圣诞即将来临，我决定关注一下每年这个时候都非常流行的两个现象：裁员与争吵。
上周，除了笨手笨脚的雇主教诲员工在圣诞派对上应如何表现的电子邮件之外，我还收到了两封同样应景的转发邮件，都是有关解雇及争吵的坏消息。第一封完美地阐释了裁员时的禁忌做法。第二封则更为罕见：它是如何得体通知裁员的最佳范例。
第一封邮件来自金融服务集团道富银行(State Street)的首席执行官杰伊•胡利(Jay Hooley)，宣布公司将解雇1400名员工。邮件的题目平淡无奇："致全体员工的通告"。开头是这样写的："今天我们将宣布一项持续数年的发展计划，该计划将提升服务卓越度、促进创新，帮助公司更有效地运营，并让我们迎来加速增长。"
暂且忽略这种令人生厌的浮华语调，这封邮件有两个致命伤。首先，它夸张其词：如果公司的服务卓越，便不用提升；如果服务不卓越，那么这种假装卓越的自欺欺人就十分危险。其次是它的乐观语气，试图哄骗员工相信，接下来肯定会有什么好事情，这是一种怯懦的表现。
接下来邮件竟然扯了一堆"愿景"、"目标"与"宗旨"，包括"开创走在行业前列的运营模式"和"充分利用我们的规模"。
在几百个字雄心勃勃的废话和清嗓子练习之后，邮件写道："为了更好地利用这些优势，我们将实施有针对性的成本控制举措，包括减员，受影响员工在1400人左右。"
这一下子就裁掉了公司5%的员工，但邮件接下来又开始让人不知所云。我记得大部分内容在谈论建立"卓越服务中心，使我们的核心服务与客户需求更加匹配"以及"加速客户领先解决方案开发"的需要。
最后这位首席执行官终于不再兜圈子，无疑对自己用一团棉花糖让苦药丸消失不见的做法非常满意，以下面这段话结束了邮件："我相信，要确保计划获得成功，各项内容都必不可少。"
对此我可不确信，但我对另一件事很有信心。如果我是道富2.9万名员工中的一员——公司网站称他们"才华横溢，富有献身精神"——我的献身精神会因为这封不坦诚、不光彩、言辞空洞的邮件而减弱。事实上，我可能会考虑到其它公司去发挥自己的才华。
就在道富银行CEO起草这封糟糕信件的同一天，前英国《金融时报》记者、Gawker网站创始人尼克•丹顿(Nick Denton)向这家八卦媒体公司的员工们发送了一封题为"改变"的备忘录。
"是的，你们中的一些人或许会感到震惊，"他在开头写道，然后宣布有两名高管将离开公司。他称赞了他们取得的成绩，接着写道："当然，我们经常争吵，从政治到网页版面布局。但争吵也是乐趣之一，而且争吵过后，我们通常会做出更好的决定。"
接下来，重点出现了："我们的网站对官话套话过敏，因此我就不拐弯抹角了。克里斯(Chris)和我在公司战略问题上存在严重分歧。这导致在编辑与销售环节出现了无益于公司健康的冲突。"
这写得很好。可读性强、条理清晰、感觉真实。有时候人们的分歧太大，以至于他们没办法在一起工作——事实上这种事经常发生。回想起来，当初尼克在英国《金融时报》工作时，也不是最温和、最容易相处的人。但他描述这场争执的方式恰到好处。这种方式消除了有损公司的流言，同时与一篇只会说些关于"花更多时间陪家人"的胡话的通知相比，能让离开的人获得更多的尊严。
道富若能写一封丹顿这样的邮件，效果会好很多。它的电子邮件本应该这样写："或许你们中的一些人会感到震惊。但由于公司成本过高，为了生存我们必须降低成本。公司将不得不裁员1400人。我们会将尽一切可能将伤害降至最低……"通知裁员的电子邮件就应该清晰实际，让人们知道接下来会发生什么。
最重要的是，它不应该扯些什么加速增长的平台。这不仅是因为读起来拗口，而且也是因为，如果一家公司真的计划加快增长速度，很难理解它为什么要裁员。
译者/管婧
http://www.ftchinese.com/story/001036054
Because it's almost Christmas, I've decided to focus on two things that are always popular at this time of year. Layoffs and stand-up rows.
Last week, along with e-mails from flat-footed employers telling staff how to behave at Christmas parties, I was forwarded two other equally seasonal messages bearing bad tidings of firings and fall-outs. The first was the perfect example of how not to do this sort of thing. The second was a rarer document: an example of how to do it properly.
The first e-mail was written by Jay Hooley, CEO of State Street, the financial services company, and conveyed the news that 1,400 people would shortly be out of a job. It bore the innocuous title "Staff Announcement" and began: "Today we are announcing a multiyear programme that will enhance service excellence and innovation, help achieve greater operating efficiencies and position us for accelerated growth."
Ignoring the dreary pomposity of the tone, there are two bad things about this. There is the hyperbole: if your service is excellent, it doesn't need enhancing; if it's not excellent, it's dangerously deluded to pretend that it is. And then there is the upbeat tone, a cowardly attempt to hoodwink staff into thinking something good will surely follow.
What actually follows is a volley of "visions" "goals" and "objectives" that include "creating an industry-leading operating model" and "leveraging our scale".
After a few hundred words of gung-ho waffle and general throat clearing, comes the following: "To gain better use of these advantages, we will implement targeted cost initiatives including staff reductions impacting approximately 1,400 of our workforce."
Having thus eliminated 5 per cent of the company, the memo sweeps on to to a further discussion about nothing in particular. There is much talk of establishing "centres of excellence to better align core functions with client needs" and the need to "accelerate our development of leading-edge solutions for our clients".
Eventually he stops spinning, doubtless satisfied at how he has made a bitter pill vanish in a cloud of candyfloss, and ends thus: "I am confident the components of this programme are necessary to ensure this success."
I'm not sure about that, but I'm confident about something else. If I were one of State Street's 29,000 workers – who are described on the company's website as "talented and dedicated" – I would find my stocks of dedication were diminished by this disingenuous, dishonourable, jamboree of jargon. Indeed, I might contemplate taking my talent elsewhere.
On the very same day that the CEO of State Street was penning his wretched message, Nick Denton, ex-FT journalist and founder of Gawker, was addressing his staff at the media gossip company in a memo entitled "Change".
"Yes, this may be a shock to some of you," he begins, before announcing that two senior people are leaving the company. He praises their achievements, and goes on: "Sure, we've rowed over everything from politics to page layout. But that's been part of the fun; and the arguments have generally led to better decisions."
Then comes the meat: "Our sites are allergic to corporate boilerplate, so I'm going to be explicit. Chris and I diverge seriously over strategy. That spilled over into unhealthy conflict between editorial and sales."
This is good. It is readable, clear, and it feels true. It happens – often in fact – that people disagree so violently they can't work together. Come to think of it, Nick wasn't known as the sweetest, easiest guy to work with when he was at the FT. But the way he describes this falling out is just right. It eliminates damaging gossip and it gives the departing people more dignity than if the announcement was full of nonsense about spending more time with the family.
State Street would have done much better to do a Denton. Its e-mail should have gone something like this: "This may be a shock to some of you. Our costs are too high, and in order to survive we must reduce them. We are going to have to cut 1,400 jobs. We will do everything we can to limit the pain . . . " It should have been clear, practical, telling people what to expect.
Above all, it should not have banged on about platforms for accelerating growth. Not just because this is an ugly mouthful, but because if a company is really planning to grow faster, it is hard to understand why it needs to get rid of anyone.
没有评论:
发表评论