成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

為什么“現(xiàn)代”工作文化讓上班族這么慘

Jeffery pfeffer
2018-03-25

新型工作安排其實(shí)是新瓶裝舊酒,和以前的工作組織方式變化不大。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

科技報(bào)道記者丹·里昂曾在評(píng)論文章中回顧在軟件公司HubSpot的工作經(jīng)歷,呈現(xiàn)了視員工為一次性用品的工作環(huán)境,那家公司把員工當(dāng)成零件,用完就丟在一邊。HubSpot不是孤例:《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》披露的亞馬遜工作環(huán)境也很類似。越來越多企業(yè)給員工提供零食和桌上足球之類娛樂設(shè)施,時(shí)不時(shí)創(chuàng)造一些新潮術(shù)語(yǔ),就是想讓員工忽略冗長(zhǎng)的工作時(shí)間,緩解經(jīng)濟(jì)上強(qiáng)烈的不安全感。

至于種種手段有沒有用,能奏效多長(zhǎng)時(shí)間,答案就見仁見智了。

當(dāng)然,在新經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域,企業(yè)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(dú)立的自由職業(yè)合同工承擔(dān)大部分工作。在新近發(fā)布的研究報(bào)告中,勞動(dòng)力經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家勞倫斯·卡茲和亞倫·克魯格認(rèn)為,2005年到2015年十年間,在提供臨時(shí)服務(wù)的中介或獨(dú)立承包商等非傳統(tǒng)工作場(chǎng)所打工的美國(guó)勞動(dòng)力增長(zhǎng)了50%左右。他們?cè)趫?bào)告中寫道:“2005年到2015年,美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的就業(yè)凈增長(zhǎng)看來都在非傳統(tǒng)工作場(chǎng)所?!?

對(duì)于新型勞動(dòng)協(xié)議和新型工作安排,有三點(diǎn)非常重要。首先,新型工作安排其實(shí)是新瓶裝舊酒,和現(xiàn)代社會(huì)就業(yè)關(guān)系產(chǎn)生以前的工作組織方式變化不大。其次,新/舊工作安排提現(xiàn)了企業(yè)政策的自然發(fā)展。變化幾十年前就已開始,即企業(yè)承諾支付員工固定工資,聘用的目的就是換回員工的勞動(dòng)。第三,新型就業(yè)形勢(shì)下,勞動(dòng)者只能跟著現(xiàn)代人才市場(chǎng)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(shí)為新瓶裝舊酒

正如多位勞動(dòng)力歷史學(xué)家和社會(huì)學(xué)家論述,大企業(yè)聘用員工,并利用精心設(shè)計(jì)的人力資源政策管理招聘、薪酬、福利和培訓(xùn)以前,主流工作形式是小企業(yè)主聘請(qǐng)家里人干活(比如農(nóng)場(chǎng)),或者和勞動(dòng)者簽訂計(jì)件勞動(dòng)合同。

現(xiàn)代雇傭關(guān)系主要源于雇主對(duì)自身利益更加明確。加州大學(xué)洛杉磯分校的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家斯坦?!ぱ鸥鞅仍凇豆陀霉倭胖啤罚‥mploying Bureaucracy)一書中指出,隨意的雇傭關(guān)系導(dǎo)致員工與雇主疏遠(yuǎn),流失率極高,導(dǎo)致經(jīng)營(yíng)效率低下,由此產(chǎn)生了規(guī)范管控勞動(dòng)力的做法。雅各比在《現(xiàn)代莊園》(Modern Manors)一書中詳細(xì)解釋,帶薪假期和養(yǎng)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(fā)制人應(yīng)付工會(huì),也符合政府監(jiān)管要求。書中舉了美國(guó)汽車大王亨利·福特的例子。福特將工人的日薪上調(diào)到5美元,將每日工作時(shí)間由9小時(shí)降至8小時(shí)。他之所以提出聞名業(yè)界的改善工人待遇政策,是因?yàn)榘l(fā)現(xiàn)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(chǎn)線就可能停工。

今天,企業(yè)可以更多利用電腦監(jiān)督,還有各種復(fù)雜的日程安排平臺(tái)分配工作。然而,企業(yè)選擇聘用獨(dú)立的合同工計(jì)件支付薪水,回到了140年前的工作安排形式,并不是管理創(chuàng)新。

員工意識(shí)轉(zhuǎn)變

第二點(diǎn),員工不再認(rèn)為需要通過勞資關(guān)系保障自身。提供某種鐵飯碗,即終生雇傭政策的企業(yè)急劇減少。曾幾何時(shí),擠入最佳工作環(huán)境榜單的公司還用此類政策當(dāng)賣點(diǎn),現(xiàn)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(duì)自己的職業(yè)道路負(fù)責(zé)。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(yīng)未來機(jī)會(huì)(可能在其他公司)的工作。

將近三十年前,美國(guó)西北大學(xué)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(yè)并購(gòu)、削減規(guī)模頻發(fā)和外包盛行時(shí)代的工人提供建議。十五年后,丹·平克的暢銷書《自由職業(yè)的國(guó)度》(Free Agent Nation)卻在建議勞動(dòng)者,如何應(yīng)付越來越以市場(chǎng)為主的人才市場(chǎng),還介紹了一些鼓舞人心實(shí)例,內(nèi)容是自由職業(yè)者如何熱愛自由的工作方式。

過去人們認(rèn)為,對(duì)企業(yè)忠誠(chéng)可以換來企業(yè)對(duì)員工的忠誠(chéng),如今,企業(yè)與員工互惠的觀念幾乎不復(fù)存在。美國(guó)卡耐基梅隆大學(xué)教授丹尼斯·盧梭合著的論文稱,半數(shù)以上的受訪者稱,不管之前對(duì)公司的認(rèn)同感模糊還是明確,進(jìn)入公司不到兩年已經(jīng)動(dòng)搖。我和弗吉尼亞大學(xué)商學(xué)院教授彼得·貝拉米共同進(jìn)行的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),如果讓員工決定是否決定回報(bào)公司,其動(dòng)機(jī)取決于判斷恩惠是在工作環(huán)境下還是人際交往中。倘若是工作環(huán)境下,員工回饋公司的可能性就低得多。

很早以前企業(yè)就開始切斷與員工的情感聯(lián)系。企業(yè)將員工視為人力“資源”,是根據(jù)回報(bào)多少而獲取和丟棄的資產(chǎn)?,F(xiàn)狀只是趨勢(shì)延續(xù)。

失去了什么?

當(dāng)前人才市場(chǎng)失去的是有人情味的感覺,現(xiàn)在過多強(qiáng)調(diào)效率、成本和生產(chǎn)率。

人是社會(huì)動(dòng)物。我們渴望結(jié)成伙伴,希望成為群體的一分子,努力獲得社會(huì)的支持。假如禁錮自身不與外界交往,就會(huì)遭到冷酷對(duì)待和過度懲罰。不斷有研究發(fā)現(xiàn),社會(huì)支持和人的身體健康息息相關(guān),因?yàn)楣ぷ鲌?chǎng)所的社會(huì)支持可以緩解職場(chǎng)的壓力,促進(jìn)身心健康。為多個(gè)企業(yè)打工的自由職業(yè)者會(huì)導(dǎo)致和同事隔離,脫離了能帶來工作滿足感和社會(huì)支持的集體。

教皇方濟(jì)各最近在評(píng)論家庭生活時(shí)承認(rèn),很多現(xiàn)代企業(yè)缺少人情味,造成破壞性打擊。他指出,家庭正被現(xiàn)代生活壓力“包圍”,“大多數(shù)時(shí)候,父母回到家中已經(jīng)精疲力盡,不想交談,很多家庭里全家人甚至不在一起吃飯?!彼J(rèn)為,不少家庭“常常為了未來苦苦掙扎,卻忽視了享受當(dāng)下”,對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況和工作穩(wěn)定的擔(dān)憂導(dǎo)致情況進(jìn)一步惡化。

未來會(huì)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(dāng)程序保護(hù)在內(nèi),良性的工作環(huán)境主要因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)想控制工作流程穩(wěn)定。企業(yè)不希望內(nèi)部政策受到勞資協(xié)議和政府監(jiān)管影響。當(dāng)代各國(guó),無(wú)論是在美國(guó)還是其他地方,政府和有組織的工會(huì)影響力都在減弱,無(wú)疑和人才市場(chǎng)安排的變化有很大關(guān)系。

如今,企業(yè)面臨是讓一些員工搭工會(huì)便車還是和工會(huì)進(jìn)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(huì)高于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手。由于各企業(yè)要讓人力成本和對(duì)手的一致、不超過對(duì)手,所以出現(xiàn)競(jìng)相降低待遇的現(xiàn)象。只有在人才市場(chǎng)供不應(yīng)求時(shí),或者像現(xiàn)在這樣,出現(xiàn)提高最低薪資和增加帶薪產(chǎn)假等風(fēng)潮時(shí),企業(yè)才會(huì)停止降低待遇。

但是,人需要安全感,按照心理學(xué)家馬斯洛的需求層次理論,這是人類需求的一部分。無(wú)論是否考慮競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力、工會(huì)、政府監(jiān)管和失業(yè)率,社會(huì)交流都是最根本的需求。當(dāng)下,人類基本需求與工作環(huán)境出現(xiàn)脫節(jié),也是現(xiàn)代人才市場(chǎng)要付出的代價(jià)。這正是工業(yè)化國(guó)家大選期間民意激憤的原因之一。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

本文作者杰弗瑞·普弗瑞是美國(guó)斯坦福大學(xué)商學(xué)研究生院組織行為學(xué)教授,著有《領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力:拯救職場(chǎng)與事業(yè)》(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 .

財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開
熱讀文章
国内少妇人妻偷人精品免费视| 人妻仑刮八A级毛片免费看| 成年美女黄网站色大片不卡| 中文无码一区二区不卡αv| 欧美内射AAAAAAXXXXX,男人的JJ| 国产福利91精品一区二区三区| 久久久WWW成人免费精品| 国产V亚洲V天堂无码久久久| 99精品久久精品一区二区| 亚洲午夜无码久久久久| 色视频一区二区三区网网网网 | 免费一级大片亚洲精品视频网| 91人妻无码精品一区二区毛片| 91校花国产大学生| 亚洲1区2区3区精华液| 无码A级毛片免费视频下载| 国产97视频人人做人人爱免费| 欧美一级A一级a爱片久久| 嫩草影院一二三网址永久入口| MM1313亚洲精品无码| 99久久免费精品国产72免费| 久久综合亚洲鲁鲁五月天| 夜夜爽夜夜叫夜夜高潮漏水| 亚洲热在线视频亚洲永久精品网站| 91免费视频在线观看| 免费三级网站国产性自爱拍偷| 激情国产原创在线观看| 国产女人高潮好舒服在线观看| 在线亚洲+欧美+日本专区| 国产精品视频免费看| 国产一区二区三区不卡| 日韩欧美视频一区二区在线观看| 青青人妖无遮挡久久99国产一区二区三区亚洲一区影院午夜福利| 精品无码一区二区三区在线| 亚洲码专区亚洲码专区| 欧美日韩在线一区一区| 亚洲自偷自偷偷色无码中文| 免费99精品国产自在现线观看| 成人电影在线播放| 国产午夜无码片在线观看网站日本| 亚洲热在线免费观看一二三区|