|
Part II: Speed
Article 2
Because X: The New Use of an Old Word
[Time 2]
On January 3, approximately 200 linguists at the American Dialect Society conference gathered to vote on what their 2013 Word of the Year should be. While creative coinages sharknado, doge, bitcoin, selfie, Obamacare, and twerk all received nominations, it was an old word used in new ways that most excited linguistics this year: because. In the official ADS press release, Ben Zimmer describes the “new grammatical possibilities” of because: “No longer does because have to be followed by of or a full clause. Now one often sees tersely worded rationales like ‘because science’ or ‘because reasons.’” Jessica Love captures the tone of because saying, “It’s a fun, pithy, hand-wavy way of summing up a situation.” Mark Liberman notes that the new because “seems usually to be associated with an implication that the referenced line of reasoning is weak.” English speakers have been having a lot of fun with this new construction. My favorite recent sighting comes from a November 2013 film review of About Time on the NPR blog Monkey See. In this movie Bill Nighy’s character reveals to his son that all the men in their family can travel back in time to a moment they’ve already lived. Chris Klimek writes: Nighy claims he’s used his life-extending powers to get more reading done. I inferred that he’s also spent off-the-books eons whoring around Bangkok or wherever, because: Bill Nighy. Where did the new because come from?The origin of this use is uncertain, though there are theories. Neal Whitman presents one idea: because x is an extension of the older construction because, hey with the hey lopped off as in this line from a 1987 Saturday Night Live sketch: If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, because maybe you’ll look like a dummy and people will try to catch you because, hey, free dummy. [333 words]
[Time 3]
Gretchen McCulloch, however, is skeptical of this origin story. She instead looks to the meme “because of reasons,” as popularized by the Three Word Phrase comic #139 published in 2011. She finds it more likely that this phrase was shortened to “because reasons” than that a hey was dropped. Stan Carey points out the meme “because race car” made the Internet rounds around the same time, but quickly adds that because x was used before 2011, and offers a slew of examples. Perhaps because x developed from a combination of uses coexisting on the linguistic landscape. Or maybe it’s something else entirely. Note that this sort of linguistic development is happening beyond just because. Carey also observed similar constructions with but, also, so, in conclusion, and thus. Think: I haven’t had coffee yet, thus grumpy. Whether or not this alters etymological theories is still up in the air. What should we call it?Linguists use various titles for this construction; some refer to it as because NOUN, others as because x, and still others refer to it as prepositional because. As its usage evolves, some names appear to be better suited than others. Because NOUNhas already been proven to be too narrow for the versatility of this new use. While this covers some common examples, it doesn’t capture because followed by other parts of speech including verbs (I’m buying this jacket because want), adjectives (Must sleep now because tired), adverbs (I’m not going out in sub-zero degree weather, because honestly), or interjections (because yay!). Many experts have been calling the new because a preposition, though this is up for debate. Neal Whitman calls it a preposition. Joe at Mr. Verb also prefers the prepositional distinction thanks to because’s accepted origin–from the two-word prepositional phrase by cause. McCulloch, on the other hand, breaks down why she thinks the name prepositional because falls apart, discussing how some noun phrases are okay with this new because while others are not. This, she says, is not typical of prepositions. Geoffrey Pullum over at Language Log address these concerns with a counterargument, saying that prepositions are far more flexible than “standard dictionary definitions” make them out to be. There is currently not any sort of consensus among linguists over the part of speech of this new because, though this might change as the discussion continues. I personally feel that because x is the safest moniker for the time being. As far as the part of speech goes, the grammar classification might further shift as English speakers play with and develop the new uses of because x. Have you heard or seen examples of this construction? Do you use it yourself? [466 words]
Source: Dictionary Blog
http://blog.dictionary.com/because-x/
Article 3
Hire slow and fire fast
[Time 4]
A lot of start-ups hire fast and fire slow. A bias for speed combined with the pressure for high growth drives many leaders to be quick to hire (“We need to fill this role now!”) but slow to remove underperforming employees because they’re busy and would rather put off the awkward, hard conversations. It can lead to what Guy Kawasaki, when he was still at Apple, called “the bozo explosion.”
This dynamic led one Silicon Valley company through a season of undisciplined growth leading up to a massive lay-off. It was the organizational equivalent of open heart surgery: instead of having the daily discipline required to maintain a lean and entrepreneurial team, leaders waited until the organizational arteries were blocked and major systems were failing before putting the whole company into trauma through massive, corrective surgery.
Contrast that behavior with that of a 700-person company with more than a billion dollars of annual revenue. That’s a staggering 1.4 million dollars of revenue per employee — a ratio that has been achieved carefully, by design. I recently worked with the CEO and her top 35 executives. They want to scale while maintaining their lean and entrepreneurial edge. As I introduced the idea of “hire slow, fire fast,” I thought it might seem a bit provocative. But no sooner had I mentioned the idea, than the CEO interrupted enthusiastically. She said, “We have had that idea for a decade!” She pointed to one of the other leaders in the room and said he had learned it from his father, who had run a thriving company through the Great Depression. The principle has been key to the company’s success. [292 words]
[Time 5]
In a time of massive youth unemployment around the world, the principle of “hire slow, fire fast” may seem insensitive. However, for three reasons I would argue this approach is more compassionate than the alternatives. First, it doesn’t serve the world to create bloated, bureaucratic companies that will slowly die. We need healthy, growing companies capable of sticking around for the long run.
Second, it isn’t compassionate to keep one person — but make their whole team struggle as a result. We need teams in which everyone can trust each other to do a great job. If “hire slow, fire fast” sounds harsh or mercurial, consider how harsh it is to allow a whole team to be held hostage by someone who should not have been hired in the first place. And while we’re on the subject, lacking courage is not the same as having compassion. Third, trying to force someone to be something they are not is neither sustainable nor humane. It doesn’t serve people to keep them in the wrong role, giving them the same negative feedback week after week, month after month, year after year. Their one wild and precious life, to use Mary Oliver’s term, is worth more than that. Of course, if the right role can be found within the company it should be. But when someone is truly a bad fit, reassigning them is not the answer. This just moves the problem to a different part of the building. To “hire slow, fire fast,” start by being absurdly selective in who you hire. Mark Adams, the Managing Director at Vitsoe, the worldwide licensee of Dieter Ram’s furniture collection, approaches hiring with incredible selectivity. What he wants to discover is who is a natural fit. In addition to multiple interviews, he and his team have prospective employees come and work with them for a day. No commitment has been made on either side; it’s just a chance for each side to see each other as naturally as possible. [353 words]
[Time 6]
For instance, recently they had a prospective employee help with a shelf installation. He knew how to do the job. But at the end of the day, he threw his tools into a box instead of carefully putting them away. When they shared the experience with the CEO, everyone agreed this was clearly a reason not to make the hire. That might strike you as so pedantic you’d rather not work for such a company: but that is the point. Your criteria for selection should be so extreme many people would rather not work for you. You’re trying to attract the right select few, not the masses. Mark believes it is better to be shorthanded than to hire the wrong person. To make this approach work, you also have to fire humanely. This may seem like a contradiction in terms, but by “firing” I don’t mean the traditional, disgusting practice of marching people to the door in humiliation. It doesn’t mean taking people we have worked with and suddenly throwing them out as if they are criminals. We can do this in a humane way. When on leader in Silicon Valley realized she had made a hiring mistake, she could have tried to hide her error and tried to force the fit through endless rounds of feedback and a painful performance improvement plan. But that’s difficult in a case like this, where the problem is a basic personality clash: the employee was simply more aggressive than the company culture and it felt abrasive to everyone on the team. So instead, after just two weeks of seeing the effect the new hire was having on her team, she took her aside and said, “I don’t think this is a great cultural fit for us. Let’s not try to force this. You are talented and capable but this just isn’t the right fit.” It went so well the whole team, including the person who’d just been fired, went out together for drinks that night. The company then provided career coaching for free to help her find a better fit elsewhere. If we “hire slow, fire fast” we can increase what Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, has called the “talent density” of our organizations. It is not easy. It takes having hard conversations. It takes leadership. Still, if we can do it then, ultimately, people, teams and organizations win.
[422 words]
Source: HBR blog
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast/
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2014-3-5 22:36:05
收藏
收藏
楼主
