工作時(shí)有壓力？拉斯?艾森施塔特最近在《工作與生活不該界限分明》一文中指出，讓我們氣餒的并不僅僅是經(jīng)濟(jì)依然低迷這類新聞以及無(wú)力處理好工作與生活的關(guān)系，還包括當(dāng)前迫使我們割裂自我的公司文化。它迫使我們?cè)谡鎸?shí)的自我與職場(chǎng)上展現(xiàn)的自我之間劃清界限，讓我們感到壓抑。這種觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，不能把我們的私人生活和激情帶入工作會(huì)產(chǎn)生一種疏離感。

    艾森施塔特的研究促使他相信，不覺得被迫自我割裂的人，也就是“能夠把完整的自我?guī)肼殘?chǎng)，并能將其所做工作與更有意義的遠(yuǎn)大目標(biāo)聯(lián)系在一起的人”更快樂。相應(yīng)地，雇用這類人的公司也就會(huì)獲得更大的成功。

    這種觀點(diǎn)聽起來(lái)很不錯(cuò)，但我對(duì)此持懷疑態(tài)度。誠(chéng)然，已經(jīng)找到某種方法將人生目標(biāo)與工作融為一體的人往往容易心滿意足。正如聯(lián)合文具公司（United Stationers）CEO迪克?戈切諾所言，這種結(jié)合“非常非常強(qiáng)大”。

    但并非所有的雇主都樂意看到這種力量。為什么呢？因?yàn)樘幱谶@種幸福狀態(tài)的人往往極度關(guān)心產(chǎn)品。有時(shí)候，這些人對(duì)產(chǎn)品的關(guān)心程度甚至遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出他們的雇主或頂頭上司，而且非常固執(zhí)己見。要求他們?cè)谀稠?xiàng)戰(zhàn)略、工作流程或公司產(chǎn)出方面妥協(xié)無(wú)異于要求他對(duì)自己的價(jià)值觀、誠(chéng)信和自我做出妥協(xié)。

    我們有一個(gè)專門的術(shù)語(yǔ)來(lái)稱呼這些頑固地把工作與生活融為一體、拒絕在工作中壓抑自我個(gè)性的人。我們把他們叫做自由職業(yè)者。他們應(yīng)邀參與具體的項(xiàng)目，貢獻(xiàn)極具專業(yè)水準(zhǔn)的特定技能。一旦相關(guān)項(xiàng)目完結(jié)，他們就會(huì)隨之離開。除非手頭非常緊張，他們往往不會(huì)簽約從事那些需要做出大量妥協(xié)的項(xiàng)目。為自己打工的人沒有穩(wěn)定的工薪，但它也換來(lái)了愉悅，因?yàn)橐坏┖⒆由?，他們不必在下?點(diǎn)打卡下班時(shí)向老板致歉。

    普通員工通常沒有這樣的選擇。他們?yōu)榱吮Ｗ★埻牖蛘邽榱伺c同事和平相處，很可能需要處在一種被動(dòng)服從命令的境地。即使如今有些思維超前的公司號(hào)稱已經(jīng)放棄了老一套的控制+命令模式，公司發(fā)薪水這個(gè)事實(shí)也會(huì)產(chǎn)生眾所周知的威懾力。

    可以理解、而且很可能會(huì)發(fā)生的事情是，許多公司會(huì)認(rèn)真審視艾森施塔特援引的例證，探索究竟哪種方案有利于利用懷有目的感的員工所發(fā)煥發(fā)出來(lái)的一部分（而不是全部）能量。

    這時(shí)就極有可能出現(xiàn)考慮不周的政策，特別是在“把工作帶進(jìn)生活”這個(gè)層面上。要求員工參加一項(xiàng)公司贊助的項(xiàng)目（比如說(shuō)，要求員工為貧困兒童準(zhǔn)備學(xué)習(xí)用品）或許是一個(gè)不錯(cuò)的主意。然而，如果要求員工子女也來(lái)幫忙，我可以想象并非公司員工的配偶們有可能帶來(lái)的額外麻煩（它聽起來(lái)就像是要求帶著自家的餅干去參加學(xué)校組織的糕餅義賣活動(dòng)）。

    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.)

模糊私人生活與工作的界限存在陷阱

    “把生活帶進(jìn)工作”這個(gè)層面上的情況看起來(lái)并不那么美妙。明亮地平線家庭事務(wù)解決公司（Bright Horizons Family Solutions）CEO大衛(wèi)?利希這樣描述他的做法：他希望員工不要覺得自己有必要掩飾真實(shí)的自我。許多公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人顯然正受人鼓動(dòng)，讓員工們脫掉掩蓋個(gè)性的偽裝。

    這種觀點(diǎn)在理論上同樣非常美妙，但在實(shí)踐中卻問題多多。首先，坦率與透明的底線在哪里？在這樣的工作場(chǎng)所，“我今天是不是喝高了，什么活都干不了了？”是不是一件適宜公布于眾的事情？公司是否會(huì)敦促員工參加一些聯(lián)誼活動(dòng)，從而導(dǎo)致員工不得不泄露他們本不愿讓他人知道的個(gè)人信息？

    這樣做也有可能導(dǎo)致年終考核復(fù)雜化。辦公室一位人盡皆知的員工正在鬧離婚，痛苦不堪。這位員工是不是應(yīng)該得到更加溫和、更為寬大的待遇呢？抑或相反，一位珍視自己隱私的員工是否會(huì)突然之間被視為不合群？

    而這正是問題的癥結(jié)所在：也許他的確不合群。也許那位正在鬧離婚的員工也的確應(yīng)該享受更寬大的待遇（以前更稀奇的事情都發(fā)生過。鐵石心腸、一心向錢看的公司在某些事情上也會(huì)做出一些寬厚的決定）。但任何一家把提高工作生活一體化作為集體目標(biāo)的公司最好多花一些時(shí)間提前思考一下一些前所未有的難題，因?yàn)檫^去人們都把私人生活留在家中，做夢(mèng)也不會(huì)想到這些事情。

    其他生活領(lǐng)域也有大量的證據(jù)表明，不要把真實(shí)的自我和盤托出是一個(gè)非常有必要的習(xí)慣。每逢節(jié)假日都會(huì)涌現(xiàn)出大量的文章，教導(dǎo)我們不要讓政治或宗教方面的分歧把幸福的家庭慶?；顒?dòng)轉(zhuǎn)變成聲嘶力竭的大辯論。我們本人的自我或許令人愉悅，但其他人完整的自我或許帶有極強(qiáng)的攻擊性。提高職場(chǎng)的透明度或許可以讓員工變得更有活力，但同樣也很容易導(dǎo)致更激烈的個(gè)人恩怨。

    年輕員工在這樣的工作環(huán)境中面臨的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)往往更大一些。擁有25年經(jīng)驗(yàn)的老員工或許懂得如何掌握分寸。但一些職場(chǎng)新人在這方面的功力就有所欠缺了，他們不知道什么時(shí)候應(yīng)該表露真性情，什么時(shí)候神秘一點(diǎn)反而更有助于事業(yè)發(fā)展。

    一個(gè)小小的驚喜是，探討事業(yè)成功秘訣的古老著作恰恰告誡我們，在工作場(chǎng)所不要太過安逸?！昂翢o(wú)疑問，有一些人能夠透過一個(gè)人的軀殼或外表，透過外在的生硬、笨拙、古怪，看到他掩藏于內(nèi)心的素質(zhì)，”威廉?馬修斯在其出版于1874年的著作《入世》（Getting on in the World）一書中寫道。“但大多數(shù)人并不具備如此犀利的眼光和這樣的大度。”

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."

身處全景式的監(jiān)獄中，真的能夠做自己?jiǎn)幔?/p>

    這時(shí)，實(shí)踐再次遭遇到相互沖突的做法。許多公司現(xiàn)行的政策和組織結(jié)構(gòu)并不允許我們“把完整的自我?guī)牍ぷ鳌?。所有員工都知道（或應(yīng)該知道），她撰寫的每一封工作電子郵件可能受到監(jiān)控，甚至有可能被公司的其他人讀到。這是多么荒謬??！那么，希望員工把工作與生活融為一體的公司是否愿意給予員工其工作電郵賬戶完整的所有權(quán)？我對(duì)此表示懷疑。

    最終，這種“工作生活不分家”的處世之道聽起來(lái)越來(lái)越像是在近乎赤裸裸地鼓勵(lì)加班。 從“不要光干活，還要關(guān)心我們和我們的集體使命”到“既然你這么熱心，你自然也樂意在周末也查一下電子郵件了”，兩者之間僅有一步之遙。

    就算某位員工每次撰寫郵件時(shí)都有種揮之不去的感覺，總覺得陰暗角落里有個(gè)IT部門的人正在進(jìn)行同步閱讀，他同樣也可以有很好的辦法將完整的自我?guī)牍ぷ鳌５欠催^來(lái)，如果不具備這樣一種公司氛圍，身處其中的員工都被當(dāng)作成年人對(duì)待，可以自主決定下午3點(diǎn)打卡下班是否適合；或者從更廣泛的層面上來(lái)說(shuō)，不具備這樣一種文化，身處其中的人們對(duì)于分歧和沖突泰然處之，（工作和生活的融合）就很難取得實(shí)質(zhì)性的進(jìn)展。

    比如，假如你告訴一位荷蘭專業(yè)人士，他的項(xiàng)目建議書讓你想起了你上高中時(shí)就做過的功課，你們兩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處。但如果你在美國(guó)明尼阿波里斯市的一間會(huì)議室中做出類似的事情，你有可能就再也回不來(lái)了。我希望，任何組織開始思考變革企業(yè)文化之前，最好都認(rèn)真考慮一下這些非常復(fù)雜的因素。

    譯者：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.