从管理学看特朗普政府 | 纽约时报
For someone who promoted his management skills and campaigned as an “organizational genius,” it has been a rocky White House debut for , the first president to go directly from the executive suite to the Oval Office.
对于吹嘘自己的管理技能，标榜自己是“组织天才”的唐纳德·特朗普而言，他在白宫的开局困难重重。他是第一位从高管圈直接入主椭圆办公室的总统。
“Chaos” seems to be the word most often invoked, closely followed by “turmoil.” (One exception: the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, who said he preferred “action-packed.”)
最常令人想到的词是“混乱”，紧接着是“骚乱”。（有一个例外，白宫发言人肖恩·斯派塞说他喜欢“忙乱”。）
In less than two weeks, Mr. Trump created upheaval at the nation’s borders, alienated longtime allies, roiled markets with talk of a trade war and prompted some of the largest protests any president has faced.
不到两周，特朗普在国家边境引发剧变，他离间了长期盟友，因主张贸易战搅乱了市场，引发针对总统的一些抗议是历来规模最大的。
The conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal “so poorly explained and prepared for, that it has produced confusion and fear at airports, an immediate legal defeat, and political fury at home and abroad.”
《华尔街日报》保守的社论版叹惋难民政策“解释不周，准备不足，在机场导致困惑和恐惧，司法上马上失败，令国内外政坛暴怒。”
All new presidents undergo a learning curve. But Mr. Trump promised a seamless transition and, with a real chief executive in charge as opposed to a career politician, an administration that would function as a well-oiled machine.
所有新总统都经历一个学习的过程。可特朗普此前承诺可以无缝过渡，他认为由一个首席执行官而不是一个职业政客掌舵，政府会像一台运转顺畅的机器一样工作。
So it doesn’t seem premature to ask some leading management experts for an assessment of Mr. Trump’s first weeks, purely from the viewpoint of organizational behavior and management effectiveness, as I did this week.
问几个顶尖的管理学专家，让他们从组织行为和管理效率的角度给特朗普最初几周评评分，这看起来正当其时，本周我就这么做了。
The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.
他们异口同声的判决：迄今为止，运行类似行政部门这样复杂的机构，特朗普政府堪称反面教材。
“This is so basic, it’s covered in the introduction to the M.B.A. program that all our students take,” said , an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. By all outward indications, Mr. Trump “desperately needs to take the course,” she said.
“这很初级，所有学生MBA课程的导言里就有。”斯坦福商学院组织行为副教授林德瑞·格利尔说。她说，从外部表现看，特朗普“急需补课”。
, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford and the author of “Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don’t,” said Mr. Trump’s executive actions as president “are so far from any responsible management approach” that they all but defy analysis.
斯坦福大学组织行为教授、《权力：为什么有人有、有人没有》一书的作者杰弗里·费弗说，特朗普总统的行政举措“远非负责任的管理手段”，以至于根本无法分析。
“Of course, this isn’t new,” he told me. “His campaign also violated every prudent management principle. Everyone including our friends on Wall Street somehow believed that once he was president he’d change. I don’t understand that logic.”
“当然，这并不新鲜。”他说。“他在大选中也无视所有审慎的管理原则。包括我们在华尔街的朋友，所有人都多少以为，一旦他当了总统，他会改变。我搞不懂其中的逻辑。”
Wall Street did take notice. After months of cheering the prospect of tax reform and infrastructure spending, investors sold stocks after a weekend of chaos at the nation’s airports connected to the president’s executive order on immigration.
华尔街也注意到了。几个月来，人们欢呼税改和基础设施开支，如今投资者抛售股票，此前总统的移民令导致周末美国各个机场陷入混乱。
On Monday, the Dow industrials experienced the since the election, fueled by worries that a dysfunctional White House wouldn’t be able to execute Mr. Trump’s policies.
周一，道琼斯工业指数经历选举以来单日最大下滑，原因在于担忧坡脚的白宫无法执行特朗普的政策。
There is an enormous amount of literature and data exploring what constitutes effective management of complicated organizations. “The core principles have served many leaders really well,” said , professor of human resource management at Harvard Business School.
有大量文献和数据探讨如何对复杂组织进行有效管理。“很多领导人都遵循核心原则。”哈佛商学院人力资源学教授杰弗里·波尔泽说。
“It’s really common sense: You want to surround yourself with talented people who have the most expertise, who bring different perspectives to the issue at hand. Then you foster debate and invite different points of view in order to reach a high-quality solution.”
“这是一种常识：我们希望最有才能的人在你身边，给事情带来不同的看法。你推动讨论，让大家各抒己见，最后得出高质量的解决方案。”
This is often easier said than done. It “requires an openness to being challenged, and some self-awareness and even humility to acknowledge that there are areas where other people know more than you do,” Mr. Polzer continued.
说起来容易做起来难。那“需要乐于接受挑战，有自知之明，甚至勇于承认有些领域别人比我更了解。”波尔泽说。
“This doesn’t mean decisions are made by consensus. The person at the top makes the decisions, but based on the facts and expertise necessary to make a good decision.”
“这并不意味着要达成共识再做出决定，还是由大老板做决定，但只有根据事实和必要的专业知识才能做出好的决定。”
Mr. Trump has already violated several of these core principles. The secretary of Homeland Security, John F. Kelly, was a proposed executive order restricting immigration when Mr. Trump went ahead and signed it. Nor was Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, consulted; he saw the final order only hours before it went into effect.
特朗普已经违反了不少核心原则。国土安全部长约翰·F·凯利还在讨论限制移民的行政令草案，特朗普就一马当先地签署了。连国防部长吉姆·马蒂斯的意见都没征求，直到生效几个小时前，他才看到最终文本。
Not to consult thoroughly with top cabinet officers before deciding on the order “is insane,” since they “have the expertise and should be on top of the data,” Ms. Greer said. “Ignoring them leads to bad decisions and is also incredibly demoralizing.”
不广泛征求内阁官员意见就做出决定“是疯狂的”，因为他们“是专家，掌握着数据”，格利尔说。“无视他们会做出坏的决定，也会让人寒心。”
And there’s another reason to consult, Mr. Polzer said: “When people are genuinely involved in a decision and their input is heard and valued and respected, they are more likely to support and buy into the decision and be motivated to execute to the best of their abilities, even if the decision doesn’t go their way.”
需要征求意见的另外一个原因是，波尔泽说：“当人们真正参与了讨论，他们表达了观点，受到了重视和尊重，就更有可能支持这个决定，并尽最大能力去执行这个决定，即使这个决定和他们想的不一样。”
Conversely, people who aren’t consulted feel they have no stake in a successful outcome.
相反，没有被征求意见的人，他们认为某事就算获得了成功，也和自己没有一毛钱关系。
Far from encouraging and weighing differing views as part of the decision-making process, Mr. Trump appears to view dissension as disloyalty. After career State Department officers circulated a draft cable questioning the effectiveness of the immigration ban, , “They should either get with the program or they can go.”
特朗普非但没有鼓励和掂量不同的观点作为决策过程中的参考，他认为观点不同是一种背叛。国务院职业外交官发报质疑移民禁令的有效性，斯派塞回应说：“要不一起干，要不滚蛋。”
“Debate and dissent are essential to reaching any thoughtful outcome,” Ms. Greer said. Comments like Mr. Spicer’s “will discourage anyone from speaking up. You end up with group think, an echo chamber where people only say what they think the president wants to hear.”
“讨论和异议对实现任何周全的结果都是至关重要的。”格利尔说。斯派塞这样的说法“堵住大家的嘴。结果就是人云亦云，人们只会附和总统，他想听什么，大家就说什么。”
And while it’s understandable that the president was eager to act swiftly to follow through on his campaign promises — he had made a long list of actions to be carried out on “Day 1” — his directives came across as needlessly hasty and poorly thought through. Some had to be reframed (talk of a Mexican border surcharge) or significantly modified and clarified after the fact (immigration policy).
总统希望迅速行动起来，履行自己的大选诺言，这可以理解，第一天，他就拉出了长长的单子，这让人感觉太过仓促，缺乏思考。有的必须重新构想，例如征收墨西哥边境费，有的则需要进行重大修改或澄清，例如移民政策。
I asked the management experts to ignore their views about the merits of Mr. Trump’s policies, but all said that execution and substance are inextricably linked.
我要求管理专家们不要考虑他们对特朗普政策优劣的看法，可所有人都表示过程和本质难解难分。
“When you’re on the receiving end of a policy decision, the merits of the decision and the execution go hand in hand,” Mr. Polzer said. “If either one is done poorly, the outcomes will be bad. Even good plans that are poorly rolled out aren’t going to work well.”
“当你出在政策决定的接收端，决定的优劣和执行过程相伴而行。”波尔泽说。“如果一个方面不行，结果就会糟糕。好的计划，执行不好，结果也不会好。”
For many people, the Affordable Care Act was indelibly tainted by the computer malfunctions that plagued its start. Similarly, for many Americans, the enduring image of Mr. Trump’s immigration policy will be that of a tearful who was detained at Kennedy International Airport after risking his life working as a translator for the American military over a 10-year period. (He was released after lawyers intervened on his behalf.)
很多人认为，因为计算机失灵，奥巴马医保从一开始受到极大的玷污。同样，对很多美国人而言，特朗普移民政策给人的观感将一直是那个满脸泪花的伊拉克移民，他十年间冒着生命危险危险为美军做翻译官，现在被拘禁在肯尼迪国际机场。（律师干预后被释放了。）
That prompted even Mr. Ryan to say, “No one wanted to see people with green cards or special immigrant visas, like translators, get caught up in all of this.”
甚至莱恩都说，“没人希望看到，拿着绿卡和特别移民签证的人，比如说翻译，受困于此。”
Some Trump defenders have said that the president thrives on chaos, and it has proved to be an effective management approach for him in the past. But every expert I consulted said there is no empirical data or research that supports the notion that chaos is a productive management tool.
有些特朗普的辩护者说，总统乱中取胜，过去对他而言，这是一个有效的管理方法。但我咨询的每一个专家都说，没有实证数据或研究支持这个概念，即混乱是有效的管理工具。
“I’m not aware of anyone who advocates that,” Mr. Polzer said. “I don’t really know what’s going on in the White House, so I don’t feel comfortable commenting on that specifically. But I can say in general that in organizational settings, less chaos is a good thing.”
“我没听说过谁主张这种看法。”波尔泽说。“我不清楚白宫是怎么运行的，对此发表评论让我感觉不大自在。但我从组织学角度泛泛地说，少些混乱肯定是件好事。”
Everyone agreed that there was still time for Mr. Trump to right the ship. Other administrations have had course corrections and personnel shake-ups.
大家都认为特朗普还有时间掉转船头。以前政府也曾改弦更张，更换人事。
If this were the private sector, “someone would be fired,” Ms. Greer said.
如果是一家公司，“有人要被炒鱿鱼了。”格利尔说。
That seems highly unlikely, since Mr. Trump has not even acknowledged a problem, instead blaming the media for an impression of upheaval in the White House.
看起来这不大可能发生，特朗普压根不承认有什么问题，他指责媒体，认为他们让人造成白宫发生剧变的印象。
That is a fundamental problem, Mr. Pfeffer said. “No good business makes decisions that are based on falsehoods,” he said. “My sense is that Trump takes no one’s counsel but his own. That’s bad management, period.”
这是最核心的，费弗说：“好公司不会基于以谎言做决定。我感觉特朗普谁的话都不听，只听他自己的，这就是糟糕的管理，句号。”