【英语生活】泄密门为何泛滥

When I first served on the boards of public companies, 20 years ago, leaks of confidential information were rare. But now it seems almost everyone is willing to spill the beans. And it means running a business with a public profile is harder than ever.

Why does this happen? Some people just cannot keep secrets: they get a kick from revealing something hush-hush – even if it damages the business they serve. Certain directors are congenital gossips, and too immature to serve on the boards of serious organisations. In my experience, you generally know the leaker, but proving it can be nearly impossible. Others have an agenda: they gain favours from journalists or get paid for passing on a tip-off, or perhaps they win some office skirmish thanks to their revelations. And of course companies leak as deliberate policy, pre-empting formal announcements as a matter of course.

So perhaps there are few grounds for complaint. This little conspiracy suits the corporate world and the fourth estate. Whether it promotes fair and honest disclosure for stakeholders is another matter.

The democratisation of the media means we all have the ability to publicise things via the web. Exposure can be anonymous, instant, and it is very hard to sue online sources. So the newspapers, magazines radio and television are more willing to communicate rumour than they used to be, for fear of being left behind. News and opinion become ever more blurred.

Meanwhile, anyone with a complaint can wage an internet war against a company, or attempt to hold it to ransom. Far from multinationals being all-powerful, those in the spotlight can feel embattled, under assault from enemies outside and betrayed from within.

Editors and those passionate about freedom of speech believe that these trends are healthy. They argue that the full rigours of transparency applied to the commercial world can prevent conspiracies against the consumer. Encouraging whistleblowers can stop frauds, so the belief goes.

Of course it generates scoops and copy, so inevitably the media industry approves, but does it serve the public interest? Does it make corporates behave better? I am not sure. It didn't help expose the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme, although both the Parmalat and Enron frauds were brought to light thanks to newspaper investigations.

There are certainly downsides to this enforced level of openness in the executive suite. Companies use lawyers far more than in the past. This is expensive, and it makes decision-making more cumbersome. Some companies even have full-time security consultants. This atmosphere can breed a sense of fear and an attitude of over-caution. Leaders start imagining they are surrounded by potential traitors.

Trust across a management team is vital – without it, productivity collapses. Delegation and devolvement of responsibility – the hallmarks of a well-run organisation – are likely to shrivel when there are constant high-level indiscretions.

Sadly, this tendency is likely to steer talent away frompublic companies and public life. Who would enter politics, given the intense scrutiny to which they are now subject?

Private companies are not immune from a culture of leaks, but their affairs are likely to be of less interest to the outside world. Such calmer circumstances allow managers to carry out difficult manoeuvres like mergers or restructurings behind closed doors. Obviously, if laws are broken or executives lie, then it should be revealed.

The financial press might well argue that commercial outfits use PR endlessly to plug their products, flatter the boss's ego – or push a share price. So if they seek publicity, they should not expect heavyweight publications simply to re-hash press releases. After all, a free media is a cornerstone of a democratic society.

But if the intrusion and leaks make operating an enterprise a nightmare of suspicion, then things have got out of proportion.

20年前我刚在上市公司董事会任职时，很少发生泄露机密信息的事情。可如今似乎人人都乐意泄点密。这意味着，经营一家上市企业要比以往任何时候都困难。

为何会变成这样？有的人就是无法保守秘密，披露人所不知的事情会让他们感到兴奋，即便这会损及自己所在的企业。有些董事天生“碎嘴”，非常不成熟，难以胜任重要机构的董事之职。根据我的经验，你一般都知道谁是泄密者，但几乎不可能去证实。还有的人是有心泄密：他们靠泄露秘密赢得记者好感，或者拿取好处费，或者借此在某些内部纷争中取胜。当然，企业也会故意事先放出风声，让正式声明变得水到渠成。

所以可能没什么可抱怨的。这种小小的共谋，对企业界和报界来说各得其所。至于是否促进了面向股东的公正如实披露，则是另一回事。

媒体的民主化，意味着我们都能通过网络发布消息。消息的曝光可以以匿名方式瞬间完成，而且很难对网络消息来源提出指控。因此，报社、杂志、电台和电视台等都比以往更乐于传播流言，唯恐落在人后。新闻和观点的界限变得更加模糊。

另一方面，任何心怀不满的人都能够对一家公司发起网络战，或者进行勒索。跨国公司远非全能的，那些成为众人瞩目焦点的公司感觉到内外交困：既受到外部敌人的攻击，又遭到内部人士的背叛。

编辑和那些热烈拥护言论自由的人士认为，这种种趋势是健康的。他们提出，商业界的十足透明，可以防止针对消费者的共谋行为。人们似乎相信，鼓励告密可以防止欺诈。

当然这会产生独家新闻，然后得到转载，因此必然会得到媒体行业的赞同，但它是否符合公众利益？是否促使企业改进了行为？我不敢苟同。这并没有帮助揭露伯纳德•马多夫(Bernard Madoff)的庞氏骗局，尽管帕玛拉特(Parmalat)和安然(Enron)欺诈案都是在报社调查下曝光的。

这种强加的公开性对高管肯定存在负面影响。企业动用律师的情形远多于过去。这不但费用高昂，而且使决策过程变得更加繁琐。有些公司甚至聘用了全职安全顾问。这种环境可能滋生恐惧感和过于谨慎的心态。企业领导开始想象自己身边都是潜在的背叛者。

管理团队之间的信任至关重要——缺乏信任，工作效率就会大减。如果不断有高层言行失检，责任的授予和移交——运营良好机构的特征——就可能会失效。

可悲的是，这种趋势可能会促使才智之士远离上市公司和公共事业。想想要受到严密监视，谁还愿意踏进政界？

私人公司也未能对泄密文化免疫，只是外界对它们的事情可能不那么感兴趣。在这种较为平静的环境下，管理者得以关起门来，开展合并或重组等难以运作的事务。显然，如果涉及违法，或者高管撒谎，则应公诸于众。

财经新闻界很可能会指出，商业机构不断运用公关手段，宣传产品，吹捧老板形象，或者推高股价。所以，如果他们寻求宣传效果，就不应指望把新闻稿改头换面就能变成重磅新闻。毕竟，自由的媒体是民主社会的基石。

然而，如果干扰和泄密使得企业经营变成了一场猜疑的噩梦，那么情况就有些失控了。

译者/岱嵩