There are two extremes of corporate¹ culture: the hard-driving, aggressive category; and the warm, open-hearted type. But which is more successful at motivating a team, and delivering outstanding financial results?

企业文化有两个极端类型：一种是冲劲十足、积极好斗的，另一种是温和、友善的。哪一种更能激励团队、实现优异的财务业绩呢？

An example of the “agreeable” philosophy of management is described in Peter Mead’s autobiographical book, When In Doubt Be Nice. He was a co-founder of the highly regarded advertising³ agency Abbot Mead² Vickers, now AMV BBDO. A slightly daunting⁴ 380-plus pages, the book has plenty of cosy⁵, sensible advice, such as treating staff well (“be a father to your workforce”), always do your best, focus on quality not price and so forth⁶. They are wise words, but I’m not sure these beliefs would all pay off in some cut-throat markets. His view is that if you do good work and look after your people, profits are sure to follow. In their heyday⁷ ad agencies could afford, for instance, to give all the staff the afternoon off before public holidays. Sadly, lots of industries are intensely overcrowded and offer miserable⁸ margins⁹, with little time or money for kind words and sympathetic employment policies.

彼得•米德(Peter Mead)的自传《要友善》(When In Doubt Be Nice)，描述了一个“讨人喜欢的”管理理念的例子。米德曾是一家极受尊崇的广告公司Abbot Mead Vickers（即现在的AMV BBDO）的联合创始人。他的这本自传有380多页（长得有点吓人），该书给出了很多温馨、明智的建议，譬如善待员工（“爱兵如子”）、总是全力以赴、注重质量而非价格等等——都是些充满智慧的言语，但我不确定这些信念在一些竞争激烈的市场是否都能有所回报。米德的观点是，如果你做好工作、照顾好你的员工，利润自然会随之而来。例如，在广告公司的全盛时期，它们有能力在公共假期的前一天下午就让全体员工放假。遗憾的是，很多行业现在都极度拥挤、利润率低得可怜，在时间或金钱上没有余力来践行这些友善之言和讨人喜欢的用工政策。

A contrast with AMV might be Rocket Internet, the newly public vehicle for the online ambitions of the Samwer brothers. The business clones digital operating models from America like eBay and Groupon and launches them in emerging economies.

与AMV形成对比的可能是Rocket Internet——一家刚刚上市的、用来实现扎姆韦尔(Samwer)兄弟互联网抱负的公司。该公司克隆eBay和Groupon等美国企业的数字化运营模式，然后在新兴经济体推出。

Oliver Samwer, the billionaire chief executive, told staff in 2011 that he was “the most aggressive guy on the internet” who would “die to win”, and expected the same from them (he apologised later). Clearly, however, that formula has made him very rich, and the stock market appears to like his practice of copying ideas rather than genuine technological¹⁰ innovation.

该公司首席执行官奥利弗•扎姆韦尔(Oliver Samwer)是一位亿万富翁。2011年，他告诉员工，自己是“互联网上最好斗的家伙”，“为了获胜会不惜性命”，并期待员工们能像他一样（他后来为此言道了歉）。但显而易见的是，这种方式让他变得非常富有，股市似乎也更认可他这种抄袭别人创意的做法，而不是真正的技术创新。

However, a monomaniac focus on profit at any price is unlikely to prove a winning ideology¹¹ in the long run. Possibly the most notorious exponent¹² in recent times was “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap, an ex-lieutenant of the late Sir James Goldsmith. He entitled his memoir¹³ Mean Business, which says it all. After turning around Scott Paper by slashing¹⁴ costs, Mr Dunlap attempted to revive Sunbeam Corporation using the same methods. The virtual collapse¹⁵ of the company destroyed his career, and was a stark¹⁶ case study of how real companies cannot prosper¹⁷ simply by sacking staff, using bullish accounting¹⁸ policies and playing M&A games.

然而，不顾一切、偏执地关注利润，不太可能成为一种可确保长期成功的理念。在这方面，近年来最臭名昭著的代表人物可能就是已故的詹姆斯•戈德史密斯爵士(Sir James Goldsmith)的前副手、绰号“链锯”的艾尔•邓乐普("Chainsaw" Al Dunlap)。邓乐普将自己的回忆录命名为《险恶生意》(Mean Business)，这已经说明了一切。在大力削减成本使斯科特纸业(Scott Paper)扭亏为盈后，他试图用同样的方法重振日光公司(Sunbeam Corporation)。日光公司事实上的破产毁掉了他的职业生涯，这一鲜明的案例说明，真正的企业无法只通过解雇员工、采用乐观的会计政策和玩并购游戏来实现繁荣。

And yet, when Mr Dunlap said “people want to be liked; they don’t want to do what’s right if it costs them entry to the clubhouse”, there is truth in his remark. Fixing broken companies is a difficult job that invariably means hard choices. Many companies go wrong because their leaders are too weak, and afraid to take painful decisions. Some of the most profitable organisations of the modern era did best when led by a boss with a hard-charging attitude.

不过，邓乐普也说过：“大家都想讨人喜欢；他们不想去做正确、但做了会众叛亲离的事。”他的这句话倒也符合事实。修复问题重重的企业是一项艰巨的工作，不可避免地会涉及艰难的抉择。许多企业出问题就是因为它们的领导人太怯懦、不敢做出痛苦的抉择。当代一些最赚钱的企业，正是作风强硬的人作老板时才表现得最好。

Steve Ballmer, the tough CEO at Microsoft, was famous for his take-no-prisoners approach to rivals such as Google. During his tenure¹⁹, earnings²⁰ more than doubled to $23bn, making it the most profitable business on earth. Could a more caring culture at Microsoft have delivered those results?

史蒂夫•巴尔默(Steve Ballmer)在作微软(Microsoft)首席执行官期间就很咄咄逼人，曾以其对谷歌(Google)等竞争对手赶尽杀绝的态度而闻名。在他的任期内，微软的利润增长了一倍以上，达到230亿美元，成为世界上最赚钱的企业。微软当时若奉行更为友善的企业文化还能实现这种的业绩吗？

Of the 50-odd businesses I’ve backed over three decades, only a minority had exceptional company cultures. All of those cared more in some respects about their staff and customers than the bottom line. This emphasis paid off for the shareholders²¹ when the business had an intrinsically strong franchise²². Sadly, having happy staff and customers does not always guarantee a sustainable economic structure. I’ve lost money in sectors²³ such as films and bookselling where everybody enjoys the ride except the capital providers.

过去30年我投资过的50多家企业中，只有少数有杰出的企业文化。这些企业都在某些方面更加重视它们的员工和客户，而不是利润。当企业拥有本质上强健的业务时，这种重视回报了股东。遗憾的是，拥有快乐的员工和客户，未必意味着经济结构是可持续的。我在电影和图书销售等行业亏了钱——在这些行业，除了投资者以外，所有人都很开心。

Combative²⁴ companies are brittle²⁵. Usually they are based entirely²⁶ around financial rewards, and when the profits slide, there is little staff or customer loyalty²⁷ to fall back on. RBS under Fred “the Shred” Goodwin had a reputation as a ruthless acquirer, winning hostile takeovers for NatWest and ABN Amro. But in 2008 the bank had to be rescued with a state injection of £46bn. Its corporate culture of arrogance²⁹ contributed to its downfall.

好斗的企业缺乏韧性。通常而言，它们完全建立在经济回报的基础上，利润一旦下滑，很少能依靠员工或客户的忠诚度。在绰号“粉碎机弗雷德”(Fred the Shred²⁸)的弗雷德•古德温(Goodwin)的领导下，苏格兰皇家银行(RBS)赢得了“无情收购者”的名声，成功地敌意收购了国民西敏寺银行(NatWest)和荷兰银行(ABN Amro)。但在2008年，苏格兰皇家银行却不得不接受纾困，英国政府向其注资460亿英镑。该行傲慢的企业文化促成了它的垮台。

Nice companies are more pleasant to work in, and if you agree with management guru Peter Drucker that “culture eats strategy for breakfast” you should consider subscribing³⁰ to the Peter Mead school of business. But in the shorter term, aggression³¹ can eat nice for breakfast too.

友善的企业让人更乐于为之工作。如果你认可管理学大师彼得•德鲁克(Peter Drucker)说的那句话，即“文化能把战略当早餐吃”(culture eats strategy for breakfast)，你应该考虑赞同彼得•米德学派。但短期而言，积极好斗能把友善当早餐吃。