學者難管的 七宗罪(英漢對照)

【經濟日報／Lucy Kellaway】 If I had to write down all the senior management positions I would hate to hold the list would go on forever. All big man-agement jobs are beastly: they are stressful and frustrating and almost always end in failure. 如果我把自己不想做的高層管理職位全寫下來，列成一個清單，那肯定會非常長。所有管理職位都很討厭、充滿壓力、讓人沮喪，且幾乎全部以失敗告終。 Yet at the top of my list of undesirable jobs would be running Harvard University, where Larry Summers resigned as president last week - just in time to save himself the ignominy of a vote of no confidence. It is not just the top slot at Harvard I would turn down. It is the head of any university, in particular a successful one. 不過，我討厭的高層職位清單之首是當哈佛大學校長。上周，哈佛大學現任校長拉里．薩默斯宣布辭職。幸虧他及時引退，否則恐怕就要被投以不信任票，無端遭受恥辱。我要回絕的還不僅是哈佛大學的校長寶座。事實上，讓我當任何大學的校長我都不幹，尤其是成功的大學。 The point of being at the helm of a ship (or organisation) is that you get to steer the thing. In most companies changing course is hard; at big,successful universities it seems impossible. The reason is that academics, especially good ones, make employees from hell. There is little about their abilities,dispo-sitions or the structure of their work that e-quips them to be components in a modern, flexible organisation. I can think of seven things that make them entirely unsuited for such a part. 當一艘船（或組織）的舵手，就得掌握航向。在大多數企業，改變既定航向很困難。在大的名校，改變航向則幾無可能。原因是，學術圈的人，尤其是那些大牌人士，簡直就是魔鬼員工。論能力、秉性和工作性質，他們都無法在現代的靈活組織中生存。我可以列出他們根本不能適應的七大原因： 1. They are very clever. This is not an ad-vantage in most institutions as it means that they can think for themselves. （They may not actually be that clever, but they think they are - which may be worse.） 他們太聰明。在大部分機構，太聰明根本就不是優勢，因為他們能夠獨立思考。（有時候，或許他們並不是太聰明，卻自以為很聰明，這樣更糟糕。） 2. Some have spectacularly low levels of emotional intelligence, which is often more im-portant than IQ in getting things done. 他們中有些人的EQ低得嚇人，而很多時候EQ對成功的影響比IQ還大。 3. They are not team players, to put it mildly. Many are introverted. Moreover, the structure of university life means their col-leagues （in most subjects save science） are their rivals. 他們不擅長團隊合作，這麼說都還是輕描淡寫。很多學術人士非常內向。另外，由於學校本身的結構特點，（在科學之外的很多學科）他們的同事也就是他們的對手。 4. Criticism is a way of life. The mind of the academic is trained to pull holes in things. So when presented with a new initiative, they question it and deem it a waste of time as a matter of course. 批評是一種生活方式。學術人士是經過專業培訓，專門用來挑剔的。所以推出什麼新措施，他們首先會質疑，而且很自然地覺得新措施完全浪費時間。 5. There is no line of authority. In a big company everyone sucks up to their bosses and agrees with them. In a university, there is less to be gained by brown-nosing, so dis-agreement prevails. 沒有上下級關係。在大公司裡，每個人都要巴結老闆，和老闆看法保持一致。在大學裡，拍馬屁沒有多少市場，所以表示異議大行其道。 6. They are complacent and have an interest in the status quo that has given them secure jobs and pensions. 他們很自滿，而且想維持現狀，因為現狀之下他們會有穩定的工作和退休金。 7. Because their status largely depends on their research, which may only be understood by a tiny number of people, insecurity, petti-ness and bitchiness often result. 由於他們的地位主要是靠研究，而他們的研究只有很少一些人看得懂，所以就會產生不安全感、小家子氣和滿腹怨言。 The grander the university the bigger the egos and the worse all these factors tend to be. 學校愈名牌，學術人士愈自大，上述各種症狀就愈明顯。 Universities function adequately enough when everyone is left to their own devices. Incompetent management seems not to matter, the ship goes on sailing. The trouble comes when dras-tic change is needed. 如果人盡其才，大學應該能夠合理運作。管理階層稱職與否似乎無所謂，船照舊航行。然而到了需要劇烈變革之際，麻煩就會逐一浮現。 （本文摘自培生出版《讀金融時報學英文3—深度評論》） 【2006/10/29 經濟日報】