During the COVID-19(新冠病毒)crisis, working from home has become common for many people. For some, working from home is distracting and exhausting. But one pioneering study found that working from home increased output by 13%. Nicholas Bloom, a professor at Stanford University in California, began the experiment when James Liang, one of the founders of Trip.com Group-the largest online travel agency in China-met Bloom in Stanford and mentioned to him how expensive Shanghai housing was, how the costs of maintaining company headquarters were huge there, and that he was thinking of letting his staff work from home. This idea made Bloom interested.

Bloom started to test Liang’s thought. First, 1000 employees who volunteered for the study were divided into two teams, separated by birth dates. Those born on even days got to work from home 4 out of 5 weekdays for the next 9 months Those born on odd days stayed in the office all week long. Then the two teams were tracked. It was easy to do, as these workers had repetitive, straightforward tasks that could easily be quantified(量化), and their productivity could easily be measured-making bookings in the system or making phone calls, for example. Nine months passed; Bloom and Liang discovered workers were 13% more productive at home.

Bloom’s data suggests the staff could become much more productive while working from home long term-but it’s not so straightforward. In the experiment, there were warmings as to who could take part in the first place. Participants had to meet 3 requirements: have no kids, have a room that wasn’t their bedroom and have quality Internet on equipment which the firm installed for them at home. So there’s no guarantee that everyone’s productivity will increase.

Lynda Grattan, a professor at London Business School, distrusts other points: Bloom’s experiment was easy to carry out because it was essentially happening at a call centre. “We have no proper data on the productivity of knowledge workers when they’re based at home,” she says.

Economist Tyler Cowen argues that traditional interview methods are not effective in determining the best candidates for a job, especially in creative roles. Candidates who are well-prepared often pass these interviews, but this only tests their preparation and not their abilities.

To determine the best candidate, Cowen suggests that interviewers concentrate on authenticity (真实性) and spontaneity (自发性) in their interactions with candidates, rather than relying on pre-written questions.

The interviewer should be trustworthy, Cowen argues, as it helps them better evaluate the authenticity of candidates. Eventually, “better allocation (分配) of talent” contributes to economic growth, and more thoughtful interview methods can help identify more talented individuals and elevate (提升) them to greater opportunities. Cowen adds, “There are too many interview questions, and every interviewer is ready. For example, ‘What mistakes did you make in your previous job?’ But many candidates just didn’t prepare well and didn’t provide a good answer. So in most cases, for better candidates, you are actually just preparing for testing. But for more creative jobs, you will lose candidates with other qualities.”

“How to get people into what I call the “Real Mode” largely depends on who they are, as well as who you are. If I am interviewing a candidate, my favorite discussions are just those without scripts. I prefer to have these conversations without asking questions. I hope they are natural. I like spontaneity — how to achieve it depends on the environment, work, how much time you have, and many other factors.”

“An estimate suggests that since the 1960s, 20% to 40% of US economic growth has come from “better talent allocation”. If we had a fresher and more creative interview process, I do think people would be more thoughtful. They will think more deeply about the work they will be engaged in. I think we will find talents that we haven’t seen so far. We will enable more people to have greater opportunities.”

There’s a well-known story in the world of literary translators about the translator who was thrilled to see his work appear at great length in an article in a popular magazine. He had translated many novels by a little-known Scandinavian novelist, who he believed had been ignored and not received the attention or praise the novelist deserved. He had devoted much time to trying to get this novelist some recognition. The article agreed with his assessment of the novelist’s works mentioning long passages from his translations.

But something was missing. The translator searched in vain for a mention of his name. It didn’t appear anywhere. The translator’s joy at the coverage（报道）of the author he liked was considerably ruined by this. He felt that he himself should have had some recognition in the article. It was as if the translator did not exist, and all the efforts he had made had never happened.

Most people would agree that it was wrong of the magazine not to mention the translator. However, it is also true that most readers themselves operate in exactly the same way, and for them it is also as if the translator didn’t exist. When people read a translation of a novel, they want to feel they are reading what the novelist, and not someone else, wrote. They don’t want to be reminded that they are not reading, and would not be able to read, the original novel created by the novelist, not wishing to know who the translator was or pay any attention to what they have done.

In this global age, more and more works of fiction are being translated into more and more languages. Readers are now able to experience and understand other cultures more than ever through the reading of translated novels. So the works of more and more novelists can reach people in other parts of the world. This applies not only to new novels but also to fresh translations of old classics.