職場必懂道理 別害怕跟人起衝突

I once led an offsite with the top 100 leaders at a multinational chemical company. I was immediately struck by how humble, friendly, and polite this room full of engineers was. At one point, I decided to take a risk and let them know what a pleasant bunch of people they were, but that I wondered if their polite exterior might be masking conflicts that were simmering below the surface. A ripple of laughter went through the crowd. Embarrassed recognition?
我曾在一家跨國化工公司，帶領100名高管參加遠離工作的團隊活動。這些工程師的謙遜、友好和禮貌一開始就讓我非常吃驚。後來我決定冒一次險，讓他們知道雖然他們都很友善，但我不知道在他們禮貌的外表下，是否掩蓋了隨時可能爆發的矛盾。人羣中傳來了一陣笑聲。這算是尷尬的認同嗎？

When I asked them to rate the quality of their relationships within the company, 88% responded that they belonged in the "dysfunctional family" category, full of unacknowledged conflicts.
當我要求他們對公司內的人際關係進行評價時，88%的員工表示，他們來自一個“問題家庭”，人與人之間充滿了未公開的矛盾。

I wasn't surprised. Conflict avoidance is one of the most common -- and divisive --behaviors my company encounters at the companies we work with. Instead of dealing with differences of opinion and working collaboratively, people choke back what they think until the boss has left the meeting, or when they are alone with a clique of like-minded colleagues. Teams break down into small, polarized groups that pursue their own agendas.
對此我並不吃驚。在我們合作過的公司，我們最常見到的最具有爭議的一種行爲就是迴避矛盾。人們不會去解決意見分歧，然後協同一致工作，而是會抑制內心的想法，直到老闆離開會議現場，或者他們與志趣相投的同事在一起的時候，纔會聊這些問題。團隊分裂成許多兩極分化的小團體，每個團體都只關注自己的目標。

Yet despite what seems like an epidemic of unhealthy behavior, a lot of management literature flirts with condoning such practices.
這似乎是一種不健康的傳染行爲，但許多管理類文章卻容忍了這種做法。

In fact, most of today's literature about managing workplace conflict is based on a 40-year-old model developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann in 1974, which cites avoidance as one of five main strategies people use to deal with conflict. But Thomas and Kilmann make clear that conflict avoidance prevents teams from collaborating on important decisions, which simply don't get made. That's hardly an effective strategy.
事實上，當下有關職場矛盾管理的大多數文章基礎都是40年前的一種模型。1974年，肯尼斯•托馬斯與拉爾夫•基爾曼開發了這個模型，其中將回避作爲解決矛盾的五種主要策略之一。但托馬斯與基爾曼曾明確表示，迴避矛盾會妨礙團隊在重要決策中相互協作，結果將導致決策失敗。所以，這並不是有效的策略。

Few people enjoy confronting others. Just the thought of conflict sparks anxiety in most people. Yet such problems don't go away by themselves. They grow and fester.
沒有人喜歡跟別人對立。大多數人甚至光是想到衝突就會開始緊張。但問題不會自己消失。它們只會日益惡化。

So what can you do?
那麼，該怎麼辦呢？

Put everyone in the same boat
讓所有人坐上同一艘船

The first step is to make sure individual business units' goals are aligned with the organization's goals. The larger the firm and the more diverse its products, the less likely these are to be aligned -- and the more likely competing goals are causing friction between employees. Make sure everyone's incentives are tied to the enterprise goals. Just telling employees that they need to put enterprise goals first is useless if their scorecard is solely dependent on the success of their little fiefdom. Ah, I mean business unit.
第一步是保證每個業務單位的目標與組織目標保持一致。公司規模越大、產品越多樣化，保持這種一致的難度也就更高——相互矛盾的目標更有可能在員工之間造成摩擦。保證每個人的獎勵與公司目標掛鉤。告訴員工，他們需要將公司目標放在首位，除非他們的績效僅僅取決於自己所在部門的成功。

Lynn Elsenhans, former CEO of Sunoco, notes that aligning employee goals and incentives with enterprise targets will level the playing field and make everyone part of the conversation.
太陽石油公司（Sunoco）前任CEO林恩•埃爾森漢斯表示，將員工的目標與獎勵和公司目標掛鉤將創造一個公平競爭的環境，讓所有人都參與到對話當中。

"People may not, at the beginning, like each other, trust each other, or even think that the other person is worthy," says Elsenhans, "but if you make it the norm that everyone is accountable to the enterprise -- and that we come together to discuss problems and options for solving those problems -- you'll start to build a climate of mutual trust and respect. People begin to look at things differently. 'We are going to help each other to be successful so that the enterprise is successful.'" A natural outcome, she adds, is that people begin to feel they don't want to let each other down.
埃爾森漢斯說：“最開始，人們或許不會彼此喜歡，彼此信任，甚至認爲別人一無是處。但如果公司培養所有人對公司的責任心，形成一種規範，例如所有人一起討論問題，找出解決問題的可選解決方案，就會逐漸建立起一種相互信任和尊重的氛圍。人們開始從不同的角度看待問題。‘我們要幫助彼此取得成功，進而讓公司獲得成功。’”她補充道，這樣做會帶來一種自然而然的結果，即人們會開始認爲絕不能讓彼此失望。

While Elsenhans' approach has the potential to reduce the number of conflicts that arise, it doesn't address the issue of how to have an out-in-the-open conflict with someone -- and come out feeling the warm glow of the proverbial "win-win."
埃爾森漢斯的方法雖然可能能夠減少矛盾的數量，但卻沒有解決這樣一個問題：如何應對與其他人公開的矛盾，最終獲得所謂的“雙贏”。Separate the person from the problem
就事論事而非就人論事

A great resource for coaching your team to healthy issue resolution is Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury. They stress the importance of keeping the focus squarely on the problem that the company or team is facing, rather than on the person who represents the other side in the disagreement, which merely escalates tensions and pulls the focus away from the problem.
如何培養團隊以健康的方式解決問題？羅傑•費舍爾與威廉姆•L•尤里的《達成一致：無需讓步的說服藝術》（Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In）一書就是很好的資源。該書的作者重點強調了直接關注公司或團隊所面臨的問題，而不是關注代表分歧另一方的個人，否則只會讓矛盾升級，並分散人們對問題的關注。

Another key point they make is that people often become entrenched in either-or positions rather than working collaboratively and creatively to find solutions. Instead, coach your team to look beyond the positions and try to figure out what the other person's underlying interests are. Are they worried sales will decline if they follow the course you're proposing? Are they concerned customers will be angry? Do they fear their group's reputation will suffer? Positions can't always be reconciled. Interests often can be, write Fisher and Ury. When both sides' underlying interests have been uncovered, energies can be directed toward finding a solution that meets everyone's most important needs.
他們提到的另外一個主要觀點是，人們往往會固執地堅持非此即彼的立場，而不是展開創造性地合作，尋找解決方案。相反，要培訓團隊走出自己的立場去考慮問題，努力判斷其他人的根本利益。他們是否擔心按照你所提議的程序會導致銷量減少？他們是否擔心引發客戶不滿？他們是否擔心團隊的信譽會受到影響？費舍爾和尤里曾寫道，立場或許始終無法協調，但利益卻可以調和。如果明確了矛盾雙方的根本利益，就可以把精力用於尋找一種解決方案，來滿足所有人最重要的需求。

Bring up tough issues
提出棘手的問題

Plainly discussing topics that might prompt a negative reaction from a coworker -- or worse, a boss -- not only takes courage, it's usually most successful when the whole firm, from top to bottom, is committed to doing it. But the potential benefits are significant.
坦誠地討論可能引起同事、（甚至更糟糕的是引起）老闆負面反應的問題，需要的不僅僅是勇氣。如果整個公司能夠自上而下堅持這種做法，往往能取得最大的效果。同時還有巨大的潛在好處。

When Reuters and Thompson merged in 2008, CEO Devin Wenig knew that the real challenge would be bringing together the two formerly competing staffs -- a total of 50,000 employees in 93 countries. The potential for a toxic environment was huge. But from my first discussion with Wenig, I knew he was committed to creating a group that would not let each other fail.
2008年路透社（Reuters）與湯普森集團（Thompson）合併時，CEO德文•維尼格很清楚，真正的挑戰是如何整合兩批之前相互競爭的員工——兩家公司共有50,000名員工，遍及93個國家。有害環境的潛在影響是巨大的。不過，在與維尼格進行第一次討論時，我便知道，他決定打造一個不會讓對方失望的團隊。

"Building a cohesive team is my No. 1 priority," said Wenig. "I want to build a team where people feel they can get the best out of each other … and know that everybody else has their back."
維尼格說：“打造一支有凝聚力的團隊是我的首要任務。我希望打造的團隊，是讓人們感覺能夠最大程度發揮彼此的才能，並且知道始終有其他人在背後支持自己。”

After a first session in which Wenig's own staff opened up and began to see each other as nuanced human beings with strengths and weaknesses, we took it to the next level: establishing an environment where it was okay for people to call each other out. One executive called out Wenig himself for being distracted at times when approached about a problem. Despite the executive's fear that he'd overstepped a line, Wenig not only took the criticism and changed his behavior, but other employees expressed their gratitude that he'd brought up an issue that was on their minds.
經過第一階段，維尼格自己的員工開始打開心扉，把彼此看成是有細微差別的正常人，所有人都有自己的優缺點。之後是第二階段：創造一種環境，讓人們可以向別人提出意見。比如，一位高管就批評維尼格在解決問題的時候總是不能集中注意力。雖然這位高管擔心自己的行爲有越界之嫌，但維尼格不僅接受了對方的批評，改變了自己的行爲， 而且其他員工也感謝這位高管，因爲他提出了他們一直敢怒不敢言的問題。

Not all companies are ready to make as full a commitment to being candid, but every team leader can take steps toward establishing a more honest -- and supportive -- culture. The potential upside in team cohesion and productivity is enormous.
並不是所有公司都願意接受這種坦白的做法，但每一位團隊領導者可以採取措施，建立一種更加誠實和支持性的文化。它將有益於培養團隊凝聚力，大幅提高工作效率。