模糊私人生活與工作的界限存在陷阱

????“把生活帶進工作”這個層面上的情況看起來并不那么美妙。明亮地平線家庭事務(wù)解決公司（Bright Horizons Family Solutions）CEO大衛(wèi)?利希這樣描述他的做法：他希望員工不要覺得自己有必要掩飾真實的自我。許多公司領(lǐng)導人顯然正受人鼓動，讓員工們脫掉掩蓋個性的偽裝。

????這種觀點在理論上同樣非常美妙，但在實踐中卻問題多多。首先，坦率與透明的底線在哪里？在這樣的工作場所，“我今天是不是喝高了，什么活都干不了了？”是不是一件適宜公布于眾的事情？公司是否會敦促員工參加一些聯(lián)誼活動，從而導致員工不得不泄露他們本不愿讓他人知道的個人信息？

????這樣做也有可能導致年終考核復雜化。辦公室一位人盡皆知的員工正在鬧離婚，痛苦不堪。這位員工是不是應(yīng)該得到更加溫和、更為寬大的待遇呢？抑或相反，一位珍視自己隱私的員工是否會突然之間被視為不合群？

????而這正是問題的癥結(jié)所在：也許他的確不合群。也許那位正在鬧離婚的員工也的確應(yīng)該享受更寬大的待遇（以前更稀奇的事情都發(fā)生過。鐵石心腸、一心向錢看的公司在某些事情上也會做出一些寬厚的決定）。但任何一家把提高工作生活一體化作為集體目標的公司最好多花一些時間提前思考一下一些前所未有的難題，因為過去人們都把私人生活留在家中，做夢也不會想到這些事情。

????其他生活領(lǐng)域也有大量的證據(jù)表明，不要把真實的自我和盤托出是一個非常有必要的習慣。每逢節(jié)假日都會涌現(xiàn)出大量的文章，教導我們不要讓政治或宗教方面的分歧把幸福的家庭慶?；顒愚D(zhuǎn)變成聲嘶力竭的大辯論。我們本人的自我或許令人愉悅，但其他人完整的自我或許帶有極強的攻擊性。提高職場的透明度或許可以讓員工變得更有活力，但同樣也很容易導致更激烈的個人恩怨。

????年輕員工在這樣的工作環(huán)境中面臨的風險往往更大一些。擁有25年經(jīng)驗的老員工或許懂得如何掌握分寸。但一些職場新人在這方面的功力就有所欠缺了，他們不知道什么時候應(yīng)該表露真性情，什么時候神秘一點反而更有助于事業(yè)發(fā)展。

????一個小小的驚喜是，探討事業(yè)成功秘訣的古老著作恰恰告誡我們，在工作場所不要太過安逸?！昂翢o疑問，有一些人能夠透過一個人的軀殼或外表，透過外在的生硬、笨拙、古怪，看到他掩藏于內(nèi)心的素質(zhì)，”威廉?馬修斯在其出版于1874年的著作《入世》（Getting on in the World）一書中寫道?！暗蠖鄶?shù)人并不具備如此犀利的眼光和這樣的大度?！?/p>

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."