【英语生活】世上最臭的备忘录

What is the worst motivational memo ever written?

Given that this is a wretched literary genre in which almost every example is lamentable, to find the very worst is a tall order. Yet last week the Financial Times published what seemed a sublimely bad memo written by a Royal Dutch Shell manager and asked readers if this could deserve the title.

The memo (www.ft.com/shell) is crass, poorly punctuated and most of it wasn't even written by its author, David Greer, deputy chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin Energy Investment Company. He had lifted the words of General George S. Patton with no attribution, and clumsily adapted them to spur on his team of recalcitrant pipeline engineers.

But does his memo really deserve to be named the worst ever? The verdict from visitors to FT.com is that yes it does, just.

I don't agree. Each time I look at it, I like it more. Not only is it not the worst motivational e-mail ever written, it is actually one of the better ones.

To prove my point, I'm comparing it with another leaked e-mail I received last week. This one was written by Jim Quigley, the new global chief executive of Deloitte, and dispatched to all staff on his first day in the new job.

In order to establish which of the two is worst, I've chosen four objective criteria. The first is clarity. On that score, the Shell memo does well. “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way,” Greer says, which is not terribly hard to fathom. The reason the language is so clear is doubtless the influence of Patton, who came from an age in which people still knew how to express themselves clearly.

Now consider the style of the Deloitte memo. “Our identity reinforces the shared vision of our member firms,” it says. This is so profoundly meaningless that I doubt if its author could tell me what he meant by it.

The next criterion is that the boss must sound as if he is on the same planet as the people he is trying to motivate. Again, high marks to Greer. He refers to “mutterings” and bad body language of staff at a recent meeting. In other words, he is aware that morale is bad and isn't frightened to discuss it.

Meanwhile, at Deloitte the new chief is oozing platitudes as to the state of the company. “I have never been more proud of who we are . . . we strengthen our brand every day as we deliver value to our clients.”

Next, a good motivational message must consider what it is that keeps employees in their jobs. Greer cites three reasons: “To earn a decent living for yourself and your loved ones,” self respect and desire for success. This had me cheering (even though the phrase “loved ones” is not one of my favourites). Most managers like to believe that workers are there for love of the company or, worse, for passion towards the brand. Money and other basics tend to get overlooked.

Over at Deloitte, matters are rather more intangible. “As our brand strengthens, the commitment we have to each other also increases,” Quigley says, mysteriously.

The final standard for judging a motivational memo is by the tools it deploys. In theory, managers can choose between stick and carrot, although most shun sticks through some misplaced fear that precious self-esteem will be damaged. Greer has no such inhibitions and sensibly uses both.

His carrot is a little flaccid, though arguably no more flaccid than most. “Pipeliners and engineers love to fight and win, traditionally,” he says. I would beg to differ: pipeliners surely love to build pipes that are safe, durable, on time and on budget.

His sticks are better. “I despise cowards,” he says, warning those who don't comply to “get out of my way”. This is not terribly civil, but it makes him sound like a man who means it.

By contrast, here is another helping of mush from Deloitte. “We will take our performance to the next level, provided we move forward collaboratively, as a team.” Quigley doesn't sound as if he means it. He sounds as if he's had a partial lobotomy.

Though I admire the style of Greer I still don't expect his exhortations will make any of his deviant engineers work harder. This is because motivation is the hardest of all managerial tasks, and it is fanciful to expect any memo, no matter now well crafted, to make much difference. So wouldn't it be better to scrap them altogether? No: because their true purpose isn't motivation. It is to remind staff that the boss is in charge, that he knows what he is doing, and that he is attempting to improve things and is expecting a little help.

And so which of these two men is in control: the man who has adapted the uniform of General Patton, or the man who wraps himself in the obscurity of management talk with all its bland nonsense about celebrating, taking journeys together and “the powerful tapestry that is our brand”? There's no contest.

Does this then mean that Quigley's is the worst motivational e-mail ever? Alas no. The saddest thing about his words is not that they are bad in the corporate scheme of things. They are simply average.

迄今为止写得最糟糕的激励性备忘录在哪儿？鉴于这是一个令人厌恶的文学类别，几乎其中每个例子都令人不快，因此，要找到最糟糕的那个，可是一项艰巨的任务。然而，英国《金融时报》最近发表了一份由荷兰皇家壳牌(Royal Dutch Shell)管理者撰写、看起来异常糟糕的备忘录，并向读者征求意见，看看它是否可以赢得这一殊荣。

这份备忘录(www.ft.com/shell)用词粗糙，标点有误，而且大部分内容甚至并非出自作者大卫•格里尔(David Greer)之手。格里尔是荷兰皇家壳牌萨哈林能源投资公司(Royal Dutch Shell's Sakhalin Energy Investment Company)副首席执行官。在没有指明出处的情况下，他剽窃了乔治•巴顿将军(General George S. Patton)的话，并笨拙地用它们激励那些存在抵触情绪的管道工程师团队。

然而，他的这份备忘录真的可以堪称迄今为止最糟糕的吗？FT.com访问者的结论是：是的，没错。

我不同意这种看法。我每次看它，都会更喜欢它一点。它不仅不是迄今为止写得最糟糕的激励性电邮，实际上它是迄今写得较好的一份。

为了证明我的观点，我将把它与我最近收到的另一封被泄露内容的电子邮件进行对比。这封电子邮件由德勤(Deloitte)新任全球首席执行官吉姆•奎格利(Jim Quigley)撰写，并在他任职第一天发给了公司所有员工。

为了确定这两份中哪一份是最差的，我选了4个客观标准。第一是语义明确。在这个方面，皇家壳牌获胜。格里尔说：“带领我，跟随我，否则就让开。”这番话不难理解。其措辞如此明确的原因无疑在于巴顿的影响力，在巴顿生活的那个时代，人们还知道如何清楚地表达自己。

现在，看看德勤这份备忘录的风格。信中写道：“我们的身份增强了成员公司的共同设想。”这句话毫无意义，我怀疑作者能否告诉我他这么说的意思。

第二个标准是，老板的话必须听上去让人觉得他和自己试图激励的人同处在一个星球上。在这方面，格里尔再次赢得高分。他在最近一次会议中提到了员工的“嘀咕”和糟糕的身体语言。换句话说，他意识到员工士气低落，而且不怕对此进行公开讨论。

而德勤新任首席执行官透露出的，则是关于公司状况的陈词滥调。“我为我们自己感到无比自豪……随着我们不断为客户提供价值，我们每天都在壮大我们的品牌。”

第三个标准是一份好的激励性备忘录必须考虑什么能让员工继续留在工作岗位上。格里尔提出了3个理由：“为你和你所爱的人赢得体面的生活”、自尊以及对成功的渴望。这让我很高兴（尽管“所爱的人”不是我最喜欢的措辞）。多数管理者往往认为，员工留在这里是缘于对公司的热爱，或者（更糟糕的是）缘于对品牌的热情。薪水和其它基本因素则往往被忽略了。

德勤首席执行官提出的理由更加不可捉摸。奎格利故弄玄虚地表示：“随着我们品牌的不断壮大，我们对各自的承诺也会随之增强。”

评判激励性备忘录的最后一个标准是其使用的工具。理论上讲，管理者可以在大棒和胡萝卜两种工具中进行选择。不过，多数人会避免使用大棒，因为一些人错误地担心，这会伤害可贵的自尊。格里尔没有这种顾虑，因此他理智地同时使用了这两种工具。

格里尔的胡萝卜使用得有点儿有气无力，不过相对于多数人而言，他还不算最差。他说：“传统上讲，管道工人和工程师们喜欢战斗和胜利。”我这里有些不同意见：管道工人肯定喜欢铺设安全、耐用、按时完成并合乎预算的管道。

他对大棒的使用更好一些。他表示：“我厌恶懦弱的人。”并警告那些不顺从的人“把路让开”。这不太礼貌，但这让他听上去像个能说到做到的人。

相比之下，德勤在这方面就又略逊一筹了。“如果我们能够作为一个团队协力向前，我们的业绩将提升到更高水平。”奎格利的这番话似乎不太可信。听上去他像是个做过脑白质切除术的人（过去，这个手术用于治疗神经混乱症——译者注。）

尽管我敬佩格里尔的风格，但我仍不相信，他的这番训诫能够让他手下任何一位有反抗情绪的工程师更加努力工作。这是因为，激励是最为困难的管理任务，指望备忘录（不管它们写得有多好）能够产生重大影响，是不实际的。那么完全否定它们会好些吗？不：因为它们的实际目的不是激励。它的目的是提醒员工，老板仍然在掌控一切，他知道他正在做什么，他正试图改善现状，并期待能够得到些许帮助。

那么，在上述两个人中，哪一个在掌控全局呢：是那个穿上巴顿将军军装的人，还是那个将自己包裹在晦涩的管理论调和充斥着一起庆祝、一起旅行、“我们品牌有壮美前程”等乏味废话之中的人呢？这里没有输赢。

这意味着，奎格利的那份备忘录是迄今为止最糟糕的激励性电邮吗？唉，不是。最可悲的是，在企业话语中，他的话还算不上糟糕的企业计划，也就算是一般吧。

译者/梁艳裳

《FT商学院》