????工作時有壓力？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濟依然低迷這類新聞以及無力處理好工作與生活的關系，還包括當前迫使我們割裂自我的公司文化。它迫使我們在真實的自我與職場上展現的自我之間劃清界限，讓我們感到壓抑。這種觀點認為，不能把我們的私人生活和激情帶入工作會產生一種疏離感。

????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“能夠把完整的自我帶入職場，并能將其所做工作與更有意義的遠大目標聯系在一起的人”更快樂。相應地，雇用這類人的公司也就會獲得更大的成功。

????這種觀點聽起來很不錯，但我對此持懷疑態度。誠然，已經找到某種方法將人生目標與工作融為一體的人往往容易心滿意足。正如聯合文具公司（United Stationers）CEO迪克?戈切諾所言，這種結合“非常非常強大”。

????但并非所有的雇主都樂意看到這種力量。為什么呢？因為處于這種幸福狀態的人往往極度關心產品。有時候，這些人對產品的關心程度甚至遠遠超出他們的雇主或頂頭上司，而且非常固執己見。要求他們在某項戰略、工作流程或公司產出方面妥協無異于要求他對自己的價值觀、誠信和自我做出妥協。

????我們有一個專門的術語來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性的人。我們把他們叫做自由職業者。他們應邀參與具體的項目，貢獻極具專業水準的特定技能。一旦相關項目完結，他們就會隨之離開。除非手頭非常緊張，他們往往不會簽約從事那些需要做出大量妥協的項目。為自己打工的人沒有穩定的工薪，但它也換來了愉悅，因為一旦孩子生病，他們不必在下午3點打卡下班時向老板致歉。

????普通員工通常沒有這樣的選擇。他們為了保住飯碗或者為了與同事和平相處，很可能需要處在一種被動服從命令的境地。即使如今有些思維超前的公司號稱已經放棄了老一套的控制+命令模式，公司發薪水這個事實也會產生眾所周知的威懾力。

????可以理解、而且很可能會發生的事情是，許多公司會認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煥發出來的一部分（而不是全部）能量。

????這時就極有可能出現考慮不周的政策，特別是在“把工作帶進生活”這個層面上。要求員工參加一項公司贊助的項目（比如說，要求員工為貧困兒童準備學習用品）或許是一個不錯的主意。然而，如果要求員工子女也來幫忙，我可以想象并非公司員工的配偶們有可能帶來的額外麻煩（它聽起來就像是要求帶著自家的餅干去參加學校組織的糕餅義賣活動）。

????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.)