回想一下，自己有沒(méi)有這樣的時(shí)候：明明一直都在工作，甚至還犧牲了休息、生活、娛樂(lè)等時(shí)間，但自己的工作效率卻并不高，而且還覺(jué)得越來(lái)越累？其實(shí)，總是工作的人，未必就真的會(huì)工作。人的精力時(shí)間總是有限的，抓住最有效的工作時(shí)間才是上乘之選，而非埋頭苦干，陷入死循環(huán)。

By Michael Harris

陳思純 選 劉宇佳 注

Recently a series of reports appeared online in the United States and the United Kingdom lamenting¹ the “l(fā)azy French.” A new labor law in France had apparently banned² organizations from e-mailing their employees after 6 p.m. In fact, it turned out to be more a case of “l(fā)azy journalists” than “l(fā)azy French”: as The Economist explained, the “l(fā)aw” was not a law at all but a labor agreement aimed at improving health among a specific group of professionals, and there wasn’t even a hard curfew for digital communication.³

Like all myths, however, this one revealed a set of abiding values subscribed to by the folk who perpetuated it.⁴ Brits and Americans have long suspected that the French (and others) are goofing off while they—the good corporate soldiers—continue to toil away.⁵ They’re proud about it too. A Gallup poll⁶, released in May, found that most U.S. workers see their constant connection with office mates as a positive. In the age of the smartphone, there’s no such thing as “downtime,” and we profess to be happier—and more productive—for it.⁷

Are we, though after reviewing thousands of books, articles and papers on the topic and interviewing dozens of experts in fields from neurobiology and psychology to education and literature,⁸ I don’t think so. When we accept this new and permanent ambient workload—checking business news in bed or responding to coworkers’ emails during breakfast—we may believe that we are dedicated, tireless workers.⁹ But, actually, we’re mostly just getting the small, easy things done. Being busy does not equate to being effective.

And let’s not forget about ambient play, which often distracts¹⁰ us from accomplishing our most important tasks. Facebook and Twitter report that their sites are most active during office hours. After all, the employee who’s required to respond to her boss on Sunday morning will think nothing of¹¹ responding to friends on Wednesday afternoon. And research shows that these digital derailments are costly: it’s not only the minutes lost responding to a tweet but also the time and energy required to“reenter” the original task.¹² As Douglas Gentile, a professor at Iowa State University who studies the effects of media on attention spans¹³, explains, “Everyone who thinks they’re good at multitasking is wrong. We’re actually multiswitching [and] giving ourselves extra work.”

Each shift of focus sets our brain back and creates a cumulative attention debt, resulting in a harried workforce incapable of producing sustained burst of creative energy.¹⁴ Constant connection means that we’re“always at work”, yes, but also that we’re “never at work”—fully.

People and organizations looking for brave new ideas or significant critical thinking need to recognize that disconnection is therefore sometimes preferable to connection. You don’t ask a jogger who just ran six miles to compete in a sprint, so why would you ask an executive?who’s been answering a pinging phone all morning to deliver top-drawer content at his next meeting?¹⁵

Some parts of the workforce do rely on constant real-time communication¹⁶. But others should demand and be given proper breaks from the digital maelstrom¹⁷. Batch-processing¹⁸ email is one easy solution. Do it a few times a day and reserve the rest of your time for real work. Most colleagues and clients will survive without a response for three hours, and if it’s truly urgent¹⁹, they can pick up the phone.

The great tech historian Melvin Kranzberg said, “technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral.” That statement should become a real tenet²⁰ of the information age. I don’t advocate abstinence or blanket rules like that fictional post-6 p.m. email ban.²¹ However, I do think our cult²² of connectivity has gone too far. We can’t keep falling prey to ambient work or play. Instead, we must actively decide on our level of tech engagement at different times to maximize productivity, success, and happiness.

Vocabulary：

1. lament: 嘆息。

2. ban: 禁止。

3. curfew: 宵禁；digital: 數(shù)字的。

4. abiding value: 不變的價(jià)值觀；subscribe: 認(rèn)可；perpetuate: 使不朽，保持。

5. 英國(guó)人和美國(guó)人一直都覺(jué)得法國(guó)人（及其他人）整日都在游手好閑；而他們——優(yōu)秀的企業(yè)勞模——卻一直在勤勤懇懇地工作。suspect: 懷疑；?goof off: 游手好閑，混日子；?toil away: 長(zhǎng)期勞累。

6. Gallup poll: 蓋洛普民意調(diào)查，美國(guó)民意調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)。因1935年由G.蓋洛普創(chuàng)辦該所而得名。民意測(cè)驗(yàn)每年舉行20～25次，總統(tǒng)大選年略多。調(diào)查內(nèi)容包括政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)等。

7. 在智能手機(jī)的時(shí)代中，不存在所謂的“停工期”。我們自稱更加快樂(lè)，更有工作成效。downtime: 停工期；profess: 自稱，公開(kāi)表示。

8. review: 瀏覽，查看；neurobiology: 神經(jīng)生物學(xué)。

9. 我們接受了這種新的工作模式，工作隨時(shí)隨地，源源不斷——在床上查看行業(yè)新聞或是早餐時(shí)回復(fù)同事郵件——我們也許會(huì)覺(jué)得，自己十分敬業(yè)，是不知疲倦的員工。permanent: 永久的；ambient: 周圍的；dedicated: 有奉獻(xiàn)精神的。

10. distract: 使分心。

11. think nothing of: 把……視為平常。

12. 研究表明，這些“數(shù)字脫軌”的成本很高：一方面，回復(fù)推特要花費(fèi)時(shí)間；另一方面，重新投入到之前的工作中也需要時(shí)間和精力。derailment: 脫軌；tweet: 推特。

13. attention span: (心理) 意力廣度，注意力的持續(xù)時(shí)間。

14. 注意力的每次轉(zhuǎn)換使大腦回歸原點(diǎn)，并產(chǎn)生累積的注意力負(fù)債，因而，人們變得更加忙碌，無(wú)法產(chǎn)生出持續(xù)的創(chuàng)造精力。cumulative: 累積的；harried workforce: 忙碌的工作。

15. 你不會(huì)讓一位剛慢跑6英里的人去參加沖刺比賽，所以，又為什么要去讓一位整個(gè)早晨都在忙碌接聽(tīng)電話的負(fù)責(zé)人，在接下來(lái)的會(huì)議里，做出重要發(fā)言呢？jogger: 慢跑者；sprint: 沖刺；top-drawer: 最重要的。

16. real-time communication: 實(shí)時(shí)通信。

17. maelstrom: 漩渦。

18. batch-processing: 批量處理的。

19. urgent: 緊急的。

20. tenet: 原則。

21. 我本人并不提倡節(jié)制或者類似下午六點(diǎn)以后就不允許進(jìn)行郵件往來(lái)等一概而論的規(guī)則。 abstinence: 節(jié)制；blanket: 一概而論的；fictional: 虛構(gòu)的。

22. cult: 狂熱崇拜。

（來(lái)源：英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)雜志 編輯：祝興媛）