????你工作努力，盡職盡責(zé),。如果上級指令看似有誤,，你就會想辦法，看看怎樣才能讓自己的初步理解和老板的想法一致,。你表達(dá)了自己的疑慮,，但最終還是按吩咐去做了。你真的需要那份薪水,，不是嗎,？

????當(dāng)心。如今這樣做可能讓你遭到起訴,，特別是在老板愿意丟卒保車,、出面指證你的情況下。

????想想摩根大通（J.P. Morgan）和“倫敦鯨”：檢方鎖定的不是這家公司的首席執(zhí)行官杰米?戴蒙,，而是前員工哈維爾?馬丁-阿塔霍和朱利安?格魯,。而在高盛（Goldman），遭到起訴的不是CEO勞埃德?布蘭克費(fèi)恩,，也不是總裁加里?科恩,，而是前交易員法布里斯?圖爾。

????政府官員正在合力逆轉(zhuǎn)普通員工的命運(yùn),。上一個時代,，檢方的做法是通過小人物來釣大魚。而現(xiàn)在,，他們在媒體鏡頭前裝腔作勢地批評公司負(fù)責(zé)人,，但最后卻只對基層人員提起訴訟。

????這種做法給我們帶來的是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者失職所產(chǎn)生的雙重打擊,。第一次打擊來自那些愿意毀掉美國經(jīng)濟(jì)的銀行高管,，隨后的打擊則來自不能將他們繩之以法的監(jiān)管部門,。伴隨而來的是什么呢？如今許多人已經(jīng)不怎么信任政府,。在這種情況下,，這些高管和官員讓他們的信心進(jìn)一步遭到重創(chuàng)，而且他們干的相當(dāng)漂亮,。

????美國司法部長埃里克?霍爾德有一句名言,，大型銀行規(guī)模太大，不能進(jìn)監(jiān)獄?，F(xiàn)在他讓人們明白,，普通人倒是可以進(jìn)監(jiān)獄的。但愿我們之前就清楚這一點(diǎn),。金融危機(jī)至今已有五個年頭,，沒有哪怕一名高層人員遭到起訴?；蛟S霍爾德的話是個警告,，意思是說也許可以更多地抓些小魚小蝦。

????問題是,，小人物們下一步會面臨什么局面,？由于涉嫌聘用中國官員的子女，美國政府已經(jīng)開始調(diào)查摩根大通是否存在賄賂行為,。我們是否可以認(rèn)為,，這家公司負(fù)責(zé)入職新員工文書工作的行政助理將承擔(dān)這項(xiàng)罪名呢？最近,，摩根大通還因涉嫌操縱能源價格而遭到調(diào)查,，檢察官普利特?巴拉拉會起訴基層的能源市場交易員嗎？

????也許檢察官們會把這些新把戲用到銀行業(yè)以外,。顯然,，如果安然（Eron）東窗事發(fā)時也流行這樣做，首席執(zhí)行官杰夫?斯基林和首席財務(wù)官安迪?法斯托就一定會欣喜不已,。犯了刑事罪的企業(yè)高層可能很快也會得到同樣的待遇,。然后我們就可能看到檢察官們驕傲地對人們說，他們是打擊犯罪的高手,，原因是他們讓一名未遭羈押的販毒集團(tuán)首腦人物指證了幾名街頭小販,，現(xiàn)在后者將面臨販毒指控。

????無論情況變成什么樣,，它都有好的一面,。如果檢察官們積極地起訴像哈維爾、朱利安和法布里斯這樣的人,，為了規(guī)避風(fēng)險,，在公司負(fù)責(zé)人和自己持不同道德標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的情況下,，普通員工在簽署工作合同時就會三思而后行。我們發(fā)現(xiàn),，如果人們與公司的愿景不一致,，或者大公司不善待利益相關(guān)者或破壞環(huán)境，人們?yōu)檫@些公司效力的意愿就會下降,。

????You work hard. You do your job. You follow orders. If the directives seem wrong, you try to figure out how you can reconcile your initial impression with what your bosses want. You express skepticism, but ultimately you do what you're told. You do need your paycheck, don't you?

????Beware. These days, behaving that way could lead to your prosecution, especially when your boss is willing to throw you under the bus and testify against you.

????Think: J.P. Morgan (JPM) and the London Whale. It's not CEO Jamie Dimon who's catching the heat from prosecutors. It's former employees Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout. And at Goldman (GS), it wasn't CEO Lloyd Blankfein or President Gary Cohn. It was former trader Fabrice Tourre.

????Government officials are orchestrating a reversal of fortune for workers. In a previous era, prosecutors went to the little guys first to catch the big fish. But these days, prosecutors preen in front of the cameras to blame the head honchos while they lay out their cases against members of the rank and file.

????By their actions, we are experiencing the double slap of leadership failure. First, we take the hit from banking executives willing to blow up our economy – and then get the follow on sucker punch from regulators failing to hold them accountable. And what is accomplished? These executives and enforcers have managed, quite neatly, to eviscerate many people's already tattered trust in authority.

????U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is famous for saying that big banks are too big to jail, but he's now clarifying that individuals aren't. Wow, wish we'd known that before. It's been five years since the crisis with no prosecutions of high-level executives. Perhaps his statements are a warning shot: maybe more small guys will fry.

????The question for regular folk is what comes next? The U.S. has opened a bribery inquiry concerning J.P. Morgan's alleged hiring of the children of Chinese officials. Can we expect to see the administrative assistant responsible for new hire paperwork taking the fall? And in the latest probe of J.P. Morgan's energy manipulation, will U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara find a lowly energy trader to charge?

????Perhaps prosecutors will extend these new-fangled approaches beyond the banking sector. Certainly, CEO Jeff Skilling and CFO Andy Fastow would have been pleased if these were the prevalent practices when Enron met its demise. Maybe criminal enterprises will be getting the same treatment soon. Then we might witness prosecutors proudly informing us that they are great cops on the beat because they got a non-incarcerated drug kingpin to turn evidence on a couple of street sellers who've now been charged for selling dope.

????Wherever this leaves us, it may have an upside. If prosecutors aggressively pursue the Javiers, Juliens and Fabrices, risk-averse employees may think twice before signing on to work for organizations led by individuals who do not share their moral compass. We've already seen employees less willing to work for large companies that have missions they're opposed to, treat their stakeholders poorly, or harm the environment.