经济学人 | Jerk checking 混蛋检查（2023年第25期）

文章来源：《经济学人》Apr 1st 2023 期 Business 栏目 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.

在工作场所，有一种性格类型比其他性格类型更引入注目。“有才华的混蛋”是管理学文献的主要内容，其另一个自我包括“有毒摇滚明星”和“破坏性英雄”等可爱的角色。这些人既破坏了目标，也破坏了团队凝聚力，他们完成了任务，但他们的不当行为却可以“逍遥法外”。

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.

这些人如此普遍且具有“腐蚀性”，以至于许多公司都明确表示要对它们采取零容忍的态度。提供车辆历史数据的CARFAX说:“不允许有这种混蛋。”流媒体巨头Netflix同样毫不含糊地表示:“在我们的梦想团队中，没有聪明的混蛋。” Baird是一家金融服务公司，它的招聘网站称其奉行“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.

公司想要表现出对真正的混蛋的厌恶是完全合理的。它可能不会真的让人反感 (“没有混蛋?嗯，我想Baird公司不适合我。”) 但它向潜在员工和现有员工传递了一个明确的信息，并反映出企业文化面临的真正危险。有毒的行为是会传染的: 不文明和不愉快的行为如果不加以控制，很快就会成为常态。这不利于员工留存和公司的声誉。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极端版本在实践中很少存在。你失去下一个史蒂夫•乔布斯的风险微乎其微。想想和你一起工作的那些混蛋。如果你真的认为他们将彻底改变消费者技术，创建世界上最有价值的公司，或者在他们去世时让公众为他们点蜡烛，那么你可能应该直接让他们担任首席执行官。但销售部门那个丢了客户就冲别人大吼大叫的红脸家伙不是那种人。

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.

话虽如此，禁止混蛋的热情应该会让人们有点不安，至少有三个原因。首先，“不要混蛋”的规则包含了很多主观性。有些类型的行为显然是不可容忍的。但追求高标准与不讲理，坦诚与让人受不了之间的界限并不总是泾渭分明。零容忍是危险的。你可能想要创造一种支持性的文化，但最终却陷入了企业版的"Salem"中，没有“帽子”，却被指责为混蛋。

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.

第二点是，混蛋有不同的类型。完全的混蛋应该被赶走。但他们是很少见的，而小混蛋到处都是，而且是可以弥补的。未察觉的混蛋是一个潜在的可修正的类别。有些人并没有意识到他们让别人心烦意乱，他们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”: 他们在某些情况下表现不好，而在其他情况下则不然。如果这些表现不好的情况非常广泛(比如，只要当事人醒着)，那么这就说明问题无法解决。但如果这种行为只发生在特定的时刻，比如和另一个混蛋互动，那么可能就有解决办法。如果一个有才华的混蛋做得很好的事情可以在相对孤立的情况下完成，或者不需要赋予他们凌驾于他人之上的权力，那就考虑一下。正如一句著名的哲学逗趣所言: 如果一个混蛋在家里办公室大发脾气，却没人看见，那他真的是混蛋吗?

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?

第三个问题是一致性问题。这不仅仅是关于向混蛋宣战的人本身就是混蛋时会发生什么。它还涉及到许多其他问题类型，这些人挤在工作场所的走廊上。禁止建设性破坏者的政策在哪里? 这些人提出了许多表面上有益的批评，但实际上什么也没做成。为什么不“消除”那些聪明的傻瓜，他们的见解盲目却毫无实际价值?

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，那些表现不佳、和蔼可亲、对公司文化的帮助远大于对公司利润的贡献的人呢? 有才华的混蛋很突出，就像光脚间的玻璃碎片: 无法忽视，必须解决的问题。在许多公司，平庸人才是更大的问题，但他们就像一氧化碳一样，无声地毒害着一个组织。

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.

正直的纯粹主义者会辩称，对有才华的混蛋不采取零容忍的态度，只是在迎合那些表现糟糕的人。但是，正直的纯粹主义者会忽略第三段，他们本身就是一种祸害。应该有人写一本关于他们的管理书籍。