雙語哈評｜別再逼員工健身了！財經頭條網

The research: André Spicer, a professor at Cass Business School at City University London, conducted a cultural and historical analysis of ideas about wellness in companies (which he published in a book, The Wellness Syndrome). He concluded that corporate wellness programs not only provide low returns on investment but actually backfire, making many employees less healthy and more anxious about their jobs.
The challenge: Are “fun runs” and diet programs part of the problem, not the solution?
研究：倫敦城市大學卡斯商學院組織行為學教授安德里·斯皮瑟（Andre Spicer）從歷史和文化角度分析了公司採用的健康計劃。（這項分析刊登於他的《健康綜合症》（The Wellness Syndrome）一書）。根據分析，他總結出公司的健康計劃帶來的不僅是低投資回報率，實際上還適得其反，導致許多員工身體狀態不大如前，工作焦慮感也日益加重。
挑戰：所謂的“樂趣奔跑”和節食計劃真的是問題的一部分，而不是解決方案？

Spicer: In our analysis, we were struck by the ineffectiveness of wellness programs. Several studies, notably one by the Rand Corporation, showed that they produce modest results at best. Take weight loss programs. Only a small percentage of enrollees stick with them, and even when they do, their average weight loss is about one kilogram.
斯皮瑟：經過我們的分析研究，我們都對健康計劃不起作用感到難以置信。一些研究，尤其是蘭德公司發起的研究表明，取得一般成效已是最好結果。以減重計劃為例，只有一小部分參與者能夠堅持，而且即便如此，最終的減重效果平均下來也不過區區1公斤。

What I didn’t expect was that many programs seemed to have the opposite of their intended effect. They were creating guilt and anxiety in employees. One big wellness program we looked at led previously happy employees in a stable job environment to become anxious about losing their jobs. It seemed to make them think they needed to be more attractive to their employer, and if they did something like smoking a cigarette, they felt it affected their employability.
很多計劃似乎都起到了適得其反的效果，讓我始料不及。這些健康計劃讓員工產生內疚感和焦慮感。我們分析研究中的一項規模較大的健康計劃致使一些原本在穩定、健康工作環境下，快樂工作的員工陷入了生怕丟掉工作的不安。這個計劃似乎讓他們覺得，對他們的上司來說，他們還不夠優秀，而且在他們看來，如果做了一些諸如抽菸之類的舉動，公司會質疑他們是否符合受僱條件。

HBR: That sounds insidious.
It goes further. Looking at the moral psychology literature, we found that people are judging others based on wellness characteristics, like weight. That’s not surprising, but what caught my attention is how often disgust at someone’s unhealthy behavior morphs into broader negativity. If people notice you doing something unhealthy, they think it makes you a bad worker. For instance, people see you eating a big lunch and assume that you’re lazy and unproductive.
HBR: 這種計劃聽起來危機暗伏。
不僅如此，翻閱道德心理文獻，我們發現人們是通過一些健康特徵，比如體重，來評價他人的。這並不奇怪，但是引起我注意的是，對某人不健康生活方式的厭惡往往最終會演變成更深層的牴觸。如果人們注意到你有一些不健康的生活方式，他們會認為你不是一名合格僱員。比如說，當人們注意到你的午餐過於豐盛，他們可能會認為你很懶，並且工作效率較低。
insidious：陰險的，潛伏的

So is it fair to say wellness programs are not just ineffective, they’re counterproductive?
In some cases, yes! With particularly intense wellness initiatives, we found, employees ploughed a great deal of energy into trying to improve their health. Sometimes this meant that employees had less time to focus on their core tasks. More frequently, these wellness initiatives would eat into employees’ personal lives. People would have time for working and exercising but little time for anything else.
這麼說健康計劃不僅是無效的，而且還會適得其反？
某些情況下的確如此。在一些強度比較大的健康計劃中，我們發現員工在改善他們的健康狀況上投入了很多精力。有時候這意味著他們做主要工作的時間減少。更為常見的是，員工會耗費個人時間完成這些健康計劃。工作和鍛鍊佔據了他們大部分時間，幾乎沒時間做別的事情。

Why do we invest so much money in these programs then?
A couple of reasons. One is simple: They’re aggressively marketed. Corporate wellness is a huge industry pushing this idea on companies. Another reason is that, collectively, we buy into the idea of wellness. Some sociologists believe that in an increasingly secular society, wellness fills a void that religion used to. Companies promote wellness because it fits with a common ideology that healthy people are productive people.
既然如此，我們為什麼還要在健康計劃上投入這麼多資金呢？
有許多原因。一個簡單的解釋是，這些計劃正被大肆宣傳。將健康計劃這個理念灌輸給各大公司的是一個龐大的產業。另一個原因是，總的來說，我們相信這個健康理念。一些社會學家認為，在一個宗教信仰式微的社會里，健康計劃填補了宗教留下的空白。公司之所以會大力推崇健康計劃是因為這個理念符合一個共同認知，那就是，身體健康的人，工作成效也比較高。

Are they?
It’s obvious that someone who’s ill may not be as productive, depending on the job and the type of illness. However, there’s little evidence that superfitness correlates with leadership, good management, or even productivity. And that’s a major problem with how wellness programs are developed and marketed. In the past 20 years there has been a shift. The demands of wellness have become more stringent. A reasonable weight range isn’t as good as being superfit anymore.
是這樣嗎？
很顯然，如果一個人身體不適，他的工作成效可能不會很高，這取決於工作性質以及所患疾病類型。但是，幾乎沒有證據表明一個人的領導力、優秀的管理能力以及工作效率與超級健康的身體狀況有什麼關聯。而健康計劃是如何發展並推廣的，這也是一個重大問題。這個領域在過去20年發生了巨大轉變。對健康計劃的要求也變得越來越嚴格。合理的體重範圍不再是超級健康的標準。
stringent：嚴格的

We talked to public health policy experts who have demonstrated that to exemplify the well employee, governments and companies use extreme images of superfit runners and very thin and muscular people rather than images of “normal” people. What happens then? Relatively healthy people feel that they’re not measuring up. They see those images and say, “I can’t imagine reaching that,” and give up.
公共衛生政策專家告訴我們，政府和公司為塑造健康員工形象，選用的推廣代言人都是些極端好形象，諸如超級健康的跑步者和身材苗條、肌肉發達的人，而不是那些形象“普通”的人。怎麼會這樣？相對健康的人會感覺他們是不合格的。他們看到那些形象代言人會說：“我是達不到那個標準的。”然後他們就會選擇放棄。

Meanwhile you have this superfit class, who become the ideal and also judge others who don’t meet their standards, making those spuriousconnections between fitness and capability. Experiments have found that an overweight job applicant is less likely to be positively assessed than a candidate of an average weight—even if the two applicants have exactly the same CV.
與此同時，超級健康階層誕生了。他們成為完美身材的標準，並批判那些達不到標準的人，營造出健身與工作能力之間有聯繫的一種假象。實驗結果顯示，一位體重超重的求職者相對於一位標準體重的求職者來說，不太容易得到正面評價，即便他們的履歷完全相同。
spurious：假的，偽造的

Those people!
It cuts both ways. The superfit often become obsessed with wellness because they fear slipping into the other class. They see their fitness as an indicator of professional success.
那些人！
過度追求健康帶來的傷害是雙向的。超級健康的人會變得痴迷於健身，因為他們害怕一旦疏於努力就會淪為不健康群體。對他們來說，健康體魄就是職業成功的指標。

Are successful businesspeople more fit?
They want you to believe they are. I came across a remarkable trend: In the past two decades the number of CEOs who mention fitness in their bios has spiked. They seem to think that if you want to be a leader, you have to show your wellness. There has been a 100% increase in CEOs running marathons.
那些成功商業人士的身體都更健康嗎？
他們希望你認為他們是這樣的。我偶然發現一個明顯的趨勢：在過去20年裡，在簡歷裡提到他們身體狀況的CEO人數呈大幅增長趨勢。他們似乎認為如果你想成為一名領導者，就要展示出健康的體魄。CEO加入馬拉松比賽的人數比過去提高了一倍。

Saying they run marathons, you mean.
Maybe! But there’s no doubt they increasingly see it as an important way to present themselves to the world, and maybe they seek it in their employees, too.
你是說，他們開始跑馬拉松比賽了。
也許吧。毫無疑問，他們越來越堅信，這是向世界展示他們的一種重要方式，而且他們可能希望手下員工也認同這點。

This feels oppressive. I’m doughy, but I think I’m a good worker!
I would agree that there is an oppressive quality to wellness programs right now. It’s kind of a 1% phenomenon. Moral judgments are being made that aren’t really based on evidence. And access to wellness is skewed toward the more well, just as access to fresh food is skewed toward those who need it less and have an abundance of it. We see in the research that wellness programs offer more opportunity to higher-level employees and often don’t effectively reach those who would benefit the most, the entry-level people and the contractors.
這太讓人無法忍受了。我身體柔弱無力，但是我自認為是一名好員工！
我也認同目前的這些健康計劃有壓迫性。這是一種優勢群體佔領99%的資源的現象。道德判斷並不是基於客觀依據作出的。積極參與健康計劃的人，反而是那些身體狀況好的人，一如會吃新鮮食品的人更多地是那些常吃大量新鮮食物的人。我們從研究中發現，健康計劃為那些高層員工提供了更多機會，然而那些往往能從中受益最多的初級職位員工和合同工卻常常無法企及。
oppressive：難以忍受的，壓迫的
doughy：柔軟的

Will wearable technology increase the oppressiveness of wellness programs?
It’s strange. People worry about Big Brother and surveillance, yet we’re paying for the privilege of having our behavior monitored. We shell out hundreds of dollars for tracking bands, something convicts are forced to wear. If you’re volunteering to do it and it helps your wellness, that’s probably good. But it gets complicated when companies want to mandate the use of this technology, because it completely breaks down the barrier between work and life. Suddenly, whether or not I go for a jog on my own time is something my company is tracking. That’s a slippery, slippery slope.
穿戴式科技會增強健康計劃的壓迫性嗎？
這點很奇怪。人們會對“老大哥”（Big Brother）式的監控感到不安，而我們卻花錢讓別人來監視我們。我們花費上百元買罪犯被迫戴上的追蹤手環。如果你自願這麼做，它對你的健康又有幫助，這可以說是件好事。但是如果公司想要強制使用這項技術，事情就變得複雜了，因為它完全打破了工作與生活之間的界線。突然間，我在閒暇時間是否去慢跑變成了公司追蹤的事情。這的確是個災難。
surveillance：監督，監視

What’s a reasonable way forward with corporate wellness?
It’s important for me to say that I’m not writing off wellness interventions completely. Let’s just ask, What are we trying to achieve here—what is the problem we’re solving?
First, employers need to ask, Do we need all this? In some cases good, simple interventions—like gym facilities—may be enough. Second, employers should be realistic about what they hope to achieve from these programs. Often they’re sold as everyone in the firm will quit smoking. Unrealistic goals like that will backfire.
企業該如何合理推進公司健康計劃？
我不是要完全推翻健康計劃，這點我必須要說明。試著自問一下，我們這麼做究竟是為了什麼？或者說，我們正在解決的問題是什麼？”
首先，僱主須要問，我們真的需要健康計劃嗎？在某些情況下它是好的，只是提供健身設施之類的器材就足夠了。再者，僱主應該對健康計劃所能達成的目標現實一些。他們往往以為，健康計劃會讓公司內每個人都成功戒菸。這類不現實的目標最終會適得其反。

Third, you must establish boundaries. Using technology to watch people outside work is a problem, and there’s emerging evidence that the more work bleeds into life, the less productive people become. Finally, look for small changes that can make a big difference. Too often people go all in on investments like treadmill desks when they could get the same payoff by giving their employees natural light, fresh air, and some fresh fruit.Scott Berinato is a senior editor at Harvard Business Review and the author of Good Charts: The HBR Guide to Making Smarter, More Persuasive Data Visualizations.
再次，你必須要有界限概念。利用科技手段監視員工工作之外的行為的確是個問題，而且越來越多證據表明，工作佔據員工個人時間越多，員工工作效率就越低。最後，尋找那些能帶來大變化的小改變。人們常常去投資諸如跑步機辦公桌之類的設備，其實給員工提供多一些自然光、新鮮空氣和新鮮水果能起到同樣的作用。

史考特·貝瑞納託(Scott Berinato) | 訪

時青靖 | 譯劉筱薇 | 校萬豔 | 編輯

原文參見《哈佛商業評論》中文版2015年5月刊。點擊“閱讀原文”可查看。