????本期,，《財(cái)富》書評(píng)欄目250 Words的山姆?麥克納尼將采訪馬克斯?巴澤曼,。巴澤曼是哈佛大學(xué)肯尼迪學(xué)院（Harvard Kennedy School）公共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力中心（Center for Public Leadership）聯(lián)席主任，哈佛商學(xué)院（Harvard Business School）施特勞斯教席教授,，曾出版過(guò)多部作品,。他的新書《警覺的力量：最優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人會(huì)看到什么？》（The Power of Noticing: What The Best Leaders See）探討了如何通過(guò)一些偵探工作,，做出最佳商業(yè)決策,。

????山姆與巴澤曼談?wù)摿松探绱蠓磁刹?麥道夫和杰弗里?思科林，我們從魔術(shù)師身上可以學(xué)到什么,？以及要成為“一流的觀察者”需要哪些條件,？

????麥克納尼：最近出版的另外一本書《思考，快與慢》（Thinking, Fast and Slow）中,，丹尼爾?卡尼曼談到了一種比較棘手的傾向,，即人們只會(huì)考慮顯而易見的信息。他還用一個(gè)縮寫來(lái)代表這種情形：WYSIATI,，意思是“眼見即為事實(shí)(What You See Is All There Is)”,。而你卻寫道“眼見不見得是事實(shí)?！蔽覀兪栌诳紤]唾手可得的額外信息,。這種情況能改變嗎？

????巴澤曼：丹尼?卡尼曼和我在這方面確實(shí)有點(diǎn)分歧,。他的著作中提到,，人類會(huì)根據(jù)眼見為實(shí)的想法行事，并且提出了有力的證據(jù)支持這種立場(chǎng),。而《觀察的力量》則主要討論尋找額外信息帶來(lái)的好處,。一流的觀察者與大多數(shù)人的區(qū)別在于，他們會(huì)超越丹尼精確描述的局限性,。

????我們都可以成為我所說(shuō)的“一流的觀察者”,。第一步是從周圍尋找重要信息，并將其作為一項(xiàng)日常工作,。其次,，我建議在強(qiáng)烈的專注之后休息一下,，檢查你可能錯(cuò)過(guò)了哪些信息。強(qiáng)烈的專注是成功專業(yè)人士的典型特點(diǎn),。第三,，詢問有哪些組織結(jié)構(gòu)特性可能妨礙了員工注意到關(guān)鍵信息，并采取措施對(duì)組織結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行改革,，對(duì)于指出組織面臨的重大威脅和挑戰(zhàn)的員工，要給予獎(jiǎng)勵(lì),。

????最后,，你需要比那些為麥道夫“送錢”的對(duì)沖基金和賓夕法尼亞州州立大學(xué)（Penn State）的高管們做得更好，一旦發(fā)現(xiàn)任何錯(cuò)誤跡象,，都要更仔細(xì)地觀察,。

????伯尼?麥道夫。杰弗里?思科林,。每一個(gè)行業(yè)都有壞人,。但你在書中說(shuō)，他們或許并不是真正的問題——相反,，那些或許無(wú)意間做出的看似微不足道的不公決定,，以及雖然無(wú)辜但保持沉默的旁觀者，反而會(huì)造成最大的傷害,。

????壞人會(huì)不斷出現(xiàn),。未來(lái)十年，又會(huì)出現(xiàn)新一批惡棍,，哲學(xué)家和宗教領(lǐng)袖們對(duì)此也束手無(wú)策,。但心理學(xué)家卻研究出一系列工具，可以幫助我們更有效地發(fā)現(xiàn)和應(yīng)對(duì)其他人的不道德行為,。如果當(dāng)初本該有警惕性的人能采取一些措施,，恐怕麥道夫會(huì)提前許多年鋃鐺入獄。然而,，通常情況下,，人們不會(huì)看到會(huì)造成短期負(fù)面影響的信息。我們不會(huì)看到我們聘用的員工的局限性,，或者我們選擇的投資所面臨的倫理挑戰(zhàn),。

????For this installment, 250 Words’ Sam McNerney sits down with Max Bazerman. Bazerman is the co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School, the Straus Professor at the Harvard Business School, and the author of numerous books. His latest, The Power of Noticing: What The Best Leaders See, explores how to make the best business decisions by deploying a little corporate detective work.

????Sam talks to Bazerman about arch corporate villains Bernie Madoff and Jeffrey Skilling, what we can learn from magicians, and what it takes to be a “first-class noticer.”

????McNerney: In another recent book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman talks about our intractable tendency to only consider readily apparent information. He even has an acronym for it: WYSIATI, or What You See Is All There Is. You write that “what you see is not all there is.” We fail to consider additional information, even when it’s available. Is there hope for us?

????Bazerman: Danny Kahneman and I do not disagree here. His wonderful book argues that humans act as if what they see is all there is, and there is amazing evidence supportive of this position. The Power of Noticing focuses on the benefits of seeking additional information. First-class noticers differ from most of us in that they move beyond the limitations that Danny so accurately describes.

????We can all move toward becoming what I call first-class noticers. The first step is to put it on your agenda to look around to see what information around you is important. Second, I recommend taking a break from the intense focus that is typical of successful professionals and ask what information you might be missing. Third, ask what features of your organization may be preventing employees from noticing critical information, and take steps to change the organization to reward people for noticing key threats and challenges to the organization.

????And, finally, you need to do better than the hedge funds that fed money to Madoff, and the executives at Penn State, and take a closer look when something seems wrong.

????Bernie Madoff. Jeffrey Skilling. There are bad guys in every industry. But you write that maybe they’re not the real problem—that instead, there are actually a lot of little, maybe unwitting nefarious decisions and innocent but silent bystanders that really do the most harm. Could you talk about how “implicit blindness” can lure good people into unethical behavior?

????There will always be bad guys. In the next decade, new crooks will emerge, and philosophers and religious leaders haven’t provided too many insights on how to stop them. But psychology has unlocked a number of tools to help the rest of us do a better job of seeing and acting on the unethical behavior of others. Madoff would have been caught many years earlier if those who should have noticed had acted on what they saw. But, too often, people do not see information that would cause short-term negative effects. We do not see the limitations of the employee we hired or the possible ethical challenges of the investment that we chose.