精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

首頁 500強(qiáng) 活動 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

是時候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽?

ROSS MCCAMMON
2023-02-04

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場所根深蒂固的制度,當(dāng)你犯了錯或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無能”時,要改正錯誤并為此道歉。

文本設(shè)置
小號
默認(rèn)
大號
Plus(0條)

圖片來源:ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

亂蓬蓬的頭發(fā)并不能說明什么。超特大號的T恤衫也不能說明什么。那張困窘的臉,那自嘲的笑容卻將加密貨幣交易所創(chuàng)始人薩姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名譽(yù)掃地暴露無遺。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上寫道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了。”他幾乎是聳聳肩,承認(rèn)了一場讓他人損失了80億美元的加密貨幣災(zāi)難。“如果當(dāng)時我能更專注于我所做的事情,我辦事會更縝密。”班克曼-弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮臺時告訴《紐約時報》。

鑒于班克曼-弗里德面臨刑事欺詐指控,他如此張揚(yáng)地展示自己的無能可能是為了自保,但其言下之意是確定無疑的:其他無足輕重的人本該為小事忐忑不安。

當(dāng)我讀到班克曼-弗里德自稱無能時,我的第一反應(yīng)是“真是個小丑!”但我開始感到我們需要密切注意這樣的聯(lián)系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顧……”。

我寫了一本關(guān)于職場行為的書。好吧,也許不是那本書。而是一本題為《與他人合作無間》(Works Well With Others)的書。該書于2015年出版,講述了我作為一名年輕的、來自德克薩斯州的機(jī)上雜志編輯,如何在紐約市媒體界(以注重身份地位而聞名)游刃有余的故事。我這本書的論點(diǎn)是,無論你在哪個領(lǐng)域,得到同事和雇主青睞是通往職業(yè)成功的路徑。書中有介紹握手、寒暄和祝酒禮儀的章節(jié),還有一章的標(biāo)題是“如何在滿是重要人物的高級餐廳吃一頓有意義的午餐”。

我寫這本書的目標(biāo)受眾并不僅僅是男性。但現(xiàn)在回想起來,我發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些建議更適合我所在的群體: 直男、白人、男性。

在過去幾年的某個時刻,我開始意識到那些特殊的“人際技能”對我來說不再像以前那樣有效。也許是因?yàn)樾鹿诜窝滓咔楹瓦h(yuǎn)程工作的興起,消除了許多職場等級制度、慣例和裝模作樣。也許是對性別歧視和種族主義的考量,侵蝕了像我這樣的人的基本特權(quán),同時提升了歷史上被邊緣化的人的地位。也許廢話已經(jīng)變得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我慣用的幽默、討好和自嘲的招數(shù)似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我開始理解其中一些行為是操縱性的,可以讓別人做我不想做的工作。當(dāng)我在自己身上看到這些傾向時,我無法忽視它們。我開始發(fā)現(xiàn)這種行為對女性和有色人種的傷害,以及對工作場所中每個人的士氣、生產(chǎn)力和創(chuàng)造力的傷害。

不管他們是否真正有能力,許多男性都很擅長表現(xiàn)自己。實(shí)際上,這很容易。你在會議上要言不煩,當(dāng)你發(fā)言的時候,你向提出論斷的人提問,或者重復(fù)和贊揚(yáng)別人很有思想見地的觀點(diǎn)。你可以乘著別人敢為人先和勇于冒險的東風(fēng)。

與此相關(guān)的一種行為是“戰(zhàn)略性無能”(有時也被稱為“技能型無能”或“武器化無能”)。莉莎?韋斯特倫德(Lise Vesterlund)與三位合著者合著了《拒絕俱樂部:給女性毫無前途的工作畫上句號》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一書。戰(zhàn)略性無能指的是同事聲稱自己數(shù)學(xué)很差,這樣就能讓你處理所有的電子表格。丈夫打掃衛(wèi)生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承擔(dān)家務(wù)。這并不是懶惰那么簡單,而是不愿意做那些低價值工作(韋斯特倫德和合著者琳達(dá)?巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布倫達(dá)?佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和勞里?溫格特(Laurie Weingart)將這些工作稱為“不利于升職”的工作)。這些工作無法獲得太多榮譽(yù)或贊譽(yù);這些工作人們往往視而不見。不僅僅是男性會回避這些工作——但我在騙誰呢?主要是男性會回避這些工作。

韋斯特倫德告訴我:"這非常方便。"女性和有色人種往往會承擔(dān)這種不利于升職的工作——組織辦公室派對,參加招聘委員會,主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作組會議。"很多時候,我們讓女性承擔(dān)這種類型的工作的原因是,哦,她們很擅長這種工作,因?yàn)樗齻円淮斡忠淮蔚刈C明了她們擅長這種工作。但或許有必要退一步(對男性)說,你們怎么能只做那些有利于升職的工作,而把那些不利于升職的工作丟給別人呢?”

我立即意識到韋斯特倫德在說什么,這讓我想起了幾年前我和兩名女同事的一次Zoom電話會議。我的老板是一位有色人種女性,她要求我為項(xiàng)目制定時間表。"這個計劃非常好。"我說,然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你幫我制定項(xiàng)目流程。"我對她說。我開了個自嘲的玩笑,說自己無法在沒有幫助的情況下制定復(fù)雜的計劃。

問題是:我實(shí)際上并不知道自己是否真的不擅長制定項(xiàng)目時間表。我只是從來沒有做過,也不是特別想學(xué)。我知道我的同事是一個優(yōu)秀的項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理,所以對我來說,她承擔(dān)起這個責(zé)任才合情合理。

但這一次,我的請求沒有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的卻是漫長而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持槍歹徒帶著一頂可疑的邊緣平整的帽子走進(jìn)一家酒館。在幾秒鐘(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意。“話說,我自己來處理吧!”我說。然后我倒退著穿過來回晃動的酒館大門,慢吞吞地走著。

對我當(dāng)時的老板來說,她只是翻了個白眼而已。(最近我問起她這件事的時候,她都不記得了。)但那次會議是我第一次意識到——真正理解——我已經(jīng)養(yǎng)成了用魅力(或阿諛奉承,取決于你如何看待它)來讓別人為我做事的習(xí)慣。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)說,女性和有色人種一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定無罪的情況。她說:"這一點(diǎn)司空見慣,無處不在。人們對能力的定義存在偏見。這存在種族偏見,也存在性別偏見......這種偏見無孔不入。"

這種現(xiàn)象造成的后果是對婦女和有色人種的持續(xù)低估。韋斯特倫德講述了她書中的一個例子,律所要求一位律師招募一批實(shí)習(xí)生。韋斯特倫德解釋說,這位律師認(rèn)為這是一個很好的發(fā)展機(jī)會,但查看申請表和面試實(shí)習(xí)生這樣耗時的工作最終削減了她的計費(fèi)工時,還阻礙了她的職業(yè)發(fā)展。"所以談話不應(yīng)該只是:你擅長招聘實(shí)習(xí)生嗎?或者你享受招聘實(shí)習(xí)生的樂趣嗎?”韋斯特倫德告訴我。這樣的對話應(yīng)該是:"如果你想成為合伙人,你就要拿出一年時間招募實(shí)習(xí)生,但之后我們會把[這份工作]交給其他人。"

在《2022年職場女性報告》中,LeanIn.org和麥肯錫公司發(fā)現(xiàn),女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人正以前所未有的速度換工作。研究人員對4萬名員工的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),與男性一樣,這些女性有遠(yuǎn)大抱負(fù),但“她們的權(quán)威會受到輕度冒犯,也有跡象表明她們將更難獲得晉升"。

在閱讀這篇材料的時候,我想起了另一個讓我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要與遠(yuǎn)程辦公的同事進(jìn)行視頻聊天,這樣他才能參與討論。我沒帶手機(jī),就問同事能不能用一下她的。“當(dāng)然可以。”她說。這項(xiàng)任務(wù)要求她在我們討論想要做出修改的地方時,把手機(jī)對著墻舉15分鐘左右。我沒把這件事當(dāng)回事,但在那之后的幾個星期里,我和她交流都會感到不寒而栗。最終我明白了,電話事件是導(dǎo)火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。當(dāng)時,我認(rèn)為自己的行為并沒什么不妥。

現(xiàn)在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能覺得自己被冒犯了,很泄氣。當(dāng)我把這段軼事告訴韋斯特倫德時,她說:“這可能不是她第一次身處這樣的境地:她做的事情相當(dāng)于拿著電話,無法與其他人一樣參加會議。”

為什么我同事不直接拒絕,或者把手機(jī)遞給我讓我拿著? 在一個仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,這說起來容易做起來難。在一系列的實(shí)驗(yàn)中,韋斯特倫德和她的合著者發(fā)現(xiàn),女性被男經(jīng)理要求做會議記錄等不利于升職的工作的幾率比男性高出44%,女性答應(yīng)完成這樣的工作的幾率比男性高出50%。只有當(dāng)女性不在辦公室里的時候,男性才會主動去做那些必要卻乏味的工作。

我在職業(yè)生涯的早期就認(rèn)識到,讓別人做你的工作才是成功的應(yīng)有之義。在《紳士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鮮亮麗的雜志那種類似《廣告狂人》(Mad men)的環(huán)境中工作,就如同置身于虛張聲勢和戰(zhàn)略性無能的大師級課堂。

打電話的時候我會提高音量,這樣同事們就會知道我在和重要人物通話。只要我在電腦前,我就會皺起眉頭。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉餡煎蛋餅食譜時皺起眉頭,作沉思狀,否則你無法體會現(xiàn)代職場男性的感受。)

我所供職的男性雜志,就像許多其他傳統(tǒng)的男性組織一樣,是一個由恐懼和機(jī)會驅(qū)動的地方。失敗的風(fēng)險,或者讓自己難堪的風(fēng)險,尤其是如果你是一個已經(jīng)晉升到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職位的男人,會感覺到自己很可悲。你必須從第一天起就取得成功。

這是個不切實(shí)際的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),顯然,唯一的策略就是假裝,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持會議,那就避免這樣做。如果你從未制作過損益表,那就委托他人去做。

顯然,這種行為對于那些被留下來做實(shí)際工作的人(不論性別或種族)來說是不公平的。但這種行為也會侵蝕那些主張這種特權(quán)的人自己和公司。這種行為會抑制冒險和創(chuàng)新,也會影響“心理安全”。谷歌2015年對成功團(tuán)隊(duì)的研究被廣泛引用。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn),“心理安全”“無疑”是表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異的團(tuán)隊(duì)最重要的驅(qū)動力。如果沒有心理上的安全感,我們就不愿意嘗試新事物,就會錯過學(xué)習(xí)和職業(yè)成長的機(jī)會。

學(xué)習(xí)如何舉辦大型會議的最好方法就是舉辦一場大型會議——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你會犯一些可笑的錯誤。如果沒有試錯的經(jīng)驗(yàn),就無法真正精通,許多男人都罹患冒名頂替綜合癥:我認(rèn)為這是男性平庸癥。我們能夠取得成功,甚至得到美差和晉升,但我們并不知道自己是否擅長相應(yīng)的工作。通常情況下,我們并不擅長。

澄清一下,我不是在尋求同情。如果男性廢話在工作中失去了影響力,這是件好事。專攻關(guān)鍵性調(diào)整的職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每個行業(yè)都在發(fā)生代際變化。她說:“謝天謝地,Z世代帶來了變化。現(xiàn)在人們無所遁形了。要掩蓋你的罪惡很難。要掩蓋你的不足也很難。”

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那種坦率是令人鼓舞的。他們很快就會告訴你他們已經(jīng)超負(fù)荷了,不能再承擔(dān)更多的工作了——為什么有人要超負(fù)荷工作?這難道不是對員工和企業(yè)都不利嗎?他們會迅速提出問題。他們對自己的不足之處和需要成長的地方持開放態(tài)度。而他們對那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的經(jīng)理感到困惑。

如果我有機(jī)會對我的書做一些修改,我會說:不管你屬于什么群體,都要內(nèi)省,問一些讓自己脫離舒適區(qū)的、發(fā)人深省的問題。我的弱點(diǎn)是什么?如果我必須和自己一起工作,我會怎么評價自己?我不擅長什么?我下意識會避免什么事情?也許最重要的是:誰來收拾殘局?

最近,我開始把那些我一直試圖避免的“不利于升職”的工作視為成長機(jī)會——比如項(xiàng)目計劃和做筆記。在完成這些工作的過程中,我發(fā)現(xiàn)了多年前就該找到的拼圖碎片:那些讓我成為更好的同事、表現(xiàn)更優(yōu)異的品質(zhì)。

我已經(jīng)開始以不同的方式運(yùn)用我的人際技能——溝通、協(xié)作和情商。現(xiàn)在,當(dāng)我靠直覺分析在特定環(huán)境下人們的總體情緒時,我想的不是人們?nèi)绾慰创遥撬麄內(nèi)绾慰创⒗斫夂陀绊懕舜恕N疫€在自己身上發(fā)現(xiàn)了意想不到的天賦。例如,我經(jīng)常發(fā)現(xiàn)我能夠感知和發(fā)現(xiàn)不安,并在這種不安升級之前化解它。

傳統(tǒng)上,這些“軟技能”更多地是與女性相關(guān),而非男性。如今,在已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)型的職場中,這些軟技能是取得成功的關(guān)鍵——除非你在工作上也表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異,否則它們不會起作用。

但是,謝天謝地,放任自流的男性平庸時代即將落幕。這對所有人來說都是一種解脫,包括平庸的男人們自己。

如何杜絕工作中的 "戰(zhàn)略性無能"現(xiàn)象

經(jīng)理和公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)可以做很多事情,以確保每個人都分擔(dān)"不利于升職"的工作任務(wù)。

解釋合理的委托和減輕苦差事之間的區(qū)別

把工作委托給別人沒有錯;事實(shí)上,這往往是一種善意,是讓同事脫穎而出的機(jī)會。有些任務(wù)必須完成,即使這些任務(wù)收獲不大。盡管如此,如果承擔(dān)"辦公室家務(wù)"的同事總是同一批人,而其他人則完全推卸責(zé)任,這就很能說明問題了。讓"不利于升職"的工作成為你工作場所詞匯的一部分。鼓勵就所有任務(wù)的價值進(jìn)行公開對話,即使這些任務(wù)不屬于可計費(fèi)工時或不是備受矚目的任務(wù)。

不要讓志愿者做沒人想做的工作

研究表明,當(dāng)需要做會議記錄或?yàn)閳F(tuán)隊(duì)點(diǎn)餐時,與男性相比,女性更有可能舉手承擔(dān)這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。為了避免這種不平衡現(xiàn)象一再發(fā)生,隨機(jī)選人(從帽子里抽取名字牌)完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù),或者大家輪流來。

心理安全建設(shè)

一項(xiàng)又一項(xiàng)研究表明,創(chuàng)造一個讓員工敢于冒險、不懼失敗的工作環(huán)境,是創(chuàng)新和生產(chǎn)力的關(guān)鍵。員工通過試錯來培養(yǎng)技能和能力,所以只有在安全的環(huán)境中,他們才敢嘗試新的、不熟悉的工作。

盡可能讓更多人享有備受矚目、“有晉升空間”的工作機(jī)會

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森說:“人們對能力的定義存在偏見。她補(bǔ)充說,遺憾的是,許多公司“認(rèn)可某些領(lǐng)域的天才,而非其他領(lǐng)域的天才”。比如典型的神童創(chuàng)始人或衣衫不整的技術(shù)天才,但許多明星員工并不符合這些相當(dāng)有局限性的群體畫像。要給整個公司的員工挑戰(zhàn)自我、證明自己才能的機(jī)會。你很可能會找到下一位明星員工。

當(dāng)你犯了錯或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無能”時,要改正錯誤并為此道歉

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場所根深蒂固的制度。詢問如今合作的同事和以前合作過的同事的體驗(yàn)和印象。人無完人,有時你可能會在某件事發(fā)生后意識到有人覺得自己被排擠或冒犯了。職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼說,承認(rèn)已經(jīng)造成的傷害并為此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公開承認(rèn)自己造成的傷害,并為此道歉。”(財富中文網(wǎng))

本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2023年2/3月刊,標(biāo)題為《是時候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽恕罚↖t’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

譯者:中慧言-王芳

亂蓬蓬的頭發(fā)并不能說明什么。超特大號的T恤衫也不能說明什么。那張困窘的臉,那自嘲的笑容卻將加密貨幣交易所創(chuàng)始人薩姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名譽(yù)掃地暴露無遺。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上寫道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了。”他幾乎是聳聳肩,承認(rèn)了一場讓他人損失了80億美元的加密貨幣災(zāi)難。“如果當(dāng)時我能更專注于我所做的事情,我辦事會更縝密。”班克曼-弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮臺時告訴《紐約時報》。

鑒于班克曼-弗里德面臨刑事欺詐指控,他如此張揚(yáng)地展示自己的無能可能是為了自保,但其言下之意是確定無疑的:其他無足輕重的人本該為小事忐忑不安。

當(dāng)我讀到班克曼-弗里德自稱無能時,我的第一反應(yīng)是“真是個小丑!”但我開始感到我們需要密切注意這樣的聯(lián)系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顧……”。

我寫了一本關(guān)于職場行為的書。好吧,也許不是那本書。而是一本題為《與他人合作無間》(Works Well With Others)的書。該書于2015年出版,講述了我作為一名年輕的、來自德克薩斯州的機(jī)上雜志編輯,如何在紐約市媒體界(以注重身份地位而聞名)游刃有余的故事。我這本書的論點(diǎn)是,無論你在哪個領(lǐng)域,得到同事和雇主青睞是通往職業(yè)成功的路徑。書中有介紹握手、寒暄和祝酒禮儀的章節(jié),還有一章的標(biāo)題是“如何在滿是重要人物的高級餐廳吃一頓有意義的午餐”。

我寫這本書的目標(biāo)受眾并不僅僅是男性。但現(xiàn)在回想起來,我發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些建議更適合我所在的群體: 直男、白人、男性。

在過去幾年的某個時刻,我開始意識到那些特殊的“人際技能”對我來說不再像以前那樣有效。也許是因?yàn)樾鹿诜窝滓咔楹瓦h(yuǎn)程工作的興起,消除了許多職場等級制度、慣例和裝模作樣。也許是對性別歧視和種族主義的考量,侵蝕了像我這樣的人的基本特權(quán),同時提升了歷史上被邊緣化的人的地位。也許廢話已經(jīng)變得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我慣用的幽默、討好和自嘲的招數(shù)似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我開始理解其中一些行為是操縱性的,可以讓別人做我不想做的工作。當(dāng)我在自己身上看到這些傾向時,我無法忽視它們。我開始發(fā)現(xiàn)這種行為對女性和有色人種的傷害,以及對工作場所中每個人的士氣、生產(chǎn)力和創(chuàng)造力的傷害。

不管他們是否真正有能力,許多男性都很擅長表現(xiàn)自己。實(shí)際上,這很容易。你在會議上要言不煩,當(dāng)你發(fā)言的時候,你向提出論斷的人提問,或者重復(fù)和贊揚(yáng)別人很有思想見地的觀點(diǎn)。你可以乘著別人敢為人先和勇于冒險的東風(fēng)。

與此相關(guān)的一種行為是“戰(zhàn)略性無能”(有時也被稱為“技能型無能”或“武器化無能”)。莉莎?韋斯特倫德(Lise Vesterlund)與三位合著者合著了《拒絕俱樂部:給女性毫無前途的工作畫上句號》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一書。戰(zhàn)略性無能指的是同事聲稱自己數(shù)學(xué)很差,這樣就能讓你處理所有的電子表格。丈夫打掃衛(wèi)生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承擔(dān)家務(wù)。這并不是懶惰那么簡單,而是不愿意做那些低價值工作(韋斯特倫德和合著者琳達(dá)?巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布倫達(dá)?佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和勞里?溫格特(Laurie Weingart)將這些工作稱為“不利于升職”的工作)。這些工作無法獲得太多榮譽(yù)或贊譽(yù);這些工作人們往往視而不見。不僅僅是男性會回避這些工作——但我在騙誰呢?主要是男性會回避這些工作。

韋斯特倫德告訴我:"這非常方便。"女性和有色人種往往會承擔(dān)這種不利于升職的工作——組織辦公室派對,參加招聘委員會,主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作組會議。"很多時候,我們讓女性承擔(dān)這種類型的工作的原因是,哦,她們很擅長這種工作,因?yàn)樗齻円淮斡忠淮蔚刈C明了她們擅長這種工作。但或許有必要退一步(對男性)說,你們怎么能只做那些有利于升職的工作,而把那些不利于升職的工作丟給別人呢?”

我立即意識到韋斯特倫德在說什么,這讓我想起了幾年前我和兩名女同事的一次Zoom電話會議。我的老板是一位有色人種女性,她要求我為項(xiàng)目制定時間表。"這個計劃非常好。"我說,然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你幫我制定項(xiàng)目流程。"我對她說。我開了個自嘲的玩笑,說自己無法在沒有幫助的情況下制定復(fù)雜的計劃。

問題是:我實(shí)際上并不知道自己是否真的不擅長制定項(xiàng)目時間表。我只是從來沒有做過,也不是特別想學(xué)。我知道我的同事是一個優(yōu)秀的項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理,所以對我來說,她承擔(dān)起這個責(zé)任才合情合理。

但這一次,我的請求沒有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的卻是漫長而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持槍歹徒帶著一頂可疑的邊緣平整的帽子走進(jìn)一家酒館。在幾秒鐘(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意。“話說,我自己來處理吧!”我說。然后我倒退著穿過來回晃動的酒館大門,慢吞吞地走著。

對我當(dāng)時的老板來說,她只是翻了個白眼而已。(最近我問起她這件事的時候,她都不記得了。)但那次會議是我第一次意識到——真正理解——我已經(jīng)養(yǎng)成了用魅力(或阿諛奉承,取決于你如何看待它)來讓別人為我做事的習(xí)慣。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)說,女性和有色人種一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定無罪的情況。她說:"這一點(diǎn)司空見慣,無處不在。人們對能力的定義存在偏見。這存在種族偏見,也存在性別偏見......這種偏見無孔不入。"

這種現(xiàn)象造成的后果是對婦女和有色人種的持續(xù)低估。韋斯特倫德講述了她書中的一個例子,律所要求一位律師招募一批實(shí)習(xí)生。韋斯特倫德解釋說,這位律師認(rèn)為這是一個很好的發(fā)展機(jī)會,但查看申請表和面試實(shí)習(xí)生這樣耗時的工作最終削減了她的計費(fèi)工時,還阻礙了她的職業(yè)發(fā)展。"所以談話不應(yīng)該只是:你擅長招聘實(shí)習(xí)生嗎?或者你享受招聘實(shí)習(xí)生的樂趣嗎?”韋斯特倫德告訴我。這樣的對話應(yīng)該是:"如果你想成為合伙人,你就要拿出一年時間招募實(shí)習(xí)生,但之后我們會把[這份工作]交給其他人。"

在《2022年職場女性報告》中,LeanIn.org和麥肯錫公司發(fā)現(xiàn),女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人正以前所未有的速度換工作。研究人員對4萬名員工的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),與男性一樣,這些女性有遠(yuǎn)大抱負(fù),但“她們的權(quán)威會受到輕度冒犯,也有跡象表明她們將更難獲得晉升"。

在閱讀這篇材料的時候,我想起了另一個讓我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要與遠(yuǎn)程辦公的同事進(jìn)行視頻聊天,這樣他才能參與討論。我沒帶手機(jī),就問同事能不能用一下她的。“當(dāng)然可以。”她說。這項(xiàng)任務(wù)要求她在我們討論想要做出修改的地方時,把手機(jī)對著墻舉15分鐘左右。我沒把這件事當(dāng)回事,但在那之后的幾個星期里,我和她交流都會感到不寒而栗。最終我明白了,電話事件是導(dǎo)火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。當(dāng)時,我認(rèn)為自己的行為并沒什么不妥。

現(xiàn)在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能覺得自己被冒犯了,很泄氣。當(dāng)我把這段軼事告訴韋斯特倫德時,她說:“這可能不是她第一次身處這樣的境地:她做的事情相當(dāng)于拿著電話,無法與其他人一樣參加會議。”

為什么我同事不直接拒絕,或者把手機(jī)遞給我讓我拿著? 在一個仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,這說起來容易做起來難。在一系列的實(shí)驗(yàn)中,韋斯特倫德和她的合著者發(fā)現(xiàn),女性被男經(jīng)理要求做會議記錄等不利于升職的工作的幾率比男性高出44%,女性答應(yīng)完成這樣的工作的幾率比男性高出50%。只有當(dāng)女性不在辦公室里的時候,男性才會主動去做那些必要卻乏味的工作。

我在職業(yè)生涯的早期就認(rèn)識到,讓別人做你的工作才是成功的應(yīng)有之義。在《紳士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鮮亮麗的雜志那種類似《廣告狂人》(Mad men)的環(huán)境中工作,就如同置身于虛張聲勢和戰(zhàn)略性無能的大師級課堂。

打電話的時候我會提高音量,這樣同事們就會知道我在和重要人物通話。只要我在電腦前,我就會皺起眉頭。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉餡煎蛋餅食譜時皺起眉頭,作沉思狀,否則你無法體會現(xiàn)代職場男性的感受。)

我所供職的男性雜志,就像許多其他傳統(tǒng)的男性組織一樣,是一個由恐懼和機(jī)會驅(qū)動的地方。失敗的風(fēng)險,或者讓自己難堪的風(fēng)險,尤其是如果你是一個已經(jīng)晉升到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職位的男人,會感覺到自己很可悲。你必須從第一天起就取得成功。

這是個不切實(shí)際的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),顯然,唯一的策略就是假裝,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持會議,那就避免這樣做。如果你從未制作過損益表,那就委托他人去做。

顯然,這種行為對于那些被留下來做實(shí)際工作的人(不論性別或種族)來說是不公平的。但這種行為也會侵蝕那些主張這種特權(quán)的人自己和公司。這種行為會抑制冒險和創(chuàng)新,也會影響“心理安全”。谷歌2015年對成功團(tuán)隊(duì)的研究被廣泛引用。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn),“心理安全”“無疑”是表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異的團(tuán)隊(duì)最重要的驅(qū)動力。如果沒有心理上的安全感,我們就不愿意嘗試新事物,就會錯過學(xué)習(xí)和職業(yè)成長的機(jī)會。

學(xué)習(xí)如何舉辦大型會議的最好方法就是舉辦一場大型會議——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你會犯一些可笑的錯誤。如果沒有試錯的經(jīng)驗(yàn),就無法真正精通,許多男人都罹患冒名頂替綜合癥:我認(rèn)為這是男性平庸癥。我們能夠取得成功,甚至得到美差和晉升,但我們并不知道自己是否擅長相應(yīng)的工作。通常情況下,我們并不擅長。

澄清一下,我不是在尋求同情。如果男性廢話在工作中失去了影響力,這是件好事。專攻關(guān)鍵性調(diào)整的職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每個行業(yè)都在發(fā)生代際變化。她說:“謝天謝地,Z世代帶來了變化。現(xiàn)在人們無所遁形了。要掩蓋你的罪惡很難。要掩蓋你的不足也很難。”

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那種坦率是令人鼓舞的。他們很快就會告訴你他們已經(jīng)超負(fù)荷了,不能再承擔(dān)更多的工作了——為什么有人要超負(fù)荷工作?這難道不是對員工和企業(yè)都不利嗎?他們會迅速提出問題。他們對自己的不足之處和需要成長的地方持開放態(tài)度。而他們對那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的經(jīng)理感到困惑。

如果我有機(jī)會對我的書做一些修改,我會說:不管你屬于什么群體,都要內(nèi)省,問一些讓自己脫離舒適區(qū)的、發(fā)人深省的問題。我的弱點(diǎn)是什么?如果我必須和自己一起工作,我會怎么評價自己?我不擅長什么?我下意識會避免什么事情?也許最重要的是:誰來收拾殘局?

最近,我開始把那些我一直試圖避免的“不利于升職”的工作視為成長機(jī)會——比如項(xiàng)目計劃和做筆記。在完成這些工作的過程中,我發(fā)現(xiàn)了多年前就該找到的拼圖碎片:那些讓我成為更好的同事、表現(xiàn)更優(yōu)異的品質(zhì)。

我已經(jīng)開始以不同的方式運(yùn)用我的人際技能——溝通、協(xié)作和情商。現(xiàn)在,當(dāng)我靠直覺分析在特定環(huán)境下人們的總體情緒時,我想的不是人們?nèi)绾慰创遥撬麄內(nèi)绾慰创⒗斫夂陀绊懕舜恕N疫€在自己身上發(fā)現(xiàn)了意想不到的天賦。例如,我經(jīng)常發(fā)現(xiàn)我能夠感知和發(fā)現(xiàn)不安,并在這種不安升級之前化解它。

傳統(tǒng)上,這些“軟技能”更多地是與女性相關(guān),而非男性。如今,在已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)型的職場中,這些軟技能是取得成功的關(guān)鍵——除非你在工作上也表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異,否則它們不會起作用。

但是,謝天謝地,放任自流的男性平庸時代即將落幕。這對所有人來說都是一種解脫,包括平庸的男人們自己。

如何杜絕工作中的 "戰(zhàn)略性無能"現(xiàn)象

經(jīng)理和公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)可以做很多事情,以確保每個人都分擔(dān)"不利于升職"的工作任務(wù)。

解釋合理的委托和減輕苦差事之間的區(qū)別。

把工作委托給別人沒有錯;事實(shí)上,這往往是一種善意,是讓同事脫穎而出的機(jī)會。有些任務(wù)必須完成,即使這些任務(wù)收獲不大。盡管如此,如果承擔(dān)"辦公室家務(wù)"的同事總是同一批人,而其他人則完全推卸責(zé)任,這就很能說明問題了。讓"不利于升職"的工作成為你工作場所詞匯的一部分。鼓勵就所有任務(wù)的價值進(jìn)行公開對話,即使這些任務(wù)不屬于可計費(fèi)工時或不是備受矚目的任務(wù)。

不要讓志愿者做沒人想做的工作。

研究表明,當(dāng)需要做會議記錄或?yàn)閳F(tuán)隊(duì)點(diǎn)餐時,與男性相比,女性更有可能舉手承擔(dān)這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。為了避免這種不平衡現(xiàn)象一再發(fā)生,隨機(jī)選人(從帽子里抽取名字牌)完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù),或者大家輪流來。

心理安全建設(shè)。

一項(xiàng)又一項(xiàng)研究表明,創(chuàng)造一個讓員工敢于冒險、不懼失敗的工作環(huán)境,是創(chuàng)新和生產(chǎn)力的關(guān)鍵。員工通過試錯來培養(yǎng)技能和能力,所以只有在安全的環(huán)境中,他們才敢嘗試新的、不熟悉的工作。

盡可能讓更多人享有備受矚目、“有晉升空間”的工作機(jī)會。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森說:“人們對能力的定義存在偏見。她補(bǔ)充說,遺憾的是,許多公司“認(rèn)可某些領(lǐng)域的天才,而非其他領(lǐng)域的天才”。比如典型的神童創(chuàng)始人或衣衫不整的技術(shù)天才,但許多明星員工并不符合這些相當(dāng)有局限性的群體畫像。要給整個公司的員工挑戰(zhàn)自我、證明自己才能的機(jī)會。你很可能會找到下一位明星員工。

當(dāng)你犯了錯或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無能”時,要改正錯誤并為此道歉。

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場所根深蒂固的制度。詢問如今合作的同事和以前合作過的同事的體驗(yàn)和印象。人無完人,有時你可能會在某件事發(fā)生后意識到有人覺得自己被排擠或冒犯了。職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼說,承認(rèn)已經(jīng)造成的傷害并為此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公開承認(rèn)自己造成的傷害,并為此道歉。”(財富中文網(wǎng))

本文另一版本登載于《財富》雜志2023年2/3月刊,標(biāo)題為《是時候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽恕罚↖t’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

譯者:中慧言-王芳

ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

The unkempt hair wasn’t the tell. The XXXL T-shirt wasn’t the tell. No, the giveaway about disgraced cryptocurrency exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was on his sheepish face: that self-deprecating grin.

“I’m sorry?…?I fucked up,” Bankman-Fried tweeted in November, owning up with a virtual shrug to a crypto calamity that erased $8 billion in other people’s money. “Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,’’ Bankman-Fried told the New York Times as his crypto exchange, FTX, unraveled.

Bankman-Fried’s ostentatious display of incompetence is likely self-serving, given that he faces criminal fraud charges, but the implication is unmistakable: Other, lesser minds should have been sweating the small stuff.

When I read about Bankman-Fried’s professed ineptitude, my first thought was “What a clown!” But increasingly I’ve begun to feel a wary connection: “There, but for the grace of God?…”

I wrote the book on workplace behavior. Okay, maybe not the book. But a book. It’s called Works Well With Others. Published in 2015, it tells the story of how I, as a young in-flight-magazine editor from Texas, navigated New York City’s famously status-conscious media world. My book’s thesis is that being well-liked by your colleagues and bosses is a path to professional success, in whatever field you’re in. There are chapters on shaking hands, making small talk, and giving a toast, and a chapter called “How to Have a Meaningful Lunch in a Fancy Restaurant Full of Important People.”

I didn’t write the book just for men. But in retrospect I see that some of its advice works best for the demographic I happen to belong to: straight, white, male.

And at some point in the last few years, I started to realize that those particular “people skills” weren’t working for me the way they used to. Maybe it was the COVID-19 pandemic and rise of remote work, which stripped away many of the hierarchies, conventions, and pretensions of office life. Maybe it was the reckonings about sexism and racism that have eroded some of the baseline privilege granted to people who look like me, while elevating some of those who have been historically marginalized. Maybe bullshit has simply become less of a currency. Whatever it was, my go-to moves of humor, ingratiation, and self-deprecation just didn’t seem to be landing.

Even worse, I started to understand some of those behaviors as manipulative, a way of getting others to do work I didn’t want to do. When I saw those tendencies in myself, I couldn’t unsee them. And I began to see the damage this kind of behavior does to women and people of color—and to the morale, productiveness, and creativity of everyone in a workplace.

Whether they are truly competent or not, many men are very good at performing competence. It’s kind of easy, actually. You don’t talk a lot in meetings, and when you do you ask questions of the people who made assertions, or repeat and praise good points others made. You ride the wake of the boldness and risk-taking of others.

A related behavior, says Lise Vesterlund, who along with three coauthors wrote The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work, is “strategic incompetence” (sometimes called “skilled incompetence” or “weaponized incompetence”). Strategic incompetence is the colleague who claims to be terrible at math, so that you handle all the spreadsheets. The husband who does such a bad vacuuming job that you take on the chore yourself. It’s not straightforward laziness—it’s a reluctance to do the lower-value jobs that Vesterlund and coauthors Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, and Laurie Weingart call “non-promotable.” This is the work that doesn’t get much credit or garner accolades; work that’s often invisible. It’s not just men who avoid it—but who am I kidding? It’s mostly men.

“It’s very convenient,” Vesterlund told me, that women and people of color tend to get saddled with this non-promotable work—organizing the office party, sitting on hiring committees, chairing a DEI task force. “Oftentimes the reason we ask women is because, Oh, they’re so good at it, because they’ve demonstrated time and time again that they are good at it. But it might be worth sort of taking a step back and saying [to men], How could you possibly do all the promotable work, and not be able to do the non-promotable work?”

I immediately recognized what Vesterlund was talking about, and it made me think of a Zoom call I was on with two women colleagues a couple of years ago. My boss, a woman of color, asked that I map out a timeline for completing a project. “That’s a great plan,” I said, then looked to my other colleague on the screen. “I’ll just need help working up a project flow,” I said to her. I made a self-deprecating joke about my inability to plan complex initiatives without help.

The thing is: I didn’t actually know if I was bad at mapping out a project timeline. I just had never done it, and I didn’t particularly want to learn how. I knew my colleague to be an excellent project manager, so it only made sense to me that she should take on that responsibility.

But this time, my request was not seconded. What I was expecting was a “Sure!,” but what I got was a protracted, excruciating silence, like in a Western, when a gunslinger with a suspiciously clean hat enters a saloon. After a few long seconds, I backtracked. “You know what? I’ll handle it myself!” I said. Then I metaphorically backed through the swinging saloon doors and shuffled on my way.

For my then boss, the incident didn’t amount to more than an eye roll. (She didn’t even remember it when I asked her about it recently.) But that meeting was the first time I realized—really understood—that I had made a habit of using charm (or smarm, depending on how you see it) as a way of getting other people to do work for me.

Of course, the benefit of the doubt granted to some white men has never been invisible to women and people of color, says Y-Vonne Hutchinson, CEO of a diversity, equity, and inclusion consulting firm ReadySet. “I see it in almost every aspect of the work that we do,” she says. “There is a bias toward what competence looks like. It’s a racial bias, a gender bias?…?it’s incredibly pervasive.”

The converse of this phenomenon is the persistent underestimation of women and people of color. Vesterlund recounted an example from her book of an attorney who was asked to recruit a cohort of interns. It was presented as a terrific opportunity for growth, Vesterlund explained, but the time-consuming work of reading applications and interviewing ended up cutting into her billable hours, and stalling her advancement at the firm. “So the conversation shouldn’t just be, Are you good at recruiting interns, or do you enjoy recruiting interns?”

Vesterlund told me. It should be: “If you want to make partner, you can recruit interns for one year, but then we’re going to give [that job] to somebody else.”

In their 2022 Women in the Workplace report, LeanIn.org and McKinsey & Company found that women leaders were switching jobs at an unprecedented rate. The researchers’ surveys of 40,000 employees found that the women had similar ambitions to men, but that “they experience microaggressions that undermine their authority and signal that it will be harder for them to advance.”

Reading this, another professional episode came to mind, and made me cringe. A woman colleague and I were looking at some printed materials and needed to FaceTime someone who was working remotely so that he could weigh in. I didn’t have my phone on me, so I asked my colleague if she could use hers. “Sure,” she said. The task required her to hold her phone toward a wall for about 15 minutes as we talked about things we wanted to change. I thought nothing of it, but for weeks after that I felt a chill in communications with her. Eventually it became clear to me that the phone incident was the reason. I was defensive and confused. I didn’t think what I’d done was even remotely objectionable behavior.

Now I understand that my colleague may well have experienced the moment as offensive and demoralizing. When I told Vesterlund the anecdote, she said, “This probably wasn’t the first time that she was in a position where she was doing the equivalent of holding the phone, unable to participate in the meeting on the same level as everybody else.”

Why didn’t my colleague just say no, or hand me the phone to hold? That’s easier said than done, in a culture that still expects women to do much of the grunt work. In a series of experiments, Vesterlund and her coauthors found that women are 44% more likely than men to be asked by male managers to perform non-promotable tasks such as taking meeting notes, and 50% more likely to say yes. It’s only when women aren’t in the room that men volunteer to do that necessary, unglamorous work.

I learned early in my career that getting other people to do your job was what success looked like. Working in the Mad Men–like environment of glossy magazines, including Esquire and GQ, was a master class in bluster and strategic incompetence.

I would raise my voice while I was on the phone, so colleagues would know I was talking with someone important. I would furrow my brow anytime I was at my computer. (You can’t relate to what it’s like to be a man in the modern workplace unless you’ve scowled pensively while Googling frittata recipes.)

The men’s magazines I worked at, like so many other traditionally masculine organizations, are places driven by fear as much as opportunity. The risk of failing, or embarrassing oneself, especially if you’re a man who has risen to a leadership position, can feel pathetically existential. You must succeed from day one.

This is an impossible standard, so the obvious strategy is to fake it, and to avoid any situation where your inadequacy will be visible. If you don’t know how to run a meeting, avoid doing so. If you haven’t ever created a profit and loss statement, delegate it.

This behavior is obviously unfair to those who are left doing the real work, of any gender or race. But it’s also corrosive to those asserting this privilege themselves, and to companies. It suppresses risk-taking, innovation, and “psychological safety”—the quality that Google’s much-cited 2015 study of successful teams found to be “far and away” the most important dynamic of the highest-performing groups. Without psychological safety, we’re reluctant to try new things, and we miss out on opportunities to learn and grow professionally.

The best way to learn how to run a big meeting is to run a big meeting—even if you screw it up the first, second, third time; even if you make ridiculous flubs. Without the experience of trial and error that leads to real mastery, many men suffer from a kind of strange impostor syndrome: I think of it as a male mediocrity disorder. We can be successful, and even get plum assignments and promotions, but we have no real idea whether we’re any good at our jobs. Often, we’re not.

To be clear, I’m not asking for sympathy. If traditionally masculine bullshit is losing its currency at work, that’s a good thing. A generational change is underway in every industry, says Stacey Staaterman, a career coach specializing in pivots. “Thank God for what Gen Z has brought to the table,” she says. “It’s harder to hide now. It’s harder to cover up your sins. It’s harder to cover up your inadequacies.”

The kind of candor I see in Gen Z colleagues is inspiring. They are quick to tell you when they are overloaded and can’t take on more—because why should anyone be overloaded with work? Isn’t that bad for the employee and the business? They are quick to ask questions. They’re open about their deficiencies and areas for growth. And they are bewildered by managers who won’t come clean about their own.

If I had a chance to revise my book, I’d say: Whatever your demographic profile, ask uncomfortable, revealing questions about yourself. What are my weak spots? What would I say about myself if I had to work with me? What am I bad at? What do I avoid in a knee-jerk way? And perhaps most important: Who picks up the slack?

Lately, I’ve begun to see the “non-promotable” work I’ve always tried to avoid as an opportunity for growth—project planning and note-taking, for example. And in doing these tasks, I have found puzzle pieces that I should have located years ago: qualities that make me a better colleague who produces better work.

I have started using my people skills—communication, collaboration, and emotional intelligence—in a different way. When I read a room now, it’s less about how I think people are seeing me, but how they are seeing and understanding and influencing one another. And I’ve discovered unexpected talents in myself. For instance, I often find that I can sense and identify unrest, and defuse it before it escalates.

These “soft skills,” traditionally associated more with women than men, are key for getting ahead in today’s transformed workplace—but they don’t work unless you’re also doing a great job.

But the sun is setting on the age of unchecked male mediocrity, and thank goodness. It’s a relief for everyone, including mediocre men.

How to stamp out ‘strategic incompetence’ at work

There’s a lot that managers and company leaders can do to ensure that everyone is sharing the burden of “non-promotable” work.

Explain the difference between reasonable delegating and the offloading of drudgery.

There’s nothing wrong with delegating; indeed, often it can be a kindness, an opportunity to let colleagues shine. And some tasks have to get done, even if they’re not particularly rewarding. Still, it helps to name what’s happening when the same colleagues always take on the “office housework” and others shirk it entirely: Make “non-promotable” work a part of your workplace’s vocabulary. Encourage clear conversations about the value of all tasks, even if they’re not billable hours or high-profile assignments.

Don’t ask for volunteers to do tasks nobody wants.

Studies show that women are more likely than men to raise their hand when it comes time to take meeting notes or order lunch for the group. To avoid this imbalance, pick names out of a hat, or take turns.

Build psychological safety.

Creating a work environment where employees feel safe taking risks and failing is key to innovation and productivity, study after study has shown. Employees build skills and competence through trial and error, so it must feel safe for them to try out new, unfamiliar kinds of work.

Spread widely the opportunities for high-profile, “promotable” work.

“There is a bias toward what competence looks like,” says Y-Vonne Hutchinson of the DEI consulting organization ReadySet. Unfortunately, many companies “recognize genius in some spaces and not others,” she adds. Some geniuses look like the archetypal wunderkind founder or the disheveled tech brainiac—but many great minds don’t fit those rather limited demographic contours. Give people throughout your organization opportunities to challenge themselves and prove their talents. You’ll likely find your next star performer.

When you make a mistake or display “strategic incompetence,” fix it and apologize.

On an ongoing basis, examine your own behavior and the entrenched systems of your workplace. Ask colleagues present and past about their experiences and impressions. Nobody’s perfect, and sometimes you may realize after an incident that someone felt sidelined or offended. Acknowledging the harm that was done and apologizing for it can go a long way, says Stacey Staaterman, a professional coach: “The way to renew integrity is to speak the words out loud.”

This article appears in the February/March 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “It’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work.”

財富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識產(chǎn)權(quán)為財富媒體知識產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評論
評論

撰寫或查看更多評論

請打開財富Plus APP

前往打開

            主站蜘蛛池模板: 裕民县| 蛟河市| 宿松县| 石屏县| 微博| 永寿县| 喀喇沁旗| 磐安县| 长治市| 龙江县| 新乡市| 阳城县| 新化县| 乌审旗| 定安县| 蓬安县| 隆尧县| 沧州市| 科技| 梓潼县| 恩施市| 祁连县| 当雄县| 成安县| 方城县| 扶绥县| 绍兴县| 东城区| 沅陵县| 卢湾区| 松滋市| 崇明县| 通许县| 都昌县| 寿光市| 怀柔区| 永康市| 阳曲县| 丰县| 黑水县| 绵竹市|