亞馬遜打破管理學謊言 Amazon is at the head of an outbreak of good sense

Last week, aFTer a long period of stupidity from the corporate world, three astonishingly sensible things passed over my screen all at once.

不久前，在忍受了一段較長時間的企業界愚蠢後，三件明智得令人吃驚的事情出現在我的屏幕上。

Two of them came from small companies, but the third came from one of the world’s largest — and recently one of the least popular — organisations: Amazon.

其中兩件事來自小公司，但是第三件事來自全世界最大的企業之一（近來也是最受非議的企業之一）——亞馬遜(Amazon)。

The first example was sent to me from a reader in South Africa, who had just landed a new job and had to sign the company’s code of conduct. This read: “DO THE RIGHT THING, AT THE RIGHT TIME, WITHOUT FEARING THE RISKS.” That was it.

第一個例子是南非一個讀者發給我的，該讀者剛剛找到了一份新工作，必須在新公司的行爲準則上簽字。準則寫道：“在正確的時間，做正確的事，不要擔心風險。”就這麼簡短。

Even though the statement is unspecific, it is a big improvement on the usual interminable list of don’ts. Most codes of conduct are so long that the only intelligent thing for an employee to do is tick the box at the end without having read a word (thus disobeying the code before they’ve even started) and forget all about it. A single scary sentence in block capitals is an improvement as at least it conveys the general idea that wrongdoing is not the thing.

儘管這個聲明比較籠統，但它相對於常見的冗長禁令清單是一個巨大改進。多數行爲準則都沒完沒了，以至於員工唯一明智的做法就是一個字也不看、直接在結尾的方格打勾（從而在尚未開始工作前便已違反了行爲準則），然後把準則徹底拋諸腦後。以粗體大寫字母寫下一句唬人的話是一種改進，因爲至少它傳達了“不當行爲不好”這層大意。

The next example came from a small Australian hedge fund looking for a new hire. Instead of spouting the usual nonsense about proactive team players and skillsets, it said it wanted someone “(a) very bright (b) interested in the investment process, and (c) most importantly curious”. It added: “What we really want is a bullshit detector” — for which it specifies an aptitude for maths and science.

第二個例子來自澳大利亞一個正在招募新員工的小型對衝基金。該機構並未滔滔不絕地講述通常招聘廣告所說的廢話，有關積極主動的團隊精神和崗位技能之類，而是稱，希望新員工具備“1.非常聰明、2.對投資過程感興趣、以及3.最重要的是要有好奇心”。它補充稱：“我們真正想要的是胡扯探測器”——這意味着新員工需要具備數學和理科天賦。

It wound up with the warning that “being a small organisation you are inevitably ‘long’ us as we will be ‘long’ you. There is career risk. This can be good and bad. If you do well and we do well it might be very good. If either of those things don’t play out this might wind up being a bad career choice.”

最後該基金警告稱，“作爲一家小型機構，你不可避免地要‘做多’我們，因爲我們也將‘做多’你。這裏存在職業風險。可能好也可能壞。如果你做得好，我們也做得好，結果可能會非常好。如果兩者均不盡理想，結局也許是一個糟糕的職業選擇。”

This is honest, funny, accurate and helpful. It almost makes me want to apply; if I were any good at science, I just might.

這話說得實在、風趣、準確又有益。這幾乎讓我也想去應聘；如果我有那麼一點點擅長理科的話，我也許真的會去。

Both examples, from and Bronte Capital respectively, show how big companies could do things better. Yet I fear that if either of these outfits ever gets big, they will forget how to be sensible. Size means compliance and HR departments, which ensure that good sense — let alone personality or sharpness — are eliminated.

來自和Bronte Capital的這兩個例子，表明了大公司如何能夠做得更好。但我擔心，一旦這兩家機構做大了，它們將忘記如何做到明智。規模意味着合規和人力資源部門，這確保了良好判斷力被淘汰，更不用說個性或棱角了。

Yet then there is Amazon, which this week has become my pin-up for the no-nonsense large organisation.

不過，接下來的例子是亞馬遜(Amazon)，最近它成了我眼中不說廢話的大型機構的模範。

For a couple of years we’ve known (thanks to an article in the FT) that the retailer is mean to its warehouse workers. Now we know it is hard on its office workers, too. Yet as I read the latest article in the New York Times and clicked through to the company’s 14 principles, instead of being repulsed I found myself cheering its good sense.

兩年前我們就知道這家零售商對其倉庫員工十分刻薄。如今我們知道，亞馬遜對其辦公室職員也冷酷無情。不過，在閱讀《紐約時報》(New York Times)最新的那篇文章時我點擊瀏覽了該公司的14條原則，我非但沒感到反感，反而爲它的明智合理叫好。

Principle #9 is frugality, which I’ve never before seen held up like this. Of course leaders should be frugal — it’s not their money they are spending. Another principle reads: “Have backbone; disagree and commit.” I like this one too. In most companies everyone thinks just the same (despite the pretence of diversity) and those who don’t, keep quiet.

第9條原則是節儉——我從沒看到哪家公司如此重視過。當領導的當然應該節儉——他們花的不是自己的錢。另一條原則是：“有骨氣；敢於不同意、有擔當。”我也喜歡這一條。在大多數公司，每個人想得都一樣（儘管它們假裝多元化），而觀點不同的人保持沉默。

Yet the principle that had me throwing my hat in the air said leaders “are right, a lot”.

不過，最讓我爲之振奮的原則是：領導“是正確的，在很多情況下”。

To anyone not well schooled in corporate nonsense this might seem a bit obvious. But most companies have so fallen for the trendy idea of “fail fast, fail often” they have started to talk as if being wrong were superior to being right.

對於沒接受過企業廢話洗禮的人來說，這一條也許看起來有點顯而易見。但是，大多數公司已經如此沉迷於“快速失敗、經常失敗”這種新潮觀點，以至於它們聽上去彷彿是做錯比做對更好。

So what are we to make of the fact that this company, which is so subversively sensible, is so horrid to its workers? I have a nasty feeling the two things are connected. Amazon can afford to be honest because it isn’t trying to pretend to be nice. Founder Jeff Bezos has never had any truck with cuddly: “Our culture is friendly and intense, but if push comes to shove we’ll settle for intense,” he once said. The rest of the corporate world has built a business model that rests on the idea of happy workers.

那麼，我們該如何理解一家顛覆性明智的公司對其員工如此可惡呢？我有種不好的感覺——這兩件事是相互關聯的。亞馬遜能夠做到坦誠，是因爲它根本不試圖假裝親善。亞馬遜創始人傑夫·貝索斯 (Jeff Bezos)從不使用討人歡心的把戲。他曾表示，“我們的文化是友善和緊張的，但在緊要關頭，我們只能退而求其次地選擇緊張。”其他企業則構建了一種基於員工幸福的商業模式。

Because this is partly a lie — all corporations must extract their pound of flesh to turn a profit — they are restricted in what they can say. Hence the empty guff about passion and fun.

因爲這在一定程度上必然是謊言——所有企業都必須剝削員工來盈利——所以它們能說的話受到限制。於是就出現了大量關於激情和樂趣的空洞廢話。

The lesson from Amazon blows away one of the biggest lies of management. The stakeholder model pretends you can have it all — customers, shareholders and employees can all do well at the same time.

亞馬遜的教訓打破了管理學最大的謊言之一。利益相關者模式假裝你可以面面俱到——客戶、股東和員工都可以同時成爲贏家。

Amazon is a throwback to the old style of capitalism, in which there was a trade-off. As I read the NYT article last week it was late at night and I was sitting up in bed ordering weird lightbulbs and irregular screws, knowing they would arrive, at a discounted price, before lunch the next day.

亞馬遜迴歸到舊式的資本主義——有得必有失。我閱讀《紐約時報》的文章時正值深夜，我坐在牀上訂購奇怪的燈泡和不規則的螺絲，我知道這些商品能以折扣價在第二天午飯前送到我手中。

At Amazon, the customer wins — and the employee does not. The company may not have chosen the most morally acceptable trade-off. But it has laid bare this fact of economic life: when some win, others lose.

在亞馬遜，客戶是贏家——員工不是。該公司也許沒有選擇在道德上最可接受的取捨。但是它彰顯了經濟生活中的一個事實——有人贏，必然有人輸。