評論
打印
Truth is also better served by using simple language.
簡潔的語言也有助于真實想法的表達。
Office-speak often contains nuances and parentheticals that can bury not just the lead but the entire point.
辦公語言在措辭上常有的細(xì)微之處和附加說明，不僅會模糊要點，還會讓人不知所云。
Comedies like Office Space ring true for a reason.
例如，像《上班一條蟲》之類的喜劇看上去那么真實就是有原因的。
People fear insulting others, especially the boss, so they hedge.
人們害怕得罪別人，尤其是老板，所以會避重就輕。
Rather than stating, "I disagree with our expansion strategy," they say,
他們不會說“我不同意這項擴張戰(zhàn)略”，而會說：
"While I think there are many good reasons why we are opening this new line of business and I feel confident that the management team has done a thorough ROI analysis,
“我認(rèn)為開展這種新業(yè)務(wù)有許多很好的理由，也相信管理團隊已經(jīng)進行了周密的投資回報分析。
I am not sure we have completely thought through all of the downstream effects of taking this step forward at this time." Huh?
不過，我不太確定我們是否考慮到目前采取這種策略會產(chǎn)生什么影響？”
With all of these caveats, it's hard to decipher what the speaker actually thinks.
附加了這么多說明，就很難搞清楚說話的人心里到底是怎么想的。
When communicating hard truths, less is often more.
當(dāng)傳達令人難以接受的事實時，通常要遵循“少即是多”的原則。
A few years ago, Mark Zuckerberg decided to learn Chinese.
幾年前，馬克·扎克伯格決定學(xué)習(xí)中文。
To practice, he spent time with a group of Facebook employees who were native speakers.
為了練習(xí)口語，他會花時間與公司里以中文為母語的員工交流。
One might think that Mark's limited language skills would have kept these conversations from being substantively useful.
有人認(rèn)為扎克伯格有限的語言能力會讓這類對話起不到什么實際作用，
Instead, they gave him greater insight into what was going on in the company.
然而正相反，這些員工讓扎克伯格更深刻地了解到公司的情況。
For example, one of the women was trying to tell Mark something about her manager.
比如，有個女員工想跟扎克伯格談?wù)勛约旱慕?jīng)理。
Mark didn't understand so he said, "Simpler, please."
扎克伯格聽不明白，便說“請說得簡單點”。
Then she spoke again, but he still didn't understand, so he had to ask her to simplify further. This happened a few more times.
她又說了一遍，扎克伯格還是沒聽懂，不得不讓她說得再簡單點。反復(fù)幾次后。
