????6月16日，紐約州最高法院華裔法官翁家駒給出了一份長(zhǎng)達(dá)63頁(yè)的判決書，裁定零售商J.C. Penney公司試圖在J.C. Penney商場(chǎng)中開設(shè)瑪莎?斯圖沃特（Martha Stewart）店面的行為屬于侵權(quán)干擾行為。2011年，羅恩?約翰遜執(zhí)掌J.C. Penney的時(shí)候宣布了這筆交易。翁家駒法官裁定，它違反了瑪莎?斯圖沃特公司早前與梅西百貨（Macy’s）簽訂的協(xié)議中所包含的條款。損害賠償將由一名特別專家或鑒定人確定。

????翁家駒法官做出這個(gè)裁決是意料之中的事。他之前就曾經(jīng)發(fā)布初步的禁令，禁止J.C. Penney公司開設(shè)瑪莎?斯圖沃特店面，禁止它銷售這個(gè)品牌的大部分產(chǎn)品。約翰遜最終敗走J.C. Penney有很多原因，這筆不幸流產(chǎn)的交易只是其中的一個(gè)。

????上面的這個(gè)裁決使我們認(rèn)識(shí)到，約翰遜的管理方式很大程度上是在學(xué)習(xí)他的導(dǎo)師兼前老板史蒂夫?喬布斯著名的“現(xiàn)實(shí)扭曲力場(chǎng)”，而更重要的是，這種管理方式出了蘋果公司（Apple）往往行不通。

????約翰遜入主J.C. Penney 公司的時(shí)候曾經(jīng)堅(jiān)信，他在蘋果的經(jīng)驗(yàn)（他一手打造的蘋果商店現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)是全美最賺錢的零售集團(tuán)）將是一個(gè)巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。J.C. Penney的董事會(huì)也這么想；事實(shí)上，這是他們選擇約翰遜的主要原因。約翰遜入主J.C. Penney后舉行的首次派對(duì)不禁令人想起喬布斯的MacWorld大會(huì)；他給J.C. Penney公司的品牌和標(biāo)識(shí)增添了干凈、純白的美感；他雇了幾位來自蘋果的老將；而且他不斷談起自己與喬布斯關(guān)系有多密切，反復(fù)提起蘋果公司的處事方法。

????喬布斯被奉為創(chuàng)意天才無可厚非，但他同時(shí)也是位好勝心爆棚的強(qiáng)勢(shì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。喬布斯的兇悍——加上幾乎能說服所有人接受任何事的意志力——被他身邊的人稱之為喬布斯的“現(xiàn)實(shí)扭曲”力場(chǎng)。約翰遜正是在模仿喬布斯的這個(gè)特質(zhì)，試圖讓人們相信，J.C. Penney公司其實(shí)并沒有侵犯梅西百貨早前與瑪莎?斯圖沃特簽署的協(xié)議。

????作為證據(jù)提交給法院的電子郵件顯示，約翰遜成功說服了自己，相信自己已經(jīng)贏了，盡管連他自己的律師都擔(dān)心這筆交易不合法。約翰遜在給J.C. Penney雇員、前蘋果零售業(yè)務(wù)老員工丹尼爾?沃克的郵件中寫道：“我對(duì)大戰(zhàn)略感覺好極了。我得搞定瑪莎。我得拿出好的交易，讓她去跟梅西百貨的（首席執(zhí)行官）特里?倫德格倫終止合約。”約翰遜有些幸災(zāi)樂禍地暗示，倫德格倫聽到J.C. Penney與瑪莎的交易后估計(jì)要“頭痛”了，而且很快會(huì)變成“重度偏頭痛”。

????瑪莎?斯圖沃特告知倫德格倫自己與J.C. Penney簽約之后，約翰遜作出的反應(yīng)令翁家駒法官驚訝不已。法官寫道：“簡(jiǎn)直令人難以置信，（約翰遜）完全無視事情的嚴(yán)重性。他在給（董事會(huì)成員）威廉?阿克曼的郵件中寫道：‘媒體反響良好。我們把特里逼上了絕路。通常出現(xiàn)這種情況的時(shí)候，人們就會(huì)處于防御狀態(tài)，往往會(huì)做出錯(cuò)誤的決定。這是好事。’而在給董事會(huì)成員史蒂芬?羅斯的郵件中，約翰遜寫道：“......外界越認(rèn)為JCP和瑪莎干得漂亮，他就越不會(huì)干涉……”

????翁家駒法官表示，事實(shí)上，由于J.C. Penney的傲慢態(tài)度，事態(tài)在向著完全相反的方向發(fā)展。“倫德格倫先生和梅西百貨所不知道的是，在JCP與瑪莎公司初步確立合作關(guān)系這件事情上，約翰遜先生對(duì)他們的態(tài)度是“沒得商量”。約翰遜先生顯然以為，面對(duì)JCP‘如此猛烈的進(jìn)攻’，梅西會(huì)‘乖乖地收拾玩具回家’。然而，JCP和約翰遜先生徹頭徹尾地錯(cuò)了。”

????自然，以為領(lǐng)袖必須相信自己所做的決定是正確的。但上面這個(gè)案例表明，你認(rèn)定是對(duì)的并不意味著它真的就是對(duì)的，跟喬布斯怎么說沒關(guān)系。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：項(xiàng)航

????On June 16, New York State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Oing issued a 63-page decision in which he found that retailer J.C. Penney JCP 2.78% had committed tortious interference in its attempt to develop a Martha Stewart store inside JC Penney stores. The deal, announced in 2011 as Ron Johnson took Penney’s helm, violated the terms of a preexisting deal that Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia MSO -0.89% had with Macy’s M 1.29% , the judge ruled. Damages will be determined by a special master or referee.

????The decision surprised no one. Oing had previously issued a preliminary injunction barring Penney from building the stores and selling most of the products. The ill-fated deal was just one of the many choices that contributed to Johnson’s ultimate failure.

????The decision also sheds light on how closely Johnson’s own approach to management hewed to the “reality distortion field” made famous by his prior boss and mentor, Steve Jobs—and, more important—how infrequently such an approach can succeed outside of Apple.

????When Johnson took the helm at J.C. Penney, he brought with him a strong belief that his Apple experience—he built the company’s stores, now the most profitable retail group in the country—would be a huge plus. So did Penney’s board of directors; indeed, it was the main reason he was selected. Johnson held a coming out party eerily reminiscent of Jobs’ MacWorld events; he added a clean, white aesthetic to the company’s branding and logo; he hired several Apple veterans; and he talked constantly about his closeness to Jobs and the Apple way of doing things.

????Jobs was rightfully lionized as a creative genius, but he was also a fiercely competitive leader who simply could not bear to lose. That ferocity—plus a force of will that could convince just about anyone of anything—was referred to by people around him as his “reality distortion” field. And it is this trait that we see Johnson emulating in his attempt to convince the world that Penney was not, in fact, infringing upon Macy’s earlier agreement with Martha Stewart’s company.

????The emails presented as evidence in the case show a leader who had already convinced himself that he had won—regardless of the fact that even his own counsel worried about the deal’s legality. As Johnson wrote in an email to Daniel Walker, an Apple retail veteran he had hired at Penney: “I’m feeling awesome about grand strategy. I need to pull off Martha. I need to propose a deal so she can go to Terry [Lundgren] at Macy’s and break their agreement. That is the only issue in way of success at this point.” Johnson suggested, with some glee, that Lundgren would probably “have a headache,” when he heard about the JCP deal, one that would soon develop into a “full on migraine.”

????The judge was clearly astonished by Johnson’s reaction after Martha Stewart announced to Lundgren that she had signed on with Penney. “Incredibly,” the judge wrote, “ignoring the seriousness of what had just transpired, Mr. Johnson wrote to [board member] William Ackman: ‘Media good as well. We put Terry in a corner. Normally when that happens and you get someone on the defensive they make bad decisions. This is good.’ And to board member Steven Roth, he wrote ‘…the more this is seen as brilliant for JCP and Martha the more he won’t want to interfere…’”

????In fact, the opposite became true as a result of the company’s cavalier attitude, Oing observed. “Unbeknownst to Mr. Lundgren and Macy’s, Mr. Johnson’s attitude towards them with respect to JCP’s budding relationship with MSLO was take it or leave it. Mr. Johnson aptly described the scene as making JCP’s ‘offensive so strong’ that Macy’s would ‘simply pick up their toys and go home.’ JCP and Mr. Johnson could not have been more wrong.”

????It is axiomatic that leaders must believe that they have made the right decisions. But as this case shows, believing that they are right does not make it so—no matter what Steve Jobs would have said.