工作生活不分家易埋下祸根

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."