文章來源：《經(jīng)濟學人》Apr 1st 2023 期 Business 欄目?Jerk checking

?

One personality type occupies more attention in the workplace than any other. The “talented jerk”, whose alter-egos include such lovable characters as the “toxic rock star” and the “destructive hero”, is a staple of management literature. These are the people who smash both targets and team cohesion, who get stuff done and get away with behaving badly as a result.

在工作場所，有一種性格類型比其他性格類型更引入注目。“有才華的混蛋”是管理學文獻的主要內容，其另一個自我包括“有毒搖滾明星”和“破壞性英雄”等可愛的角色。這些人既破壞了目標，也破壞了團隊凝聚力，他們完成了任務，但他們的不當行為卻可以“逍遙法外”。

?

So common and corrosive are these characters that plenty of companies spell out a zero-tolerance approach to them. “No jerks allowed,” says CARFAX, which provides data on vehicle histories. Netflix, a streaming giant, is similarly unequivocal: “On our dream team, there are no brilliant jerks.” The careers site of Baird, a financial-services firm, says that it operates a “no assholes” policy.

這些人如此普遍且具有“腐蝕性”，以至于許多公司都明確表示要對它們采取零容忍的態(tài)度。提供車輛歷史數(shù)據(jù)的CARFAX說:“不允許有這種混蛋?！绷髅襟w巨頭Netflix同樣毫不含糊地表示:“在我們的夢想團隊中，沒有聰明的混蛋。” Baird是一家金融服務公司，它的招聘網(wǎng)站稱其奉行“不招混蛋”的政策。

?

It is totally reasonable for firms to want to signal an aversion to genuine jerks. It may not actually put people off (“No assholes? Well, I guess Baird isn’t the company for me.”). But it sends an explicit message to prospective and existing employees, and reflects a real danger to company cultures. Toxic behaviour is contagious: incivility and unpleasantness can quickly become norms if they pass unchecked. That is bad for retention and for reputation. It’s also just bad in itself.

公司想要表現(xiàn)出對真正的混蛋的厭惡是完全合理的。它可能不會真的讓人反感 (“沒有混蛋?嗯，我想Baird公司不適合我。”) 但它向潛在員工和現(xiàn)有員工傳遞了一個明確的信息，并反映出企業(yè)文化面臨的真正危險。有毒的行為是會傳染的: 不文明和不愉快的行為如果不加以控制，很快就會成為常態(tài)。這不利于員工留存和公司的聲譽。它本身也很糟糕。

?

Moreover, the extreme version of the management dilemma posed by the talented jerk rarely exists in practice. The risk that you may be getting rid of the next Steve Jobs is infinitesimal. Just contemplate all the jerks you work with. If you really think they are going to revolutionise consumer technology, create the world’s most valuable company or have members of the public light candles for them when they die, you should probably just go ahead and make them the CEO. But the red-faced guy in sales who shouts at people when he loses an account is not that person.

此外，由天才混蛋所造成的管理困境的極端版本在實踐中很少存在。你失去下一個史蒂夫?喬布斯的風險微乎其微。想想和你一起工作的那些混蛋。如果你真的認為他們將徹底改變消費者技術，創(chuàng)建世界上最有價值的公司，或者在他們去世時讓公眾為他們點蠟燭，那么你可能應該直接讓他們擔任首席執(zhí)行官。但銷售部門那個丟了客戶就沖別人大吼大叫的紅臉家伙不是那種人。

?

That said, the enthusiasm for banning jerks ought to make people a little uneasy, for at least three reasons. The first is that the no-jerk rule involves a lot of subjectivity. Some types of behaviour are obviously and immediately beyond the pale. But the boundaries between seeking high standards and being unreasonable, or between being candid and being crushing, are not always clear-cut. Zero tolerance is dangerous. You may mean to create a supportive culture but end up in a corporate Salem, without the bonnets but with the accusations of jerkcraft.

話雖如此，禁止混蛋的熱情應該會讓人們有點不安，至少有三個原因。首先，“不要混蛋”的規(guī)則包含了很多主觀性。有些類型的行為顯然是不可容忍的。但追求高標準與不講理，坦誠與讓人受不了之間的界限并不總是涇渭分明。零容忍是危險的。你可能想要創(chuàng)造一種支持性的文化，但最終卻陷入了企業(yè)版的"Salem"中，沒有“帽子”，卻被指責為混蛋。

?

The second is that jerks come in different flavours. Total jerks should just be got rid of. But they are rare, whereas bit-of-a-jerks are everywhere and can be redeemed. The oblivious jerk is one potentially fixable category. Some people do not realise they are upsetting others and may just need to be told as much.

第二點是，混蛋有不同的類型。完全的混蛋應該被趕走。但他們是很少見的，而小混蛋到處都是，而且是可以彌補的。未察覺的混蛋是一個潛在的可修正的類別。有些人并沒有意識到他們讓別人心煩意亂，他們可能只是需要被告知。

?

Other people are situational jerks: they behave badly in some circumstances and not in others. If those circumstances are very broad (whenever the person in question is awake, say), then that tells you the problem cannot be fixed. But if jerkiness occurs only at specific moments, like interacting with another jerk, then it may be that a solution exists. If the thing that a talented jerk does really well can be done in comparative isolation or without giving them power over other people, consider it. As the well-known philosophical teaser goes: if a jerk throws a tantrum in their home office and no one is around to see it, are they really a jerk?

有些人是“情境混蛋”: 他們在某些情況下表現(xiàn)不好，而在其他情況下則不然。如果這些表現(xiàn)不好的情況非常廣泛(比如，只要當事人醒著)，那么這就說明問題無法解決。但如果這種行為只發(fā)生在特定的時刻，比如和另一個混蛋互動，那么可能就有解決辦法。如果一個有才華的混蛋做得很好的事情可以在相對孤立的情況下完成，或者不需要賦予他們凌駕于他人之上的權力，那就考慮一下。正如一句著名的哲學逗趣所言: 如果一個混蛋在家里辦公室大發(fā)脾氣，卻沒人看見，那他真的是混蛋嗎?

?

A third issue is one of consistency. This is not just about what happens when the person declaring war on jerks is also a jerk. It is also about the many other problem types who crowd the corridors of workplaces. Where are the policies that ban constructive wreckers, the people offering up so many ostensibly helpful criticisms that nothing ever actually gets done? Why not zap the brilliant fools who have blinding insights of absolutely no practical value?

第三個問題是一致性問題。這不僅僅是關于向混蛋宣戰(zhàn)的人本身就是混蛋時會發(fā)生什么。它還涉及到許多其他問題類型，這些人擠在工作場所的走廊上。禁止建設性破壞者的政策在哪里? 這些人提出了許多表面上有益的批評，但實際上什么也沒做成。為什么不“消除”那些聰明的傻瓜，他們的見解盲目卻毫無實際價值?

?

Above all, what about the pool of nice underperformers who putter along amiably and harmlessly, helping the culture much more than they do the bottom line? Talented jerks stand out, like shards of glass among bare feet: impossible to ignore, problems that have to be solved. Mediocrities are the bigger problem in many firms but are like carbon monoxide, silently poisoning an organisation.

最重要的是，那些表現(xiàn)不佳、和藹可親、對公司文化的幫助遠大于對公司利潤的貢獻的人呢? 有才華的混蛋很突出，就像光腳間的玻璃碎片: 無法忽視，必須解決的問題。在許多公司，平庸人才是更大的問題，但他們就像一氧化碳一樣，無聲地毒害著一個組織。

?

Right-minded purists will argue that anything less than zero tolerance towards talented jerks is just pandering to people who behave badly. But right-minded purists will have skated over paragraph three and are a scourge in their own right. Someone ought to write a management book about them.

正直的純粹主義者會辯稱，對有才華的混蛋不采取零容忍的態(tài)度，只是在迎合那些表現(xiàn)糟糕的人。但是，正直的純粹主義者會忽略第三段，他們本身就是一種禍害。應該有人寫一本關于他們的管理書籍。