????姑娘們，當你“向前一步”的時候要小心了。因為走出去的結(jié)果可能令你難過。

????掌握工作職權(quán)，比如聘用、解雇和發(fā)薪等權(quán)力，以及順帶的社會經(jīng)濟優(yōu)勢，通常會被打工者認為是有利條件，鮮有例外。（從來沒有人懷疑謝麗?桑德伯格為什么如此熱衷于鼓勵女性追求這種權(quán)力。）但在美國社會學(xué)協(xié)會十二月份的《健康與社會行為》雜志（Journal of Health and Social Behavior）上發(fā)表的一項最新研究，卻從精神健康的角度，對這種觀念進行了反駁。

????該項研究由德克薩斯大學(xué)奧斯丁分校（University of Texas at Austin）社會學(xué)教授泰提雅娜?普德洛夫斯卡娃和愛荷華州立大學(xué)（Iowa State University）人類發(fā)展與家庭學(xué)教授艾米莉亞?克拉克共同主持。兩人透過兩性關(guān)系，研究了工作職權(quán)對精神健康的影響。她們發(fā)現(xiàn)，大權(quán)在握的女性比普通女性表現(xiàn)出更多抑郁癥狀。而男性則截然相反：掌權(quán)男性的抑郁癥狀，要遠遠少于不掌權(quán)的男性。

????普德洛夫斯卡娃說，研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，總體上，女性比男性更容易抑郁：通過對比不掌權(quán)的男性和女性，女性表現(xiàn)出的抑郁癥狀略高于男性。而在對同樣掌握工作職權(quán)的男性和女性進行對比后，研究卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，女性表現(xiàn)出的抑郁癥狀遠遠高于男性。

????她說：“最突出的是，傳統(tǒng)醫(yī)學(xué)社會學(xué)理論認為，[通過工作職權(quán)獲得的]社會經(jīng)濟利益，有利于身體健康；它讓你擁有更多財富，意味著你可以接受更好的教育，在精神和身體上更健康。在這些令人羨慕的特性方面，[擁有工作職權(quán)的人]具有更多社會優(yōu)勢?！?/p>

????可是，為什么身處高位的女性往往會感到情緒低落？

????研究將其歸因于女性在“性別分層過程”所體會到的“人際關(guān)系壓力因素”。研究表示，這些壓力因素源自“偏見、歧視、令人不快的陳詞濫調(diào)、負面的社會干預(yù)、缺少來自上級和同事的溝通與支持、需要比男性表現(xiàn)得更優(yōu)秀來證明自己所面臨的壓力等?！?/p>

????普德洛夫斯卡娃將矛頭指向了女性在職場中遭遇的“正統(tǒng)性問題”。她們會“面臨阻力，因為她們的權(quán)力不符合人們心目中的慣例。”此外，掌權(quán)的女性往往會陷入普德洛夫斯卡娃所說的“進退兩難的處境”。她們既要保持女性的一面，又要表現(xiàn)出果敢和自信。如果不能平衡這兩種特質(zhì)，她們便會遭到口誅筆伐，要么被說成過于順從和不稱職，要么被認為專橫跋扈。

????而男性卻可以從掌握工作職權(quán)中獲益，因為男性掌握權(quán)力被認為是正當?shù)模匀欢坏摹Ｆ盏侣宸蛩箍ㄍ拚f道：“他們從來不需要克服女性面臨的那些阻力和陳腐觀念?！?/p>

????研究分析了威斯康辛縱向研究（Wisconsin Longitudinal Study）的數(shù)據(jù)。威斯康辛縱向研究對1957～2004年18～65歲的男性和女性進行了調(diào)查。普德洛夫斯卡娃稱：“縱向研究中的女性受訪者屬于第一代職場女性。她們所面臨的壓力與今天無異——對于年輕女性而依然，甚至更加嚴重”

????普德洛夫斯卡娃說道：“現(xiàn)在，所有人都在說女性不夠自信，沒有充分走出去。走出去本身是好事，但一旦你走出去，你便會以為一切都塵埃落定了?！?/p>

????然而，事情并沒有這么簡單。研究稱：“在工作職權(quán)的結(jié)構(gòu)性方面趕上男性，還遠遠不夠，因為男性和女性行使工作職權(quán)有著截然不同的文化意義?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

????Ladies, be careful when you “l(fā)ean in.” The results may sadden you.

????Having so-called job authority—the power to hire, fire, and pay people—and the socioeconomic advantage it confers, are typically considered assets in an employee’s life with few, if any exceptions. (There was never any wonder why Sheryl Sandberg was so adamant in urging women to seek it.) But a new study in the December issue of the American Sociological Association’s Journal of Health and Social Behavior tosses that notion aside when it comes to mental health.

????Co-authors Tetyana Pudrovska, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Amelia Karraker, a professor of human development and family studies at Iowa State University, examined the effects of job authority on mental health through the prism of gender relations. They found that women with job authority exhibit more depressive symptoms than women without job authority. The opposite was true for men: those with authority are overall less depressed than men without work-related authority.

????The study takes into account that, in general, women typically suffer from depression more often than men: When men and women without job authority are compared, women have slightly elevated depressive symptoms. When comparing men and women with job authority, however, women with such power show significantly more signs of depression, Pudrovska says.

????“What’s most striking here is the traditional theory in medical sociology is that the socioeconomic advantage [from job authority] is good for health; it gives you more money, it means you probably have better education, and physically and mentally your health is better. [People with work-related authority] are socially advantaged in terms of these desirable characteristics,” she says.

????So, why do women in higher-up positions often feel so down?

????The study blames “interpersonal stressors” that women experience due to the “process of gender stratification.” The stressors that women face stem from “prejudice, discrimination, unfavorable stereotypes, negative social interactions, lack of communication and support from superiors and coworkers, and pressure to perform better than men to prove competence,” the study says.

????Pudrovska points specifically to “the problem of legitimacy” that women confront in the workplace. They “face resistance, since their power is not consistent with what we think the norms are.” Women in power are also caught in what Pudrovska calls a “double bind.” They are expected to express both femininity and assertiveness. If they fail to balance those two qualities, they’re criticized for either being too docile and incompetent or too bossy.

????Meanwhile, men benefit from job authority since their power is considered legitimate and natural. “They don’t have to overcome as much resistance and stereotypes,” Pudrovska says.

????The study looked at data from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, which followed men and women from age 18 in 1957 to age 65 in 2004. “The female subjects of the study were part of the first generation of women who were well represented in the workforce,” Pudrovska says. The stresses this group felt are just as present—and perhaps more acute—for younger women.

????“Now we’re bombarded with not being confident enough, not leaning in enough,” Pudrovska says. “Leaning in is a good thing in and of itself, but once you do so, the assumption is that everything should fall into place.”

????But it’s hardly ever so simple. “Catching up with men in terms of structural aspects of workplace authority is not sufficient because the cultural meaning of exercising job authority is different for men and women,” the study says.