This is the age of the data scientist. Employers of all kinds prize people with the skills to capture and analyse enormous amounts of information, to spot patterns in the data and to turn them into useful insights. But some of the most valuable figures in business need neither an analytics team nor knowledge of Python. They are simple to remember and useful for bosses in every organisation. Here is a small selection of management’s magic numbers:

這是數(shù)據(jù)科學(xué)家的時(shí)代。各種各樣的雇主都很看重那些有能力捕捉和分析海量信息、發(fā)現(xiàn)數(shù)據(jù)模式并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為有用見(jiàn)解的人。但是一些最有價(jià)值的業(yè)務(wù)人士既不需要分析團(tuán)隊(duì)也不需要Python知識(shí)。它們很容易被記住，并且對(duì)每個(gè)組織的老板都很有用。以下是一小部分管理的神奇數(shù)字:

Zero: Doing nothing can be the most valuable thing a manager can do, as the fable of Atwood’s duck demonstrates. Jeff Atwood, a computer programmer, is credited with popularising the (possibly apocryphal) story of a piece of deliberately unnecessary work that an animator did on a video game called “Battle Chess”.?

0: 什么都不做可能是一個(gè)管理者能做的最有價(jià)值的事情，正如阿特伍德的鴨子的寓言所證明的那樣。電腦程序員杰夫·阿特伍德普及一個(gè)(可能是杜撰的)故事，這個(gè)故事是關(guān)于一個(gè)動(dòng)畫(huà)師在名為“決戰(zhàn)西洋棋”的電子游戲中故意做了一些不必要的工作。

Aware that the higher-ups needed to feel that they were adding value by making changes, the animator gave the character of the queen a wholly extraneous pet duck. Sure enough, the reviewers asked the programmer to do only one thing: remove the bird. In theory everyone ended up happy, except the duck. In practice time had been wasted because people higher up the chain needed to justify their existence.?

讓高層意識(shí)到他們?cè)谠黾觾r(jià)值，他們就要做出改變，動(dòng)畫(huà)師給了女王這個(gè)角色一個(gè)完全無(wú)關(guān)的寵物鴨。果然，審稿人只要求程序員做一件事：刪了這只“鳥(niǎo)”。理論上，除了鴨子，每個(gè)人最后都是幸福的。實(shí)際上，時(shí)間被浪費(fèi)了，因?yàn)楦咭患?jí)的人需要證明他們的存在。

One: This is the number of bosses people should have. In reality, matrix structures and team-based approaches mean that lots of workers report to multiple masters. According to a Gallup survey in 2019, 72% of American employees occasionally or consistently work in different teams. This approach can have benefits, but clarity is not one of them. The Gallup poll showed that those who work in a matrix are less likely to know what is expected of them, and more likely to spend their day festering in endless internal meetings. Managers in matrix structures should at least try to make their underlings feel like they have one boss, even when they do not.

1: 這是人們應(yīng)該擁有的老板數(shù)量。在現(xiàn)實(shí)中，矩陣式的結(jié)構(gòu)和基于團(tuán)隊(duì)的方法意味著許多工人向多個(gè)上司報(bào)告。根據(jù)蓋洛普2019年的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，72%的美國(guó)員工偶爾或一直在不同的團(tuán)隊(duì)工作。這種方法可能有好處，但不清晰。蓋洛普的調(diào)查顯示，在矩陣型公司工作的人不太可能知道公司對(duì)他們的期望是什么，更有可能把一天的時(shí)間花在沒(méi)完沒(méi)了的內(nèi)部會(huì)議上。矩陣式結(jié)構(gòu)的管理者至少應(yīng)該努力讓下屬覺(jué)得他們有一個(gè)老板，即使他們沒(méi)有。

Three: In a paper published in 2013 two academics tested whether there was an optimal number of claims that marketers should make for their products and services in promotional messages. They found that making three claims was best: any fewer and consumers felt they lacked enough information to make their minds up about a product; any more and they became sceptical that the claims were authentic. The “rule of three” is useful in many other settings, too, from points in presentations to pricing options for customers. One place it does not apply is in a column about magic numbers, so:?

3: 在2013年發(fā)表的一篇論文中，兩位學(xué)者測(cè)試了營(yíng)銷人員在促銷信息中對(duì)其產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的廣告語(yǔ)是否存在最佳數(shù)字。他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，三種廣告語(yǔ)是最好的: 少于三種，消費(fèi)者會(huì)覺(jué)得他們?nèi)狈ψ銐虻男畔?lái)對(duì)產(chǎn)品做出決定；再多的話，他們就會(huì)懷疑這些廣告語(yǔ)的真實(shí)性。“三法則” 在許多其他情況下也很有用，從演講PPT到客戶的定價(jià)選擇。有一個(gè)地方不適用，那就是關(guān)于神奇數(shù)字的專欄，所以:

Ten: The number of people who should be in a meeting depends not just on what is being discussed, but also on where it is taking place. According to a survey of British workers conducted in 2021 by Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University and Paul Mizen and Shivani Taneja of the University of Nottingham, the efficiency of online meetings declined steadily as the number of participants grew. Zoom calls work best with between two and four participants, when there is less need for people to keep muting and unmuting, more chance to see people’s facial expressions and less chat-room blather. Efficiency declines until ten people or more are involved, at which point it is better to hold meetings in person.

10: 參加會(huì)議的人數(shù)不僅取決于討論的內(nèi)容，還取決于會(huì)議的地點(diǎn)。根據(jù)斯坦福大學(xué)的Nicholas Bloom和諾丁漢大學(xué)的Paul Mizen和Shivani Taneja在2021年對(duì)英國(guó)員工進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，隨著與會(huì)人數(shù)的增加，在線會(huì)議的效率穩(wěn)步下降。Zoom通話在兩到四個(gè)人的情況下效果最好，這時(shí)人們不太需要保持靜音或取消靜音，有更多的機(jī)會(huì)看到人們的面部表情，而且聊天室里的廢話更少。在10人或更多的人參與之前，效率會(huì)下降，這時(shí)最好是面對(duì)面會(huì)議。

150: Dunbar’s number postulates that the number of stable social connections a human can have is roughly 150. First proposed by Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist at Oxford University, the figure has its critics. Some researchers reckon it is too low; introverts think it is ludicrously high. But this group size recurs in many settings, from the congregations of single-leader churches to networks of Christmas-card recipients. Companies have also found that it has significance; passing the 150-person threshold requires a change in management practices, from informal and undocumented to structured and codified.??

150: 鄧巴數(shù)字假設(shè)一個(gè)人可以擁有的穩(wěn)定社會(huì)關(guān)系的數(shù)量大約是150。牛津大學(xué)的人類學(xué)家羅賓·鄧巴首先提出了這個(gè)數(shù)字，但也有人對(duì)它提出了批評(píng)。一些研究人員認(rèn)為這個(gè)數(shù)字太低了；內(nèi)向的人認(rèn)為這個(gè)數(shù)字高得離譜。但這種群體規(guī)模在很多情況下都會(huì)出現(xiàn)，從單一領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的教堂會(huì)眾到圣誕賀卡接收人的網(wǎng)絡(luò)。企業(yè)也發(fā)現(xiàn)了它的重要性；超過(guò)150人的門(mén)檻需要管理實(shí)踐的改變，從非正式和無(wú)文件到結(jié)構(gòu)化和法典化。

There is a pattern to these numbers. In one way or another, they illustrate the risks of addition. Expand a company beyond a certain size and social bonds will weaken. Invite more people to the meeting and you will wait longer at the start as everyone dials in. Add extra reporting lines and the burden of collaboration will spiral.?

這些數(shù)字是有規(guī)律的。它們以這樣或那樣的方式說(shuō)明了“加法”的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。公司擴(kuò)張到一定規(guī)模之后，社會(huì)聯(lián)系就會(huì)減弱。邀請(qǐng)更多的人參加會(huì)議，你會(huì)在開(kāi)始時(shí)等待更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間，因?yàn)槊總€(gè)人都要撥號(hào)。增加額外的報(bào)告渠道，合作的負(fù)擔(dān)將螺旋式上升。

The idea that less is more is not new, of course. Max Ringelmann was a 19th-century French engineer who found that adding more and more people to a rope-pulling team had an adverse effect on individual productivity. The more people there were to tug on the rope, the less sense of responsibility each person felt for the outcome and the less hard they pulled. Ringelmann’s insight is still valid. Subtraction has its attractions.?

當(dāng)然，“少即是多”的觀點(diǎn)并不新鮮。19世紀(jì)的法國(guó)工程師馬克斯·林格爾曼發(fā)現(xiàn)，在拉繩的團(tuán)隊(duì)中增加越來(lái)越多的人會(huì)對(duì)個(gè)人生產(chǎn)力產(chǎn)生不利影響。拉繩子的人越多，每個(gè)人對(duì)結(jié)果的責(zé)任感就越低，他們拉繩子的力度也就越小。林格爾曼的見(jiàn)解仍然有效?！皽p法”有它的吸引力。