我最近解雇了我當初聘用的第一個直接下屬。盡管他干勁不足,缺乏靈感,拼寫也很糟糕,但最終導致他被解雇的,是他對工作和生活界限的堅持。
他每天早上9點到辦公室,5點離開,此前和此后的任何時候根本就聯系不上。無論截止日期多么緊迫,他對項目熱愛與否,這位老兄的工作日都不是由他的工作任務,而是由他的上班時間表決定的。
如今,“工作/生活平衡”的概念無處不在,以至于許多企業(yè)專門成立文化委員會來確保這一理念落到實處;公司高層要求人力資源部門在招聘啟事的末尾加上這句話,以傳達一種既看重努力工作,又鼓勵員工追求美好生活的企業(yè)文化。這已經成為一種覺醒的工作環(huán)境的象征——它承認員工群體是由真實的人組成,他們通常有配偶、孩子和其他興趣愛好。
在人類的理想中,平衡的概念向來都有一個牢固的立足點。我們的飲食、支票簿、人際關系都是我們努力尋求和諧的領域。但我們今天所熟知的“工作/生活平衡”一詞,直到最近才成為它自己的哲學。
法律、醫(yī)藥和建筑等行業(yè)的職業(yè)生涯很早就以高強度和嚴謹著稱。對工作時間的苛刻要求和風險極高的截止日期,也隨之成為企業(yè)成功的縮影,并在工作時間長度和職業(yè)滿意度之間建立起了聯系。工作到很晚或通宵工作不僅表明員工的價值,也隱含著他們對個人事業(yè)的投入。
快進到2010年代,搏命文化(Hustle Culture)非正式到來的時候。經濟衰退愈演愈烈,千禧一代正在進入職場,數字空間為埃隆?馬斯克和亞當?諾伊曼等科技巨頭提供了一個史無前例的公共論壇,讓他們得以宣揚其力求多產的工作態(tài)度和由此帶來的財富。一種為工作而工作的饑餓感緩慢擴散看來。隨著千禧一代相繼畢業(yè),并開始其職業(yè)生涯,引導他們的是兩種價值觀:他們不僅極度渴望做自己喜歡的事情,并且誤以為做自己喜歡的事情就意味著一刻不停地工作。
對這些年輕人來說,成功更多地取決于努力工作,而不是薪水。他們對自己投入的時間感到自豪,因為它被認為是構筑夢想的必要步驟。此外,隨著自由職業(yè)者、合同工和新生企業(yè)家數量的增加,時間開始與金錢直接對應——如果不搏命,你就賺不到錢。
過度看重工作效率,或者秉持“工作再多也不算多”的有毒理念,導致許多人放棄社交生活,沉迷于工作而不能自拔。給自己安排過多的工作變得越來越流行,從而讓這種忙碌不再是雄心壯志使然,而是為了創(chuàng)造某種視覺效果。
谷歌(Google)和亞馬遜(Amazon)等企業(yè)充分利用了這種狂熱的干勁,并圍繞它建立了整個企業(yè)模式。這些大廠花費數十億美元翻修辦公室,打造了一種賓至如歸的環(huán)境,進一步模糊了家庭和工作的界限。它們不僅提供琳瑯滿目的食物,還為員工準備了健身房和各種娛樂機會。有些辦公室甚至配有臥室。工作太晚,不能回家?就在辦公室睡吧。沒有時間去買菜?在辦公室吃個早飯吧。邊吃邊工作。
可以預見的是,這不是一種可持續(xù)的做法。不過,一些備受關注的首席執(zhí)行官和企業(yè)家開始消除職業(yè)倦怠的污名。2012年前后,作為美國消費者新聞與商業(yè)頻道(CNBC)、HGTV和Food Network等熱門頻道背后的商業(yè)大腦,蘇珊?帕卡德拒絕了出任首席執(zhí)行官的機會,以便騰出更多的時間來陪伴兒子。她說:“要想實現工作與生活平衡,就需要止步于公司二把手的位置。”金融科技平臺EarnUp的首席執(zhí)行官馬修?庫珀于2020年辭職,并且在離職聲明中透露稱,他一直在應對因為其苛刻的職位要求而加劇的心理健康問題。
2019年,美國企業(yè)首席執(zhí)行官的離職率創(chuàng)下歷史新高,達到令人震驚的1332人,比前一年高出13%。這也是自獵頭公司Challenger, Gray & Christmas于2002年開始追蹤首席執(zhí)行官離職情況以來的最高數字。2021年,隨著新冠疫情讓人們領略到了無需出差和坐班的樂趣,并催生了一種以家庭為中心的慢節(jié)奏生活,更多的企業(yè)領袖掛印而去,其中包括時尚企業(yè)家肯德拉?斯科特、杰夫?貝佐斯和Girls Who Code的首席執(zhí)行官雷什瑪·邵佳妮。
鐘擺向相反的方向擺動
隨著高管離職變得越來越普遍,鐘擺開始向相反的方向擺動。沒過多久,讓如此多人精疲力竭的工作狂現象就被徹底摒棄了。當人們被允許感到不堪重負時,他們就在家庭生活和工作生活之間劃出一條明確的界限。
對許多人來說,這僅僅意味著不在晚上或周末工作。對另一些人來說,它成了一個借口,讓他們可以心安理得地在任務尚未完成時就結束一天的工作,把同事晾在一邊,無所事事地坐等5點鐘聲的敲響。從本質上說,它助長了一種丑陋的平庸。
就像“搏命文化”一樣,尋求工作和生活的平衡,最初是一種合理的努力,但它后來被扭曲了,并逐漸演化為一種誤入歧途的權利——許多人認為,工作日就應該按部就班地結束。
就一份工作而言,那種真正將一個人的工作和生活部分徹底分割的工作/生活平衡,或許是能夠達成的。但對于個人事業(yè)呢?它根本就無法起飛。毫無疑問,有時候電子郵件需要在晚上發(fā)送。有時候需要在一大早接聽電話。有時候,截止日期在周一意味著你需要在周六埋頭工作幾個小時。
更重要的是,這種“平衡”意味著你需要在人生的兩個組成部分之間嚴格取舍,意味著一種涇渭分明的開/關時間表。上班時,你全身心地投入工作。下班后,你徹底停止工作。但這種心態(tài)是有問題的,因為它給我們帶來了過多的壓力,迫使我們全力以赴,而實際上,有時我們無法做到這一點。此外,它還將我們的一天建立在一個武斷的時間框架上,用我們在辦公桌后花費的時間,而不是實際的工作成果來衡量生產率。
隨著Z世代現在畢業(yè)并進入勞動力市場,他們(就像他們的前輩一樣)正在對當前的企業(yè)環(huán)境做出反應。千禧一代接受了他們需要拼命工作的暗示(很可能受到“大衰退”的影響)。而以創(chuàng)紀錄的高就業(yè)率畢業(yè)的Z世代,正在接受涇渭分明的工作/生活界限,然后,就像我的那位直接下屬一樣,其中許多人因為過于刻板地堅持這種界限而慘遭解雇。
事業(yè)是人生的一部分。盡管我們試圖把工作留在辦公室,但這種期望就跟把家事留在家里一樣不切實際。不可避免的是,兩者有時候會相互滲入。如果上班時,哭泣的孩子打來電話,難道我們不接嗎?如果開會時發(fā)現我們的房子在漏水,我們難道不會沖出去?
向雇主要求工作/生活平衡,當然合情合理。但我們必須明白,平衡不等于徹底分割。不愿意偶爾在周六工作或在晚上7點接聽電話?那就祝你事業(yè)有成吧。(財富中文網)
本文作者加布里埃爾?彼得森居住在芝加哥,是一位深耕城市設計行業(yè)的作家兼編輯。
譯者:任文科
我最近解雇了我當初聘用的第一個直接下屬。盡管他干勁不足,缺乏靈感,拼寫也很糟糕,但最終導致他被解雇的,是他對工作和生活界限的堅持。
他每天早上9點到辦公室,5點離開,此前和此后的任何時候根本就聯系不上。無論截止日期多么緊迫,他對項目熱愛與否,這位老兄的工作日都不是由他的工作任務,而是由他的上班時間表決定的。
如今,“工作/生活平衡”的概念無處不在,以至于許多企業(yè)專門成立文化委員會來確保這一理念落到實處;公司高層要求人力資源部門在招聘啟事的末尾加上這句話,以傳達一種既看重努力工作,又鼓勵員工追求美好生活的企業(yè)文化。這已經成為一種覺醒的工作環(huán)境的象征——它承認員工群體是由真實的人組成,他們通常有配偶、孩子和其他興趣愛好。
在人類的理想中,平衡的概念向來都有一個牢固的立足點。我們的飲食、支票簿、人際關系都是我們努力尋求和諧的領域。但我們今天所熟知的“工作/生活平衡”一詞,直到最近才成為它自己的哲學。
法律、醫(yī)藥和建筑等行業(yè)的職業(yè)生涯很早就以高強度和嚴謹著稱。對工作時間的苛刻要求和風險極高的截止日期,也隨之成為企業(yè)成功的縮影,并在工作時間長度和職業(yè)滿意度之間建立起了聯系。工作到很晚或通宵工作不僅表明員工的價值,也隱含著他們對個人事業(yè)的投入。
快進到2010年代,搏命文化(Hustle Culture)非正式到來的時候。經濟衰退愈演愈烈,千禧一代正在進入職場,數字空間為埃隆?馬斯克和亞當?諾伊曼等科技巨頭提供了一個史無前例的公共論壇,讓他們得以宣揚其力求多產的工作態(tài)度和由此帶來的財富。一種為工作而工作的饑餓感緩慢擴散看來。隨著千禧一代相繼畢業(yè),并開始其職業(yè)生涯,引導他們的是兩種價值觀:他們不僅極度渴望做自己喜歡的事情,并且誤以為做自己喜歡的事情就意味著一刻不停地工作。
對這些年輕人來說,成功更多地取決于努力工作,而不是薪水。他們對自己投入的時間感到自豪,因為它被認為是構筑夢想的必要步驟。此外,隨著自由職業(yè)者、合同工和新生企業(yè)家數量的增加,時間開始與金錢直接對應——如果不搏命,你就賺不到錢。
過度看重工作效率,或者秉持“工作再多也不算多”的有毒理念,導致許多人放棄社交生活,沉迷于工作而不能自拔。給自己安排過多的工作變得越來越流行,從而讓這種忙碌不再是雄心壯志使然,而是為了創(chuàng)造某種視覺效果。
谷歌(Google)和亞馬遜(Amazon)等企業(yè)充分利用了這種狂熱的干勁,并圍繞它建立了整個企業(yè)模式。這些大廠花費數十億美元翻修辦公室,打造了一種賓至如歸的環(huán)境,進一步模糊了家庭和工作的界限。它們不僅提供琳瑯滿目的食物,還為員工準備了健身房和各種娛樂機會。有些辦公室甚至配有臥室。工作太晚,不能回家?就在辦公室睡吧。沒有時間去買菜?在辦公室吃個早飯吧。邊吃邊工作。
可以預見的是,這不是一種可持續(xù)的做法。不過,一些備受關注的首席執(zhí)行官和企業(yè)家開始消除職業(yè)倦怠的污名。2012年前后,作為美國消費者新聞與商業(yè)頻道(CNBC)、HGTV和Food Network等熱門頻道背后的商業(yè)大腦,蘇珊?帕卡德拒絕了出任首席執(zhí)行官的機會,以便騰出更多的時間來陪伴兒子。她說:“要想實現工作與生活平衡,就需要止步于公司二把手的位置。”金融科技平臺EarnUp的首席執(zhí)行官馬修?庫珀于2020年辭職,并且在離職聲明中透露稱,他一直在應對因為其苛刻的職位要求而加劇的心理健康問題。
2019年,美國企業(yè)首席執(zhí)行官的離職率創(chuàng)下歷史新高,達到令人震驚的1332人,比前一年高出13%。這也是自獵頭公司Challenger, Gray & Christmas于2002年開始追蹤首席執(zhí)行官離職情況以來的最高數字。2021年,隨著新冠疫情讓人們領略到了無需出差和坐班的樂趣,并催生了一種以家庭為中心的慢節(jié)奏生活,更多的企業(yè)領袖掛印而去,其中包括時尚企業(yè)家肯德拉?斯科特、杰夫?貝佐斯和Girls Who Code的首席執(zhí)行官雷什瑪·邵佳妮。
鐘擺向相反的方向擺動
隨著高管離職變得越來越普遍,鐘擺開始向相反的方向擺動。沒過多久,讓如此多人精疲力竭的工作狂現象就被徹底摒棄了。當人們被允許感到不堪重負時,他們就在家庭生活和工作生活之間劃出一條明確的界限。
對許多人來說,這僅僅意味著不在晚上或周末工作。對另一些人來說,它成了一個借口,讓他們可以心安理得地在任務尚未完成時就結束一天的工作,把同事晾在一邊,無所事事地坐等5點鐘聲的敲響。從本質上說,它助長了一種丑陋的平庸。
就像“搏命文化”一樣,尋求工作和生活的平衡,最初是一種合理的努力,但它后來被扭曲了,并逐漸演化為一種誤入歧途的權利——許多人認為,工作日就應該按部就班地結束。
就一份工作而言,那種真正將一個人的工作和生活部分徹底分割的工作/生活平衡,或許是能夠達成的。但對于個人事業(yè)呢?它根本就無法起飛。毫無疑問,有時候電子郵件需要在晚上發(fā)送。有時候需要在一大早接聽電話。有時候,截止日期在周一意味著你需要在周六埋頭工作幾個小時。
更重要的是,這種“平衡”意味著你需要在人生的兩個組成部分之間嚴格取舍,意味著一種涇渭分明的開/關時間表。上班時,你全身心地投入工作。下班后,你徹底停止工作。但這種心態(tài)是有問題的,因為它給我們帶來了過多的壓力,迫使我們全力以赴,而實際上,有時我們無法做到這一點。此外,它還將我們的一天建立在一個武斷的時間框架上,用我們在辦公桌后花費的時間,而不是實際的工作成果來衡量生產率。
隨著Z世代現在畢業(yè)并進入勞動力市場,他們(就像他們的前輩一樣)正在對當前的企業(yè)環(huán)境做出反應。千禧一代接受了他們需要拼命工作的暗示(很可能受到“大衰退”的影響)。而以創(chuàng)紀錄的高就業(yè)率畢業(yè)的Z世代,正在接受涇渭分明的工作/生活界限,然后,就像我的那位直接下屬一樣,其中許多人因為過于刻板地堅持這種界限而慘遭解雇。
事業(yè)是人生的一部分。盡管我們試圖把工作留在辦公室,但這種期望就跟把家事留在家里一樣不切實際。不可避免的是,兩者有時候會相互滲入。如果上班時,哭泣的孩子打來電話,難道我們不接嗎?如果開會時發(fā)現我們的房子在漏水,我們難道不會沖出去?
向雇主要求工作/生活平衡,當然合情合理。但我們必須明白,平衡不等于徹底分割。不愿意偶爾在周六工作或在晚上7點接聽電話?那就祝你事業(yè)有成吧。(財富中文網)
本文作者加布里埃爾?彼得森居住在芝加哥,是一位深耕城市設計行業(yè)的作家兼編輯。
譯者:任文科
I recently fired my first-ever direct report. Although he was low-energy, uninspired, and an awful speller, what ultimately led him to the ax was his insistence on boundaries.
He would come into the office at nine every morning, leave at five, and be inaccessible anytime before and after. Regardless of deadlines or passion projects, his workday was determined not by his work, but by his hours.
The concept of “work/life balance” is so ubiquitous nowadays that businesses erect culture committees to make sure the idea is enforced; HR departments are instructed to add the phrase to the end of job postings in an effort to communicate a culture not only of hard work but of good life. It’s become emblematic of a woke work environment—one that acknowledges that an employee base is composed of actual humans, often with spouses, children, and outside interests.
The idea of balance has always had a firm foothold in human ideals. Our diets, checkbooks, relationships are all areas in which we strive to find harmony. But the term “work/life balance” as we know it became its own philosophy only recently.
Careers in industries like law, medicine, and architecture established reputations early on as high-powered and rigorous, their demanding hours and high-stakes deadlines epitomizing corporate success and creating associations between time spent working and professional satisfaction. Having to work late or pull an all-nighter demonstrated employees’ value and implied their commitment to their careers.
Fast-forward to the 2010s, or the unofficial advent of Hustle Culture. The recession was in full swing, millennials were entering the workforce, and the digital space gifted tech giants like Elon Musk and Adam Neumann an unprecedented public forum to broadcast their prolific work ethic and the wealth that resulted. A hunger percolated—work for work’s sake—and as millennials graduated and began their careers, they were guided by two values: a laser-focused desire to do what they love, and the misconception that doing what they loved meant working all the time.
Success to these young people was more contingent on hard work than it was on salary. There was pride in time investment, as it was regarded as a necessary step in the construction of a dream. Additionally, with the?uptick in freelancers, contract employees, and nascent entrepreneurs, time directly corresponded to money made—if you weren’t hustling, you weren’t making money.
Toxic productivity, or the belief that too much is never enough, led many to forgo their social lives in the pursuit of overextension, as it was becoming increasingly popular to overschedule oneself, making the hustle less about ambitions and more about optics.
Enterprises like Google and Amazon fed off this frenetic energy and based their entire corporate model around it, spending billions of dollars renovating their offices to create a distinctly homelike environment, blurring the lines further between home and work. Meals were catered. Gyms and recreational opportunities were on-site. Some offices even contained bedrooms. Too late to go home? Just sleep at the office. No time to pick up groceries? Have an early breakfast at the office. Work while you eat.
Predictably, this wasn’t a sustainable practice, though it took highly visible CEOs and entrepreneurs to start the process of destigmatizing burnout. Around 2012, Susan Packard, the business brains behind popular channels like CNBC, HGTV, and Food Network, turned down?the opportunity to be CEO to spend more time with her son, claiming that she “needed to stop at No. 2 if [she] wanted any work/life balance.” Matthew Cooper, CEO of EarnUp, a financial technology platform, stepped down in 2020 when he announced he’d been dealing with mental health issues exacerbated by his demanding role.
In 2019, the corporate world witnessed a historic high in CEO turnovers, reaching a whopping 1,332—a figure 13% higher than the preceding year, and the highest number since the staffing firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, began tracking CEO departures in 2002. The ranks expanded in 2021 to include leaders like fashion entrepreneur Kendra Scott, Jeff Bezos, and Reshma Saujani of Girls Who Code, when the pandemic enlightened many to the joys of a world without travel and office work, and introduced a slower routine that centered around the home.
The pendulum swings against workaholism
As it became increasingly common for high-ranking businesspeople to leave their careers, the pendulum began swinging in the opposite direction. Soon, a full rejection of the workaholism that had drained so many went into effect. As people were given permission to feel overwhelmed, they drew a stark line in the sand between their home lives and their work lives.
For many, this simply meant not doing work during nights or weekends. For others, it became an excuse to end the day mid-assignment, to leave coworkers hanging, to sit idly until the clock struck 5:00. In essence, it emboldened an ugly mediocrity.
Just like Hustle Culture, what started as a reasonable endeavor—the healthy pursuit of equity in work and life—became distorted, morphing into a type of compartmentalization, and a misguided entitlement to a workday neatly bookended.
A work/life balance that truly divides the work and life components of a person’s experience may be okay for a job. But for a career? It simply won’t fly. There’s no disputing it—sometimes emails need to be sent at night. Sometimes calls need to be taken early in the morning. Sometimes a Monday deadline necessitates a few hours of work on a Saturday.
And what’s more, this “balance” implies a strict tradeoff between the two constituent parts, a polarizing schedule of on/off. At work, you’re all on. After work, you’re all off. But this mindset is problematic in that it puts an undue amount of pressure on us to be all on when, in reality, sometimes we can’t be. It also bases one’s day around an arbitrary time frame that measures productivity by hours spent behind a desk as opposed to the actual work product put out.
As Gen Z graduates and enters the workforce now, they (just as their predecessors did) are responding to the current corporate climate. Millennials took the hint that overworking was the way to go (likely influenced by the Great Recession); while Gen Z (which is graduating with record-high employment) is picking up on the work/life divide, and, in my direct report’s case, getting fired for their rigidity.
Our careers are a part of our lives. And try as we might to leave work at the office, the expectation is just as unrealistic as leaving home at home. Inevitably, sometimes things bleed into one another. If we are at work and receive a phone call from our crying child, would we not take it? If we are in a meeting and discover there is a leak in our house, would we not rush out?
Work/life balance is reasonable to ask of an employer, but we must understand that balance does not equate to separation. Unwilling to work the occasional Saturday or take a call at 7 p.m.? Then good luck building a career.
Gabrielle Peterson is a Chicago-based writer and editor who works in the urban design industry.