精品国产_亚洲人成在线高清,国产精品成人久久久久,国语自产偷拍精品视频偷拍

科技報道記者丹·里昂曾在評論文章中回顧在軟件公司HubSpot的工作經歷，呈現了視員工為一次性用品的工作環境，那家公司把員工當成零件，用完就丟在一邊。HubSpot不是孤例：《紐約時報》披露的亞馬遜工作環境也很類似。越來越多企業給員工提供零食和桌上足球之類娛樂設施，時不時創造一些新潮術語，就是想讓員工忽略冗長的工作時間，緩解經濟上強烈的不安全感。

至于種種手段有沒有用，能奏效多長時間，答案就見仁見智了。

當然，在新經濟領域，企業很少剛開始就雇用里昂之類的正式員工。不少公司更喜歡聘用獨立的自由職業合同工承擔大部分工作。在新近發布的研究報告中，勞動力經濟學家勞倫斯·卡茲和亞倫·克魯格認為，2005年到2015年十年間，在提供臨時服務的中介或獨立承包商等非傳統工作場所打工的美國勞動力增長了50%左右。他們在報告中寫道：“2005年到2015年，美國經濟的就業凈增長看來都在非傳統工作場所。”

對于新型勞動協議和新型工作安排，有三點非常重要。首先，新型工作安排其實是新瓶裝舊酒，和現代社會就業關系產生以前的工作組織方式變化不大。其次，新/舊工作安排提現了企業政策的自然發展。變化幾十年前就已開始，即企業承諾支付員工固定工資，聘用的目的就是換回員工的勞動。第三，新型就業形勢下，勞動者只能跟著現代人才市場走，打亂了以前人們工作的重要理由——成為公司一分子。

新型工作安排實為新瓶裝舊酒

正如多位勞動力歷史學家和社會學家論述，大企業聘用員工，并利用精心設計的人力資源政策管理招聘、薪酬、福利和培訓以前，主流工作形式是小企業主聘請家里人干活（比如農場），或者和勞動者簽訂計件勞動合同。

現代雇傭關系主要源于雇主對自身利益更加明確。加州大學洛杉磯分校的經濟學家斯坦福·雅各比在《雇用官僚制》（Employing Bureaucracy）一書中指出，隨意的雇傭關系導致員工與雇主疏遠，流失率極高，導致經營效率低下，由此產生了規范管控勞動力的做法。雅各比在《現代莊園》（Modern Manors）一書中詳細解釋，帶薪假期和養老金等慷慨的福利怎樣在名為“福利資本主義”的制度下興起，既能先發制人應付工會，也符合政府監管要求。書中舉了美國汽車大王亨利·福特的例子。福特將工人的日薪上調到5美元，將每日工作時間由9小時降至8小時。他之所以提出聞名業界的改善工人待遇政策，是因為發現更多薪水才能留住工人，保證有人上崗工作。一旦有人缺勤，福特馳名于世的汽車生產線就可能停工。

今天，企業可以更多利用電腦監督，還有各種復雜的日程安排平臺分配工作。然而，企業選擇聘用獨立的合同工計件支付薪水，回到了140年前的工作安排形式，并不是管理創新。

員工意識轉變

第二點，員工不再認為需要通過勞資關系保障自身。提供某種鐵飯碗，即終生雇傭政策的企業急劇減少。曾幾何時，擠入最佳工作環境榜單的公司還用此類政策當賣點，現在入圍公司幾乎不再提及。

幾十年前，硅谷和其他地方的公司開始宣稱，員工要對自己的職業道路負責。公司充其量只能提供承諾的薪資和福利，還給員工打磨技能從而更好適應未來機會（可能在其他公司）的工作。

將近三十年前，美國西北大學教授保羅·赫希還在《收拾好自己的降落傘》（Pack Your Own Parachute）一書中為企業并購、削減規模頻發和外包盛行時代的工人提供建議。十五年后，丹·平克的暢銷書《自由職業的國度》（Free Agent Nation）卻在建議勞動者，如何應付越來越以市場為主的人才市場，還介紹了一些鼓舞人心實例，內容是自由職業者如何熱愛自由的工作方式。

過去人們認為，對企業忠誠可以換來企業對員工的忠誠，如今，企業與員工互惠的觀念幾乎不復存在。美國卡耐基梅隆大學教授丹尼斯·盧梭合著的論文稱，半數以上的受訪者稱，不管之前對公司的認同感模糊還是明確，進入公司不到兩年已經動搖。我和弗吉尼亞大學商學院教授彼得·貝拉米共同進行的研究發現，如果讓員工決定是否決定回報公司，其動機取決于判斷恩惠是在工作環境下還是人際交往中。倘若是工作環境下，員工回饋公司的可能性就低得多。

很早以前企業就開始切斷與員工的情感聯系。企業將員工視為人力“資源”，是根據回報多少而獲取和丟棄的資產。現狀只是趨勢延續。

失去了什么？

當前人才市場失去的是有人情味的感覺，現在過多強調效率、成本和生產率。

人是社會動物。我們渴望結成伙伴，希望成為群體的一分子，努力獲得社會的支持。假如禁錮自身不與外界交往，就會遭到冷酷對待和過度懲罰。不斷有研究發現，社會支持和人的身體健康息息相關，因為工作場所的社會支持可以緩解職場的壓力，促進身心健康。為多個企業打工的自由職業者會導致和同事隔離，脫離了能帶來工作滿足感和社會支持的集體。

教皇方濟各最近在評論家庭生活時承認，很多現代企業缺少人情味，造成破壞性打擊。他指出，家庭正被現代生活壓力“包圍”，“大多數時候，父母回到家中已經精疲力盡，不想交談，很多家庭里全家人甚至不在一起吃飯。”他認為，不少家庭“常常為了未來苦苦掙扎，卻忽視了享受當下”，對經濟狀況和工作穩定的擔憂導致情況進一步惡化。

未來會怎樣？

雅各比等人指出，包括工資上漲、鐵飯碗、體面的福利和正當程序保護在內，良性的工作環境主要因為企業想控制工作流程穩定。企業不希望內部政策受到勞資協議和政府監管影響。當代各國，無論是在美國還是其他地方，政府和有組織的工會影響力都在減弱，無疑和人才市場安排的變化有很大關系。

如今，企業面臨是讓一些員工搭工會便車還是和工會進行勞資談判的問題。如果提供更好的待遇，超出了一定水平，人力成本就會高于競爭對手。由于各企業要讓人力成本和對手的一致、不超過對手，所以出現競相降低待遇的現象。只有在人才市場供不應求時，或者像現在這樣，出現提高最低薪資和增加帶薪產假等風潮時，企業才會停止降低待遇。

但是，人需要安全感，按照心理學家馬斯洛的需求層次理論，這是人類需求的一部分。無論是否考慮競爭壓力、工會、政府監管和失業率，社會交流都是最根本的需求。當下，人類基本需求與工作環境出現脫節，也是現代人才市場要付出的代價。這正是工業化國家大選期間民意激憤的原因之一。（財富中文網）

本文作者杰弗瑞·普弗瑞是美國斯坦福大學商學研究生院組織行為學教授，著有《領導力：拯救職場與事業》（Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time）一書。

譯者：Pessy

審稿：夏林

Dan Lyons’ account of his time at the software company HubSpot describes a workplace in which employees are disposable, “treated as if they are widgets to be used up and discarded.” And HubSpot is scarcely unique: The description of Amazon’s work environment is just one of many similar cases. An increasing number of companies offer snacks, foosball, and futuristic jargon to keep employees’ minds off their long hours and omnipresent economic insecurity.

Whether that works, and for how long, is an open question.

Of course, in the new economy ever fewer companies hire people like Lyons as employees in the first place. Many workplaces prefer to use independent contractors for much of the companies’ work. A recent working paper by labor economists Lawrence Katz and Alan Krueger concluded that the proportion of the U.S. labor force in alternative work arrangements—working for temporary help agencies or as independent contractors, for example—expanded by some 50% in the decade from 2005 to 2015. Moreover, they wrote, “all of the net employment growth in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements.”

Three facts about the new deal at work and the new work arrangements are important. First, these new work arrangements are actually old, much like how work was organized before the modern employment relationship originated. Second, these new/old work arrangements represent a natural progression of company policies, begun decades ago, that tell people that companies owed them nothing except promised pay and to make them more employable. And third, by leaving people to navigate the contemporary labor market essentially alone, the employment arrangements disrupt an old and important reason for working—the opportunity to be part of a group.

The New Work Arrangements are Actually Old

As numerous labor historians and sociologists have documented, before there were large companies employing people and using elaborate human resource policies to govern recruitment, compensation, benefits, and training, work was mostly performed by small entrepreneurs using family labor (as on farms) or by contract labor paid on a piece-work basis.

The modern employment relationship emerged primarily because of enlightened employer self-interest. As UCLA economist Sanford Jacoby documented in his book Employing Bureaucracy, rule-based control over labor emerged as a response to the inefficiencies caused by a capricious employment relationship that left employees alienated and turnover extremely high. Jacoby’s Modern Manors detailed how generous benefits such as paid vacations and pensions arose under a system called “welfare capitalism” as a way to forestall unionization and government regulation. As an example of this, Henry Ford’s famous $5 a day wage and a concomitant reduction in daily work hours from 9 to 8 arose because Ford saw that he needed to pay more to retain workers and ensure they would show up. His famous automobile assembly line couldn’t run with people missing.

Although it is coupled with more computer surveillance and fancy scheduling platforms to pair people with work, today’s use of independent contractors paid on a piece-rate system represents a return to the work arrangements of 140 years ago, not some new managerial innovation.

Employees Beware

Second, the need for employees to fend for themselves is also a hoary idea. The number of employers offering some form of employment security—a no-layoff policy—has declined drastically. What once was a practice cited by many companies on the Great Place to Work list now exists almost nowhere.

Decades ago, employers in Silicon Valley and elsewhere began telling people that employees were responsible for their own careers. A company could at best deliver on promised pay and benefits and hopefully provide workers with jobs that would build their skills and make them more employable (possibly elsewhere).

Almost 30 years ago, Northwestern professor Paul Hirsch wrote Pack Your Own Parachute to provide advice to workers in an era of mergers, downsizing, and outsourcing. Fifteen years later, Dan Pink’s Free Agent Nation achieved best-seller status with its combination of practical suggestions on how to navigate an increasingly market-based labor market along with inspiring stories of free agents who loved their new autonomy.

The idea of reciprocity inside companies—repaying the loyalty of employees to their employer with company loyalty to its workers—is mostly gone. Carnegie-Mellon professor Denise Rousseau co-authored a paper reporting that within two years of joining their employer, more than half of the people surveyed reported that the implicit and explicit psychological contracts with their employer had been violated. Research by Virginia business school professor Peter Belmi and I found that when you told people they were making decisions about whether or not to reciprocate a favor, their motivation to do so depended on whether they thought they were in an organizational or interpersonal context. People put in an organizational mind-set were much less likely to reciprocate.

Companies started to cut employees loose quite a while ago. What we see today is just a continuation of a trend to treat people as human resources, as assets to be acquired and discarded according to the return for doing so.

What’s Missing?

What’s missing from the current labor market is a sense of humanity—as contrasted with lots of emphasis on efficiency, costs, and productivity.

Human beings are social creatures. We crave companionship, seek to be part of communities, and thrive on social support. Not surprisingly, solitary confinement is increasingly under fire for being cruel and excessive punishment. Research consistently finds a relationship between social support and health, because social support in the workplace can buffer workplace stressors and contributes to physical and mental well-being. Working as free agents for multiple employers can separate people from workmates and a community that provide both job satisfaction and social support.

Pope Francis’s recent message on family life recognizes the inhumanity and destructiveness of many contemporary workplaces. Describing families as being “under siege” by the pressures of modern life, the Pope noted, “In many cases, parents come home exhausted, not wanting to talk, and many families no longer even share a common meal.” He commented that many families “often seem more caught up with securing their future than with enjoying the present,” a situation aggravated by concerns about financial security and steady employment.

What’s Next

As Jacoby and others have noted, the benign workplace situation of higher wages, employment security, decent benefits, and due process protections largely originated from employers’ desires to control their own work practices. Employers did not want policies subject to either collective bargaining agreements or government regulation. The diminishing role of both the state and organized labor in the contemporary economy—in the U.S. and abroad—undoubtedly has much to do with the evolution of labor market arrangements.

Today, individual companies face a free-rider/collective action problem. If they offer a better deal, beyond a certain point the companies incur costs that their competitors do not. This idea of matching what others do—and no more—has set off a race to the bottom that only seems to abate when challenged by a tightening labor market or political actions such as the current groundswell for higher minimum wages and more paid family leave.

But human needs for safety and security—a part of Maslow’s hierarchy—and for social interaction are primal, existing regardless of competitive pressures, unions, government regulations, and the unemployment rate. This disconnect, between human needs and work arrangements that fulfill them, is one of the costs exacted in contemporary labor market arrangements. And it’s one reason for the anger so visibly playing out in elections all over the industrialized world.

Jeffrey Pfeffer is the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behavior at the Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, and author .