[書展] How Women Rise 女生在職場真的比較 容易吃悶虧❓
#po一本你最近買的書challenge
📘How Women Rise這本書,重塑了我的職涯後續的規劃想法
台北國際書展的書展實體取消,大家改為線上曬書,我來分享最近讀完,恍然打通職涯規劃任督二脈之感的書
2020疫情讓就業環境很震盪,公司每次的裁員、改組、人事異動,整個震盪線,真的不是容易可以釐清說清的
我也歷經心情跟現實的很多不確定性,工作喪失動力跟信心。然後也遇到轉機的出現。
在渾屯不確定的時期,我嘗試找尋一位我可信任的高一級的大頭,建立Mentor關係。
我會想去對話,是因為我想要找出我職涯下半場(下個20年)的方向,推去下個階段
👍他推薦了我一本書How Women Rise by Sally Helgesen and Marshall Goldsmith
我一讀,整個大驚,被迫開竅之感🥰
書是由兩位專業且資深的Executive Coach合寫,綜合他們就職場晉升之道 v.s.女性成長跟角色期待而養成的行為,來解構該怎麼跳脫已習慣的行為,在這個被早期男性建構出的商業框架中爬升
老實說,我之前不覺得男生跟女生成長、教育的方式有差這麼多嗎? 當然男女性的很多自我認知跟思考方式是不太一樣
常常在學校的學術表現,可能男生成績還不如女生。但是怎麼一到職場環境,就變不同❓
書中列舉了12個女性在職場常會有的習慣,如果你有中一個,就值得好好將本書讀一下
例如
❌你等待別人來發現你的苦勞或貢獻、不好意思去肯定你的成果
❌過度依賴專業,覺得升遷的辦法就是靠專業
❌你認真做好每一項工作優先於未來的職涯規劃
❌工作中一個小插枝發生,內心上演著內心戲,覺得別人是不是在背後議論紛紛你
✳️Habit 1: Reluctance to claim your achievements
✳️Habit 2: Expecting others to spontaneously notice and reward your contributions
✳️Habit 3: Overvaluing expertise
✳️Habit 4: Building rather than leveraging relationships
✳️Habit 5: Failing to enlist allies from day one
✳️Habit 6: Putting your job before your career
✳️Habit 7: The perfection trap
✳️Habit 8: The disease to Please 不小心就當爛好人
✳️Habit 9: Minimizing 壓抑、安靜、太乖
✳️Habit 10: Too much 太優柔善感、講太多贅字
✳️Habit 11: Ruminating 深刻反省
✳️Habit 12: Letting your radar distract you 內心戲想太多,導致忘記大局
公司的制度,早期是由男性建立起來的,現在普遍C級職位,還都是男性居多。很多職場裡的型態或組成,不諱言地都是有一種「無形的制度規章」既然如此,當然就要知道這些無形的職場江湖規則
😱「 默默」在職場真的不是一個好美德,每聽到「會吵的孩子有糖吃」的同事行為,可能會覺得吃味或不平,那為啥麼會給糖?看似一時的吵,可能其實已經暗盤佈局一陣子,只是我們不知道而已
😱「司馬昭之心的野心」在商業的職場環境中,也真的不是負面,相反地,可能會吸引到你要的資源幫助你
我真的很認真地邊畫線邊讀書,順便做做自我的分析
有人有覺得自己中了以上12點中的哪一項習慣嗎❓留言一下,有機會的話,我也可再說明細項☺️
書的官網 http://www.howwomenrise.com
補充一下,本書作者Marshall前一本書what got you here will not get u there 也是講類似的內容,只是當時他尚未發現女性跟男性有些的差異。我沒有閱讀所以無法置評
😆提到閱讀,我中文閱讀的樂趣是讀小說,尤其日文翻譯小說。我一向覺得讀英文翻譯的小說或商業書很彆扭不順
這次再讀英文的商業書,才發現自己是商業書要讀英文才覺得流暢。真的是很久沒讀書了,所以也一口氣買了相近的書
📕The Making of A Manager by Julie Zhuo:
超級推薦給新手主管、剛帶人的manager, 從一個manager的意義、招聘撇步、反饋技巧,都寫的很好,如果我當年有這本書,可能就比較清楚我到底該做什麼了. 這本並沒有是針對女性,就是一般manager的情況.
📕Women In Tech by Tara Wheeler:
本書一半是8位女生的故事,一半是如果想進入科技圈,求職該注意的事,跟一些職場基本須知跟概念。我覺得是適合準備或剛踏入職場的人
📕She Speaks by Yvette Cooper:
本書收入40篇知名女性的公開講稿,例如伊莉莎白一世、現任女王二世的lockdown演說、德國總理Merkel、蜜雪兒歐巴馬、妙麗Emma Watson.我當睡前讀物,隨意翻讀
📘📘一個巧合,四本書都是藍色封面📘📘
👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼我的書【大英國小職員職場奮鬥記:拒絕壓榨!大膽出走海外就業去】👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼
博客來購書網址:https://goo.gl/V5Vm7y
誠品購書網址:https://goo.gl/fEFNDP
樂天電子書:https://goo.gl/KStfuT
👉🏼香港:三聯、中華、商務書局
👉🏼英國郵寄購書請私訊
claim中文翻譯 在 龍應台 - Lung Yingtai Facebook 的最佳解答
小編快報
《柏林脈動》(The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。
這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。
今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題,作者有五位,分別是:
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使,現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson,以及台灣的龍應台。
德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表,提問是:「面對中國,你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益,即使犧牲經濟利益?」
答案:贊成 76%
反對 19%
小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文,跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好,那那那,那表示你英文很好,你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來
反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天,我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的,用問句來表達自己的悲觀,譬如,「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的,用黑色幽默來表達樂觀,譬如,「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了,沒時間管台灣。」
跟德國一樣,台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差,在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國,中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而,隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張,反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續,而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。
和歐洲一樣,台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時,很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」,當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時,很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是,中國兩者兼備。後果就是,台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。
如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的,你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命,一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨,不管你說它是自願還是被迫,放下了政權,分享權力。沒有流血,昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後,政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。
台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主,時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位,但是,就如同當年對於德國,美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是,在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時,中國也宣布,它在台灣海峽及其領空,要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。
所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅,這個威脅,往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅,卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本,刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功,對台灣的民主制度和機構本身,是個真實的危險。
國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人,其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價,很大的代價,而得到今天的成果。這個成果,太珍貴了,不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。
德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了,如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護,一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解,一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰,又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由,德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員,德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力,發揮最大的影響力。
但是,歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?
首先,如果沒有台灣模式,全世界大概就都得接受一種說法,就是,儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的,而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事:未必如此。
第二,台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯,如果中國是一艘航空母艦,那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員,就人口論,台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國,比波蘭稍小,但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看,台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以,歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?
23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future
Lung Yingtai
On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”
Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.
As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.
Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.
Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.
However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.
Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.
Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.
But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?
The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf
claim中文翻譯 在 黃之鋒 Joshua Wong Facebook 的最佳貼文
【外國月亮不是特別圓】
投入國際連結工作好一段時間,有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」,但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港,從來不是理所當然,當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力,以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地,對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想,這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。
德國左翼黨的國會議員,竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡,尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。
有時對於國際政客不理解香港,也是有點無奈,但我們香港作為國際大都會,對於世界各國的抗爭運動,又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解,只盼在抗爭持續的情況下,香港人能夠繼續努力,讓世界理解我們,與香港同行。
早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論,有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共,因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者,不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.
Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…
近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價,這些評價實在令人難以茍同。
Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外,其實際行動與共產理念差天共地,實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。
中國共產黨是一個極權,除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外,中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活,或者是工人階級,對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具,隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控,打壓、拘捕異見人士。
由此可見,中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨,而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國,反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐,唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動,從來都不是由價值推動,而總是由金錢和利益推動。
中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨,它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者,與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。
Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史,指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上,清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以,Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」,其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後,香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。
清朝末期發生申亥革命,中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰,中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯,香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府,而非中華人民共和國。
另外,香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地,而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位,都屬中國主權範圍內,甚至指:「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名,失去前途自決的權利。
而觀乎而今情況,即使香港主權移交予中國後,不公義不但沒有消失,反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評,我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」,我很希望,他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人,而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。
人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石,中國共產黨的行為,與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下,我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。
Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.
PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.
The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.
The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.
Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”
It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.
Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.
What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.
And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.
I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.
claim中文翻譯 在 讓你出國實現多益人生喔。 baggage claim(行李提領區) 在 ... 的推薦與評價
註一) *Claim可以當動詞或名詞用,其實有很多意思,在這裡為認領、索取;claim還有聲稱、(天災)奪去(生命)的意思,例如:Typhoon Dujuan claimed two lives and ... ... <看更多>