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，在承受了一段较长时间的企业界可笑后，三件明智得令人吃惊的事情经常出现在我的屏幕上。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.其中两件事来自小公司，但是第三件事来自全世界仅次于的企业之一（近来也是最不受非议的企业之一）——亚马逊(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.第一个例子是南非一个读者发给我的，该读者刚寻找了一份新的工作，必需在新的公司的行为准则上签署。准则写到：“在准确的时间，做到准确的事，不要担忧风险。

”就这么结尾。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.尽管这个声明较为笼统，但它相对于少见的冗长禁令表格是一个极大改良。多数行为准则都没完没了，以至于员工唯一明智的作法就是一个字也不看、必要在结尾的方格打勾（从而在仍未开始工作前之后已违背了行为准则），然后把准则完全抛掷诸脑后。

以斜体字大写字母写一句唬人的话是一种改良，因为最少它表达了“失当不道德很差”这层原文。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.第二个例子来自澳大利亚一个正在召募新的员工的小型对冲基金。该机构未滔滔不绝地描写一般来说招聘广告所说的废话，有关积极主动的团队精神和岗位技能之类，而是称之为，期望新的员工不具备“1.十分聪慧、2.对投资过程感兴趣、以及3.最重要的是要有好奇心”。

它补足称之为：“我们确实想的是胡扯探测器”——这意味著新的员工必须不具备数学和理科天赋。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.”最后该基金警告称之为，“作为一家小型机构，你不可避免地要‘做到多’我们，因为我们也将‘做到多’你。这里不存在职业风险。有可能好也有可能怕。

如果你夸奖，我们也夸奖，结果可能会十分好。如果两者皆不尽理想，结局或许是一个差劲的职业自由选择。

”This is honest, funny, accurate and helpful. It almost makes me want to apply; if I were any good at science, I just might.这话说道得觉得、风趣、精确又有益。这完全让我也想要去受聘；如果我有那么一点点擅长于理科的话，我或许知道不会去。Both examples, from Machi.biz 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.来自Machi.biz和Bronte Capital的这两个例子，指出了大公司如何需要做到得更佳。

但我担忧，一旦这两家机构做到大了，它们将记得如何做明智。规模意味著合规和人力资源部门，这保证了较好判断力被出局，更加不用说个性或棱角了。Yet then there is Amazon, which this week has become my pin-up for the no-nonsense large organisation.不过，接下来的例子是亚马逊(Amazon)，最近它出了我眼中不说废话的大型机构的模范。

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.两年前我们就告诉这家零售商对其仓库员工十分傲慢。如今我们告诉，亚马逊对其办公室职员也冷酷无情。不过，在读者《纽约时报》(New York Times)近期的那篇文章时我页面网页了该公司的14条原则，我非但没有深感不满，反而为它的明智合理热卖。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条原则是俭朴——我从未看见哪家公司如此推崇过。

当领导的当然应当俭朴——他们花上的不是自己的钱。另一条原则是：“有骨气；勇于不表示同意、有担任。”我也讨厌这一条。

在大多数公司，每个人想要得都一样（尽管它们假装多元化），而观点有所不同的人保持沉默。Yet the principle that had me throwing my hat in the air said leaders “are right, a lot”.不过，最让我为之鼓舞的原则是：领导“是准确的，在很多情况下”。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.对于没有拒绝接受过企业废话洗礼的人来说，这一条或许看上去有点显而易见。但是，大多数公司早已如此沉迷于“较慢告终、常常告终”这种新潮观点，以至于它们听得上去好像是做错比做对更佳。

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.那么，我们该如何解读一家颠覆性明智的公司对其员工如此无耻呢？我有种很差的感觉——这两件事是互相关联的。亚马逊需要做真诚，是因为它显然不企图假装友好。亚马逊创始人杰夫·贝索斯 (Jeff Bezos)从来不用于讨人欢心的把戏。

他曾回应，“我们的文化是友好和紧绷的，但在紧要关头，我们不能退而求其次地自由选择紧绷。”其他企业则建构了一种基于员工快乐的商业模式。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.因为这在一定程度上必定是谎言——所有企业都必需奴役员工来盈利——所以它们能说道的话受到限制。于是就经常出现了大量关于激情和体验的空洞废话。

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.亚马逊的教训超越了管理学仅次于的谎言之一。利益相关者模式假装你可以面面俱到——客户、股东和员工都可以同时沦为赢家。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.亚马逊重返到旧式的资本主义——有得无以失礼。

我读者《纽约时报》的文章时正值深夜，我躺在床上采购怪异的灯泡和点状的螺丝，我告诉这些商品能以折扣价在第二天午饭前送往我手中。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.在亚马逊，客户是赢家——员工不是。

该公司或许没自由选择在道德上最可拒绝接受的权衡。但是它突显了经济生活中的一个事实——有人输掉，必定有人赢。

本文来源：1050开元网站-www.9023.com.cn