????“占領(lǐng)華爾街”運(yùn)動(dòng)讓旁觀者滿是疑問(wèn)：這些人是誰(shuí)？他們究竟想要什么？下個(gè)城市將是哪一個(gè)？我們的政府官員將如何應(yīng)對(duì)？示威活動(dòng)已進(jìn)入第二個(gè)月，何時(shí)才會(huì)完全結(jié)束？提出這些問(wèn)題，是試圖理解這場(chǎng)錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜、迅速蔓延并正在引發(fā)社會(huì)階層對(duì)立的運(yùn)動(dòng)，試圖解釋正在發(fā)生的事情。但這些問(wèn)題并不是我們真正需要考慮的問(wèn)題。事實(shí)上，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)想想，這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)為什么會(huì)發(fā)生。而且更為重要的是，我們應(yīng)當(dāng)思考一下，我們能從中學(xué)到些什么？

????這個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)變對(duì)于商界領(lǐng)袖來(lái)說(shuō)不那么容易。畢竟，我們是這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)矛頭所指的敵人?！罢碱I(lǐng)華爾街”網(wǎng)站列出其存在的理由如下：

????“占領(lǐng)華爾街是為了還擊大銀行和跨國(guó)公司對(duì)民主進(jìn)程的腐蝕性影響，抗擊華爾街在引發(fā)幾十年來(lái)最嚴(yán)重的經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退中扮演的角色。”網(wǎng)站還指出：“埃及和突尼斯的民眾起義激勵(lì)了此次運(yùn)動(dòng)。運(yùn)動(dòng)旨在揭露真相，最富有的1%人群正在制定不公平的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)規(guī)則將讓我們失去未來(lái)?！?/p>

????事情就是這樣。這是99%與1%的對(duì)抗，即其他所有人與最富的人的對(duì)抗。這樣的區(qū)分將兩個(gè)人群完全對(duì)立了起來(lái)。這一方面可能導(dǎo)致商界領(lǐng)袖被全盤(pán)妖魔化，而另一方面這些商界領(lǐng)袖則可能完全漠視占領(lǐng)運(yùn)動(dòng)的訴求。這是一切可能性中最糟糕的結(jié)果。雙方都心懷憤怒與怨恨，意味著彼此只會(huì)互相訓(xùn)斥和嘲諷，而不是試圖傾聽(tīng)對(duì)方。

????商界領(lǐng)袖們，即著名的1%，不要一看到示威標(biāo)語(yǔ)牌上那些漫無(wú)邊際、有時(shí)甚至欠妥的訴求和抗議，就馬上否定整個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)。事實(shí)上，我們的任務(wù)是要對(duì)這場(chǎng)抗議運(yùn)動(dòng)進(jìn)行分析，理解支撐這場(chǎng)運(yùn)動(dòng)的合理訴求本質(zhì)是什么，努力拿出平息抗議的完美方案。

????換言之，我們得承認(rèn)，有些示威者的訴求不無(wú)道理。華爾街（以及華盛頓）所作的一些決定確實(shí)造成了整個(gè)世界大規(guī)模的金融震蕩。雖然高盛（Goldman Sachs）的銀行家們和美國(guó)國(guó)際集團(tuán)（AIG）的交易員們做出的一些決定把我們?nèi)舆M(jìn)了全球性經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退，但這并不一定意味著華爾街已經(jīng)不可救藥。問(wèn)題不在于華爾街違反規(guī)則中飽私囊，而在于這些規(guī)則本身就一無(wú)是處。

????The Occupy Wall Street movement has generated a slew of questions from those outside the occupying ranks: Who are these people? What do they really want? Which city will be next? How will our public officials respond? And as the protests have stretched well into their second month, when will it all end? These questions represent an understandable attempt to make sense of a complex, diffuse and divisive movement. They attempt to explain what is happening. But they aren't the questions we really need to ask. Instead, we should be asking why it is happening. And more importantly, we should be asking what we can learn it.

????This isn't an easy leap for business leaders. After all, we're the enemy here. On its website, Occupy Wall Street sets its raison d'être as follows:

????"#OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations." It goes on: "The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

????There it is. It is the 99% versus the 1%, the rest-of-us against the richest-of-us. This framing sets the two groups in complete opposition. It has the potential to lead to the wholesale demonization of our business leaders on the one hand and the utter dismissal of the arguments of the occupiers by those very leaders on the other. This is the worst possible outcome. Anger and resentment on both sides mean the two groups shout at and ridicule one another, rather than attempting to listen to the arguments on the other side.

????Business leaders, the famous 1%, need to resist the urge to dismiss the whole movement based on the scattershot and at times ill-conceived nature of the arguments on the placards. Our task is instead to parse the protest, understand the nature of the legitimate complaints that underpin the movement and to attempt to create smart remedies to those complaints.

????In other words, we need to acknowledge that some of these protesters have a point. Decisions made on Wall Street (and in the City) have indeed caused massive financial disruption around the world. But while the bankers at Goldman Sachs (GS) and the traders at AIG (AIG) made decisions that helped tip us into a global recession, it does not necessarily follow that Wall Street is irredeemable. The problem isn't that Wall Street broke the rules to their own benefit, it's that the rules themselves are unhelpful.