Speak up. Bring your whole selves to work. Be the difference that you want to see. Sound familiar? Started to sound very familiar to quite a few employees. Now many leaders are asking voices of difference to speak up. And that's because what gets said, and what doesn't, in our workplaces has a huge consequence for things like ethical conduct, innovation, inclusion, talent retention.

大聲說出來吧。 在職場中做真實的自己。 做你想要的那個不一樣的自己。 是不是聽著很耳熟？ 對于很多員工來說也是如此。 現(xiàn)在許多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者 都在鼓勵不同的聲音發(fā)聲。 是因為在職場中，說或不說 影響著諸如道德規(guī)范， 企業(yè)創(chuàng)新、 包容度和人才保留等問題。

So more and more employees at the moment are starting to speak up about social and environmental concerns. And this is great, but it's not always going quite to plan for everybody. A finance director I've been working with, he's been asking his employees to speak up for quite a while, and now they've started to. So they're saying, OK, let's talk about race. Let's talk about gender equity. Climate change, I want to talk about that. Modern slavery. And this finance director came to me somewhat stunned and said, "You know, Megan, I've got to admit, when I asked people to speak up, I was kind of thinking that I'd get more transparency around compliance issues and a few good ideas. I didn't really bank on getting everything else."

因此現(xiàn)在越來越多員工敢于發(fā)聲， 并發(fā)表對社會和環(huán)境問題的看法。 這當(dāng)然是好事， 但并不適用于每一個人。 我身邊有位財務(wù)總監(jiān)， 他一度鼓勵員工暢所欲言， 員工們也這么做了。 然后他們說， 那我們討論種族問題吧。 談?wù)勑詣e平等吧。 我想聊聊氣候變化。 還有現(xiàn)代奴隸制。 這位財務(wù)總監(jiān)來找我， 臉上微帶著驚訝，然后說： “梅根你知道嗎，我必須承認(rèn)， 每當(dāng)我讓他們發(fā)表意見的時候， 我認(rèn)為公司在合規(guī)問題上 變得更加透明的同時 還得到了一些好主意。 我甚至都沒有采取其他 手段就得到了想要的東西?！?/p>

But this is an era of employee activism and that's great, but why does it end up on the front pages of the newspaper for the wrong reasons sometimes? Employees walking out, getting fired, taking to social media. Organizational reputations destroyed or investors seeking change at the top of organizations.

現(xiàn)在是員工行動主義的時代， 這當(dāng)然好事， 但是為什么有時它出現(xiàn)在報紙頭條時 都是負(fù)面消息呢？ 員工離開公司、被解雇， 被掛到網(wǎng)上。 結(jié)果就是企業(yè)名聲毀于一旦， 或者投資者 要求組織內(nèi)高層進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)變。

So my research over the past few years with John Higgins has involved interviewing hundreds of activists and leaders and activist leaders. And our work’s in service of enabling voices of difference to make a difference in the workplace. Now today, I'm just going to draw out four key findings, and I'm also going to go through a few dos and don'ts for leaders who want to navigate this territory proactively, productively.

在過去幾年在我跟約翰·希金斯 （John Higgins）做的研究里 采訪了上百位行動主義者、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人 以及活動領(lǐng)袖。 我們的工作 是為不同的聲音發(fā)聲而服務(wù) 來為職場增添不一樣的色彩。 今天在這里， 我只會闡述四個主要研究結(jié)果， 同時給領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者一些建議， 讓他們主動且高效地 應(yīng)對員工行動主義的快速發(fā)展。

So let me start with a question. When I say the word "activist," what comes to mind? What images, what thoughts, what assumptions? Well, we've asked thousands of people that question, and I can safely say that the words "activist" and "activism" are loaded terms. They mean everything from progress and courage and passion and change through to protest, rebellion, violence. It's quite cool to be labeled an activist in some parts of the world and in relation to some issues. And in other parts of the world and in relation to other issues, being labelled an activist is life-threatening.

開始之前我先問一個問題吧。 當(dāng)我說到“行動主義者”這個詞， 你腦海里浮現(xiàn)出的是什么？ 是什么樣的畫面、想法或者設(shè)想呢？ 我們曾經(jīng)問了上萬人這個問題， 我可以確切地說 “行動主義者”和“行動主義” 這兩個詞并不僅限于字面的積極意義。 它們承載了從進(jìn)步、 勇氣、激情、蛻變 到抗議、反抗和暴力等 有褒有貶的含義。 有時候被稱為行動主義者， 并成為活動的一份子是很酷的事情。 但是有時在跟某些事情扯上關(guān)系時， 會被標(biāo)榜為活躍分子則會危及生命。

So we need to understand the assumptions and the associations that we bring to activism because of course that affects how we respond to it. I was working with the board of a health care organization. And in the coffee break, they started to talk about an employee who'd been pretty vocal on the internal comms channels about climate change, and he was quite critical of what the organization had been doing. It was really interesting, because some of the executives labeled him as a troublemaker, kind of wanted to get rid of him. But there were a few executives that saw him as a trailblazer, and actually a couple that wanted to invite him into the board to educate them. OK?

所以我們需要理清行動主義 跟我們的關(guān)系以及 會給我們帶來什么設(shè)想 因為這些跟我們的 應(yīng)對方式有必然聯(lián)系。 我曾經(jīng)跟一家醫(yī)療 保健公司的董事會合作。 在茶歇的時候， 他們開始討論一位 時常直言不諱的員工。 這位員工會在 國際平臺上討論氣候變化， 也會批判機構(gòu)正在做的事情。 結(jié)果很有趣，因為一些高管 稱他為麻煩制造者， 像是試圖要跟他撇的一干二凈。 但是有不少高層視他為先驅(qū)者， 甚至有一對夫妻 想要邀請他給董事會上課。 事情就是這樣。

So we've got to the first key point for our leaders is to understand that activism is in the eye of the beholder, as Ruchika Tulshyan, an author and activist, told us: “What looks like rebellion to you is another person’s basic human rights.” So the first thing you've got to do is really become aware of the kind of assumptions and judgments that you and your colleagues bring to activism in order that you can then respond with more awareness and more mindfulness.

此時要引出第一個給領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的關(guān)鍵點 是他們要明白行動 主義是見仁見智的東西， 正如作家和活動分子魯奇卡·圖拉什揚 （Ruchika Tulshyan）所說： ”你眼里的反抗不過 是他人的基本人權(quán)罷了?！?因此我們第一件要做的 是要意識到那些 你跟你的同事從行動主義中 獲得的設(shè)想和判斷 來方便你可以在做出回應(yīng)的時候 多加留意，多加思考。

Second point, leaders can find themselves in an optimism bubble, we sometimes call a “delusion bubble.” As you get more senior, you overestimate the degree to which other people are speaking up. You overestimate your approachability, and you overestimate your listening skills. And that all means that you underestimate the strength of feeling that might exist with some of your employees. Now, one of the key reasons for this is something we call an “advantage blindness.” So when we have the labels and titles that convey status and authority in a particular context like hierarchy, for example, we're often the last person to realize the impact that those labels have on how other people are able to speak up to us. In fact, it's not until we don't have those labels that we can kind of look at them and go, "Gosh, they make a difference to how people can voice around here."

第二點， 有時候領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人 會陷入樂觀主義泡沫當(dāng)中， 我們稱之為“妄想的怪圈”。 當(dāng)你的職位越高， 你聽到的來自員工的 聲音沒有你想象中多。 你高估了他人對你傾訴時的安全感， 以及你傾聽不同觀點的能力。 這一切都意味著你低估了 員工在面臨問題時的感受。 為什么會出現(xiàn)這樣的情況呢？ 其中一個誘因是 我們所說的“優(yōu)勢盲區(qū)”。 當(dāng)我們被貼上代表 地位和權(quán)力的標(biāo)簽和頭銜， 尤其是身處在等級制度之中， 我們常常是最后一個意識到那些標(biāo)簽 影響著別人跟我們 交談方式與社交距離。 事實上，只有我們 撕下那些標(biāo)簽的時候 我們才能看到這些問題，并意識到： “原來它們影響著 人們是否能暢所欲言?！?/p>

So this point for leaders is all about understanding, you know, are you in one of these optimism bubbles? Are you a bit detached? How do you know what your employees find matters in their organizations? Do you? How?

對于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層的人，要去反思 你是不是陷入樂觀主義 泡沫的一份子呢？ 你是否已經(jīng)跟現(xiàn)實脫節(jié)了？ 你怎么知道你的員工們 認(rèn)為在組織里哪些事非常重要呢？ 你真的知道嗎？如何得知的呢？

I was talking to the head of a retail organization, and she was saying that her leadership team spend a lot of time in stores, listening. And she said something I thought was really interesting. She said, "You can't delegate your listening responsibility to pulse surveys." You've got to show up with your ears wide open. So what this means is, don't assume you know what matters. You know, sharpen your antennae. Try and figure out. We've written about lots of ways that you can do that. But underlying all of those methods is an understanding that it’s almost inevitable that you’re detached a bit, and you need to do a lot more work, actually, to really find out what matters to employees.

我之前跟一位 零售組織的負(fù)責(zé)人聊天， 她說她的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊 花了很多時間親自到 店里去傾聽員工的聲音。 她告訴了我一些很有趣的事情。 她說： “你不能用員工滿意度調(diào)查 替你完成傾聽這一步驟?！?你需要親自到場，用心傾聽。 這意味著， 不要假裝你都知道什么是重要的。 讓自己變得敏感一點。 嘗試傾聽然后再去解決問題。 我們寫了很多 可以實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)的建議。 但是這些方法的根本 是要清楚你幾乎 無可避免地會與現(xiàn)實脫節(jié)， 而你需要下更多功夫， 去找到對于員工來說 到底什么才是重要的。

So third point, inaction is as political as action. We’ve met quite a few leaders that say that they’re neutral on certain issues or apolitical. There's no such thing. Inaction on things like climate change is as political as action. I was working with an HR director in the construction industry right at the moment where a competitor had said some fairly disparaging things about women in the industry. It's a huge controversy. And this HR director really didn't want to get involved. He just wanted to avoid the conflict, stay out of it. But his employees wouldn’t let him because his silence would have communicated complicity. Now what I am not saying, even though I am often accused of saying it, what I am not saying is that therefore you need to act on every issue that's out there. Of course you don't. And of course you can't, it's infeasible. What I am saying, as a leader, is that you need to make conscious, coherent, authentic choices about what you will make a stand on and what you won't. And do that in conjunction with your stakeholders and, of course, your employees are one of your key stakeholders there.

第三點是， 無論是否作為都有政治意義。 有不少領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人說他們 在某些問題上會保持中立 或者避免任何政治傾向， 但這種事情不存在的。 在諸如氣候變化這種問題上， 無論站在哪一方都有政治意義。 我先前跟建筑 公司的人力資源總監(jiān)一起工作， 那個時候他們一位競爭對手發(fā)表了 一些相當(dāng)詆毀該行業(yè)內(nèi) 女性工作者的言論。 這是非常有爭議的話題。 因此人力總監(jiān)不想?yún)⑴c其中， 他只想置身事外， 避免陷入這場爭論。 但是他的老板不讓他這么做 因為他的沉默會有站隊的嫌疑。 我的意思是， 雖然我經(jīng)常在 說這個事的時候被指責(zé)， 但是我并不是說你需要 對每件事都做出行動來回應(yīng)。 當(dāng)然你也不會這么做。 你也不能這么做，這不現(xiàn)實。 我想說的是， 作為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人， 你需要做出慎重、有條理， 以及真實可靠的決定。 決定你在面對不同 事情的時候站在哪個立場， 并且你們的董事需要與你統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線。 當(dāng)然了，這時候你的 員工們也是“董事”之一了。

Final point is that it's useful to understand what your employees think your response has been to activist issues so far. Not what you think it is, but what do your employees think it's been? And in our research, we came up with a kind of taxonomy of different leadership responses.

第三點是， 無論是否作為都有政治意義。 有不少領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人說他們 在某些問題上會保持中立 或者避免任何政治傾向， 但這種事情不存在的。 在諸如氣候變化這種問題上， 無論站在哪一方都有政治意義。 我先前跟建筑 公司的人力資源總監(jiān)一起工作， 那個時候他們一位競爭對手發(fā)表了 一些相當(dāng)詆毀該行業(yè)內(nèi) 女性工作者的言論。 這是非常有爭議的話題。 因此人力總監(jiān)不想?yún)⑴c其中， 他只想置身事外， 避免陷入這場爭論。 但是他的老板不讓他這么做 因為他的沉默會有站隊的嫌疑。 我的意思是， 雖然我經(jīng)常在 說這個事的時候被指責(zé)， 但是我并不是說你需要 對每件事都做出行動來回應(yīng)。 當(dāng)然你也不會這么做。 你也不能這么做，這不現(xiàn)實。 我想說的是， 作為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人， 你需要做出慎重、有條理， 以及真實可靠的決定。 決定你在面對不同 事情的時候站在哪個立場， 并且你們的董事需要與你統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線。 當(dāng)然了，這時候你的 員工們也是“董事”之一了。

It starts with nonexistent or, "Activism? What activism?" We talked to a chief executive in the manufacturing industry. And midway through our conversation, I asked him about climate change and his strategy and stance on environmental issues. And he looked at me utterly baffled. It was nowhere on the agenda. Now, that looks increasingly inconceivable, actually, but it certainly still happens.

首先是否認(rèn)存在 他們會說，“行動主義？ 什么行動主義？” 我們跟制造業(yè)的首席執(zhí)行官聊過天。 在聊天的過程中， 我提起了氣候變化這個話題， 問他在這個問題上的立場和策略。 他不解地看向我。 因為議程上并沒有這一環(huán)節(jié)。 現(xiàn)在看來， 這種事情實際上非常難以置信， 但仍然會發(fā)生。

And then you get suppression. Or, "Let's just expel those voices before it spreads." Now this is where leaders explicitly silence or implicitly, because employees know that if they do speak up, it will probably cost them their next promotion. Or indeed, if they do speak up, they might be ignored. We surveyed just over 3,000 employees in a recent project, and just over one in five employees expect to be ignored if they speak up about wider social and environmental concerns.

因為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會干脆閉口不談。 或者，“把那些 聲音扼殺在搖籃里吧?！?這個時候領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就會有意無意地保持沉默， 不想做出任何行動， 因為員工們清楚一旦發(fā)表了意見， 可能會對下一次的晉升有影響。 或者說，就算他們說了， 這些聲音也會被忽略。 我們在最近的調(diào)查中 訪問了 3000 多位雇員， 超過五分之一的人 希望他們的聲音 在發(fā)表社會和環(huán)境 問題看法時被忽略掉。

After that comes something that we call "facadism" or, "Let's just say the right things." This is when leaders make proclamations about what’s important, and they may even say what they're going to do about it, but nothing happens. In the wake of George Floyd's murder, there were many organizations that made statements of support for the Black Lives Matter movement. When the American Marketing Association investigated things shortly after, they found that less than one in 10 had made any concrete changes.

Then you get to something we call defensive engagement, or, "Let's just do what the lawyers tell us." Now, this is where leaders do engage on a topic, but only because they really have to. Again, working with a senior team recently in the farmer industry, the issue of diversity and inclusion came up on the agenda. It was dealt with in about five minutes. And essentially they said, "Let's send everybody on a course and count the number of women." That was kind of as far as it got. They did the bare minimum.

面對這種情況 他們會做一些“表面工夫” 比如，“說一些政治正確的東西。” 當(dāng)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)宣布重要事項時， 員工們甚至可能會說 他們將要采取什么樣的行動， 但最終什么也沒改變。 在喬治·弗洛伊德 （George Floyd）被謀殺后， 很多組織都支持 “黑人的命也是命”運動。 隨后美國市場營銷協(xié)會調(diào)查此事時， 他們發(fā)現(xiàn)只有不足十分之一 的機構(gòu)做出了具體改變。 這就是我們所說的“防御性參與”， 也就是，“我們就做 律師讓我們做的事吧?！?這時候領(lǐng)導(dǎo)就參與進(jìn)來了， 但僅僅是因為他們必須要這么做。 還有一個例子是我最近 跟農(nóng)業(yè)行業(yè)的高層團(tuán)隊工作時， 在議程上安排了多樣性 和包容性話題的討論。 大約五分鐘就可以結(jié)束。 他們說， “我們讓每個人都參與課程 并且看看有多少名女性參與其中?！?這是他們目前能做的事。 但不多。

And then there's a step change to what we call dialogic engagement or, "Let's sit down, listen and learn." And the reason why it's a step change is because leaders here know that they don’t know the answer, and they really want to find out what they don't know. OK? So we talked to an entrepreneur who had taken over ex-UK car manufacturing plant. And the workers there were very upset about working conditions. And so this entrepreneur decided in, General McChrystal's terms, to share information until it was almost illegal. In other words, he'd gotten the employees and opened up the books, shared information and shared decision making with them about what they needed to do. And that was a vastly different leadership style from the ones that they've been used to.

接下來發(fā)生了一個階段性 變化稱之為“對話參與”。 確切地說，“坐下來， 傾聽并且學(xué)習(xí)。” 之所以認(rèn)為他們邁出了重要的一步 是因為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們不僅意識到 他們都不知道問題的答案， 并且從未停止探索未知的腳步。 可以理解嗎？ 我們認(rèn)識一位企業(yè)家， 他接管了前英國汽車制造廠。 那里的員工對工作環(huán)境非常不滿。 他便決定沿用 麥克里斯特爾上將的軍事戰(zhàn)略， 盡最大可能做到信息共享。 換句話說， 他了解員工在想什么并決定開誠布公， 就他們需要做的事情 與他們共享信息和決策。 這是一種嶄新的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方式， 跟以往的截然不同。

Now right at the end, we've got stimulating activism. This is when leaders say, "Let's be the activist." This is the Ben and Jerry's and the Patagonias of the world. And they recruit activists. They promote activists. They keep hold of activists in their organizations.

最后要提到的是推動行動主義。 企業(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們自己就是行動主義者。 本杰理冰激淋和沖鋒衣 品牌巴塔哥尼亞就是很好的例子。 他們將行動主義者納入公司。 提拔他們。 挽留他們。

Now, there's many things that I could take out from this taxonomy. Let me draw just two key learnings out here. First of all, you need to know where your employees think your response has been so far, not where you think it's been. Because guess what? Let's go back to that optimism bubble. The more senior you are, the more likely you are to think that you're in dialogue. But if I ask a more junior employee, they're more likely to say, "No, that's a facade." Or even actually, "I'm scared to speak up." And the second key point is dialogue is messy. It's jam-packed full of vulnerability, ambiguity, disagreement. That's why leaders try and avoid it so much. But you can't avoid it any longer, that's not a sustainable strategy. So we need to get far better at experimenting, at expecting fallout, about learning from mistakes.

以上就是我想跟大家分享的研究成果。 現(xiàn)在就上述內(nèi)容， 我想提出兩個建議。 首先， 你需要知道你的員工對你 目前為止的行動有什么看法， 而不是你自己的看法。 為什么呢？ 回顧一下我們剛剛 提到的樂觀主義泡沫的觀點。 你的職位越高， 你越有可能高估你的對話參與度。 如果我問一位資歷較深的員工， 他們有可能會說， “這些都是表面功夫罷了?！?真正的原因可能是，“我害怕發(fā)聲?！?第二點是因為對話 背后牽扯到很多東西。 脆弱性， 模凌兩可和分歧。 這就是為什么 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人會對此閉口不談。 但是你不可能永遠(yuǎn)都在逃避問題， 這不是長遠(yuǎn)之計。 因此我們要在現(xiàn)實實踐， 結(jié)果預(yù)測， 以及錯誤復(fù)盤上多下功夫。

So in summary, we are entering an age of employee activism. And if we can't or won't hear voices of difference in our organization, we need to consider that like the canary in the coal mine. In other words, a signal of danger. Because if we can't talk about stuff that matters to us, but that we differ on, that spells disaster in our organizations. For things like ethical conduct, innovation, inclusion, talent retention, performance.

總的來說，我們已經(jīng)進(jìn)入了 員工行動主義的時代。如果我們不去 或者無法傾聽不同的聲音，就像“煤礦中的金絲雀”。 換句話說，遲早會陷入危險的境地。 因為如果我們 不能談?wù)撃切ξ覀兒苤匾?但是同時有分歧的事， 則會讓我們的組織招來災(zāi)難。 對于道德規(guī)范、創(chuàng)新、包容、 人才保留、 職場表現(xiàn)等方面皆有影響。

So maybe in the face of some of these enormous social and environmental issues, maybe we're finally starting to reassess what good leadership looks like. Maybe we're starting to see leadership as activism. And in doing that, maybe we'll enable voices of difference to make a difference in the workplace by allowing them to speak truth to power.

所以也許在面對這些 巨大的社會和環(huán)境問題時候， 我們才真正開始去 重新定義什么是優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)才能。 我們才開始將領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 和行動主義劃上等號。 通過這些改變， 可能我們會聽到不同的聲音 來讓職場做出改變。 讓員工們真正“向權(quán)力說真話”。

Thank you.

謝謝