職場新規 事不關己高高掛起

An acquaintance who works for a well-known company emailed to tell me that in an idle moment he had been looking at its intranet site and noticed something odd.

一個在某知名企業工作的熟人給我發郵件說，他忙裏偷閒看了看他們公司的內部網站，發現了一些怪事。

His chief executive’s post about the organisation’s latest results had attracted eight likes, while a post saying that a vending machine had been installed on the sixth floor had got 197.

他們首席執行官發佈的有關公司最新業績的公告，只引來8個人點贊，而關於6樓安了一臺自動售貨機的告示卻獲贊197個。

I thought you’d enjoy that, he said.

他說，我覺得你會對這事感興趣。

I did enjoy it, but didn’t find it odd in the slightest.

我確實覺得挺有意思，但一點都不覺得奇怪。

I’ve long known that corporate employees were irredeemably trivial.

我早就知道公司的職員們是多麼不可救藥地關注小事。

A colleague who for years was the Financial Times’ managing editor once told me that by far the most unpopular thing she ever did — more so than making people redundant — was axing free coffee and superior biscuits that were delivered to every team on Thursday mornings.

一位在英國《金融時報》(Financial Times)做了多年執行總編的同事告訴我，她幹過的最不受待見的事——比炒人家魷魚更怨聲載道——就是取消了週四一早給每個團隊派送的免費咖啡和高級餅乾。

It is not just in this man’s workplace that people care more about chocolate bars than profitability.

人們對巧克力棒比對公司的盈利狀況更上心，這不僅發生在我這位朋友的公司。

Try this test: ask anyone in your office how much money your company made last year.

試着做個測試：問問你辦公室的任何一名同事，你們公司去年賺了多少錢。

I bet they won’t have the foggiest idea.

我敢說他們腦中一點概念都沒有。

I have been asking the question to everyone I’ve come across.

我拿這個問題問過見過的每個人。

Most looked panicked as if they had just been found out — some made wild guesses, while others hung their heads and admitted total ignorance.

他們大部分都驚慌失措地像被突然逮到一樣——另一些人則瞎猜一通，而其他的人則耷拉着腦袋承認自己完全不知道。

I texted a friend who for the past 20 years has occupied increasingly senior positions at the same company and put the question to her.

我發短信問一位朋友這個問題，她過去20年在同一家公司裏不斷升職。

Her reply came back: Haven’t a clue.

她回覆說：毫無頭緒。

The only person I asked who could tell me exactly how much his employer made had a bonus that depended on it.

唯一能告訴我他的老闆賺了多少錢的人，是因爲他的獎金與此掛鉤。

This, surely, is a version of Parkinson’s law of triviality, which states that the amount of time we spend thinking about something is in inverse proportion to its importance.

這無疑是帕金森雞毛蒜皮定律(Parkinson’s law of triviality)的一個例子。

In Parkinson’s fictional example, a committeeset up to commission a nuclear reactor spends five three minutes approving the construction of the a nuclear reactor itself, and then several hours arguing over colour to45 minutes over building paint the a bike shed.

該定律說，我們考慮一件事的時間和這件事的重要性成反比。在帕金森舉的例子中，一個委員會只用了3分鐘就批准了核反應堆的建造，但接着卻花了45分鐘討論自行車棚。

His conclusion was that we dwell on the trivial because we can understand it, while we shy away from the complicated because we are out of our depth and don’t dare ask questions for fear of looking stupid.

他的結論是，我們總對小事糾纏不休是因爲我們懂這些小事，而我們迴避複雜問題是因爲我們對這些問題摸不着頭腦，同時又怕出醜而不敢發問。

Just as I was thinking this, my friend sent me another text:  . . . and I don’t care either.

我正這麼想着，又收到了我朋友的另一條短信：……我也不在乎。

I looked at the message and it occurred to me that I had got it all wrong.

看着這條信息，我突然意識到自己大錯特錯。

Her reluctance to engage with how much money her employer makes wasn’t that she doesn’t understand it or that she is trivial or stupid.

她不願關注自己老闆賺了多少錢並不表示她不懂行、只關心小事或是頭腦簡單。

She was being perfectly rational.

她一直都非常理性。

My friend doesn’t need to know what her employer’s P & L looks like, so long as it is healthy enough not to affect her job.

只要公司運營健康、她的工作無虞，我的朋友就無需知道老闆的盈虧狀況。

She works for a multinational and her contribution does not affect the overall profit one way or another.

她爲一家跨國公司工作，她的業績不管怎樣都不會影響到公司的整體利潤。

She does know the profit margins on the parts of the business she is responsible for, and manages them assiduously.

她對自己負責的業務領域的利潤率瞭如指掌，並對之盡職盡責。

Equally, to care a lot about a new snack dispenser is not at all stupid, but is wise for three reasons.

同樣，對新置的零食販賣機格外上心一點都不傻，而且從三個方面來講這還挺聰明。

For a start it has direct implications for what you can eat.

首先它直接表明了你能吃點啥。

Secondly it is an indication that the company is not about to go bust as it is making discretionary investments, and thirdly suggests some degree of intelligent management in that the wishes of staff are taken into account by the facilities team.

其次它預示着貴公司還不會關門大吉，因爲它還在投資非必需品。第三它還反映出一定程度的智能化管理，說明設備團隊考慮到了員工們的意願。

You could say we have a duty as responsible corporate citizens to take an interest in the finances of the organisations we work for, but I’m not sure we do.

你也許會說，關心一下公司的財務狀況，是我們身爲有責任感的企業公民的應盡之責，但我不確定是否如此。

Given we only stay in jobs for as long as it suits us, and given we could jump ship and join the competition at any time, there is no point in feeling proprietorial about what our company does in general.

假如我們只會在適合我們的時間長度裏做一份工作，又假如我們隨時都可能跳槽加入職場競爭，那就沒必要抱有一種操心公司總體狀況的主人翁意識。

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try hard and take pride in our own work.

那並不表示我們不應盡職盡責和爲本職工作感到驕傲。

We ought to mind a lot about things that make us more or less likely to get promoted/sacked — and mind even more about how congenial are our immediate bosses and colleagues.

我們應密切關注那些或多或少對我們晉升還是被解聘產生影響的事情——更要好好琢磨我們的頂頭上司以及身邊同事的性情。

By contrast the bigger stuff does not seem to matter much at all.

相反那些大事則似乎不怎麼要緊。

There is another problem with the big things.

這些大事還存在另一個問題。

The larger the company the more abstract its results, and the more difficult to explain.

公司規模越大，業績就越抽象，也越難解釋。

Add to this the fact that all CEOs default to boring in all formal communication, and you guarantee that any attempt to tell employees about supposedly important things will leave them cold.

此外，所有首席執行官只要進行正式溝通必然很枯燥，因此，只要他們試着向員工宣佈所謂的要緊事，就準保讓大家興致索然。

There is a lesson here for top management.

最高管理層可以從此汲取一些經驗。

Unless you can show that a post on global strategy is as relevant as a vending machine, there is no point in making it.

除非你能說明一份全球戰略公告和一臺自動售貨機一樣和員工息息相關，不然就沒必要公佈它。