你的優(yōu)勢(shì)會(huì)讓你獲得晉升——但在動(dòng)蕩時(shí)期，也應(yīng)該看一下自己的缺點(diǎn)，因?yàn)槟阋灿锌赡芤虼吮唤夤汀??

公司召開了一個(gè)很重要的會(huì)議，你卻沒有被邀請(qǐng)。在會(huì)議上，一位高級(jí)主管宣布，由于沒能完成公司業(yè)績(jī)目標(biāo)，有150 名管理者要被裁掉。這次會(huì)議的目的就是確定裁員名單。對(duì)你來說，關(guān)鍵問題是：“怎么讓自己逃過此劫？”

A very important meeting is held, and you’re not invited. At this meeting, a senior leader announces that since targets were not reached, 150 managers will be laid off, and the purpose of this meeting is to create a list identifying exactly who those people will be. The key question for you is, “How do you keep your name off that list?”

20 世紀(jì)60 年代時(shí)，梅爾文·勒納（Melvin J. Lerner）曾描述過一個(gè)叫做“公正世界理論”的心理現(xiàn)象：人們更愿意相信壞事只會(huì)發(fā)生在壞人身上。比如說，在裁員過后，幸存者普遍會(huì)認(rèn)為公司解雇的都是表現(xiàn)很差的員工。

In the 1960s Melvin J. Lerner described a psychological phenomenon called the “just world hypothesis”: People want to believe that bad things happen to bad people. After downsizings, for instance, it’s common for the survivors to believe that only the poor performers were fired.

但事實(shí)真是如此嗎？

But is that so?

為了回答這個(gè)問題，我們找到了一家美國(guó)《財(cái)富》100 強(qiáng)的公司，該公司剛剛經(jīng)歷了一次大規(guī)模裁員，我們從中收集了豐富的數(shù)據(jù)，試圖找出公司決定員工去留的依據(jù)。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)了一個(gè)意料之外的因素：一貫優(yōu)秀的工作考核記錄。在被裁掉的員工中，只有23% 的員工前一年獲得了負(fù)面的工作考核評(píng)價(jià)。也就是說，被裁的員工中77% 的人根本不知道被解雇的原因。

To begin to answer that question, we gathered a substantial amount of data from one U.S.-based?Fortune?100 company after it had gone through an organizational downsizing to see if we could identify factors that might predict which people were most likely to be let go.One factor that wasn’t very predictive, it turned out, was a history of good performance reviews. Only 23% of those who were laid off had been given a negative review the previous year. The implication is that the other 77% who were asked to leave had no clue this was coming.

但是當(dāng)我們研究了所有被裁員工前兩年的360 度工作評(píng)定，并詢問了裁員的原因之后，發(fā)現(xiàn)了一系列持續(xù)性的問題，一切都不是毫無征兆。我們總結(jié)了六個(gè)因素，它們是危險(xiǎn)來臨的信號(hào)。那些被裁掉的人，至少符合其中兩項(xiàng)。

But when we examined the 360-degree assessments for the previous two years of all those who’d been let go and?surveyed their managers to ask?why, we found a very consistent array of problems, all of which were apparent in advance. Specifically, we were able to identify six factors that should have raised red flags. Everyone who’d been laid off shared at least two of the following:

1. 公司認(rèn)為他們沒有戰(zhàn)略眼光。在這不幸被裁的150 名員工中，多數(shù)都沒有擔(dān)任過戰(zhàn)略制定的工作。這導(dǎo)致在360 度評(píng)估中，同事們認(rèn)為他們制定戰(zhàn)略的能力很差。整體來說，在戰(zhàn)略能力的排名中，那些被裁員的人排在32 百分位，也就是說，有2/3 的同事排在他們之前。關(guān)于這點(diǎn)，他們其實(shí)有機(jī)會(huì)亡羊補(bǔ)牢，因?yàn)樵谇皟赡甑脑u(píng)估中，他們就已經(jīng)收到過關(guān)于自己戰(zhàn)略能力的反饋了。

They were not viewed as strategic. Many of the unfortunate 150 had not been working in roles that provided them with opportunities to create new strategies, and as a result colleagues rated them very poorly on their strategic ability in the 360 assessments. As a group, those who were downsized rated, on average, only in the 32nd percentile on their strategic ability – that is, worse than two-thirds of their colleagues. This is a factor that they might have rectified before it was too late, since they all had received feedback about their strategic ability in the previous two years.

但他們?yōu)槭裁礇]有改觀？其中一個(gè)原因是他們雖然工作努力，但太過專注和狹隘，過分強(qiáng)調(diào)當(dāng)下的運(yùn)營(yíng)、技術(shù)或者職能問題。這些人都擁有很有價(jià)值的技術(shù)或者職能專長(zhǎng)。但問題是，在艱難的歲月里，大多數(shù)公司最需要的是那些能夠找到致勝戰(zhàn)略，確保公司競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。

What stopped them? The picture that emerges is of leaders who worked hard but were too heads-down and narrowly focused on immediate operational, technical, or functional issues. Many of these were people with valuable technical or functional expertise. But the sad fact is that when times are tough, what most organizations need most are leaders who can create a winning strategy that will ensure competitive advantage.

2. 表現(xiàn)不穩(wěn)定。360 度評(píng)估同樣發(fā)現(xiàn)了問題所在：被解雇的員工在成果交付（Delivering Results）的排名中，位于37 百分位。這些人在過去兩年里曾有過各種問題，比如沒有按時(shí)完成工作，參與的項(xiàng)目最終失敗，或者表現(xiàn)太差，拖垮了團(tuán)隊(duì)水平。盡管他們自認(rèn)為工作非常努力，但在360 度評(píng)估中，別人眼中的他們效率不高，每況愈下。一些人則被認(rèn)為工作懶散。其中一些較為年長(zhǎng)的員工，在同事眼中似乎提前過上了退休的日子。

They failed to consistently deliver results.?Here, too, 360 feedback predicted problems: Those who were terminated were rated, on average, in the 37th percentile on delivering results. These were the people who over that previous two years had had missed deadlines, had committed to projects they hadn’t delivered, or had set the bar too low for others. While they perceived themselves to be working very hard, they looked to everyone else in their 360 evaluations like they were running out of energy and losing effectiveness over time. Some had?reputations for not working hard; the older ones in this group appeared to their colleagues to have started their retirements early.

3. 職業(yè)道德和誠(chéng)信有污點(diǎn)。這點(diǎn)并不常見，但是一旦出現(xiàn)這類問題，員工就會(huì)被解雇。道德滑坡的范圍很廣，包括不遵守公司的規(guī)定；對(duì)同事有不當(dāng)言論，或不當(dāng)關(guān)系；在財(cái)務(wù)方面有不當(dāng)行為，比如通過制造虛假發(fā)票，將剩余款從一個(gè)預(yù)算年移到另一年。這些問題除了說明該員工不誠(chéng)實(shí)以外，更大程度上反映了此人孱弱的判斷是非的能力。

Their ethics or integrity had been called into question.?This was not a common problem, but whenever it existed people were let go. These ethical lapses covered a wide range, from failure to comply with company policies, to inappropriate comments to or relationships with co-workers, to financial improprieties like moving excess funds from one budget year to another by generating fictitious invoices. These were indications, for the most part not of outright dishonesty but of poor judgment.

4. 人際交往能力（ 非常） 差。很多人際交往技巧差的人因?yàn)榧夹g(shù)能力獲得晉升，但卻無法在新崗位上提高自己的社交技能，最終失敗?？傮w而言，這150 名管理者在人際關(guān)系和交往技能的360 度評(píng)估中，排名位于37百分位。很多人被看做是軟弱的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，無法影響他人，帶動(dòng)革新。一些人則很難相處，甚至讓人覺得充滿惡意、暴力、憤怒、好斗、控制不了沖動(dòng)的行為。還有人認(rèn)為他們毒害了工作的氣氛。為什么公司一定要等到裁員時(shí)才將這些張狂的員工裁掉呢？別忘了，他們當(dāng)中很多人也非常有才華。

They had (very)?poor interpersonal skills.?Many people with weak interpersonal skills had been promoted based on their technical ability and then were not able to improve their social skills enough to succeed in their new roles. As a group, those laid off averaged? in only the 37th percentile in the 360 evaluations of their relationship-building and people skills. Many were viewed as weak leaders who were unable to influence others and foster necessary change. Some were difficult to deal with — or even hostile, volatile, angry, combative, and unable to manage their impulsive behavior. Some were described as creating a psychically toxic work environment. Why had the company waited for a downsizing to get rid of these obvious candidates? Keep in mind that many of these people were also described as brilliant.

5. 拒絕改變，無論涉及個(gè)人還是公司。在包含了全球3.5 萬名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的360 度評(píng)估數(shù)據(jù)中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，管理者尋求并積極對(duì)待反饋的意愿和其整體的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力之間有著強(qiáng)烈的相關(guān)性。我們甚至發(fā)現(xiàn)，隨著工齡的增長(zhǎng)，人們會(huì)逐漸減少尋求建議和積極應(yīng)對(duì)反饋的行為（在我們的數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)中，年長(zhǎng)的員工比年輕的得分低）?？偟膩碚f，最差的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者認(rèn)為，自己是依靠才華獲得晉升，只要一如既往就可以了。但最好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)持續(xù)尋求反饋，找到改進(jìn)的方法。所以，自然地在360 度評(píng)估中，許多被解雇的管理者被認(rèn)為拒絕改變，排斥新方法。

They were resistant to change, both? personally and organizationally.?In our global database of 360 feedback from 35,000 leaders, we’ve found a strong correlation between managers’ willingness to ask for and respond to feedback and their overall leadership effectiveness. What’s more, we’ve found that the willingness to ask for advice and respond to feedback declines over time (that is, older workers in our database tend to score lower than younger ones). In general, the worst leaders assume that they’re promoted because of their brilliance and all they need to do is keep on doing what they did in the past. But the best leaders continue to look for feedback and to find ways to improve. So it did not surprise us that many of the managers who were let go at this company were described as resistant to change and inflexible to new approaches in their 360 reviews.

6. 沒有保薦人或支持者。在被解雇的人中，幾乎過半的管理者最近失去了支持者。因此，在這個(gè)生死攸關(guān)的會(huì)議中，沒人為他們說話，他們沒有支持者。教訓(xùn)顯而易見。你不僅要知道“誰是你最強(qiáng)的支持者？”重要的是，要有超過一個(gè)這樣的支持者。

They had lost sponsors or support.?Over half the managers who were downsized indicated that they had recently lost the support of their sponsor. So in that fateful meeting where was no one to speak up for them. The lesson here is clear. Not only do you need to ask “Who will be your strong advocate?” but it’s important to have more than one.

最后這點(diǎn)帶有很強(qiáng)的政治性，而且無處不在。這說明，在裁員期間，每個(gè)人都要謹(jǐn)小慎微。但總的來說，我們的研究為“公正世界理論”提供了一些強(qiáng)有力的證據(jù)，因?yàn)樵谶@150 個(gè)被解雇的人當(dāng)中，沒人僅僅因?yàn)檫@個(gè)原因被解雇。公司決定解雇某個(gè)人，至少出于一個(gè)或一個(gè)以上的正當(dāng)理由。

That last factor is clearly political, and its pervasiveness suggests that everyone should be a little bit paranoid when layoffs are in the offing. But generally speaking, our research with this company offers up some strong evidence for the just world hypothesis, since none of the unfortunate 150 were laid off for that reason only. Everyone was let go for at least one, and generally more than one, justifiable reason.

這些結(jié)論也說明：積極的考核評(píng)價(jià)，甚至?xí)x升，都可能帶來虛假的安全感。在360 度評(píng)估中，積極的考核評(píng)定和消極評(píng)定之間的差別，證明了我們長(zhǎng)期以來的一個(gè)發(fā)現(xiàn)，那就是，你的優(yōu)勢(shì)會(huì)讓你獲得晉升——但在動(dòng)蕩時(shí)期，也應(yīng)該看一下自己的缺點(diǎn)，因?yàn)槟阋灿锌赡芤虼吮唤夤汀?/p>

What these results also suggest is that positive reviews, and even promotions, can bring a false sense of security. The disparities between the positive performance reviews and the negative comments on the 360s reinforce our longtime findings that it is your strengths that get you promoted – but also suggest that in uncertain times you should take a second look at your flaws, which may leave you vulnerable to being laid off.

如果你的公司正面臨裁員危機(jī)，你有把握自己的名字不會(huì)出現(xiàn)在那份“名單”上嗎？

If your organization were facing a cutback today, would be you prepared and certain your name wouldn’t appear on “the list”??

杰克·曾格是Zenger/Folkman 咨詢公司的CEO。

約瑟夫·福爾克曼是Zenger/Folkman 咨詢公司總裁。