Fluentide

A Chinese podcast · Same story, 4 levels

Ctrip Tests 45 Days of No-Reason Leave — episode cover art
7:49

携程的四十五天实验:信任能不能当生产力?

Ctrip Tests 45 Days of No-Reason Leave

About this story

Ctrip's Liang Jianzhang tests 45 days of no-reason leave a year — can trust outproduce neijuan burnout in corporate China? HSK 5-6 Chinese listening practice.

This is an HSK 5-6 Chinese listening episode that runs about 8 minutes. The full Mandarin script is shown with tap-for-pinyin and a line-by-line English translation, so you can listen and read at once — comprehensible input in the sense of Stephen Krashen's i+1 theory. It teaches 12 key vocabulary words such as 内卷、百分之、社会 and walks through 5 grammar patterns, each explained in English with examples. The same news story is retold at 4 difficulty levels — use the level selector above to find the version that is challenging but still understandable for you.

Read at your level

原文

Read the complete story in Chinese. Reveal pinyin and English only when you need them.

说到中国互联网公司的用工制度,大部分时候我们听到的都是负面新闻。
加班、内卷、九九六、大小周。
但携程昨天宣布的这件事,是一个完全不同方向的信号。
从五月一号起,携程将启动一项为期一年的"无理由事假"管理实验。
参与实验的员工在现有各类带薪假期之外,每年额外获得最多四十五天的事假额度。
而且请假不需要说明任何理由。
四十五天。
不需要理由。
这两个关键词放在中国互联网行业的语境下,几乎是反常识的。
我们先来看看具体的实验设计。
携程选了大约六千名员工作为样本。
这六千人被随机分为实验组和对照组。
实验组享受新政策。
对照组维持现有制度。
一年之后对比两组在工作效率、员工满意度、留存率等方面的差异。
这是一个标准的随机对照实验。
在医学和社会科学领域非常常见。
但用在企业管理政策上,在中国还是头一次。
这一点本身就值得关注。
它意味着携程不是拍脑袋做决定。
他们想要数据。
现在来说几个关键细节。
第一,这四十五天是无薪的。
不是带薪假。
你不上班就没有工资。
这一点很重要,因为它直接决定了这个政策的实际使用率。
对于月薪两三万的中层员工来说,偶尔请几天问题不大。
但对于月薪七八千的基层员工,每请一天就是少一天的钱。
第二,不需要任何理由。
这是核心创新。
在中国绝大多数公司里,请事假是需要审批流程的。
你要填表,写理由,直属领导签字,有时候还要往上报批。
这个流程本身就是一种无形的压力。
它暗示着:请假是例外,上班才是常态。
你需要证明你有"足够好"的理由。
携程把这个环节去掉了。
你不需要解释。
你只需要按一下申请按钮。
第三,假期可以灵活使用。
不限制连续天数。
可以今天请一天下周请两天。
也可以一次性请一个月。
完全由员工自己决定。
说实话,当我第一次看到这个消息的时候,我的第一反应是怀疑。
无薪假嘛,说白了就是让你自费休息。
有什么好吹的?
但仔细想想,这件事的核心不在于"无薪"还是"带薪"。
而在于"无理由"这三个字背后的信号。
它传递的信息是:我们信任你。
你是成年人。
你知道自己什么时候需要休息。
你不需要向任何人证明你"值得"休息。
这在中国的职场环境中是极其稀缺的态度。
我们来对比一下大环境。
九九六制度在前几年是中国互联网行业的公开秘密。
早九晚九,一周六天。
虽然二零二一年以后政府明确表态说九九六违法。
很多公司在形式上做了调整。
但实质上,加班文化并没有真正消失。
它只是从显性变成了隐性。
不再叫九九六了。
但是你的leader晚上十点在群里发消息。
你敢不回吗?
周末有一个紧急需求。
你敢说我在放假吗?
年终考核的时候"投入度"是一个评分项。
你请假太多,这一项就会被打低分。
所以很多人的状态是:我有假但我不敢请。
这才是最真实的中国职场。
在这样的背景下,携程做的事情就不只是一个人力资源实验了。
它更像是一种价值观的声明。
梁建章是一个很特别的创业者。
他是携程的联合创始人,也是北大的经济学教授。
他花了大量精力研究中国的人口问题。
他写过很多文章呼吁减少工作时间、提高生育率、鼓励灵活办公。
携程在二零二二年就推行了"三加二"混合办公模式。
每周三天在公司两天在家。
后来又推出了产后远程办公政策。
让新手父母可以在家照顾孩子的同时继续工作。
这些政策在当时都引起了不小的讨论。
而这次的无理由事假,可以看作是这一系列尝试的自然延伸。
当然,质疑的声音也很多。
第一种质疑是实用性。
无薪假对高收入员工是一种福利,对低收入员工可能毫无意义。
你每个月还房贷还车贷养孩子养父母,哪有底气请无薪假?
第二种质疑是文化兼容性。
就算公司说你可以随便请假。
在一个强调"奋斗"和"投入"的企业文化里。
真正大胆请假的人可能寥寥无几。
而那些真的请了很多假的人。
会不会反而成为第一批被淘汰的对象?
第三种质疑更尖锐。
有人直接说这是不是变相裁员的信号。
给你假让你走,走了以后说你绩效不达标。
这种操作在中国互联网行业不是没有先例。
这些质疑都有道理。
但我认为恰恰是因为有这么多未知数。
这个实验才有做的价值。
一年以后,数据会告诉我们。
多少人真的用了这个假期。
用了多少天。
他们的绩效是上升了还是下降了。
他们的离职率跟对照组相比是高还是低。
如果数据证明,给员工更多信任和自主权,反而能提高效率和留存。
这将是一个非常有说服力的案例。
不只是对携程有意义,对整个中国的企业管理都有参考价值。
反过来如果数据证明这个政策没什么效果,甚至有负面影响。
那也是一个有价值的结论。
至少我们知道了,问题不在于给不给假,而在于更深层的东西。
其实放眼全球,关于缩短工作时间的实验已经不少了。
英国在二零二二年搞了一个大规模的四天工作制试验,六十一家公司参与。
结果很有意思:百分之九十二的公司选择了永久保留四天制。
员工的倦怠感显著下降,离职率降低了百分之五十七。
而公司的营收在试验期间平均增长了百分之一点四。
换句话说,少干一天活,钱没少赚,人还更稳定了。
这个结果在经济学上并不难理解。
知识型工作的产出不是线性的。
不是你坐在工位上八个小时就比六个小时多产出三分之一。
很多时候,后面那两个小时的效率接近于零。
你只是在假装忙碌而已。
减少总工时,实际上是在挤掉那些低效时间。
携程的实验跟四天工作制不完全一样,但底层逻辑是相通的。
都是在问:我们是不是在用无效的在场时间换取虚假的安全感。
不管怎样,我对携程愿意拿出六千个样本、用一整年的时间来做这件事,是认可的。
在一个大部分公司还在纠结要不要取消大小周的行业里。
携程问了一个更大的问题。
如果我们真的信任员工,会发生什么?
答案还不知道。
但至少有人在认真地找。
English transcript reference

When it comes to employment practices at Chinese internet companies, most of the time what we hear is negative news.

Overtime, involution, nine-nine-six, alternating work weeks.

But what Ctrip announced yesterday is a signal in a completely different direction.

Starting May first, Ctrip will launch a one-year "no-reason personal leave" management experiment.

Participating employees will receive up to forty-five additional days of personal leave per year on top of all existing paid vacation.

And taking leave requires no explanation of any kind.

Forty-five days.

No reason required.

These two keywords, placed in the context of China's internet industry, are almost counterintuitive.

Let's first look at the specific experimental design.

Ctrip selected approximately six thousand employees as the sample.

These six thousand people are randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group.

The experimental group enjoys the new policy.

The control group maintains the existing system.

After one year, they compare the two groups on differences in work efficiency, employee satisfaction, retention rate, and other metrics.

This is a standard randomized controlled trial.

Very common in medicine and social sciences.

But using it for corporate management policy is a first in China.

This point alone is worth paying attention to.

It means Ctrip isn't making decisions on a whim.

They want data.

Now let's talk about several key details.

First, these forty-five days are unpaid.

Not paid leave.

If you don't work, you don't get paid.

This is very important because it directly determines the actual utilization rate of this policy.

For mid-level employees earning twenty to thirty thousand a month, taking a few days off occasionally isn't a big deal.

But for entry-level employees earning seven to eight thousand a month, every day off means one less day of pay.

Second, no reason whatsoever is required.

This is the core innovation.

In the vast majority of Chinese companies, taking personal leave requires an approval process.

You fill out forms, write reasons, get your direct supervisor's signature, and sometimes it needs to be reported even higher.

This process itself is a form of invisible pressure.

It implies: taking leave is the exception, being at work is the norm.

You need to prove you have a "good enough" reason.

Ctrip has removed this step entirely.

You don't need to explain.

You just need to press the apply button.

Third, the leave can be used flexibly.

No restrictions on consecutive days.

You can take one day today and two days next week.

Or you can take a whole month at once.

It's entirely up to the employee.

Honestly, when I first saw this news, my first reaction was skepticism.

Unpaid leave — to put it bluntly, it's just letting you rest at your own expense.

What's there to celebrate?

But thinking about it more carefully, the core of this matter isn't about "unpaid" versus "paid."

It's about the signal behind those three characters: "no reason."

The message it sends is: we trust you.

You are an adult.

You know when you need to rest.

You don't need to prove to anyone that you "deserve" a break.

This is an extremely rare attitude in China's workplace environment.

Let's compare this to the broader landscape.

The nine-nine-six system was an open secret in China's internet industry in previous years.

Nine to nine, six days a week.

Although after 2021 the government explicitly stated that nine-nine-six is illegal.

Many companies made adjustments in form.

But in substance, the overtime culture hasn't truly disappeared.

It just went from explicit to implicit.

It's no longer called nine-nine-six.

But your team leader sends messages in the group chat at ten PM.

Do you dare not reply?

There's an urgent request on the weekend.

Do you dare say you're on vacation?

During year-end reviews, "engagement level" is a rating criterion.

If you take too much leave, this score gets marked down.

So many people's situation is: I have leave but I don't dare take it.

This is the truest reality of Chinese workplaces.

Against this backdrop, what Ctrip is doing isn't just a human resources experiment.

It's more like a declaration of values.

Liang Jianzhang is a very unique entrepreneur.

He is Ctrip's co-founder and also an economics professor at Peking University.

He has devoted enormous energy to studying China's population issues.

He has written many articles calling for reduced working hours, higher birth rates, and encouraging flexible work.

Ctrip introduced the "three-plus-two" hybrid work model back in 2022.

Three days at the office, two days at home per week.

Later they also launched a post-maternity remote work policy.

Allowing new parents to continue working while caring for their children at home.

These policies all generated considerable discussion at the time.

And this no-reason leave can be seen as a natural extension of this series of experiments.

Of course, skeptical voices are also numerous.

The first type of skepticism is about practicality.

Unpaid leave is a benefit for high-income employees but may be completely meaningless for low-income ones.

If you're paying a mortgage, car loan, raising children and supporting parents every month, where's the confidence to take unpaid leave?

The second type of skepticism is about cultural compatibility.

Even if the company says you can take leave whenever you want.

In a corporate culture that emphasizes "hustle" and "dedication."

The people who actually dare to take lots of leave might be very few.

And those who do take a lot of leave.

Might they actually become the first ones to be eliminated?

The third type of skepticism is more pointed.

Some people directly ask whether this is a signal for disguised layoffs.

Give you leave so you'll go, then after you go say your performance didn't meet standards.

This kind of operation is not without precedent in China's internet industry.

All of these skepticisms have merit.

But I believe it's precisely because there are so many unknowns.

That this experiment is worth doing.

One year from now, the data will tell us.

How many people actually used this leave.

How many days they used.

Whether their performance went up or down.

Whether their attrition rate compared to the control group is higher or lower.

If the data proves that giving employees more trust and autonomy actually improves efficiency and retention.

This will be a very persuasive case study.

Not just meaningful for Ctrip, but a reference for all of Chinese corporate management.

Conversely, if the data proves this policy has no effect, or even negative effects.

That's also a valuable conclusion.

At least we'd know the problem isn't about whether to give leave, but about something deeper.

Actually looking globally, experiments on reducing working hours are quite numerous already.

Britain ran a large-scale four-day workweek trial in 2022, with sixty-one companies participating.

The results were interesting: ninety-two percent of companies chose to permanently keep the four-day system.

Employee burnout decreased significantly, and attrition dropped by fifty-seven percent.

And company revenue during the trial period grew by an average of one point four percent.

In other words, working one less day didn't mean earning less money, and people were more stable.

This result isn't hard to understand from an economics perspective.

The output of knowledge work isn't linear.

Sitting at your desk for eight hours doesn't produce one-third more output than six hours.

Much of the time, the efficiency of those last two hours approaches zero.

You're just pretending to be busy.

Reducing total working hours actually squeezes out those inefficient hours.

Ctrip's experiment isn't exactly the same as a four-day workweek, but the underlying logic is the same.

Both are asking: are we trading ineffective presence time for a false sense of security.

Regardless, I respect that Ctrip is willing to commit six thousand samples and an entire year to doing this.

In an industry where most companies are still debating whether to cancel alternating work weeks.

Ctrip asked a bigger question.

If we truly trust our employees, what happens?

The answer isn't known yet.

But at least someone is seriously looking for it.

Listen again

Try it without the transcript and notice what sounds clearer.

What vocabulary does this episode teach?

词汇
nèijuǎninvolution; rat race

Excessive competition where everyone works harder but nobody gains. A defining concept in Chinese workplace culture.

bǎifēnzhīpercent

HSK 1-4. percent.

shèhuìsociety

HSK 1-4. society.

jīngjìeconomy

HSK 1-4. economy.

zhèngfǔgovernment

HSK 1-4. government.

zhìdùsystem / institution

HSK 1-4. system / institution.

fǎn chángshícounterintuitive

Going against what common sense would suggest.

suíjī duìzhào shíyànrandomized controlled trial

Gold-standard experimental design with random assignment to test and control groups.

lìyònglǜutilization rate

The percentage of people who actually use an available resource.

shěnpī liúchéngapproval process

The bureaucratic steps required to get permission for something at work.

yǐnxìngimplicit; hidden

Not directly stated but understood. Used here for hidden overtime expectations.

juàndài gǎnburnout

Physical and emotional exhaustion from prolonged overwork.

* beyond level超纲词

What grammar patterns appear in this episode?

语法
不是...而是...↗

Not X, but rather Y. Corrects a misperception.

核心不在于无薪还是带薪,而在于无理由这三个字背后的信号。

说白了就是...↗

To put it bluntly; in plain terms.

无薪假嘛,说白了就是让你自费休息。

从...角度↗

From the perspective of...

这个结果在经济学上并不难理解。

恰恰是因为...才...↗

It is precisely because of X that Y. Emphasizes causation.

恰恰是因为有这么多未知数,这个实验才有做的价值。

就算...也...↗

Even if... still...

就算制度变了,人心里的那个想法也不容易变。

Proper nouns

专有名词
携程XiéchéngCtrip (Trip.com Group)梁建章Liáng JiànzhāngLiang Jianzhang (co-founder, Peking University professor)北大BěidàPeking University英国YīngguóUnited Kingdom

Sources

来源

Free account

Keep learning from this story

Create a free account to keep saved words and your preferred level together.

  • Keep words with their story context
  • Remember your preferred level
  • Build your vocabulary over time

Keep learning