????直到2013年4月,，一樁訴訟中原告的律師檢查了Cobalt點火開關(guān)的照片，發(fā)現(xiàn)2005至2008年間開關(guān)已經(jīng)被換過了,，德吉爾吉奧的騙局才被發(fā)現(xiàn)。德吉爾吉奧在法庭上表現(xiàn)得像是剛剛知道這件事一樣,。在隨后的國會聽證會上,，他表示忘記自己換過開關(guān)了。

????很難搞清他隱瞞這件事的動機,。德吉爾吉奧顯然不是為了錢,，因為在更換開關(guān)的過程中金錢沒有轉(zhuǎn)手。他也不應(yīng)該考慮晉升問題,，畢竟作為中層工程師的他已經(jīng)61歲了,，不可能再得到提拔。

????我猜測最有可能的是,，德吉爾吉奧是被一種熟悉的官僚思想驅(qū)動：遮丑,。他的職業(yè)生涯很不尋常——根據(jù)《汽車新聞》（Automotive News）的報道,，他在大學(xué)的專業(yè)是美術(shù),，直到38歲才獲得工程學(xué)學(xué)位。在一家需要承擔(dān)巨大壓力做出成果的公司中,，他很可能缺乏安全感,。可能打死他,，他也不會想到,，簡簡單單地在點火開關(guān)的扭矩標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上動點手腳就可能會制造一系列問題，牽涉到目前為止的13個人的死亡,。

????正如瓦盧卡斯的報告中闡明的,，從推卸責(zé)任的高潛力工程師到官僚習(xí)氣的公司律師，通用汽車有許多地方需要批評,。從“通用汽車的點頭禮”（表示自己同意通過某事）和“通用汽車的叉手禮”（表示自己對此事不負(fù)任何責(zé)任）中,，觀察家們得到了許多樂趣。不過,，22萬員工中的1個流氓員工抹黑了整家公司,，還能逍遙法外十幾年的故事，才是最讓我覺得恐懼的地方,。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：嚴(yán)匡正

????DeGiorgio’s alleged deception wasn’t uncovered until April 2013 when a plaintiff’s lawyer in a lawsuit examined photographs of the Cobalt ignition switch and discovered it had been changed from 2005 to 2008. In a deposition, DeGiorgio acted like it was news to him. And in a subsequent congressional hearing, DeGiorgio said he had forgotten about the change.

????His motivation for a cover-up is difficult to discern. DeGiorgio certainly wasn’t in it for the money, because no money seems to have changed hands. He wasn’t going to advance his career either, because at age 61, he was a midlevel engineer who wasn’t going any higher. Nor did the project he was working on have a high priority.

????My best guess is that DeGiorgio was driven by a familiar bureaucratic reflex: Cover your ass. He had had an unusual career–a fine arts major in college, he didn’t get an engineering degree until age 38, according to Automotive News–and may have felt insecure in a company that was under tremendous pressure to produce results. That something as simple as fiddling with the torque standards on an ignition switch could create a series of circumstances that have so far been linked to 13 deaths was probably the furthest thing from his mind.

????As the Valukas report makes clear, there is plenty of blame at GM to go around, from the high-potential engineers who passed the buck to company lawyers caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Observers are having lots of fun with the “GM nod” and the “GM salute.” But the narrative that is now emerging of how one rogue employee out of 220,000 can hamstring an entire corporation and escape detection for more than a decade is the one that I find the most chilling.