????摩根大通（JP Morgan）最近（突然）宣布出現(xiàn)20億美元交易巨虧，一時(shí)輿論嘩然。杰米?戴蒙和他的公關(guān)團(tuán)隊(duì)?wèi)?yīng)對(duì)得如此狼狽，給了我們幾個(gè)“活生生的教訓(xùn)”：

????先了解事實(shí)，再擺明態(tài)度。一個(gè)月前，當(dāng)有關(guān)“倫敦鯨”交易員的報(bào)道見諸報(bào)端，而且這名交易員與摩根大通有關(guān)聯(lián)時(shí)，戴蒙竭力否認(rèn)，稱這不是什么大事。據(jù)《華爾街日?qǐng)?bào)》（the Wall Street Journal）報(bào)道，戴蒙不了解公司交易員交易活動(dòng)的真正范圍和這對(duì)公司構(gòu)成的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，我也同意這一點(diǎn)。快進(jìn)至當(dāng)前：他看起來(lái)就像一名糟糕的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，允許交易員進(jìn)行這個(gè)星球上有史以來(lái)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最大的交易，卻不知這會(huì)對(duì)公司財(cái)務(wù)構(gòu)成怎樣的影響。為什么他要在還沒有真正了解這些活動(dòng)的影響時(shí)，就對(duì)該交易員的活動(dòng)發(fā)表聲明？他典型的瞎逞強(qiáng)做法這次終于搬起石頭砸了自己的腳。他本應(yīng)聽到這些傳言，對(duì)事實(shí)進(jìn)行細(xì)致深入的調(diào)查，總結(jié)出觀點(diǎn)，然后同媒體進(jìn)行溝通。但他沒有選擇這樣做，結(jié)果遭到痛批。活該如此。他違反了危機(jī)管理的基本原則。或許，他本應(yīng)學(xué)習(xí)一下強(qiáng)生（J&J）處理泰諾（Tylenol）感冒藥致命危機(jī)的案例。雖說(shuō)摩根大通的這起事件可能無(wú)關(guān)性命，但鑒于戴蒙曾經(jīng)孤注一擲地否認(rèn)有任何問(wèn)題（而現(xiàn)在問(wèn)題已經(jīng)暴露了），他的公關(guān)工作可真是一團(tuán)糟。

????避免自以為是。在談到自己使盡招數(shù)并抓住機(jī)會(huì)帶領(lǐng)摩根大通度過(guò)整個(gè)金融危機(jī)時(shí)，戴蒙一直吹噓自己重視風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理和審慎地承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。他特別想把摩根大通描繪成與貝爾斯登（Bear Stearns）、雷曼（Lehman）和其他投資銀行那些“不誠(chéng)信的家伙”有顯著區(qū)別的公司。具有更好的多元化。更大的業(yè)務(wù)廣度。更好的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)控制。這些就是摩根大通身上世界無(wú)敵的標(biāo)識(shí)，也使得它基本上不受大批同行所面臨的問(wèn)題困擾。導(dǎo)致巨額損失的兩項(xiàng)因素：溝通失敗和缺乏風(fēng)險(xiǎn)控制，與戴蒙對(duì)摩根大通的描述可謂格格不入。如果你把自己置于希臘圣山奧林匹斯山上，而一旦信息與現(xiàn)實(shí)錯(cuò)位，你就很容易栽大跟頭——就像這個(gè)案例一樣。

????With the web afire with criticism over JP Morgan's recently announced (and unexpected) $2 billion trading loss, a few "life lessons" came to mind as to how Jamie Dimon - and his PR department - bungled this badly:

????Know the facts before taking a stand. When news of a "London Whale" came to light a month ago, and this trader was linked to JP Morgan, Dimon issued a strenuous denial that this was a big deal. According to the Wall Street Journal, and I'd tend to agree with them, Dimon didn't understand the true extent of his trader's activities or the risks it posed to the firm. Fast-forward to today: he looks like a terrible leader, one who allowed a trader one of the biggest risk books on the planet without knowing how it was impacting the firm's financial position. Why on earth would he make a statement about this trader's activities without truly understanding their impact in depth? His typical bravado backfired in this case. He should have heard the rumblings, did a deep forensic dive into the facts, developed a view and then communicated to the media. He chose not to follow this approach and got absolutely skewered. And deservedly so. He failed Crisis Management 101. Perhaps he should have learned from J&J's handling of the Tylenol scare. Lives may not be at risk here, but given how far out on a limb he had gone in denying any problem (and now knowledge of the problem) his PR morass is pretty hairy.

????Avoid taking self-righteous positions. For all the skill and opportunism with which Dimon navigated JP Morgan through the financial crisis, he has long touted his emphasis on risk management and on prudent risk-taking. He specifically sought to paint his firm as distinctly different than those "cowboys" at Bear Stearns, Lehman and the other investment banks. Better diversification. Greater breadth. Better risk controls. These were the hallmarks of JP Morgan (JPM) as a world-beater, largely immune to the troubles of its bulge bracket peers. Both the communication breakdown and lack of risk controls giving rise to this massive loss are completely at odds with his characterization of the firm. If you put yourself on the top of Mt. Olympus, you are always prone to a nasty fall if messaging and reality are found to be mis-aligned - as they are in this case.