親愛的大眾：吹?？梢?，但千萬不要造假

????企業界，以及跑企業口的記者，總喜歡搞一點無傷大雅的夸張之辭。史上最好！全新升級！性能空前增強！

????實際上，不僅商界喜歡夸大其辭，全社會都如此。美國總統候選人唐納德?特朗普眼下人氣大漲便是一個最新的佐證，呃，那是來自現實、高于現實的吹牛皮大王。

????但正如大眾公司這次的丑聞所示，我們也是有底線的。自9月18日該公司承認在汽車中安裝軟件，從而在美國環保局的尾氣排放測試中造假以來，其股價一天下跌了近20%。

????沒人知道這家銷售額高達2210億美元的全球最大車企接下來會發生什么，也沒人知道這次造假的源頭是否會一直追蹤到首席執行官馬丁?溫特科恩。但如果大眾選擇的是對測試結果夸大其詞，而不是徹底造假，那又會發生什么呢？

????不要誤解我的意思：我絕不支持任何形式的性能標準造假，尤其是那些與安全和健康相關的。不過這次的舉動實在是厚顏無恥，肆無忌憚得讓人吃驚，大眾的品牌和企業文化恐怕在很長一段時間內都難以恢復正常。

????這次造假遠非一兩個人躲在辦公室格子間里能夠實現，一定有多達數百人牽涉其中，才能構建這樣的系統，并確保將它裝進42.8萬輛汽車中。如果這家公司把智商用在設法滿足排放標準，而不是繞開它上面，它可能會非常成功。

????想象一下另一番情景：大眾信誓旦旦地聲稱，該公司的柴油發動機能滿足美國環保局的標準。然后，在經過一番嘗試之后，他們還是沒能滿足標準。美國環保局（值得一提的是，該機構主要依賴各家車企的自測數據）測試了大眾汽車的引擎（但愿如此），發現它沒有滿足標準，然后對該公司罰款。這種錯誤依舊代價很大，但不至于那么令人驚訝。大眾的公信力也不會徹底垮掉。畢竟，吹牛不管好壞都是“潛規則”，而造假則完全破壞了游戲規則。（財富中文網）

????譯者：嚴匡正

????審校：任文科

????The business world—and the journalists who cover it—have always rewarded a healthy bit of hype. Best Ever! New and Improved! Now with enhanced whatevers!

????Actually, the love of the big claim goes far beyond the business world and is interwoven throughout society. Donald Trump’s current popularity is only the latest example of bombast, er, trumping reality.

????But we do have limits, as the scandal at Volkswagen shows. So far, the company’s stock price has fallen almost 20% since it admitted on September 18 that it had installed software that allowed its cars to fake their performance on emissions testing in order to fool the EPA.

????No one knows what will happen to the $221 billion in sales car company—the world’s largest—going forward, and whether the deception stretches all the way to the CEO, Martin Winterkorn. But one wonders what would have happened had the company opted for exaggerating its results rather than falsifying them.

????Don’t get me wrong: I’m not advocating that any performance standards—particularly those that affect safety and health—should ever be presented with anything but the full truth. But this move was so brazen, so breathtakingly full of chutzpah, that it is hard to imagine VW’s brand recovering for a very, very long time; nor, one imagines, will its culture.

????The plot goes far beyond one or two people hiding out in a cubicle and must have involved hundreds of people building such a system and making sure it was implemented inside of 428,000 cars. One wonders what the company might have been able to accomplish instead if it put all that brainpower toward meeting emissions requirements rather than circumventing them.

????Consider the alternative: VW tried—and failed—to meet the EPA’s emissions standards, after saying that they believed they had diesel engines that did the job. The EPA (which, it’s worth noting, relies primarily onself-tested data) would have—hopefully—tested its engines, found Volkswagen deficient, and fined the company. It would have been costly, yes, but it wouldn’t have been all that surprising. And VW’s credibility wouldn’t have been destroyed in the process. After all, exaggeration, for better or worse, is just how the game is played.