Doctors bury their mistakes and, according to a 2008 UK survey, often keep quiet about them.
英国2008年的一项调查显示，医生掩盖自己的过失，往往对此保持沉默。
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.
他们不该这样。按照英国全国医学总会(General Medical Council)的执业准则，出现过失的医生“应该做出道歉，并全面、迅速地解释……到底发生了什么”。但是，这项对初级医生的调查发现，“过失被正常化了，对它们的处理是一笑了之，或者大事化小”。不管怎样，逝去的病人可能本来也是要死的。
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.
身兼律师和医学伦理讲师的丹尼尔•索科尔(Daniel Sokol)在一篇发表于《英国医学期刊》(BMJ)的文章中引用了该调查。他说，“对于任何有自尊心的专业人士来说，承认错误都是痛苦而困难的”。他的话对于许多商界领袖同样适用。
Last month, Richard Anderson, Delta Air Lines’ chief executive, accused Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways of receiving state subsidies.
上个月，达美航空(Delta Air Lines)首席执行官理查德•安德森(Richard Anderson)指责阿联酋航空(Emirates)、阿提哈德航空(Etihad Airways)以及卡塔尔航空(Qatar Airways)接受政府补贴。
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”.
这几家海湾航空公司辩称，9/11事件后，美国的航空公司也获得了政府帮助，但安德森称他们的回应是“莫大的讽刺”，因为9/11袭击“是由来自阿拉伯半岛的恐怖分子发动的”。
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.”
达美航空为其首席执行官辩护称：“他的意思并不是暗示海湾的航空公司或政府与9/11恐怖分子有关。如果有人感到被冒犯，我们道歉。”
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.
他们当然被冒犯了。安德森的声明除了暗示这些航空公司或其政府与那场恐怖袭击有关联以外，很难有别的解读。
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.”
如果让安德森自己说话，他会失去什么呢？他本可以说：“对不起，我说过头了。这些航空公司当然与9/11事件没有任何关联。我被惹恼了，因为它们再三说我们得到了补贴。9/11事件后，由于美国领空空域关闭，航空公司得到了一次性的支付。达美航空没有得到任何贷款担保。”
All that was in Delta’s statement but because of the flimsy apology, few paid any attention.
所有这些意思都包含在达美航空的声明中，但由于其道歉很勉强，因此没有引起人们注意。
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.
汇丰(HSBC)首席执行官欧智华(Stuart Gulliver)形容该行瑞士私人银行在逃税行为中扮演的角色“令人羞愧”；该行的确进行了道歉。欧智华在一封致客户、股东和员工的信中表达了歉意，并在两次接受英国议会委员会质询时致歉。
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，当被追问他们是否问过自己为什么有这么多非瑞士居民拥有瑞士银行账户，为什么没有对提取巨额现金的客户多加质疑时，他和汇丰其他高管一再推诿搪塞。应当承认，此类议会听证会是对抗性的、无情的，议员们会抓住任何认错表示不放。
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.”
但其实，欧智华本可不必如此狼狈，他本可以说：“瞧，那时的情况并不一样。私人银行（不仅是我行旗下的私人银行）认为，我们没有责任核实客户交过税。那是纳税人、他们的税务机关以及他们的良心的事。但自金融危机以来，一切都变了，我们承认这一点。”
HSBC said just that, in more formal terms, in a January update.
在1月份更新的声明中，汇丰用更正式的措辞做了这样的表述。
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.
有一位商界领袖从不避讳详细诉说自己的过错，他就是沃伦•巴菲特(Warren Buffett)。在年度致股东的信中，他经常这样做。今年是他与查理•芒格(Charlie Munger)共同执掌伯克希尔哈撒韦公司(Berkshire Hathaway) 50周年，因此，他翻出了50年来的各种过失。
They included investing in dying textile companies and seeing acquisition “synergies” evaporate.
这其中包括投资于濒临倒闭的纺织企业，以及看到并购后的“协同优势”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.
更近期的失误包括继续持有特易购(Tesco)的股票，尽管他知道这家英国零售商最初的问题很可能只是一系列问题的开端。“你在厨房看到一只蟑螂；过些日子，你就会遇见它的亲戚们，”他写道。
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”.
巴菲特对自己的过失给出的原因并非糟糕的建议或者管理人员的疏忽，而是他自己“吮吸拇指”、“幼稚行为”以及“我就是错了”。
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.
指出自身错误的优势在于，它不仅不给别人这样做的机会，而且可以让人们明白经营的艰难：我们会犯错，只有通过检讨，我们才能降低（但无法消除）再次犯错的可能性。
Doctors often fear the legal consequences of admitting errors. Business leaders sometimes do too but, far more often, it is stubborn pride.
医生往往害怕承认过失的法律后果。商界领袖有时也是如此，但在更多情况下，他们是出于固执的傲慢才死不认错。
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.
如果他们想通了，他们可能会发现天不会塌下来，或者（就汇丰来说）否认明显存在的问题是毫无意义的。