性分離時,我們就像米爾格拉姆的志願者一樣,有能力表現出非人性的行為。正如米爾格拉姆在實驗中設置的條件一樣,我們與決策受影響者之間的物理隔離可能會對生命產生巨大影響......這些人無法被看到或聽到。人變得越抽象,我們就越有能力去傷害他們。
Modern Abstraction 現代抽象主義
Milgram's Findings Come to Life 米爾格拉姆的發現
IN 2009, the New York Times and nearly every other major news outlet carried a story about an outbreak of salmonella that killed nine people and sickened more than seven hundred others. The outbreak triggered the biggest food recall in American history. The contamination was traced to products made by over three hundred companies using peanuts and peanut meal supplied by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) of Lynchburg, Virginia. Did the head of PCA do everything in his power to make sure the people who trusted him and his company were safe? Sadly, no. 於 2009 年,紐約時報和其他幾乎所有主要新聞媒體報導了一起沙門氏菌疫情,造成 9 人死亡,700 多人染病。這次疫情引發了美國歷史上規模最大的食品召回。污染源追溯到弗吉尼亞州林奇堡的美國花生公司(PCA)提供的花生及花生粉製品。PCA 負責人有盡其所能確保信任他和公司的人的安全嗎?遺憾的是,並沒有。
FDA investigators concluded that PCA knowingly shipped tainted products (charges the company denies). And the extensive evidence that company executives put enormous pressure on employees to meet targets is hard to ignore. Stewart Parnell, the president of the Peanut Corporation of America, sent an e-mail to one of his plant managers complaining the positive salmonella tests were “costing us huge $$$$\$ \$ \$ \$, causing obviously a huge lapse in time from the time we pick up peanuts until the time we can invoice,” according to court documents. (Four years later, as this book was going to press, federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against Mr. Parnell and his team. The company went out of business in 2009.) When our relationships with customers or employees become abstract concepts, we naturally pursue the most tangible thing we can seethe metrics. Leaders who put a premium on numbers over lives are, more often than not, physically separated from the people they serve. FDA 調查人員得出結論,PCA 公司明知故犯地出貨受污染產品(該公司否認此指控)。公司高層向員工施加巨大壓力以達成銷售目標的大量證據,難以被忽視。根據法庭文件,美國花生公司總裁 Stewart Parnell 曾向一名廠長發電郵抱怨,沙門氏菌呈陽性的檢測結果「給我們造成了巨大損失,顯然從採收花生到開具發票之間的時間差太長」。(四年後,在這本書付梓之際,聯邦檢察官對 Parnell 先生及其團隊提出刑事指控。該公司於 2009 年結業。)當我們與顧客或員工的關係變成抽象概念時,我們自然會追求最切實可見的事物——指標。把數字凌駕於生命之上的領導者,往往與其服務對象隔絕於形而上。
Putting Mr. Parnell aside, what about all the people who worked in the company who did as they were told? In a weak culture, employees see their employer just as Milgram’s subjects saw the scientist—as the final authority figure. A leader who presides over a weak culture does not invest in programs to build the confidence of their people so that they will do the right thing. Instead, command and control perpetuates a system in which people will more likely do the thing that’s right for them. Uncertainty, silos and politics-all of which thrive in a command-and-control culture and work counter to the concept of a Circle of Safety-increase our stress and hurt our ability to form relationships to the point where self-preservation becomes our primary focus. 把帕內爾先生放在一邊,那些在公司裡按指示做事的人怎麼辦?在一個薄弱的文化中,員工看到他們的雇主就像米爾格朗的被試者看到科學家一樣——作為最終的權威人物。一個領導人在主導一個薄弱的文化時,不會投資於建立員工自信的計劃,使他們能夠做正確的事情。相反,命令和控制永續了一個系統,在這個系統中,人們更有可能做對自己有利的事情。不確定性、部門間的隔閡和政治——所有這些都在命令和控制的文化中茁壯,並與安全圈的概念相抵觸——增加了我們的壓力,並損害了我們形成關係的能力,以至於自我保護成為我們的首要任務。
Anything that separates us from the impact our words and actions have on other people has the potential to lead us down a dangerous path. As Milgram showed us, when we cannot see the impact of our decisions, when the lives of people become an abstraction, 65 percent of us have the capacity to kill someone. When we are unable to see or hear the people we are hurting, fears of getting in trouble, losing our jobs, missing the numbers or disturbing our place in the pecking order become primary drivers of decisions. And just as the German soldiers who defended their actions by pleading they were “just following orders” or Milgram’s subjects who muttered to themselves “the experiment must continue,” we have our own modern mantras to defend ourselves or pass on accountability when our decisions harm others. We work to “provide shareholder value” or “fulfill our fiduciary duty,” all the while defending our actions as “within the law” or claiming that the decisions made were above our pay grade. 任何與其他人的言行及其影響脫節的東西,都有可能將我們引入一條危險的道路。正如米爾格倫所示,當我們無法看到決定的影響時,當他人的生命成為抽象概念時,65%的人有殺害他人的能力。當我們無法看到或聽到我們傷害的人時,害怕遭到麻煩、失去工作、未達標準或干擾自己在等級制度中的地位,成為決策的主要驅動力。正如德國士兵為自己的行為辯護,說他們只是"在服從命令",或米爾格倫的受試者自言自語"實驗必須繼續",我們也有自己的現代口號來為自己辯護或推卸責任,當我們的決定傷害他人時。我們努力"為股東創造價值"或"履行我們的受託義務",同時將自己的行為辯護為"在法律範圍內",或聲稱這些決定超出了我們的職責範圍。
During the time I was researching this book, I had an argument with an investment banker at a dinner I attended. With my new understanding in hand, I pressed and pressed him on his responsibility to the people who are impacted by his decisions. I was stunned how he parroted Milgram’s volunteers. “I don’t have the authority to make those kinds of decisions,” he said to me. “It’s not my job. My job is to find the best value for my clients,” he defended. When we do not feel safe from each other in the environments in 我在研究這本書時,我與一位我參加晚宴時遇到的投資銀行家發生了爭論。以我新的理解為基礎,我一再地質詢他對受其決策影響的人的責任。我震驚於他重複米爾格朗實驗中的受試者的話:"我沒有權力做出那種決定。"他告訴我,"這不是我的工作。我的工作是為我的客戶尋找最佳價值。"當我們在環境中無法彼此感到安全時
which we work, our instincts drive us to protect ourselves at all costs instead of sharing accountability for our actions. 我們本能驅使我們以自我保護為先,而非共同承擔責任。
Faced with the reality of what the banking industry did to the economy, some bankers went beyond simply blaming the mortgage companies. Just like Milgram’s executioners trying to distance themselves from any role they played in the harm caused, even blaming the student, some bankers went so far as to blame the American homeowner for their troubles. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, told his shareholders in 2010, “We’re not evicting people who deserve to stay in their house.” 面對銀行業對經濟所造成的現實,一些銀行家不只是將責任推諉到抵押貸款公司。就像米爾格蘭的刑場人員試圖與他們在造成傷害中所扮演的角色保持距離,甚至將責任推諉到學生身上一樣,一些銀行家竟然將困境歸咎於美國房主。摩根大通銀行的 CEO 傑米·戴蒙於 2010 年告訴股東:"我們沒有驅逐那些應該留在自己房子中的人。"
The Responsibility of Business 商業責任
“THERE IS ONE and only one social responsibility of business,” said Milton Friedman in 1970, six years before winning the Nobel Prize in Economics, “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game.” By the “rules” I believe Friedman was referring to the law, a wellintentioned yet imperfect set of guidelines filled with accidental or sometimes political loopholes designed by well-intentioned or sometimes political people. 「企業唯一且唯一的社會責任」，彌爾頓·弗里德曼於 1970 年如是說,在 6 年後獲頒諾貝爾經濟學獎。「應是利用其資源並從事旨在增加其利潤的活動,只要其在遊戲規則內。」我相信弗里德曼所稱的「規則」指法律,這是出於善意而又不完善的指導方針,充滿了意外或有時政治性的漏洞,由善意或有時政治性的人設計而成。
Friedman’s words seem to have become the standard for American capitalism today. Over and over, companies demonstrate a preference for adhering to the letter of the law in their aim to drive profit over any moral responsibility they may have to people they serve or the country or economy within which they operate. Translated to Milgram’s experiment, too many leaders of companies prefer to obey the scientist instead of a higher moral authority. They can justify their actions as within the law while ignoring the intention of the laws they aim to uphold. 富里德曼的言論似乎已成為當今美國資本主義的標準。一次又一次,企業表現出更喜歡遵守法律字面意義,以追求利潤為目的,而忽視了他們對所服務的人民、所在國家或經濟所應負的道德責任。翻譯到米爾格拉姆的實驗,太多公司的領導者寧願服從科學家,而不是更高的道德權威。他們可以將自己的行為合法化,同時忽視了他們努力維護的法律本意。
Apple Inc. managed to sidestep paying tens of billions of dollars in taxes by setting up subsidiaries in Ireland, where companies are taxed based on where they are incorporated (Apple is incorporated in the United States). The U.S. tax code, in contrast, calculates a company’s tax liability based on where it makes or keeps its money 蘋果公司
(Apple was keeping all the money it made in Asia and Europe in Ireland). This distinction allowed Apple to fall between the cracks of the two countries’ tax laws and, in so doing, between 2009 and 2012, it kept $74\$ 74 billion out of the reach of the IRS, or any taxing authority for that matter. This is a fact Apple does not deny. As one of the great innovators of our day, the technique Apple pioneered of routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands then to the Caribbean to avoid American taxes has been copied by many other companies since. Yet Apple, according to Friedman’s thinking, broke no rules. 蘋果公司將其在亞洲和歐洲賺取的所有收益存放在愛爾蘭。這種區分使蘋果公司能夠逃脫兩國稅法的網絡,因此在 2009 年至 2012 年間,它使 $74\$ 74 十億美元免於美國國稅局或任何稅務機構的徵稅。這是蘋果公司無法否認的事實。作為我們時代最偉大的創新者之一,蘋果公司開創的通過愛爾蘭子公司和荷蘭再到加勒比海避稅的技術,已被許多其他公司效仿。然而,根據弗里德曼的思想,蘋果公司並未違反任何規則。
We have an absolute need to form bonds of trust. Our survival depends on it. To that end, our primitive brain is constantly evaluating the words and behaviors of companies exactly the same way it evaluates the words and behaviors of individuals. On a biological level, trust is trust, regardless with whom it is formed. If someone says or does something that makes us feel that we couldn’t trust them with our lives, then we keep our distance. Simply following the law means we should trust cheating boyfriends or girlfriends because they broke no laws of marriage. As social animals morality also matters. Our (or indeed a company’s) sense of right or wrong, despite the letter of the law, matters on a social level. This is the very foundation of civil society. 我們有絕對的需要建立信任紐帶。我們的生存依賴於此。為此,我們原始的大腦正在不斷評估公司的言行,就如同評估個人的言行一樣。在生物學層面上,信任就是信任,不論對象是誰。如果有人說或做了某些事讓我們感覺無法信任他們的生命,那麼我們就與他們保持距離。單純遵守法律並不意味著我們應該信任劈腿的男女朋友,因為他們並未違犯婚姻法。作為社會動物,道德也很重要。我們(或一家公司)的是非觀,儘管沒有違反法律,在社會層面上仍然很重要。這正是文明社會的基礎。
Timothy Cook, Apple’s CEO, raised the question of responsibility at a congressional hearing about the matter. “Unfortunately, the tax code has not kept up with the digital age,” he said. Is it the governing authority’s responsibility to close all loopholes or do companies bear some responsibility also? Is this an act of civil disobedience by Apple to force the government to do better? Apple is a good company that does good things, like giving to education, but because most people are unaware of those things, when they hear about Apple’s tax avoidance, it can affect how we trust the company. But the problem is bigger than Apple. It seems to be the standard for doing business today-to exploit the loopholes until the rules catch up (and sometimes lobby against changing the rules). And if that’s the case, then no one should have any problems with the decisions made by the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company. 蒂摩西·庫克,蘋果公司的首席執行官,在一場國會聽證會上提出了責任問題。「不幸的是,稅收法規還未跟上數位時代,」他表示。關閉所有漏洞是否是管治部門的責任,還是公司也應該承擔一些責任?這是蘋果公司為迫使政府做出更好表現而採取的公民不服從行為嗎?蘋果是一家做了很多好事的公司,像是對教育的捐助,但由於大多數人並不知道這些,當他們聽到蘋果的避稅行為時,可能會影響對公司的信任。但這個問題比蘋果公司更大。似乎成為當今商業標準 - 利用漏洞直到規則跟上(有時還游說反對改變規則)。如果是這種情況,那麼沒有人應該對海洋蒸汽航運公司的決定有任何問題。
Within the Law 在法律內
THE LARGEST SHIPS in the period before the turn of the twentieth century were predominantly ferries. They moved huge numbers of people from one place to another within close proximity to the shore. Logically, the regulations that outlined the responsibilities of the ship owners were based on how ships were used at that time-as ferries. By the time the Titanic set sail in 1912, however, the regulations had not yet been updated to reflect this new breed of oceangoing vessel (the equivalent to Timothy Cook’s “digital age”). The Titanic carried as many lifeboats as was required by the law, which was sixteen. The problem was, the Titanic was four times larger than the largest legal classification of ships of the day. 二十世紀初期最大的船舶主要是渡輪。它們將大量人員從一處運送到另一處,距離岸邊相當近。邏輯上,規定船東責任的法規是基於當時船舶被用作渡輪的用途。然而,當泰坦尼克號於 1912 年啟航時,法規尚未更新以反映這種新型的遠洋船隻(相當於蒂莫西·庫克的"數位時代")。泰坦尼克號載有法律要求的 16 艘救生艇。問題在於,泰坦尼克號的規模是當時最大合法船舶類別的 4 倍。
The Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, the Titanic’s owner, adhered to the outdated regulation (in fact, they actually added four more inflatable rafts). Unfortunately, as we all know, on April 14, 1912, just four days after leaving port on its maiden voyage, the Titanic struck an iceberg far from any shoreline. There were not enough lifeboats for everyone and more than 1,500 of the 2,224 passengers and crew on board died as a result. A ship four times bigger than the largest classification carried only a quarter of the lifeboats they actually needed. Not surprising, only a few more than a quarter of the passengers and crew survived that day. 大洋蒸汽航運公司,泰坦尼克號的擁有者,堅持使用過時的規定(事實上,他們實際上增加了四艘充氣救生筏)。不幸的是,正如我們所知,在 1912 年 4 月 14 日,泰坦尼克號在初次航行後的四天內,在遠離岸線的地方撞上了一座冰山。沒有足夠的救生艇供所有人使用,2,224 名乘客和船員中有超過 1,500 人遇難。一艘比最大分類船隻大四倍的船只,只有四分之一所需的救生艇。不足為奇,只有四分之一多一點點的乘客和船員當天倖存。
The entire shipping industry was fully aware that the outdated regulation would soon be updated. In fact, additional space was added aboard the deck of the Titanic in expectation of a “lifeboats for all” requirement. But lifeboats were expensive. They require maintenance and could affect a ship’s stability, so executives at the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company decided not to add the lifeboats until the regulation said they had to. Though there were not enough lifeboats for all the passengers on board the Titanic, the company was in full compliance with applicable rules. 整個航運業完全知道這個過時的法規很快就會被更新。事實上,泰坦尼克號甲板上新增了額外的空間,預期會有「所有人都有救生艇」的要求。但是救生艇很昂貴,需要維護,而且可能會影響船隻的穩定性,所以海洋蒸汽航運公司的高層決定不在法規要求之前添加救生艇。儘管泰坦尼克號上沒有足夠的救生艇供所有乘客使用,但該公司完全符合相關規定。
The disturbing correlation between Apple’s arguments against paying taxes and the decision of the Titanic’s owners not to add lifeboats doesn’t stop there. Just as the shipping industry lobbied against the change in regulations in the early twentieth century, 蘋果公司反對納稅的論點與鐵達尼號船主決定不添加救生艇之間的令人不安的相關性並不止於此。正如航運業在 20 世紀初遊說反對法規變更一樣。
arguing that having so many lifeboats sitting visibly on the decks would hurt business because people would think their vessels were unsafe, Apple and others contend that paying their actual tax liability would hurt their ability to compete. (Incidentally, this is the same argument that car manufacturers used in the 1950s as seat belt requirements were being considered. They feared that the existence of a seat belt would lead people to think their cars were unsafe.) 蘋果公司及其他公司認為,支付其真實的稅務責任會損害其競爭能力。(順便說一下,這是汽車製造商在 1950 年代考慮安全帶要求時使用的同樣論點。他們擔心安全帶的存在會令人認為他們的汽車不安全。)
It may be worth noting that, as reported by the Congressional Budget Office, in 2011 American taxpayers contributed $1.1\$ 1.1 trillion to the government whereas corporate taxes totaled just $181\$ 181 billion. Though lives may not be at stake in this shell game many companies play, on a strictly biological level, such behavior makes it very hard for the rest of us to really trust them. Being a company of high moral standing is the same as being a person of high moral character-a standard not easily determined by the law but easily felt by anyone. 據美國國會預算辦公室報告,2011 年美國納稅人向政府貢獻 $1.1\$ 1.1 萬億美元,而企業稅僅為 $181\$ 181 十億美元。儘管這種遊戲不涉及生命,但從生物學角度來看,這種行為會讓我們很難真正信任他們。擁有高道德標準的公司,就像擁有高道德品格的人一樣,這並非法律所能輕易界定,但每個人都能感受到。
Given the scale at which so many companies now operate, it seems fair that the leaders of many large companies have no choice but to manage their businesses on spreadsheets and screens, often far removed from the people their decisions will ultimately impact. But if Milgram’s numbers play out, it would mean that 650 of the leaders of Fortune 1000 companies, the largest companies in America, are able to make decisions without consideration for their impact on the lives of human beings. 鑒於如今許多公司的營運規模,許多大型公司的領導者似乎別無選擇,只能在電子表格和螢幕上管理其業務,與其決策所最終影響的人群相距甚遠。但如果米爾格拉姆的數字成立,這意味著美國前一千大公司中的 650 位領導者,都能在不顧其對人類生活影響的情況下做出決策。
This goes straight back to the conditions in which we, the human animal, operate best. If we are to reduce the damaging effects of abstraction on our decision making, based on Milgram’s experiment, a sense of a higher authority-God, a noble cause, a compelling vision for the future or some other moral code and not a shareholder, customer or market demand-is essential. When our leaders give us something noble to be a part of, offer us a compelling purpose or reason why we should come to work, something that will outlive us, it seems to give us the power to do the right thing when called upon, even if we have to make sacrifices to our comfort in the short term. And when a leader embraces their responsibility to care for people instead of caring for numbers, then people will follow, solve problems and see to it that that leader’s vision comes to life the right way, a stable way and not the expedient way. 這直接回到了我們這個人類動物最好發揮的條件。如果我們要減少抽象化對我們決策的傷害性,基於米爾格蘭實驗,一種來自更高層次的權威-上帝、高尚的事業、對未來有說服力的願景,或其他道德準則,而不是股東、顧客或市場需求,這是必不可少的。當我們的領導者賦予我們一個高尚的事業而參與其中,給我們一個有說服力的目的或理由讓我們來上班,一些能存在於我們之後的東西,這似乎賦予了我們在被要求時做正確事情的力量,即使這意味著我們必須在短期內犧牲一些舒適。當一個領導人擁抱他們關懷他人而不是關注數字的責任時,人們將會跟隨,解決問題,並確保該領導人的願景以正確、穩定的方式實現,而不是簡單的權宜之計。
It is not about good people or bad people. Like Milgram’s volunteers, many of us work out of sight of the people our decisions affect. That means we are working at a significant disadvantage if we have any desire to do the right thing (which is different from doing what’s legal). One cannot help but to recall Johnny Bravo who, above the clouds and unable to have a visual contact with the Special Operations Forces below, felt it necessary to fly down just so he could see those he was there to protect. When we opt to stay above the clouds, relying only on information fed to us instead of going down to see for ourselves, not only is it harder to make the right moral decisions, it makes it even harder to take responsibility when we fail to do so. The good news is, there are things we can do to help us manage the abstraction and keep our Circles strong. 這與善良的人或壞人無關。就像米爾格拉姆的志願者一樣,我們中的許多人都在我們的決定所影響的人的視線之外工作。這意味著,如果我們有任何 desire 去做正確的事情(這與做合法的事情不同),我們就處於極大的劣勢。不得不回想約翰尼·布拉沃,他在雲層之上,無法與下方的特種部隊有視覺接觸,感覺有必要飛下去,只為了能看到他那裡去保護的人。當我們選擇留在雲層之上,只依賴饋送給我們的資訊,而不是親自下去查看,不僅很難做出正確的道德決定,在我們未能做到時,承擔責任也更加困難。好消息是,我們可以採取一些措施來幫助我們管理抽象概念,並保持我們的圈子強大。
Managing the Abstraction 管理抽象
Numbers of People Aren't People, They're Numbers 人數不是人,而是數字
“THE DEATH OF one man is a tragedy,” Joseph Stalin reportedly said. “The death of a million is a statistic.” Stalin was a man who well understood statistics. As General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1952, he is said to have been responsible for the deaths of millions of people, most of whom were Soviet citizens. Like so many dictator types, he had a cult of personality, operated with extreme brutality, trusted very few people and was very, very paranoid. But he was also absolutely right about how we perceive a tragedy that befalls one person over that of hundreds, thousands or even millions. "一個人的死亡是悲劇,"據稱約瑟夫·斯大林曾說。"一百萬人的死亡是統計數字。"斯大林是一個非常了解統計學的人。作為 1922 年至 1952 年期間的蘇聯共產黨總書記,他被認為是數百萬蘇聯公民死亡的禍首。和許多獨裁者一樣,他擁有個人崇拜,行使極端殘暴的統治,信任的人極少,而且極其偏執。但他確實正確地理解了我們是如何看待一個人的悲劇與數百、數千甚至數百萬人的悲劇。
Here are two stories to show you what I mean. Both stories are completely true. 這裡有兩個故事給你看看我的意思。這兩個故事都是完全真實的。
STORY 1 故事 1
When I wrote this book, the country of Syria was being torn apart by what was basically a civil war. Inspired by the Arab Spring that swept across the region, the Syrian people rose against the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, who took control of the country in 2000 when his father, Hafez al-Assad, died after twenty-nine years of equally brutal rule. In over forty years of Assad rule, two generations of Syrian men and women have known nothing else. This is a modern media world, however, and as much as the Syrian government tried 當我寫這本書時,敘利亞國正被一場基本上的內戰所撕裂。受到橫掃該地區的「阿拉伯之春」的啟發,敘利亞人民起義反對巴沙爾·阿薩德的獨裁統治,他在 2000 年接管了國家,接替他父親哈菲茲·阿薩德,後者統治了二十九年的同樣殘酷統治。在四十多年的阿薩德統治下,兩代敘利亞男女只知道這樣的生活。然而,這是一個現代媒體世界,儘管敘利亞政府努力
to suppress news of uprisings in neighboring nations, word of these rebellions made it through. But in stark contrast to the peaceful uprising in Tunisia, the Syrian rebellion was met with extreme and intense brutality by the Assad government. 為了壓制鄰國的起義消息,這些叛亂的消息仍然傳了出來。然而,與突尼斯和平起義形成鮮明對比的是,敘利亞的叛亂遭到阿薩德政府的極端殘酷對待。
World opinion did nothing to affect the Assad regime as it continued to pound a disorganized and illequipped rebellion with the full might of the army. United Nations estimates, at the time of this book, were that over 100,000 Syrians were killed by the Syrian military, including nearly 1,500 in a single chemical attack. A good many of them innocent civilians. 世界輿論對阿薩德政權毫無影響,它繼續用軍隊的全部力量鎮壓一支組織零亂、裝備不足的叛亂。聯合國在本書撰寫時的估計是,超過 10 萬名敘利亞平民被敘利亞軍隊殺害,其中包括單一化學武器攻擊造成的近 1,500 人死亡。他們大多是無辜的平民。
STORY 2 故事 2
An eighteen-year-old girl was lying in the middle of the street in San Clemente, California. She had been hit by a car driven by a seventeen-year-old girl. Unconscious with one of her legs broken and pointing sideways at an unnatural angle, she was in bad shape. Cami Yoder, an Army reservist, who happened to be driving past, pulled over to see if she could help. Kneeling down beside the injured young woman, Cami took her vitals. The girl wasn’t breathing and her pulse was faint, at best. Immediately, Cami began CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to try to keep the young woman alive. Not much later an ambulance arrived and the paramedics took over. They stabilized the young woman and took her to the hospital. 聖克萊門特, 加利福尼亞一位十八歲女孩躺在街道中央。她被一位十七歲女孩駕駛的汽車撞中。她無意識,其中一隻腿折斷並以不自然的角度指向一側,狀況很糟。碰巧經過的陸軍預備役軍人卡米·約德停車查看是否能提供幫助。卡米在受傷的年輕女子旁膝行,為其檢查生命跡象。這名女子無法呼吸,脈搏微弱。卡米立即開始做心肺復蘇術和人工呼吸,試圖維持這名年輕女子的生命。不久後,救護車抵達,醫護人員接手後將她送往醫院。
A few days after the incident, Cami wondered how the girl was faring. She was able to find the news story online and learned what had happened. She had died. 事件發生幾天後，Cami 想知道那個女孩的現狀。她在網上找到了新聞報導,了解到發生了什麼事。她已經去世了。
This young woman, her whole life ahead of her, was gone. 這位年輕女士，她的整個人生還在前方，卻已經離世了。
Which story evoked a stronger feeling, the first one or the second one? A story about tens of thousands of people struck down by their own military as they stood up for something noble does not have the same emotional impact on us as the story of one person does. We mourn the death of one young woman with an empathy that we are seemingly unable to muster for thousands of young women and children and others struck down as senselessly and even more brutally. 第一個故事還是第二個故事讓您有更強烈的感受?一個關於數萬人被自己國軍打死,為了一個高尚的事物站起來的故事,其情感影響沒有一個人的故事那麼強烈。我們對一個年輕女性的死亡表現出同理心,卻似乎無法為數以千計的年輕女性和孩子以及其他人的毫無意義和更殘暴的死亡而哀悼。
This is one of the shortcomings of using numbers to represent people. At some point, the numbers lose their connection to the people and become just numbers, void of meaning. We are visually oriented animals. We can pursue things we can see. If it is a person in need, we can rush to their aid. If there is a clear vision of a future state brighter than our world today, we can work to build it. And if it is to advance a metric from one number to another, we can do that too. But when numbers are the only thing we can see, our ability to perceive the distant impact our decisions may have is frustrated. 這是使用數字代表人的缺陷之一。到某個時候，數字與人的聯繫就會消失，變成只是毫無意義的數字。我們是視覺導向的生物。我們可以追求能看見的事物。如果有需要幫助的人,我們可以立即去援助。如果有一個比我們現在的世界更美好的未來願景,我們可以努力去建設它。即使是要把某個指標從一個數字提高到另一個數字,我們也能做到。但是,當數字是我們能看見的唯一東西時,我們就無法感受到自己的決定可能產生遠遠的影響了。
It’s one thing for big numbers to represent money or products. But when big numbers start representing human beings, as Stalin told us, our ability to empathize starts to falter. If your sister, the major breadwinner in her family, loses her job, it will have a significant impact on the lives of your niece and nephew. And that loss would be a deep emotional burden on your sister, her family and probably you too. But a decision made using a spreadsheet to lay off four thousand people at some large corporation loses tangibility and becomes something that just needs to be done to meet certain goals. The numbers no longer represent people who support their families but simply abstractions to be calculated. 對於大數字來說,它們通常用來代表金錢或商品是一回事。但是當大數字開始代表人類時,正如史達林告訴我們,我們的同理心就開始難以維持。如果你的姐姐,她家中的主要經濟支柱失去了工作,這對你的侄子和侄女的生活將產生重大影響。這種損失對你的姐姐、她的家人,甚至你自己來說,都是沉重的情感負擔。但是,使用電子表格作出裁員四千人的決定,卻失去了實在感,變成了為了達成某些目標而必須完成的事情。這些數字不再代表支撐家庭的人,而只是需要被計算的抽象概念。
Be it a politician or someone working in a company, perhaps the most valuable thing we can do if we are to truly serve our constituents is to know them personally. It would be impossible to know all of them, but to know the name and details of the life of someone we are trying to help with our product, service or policy makes a huge difference. The moment we are able to make tangible that which had previously been a study or a chart, the moment a statistic or a poll becomes a real living person, the moment abstract concepts are understood to have human consequences, is the 對於政治家或公司工作人員而言,若我們真正想服務好自己的選民或客戶,最寶貴的就是要了解他們每個人。雖然我們無法了解所有人,但只要我們知道正在幫助的那個人的名字和生活細節,就足以產生巨大的差別。當一個曾經只是研究或圖表的事物變得實在可觸,當一個統計數據或民意調查變成一個真實的生命,當抽象概念被理解為對人類有影響,那才是最關鍵的時刻。
moment our ability to solve problems and innovate becomes remarkable. 我們解決問題和創新的能力變得非常卓越。
Rule 1. Keep It Real—Bring People Together 規則 1。保持真實-聚集人們
AS IF THE abstracting qualities of numbers and scale aren’t enough to deal with when trying to run an organization, these days we have the added complication of the virtual world. The Internet is nothing short of awe inspiring. It gives the power to operate at scale or spread ideas to anyone, be it a small business or a social movement. It gives us the ability to find and connect with people more easily. And it is incredible at speeding the pace of commercial transactions. All of these things are good. But, just as money was developed to help expedite and simplify transactions by allowing payment to be rendered without barter, we often use the Internet as a means to expedite and simplify communication and the relationships we build. And just as money can’t buy love, the Internet can’t buy deep, trusting relationships. What makes a statement like that somewhat tricky or controversial is that the relationships we form online feel real. 如果數字和規模的抽象性質還不足夠讓人應付組織運營時的困難,如今還有虛擬世界帶來的額外複雜性。互聯網令人讚嘆不已。它賦予了大小企業或社會運動在規模和思想傳播方面的力量。它使我們更易找到並連繫他人。它也大大加快了商業交易的進度。這些都是好事。但是,就像貨幣的發展是為了通過免除物物交換來簡化和加速交易一樣,我們常常利用互聯網來簡化溝通並建立關係。而正如金錢無法買到愛情,互聯網也無法購買深厚的信任關係。這樣的說法之所以有些棘手或引起爭議,是因為我們在網上建立的關係感覺很真實。
We can, indeed, get bursts of serotonin when people “like” our pictures, pages or posts or when we watch ourselves go up in a ranking (you know how much serotonin loves a ranking). The feelings of admiration we get from virtual “likes” or the number of followers we have is not like the feelings of admiration we get from our children, or that a coach gets from their players. It is simply a public display of “like” with no sacrifice required-a new kind of status symbol, if you will. Put simply, though the love may feel real, the relationship is still virtual. Relationships can certainly start online, but they only become real when we meet face-to-face. 當人們「喜歡」我們的圖片、頁面或帖子,或者我們在排名中上升時,我們確實會獲得血清素的爆發。我們從虛擬「讚」或關注者人數獲得的讚賞感受,與我們從孩子或教練從他們的球員那裡獲得的讚賞感受不同。這只是一種無需付出犧牲的公開「喜歡」展示,可以說是一種新型的地位象徵。簡而言之,儘管感情可能很真實,但關係仍然是虛擬的。網上可能會開始關係,但只有當我們面對面見面時,關係才會變得真實。
Consider the impact that Facebook and other online communication tools have had on teen bullying. One quarter of all teenagers in the U.S. say they have experienced “cyberbullying.” 考慮 Facebook 和其他在線通信工具對青少年欺負的影響。美國四分之一的青少年表示他們經歷過「網絡欺負」。
What we’ve learned is that abstractions can lead people to abhorrent behavior, to act like they’re not accountable. An online community gives shy people a chance to be heard, but the flip side is it also allows some to act out in ways they probably never would in real life. People say horrible things to each other online, things they probably would never say in person. The ability to maintain distance, even complete anonymity, has made it easier to stop acting as humans should-with humanity. And despite the positive feelings we can have when meeting people online, unlike real friendships based on love and trust, the feelings we get don’t last too long after we’ve logged off and they rarely if ever stand the test of time. 我們所學到的是,抽象概念可以導致人們表現出令人憎惡的行為,讓他們認為自己無需承擔責任。網路社群給害羞的人一個被聽見的機會,但另一面是也讓一些人以在現實生活中絕對不會做的方式行動。人們在網路上對彼此說一些可怕的話,這些話他們可能永遠不會當面說出。保持距離,甚至完全匿名,使得人們更容易停止像人類應有的人性行為。儘管我們在網上結識他人時會有積極的感覺,但不同於建立在愛和信任之上的真實友誼,這些感受在我們登出後很快就會消失,很少能經得起時間的考驗。
It seems to stir controversy when I talk about the fact that no matter how great social media is, it is not as effective for building strong bonds of trust as real human contact is. Social media fans will tell me about all the close friends they’ve made online. But if social media is the end-all-be-all, then why do over thirty thousand bloggers and podcasters descend on Las Vegas every year for a huge conference called BlogWorld? Why don’t they meet online? Because nothing can replace face-to-face meetings for social animals like us. A live concert is better than the DVD and going to a ball game feels different from watching on TV, even though the view is better on television. We like to actually be around people who are like us. It makes us feel like we belong. It is also the reason a video conference can never replace a business trip. Trust is not formed through a screen, it is formed across a table. It takes a handshake to bind humans … and no technology yet can replace that. There is no such thing as virtual trust. 似乎當我談論社交媒體再偉大,它也無法像真實人際接觸般有效建立深厚信任。社交媒體的擁護者會告訴我他們在網上交到了許多好朋友。但如果社交媒體就是萬能的,為何每年都有超過 3 萬名部落客和播客聚集在拉斯維加斯參加一個名為 BlogWorld 的大型會議?為何他們不在網上見面?因為對於像我們這樣的社交動物來說,實體面對面的會面無法被取代。現場音樂會比 DVD 更好,親臨球賽現場也有與電視不同的感受,儘管電視畫質更佳。我們喜歡實際與和我們類似的人在一起。這讓我們有歸屬感。這也是視訊會議永遠無法取代商務旅行的原因。信任不是透過螢幕形成的,而是在桌子對面建立的。需要握手來結合人與人...目前任何科技都無法取代這點。所謂的虛擬信任是不存在的。
On the website for NMX (the official name for the BlogWorld event), there’s a promotional video in which people talk about what is so great about going to the event. “Sharing ideas” is a frequent advantage discussed. “Getting to meet so many different people,” “bringing everyone together” and “meeting people who do what I do, who are on the same journey.” These are also frequent themes. And of course, my personal favorite, said by someone who follows many of the bloggers who attend the conference, “I got to shake their hands and that was awesome!” Even bloggers have to appreciate the irony of bringing together the champions of the blogosphere to 在 NMX(BlogWorld 活動的官方名稱)的網站上,有一段宣傳影片,人們談論參加該活動的優點。「分享想法」是一個常見的優點。「認識很多不同的人」、「把大家聚在一起」和「認識和我做同樣事情的人,我們在同一條道路上」也是常見的主題。當然,我個人最喜歡的是,一位關注參加此次會議的許多部落客的人說:「我能與他們握手,這太棒了!」即使是部落客,也要欣賞把博客圈的擁護者聚在一起的諷刺。
meet in person to share ideas about the supremacy of the blogosphere. 親自會面分享有關博客圈優越性的想法。
Real, live human interaction is how we feel a part of something, develop trust and have the capacity to feel for others. It is how we innovate. It is why telecommuters never really feel like they are a part of the team as strongly as the ones who go to work every day. No matter how many e-mails they send or receive, no matter how kept in the loop they are, they are missing all the social time, the gaps, the nuance . . . the humanity of being around other humans. But what do we do in hard times when we need good ideas most? We cut back on conferences and business trips because video conferencing and webinars are cheaper. Perhaps. But only in the short term. Given how relatively new social media is, the long-term impact of all this dehumanizing is still yet to be fully realized. Just as we are feeling the impact today of the policies and practices implemented in the 1980s and 1990s that prioritized profit over people, we will have to wait a generation before we feel the full effects of our modern bias to replace real interaction with virtual ones. 真實的人與人之間的互動是我們感受到自己是某個事物的一部分、建立信任以及有能力感受他人的方式。這也是我們創新的方式。這就是為什麼遠端工作者永遠無法像每天去上班的人一樣強烈地感受到自己是團隊的一份子。無論他們發送或接收多少電子郵件,無論他們被保持在迴路中的程度如何,他們都會錯過所有社交時光、空白時間和細微之處......圍繞其他人的人性。但是在我們最需要好的想法的艱難時期,我們該怎麼做呢?我們減少會議和商務旅行,因為視頻會議和網絡研討會更便宜。也許是這樣。但只是在短期內。鑑於社交媒體還相當新穎,所有這些去人性化的長期影響仍有待完全實現。正如我們今天感受到上世紀 80 年代和 90 年代實施的以利潤高於人為目標的政策和做法的影響一樣,我們必須等待一代人才能感受到我們現代的偏好,用虛擬互動取代真實互動的全部影響。
Rule 2. Keep It Manageable-Obey Dunbar's Number 二號規則。保持在可管理的範圍內-遵守鄧巴數
IN 1958, BILL Gore quit his job at DuPont to pursue his belief in the possibilities of the polymer polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE, commonly known as Teflon. That same year, he and his wife, Vieve, started W. L. Gore & Associates in their basement. It was a friendly place, and everyone knew everyone else. But the discovery of a new polymer-expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)—by their son Bob changed the course of Bill and Vieve’s company forever. ePTFE, or GORE-TEX, as it’s more commonly known, had nearly infinite applications in medical, fabric and industrial markets. It was only a matter of time before the humble, family-oriented company outgrew its basement headquarters and moved into a factory. 在 1958 年,比爾·戈爾(Bill Gore)辭去了在杜邦(DuPont)的工作,追求他對聚四氟乙烯聚合物(PTFE),即常稱為泰芬(Teflon)的可能性的信念。同一年,他和妻子維伊夫(Vieve)在地下室創立了 W.L.戈爾公司與聯營公司。那是個友好的地方,每個人都認識彼此。但是,他們的兒子鮑勃(Bob)發現了擴散聚四氟乙烯(ePTFE)這種新的聚合物,徹底改變了比爾和維伊夫公司的命運。ePTFE,又稱為高爾特斯(GORE-TEX),在醫療、紡織和工業市場上擁有無窮無盡的應用。這家以家庭為本的公司最終超越了地下室總部,遷入了一家工廠。
Business was booming and as demand grew, so did the factory and the number of people in its employ. 商家興隆,隨著需求的增加,工廠和受雇人數也不斷擴大。
As the story goes, one day Bill Gore walked out onto the floor of his factory and realized he didn’t recognize many of the people. Things had gotten so big that he simply did not know who was working for him anymore. Something told him that this couldn’t be good for him, his employees or the company. After doing some counting, Gore concluded that to maintain the sense of camaraderie and teamwork he felt was essential for the factory to run smoothly, it should have only about 150 people. That was the magic number. 根據這個故事,有一天比爾·戈爾走出工廠地板,發現很多人都不認識。公司變得太大了,他已經不知道有誰在為他工作了。他感覺到這對他、他的員工以及公司來說都是不好的。在做了一些統計後,戈爾得出結論,為了維持他認為對工廠順利運轉至關重要的團隊合作和默契,工廠應該只有大約 150 人。這就是那個神奇的數字。
Instead of trying to eke out more efficiencies by increasing the size of the existing factory, Gore would simply build an entirely new factory, sometimes right next door to an old one. Each factory was capped at 150 people. It turned out, Bill Gore was onto something. Business continued to boom under this model and, as important, the relationships among the employees stayed strong and cooperative. Today the still privately held company has sales of $3.2\$ 3.2 billion per year and employs more than 10,000 people around the world, and it still attempts to organize its plants and offices into working groups of about 150 people. 高爾(Gore)公司不會嘗試增加現有工廠的規模來提高效率,而是簡單地建造全新的工廠,有時就在舊廠房旁邊。每間工廠的員工人數上限為 150 人。事實證明,比爾·高爾(Bill Gore)做對了。這種模式使業務持續繁榮,而且也使得員工之間的關係保持良好和富有合作精神。時至今日,這家仍然是私營公司的公司每年銷售額達 $3.2\$ 3.2 億美元,在全世界聘用超過 10,000 人,並且仍然試圖將其工廠和辦公室組織成約 150 人的工作團隊。
Though Bill Gore was trusting his gut based on his own observations, it’s no coincidence that he arrived at the 150 person limit. Robin Dunbar, British anthropologist and a professor in the Department of Experimental Psychology at Oxford University, arrived at this same conclusion. Professor Dunbar figured out that people simply cannot maintain more than about 150 close relationships. “Putting it another way,” he likes to say, “it’s the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar.” 比爾·戈爾信任自己的直覺,這並非巧合,他得出了 150 人的限制。羅賓·鄧巴,一位英國人類學家,在牛津大學實驗心理學系擔任教授,得出了相同的結論。鄧巴教授發現,人們實際上無法維持超過大約 150 個親密關係。他喜歡說:「換句話說,這就是你遇到他們時,不會感到尷尬而邀請他們一起喝一杯的人數。」
The earliest groups of Homo sapiens lived in hunter/gather tribes that maxed out between 100 to 150 people. Amish and Hutterite communities are about 150 in size. The Bushmen of South Africa and Native Americans also live in groups that cap out at about 150. Even the size of a company of Marines is about 150 people. That magical number is the number of close relationships we are naturally designed to manage. Any more than that starts to cause a breakdown if rigid social systems, or effective hierarchy and 太古的智人群落以獵人/採集者部落的形式存在,人數最高在 100 至 150 人之間。阿米許和胡特里特社區的規模大致為 150 人。南非布須曼人和美國原住民同樣生活於 150 人左右的群體。甚至海軍陸戰隊的編制也約 150 人。這個神奇的數字是我們自然設計能夠管理的密切人際關係數量。超過此數,嚴格的社會制度或有效的階層就會開始崩解。
bureaucracy, are not implemented to help manage the scale. This is the reason senior leaders must trust midlevel leaders, because no one person can effectively manage large numbers of people if there is to be a strong sense of trust and cooperation. 官僚主義,並非為管理規模而實施。這就是為什麼高層領導者必須信任中層領導者,因為如果要有強烈的信任和合作,一個人無法有效管理大批人員。
The reasons groups function best when they do not get bigger than about 150 people make perfect sense when you look closely. The first reason is time. Time is a constant-there are only twentyfour hours in a day. If we only gave two minutes to everyone we knew, we wouldn’t get to know people very well and deep bonds of trust would likely never form. The other is brain capacity. We simply can’t remember everyone. Which is why Dunbar’s Number is about 150, some can remember more and some remember fewer. In addition, as Dunbar has noticed in his research, when groups get bigger than about 150, the people are less likely to work hard and less likely to help each other out. This is a pretty significant finding as so many businesses work to manage their growth by focusing on cost efficiencies but ignore the efficiencies of human relationships. And ultimately, it is the strength of those human relationships that will help an organization manage at scale. 群體在成員不超過約 150 人時能夠最佳運作,這是有充分道理的。第一個原因是時間。時間是一個常數,一天只有 24 小時。如果我們只給每個認識的人 2 分鐘,我們就無法深入了解對方,也難以形成深厚的信任關係。另一個原因是大腦容量。我們無法記住所有人。這就是為什麼鄧巴數字約為 150,有些人能記住更多,有些則記住較少。此外,正如鄧巴在研究中發現,當群體規模超過約 150 人時,成員工作的積極性和相互幫助的意願都會降低。這是一個非常重要的發現,因為許多企業都努力通過提高成本效率來管理增長,卻忽略了人際關係的效率。歸根結底,正是這些人際關係的力量,才能幫助組織實現大規模管理。
Many people thought that with the introduction of the Internet Dunbar’s Number would be rendered obsolete. The ability to communicate with large numbers of people would become more efficient, giving us the capacity to maintain more relationships. It turns out not to be the case. Our anthropology wins again. Even though you may have eight hundred friends on Facebook, odds are high that you do not personally know them all and they may not all personally know you. If you were to sit down and try to contact all of them directly, as the journalist Rick Lax wrote about on wired.com, you would learn very quickly that Dunbar’s Number wins. Lax was surprised how few of his two thousand “friends” he actually knew or who actually knew him. 許多人認為隨著 Internet 的引入,鄧巴數將失去其意義。能與大量人群進行溝通將變得更加有效率,使我們能維繫更多的人際關係。事實證明並非如此。我們的人類學再次勝出。即使你在 Facebook 上擁有八百個朋友,也很可能並不真正認識他們,而他們也未必都認識你。如記者 Rick Lax 在 wired.com 上所寫,如果你坐下來嘗試直接聯繫所有朋友,你會很快發現鄧巴數仍在發揮作用。Lax 對他的兩千個"朋友"中,實際認識的有多少人或認識他的有多少人,感到很驚訝。
In small organizations, where we are able to know everyone, it is much easier for us to do the work necessary to look after them. We are, for all the obvious reasons, more likely to look after people we personally know than those we don’t. If a person on a factory floor knows who the accountant is and the accountant knows who the machinists are, they are more likely to help each other. 在小型組織中,我們能夠認識每個人,因此更容易完成必要的工作來照顧他們。有許多明顯的原因使我們更可能照顧我們個人認識的人,而不是不認識的人。如果工廠車間的人知道會計是誰,而會計又知道機械工是誰,他們就更有可能互相幫助。
When a leader is able to personally know everyone in the group, the responsibility for their care becomes personal. The leader starts to see those for whom they are responsible as if they were their own family. Likewise, those in the group start to express ownership of their leader. In a Marine platoon of about forty people, for example, they will often refer to the officer as “our” lieutenant. Whereas the more distant and less seen senior officer is simply “the” colonel. When this sense of mutual ownership between leader and those being led starts to break down, when informality is replaced by formality, it is a sure sign the group may be getting too big to lead effectively. 當一位領導能夠親身認識團隊中的每個人時,對他們的照顧責任便變得非常個人化。領導開始將他們所負責的人視為自己的家人。同樣地,團隊中的人也開始表達對自己領導者的歸屬感。以一個約 40 人的海軍陸戰隊為例,他們通常會稱呼軍官為"我們的"中尉,而對較為疏遠和不常見的高級軍官則只稱為"那個"上校。當領導者和被領導者之間的相互歸屬感開始瓦解,非正式的關係被正式性取代時,這通常是團隊規模已經太大,難以有效領導的徵兆。
This means, for larger organizations, the only way to manage the scale and keep the Circle of Safety strong is to rely on hierarchies. A CEO can “care” about their people in the abstract, but not until that abstraction is mitigated can the care be real. The only way to truly manage at scale is to empower the levels of management. They can 這意味著,對於較大的組織而言,管理規模並保持"安全圈"牢固的唯一方式是依賴階層結構。首席執行官可以抽象地"關心"他們的員工,但只有在抽象被緩解後,關懷才是真實的。真正管理大規模業務的唯一方式是賦權給管理層。他們可以
no longer be seen as managers who handle or control people. Instead, managers must become leaders in their own right, which means they must take responsibility for the care and protection of those in their charge, confident that their leaders will take care of them. 不應再被視為處理或控制他人的管理人。反之,管理人必須成為真正的領導者,這意味著他們必須承擔照顧和保護下屬的責任,深信上層領導會照顧他們。
Professor Dunbar learned that in bigger companies, ones with many hundreds or thousands of employees who are not distributed into groups of fewer than 150, employees tend to have more friends outside of their jobs than inside. The larger the group of people we work with, the less likely we are to develop any kind of trusting relationships with them. 鄧巴教授發現,在較大的公司中,擁有數百或數千名員工且未分割成小於 150 人的小組,員工傾向於在工作以外擁有更多的朋友,而非在工作中。我們工作的群體越大,與他們建立任何形式的信任關係的可能性就越小。
I had the opportunity to take a tour of the old offices of a large social media company in Northern California. (I can’t say which one it was because the company requires that every visitor sign a restrictive nondisclosure agreement before they let them in the building.) The office was a large, loft-style open space with rows of people working together. The goal of the open space was to encourage open communication and a cross-pollination of ideas. The manager giving the tour made a comment that I found interesting, given Dunbar’s own findings. 我在加州北部一家大型社交媒體公司的舊辦公室裡有機會參觀。(我不能透露是哪一家公司,因為它們要求每位訪客在進入大樓前必須簽署一份嚴格的保密協議。)這個辦公室是一個寬敞的閣樓風格的開放空間,有許多人在那裡一起工作。開放空間的目的是為了鼓勵開放溝通並互相交流想法。導覽管理員做了一個我發現很有趣的評論,考慮到鄧巴自己的研究結果。
This company grew in part because of a culture of amazing cooperation, sharing and open communication, he told me. The company believed it was because of the open-plan layout. And so, as the company grew, they kept that same layout-the one that I was being shown. But for reasons they couldn’t quite explain, cooperation and open communication did not improve as the company grew. In fact, as my tour guide admitted, it got worse. Dunbar wins again. 這家公司在很大程度上是由於非凡的合作文化、分享和開放式溝通而成長起來的,他告訴我。公司認為這是由於開放式佈局。所以,隨著公司的成長,他們保持了相同的佈局-我正在看到的那個。但是,由於某些無法完全解釋的原因,隨著公司的增長,合作和開放式溝通並沒有得到改善。事實上,正如我的導遊承認的那樣,情況變得更糟了。鄧巴又一次獲勝。
Rule 3. Meet the People You Help 三規則。 見到你幫助的人
IN 2010, ADAM Grant, a management professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and author of Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, set out to study the effectiveness of his college’s fund-raising department and to 亞當·格蘭特(Adam Grant)，賓夕法尼亞大學沃頓商學院管理學教授及《給予與接受:向成功的革命性方法》(Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success)的作者，在 2010 年開始研究他學院的募款部門的效率,並
understand what worked and what didn’t. The job was straightforward: employees called on alumni and tried to persuade them to donate money to a scholarship fund for exceptional students whose families couldn’t afford to pay for college. The fund-raisers were instructed to describe the university’s dire financial position and the impressive accomplishments of the prospective recipients. The alumni would hear about the university’s need to increase its investment in computer science, say, or business administration, to help create the next generation of leaders. This was, after all, the future workforce of the new economy, the callers would tell them. By all accounts, the pitch was pretty inspiring. 了解什麼有效又什麼無效。這項工作很簡單:員工打電話給校友,試圖說服他們捐款給一個為家庭經濟困難的優秀學生提供獎學金的基金。基金募集者被指示要描述大學嚴峻的財務狀況以及預期接受者的卓越成就。校友會聽到大學需要增加對計算機科學或商業管理的投資,以培養下一代領導者。這些話總會激發人的共鳴。
Yet as hard as they would try, fund-raisers were having only moderate success. Their numbers didn’t improve even with an arsenal of research about the sting of the recession on university budgets. Furthermore, the job had all the characteristics of any mundane work-repetitive tasks, long hours sitting still and occasionally rude customers. Needless to say, turnover in the fundraising department was extraordinarily high, leading to even worse morale. So Grant came up with an idea to improve the effectiveness of the fund-raisers . . . and it only took five minutes. 即使他們盡全力嘗試,募款人只取得中等成功。即使擁有有關大學預算受經濟衰退影響的大量研究,他們的數量仍沒有改善。此外,這項工作具備任何平凡工作的所有特點－重複性任務、久坐長時間和偶有粗魯客戶。不用說,募款部門的人員流動率極高,導致士氣更加低落。因此,Grant 提出了一個改善募款人效率的想法……而且只需 5 分鐘。
Professor Grant arranged for students who received the scholarships to come to the office and spend five minutes describing to fund-raisers how the scholarship they received changed their lives. The students told them how much they appreciated the hard work of the fund-raising department. Even though the people impacted by the work of the fund-raisers were only there for a short time, the results were astounding. In the following month, the fundraisers increased their average weekly revenue by more than 400 percent. In a separate similar study, callers showed an average increase of 142 percent in the amount of time they spent on the phone and a 171 percent increase in the amount of funds they raised. 格蘭特教授安排獲得獎學金的學生來到辦公室,並花五分鐘向募款人描述獎學金如何改變了他們的生活。學生告訴他們,他們非常感謝募款部門的努力。雖然受益於募款人工作的人只在那裡待了一小段時間,但其成果卻令人驚喜。在接下來的一個月裡,募款人的平均每週收入增加了 400%以上。在另一項類似的研究中,打電話者的通話時間平均增加了 142%,募款額增加了 171%。
As social animals, it is imperative for us to see the actual, tangible impact of our time and effort for our work to have meaning and for us to be motivated to do it even better. The logic seems to follow Milgram’s findings, except in this case, it’s positive. When we are able to physically see the positive impact of the decisions we 身為社會動物,我們必須看見我們工作的實際、有形的影響,才能賦予我們的工作意義,並激勵我們更好地完成它。這一邏輯似乎遵循了米爾格拉姆的發現,但在這種情況下,它是積極的。當我們能夠親身看到我們決策的積極影響時
make or the work we do, not only do we feel that our work was worth it, but it also inspires us to work harder and do more. 我們所做的工作,不僅讓我們覺得是值得的,也激勵我們更加努力工作,做更多事情。
A control group that had not received a visit from a student showed no improvement in sales or time spent on the phone. A third group that simply listened to a manager describe how much a scholarship meant to a student also showed no increase in performance. In other words, our bosses telling us how important our work is, is nowhere near as powerful as us getting to see it ourselves. 沒有接受學生拜訪的控制組在銷售或電話時間上沒有改善。簡單聽經理描述獎學金對學生意味著什麼的第三組也沒有表現提升。換句話說,老闆告訴我們我們的工作有多重要,遠遠不及我們親身體驗的力量。
The loan department of Wells Fargo Bank had a similar experience. When they invited a customer to come into the bank and describe how a loan had changed their life-how it allowed them to buy a house or pay off a debt-it had a dramatic effect on the motivation of bank employees to help more people do the same. They could see for themselves the impact their work was having in someone’s life. This is a significant shift in how the employees perceived their jobs and it is foundational to having a sense of purpose in the work we do. Without necessarily being aware of it, many of the employees stopped coming to work to sell loans and started coming to work to help people. Further proof of how much the quality of our work improves when we can attach a human being to the results was seen in a study that found that simply showing radiologists a photograph of a patient led to a dramatic improvement in the accuracy of their diagnostic findings. 富國銀行貸款部門也有類似的經歷。當他們邀請客戶進入銀行並描述貸款如何改變了他們的生活——如何讓他們能夠購買房屋或償還債務——這對銀行員工的激勵產生了巨大影響,他們也想幫助更多人實現同樣的目標。他們親眼看到他們工作的影響力,這標誌著銀行員工對自己工作的看法發生了重大變化,這是我們在工作中找到目標感的基礎。很多員工已經不再只是為了銷售貸款而來上班,而是為了幫助他們的客戶。一項研究發現,僅僅向放射科醫生展示患者的照片,就能大幅提高他們診斷結果的準確性,這進一步證明了當我們將工作成果與人聯繫起來時,工作質量會有明顯提高。
Adam Grant conducted another study on lifeguards at a community recreation center. One group of lifeguards was given reading material of testimonies from other lifeguards about how their work helped them advance their personal goals. A second group was given materials to read of firsthand accounts of lifeguards who had actually saved the lives of swimmers. Those who had read about lifeguards saving people’s lives were far more motivated at work and devoted more time to helping swimmers than those who read about how the job could help them personally. 亞當·格蘭特對一個社區休閒中心的救生員進行了另一項研究。一組救生員被給予了其他救生員關於如何通過工作幫助自己實現個人目標的見證。另一組則被給予閱讀救生員親身經歷拯救游泳者生命的真實案例。閱讀拯救生命案例的救生員在工作中表現出遠比閱讀如何幫助自己的救生員更高的動力和更多的時間投入到幫助游泳者。
Many of us would say we’re not surprised by these findings. After all, it seems rather obvious. Or does it? Grant surveyed several thousand executives to find out how important it was to them that they feel their work has value. The results: only 1 percent of the 大多數人會說我們對這些發現並不感到驚訝。畢竟,這似乎是相當明顯的。或者並非如此?格蘭特對數千名高管進行了調查,以了解他們認為自己的工作具有價值的重要性。結果:只有 1%的高管
executives said managers should bother showing employees that their work makes a difference. If anything, many companies try to explain the value our work will have in our own lives, the benefits we will reap if we hit a goal, as opposed to the benefit that others will derive. But remember our biology: we are naturally cooperative animals that are biologically more inspired and motivated when we know we are helping others. 行政人員表示,經理應該讓員工了解他們的工作會產生影響。事實上,許多公司都試圖解釋我們工作所帶來的個人利益和目標達成的好處,而非他人所得到的利益。但請記住,我們是天生合作的動物,當我們知道自己在幫助他人時,會更加受到啟發和激勵。
This is one of the reasons I love the organization charity: water. If you give them a donation (which you can do at charitywater.org), besides the fact that 100 percent of that donation goes to the cause they are championing, to bring clean drinking water to the 700 million people who don’t have it, they will actually send you a photograph and GPS coordinates of the well your money paid for. Though going to Africa and meeting the people yourself is even better, it is quite powerful to see the actual result of the donation you give. 這是我熱愛「charity: water」組織的原因之一。如果您向他們捐款(可透過 charitywater.org 進行),除了您的全額捐款都用於他們所支持的事業-為沒有乾淨飲用水的 7 億人提供乾淨飲水外,他們還會寄給您一張照片和您所捐款興建的水井的 GPS 座標。雖然親自前往非洲並與當地人見面更令人振奮,但能親眼見到您所捐款的實際成果,同樣令人感動。
Most of us, unfortunately, never see the people whose lives our work touches. For the vast majority, the closest we come to “seeing” results is evaluating numbers on spreadsheets or reading about what “customers” like in a report. If the line on the graph goes up, we are told we’ve done well and we should feel proud for what we’ve accomplished. We are expected to feel something for the numbers and think about the people. Our want to invest more time and energy is, however, biologically tied to the opposite-to feel for the people and think about the numbers. It makes sense for social animals that our sense of purpose is always human. 我們大多數人很遗憾,從未見過我們工作觸及生命的人。對於絕大多數人來說,我們能「看到」結果的最接近方式,就是評估電子表格上的數字或閱讀報告中「客戶」的情況。如果圖表上的線條上升,我們就被告知我們做得很好,我們應該為自己的成就感到自豪。我們被期望對數字產生某種感受,並思考這背後的人。然而,我們想要投入更多時間和精力的渴望,生物學上卻與反之相連──關注人,思考數字。對於社會性動物來說,我們的目的感始終與人類相關是很合乎情理的。
Rule 4. Give Them Time, Not Just Money 給他們時間,而不只是金錢。
LET’S SAY YOU’RE moving to a new house. To help you out, one of your friends pays for the moving company. A very generous offer worth $5,000\$ 5,000. Another friend comes to your house and helps you pack the boxes, load the truck, travel with you to the new house, unload and unpack the boxes. Two weeks later, both friends need a 新房子
favor from you on the same day. Which would you feel more inclined to help, the one who wrote a check or the one who committed time and energy? 你前提的同日幫助。你更傾向幫助誰,寫支票的還是投入時間及精力的人?
Money is an abstraction of tangible resources or human effort. It is a promissory note for future goods or services. Unlike the time and effort that people spend on something, it is what money represents that gives it its value. And as an abstraction, it has no “real” value to our primitive brains, which judge the real value of food and shelter or the behavior of others against the level of protection or safety they can offer us. Someone who gives us a lot of money, as our brains would interpret their behavior, is not necessarily as valuable to our protection as someone willing to commit their time and energy to us. 金錢是有形資源或人力的抽象化。它是未來商品或服務的兌換票據。與人們投入於某事物的時間和精力不同,賦予金錢價值的是它所代表的內容。作為一種抽象,它對我們原始大腦來說沒有"真實"的價值,我們會根據食物和住所的實際價值,或他人行為對我們的保護和安全程度來判斷。向我們提供大量金錢的人,從我們的大腦觀點來看,不一定比願意投入時間和精力來服務我們的人更有價值。
Given our obsessive need to feel safe among those in our tribeour communities and our companies-we inherently put a premium value on those who give us their time and energy. Whereas money has relative value ( $100\$ 100 to a college student is a lot, $100\$ 100 to a millionaire is a little), time and effort have an absolute value. No matter how rich or poor someone is, or where or when they are born, we all have 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year. If someone is willing to give us something of which they have a fixed and finite amount, a completely nonredeemable commodity, we perceive greater value. If we waste money, we can make more (especially in our society). But we’ve all had the experience of sitting in a meeting or watching a movie . . . or maybe even reading this book . . . and thinking to ourselves, “I will never get this time back.” You can save time if you stop reading now, but I cannot give back the time you spent to get here. Sorry. 在我們部落、社區和公司中,迫切需要感到安全,我們固有地高度重視那些給予我們時間和精力的人。而金錢具有相對價值(對大學生來說是很多,對百萬富翁來說是很少),時間和精力則具有絕對價值。不論一個人有多富有或貧窮,或是在何時何地出生,我們每個人每天都有 24 小時,每年都有 365 天。如果有人願意給予我們他們擁有的有限且不可回復的東西,我們就會視之為更有價值。如果我們浪費金錢,我們可以賺得更多(尤其是在我們的社會中)。但我們都曾經歷過坐在會議中或看電影……甚至是閱讀這本書……然後想到自己「我再也無法找回這段時間」。如果您現在停止閱讀,您可以節省時間,但我無法歸還您到達這裡所耗費的時間。很抱歉。
And it’s not just time. The energy we give also matters. If a parent goes to watch their kid’s soccer game but only looks up from their mobile device when there is cheering, they may have given their time, but they haven’t given their energy. The kid will look over to see their parent’s head down most of the game, busy texting or e-mailing the office or something. Regardless of the intentions of that parent, without giving their attention, the time is basically wasted for both parent and child. The same is true in our offices when we talk to someone while reading our e-mails or sit in a meeting with one eye on our phone. We may be hearing all that is said, but the person 不只是時間。我們所給予的能量也很重要。如果一位家長去看自己孩子的足球比賽,但只在有歡呼聲時才抬頭看,那麼他們可能已經給予了時間,但卻沒有給予能量。孩子會看到他們的父母大部分時間都低著頭,忙於傳簡訊或是收發電子郵件。不管那位父母的本意如何,如果沒有給予他們的注意力,那麼這段時間對於父母和孩子來說都是白白浪費的。在辦公室裡,當我們一邊讀電子郵件一邊與別人交談,或是在開會時一隻眼睛盯著手機,情況也是如此。我們可能會聽見所有被說的話,但對方感受不到我們的注意力。
speaking will not feel we are listening, and an opportunity to build trust-or be seen as a leader who cares-is squandered. 講話不會感覺我們在傾聽,而建立信任的機會-或被視為一個關心的領導者-就會被浪費。
Just as a parent can’t buy the love of their children with gifts, a company can’t buy the loyalty of their employees with salaries and bonuses. What produces loyalty, that irrational willingness to commit to the organization even when offered more money elsewhere, is the feeling that the leaders of the company would be willing, when it matters, to sacrifice their time and energy to help us. We will judge a boss who spends time after hours to help us as more valuable than a boss who simply gives us a bonus when we hit a target. 就像父母無法用禮物換取孩子的愛一樣,公司也無法用薪水和獎金換取員工的忠誠。產生忠誠的是一種不理性的意願,即使被其他公司提供更高的薪資,仍願意委身於組織,這種感覺是組織領導人在重要時刻會願意犧牲自己的時間和精力去幫助我們。我們會認為花時間在下班後幫助我們的老闆比只是在我們達標時給予獎金的老闆更有價值。
If a colleague told you that over the weekend they gave $500\$ 500 to charity, what would you think of them? We’d think they were nice but we would probably wonder why they were telling us. Did they want a medal or something? If another colleague told us that over the weekend they volunteered their time to paint a school in the inner city, what would you think of them? “That’s cool,” we’d think to ourselves, “I should do more.” Simply hearing about the time and energy someone gave to others can inspire us to want to do more for others too (remember your oxytocin). 如果同事告訴您,在周末他們給予 $500\$ 500 慈善機構,您會如何看待他們?我們會認為他們很好,但可能會疑問為何要告訴我們。他們是否想獲得什麼獎勵?如果另一位同事告訴我們,在週末他們自願花時間為內城的學校塗裝,您會如何看待他們?「這真酷,」我們會自言自語,「我應該做更多。」僅僅聽到有人奉獻時間和精力幫助他人,都可以激勵我們也想為他人做更多事情。（請記住你的催產素。）
Though we may get a shot of chemical feel-good from the money we give, it doesn’t last long and it isn’t likely to affect how others view us. Someone participating in a walk-a-thon finds it personally fulfilling and does more to raise their status than the one who simply donated to their effort. Giving time and energy actually does more to impact the impression others have of us than giving money. This is the reason a CEO with a bad reputation can’t redeem themselves by writing checks to charity. That’s not behavior that we would view as valuable to the tribe. It is also the reason we are more tolerant of the missteps or occasional bad decisions made by a CEO whom we believe to be genuinely committed to the protection of their people. 雖然我們可能會從我們給予的金錢中獲得化學上的快感,但它並不持久,也不太可能影響他人對我們的看法。參與馬拉松活動的人會感到個人得到滿足,並更有助於提升他們的地位,而單純捐款的人則不然。投入時間和精力實際上比投入金錢更有助於塑造他人對我們的印象。這就是為什麼一位聲譽不佳的 CEO 無法通過向慈善機構捐款來贖罪。這種行為我們不會視為對部落有價值的行為。這也是為什麼我們更容忍一位我們認為真誠致力於保護其人民的 CEO 所犯的過錯或偶爾的錯誤決定。
A leader of an organization can’t simply pay their managers to look out for those in their report. A leader can, however, offer their time and energy to those in their care, and in turn those managers would be more willing to give their time and energy to their subordinates. Then their subordinates would, in turn, be more inclined to give time and energy to their direct reports. And, at the end of the chain, the people with outward-facing jobs are more likely 組織領導者不能簡單地付錢給經理人關注他們的下屬。然而,領導者可以付出自己的時間和精力關注所照顧的人,而這些經理人也會更願意付出時間和精力關注他們的下屬。於是,這些下屬也會更願意付出時間和精力關注他們的直屬下屬。最終,面對外界的員工也會更有此傾向。
to treat the customer better. It’s just biology. The oxytocin and serotonin make us feel good when time and energy are given to us, which inspires us to give more of ourselves to others. Business is a human enterprise. It may even be why we call a business a “company”-because it is a collection of people in the company of other people. It’s the company that matters. 以更好地對待客戶。這只是生物學。當時間和精力被賦予我們時,催產素和血清素會讓我們感到良好,這激勵我們給予自己更多給予他人。商業是一項人類事業。這也許就是為什麼我們稱一家企業為"公司"——因為它是一群人在其他人的公司中。重要的是這個公司。
Rule 5. Be Patient-The Rule of Seven Days and Seven Years 規則 5.要有耐心-七天和七年的規則
I WENT ON a first date with a woman recently. It was an amazing first date. We spent nearly eight hours together. We went for brunch and strolled around the city. We went to a museum then went for dinner. We talked and talked the whole time. We were both smiling, giggling, we even started holding hands a few hours in. As a result of that amazing first date, we’ve decided to get married. Needless to say, we are both very excited. 我最近與一位女士第一次約會。這是一次驚人的初次約會。我們一起共度近八個小時。我們去吃早午餐並漫步在城市裡。我們去了一座博物館,然後去吃晚餐。我們整個過程中一直在談話。我們都在微笑、竊笑,幾個小時後甚至開始牽手。由於這次驚人的初次約會,我們決定結婚。可以說,我們都非常興奮。
You flinched a bit when you read that last bit, didn’t you? It’s normal. When we hear stories like that, our immediate reaction is “that’s crazy.” But you weren’t on my date with me. We’re in love . . . I swear. 當你讀到那最後一段時,是不是稍稍縮了一下?這很正常。當我們聽到那樣的故事時,我們的第一反應就是「太瘋狂了」。但你沒和我一起約會過。我們在愛中。。。我發誓。
The fact is, we instinctively know that the strong bond of human trust cannot be formed after one date or even after one week. In contrast, if I told you l’ve been dating the same woman for seven years and we’re not married yet, you might think, “What’s wrong then?” 事實是,我們直覺知道人類信任的牢固紐帶不能在一次約會或甚至一週後形成。相反,如果我告訴你我已經和同一個女人約會七年了,但我們還沒結婚,你可能會想,"那裡出了什麼問題?"
The strong positive feeling we may have after a great first date, or even a great job interview is not love or trust. It’s a predominantly dopamine-fueled feeling telling us that we think we’ve found what we’re looking for. Because it feels good, we can sometimes mislabel it as something more stable than it is, even if both parties feel it. This helps us explain how that love-at-first-date may crumble soon after. It also helps us understand why someone we loved in an interview, a few months into the job, doesn’t turn out to be a good fit for the 我們在第一次約會後或是在面試中可能有強烈的正面感受,但這不是愛或信任。這種感受主要是由多巴胺所引發,告訴我們我們認為已找到所尋找的東西。因為感覺良好,我們有時會將之誤認為更加穩定的感情,即使雙方都有此感受。這有助於解釋為什麼那種一見鍾情的情侶很快就崩潰,也有助於理解為什麼我們在面試時深愛的人,到了工作幾個月後卻不太適合這份工作。
organization. It’s because we didn’t actually spend enough time to get to know if we can, indeed, rely on the person. Jumping straight in, even if it “feels right,” is nothing short of gambling. It may work out, but the odds are against you. It is just as bad if we stay too long without ever feeling like we belong. If we’ve been at a job for seven years and still don’t feel it. . . well . . . maybe it’s time to move on. 組織。這是因為我們沒有實際花足夠的時間去了解是否可以真正依賴該人。直接跳入,即使"感覺正確",也不過是賭博。可能會奏效,但機會很小。如果我們一直工作,卻永遠不覺得自己屬於這裡,那就同樣糟糕。如果我們已經在一份工作上工作七年,但仍然感覺不到歸屬感,那也許是時候離開了。
Our internal systems are trying to help us navigate the social world so that we can find people who may be more willing to give of themselves to help us and be a part of our Circle of Safety. It takes time to get to know someone and build the trust required to sustain a relationship, personal or professional. 我們內部系統正試圖幫助我們導航社交世界,以找到可能更願意為我們提供幫助並成為我們安全圈一份子的人。需要時間去了解某人並建立維繫關係所需的信任,無論是個人還是職業關係。
Our world is one of impatience. A world of instant gratification. A world ruled by dopamine. Google can give us the answer we want now. We can buy online and get what we want now. We can send and receive information instantaneously. We don’t have to wait a week to see our favorite show, we can watch it now. We have gotten used to getting what we want when we want it. This is all fine and good for movies or online shopping, but it’s not very helpful when we are trying to form the bonds of trust that can withstand storms. That takes time, and there’s no app that can speed that up. 我們的世界是一個急躁的世界。一個即時滿足的世界。一個被多巴胺主宰的世界。Google 能立即給我們想要的答案。我們可以線上購買並立即得到想要的東西。我們可以瞬間傳送和接收資訊。我們不需要等待一週才看到喜歡的節目,我們可以立即觀看。我們習慣了隨時得到我們想要的東西。這對於電影或線上購物來說都很好,但當我們試圖建立能抵禦風暴的信任紐帶時,卻並不太有幫助。那需要時間,沒有任何應用程式能加快這個過程。
I have no data to say exactly how long it takes to feel like we trust someone. I know it takes more than seven days and I know it takes fewer than seven years. I know it is quicker for some and slower for others. No one knows exactly how long it takes, but it takes patience. 我沒有數據可以確切地說明需要多長時間才能感到信任某人。我知道需要超過七天,但少於七年。我知道對某些人來說較快,對其他人來說較慢。沒有人確切知道需要多長時間,但需要耐心。
CHAPTER 16 第十六章
Imbalance 失衡
For an animal designed to live and work in conditions in which resources were relatively scarce, having too much of anything can create some inherent problems for the forces that influence our behavior. For 40,000 years, we lived in a predominantly subsistence economy. We rarely had significantly more than we needed. It was only about 10,000 years ago, when we first became farmers instead of hunters and gatherers, that we started to move into a surplus economy. Able to produce more than we needed, we could now grow our populations beyond about 150 people. We could trade our surplus with others. We could afford to waste more than was thought prudent in an earlier age. And we could afford to have standing armies and intellectual and ruling classes. 為了生存和工作的動物,在資源相對稱匱乏的環境中,擁有太多東西可能會造成某些固有問題,影響我們的行為。4 萬年來,我們生活在以維生為主的經濟體系。我們很少擁有超過所需的東西。直到約 1 萬年前,我們第一次從獵人和採集者轉變為農民,才開始進入剩餘經濟。我們能夠生產超過所需的東西,因此可以讓人口超過約 150 人。我們可以用剩餘物品與他人交易。我們可以比前人更大方地浪費。我們也可以維持常備軍隊,以及知識分子和統治階層。
Whenever a group moves from subsistence to surplus, and ruling classes, those with the greatest surplus work hardest to mold society to meet their expectations. The question is, are they using their surplus to affect change that is good for society or for themselves? It should come as no surprise that the richest companies work so hard to lobby legislators to make (or eliminate) regulations to suit their interests. They have more resources to use, protect and further accumulate. And if not properly managed, the cultures of these organizations can fall out of balance. 當一個群體從自給自足轉移到剩餘時，統治階級，即擁有最大剩餘的人，最努力地塑造社會以符合他們的期望。問題是,他們是否使用剩餘來影響對社會有利的變革,還是為了他們自己?毫不奇怪,最富有的公司如此努力遊說立法者制定(或取消)法規以符合他們的利益。他們有更多資源可以使用、保護和進一步累積。如果管理不善,這些組織的文化可能失去平衡。
“Destructive Abundance” is what I call the result of this imbalance. It is what happens when selfish pursuits are out of balance with selfless pursuits. When the levels of dopamineincentivized behaviors overwhelm the social protections afforded by the other chemicals. When protecting the results is prioritized above protecting those who produce the results. Destructive Abundance happens when the players focus almost exclusively on the score and forget why they set out to play the game in the first place. 「破壞性的豐饒」即我所稱這種失衡的結果。當自我追求失去與他人利益的平衡時,就會產生這種情況。當多巴胺驅動的行為過度壓倒了其他化學物質所提供的社會保護時。當保護結果的優先性高於保護創造結果的人時。當參與者幾乎只專注於分數而忘記了最初的目的時,就會出現「破壞性的豐饒」。
For all the organizations that have suffered from Destructive Abundance, there is a clear pattern that provides lessons for the rest of us. In nearly all those organizations, the cultures weren’t managed properly. There was almost always a leader who didn’t take their responsibility as a leader to heart. Once the Destructive forces of the Abundance really set in, integrity started to falter and cooperation gave way to politics until the people themselves became just another commodity to be managed, like the electricity bill. 對於所有遭受破壞性過剩之苦的組織而言,有一個明確的模式提供了給我們其他人以教訓。在這些組織中,文化幾乎都沒有得到適當的管理。總是都有一位領導者沒有真心地擔負起自己的責任。一旦破壞性的過剩力量真正開始發揮作用,誠信就開始動搖,合作也讓位於政治鬥爭,直到人們自身也只不過變成一件待管理的商品,就像電費帳單一樣。
Destructive Abundance almost always follows when challenge is replaced by temptation. 破壞性的豐富幾乎總是在挑戰被誘惑取代時出現。
[ DESTRUCTIVE ABUNDANCE ] [破壞性的豐富]
CHAPTER 17 第 17 章
Leadership Lesson 1:
So Goes the Culture, so Goes the Company 領導力課程 1：文化決定公司
A Culture Sacrificed 文化犧牲
“LONG-TERM GREEDY.” These were the words Gustave “Gus” Levy, the venerable senior partner at Goldman Sachs, would use to describe the way the company operated. The year was 1970, and Goldman was a “gentleman’s” organization, one that believed in partnership and doing what was best for the client and the firm. Given their reputation these days, it sounds funny, but Goldman bankers were known as “billionaire Boy Scouts” for their seeming desire to always try to do the right thing for clients. “Long-term greedy” meant that sometimes it was worth taking a short-term hit to help a client because the loyalty and trust it produced would in time pay back in spades. And pay back it did. 長期貪婪。
Like so many organizations with a strong culture, Goldman Sachs grew while rivals struggled or failed. Starting in the 1970s and lasting 高盛集團在強大的企業文化下得以發展,而競爭對手則陷入困境或失敗。從 1970 年代開始,持續至
until the early 1990s, it seemed Goldman could do no wrong. “Up until the 1990s, their reputation was very high,” writes Suzanne McGee, a journalist and author of the book Chasing Goldman Sachs. “If an IPO was underwritten by Goldman Sachs, that was akin to Good Housekeeping’s seal of approval.” 直到 1990 年代初期，高盛似乎無所不能。「直到 1990 年代,他們的聲譽非常高」,記者兼作家蘇珊·麥格寫道。「如果一家公司的首次公開募股(IPO)由高盛承銷,那就等同於《Good Housekeeping》雜誌的認證。」
While we must be careful not to romanticize Goldman’s culture (just as we must not romanticize the Greatest Generation), there is no question that it was considered the gold standard on Wall Street. And as with all strong cultures, it was hard to get in. By hard, I don’t mean the academic standards-l mean something even more difficult. There was a time when even the most academically qualified candidates could not count on getting a position at Goldman. They had to be a good fit for the culture. They were expected to put the needs of the firm above their own. The partners had to sense that they could trust their people even more than their people could make them rich. The people, in turn, had to believe in long-term greed. It was because their culture was built on these high standards of character that Goldman did well in hard times. While other crews were busy trying to save themselves, sometimes even abandoning ship, Goldman’s people came together to see their ship through rough waters. 高盛文化雖不應過度浪漫化(正如我們不應過度浪漫化最偉大世代),但毋庸置疑,其在華爾街是公認的標竿。與所有強大文化一樣,要進入高盛並非易事。我所說的難並非指學術水準,而是更加艱難的事。曾經,即使學歷最優秀的候選人,也無法確保能夠進入高盛工作。他們必須適合高盛的文化,並將公司的需求置於個人之上。合夥人必須感受到,他們能夠比員工自己更信任自己的人。員工則必須相信長期利益至關重要。正是由於高盛的文化建立在如此高尚的品格標準之上,才使其在艱難時期得以保持良好表現。當其他公司忙於自救,甚至遺棄了自家,高盛的員工團結一致,共渡難關。
But something happened. Starting in the 1990s, and certainly accelerating after the company went public in 1999, there’s evidence that the partnership culture started to break down. The time was ripe for a new mentality to take hold at Goldman. “The regulations that had kept finance boring had all but disappeared by the time Goldman’s IPO was issued,” wrote Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig in a column for CNN.com. “Bold (and sometimes reckless) experiments (‘financial innovations’) created incredible opportunities for firms like Goldman to profit.” 但是發生了一些事情。從 1990 年代開始,並且在 1999 年公司上市後肯定加速了,有證據表明合夥文化開始崩解。新的心態在高盛壯大是時機成熟了。正如哈佛大學法學教授勞倫斯·萊西格在 CNN.com 的一篇專欄中所寫的,「使金融乏味的法規到了高盛首次公開發行時幾乎已經消失。大膽的(有時是魯莽的)實驗('金融創新')為高盛等公司創造了難以置信的盈利機會。」
In this atmosphere, the quickly expanding firm began to embrace a new kind of trader, a decidedly more aggressive personality than the investment bankers who had previously occupied the firm’s ranks. The standards by which new people were brought in now put academic pedigree and prior success before cultural fit. 在這種氣氛下,迅速擴張的公司開始接納一種新型的交易員,其個性明顯比之前佔據公司行列的投資銀行家更加侵略性。新人的標準現在把學術背景和過往成就放在文化適應力之前。
The arrival of the new broker caused resentment among those who were proud of the company they had built and of the culture 新經紀人的到來引發了那些為自己建立的公司和文化感到自豪者的不滿
they devoted their lives to uphold and protect. And the company split into two distinct camps: the old Goldman and the new Goldman. One culture was built on loyalty and long-term greed, the other built on numbers and short-term targets. One was built on a balance of social chemicals, the other built on an imbalance that was tilted decidedly toward dopamine. 他們將畢生致力於維護和保護。公司分裂成兩個截然不同的陣營:舊高盛和新高盛。一種文化建立在忠誠和長期貪婪的基礎上,另一種建立在數字和短期目標的基礎上。一種建立在社會化學品平衡的基礎上,另一種則建立在傾向多巴胺失衡的基礎上。
The more people Goldman let in who were driven to maximize their own wealth and status, sometimes at the expense of the firm or the client’s long-term advantage, the more damage it did to the culture of the company, its overall reputation and ultimately the decisions the firm made. 高盛让更多以最大化自身財富和地位為目的的人進入公司,有時是以公司或客戶長期利益為代價的,對公司文化、整體聲譽以及該公司最終的決策造成了更多的損害。
William Cohan highlights this in his book Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World. “The first time Goldman had actual layoffs, as in fired people because the firm was having a bad year (as opposed to for individual performance reasons), was in the early 1990s, and it was highly traumatic,” Cohan writes. Think about that. Goldman Sachs did not embrace the concept of layoffs until the 1990s. Something had clearly changed. 科恩在其《金錢與權力:高盛如何統治世界》一書中強調了這一點。「高盛第一次真正發生裁員,即因公司業績不佳而將人員解僱(而非個人績效問題),是在 1990 年代初期,這對公司來說是非常 traumatic 的事件,」科恩寫道。想一想這個。高盛直到 1990 年代才採納裁員的概念。顯然有什麼發生了變化。
By 2010, with Goldman Sachs’ role in the mortgage-backed securities crisis, coupled with the huge bonuses it gave out just months after receiving a government bailout, the company’s tarnished reputation was at its lowest point. It was no longer the most trusted firm on Wall Street but rather a symbol of its excess and greed. Its CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, even issued an apology: “We participated in things that were clearly wrong and we have reasons to regret and apologize for,” he said in November 2009. But it was too late (and halfhearted, many felt). No longer called boy scouts, the Goldman Sachs leaders were considered something closer to crooks. This story is not unique to Goldman Sachs. I use Goldman to illustrate what is happening in a good too many of our companies across all sorts of industries. 高盛集團在 2010 年前擔任次級抵押證券危機的角色,加上在政府支持後數月發放的高額獎金,導致該公司的聲譽一落千丈。它不再是華爾街最受信任的公司,反而成為了過度與貪婪的象徵。其行政總裁勞埃德·布蘭克費恩甚至於 2009 年 11 月發表道歉:「我們參與了明顯錯誤的行為,我們有理由對此表示遺憾和道歉。」但這已經為時已晚(且心不誠,許多人感覺)。高盛領導人不再被稱為童子軍,反而被認為更接近於小偷。這個故事並不獨特於高盛。我使用高盛只是為了說明這正在發生於我們整個行業中的許多公司。
Every culture has its own history, traditions, languages and symbols. When we identify with a culture, we articulate our belonging to that group and align ourselves with a shared set of values and beliefs. We may define ourselves, in part, by the culture of our country of citizenship-for example, I am an American-or by the culture of an organization-such as, I am a Marine. This doesn’t 每一種文化都有自己的歷史、傳統、語言和符號。當我們認同一種文化時,我們就表達了自己屬於該群體,並與該群體所共享的價值觀和信仰保持一致。我們可能部分地以所屬國家的文化來定義自己 - 例如,我是一名美國人 - 或以某個組織的文化來定義自己 - 例如,我是一名海軍陸戰隊員。這並不
mean we think about our cultural identity on a daily basis. But when we are away from the group or if our tribe is threatened from the outside, it becomes more important. It can even become our primary focus. Remember how the country came together as one after the events of September 11? 我們每天都在思考文化認同的問題。但是當我們遠離團體或者我們的部落受到外部威脅時,這種認同變得更加重要。它甚至可能成為我們的首要關注點。還記得 9/11 事件後國家是如何團結一致的嗎?
In strong corporate cultures, employees will form similar attachments. They will identify with the company in a very personal way. The employees of WestJet, Canada’s rebellious populist airline akin to America’s Southwest Airlines, don’t say they work for WestJet -that would make it a job. They call themselves WestJetters. It’s an identity. When we don’t have a sense of belonging, we wear a T-shirt stamped with the company logo to sleep in or while painting the house. When we have a sense of belonging, however, we wear the company schwag in public and with pride. 在強大的企業文化中,員工會建立類似的依戀。他們會以非常個人的方式與公司產生認同。加拿大反叛性民粹主義航空公司 WestJet(類似於美國的西南航空公司)的員工,不會說他們為 WestJet 工作 - 那會讓它只是一份工作。他們稱自己為 WestJetters。這是一種身份認同。當我們沒有歸屬感時,我們會穿著印有公司標誌的 T 恤睡覺或粉刷房子。但是,當我們擁有歸屬感時,我們會自豪地在公眾場合穿著公司的產品。
When cultural standards shift from character, values or beliefs to performance, numbers and other impersonal dopamine-driven measurements, our behavior-driving chemicals fall out of balance and our will to trust and cooperate dilutes. Like adding water to a glass of milk, eventually the culture becomes so watered down it loses all that makes it good and healthy, and by then it only looks like or vaguely tastes like milk. We lose our sense of history, of responsibility to the past and of shared tradition. We care less about belonging. In this kind of weak culture, we veer away from doing “the right thing” in favor of doing “the thing that’s right for me.” 當文化標準從性格、價值觀或信仰轉變為績效、數字和其他非人格驅動的多巴胺測量時，我們驅動行為的化學物質就會失去平衡，我們信任和合作的意願也會稀釋。就像在牛奶中加水一樣，最終文化會變得如此稀薄,以至於失去了所有使它變好和健康的東西,到那時它只是看起來或模糊地嚐起來像牛奶。我們失去了對歷史、對過去的責任和共同傳統的意識。我們對歸屬感越來越少。在這種薄弱的文化中,我們會偏離做「正確的事情」,而選擇做「對我有利的事情」。
To work for Goldman Sachs used to mean something more. It wasn’t just a description of a place of employment. For those who fit the culture, it said something about what kind of person they were. It told the outside world what they could expect from them. And it was largely positive. A person could take pride in the association. But the leaders of the company didn’t protect what took so long to build. 為高盛工作曾經意味著更多。它不僅僅是工作場所的描述。對於那些適合該文化的人來說,它說明了他們是什麼樣的人。它告訴外界他們能給予什麼。而且大多是正面的。一個人可以為這種關聯感到自豪。但是公司的領導人沒有保護所花費時間建立的東西。
As Goethe, the great nineteenth-century thinker, reportedly summed up, “You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” If character describes how an individual thinks and acts, then the culture of an organization describes the character of a group of people and how they think and act as a collective. A company of strong character will have a culture that promotes treating all people well, not just the ones who pay them or earn them money in the moment. In a culture of strong character, the people inside the company will feel protected by their leaders and feel that their colleagues have their backs. In a culture of weak character, the people will feel that any protection they have comes primarily from their own ability to manage the politics, promote their own successes and watch their own backs (though some are lucky enough to have a colleague or two to help). Just as our character defines our value to our friends, so too does the culture of a company define its value to those who know it. 正如大 19 世紀思想家歌德所言總結的「你可以很容易地判斷一個人的品格,就看他如何對待那些無法為他做任何事的人。」如果品格描述了一個人如何思考和行動,那麼一個組織的文化描述了一群人的品格,以及他們如何集體思考和行動。擁有強大品格的公司將有一種文化,促進對所有人的善待,而不僅僅是那些支付他們或賺錢的人。在擁有強大品格的文化中,公司內部的人會感到受到自己領導的保護,並感到同事會支持他們。在品格較弱的文化中,人們會感到他們所擁有的任何保護主要來自自己管理政治、宣揚自己的成就和保護自己的能力(儘管有些人很幸運能得到一兩個同事的幫助)。正如我們的品格定義了我們對朋友的價值,公司的文化也同樣定義了它對了解它的人的價值。
Performance can go up and down; the strength of a culture is the only thing we can truly rely on. 一個文化的力量是我們唯一可以真正依賴的。
It’s always fascinating to pay attention to the words people choose when describing their relationship with their jobs. Words like “love” and “pride” are feelings associated with oxytocin and serotonin, respectively. Or in the case of Goldman Sachs, the lack thereof. “I don’t feel safe,” a current employee at Goldman Sachs told me. “I could lose my job at any moment. Goldman has no heart,” she said. That she would say the company has “no heart” is a recognition of the lack of empathy in the culture. And when empathy is lacking, aggression, fear and other destructive feelings and actions dominate. 對於描述與工作關係的人們所選擇的詞語,總是令人著迷。「愛」和「自豪」等詞語與催產素和血清素有關。然而在高盛的案例中,卻缺乏這些感受。「我感到不安全」,一位高盛的員工告訴我。「我隨時可能失去工作。高盛沒有心」,她說。她會說公司「沒有心」,就是在認識到該文化缺乏同理心。當缺乏同理心時,則是侵略性、恐懼以及其他破壞性的感受和行動佔據主導地位。
A former Goldman employee who worked at the firm in the 2000s, well into the cultural transformation, described an atmosphere of ruthlessness, with managers pitting one team of advisers against another as they fought for a project or client. He described an environment with no trust, no mutual respect and, above all, no accountability when things went wrong. The environment was one of win at all costs, even if it meant squashing a coworker (not to mention a client). Not surprisingly, despite the status one got from working at Goldman (a status probably built from the 在 2000 年代曾在高盛任職的前僱員,在整個文化轉型期間,描述了一種殘酷無情的氛圍,管理層將顧問團隊相互競爭,爭奪項目或客戶。他描述了一種缺乏信任、缺乏相互尊重,而且在出現問題時完全沒有問責制的環境。這是一種不惜一切代價取勝的環境,即使這意味著壓制同事(更不用說客戶)。毫不奇怪,儘管在高盛工作獲得的地位很高(可能是建立在
venerable years before), the former employee and nearly all his colleagues left for other companies within two years. It was just too much for a human to put up with if they wanted to maintain their sanity and be happy, if not successful. But the leaders allowed this culture to continue. 尊敬的年幾年前),前僱員和大多數同事在兩年內離職另謀高就。如果他們想維持理智和快樂,哪怕不成功,一個人也受不了這種文化。但是領導者允許這種文化繼續存在。
On March 14, 2012, the New York Times carried an editorial by Greg Smith, then an executive director of Goldman Sachs, in which he announced his immediate resignation from the firm, where he had worked for twelve years. In it, he wrote about the firm’s “toxic” culture: 在 2012 年 3 月 14 日，紐約時報刊登了格雷格·史密斯撰寫的社論,當時他是高盛集團的執行董事。在社論中,他宣布立即辭去在該公司 12 年的職務。他在文章中寫道該公司的"有毒"文化。
The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief. Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing. Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence. . . . When the history books are written about Goldman Sachs, they may reflect that the current chief executive officer, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and the president, Gary D. Cohn, lost hold of the firm’s culture on their watch. 文化是造就這個地方偉大並贏得我們客戶 143 年來信任的祕密動力。這不僅僅是為了賺錢;單僅靠此無法維持一家公司如此之久。那與自豪及對組織的信仰有關。我很難過地說,我環顧今日,幾乎看不到曾讓我熱愛這家公司多年的文化痕跡。我已不再有自豪感或信仰。領導曾經是關於理念、樹立榜樣及做正確的事。如今,只要為公司賺夠了錢(且暫未成為斧頭杀人犯),你就會被擢升為有影響力的職位。當有關高盛集團的歷史被撰寫時,他們或許會反映現任首席執行官勞埃德·布蘭克海因和總裁蓋瑞·科恩於他們任期內失去了這家公司的文化。
When we assess how we “feel” about our jobs, we are very often responding to the environments in which we work. It is not just about the work we are doing, per se. And when a culture changes from a place where people love to work into a place where they go to work simply to take something for themselves, the finger gets pointed at the people who run the company. People will respond to the environment in which they operate. It is the leaders who decide what kind of environment they want to build. Will they build an inner circle 當我們評估自己對工作的"感受"時,我們通常是在回應所處的工作環境。這不僅僅是關於我們所做的工作本身。當一個文化從一個人們熱愛工作的地方轉變為一個人們僅為自己而工作的地方時,指責就會指向公司的領導。人們會對他們所處的環境做出反應。是領導者決定了他們想要建造的環境類型。他們會建立一個內部圈嗎?
around those closest to them or will they extend the Circle of Safety to the outer edges of the organization? 他們是否只圍繞最親密的人,還是會將安全圍繞擴大到組織的外圍?
The vast majority of people who work at Goldman Sachs, despite what some critics would like to believe, are neither bad nor evil. However, the environment their leaders have created for them to work in makes it possible for them to do bad or evil things. As humans, our behavior is significantly influenced by the environments in which we work . . . for better and for worse. 高盛的絕大多數員工,儘管一些批評者可能認為,都不是壞人或邪惡的人。然而,他們的主管創造的工作環境,使他們有可能做出壞事或邪惡的事情。作為人類,我們的行為受到我們工作環境的重大影響,其好壞都是如此。
In November 2008, terrorists armed with automatic weapons attacked various sites in Mumbai, India, killing over 160 people. The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel was one of those sites. What makes the story of the Taj extraordinary, however, is that their employees risked their lives to save the guests. 在 2008 年 11 月,持自動武器的恐怖分子攻擊了印度孟買的多個地點,造成超過 160 人死亡。泰姬陵宮酒店就是其中一處遭到攻擊的地點。然而,泰姬陵宮酒店的員工冒著生命危險拯救客人的故事,使這個故事格外非凡。
There are stories of telephone operators who, after having made it out safely, ran back into the hotel to call guests to help them get out. There are other stories of kitchen staff who formed a human shield to protect guests as they tried to escape the carnage. Of the 31 people who died at the hotel that day, nearly half of them were staff members. 有關電話接線員在安全逃脫後,返回酒店呼救住客以助他們脫險的故事。也有廚房工作人員組成人牆以保護逃離的住客的故事。在該酒店當天死亡的 31 人中,近半為酒店工作人員。
Rohit Deshpande, a Harvard business professor who researched the events at the Taj, was told by senior management at the hotel that they couldn’t explain why their people acted so bravely. But the reason is not elusive-it was the result of the culture those leaders had cultivated. One of the finest hotels in the world, the Taj insists that their people put the interests of their guests before those of the company; in fact, they are often rewarded for doing so. 羅希特·德什潘德,一位哈佛商學教授,他研究了泰姬陵的事件,被該酒店的高級管理層告知,他們無法解釋為什麼他們的員工表現如此英勇。但這個原因並非難以捉摸——這是那些領導者所培養的文化所致。作為世界上最優秀的酒店之一,泰姬陵堅持他們的員工將客人的利益置於公司之前;事實上,他們經常因此而受到獎勵。
Unlike the culture of Goldman Sachs these days, at the Taj grades and pedigree play less of a role in how they select their people. They’ve learned that graduates from second-tier business schools, for example, often treat others better than those from toptier business schools . . . and so they prefer to hire from the second tier. Respect and empathy are valued over talent, skill or motivation for personal advancement. Once hired, the staff’s inclinations are reinforced and encouraged, which in turn builds a strong culture in which people can be trusted to improvise rather than do things by the book. The Taj knows its people will “do the right thing,” not the thing that’s right for them. So goes the culture, so go the people. 高盛這些年的文化與此不同,在泰姬陵,成績和家世在他們選擇員工方面的作用較小。他們已經發現,來自二線商學院的畢業生往往比頂尖商學院的畢業生更善待他人。因此,他們更喜歡從二線院校聘用人才。尊重和同理心比才能、技能或個人進步的動力更受重視。一旦被聘用,員工的這些傾向會得到加強和鼓勵,從而建立了一種強大的文化,人們可以被信任去即興發揮,而不必死守成規。泰姬陵公司知道,它的員工會"做正確的事",而不是只為自己著想。文化如此,人也如此。
I am always struck when a CEO of a large investment bank is shocked to learn that there was a “rogue trader” in their midst who, in pursuit of personal gains or glory, made decisions that caused damage to the rest of the company. What else should we expect from a culture that reinforces and rewards self-interested behavior? Under these conditions, a CEO is basically gambling that their people will “do the right thing.” But it’s not the people who set the course. It’s the leadership. 我總是驚訝,當一位大型投資銀行的首席執行官,竟會震驚地發現有一名「叛逆交易員」在他們中間,為了個人利益或榮耀而做出決定,造成對公司其他部分的損害。我們還能期望什麼,來自一個加強和獎勵自利行為的文化?在這種情況下,首席執行官基本上是在賭博,認為他們的員工會「做正確的事情」。但制定方向的不是員工,而是領導層。
Bad Cultures Breed Bad Leaders 不良文化孕育不良領導者
KIM STEWART WAS just one of the many employees who suffered as a result of a toxic environment. She knew on her first day at Citigroup that there was something wrong with the culture. “I remember I came home and told my husband, 'I have to limit the number of smart things I say.”’ The problem wasn’t that she thought her boss or her colleagues were stupid, but rather that they felt threatened (a perfectly valid feeling to have in an organization with a weak Circle of Safety). There seemed to always be an air of suspicion and mistrust at the office. 金·斯圖爾特只是許多受害於有毒環境的員工之一。她在第一天來到花旗集團時就知道,該公司的文化有問題。「我記得我回家時告訴我丈夫,'我必須限制我說聰明話的次數。'」問題並不在於她認為老闆或同事很愚蠢,而是他們感到受威脅(在一個安全圈很弱的組織中,這種感受是完全合理的)。辦公室裡似乎總是充滿了猜疑和不信任的氣氛。
Stewart recalls that when she first joined the investment banking division in 2007, she immediately set out to understand the way the company closed certain kinds of deals. She went to her boss and asked him to confirm her understanding of the process, which he did. So why was her first deal an embarrassing disaster? Stewart later found out that her boss, concerned that her success might threaten his own status, intentionally left out a key part of the deal-making process, ensuring she would bomb. It was as if he wanted her to fail in order to make his performance look better. 斯圖爾特回憶說,當她在 2007 年首次加入投資銀行部門時,她立即著手了解公司如何關閉某些類型的交易。她去找她的老闆,請他確認她對該過程的理解,他也確認了。那麼,為什麼她的第一筆交易會是一場令人尷尬的災難呢?斯圖爾特後來發現,她的老闆擔心她的成功可能會威脅到自己的地位,因此有意省略了交易過程中的一個關鍵部分,確保她會失敗。這就像他想要讓她失敗,以便使自己的表現看起來更好。
“At Citi,” Stewart says, “the feeling was ‘I don’t want anybody to know as much as I do because then I am expendable.’” This is a behavior designed for nothing but self-preservation. It is a classic symptom of a cortisol-rich, unsafe culture where valuable information is hidden to advance or protect an individual or a small group of individuals even though sharing would benefit the others in the group 在花旗銀行,"斯圖爾特說,"感覺是'我不想讓任何人知道我知道的那麼多,因為這樣我就可以被拋棄。'"這是一種為了自我保護而設計的行為。這是一種典型的症狀,出現在充滿皮質醇的,不安全的文化中,寶貴的資訊被隱藏起來,以推進或保護個人或少數群體的利益,即使分享信息可以使整個群體受益。
and the organization as a whole. Everybody feared being one-upped by a colleague, Stewart recalls. Nobody felt safe. And not because the company needed to make cutbacks; it was simply the culture. 每個人都害怕被同事壓過一頭,Stewart 回憶說。沒有人感到安全。這並非因為公司需要裁減,而僅僅是這種文化造成的。
It would be another year before the company would suffer enormous financial losses, leading to its rescue by the federal government, in large part due to an atmosphere of hoarding information rather than sharing it. One cannot but wonder how the financial crisis would have turned out had more of the banks had healthier, chemically balanced cultures in which the people didn’t feel threatened by each other. 公司在正式宣告遭受巨大財務損失、導致其獲得聯邦政府救援的前一年,公司內部卻普遍存在著隱瞞資訊而非分享的氛圍。想想倘若銀行企業內部存在更為健康和諧的文化氛圍,人們之間不會感到威脅,金融危機的結果會是如何。
Of course, cutbacks did come eventually. In November 2008, the company had one of the single largest rounds of layoffs on record in any industry in history. On one day, Citi issued 52,000 pink slips, amounting to about 20 percent of its workforce. Stewart’s department was cut by more than half, down from 190 to 95, and bonuses were slashed. Once the dust settled, you would think the leaders of the organization would have been humbled. But they weren’t. 當然,削減最終還是到來了。2008 年 11 月,公司進行了有記錄以來任何行業中最大規模的一次裁員。在同一天,花旗銀行發出了 52,000 份解聘通知,約佔其員工總數的 20%。斯圖爾特的部門從 190 人減至 95 人,裁減了一半以上,獎金也被嚴重削減。塵埃落定後,人們本以為組織領導者會感到謙卑,但實際並非如此。
Instead, the atmosphere got worse. Stewart recalls that in late 2011, a few years after the crisis, when the company was back in the black, her new boss at Citi, a managing director, arrived to introduce himself. He told the employees he was interested in only three things: revenue, net income and expenses. Then he added privately to Stewart, “If you think I’m going to be your mentor and give you career advice, you’re wrong.” So goes the leadership, so goes the culture. 反而,氣氛變得更糟。Stewart 回憶說,在 2011 年末,也就是危機過後幾年,當公司重回盈利後,她在花旗銀行的新主管,一位董事總經理,來介紹自己。他告訴員工,他只關心三件事:收入、淨收益和費用。然後他私下對 Stewart 補充說:"如果你以為我會成為你的導師,給你職業建議,那你就想錯了。"領導如此,文化也如此。
A Culture Protected 文化保護
mOST PEOPLE ARE familiar with Post-it Notes. But what most people do not know is how they came to be. Unlike so many companies that develop products by imagining and trying to build them-3M owes the development of Post-it Notes, and so many of its other products, to one simple thing: its culture of sharing. 大多數人都熟悉便利貼。但大多數人並不知道它們是如何誕生的。與許多公司通過想像和嘗試來開發產品不同,3M 公司之所以能夠開發出便利貼等其他眾多產品,是源於它的一個簡單因素:共享的文化。
Spencer Silver, the scientist who is partially credited with the creation of the Post-it, was working in his lab at the Minnesota-based company, actually trying to develop a very strong adhesive. Unfortunately, he wasn’t successful. What he accidentally made was a very weak adhesive. Based on the job specs given to him, he had failed. But Silver didn’t throw his “failure” in the trash out of embarrassment. He didn’t keep his misstep a secret out of fear for his job or guard it closely in the hopes of someday profiting from it. In fact, the unintentional invention was shared with others at the company . . . just in case someone else could figure out a way to use it. 3M 公司的科學家史班瑟·席爾弗只是部分地被歸功於 Post-it 便籤紙的發明,他正在他位於明尼蘇達州的實驗室研究開發一種非常強力的黏著劑。不幸的是,他並不成功。他意外製造出了一種非常微弱的黏著劑。雖然未能達成工作規格,但席爾弗並沒有因為羞愧而把它丟進垃圾桶。他也沒有害怕失去工作而隱瞞這次失誤,也沒有期望有朝一日能從中獲利而保密。事實上,他與公司內的其他人分享了這項無意間發明的情況,以防有人發現如何利用它。
And that’s exactly what happened. A few years later, Art Fry, another scientist at 3M, was in church choir practice getting frustrated that he couldn’t get his bookmark to stay in place. It kept falling out of the page, off the music stand and onto the floor. He remembered Silver’s weak adhesive and realized he could use it to make the perfect bookmark! And that was the birth of what would become one of the best-recognized brands in history, with four thousand varieties sold in over a hundred countries. 這正是發生的事。幾年後,3M 公司另一位科學家 Art Fry 在教會的合唱練習中感到沮喪,因為無法讓書籤固定在位置上。它一直掉落出頁面、掉落音樂架,落到地板上。他記起 Silver 的弱黏性膠水,意識到他可以用它製造完美的書籤!這就是一個在歷史上最知名品牌之一的誕生,如今有四千種變體產品,在超過一百個國家銷售。
Innovation at 3M is not simply the result of educational pedigree or technical expertise. Innovation is the result of a corporate culture of collaboration and sharing. In stark contrast to the mind-set of leaders at some investment banks, 3M knows that people do their best work when they work together, share their ideas and comfortably borrow each other’s work for their own projects. There’s no notion of “mine.” 創新是 3M 的結果,並非純粹出自教育背景或技術專長。創新是由於協作和分享的企業文化所致。與某些投資銀行領袖的心態形成鮮明對比,3M 知道人們在一起工作、分享他們的想法,以及舒適地借用彼此的工作於自己的項目中時,能獲得最佳績效。這裏沒有「我的」這種觀念。
In another company, Silver’s botched formula might never have made its way into Fry’s hands. But not at 3M. “At 3M we’re a bunch of ideas,” Fry is known to have said. “We never throw an idea away because you never know when someone else will need it.” The cross-pollination of ideas-combined with an emphasis on sharing across product lines-has led to an atmosphere of collaboration that makes 3M a place where employees feel valued. “Innovation from interaction,” is one of the company’s favorite mottos. Employees are encouraged to present new ideas at internal Tech Forums, regular gatherings of peers from other divisions. One sure sign that all this 在另一家公司,Sliver 的失敗配方可能從未進入 Fry 的手中。但不是在 3M。「在 3M,我們是一群充滿創意的人」,Fry 曾如此說道。「我們永不放棄任何想法,因為你永遠無法預知誰會需要它。」思想的交叉授粉,加上跨產品線分享的重視,營造出 3M 員工感受受重視的協作氛圍。「交互創新」是公司最喜歡的格言之一。員工受鼓勵在內部技術論壇上提出新想法,這是來自其他部門同僚的定期會議。這一切的確切證據是
collaborating is working is that more than 80 percent of 3M’s patents have more than one inventor. 協作是工作,這意味著 3M 公司超過 80%的專利擁有多位發明人。
This kind of culture has nothing to do with the kind of industry 3M is in. Even an industry that is less collaborative by the nature of its product or service can benefit from sharing. Huge improvements can happen just by getting a fresh set of eyes on the work. Hearing one person’s solution to a problem can inform someone else how to solve a problem of their own. Isn’t this the idea of learning-to pass on our knowledge to others? 這種文化與 3M 所屬行業無關。即使產品或服務的性質較不具協作性的行業,也可從分享中獲益。僅僅讓別人重新看看工作,就可能大幅改善。一個人解決問題的方法,可以啟發別人解決自己的問題。這不就是學習的目的嗎?要把我們的知識傳授給他人?
Take a look at the products 3 M develops and you will be amazed at how their innovation leaps from one division to another. Scientists in a 3M lab developing products for the automotive industry set out to create a substance that would help auto body shops mix the filler they used to fix dents. The technology they used came from a 3M lab for creating dental products, from a substance dentists use to mix the putty for dental impressions. In another example, a 3M technology used to brighten highway signs would later be used to invent “microneedle patches,” which allow injections to be delivered painlessly. The cross-pollination of ideas produces innovation to a degree that would make most people’s heads spin. 3M 開發的產品實在令人驚嘆,他們的創新在各個部門都有所體現。3M 實驗室的科學家在為汽車工業開發產品時,研究出一種物質,可以幫助汽車修理店混合用來修補凹陷的填料。這種技術源自 3M 為製造牙科產品而開發的實驗室,利用牙醫使用的材料混合牙科印模的物質。另一個例子是,3M 用於加亮公路標誌的技術後來被應用於發明「微針貼片」,可無痛注射。這種不同領域概念的交叉融合,產生的創新足以令大多數人目眩神迷。
The company has over twenty thousand patents with over five hundred awarded in 2012 alone. In 2009, in the middle of a very tough economy, when other companies were slashing their R&D budgets to save money, 3M still managed to release over a thousand new products. 3M’s products are ubiquitous, though typically unnoticed-and almost always taken for granted. If everyday products had a “3M inside” sticker on them like computers had an “Intel inside” sticker, the average consumer would see that sticker sixty to seventy times a day. 3M has succeeded not because they hire the best and the brightest (though I am sure they would argue that they do), but because they have a corporate culture that encourages and rewards people for helping each other and sharing everything they learn. Though 3M surely has its share of problems and bureaucracy, they work very hard to foster collaboration. 該公司擁有超過二萬項專利,其中在 2012 年單獨就獲得了五百項。在 2009 年,在非常艱難的經濟環境中,當其他公司削減研發預算以節省開支時,3M 仍成功推出了超過一千種新產品。3M 的產品無處不在,但通常很容易被忽視,幾乎總是被視為理所當然。如果日常產品上像電腦上的"Intel inside"貼紙一樣有"3M inside"貼紙,平均消費者一天會看到六十到七十次那個貼紙。3M 之所以成功,不是因為他們僱傭最優秀和最聰明的人(儘管他們肯定會爭辯說他們做到了),而是因為他們擁有一種鼓勵和獎勵人們相互幫助和分享所學的企業文化。雖然 3M 肯定也有自己的一些問題和官僚作風,但他們非常努力地培養協作精神。
Inside a Circle of Safety, when people trust and share their successes and failures, what they know and what they don’t know, the result is innovation. It’s just natural. 在一個安全圈內,當人們彼此信任並分享他們的成功和失敗,以及他們所知道和不知道的事情時,創新就自然而然地產生了。
Leadership Lesson 2: 領導力課程 2:
So Goes the Leader, so Goes the Culture 領導者如何,文化也跟著如何
I Before You. Me Before We. 我在你之前。我在我們之前。
he wanted to be in charge. He wanted to be the leader. And no one was going to stand in his way . . . not even the current leader. This is how Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq. Even before he took power, he formed strategic alliances that would bolster his position and help ensure his own rise. And once in power, he showered his allies with wealth and position to keep them “loyal.” He claimed to be on the side of the people. But he wasn’t. He was in it for himself, for the glory, fame, power and fortune. And all his promises to serve were part of his strategy to take. 薩達姆·胡賽因在伊拉克掌權的過程。
The problem with such transitions is that they create a culture of mistrust and paranoia. Though things may be functional while the dictator is in power, once ousted, the whole country is left on shaky ground for years to come. These stories are not exclusive to the rise of dictators in unstable nations or plots of HBO series. All too often, similar scenarios play out in modern corporations. Stanley O’Neal’s ascent at Merrill Lynch in 2001 is just one example. 這樣的轉變所帶來的問題是,它們製造了一種不信任和偏執的文化。雖然在獨裁者掌權期間一切可以正常運作,但一旦被推翻,整個國家都會陷入數年的動盪不安。這些故事並非局限於不穩定國家獨裁者的崛起或 HBO 劇集的情節。類似的情況在現代企業中也普遍發生。史丹利·奧尼爾 2001 年在美林證券的崛起就是一個例子。
Born during the heart of the Baby Boom in the small town of Wedowee, in eastern Alabama, O’Neal, the grandson of a former slave, went to Harvard Business School on a scholarship from General Motors. He later took a job at GM and quickly rose through the ranks of the firm’s treasury department. But he had his sights set on other things, bigger things. And so, despite having no real interest or experience in the brokerage business, he moved on to Wall 奧尼爾，前奴隸的孫子，出生於阿拉巴馬州東部小鎮韋多韋，正值嬰兒潮期間。他獲得通用汽車公司的獎學金進入哈佛商學院。之後在通用汽車公司工作，並迅速晉升至財務部門。不過他的目標瞄準其他更大的事情。雖然對經紀業毫無興趣和經驗，但他決定轉而投身其中。
Street. One of only a handful of African Americans to make it to the top rungs in the banking industry, O’Neal had the opportunity to become one of the great leaders of our day, a symbol of what’s possible in America. But he chose a different path. 街道。非裔美國人能晉身銀行業高層的屈指可數,歐尼爾本可成為當今的偉大領袖,代表著美國的可能性。但他選擇了另一條路。
In 1986, he joined Merrill Lynch, and within a few years had become head of the junk bond division (which, ironically enough, would under his leadership become the biggest junk bond operator after Drexel Burnham Lambert’s Michael Milken pleaded guilty to securities fraud in 1990). O’Neal later took over Merrill’s huge brokerage division, eventually becoming the firm’s CFO. When the Internet bubble burst in the late 1990s, he quickly laid off thousands of employees, impressing his boss-then CEO David Komanskywith his boldness, while cementing his growing reputation as a ruthless manager. In mid-2001, with Komansky as his ally, O’Neal elbowed out several other contenders to become president of the company. But he wanted more. 1986 年,他加入美林,不到幾年就成為"垃圾債券"部門的主管(這部門在他的領導下,成為繼德雷塞爾本漢姆蘭伯特公司的邁克爾·米爾肯 1990 年因證券欺詐罪自認有罪之後,最大的"垃圾債券"營運商)。之後,歐尼爾接管了美林的龐大券商部,最終成為該公司的財務長。1990 年代末,互聯網泡沫破滅時,他迅速裁減了數千名員工,讓時任 CEO 的大衛·科曼斯基留下深刻印象,並鞏固了他作為一名無情管理者日益增長的聲譽。2001 年中期,在科曼斯基的支持下,歐尼爾擠掉了其他幾個競爭對手,成為該公司的總裁。但他並不滿足於此。
O’Neal wanted to do away with Merrill Lynch’s employee-centric culture, something he saw as an obstacle. Affectionately known as “Mother Merrill” (a hint to the days when the culture was more balanced and human), Merrill Lynch was a great place to work. It was no secret, however, that O’Neal despised the culture, viewing it as soft and unfocused, something that got in his way. With no interest in fostering any particular healthy corporate culture, the business was all about competition, and a competitive atmosphere is, indeed, what he created. The culture he engineered was not one in which the people of Merrill simply competed furiously with outsiders. This was a culture in which people competed intensely against each other. 尼爾希望消除默里爾林奇的以員工為中心的文化,他認為這是一個障礙。被親切地稱為「默里爾母親」(這暗示了當文化更加平衡和人性化時的日子),默里爾林奇是一個很好的工作場所。然而,人們都知道,尼爾厭惡這種文化,認為它很軟弱和沒有重點,這阻礙了他的行事方式。由於對培養任何特定的健康企業文化沒有興趣,這個企業完全是關於競爭的,而他創造了一種競爭的氛圍。他設計的文化並不是默里爾的人只是與外人激烈競爭。這是一種人們彼此激烈競爭的文化。
Again, a leader always sets the tone inside an organization and putting oneself before others was the tone O’Neal set. When 9/11 struck, Merrill was deeply affected, with hundreds of employees injured and three killed. Yet during the twelve months of emotional upheaval following that tragic event, like other Wall Street firms, O’Neal laid off thousands of employees and closed offices. 重新一次,領導者總是在一個組織內部設定氛圍,把自己置於他人之前就是尼爾設定的基調。9/11 襲擊發生時,美林深受影響,數百名員工受傷,三人死亡。然而,在那起悲慘事件之後 12 個月內動盪不安的時期,與華爾街其他公司一樣,尼爾裁員數千人並關閉辦公室。
Having marginalized his rivals, by 2002, O’Neal’s chess game was complete: The Merrill board forced his old friend Komansky to retire early and made O’Neal chairman and CEO. With the 在邊緣化其對手之後,到 2002 年,歐尼爾的棋局已經完成:美林董事會迫使他的老朋友科曼斯基提早退休,並任命歐尼爾為董事長兼首席執行官。隨著
gregarious Komansky gone, the cultural transformation was nearly complete. Though not perfect, Komansky would at least occasionally wander down to the employee cafeteria to eat with the others. O’Neal saw no value in that. He had no interest in fraternizing with his people. Instead, he used a private elevator to reach his office on the thirty-second floor. Employees were also instructed not to speak to him in the halls and to stay out of his way if they passed by him. Never one to let a good perk go to waste, on weekends O’Neal would use the corporate jet to fly to his home on Martha’s Vineyard. 格雷戈里·科曼斯基不再,文化轉型幾乎完成。雖然並非完美,科曼斯基偶爾也會下到員工餐廳與他人一起用餐。奧尼爾看不到這有什麼價值。他對與員工交往沒有興趣。相反,他使用私人電梯到達位於三十二層的辦公室。員工也被指示不要在走廊裡與他說話,如果遇見他也要避開。奧尼爾在週末會使用公司噴氣機飛往他在馬莎葡萄園的家。
We work to advance the vision of a leader who inspires us and we work to undermine a dictator who means to control us. As the trust evaporated, it should come as no surprise that O’Neal’s biggest threat, as in any dictatorship, would come from within. In a Circle of Safety, the people work to protect their leader as a natural response to the protection their leader offers them. This was not the case at O’Neal’s Merrill, however. O’Neal’s direct reports had begun working behind the scenes to put pressure on the Merrill board to undermine him. O’Neal caught wind and quickly squelched his opposition. It wouldn’t take long for O’Neal to completely isolate himself at the top, allowing the culture of Merrill to be almost entirely driven by the intoxication of dopamine and the dread and paranoia of cortisol. The days of “Mother Merrill” were long gone. 我們努力推進一位啟發我們的領導者的願景,我們也努力破壞一位企圖控制我們的獨裁者。隨着信任的消失,O'Neal 最大的威脅來自內部這並不令人驚訝,這是任何獨裁政權的常見情況。在安全圈內,人們自然會努力保護他們的領導者,作為回報領導者也會為他們提供保護。然而,這並非 O'Neal 的 Merrill 的情況。O'Neal 的直接下屬開始在幕後施加壓力,企圖讓 Merrill 董事會 undermine 他。O'Neal 察覺到了這一點,並迅速壓制了他的反對者。不久之後,O'Neal 就徹底孤立了自己,Merrill 的企業文化完全被多巴胺的刺激和皮質醇的恐懼與偏執主導。"慈母 Merrill "的日子已一去不復返。
By this point, the attention of the firm’s leadership was focused on creating the high-risk bonds that would help fuel the rise and collapse of the mortgage market. Is it any wonder the company was in no position to ward off the trouble that was about to befall it? In the summer of 2006, the investment chief, Jeff Kronthal, warned O’Neal of dangers ahead. Instead of working with Kronthal or implementing any safeguards for the good of the company, O’Neal fired him. O’Neal believed that if there was trouble ahead, only he could manage it, and so he tightened his grip to keep all the control. 到此為止,該公司領導層的注意力集中在創造有助於推動房地產市場崛起和崩潰的高風險債券。這公司要是無法避免即將到來的麻煩,真算不足為奇嗎?2006 年夏天,投資總監 Jeff Kronthal 警告 O'Neal 面臨的危險。但 O'Neal 沒有與 Kronthal 合作或為公司的利益採取任何防範措施,反而解雇了他。O'Neal 相信如果遇到麻煩,只有他能應付,因此他加強控制,維持所有權力。
In October 2007, the company announced it had lost over $2.2 billion in the third quarter and written off $8.4\$ 8.4 billion in failed investments. Finally, O’Neal’s reign had come to an abrupt and inglorious end. He had successfully managed to isolate himself from his employees and his board, topped off by a decision to reach out to Wachovia about a possible merger without first discussing it with his 董事會。
directors. Any support he might have gotten was gone. How much was all that control worth? O’Neal left Merrill Lynch in disgrace with a severance package worth more than $160\$ 160 million. 董事。他可能獲得的任何支持都已消失。所有那些控制權到底值多少錢?尼爾在梅里爾·林奇公司以受辱的方式離職,並獲得了價值超過 $160\$ 160 百萬美元的遣散費。
I am often amused by the irony of CEOs who believe in a “pay for performance” incentive model inside their companies then expect huge payouts when they leave the company in shambles. Why do shareholders and boards not write into their contracts a prohibition against any severance if a CEO leaves the company in disgrace? Would that not at least be consistent and in the best interest of the company and its shareholders? But I digress. 我常常被公司高層相信「績效付酬」獎勵模式的諷刺所逗樂,卻在離開公司時期望獲得巨額報酬,即使公司已陷入困境。為什麼股東和董事會不在合約中禁止任何離職補償,如果 CEO 以不名譽的方式離開公司?這不是更加一致和符合公司及其股東的最佳利益嗎?但我不想多說了。
O’Neal represented an extreme version of the thinking that had taken over Wall Street, and in the end it caused his downfall. He had isolated himself from the people he led and, making matters worse, he had so successfully fostered internal competition that, not surprisingly, those who had once been on his team turned against him. As I have already shown, the problem is not how a company conducts its business per se. The problem lies with the quality of relationships within the organization-starting with the leader. 尼爾代表了已經侵佔華爾街的極端思想,最終導致他的衰敗。他與自己領導的人隔離,並且他成功地培養了內部競爭,結果不出所料,曾經是他團隊成員的人反過來對抗他。如我已經指出的,問題不在於公司如何經營業務。問題在於組織內部關係的質量——從領導者開始。
The more attention a leader focuses on their own wealth or power, they stop acting like a leader and start taking on more of the attributes of a tyrant. Mark Bowden wrote a remarkable piece about Saddam Hussein in the Atlantic Monthly. In it he describes how the tyrant leader “exists only to preserve his wealth and power.” And this is the problem. “Power,” as Bowden further explains, “gradually shuts the tyrant off from the world.” And, as we already know, when distance is created, abstraction settles in and soon after that comes the paranoia. The tyrant sees the world against them, which only compels them to shut out even more people. They set up more and more rigid controls around their inner circle. And as their isolation increases, the organization suffers. 領導者越是專注於自己的財富或權力,就越停止表現出領導者的特質,而更多地展現出暴君的屬性。馬克·鮑登在《大西洋月刊》中撰寫了一篇出色的文章,描述了薩達姆·侯賽因。在文中,他描述了這位暴君領導者「僅存在於保護自己的財富和權力」。這就是問題所在。鮑登進一步解釋說,「權力逐漸使暴君與世界隔離」。而正如我們所知,當距離被拉開時,抽象性便開始滋生,很快接踵而來的就是偏執。暴君認為整個世界都對自己不利,這只會驅使他們排斥更多的人。他們在內部圈層周圍設置越來越多的嚴格控制。而隨著他們的孤立程度越來越高,整個組織也在遭受衰敗。
Absent any care from above, those inside the organization are less likely to cooperate. Instead, competing against each other becomes the best way to advance. And when that happens, the success individuals in the group may enjoy will not be met with 在缺乏來自上級的關懷下,組織內部的人員較不可能合作。相反,相互競爭成為最好的晉升方式。而當這種情況發生時,團隊中個人的成功將不會得到回應。
congratulations from others, but with jealousy. If a leader were purely evil or if we believed there was no chance to enter their inner Circle, then the seeds of rebellion would form. But when the possibility exists that we might make it in, or if, on the other hand, we are unsure whether we will be thrown to the wolves, we become almost immobilized. It is the rustle in the grass, the fear of what may be lurking, that initiates the flow of cortisol into our blood streams. It is the cortisol that makes us as paranoid and focused on selfpreservation as the isolated leader above. This is what O’Neal did at Merrill. He changed the culture from one that offered certainty of protection to one of uncertainty. And, as in Iraq, there was no solid foundation left for the company to sustain itself. There just wasn’t enough trust to go around. 別人的祝賀,但帶有嫉妒。如果一個領導者純粹邪惡,或我們相信沒有機會進入他們的內圈,那麼叛亂的種子就會形成。但是當存在著我們可能進入的可能性,或者,另一方面,我們不確定是否會被丟進狼窩時,我們變得幾乎麻痹不動。這是草叢中的沙沙聲,是潛伏其中的恐懼,引發了皮質醇進入我們的血液。正是這種皮質醇使我們像被孤立的領導者一樣偏執和專注於自我保護。這就是奈爾在美林所做的。他將公司的文化從一個確保保護的文化變成了一個不確定的文化。正如在伊拉克一樣,公司沒有足夠的基礎來維持自身。沒有足夠的信任可以互相分享。
O’Neal’s rise and fall is not just a story of how one man’s ambition can bring down a company. In the end, everyone and everything suffers in these conditions. All that control focused at the top can lead to only one outcome: eventual collapse. 歐尼爾的興衰不僅僅是一個人的野心如何摧毀一家公司的故事。最終,在這些條件下,每個人和每件事都會遭受苦難。所有集中在頂部的控制力最終只能導致一個結果:最終崩潰。
True Power 真正力量
DAVID MARQUET WAS a career submariner. Graduating near the top of his class from the Naval Academy, he’s a pretty smart guy. In fact, it is partly because of his smarts that he climbed his way up the ranks of the U.S. Navy. Knowing the right answers, he was able to give good instructions and issue good orders. He was the leader because he was in control (at least that’s what he had been taught). 大衛·馬凱特是一名職業潛水艇水手。他在海軍學院畢業時名列前茅,是一個非常聰明的人。事實上,正是由於他的聰明才智,他才得以逐步晉升至美國海軍的高層。因為掌握正確的答案,他能夠給出良好的指示和下達適當的命令。他之所以成為領導,是因為他掌控一切(至少這就是他被教導的)。
The Navy, like many organizations, rewards smart, goal-oriented people with recognition and promotion. And so Captain Marquet was recognized and promoted. He worked his way up to earn one of the great honors any Naval officer could earn: his own command. He was to be the captain of the USS Olympia, a nuclear-powered, Los Angeles-class, fast-attack submarine. The Navy has “Boomers,” huge submarines that carry and launch nuclear missiles. The smaller, nimbler fast-attack subs are designed to hunt down the other guys’ Boomers and, if it came to it, destroy them before they 海軍,像許多組織一樣,以認可和晉升獎勵聰明、目標導向的人。因此,馬奎特上尉獲得認可和晉升。他通過努力工作贏得了任何海軍軍官都可以獲得的最大榮譽之一:自己的指揮權。他將成為麥科密克號核動力洛杉磯級快速攻擊潛艇的艦長。海軍有"轟炸機",這些巨大的潛艇承載和發射核導彈。較小、更靈活的快速攻擊潛艇被設計用來追蹤其他人的"轟炸機",如果情況需要,在它們發射之前將其摧毀。
had the chance to launch their missiles. An elaborate game of cat and mouse played across the expanse of the globe’s oceans. And Captain Marquet was now a key player in the game. 他們曾有機會發射導彈。一場精心佈局的貓鼠遊戲在地球的海洋間展開。而 Marquet 船長現已成為這場遊戲中的關鍵角色。
To prepare for the big job, Captain Marquet spent a year studying Olympia’s systems and crew. And, in typical Marquet fashion, he worked hard to learn as much as he could. He learned every wire, every pipe and every switch the Olympia had. He pored through the personnel files to get to know everything he could about his crew. Like many people in charge, he felt he needed to know as much if not more than his crew to be a credible leader. Given the importance and honor of his new position, this time was not going to be an exception. 為了準備這項重要工作,Marquet 船長花了一年時間研究奧林匹亞號的系統和船員。按照他一貫的作風,他努力學習盡可能多的知識。他瞭解了奧林匹亞號上的每一根電線、每一根管道和每一個開關。他仔細閱讀了人員檔案,以掌握關於船員的一切資訊。像許多掌權者一樣,他認為必須掌握不亞於甚至超過船員的知識,才能成為可信賴的領導者。鑑於他新職位的重要性和榮譽,這次也不會例外。
Less than two weeks before Captain Marquet was scheduled to take command of the Olympia, he got an unexpected call from the powers that be. There was a change in plans. He would not be captaining the Olympia after all. Instead, he was assigned to take command of the USS Santa Fe, a slightly newer Los Angeles-class submarine. But there was one other little detail-the crew of the Santa Fe ranked last in nearly every readiness and retention measurement the Navy had. While the Olympia was considered the best of the best, the Santa Fe was at the bottom, the Bad News Bears of nuclear subs. But Captain Marquet was a smart guy and saw the change as a challenge. Like many a senior executive with a strong ego and a big brain, he saw himself as the one who would take charge and turn this ship around. If he gave good orders, he would have a good ship. And if he gave great orders, he would have a great ship . . . at least that was his plan. 馬奎特艦長原定調任奧林匹亞號,但在此之前獲得意外來電,調任擔任聖達非號的指揮官。雖然聖達非號被視為海軍最差的核潛艦,但馬奎特艦長認為這是一個挑戰,他相信只要下達良好的命令,就能帶領這艘船起飛。
And so, on January 8, 1999, Captain Marquet stepped off the dock at Pearl Harbor and onto the $2\$ 2 billion, slightly-longer-than-a-football-field vessel that 135 crew members would now call home. As one of the newest ships in the fleet, the Santa Fe had a good deal of equipment that was different from what Captain Marquet had trained up on for the Olympia. For someone used to being in control to be in a situation they don’t fully understand, they can often be blind to their own ignorance. Or worse, they may choose to hide what they don’t know for fear of having others question their authority. Even though he knew he would have to rely more on his crew to fill the gaps in his 於 1999 年 1 月 8 日,馬奎特船長離開珍珠港碼頭,登上一艘 135 名船員將稱之為家的以足球場略稍長的船隻上。作為艦隊中最新的船只之一,聖塔菲號擁有許多與馬奎特船長在奧林匹亞號上訓練時接觸不同的設備。對於習慣掌控的人來說,陷入自己不完全了解的處境中,他們通常會對自己的無知視而不見。或者更糟,他們可能選擇隱藏自己的無知,害怕別人質疑他們的權威。即便他知道需要更多依賴船員來彌補自己的缺陷,
knowledge, Captain Marquet kept that fact to himself. His technical knowledge was the basis of his leadership authority and with that gone, he, like many leaders, worried he would lose the respect of his crew. 知識,馬凱船長將這一事實保守在心中。他的技術知識是他領導權威的基礎,如果失去了這一點,他就像許多領導者一樣,擔心會失去船員的尊重。
As it turns out, old habits die hard. Instead of asking questions to help him learn, Captain Marquet defaulted to what he knew bestbeing in control-and started issuing orders. And it seemed to work. Everything seemed to go smoothly. The crew jumped to his words, an aye-aye here and an aye-aye there. There was no question who was boss. The serotonin flowed through Captain Marquet’s veins and it felt good. 舊習難改。艾軍長沒有詢問以學習,而是依照他最熟悉的方式-掌控局面-下達命令。這似乎奏效了,一切都順利進行。船員服從他的指令,毫無異議。誰是老大一目了然。艾軍長心中充滿快樂的賀爾蒙。
The next day while out at sea, Captain Marquet decided to run a drill. He had the nuclear reactor manually shut down to simulate a reactor failure. He wanted to see how his crew would react if faced with the real thing. And for a while, everything seemed to go well. The crew performed all the necessary checks and precautions and switched to running the submarine on a battery-powered motor, or EPM. Though not nearly as powerful as the nuclear reactor, the EPM could keep the submarine running at slow speeds. 馬奎特船長決定進行一次演習。他手動關閉了核反應堆以模擬反應堆故障。他想看看他的船員如何應對真正的情況。起初一切似乎進展順利。船員進行了所有必要的檢查和預防措施,並切換到使用電池驅動馬達(EPM)操作潛艇。雖然不如核反應堆強大,但 EPM 仍可維持潛艇以緩慢速度行駛。
But the captain wanted to push his crew further to see how they would do with a little more pressure. He gave the Officer of the Deck, the ship’s navigator and most experienced officer on board, a simple instruction: “Ahead two thirds.” This meant that he wanted the crew to run the electric motors at two thirds of their maximum power. It would drive the ship faster but it would also run the batteries down more quickly, which would add a sense of urgency to get the reactor up and running again. 但是船長希望進一步推動他的船員,看看他們在稍微增加壓力下的表現如何。他給了甲板官、航海員和船上最資深的官員一個簡單的指令:「前進三分之二」。這意味著他希望船員以最大功率的三分之二來驅動電動機。這將使船隻航行更快,但也會更快消耗電池,從而增加重新啟動反應堆的緊迫感。
The Officer of the Deck acknowledged the Captain and repeated the order out loud, instructing the submarine’s driver to turn up the speed. “Ahead two thirds,” he said to the helmsman. And nothing happened. The submarine’s speed remained the same. 甲板軍官向船長致意,並大聲重複命令,指示潛艦駕駛員增加速度。「前進兩三分之一」,他對舵手說。但什麼也沒發生。潛艦的速度保持不變。
Captain Marquet peered out from behind the periscope to look at the junior enlisted crew member who should have executed the order. The young sailor sitting at the controls was squirming in his seat. “Helmsman,” Captain Marquet called out, “what’s the problem?” To which the young sailor replied, “Sir, there is no two-thirds setting.” Unlike every other submarine Captain Marquet had ever been on, 馬克船長從潛望鏡後望出,看著應該執行該命令的初級士兵。坐在控制台上的年輕水手在座位上扭動著。「操舵手」馬克船長呼喊道,「出什麼問題了?」年輕水手回答說:「長官,沒有三分之二的設定。」與馬克船長之前乘過的其他每一艘潛艇不同,
the newer Santa Fe didn’t have a two-thirds setting on the batterypowered motor. 新的聖塔菲沒有電池驅動馬達的三分之二設置。
Captain Marquet turned to the navigator, who had been aboard for over two years, and asked him if he knew there was no two-thirds setting. “Yes sir,” replied the officer. Dumbfounded, Captain Marquet asked him, “Then why did you issue the order?” 船長馬凱特轉身面向航海員,他已在船上服務超過兩年,並詢問他是否知道沒有三分之二設定。「是的,長官。」該軍官回應。船長馬凱特茫然地問道:「那麼你為什麼下達命令?」
“Because you told me to,” said the officer. 因為你叫我這麼做的," 警官說。
It was at that point that Captain Marquet was forced to face the reality of the situation: his crew had been trained to follow instructions and he had been trained for another submarine. And if everyone was going to blindly follow his orders simply because he was in charge, then something very, very bad could happen. “What happens when the leader is wrong in a top-down culture? Everyone goes off a cliff,” Captain Marquet would later write. If he was going to succeed, he would have to learn to trust his bottom-ranked crew more than he trusted himself. He had no choice. 馬奎特上尉被迫面對現實:他的船員經過訓練,服從指令,而他卻受訓於另一艘潛艇。如果所有人只是因為他是指揮官就盲目地服從,就會發生非常、非常糟糕的事情。「在自上而下的文化中,領導者錯了會發生什麼?大家就跟著一起跌落懸崖。」馬奎特上尉日後如是寫道。如果他要成功,他必須學會比相信自己更信任他的最低層船員。他別無選擇。
A nuclear-powered submarine is not like a company. In a company, we think that when things go wrong we can simply replace our staff or change technology to make it work better. It’s an option that a good too many leaders of companies think is an advantage. It also assumes that the right people are being let go and the right people are being hired. What if we were forced to run our companies like Captain Marquet had to run his submarine? He couldn’t return to shore and ask for a better crew and a more familiar ship. This is the challenge that Captain Marquet now faced. As much as he knew and as smart as he was, everything he thought he knew about leadership was wrong. He couldn’t have his crew blindly follow his orders anymore-the consequences could be devastating. Now he needed everyone to think, not just to do. 以核動力推進的潛水艇與公司並不相同。在公司中,我們認為當事情出錯時,我們可以簡單地更換員工或改變技術來使其工作得更好。這是許多公司領導者認為是優勢的一個選項。這也假設正確的人被解雇,並且正確的人被聘用。如果我們被迫像馬奎特隊長管理潛艇一樣管理我們的公司會怎樣?他無法返回岸邊,要求更好的船員和更熟悉的船。這就是馬奎特隊長現在面臨的挑戰。儘管他了解很多,而且很聰明,但他以前所知道的關於領導的一切都是錯誤的。他不能再要求船員盲目服從他的命令-後果可能會是毀滅性的。現在他需要每個人都能思考,而不只是去做。
GIVE AUTHORITY TOTHOSE CLOSEST TO THE INFORMATION 將權力下放給最接近信息的人
“Those at the top,” explains Captain Marquet, “have all the authority and none of the information. Those at the bottom,” he continues, “have all the information and none of the authority. Not until those without information relinquish their control can an organization run better, smoother and faster and reach its maximum potential.” The problem, Captain Marquet says, was that he was “addicted” to being in control. And the crew, like in so many organizations that follow a flawed interpretation of hierarchy, were trained for compliance. In organizations in which few take responsibility for their own actions, at some point something bad is going to happen. Something bad that was probably highly preventable. 那些在頂層的人,」馬奎特上尉解釋道,「擁有所有的權力,卻缺乏所有的資訊。那些在底層的人,」他繼續說,「擁有所有的資訊,卻缺乏所有的權力。直到那些沒有資訊的人放棄他們的控制權,組織才能運轉得更好、更順暢、更快,並達到最大的潛力。」問題在於,馬奎特上尉說,他對控制上癮。而船員,就像許多組織中遵循有缺陷的階層體系的人一樣,都受過服從的訓練。在任何只有少數人對自己的行動承擔責任的組織中,總有一些壞事會發生。這種壞事很可能是完全可以預防的。
One can’t help but think again about the companies that suffer thanks to the decisions of a few selfishly minded people within their organizations. Whether these individuals act unethically, commit a crime or simply work counter to the interests of the organization, neither they nor their leaders seem to take responsibility. Instead they point fingers. Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans when things don’t get done. Mortgage companies blamed the banks and banks blamed the mortgage 一些自私心理人做出的決定,導致許多公司遭受困境。不論這些人是否有非法行為,或是工作效率不彰,他們和領導層似乎都不願承擔責任,反而互相推諉。共和黨人指責民主黨人,民主黨人指責共和黨人,責任推諉不休。房貸公司責怪銀行,銀行又指責房貸。
companies for the 2008 financial meltdown. Let us be grateful none of them are responsible for the care of nuclear-powered submarines. 2008 年金融危機的公司。讓我們感謝沒有任何一家公司負責核動力潛艇的維護。
Captain Marquet came to understand that the role of the leader is not to bark commands and be completely accountable for the success or failure of the mission. It is a leader’s job instead to take responsibility for the success of each member of his crew. It is the leader’s job to ensure that they are well trained and feel confident to perform their duties. To give them responsibility and hold them accountable to advance the mission. If the captain provides direction and protection, the crew will do what needs to be done to advance the mission. In his book, Turn the Ship Around!, Captain Marquet goes through all the specific steps he took-that any organization can take-to develop an environment in which those who know more, the people who are actually doing the work, are empowered to make decisions. 船長馬奎特了解到,領導者的角色不是下達命令並對任務成功或失敗負全責。相反,領導者的工作是對每位成員的成功負責。領導者的工作是確保他們得到良好培訓,並有信心完成自己的職責。給予他們責任並要求他們對推進任務負責。如果船長提供方向和保護,船員就會盡自己所能去推進任務。在他的著作《轉變船舶》中,馬奎特船長詳述了他採取的所有具體措施,任何組織都可以採取這些措施來營造一種環境,使那些掌握更多知識的、實際執行工作的人能夠做出決策。
One of the things Captain Marquet did was change the culture of permission to a culture of intent. He literally banned the words “permission to” aboard the Santa Fe. 馬基特船長做過的事之一就是將 "允許" 的文化轉變為 "意圖" 的文化。他真的在聖菲號上禁止使用 "允許" 這個詞。
“Sir, request permission to submerge the ship.” 先生,請求許可將船隻潛水。
“Permission granted.” 許可已授予。
“Aye-aye, Sir. Submerging the ship.” 服從命令。潛入船艦。
This standard way of operating was replaced with simply, “Sir, I intend to submerge the ship.” 這個標準的運作方式已被簡單地取代為「長官,我打算潛沒船隻。」
The chain of command remained intact. The only difference was a psychological shift. The person performing the action now owned the action instead of carrying out an assigned task. When pushed just how far he took this “I intend” idea, Captain Marquet is quick to point out that there are only three things that he can’t delegate. “I can’t delegate my legal responsibilities, I can’t delegate my relationships and I can’t delegate my knowledge. Everything else, however, I can ask others to take responsibility for,” he says. 指揮鏈保持不變。唯一的區別是心理上的轉變。執行行動的人現在擁有該行動,而不是執行分派的任務。當被問及他有多遠地接受這個「我打算」的理念時,馬奎特上尉迅速指出,他只有三件事不能授權。「我不能授權我的法律責任,我不能授權我的人際關係,我也不能授權我的知識。不過,其他一切我都可以要求別人承擔責任,」他說。
What is so remarkable about this model and what is so important about these three responsibilities is that though they cannot be handed off, they can all be shared. And that’s what the best leaders do. They share what they know, ask knowledgeable people for help performing their duties and make introductions to create new relationships within their networks. Poor leaders hoard these things, 這個模型有什麼值得注意的地方,這三項職責為何如此重要的原因在於,雖然這些無法完全交接,但卻可以共享。這就是最優秀的領導者所做的事情。他們分享自己所知,向有知識的人求助以履行職務,並且透過網絡關係建立新的聯繫。而差劣的領導者則囤積這些。
falsely believing it is their intelligence, rank or relationships that make them valuable. It is not. In an organization with a strong Circle of Safety, not only is the leader willing to share knowledge, but so too is everyone else. Again, the leader sets the tone. 錯誤地相信這是他們的智慧、地位或關係使他們有價值。這並非如此。在一個擁有強大安全圈的組織中,不僅領導人願意分享知識,其他所有人也是如此。再次,領導者設定了基調。
When our leaders reveal their gaps in knowledge and missteps, not only are we more willing to help, but we too are more willing to share when we make mistakes or when things go wrong. Inside the Circle, mistakes are not something to be feared. In organizations in which there is no safety provided, people are more likely to hide mistakes or problems out of self-preservation. The issue is, those mistakes and problems, if not addressed, often add up and appear later when they become too big to contain. 當我們的領導者展現出他們在知識和錯誤步伐上的差距時,我們不僅更願意提供幫助,而且在我們出錯或事情出問題時,我們也更願意分享。在內部圈子裡,錯誤並不是應該被害怕的東西。在沒有提供安全保護的組織中,人們更可能隱藏錯誤或問題以自我保護。問題在於,如果這些錯誤和問題沒有得到解決,通常會積累下來,最後變得太大而無法控制。
This is what Captain Marquet was forced to learn. Only when confronted with a failed model, when he reached a point of failure or despair or realized that people acting under these conditions could never be expected to do their best work, did his entire focus and effort change course. Captain Marquet resisted acting on his instinct to take control. Now he took great delight in giving it away and seeing others rise to the responsibility they were given. The relationships aboard the submarine strengthened and the overall culture of trust and cooperation dramatically improved. They improved so much, in fact, that under his leadership, the crew of the Santa Fe, once the lowest rated in the entire U.S. submarine fleet, became the best-rated crew in Navy history. 這是馬奎特艦長被迫學習的內容。只有當他面臨失敗模式,當他達到失敗或絕望的地步,或意識到在這些條件下行事的人永遠無法被期望做到最好的工作時,他的全部焦點和努力才改變方向。馬奎特艦長抗拒根據本能行事來掌控局面。現在他樂於將其放手,並見證他人承擔所賦予的責任。潛艇上的人際關係得到加強,整體的信任和合作文化大大改善。事實上,在他的領導下,曾經為整個美國潛艇艦隊中最低評級的聖塔菲號船員,成為了海軍歷史上最高評級的船員。
“The goal of a leader is to give no orders,” Captain Marquet explains. “Leaders are to provide direction and intent and allow others to figure out what to do and how to get there.” And this is the challenge most organizations face. “We train people to comply, not to think,” Captain Marquet goes on. If people only comply, we can’t expect people to take responsibility for their actions. The chain of command is for orders, not information. Responsibility is not doing as we are told, that’s obedience. Responsibility is doing what is right. "領導者的目標是不下命令,"馬夸特上尉解釋說。"領導者應提供方向和意圖,讓他人自己決定該做什麼以及如何實現。"這正是大多數組織面臨的挑戰。"我們培養人們去服從,而不是思考,"馬夸特上尉繼續說。如果人們只是服從,我們就無法期望他們對自己的行動負責任。命令系統是用於下達命令,而非傳遞信息。責任不是照做被告知的事,那叫服從。責任是做正確的事。
Captain Marquet did more than take his ship from worst to first. That in itself was a finite accomplishment and of no significant value to the long-term success of the organization he served. That’s like making the quarter or the year but ignoring the decade. Captain Marquet created an environment in which the chemicals that 馬奎特船長做的不僅僅是將他的船從最差做到最好。這本身就是一個有限的成就,對他所服務的組織的長期成功沒有太大價值。這就像奪得一個季度或一年的冠軍,卻忽視了十年的成就。馬奎特船長創造了一個環境,在這個環境中
incentivize behavior were more balanced. The systems he put in place aboard the Santa Fe rewarded trust and cooperation and not just obedience and achievement. As the crew’s oxytocin and serotonin levels increased, so did their pride and their concern for each other and the success of the ship. With the social chemicals flowing, they also became much better at solving problems together. 激勵行為更加平衡。他在聖達菲號上建立的系統獎勵信任和合作,而不僅僅是服從和成就。隨著船員的催產素和血清素水平的提高,他們的自豪感和對彼此及船隻成功的關心也隨之增加。隨著社交化學物質的流動,他們在共同解決問題方面也變得更加出色。
Unlike the people in Stanley O’Neal’s Merrill Lynch, the crew of the Santa Fe went from waiting to be told what to do and working to protect their own hides to sacrificing for each other and working for the good of the whole. They didn’t try to undermine their captain; they wanted to make him proud. And everyone benefited. 不像史丹利·奥尼爾的美林公司的人,聖塔菲號的船員從等待別人吩咐,到保護自己,轉變為為彼此犧牲,為整體利益而努力。他們沒有試圖破壞船長,而是想讓他感到自豪。每個人都從中獲益。
The reenlistment rate went from only three the year before Captain Marquet took command to thirty-three (the Navy’s average is fifteen to twenty). On average, about two to three officers per submarine will get selected for their own command. In contrast, nine out of the fourteen officers aboard the Santa Fe went on to command their own ships. The Santa Fe didn’t just make progress, it made leaders. 從只有 3 人增加到 33 人,超越了海軍平均的 15 到 20 人。每艘潛艇平均有 2 到 3 名軍官獲選自己的司令。相比之下,14 名軍官中有 9 人晉升為自己的艦長。聖達菲號不僅取得進步,而且培養了優秀的領導人才。
In physics, the definition of power is the transfer of energy. We measure the power of a lightbulb in watts. The higher the wattage, the more electricity is transferred into light and heat and the more powerful the bulb. Organizations and their leaders operate exactly the same way. The more energy is transferred from the top of the organization to those who are actually doing the job, those who know more about what’s going on on a daily basis, the more powerful the organization and the more powerful the leader. 能量轉移
瓦特
功率越高,電力越多轉化為光和熱,燈泡越強大
組織及其領導者操作方式完全一樣
從組織頂層轉移給實際工作者的能量越多,他們對日常情況了解越深,組織及其領導者越強大
Leadership Lesson 3: 領導力課程 3:
Integrity Matters 誠信至關重要
The Foxhole Test 洞穴測驗
THE COLONEL APOLOGIZED for being a few minutes late for the meeting. He was dealing with an “incident,” as he called it. An imposing figure, he was every bit a Marine. Posture as straight as a two-by-four. Broad shoulders. Slim waist. His uniform perfectly pressed and worn with pride. His head held high, he oozed confidence. As the officer in charge of the Marine Corps Officer Candidates School, or OCS, in Quantico, Virginia, he took his responsibility very seriously. 上校為遲到幾分鐘而道歉。他正處理一件「事件」,正如他所稱。他是位令人生畏的人物,完全就是一名海軍陸戰隊士兵。姿態筆直如一塊二乘四木板。寬闊的肩膀。纖細的腰身。他的制服完美無皺,穿著它彰顯自豪。他昂首挺胸,散發出自信。作為駐紮在維吉尼亞州奎蒂科的海軍陸戰隊軍官候選生學校的負責官員,他十分重視自己的職責。
Though technically a school designed to train the officer corps, OCS, the Marines will tell you, is more of an officer selection process. It’s hard to get thrown out of boot camp (basic training for enlisted Marines), but if someone doesn’t meet the standards to be a leader of Marines at OCS, then they won’t become an officer. Simply wanting to be a leader and being willing to work hard is not enough. Unlike in the private sector, where being good at doing is often rewarded with a position of leading, in the Marines, leadership is also a matter of character-not just strength, intelligence or achievement. 雖然從技術上講,OCS 是為訓練軍官編制而設計的學校,但海軍陸戰隊會告訴你,它更像是一個軍官選拔過程。要想被開除出新兵訓練營(海軍陸戰隊新兵的基本訓練)是很難的,但如果有人在 OCS 不能達到成為海軍陸戰隊領導者的標準,那麼他們就不會成為軍官。單單想當領導者和願意努力還是不夠的。與私營部門不同,在那裡善於工作常常被以領導地位來獎賞,在海軍陸戰隊裡,領導力還是一種品格,不僅僅是力量、智慧或成就。
On this particular day, something had happened with one of the officer candidates that warranted the attention of the colonel. In fact, it was so serious that they were considering throwing the candidate out of OCS altogether. My curiosity bubbling, I asked what the candidate had done that could potentially end his career as an officer in the Marine Corps. It must have been pretty serious. I wondered what crime he had committed. 在這個特別的日子裡,發生了一件事,涉及一名軍官候選人,引起了上校的注意。事實上,情況非常嚴重,他們正在考慮將這名候選人從軍官候補生(OCS)除名。我感到非常好奇,所以問究竟這名候選人做了什麼,可能會終止他在海軍陸戰隊的職業生涯。一定發生了很嚴重的事。我想知道他犯了什麼罪行。
“He fell asleep on watch,” said the colonel. 他在值班時睡著了,上校說。
“That’s it?” I said. “You guys are stricter than I thought.” This guy fell asleep. He wasn’t in combat; he didn’t put any lives at risk. He fell sleep in the woods . . . of Virginia. “And that’s enough to end his career?” I thought to myself. 那就是了?我說。「你們比我想像中更嚴格。」這個人睡著了。他不在戰鬥中;他沒有危及任何生命的風險。他在維吉尼亞的林中睡著。「這就足以終止他的職業生涯了嗎?」我自己想。
“It has nothing to do with his falling asleep,” said the colonel. “When we asked him about it, he denied it. When we asked him about it again, he denied it again. Only when we showed him irrefutable proof did he say, ‘l’d like to take responsibility for my actions.’ The problem we have,” said the colonel, “is that taking responsibility for one’s actions must happen at the time you perform your actions, not at the time you get caught.” 「不應該與他睡著有關」,上校說。「我們問他這件事,他否認了。我們再次問他,他又否認了。直到我們出示了不可否認的證據,他才說:'我願意為我的行為負責。'我們面臨的問題」,上校說,「是必須在執行行為的同時負責,而不是在被抓到的時候負責。」
He went on to explain that in the Marine Corps, trust and integrity are considered matters of life and death. If this would-be leader were put in charge of a platoon of Marines and those Marines could not completely trust that the information their officer was giving them was the truth-good, bad or indifferent-then the Marines might hesitate, question the officer’s decisions or fail to pull together as a team. And when that happens, when we cannot trust the very people who are supposed to be responsible for us, bad things occur. In the case of the Marines, this means people could die. 他繼續解釋,在海軍陸戰隊,信任和誠信被視為生死攸關的事情。如果這位有志成為領導者的人被派領導一個海軍陸戰隊連隊,而這些海軍完全無法相信他們的軍官所告訴他們的信息是真實的,不管好壞中性,那麼這些海軍可能會猶豫不決、質疑軍官的決策或無法團結一致。當這種情況發生時,當我們無法相信那些應該對我們負責的人時,糟糕的事情就會發生。對於海軍陸戰隊而言,這意味著人們可能會喪生。
If Marines told to obey their officer suspect for a second that the officer would avoid the truth or not take responsibility for their actions, simply to cover their own tail or make themselves look better, then the Circle of Safety shrinks and the entire fabric and efficacy of the group of Marines decays. The Marines are as good as they are not simply because they are big, strong and fearless. They are also good at what they do because they trust each other and believe, without a doubt, that the Marine to the left of them and the Marine to the right of them, regardless of rank, will do what needs to be done. This is the reason Marines are so effective as a group. 如果海軍陸戰隊被告知要服從他們的軍官,他們會懷疑軍官是否會避免真相或不對自己的行為負責,只是為了掩蓋自己的尾巴或讓自己看起來更好,那麼安全圈就會縮小,整個海軍陸戰隊群體的結構和效力就會衰退。海軍陸戰隊之所以如此出色,不僅僅是因為他們很大、很強壯和無畏。他們之所以擅長所做的事情,是因為他們相互信任,並相信,毫無疑問,不論等級如何,他們左側和右側的海軍陸戰隊成員都會做應該做的事情。這就是為什麼海軍陸戰隊作為一個群體如此有效的原因。
The same is true in every organization, even ones in which the decisions are not a matter of life and death. When we suspect the leaders of a company are saying things to make themselves or the company look better than they are or to avoid humiliation or accountability, our trust in them falters. It is a natural response. Our brain interprets the information we receive with our survival in mind. If we suspect our leaders are bending the truth to favor their own 即使在那些決策不關乎生死的組織中,情況也同樣如此。當我們懷疑某公司的領導者說話是為了讓自己或公司看起來比實際更好,或避免恥辱或問責時,我們對他們的信任便動搖了。這是一種自然的反應。我們的大腦會以我們的生存為念來解釋接收到的資訊。如果我們懷疑我們的領導者在扭曲事實以有利於自己
interests, then our subconscious mind prefers we don’t climb into a foxhole with them. 興趣,然後我們的潛意識更喜歡我們不要爬進狐穴與他們在一起。
Another Marine also fell asleep during the same exercise at OCS. He owned up to it immediately and was given an appropriate punishment. From a leadership perspective, the Marines have no problem with him. He made a mistake, and that’s fine. He was honest and took responsibility for his actions immediately. Leadership, the Marines understand, is not about being right all the time. Leadership is not a rank worn on a collar. It is a responsibility that hinges almost entirely on character. Leadership is about integrity, honesty and accountability. All components of trust. Leadership comes from telling us not what we want to hear, but rather what we need to hear. To be a true leader, to engender deep trust and loyalty, starts with telling the truth. 另一位海軍陸戰隊成員也在軍官候補學校的同一項訓練中睡著了。他立即承認了這一點,並受到了適當的處罰。從領導力的角度來看,海軍陸戰隊對他沒有任何問題。他犯了錯誤,這沒什麼。他誠實地立即承擔了責任。領導力並不在於永遠正確,而是一種責任,主要取決於性格。領導力需要誠信、誠實和問責。這些都是信任的組成部分。領導力來自於告訴我們我們需要聽的,而不是我們想聽的。成為一位真正的領導者,引發深厚的信任和忠誠,需要從說出事實真相開始。
How Not to Build Trust 如何不建立信任
“INTEGRITY,” SAID THE CEO, “is the bedrock of our foundation.” According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “integrity” means a “firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values.” This means that operating with integrity is sometimes a higher standard than operating within the confines of the law. “Incorruptibility” is the word offered as a synonym. Integrity is more than a word written on the wall with all the other “company values”; it is the reason we trust one another-the “bedrock” of trust, to use the CEO’s choice of words. 「誠信」,首席執行官說,「是我們根基的基石。」根據韋伯大學詞典,「誠信」指的是「堅定地遵守道德或藝術價值觀的行為」。這意味著以誠信經營有時比單純遵守法律更高的標準。「不可腐蝕性」是同義詞之一。誠信不只是寫在牆上的「公司價值觀」之一,而是我們相互信任的基礎-正如首席執行官所說的「基石」。
We need to know that the information we are given by others and especially our leaders, good or bad, is the truth. We need to know that when someone says something, they mean it. If we doubt their integrity, then we cannot trust them with our lives or the lives of those we love. If we doubt someone’s integrity, we would hesitate before jumping into a foxhole with them. The integrity of those in our community is, as our brain perceives it, a matter of life and death. 我們需要知道,我們從他人,尤其是我們的領導者那裡得到的資訊,無論好壞,都是事實。我們需要知道,當某人說某事時,他們是認真的。如果我們懷疑他們的誠信,我們就無法相信他們,無論是我們自己的生命,還是我們所愛的人的生命。如果我們懷疑某人的誠信,我們在跟他們一起進入戰壕之前,都會猶豫。我們社區中人的誠信,正如我們的大腦所感知的那樣,關乎生死存亡。
As humans, as social animals, we are hardwired to constantly assess the information people give us and the actions they perform. 作為人類,作為社會動物,我們天生就被設計去不斷評估他人給我們的資訊和他們的行為。
It is a constant and ongoing process. We do not trust someone after they tell us just one thing, even if it is the truth. Trust evolves once we have enough evidence to satisfy our brain that a person or an organization is, indeed, an honest broker. This is the reason integrity, for it to work, must be a practice and not simply a state of mind. Integrity is when our words and deeds are consistent with our intentions. A lack of integrity is at best hypocrisy and at worst lying. The most common display of a lack of integrity in the business world is when a leader of an organization says what others want to hear and not the truth. 這是一個持續不斷的過程。即使是事實,我們也不會在一次告知後就信任某人。只有當我們有足夠的證據,讓大腦相信一個人或組織確實是誠實的中間人時,信任才會逐步建立。這就是為什麼誠信必須是一種實踐,而不僅僅是心態的原因。誠信就是我們的言行與意圖保持一致。缺乏誠信不僅是虛偽,更可能是在說謊。在商界中最常見的缺乏誠信的表現,就是組織領導者說那些他人想聽的話,而不是真相。
This is the reason we don’t trust politicians. Though we may sit down with a list of statements a politician has made and agree with every single one of them, the reason we tend not to trust them is because we suspect they do not believe all the things they are saying. We don’t even agree with everything our close friends and family say or believe, so it stands to reason that if a politician is in perfect alignment with us they are not being completely honest. 這就是我們不信任政治家的原因。儘管我們可能坐下來看一位政治家做過的每一個聲明,並且完全同意,但我們之所以往往不能信任他們,是因為我們懷疑他們並不真心相信自己所說的所有事物。我們甚至不能完全同意我們親密朋友和家人所說或所信的一切,所以如果一位政治家與我們的想法完全一致,那麼他們很可能就不是完全誠實的。
Politicians spend time on the road shaking hands and learning about us when they are campaigning. But if they really cared about us, then they would spend time shaking hands and meeting us all year-round and not just when it suited their agenda. Ron Paul, a 2012 presidential candidate, held opinions that were not popular with the country. Yet he was much more trustworthy than almost all the other candidates because he was willing to express those opinions knowing full well they would not get him elected. Moreover, those opinions were consistent with things he has said in the past. I do not agree with Ron Paul on many issues and would not vote for him, yet I would be more likely to trust him in a foxhole than I would some of the people I do vote for. All for one reason: he has integrity. 政客在競選期間花時間在路上握手並了解我們。但如果他們真的關心我們,那麼他們就應該在全年中都花時間握手和與我們會面,而不僅僅是在適合他們議程的時候。2012 年總統候選人羅恩·保羅持有的意見不受國家歡迎。然而,他比幾乎所有其他候選人都更值得信任,因為他願意表達這些意見,並完全知道這不會讓他當選。此外,這些意見與他過去所說的一致。我在許多問題上都不同意羅恩·保羅,我也不會投票給他,但我更有可能在戰壕中信任他,而不是我投票的一些人。原因只有一個:他有 integrity (正直)。
Integrity is not about being honest when we agree with each other; it is also about being honest when we disagree or, even more important, when we make mistakes or missteps. Again, our need to build trusting relationships, as our social brain sees things, is a matter of life and death, or in the case of our modern Western lives, a matter of feeling safe, secure and protected versus feeling isolated and vulnerable. We need people to admit when they falter and not try to hide it or spin the story in an attempt to protect their image. 誠信不僅僅是在我們意見一致時保持誠實;也在於我們意見不一致時,甚至是當我們犯錯或踩錯步時,保持誠實。再次強調,我們建立信任關係的需求,正如我們的社交大腦所認知的,關係到生死存亡,或是在我們現代西方生活中,關係到我們是否感到安全、有保障和受保護,還是感到孤立和脆弱。我們需要人們承認自己的失誤,而不是試圖隱藏或粉飾。
Any attempt at spin is self-serving, and such a selfish motivation can do damage to our group should danger present itself. This is not a complex idea. 任何對自身有利的企圖都是自私的,如果危險出現,這樣的自私動機可能會對我們的群體造成傷害。這並非複雜的想法。
For leaders, integrity is particularly important. We need to trust that the direction they choose is in fact a direction that is good for all of us and not just good for them. As members of a tribe who want to feel like we belong and earn the protection and support of the group, we will often follow our leaders blindly with the belief (or hope) that it is in our interest to do so. This is the deal we make with our leaders. We in the group will work hard to see their vision become a reality and they will offer us protection along the way, which includes honest assessments and commentary. We need to feel that they actually care about us. It’s just like that CEO said. 對於領袖而言,誠信尤其重要。我們需要相信他們所選擇的方向實際上是對我們所有人都有利,而不僅僅是對他們個人有利。作為一個部族的成員,我們希望能感到自己屬於這個群體,並獲得該群體的保護和支持,因此我們通常會盲目地追隨我們的領袖,相信(或希望)這樣做是符合我們自身利益的。這就是我們與領袖之間的交易。我們這個群體會努力工作來實現他們的願景,而他們則會在過程中為我們提供保護,包括誠實的評估和意見。我們需要感覺到他們真的關心我們。就像那位 CEO 所說的。
“Integrity is the bedrock of our foundation,” Michael Duke, the chief executive officer, president, director and chairman of the Global Compensation Committee and chairman of the Executive Committee of Walmart (yes, that’s his full title), told shareholders. “Our culture is who we are. It isn’t just words written on a wall at the Home Office or stapled to the bulletin board in the back room of a store. It makes us special. It sets us apart from the competition. And it appeals to people everywhere. So wherever we go and whatever changes we may make, we must keep our culture strong. I truly believe the retailer that respects individuals, that puts customers first, that strives for excellence, that is trusted will win the future.” 完整性是我們基礎的基石,邁克爾·杜克(Michael Duke),沃爾瑪(Walmart)的首席執行官、總裁、董事和全球薪酬委員會主席以及執行委員會主席,對股東說。我們的文化就是我們的本質。它不僅僅是寫在總部大樓牆上的字句或貼在後庫公告欄上的東西。它讓我們與眾不同。它讓我們脫穎而出。它吸引著世界各地的人群。所以無論我們走到哪裡,無論我們做出什麼樣的改變,我們都必須保持我們的文化力量。我真誠地相信,尊重個人、以客戶為先、追求卓越、值得信賴的零售商將會成為未來的勝利者。
I admire leaders who believe in the value of culture. I respect leaders who put people first. And I have deep loyalty to those who believe integrity is the bedrock of an organization. These beliefs are the makings of a very strong culture, one in which the people are committed to one another and to the organization. A people-first attitude and a commitment to integrity are at the core of the U.S. Marine Corps culture and they drive decisions at Barry-Wehmiller (even if they don’t issue press releases that say so). 我敬佩相信文化價值的領導。我尊重將人民放在首位的領導。我對堅信正直是組織根基的人深懷忠誠。這些信念造就了非常強大的文化,其中人民對彼此及組織都有堅定的承諾。以人為本的態度和對正直的承諾是美國海軍陸戰隊文化的核心,也推動了 Barry-Wehmiller 公司的決策(即便他們沒有發佈公告來說明)。
How are we to feel, then, when Duke says at the same shareholders’ meeting where he talked about integrity that his number one priority is “growth”? I thought it was customers! Does that mean that culture, defined as the aggregate of the common 我們當如何感受,當 Duke 在同一個股東大會上談到誠信,但他的首要任務卻是「成長」?我以為是客戶啊!這是否意味著文化,被定義為共同
values and beliefs of a group of people, is just a list of things written on the wall? 一個群體的價值觀和信仰, 只是一張掛在牆上的清單嗎?
According to Walmart’s 2011 proxy statement, Duke made $18.1 million that year. What the proxy statement doesn’t reveal is that the company had changed the manner in which Duke’s bonus was calculated. For many years, the CEO’s bonus was based on samestore sales, but the board that Duke chairs changed the criterion to overall sales-an easier goal to hit. It turns out that same-store sales had been in decline for two years, which would have hurt Duke’s compensation. With the rule change, his “performance” evaluation could take advantage of overall revenues, a number heavily buoyed by Walmart International. 根據沃爾瑪 2011 年的代理聲明,Duke 那年賺取了 1810 萬美元。該代理聲明沒有透露公司已經改變了計算 Duke 獎金的方式。多年來,首席執行官的獎金是基於同店銷售,但 Duke 擔任主席的董事會將標準改為整體銷售-這是一個更容易達成的目標。事實證明,同店銷售已經連續兩年下降,這會損害 Duke 的薪酬。在規則變更下,他的「績效」評估可以利用整體收入,這筆數字受惠於沃爾瑪國際。
Jackie Goebel, a Walmart employee from Kenosha, Wisconsin, like Duke, is given an annual bonus based on company performance. In 2007, her bonus, which was based on same-store sales, was more than $1,100\$ 1,100. But unlike Duke’s, her bonus structure was not changed and, as a result, in the same year Duke earned his $18.1\$ 18.1 million, Ms. Goebel was given $41.18\$ 41.18. The rules were changed not to benefit everyone in the organization-just the guy at the top. 凱瑟琳·蓋貝爾,來自威斯康星州基諾沙的沃爾瑪員工,就像 Duke 一樣,也會根據公司業績獲得年度獎金。2007 年,她的獎金根據同店銷售額計算,超過了 $1,100\$ 1,100 。但不像 Duke 的,她的獎金結構並沒有改變,因此,同年 Duke 賺到了 $18.1\$ 18.1 百萬,蓋貝爾女士獲得了 $41.18\$ 41.18 。這些規則的改變並非為了讓組織中的每個人受益,而是只有最高層的人才從中獲益。
Despite the fact that the priorities Mike Duke and the board express to one group do not appear to be the priorities they express to another group, and even though they seem to act in a manner completely the opposite of the definition of integrity, it is not entirely their fault. The problem is that they only learn about the impact their decisions have on others from reading numbers on spreadsheets. This is one of the side effects of Destructive Abundance. When operating at such scale, how can they possibly be expected to extend the Circle of Safety beyond themselves and other senior executives-the people they actually know? 邁克·杜克和董事會向一個群體表達的優先事項,似乎並不是他們向另一個群體表達的優先事項,即使他們的行為完全與誠信的定義相反,但這並不完全是他們的錯。問題在於,他們只能從電子表格上的數字了解自己決策對他人的影響。這是破壞性富足的副作用之一。在如此大規模的運營中,怎麼能期望他們將安全圈擴展到自己和其他高級管理人員之外的人呢?
When our leaders operate under conditions of abstraction, they will naturally work to prioritize their own interests over those of others. Inner circles take precedence over wider Circles of Safety. Not only that, but an example is set for the rest of the company as well. When leaders take steps to protect their own interests, particularly when those steps are taken at the expense of others, they send a message to everyone else that it is okay to do the same. 當領導者在抽象的條件下運作時,他們自然會努力優先考慮自己的利益,而不是他人的利益。內部圈子優先於更廣泛的安全圈。不僅如此,這種例子也會傳達給公司其他人。當領導者採取措施保護自己的利益,尤其是在犧牲他人利益的情況下,他們向其他人傳達一個訊息,即這樣做是可以接受的。
And this is where Duke can and should be held accountable for the decisions that call his integrity into question. 杜克應為其決策中的操守問題承擔責任。
The leaders of companies set the tone and direction for the people. Hypocrites, liars and self-interested leaders create cultures filled with hypocrites, liars and self-interested employees. The leaders of companies who tell the truth, in contrast, will create a culture of people who tell the truth. It’s not rocket science. We follow the leader. 公司的領導者為人們樹立風格和方向。虛偽、說謊和自私的領導者營造了充滿虛偽、說謊和自私的員工的文化。相比之下,誠實的公司領導者將創造一種誠實的文化。這並非什麼新鮮事。我們跟隨領導者。
Between 2005 and 2009, the general manager of Ralph Lauren’s Argentinian subsidiary, along with some of his employees, had been regularly paying bribes to government officials in exchange for fasttracking shipments and allowing the company to skirt import regulations. The employees made the bribes through a customs broker, and even went so far as to create fake invoices to cover their tracks. They created fake labels to disguise the payments, describing them as “loading and delivery” expenses, “taxes” and the like. For more than four years, the company’s employees in Argentina had plied customs officials with gifts, including cash, jewelry, expensive dresses and even a handbag that retails for more than $10,000\$ 10,000. 拉夫·勞倫阿根廷附屬公司的總經理及其部分員工,在 2005 年至 2009 年期間,一直向政府官員行賄以加快貨物運輸和允許公司規避進口法規。員工通過報關經紀人行賄,甚至偽造發票來掩蓋痕跡。他們製造假標簽,將行賄描述為「裝載和交付」費用、「稅款」等。在超過四年的時間裡,該公司在阿根廷的員工贈送禮品給海關官員,包括現金、珠寶、昂貴的服裝,甚至價值超過 $10,000\$ 10,000 的手袋。
Violating any number of laws that govern international trade, upon learning about the crimes, the leaders of Ralph Lauren Corporation sounded the alarm. They could have tried to cover it up, or at the very least have hired an expensive public relations company to put an elaborately crafted spin on the story, attempting to shield the company from any possible fallout. But instead, within days of learning about the bribes, Ralph Lauren executives contacted U.S. authorities to explain what they had found and to offer further assistance in the federal investigation of their own business dealings. 拉夫勞倫公司的領導人在獲悉這些犯罪行為後,立即發出警報,違反了管理國際貿易的任何數量的法律。他們本可以試圖掩蓋這件事,或者至少聘請一家昂貴的公關公司,對這個故事進行精心策劃的包裝,試圖避免公司遭受任何可能的後果。但是,在得知這些賄賂的幾天內,拉夫勞倫公司的高管們聯繫了美國當局,解釋了他們發現的情況,並提供進一步協助聯邦調查他們自己的業務往來。
Building trust requires nothing more than telling the truth. 建立信任只需要告訴真相。
By the time officials in the parent company caught on, the bribes had reached a total of nearly $600,000\$ 600,000. In the end, Ralph Lauren 到時公司高管意識到問題時,賄賂已達近 $600,000\$ 600,000 。最終,拉夫·勞倫
Corporation was forced to pay penalties and fees of about $882,000\$ 882,000 to the Justice Department and $732,000\$ 732,000 to the Securities Exchange Commission, but the trade-off was worth it. Like the Marine who took responsibility for falling asleep and accepted his punishment, Ralph Lauren showed it could be trusted. And all its leaders had to do was tell the truth. The penalties may have cost the company $1.6\$ 1.6 million, but had they not been honest, it would have cost the company their reputation and the trust they have built up with all those who work with them. Profit wasn’t worth violating their integrity. 可芮萊倫公司被迫向司法部支付約 $882,000\$ 882,000 的罰款和費用,以及向證券交易委員會支付 $732,000\$ 732,000 的罰款,但這種交換是值得的。就像那名承擔責任、接受懲罰的海軍陸戰隊員一樣,可芮萊倫公司展現了其可信賴的一面。而其所有領導層要做的就是說實話。這些罰款可能讓公司損失了 $1.6\$ 1.6 百萬,但如果他們不誠實,公司將失去聲譽和與所有合作夥伴建立的信任。利潤並不值得違背他們的誠信。
Building trust requires nothing more than telling the truth. That’s it. No complicated formula. For some reason too many people or leaders of organizations fail to tell the truth or opt to spin something to appear that they did nothing wrong. Again, our primitive brain, evaluating everything in terms of survival, can see through that. This is why we so often don’t trust politicians or big corporations. It has nothing to do with politics or big business, per se. It has to do with the way that politicians and the leaders of corporations choose to talk to us. 建立信任只需告訴實情。就這樣。沒有複雜的公式。不知何故,太多人或組織的領導者未能誠實地告訴事實,而選擇粉飾某些東西,以掩蓋他們的錯誤。同樣,我們原始的大腦會評估每件事是否有助於生存,因此能看穿這種做法。這就是為什麼我們常常不信任政客或大公司。這與政治或大企業本身無關。這有關政客和企業領導人與我們交談的方式。
Every single one of us should look at our managers or the leaders of the companies we work for and ask ourselves, “Would I want to be in a foxhole with you?” And the managers and the leaders of companies who rely on our hard work should, in turn, ask themselves, “How strong is our company if the answer is no?” 每個人都應該看看我們的經理或公司的領導,問自己:"我想和你在狐皮洞裡嗎?"而依靠我們辛勤工作的公司的經理和領導也應該問自己:"如果答案是否定的,我們的公司有多強大?"
A Corporate Lesson in Telling the Truth 說實話的企業課程
RESPONDING TO BACKLASH over a plan to charge customers five dollars per month to use their debit card to make purchases, Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan, proclaimed that the company had “a right to make a profit.” 美國銀行公司(Bank of America)財務長布萊恩·莫伊尼罕(Brian Moynihan)表示,該公司有權賺取利潤,以回應客戶就每月向使用借記卡消費收取 5 美元費用的計畫而引起的反彈。
But such statements did little to quell the outrage felt by Bank of America customers across the country who rallied together and vowed to close their accounts with the bank in protest. There were demonstrations in Los Angeles and Boston, and a woman in Washington collected three hundred thousand signatures in a show 抗議 Bank of America 的顧客在美國各地集結,宣誓要關閉他們在銀行的帳戶。洛杉磯和波士頓都有示威遊行,華盛頓州一名女士收集了三十萬簽名。
of solidarity against the North Carolina company. Further fueling the anger was the realization that this fee would not apply to all Bank of America account holders. The most affluent would be exempt. It was primarily average checking account customers, many of whom lived paycheck to paycheck, that would be affected. 北卡羅來納州公司的團結抗議。進一步引發憤怒的是,這筆費用並不適用於所有美國銀行帳戶持有人。最富裕的人將獲得豁免。主要是普通支票帳戶客戶,其中許多人一次只有薪水維生,才會受到影響。
Bank of America leaders refused to divulge whether the number of account closings was higher than average following the announcement of their new policy. But on Tuesday, November 1, 2011, exactly thirty-three days after the announcement, the bank issued a press release stating that they had decided to drop the plan. 美國銀行領導拒絕透露帳戶關閉的數量是否高於平均水平,此乃其新政策公佈後之情況。但在 2011 年 11 月 1 日星期二,即公佈後的三十三天內,該銀行發布新聞稿,表示他們已決定取消該計劃。
The leaders of large companies change their minds about the decisions they make all the time. We expect that both people and companies will make mistakes and dumb choices. We’re perfectly at peace with that. Making all the right decisions is not what engenders trust between people or between people and organizations. Being honest does. And being honest is exactly what Bank of America did not do when they decided to squash the idea of adding the fee. 大型公司的領導人經常改變他們做出的決定。我們預期,無論是個人還是公司都會犯錯並做出愚蠢的選擇。我們對此心存雅量。做出所有正確決定並不能建立人與人或人與組織之間的信任。誠實才是關鍵。而 Bank of America 在決定取消手續費的計劃時就並未做到誠實。
Bank of America first discussed the fee idea exclusively within business circles, and at the time, they were clear and direct about their motivations and intentions. They, among other banks, were very vocal in their opposition to the Dodd-Frank Act, which put limits on how banks could charge fees following the financial crisis. “The economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations,” a Bank of America spokeswoman said. It was widely reported and undisputed what these new fees were designed to do: to make up for the shortfall. Many banks were considering themBank of America was just the first to pull the trigger. 美國銀行首次在商業圈內獨家討論了此費用構想,當時他們對其動機和意圖表達明確和直接。他們和其他銀行強烈反對多德-弗蘭克法案,該法案限制了銀行在金融危機後收取費用的方式。「提供借記卡的經濟性已隨著最近的法規有所改變」,一位美國銀行發言人表示。大家普遍報導和不爭論這些新費用是為彌補虧空而設計的。許多銀行都在考慮收取這些費用,美國銀行只是最先開始收取的。
The company said one thing to the financial community, but another to the public. When they formally revealed the plan, they actually had the audacity to say that the proposed fees were designed to “help customers take full advantage of all the additional features like fraud protection.” It’s not even a good spin. That’s like General Motors telling us they are going to charge us five dollars for every day we drive so that we can enjoy all the amazing features of their new car. But B of A customers didn’t buy it. And so, in the face of public outrage, the bank changed their story. In a terse four- 該公司向金融界說了一件事,但向公眾說了另一件事。當他們正式透露這項計劃時,他們竟然大膽地說,所提出的費用是為了「幫助客戶充分利用所有額外的功能,如欺詐保護」。這不是一個好的說法。這就像通用汽車告訴我們,我們每天開車都要支付五美元,以便我們享受他們新車的所有驚人功能。但美國銀行的客戶並不買賬。因此,面對公眾的憤怒,該銀行改變了自己的說法。在一份簡單的四-
sentence press release, they attempted to undo the damage they had done to themselves. 新聞發布稿，他們試圖撤銷他們自己造成的損害。
bank of America will not implement debit usage fee 美國銀行將不會實施借記卡使用費
In response to customer feedback and the changing competitive marketplace, Bank of America no longer intends to implement a debit usage fee. 美國銀行不再打算實施借記卡使用費,這是為了回應客戶反饋和不斷變化的競爭市場。
“We have listened to our customers very closely over the last few weeks and recognize their concern with our proposed debit usage fee,” said David Darnell, co-chief operating officer. “Our customers’ voices are most important to us. As a result, we are not currently charging the fee and will not be moving forward with any additional plans to do so.” 我們在過去幾週密切聆聽我們的客戶,並意識到他們對我們所提出的借記卡使用費表示擔憂。大衛·達內爾,聯席營運總監表示:「我們的客戶聲音對我們至關重要。因此,我們目前不收取此費用,並將不會採取任何進一步的計劃收取該費用。」
As a quick aside, “listening to customers” usually happens before decisions are made, not after. But let us not trifle with such things. The reality is, what the bank’s executives were actually listening to were the sounds of TV anchors chastising, picketers shouting outside their offices and the money leaving their own accounts as customers reportedly closed theirs at uncomfortably higher than average levels. 作為銀行高管實際聆聽的,是電視主播責罵的聲音、辦公室外示威者的呼喊,以及客戶大量取款的聲響。
The only thing that Bank of America needed to do to build trust with their customers-and, indeed, with Wall Street-was to tell the truth. That’s all. What if the press release announcing the reversal of their decision had looked more like this: 美國銀行唯一需要做的,就是對客戶和華爾街說實話。就這麼簡單。如果他們宣布改變決定的新聞稿看起來更像這樣:
BANK OF AMERICA DID NOT EXPECT SUCH A BACKLASH 美國銀行並未預料到如此強烈的反彈
In response to customer outcry and such a negative reaction in the press, Bank of America no longer intends to implement a debit usage fee. 美國銀行不再打算實施借記卡使用費。
“We are facing bigger economic challenges than we are used to,” said David Darnell, co-chief operating officer. “In an effort to boost revenues, we thought we would try to implement a fee on debit card purchases. We expected some backlash, but not as much as we got. As a result, we will not be moving forward with any plans to charge any additional fees on debit card purchases for any of our customers. Further, we apologize for being shortsighted. We’ve certainly learned an important lesson about just how valuable our customers are and how much influence they can have over our financial standing.” 「我們面臨比以往更大的經濟挑戰,」大衛·達內爾(David Darnell)共同首席營運官表示。「為了增加收入,我們曾考慮對借記卡消費收取費用。我們預期會有一些反彈,但比我們想象的還要嚴重。因此,我們不會推進任何有關對任何客戶的借記卡消費收取任何額外費用的計劃。此外,我們為這種短視行為道歉。我們確實從中學習到,客戶的價值和他們對我們財務狀況的影響力是非常重要的一課。」
Even though their decision would still have been completely counter to customer interests, simply being honest about it would have done more to engender trust. Bank of America actually would have enhanced their reputation had they simply told the truth. The trust we have for an organization is built the same way as the trust we have for individuals. We need to know what to expect so we can better navigate our social bonds and know with whom we can make ourselves vulnerable and with whom we can express weakness or turn our backs. It’s not about winning or losing. All we want to know is if we can feel safe in a foxhole with you. 即使他們的決定仍然完全違背客戶利益,只要誠實地表達,就能更好地培養信任。如果美國銀行只是如實說明,反而能提升他們的聲譽。我們對一個組織的信任,與我們對個人的信任建立方式相同。我們需要知道可以預期什麼,這樣才能更好地維持社會關係,知道可以對誰敞開心扉,也知道與誰可以表現弱點或背過身去。這不是關於勝負。我們只想知道,能否在戰壕中與你安全相處。
Like the Marine who wanted to “take responsibility for his actions” only after he got caught, there is a disturbing trend in modern business to do the same. When a company gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, do the leaders have a meeting to discuss how to mitigate or avoid punishment or do they discuss the need to do the right thing based on a higher moral code . . . a code of ethics and integrity? Unlike the leaders of Ralph Lauren, the leaders of Bank of America chose to spin information to give the appearance of concern for their customers, when as plain as day, they were acting out of more concern for themselves. 海軍陸戰隊成員在被抓到之後才想要"為自己的行為負責",這種令人不安的趨勢在現代商業中也很常見。當一家公司被發現做了不當的事時,其領導人是否會開會討論如何減輕或逃避懲罰,而不是根據更高的道德標準和商業道德規範,來討論做正確的事?不同於 Polo Ralph Lauren 公司的領導,美國銀行的領導者選擇掩飾信息,以營造出他們關心客戶的假象,事實上他們更關心的是自己的利益。
Say your boss tells you that the company you work for has suddenly lost its biggest account and that, as a result, you and everybody else in your department are going to have to take a pay cut, perhaps even a furlough, as the company tries to regroup. Sure, 你的老闆告訴你,你工作的公司突然失去了它最大的客戶,因此你和你部門裡的其他每個人都將不得不減薪,甚至可能休無薪假,因為公司正努力重整。當然,
it’s going to be tough for a while, your boss says, but if you agree to stay on, you’ll be compensated once things improve. Whom would you more likely believe with this information, an executive from Bank of America or an executive from the Ralph Lauren Corporation? As the Zen Buddhist saying goes, how you do anything is how you do everything. 這將是一段艱難的時期,你的老闆說,但如果你同意繼續留任,待事情好轉後將獲得補償。在獲得這個信息的情況下,你更有可能相信美洲銀行的高管還是勞倫斯公司的高管?正如禪宗佛教的說法,你做任何事情的方式就是你做任何事情的方式。
Leadership Lesson 4: 領導力課程 4:
Friends Matter 朋友重要
To Win or to Serve 贏得或服務
AT SOME POINT in the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich, Republican representative from Georgia’s sixth congressional district, frustrated that the Democratic Party had controlled the House for decades, decided it was time to give the Republicans a shot at power and take the majority. The trouble was, he was tinkering with a system that wasn’t really broken. 在 1990 年代初期的某個時候，喬治亞第六選區共和黨代表紐特·金賽,對民主黨長期控制眾議院感到沮喪,決定是時候給共和黨一個機會,獲得多數。問題在於,他在不需改變的系統中摸索。
The two parties actually worked quite well together. Though the Democrats had the majority in Congress, unlike today, the primary goal wasn’t to brag about who had control; it was to brag about who got things done. Knowing that whoever had the majority still needed the other party, the Democrats didn’t take full credit every time something was accomplished. Efforts were made behind the scenes to allow for both parties to claim victories and appeal to their respective bases. Election after election, the Democrats kept the majority by default, not because they were better per se. When control was not the primary goal, things got accomplished and both parties were able to get their needs met by working together. 兩黨實際上合作得很好。儘管民主黨在國會佔多數,但與今天不同的是,主要目標不是吹噓誰掌控;而是吹噓誰做了事。明白無論哪一方佔多數,仍需要對方黨派,民主黨每次有所成就時,也不會全面獲得功勞。在幕後進行了努力,使雙方都能宣稱取得勝利,並吸引自己的支持者。民主黨一次選舉接一次選舉地佔據多數地位,並非因為他們本身更出色。當掌控權不是主要目標時,事情得以完成,雙方都能通過合作滿足自己的需求。
It was also common practice at that time for members of Congress, once elected, to move their families to Washington, D.C., returning to their home district offices as often as the congressional schedule permitted. In Washington, they existed in a small world in which their families went to the same churches and schools, regardless of their party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans would argue, debate and criticize each other in committees by day, then attend the same school events, backyard barbecues and 當時國會議員一當選後,通常會將家人遷移至華盛頓特區,並盡可能地回到選區辦公室。在華盛頓,無論政黨隸屬,他們的家人都會去同一間教會和學校。白天,民主黨和共和黨的議員在委員會裡爭論、討論和互相批評,而晚上則會出席同一場學校活動、後院烤肉派對。
cocktail parties by night. Despite their differences, relationships formed, as did the ability to trust and cooperate with each other. 雞尾酒派對,時至夜晚。儘管存在差異,仍然建立起了關係,並產生了相互信任和合作的能力。
Charles Gibson, former news anchor and fellow at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, recounts how George McGovern, Democratic senator from South Dakota, and Bob Dole, Republican senator from Kansas, would both take to the floor of the Senate and rail against each other’s policies, then be seen behaving as the best of friends later that same day. In another example, Tip O’Neill, the outspoken Democratic Speaker of the House, had regular meetings with Republican leader Bob Michel. They worked together. 查尔斯·吉布森，前新闻主播，哈佛大学约翰·F·肯尼迪政府学院的研究员，回忆了民主党参议员乔治·麦戈文和共和党参议员鲍勃·多尔如何在参议院辩论彼此的政策,但在同一天稍后被看到表现出最好的友谊。另一个例子是,众议院民主党发言人蒂普·奥尼尔与共和党领袖鲍勃·米切尔定期会面。他们合作工作。
As Reagan’s tax cuts were being debated in the early 1980s, Gibson recalls that O’Neill told Congress: “[The president] has no concern, no regard, no care for the little man in the country.” In response, President Reagan accused O’Neill of “sheer demagoguery.” Later, when the president called O’Neill to “smooth the waters,” O’Neill is said to have replied, “Old buddy, that’s politics. After six o’clock we can be friends, but before six, it’s politics.” These days, the politics seem to last all day and all night, leaving little time for the friendships. 列根的減稅方案在 1980 年代初期被討論時,吉布森回憶說,歐尼爾告訴國會:"[總統]對國家中的小人物毫不關心、毫不重視、毫不在意。"作為回應,列根總統指責歐尼爾"純粹是煽動"。後來,當總統致電歐尼爾"緩和局勢"時,據說歐尼爾回答:"老朋友,這就是政治。六點鐘之後我們可以做朋友,但六點之前,這就是政治。"如今,政治似乎整天整夜都在持續,幾乎沒有時間留給朋友們。
And so it was. Members of opposite parties bridged the gap by forging friendships that gave them perspective; they felt a sense of a common purpose. Though divisions had always existed in Washington, for most of the sixties, seventies and eighties, Congress functioned-Democrats and Republicans had, for the most part, figured out how to cooperate. Which, as our biology and anthropology help us to understand, happens most effectively when we physically work together and get to know each other. 就這樣吧。來自對立政黨的成員通過締結友誼來彌合差距;他們感到一種共同目標的意識。儘管華盛頓一直存在分歧,但在六十年代、七十年代和八十年代的大部分時間裏,國會仍能正常運作-民主黨人和共和黨人大多已經弄清楚如何合作。這正如我們的生物學和人類學所幫助我們理解的,當我們實際合作並互相了解時,這種合作最加有效。
Gingrich, a man who seemed more obsessed with winning than anything else, would set Congress on a new course, however. Cooperation was out. The new goal was control. The strategy he chose was to tear apart the existing system. To disrupt the status quo, he worked to portray a system so corrupt that only a complete overhaul could save it. And in 1994, he succeeded. The Republican Party took control of the House with Gingrich at the helm as Speaker, and the hope for any cooperation between parties was over. 蓋特里奇，一個似乎更著迷於勝利而非任何其他事物的人,將會使國會朝著新的方向前進。合作已經不再。新的目標是控制。他選擇的策略是拆解現有的制度。為了破壞現狀,他努力描述一個如此腐敗的系統,只有徹底的改革才能拯救它。而在 1994 年,他成功了。共和黨掌控了眾議院,蓋特里奇作為議長坐鎮,任何政黨之間的合作希望也結束了。
Once in charge, Gingrich promoted a whole range of changes that completely altered the way things were done in Washington. And it started with more fund-raising. One of the changes included the idea that House members should spend the majority of their time in their home districts, not in the capital. In the 1980s, nearly two thirds of members of Congress lived in Washington, D.C. Today you’d be hard pressed to find more than a handful. Instead, members fly into Washington for a short workweek, arriving at Congress on Tuesday and returning to their home states on Thursday evening. The result marks a major shift in relations between Democrats and Republicans. Spending most of the week away from where the work is in order to fund-raise, members of the two parties now have even less opportunity to talk to each other, and they certainly don’t socialize together as routinely as the previous generation of legislators. And with that, there’s little opportunity to develop trust. 在接管之後,金契奇推行了一系列徹底改變華盛頓運作方式的變革。其中之一就是增加資金募集。其中一項變革是,眾議院議員應該將大部分時間花在其家鄉選區,而非首都。20 世紀 80 年代,近三分之二的國會議員居住在華盛頓特區。如今,要找到超過少數人在此居住可就難了。取而代之的是,議員們在星期二抵達國會,星期四晚上返回各自的州。這一變化標誌著民主黨人和共和黨人之間關係的重大轉變。由於大部分時間都花在尋求資金募集上,而非實際工作,兩黨議員現在彼此交流的機會更少,他們也不如上一代立法者那樣經常聚會社交。這意味著,建立互相信任的機會也越來越少。
Of course, there were many forces at play that led to the deeply divided Congress we have today, and Gingrich’s ascendency was just one of them. Redistricting and highly politicized media programming contributed to the polarization, as has overreliance on the Internet. Why work face-to-face in Washington when you can send an e-mail from anywhere? 當然,有許多力量在起作用,導致了我們今天深度分裂的國會,金里奇的崛起只是其中之一。重劃選區和高度政治化的媒體節目有助於兩極化,過度依賴互聯網也是如此。為什麼要親自在華盛頓工作,而不是從任何地方發送電子郵件?
Members of Congress have gone from sharing power to hoarding it. With no single guiding vision or purpose, we’ve moved from governing as a selfless pursuit to governing for selfish gain. Just as business moved from serving the customer to serving the shareholder, Congress went from a culture of cooperation to a battle of wills. 國會議員已從分享權力轉向囤積權力。沒有單一的指導願景或目的,我們從將治理視為無私的追求,轉變為為了自私的利益而進行治理。就像企業從服務客戶轉向服務股東一樣,國會從合作文化轉變為意志力量的戰鬥。
All leaders, in order to truly lead, need to walk the halls and spend time with the people they serve, “eyeball leadership,” as the Marines call it. The same goes for our elected officials. Yet that’s not what’s happening. Today, members of Congress say they’re spending more time in their home districts in order to better serve their constituents, but they don’t actually serve them by doing this. There’s little evidence that, when back in their home states, our elected representatives are visiting factories, or working with the citizens to better understand their needs (except perhaps during 所有領導者,為了真正領導,需要走廊巡視並與他們所服務的人花時間,海軍陸戰隊稱之為"面對面領導"。對於我們當選的官員也是如此。然而這並非正在發生的。今天,國會議員表示他們正在家鄉選區花更多時間,以更好地服務於選民,但他們並非真的通過這樣做來服務選民。並沒有多少證據表明,當他們回到自己的州時,我們當選的代表正在拜訪工廠,或與公民合作以更好地了解他們的需求(除非也許在
election season). What they seem to be doing more of when they return home is fund-raising to help ensure their reelection. When we are disconnected from the people with whom we work, we spend more time focused on our own needs than the needs of the people for whom we’re supposed to be responsible. 選舉季節)。他們似乎在回家時更加致力於募款,以幫助確保他們的連任。當我們與我們工作的人們疏離時,我們更多地關注自己的需求,而非我們應該負責的人的需求。
In a PowerPoint presentation shown to newly elected Democratic members of Congress, the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) recommends a “model schedule” while members are in Washington: four hours spent making fund-raising calls, one to two hours for constituent visits, two hours for work on the floor or in committee, one hour for strategic outreach (breakfasts, meet and greets, and press) and one hour of recharge time. In fact, Tom Perriello, who served in Congress for one term, told the Huffington Post that the “four hours allocated to fundraising may even be ‘low balling the figure so as not to scare the new Members too much.’” 在向新當選的民主黨國會成員展示的 PowerPoint 演示文稿中,DCCC(民主黨國會競選委員會)建議在華盛頓期間的"模型時間表":用四個小時進行募款電話,一到兩個小時訪問選民,兩個小時在議會或委員會工作,一個小時進行戰略外展(早餐、見面和招呼以及新聞發佈),以及一個小時的恢復時間。事實上,曾在國會任職一任的 Tom Perriello 告訴赫芬頓郵報,分配給募款的四個小時"可能低於實際的數字,以免嚇到新成員太多"。
Regardless of whether or not the members uphold the model schedule, it is just another example of the pressure to make the numbers, win elections and stay in power instead of building relationships, finding common ground and making progress for the common welfare. Like the CEO of a public company who cares more about winning and numbers than they do about the people who are doing the actual work, so too have our elected officials got their priorities backward. 不論成員是否堅持模範時間表,這只是又一個例子,顯示壓力是為了達標、贏得選舉並保持權勢,而非建立關係、找到共同點並為公眾福祉而努力。就像一家上市公司的 CEO,他們更關心贏得勝利和數據,而不是關心真正在工作的人,我們當選的官員也同樣把優先順序搞錯了。
It is not a surprise then that relationships in Congress today are in a shambles. Hostilities between the parties are at an all-time high. Veteran congressmen recount anecdotally that in the past about 80 percent of the debate about a new bill would happen behind closed doors in committee, and 20 percent on the floor for the camera. These days party leadership takes debates to the floor before attempting to get consensus in committee first. 國會中的關係如今一片凋零,並不讓人感到意外。各政黨之間的敵意達到歷史最高點。資深國會議員回憶,以前有大約 80%的辯論發生在委員會密閉會議上,只有 20%在議場上。如今黨領導先在議場上辯論,再嘗試在委員會中達成共識。
Olympia Snowe, the Republican senator from Maine who served for thirty-three years, decided in 2012 not to stand for reelection, even though she was the easy favorite to win. In a statement given by Snowe and reported by one of her hometown papers, she explained, “I have had to consider how productive an additional term would be. Unfortunately, I do not realistically expect the partisanship 奧林匹亞·斯諾, 來自緬因州的共和黨參議員,在任三十三年後,於 2012 年決定不參加連任競選,儘管她很有贏得選舉的把握。斯諾在一篇由她的家鄉報紙報導的聲明中解釋說,「我不得不考慮再次當選的效果。不幸的是,我實際上預期黨派對立
of recent years in the Senate to change over the short term. So at this stage of my tenure in public service, I have concluded that I am not prepared to commit myself to an additional six years in the Senate.” Snowe is just one of a growing number of people who, after devoting their lives to public service, are now leaving due to frustration with the caustic environment. If the “good guys” are leaving, that means that the future of our government is in the hands of the ones who either benefit from the current system or have the stomach to endure the excessive fund-raising, increasing shortsightedness and growing culture of self before service. 近年來在參議院的最近努力無法在短期內改變。所以在我公共服務生涯的這個階段,我已得出結論,我無法承諾再在參議院服務六年。"斯諾女士只是越來越多在投身公共服務後,由於對腐蝕性環境感到沮喪而離開的人之一。如果"善良者"離開,那意味著我們政府的未來掌握在要麼從目前制度中獲益,要麼有胃口承受過度的募款、日益短視和侵蝕公共服務的自我文化的人手中。
The result of such an aggressive atmosphere in our government is, as we would expect, a lack of trust and progress. A Gallup poll in January 2013 showed that the U.S. Congress has an approval rating among Americans of only 14 percent. That’s lower than the approval rating of used-car salesmen or even Genghis Kahn, the twelfthcentury Mongolian emperor infamous for his slaughter of as many as 40 million people, most of them innocent civilians. It is not surprising that three quarters of Americans, the poll shows, believe “the way politics works in Washington” is harmful to the country. And based on all we know about the conditions necessary for trust, cooperation and progress to exist, they’d be right. 我們政府中如此具攻擊性的氛圍所造成的結果是,正如我們所預期的那樣,缺乏信任和進步。2013 年 1 月的一項蓋洛普民意調查顯示,美國國會在美國人中僅有 14%的支持率。這低於二手車推銷員或甚至是蒙古人帝國的成吉思汗的支持率,這位十二世紀臭名遠揚的蒙古皇帝因屠殺多達 4000 萬無辜平民而臭名昭著。三分之二的美國人認為「華盛頓政治的運作方式」對國家有害,這並不令人意外。根據我們對信任、合作和進步的必要條件所知的一切,他們是正確的。
If as social animals we are most productive when we trust and cooperate, then a lack of trust and cooperation means less will get done. Congress is now considered largely ineffective as a governing body. At the time this book was written, the 112th Congress, the Congress that served from January 3, 2011, until January 3, 2013, was considered the most polarized Congress in history. It passed fewer laws than any time since the 1940s-only 220. The Congress before that passed 383 bills into law and the Congress before that passed 460. If we accept that passing laws is a legitimate metric of cooperation, even the Congress that previously held the record of least productive, the 104th Congress, from 1995 to 1996, was more cooperative with the 333 bills they passed into law-over 100 more than the 112th. 如果作為社會動物,當我們互相信任和合作時是最有生產力的,那麼缺乏信任和合作意味著完成的事情會更少。現在,國會被認為在治理方面大多是無效的。在這本書寫作時,第 112 屆國會,即 2011 年 1 月 3 日至 2013 年 1 月 3 日任期的國會,被認為是歷史上最極化的國會。它只通過了 220 項法案,少於 1940 年代以來的任何時期。在此之前的國會通過了 383 項法案,而在此之前的國會通過了 460 項法案。如果我們認為通過法案是合作的合法指標,即使是之前最不生產的第 104 屆國會(1995 年至 1996 年),也比第 112 屆國會更具合作性,通過了 333 項法案,比第 112 屆多 100 多項。
The disregard for the human element of governing shows a steady downward trend in the ability of Congress to get anything done. And the effects of this are dramatic. According to political 管治的人性因素被忽視,顯示國會完成任何任務的能力持續下降。這種影響非常嚴重。根據政治
observers, the public largely blames the inability of members of Congress to work together for the economic crisis of 2008. A polarized Congress has been blamed for a lack of progress on the deficit, on reforming Social Security and on dealing with climate change, among a host of other things. 觀察者,大眾大多歸咎於國會議員無法共同合作為導致 2008 年經濟危機的原因。一個兩極化的國會被指責在赤字、社會保障改革以及氣候變遷等等眾多問題上缺乏進展。
Some current members blame “the system” or the speed with which news is able to spread in a wired world for their struggles and low approval ratings. However, they ignore the fact that they are the system and the Internet doesn’t do them harm; it simply reports on the harm they do. The problem is not politics, money or the media. They are all symptoms of the problem. The reason our Congress is as ineffective as it is, is just a matter of biology. If members of Congress don’t spend any time together, if they don’t get to know each other and the people they represent, the flow of the social chemicals is limited and the drive to raise money and win elections makes dopamine their primary incentive. The environment in which our legislators now work makes it difficult for them to trust each other or work together for the benefit of anyone but themselves. 一些現任成員將"體制"或新聞在網際網路時代快速傳播的速度歸咎於他們的困境和低批准率。然而,他們忽視了他們就是體制,而互聯網並非傷害他們,而是單純報導他們所造成的傷害。問題並非政治、金錢或媒體,而是這些都只是問題的症狀。我們國會之所以如此無效,純屬生物學問題。如果國會議員不共事,彼此不認識,代表的人民也不認識,社交化學物質的流動受限,而集資和選舉勝利的驅動使多巴胺成為主要激勵因素。立法者目前所處的環境,使他們很難相互信任或為彼此利益而合作。
Enemies Fight. Friends Cooperate. 敵人戰鬥。朋友合作。
the members of Congress from the House Agriculture Committee were in Romania as part of a tour to learn more about trade policy and meet some of their European counterparts. It was only by chance that Bob Goodlatte, the long-serving Republican congressman from Virginia, and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a junior Democratic congresswoman from South Dakota, found themselves the only two people from the delegation with nothing to do after a day of meetings. And so they decided to do some souvenir shopping together. 美國眾議院農業委員會的議員們正在羅馬尼亞進行考察訪問,了解更多有關貿易政策的資訊,並與他們的歐洲同行會面。偶然之下,來自弗吉尼亞州的資深共和黨眾議員鮑勃·古德拉特,以及來自南達科他州的新晉民主黨眾議員斯蒂芬妮·赫賽斯·桑德林,成為參訪團中唯二沒有活動安排的人。於是,他們決定一起去買紀念品。
Despite serving on the same committee, the two representatives served different parties. And by the unwritten rules of Congress, that meant they were adversaries. Until that day, their relationship could have been described as cordial at best. 儘管在同一委員會服務,但兩位代表所屬政黨不同。根據國會的不成文規則,這意味著他們是對手。在那天之前,他們的關係最多可以被描述為恰克得體。
There is something about getting together out of context that makes us more open to getting to know someone. Whether we’re bonding with colleagues with whom we play on the company softball team, out to lunch or on a business trip with someone we don’t know well, when the responsibilities of our jobs are not forcing us to work together, when our competing interests are put aside for a while, we seem to be quite open to seeing others as people rather than coworkers or competitors. This may be one of the reasons peace talks so often happen in serene environments where the two warring parties can go for a walk together. 在沒有上下文的情況下聚在一起,這似乎能使我們更開放去認識別人。不論是和公司軟式棒球隊的同事建立聯繫、和不太熟悉的人一起外出用午餐或出差,當我們的工作職責不要求我們合作時,當我們的利益暫時放一邊時,我們似乎都很開放地將對方視為人而非同事或競爭對手。這或許就是和平談判常在寧靜環境中進行的原因之一,那裡雙方敵對者可以一起散步。
And that’s exactly what happened with Representative Herseth Sandlin and Representative Goodlatte. Without the weight of politics or their respective parties breathing down their necks, the two of them went exploring together. The Democrat and the Republican became Steph and Bob. And as it turned out, they really hit it off. Though they disagreed on many things at work, they had a lot in common as regular people. As we all know, it is the things we have in common with people that attract us to each other and are the basis of friendship. 赫賽斯塞思·桑德林代表和古德拉特代表也正是如此。脫離了政治的重壓和各自政黨的威迫,他們一起去探索。民主黨的史蒂芬和共和黨的鮑勃成為了好朋友。儘管在工作上他們存在許多分歧,但作為普通人,他們有很多共同點。眾所周知,正是我們彼此之間的共同點吸引了我們,並成為了友誼的基礎。
By the modern standard, what happened between the two members of Congress with often opposing views is almost unheard of. Given how little time members spend in Washington, there is simply less opportunity to get together socially with people they like, let alone to try to form relationships with people they are expected to resent. But on this day in Romania, the seeds of friendship would be planted and later grow into something that would serve both representatives for years to come. 按照現代標準,兩位具有經常對立觀點的國會議員之間發生的事情幾乎是聞所未聞的。考慮到議員們在華盛頓的停留時間有多短,他們很難有機會與他們喜歡的人社交,更不用說去與他們期望憎恨的人建立關係。但是在這一天在羅馬尼亞,友誼的種子將被播下,後來成長為將為兩位代表帶來多年恩惠的東西。
With the foundation laid, Representative Herseth Sandlin and Representative Goodlatte continued to get together for meals in Washington for no other reason than they enjoyed each other’s company. They started to see and treat each other as human beings instead of adversaries. Like any two warring parties that eventually make peace, the two representatives learned that what they had in common was the basis of the trust they needed to talk about the things about which they disagreed. “We paid attention to each other,” Herseth Sandlin recounted. “We listened to each other, and we compromised on bills we might not have otherwise.” 赫塞思·桑德林代表和古德拉特代表繼續在華盛頓一起用餐,因為他們享受彼此的公司。他們開始將對方視為人而不是對手。就像任何兩個最終和解的交戰方一樣,這兩位代表了解到他們的共同點是建立互相信任的基礎,以討論他們不同意的事情。「我們關注彼此」,赫塞思·桑德林回憶說。「我們傾聽彼此,在我們可能不會妥協的法案上妥協。」
Goodlatte and Herseth Sandlin still voted in opposition to each other more often than not. They didn’t always see eye to eye on legislation, but they didn’t need to. It was because of mutual respect and friendship that occasions arose when they agreed to do the right thing, even if it meant one of them would have to vote against the party line (which, unlike in a parliamentary system, is technically what we elect our representatives to do in America). Representative Goodlatte even voted for an amendment sponsored by Herseth Sandlin, “much to the disappointment of GOP leadership,” she said. “That rarely happens these days.” (It’s worth noting that when Olympia Snowe voted to allow more debate on the subject of healthcare reform her own party lambasted her publicly and threatened to pull her funding. Just because she voted to continue to talk about it.) 古德拉特和赫爾塞斯特·桑德林仍然經常在投票時相互對立。他們並不總是在立法問題上看法一致,但這並不需要。這是由於相互尊重和友誼,才會出現他們同意做正確的事情的時候,即使這意味著其中一人必須投票反對黨派立場(這在美國不像在議會制度中那樣是我們選出代表的技術要求)。古德拉特代表甚至投票支持赫爾塞斯特·桑德林提出的修正案,「令共和黨領導層感到失望」,她說。「這種情況這些天很少發生。」(值得注意的是,當奧林匹亞·斯諾發表投票允許對醫療改革有更多討論時,她自己的政黨公開抨擊她並威脅要撤回她的資金。只因為她投票繼續討論這個問題。)
Cooperation doesn’t mean agreement, it means working together to advance the greater good, to serve those who rely on our protection, not to rack up wins to serve the party or ourselves. What the two members of Congress built was a genuine appreciation and respect for each other. What they formed was nothing more than what we in the world outside of politics would call a friendship. That such a relationship should be considered extraordinary enough to serve as fodder for a book is somewhat disturbing. Getting to know the people with whom we work every day seems like it should be the normal way of doing things. 合作並不意味著同意,而是共同努力以追求更大的利益,以服務那些依賴我們保護的人,而不是為了自己或政黨的利益而獲勝。兩名國會議員建立的是真誠的欣賞和尊重。他們形成的只是我們在政治圈外稱之為友誼的關係。這種關係被認為足以成為一本書的材料,這有些令人不安。與我們每天一起工作的人們建立了解,似乎應該是正常的做事方式。
A few years before Goodlatte and Herseth Sandlin’s experiment, a few forward-thinking members of Congress tried to do the same thing. Recognizing the caustic, relationship-lacking environment that consumes Washington politics, they called for a series of retreats with the aim of encouraging greater civility in Congress. The first was held in Hershey, Pennsylvania, and Dr. William Ury, world-renowned peace negotiator and coauthor of the book Getting to Yes, was there. He recalls several representatives telling him the same thing about the quality of relationships in Congress. “They had spent more time with members of the other party during those three days than they had in their entire careers,” Ury recounted. Sadly, the retreats were soon canceled due to lack of interest. It turns out that friendship and trust can’t be built over three days. It takes a regular commitment of (no big surprise here) time and energy. 在古德拉特和赫尔塞斯·桑德林的实验几年前,国会中的一些前瞻性成员试图做同样的事情。他们意识到华盛顿政治中充斥着腐蚀性、缺乏关系的环境,呼吁召开一系列的退修会,旨在鼓励国会中更大的文明。第一次退修会在宾夕法尼亚州赫希召开,著名和平谈判专家、《取得成功》一书的合著者威廉·尤里博士也参加了。他回忆说,几位议员告诉他关于国会关系质量的同样事情。"他们在这三天里与另一党的成员相处的时间比他们整个职业生涯中要多。"尤里说。遗憾的是,由于缺乏兴趣,这些退修会很快就被取消了。看来友谊和信任不能在三天内建立起来,需要持续的时间和精力投入(这里没什么大惊喜)。
“If there is conflict, without knowing each other it’s very hard to make peace,” says Ury. And Ury knows a thing or two about peace. Founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project, he is widely seen as one of the leading authorities on negotiating. He is often called upon to help negotiate peace deals among adversaries in various parts of the world. “We need them to understand each other,” he says. “To humanize each other. And listen to each other.” "如果有衝突,如果彼此不了解,很難實現和平,"尤里說。而尤里對和平有深刻的了解。他是哈佛談判項目的創始人,被認為是談判方面的權威之一。他經常受邀幫助在世界各地的對手之間達成和平協議。"我們需要他們相互了解,"他說。"使對方人性化,並傾聽對方。"
Few would argue with Ury’s sentiments. We know that for there to be peace between Israel and Palestine, the leaders must meet. They must talk. We know that for there to be peace between India and Pakistan, they must be willing to come to the table and to talk and to listen. When the parties refuse to talk, refuse to listen, refuse to even meet, then the odds are high that the conflict will only continue. How can our Congress have the credibility to tell the world how to make peace when they seem incapable of demonstrating how it’s done? 鮮少人會反對尤里的感受。我們知道,為了以色列與巴勒斯坦之間的和平,領導人必須會面。他們必須對話。我們知道,為了印度與巴基斯坦之間的和平,他們必須願意坐下來談話,聽取對方的意見。當各方拒絕對話、拒絕傾聽、甚至拒絕會面時,則衝突只會持續。當國會似乎無法展示如何實現和平時,又如何有資格告訴世界如何締造和平呢?
Herseth Sandlin and Goodlatte are a model of what could be. If “the system” will not allow for one party to socialize with the other party, hope lies with the individual senators and representatives who have the courage to lead. If they are driven by the desire to serve their constituents and the country, then investing time and energy simply to get to know each other is essential. If, however, they are driven primarily by the desire to win elections and keep their party in power, then the current system is working just fine . . . for them . . . not anyone else. 何瑟斯·桑丁和古德拉特是可能的楷模。如果「制度」不允許一個政黨與另一個政黨交往,希望在於有勇氣帶頭的個別參議員和代表。如果他們是被服務於選民和國家的願望所驅使,那麼僅僅花時間和精力互相認識就是必不可少的。然而,如果他們主要被贏得選舉和保持其政黨在權力中的欲望所驅使,那麼目前的制度運作得很好...為他們...而不是任何其他人。
Without retreats or formal engagements, all that is required is for a few progress-minded members in one party to personally reach out to a few progress-minded members of the other party to meet for a drink or a bite to eat with no agenda. If they care about the American people, it is anthropologically necessary for them to get together for no other reason than to get to know each other. Like any relationship, some will get along and some won’t. But in time, cooperation will happen. 無需退縮或正式接觸,只需要一個政黨中的幾位進步思維的成員主動聯繫另一個政黨中的幾位進步思維的成員,共進晚餐或小酌。如果他們真心關心美國人民,他們在人類學上有必要僅僅為了互相了解而聚會。就像任何關係一樣,有些人會相處得很好,有些人則不會。但隨著時間的推移,合作必將發生。
