信任你 還是監(jiān)控你

When Spotify workers need a new keyboard, they goto a shelf and take one. There are no forms to fill inand no one to ask. There is just a sign saying howmuch each keyboard costs.

當(dāng)Spotify的員工需要一個(gè)新鍵盤時(shí)，他們就到架子上去取一個(gè)。不需要填什么表格，不需要問(wèn)誰(shuí)去要。只有一個(gè)標(biāo)簽顯示每個(gè)鍵盤多少錢。

Kristian Lindwall, whose title at the music streamingcompany is “agile coaches team lead”, told us this ata human resources conference in Barcelona lastweek.

不久前在巴塞羅那舉行的一次人力資源大會(huì)上，Spotify的“敏捷教練團(tuán)隊(duì)主管”克里斯蒂安•林德沃爾(KristianLindwall)告訴了我們這一點(diǎn)。

His talk was about Spotify giving teams autonomy. His job seemed to be to help the teams,but not to hover over them. “People are self-motivated and they want to do great work,” hesaid.

他演講的主旨是Spotify給予團(tuán)隊(duì)自主權(quán)。他的工作似乎是幫助各個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)，但不凌駕于他們之上。“員工們自我激勵(lì)，他們想做成大事，”他說(shuō)。

Setting up elaborate approval processes for workplace equipment not only interfered withthat aim; it ended up costing more. “It’s cheaper to give someone a keyboard than for people togo through two sets of approvals that take a week,” he said.

建立繁復(fù)的辦公設(shè)備審批程序，不但干擾了上述目標(biāo)的達(dá)成，而且最終會(huì)產(chǎn)生更大的成本。“跟讓員工花兩周時(shí)間走完兩套審批程序相比，直接給他一個(gè)鍵盤更省錢，”他說(shuō)。

Judging by reviews on the Glassdoor jobs website, some employees find these autonomousteams “chaotic”, with “duplicate and uncoordinated efforts”. But 87 per cent say they wouldrecommend the company to a friend.

從員工點(diǎn)評(píng)網(wǎng)站Glassdoor上的評(píng)議看，有些員工覺(jué)得這些自治團(tuán)隊(duì)“雜亂無(wú)章”，“重復(fù)勞動(dòng)，彼此間缺乏協(xié)調(diào)”。但87%的人表示，他們會(huì)把Spotify推薦給朋友。

As a consumer, I find Spotify’s service entirely satisfactory. But I feel the same about Amazon,which only 64 per cent of employees would recommend to a friend, according to Glassdoor.Employee reviews — “people making minor mistakes are punished; breaks are limited,exhausting the workforce and making people hate work” — reflect recent press coverage, whichAmazon contests, stating that it used detailed data to monitor both managers and lower-levelemployees’ performance.

作為消費(fèi)者，我認(rèn)為Spotify的服務(wù)完全令人滿意。但是，我對(duì)亞馬遜(Amazon)有同樣的感覺(jué)。根據(jù)Glassdoor的數(shù)據(jù)，愿意向朋友推薦亞馬遜的員工比例僅為64%。員工評(píng)議——“犯小錯(cuò)就受到懲罰;工間休息時(shí)間有限，讓大家感到精疲力盡，憎恨工作”——反映出了不久前媒體報(bào)道的內(nèi)容，即亞馬遜使用詳盡的數(shù)據(jù)監(jiān)控管理人員和更低層級(jí)員工的表現(xiàn)。亞馬遜對(duì)這一報(bào)道提出了異議。

Spotify trusts you; Amazon monitors you. The companies are both stars of the digital age, whilealso illustrating the sharp divide in today’s world of work. Some companies give their workersfreedom while others use modern technology to track their every move.

Spotify信任你;亞馬遜監(jiān)控你。這兩家公司都是數(shù)字時(shí)代的明星企業(yè)，同時(shí)也呈現(xiàn)出如今職場(chǎng)世界的嚴(yán)重分化局面。有些公司給予員工自由，也有些公司使用現(xiàn)代技術(shù)跟蹤員工們的一舉一動(dòng)。

Traditionally, this trust divide existed inside companies rather than between them, according toan excellent and prescient 2001 paper by Cambridge’s Judge Business School and theStockholm School of Economics. Managers were trusted, but workers were not.

根據(jù)劍橋大學(xué)(University of Cambridge)賈奇商學(xué)院(Judge Business School)和斯德哥爾摩經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)院(Stockholm School of Economics)在2001年發(fā)表的一篇富有遠(yuǎn)見(jiàn)的高質(zhì)量論文，傳統(tǒng)上，信任度方面的鴻溝存在于公司內(nèi)部，而不是公司之間。管理人員受到信任，下屬員工不被信任。

Max Weber, the great German analyst of organisations, “identified the fact that senior figuresin bureaucracy operate with discretion, since it is they who formulate, rather than follow,rules,” the paper said.

論文指出，德國(guó)組織管理分析大師馬克斯•韋伯(Max Weber)“發(fā)現(xiàn)了一條事實(shí)，即官僚機(jī)構(gòu)中的高層人物在工作中擁有自主權(quán)，因?yàn)樗麄兪且?guī)則的制定者，而不是遵從者”。

Senior figures did not always deserve that trust, of course. In any event, the idea that someshould be above the rules began to break down in the 1960s and especially in the 1980s, withthe rise of the idea of corporate culture.

當(dāng)然，高層人物并非總是配得上這份信任。無(wú)論如何，有些人應(yīng)當(dāng)凌駕于規(guī)則之上的觀念從上世紀(jì)60年代開(kāi)始瓦解，尤其是進(jìn)入上世紀(jì)80年代之后，隨著“公司文化”這種理念的崛起，這種觀念的瓦解更是迅速。

Popularised by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman’s In Search of Excellence, corporate culture“was understood as an anti-bureaucratic move” that aspired to substituting values for rules,the Cambridge/Stockholm paper said.

論文指出，湯姆•彼得斯(Tom Peters)和羅伯特•沃特曼(Robert Waterman)在《追求卓越》(In Search ofExcellence)一書中普及了公司文化的理念，它“被理解為一種反官僚主義運(yùn)動(dòng)”，希望以價(jià)值觀取代規(guī)定。

Those values bound everyone in the company together, both workers and managers. It meantemployees could be empowered and “less directly managed”. Rather than establishing rafts ofrules, employees were educated in the culture. They grasped the values and could then be leftto get on with their work without excessive oversight.

那些價(jià)值觀把公司里的每個(gè)人——普通員工和管理人員——都團(tuán)結(jié)到一起。這意味著，員工可以獲得自主權(quán)，“受到更少的直接管理”。公司不必建立重重規(guī)則，而是用文化來(lái)教育員工。員工理解了價(jià)值觀之后，就可以自己去完成工作，無(wú)需太多監(jiān)督。

It was not always this way. Many companies still had plenty of rules. But this was the ideal. Nowthe old corporate culture model is breaking down under the strain of global competition, anend to final salary pensions, insecure employment, agency working and outsourcing.

過(guò)去并非總是如此?，F(xiàn)在許多公司仍然設(shè)有大量規(guī)則。但推行公司文化曾經(jīng)是理想的管理方式。如今，在全球競(jìng)爭(zhēng)壓力、最終薪資養(yǎng)老金制度終結(jié)、以及靈活雇傭合同、勞務(wù)派遣和外包的影響下，舊有的公司文化模式正在坍塌。

If people are no longer secure in a company then everything changes. “Why should individualsbe committed to the values of an organisation to which they have only a fleetingattachment?” the paper’s authors say.

如果人們?cè)诠局械娘埻氩辉俜€(wěn)固，那么一切都會(huì)發(fā)生變化。“如果個(gè)人只是暫時(shí)在某一組織中工作，那么他們?yōu)楹螒?yīng)當(dāng)承諾忠于該組織的價(jià)值觀呢?”論文作者們表示。

Amazon’s close monitoring is one response; Spotify’s autonomous teams are another. Whywould its people in their autonomous teams behave in a trustworthy way? Because, in a worldin which they will probably move around, their own reputations, their personal brands, are avital asset.

亞馬遜的嚴(yán)密監(jiān)視是一種對(duì)策;Spotify的自治團(tuán)隊(duì)是另一種對(duì)策。自治團(tuán)隊(duì)的成員為何應(yīng)當(dāng)以一種值得信任的方式行事?這是因?yàn)椋谝粋€(gè)他們很可能將到處流動(dòng)的世界里，他們自己的名聲和個(gè)人品牌是一種至關(guān)重要的資產(chǎn)。

When you move on, you want to be remembered as someone who was trusted. The more skilledand mobile you are, the more your employer will believe your reputation matters to you.

當(dāng)你奔赴新前程時(shí)，你希望有人記住你是個(gè)值得信任的人。你的技能越高、流動(dòng)性越大，你的雇主就越相信，你的名聲對(duì)自己非常重要。

Everyone’s reputation matters to them, but not everyone is as mobile or has skills that arerare or transferable. The further down the work ladder you are, the more employers willbelieve you need to be controlled.

每個(gè)人的名聲對(duì)自己都很重要，但并非每個(gè)人的流動(dòng)性都那么大、或者擁有稀罕或可轉(zhuǎn)移的技能。你在職場(chǎng)階梯上的地位越低，雇主就越相信，有必要對(duì)你進(jìn)行控制。

There is a class element to this. The new world of work is horribly divided. Egalitariancorporate culture was just a passing moment.

這其中存在一個(gè)“階級(jí)”元素。新的職場(chǎng)世界分化非常嚴(yán)重。平等主義的公司文化只是一個(gè)轉(zhuǎn)瞬即逝的階段。