|
工作时有压力？拉斯?艾森施塔特最近在《工作与生活不该界限分明》一文中指出，让我们气馁的并不仅仅是经济依然低迷这类新闻以及无力处理好工作与生活的关系，还包括当前迫使我们割裂自我的公司文化。它迫使我们在真实的自我与职场上展现的自我之间划清界限，让我们感到压抑。这种观点认为，不能把我们的私人生活和激情带入工作会产生一种疏离感。
艾森施塔特的研究促使他相信，不觉得被迫自我割裂的人，也就是“能够把完整的自我带入职场，并能将其所做工作与更有意义的远大目标联系在一起的人”更快乐。相应地，雇用这类人的公司也就会获得更大的成功。
这种观点听起来很不错，但我对此持怀疑态度。诚然，已经找到某种方法将人生目标与工作融为一体的人往往容易心满意足。正如联合文具公司（United Stationers）CEO迪克?戈切诺所言，这种结合“非常非常强大”。
但并非所有的雇主都乐意看到这种力量。为什么呢？因为处于这种幸福状态的人往往极度关心产品。有时候，这些人对产品的关心程度甚至远远超出他们的雇主或顶头上司，而且非常固执己见。要求他们在某项战略、工作流程或公司产出方面妥协无异于要求他对自己的价值观、诚信和自我做出妥协。
我们有一个专门的术语来称呼这些顽固地把工作与生活融为一体、拒绝在工作中压抑自我个性的人。我们把他们叫做自由职业者。他们应邀参与具体的项目，贡献极具专业水准的特定技能。一旦相关项目完结，他们就会随之离开。除非手头非常紧张，他们往往不会签约从事那些需要做出大量妥协的项目。为自己打工的人没有稳定的工薪，但它也换来了愉悦，因为一旦孩子生病，他们不必在下午3点打卡下班时向老板致歉。
普通员工通常没有这样的选择。他们为了保住饭碗或者为了与同事和平相处，很可能需要处在一种被动服从命令的境地。即使如今有些思维超前的公司号称已经放弃了老一套的控制+命令模式，公司发薪水这个事实也会产生众所周知的威慑力。
可以理解、而且很可能会发生的事情是，许多公司会认真审视艾森施塔特援引的例证，探索究竟哪种方案有利于利用怀有目的感的员工所发焕发出来的一部分（而不是全部）能量。
这时就极有可能出现考虑不周的政策，特别是在“把工作带进生活”这个层面上。要求员工参加一项公司赞助的项目（比如说，要求员工为贫困儿童准备学习用品）或许是一个不错的主意。然而，如果要求员工子女也来帮忙，我可以想象并非公司员工的配偶们有可能带来的额外麻烦（它听起来就像是要求带着自家的饼干去参加学校组织的糕饼义卖活动）。 Stressed at work? Russ Eisenstat recently made the suggestion on this site that we're not merely discouraged by news of a still sluggish economy or by wonky work-life balances, but that we feel pinched by company cultures that compel us to separate our true selves from the self that shows up for work. Not being able to bring our personal lives and passions to work has an alienating effect, this argument goes. Eisenstat's research has led him to believe that people who do not feel forced to compartmentalize, people who are "able to bring their whole selves to the job and can connect what they do at work to a meaningful larger purpose" are happier -- and that the companies who employ such people are, by extension, more successful. This sounds great, but I'm skeptical. It's true that people who have found a way to integrate their life's purpose with their job tend to be contented people. That combination is, as Dick Gochnauer, CEO of United Stationers (USTR), remarked, "very, very powerful." But not all employers like the look of that kind of power. Why not? Because people in that happy groove are often people who care a lot about the product. Sometimes they care much more than their employer or immediate superior does. They're difficult to argue with. Ask them to compromise on a strategy or workflow or company output, and you're essentially asking them to compromise their values, their integrity, their very selves. We have a term for such stubbornly integrated people who refuse to check their personas at the door when they sit down to work. We call them freelancers. Called in to help with specific projects, they bring their specific, highly developed skills to the table, and when said project is done, they move on. Unless they are experiencing a severe cash flow drought, they tend not to contract for projects that require too much compromise. The self-employed swap steady paychecks for the joy of not having to apologize to the boss when a child's illness means they need to clock out at 3 p.m. Employees typically don't have that option. To keep their job or keep peace with colleagues, they're more likely to be put into a position where they're just following orders. Even at a time when forward-thinking companies claim to have abandoned the old command-and-control model, the fact that the company signs the checks puts a proverbial thumb on the scale. But it's understandable -- and likely -- that companies will look at the examples Eisenstat refers to and wonder what kinds of programs might help them harness some (but not all) of the energy emanating off purpose-filled workers. And here's where there's tremendous potential for ill-considered policies, particularly in the realm of "bring work into life" initiatives. Asking employees to participate in a company-sponsored program in which employees pack backpacks for underprivileged children is fine. Tell me that employee's children help too, however, and I'm envisioning extra hassle for the non-employee spouse. (It sounds about as voluntary as bringing cookies to a school bake sale.) 模糊私人生活与工作的界限存在陷阱 “把生活带进工作”这个层面上的情况看起来并不那么美妙。明亮地平线家庭事务解决公司（Bright Horizons Family Solutions）CEO大卫?利希这样描述他的做法：他希望员工不要觉得自己有必要掩饰真实的自我。许多公司领导人显然正受人鼓动，让员工们脱掉掩盖个性的伪装。 这种观点在理论上同样非常美妙，但在实践中却问题多多。首先，坦率与透明的底线在哪里？在这样的工作场所，“我今天是不是喝高了，什么活都干不了了？”是不是一件适宜公布于众的事情？公司是否会敦促员工参加一些联谊活动，从而导致员工不得不泄露他们本不愿让他人知道的个人信息？ 这样做也有可能导致年终考核复杂化。办公室一位人尽皆知的员工正在闹离婚，痛苦不堪。这位员工是不是应该得到更加温和、更为宽大的待遇呢？抑或相反，一位珍视自己隐私的员工是否会突然之间被视为不合群？ 而这正是问题的症结所在：也许他的确不合群。也许那位正在闹离婚的员工也的确应该享受更宽大的待遇（以前更稀奇的事情都发生过。铁石心肠、一心向钱看的公司在某些事情上也会做出一些宽厚的决定）。但任何一家把提高工作生活一体化作为集体目标的公司最好多花一些时间提前思考一下一些前所未有的难题，因为过去人们都把私人生活留在家中，做梦也不会想到这些事情。 其他生活领域也有大量的证据表明，不要把真实的自我和盘托出是一个非常有必要的习惯。每逢节假日都会涌现出大量的文章，教导我们不要让政治或宗教方面的分歧把幸福的家庭庆祝活动转变成声嘶力竭的大辩论。我们本人的自我或许令人愉悦，但其他人完整的自我或许带有极强的攻击性。提高职场的透明度或许可以让员工变得更有活力，但同样也很容易导致更激烈的个人恩怨。 年轻员工在这样的工作环境中面临的风险往往更大一些。拥有25年经验的老员工或许懂得如何掌握分寸。但一些职场新人在这方面的功力就有所欠缺了，他们不知道什么时候应该表露真性情，什么时候神秘一点反而更有助于事业发展。 一个小小的惊喜是，探讨事业成功秘诀的古老著作恰恰告诫我们，在工作场所不要太过安逸。“毫无疑问，有一些人能够透过一个人的躯壳或外表，透过外在的生硬、笨拙、古怪，看到他掩藏于内心的素质，”威廉?马修斯在其出版于1874年的著作《入世》（Getting on in the World）一书中写道。“但大多数人并不具备如此犀利的眼光和这样的大度。” The pitfalls of blurring the personal-work borders Things don't look much rosier in the "bring life into work" arena. David Lissy, CEO of Bright Horizons Family Solutions, phrased his approach this way: he wants employees not to feel as if they need to park who they are in the parking lot. Company leaders are evidently being encouraged now to let employees drop the pretense of a professional veneer that obscures their personality. This is again fine in theory, but problematic in practice. First of all, where does this candor and transparency end? In such a workplace, is "I'm too hung over to get anything done today?" an appropriate thing to announce? Would employees be nudged to participate in camaraderie exercises and divulge personal information they'd prefer to keep to themselves? It could also complicate end-of-year reviews. Does an employee who everyone in the office knows is going through a painful divorce get softer, kinder treatment? Or conversely, does the guy who values his privacy all of a sudden get branded asocial? And here's the crux of the dilemma: Maybe he is asocial. Maybe the answer to the painful divorce question is yes. (Stranger things have happened. Even ruthless for-profit companies make soft-hearted decisions in some areas.) But any company that adopts greater work-life integration as a collective goal better be prepared to spend a lot of time thinking about quandaries that never entered anyone's mind when everyone kept personal life safely at home. There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence from other realms of life to suggest that not bringing our full selves to the table is a habit we fell into for good reason. Every holiday season ushers in a slew of articles about how not to let divergent views on politics or religion turn happy family celebrations into screaming arguments. We may enjoy our own full selves, but other people's full selves can be downright offensive. Introducing greater transparency into the workplace could lead to peppier employees. It could just as easily lead to stronger, more personal resentments. Younger employees are also at greater risk in such an office. Someone with 25 years of experience will have a nuanced understanding of how much is too much. Someone new on the job is not going to know nearly so well when it's best to be herself and when mystery might serve her cause better. Small surprise, then, that the very first books about how to succeed in business cautioned against being too comfortable in the office. "No doubt there are a few men who can look beyond the husk or shell of a human being -- his angularities, awkwardness, or eccentricity -- to the hidden qualities within," William Mathews wrote in his 1874 book Getting on in the World. "But the majority are neither so sharp-eyed nor so tolerant." 身处全景式的监狱中，真的能够做自己吗？ 这时，实践再次遭遇到相互冲突的做法。许多公司现行的政策和组织结构并不允许我们“把完整的自我带入工作”。所有员工都知道（或应该知道），她撰写的每一封工作电子邮件可能受到监控，甚至有可能被公司的其他人读到。这是多么荒谬啊！那么，希望员工把工作与生活融为一体的公司是否愿意给予员工其工作电邮账户完整的所有权？我对此表示怀疑。 最终，这种“工作生活不分家”的处世之道听起来越来越像是在近乎赤裸裸地鼓励加班。 从“不要光干活，还要关心我们和我们的集体使命”到“既然你这么热心，你自然也乐意在周末也查一下电子邮件了”，两者之间仅有一步之遥。 就算某位员工每次撰写邮件时都有种挥之不去的感觉，总觉得阴暗角落里有个IT部门的人正在进行同步阅读，他同样也可以有很好的办法将完整的自我带入工作。但是反过来，如果不具备这样一种公司氛围，身处其中的员工都被当作成年人对待，可以自主决定下午3点打卡下班是否适合；或者从更广泛的层面上来说，不具备这样一种文化，身处其中的人们对于分歧和冲突泰然处之，（工作和生活的融合）就很难取得实质性的进展。 比如，假如你告诉一位荷兰专业人士，他的项目建议书让你想起了你上高中时就做过的功课，你们两人依然有可能在下班后在同一家阿姆斯托河畔的酒店里和平共处。但如果你在美国明尼阿波里斯市的一间会议室中做出类似的事情，你有可能就再也回不来了。我希望，任何组织开始思考变革企业文化之前，最好都认真考虑一下这些非常复杂的因素。 译者：任文科 Can you really be yourself inside a panopticon? And then practice bumps up against conflicting practices. Many companies have policies and structures in place that work against bringing our "whole selves to the job." Every employee knows (or ought to) that every work email she composes may be monitored or even read by someone else in the company, and how stultifying that is. Would the same firm that seeks more integrated employees agree to give them full ownership of their company email accounts? I doubt it. In the end, some of these prescriptions for wedding one's life purpose to one's job start to sound like thinly veiled attempts to encourage overtime. It's a short stop from "Don't just do the work, care about us and our collective mission" to "Since you care so much, of course you'll want to check work email on the weekends." There are good ways to bring one's full self to work, even for an employee who can't shake the sense that some shadowy IT person is reading over their shoulder every time they compose an email. But outside of a corporate environment in which employees are treated like adults who can decide for themselves when it's all right to clock out at 3, or a broader culture in which people are comfortable with disagreement and confrontation, meaningful progress is going to be difficult. Tell a Dutch professional, for example, that his project proposal reminds you of work you did in high school, and chances are you two will still share a companionable after-work Amstel. Try something similar in a Minneapolis boardroom, and you may not be invited back. Before any organization begins thinking about culture change, I'd hope they'd give some thought to these complicating considerations. |
|
|
