工作生活不分家易埋下祸根

    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.)