Husband-and-wife PhD students Eric Minikel and Sonia Vallabh have switched careers to pursue research into a rare genetic disease that killed Ms Vallabh’s mother and could kill her.
埃里克•米尼克爾(Eric Minikel)和索尼婭•瓦拉巴(Sonia Vallabh)夫婦都是博士生，為了研究一種罕見(jiàn)的遺傳疾病，他們放棄了自己原本的職業(yè)。這種病已經(jīng)奪去了瓦拉巴母親的生命，而且可能還會(huì)奪去她的生命。
Insurance executive Mark Bertolini once quit his job to manage his cancer-stricken son’s care in person, learning lessons he later used to run one of the largest US health insurers. “Time is short,” says the chief executive of Aetna, who wears a black skull-shaped ring as a memento mori.
安泰保險(xiǎn)(Aetna)的首席執(zhí)行官馬克•貝托里尼(Mark Bertolini)曾辭掉工作，專心照料自己深受癌癥折磨的兒子，后來(lái)他將這段經(jīng)驗(yàn)運(yùn)用到對(duì)這家美國(guó)大型健康保險(xiǎn)企業(yè)的管理中。貝托里尼說(shuō)：“生命短暫?！彼稚蠋е幻断笳魉劳龅暮邝俭t戒指。
Here are two examples of people whose work is driven by meaning and purpose. A cynic might say they are extreme exceptions to the rule that most staff slouch into the office without much sense of what they give to their job, other than too many hours each day, and what they want from it, other than a prompt finish and a regular pay cheque.
在以上兩個(gè)例子中，人們的工作動(dòng)力來(lái)自于意義和目的。一個(gè)玩世不恭的人可能會(huì)說(shuō)這些不過(guò)是極端個(gè)例，大多數(shù)上班族通常都是沒(méi)精打采地走進(jìn)辦公室，既不知道除了每天貢獻(xiàn)那么多時(shí)間，自己還為這份工作貢獻(xiàn)了什么；也不知道除了按部就班地工作、按時(shí)領(lǐng)薪水以外，自己還能從這份工作中得到什么。
This default cynicism is understandable, but it is too easy.
這種預(yù)設(shè)的嘲諷可以理解，但未免說(shuō)得太過(guò)輕巧。
Polished and promoted by corporate marketers, declarations of purpose, values and meaning at work will always run the risk of becoming as hollow as most mission statements. When they collide with the harsher reality of key performance indicators and bonus targets, they often shatter.
在企業(yè)營(yíng)銷人員的美化和宣傳下，關(guān)于工作目的、價(jià)值和意義的聲明總是有流于空洞的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，就像大多數(shù)使命宣言那樣。當(dāng)這些空話碰上關(guān)鍵績(jī)效指標(biāo)和獎(jiǎng)金目標(biāo)，往往被這些嚴(yán)酷現(xiàn)實(shí)撞得粉碎。
At a recent conference run by Blueprint for Better Business (where I am a trustee), Nava Ashraf of London School of Economics said companies could “make things worse” by talking about purpose but behaving at odds with their proclaimed ethos. Research shows staff “can’t get their work done, [if] they’re spending all their energy” dealing with such dissonance.
Blueprint for Better Business（我是這家機(jī)構(gòu)的一名受托人）最近舉行了一次會(huì)議，倫敦政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院(London School of Economics)的納瓦•阿什拉芙(Nava Ashraf)在會(huì)上表示，企業(yè)行為如果與其宣稱的理念不一致，空談目標(biāo)可能會(huì)“讓事情變得更糟”。研究表明企業(yè)員工“如果將全部精力都用于應(yīng)付這類說(shuō)一套做一套的風(fēng)氣，就無(wú)法好好完成工作”。
The meaning that Ms Vallabh or Mr Bertolini invest in their work is so rarefied it may seem out of reach. Wider Americanised rhetoric about bringing love into the office is so absurd in some other cultures that it is easier to stand aloof and mock it. No passion, please, we’re British.
瓦拉巴和貝托里尼賦予工作的意義實(shí)在太過(guò)崇高，看起來(lái)似乎遙不可及。在某些文化中，類似把愛(ài)帶到辦公室這種美國(guó)式的浮夸言辭又顯得過(guò)于荒唐，很容易格格不入，受人嘲笑。拜托，請(qǐng)不要這么激情澎湃，我們是英國(guó)人。
Such cynicism is itself dangerous. Cynics presume any organisation that talks about purpose must be lying, or at least covering up a worse truth. It pushes companies back into the conventional, old-fashioned approach: do an unimpeachably good thing in one department, often called corporate social responsibility, while signalling to everyone in the rest of the group that they should get on with “real work”.
這類冷嘲熱諷本身非常危險(xiǎn)。憤世嫉俗者假定所有大談目的的組織肯定都是在撒謊，或至少隱瞞了糟糕的真相。這會(huì)令企業(yè)退回到舊式的傳統(tǒng)做法：在一個(gè)部門做一件無(wú)可挑剔的好事——通常稱之為企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任——借此暗示公司其他部門所有人，他們應(yīng)該干好“真正的工作”。
The wife of one blue-chip chairman once berated me at a dinner because her husband could not declare progress in his quest to meet strict social responsibility goals, for fear journalists would hunt down an ethical breach.
在一次晚宴上，一家藍(lán)籌公司的董事長(zhǎng)的妻子曾斥責(zé)我，她的丈夫一直致力于實(shí)現(xiàn)嚴(yán)格的社會(huì)責(zé)任目標(biāo)，卻不能公布自己取得的進(jìn)展，就是因?yàn)閾?dān)心記者會(huì)窮追不舍，試圖找出一件違背道德倫理的事情。
I don’t buy that argument. Some scepticism is needed to stop companies themselves behaving cynically. If they set high goals and fall short — building “clean” cars and then cheating the system that measures how clean they are, for example — they make it harder to trust those who are just setting out on a more purposeful path.
我并不接受這樣的指責(zé)。企業(yè)需要一些懷疑，以阻止它們做出見(jiàn)利忘義的行為。如果它們制定了遠(yuǎn)大的目標(biāo)，卻做不到——比如立志打造“清潔”汽車，卻欺騙用來(lái)測(cè)量這些汽車有多清潔的系統(tǒng)——會(huì)令那些制定了明確目標(biāo)的企業(yè)更難取信于人。
Outright cynicism can, though, deter companies from taking the first steps towards aligning profit and purpose. As Sacha Romanovitch, chief executive of Grant Thornton UK, told the Blueprint conference, leaders need permission to talk about what is not going well “without being knocked down for it”.
不過(guò)，全然的不信任會(huì)妨礙企業(yè)采取使利潤(rùn)與宗旨相一致的初步舉措。正如Grant Thornton UK的首席執(zhí)行官薩沙•羅曼諾維奇(Sacha Romanovitc)在Blueprint會(huì)議上所講，應(yīng)允許企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人談?wù)撨M(jìn)展不順利的地方，“而不會(huì)因此被擊垮”。
Individuals have a role in advancing purpose. “We’re optimistic and hopeful that we’re moving the ball forward. We can put energy there instead of spinning wheels for things I can’t affect,” Ms Vallabh told the Harvard Gazette. Fear of suffering drives her and her husband’s search for a treatment for the brain disease whose traces she carries in her DNA.
個(gè)人力量在推動(dòng)工作目的性方面發(fā)揮了一定作用。瓦拉巴對(duì)《哈佛公報(bào)》(Harvard Gazette)表示：“我們很樂(lè)觀，而且充滿希望，我們相信自己正在推動(dòng)世界前進(jìn)。我們可以將精力投入到這里，而不用去推動(dòng)那些我不喜歡的事情?！蹦赣H所罹患的大腦疾病就隱藏在她的DNA里，對(duì)病痛的恐懼驅(qū)使著她和丈夫去尋找這種疾病的治療方法。
But not everybody needs such a dramatic spur to action. It is not necessary for most people to plough everything they stand for into their work. It may not even be desirable. Feeding yourself completely into your job can mean starving family or friends. The assumption that work has no meaning, though, is a prescription for drift, disillusion and, at worst, self-deception. People who could not care less about their work may behave differently — and even in the opposite way — from how they behave at home.
但并不是每個(gè)人都需要這樣激烈的鞭策去采取行動(dòng)。對(duì)于大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō)沒(méi)必要懷著自己的全部理想投入到工作中去。這甚至并不可取。全情投入到工作中可能意味著虧欠家人朋友。但認(rèn)定自己的工作毫無(wú)意義，則是喪失理想、渾噩度日、自欺欺人（這一點(diǎn)是最可怕的）的安慰劑。那些對(duì)工作毫不在意的人，可能在家的表現(xiàn)會(huì)有所不同，甚至是截然相反。
Just a tiny pipetteful of the purpose that drives Ms Vallabh or Mr Bertolini could make a job more fulfilling, a workplace more productive and, yes — idealistic though it may sound — business and society happier, more humane, and more prosperous.
只要在工作中加入一點(diǎn)兒目的性，那種驅(qū)動(dòng)瓦拉巴和貝托里尼去工作的目的，就可以讓工作更充實(shí)，上班效率更高，而且——聽(tīng)起來(lái)可能有些理想主義——還會(huì)讓企業(yè)和整個(gè)社會(huì)變得更快樂(lè)、更人性化、更繁榮。
Cynicism about the idea that the best work should have meaning, or the best companies should have purpose, is itself like a disease, gnawing away at trust in business until it collapses entirely. It needs to be fought, because Mr Bertolini is right. Time is short.
對(duì)的工作應(yīng)該有意義、或的企業(yè)應(yīng)該有目的這樣的想法冷嘲熱諷，本身就像一種疾病，會(huì)蛀空對(duì)企業(yè)的信任，直到其徹底垮掉。人們應(yīng)該與玩世不恭作斗爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)樨愅欣锬嵴f(shuō)得對(duì)，生命短暫。
埃里克•米尼克爾(Eric Minikel)和索尼婭•瓦拉巴(Sonia Vallabh)夫婦都是博士生，為了研究一種罕見(jiàn)的遺傳疾病，他們放棄了自己原本的職業(yè)。這種病已經(jīng)奪去了瓦拉巴母親的生命，而且可能還會(huì)奪去她的生命。
Insurance executive Mark Bertolini once quit his job to manage his cancer-stricken son’s care in person, learning lessons he later used to run one of the largest US health insurers. “Time is short,” says the chief executive of Aetna, who wears a black skull-shaped ring as a memento mori.
安泰保險(xiǎn)(Aetna)的首席執(zhí)行官馬克•貝托里尼(Mark Bertolini)曾辭掉工作，專心照料自己深受癌癥折磨的兒子，后來(lái)他將這段經(jīng)驗(yàn)運(yùn)用到對(duì)這家美國(guó)大型健康保險(xiǎn)企業(yè)的管理中。貝托里尼說(shuō)：“生命短暫?！彼稚蠋е幻断笳魉劳龅暮邝俭t戒指。
Here are two examples of people whose work is driven by meaning and purpose. A cynic might say they are extreme exceptions to the rule that most staff slouch into the office without much sense of what they give to their job, other than too many hours each day, and what they want from it, other than a prompt finish and a regular pay cheque.
在以上兩個(gè)例子中，人們的工作動(dòng)力來(lái)自于意義和目的。一個(gè)玩世不恭的人可能會(huì)說(shuō)這些不過(guò)是極端個(gè)例，大多數(shù)上班族通常都是沒(méi)精打采地走進(jìn)辦公室，既不知道除了每天貢獻(xiàn)那么多時(shí)間，自己還為這份工作貢獻(xiàn)了什么；也不知道除了按部就班地工作、按時(shí)領(lǐng)薪水以外，自己還能從這份工作中得到什么。
This default cynicism is understandable, but it is too easy.
這種預(yù)設(shè)的嘲諷可以理解，但未免說(shuō)得太過(guò)輕巧。
Polished and promoted by corporate marketers, declarations of purpose, values and meaning at work will always run the risk of becoming as hollow as most mission statements. When they collide with the harsher reality of key performance indicators and bonus targets, they often shatter.
在企業(yè)營(yíng)銷人員的美化和宣傳下，關(guān)于工作目的、價(jià)值和意義的聲明總是有流于空洞的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，就像大多數(shù)使命宣言那樣。當(dāng)這些空話碰上關(guān)鍵績(jī)效指標(biāo)和獎(jiǎng)金目標(biāo)，往往被這些嚴(yán)酷現(xiàn)實(shí)撞得粉碎。
At a recent conference run by Blueprint for Better Business (where I am a trustee), Nava Ashraf of London School of Economics said companies could “make things worse” by talking about purpose but behaving at odds with their proclaimed ethos. Research shows staff “can’t get their work done, [if] they’re spending all their energy” dealing with such dissonance.
Blueprint for Better Business（我是這家機(jī)構(gòu)的一名受托人）最近舉行了一次會(huì)議，倫敦政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院(London School of Economics)的納瓦•阿什拉芙(Nava Ashraf)在會(huì)上表示，企業(yè)行為如果與其宣稱的理念不一致，空談目標(biāo)可能會(huì)“讓事情變得更糟”。研究表明企業(yè)員工“如果將全部精力都用于應(yīng)付這類說(shuō)一套做一套的風(fēng)氣，就無(wú)法好好完成工作”。
The meaning that Ms Vallabh or Mr Bertolini invest in their work is so rarefied it may seem out of reach. Wider Americanised rhetoric about bringing love into the office is so absurd in some other cultures that it is easier to stand aloof and mock it. No passion, please, we’re British.
瓦拉巴和貝托里尼賦予工作的意義實(shí)在太過(guò)崇高，看起來(lái)似乎遙不可及。在某些文化中，類似把愛(ài)帶到辦公室這種美國(guó)式的浮夸言辭又顯得過(guò)于荒唐，很容易格格不入，受人嘲笑。拜托，請(qǐng)不要這么激情澎湃，我們是英國(guó)人。
Such cynicism is itself dangerous. Cynics presume any organisation that talks about purpose must be lying, or at least covering up a worse truth. It pushes companies back into the conventional, old-fashioned approach: do an unimpeachably good thing in one department, often called corporate social responsibility, while signalling to everyone in the rest of the group that they should get on with “real work”.
這類冷嘲熱諷本身非常危險(xiǎn)。憤世嫉俗者假定所有大談目的的組織肯定都是在撒謊，或至少隱瞞了糟糕的真相。這會(huì)令企業(yè)退回到舊式的傳統(tǒng)做法：在一個(gè)部門做一件無(wú)可挑剔的好事——通常稱之為企業(yè)的社會(huì)責(zé)任——借此暗示公司其他部門所有人，他們應(yīng)該干好“真正的工作”。
The wife of one blue-chip chairman once berated me at a dinner because her husband could not declare progress in his quest to meet strict social responsibility goals, for fear journalists would hunt down an ethical breach.
在一次晚宴上，一家藍(lán)籌公司的董事長(zhǎng)的妻子曾斥責(zé)我，她的丈夫一直致力于實(shí)現(xiàn)嚴(yán)格的社會(huì)責(zé)任目標(biāo)，卻不能公布自己取得的進(jìn)展，就是因?yàn)閾?dān)心記者會(huì)窮追不舍，試圖找出一件違背道德倫理的事情。
I don’t buy that argument. Some scepticism is needed to stop companies themselves behaving cynically. If they set high goals and fall short — building “clean” cars and then cheating the system that measures how clean they are, for example — they make it harder to trust those who are just setting out on a more purposeful path.
我并不接受這樣的指責(zé)。企業(yè)需要一些懷疑，以阻止它們做出見(jiàn)利忘義的行為。如果它們制定了遠(yuǎn)大的目標(biāo)，卻做不到——比如立志打造“清潔”汽車，卻欺騙用來(lái)測(cè)量這些汽車有多清潔的系統(tǒng)——會(huì)令那些制定了明確目標(biāo)的企業(yè)更難取信于人。
Outright cynicism can, though, deter companies from taking the first steps towards aligning profit and purpose. As Sacha Romanovitch, chief executive of Grant Thornton UK, told the Blueprint conference, leaders need permission to talk about what is not going well “without being knocked down for it”.
不過(guò)，全然的不信任會(huì)妨礙企業(yè)采取使利潤(rùn)與宗旨相一致的初步舉措。正如Grant Thornton UK的首席執(zhí)行官薩沙•羅曼諾維奇(Sacha Romanovitc)在Blueprint會(huì)議上所講，應(yīng)允許企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人談?wù)撨M(jìn)展不順利的地方，“而不會(huì)因此被擊垮”。
Individuals have a role in advancing purpose. “We’re optimistic and hopeful that we’re moving the ball forward. We can put energy there instead of spinning wheels for things I can’t affect,” Ms Vallabh told the Harvard Gazette. Fear of suffering drives her and her husband’s search for a treatment for the brain disease whose traces she carries in her DNA.
個(gè)人力量在推動(dòng)工作目的性方面發(fā)揮了一定作用。瓦拉巴對(duì)《哈佛公報(bào)》(Harvard Gazette)表示：“我們很樂(lè)觀，而且充滿希望，我們相信自己正在推動(dòng)世界前進(jìn)。我們可以將精力投入到這里，而不用去推動(dòng)那些我不喜歡的事情?！蹦赣H所罹患的大腦疾病就隱藏在她的DNA里，對(duì)病痛的恐懼驅(qū)使著她和丈夫去尋找這種疾病的治療方法。
But not everybody needs such a dramatic spur to action. It is not necessary for most people to plough everything they stand for into their work. It may not even be desirable. Feeding yourself completely into your job can mean starving family or friends. The assumption that work has no meaning, though, is a prescription for drift, disillusion and, at worst, self-deception. People who could not care less about their work may behave differently — and even in the opposite way — from how they behave at home.
但并不是每個(gè)人都需要這樣激烈的鞭策去采取行動(dòng)。對(duì)于大多數(shù)人來(lái)說(shuō)沒(méi)必要懷著自己的全部理想投入到工作中去。這甚至并不可取。全情投入到工作中可能意味著虧欠家人朋友。但認(rèn)定自己的工作毫無(wú)意義，則是喪失理想、渾噩度日、自欺欺人（這一點(diǎn)是最可怕的）的安慰劑。那些對(duì)工作毫不在意的人，可能在家的表現(xiàn)會(huì)有所不同，甚至是截然相反。
Just a tiny pipetteful of the purpose that drives Ms Vallabh or Mr Bertolini could make a job more fulfilling, a workplace more productive and, yes — idealistic though it may sound — business and society happier, more humane, and more prosperous.
只要在工作中加入一點(diǎn)兒目的性，那種驅(qū)動(dòng)瓦拉巴和貝托里尼去工作的目的，就可以讓工作更充實(shí)，上班效率更高，而且——聽(tīng)起來(lái)可能有些理想主義——還會(huì)讓企業(yè)和整個(gè)社會(huì)變得更快樂(lè)、更人性化、更繁榮。
Cynicism about the idea that the best work should have meaning, or the best companies should have purpose, is itself like a disease, gnawing away at trust in business until it collapses entirely. It needs to be fought, because Mr Bertolini is right. Time is short.
對(duì)的工作應(yīng)該有意義、或的企業(yè)應(yīng)該有目的這樣的想法冷嘲熱諷，本身就像一種疾病，會(huì)蛀空對(duì)企業(yè)的信任，直到其徹底垮掉。人們應(yīng)該與玩世不恭作斗爭(zhēng)，因?yàn)樨愅欣锬嵴f(shuō)得對(duì)，生命短暫。