Barely 10 days old, Stephen Elop’s “Hello there” memo has already become a classic example of how not to fire people. It is a 1,110-word document stiff with “appropriate financial envelopes”, “ramp-downs” and “ecosystems” which, towards the end, casually mentions that thousands of Microsoft jobs are to go. Rather than dish out the bad news directly, the executive vice-president takes refuge behind a curious subjunctive: “We plan that this would result in an estimated reduction of 12,500 . . . employees.”
斯蒂芬•埃洛普(Stephen Elop)那篇题为“Hello there”（你好）的备忘录才发出不久，就已成为彰显在裁员时要避免哪些做法的经典案例。这份1110个英文单词的备忘录，被诸如“appropriate financial envelope”（直译‘适当的财务包络’，实指适当的开支上限——译者注)、“ramp-downs”（直译‘下坡’，实指业务收缩——译者注)和“ecosystems”（生态系统）这样的词搞得晦涩不堪，直到全文快结束时，才漫不经心的提到，公司将裁减成千上万个工作岗位。微软(Microsoft)的这位执行副总裁并未将坏消息坦率地讲出来，而是用一个奇特的虚拟语气句子打掩护：“根据我们的计划，这或将导致裁减约1.25万名……员工。”

Yet to focus on Mr Elop’s tin ear misses something. This memo deserves to become a set text for all executives interested in communication. It adds value by showcasing the delivery of business piffle that is perfectly aligned with current high-end management guff. It is a case study in how not to write, how not to think, and how not to lead a business.
然而，把注意力集中在埃洛普迟钝的语言能力上，会忽略某些东西。对所有对沟通感兴趣的高管来说，这份备忘录值得作为必读教材研究一下。它还有一个价值，就是向人们展示了如何堆砌商业领域的无聊词汇——这些无聊词汇与当下高级管理层所说的一些鬼话高度一致。它是一个关于不该怎样写、不该怎样想、以及不该怎样领导一家企业的案例研究。
The only trouble with the text is that it is almost impossible to read. It took me several attempts to get to the end, but having now made it, I feel I ought to perform the public service of passing on eight golden rules that occurred to me while slogging my way through.
这份教材的唯一问题是不堪卒读——我努力了好几次才读到末尾。不过，既然我读完了，我想我应该服务一下大众，向大家传达一下我硬着头皮读完此文后总结出的八条黄金法则。
Rule 1. Never be chatty unless you are a chatty sort of person. “Hello there,” is fine from a grandparent trying to jolly along a five-year-old. It is less good spoken by a corporate leader to his ranks, especially when the jocularity begins and ends there.
第一条：如果你不是个说话轻松幽默的人，就绝不要试图做到轻松幽默。对一位想哄五岁小孩的祖父而言，说“Hello there”是可以的。但企业领导人向员工说这话就不那么妥当了，尤其是在全文的幽默只此一处的情况下。
Rule 2. Using clear words is nearly always a good idea – except when you don’t have anything clear to say. The memo begins: “Microsoft’s strategy is focused on productivity and our desire to help people ‘do more’.” This is attractively simple (if you ignore the baffling inverted commas), but is less attractively stupid. Do more what? There are things I’d like to do more of, like sleep, and other things I’d like to do less of, like nagging my children.
第二条：使用明确的措辞几乎总是个好主意——除非你根本没什么明确的事要说。备忘录的开头写道：“微软的战略专注于生产力和我们想帮人们‘做更多’的愿望。”这句话的迷人之处在于简单（前提是忽略掉那对莫名其妙的单引号），不那么迷人的地方在于愚蠢。做更多什么事？有些事我是想多做点，比如睡觉。还有些事我想少做点，比如对我的孩子唠唠叨叨。
Rule 3. The word “align” serves as a warning that the sentence in which it appears is a dud. Mr Elop performs no fewer than six acts of alignment in this memo, each more heroic than the last. In none of them is it clear exactly what he is lining up, nor why it matters that such things should be in a line at all.
第三条：“align”（使一致）一词可起到警示标志的作用，人们只要在句子中看到这个词，就能知道这句话是废话。在这份备忘录中，埃洛普“使一致”了不下六次，一次比一次有决心，但没有一次阐明他到底想使什么相互一致，也没有阐明为何应当使这些东西相互一致。
“To align with Microsoft’s strategy, we plan to focus our efforts,” he starts with unhelpful circularity. He assures us that there will be a lot more aligning: “We will focus on delivering great breakthrough products in alignment with major milestones ahead,” thus craftily slipping in five other weasel words. In rising order of obnoxiousness, these are: focus, major, milestone, breakthrough and delivering.
这个词首先出现在一句毫无意义的罗圈话中：“为了与微软的战略相一致，我们计划集中我们的力量。”埃洛普向我们保证，将来还会有许许多多的“使一致”：“我们将专注于交付与我们未来的重大里程碑相一致的伟大突破性产品。”就这样，他又巧妙地将另外五个含糊其辞的词塞了进来。按可憎程度的升序排列，这五个词分别是：focus（专注）、major（重大）、milestone（里程碑）、breakthrough（突破）和deliver（交付）。
But it is only with Mr Elop’s final act of alignment that we see the point of it. “As difficult as some of our changes are today, this direction deliberately aligns our work with the cross company efforts that Satya has described in his recent emails.”
在埃洛普最后一次祭出“使一致”大法时，我们才弄明白他为什么要这么做。“尽管今天我们的部分改变很艰难，但其方向有意识地使我们的工作与萨蒂亚在他近期电子邮件中描述的‘跨公司努力’相一致。”
In other words, don’t blame him. Blame the CEO, Satya Nadella, or, better still, blame the need for arranging things in lines.
换句话说就是：别怪我，要怪就怪首席执行官萨蒂亚•纳德拉(Satya Nadella)；或者更好的做法是，怪那种要使东西保持一致的需要。
Rule 4. When things are cheap or expensive, say so. Don’t bang on about the “affordable smartphone space” and “high-end” devices. This fools no one, and alienates practically everyone.
第四条：东西是便宜还是贵，直白地说出来。别再喋喋不休地说什么“买得起的智能手机空间”(affordable smartphone space)和“高端”(high-end)设备。这么说骗不了任何人，事实上只会让所有人反感。
Rule 5. Avoid the word “experience”. Not only is it the most fashionable of all management buzz words, it is misleading. An experience is something that leaves an impression on you; everyday activities ought to do no such thing, or we would all be exhausted within minutes of waking up. Using your phone, except perhaps when it’s brand new, should not be an experience. I do not want the “device experiences” or even less the “digital life experiences”, that Mr Elop is trying to “showcase” to his customers.
第五条：避免使用“experience”（体验）一词。这不仅是因为它是所有管理类流行词中最时髦的一个，还因为它具有误导性。体验是某种给你留下印象的东西；日常活动不该涉及这种事，否则每天睡醒后用不了几分钟我们就全都会精疲力尽。用电话不该是一种体验——或许全新的电话除外。我不想要什么“设备体验”，更不想要埃洛普试图“展示”给客户的“数字化生活体验”。
Rule 6. The more often an executive uses the word “strategy”, the more you fear he lacks a good one. To use it once is just about acceptable. To use it seven times, as Mr Elop does, is very worrying indeed.
第六条：一名高管对“strategy”（战略）一词使用得越频繁，人们就越担心他缺少好战略。只用一次还勉强能让人接受。像埃洛普这样一下子用七次真的很让人担心。
Rule 7. Never use a trinity of abstract nouns. It shows you know what you are saying is inadequate.
第七条：绝不要连用三个抽象名词。这么用表明你清楚你正在说的东西不足以成事。
“Collectively,” the memo ends, “the clarity, focus and alignment across the company, and the opportunity to deliver the results of that work into the hands of people, will allow us to increase our success in the future. Regards, Stephen.”
备忘录的结尾写道：“总的来说，整个公司的这种清晰性、专注性和一致性，以及把这项工作的成果交付到人们手中的机会，将使我们能够在未来扩大我们的成功。顺致问候，斯蒂芬。”
It won’t, Stephen. Collectively, a trinity of almost identical, empty mass nouns and the opportunity to deliver something that is not specified is not going to increase anything. Except possibly the dismay, disdain and distrust of the people who work for you.
没戏，斯蒂芬。总的来说，一连三个意思近乎相同的空洞的物质名词，以及交付某种未言明事物的机会，不会扩大任何东西——可能除了你手下人对你的失望、鄙视和不信任。
And just as a bonus, here is rule number eight. Don’t end a memo with “regards”.
最后是第八条，就当是额外的赠品：别用“regards”（顺致问候）作为备忘录的结束语。