怎樣才算是一份“好工作”?

MY FIRST, CHARMED week as a student at HarvardBusiness School, late in the summer of 2001, felt likea halcyon time for capitalism. AOL Time Warner, Yahoo and Napster were benevolently connecting theworld. Enron and WorldCom were bringinginnovation to hidebound industries. PresidentGeorge W. Bush — an H.B.S. graduate himself — had promised to deliver progress and prosperitywith businesslike efficiency.

2001年夏末，我作為哈佛商學(xué)院學(xué)生度過的第一周十分愉快，感覺像是資本主義的一段昔日美好時(shí)光。美國(guó)在線時(shí)代華納(AOL Time Warner)、雅虎(Yahoo)和納普斯特(Napster)好心地連接著世界。安然(Enron)和世界通信公司(WorldCom)為墨守成規(guī)的行業(yè)帶來了創(chuàng)新。喬治·W·布什總統(tǒng)——他本人也是哈佛商學(xué)院的畢業(yè)生——曾承諾要以務(wù)實(shí)的效率實(shí)現(xiàn)進(jìn)步和繁榮。

The next few years would prove how little we (and Washington and much of corporateAmerica) really understood about the economy and the world. But at the time, for the 895 first-years preparing ourselves for business moguldom, what really excited us was our good luck. AHarvard M.B.A. seemed like a winning lottery ticket, a gilded highway to world-changinginfluence, fantastic wealth and — if those self-satisfied portraits that lined the hallways wereany indication — a lifetime of deeply meaningful work.

接下來的幾年將證明，我們(以及華盛頓和大部分美國(guó)企業(yè))對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)和世界的真正了解是多么地少。但在當(dāng)時(shí)，對(duì)895名正在準(zhǔn)備讓自己成為商業(yè)大亨的一年級(jí)新生來說，真正讓我們興奮的是我們的好運(yùn)。哈佛的工商管理碩士學(xué)位就像是一張中獎(jiǎng)的彩票，一條通往改變世界影響力的鍍金高速公路，驚人的財(cái)富，以及——如果走廊兩旁那些自鳴得意的肖像能說明什么的話——一份終身從事的意義深遠(yuǎn)的工作。

So it came as a bit of a shock, when I attended my 15th reunion last summer, to learn howmany of my former classmates weren’t overjoyed by their professional lives — in fact, theywere miserable. I heard about one fellow alum who had run a large hedge fund until beingsued by investors (who also happened to be the fund manager’s relatives). Another person hadrisen to a senior role inside one of the nation’s most prestigious companies before beingsavagely pushed out by corporate politics. Another had learned in the maternity ward that herfirm was being stolen by a conniving partner.

因此，當(dāng)我去年夏天參加第15次同學(xué)會(huì)時(shí)，我感到有些震驚。因?yàn)槲野l(fā)現(xiàn)，以前的同學(xué)中有許多人對(duì)自己的職業(yè)生活并沒有欣喜若狂——事實(shí)上，他們很痛苦。我聽說，一位校友曾經(jīng)營(yíng)一支大型對(duì)沖基金，直到他被投資人起訴(而那些人正好是他的親戚)。另一個(gè)人曾在美國(guó)最負(fù)盛名的公司之一擔(dān)任高級(jí)職務(wù)，后來則被公司政治無情地?cái)D走了。還有一個(gè)在產(chǎn)房里得知，她的公司被一個(gè)陰險(xiǎn)的合伙人偷走了。

Those were extreme examples, of course. Most of us were living relatively normal, basicallycontent lives. But even among my more sanguine classmates, there was a lingering sense ofprofessional disappointment. They talked about missed promotions, disaffected childrenand billable hours in divorce court. They complained about jobs that were unfulfilling, tediousor just plain bad. One classmate described having to invest $5 million a day — which didn’tsound terrible, until he explained that if he put only $4 million to work on Monday, he had toscramble to place $6 million on Tuesday, and his co-workers were constantly undermining oneanother in search of the next promotion. It was insanely stressful work, done among peoplehe didn’t particularly like. He earned about $1.2 million a year and hated going to the office.

當(dāng)然，這些都是極端的例子。我們中的大多數(shù)都過著相對(duì)正常、基本滿足的生活。但即使在我那些比較樂觀的同學(xué)中間，職業(yè)上的失望情緒也揮之不去。他們談?wù)撝e(cuò)失的晉升機(jī)會(huì)、疏遠(yuǎn)的孩子以及離婚法庭的可計(jì)費(fèi)時(shí)數(shù)。他們抱怨工作沒有成就感、單調(diào)乏味，或者干脆就是糟糕。一位同學(xué)描述，他每天必須投資500萬美元——這聽起來并不可怕，直到他解釋說，如果他周一只投了400萬，那么他將不得不在周二努力投入600萬。而為了謀求下一次晉升機(jī)會(huì)，他的同事們總是在互相詆毀。那是一項(xiàng)壓力巨大的工作，并且要在他不特別喜歡的人中間完成。他一年能掙大約120萬美元，他討厭上班。

“I feel like I’m wasting my life,” he told me. “When I die, is anyone going to care that I earnedan extra percentage point of return? My work feels totally meaningless.” He recognized theincredible privilege of his pay and status, but his anguish seemed genuine. “If you spend12 hours a day doing work you hate, at some point it doesn’t matter what your paycheck says,” he told me. There’s no magic salary at which a bad job becomes good. He had received an offerat a start-up, and he would have loved to take it, but it paid half as much, and he felt lockedinto a lifestyle that made this pay cut impossible. “My wife laughed when I told her about it,” he said.

“我覺得自己在糟蹋生命，”他告訴我。“我死后，會(huì)有人在意我多賺了一個(gè)百分點(diǎn)的回報(bào)嗎?我的工作感覺完全沒有意義。”他承認(rèn)自己的收入和地位帶來了不可思議的特權(quán)，但痛苦似乎也是真實(shí)的。“如果你每天12個(gè)小時(shí)做一份你討厭的工作，在某個(gè)時(shí)候，你的工資根本無法安慰到你，”他說。沒有什么神奇的薪水能讓一份糟糕的工作變好。他曾經(jīng)收到過一家初創(chuàng)公司的工作邀請(qǐng)，本來很想去，但薪水只有原來的一半，他覺得自己被一種生活方式拴住了，根本無法接受減薪。“當(dāng)我告訴妻子這件事的時(shí)候，她大笑起來，”他說。

After our reunion, I wondered if my Harvard class — or even just my own friends there — werean anomaly. So I began looking for data about the nation’s professional psyche. What Ifound was that my classmates were hardly unique in their dissatisfaction; even in a boomeconomy, a surprising portion of Americans are professionally miserable right now. In themid-1980s, roughly 61 percent of workers told pollsters they were satisfied with their jobs. Since then, that number has declined substantially, hovering around half; the low point was in2010, when only 43 percent of workers were satisfied, according to data collected by theConference Board, a nonprofit research organization. The rest said they were unhappy, or atbest neutral, about how they spent the bulk of their days. Even among professionals given tolofty self-images, like those in medicine and law, other studies have noted a rise indiscontent. Why? Based on my own conversations with classmates and the research I beganreviewing, the answer comes down to oppressive hours, political infighting, increasedcompetition sparked by globalization, an “always-on culture” bred by the internet — but alsosomething that’s hard for these professionals to put their finger on, an underlying sense thattheir work isn’t worth the grueling effort they’re putting into it.

在我們重聚之后，我想知道我在哈佛的同班同學(xué)——哪怕只是我在班上的朋友——的情況是否屬于異常。于是我開始尋找這個(gè)國(guó)家職業(yè)心理的有關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)，我同學(xué)的不滿并非特例;即使在經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的時(shí)期，也有比例高得讓人吃驚的一部分美國(guó)人存在職業(yè)痛苦。在20世紀(jì)80年代中期，大約61%的員工對(duì)自己的工作感到滿意。從那以后，這個(gè)數(shù)字大幅下降，在50%左右徘徊;最低是在2010年，只有43%的員工感到滿意，以上數(shù)據(jù)來自世界大型企業(yè)聯(lián)合會(huì)(Conference Board)。其余的人則說，他們大多數(shù)時(shí)候都對(duì)工作不開心，或者最多也就是不確定。甚至是在賦予崇高自我形象的專業(yè)人士當(dāng)中，比如醫(yī)學(xué)和法律從業(yè)者，其他的一些研究也注意到了他們身上不滿情緒的上升。為什么會(huì)這樣呢?根據(jù)我跟同學(xué)的對(duì)話，以及開始查閱的研究，答案可以歸結(jié)為難以忍受的工作時(shí)數(shù)、政治內(nèi)耗、全球化帶來的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)加劇、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)孕育出的“永遠(yuǎn)在線文化”——但還有這些職場(chǎng)人士也說不清的原因，那是一種隱隱的感覺——他們的工作不值得他們投入那么多辛苦。

This wave of dissatisfaction is especially perverse because corporations now have access todecades of scientific research about how to make jobs better. “We have so much evidenceabout what people need,” says Adam Grant, a professor of management and psychology at theUniversity of Pennsylvania (and a contributing opinion writer at The Times). Basic financialsecurity, of course, is critical — as is a sense that your job won’t disappear unexpectedly. What’s interesting, however, is that once you can provide financially for yourself and yourfamily, according to studies, additional salary and benefits don’t reliably contribute to workersatisfaction. Much more important are things like whether a job provides a sense ofautonomy — the ability to control your time and the authority to act on your uniqueexpertise. People want to work alongside others whom they respect (and, optimally, enjoyspending time with) and who seem to respect them in return.

這種不滿情緒之所以尤其反常，是因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)現(xiàn)在可以接觸到數(shù)十年來關(guān)于如何改善工作的科學(xué)研究。賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)(University of Pennsylvania)的管理學(xué)和心理學(xué)教授、同時(shí)也是《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》觀點(diǎn)文章撰稿人的亞當(dāng)·格蘭特(Adam Grant)表示，“關(guān)于人們的需求，我們有大量證據(jù)。”當(dāng)然，基本的財(cái)務(wù)安全是至關(guān)重要的，同樣重要的是工作飯碗的安全感。然而，有趣的是，根據(jù)多項(xiàng)研究，一旦你能為自己和家人提供經(jīng)濟(jì)上的支持，額外的工資和福利并不一定會(huì)提高員工的滿意度。更重要的事情是，諸如工作是否能提供自主權(quán)——能夠控制時(shí)間的能力，以及根據(jù)自己的獨(dú)特專長(zhǎng)行事的權(quán)力。人們希望與他們尊重的人一起工作(最好還能一起消磨時(shí)間)，以及對(duì)方似乎也尊重他們。

And finally, workers want to feel that their labors are meaningful. “You don’t have to be curingcancer,” says Barry Schwartz, a visiting professor of management at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. We want to feel that we’re making the world better, even if it’s as small amatter as helping a shopper find the right product at the grocery store. “You can be asalesperson, or a toll collector, but if you see your goal as solving people’s problems, theneach day presents 100 opportunities to improve someone’s life, and your satisfactionincreases dramatically,” Schwartz says.

最后，員工想要感到他們付出的勞動(dòng)是有意義的。“你不需要是在治愈癌癥，”加州大學(xué)伯克利分校(Universityof California, Berkeley)管理學(xué)訪問教授巴里·施瓦茨(Barry Schwartz)說。我們想要感到我們?cè)谧屖澜缱兊酶?，即便只是像幫?gòu)物者在雜貨店找到對(duì)的產(chǎn)品這樣的小事情。“你可以是一名銷售，或收費(fèi)員，但如果你把你的目標(biāo)看成是幫人解決問題，那么每天都會(huì)有100個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)幫助他人改善生活，而且你的滿足感會(huì)大幅提升，”施瓦茨說。

One of the more significant examples of how meaningfulness influences job satisfaction comesfrom a study published in 2001. Two researchers — Amy Wrzesniewski of Yale and Jane Dutton, now a distinguished emeritus professor at the University of Michigan — wanted to figure outwhy particular janitors at a large hospital were so much more enthusiastic than others. Sothey began conducting interviews and found that, by design and habit, some members of thejanitorial staff saw their jobs not as just tidying up but as a form of healing. One woman, forinstance, mopped rooms inside a brain-injury unit where many residents were comatose. Thewoman’s duties were basic: change bedpans, pick up trash. But she also sometimes took theinitiative to swap around the pictures on the walls, because she believed a subtlestimulation change in the unconscious patients’ environment might speed their recovery. She talked to other convalescents about their lives. “I enjoy entertaining the patients,” shetold the researchers. “That is not really part of my job description, but I like putting on a showfor them.” She would dance around, tell jokes to families sitting vigil at bedsides, try to cheerup or distract everyone from the pain and uncertainty that otherwise surrounded them. In a2003 study led by the researchers, another custodian described cleaning the same room twotimes in order to ease the mind of a stressed-out father.

表明意義如何影響工作滿意度的一個(gè)更顯著的例子，來自2001年發(fā)表的一項(xiàng)研究。兩名研究人員——耶魯大學(xué)的艾米·沃茲涅夫斯基(Amy Wrzesniewski)和如今為密歇根大學(xué)(University of Michigan)杰出榮休教授的珍·達(dá)頓(Jane Dutton)——想要弄明白為何一家大醫(yī)院的某些保潔員比其他人更有干勁。于是她們開始進(jìn)行訪談。她們發(fā)現(xiàn)，出于設(shè)計(jì)和習(xí)慣，保潔職工中的一些成員將他們的工作視為不僅是清潔，也是一種治療的形式。例如，一位女保潔員要拖腦損傷病房的地板，那里很多住院病人都昏迷不醒。這位女性的職責(zé)很簡(jiǎn)單：換便盆、撿垃圾。但有時(shí)候她也會(huì)主動(dòng)擦拭墻上的畫，因?yàn)樗嘈?，昏迷病人環(huán)境中一個(gè)微妙的刺激改變也可能幫他們加速恢復(fù)。她跟其他康復(fù)患者聊他們的生活。“我很喜歡讓病人開心，”她告訴研究人員。“這其實(shí)并不屬于我的崗位職責(zé)，但我喜歡為他們表演一番。”她會(huì)來回舞動(dòng)，給在床邊守夜的家人講講笑話，盡量讓每個(gè)人振作起來，或讓他們暫時(shí)忘掉平日籠罩在身上的疼痛與不確定感。在兩位研究員所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的一項(xiàng)2003年的研究中，另一名護(hù)工談及把同一房間清潔兩次，以便讓一位壓力過重的父親能夠放松心神。

To some, the moral might seem obvious: If you see your job as healing the sick, rather thanjust swabbing up messes, you’re likely to have a deeper sense of purpose whenever you grabthe mop. But what’s remarkable is how few workplaces seem to have internalized this simplelesson. “There are so many jobs where people feel like what they do is relatively meaningless,” Wrzesniewski says. “Even for well-paid positions, or jobs where you assume workers feel asense of meaning, people feel like what they’re doing doesn’t matter.” That’s certainly true formy miserable classmate earning $1.2 million a year. Even though, in theory, the investmentshe makes each day help fund pensions — and thus the lives of retirees — it’s pretty hard to seethat altruism from his window office in a Manhattan skyscraper. “It’s just numbers on ascreen to me,” he told me. “I’ve never met a retiree who enjoyed a vacation because of what Ido. It’s so theoretical it hardly seems real.”

對(duì)一些人而言，其中的寓意似乎一目了然：如果你將你的工作視為治愈病患，而不僅是清掃雜物，那么任何時(shí)候你拿起拖把，都可能會(huì)有一種更深的目標(biāo)感。但值得注意的是，將這一簡(jiǎn)單經(jīng)驗(yàn)加以內(nèi)化的工作場(chǎng)所似乎少之又少。“有太多的工作是那種人們感到他們所做的是相對(duì)無意義的，”沃茲涅夫斯基說。“即使是待遇優(yōu)厚的職位，或者你以為員工會(huì)有一種意義感的工作，其實(shí)人們感到他們?cè)谧龅母静恢匾?rdquo;對(duì)于我那些一年掙120萬美元卻痛苦不堪的同學(xué)來說，無疑真是如此。盡管理論上，他每天所做的投資能幫助籌集養(yǎng)老資金——因而也能幫到退休者的生活——但這種利他性很難從他在曼哈頓摩天大樓的玻璃幕墻辦公室看到。“那對(duì)我來說只是屏幕上的數(shù)字，“他告訴我說。“我從沒見過一位退休者能因我所做的而享受假期。這太理論化了，看上去幾乎不是真的。”

THERE IS A raging debate — on newspaper pages, inside Silicon Valley, among presidentialhopefuls — as to what constitutes a “good job.” I’m an investigative business reporter, and so Ihave a strange perspective on this question. When I speak to employees at a company, it’susually because something has gone wrong. My stock-in-trade are sources who feel theiremployers are acting unethically or ignoring sound advice. The workers who speak to me arewilling to describe both the good and the bad in the places where they work, in the hope thatwe will all benefit from their insights.

如今在報(bào)紙上，在硅谷中，在那些有望參選總統(tǒng)的人里，展開了一場(chǎng)關(guān)于什么才是一份“好工作”的激烈辯論。我是一名商業(yè)調(diào)查記者，因此我對(duì)這個(gè)問題有著奇怪的視角。當(dāng)我和公司雇員交談時(shí)，通常都是因?yàn)槟睦锍隽瞬铄e(cuò)。干我這一行，依賴的是那些覺得雇主行為不道德或忽視合理建議的線人。和我交談的員工愿意講述他們工作的地方的好與壞，以期我們都能從他們的深刻見解中獲益。

What’s interesting to me, though, is that these workers usually don’t come across as unhappy. When they agree to talk to a journalist — to share confidential documents or help readersunderstand how things went awry — it’s not because they hate their employers or areoverwhelmingly disgruntled. They often seem to love their jobs and admire the companiesthey work for. They admire them enough, in fact, to want to help them improve. They areengaged and content. They believe what they are doing matters — both in coming to workevery day and in blowing the whistle on problems they see.

而令我感興趣的則是這些員工通常看起來并非不開心。當(dāng)他們同意和記者交談——分享機(jī)密文件或幫助讀者理解事情如何出了差錯(cuò)——原因并非他們討厭雇主或極其不滿。他們通常似乎是熱愛他們的工作，也欣賞他們所效力的公司。事實(shí)上，他們欣賞到了足以讓他們想要幫其改進(jìn)的程度。他們參與其中也樂在其中。他們相信他們所做的是重要的——無論是天天來上班，還是揭發(fā)他們所看到的問題。

Do these people have “good jobs”? Are they luckier or less fortunate than my $1.2 millionfriend, who couldn’t care less about his firm? Are Google employees who work 60 hours a weekbut who can eat many of their meals (or freeze their eggs) on the company’s dime moresatisfied than a start-up founder in Des Moines who cleans the office herself but sees her dreambecome reality?

這些人做的是“好工作”嗎?和我那位年薪120萬美元卻對(duì)公司漠不關(guān)心的朋友相比，他們是更幸運(yùn)還是更不幸?谷歌那些每周工作60個(gè)小時(shí)但相當(dāng)一部分餐食(或冷凍卵子)的支出由公司承擔(dān)的員工，會(huì)比一個(gè)需要自己清掃辦公室的德梅因初創(chuàng)公司創(chuàng)始人更滿足嗎?

As the airwaves heat up in anticipation of the 2020 election, Americans are likely to hear alot of competing views about what a “good job” entails. Some will celebrate billionaires asexamples of this nation’s greatness, while others will pillory them as evidence of an economygone astray. Through all of that, it’s worth keeping in mind that the concept of a “good job” isinherently complicated, because ultimately it’s a conversation about what we value, whether individually or collectively. Even for Americans who live frighteningly close to the bone, like the janitors studied by Wrzesniewski and Dutton, a job is usually more than just a means toa paycheck. It’s a source of purpose and meaning, a place in the world.

隨著媒體為2020年大選預(yù)熱，關(guān)于什么是“好工作”，美國(guó)人可能會(huì)聽到許多相互矛盾的觀點(diǎn)。有些人會(huì)把億萬富翁當(dāng)作美國(guó)偉大榮光的榜樣來贊美，也有人會(huì)批評(píng)他們是美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)誤入歧途的證據(jù)。在所有這一切當(dāng)中，要記住，“好工作”的概念本質(zhì)上是復(fù)雜的，因?yàn)闅w根結(jié)底，這場(chǎng)對(duì)話關(guān)乎我們最重視什么，無論是從個(gè)人還是從集體角度。即使是對(duì)于沃茲涅夫斯基和達(dá)頓研究中的護(hù)工那樣一貧如洗的美國(guó)人，工作也往往不僅僅是一種掙錢的手段。它是目的與意義的源泉，是一個(gè)人在世界上的立足之處。

There’s a possibility, when it comes to understanding good jobs, that we have it all wrong. When I was speaking to my H.B.S. classmates, one of them reminded me about some people atour reunion who seemed wholly unmiserable — who seemed, somewhat to their own surprise, to have wound up with jobs that were both financially and emotionally rewarding. I knew ofone person who had become a prominent venture capitalist; another friend had started aretail empire that expanded to five states; yet another was selling goods all over the world. There were some who had become investors running their own funds.

在對(duì)“好工作”的理解上，我們有可能完全是錯(cuò)的。和哈佛商學(xué)院的同學(xué)們交流的時(shí)候，一個(gè)同學(xué)讓我想起我同學(xué)會(huì)里的一些人，他們好像一點(diǎn)也不痛苦——讓他們自己也有點(diǎn)驚訝的是，他們似乎終于找到了一份在經(jīng)濟(jì)和情感上都有回報(bào)的工作。我認(rèn)識(shí)一個(gè)人，他成為著名的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資家;還有一個(gè)朋友建立了一個(gè)零售帝國(guó)，擴(kuò)張到五個(gè)州;還有一個(gè)朋友在世界各地銷售商品。有些人已經(jīng)成為管理著自己的基金的投資者。

And many of them had something in common: They tended to be the also-rans of the class, theones who failed to get the jobs they wanted when they graduated. They had been passed overby McKinsey & Company and Google, Goldman Sachs and Apple, the big venture-capitalfirms and prestigious investment houses. Instead, they were forced to scramble for work — and thus to grapple, earlier in their careers, with the trade-offs that life inevitably demands. These late bloomers seemed to have learned the lessons about workplace meaning preached bypeople like Barry Schwartz. It wasn’t that their workplaces were enlightened or (as far as Icould tell) that H.B.S. had taught them anything special. Rather, they had learned from theirown setbacks. And often they wound up richer, more powerful and more content than everyoneelse.

他們當(dāng)中許多人都有一個(gè)共同點(diǎn)：當(dāng)初他們往往是班里的失敗者，畢業(yè)后沒能得到自己想要的工作。他們完全被麥肯錫公司、谷歌、高盛和蘋果，還有那些大風(fēng)投公司和著名的投資公司無視了。這迫使他們努力去找工作，所以在職業(yè)生涯的早期，他們不得不努力權(quán)衡生活中必不可少的需要。這些大器晚成的人們似乎學(xué)到了巴里·施瓦茨等人所宣揚(yáng)的職場(chǎng)意義。并不是因?yàn)樗麄兊墓ぷ鲌?chǎng)所格外能給人帶來啟發(fā)，或者哈佛商學(xué)院教會(huì)了他們什么特別的東西(對(duì)此我有發(fā)言權(quán))。相反，他們從挫折當(dāng)中吸取了教訓(xùn)。最終他們往往會(huì)比其他人更富有、更強(qiáng)大、更滿足。

That’s not to wish genuine hardship on any American worker, given that a setback for a pooror working-class person can lead to bankruptcy, hunger or worse. But for those who do findthemselves miserable at work, it’s an important reminder that the smoothest life pathssometimes fail to teach us about what really brings us satisfaction day to day. A core goal ofcapitalism is evaluating and putting a price on risk. In our professional lives, we hedgeagainst misfortune by taking out insurance policies in the form of fancy degrees, savingagainst rainy days by pursuing careers that promise stability. Nowadays, however, stability isincreasingly scarce, and risk is harder to measure. Many of our insurance policies haveturned out to be worth as much as Enron.

這不是在說我希望任何美國(guó)工人陷入真正的困境，因?yàn)楦F人或工人階級(jí)一旦遭遇挫折，很可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致破產(chǎn)、饑餓或更糟的事情。但對(duì)于那些感覺在工作中很痛苦的人來說，這是一個(gè)重要的提示：一帆風(fēng)順的人生道路有時(shí)并不能教會(huì)我們，什么才是每天都能帶來真正滿足感的東西。資本主義的一個(gè)核心目標(biāo)是對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)進(jìn)行評(píng)估和定價(jià)。在職業(yè)生涯中，我們以高學(xué)歷作為投保，從而對(duì)沖遭遇不幸的風(fēng)險(xiǎn);我們追求穩(wěn)定的職業(yè)，以此未雨綢繆。然而，到了今天，穩(wěn)定已經(jīng)越來越稀缺，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)變得更難衡量。我們的許多保單最終被證明并不比安然公司更值錢。

“I’m jealous of everyone who had the balls to do something that made them happy,” my $1.2 million friend told me. “It seemed like too big a risk for me to take when we were at school.” But as one of the also-rans myself — I applied to McKinsey, to private-equity firms and to areal estate conglomerate and was rejected by them all — I didn’t need any courage inmaking the decision to go into the modest-paying (by H.B.S. standards) field of journalism. Some of my classmates thought I was making a huge mistake by ignoring all the doors H.B.S. had opened for me in high finance and Silicon Valley. What they didn’t know was that thosedoors, in fact, had stayed shut — and that as a result, I was saved from the temptation ofeasy riches. I’ve been thankful ever since, grateful that my bad luck made it easier to choose aprofession that I’ve loved. Finding meaning, whether as a banker or a janitor, is difficult work. Usually life, rather than a business-school classroom, is the place to learn howto do it.

“我很嫉妒那些有膽量去做讓自己開心的事的人，”我那個(gè)年薪120萬的朋友告訴我。“上學(xué)時(shí)，這樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)對(duì)我來說似乎太大了。”但是作為失敗者中的一員——我曾經(jīng)申請(qǐng)過麥肯錫、幾家私募公司和一家房地產(chǎn)集團(tuán)，但都遭到了拒絕——決定進(jìn)入薪酬最低的新聞?lì)I(lǐng)域(以哈佛商學(xué)院的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而言)不需要我付出任何勇氣。一些同學(xué)覺得我忽視了哈佛商學(xué)院為我在高級(jí)金融業(yè)和硅谷打開的大門，這是一個(gè)巨大的錯(cuò)誤。他們不知道，那些門其實(shí)一直都是關(guān)著的——結(jié)果，我避免了受到輕松發(fā)財(cái)致富的誘惑。從那以后，我一直心存感激，感激這樣的壞運(yùn)氣讓我更輕松地選擇了自己喜歡的職業(yè)。無論是銀行家還是清潔工，尋找人生意義都是一項(xiàng)艱難的工作。這通常要在生活中去學(xué)習(xí)，而不是在商學(xué)院的課堂里。