????六月份的就業報告令人失望，新聞稱美國制造業增長緩慢，股市比十年前還要低迷。我們該換個新的視角重新評估美國經濟形勢了。

????星巴克公司（Starbucks）首席執行官霍華德?舒爾茨長期以來堅持推動對美國經濟的探討并且關注美國的就業需求，這一點確實值得贊賞。加里?哈默爾說的很對。他表示，該如何處理現如今差強人意的員工敬業度狀況，老板們必須捫心自問。這兩大問題相互關聯，其中一個是宏觀問題，而另一個較為具體。兩大問題懸而未決都已經很久了。

????為了應對這些問題，我們必須訴諸一些顛覆性的觀點，同時還要考慮那些挑戰傳統觀念的解決方式?！洞蟀自挕罚═alk Normal）一書的作者蒂姆?菲利普斯表達的觀點即是如此。他在書中沒有用尋常方式來探討員工的敬業度問題，也沒有像很多人那樣僅僅表達支持。他精確指出了企業病的一個主要根源所在，那就是員工對企業的認同感。

????這聽起來有悖常理。畢竟，如果你讓人們認同自己工作的公司，他們會更投入，這聽起來是合理的。這應該是件好事，不是嗎？但大多數人的身份感和自我價值感取決于他們的工作單位。菲利普斯稱，正因為此，很多人為了適應環境會屈服于公司壓力，他們的觀點會被群體思維所吞噬。他們不太可能在正確的時候提出反對意見。

????創新性的觀念和解決方案也不會從這種唯唯諾諾中產生。它也會使董事會成員忘記自己所肩負的更宏觀的責任，那就是促進社會良善，這也正是舒爾茨努力提倡的。對公司團隊的認同會讓我們無視《站在太陽之上》（Standing on the Sun）作者茱莉亞?科爾比和克里斯?梅爾所說的“競爭崇拜”，這會阻礙那種能產生真正創新的合作。

????認同自己的工作單位可能有問題，這種觀點聽起來當然很荒謬。但如果我們是以嚴肅態度來解決舒爾茨和哈默爾所關注的這種似乎很棘手的問題，那么董事會成員和其他商業領袖就有必要去接受這些有悖直覺的觀念。

????梅根?哈斯塔德在一篇名為《工作中太自我意味著災難》（When 'being yourself' at work spells disaster.）的文章中用另外的方式指出了這一觀點。哈斯塔德稱，那些并未真正參與到任何企業的自由職業者擁有一個優勢，那就是他們可以把精力集中于完成工作，不太容易受到公司政治的妨礙，或者為了努力去適應環境而心煩意亂。正如我們所知，努力適應公司在我們的職業生涯中是不可避免的一環。

????我在一家金融服務企業進行業績評估時曾經為一名員工提供建議。我認為，這是我針對員工提出的最佳建議。當時那位員工的評估結果并非百分百優秀，但也不差。評估之后是較大幅度的加薪。

????我對他說：“這不僅僅是我的意見，也包括其他人的觀點，但這是從我的想法中修改和發展而來的。你可能認為有用，但也可能沒用。我在這里說了什么對最終報告來說不是關鍵。十年以后你不會在乎，也不應該在乎。真正重要的是你自己的想法。請從這份評價中盡量選取有用的信息，丟棄掉其他部分。我只是想為你提供幫助?！?/p>

????With a disappointing June jobs report, news that U.S. manufacturing is slowing, and the stock market below levels of a decade ago, it's time to put on some fresh goggles and reevaluate our economic condition.

????Certainly, Starbucks (SBUX) CEO Howard Schultz deserves applause for his persistent attempts to push the conversation on our economy and address our need for jobs. And Gary Hamel is right that bosses need to look in the mirror to deal with the sorry state of employee engagement today. Both of these problems are related: one a macro example, the other, on a smaller scale. And both have dragged on for a very long time.

????To address these issues, we'll need to appeal to some upside-down thinking and consider solutions that fly in the face of conventional wisdom. And Tim Phillips, author of Talk Normaldelivers just that. Rather than discuss employee engagement in the usual way, or simply encourage it as many might, he pinpoints a major culprit of corporate malaise: when workers identify with their corporations.

????That sounds a bit counter-intuitive. After all, it would seem to make sense that if you get people to identify with the company they work for, they would be more engaged, which should be a good thing, right? But far too many people hinge their identity and self-worth to the organizations they work for. Because of this, Phillips argues, many succumb to corporate pressure to fit in, their ideas are swallowed up by groupthink, and they are less inclined to blow the whistle when they should.

????Creative ideas and solutions don't come from this kind of repetitive head-bobbing either. It also causes board members to forget their broader responsibilities to promoting social good (which Schultz is trying to correct). And identification with the corporate team can blind us to what Julia Kirby and Chris Meyer, co-authors of Standing on the Sun, call the "cult of competition," which prevents the kind of cooperation that produces real innovation.

????Sure, the idea that identifying with your workplace may be problematic sounds paradoxical. But if we are serious about solving the kind of seemingly intractable problems that Schultz and Hamel have in their sights, board members and other business leaders are going to need to become comfortable with counter-intuitive ideas.

????Megan Hustad pointed this out in a different way in an article titled "When 'being yourself' at work spells disaster." Freelancers who aren't identified at all with a specific firm have an advantage: they can focus on getting the job done, Hustad argues, and they are less hampered by the politics or distraction of fitting in that seems inevitable in corporate life as we've known it.

????I think the best advice I have given any employee first came out when I was delivering a performance review at a financial services firm. It was not a 100% stellar review but it wasn't a bad one either. And attached to it was a good raise.

????"This is just my opinion," I told him. "Sure, it may be somewhat filtered through others' views but it was massaged and has come out of my thinking. You may find it helpful -- but maybe it's not. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter at all what I wrote here. Ten years from now, you won't care and you shouldn't. What matters is what you think. Take the good from it that you can -- and please discard the rest. I am just one human, trying to be helpful."