本文摘要：Barely 10 days old, Stephen Elop’s “Hello there” memo has already become a classic example of how not to fire people. It is a 1,110-word document stiff with “appropriate financial envelopes”, “ramp-downs” and “ecosystems” which, towards th

Barely 10 days old, Stephen Elop’s “Hello there” memo has already become a classic example of how not to fire people. It is a 1,110-word document stiff with “appropriate financial envelopes”, “ramp-downs” and “ecosystems” which, towards the end, casually mentions that thousands of Microsoft jobs are to go. Rather than dish out the bad news directly, the executive vice-president takes refuge behind a curious subjunctive: “We plan that this would result in an estimated reduction of 12,500...employees.”斯蒂芬埃洛普(Stephen Elop)那篇为题“Hello there”（你好）的备忘录才收到旋即，就已沦为突显在裁员时要防止哪些作法的经典案例。这份1110个英文单词的备忘录，被诸如“appropriate financial envelope”（译为‘必要的财务正弦’，实指必要的支出下限——译者录)、“ramp-downs”（译为‘下坡’，实指业务膨胀——译者录)和“ecosystems”（生态系统）这样的词搞得难懂致使，直到全文慢完结时，才漫不经心的提及，公司将削减成千上万个工作岗位。微软公司(Microsoft)的这位继续执行副总裁未将坏消息坦率地谈出来，而是用一个奇特的虚拟语气句子打掩护：“根据我们的计划，这或将造成削减大约1.25万名……员工。

”Yet to focus on Mr Elop’s tin ear misses something. This memo deserves to become a set text for all executives interested in communication. It adds value by showcasing the delivery of business piffle that is perfectly aligned with current high-end management guff. It is a case study in how not to write, how not to think, and how not to lead a business.然而，把注意力集中于在埃洛普幼稚的语言能力上，不会忽视某些东西。对所有对交流感兴趣的高管来说，这份备忘录有一点作为参考书教材研究一下。它还有一个价值，就是向人们展出了如何六边形商业领域的无趣词汇——这些无趣词汇与当下高级管理层所说的一些鬼话高度一致。

它是一个关于不应怎样写出、不应怎样想要、以及不应怎样领导一家企业的案例研究。The only trouble with the text is that it is almost impossible to read. It took me several attempts to get to the end, but having now made it, I feel I ought to perform the public service of passing on eight golden rules that occurred to me while slogging my way through.这份教材的唯一问题是致使卒读书——我希望了好几次才写末尾。不过，既然我读过了，我想要我应当服务一下大众，向大家表达一下我硬着头皮读过此文后总结出有的八条黄金法则。Rule 1. Never be chatty unless you are a chatty sort of person. “Hello there,” is fine from a grandparent trying to jolly along a five-year-old. It is less good spoken by a corporate leader to his ranks, especially when the jocularity begins and ends there.第一条：如果你不是个说出精彩诙谐的人，就决不要企图做精彩诙谐。

对一位想要老是五岁小孩的祖父而言，说道“Hello there”是可以的。但企业领导人向员工说道这话就不那么慎重了，特别是在是在全文的诙谐只此一处的情况下。Rule 2. Using clear words is nearly always a good idea – except when you don’t have anything clear to say. The memo begins: “Microsoft’s strategy is focused on productivity and our desire to help people ‘do more’.” This is attractively simple (if you ignore the baffling inverted commas), but is less attractively stupid. Do more what? There are things I’d like to do more of, like sleep, and other things I’d like to do less of, like nagging my children.第二条：用于具体的措辞完全总是个好主意——除非你显然没什么具体的事要说。备忘录的结尾写到：“微软公司的战略专心于生产力和我们想要老大人们‘做到更加多’的心愿。

”这句话的迷人之处在于非常简单（前提是忽视丢弃那对莫名其妙的单引号），不那么迷人的地方在于可笑。做到更加多什么事？有些事我是想要多做到点，比如睡。还有些事我想要较少做到点，比如对我的孩子唠唠叨叨。Rule 3. The word “align” serves as a warning that the sentence in which it appears is a dud. Mr Elop performs no fewer than six acts of alignment in this memo, each more heroic than the last. In none of them is it clear exactly what he is lining up, nor why it matters that such things should be in a line at all.第三条：“align”（使完全一致）一词可起着警告标志的起到，人们只要在句子中看见这个词，就能告诉这句话是废话。

在这份备忘录中，埃洛普“使完全一致”了不出六次，一次比一次有决意，但没一次阐述他究竟想要使什么互相完全一致，也没阐述为何应该使这些东西互相完全一致。“To align with Microsoft’s strategy, we plan to focus our efforts,” he starts with unhelpful circularity. He assures us that there will be a lot more aligning: “We will focus on delivering great breakthrough products in alignment with major milestones ahead,” thus craftily slipping in five other weasel words. In rising order of obnoxiousness, these are: focus, major, milestone, breakthrough and delivering.这个词首先经常出现在一句毫无意义的罗圈话中：“为了与微软公司的战略相符，我们计划集中于我们的力量。

”埃洛普向我们确保，将来还不会有许许多多的“使完全一致”：“我们将专心于交付给与我们未来的根本性里程碑相符的最出色突破性产品。”就这样，他又精妙地将另外五个含糊其辞的词里斯了进去。按亵渎程度的升序排序，这五个词分别是：focus（专心）、major（根本性）、milestone（里程碑）、breakthrough（突破）和deliver（交付给）。

But it is only with Mr Elop’s final act of alignment that we see the point of it. “As difficult as some of our changes are today, this direction deliberately aligns our work with the cross company efforts that Satya has described in his recent emails.”在埃洛普最后一次祭典出有“使完全一致”大法时，我们才摸明白他为什么要这么做到。“尽管今天我们的部分转变很艰苦，但其方向有意识地使我们的工作与萨蒂亚在他近期电子邮件中叙述的‘横跨公司希望’相符。”In other words, don’t blame him. Blame the CEO, Satya Nadella, or, better still, blame the need for arranging things in lines.换句话说就是：别怪我，要怪就鬼首席执行官萨蒂亚纳德拉(Satya Nadella)；或者更佳的作法是，鬼那种要使东西保持一致的必须。Rule 4. When things are cheap or expensive, say so. Don’t bang on about the “affordable smartphone space” and “high-end” devices. This fools no one, and alienates practically everyone.第四条：东西是低廉还是喜，隐晦地说道出来。

别再行喋喋不休地说什么“负担得起的智能手机空间”(affordable smartphone space)和“高端”(high-end)设备。这么说骗没法任何人，事实上只不会让所有人不满。

Rule 5. Avoid the word “experience”. Not only is it the most fashionable of all management buzz words, it is misleading. An experience is something that leaves an impression on you; everyday activities ought to do no such thing, or we would all be exhausted within minutes of waking up. Using your phone, except perhaps when it’s brand new, should not be an experience. I do not want the “device experiences” or even less the “digital life experiences”, that Mr Elop is trying to “showcase” to his customers.第五条：防止用于“experience”（体验）一词。这不仅是因为它是所有管理类风行词中最时髦的一个，还因为它具备误导性。体验是某种给你留给印象的东西；日常活动不应牵涉到这种事，否则每天睡醒后用没法几分钟我们就全都会精疲力尽。

用电话不应是一种体验——也许全新的电话除外。我不想什么“设备体验”，更加不想埃洛普企图“展出”给客户的“数字化生活体验”。Rule 6. The more often an executive uses the word “strategy”, the more you fear he lacks a good one. To use it once is just about acceptable. To use it seven times, as Mr Elop does, is very worrying indeed.第六条：一名高管对“strategy”（战略）一词用于得越频密，人们就就越担忧他缺乏好战略。

要用一次还勉强能让人拒绝接受。像埃洛普这样一下子用七次知道很让人担忧。Rule 7. Never use a trinity of abstract nouns. It shows you know what you are saying is inadequate.第七条：决不要同义三个抽象名词。

这么用指出你确切你正在说道的东西足以成事。“Collectively,” the memo ends, “the clarity, focus and alignment across the company, and the opportunity to deliver the results of that work into the hands of people, will allow us to increase our success in the future. Regards, Stephen.”备忘录的结尾写到：“总的来说，整个公司的这种清晰性、专心性和一致性，以及把这项工作的成果交付给到人们手中的机会，将使我们需要在未来不断扩大我们的顺利。顺致问候，斯蒂芬。”It won’t, Stephen. Collectively, a trinity of almost identical, empty mass nouns and the opportunity to deliver something that is not specified is not going to increase anything. Except possibly the dismay, disdain and distrust of the people who work for you.没戏，斯蒂芬。

总的来说，埸三个意思几近完全相同的空洞的物质名词，以及交付给某种并未言明事物的机会，会不断扩大任何东西——有可能除了你手下人对你的沮丧、痛恨和不信任。And just as a bonus, here is rule number eight. Don’t end a memo with “regards”.最后是第八条，就当是额外的赠品：别用“regards”（顺致问候）作为备忘录的结束语。

本文来源：18新利app-www.pietytive.com