Send your workplace conundrums¹ to workologist@nytimes.com, including your name and contact information (even if you want it withheld² for publication). The Workologist is a guy with well-intentioned opinions, not a professional career adviser³. Letters may be edited.

请将你遭遇的职场难题发送到workologist@nytimes.com，留下姓名和联系方式（即使你希望匿名刊出）。Workologist会提供善意的意见，但他不是专业的职业顾问。信件可能会经过编辑。

I have, unfortunately, decided⁴ to resign from my job, and I will not be leaving on good terms. I have been subject to harassment⁵ and other unfair treatment, and have been fearful of being terminated. Rather than pursue the legal route, I would rather extract myself, at some urgency, and retain what integrity I can.

我决定辞职，糟糕的是，这不是高高兴兴的离开。我一直遭受骚扰和其他不公平对待，而且害怕被解雇。我没有走法律途径，而是决定在紧急情况下自己走人，并尽量保全自己仅剩的一点尊严。

While it is my direct manager who I feel is mistreating me, it is likely that I will see this person on a regular basis at meetings and conferences in our very small field. I do not wish to add to any negativity that she has already created.

尽管我觉得对我不公平的是我的直属上司，但在这个很小的圈子里，我可能会频繁地在各种会议上见到这个人。我不希望增加她已经做出的负面评价。

Any tips on what to include, and what not to include, in a resignation letter? ANONYMOUS⁶

关于辞职信里要写什么，不要写什么，有什么建议吗？匿名读者。

When the circumstances of one’s departure are unpleasant, it can be tempting⁷ to use the resignation letter as a forum⁸ for getting the last word. That’s a mistake. As a general rule, it’s better to keep a resignation letter as minimal⁹ as the circumstances allow.

当辞职时的形势不太好时，把辞职信当做渠道来表达意见，希望掷地有声的做法可能颇有吸引力。但这是错误的。一般的原则是，在情况允许的情况下，让辞职信尽可能简练。

In some cases — and, I suspect, in this one — that can be very minimal. State that you’re resigning, and give adequate notice. Your dissatisfaction will be clear enough from the fact of the resignation itself, so there’s no need to reiterate¹⁰ it. Limit any explanation to the boilerplate basics, whether you’re “accepting a new opportunity” or have concluded this job is “not an ideal fit.”

在一些情况下——我想您的情况就是如此——辞职信可以非常简练。说明你要辞职，并留出足够的时间提前通知。从辞职这件事本身，就能非常清楚地表明你的不满，因此没有必要重申。把一切解释都限制在常用的基本原因以内，不管是你“将接受一个新机会”，还是断定这份工作“不是非常合适”。

If you want to send a no-hard-feelings signal for the sake of future conference-circuit encounters, put in some vaguely¹¹ positive statement: You’ve enjoyed “aspects of the job” or “learned a lot.” (The latter phrase is handy because it sounds nice but could mean almost anything.)

如果因为将来还会在会议圈里碰到，而希望传达出你并未心怀怨恨的信号，那就写一些稍微积极一点的话：比如你喜欢“这份工作的一些方面”或是“学到了很多”。（第二种说法很好用，因为它虽然听起来不错，但实际可能指的是任何含义。）

If you want to go beyond that, examine your motives¹² carefully: It’s easy to rationalize mere¹³ venting¹⁴ as helpful advice.

如果不想仅限于此，那就仔细审视自己的动机：人们很容易给单纯的发泄做出合理的解释，以为那是有益的建议。

As I’ve said in the past (in the context of exit interviews), I don’t think offering useful tips to your soon-to-be-former employer needs to be a priority; you’re better off focusing on your own future. And if your advice amounts to “So-and-so is a horrible manager,” you run the risk of your well-intentioned critique being interpreted as sour grapes — not helpful in a field where you may interact with past colleagues regularly.

正如我过去说过（当时的背景是离职谈话）的那样，我认为给即将成为前老板的人提供有用的建议，不必成为你优先考虑的事。你把精力集中在自己的未来上会更好。而且如果你的建议相当于“某某是一个令人讨厌的经理”，你出于好意的评论，就可能会被解读为酸葡萄心理。在一个可能还会与前同事频繁互动的行业，这么做于己无益。

Besides, if you think a frank discussion of your manager’s behavior with the higher-ups might make a difference, it would be far more helpful to you and your bosses to have it before you quit. So what you might do is write two resignation letters. In the first one, hold nothing back: Vent¹⁵ with ruthless honesty and achieve full catharsis.

此外，如果你觉得坦率地和高层讨论你经理的行为，可能会改变局势，那么在辞职前进行这样的讨论，不管是对你还是对你的老板，都会有用得多。因此，你可以写两封辞职信，在第一封里毫不掩饰：极其真诚地发泄，彻底宣泄情绪。

Now set that aside (where no one else will stumble upon it) and start over. This time, keep it concise¹⁶. Then, if you think there’s a chance of fixing the situation, have that honest conversation about your issues. If you’re not satisfied with the results, hand over Version 2 — and don’t look back.

现在把它放到一边，放到不会让人无意中看到的地方，然后重新再写一封。这次，内容要精简。如果你觉得还有可改变现状的可能，就找老板诚恳地谈谈你的问题。如果对沟通结果还不满意，就提交第二个版本的辞职信，然后义无反顾地离开。

Peer Review: Flexible Scheduling

同行评议：弹性工作制

I’m writing to object to your characterization of workplace scheduling that includes flexible hours as being a recipe for chaos¹⁷. When I arrived almost five years ago to be director of social services at a hospital, the department was held in very low esteem¹⁸ by other departments. Staff members did not seem to be able to find a social worker when they needed one. And when they did track one down, the response time was too long and not necessarily helpful.

我写这封信是为了驳斥你之前的观点，即包括采用灵活的工作时间在内的排班方式会导致混乱。大概五年前，我开始担任一家医院的社工部负责人，当时这个部门非常不被其他部门尊重。医院工作人员在需要社工时往往找不到人。就算找到了，也会是响应时间太长，而且不一定起到帮助作用。

Most of the social workers felt overworked, underpaid and unappreciated. Staff morale¹⁹ was in the tank.

大多数社工都觉得自己工作强度过大，工资过低，且不被赏识。整体员工士气非常低落。

One of the critical components²⁰ to turning this around was my introduction of self-scheduling. Every social worker now works the hours he or she chooses. Chaos? To the contrary. I now have a happy, smoothly²¹ operating team with high morale. LOS ANGELES

后来我扭转了这一局面，其中一个非常关键的原因在于引入了自我排班制度。现在每个社工都按照自己选择的时间工作。这会导致混乱吗？恰恰相反。现在我的团队人员快乐，运转自如，士气高涨。（洛杉矶）

It’s a fair point: Flexible scheduling systems can certainly work, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. It’s useful to remember that freeing workers from overscheduling can definitely have benefits — on morale and effectiveness.

这个观点很有道理：灵活的工作时间当然是可行的，而我之前所说的并非否定这一点。避免让员工过度劳累肯定可以带来好处，诸如提高士气活和效率。记住这一点当然有用。

But it’s all in the details, and even the most open scheduling system still has to function as a system, with parameters²² and clear communication. If I can actually decide on the fly to leave early without warning anybody (the situation that the earlier reader described), friction²³ seems inevitable²⁴. And if everyone in your department takes Friday off, it’s hard for me to see how any colleague who needs a social worker that day will be satisfied.

但它取决于执行细节，而且就算是最开放的排班制度，也需要作为一个系统去运转，要有限定因素，有清楚的沟通。如果我可以临时决定提早离开而又不通知任何人，（这种情况之前有读者描述过），似乎就难免会发生摩擦。而如果你部门里的所有员工都在周五休息，那天需要找社工的同事们想必没有人会如愿。

So the trick would be determining a staffing (or even task-specific) baseline and then giving everyone as much freedom as possible. Even the much discussed “bossless” notion currently embraced by the online retailer²⁵ Zappos, and intended to let workers manage themselves, has a lot of rules.

所以关键在于为员工行为设定底线（甚至为他们设定特定任务），在此基础上给他们最大的自由。就连被热议的“无老板”理念也有大量规则存在。在线零售商Zappos最近采取了这种管理方式，它旨在让员工进行自我管理。

Still, it’s certainly true that sometimes managers fail to recognize how significant it can be to give employees a sense of control over their work lives. Easing up on needlessly restrictive schedule demands can do just that.

话说回来，有时候管理者的确意识不到，让员工对自己的工作有掌控感是多么重要。放松一些不必要的强制性的工作时间限制，就可以实现这一点。

Reminder²⁶: Overcoming Age Bias²⁷

提醒：克服年龄歧视

In my last column, I turned the tables and asked for readers’ advice on handling age bias in the job market and workplace: As a practical matter, what can workers and managers do about it?

在上次的专栏文章中，我反过来向读者们请教有关求职过程中和职场中如何应对年龄歧视的建议：针对这一实际问题，员工和管理者可以做些什么？

Thoughtful suggestions have been piling up in the Workologist’s inbox, but there is still time to chime in; I’ll be sharing highlights when I observe this column’s second anniversary next month. In particular, if you’re a younger manager with thoughts on seeing beyond age differences, I’d love to hear more from that perspective.

职场人生(Workologist)专栏的邮箱已经收到了大量考虑周详的建议，不过时间还没截至，读者们可以继续就此来信。下个月这个专栏迎来第二个纪念日时，我会跟大家分享来信中的精彩观点。尤其是，如果你是一名年轻的管理者，对超越年龄差异看问题有自己的思考，我很乐意听到更多这方面的见解。

Send your advice to workologist@nytimes.com.

请将你的意见发送到workologist@nytimes.com