異類(lèi)之不一樣的成功啟示錄 第136期:飛機(jī)失事的原因

Ratwatte continued, "All the guy had to do was tell the controller, 'we don't have fuel to comply with what you're trying to do.'

他繼續(xù)說(shuō)："所有飛行員必須同空管員講明，我們沒(méi)有足夠的燃油可以支持我們飛達(dá)指定機(jī)場(chǎng)。"

All they had to do was say, 'We can't do that. We have to land in the next ten minutes.'They weren't able to put that across to the controller"

他們必須去說(shuō)清楚‘我們無(wú)法達(dá)成你給的指令，我們必須在十分鐘內(nèi)著陸。'他們沒(méi)有同空管員表達(dá)清楚。"

It was clear that Ratwatte was speaking carefully, because he was making the kind of cultural generalization that often leaves us uncomfortable.

很顯然懷特瓦特在敘述時(shí)很謹(jǐn)慎，因?yàn)樗岬降奈幕顒e經(jīng)常會(huì)讓大家很不舒服。

But what happened with Avianca was just so strange-so inexplicable-

但發(fā)生在阿維安卡的事故非常離奇——這起事故的原因遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法用表面現(xiàn)象解釋清楚——

that it demanded a more complete explanation than simply that Klotz was incompetent and the captain was tired.

這絕不只是克魯茲失職和機(jī)長(zhǎng)疲憊這么簡(jiǎn)單，整件事的背后有著更加復(fù)雜的原因。

There was something more profound- more structural- going on in that cockpit.

在事故發(fā)生的過(guò)程中，駕駛艙內(nèi)一定發(fā)生了重要的事情。

What if there was something about the pilots' being Columbian that led to that crash?

是否可以說(shuō)，由于飛行員是位哥倫比亞人，所以導(dǎo)致了飛機(jī)失事？

"Look, no American pilot would put up with that. That's the thing," Ratwatte said.

"看，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)飛行員不會(huì)容忍這一切發(fā)生，這是問(wèn)題所在。"

"They would just say, 'Listen, buddy. I have to land.'"

懷特瓦特繼續(xù)說(shuō)道，"他們會(huì)說(shuō)，聽(tīng)著，哥們兒，我必須著陸"。

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede was working for the human resources department of IBM's European headquarters.

1960年到1970年間，荷蘭的心理學(xué)家吉特·霍夫斯泰德一直在IBM歐洲總部的人力資源部門(mén)工作。

Hofstede's job was to travel the globe, interviewing employees, asking questions about things like

他的工作主要是到世界各地去走訪當(dāng)?shù)氐墓蛦T，隨之提出一些問(wèn)題。

how people solve problems and how they work together and what their attitudes were to authority.

例如，人們解決問(wèn)題的方式、團(tuán)隊(duì)工作的方式、雇員對(duì)權(quán)威的態(tài)度，

The questionnaires were long and involved,

問(wèn)卷很長(zhǎng)而且非常詳細(xì)。

and over time Hofstede was able to develop an enormous database for analyzing the ways in which cultures differ from one another.

經(jīng)過(guò)一段很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間，霍夫斯泰德建立起一個(gè)龐大的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)，用來(lái)分析文化之間的不同。

Today, "Hofstede's Dimensions" are one of the most widely used paradigms in crosscultural psychology.

今天"霍夫斯泰德維度"已經(jīng)被廣泛地應(yīng)用于跨文化心理學(xué)研究中。

Hofstede argued, for example, the cultures can be usefully distinguished according to how much they expect inpiduals to look after themselves.

霍夫斯泰德提出，根據(jù)個(gè)人關(guān)心自我、看重自我的程度就可以有效地區(qū)分出文化的不同。

He called that the "inpidualism collectivism scale."

他把這種衡量方法稱(chēng)為"個(gè)人主義和集體主義范疇"。

The country that scores the highest on the inpidualism end of that scale is United States.

如在國(guó)家之間進(jìn)行比較，那么美國(guó)的個(gè)人主義傾向性最高，

Not surprisingly, the United States is also the only industrialized country in the world that does not provide its citizens with universal healthcare.

毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)，美國(guó)也是世界上唯一一個(gè)不給公民提供全程醫(yī)療保險(xiǎn)的工業(yè)國(guó)家。

At the opposite end of that scale is Guatemala.

個(gè)人主義傾向性最低的國(guó)家是危地馬拉。