【英语科技】《蓝宝书》请我吃早餐

If you are reading this today at 8am, please think of me. I will have just arrived at the London HQ of Deloitte for a state-of-the-art corporate bollocking. The occasion is likely to be quite tricky and I would therefore appreciate it if you could send me some courage and some courteousness to get me through.Here is how my bollocking came about. Last Monday I wrote 900 words (many of them quite unpleasant, a few excessively so) about the new Deloitte employee handbook. The next day
a polite woman from the company phoned to invite me to lunch with the UK head. I negotiated a downgrade to breakfast and a deal was struck. There it is, sitting in my diary on Monday, July 9 at the ungodly hour of 8am.

The rules of the modern bollocking are simple. First, it should take place over a meal. The bollocker is the host and, although he will probably be incandescent with rage, he must never let on. The crosser he is the more assiduously he must ply the bollockee with dainty refreshments and lavish politeness. The guest will be squirming but must try to look engaged and casual. Both sides will converse politely for rather longer than feels natural.

During the bollocking, it is not usual to discuss the cause of the upset or refer to it in any way. Instead the host uses the meeting as a way of setting the record straight, perhaps by showing the corporate video or by pronouncing a few of the firm's great strengths. The guest is more or less required to nod and agree with whatever the host says in the hope it will soon be over.

It wasn't always thus. Over the past two decades I have received more than my share of bollockings. It is my job to ridicule purveyors of corporate jargon and, as this tends to go down badly with the authors, it creates
a demand for retribution.

In the old days, retribution did not include
a free meal. Then people used to follow their gut. That is, if some ignorant, trouble-making journalist slagged you off in print, you gave vent to your most natural desire to cut her up into small pieces and feed her to your cat. At least, you couldn't quite do that as it would be illegal as well as messy, but you did the next best thing, which was to get very angry indeed.

But now the PR people have taken over and emotion has been outlawed. For a fee, they tell their clients not to get cross, that it alienates already volatile journos still further. Instead they advise them to do as the Home Office vainly tries to do with criminals: to go for prevention rather than punishment. To cajole and to seek to persuade is the order of the day.

It sounds sensible, but alas, it isn't. I can remember each of the roastings I've received with a vividness that inevitably attaches itself to such humiliating events. There was Sir Richard Greenbury and the stinging letter he wrote to me. Lord Weinstock and Lord King, who rang up to yell down the phone at me and at my boss. The head of a small oil company who went purple in the face and banged his fist down on the desk. It is not to my credit that I have offended each of these people only once: there was no repeat performance.

So what about today's breakfast? It won't stick in my mind with the same forbidding potency, but might it change my view of the company? I doubt it: in my experience it is hard to squirm and listen at the same time.

There is one possibility that nags away at me – my host will have read this column before our breakfast and will have chucked out the croissants in a rage and even now will be putting on his boxing gloves. God, I hope not.

Anyone for embedding?

Above I said it was my job to write about extreme corporate communication. There were two lively examples of this last week. One was an e-mail forwarded to me gleefully by a dozen different people around the world. It was
a farewell e-mail from a JPMorgan banker outlining just how much he hated the company. It was a riveting read: clear, witty and fresh. Alas, it was a hoax.

The second was a press release from Aviva, the financial services company, to announce the launch of its “Respect Diversity Toolkit”. It was not clear, witty or fresh. Alas, it was for real.

My toolkit contains hammers and screwdrivers. Aviva's contains an interactive game and an “award-winning” DVD called “Embracing Diversity”. And its purpose? “To empower managers to embed the key principles of respect and diversity in the Aviva World.”

Although I myself am not in the Aviva world I am scratching my head as to what all this embracing and embedding is about. Actually that's a lie. I'm not scratching my head at all. This “global diversity learning resource” is about “sharing best practice” with “professionals” in the “HR community”. In other words, it isn't about anything at all.

As a PS, I should add that I am available to any HR professional from the Aviva world for
a breakfast bollocking on most days this week, except for today, when I have a prior engagement.

如果你在7月9日上午8点读《金融时报》，就想想我吧。那时，我应刚刚抵达德勤(Deloitte)的伦敦总部，去接受一家一流公司的臭骂。那种场面可能非常棘手，但如果你能给我点勇气和谦恭，让我顺利度过，那我将感激不尽。下面是我这次挨骂的原因。最近，就德勤新的员工手册，我写了一篇900字的文章（文中许多措辞都非常令人不悦，有些还有点过分）。第二天，该公司一位很有礼貌的女士打电话给我，邀请我与他们的英国负责人共进午餐。我商量着将午餐降级为早餐，而对方也同意了。就这样，此事登上了我的日程表：7月9日，很不方便的早晨8点。

现代臭骂的规则很简单。首先，它应该发生在一次用餐过程中。骂人的人做东，尽管他的愤怒可能会达到白热化，但他必须装作没这回事。他越生气，越要对挨骂的人殷勤，请挨骂的人吃可口的茶点，并且慷慨有礼。客人将会感到局促不安，但必须做到看上去全心投入、自然放松。双方将有礼貌地进行交谈，而谈话时间要长于感觉正常的时间。

在臭骂过程中，通常不讨论那件烦心事的起因，也不以任何形式涉及此事。相反，东道主会利用这次会面，直接阐述一些事实，或许会展示该公司的一段视频，或者宣扬该公司的一些伟大优势。客人多少要点点头，同意东道主所说的任何话，以求一切能快点儿结束。

过去，事情并非总是如此。在过去的20年中，我挨的骂多于我应得的分量。我的工作就是奚落企业的胡言乱语，由于这对原创者造成严重影响，他们就要对我进行惩罚。

过去，惩罚可不包括一顿免费的用餐。那时，人们习惯由着自己的脾气。也就是说，如果某个无知的、制造麻烦的记者在出版物中对你进行中伤，你可以将最自然的情绪发泄出来，恨不得将她剁碎了去喂猫。当然，你不可能真那么做，因为这是违法的，而且会搞得血淋淋；但你可以退而求其次：表现得异常生气。

但现在，公关人士已经接手处理此类事件，而发泄情绪已被认为是不合适的。花钱请来的公关顾问，会告诉客户不要生气，因为这会进一步疏远本已“善变”的记者。他们建议客户学习英国内务部(Home Office)对待犯罪的徒劳尝试：做好预防，而非惩罚。哄骗并寻求说服，成了今天的主流。

这听起来很明智，不过，唉，事实并非如此。我能回忆起每次挨骂的场景，而且不可避免的是，这种丢人事件总是历历在目。其中包括理查德•格林柏利爵士(Sir Richard Greenbury)和他写给我的尖锐信件；温斯托克勋爵(Lord Weinstock)和金勋爵(Lord King)则是打电话向我和我的老板狂吼了一阵；一家小型石油公司的负责人脸都气紫了，用拳头狠狠地捶桌子。对于这些人，我每人只冒犯过一次，没有重复“作案”。这一点不值得赞扬。

那么7月9日的早餐会怎么样呢？它不会让我留下同样可怕的记忆，但它会改变我对这家公司的看法吗？我对此表示怀疑：据我的经验，我很难在局促不安的同时还能做到专心倾听。

有一种可能性在困扰着我——请我吃饭的人在我们共进早餐之前看到了7月9日这篇专栏文章，一怒之下扔掉牛角面包，甚至现在就要戴上拳击手套了。天啊，但愿不会这样。

顺便要说说其他什么人吗？

我在上文说过，我的工作就是写写极端的企业通讯。最近就有两个鲜活的例子。其中之一，是十几个散布在世界各地的人开心地转发给我一封电邮。那是JP摩根(JPMorgan)的一个银行家写的一封告别信，简要叙述了自己如何憎恨这家公司。这封信真是引人入胜：条理清晰、机智诙谐、观点新鲜。唉，可惜这封信是伪造的。

第二个例子是金融服务公司Aviva发布的一份新闻稿，宣布将要推出自己的“尊重多样化工具箱”。这个稿子条理不清、不机智诙谐、观点也不新鲜。唉，可惜这个稿子是真的。

我的工具箱里有锤子和螺丝刀。Aviva公司的工具箱则包含了一项互动游戏，和一张叫做《拥抱多样化》的“获奖”DVD。其目的呢？是“让经理人能够牢记Aviva世界中尊重和多样化的关键原则。”

尽管我本人并没有置身在Aviva世界中，我还是对这种“拥抱”、“牢记”到底是什么意思感到挠头。其实我在撒谎。因为我根本就没挠自己的头。这种“全球多样化学习资源”是要与“人力资源界”的“专业人士”一起“分享最佳实践”。换句话说就是，它根本就什么都不是。

作为附言，我还应该补充一句，如果Aviva世界有哪位人力资源专业人士要找我共进一次臭骂早餐，我这周大部分日子都有时间。只是7月9日不行，因为我已经有约了。

译者/何黎

《FT商学院》