????大部分經理人幾乎每天都要面臨如何調動員工積極性的挑戰。如何讓同事積極投入？你所付出了足夠的努力？你做的工作是否過多或者根本沒有找對方向？

????今年9月30日的《科學》雜志（Science）報道了佛蒙特大學（University of Vermont）兩位社會學家的研究成果。為了更好地了解人類情緒的起落，他們在兩年時間內（2008年2月至2010年1月），對84個英語國家的240萬人進行研究，研究的文本就是他們發布的5億多條Twitter信息。

????研究發現，受訪者不論來自哪種文化、地域和時區，積極與消極情緒幾乎每天都在交替循環。總體而言，人們的積極情緒在清晨（上午6 - 9點）處于巔峰狀態，之后會不斷下降，在中午/午后跌入最低點，午后開始回升，傍晚重新達到巔峰。表面看來，工作才是破壞好心情的罪魁禍首；然而，這種循環在休息日依然存在。如此看來，這種現象背后所隱藏的深層原因要復雜得多。

????這項研究明確了一個一直廣受認可的現象，它對經理人具有重要的意義，但卻很少在他們激勵員工的方式中得到體現。

????社會學家所謂的正面情緒（良好的感覺）與負面情緒之間并無關聯。正如研究發起人所說，這兩種情緒“相互獨立，并非同一個維度上的兩個不同極端。負面情緒并非正面情緒的對立面，但這兩種情緒也并非始終平行。”

????在職場中，我們將這種正面或負面“情緒”稱為積極性、敬業精神和投入 ——也就是員工額外付出努力以獲得超常績效的意愿。不論叫法如何，現象本身并無區別：“積極”與“懈怠”或者“全心投入”與“漠不關心”都是完全不同的概念。造成兩種情緒的因素也截然不同。

????以一個人的健康為例，我們可以充分理解這些緣由和推動因素之間的關系。如果一個人身染重病，肯定會陷入沮喪的情緒當中。但試想一下，當他最終康復時，又會是什么心情呢？康復會讓他激情滿滿——但這樣的狀態不會一直持續下去，他很快就會因為滿足而失去激情。當健康狀況正常了，生活也就恢復到平常的狀態。于是，他再也無法從中得到激勵。所以說，一個人惡劣的健康狀況會抑制他的情緒，但身體康復也并不足以激勵一個人做出多么了不起的事情。

????對于老板而言，這一發現的意義就在于，如果你希望下屬工作積極（或敬業或全心投入），就必須有抓好兩方面的工作。既要掃清限制因素，又要代之以調動積極性的推動因素。

????掃清抑制員工積極性的障礙最多能達到“中性”結果（讓員工維持常態——譯者）。如果概括上述研究人員的話來說，就是積極性與缺乏積極性（或者說投入與漠然）并非同一領域的對立雙方，而是兩個互不相干的獨立領域，需要區別對待。

????我們遇到過許多經理人，他們非常關注導致員工缺乏積極性的原因，例如薪酬福利微薄、工作環境惡劣、公司的政策和規定有損人格或不利員工發展、個人地位低微、同事關系緊張等——這些也是老板向員工了解情況時，員工常見的理由。這些問題確實亟待解決，但這并非全部。經理人若想提高員工績效，就必須更進一步，給出令人信服的理由，才能促使讓員工全身心地投入工作。

????具體應該怎么做？下文給出的建議雖然無法面面俱到，但卻可以作為一個良好的開始。對照一下，哪些是你已經做到的？

????激發興趣的工作目的。每個人都希望能夠參與到重大的事件中來。你是否與員工探討過你們的工作目的——不僅僅是做什么，還有為什么？對于從你們的工作中受益的其他人，你和你的團隊是否會去關注？

????具有挑戰性的目標與計劃。人們不僅希望能參與重要的事件，還希望能為重要的事情努力奮斗。經理人需要根據工作目的，提出具有挑戰性的目標和計劃，明確員工實現這些目標的途徑。

????明確的職責與責任。每個人都需要明確自身的職責和團隊對他們的期望。人們希望明確自己的工作與團隊整體目標之間存在的聯系，因為這能讓他們感覺受到團隊的重視，感覺到自我價值的存在。明確每個人的職責，并就他們的工作表現給出明確的反饋，就能使每位員工掌控自己的工作，無需經理人事無巨細地監督他們的一舉一動，因為這種行為會極大地挫傷員工的情緒。

????簡而言之，如果老板希望員工有卓越的表現，既要掃清障礙，又必須給出有力的理由，才能促使員工努力工作。這兩方面截然不同，必須同等重視，不可偏廢。

????20世紀后期，弗雷德里克?赫茲伯格是這一觀點的堅定支持者。關于他的思想理論，請參閱《再來一次：如何激勵員工？》（One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?）一文。

????本文作者琳達?A?希爾是哈佛商學院（Harvard Business School）教授；肯特?林內貝克，作家，擁有30年豐富的管理經驗。《做真正的老板：成為偉大領袖必備的三個特質》（Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader）一書由兩人合著。

????譯者：阿龍/汪皓

????For most managers, hardly a day goes by without confronting the challenge of employee motivation. Are you doing enough to engage the people who you work with? Are you doing too much or just not the right things?

????An article in the September 30 issue of Science describes the efforts of two sociologists at the University of Vermont who tried to better understand the rise and fall of people's spirits. They studied 2.4 million people's moods by analyzing the words they used in over 500 million tweets originating in 84 English-speaking countries over two years (February 2008 through January 2010).

????What they found was a daily cycle of positive and negative feelings that seemed to apply consistently across cultures, geographies, and time zones. Around the world, people's positive moods peaked in the morning (6-9 a.m.), dropped through the day until reaching a trough by mid/late-afternoon, began to pick up in late afternoon, and peaked again in the evening. The glib conclusion is that work is the culprit that destroys people's good moods, but the cycle holds on days off too, so what's going on is much more complicated.

????The study confirmed a long-recognized phenomenon that has huge implications for managers but is rarely reflected in how bosses try to energize their staff.

????What social scientists call positive affect (good feelings) and negative affect are not related to each other. As the authors of the study say, the two "vary independently and are not opposite ends of a single dimension. NA (negative affect) is neither the mirror image of PA, nor do the two measures move consistently in parallel."

????In the work world, we talk not of positive or negative "affect" but of motivation, commitment, and engagement -- the willingness of people to expend the extra effort that extraordinary performance usually requires. Whatever it's called, the phenomenon is the same: "motivated" and "unmotivated" or "engaged" and "unengaged" are two different things. The factors that drive one are different from the factors that drive the other.

????A good way to understand the difference between such causes and drivers is to think of your health. If you've ever been seriously ill, you understand how depressing that can be. But recall what happened when eventually you recovered. You were energized by good health -- for a time. But soon enough you came to expect it. Health became just normal, the way life should be. It didn't energize you any more. So health can be a disincentive when you lose it, but good health doesn't motivate you to do great things.

????The implication for you as a boss is that if you want motivated (or committed or engaged) people, you must take two kinds of actions. You must remove restraints and replace them with drivers of motivation.

????Removing the things that inhibit motivation will lead, at most, to a neutral place. To paraphrase the authors of the Twitter study, motivation and a lack of motivation (or engagement and disengagement) aren't opposite ends of the same spectrum. They are two spectra that have to be managed separately.

????If you're like most managers we've met, you tend to focus on the causes of low motivation, such as poor pay and benefits, lousy work conditions, demeaning or obstructive policies and rules, status, or bad relationships with co-workers -- the kinds of things that people will name if you ask them what's wrong. You do have to deal with these things, but that's not enough. If you want high performance, you must go further and also offer compelling reasons for people to commit themselves wholeheartedly.

????What are those things? This is hardly a complete list, but it's a good start. How many of them have you put in place?

????Compelling purpose. People want to feel like they are a part of something important. Do you talk about the purpose of your work -- not just what you do but why you do it? Do you talk about those outside your group who benefit from what you do?

????Challenging goals and plans. Besides feeling like they are a part of something important, people often want to strive toward something important. They need challenging goals based on their purpose and plans that show how they can achieve those goals.

????Clear roles and responsibilities. People often need to know what they're responsible for individually and what others expect of them. They want to see the link between their work and the team's overall purpose because that's how they will feel both valued and valuable. With clarity about what they do, and clear feedback about how they're doing, they can take control of their own work, and you won't need to supervise their activities, which can be a powerful source of discouragement.

????In simple terms, if you want superior performance, you must both remove obstacles and put in place reasons to work hard. Pay attention to both. They're not the same.

????Frederick Herzberg was the great expounder of this important idea in the latter part of the 20th century. For a summary of his thinking, see One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?

????Linda A. Hill, a professor at Harvard Business School, and Kent Lineback, a writer with 30 years of management experience, are co-authors of Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader.