超人老板，可能嗎？

One striking feature of the world of 1970s newspaper publishing, lovingly recreated by the film The Post , is the single-minded devotion of the Washington Post’s owner Katharine Graham to her family’s company and its flagship product.

電影《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(The Post)真實(shí)地再現(xiàn)了上世紀(jì)70年代新聞出版業(yè)的一個(gè)顯著特征，那就是《華盛頓郵報(bào)》的老板凱瑟琳•格雷厄姆(Katharine Graham)對(duì)其家族企業(yè)及旗艦產(chǎn)品全心全意的付出。

Graham had other interests, and the film makes clear she cultivated a highly active social circle in the US capital. But the paper was her focal point.

格雷厄姆還有其他興趣所在。影片也展示了，她在華盛頓打造了一個(gè)高度活躍的社交圈。但《華盛頓郵報(bào)》是她工作的焦點(diǎn)。

The news organisation’s current owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, wants to emulate the Graham era. According to the New York Times, he intends to host “salon-style dinners” at the house in Washington that he is renovating. But Mr Bezos’s peripatetic life is a stark contrast to Graham’s focus. He must juggle his ownership of the Post with the fortunes of Blue Origin, his space start-up, his philanthropic interests and the ever-expanding ambitions of Amazon. The complexity makes the linear world of 1970s business look as out of date as the report-type-print-repeat workdays of old-school newspaper journalists.

這家新聞機(jī)構(gòu)如今歸亞馬遜(Amazon)創(chuàng)始人杰夫•貝索斯(Jeff Bezos)所有，而貝索斯想重現(xiàn)格雷厄姆的時(shí)代。據(jù)《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》(New York Times)報(bào)道，他打算在其位于華盛頓的正在翻新的宅子里舉辦“沙龍式晚宴”。但貝索斯到處奔波的生活方式與格雷厄姆的專注形成了鮮明的對(duì)比。他不得不在《華盛頓郵報(bào)》與自己一手創(chuàng)建的太空公司Blue Origin的命運(yùn)、慈善事業(yè)、以及亞馬遜不斷擴(kuò)大的野心之間做出權(quán)衡。這種復(fù)雜性令20世紀(jì)70年代的線性商業(yè)世界看起來(lái)就像老派新聞?dòng)浾邊R報(bào)選題-撰寫(xiě)文稿-印刷出版-周而復(fù)始一般過(guò)時(shí)。

Mr Bezos is not the only one stretched across multiple interests. Many entrepreneurs, executives and directors presume fulfilment can be found in the pursuit of a plural existence. I wonder how they do it.

貝索斯并不是唯一一個(gè)橫跨多重利益關(guān)系的人。許多企業(yè)家、高管和董事都認(rèn)為，可以通過(guò)身兼數(shù)職來(lái)獲得成就感。我想知道這要怎樣才能實(shí)現(xiàn)。

Plenty of authors and consultants are on hand to answer my question. In roughly descending order of usefulness come Morten Hansen’s research-based “do less, then obsess” mantra (which I wrote about here last month), and Dan Pink’s suggestion, in his book When , that we should synchronise our tasks with the most fertile parts of our working day: “If you have even modest control over your schedule, try to nudge your most important work . . . into the peak [period],” he counsels. Get more sleep is Arianna Huffington’s suggestion. The media entrepreneur told me last month she could trace all the mistakes she had made — mainly hiring the wrong people — “to being tired, to running on empty”.

很多作家和顧問(wèn)都已經(jīng)給出了答案。其中最實(shí)用的意見(jiàn)就是莫騰•漢森(Morten Hansen)基于研究提出的“精而專”的策略(上個(gè)月我在本專欄里寫(xiě)過(guò))。其次是丹•平克(Dan Pink)在其所著《When》中給出的建議，即我們應(yīng)該根據(jù)工作日中最高產(chǎn)的時(shí)間段安排任務(wù)：“但凡你對(duì)自己的日程安排能有些許控制，試著將你最重要的工作安排……到效率最高的時(shí)間段。”多睡一點(diǎn)是阿里安娜•赫芬頓(Arianna Huffington)的提議。上個(gè)月，這位傳媒企業(yè)家告訴我，她可以將自己犯的所有錯(cuò)誤——主要是所托非人——歸咎為“太累了，身體要透支了”。

Meanwhile, others persist in wanting to stuff more into the same timetable. In his odd book Principles — part business bible, part autobiography — Ray Dalio, the hedge fund manager, suggests one key to doing more than we think we can is to “recognise that everyone has too much to do”. He writes that “creativity, character and wisdom” differentiate people who can do a lot from those who cannot.

與此同時(shí)，另一些人則堅(jiān)持要把更多的事務(wù)塞進(jìn)一張日程表里。在他的奇書(shū)《原則》(Principles)——一半是商業(yè)圣經(jīng)，一半是自傳——中，對(duì)沖基金經(jīng)理雷•戴利奧(Ray Dalio)認(rèn)為，做得比我們想象得更多的關(guān)鍵之一在于要“認(rèn)識(shí)到每個(gè)人都有太多事情要做”。他寫(xiě)道，“創(chuàng)造力、個(gè)性與智慧”將能做很多事的人和做不到的人區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)。

Personally, I doubt busy bosses have time to read these tips. One director I know has two secretaries, who prepare a colour-coded printout of her electronic diary, which they index by location and function into paper folders filled with briefing sheets.

在我看來(lái)，那些忙碌的老板們恐怕無(wú)暇閱讀這些建議。我認(rèn)識(shí)的一位董事有兩名秘書(shū)。她的電子日程表被這兩名秘書(shū)用色彩標(biāo)注后打印成冊(cè)，按位置和功能索引分放到裝滿簡(jiǎn)報(bào)的紙質(zhì)文件夾中。

In any case, the problem with time management advice is that not all businesspeople have control of their schedule and few are born prioritisers. This is why their overseers have to resort to other tools.

無(wú)論如何，時(shí)間管理建議的問(wèn)題在于，并不是所有商界人士都能控制自己的日程，而且很少有人生來(lái)就會(huì)區(qū)分輕重緩急。這就是為什么他們的監(jiān)督者們不得不求助于其他工具的原因。

Lately, for example, investors and governance advisers have started to red-flag directors’ “overboarding”. The nautical echo is accidental, though appropriate. It refers to the fear that directors with mandates at multiple companies will drown in the paperwork board membership now entails, perhaps dragging down others.

例如，最近，投資者和管理顧問(wèn)們開(kāi)始對(duì)董事“在過(guò)多公司掛職”發(fā)出警告。這種情況是偶然的，即使并無(wú)不妥。這反映出了一種擔(dān)憂，即在多家公司擔(dān)任董事會(huì)被淹沒(méi)在董事會(huì)的海量文書(shū)中，也許也會(huì)把其他人拖下水。

ISS, the proxy adviser, suggests investors withhold votes from directors who sit on more than five public company boards. In the UK, holding three or more chairmanships puts a target on the back of any chair.

代理顧問(wèn)公司ISS建議投資者們不要讓在五個(gè)以上上市公司董事會(huì)任職的董事參與投票。在英國(guó)，在三個(gè)或以上公司擔(dān)任董事會(huì)主席，會(huì)讓自己每一個(gè)位置都淪為靶子。

These are blunt instruments. ISS has a rule of thumb that one chair position equals two non-executive roles, for instance. But unexpected events — a takeover, a disaster, or the unexpected loss of a chief executive — can turn a straightforward part-time position into a demanding full-time job.

這些手段都很生硬。例如，ISS有一條經(jīng)驗(yàn)法則，即一個(gè)主席職位相當(dāng)于兩個(gè)非執(zhí)行董事。但一些突發(fā)事件——如收購(gòu)、災(zāi)難、或意外失去一位首席執(zhí)行官——可能把一項(xiàng)簡(jiǎn)單的兼職工作變成一份要求很高的全職工作。

Successful businesspeople may have more than “modest control of their schedule”. They appoint lieutenants to run the major operations of their businesses — as Mr Bezos has at Amazon. Some, like my director friend, have the money to employ multiple assistants, the patience to handle a complex calendar and the upper body strength to carry around what is in effect a mobile filing cabinet, to meet the demands of a plural portfolio.

成功商人對(duì)自己的日程安排也許不只是“些許控制”。他們指派副手去經(jīng)營(yíng)主要業(yè)務(wù)——就像亞馬遜的貝索斯那樣。有些人，比如我那位董事朋友，有錢(qián)雇用多個(gè)助理，有耐心去應(yīng)付復(fù)雜的日程，還有驚人的臂力隨身帶著一個(gè)移動(dòng)文件柜，以滿足身兼數(shù)職的需要。

But who really knows how close they are to being overwhelmed? To assess how good people are at managing their time and maintaining focus without distraction requires the assessors to have unlikely telepathic powers.

但誰(shuí)又真的知道這些人是否頻臨崩潰呢?要評(píng)估人們有多擅長(zhǎng)管理自身時(shí)間及保持專注，要求評(píng)審者擁有不現(xiàn)實(shí)的心靈感應(yīng)能力。

In the 1950s, before the corporate fitness drive, it was similarly assumed that business leaders were superior physical specimens. Doctors opined that they would not have risen to the top if they did not enjoy above-average health. Then CEOs started dropping dead from strokes and heart attacks.

上世紀(jì)50年代，企業(yè)健身浪潮尚未興起，人們同樣以為商界領(lǐng)袖都有過(guò)人的身體素質(zhì)。醫(yī)生們認(rèn)為，如果這些人的健康沒(méi)有高于常人，就不可能達(dá)到事業(yè)上的巔峰。隨后，首席執(zhí)行官死于中風(fēng)和心臟病發(fā)作事件開(kāi)始頻現(xiàn)。

The wise, prioritising superhumans Mr Dalio applauds are a rarity. His principle that everyone has too much to do should be read by overstretched titans and overboarded directors as a warning, rather than a consolation.

戴利奧稱贊的那些睿智、拎得清輕重緩急的超人實(shí)屬罕見(jiàn)。他所說(shuō)的每個(gè)人都有太多事情要做，應(yīng)該被那些超負(fù)荷工作的企業(yè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人和在過(guò)多公司任職的董事們解讀為一種警告，而不是一種安慰。