隱私與透明之間的甜蜜點

The Sweet Spot Between Privacy and Transparency
瀏覽人數:1697


影片載入中...
哈佛商學院助理教授(編按:現為講座副教授)伊森.伯恩斯坦,說明如何在開放式工作環境中提高生產力。

艾莉森.比爾德:嗨,我是艾莉森.比爾德,《哈佛商業評論》編輯。今天我要訪談的來賓是哈佛商學院教授伊森.伯恩斯坦,他著有〈完全透明行不行〉一文。伊森,很高興你今天撥冗過來。

伊森.伯恩斯坦:不客氣,艾莉森,這是我的榮幸。

艾莉森.比爾德:你有很多研究是探討人們如何工作最有效率、最有成效,而你發現隱私是關鍵。但我們這個時代採取開放式辦公室,以及流動式協作,而且每個人都把真實的自我展現在工作中。你要如何取得這當中的平衡?

伊森.伯恩斯坦:當我們想到現代工作環境時,透明度顯然在很多方面帶來較多好處。但也可能過猶不及。我認為最簡單的思考方式,是從人類行為的角度,採取兩個觀點:觀察者的觀點和被觀察者的觀點。我們談到透明度時,通常是從觀察者的角度來思考。觀察者如果擁有更透明的工作環境,就可運用這種能見度來改善協作、加強知識共享,排除浪費的實務。

從這方面來看,更多似乎一定會更好。但身為人類,當有人觀察我們時,我們的行為會改變。所以我們改採被觀察者角度時,傾向使用「隱私」一詞,而不是「透明度」,如此大致可以理解,為何從人類的角度來看,我們被觀察時就會改變行為。我們可能會停止一些動作,少做一些實驗,表現的行為是觀察者期待我們會遵循的行為。這可能會犧牲生產力。因此如果發生這種情形,可以把「隱私地帶」當成管理工具,以確保更透明的工作環境不會導致較不透明的員工。

艾莉森.比爾德:你要如何創造隱私地帶?

伊森.伯恩斯坦:我在本文的研究中,指出四種界限類型,有助於建立具生產力的隱私地帶。第一種界限是個人所組成團隊周圍的界限,稱為「注意區域」,這樣你就不會覺得總是在舞台上和人群面前表演。第二種界限是回饋意見和評估之間的界限,稱為「判斷區域」,這樣你在做每件小事時,都不會因為你感覺正在被評價,而進行政治操作和印象管理。第三種界限,是改善權和決策權之間的界限,稱為「鬆弛區域」,是要確保非常透明的工作環境,不會淹沒其實可以提高生產力的修改活動。最後一種,即第四種界限,是圍繞實驗期的界限,稱為「時間區域」,是要確保干預措施既不會太頻繁,也不會太不頻繁。

艾莉森.比爾德:你可以提供一些實務上的例子嗎?

伊森.伯恩斯坦:我們先從第一個開始,圍繞個人所組成團隊的界限,也就是注意區域。維爾福軟體公司有個獨特做法,就是允許員工自行分配所有時間,也允許員工移動辦公桌。你可以拔下辦公桌的電源,把它推到下一個位置,然後再插上插頭,也就是移動辦公桌,加入在某個特定時刻他們所屬的那個團隊。維爾福的許多員工,每週至少移動辦公桌一次,也可能很多次。他們聚集在某個地方時,往往會發現,他們聚在某個封閉的空間中,不見得是刻意的選擇,而只是因為這就是辦公空間運作的方式。這確實創造出注意區域,讓成員聚焦在團隊上,而不是組織的其他地方。

艾莉森.比爾德:我想這會讓觀眾覺得,這是要組成小型團隊,給他們隱私,或者也可能是給個人一些私人時間,去從事新專案。但回饋意見和評估之間的界限是什麼?

伊森.伯恩斯坦:曾有很長一段時間,主管和人資人員談到,有必要把針對員工發展而提出的回饋意見,與評估績效分開。但在透明的時代,這變得更加困難。雖然我想說「哦,沒關係。無論我看到什麼,或為了評估而追蹤關注了什麼,我都不會使用」,但它總是有辦法進入評估流程。所以,組織若真心想鼓勵員工利用這些美妙的透明度,來發展自己的技能,而不會覺得必須收斂行動,只因為可能會受到評估,那麼組織就提供這些判斷區域,或是在回饋意見周圍設下界限。

艾莉森.比爾德:你在文章裡舉了一個攝影機的例子,我覺得很像是「老大哥」。

伊森.伯恩斯坦:例子中的卡車司機,確實感覺攝影機就像是「老大哥」。如果我們設想有個地方是隱私的神聖場所,假設是在職場中,那麼也許就是路上行駛的卡車駕駛座。但有家大型美國貨運公司決定,出於績效和安全的考量,要把這些行車記錄器的鏡頭,放在所有駕駛坐的擋風玻璃上,同時監看外面和裡面。卡車司機最初很厭惡這個想法。但後來卻變得很熱衷,因為他們了解這只會用於回饋意見。他們的做法是,如果拍到某個事件是故意違反法律,或導致事故,他們確實會把影片發送給主管。但除此之外,影片僅供教練使用,而且只會分享給那名司機,用於協助他改善安全紀錄和績效。

艾莉森.比爾德:現在來談談決策權和改善權。你如何在這方面建立鬆弛區域?

伊森.伯恩斯坦:主管很習慣決策權的概念,而在組織中清楚描述決策權,可確保快速而簡單地做出決策,產生的挫折感也遠小於其他方式。但試想,在一個更加透明的世界裡,也就是我們正在進入的那種世界,突然之間,沒有決策權的人感覺,自己好像被有決策權的人觀察著,因此就更不可能像原本那樣去修改事情,例如,提出改善工作流程的方法。了解到這一點的公司,日益明確地描述改善權,並把它們與隱私區域和鬆弛區域連結起來,好讓個人可以去修改事情,而不會覺得綁手綁腳,因為他們在那個特定的流程中擁有決策權。

艾莉森.比爾德:這真是個有趣的研究,非常感謝你來分享這些看法。很高興你來參加今天的訪談。

伊森.伯恩斯坦:不客氣,艾莉森。我很高興今天能很透明坦誠地與你談話。

(劉純佑譯)


Ethan Bernstein: When we think of modern work environments, transparency has certainly been better for many things. But there can be such a thing as too much. I think it's easiest to think of it from a human behavior standpoint through two perspectives: the perspective of the observer and perspective of the observed. When we talk about transparency, we usually think about it from the observer's perspective. Observers who have more transparent work environments can use that visibility to improve collaboration, improve knowledge sharing, drive out wasteful practices.

And in that sense, it would seem more is always better. But as human beings, when we're observed, we change behavior. So when we change the perspective to the observed's perspective, we tend to use the word “privacy” instead of “transparency,” somehow understanding that from a human perspective, when we're observed, we change our behavior. We might shut down just a little bit, do a little less experimentation, really act in the way that those who are observing us would expect us to observe. And that can come at a cost to productivity. So if that's the case, then zones of privacy can be used as a managerial lever in order to ensure that more transparent work environments don't create less transparent employees.

Alison Beard: So how do you create zones of privacy?

Ethan Bernstein: Through my research in the article, I identify four types of boundaries that help to create productive zones of privacy. The first type of boundary is boundary around teams of individuals -- call those zones of attention -- such that you don't feel like you're always performing on stage and in front of the crowd. The second type of boundary is a boundary between feedback and evaluation -- call that a zone of judgment -- such that every little thing you do doesn't get subject to politicking and impression management because you feel like you're being evaluated. The third kind of boundary, a boundary between improvement rights and decision rights -- call that a zone of slack -- ensures that very transparent work environments don't drown out tinkering activity that can actually be very productive. And the final fourth kind of boundary, a boundary around periods of experimentation -- call that zones of time -- ensures that interventions are neither too frequent nor too infrequent.

Alison Beard: Can you give me some examples of this in practice?

Ethan Bernstein: So let's start with the first, a boundary around teams of individuals, zones of attention. Valve Software, which is very unique in that it allows workers to self- allocate 100% of their time, allows their workers also to literally roll their desks. So you unplug the desk, roll it to a next location, and plug it back in again -- roll their desks to be part of teams that they're working on at that particular moment in time. Indeed, many at Valve will move their desks at least once, maybe multiple times a week. And when they've clustered in a place, they often find that cluster within a closed space not necessarily intentionally, but just because that's the way the office space works. And that does create these zones of attention such that the focus is really on the team and not on the rest of the organization.

Alison Beard: So I think that our viewers will get that idea sort of creating small teams and giving them privacy, and I think probably also the idea of giving private time to individuals to work on new projects. But what does a boundary between feedback and evaluation look like?

Ethan Bernstein: For quite some time, both managers and HR professionals have talked about the need to separate developmental feedback from evaluative performance. And yet, in a transparent age, that becomes much, much more difficult. Because as much as I'd like to say, “oh, that's ok. I won't use that whatever that I've seen or whatever I've tracked for the sake of valuation,” it figures its way into the process anyway. And so organizations that actually want to encourage employees to develop their skills using all this wonderful transparency without feeling like they need to hold back because it might be evaluated are providing these zones of judgment or boundaries around feedback.

Alison Beard: And in the article, you give an example of cameras, which sounds a lot like Big Brother to me.

Ethan Bernstein: And in fact, the truck drivers in this example felt exactly like it was Big Brother. So if we could imagine the one place that's sacred for privacy, perhaps, in the workplace, it would be the cab of the truck on the road. And yet, a large US trucking company decided that for the purposes of both performance and safety, they wanted to put these DriveCam cameras on the windshields of all of their cabs, both looking out and looking in. The truckers initially hated the idea. But initially warmed to it as they understood that it would only be used for feedback. And here's how they did that. If an event was captured that was a willful breaking the law or led to an accident, then it would indeed be sent to management. But otherwise, the video footage only be used by coaches and only shared with that driver for the sake of drivers helping to improve their own safety records and their own performance.

Alison Beard: So let's move onto decision rights and improvement rights. How do you create zones of slack there?

Ethan Bernstein: Managers are very used to the idea of decision rights, that clearly delineated decision rights in an organization will be helpful for making sure the decision making is fast, easy, and far less frustrating than it might be otherwise. But imagine that, in a far, far more transparent world, the kind of world that we're leading into, and all of a sudden, the person who doesn't have the decision right feels as if they're being watched by someone who does, and therefore is far less likely to tinker with things such that they might come up with the idea that improves the process they're working on. So companies that are understanding this are increasingly delineating improvement rights and associating them with zones of privacy, zones of slack, such that individuals can tinker without feeling like they're under the guise of someone who might feel as if their toes are being stepped on a little bit because they have the decision rights in that particular process.

Alison Beard: Terrific. Well, It's really interesting research. Thank you so much for sharing your insights. It's great having you in.

Ethan Bernstein: Thank you, Alison. It was a pleasure being transparent with you today.



本篇文章主題安全與隱私