Business Adventures: Twelve Classic Tales from the World of Wall Street. Chapter 7. The Impacted Philosophers

本章以1961年电气制造业价格垄断丑闻为例，深入探讨了公司沟通中错综复杂且往往充满矛盾的领域。作者首先观察到，无论是工业家还是知识分子，都普遍关注沟通挑战，并质疑为什么尽管进行了大量研究，误解仍然存在。 由参议员埃斯特斯·凯福弗领导的参议院小组委员会关于价格垄断阴谋的听证会，详细展示了通用电气（GE）内部的沟通崩溃，通用电气是涉及此案的最大公司。该丑闻揭露了GE和其他公司合谋操纵价格并操纵大型电气设备的招标，给纳税人和公用事业客户造成了数百万美元的损失。这些公司的高管们设计了周密的计划来掩盖他们的会议，但最终被司法部曝光。 本章重点强调了GE作为自由市场典范的公众形象与实际的价格垄断行为之间明显的鸿沟。它探讨了对被判有罪的高管施加的惩罚，包括监禁刑期，以及随后的反应，从最初的媒体报道到对最高公司层面的虚伪的怀疑。法官盖尼怀疑那些对公司负责的人不可能不知道这些非法活动，这表明了一种公司文化，在这种文化中，违反法律是被纵容的，甚至是通过暗示和默许来间接鼓励的。 证词显示，GE沟通问题的核心在于“指令政策20.5”，这是一项禁止与竞争对手勾结的公司规定。然而，许多员工似乎并没有认真对待它，认为它只是法律上的门面功夫。一些高管在重申20.5时，会眨眼示意，表示该规则应该被忽视。 本章重点关注了罗伯特·帕克斯顿（一位以反对“眨眼”而闻名的GE高管）和威廉·S·金（他承认无视帕克斯顿不眨眼的命令）等关键人物的证词。金声称他遵循了来自其他上级Urban和Fehrman的相互矛盾的命令，他们更“能言善辩、更具说服力、更强有力”。金的证词引入了“沟通程度”的概念，并强调了哲学上的统一在商业决策中的重要性。 本章进一步探讨了个人如何解读和执行上级的指示，以及上级如何努力辨别下属话语的实际含义。像弗兰克·E·斯泰利克这样谈论通过发自内心的“影响”进行沟通的高管，展示了对公司文化的认知如何影响决策。雷蒙德·W·史密斯描述了他与上级文森特的交往，文森特误解了史密斯所传达信息的根本性质，这种误解将影响文森特在GE中的地位。 最终，本章得出结论，GE的沟通问题是复杂的，涉及信任的崩溃、缺乏明确的道德指导以及公司文化的影响。它暗示沟通的技术层面只是问题的一部分；还必须考虑个人在公司中的身份认同。作者认为，无论是否是故意的，沟通都可以有效地发生。虽然惩罚可能在短期内阻止了价格垄断，但真正的问题仍然是有效沟通的根本能力是否得到了提高。

This chapter delves into the intricate and often paradoxical world of corporate communication, using the example of the 1961 electrical manufacturing industry price-fixing scandal as a case study. The author starts by observing a widespread preoccupation with communication challenges among industrialists and intellectuals alike, questioning why, despite numerous studies, misunderstandings persist. The Senate subcommittee hearings led by Senator Estes Kefauver on the price-fixing conspiracies offered a detailed look into the communication breakdown within General Electric (GE), the largest company involved. The scandal revealed that GE and other companies had conspired to fix prices and rig bids on large electrical equipment, costing taxpayers and utility customers millions. Executives from these companies had devised elaborate schemes to conceal their meetings, but were eventually exposed by the Justice Department. The chapter highlights the apparent chasm between GE's public image as a paragon of free-market virtue and the actual practice of price-fixing. It explores the penalties imposed on the convicted executives, including prison sentences, and the subsequent reactions, from initial press coverage to suspicions of hypocrisy at the highest corporate levels. Judge Gainey's skepticism that the illegal activities could have been unknown to those responsible for the corporation points to a corporate culture where violating the law was condoned, and even implicitly encouraged, through winks and nods. The core of the communication problem at GE, as revealed in the testimony, centers around "Directive Policy 20.5," a company rule forbidding collusion with competitors. However, it appeared that many employees did not take it seriously, seeing it as mere legal window dressing. Some executives, while reiterating 20.5, would wink, signaling that the rule should be disregarded. The chapter focuses on the testimony of key figures like Robert Paxton, a GE executive known for his opposition to "winking," and William S. Gin, who admitted to disregarding Paxton's winkless order. Gin claimed he followed conflicting orders from other superiors, Urban and Fehrman, who were more "articulate, persuasive, and forceful." Gin's testimony introduces the concept of "degrees of communication" and emphasizes the importance of philosophical alignment in business decisions. The chapter further examines how individuals interpreted and acted upon directives from superiors, and how a superior struggled to discern the actual meaning of a subordinate's words. Executives like Frank E. Stellick, who spoke of communication through visceral "impacts," demonstrated how perceptions of company culture influenced decisions. Raymond W. Smith described encounters with his superior Vincent who misunderstood the underlying nature of what Smith was communicating, a miscommunication that would affect Vincent's own status within GE. Ultimately, the chapter concludes that the communication problem at GE was complex, involving a breakdown in trust, a lack of clear ethical guidance, and the influence of corporate culture. It implies that the technical aspects of communication are only part of the issue; personal identity within the corporation must be considered as well. The author suggests that communication can occur effectively whether intended or not. While the penalties may have discouraged price-fixing in the short term, the real question remained whether the fundamental ability to communicate effectively had improved.