In Bartleby’s experience, office parties come in three types. The first is the sitdown lunch, in which you are inevitably seated next to someone whose name you do not know, even though you have spent five years politely nodding at them when you pass in the corridor. Two hours of social awkwardness ensue. The second type of do is the evening event with excruciatingly loud music. On the plus side, no one can hear you speak so it does not matter if you have forgotten their names; on the down side, after half an hour everyone over 30 is so deafened that they wish they were at home with a nice book or a box set of “The West Wing”.
根據巴托比的經驗，辦公室派對有三種類型。第一種是“坐下式”午餐，你不可避免地要坐在一個你不認識的人旁邊，即使你已經花了五年的時間在走廊里禮貌地向他點頭致意。隨之而來的是兩個小時的社交尷尬。第二種是晚上的活動，伴隨著震耳欲聾的音樂。好的一面是，沒有人能聽到你說話，所以就算你忘了他們的名字也沒關系；但不好的一面是，半小時后，30歲以上的人都耳聾了，更希望能在家里看本好書或看《白宮風云》。
The third sort of event is the stand-up do with drinks and nibbles, when the food is never enough to absorb the alcohol and you are permanently caught in a state of angst over whether you are boring the person you are talking to more than they are boring you.
第三種是飲料和小酌，當食物不夠吸收酒精時，你就會陷入一種永久的焦慮狀態(tài)，擔心與你交談的人是否比你更無聊。
Naturally, there is an economic answer and it is specialisation. Think of Adam Smith’s pin factory where everyone plays their different part; let everyone have the party they want. Some may want to down the prosecco but others may be happier only to gorge on cake.
自然，有一個經濟上的答案，那就是因人制宜。想想亞當·斯密的別針工廠，每個人都扮演著不同的角色；讓每個人都有他們想要的聚會。有些人可能想喝下普羅塞克葡萄酒，但另一些人可能更樂意大快朵頤地吃蛋糕。
Seasonal events at The Economist are highly segregated. The leader writers sit quietly in a corner, sipping sherry and discussing structural reform; the Keynesians borrow money off the rest of the staff to pay for their drinks; believers in central-bank independence down pints of beer in feats of “quantitative drinking”; neoclassical economists sip water, arguing that no rational person would consume alcohol, given the risks of hangovers and liver damage; while those who favour modern monetary theory guzzle vodka shots on the ground that it is impossible to get drunk if you control your own alcohol supply.
《經濟學人》的大型派對是高度靈活的。領袖作家們靜靜地坐在角落里，啜飲著雪利酒，討論著結構性改革；凱恩斯主義者從其他員工那里借錢來買飲料；相信央行獨立性的人在“定量飲酒”的壯舉中暢飲幾品脫啤酒；新古典主義經濟學家喝水，他們認為，考慮到宿醉和肝損傷的風險，理性的人是不會喝酒的；而那些支持現代貨幣理論的人則狂飲伏特加，理由是如果你控制自己的酒精供應，就不可能喝醉。
In short, it is easier to enjoy yourself if you can do so in your own fashion. And that may include not partying at all. If managers think staff would rather spend time at home than attend, let them; the company will save money. Last, but not least, if managers must make a speech, keep it short. Something along the lines of “You’ve all done very well this year, good luck next.” Save the Churchillian rhetoric for the annual general meeting.
簡而言之，如果你能按照自己的方式去做，你會更容易享受生活。這可能包括完全不參加聚會。如果經理們認為員工寧愿呆在家里也不愿參加派對，那就任他們去吧；公司也省錢了。最后，但并非最不重要的一點是，如果經理們必須做一次演講，一定要簡短。：類似于“你們今年都做得很好，祝明年好運。”把丘吉爾式的花言巧語留給年度股東大會吧。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
評論
打印
