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”.
根据巴托比的经验，办公室派对有三种类型。第一种是“坐下式”午餐，你不可避免地要坐在一个你不认识的人旁边，即使你已经花了五年的时间在走廊里礼貌地向他点头致意。随之而来的是两个小时的社交尴尬。第二种是晚上的活动，伴随着震耳欲聋的音乐。好的一面是，没有人能听到你说话，所以就算你忘了他们的名字也没关系；但不好的一面是，半小时后，30岁以上的人都耳聋了，更希望能在家里看本好书或看《白宫风云》。
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.
第三种是饮料和小酌，当食物不够吸收酒精时，你就会陷入一种永久的焦虑状态，担心与你交谈的人是否比你更无聊。
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，有一个经济上的答案，那就是因人制宜。想想亚当·斯密的别针工厂，每个人都扮演着不同的角色；让每个人都有他们想要的聚会。有些人可能想喝下普罗塞克葡萄酒，但另一些人可能更乐意大快朵颐地吃蛋糕。
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.
《经济学人》的大型派对是高度灵活的。领袖作家们静静地坐在角落里，啜饮着雪利酒，讨论着结构性改革；凯恩斯主义者从其他员工那里借钱来买饮料；相信央行独立性的人在“定量饮酒”的壮举中畅饮几品脱啤酒；新古典主义经济学家喝水，他们认为，考虑到宿醉和肝损伤的风险，理性的人是不会喝酒的；而那些支持现代货币理论的人则狂饮伏特加，理由是如果你控制自己的酒精供应，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.
简而言之，如果你能按照自己的方式去做，你会更容易享受生活。这可能包括完全不参加聚会。如果经理们认为员工宁愿呆在家里也不愿参加派对，那就任他们去吧；公司也省钱了。最后，但并非最不重要的一点是，如果经理们必须做一次演讲，一定要简短。：类似于“你们今年都做得很好，祝明年好运。”把丘吉尔式的花言巧语留给年度股东大会吧。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
评论
打印
