你愿意上班被監(jiān)控嗎？.

　　你愿意上班被監(jiān)控嗎?

　　Big Brother can watch me at work any day

　　Last week the Financial Times published a scary story about how technology is being used by companies to spy on us at work. It described how sensors can be easily and cheaply hidden in name badges and office furniture to track where we are, who we talk to and in what tone of voice. HR departments can find out how long we take to get to work and how we behave when we get there. In shops, call centres and even boardrooms, the data could be used to decide who to promote and who to fire.上周英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》報(bào)道了公司如何利用技術(shù)在工作中監(jiān)控我們的可怕故事。它描述了公司如何不費(fèi)力、不費(fèi)錢，偷偷將傳感器藏在胸牌或辦公室家具里，來記錄我們的位置、我們與誰交談、乃至用何種語氣交談。人力資源部門可以知道我們休息多久后才開始工作，以及我們是如何工作的。在商店、呼叫中心甚至是董事會(huì)會(huì)議室，這些數(shù)據(jù)可能被用來決定提拔誰、解雇誰。

　　I shuddered as I read the article – as did most FT readers. Nineteen Eighty-Four is upon us, they commented online. Totalitarianism is rampant! Privacy is down the plughole! (Some of the comments are published in “Feedback” below).當(dāng)我讀到這篇文章時(shí)感到不寒而栗，本報(bào)的許多讀者也是如此。他們?cè)诰W(wǎng)上評(píng)論說，“1984”(Nineteen Eighty-Four)來臨了。極權(quán)主義泛濫!隱私被拋進(jìn)了下水道!(其中一些發(fā)表在文章下面的“評(píng)論”中)。

　　Yet on closer inspection, the arrival of Big Brother in the corporate world is not necessarily such a bad thing. Being constantly monitored by invisible devices might sound frightening but I’m not sure it is any more so than being monitored infrequently by visible human beings.然而，進(jìn)一步深入思索就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，“老大哥”(Big Brother)來到企業(yè)世界不一定有多么糟糕。受到隱形裝置無時(shí)不刻的監(jiān)控聽起來或許有些可怕，但我不敢肯定它會(huì)比主管偶爾現(xiàn)身的監(jiān)控更可怕。

　　Under the present arrangement, we are observed in a haphazard and unscientific way by superiors who may well have made up their minds about us already, based on not much evidence at all. Sod’s Law decrees that when you do something good, no one notices but the minute you do something bad you get caught. I remember one boss who, once in a blue moon, would walk around the office; whenever he crept up behind me I was invariably writing a shopping list or was on the phone to my mum. Such surveillance didn’t improve my behaviour, though it did increase my sense of injustice. To have been monitored all the time – which would have put the shopping list in the context of otherwise diligent behaviour – would have been a vast improvement.從當(dāng)前的情況來看，我們的主管正以一種隨意而不科學(xué)的方式觀察著我們，他們很可能已經(jīng)對(duì)我們有了定論，卻根本不以多少證據(jù)為依據(jù)。按照“索德定律” (Sod&aposs Law)，當(dāng)你做好事時(shí)，沒有人會(huì)注意到;但當(dāng)你干壞事，就會(huì)被抓個(gè)現(xiàn)行。我記得有位老板很少會(huì)在辦公室四處走動(dòng);但每次他悄無聲息地出現(xiàn)在我的身后，我總是在列購物清單或者與我的媽媽通電話。這樣的監(jiān)控不會(huì)提高我的工作表現(xiàn)，卻著實(shí)讓我感覺冤枉。而如果我是一直處于監(jiān)控下，那么老板會(huì)在考慮我列購物清單的同時(shí)，考慮我在其它時(shí)間勤勉工作的表現(xiàn)，這樣我就會(huì)大幅改進(jìn)自己的表現(xiàn)。

　　In most offices a raft of mainly pointless, cumbersome tools are used to assess performance, including “competency matrices”, appraisal interviews and psychometric testing. Together they are so infective that according to a delightful piece of research by the University of Catania, companies would be no worse off promoting people at random.在大多數(shù)的辦公室里，一大堆基本毫無意義而且繁瑣的工具被用來評(píng)估員工的表現(xiàn)，包括“能力矩陣”、考核面談和心理測試?？偟膩碚f它們的效果很差，差到根據(jù)卡塔尼亞大學(xué)(University of Catania)一份令人愉悅的研究報(bào)告，企業(yè)隨意提拔員工，也不會(huì)比根據(jù)這些評(píng)估結(jié)果提拔員工糟糕。

　　If we are in favour of meritocracies, we should also be in favour of anything that helps us measure merit more accurately. While the data collected by the new sensors are almost certainly too crude to offer much help now, I see no reason why in time (and probably quite soon) we will not have worked out exactly which behavioural quirks are the key to high (or low) performance, and found a decent, objective way of measuring them.如果我們支持唯才是舉，那么也就應(yīng)該支持有助于更準(zhǔn)確衡量工作表現(xiàn)的任何舉措。盡管幾乎可以肯定，傳感器收集的數(shù)據(jù)過于粗糙而幫助不大，但我看不出有什么原因能阻止我們?cè)谖磥砟骋惶?很可能相當(dāng)快)，搞清楚哪一種行為上的怪癖是導(dǎo)致員工表現(xiàn)優(yōu)秀或糟糕的關(guān)鍵因素，并找出一種得體而客觀地衡量員工表現(xiàn)的方式。

　　Steelcase, which makes some of the sensors so loathed by FT readers, hopes that one day they will not only be used to monitor juniors but in boardrooms too. While it is hard to see directors willingly turning these tools upon themselves, it would be a terrific idea if they did. At the moment, monitoring of boardroom behaviour is hopeless – outsiders periodically come in to observe, but such are the political sensitivities it is almost impossible for them to make a difference.引起英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》讀者極度反感的一些傳感器是Steelcase制造的。該公司希望，總有一天這些傳感器不僅用來監(jiān)控初級(jí)員工，而且還會(huì)被用在董事會(huì)會(huì)議室。盡管很難想象董事們會(huì)愿意將這些工具用于監(jiān)控自己，但如果他們真的愿意的話，那這個(gè)想法棒極了。就目前而言，根本做不到監(jiān)控董事們?cè)诙聲?huì)會(huì)議室內(nèi)的行為——外部人士偶爾會(huì)評(píng)論幾句，但這種事情在政治上極度敏感，他們幾乎不可能帶來什么改變。

　　If, by contrast, all directors were wired up, anyone who banged on indinitely, lowering the pulses of their boardroom colleagues, would be faithfully fingered by the technology. Equally, the person who made the odd remark that made everyone sit up in their seats would also be marked out. Knowing that the devices were there, and knowing the object of the exercise was to make incisive, controversial points, would improve board meetings no end.話說回來，如果所有董事都受到監(jiān)控，任何喋喋不休地說個(gè)不停、讓會(huì)議室里的其他董事昏昏欲睡的人，都會(huì)被監(jiān)控忠實(shí)地揭發(fā)出來。同樣，說出一個(gè)新奇觀點(diǎn)、讓所有人一下子來了精神的那個(gè)人，也會(huì)被記錄下來。當(dāng)董事們知道有監(jiān)控設(shè)備在，也知道這種做法的目的是讓他們提出入木三分、值得爭論的觀點(diǎn)，董事會(huì)會(huì)議的質(zhì)量將得到極大改善。

　　It is objected that monitoring behaviour in offices would kill trust and spontaneity, making robots of us all. But so long as everyone knew they were being monitored and understood what for, I don’t see why it should be such a terrifying idea – except perhaps for those who bully, shout at and harass others – and who have been getting away with it.有人反對(duì)說，辦公室的監(jiān)控行為將會(huì)扼殺信任和主動(dòng)性，讓我們所有人都變成機(jī)器人。但只要所有人都知道他們正受到監(jiān)控，而且也明白監(jiān)控的目的，我認(rèn)為人們就不應(yīng)如此害怕監(jiān)控——或許除了那些欺凌、叱喝和騷擾其他同事的人，以及一直在躲避監(jiān)控的人以外。

　　Far from making work less civilised, the arrival of Big Brother could make it more so. Office life could become more transparent and less political. And managers would be freed from having to play the role of policeman all day and allowed to get on with the more important role of helping people do a better job.老大哥”的來臨可能會(huì)促進(jìn)、而非降低人們?cè)诠ぷ髦械奈拿鞒潭?。辦公室生活可能變得更加透明而且減少了爭權(quán)奪利。經(jīng)理們將不用全天扮演警察的角色，從而可以發(fā)揮幫助人們提高工作效率的更重要的作用。

　　Some problems would need resolving. For a start extensive monitoring could be illegal. You would also have to ensure that workers were not able to subvert the process – and that wicked managers were not busily manipulating the data for their own devious ends.一些問題需要得到解決。首先大規(guī)模監(jiān)控可能是非法的。你還必須確保員工不能破壞監(jiān)控過程，以及品格低下的經(jīng)理不會(huì)為了自己不可告人的目的而忙著操縱數(shù)據(jù)。

　　Above all, for the system to work, you would need to have some faith in the regime that implemented it. But then, if you don’t have any faith in the regime, the chances are that you are screwed anyway.最重要的是，要想讓監(jiān)控系統(tǒng)奏效，你就需要對(duì)實(shí)施它的整套管理制度有一些信心。但如果你對(duì)管理制度沒有絲毫信心，不管怎樣你都可能搞砸。