微軟好累 新發的裁員備忘錄遭嗤笑

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)那篇題爲“Hello there”（你好）的備忘錄才發出不久，就已成爲彰顯在裁員時要避免哪些做法的經典案例。這份1110個英文單詞的備忘錄，被諸如“appropriate financial envelope”（直譯‘適當的財務包絡’，實指適當的開支上限——譯者注)、“ramp-downs”（直譯‘下坡’，實指業務收縮——譯者注)和“ecosystems”（生態系統）這樣的詞搞得晦澀不堪，直到全文快結束時，才漫不經心的提到，公司將裁減成千上萬個工作崗位。微軟(Microsoft)的這位執行副總裁併未將壞消息坦率地講出來，而是用一個奇特的虛擬語氣句子打掩護：“根據我們的計劃，這或將導致裁減約1.25萬名……員工。”

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，把注意力集中在埃洛普遲鈍的語言能力上，會忽略某些東西。對所有對溝通感興趣的高管來說，這份備忘錄值得作爲必讀教材研究一下。它還有一個價值，就是向人們展示瞭如何堆砌商業領域的無聊詞彙——這些無聊詞彙與當下高級管理層所說的一些鬼話高度一致。它是一個關於不該怎樣寫、不該怎樣想、以及不該怎樣領導一家企業的案例研究。

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.

這份教材的唯一問題是不堪卒讀——我努力了好幾次纔讀到末尾。不過，既然我讀完了，我想我應該服務一下大衆，向大家傳達一下我硬着頭皮讀完此文後總結出的八條黃金法則。

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.

第一條：如果你不是個說話輕鬆幽默的人，就絕不要試圖做到輕鬆幽默。對一位想哄五歲小孩的祖父而言，說“Hello there”是可以的。但企業領導人向員工說這話就不那麼妥當了，尤其是在全文的幽默只此一處的情況下。

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.

第二條：使用明確的措辭幾乎總是個好主意——除非你根本沒什麼明確的事要說。備忘錄的開頭寫道：“微軟的戰略專注於生產力和我們想幫人們‘做更多’的願望。”這句話的迷人之處在於簡單（前提是忽略掉那對莫名其妙的單引號），不那麼迷人的地方在於愚蠢。做更多什麼事？有些事我是想多做點，比如睡覺。還有些事我想少做點，比如對我的孩子嘮嘮叨叨。

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.

第三條：“align”（使一致）一詞可起到警示標誌的作用，人們只要在句子中看到這個詞，就能知道這句話是廢話。在這份備忘錄中，埃洛普“使一致”了不下六次，一次比一次有決心，但沒有一次闡明他到底想使什麼相互一致，也沒有闡明爲何應當使這些東西相互一致。

“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.

這個詞首先出現在一句毫無意義的羅圈話中：“爲了與微軟的戰略相一致，我們計劃集中我們的力量。”埃洛普向我們保證，將來還會有許許多多的“使一致”：“我們將專注於交付與我們未來的重大里程碑相一致的偉大突破性產品。”就這樣，他又巧妙地將另外五個含糊其辭的詞塞了進來。按可憎程度的升序排列，這五個詞分別是：focus（專注）、major（重大）、milestone（里程碑）、breakthrough（突破）和deliver（交付）。

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.”

在埃洛普最後一次祭出“使一致”大法時，我們才弄明白他爲什麼要這麼做。“儘管今天我們的部分改變很艱難，但其方向有意識地使我們的工作與薩蒂亞在他近期電子郵件中描述的‘跨公司努力’相一致。”

In other words, don’t blame him. Blame the CEO, Satya Nadella, or, better still, blame the need for arranging things in lines.

換句話說就是：別怪我，要怪就怪首席執行官薩蒂亞•納德拉(Satya Nadella)；或者更好的做法是，怪那種要使東西保持一致的需要。

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.

第四條：東西是便宜還是貴，直白地說出來。別再喋喋不休地說什麼“買得起的智能手機空間”(affordable smartphone space)和“高端”(high-end)設備。這麼說騙不了任何人，事實上只會讓所有人反感。

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.

第五條：避免使用“experience”（體驗）一詞。這不僅是因爲它是所有管理類流行詞中最時髦的一個，還因爲它具有誤導性。體驗是某種給你留下印象的東西；日常活動不該涉及這種事，否則每天睡醒後用不了幾分鐘我們就全都會精疲力盡。用電話不該是一種體驗——或許全新的電話除外。我不想要什麼“設備體驗”，更不想要埃洛普試圖“展示”給客戶的“數字化生活體驗”。

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.

第六條：一名高管對“strategy”（戰略）一詞使用得越頻繁，人們就越擔心他缺少好戰略。只用一次還勉強能讓人接受。像埃洛普這樣一下子用七次真的很讓人擔心。

Rule 7. Never use a trinity of abstract nouns. It shows you know what you are saying is inadequate.

第七條：絕不要連用三個抽象名詞。這麼用表明你清楚你正在說的東西不足以成事。

“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.”

備忘錄的結尾寫道：“總的來說，整個公司的這種清晰性、專注性和一致性，以及把這項工作的成果交付到人們手中的機會，將使我們能夠在未來擴大我們的成功。順致問候，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.

沒戲，斯蒂芬。總的來說，一連三個意思近乎相同的空洞的物質名詞，以及交付某種未言明事物的機會，不會擴大任何東西——可能除了你手下人對你的失望、鄙視和不信任。

And just as a bonus, here is rule number eight. Don’t end a memo with “regards”.

最後是第八條，就當是額外的贈品：別用“regards”（順致問候）作爲備忘錄的結束語。