[管理学]新论：黑即是白
There is a brand new fashion in management circles. It doesn't yet have a name so I'm calling it “White is the new black”, becau it involves taking something we all think is bad and telling us that it's good (or vice versa).
在管理圈里，目前涌现出一股崭新的潮流。这股潮流还没有一个名称，所以，我打算称其为“黑即是白”潮流，因为它的特点是，把大家都认为不好的东西说成是好的（或反过来）。
Everyone loves this latest fashion. It's refreshing. It's counter-intuitive. It's liberating. And it's so cool. On LinkedIn and the Harvard Business Review website, readers can't get their fingers on the “like” button fast enough.
每个人都喜欢这股最新的潮流。它让人耳目一新，出乎意料，解放了思路。并且它很酷。在LinkedIn和《哈佛商业评论》(Harvard Business Review)网站上，读者们迫不及待地对这股潮流点“赞”。
In the past week alone I've come across four examples of it. The first and most popular ca of white-is-the-new-black says that failure is not bad: it is good. Pushers of this theory, who first appeared a few years ago, have consistently said that mistakes are vital becau you learn from them. This is fair enough. What isn't fair enough is to say that since it's hard to succeed without failing first, you must therefore aim to fail.
仅上周一周，我就遇到了四个体现这股潮流的例子。第一个、同时也最受大家欢迎的“黑即是白”的例子是，认为失败不是坏事，而是好事。这个理论首次出现于几年前，鼓吹它的人一直坚称，犯错非常重要，因为可以让人学到东西。这倒不无道理。这个理论接着说，因为不经历失败很难成功，所以我们必须致力于让自己失败——这就有些令人匪夷所思了。
A recent Harvard Business Review blog argues that failure is so fantastic that organisations ought to hold a regular “fail-fest” at which employees wear a pink feather boa and celebrate their cock-ups. This is not only silly and patronising, it is dangerous. It is true that a fear of failure can be paralysing, but in my experience it can also be galvanising. I'm currently working on a radio ries and the dreadful and very real prospect of screwing it up is focusing my mind no end. If I thought the BBC would organi a party for me and give me a pink feather boa if I mesd up, I would barely be moved to try at all.
《哈佛商业评论》博客上最近的一篇文章建议，因为失败是如此美妙的一件事情，各类组织都应定期举行“失败欢庆会”，让员工戴上粉色羽毛围巾，庆祝过去的种种失败。这个建议不仅愚蠢、傲慢，还非常危险。诚然，对失败的恐惧可能让人畏手畏脚，但从我自身的
经验来看，这种恐惧也可能促人奋起。我最近在准备一个系列广播节目，搞砸的可能性真实存在，令我十分担心，反而让我全神贯注。如果我这样想：反正如果我搞砸，英国广播公司(BBC)会为我举办庆祝活动，给我戴上粉色羽毛围巾，那么我可能根本提不起努力的劲头。
Failure is a bad thing and should not be celebrated. It shouldn't be punished either, unless it is caud by laziness and sloppiness. In that ca I can think of a better u of the pink boas – force offending employees to eat them.
失败是坏事，不值得庆祝。失败也不应受到惩罚，除非是懒惰和马虎引起的。如果员工因为懒惰和马虎导致失败，那么我认为，可以用粉色羽毛围巾做一件更有用的事情：让这些懒惰鬼或马虎鬼吃掉它。
This leads naturally to the cond white-is-the-new-black theory, which says laziness can be a good thing in a boss. This idea is peddled in Richard Koch's latest book, The 80/20 Manager, published last week. In it he writes: “Lazy managers achieve exceptional results. Only by being economical with your energy and attention can you make it count
when it matters.” He goes on to say that sloth is such a gift that tho managers not fortunate enough to have been born with it must work to acquire it.
由此自然引出了第二个“黑即是白”理论。这个理论宣称，老板的懒惰可能是件好事。理查德??科克(Richard Koch)在他上周出版的新书《80/20经理人》(The 80/20 Manager)中就宣扬了这个理论。他在书中写道：“懒惰的经理人能够实现卓越的业绩。只有节约精力和注意力，才能把好钢用在刀刃上。”他接着写道，懒惰是一种如此难得的天赋，那些不幸生而没有这项天赋的经理人，必须努力去获得它。
Mr Koch is right to point out that most of our work is wasted effort; but the trouble is that we have to crunch through the wasted bits in order to get to the worthwhile ones. In real life there are few lazy boss, since if you are an idle slug you tend not to get promoted. The few that I have met were incompetent, much disliked and generally sacked before long.
科克说，我们的工作大多是无用功，这话没错。但问题在于，没有这些点滴的“无用功”，就没有后面的“有用功”。在实际生活中，很少有懒惰的老板，因为懒虫往往无法获得晋升。我认识的为数不多的懒虫老板，都是不称职和讨人嫌的，通常过不了多久就会被炒。
The third idea is another new trend being pushed in an article by consultant Jordan Cohen on the HBR website. He argues that telling workers what to do – another esntial principle underpinning organisational life – is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it. He proceeds to “prove” this with a cute anecdote and then with neuroscience: when people are told what to do, he says, “the brain's emotional respon center can actually cau a decrea in cognitive functioning”.
第三个“黑即是白”观点，见于咨询顾问乔丹??科恩(Jordan Cohen)在《哈佛商业评论》网站上发表的一篇文章。该文章鼓吹的是另一股新潮流。科恩认为，给员工下指令（支撑组织运作的另一个重要原则）是不好的，我们不应该这样做。接着，他先用一则有趣的轶事来“证明”这一点，然后又搬出了神经科学。他说，当人们遵循指令行事的时候，“大脑情绪反射中枢事实上会促使人的认知机能下降”。
I'm always suspicious of non-neuroscientist writers who u the science as a way of bullying me into submission. All they are saying is: here is something I don't understand and neither do you, but I'm ordering you to accept it becau a neuroscientist told me.
我对非神经科学家使用神经科学为论据始终表示怀疑，在我看来，这不过是一种虚张声势。
他们其实只不过是在说：这里有一个我不懂、你也不懂的理论，但我命令你接受这个理论，因为有一位神经科学家是这样告诉我的。
Thanks, but I'd rather stick with what I have obrved to be the ca after decades of paying attention: that most employees need instruction, although what they don't need is micromanaging. I also can't help thinking that if Mr Cohen found himlf in hospital having an operation on one of the “respon centers” in his brain, he might not like it if the hospital staff were told: cut into this man's brain in whatever way feels right for you.
多谢了，但我还是宁愿坚守我经过多年观察得出的结论：大多数员工需要指令，不过他们确实不需要事无巨细的指导。我还忍不住设想，假如科恩发现自己躺在医院里，他大脑的某个“反射中枢”正在接受手术，而医院员工已得到指示，自己觉得怎么合适就怎么切开他的大脑，那么，科恩大概不会乐意。
