大多数公司的领导者有一个根深蒂固的理念:办公室是体现公司诚信的场所,在领导者的密切监督下,勤劳的上班族们遵守恰当的行为准则在办公室里忙忙碌碌。事实上,这是许多公司领导者希望员工在办公室现场办公的主要原因:他们感觉这样可以维持对员工的控制,保证员工遵守法律、法规和政策。然而,《欧洲金融管理》(European Financial Management)杂志最近发表的一篇经过同行审议的研究,却暴露了这种传统观念的不足:居家办公、早上穿着睡衣泡咖啡的银行业者,道德标准远高于办公室里衣冠楚楚的同事。
这项研究或许能够让摩根大通(JP Morgan)和高盛集团(Goldman Sachs)改变立场,调整对员工每周五天在办公室现场办公的要求。这些大银行强行要求现场办公,可能会无意间增加金融不当行为。
远程办公中的金融行为
想象一位交易员在舒适的家中办公,其出现金融不当行为的次数远少于在喧闹的交易大厅里办公的同行。这种巨大的转折,可能让好莱坞的编剧们大赚一笔。
这个戏剧性的结论来自对英国前五大银行之一的数据所做的细致分析。在长达一年的封城期间,研究人员审查了与162位交易员有关的不当行为记录。分析结果揭露了一个惊人的事实:居家办公的交易员触发不当行为提醒的概率只有7.3%,而现场办公的同行触发不当行为提醒的概率高达惊人的37.6%。
换言之,在备受尊崇的办公室里,交易员出现不当行为的概率比远程办公者高五倍。办公室经常被誉为体现职业精神和诚信的典范。
不道德行为具有传染性
不道德行为具有传染性,就像在每周一早上一成不变的办公室会议上此起彼伏的哈欠一样。就像一声轻笑会变成哄堂大笑一样,一位任性妄为的交易员可能导致类似的行为蔓延。
这种趋势在普通高中并不鲜见,“融入”团体的诱惑可能导致人们做出一连串错误选择。即使在备受尊崇的金融界,也没有人可以对具有传染性的不道德行为免疫。
研究人员认为,交易员离开充斥着不职业行为的办公室,能够大幅降低他们出现类似不当行为的概率。这就类似于把一盒甜甜圈放到正在节食的同事看不见的地方——当他们看不到诱惑,也就不会有想吃的念头。
远程办公的好处令人意外
远程办公曾经被认为是仅限于硅谷和独立自由职业者的新鲜事物,但事实证明它是防范不道德行为的强大堡垒。
一个关键原因是,居家办公者减少了获取内幕信息和市场流言的渠道,而这些都是助长金融不当行为的催化剂。办公室环境通常提供了交流这类信息的大量机会,例如在抽烟休息的时候悄悄聊天,或者在茶水间角落里的窃窃私语等。相比之下,居家办公者没有机会获取这类秘密信息。
隐藏的敌人:认知偏见
让我们暂停一下,想想妨碍道德行为的一个不为人知的因素:认知偏见。这些根深蒂固的心理捷径经常会以我们没有认识到的方式塑造我们的行为。正如我对试图制定恢复现场办公计划的客户公司所说的那样,认知偏见如同无形的傀儡操纵者一样,会以不易察觉的方式操控我们,引导我们的行动,让我们在考虑混合办公时误入歧途。
关于不当行为的讨论,有两种认知偏见可以给我们提供宝贵的见解,值得我们特别关注,它们分别是确认偏见和现状偏见。
确认偏见是影响理性思维的常见因素之一,包括偏向于确认我们现存信念或价值观的信息。如果一名交易员坚信在高风险的金融行业,规避规则是标准(尽管是不成文的规范),当他们听说有同事操纵市场传言获利但没有任何后果时,这种信念会被进一步增强。这可能会进一步降低他们的道德水准。
在办公室环境中,信息(和虚假信息)自由传播,这为确认偏见增强有害信念创造了一个成熟的环境。相反,远程办公孤立的环境,能够为交易员隔绝这种有害的确认,从而减少不当行为。
现状偏见是思想欺骗我们的另外一种方式,即我们偏好于保持一成不变,尤其是在面对变化或不确定性时。
对于习惯了残酷的办公室文化的交易员而言,为了保持领先,规避规则这种不当行为似乎是必要的,而现状偏见让他们即使在有明确的道德准则的情况下也不愿意改变自己的行为。他们可能认为改变为道德行为存在风险,会威胁他们的地位或成功。而在居家办公环境中,他们远离了办公室的压力和根深蒂固的行为准则,现状偏见就失去了很大一部分说服力。
在认知偏见的影响下,创造诚信文化类似于顺着滑杆往上爬。然而,承认这些偏见是打破偏见的第一步。在远程办公环境下,确认偏见和现状偏见很少有机会相互干扰,这可以解释远程办公者道德行为增加的原因。
未来提升职业道德的关键在于混合办公
如果未来我们采取混合办公,我们就正在面临绝佳的机会重新塑造道德行为规范。在家庭环境中,我们经常会被犯错的孩子、咆哮的狗和装满的洗衣篮所打断,但这可能是减少金融不当行为的秘密武器,这种想法虽然奇怪,却令人兴奋。
因此,在我们开始重新定义办公模式的时候,应该抛弃以办公室为中心这种过时的模式。
下一次当你想到诚实和道德时,脑海中涌现出的画面不应该是光鲜亮丽的办公大楼,到处都是衣着得体的职业人士。相反,你应该想到的是朴素但强大的家庭办公室,它是默默改善金融诚信的灯塔。
良好的行为并不取决于你在哪里办公,而是取决于你自己坚持的道德标准。无论你选择在哪里办公,都应该将诚信放在首位。(财富中文网)
格列布·齐珀斯基博士(Gleb Tsipursky,又称“办公室耳语者”)帮助科技和金融行业的高管在混合工作中推动合作、创新和留住人才。他担任精品未来工作咨询公司Disaster Avoidance Experts的首席执行官。他是七本书的畅销书作者,包括《永不与直觉同行》(Never Go With Your Gut)和《领导混合和远程团队》(Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)。他的专业知识来自于20多年来为从美国家庭人寿保险公司(Aflac)到施乐(Xerox)的《财富》美国500强公司提供咨询,以及在北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校(UNC–Chapel Hill)和俄亥俄州立大学(Ohio State University)担任行为科学家超过15年的学术生涯。
Fortune.com上的评论文章仅代表作者个人观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
翻译:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
大多数公司的领导者有一个根深蒂固的理念:办公室是体现公司诚信的场所,在领导者的密切监督下,勤劳的上班族们遵守恰当的行为准则在办公室里忙忙碌碌。事实上,这是许多公司领导者希望员工在办公室现场办公的主要原因:他们感觉这样可以维持对员工的控制,保证员工遵守法律、法规和政策。然而,《欧洲金融管理》(European Financial Management)杂志最近发表的一篇经过同行审议的研究,却暴露了这种传统观念的不足:居家办公、早上穿着睡衣泡咖啡的银行业者,道德标准远高于办公室里衣冠楚楚的同事。
这项研究或许能够让摩根大通(JP Morgan)和高盛集团(Goldman Sachs)改变立场,调整对员工每周五天在办公室现场办公的要求。这些大银行强行要求现场办公,可能会无意间增加金融不当行为。
远程办公中的金融行为
想象一位交易员在舒适的家中办公,其出现金融不当行为的次数远少于在喧闹的交易大厅里办公的同行。这种巨大的转折,可能让好莱坞的编剧们大赚一笔。
这个戏剧性的结论来自对英国前五大银行之一的数据所做的细致分析。在长达一年的封城期间,研究人员审查了与162位交易员有关的不当行为记录。分析结果揭露了一个惊人的事实:居家办公的交易员触发不当行为提醒的概率只有7.3%,而现场办公的同行触发不当行为提醒的概率高达惊人的37.6%。
换言之,在备受尊崇的办公室里,交易员出现不当行为的概率比远程办公者高五倍。办公室经常被誉为体现职业精神和诚信的典范。
不道德行为具有传染性
不道德行为具有传染性,就像在每周一早上一成不变的办公室会议上此起彼伏的哈欠一样。就像一声轻笑会变成哄堂大笑一样,一位任性妄为的交易员可能导致类似的行为蔓延。
这种趋势在普通高中并不鲜见,“融入”团体的诱惑可能导致人们做出一连串错误选择。即使在备受尊崇的金融界,也没有人可以对具有传染性的不道德行为免疫。
研究人员认为,交易员离开充斥着不职业行为的办公室,能够大幅降低他们出现类似不当行为的概率。这就类似于把一盒甜甜圈放到正在节食的同事看不见的地方——当他们看不到诱惑,也就不会有想吃的念头。
远程办公的好处令人意外
远程办公曾经被认为是仅限于硅谷和独立自由职业者的新鲜事物,但事实证明它是防范不道德行为的强大堡垒。
一个关键原因是,居家办公者减少了获取内幕信息和市场流言的渠道,而这些都是助长金融不当行为的催化剂。办公室环境通常提供了交流这类信息的大量机会,例如在抽烟休息的时候悄悄聊天,或者在茶水间角落里的窃窃私语等。相比之下,居家办公者没有机会获取这类秘密信息。
隐藏的敌人:认知偏见
让我们暂停一下,想想妨碍道德行为的一个不为人知的因素:认知偏见。这些根深蒂固的心理捷径经常会以我们没有认识到的方式塑造我们的行为。正如我对试图制定恢复现场办公计划的客户公司所说的那样,认知偏见如同无形的傀儡操纵者一样,会以不易察觉的方式操控我们,引导我们的行动,让我们在考虑混合办公时误入歧途。
关于不当行为的讨论,有两种认知偏见可以给我们提供宝贵的见解,值得我们特别关注,它们分别是确认偏见和现状偏见。
确认偏见是影响理性思维的常见因素之一,包括偏向于确认我们现存信念或价值观的信息。如果一名交易员坚信在高风险的金融行业,规避规则是标准(尽管是不成文的规范),当他们听说有同事操纵市场传言获利但没有任何后果时,这种信念会被进一步增强。这可能会进一步降低他们的道德水准。
在办公室环境中,信息(和虚假信息)自由传播,这为确认偏见增强有害信念创造了一个成熟的环境。相反,远程办公孤立的环境,能够为交易员隔绝这种有害的确认,从而减少不当行为。
现状偏见是思想欺骗我们的另外一种方式,即我们偏好于保持一成不变,尤其是在面对变化或不确定性时。
对于习惯了残酷的办公室文化的交易员而言,为了保持领先,规避规则这种不当行为似乎是必要的,而现状偏见让他们即使在有明确的道德准则的情况下也不愿意改变自己的行为。他们可能认为改变为道德行为存在风险,会威胁他们的地位或成功。而在居家办公环境中,他们远离了办公室的压力和根深蒂固的行为准则,现状偏见就失去了很大一部分说服力。
在认知偏见的影响下,创造诚信文化类似于顺着滑杆往上爬。然而,承认这些偏见是打破偏见的第一步。在远程办公环境下,确认偏见和现状偏见很少有机会相互干扰,这可以解释远程办公者道德行为增加的原因。
未来提升职业道德的关键在于混合办公
如果未来我们采取混合办公,我们就正在面临绝佳的机会重新塑造道德行为规范。在家庭环境中,我们经常会被犯错的孩子、咆哮的狗和装满的洗衣篮所打断,但这可能是减少金融不当行为的秘密武器,这种想法虽然奇怪,却令人兴奋。
因此,在我们开始重新定义办公模式的时候,应该抛弃以办公室为中心这种过时的模式。
下一次当你想到诚实和道德时,脑海中涌现出的画面不应该是光鲜亮丽的办公大楼,到处都是衣着得体的职业人士。相反,你应该想到的是朴素但强大的家庭办公室,它是默默改善金融诚信的灯塔。
良好的行为并不取决于你在哪里办公,而是取决于你自己坚持的道德标准。无论你选择在哪里办公,都应该将诚信放在首位。(财富中文网)
格列布·齐珀斯基博士(Gleb Tsipursky,又称“办公室耳语者”)帮助科技和金融行业的高管在混合工作中推动合作、创新和留住人才。他担任精品未来工作咨询公司Disaster Avoidance Experts的首席执行官。他是七本书的畅销书作者,包括《永不与直觉同行》(Never Go With Your Gut)和《领导混合和远程团队》(Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams)。他的专业知识来自于20多年来为从美国家庭人寿保险公司(Aflac)到施乐(Xerox)的《财富》美国500强公司提供咨询,以及在北卡罗来纳大学教堂山分校(UNC–Chapel Hill)和俄亥俄州立大学(Ohio State University)担任行为科学家超过15年的学术生涯。
Fortune.com上的评论文章仅代表作者个人观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。
翻译:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
Most business leaders harbor a deeply-rooted belief: Offices as sanctuaries of corporate integrity, bustling with industrious individuals who diligently toe the line of right conduct under the leader’s watchful eye. Indeed, that’s a major reason why many business leaders want their employees in the office: they feel they can keep control, ensuring compliance with laws, rules, and policies. However, a recent peer-reviewed study in the European Financial Management journal comes to puncture this inflated balloon of conventional wisdom: Bankers working from home, while brewing their morning coffees in pajamas, have been setting a higher ethical standard than their well-heeled office counterparts.
That certainly puts a different twist on the demands by JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs that their bankers work from the office five days a week! These major banks could be unwittingly opening the door for greater financial misconduct by forcing in-office work.
Financial conduct in a remote world
Imagine a trader, comfortably ensconced in a cozy home office, engaging in remarkably fewer instances of financial misconduct than their counterparts in the tumultuous trading floor. It’s a plot twist that could give a Hollywood scriptwriter a run for their money.
This dramatic revelation was born from the meticulous analysis of data from one of the top five U.K. banks. During the year-long period of lockdown, researchers scrutinized misconduct reports relating to 162 traders. The resulting data unveiled a startling truth: traders working from home had a modest 7.3% chance of sparking a misconduct alert, while their office-going brethren had a spine-chilling 37.6% probability.
In other words, the hallowed office, often hailed as a paragon of professionalism and integrity, was home to over five times more instances of misconduct than the remote workplace.
Unethical behavior is contagious
Unethical conduct, it seems, is as contagious as a yawn during a monotonous Monday morning office meeting. Like a chuckle that leads to a laugh riot, one wayward trader can lead to an avalanche of similar behavior.
This trend is not dissimilar to a classic high school scenario where the temptation to “fit in” can lead to a spiral of poor choices. Even within the hallowed halls of finance, no one is immune to the infectious nature of unethical behavior.
The researchers assert that removing a trader from an office environment riddled with unprofessional conduct significantly reduces their likelihood of engaging in similar indiscretions. The analogy is akin to moving a box of doughnuts away from a group of dieting colleagues–when temptation is out of sight, it’s also out of mind.
The surprising strengths of remote work
The phenomenon of remote work, once considered a novelty limited to Silicon Valley and independent freelancers, has revealed itself to be a mighty fortress against unethical behavior.
One key reason lies in the diminished access to inside information and market rumors–both potent catalysts for financial misconduct. Office environments often provide ample opportunities for such information to be exchanged, like over a clandestine chat during a smoke break or a whispered conversation in the corner of the canteen. In contrast, a home office makes the window for such under-the-table information exchanges elusive.
The hidden enemy of cognitive biases
Before we go any further, let’s pause and consider the silent saboteurs of ethical behavior: cognitive biases. These deeply ingrained mental shortcuts often shape our behavior in ways we don’t recognize. Like invisible puppeteers, they subtly pull our strings, guiding our actions, often leading us astray in thinking about hybrid work, as I tell my client companies trying to figure out their return-to-office plans.
In the case of misconduct, let’s focus on two specific cognitive biases that provide valuable insight into our discussion: the confirmation bias and the status quo bias.
Confirmation bias, a classic villain in the plot of rational thinking, involves favoring information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs or values. If a trader firmly believes that bending the rules is a norm (albeit unspoken) in the high-stakes financial industry, when they hear snippets of chatter about a colleague who manipulated market rumors for gain without facing consequences, their belief is reinforced. This reinforcement might nudge them further down the unethical path.
In an office environment, where information (and misinformation) flows freely, confirmation bias has a ripe playground to reinforce harmful beliefs. Conversely, the isolation of remote work might shield traders from such damaging confirmations, leading to a decrease in misconduct.
Status quo bias, another way our minds deceive us, is our preference for keeping things the same, especially when faced with change or uncertainty.
For a trader who’s grown accustomed to the cutthroat office culture, where bending rules is sometimes deemed a necessary evil to stay ahead, the status quo bias might make them reluctant to alter their behavior, even in the face of clear ethical guidelines. They might perceive a change towards ethical conduct as a risky shift, threatening their standing or success. In a home setting, away from the immediate pressures and ingrained norms of the office, this bias loses much of its persuasive power.
When cognitive biases are at play, achieving a culture of integrity can be akin to climbing a greased pole. However, recognizing these biases is the first step in combating them. In a remote work setup, confirmation bias and status quo bias have fewer chances to interfere, which could explain the surprising upswing in ethical behavior observed among remote workers.
The future of ethics is hybrid
If the future of work is, indeed, a hybrid model, we find ourselves on the cusp of a unique opportunity to reshape the norms of ethical conduct. It’s a strange yet thrilling thought that a domestic environment–often punctuated with errant kids, barking dogs, and overflowing laundry baskets–could be the secret weapon in the battle against financial misconduct.
So, as we embark on the journey to redefine work, it’s high time we discarded the antiquated, office-centric playbook.
The next time you think of honesty and ethics, don’t visualize gleaming office towers filled with well-dressed professionals. Instead, picture the humble home office–unpretentious yet powerful, an unassuming beacon of financial integrity.
Good behavior isn’t dictated by where you sit, but by the ethical stand you take. No matter where we choose to log in from, integrity must always be a priority.
Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D. (a.k.a. “the office whisperer”) helps tech and finance industry executives drive collaboration, innovation, and retention in hybrid work. He serves as the CEO of the boutique future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. He is the bestselling author of seven books, including Never Go With Your Gut and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox and over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist at UNC–Chapel Hill and Ohio State.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.