評論
打印
I work for a big public sector corporation. Recently, a kind and much more senior colleague told me I would never be promoted because I am "too bold to make it to the top". He was adamant that only the "quiet mice" who never enter a single battle can navigate their way into the higher echelons of power. He would know — he has been working there for 35 years.
我供職于一家大型公共部門機(jī)構(gòu)。最近，一位善良且遠(yuǎn)比我資深的同事告訴我，我永遠(yuǎn)不會升職，因為我“太大膽，不會升到高層”。他堅信，只有那些永遠(yuǎn)不會與人爭論、“安靜得像老鼠一樣的人”才能進(jìn)入高層。他知道這點：他在這里已經(jīng)工作了35年。
Does my "boldness" really spell "trouble" more than "potential"? It would be nice to know if I should be abandoning ship right now before I sink any deeper into this swamp that is a public sector organisation.
我的“大膽”真的意味著“問題”而非“潛力”嗎？我很想知道我現(xiàn)在是否應(yīng)在更深的陷入這個沼澤之前放棄這份公共部門機(jī)構(gòu)的工作。
Manager, male, 30s
經(jīng)理，男，30多歲
Lucy's answer
露西的答案
If I were you, I'd ask that kind and much more senior colleague to explain himself. What did he mean by "too bold"?
如果我是你的話，我會請那個善良且資深得多的同事做出解釋。他說的“過于大膽”是什么意思？
There's good bold and there's bad bold. Good bold is the sort of thing Steve Jobs had in spades — an unshakeable determination to do something differently and a refusal to settle with any compromises along the way. Bad bold is much more common: it's when you're too loud, brash and the source of endless bad ideas.
大膽有好的，也有不好的。好的大膽無疑是史蒂夫?喬布斯(Steve Jobs)那種的大膽，那是一種無法動搖的決心，要做出一些與眾不同的事情，而且在此過程中拒絕達(dá)成任何妥協(xié)。不好的大膽則更為普遍：太過招搖、輕率、頭腦里有無數(shù)糟糕想法。
I have a nasty feeling your colleague meant bad bold. If you were really bold in the way that Jobs was, I can't imagine what terrible series of disastrous career choices could ever have led you to the public sector in the first place. But if I'm wrong and you are really good bold you must get out now and start your own company in your garage and put that boldness to better use.
我有一種不好的感覺，你的同事說的是不好的大膽。如果你確實像喬布斯那樣大膽，我想象不出一開始是什么糟糕的職業(yè)選擇讓你進(jìn)入了公共部門。但如果我說錯了，你確實屬于好的大膽，那么你必須現(xiàn)在就辭職，在你的車庫里創(chuàng)辦自己的企業(yè)，更好的利用這種大膽。
If you are bad bold, as I suspect, you need to try to find a way of being less so.
如果像我猜的那樣，你屬于不好的大膽，那么你需要設(shè)法變得不那么大膽。
This is more important than seeking a transfer to the private sector, where the bad-bold are not especially valued either. Ask yourself what you are doing in the public sector. Are you there because, like quite a lot of public sector workers, you really care about the service that is being provided? If so, that is the best reason for being in any job, and I suggest you cling on for dear life. Or is it because of the fixed hours and relative job security? That's not a bad reason to stay either.
與試圖跳槽到私營部門相比，這更為重要，因為在私營部門，不好的大膽同樣也不會受到特別的重視。問問自己，你在公共部門做些什么。你在那里工作是不是因為與很多公共部門員工一樣，你確實關(guān)心那里提供的服務(wù)？如果是這樣的話，那么這是干任何工作的最好的原因，我建議你應(yīng)拼命堅持住。或者你在那里工作是因為工作時間固定和工作相對穩(wěn)定嗎？這也是一個不壞的留在那里的原因。
I'd also like to take issue with your grey-bearded friend in dividing the workforce into the bold and the quiet mice. This seems like a pretty unhelpful division, as every employee in almost every organisation needs to be both.
在將員工分為大膽和安靜這兩類的問題上，我覺得你那位年長同事的看法值得商榷。這似乎是一種相當(dāng)無益的劃分方法，因為幾乎所有組織的所有員工都需要同時具備這兩點。
Everyone needs to know when to shut up and agree, and when to speak out. If what you are saying is that everyone at your workplace is so downtrodden that no one ever expresses any views on anything, that is bad — although if that were so, I wonder why has it taken you until now to notice?
所有人都需要知道何時該閉嘴并表示同意，何時該說出自己的看法。如果你想說你們單位所有人都非常壓抑，沒有人對任何問題發(fā)表任何看法，那么這是糟糕的。不過如果是這樣的話，我想知道你為什么到現(xiàn)在才注意到這點。
If you are happy with your job in other ways, I would go straight back to your mentor for some advice on how to be better at expressing your views without rubbing everyone up the wrong way.
如果你對這份工作的其它方面還算滿意，我建議你再問問你的這位前輩，如何在不與任何人產(chǎn)生不快的摩擦的情況下更好地表達(dá)你的看法。
