1、,Fred Goodwin, disgraced former chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, was notorious for what were nicknamed “morning beatings”, where he focused r,rage and ridicule on his lieutenants. According to Shredded, Ian Frasers new book, the senior team would play Hangman while waiting for the meetings

2、,to start, “to see who might be strung up next”. Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers was known for his short temper and intimidating style. The wrath of,Robert Maxwell, the late media tycoon, was epic. 蘇格蘭皇家銀行(RBS)名譽(yù)掃地的前首席執(zhí)行官弗雷德古德溫(Fred Goodwin)因被戲稱為“早晨打擊”的會(huì)議而聲名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)他在會(huì)上對(duì)下屬極盡批評(píng)和嘲諷之能事。根據(jù)伊恩弗雷澤(Ian Fraser),的新

3、書Shredded，蘇格蘭皇家銀行的高管人員會(huì)在等待會(huì)議開始時(shí)會(huì)玩“劊子手”(Hangman)游戲，“以便看誰可能是下一個(gè)被吊死的”。雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)的理查德富爾德(Richard Fuld)以脾氣暴躁和管理風(fēng)格令人生畏而聞名。已故媒體大亨羅伯特馬克斯韋爾(Ro,bert Maxwell)的憤怒則是史詩級(jí)別的。 Among successful bosses, however, it is fashionable for profiles to applaud those with a reputation for never losing their co,ol.

4、There are exceptions. 然而，在成功的老板當(dāng)中，受到普遍稱贊的是那些有著從不發(fā)脾氣名聲的高管。不過也有例外。 Hewlett-Packards Meg Whitman and Liu Chuanzhi of Lenovo are reported to have had,short tempers, for instance. But the widespread presumption is that anger in the workplace must be bad for business and managers should cultivate onl,y “p

5、ositive” emotions. 例如，有報(bào)道稱，惠普(Hewlett-Packard)的梅格惠特曼(Meg Whitman)和聯(lián)想(Lenovo)的柳傳志脾氣暴躁。但人們普遍認(rèn)為，在工作場(chǎng)所發(fā)火肯定對(duì)企業(yè)有害，經(jīng)理人只應(yīng)該培養(yǎng)“積極的”情緒。 Clearly, the right to,work without intimidation is paramount. Bullying behaviour in the Fuld, Goodwin or Maxwell vein is unacceptable. Uncurbed hostility at work is also c,ost

6、ly, if you include the expense of investigating and resolving cases where tempers boil over into aggression. 顯然，在工作中享有不受恐嚇的權(quán)利非常重要。富爾德、古德溫或馬克斯韋爾或多或少,的欺凌行為是不可接受的。當(dāng)憤怒演變成攻擊行為的時(shí)候，公司將不得不為此展開調(diào)查并解決問題，如果你算上這些的話，在工作中肆意展示敵意的代價(jià)也很大。 But still, I am afraid that sanitisation of workplace feelings has gone too fa,r

7、: expunging anger from the office is both unrealistic and potentially counter-productive. 但盡管如此，我仍擔(dān)心，對(duì)工作場(chǎng)所情緒的“消毒”有些過頭了：消除辦公室的憤怒既不現(xiàn)實(shí)，也有可能適得其反。 My fear,is shared by a group of academics who last week ran a symposium at the Academy of Managements annual meeting entitled “In Defence of Anger”. The res,t

8、 of the AOMs agenda included professors fretting about the consequences of negative emotions at work. But Dirk Lindebaum, from the University of Liv,erpools management school, who co-chaired the symposium, told me that instead of tagging particular feelings joy or anger, say as positive or neg,ative

9、, it would be more productive to focus on whether they are useful. 一群學(xué)者和我一樣感到不安。他們上周在美國(guó)管理學(xué)會(huì)(Academy of Management)的年度會(huì)議上舉辦了一場(chǎng)名為“捍衛(wèi)憤怒”的研討會(huì)。在研討會(huì)上，教,授們對(duì)職場(chǎng)負(fù)面情緒帶來的后果感到焦慮。但利物浦大學(xué)管理學(xué)院(University of Liverpool Management School)的德克林德鮑姆(Dirk Lindebaum)告訴我，更有效的做法是聚焦于這些情緒是否有用，而不是為特殊情緒（比如說高興或憤怒）貼上積極或負(fù)面的標(biāo)簽。林德鮑,姆是此

10、次研討會(huì)的聯(lián)席主席。 He has also co-edited a special edition of the journal Human Relations, which includes a study suggesting more than two-thirds of emotio,nally negative events actually lead to a positive outcome. Another study showed that teams of health workers who suppressed feelings such as distress,ho

11、stility and upset performed less well than those who allowed “bad” feelings to surface. Co-workers sometimes rush smiling to a solution without hav,ing the sort of unpleasant row that can highlight important problems. To avoid this, Honda, the carmaker, has even institutionalised contrariness in s,o

12、-called waigaya sessions, where workers argue, often for weeks, about process improvements. 林德鮑姆還與他人合作編輯了人類關(guān)系(Human Relations)雜志的特刊，包括一項(xiàng)顯示逾三分之二的負(fù)面情,感事件實(shí)際上帶來積極結(jié)果的調(diào)查研究。另一項(xiàng)研究表明，身體健康但壓抑悲傷、敵意和難過情緒的員工，在工作中的表現(xiàn)不如那些允許“壞”情緒流露的員工。同事們有時(shí)會(huì)對(duì)解決方案一笑而過，不會(huì)進(jìn)行那種可能突顯重大問題的不愉快爭(zhēng)吵。為避免這種情況，汽車制造商本田(Honda)甚至在所謂的暢所欲言式會(huì)議上將爭(zhēng)吵制度化,在

13、這些會(huì)議上，工人們通常會(huì)持續(xù)數(shù)周地討論流程改進(jìn)問題。 In the past, Prof Lindebaum has interviewed project managers in the construction industry, who use angry outbursts to he,lp stay on schedule and resolve snags. Even at the generally collegial FT, editors know an occasional on-deadline rant at a tardy reporter can work wo,n

14、ders. 林德鮑姆過去曾采訪過建筑行業(yè)的項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理，后者用發(fā)火來幫助趕進(jìn)度和解決困難。即便在通常氛圍融洽的英國(guó)金融時(shí)報(bào)，編輯也知道，偶爾在最后一刻對(duì)拖沓的記者大發(fā)雷霆可以創(chuàng)造奇跡。 Allowing an outlet for righteous and justified anger als,o encourages vital internal challenge. I still wonder if Bob Diamonds “no-jerk rule” helped perpetuate problems at Barclays. The former chief executi,ve

15、 outlawed behaviour that clashed with corporate culture. But it might have been better if a few “jerks” had lost their tempers over the culture of r,igging interest rates a process which, as email exchanges show, involved some exaggeratedly “positive” and courteous exchanges between colluding col,le

16、agues. 允許員工公正而合理地發(fā)泄怒火也會(huì)推動(dòng)至關(guān)重要的內(nèi)部質(zhì)疑。我還想知道鮑勃戴蒙德(Bob Diamond)的“不要混蛋準(zhǔn)則”(no-jerk rule)是否讓巴克萊的問題積重難返。這位前任首席執(zhí)行官不允許發(fā)生與企業(yè)文化相沖突的行為。但如果一些“混蛋”對(duì)操縱利率的企業(yè)文化發(fā)火，結(jié)果對(duì)巴克,萊可能會(huì)更好一些正如往來郵件顯示的那樣，操縱利率包括員工合謀進(jìn)行的一些相當(dāng)“積極”且彬彬有禮的交流。 I hesitate to prescribe a daily tantrum for managers, though, because of the potential side-effec,ts

17、. On one of the few occasions I have truly lost my temper with a colleague, it took me most of the day to recover my poise. As with any management t,echnique, it requires practice for the normally placid, like me, to develop useful rages that can be switched on or off at will, or for the congenital,ly irritable to confine their anger to an appropriate situation. 然而，由于潛在的副作用，我不愿建議經(jīng)理們?cè)谌粘９ぷ髦邪l(fā)火。我真正對(duì)同事發(fā)火的場(chǎng)合不多，有一次我發(fā)了火，結(jié)果那天的大部分時(shí)間都用來平復(fù)自己的心態(tài)了。與所有管理技巧一樣，像我,這樣通常心態(tài)平和的人要想收放自如地發(fā)火，或者天生暴脾氣者將憤怒控制在合理范圍內(nèi)，都需要練習(xí)。 Ste