评论
打印
On the surface, this categorisation seems reasonable. How useful is it? Readers can take an online test (at assessyournetwork.com) to see which category they fall into. Bartleby did so and found (as he expected) that he did not fit into any of them. Indeed, the author’s research shows that one in three people does not have a clearly defined style and 20-25% could be classed as mixed (for example, they are simultaneously brokers and expansionists). In other words, more than half of people cannot be neatly categorised.
从表面上看，这种分类似乎是合理的。但实用性怎么样呢？读者可以通过网址assessyournetwork.com参加在线测试，看看自己属于哪一类。本文作者进行了测试，正如他所料，他发现自己不适用于其中的任何一类。事实上，作者的研究表明，三分之一的人没有明确定义的社交风格，20-25%的人可以归类为混合型（例如，他们既是经纪人，又是扩张主义者）。换言之，超过一半的人都无法被恰到好处地分类。
To add to the muddle, Ms King introduces sub-categories: co-operative brokers, arbitraging brokers, tortured brokers, and so on. Some people move from one category to another (like a certain Heidi Roizen, who, in a feat of management jargon, “transitioned from an expansionist to a broker to a convening nucleus”). At this point it seems wiser to admit that, to use an old phrase from the north of England, “there’s nowt so queer as folk”. Fortunately, the book is full of wisdom and entertaining anecdotes which show that stories can give more insight than attempts at scientific categorisation.
金女士还介绍了一些子类别，这就更让人糊涂了。子分类包括合作经纪人、套利经纪人、折磨经纪人等等。有些人会从一个类别转移到另一个类别（比如海蒂·罗伊岑，用这些管理术语分析，他的社交类别是从“扩张主义者过渡到经纪人，再变成了召集核心”）。在这一点上，更明智的做法似乎是承认那句来自英格兰北部的老话——“人间有百态”。幸运的是，这本书充满了智慧和有趣的趣闻轶事，这表明，相比试图进行科学分类，故事更能发人深省。
Two fun case studies outline a common problem—the tendency for people to have too narrow a focus. In one test, only one in four mobile-phone users noticed a clown who unicycled past them while they were looking at their screens. In another revealing story, Catholic seminarians strode past a distressed bystander while in a hurry to give a lecture on the parable of the good Samaritan. In the right network, the presence of a diverse set of participants may allow the group to see the bigger picture.
金女士通过两个有趣的案例研究勾勒出一个普遍问题，即人们关注的点过于狭窄。在一项测试中，只有四分之一的手机用户在看手机屏幕的同时还注意到一个小丑从他们身边骑车经过。在另一个具有启示性的故事中，匆匆赶去做关于好撒马利亚人寓言的演讲的天主教神学院的学生们大步经过了一个痛苦的旁观者。在正确的人际网络中，不同的参与者的存在可能会让团队看到更广阔的前景。
Old-fashioned concepts like courtesy can also help, Ms King argues. Simple gestures—a smile, a thank you—make colleagues more likeable and increase co-operation. In contrast, studies of workers who experience incivility find that their effort, time spent at work and commitment to the job all reduce. Ms King invokes the aphorism that “assholes” can be identified by observing how they treat people with less power. “Don’t be an asshole” is not a scientific statement. But it is still a pretty good management motto.
金女士认为，礼貌等传统观念也有助于社交。通过一个微笑，一句谢谢这样简单的举止会让同事更受欢迎，从而增进合作。相比之下，对那些曾经经历过不文明行为的员工进行研究发现，他们的努力、工作时间和对工作的投入都会减少。金女士引用了一句格言，通过观察一个人对待权力较小的人的方式能够辨别出他是不是“混蛋”。“别当混蛋”并不是科学的说法。但它仍然是一句很好的管理座右铭。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
