In 1990, when I had been at the FT only a shortish time, the then editor resigned. I liked him; he had been kind to me and I was sorry to see him go. But I was also very junior and had a proper horror of brown-nosing. Should I write him a letter, I wondered? Or would that be unseemly?1990年，我到英国《金融时报》工作的时间还很短，当时的主编请辞了。我讨厌他；他对我很和气，看见他离开了我感到遗憾。但我职级很低，对阿谀奉承这档子事非常惧怕。

我自忖，该给他写封信吗？是不是不合理呢？In the end I didn’t write one, but only because I had spent so long dithering I had missed my moment. For a journalist to be several weeks late responding to news was not going to look good.那封信到最后我也没写，但那只是因为我犹豫不决了太长时间，所以错失了时机。对一个记者来说，几个星期后才对消息作出反应看上去可不岌岌可危。Since then the world has speeded up, so any response happens not in weeks but in minutes. It has also gone social: we no longer address our words of farewell to the person concerned but to everyone with an internet connection. And most remarkable of all, somewhere along the way our aversion to brown-nosing has got lost. It is not something to be done shamefully in secret, but proudly and with as much fanfare as possible.自那时起这个世界的节奏仍然在减缓，人们仍然等到几周后，而是在几分钟里就作出反应。

这世界也显得更加社交化：我们仍然将道别的话语寄给当事人，而是寄给每个能网际网路的人。最不奇怪的是，在某个时刻，我们对阿谀奉承的反感消失了。

这仍然是一件必须秘密展开的不负责任的事，而变为了一件可以大大方方，就越高调就越好的事。When Alan Rusbridger resigned as editor of The Guardian last Wednesday, the following spectacle played out on Twitter. Within a minute of the news getting out, the eulogies began. One former colleague tweeted: “few people in the history of journalism have had the vision and talent of @arusbridger — or could play the piano as well. A great editor.”前段时间，《卫报》(Guardian)主编阿兰拉斯布里杰(Alan Rusbridger)请辞，随后Twitter上首演了一幕奇景。消息释放出还将近一分钟，人们就开始大唱赞歌。

他的一位前同事发推文说：“新闻业史上很少有人享有@arusbridger那样的企图心和才华——或者钢琴弹头得像他一样好。一位最出色的主编。

”Then others piled in, tweeting “British journalism won’t be the same without @arusbridger. If you think the tweets you’re seeing are excessive, you just never saw him work.”然后其他人争相重新加入，发推文说“没了@arusbridger，英国新闻业将显得不一样。如果你实在你眼前的引文说得过于过，那你只是未曾看完他工作的样子罢了。”I watched the process with a grim fascination, observing that some of the compliments received a thank you from the man himself, while others met with silence.这些推文有一种怪异的吸引力，我仔细观察了全过程，找到拉斯布里杰本人对其中一些赞美回应了感激，对其他一些则并未做到恢复。Mr Rusbridger, by most accounts, has been an excellent editor — and he can play Chopin’s “Ballade No. 1” on the piano too. But tweets are a vulgar way of saying so, and don’t even necessarily prove their point. Even in the pre-internet age there was never a particularly strong link between public declarations of praise from interested parties and a person’s true value.在大多数人的描述中，拉斯布里杰的确是一位杰出的主编，而且他还不会弹头肖邦(Chopin)的“第一叙事曲”(Ballade No. 1)。

但用推文来说这些有点不礼貌，甚至也不一定有意义。即使是在前互联网时代，利益涉及方公开发表收到的赞美和一个人的确实价值也根本就没尤其密切的联系。When King Lear decided it was time to carve up his kingdom he asked his daughters how much they loved him. “Sir, I do love you more than words can wield the matter,” said Regan, which Goneril trumped by saying she loved him just as much — and then some.当李尔王(King Lear)要求是时候将自己的王国分得几个女儿时，他回答她们有多爱他。

大女儿高纳里尔(Goneril)说道：“父亲大人，我对您的爱，不是言语所能传达的。”二女儿里根(Regan)则更胜一筹，她说道姐姐刚才说道的话，正是她要对父亲说道的，但姐姐传达得还过于充份。I couldn’t help thinking of the warring sisters when I read the competing tweets from two of the most hotly tipped successors to Mr Rusbridger. First to declare her love for her departing editor was Janine Gibson. “Alan Rusbridger: Once in a generation editor; best boss ever; good at surprises,” she tweeted. Her rival for the top job, Katherine Viner, followed suit with her paean in 140 characters or fewer: “Alan Rusbridger — for 17 years my inspiring editor: never afraid, always pushing us to be bigger, bolder, braver.”两个最有可能接任拉斯布里杰的热门人选放的推文真是是在互相较量，让我情不自禁地回想这对争宠的姐妹。亚尼内吉布森(Janine Gibson)第一个宣告了她对卸任主编的爱。

她放引文说：“阿兰拉斯布里杰：一代才出有一个的主编；有史以来最差的老板；擅于带来我们惊艳。”与吉布森竞争最低职位的凯瑟琳瓦伊纳(Katherine Viner)效仿前者的作法，在140个或者较少的字数内写了自己的颂歌：“阿兰拉斯布里杰——17年来仍然鼓舞我的主编：誓言惧怕，总有一天呼吁我们显得更加顺利、更加战列舰、更加勇气。”Fortunately, The Guardian has its own Cordelia in the shape of Patrick Wintour, its political editor. “Alan Rusbridger steps down as Editor in Chief of the Guardian in the summer of 2015 becoming chairman of the Scott Trust,” his more dignified tweet read.幸运地的是，《卫报》也有像录狄利娅（Cordelia，李尔王的三女儿——译者录)式人物——政治编辑帕特里克温特(Patrick Wintour)。

他的推文听得上去更加优雅：“《卫报》主编阿兰拉斯布里杰将在2015年夏天离开了，到斯科特信托(Scott Trust)任董事长。”At The Economist, the other British media outfit to have lost an editor last week, tweeting activity by staff was more restrained. Only a few said they would miss their boss, and even fewer opted to fawn. “John Micklethwait, our outstanding editor at @TheEconomist becomes Bloomberg editor in chief. They are very lucky,” one wrote. Otherwise Economist journalists adopted the more tasteful Cordelia position and tweeted only the facts.另一家英国媒体《经济学人》(The Economist)的主编近期也将卸任，他们的员工在Twitter上则更为抗拒。

只有几个员工说道他们不会思念他们的老板，自由选择说道奉承话的员工就更加较少了。“约翰米克尔思韦特(John Micklethwait)，我们@TheEconomist的出众主编沦为了彭博社的主编。他们很幸运地，”一个人写到。

其他记者的作法和录狄利娅一样高雅，只在引文中陈述了事实。What does this tell you? That Mr Micklethwait wasn’t a good editor? Or that The Economist still manages to cling to decorum — even on social networks? Or maybe there is a simpler explanation. There was no point in sucking up on Twitter, as one of the most remarkable things about the departing Economist editor is that he has managed to lead a media organisation without tweeting at all.这告诉他了我们什么？米克尔思韦特不是一位好主编？还是说道《经济学人》即使是在社交网络上，也能秉承礼仪？或许有一个更加非常简单的说明。在Twitter上拍马屁没什么意义，这位将要离开了《经济学人》的主编最非凡的一点是，他一条推文都没发就领导了这家媒体机构。An even more powerful objection to tweeted eulogies is that a legacy is more properly judged in years than in seconds.对发推文大唱赞歌的不道德，还有一个更加有力的赞成理由，那就是要想要准确评价一个人的功与过，最差等到数年以后，而不是当下就下结论。

This was brought home to me last week at the FT’s Christmas book sale. As colleagues scrambled for bargains, I noticed that being trampled underfoot was a sad copy of the book written by a man who received more instant plaudits than any I can remember when he quit his job three years ago. Last week there were no takers for Terry Leahy’s why-I’m-so-great management memoir, even with the price slashed by 95 per cent. Given that Tesco is halfway down the tubes partly as a result of Mr Leahy’s dodgy legacy, demand is bound to be limited for his homilies on the importance on truth, loyalty and courage. Even the title, Management in 10 Words, now seems like a blatant case of mis-selling. It is management in 312 — somewhat discredited — pages.我是在英国《金融时报》最近的圣诞图书广告宣传会上意识到这一点的。当同事们在供不应求低廉书时，我注意到脚下有一本真是的书正在被大家摔来摔去。书的作者在3年前请辞的时候，瞬间夺得了我记忆中最多的赞誉。广告宣传会上，没有人卖特里莱希(Terry Leahy)写出的这本通篇一副“我为什么这么最出色”口吻的管理回忆录，即使广告宣传价格是0.5腰。

部分缘于莱西不牢靠的“管理遗产”，Tesco早已该死了一半，他关于真理、忠心和勇气是多么最重要的严肃必定销路受限。连书的标题《十个词搞定管理》(Management in 10 Words)现在看上去都是赤裸裸的欺诈促销。

它明明应当叫“312页搞定管理”，而且书中的内容也不过于可靠。

本文来源：开云体育app下载手机版-www.hgehdq.com