讓員工敢於說不

“I don’t ask questions. I simply comply with the instructions given to me.” So said Malusi Gigaba, South Africa’s new finance minister, after Jacob Zuma, the country’s president, appointed him to the job last month after firing Pravin Gordhan.

“我不會問問題。我只服從命令，”南非新任財政部長馬盧西?吉加巴(Malusi Gigaba)是這麼說的。前一陣子，南非總統雅各布?祖馬(Jacob Zuma)在炒掉普拉溫?戈登(Pravin Gordhan)後，任命他接任財長。

Far from obeying Mr Zuma’s instructions, Mr Gordhan had asked questions, persistently, about corruption and what he saw as inappropriate government spending. Rating agencies greeted the dismissal of Mr Gordhan and the appointment of Mr Gigaba by cutting South Africa’s credit rating to junk. Tens of thousands of South Africans took to the streets in protest at Mr Zuma.

此前戈登沒有服從祖馬的命令，他問了一個接一個問題，內容涉及腐敗以及他所認爲的不合理的政府開支。對於戈登被解職以及吉加巴被任命，評級機構的迴應是把南非的信用評級降至垃圾級。數萬名南非人走上街頭抗議祖馬。

The protesters, and the rating agencies, understood that a country whose senior officials ask no questions when confronted with dubious behaviour is heading for ruin. The same is true of companies. Arthur Andersen, Enron and Lehman Brothers all crashed because people inside them, seeing their organisations taking wrong turns, did not ask their superiors: “Why are we doing this?”

抗議者和評級機構都明白，如果一個國家的高官們在面對可疑行爲時不聞不問，這個國家註定要毀滅。公司也是如此。安達信(Arthur Andersen)、安然(Enron)和雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)破產的原因，都是內部人士看到公司做出錯誤之舉後沒有詢問他們的上級：“我們爲什麼要這麼做？”

By contrast, when Jes Staley, Barclays’ chief executive, ordered staff to find out who had sent two uncomplimentary letters about a newly hired employee, they did not run off to do his bidding. They pushed back. Barclays’ compliance department had classified the letters as whistleblowing and told Mr Staley that any attempt to track down the writer was not allowed.

相比之下，當巴克萊(Barclays)首席執行官傑斯?斯特利(Jes Staley)命令員工追查是誰寄出了兩封批評一位新聘員工的信件時，他們沒有積極執行他的命令。他們進行了抵制。巴克萊合規部門此前已把這些信件列爲舉報，並告訴斯特利，追查寫信者的任何企圖都是受到禁止的。

When Mr Staley tried a second time to find the letter writer, enlisting a US law enforcement agency, someone inside the company reported him to the board. Mr Staley is now under investigation by regulators in the UK and US. Barclays’ board has formally reprimanded him and plans a substantial cut to his bonus.

當斯特利第二次試圖追查寫信者，還請來美國的一個執法部門時，該公司內部人士把他告上了董事會。斯特利現在正在接受美國和英國監管機構的調查。巴克萊董事會已正式對他提出批評，並計劃大幅削減他的獎金。

Whatever the outcome of this murky saga — it is not yet clear whether this was a true case of whistleblowing or anonymous malice — the Barclays system seems to have worked. An attempt by the boss to brush aside the rules failed.

不管這個詭異的故事結果如何（尚不清楚這是真實的舉報還是匿名的惡意行爲），巴克萊的制度似乎發生了作用。老闆試圖漠視規定的企圖失敗了。

After a series of scandals, most damagingly over Libor manipulation, there are Barclays staff prepared to say: “However senior you are, what you are asking me to do is wrong and I am not going to do it.” Righteous disobedience of this sort is seldom career-enhancing, but it can help ensure the company’s health and even survival.

在經歷了一系列醜聞後（最嚴重的是倫敦銀行間同業拆借利率(Libor)操縱醜聞），巴克萊員工敢於說：“不管你的級別多麼高，如果你要求我做的事情是錯的，我就不會照做。”這種正義的違抗命令很少有利於事業的晉升，但它有助於確保公司的健康，甚至生存。

Most employees seldom confront such stark “really, must I?” orders from their bosses. But many face everyday managerial boneheadedness — instructions that, in their needless rigidity, damage the company, its customers and its reputation.

多數員工很少會遇到老闆發出這類讓人爲難的命令。但很多人會遭遇日常的管理愚蠢——僵硬得毫無必要的指令，對公司及其客戶和聲譽都有損害。

Last week’s order to United Continental cabin crew to remove four passengers from an aircraft about to take off from Chicago was an excellent example. Having failed to find volunteers to leave the plane to make way for United employees travelling to take charge of another flight, the airline nominated four passengers to leave and, in videos seen around the world, called in airport security staff who dragged out and injured the most recalcitrant, a Vietnamese-American doctor.

最近聯合大陸(United Continental)機組人員接到命令，要求讓4名乘客離開一架即將從芝加哥起飛的飛機，這就是一個很好的例子。航空公司未能找到自願下機的乘客爲執行另一個航班的員工讓座，於是隨機挑選了4名乘客下機。在全世界都看到的視頻中，他們叫來了機場保安，把最不聽話的一位越南裔美籍醫生強行拖離飛機並致其受傷。

It is harder to persuade passengers off a flight after they have boarded it than when they check in, or at the gate. But airlines have more at their disposal than the $800 United was offering passengers to leave the plane. They could have told passengers their next flight would be business class, or that they could have a free flight in addition to the next day’s one. If there were still no takers, they could have offered free return flights to Paris or Bangkok (safe in the knowledge that the volunteers would be able to take advantage of the offer only in off-peak travel periods when there were empty seats anyway).

在乘客登機後說服乘客下機，要比在他們辦理登記手續或者在登機口等待時更難。但與美聯航向乘客提出的800美元下機補償相比，航空公司應該有更多的辦法。他們本可以告訴乘客他們的下次航班將升級爲商務艙，或者除了搭乘第二天的航班，他們還可以獲得一張免費機票。如果仍然沒有自願下機的乘客，他們可以提供到巴黎或曼谷的免費返程機票（反正他們可以限制志願者在本來就肯定有空座的旅行淡季才能使用這種機票）。

There are enough passengers, even those already on the plane — or “boarded and luggaged and situated”, as Oscar Munoz, United’s chief executive, put it — who are ready give up their seats if the price is right.

如果價格合適，就會有足夠多的乘客，甚至那些已經登機的乘客（或者就像美聯航首席執行官奧斯卡?穆尼奧斯(Oscar Munoz)所說的那樣，“已登機、放好行李和就座的乘客”）願意放棄座位。

Mr Munoz, who issued a series of badly received statements, now says he understands that his flight attendants need more freedom to act sensibly. “We do empower our frontline folks to a degree, but we need to expand and adjust those policies to allow a little bit more common sense,” he said.

穆尼奧斯發佈了一系列反響糟糕的聲明，他現在表示，他認識到，他的空乘人員需要更多的自由去採取理智行動。他表示：“我們確實給予我們的一線員工一定權限，但我們需要擴大並調整這些政策，爲常理稍微多留一些空間。”

It will take a determined effort, and a long time, to implant that culture in the company. Employees need more than empowerment. They need to feel they have the right to say no, as Mr Gordhan and some at Barclays did. Blind obedience may please the boss. But those who demand it do not deserve to be in charge.

要在該公司營造這種文化，需要堅持不懈的努力和很長時間。員工需要的不僅是授權。他們需要知道自己有權利說不，就像南非前財長戈登和巴克萊的一些員工所做的那樣。盲目服從或許會取悅上司。但要求這麼做的人不配擔任管理職位。