违反常识的行为守则
我违反了雇主的行为守则。不仅是以一个方式，而是以四个不同方式，其中之一涉及公然撒谎。
The normal thing would be to keep quiet about this, but I am choosing to shop myself, partly because I have reason to believe I am in good company but also because the real wrongdoing was not done by me, but by the codes themselves — which breach the principles of common sense, human motivation, and snappy writing.
正常做法是对此保持沉默，但我选择“出卖”自己，部分原因是我有理由相信，跟我处境相同的人很多，但也是因为真正过错并不在我，而在于守则本身违反了常识、人类动机和简洁明快写作的原则。
Codes of conduct are scary things. Charlotte Hogg, who helped write the Bank of England’s code and who is also an adviser to my charity, still managed to get tripped up by it and this month had to resign as deputy governor. Seeing what happened to her, I decided to do something I had never done before: settle down to read my own.
行为守则是可怕之物。夏洛特•霍格(Charlotte Hogg)曾帮助英国央行(BoE)起草行为守则，目前也是我的慈善机构的顾问。可她仍在行为准则方面跌了跟头，被迫于本月辞任英国央行副行长。看到了发生在她身上的事之后，我决定做一件过去从未做过的事情：安静下来读一读自己要遵守的行为守则。
The first thing the Financial Times’ corporate code of conduct demands is that employees “act in a professional, honest and ethical manner” — which is fine, if a little general. But by the second bullet point I had already come a cropper: “Be familiar with the information contained in this code,” it orders. In my defence I have tried to read it on various occasions in past years but I am a slow reader and nine pages of dull text is a bit much.
英国《金融时报》的企业行为守则的第一条，是要求员工“以专业、诚实和道德的方式行事”——这是不错的，只是笼统了一点儿。但在第二个要点上，我已经遭到惨败;它命令道：“熟悉本守则所含信息。”我得为自己辩护一下，过去几年我曾多次尝试阅读该守则，但我读得慢，而9页的枯燥文字让我觉得有点儿多。
This does not make me an outlier. It makes me just like most humans, who are not naturally drawn to the small print on health and safety policies.
这不会使我成为外人。它使我就像大多数人类一样——在自然情况下，他们不会对健康与安全政策的细节感兴趣。
In the past week I have asked everyone I have met if they have read their employers’ codes of conduct. The majority either said no or looked sheepish and said they had skimmed it. Some claimed to have read theirs, but when asked what it contained could do no better than: “Oh you know, the usual stuff.”
过去一周里，我询问了遇到的所有人，是否阅读了各自雇主的行为守则。大多数人不是回答没有，就是神情羞怯，说自己浏览过了。有些人声称阅读过，但在被问到里面包含什么内容时，只能回答：“哦，你知道的，通常的那类东西”。
This means every year, millions of wage slaves — including me — commit another violation and perjure themselves by ticking a box claiming to have read, understood and committed to complying with the code, when they have done nothing of the sort.
这意味着，包括我在内的数以百万计的工资奴隶每年都触犯了另一项规定，在一个方格内打勾、宣称自己已阅读、理解并致力于遵守行为守则——其实他们根本没有做。
The next breach concerns my obligation to report any colleague who is not following the code. I know for a fact that a certain FT journalist has not read it properly either, in which case I am again at fault for not shopping him.
下一个违反规定涉及我的一项义务：举报任何未遵守守则的同事。我确实知道某位FT记者也没有认真阅读行为守则，而我犯下了没有出卖他的过错。
But to grass up a person for something so tiny would interfere with my own ethical principle of not sneaking on a friend, especially one who is a fine, upstanding journalist. So what should I do? On this, as on every tricky, real-life dilemma, a code of conduct is of no help at all.
但是，为了如此微不足道的事儿而举报一个人，违反我自己的道德原则——不告发朋友、尤其是一位能干正直的记者。那我该怎么做?在这一点上，就像每一个棘手的、现实生活中的困境一样，行为守则丝毫没有帮助。
As for the rest of the code, it is perfectly sensible in a general sort of way. Alas I fear the state of my desk may not be 100 per cent compliant with fire regulations, and I see I have an obligation “to read, understand and abide by our Treasury Policy, Travel and Expenses Policy and Data Retention and Destruction Policy” — which saps the spirits no end.
行为守则的其他内容笼统地说是完全明智的。唉，我担心我的办公桌状况或许并非100%符合消防规定，我看到我有义务“阅读、理解并遵守我们的财务政策、差旅费用政策以及数据保留与销毁政策”——这有点没完没了。
Yet by comparison to most other codes, the FT’s is a work of brevity and precision. At my alma mater, JPMorgan, the new code runs to 50 pages, beginning with a picture of Jamie Dimon smiling angelically and staring into the middle distance. There are further pictures of happy women and black people, as well as one of employees throwing buckets of water over each others’ heads. How the latter relates to the commandment that all JPMorgan staff treat each other with dignity, it does not say. The report is an interminable mish-mash of important things and trivial ones — of strict regulations on money laundering and vague waffle about being a good global citizen. Which is nonsensical in a code of conduct. What does it mean? And what business is it of the bank’s?
然而，与其他多数公司相比，英国《金融时报》的行为守则堪称简洁和精确的典范。在我的老东家摩根大通(JPMorgan)，新版行为守则长达50页，起始页是杰米•戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)的一张照片，他天使般微笑着，注视着不远处。内页还有其他照片：一些开心的女性和黑人，还有一名员工往其他人头上倒整桶水——不明白这与摩根大通的所有员工应该尊严对待彼此的戒律如何相容。这份守则是一份同时含有重要事项和琐碎事项的冗长清单：既有关于洗钱的严格规定，也有做良好全球公民的泛泛而谈;把后者放在行为守则中是荒谬的。它的涵义是什么?它跟银行业务有什么关系?
I would rather a code that came without the pictures, the values and the cloying letter from the chief executive, but with a simple list of clear commandments. A reasonable start might be: Don’t do anything illegal. Don’t do anything that fails the Private Eye test — would it look ugly if published in the satirical magazine? Don’t do anything that you would be ashamed to tell your colleagues about.
我宁愿看到一份没有照片、价值观和令人腻烦的首席执行官信件、但有一个包含清晰戒律的简要清单的行为守则。合理的开篇也许是这样：不要做任何违法之事。不要做经不起《Private Eye》考验的任何事——如果这件事被公布在这本讽刺杂志上，会难看吗?不要做你羞于告诉同事的任何事。
The trouble with this is that it misses what a code of conduct is really for — part PR exercise, part excuse for firing anyone who a manager deems to have violated it. Sometimes, as the Bank of England has found out, the trap catches the wrong person.
这样做的麻烦在于，它失去了行为守则的真正目的——部分是公关努力，部分是被经理用作炒掉某人的借口。正如英国央行所发现的，有时陷阱会逮住不该被抓的人。
