世事無坦途 向巴菲特學習失敗
Doctors bury their mistakes and, according to a 2008 UK survey, often keep quiet about them.
They shouldn’t. The General Medical Council practice guidelines say doctors who err “should offer an apology and explain fully and promptly . . . what has happened”. But the survey of junior doctors found that “errors were normalised, dealt with through teasing, or minimised”. Dead patients would probably have died anyway.
他們不該這樣。按照英國全國醫學總會(General Medical Council)的執業準則，出現過失的醫生“應該做出道歉，並全面、迅速地解釋……到底發生了什麼”。但是，這項對初級醫生的調查發現，“過失被正常化了，對它們的處理是一笑了之，或者大事化小”。不管怎樣，逝去的病人可能本來也是要死的。Daniel Sokol, a lawyer and medical ethics lecturer who cited the survey in a BMJ article, says that “admitting a mistake is painfully difficult for any self-respecting professional”. He could have said the same of many business leaders.
身兼律師和醫學倫理講師的丹尼爾•索科爾(Daniel Sokol)在一篇發表於《英國醫學期刊》(BMJ)的文章中引用了該調查。他說，“對於任何有自尊心的專業人士來說，承認錯誤都是痛苦而困難的”。他的話對於許多商界領袖同樣適用。
Last month, Richard Anderson, Delta Air Lines’ chief executive, accused Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways of receiving state subsidies.
上個月，達美航空(Delta Air Lines)首席執行官理查德•安德森(Richard Anderson)指責阿聯酋航空(Emirates)、阿提哈德航空(Etihad Airways)以及卡塔爾航空(Qatar Airways)接受政府補貼。The Gulf carriers have argued that US airlines received government help after 9/11, but Mr Anderson called their riposte a “great irony”, given that the attacks “came from terrorists from the Arabian Peninsula”.
這幾家海灣航空公司辯稱，9/11事件後，美國的航空公司也獲得了政府幫助，但安德森稱他們的迴應是“莫大的諷刺”，因爲9/11襲擊“是由來自阿拉伯半島的恐怖分子發動的”。Delta said in defence of its chief executive: “He didn’t mean to suggest the Gulf carriers or their governments are linked to the 9/11 terrorists. We apologise if anyone was offended.”
達美航空爲其首席執行官辯護稱：“他的意思並不是暗示海灣的航空公司或政府與9/11恐怖分子有關。如果有人感到被冒犯，我們道歉。”Of course they were offended. It was hard to read in Mr Anderson’s statement anything other than an association between the airlines or their governments and the attacks.
他們當然被冒犯了。安德森的聲明除了暗示這些航空公司或其政府與那場恐怖襲擊有關聯以外，很難有別的解讀。What would it have cost Mr Anderson to have spoken for himself? He could have said: “Sorry, I went way too far. Of course the airlines had nothing to do with 9/11. I was irritated because they keep saying we got subsidies. There was a one-time payment to airlines in the aftermath of the US airspace closure after 9/11. Delta didn’t receive any loan guarantees.”
如果讓安德森自己說話，他會失去什麼呢？他本可以說：“對不起，我說過頭了。這些航空公司當然與9/11事件沒有任何關聯。我被惹惱了，因爲它們再三說我們得到了補貼。9/11事件後，由於美國領空空域關閉，航空公司得到了一次性的支付。達美航空沒有得到任何貸款擔保。”All that was in Delta’s statement but because of the flimsy apology, few paid any attention.
所有這些意思都包含在達美航空的聲明中，但由於其道歉很勉強，因此沒有引起人們注意。HSBC, whose chief executive, Stuart Gulliver, described its Swiss private bank’s role in tax evasion as a “source of shame” did say sorry. He said it in a letter to customers, shareholders and staff and twice before UK parliamentary committees, most recently this week.
匯豐(HSBC)首席執行官歐智華(Stuart Gulliver)形容該行瑞士私人銀行在逃稅行爲中扮演的角色“令人羞愧”；該行的確進行了道歉。歐智華在一封致客戶、股東和員工的信中表達了歉意，並在兩次接受英國議會委員會質詢時致歉。But he and other senior HSBC leaders repeatedly stalled when pressed on whether they had asked themselves why so many non-Swiss people had Swiss bank accounts and why they were not more suspicious about customers withdrawing huge amounts in cash. Admittedly, these parliamentary hearings are adversarial and pitiless, with MPs probing for any admission of guilt they can leap on.
但是，當被追問他們是否問過自己爲什麼有這麼多非瑞士居民擁有瑞士銀行賬戶，爲什麼沒有對提取鉅額現金的客戶多加質疑時，他和匯豐其他高管一再推諉搪塞。應當承認，此類議會聽證會是對抗性的、無情的，議員們會抓住任何認錯表示不放。But, again, Mr Gulliver would have been no worse off if he had said: “Look, things were different back then. Private banks, and not just ours, took the view that it wasn’t up to us to make sure our customers paid their taxes. It was a matter for them, their tax authorities and their consciences. But, since the financial crisis, everything has changed, and we recognise that.”
但其實，歐智華本可不必如此狼狽，他本可以說：“瞧，那時的情況並不一樣。私人銀行（不僅是我行旗下的私人銀行）認爲，我們沒有責任覈實客戶交過稅。那是納稅人、他們的稅務機關以及他們的良心的事。但自金融危機以來，一切都變了，我們承認這一點。”HSBC said just that, in more formal terms, in a January update.
在1月份更新的聲明中，匯豐用更正式的措辭做了這樣的表述。One business leader who has no problem detailing his mistakes is Warren Buffett. He regularly does it in his annual letter to shareholders. This year’s marked the golden anniversary of his and Charlie Munger’s control of Berkshire Hathaway so he dredged up 50 years of mistakes.
有一位商界領袖從不避諱詳細訴說自己的過錯，他就是沃倫•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)。在年度致股東的信中，他經常這樣做。今年是他與查理•芒格(Charlie Munger)共同執掌伯克希爾哈撒韋公司(Berkshire Hathaway) 50週年，因此，他翻出了50年來的各種過失。They included investing in dying textile companies and seeing acquisition “synergies” evaporate.
這其中包括投資於瀕臨倒閉的紡織企業，以及看到併購後的“協同優勢”落空。More recent mistakes included holding on to Tesco shares even though he knew it was likely that the UK retailer’s initial problems were just the first in a series. “You see a cockroach in your kitchen; as the days go by, you meet his relatives,” he wrote.
更近期的失誤包括繼續持有特易購(Tesco)的股票，儘管他知道這家英國零售商最初的問題很可能只是一系列問題的開端。“你在廚房看到一隻蟑螂；過些日子，你就會遇見它的親戚們，”他寫道。The reasons Mr Buffett gave for his mistakes were not poor advice, or lapses by his managers, but his own “thumb-sucking”, “childish behaviour” and “I simply was wrong”.
巴菲特對自己的過失給出的原因並非糟糕的建議或者管理人員的疏忽，而是他自己“吮吸拇指”、“幼稚行爲”以及“我就是錯了”。The advantage of pointing out your own errors is not only that it deprives others of the opportunity but that it makes it plain that business is hard, that we make mistakes and that only by examining them can we reduce, but not eliminate, our chances of making them again.
指出自身錯誤的優勢在於，它不僅不給別人這樣做的機會，而且可以讓人們明白經營的艱難：我們會犯錯，只有通過檢討，我們才能降低（但無法消除）再次犯錯的可能性。Doctors often fear the legal consequences of admitting errors. Business leaders sometimes do too but, far more often, it is stubborn pride.
醫生往往害怕承認過失的法律後果。商界領袖有時也是如此，但在更多情況下，他們是出於固執的傲慢才死不認錯。If they opened up, they might discover that the sky would not fall or, in the case of HSBC, that there is no point in denying the obvious because it already has.
如果他們想通了，他們可能會發現天不會塌下來，或者（就匯豐來說）否認明顯存在的問題是毫無意義的。
