Hard Work May Not Pay After All

没必要超负荷工作

Every year between May and September, all 54 employees of Basecamp, a Chicago-based web applications company, work a short week: just four days – a total of 32 hours. They work a conventional five-day week the rest of the year.

每年5月到9月，Basecamp的全体员工都实行“每周四天”工作制，工作总时长32小时，其他几个月再变回常规的五天工作制。Basecamp是一家位于芝加哥的网络应用软件公司，有54名员工。

“That’s plenty of time to get great work done. This is all we expect and all we want from people,” says Jason Fried, co-founder. “Working 50, 60, 70-plus [hours] is unnecessary. In fact, if you have to work 50, 60, 70-plus hours a week, there’s a management problem.”

该公司联合创始人杰森·弗里德表示：“干好工作这么多时间足够了。这就是我们对大家的期许和要求。工作50、60、70多个小时根本没必要。事实上，如果你每周要工作50、60、70多个小时，说明管理有问题。”

The company’s summer workload must fit reduced hours, Mr Fried insists, otherwise the benefits of a shorter week – to recover from work, enjoy time with family and pursue outside interests – would be undone.

弗里德坚持认为，在夏季安排的工作量必须与缩短后的工作时长相匹配，否则短周工作制的好处——让大家能够从工作压力中恢复过来，享受家庭生活，追求工作之外的兴趣——就没了。

His philosophy chimes with new research that finds it is not just long hours that are harmful to employees’ physical and mental health. It is also the intensity of work – tight deadlines and a relentless pace. Moreover, it suggests that intense work harms career prospects. That is because excessive hours and intensity are counterproductive, reducing the quality of the work.

他的理念正好与一项新研究成果相吻合，该研究发现：伤害员工身心健康的不仅是长时间工作，还有工作强度，比如紧张的期限、连轴转的工作节奏。此外，该研究还认为，高强度工作会损害职业前景，原因是过长的工时和过大的强度会适得其反，造成工作质量下降。

The forthcoming study, called “Implications of work effort and discretion for employee wellbeing and career-related outcomes: an integrative assessment”, to be published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, concludes that the level of intensity we apply to the work we do (defined as the level of effort supplied per unit of working time) is generally “a stronger predictor of unfavourable outcomes than overtime work”.

这篇研究论文名为《工作努力程度和自主决定权对员工健康及职业相关成果的影响：综合评估》，即将发表在《产业与劳动关系评论》期刊上，其结论是：我们的工作强度——即单位工作时间投入的精力——通常“比超时工作更能预示不利后果”。

The researchers, Argyro Avgoustaki, assistant professor of management at ESCP Europe and Hans Frankort, senior lecturer in strategy at Cass Business School, compared people in similar jobs and education levels, and found they were more likely to suffer poorer wellbeing and inferior career prospects, including satisfaction, security and promotion, when they worked at an intense level for long periods.

做这项课题的是ESCP欧洲商学院管理学助理教授阿伊罗·阿夫戈斯塔基，以及卡斯商学院战略学高级讲师汉斯·弗兰克特。他们对职业和教育水平相似的人进行比较后发现，那些长期保持高强度工作的人很可能健康更差，职业前景更糟糕，其中，职业前景从工作满意度、安全感和晋升机会等方面衡量。

英文、中文版本下载：http://www.yingyushijie.com/shop/source/detail/id/940.html