在這個(gè)員工激進(jìn)主義的新時(shí)代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)意味著什么？梅根·雷茨 (Megan Reitz) 提供了一個(gè)四點(diǎn)速成課程，內(nèi)容是關(guān)于員工希望從他們的組織中得到什么，以及領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者如何應(yīng)對(duì)挑戰(zhàn)，建立積極主動(dòng)和高效的工作場(chǎng)所，讓每個(gè)聲音和觀點(diǎn)都有機(jī)會(huì)發(fā)揮作用。

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.

說(shuō)出來(lái)。?全身心投入工作。?成為您想看到的差異。?聽(tīng)起來(lái)有點(diǎn)熟？?對(duì)于不少員工來(lái)說(shuō)開(kāi)始聽(tīng)起來(lái)很熟悉。?現(xiàn)在，許多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人要求不同的聲音大聲疾呼。?那是因?yàn)樵谖覀兊墓ぷ鲌?chǎng)所中，說(shuō)什么，不說(shuō)什么，會(huì)對(duì)道德行為、?創(chuàng)新、包容、人才保留等事情產(chǎn)生巨大影響。

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，目前越來(lái)越多的員工開(kāi)始談?wù)?社會(huì)和環(huán)境問(wèn)題。?這很好，但并不總是為每個(gè)人都計(jì)劃好。?我一直在與之合作的一位財(cái)務(wù)總監(jiān)，他一直要求他的員工大聲疾呼，?現(xiàn)在他們已經(jīng)開(kāi)始了。?所以他們說(shuō)，好吧，讓我們談?wù)劮N族。?讓我們談?wù)勑詣e平等。?氣候變化，我想談?wù)勥@個(gè)。?現(xiàn)代奴隸制。?這位財(cái)務(wù)總監(jiān)有些吃驚地走過(guò)來(lái)對(duì)我說(shuō)：?“你知道，梅根，我必須承認(rèn)，當(dāng)我要求人們說(shuō)出來(lái)時(shí)，?我有點(diǎn)想我”?我并沒(méi)有真正指望得到其他一切?！?/span>

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.

但這是一個(gè)員工激進(jìn)主義的時(shí)代，?這很好，但為什么?有時(shí)會(huì)因?yàn)殄e(cuò)誤的原因登上報(bào)紙的頭版？?員工走出去，被解雇，進(jìn)入社交媒體。組織聲譽(yù)受損或投資者在組織高層尋求變革。

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.

因此，過(guò)去幾年我與約翰·希金斯?的研究涉及采訪數(shù)百名活動(dòng)家和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人?以及活動(dòng)家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。?我們的工作是服務(wù)于讓不同的聲音?在工作場(chǎng)所有所作為。?現(xiàn)在，今天，我將總結(jié)出四個(gè)關(guān)鍵發(fā)現(xiàn)，?并且我還將?為想要積極、高效地駕馭這一領(lǐng)域的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者介紹一些該做的事情和不該做的事情。

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.

所以讓我從一個(gè)問(wèn)題開(kāi)始。?當(dāng)我說(shuō)“激進(jìn)主義者”這個(gè)詞時(shí)，?會(huì)想到什么？?什么圖像，什么想法，什么假設(shè)？?好吧，我們已經(jīng)問(wèn)過(guò)成千上萬(wàn)的人這個(gè)問(wèn)題，?我可以肯定地說(shuō)，“激進(jìn)主義者”和“激進(jìn)主義”這兩個(gè)詞?都是加載的術(shù)語(yǔ)。?它們意味著一切，從進(jìn)步?、勇氣、激情和變化?到抗議、反叛、暴力。?在世界某些地區(qū)和某些問(wèn)題上被貼上活動(dòng)家的標(biāo)簽是很酷的。?在世界的其他地方，就其他問(wèn)題而言，被貼上激進(jìn)分子的標(biāo)簽會(huì)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?

因此，我們需要了解?我們?yōu)榧みM(jìn)主義帶來(lái)的假設(shè)和關(guān)聯(lián)，?因?yàn)檫@當(dāng)然會(huì)影響我們對(duì)它的反應(yīng)。?我正在與一家醫(yī)療保健組織的董事會(huì)合作。?在咖啡休息時(shí)間，?他們開(kāi)始談?wù)撘晃?在內(nèi)部通訊渠道上對(duì)氣候變化直言不諱的員工，?他對(duì)組織一直在做的事情持批評(píng)態(tài)度。?這真的很有趣，因?yàn)橐恍└吖?給他貼上了麻煩制造者的標(biāo)簽，?有點(diǎn)想擺脫他。?但有一些高管將他視為開(kāi)拓者，?實(shí)際上有一對(duì)夫婦?想邀請(qǐng)他加入董事會(huì)以教育他們。?好的？

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.

因此，對(duì)于我們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人來(lái)說(shuō)，第一個(gè)關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)?是要理解激進(jìn)主義是旁觀者的眼中，?正如作家和激進(jìn)主義者魯奇卡·圖爾希安（Ruchika Tulshyan）告訴我們的那樣：?“在你看來(lái)，反叛是另一個(gè)人的基本人性權(quán)利。”?因此，您要做的第一件事就是真正意識(shí)到?您和您的同事為激進(jìn)主義帶來(lái)的假設(shè)和判斷，?以便您可以以更多的意識(shí)和更多的正念做出回應(yīng)。

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(diǎn)，?領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)自己處于樂(lè)觀泡沫中，?我們有時(shí)稱之為“妄想泡沫”。?當(dāng)你變得更高級(jí)時(shí)，?你會(huì)高估其他人說(shuō)話的程度。?你高估了自己的平易近人，?也高估了自己的傾聽(tīng)技巧。?這一切都意味著你低估?了一些員工可能存在的感受力。?現(xiàn)在，造成這種情況的一個(gè)關(guān)鍵原因?是我們稱之為“優(yōu)勢(shì)盲區(qū)”。?因此，例如，當(dāng)我們擁有在特定環(huán)境（如等級(jí)制度）中傳達(dá)地位和權(quán)威的標(biāo)簽和頭銜時(shí)，?我們通常是最后一個(gè)意識(shí)到這些標(biāo)簽所產(chǎn)生影響的人?關(guān)于其他人如何能夠?qū)ξ覀冋f(shuō)話。?事實(shí)上，直到我們沒(méi)有這些標(biāo)簽?，我們才能看到它們并說(shuō)，?“天哪，它們對(duì)人們?cè)谶@里發(fā)聲的方式產(chǎn)生了影響。”

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?

所以對(duì)于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者來(lái)說(shuō)，這一點(diǎn)就是要理解，?你知道，你是否處于這些樂(lè)觀泡沫中？?你是不是有點(diǎn)疏離？?你怎么知道你的員工?在他們的組織中發(fā)現(xiàn)了什么？?你？如何？

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.

我正在與一家零售組織的負(fù)責(zé)人交談，?她說(shuō)她的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊(duì)?花了很多時(shí)間在商店里傾聽(tīng)。?她說(shuō)了一些我認(rèn)為非常有趣的話。?她說(shuō)，?“你不能把你的聽(tīng)力責(zé)任委托給脈搏調(diào)查?！?你必須張開(kāi)耳朵出現(xiàn)。?所以這意味著，不要假設(shè)你知道什么是重要的。?你知道的，磨尖你的觸角。?試著弄清楚。?我們已經(jīng)寫(xiě)了很多你可以做到這一點(diǎn)的方法。但所有這些方法的基礎(chǔ)?是一種理解，即你幾乎不可避免地會(huì)有點(diǎn)超然?，實(shí)際上你需要做更多的工作，?真正找出對(duì)員工來(lái)說(shuō)重要的事情。

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.

所以第三點(diǎn)，?不作為和行動(dòng)一樣具有政治意義。?我們見(jiàn)過(guò)不少領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人說(shuō)他們?cè)谀承﹩?wèn)題上保持中立?或不關(guān)心政治。?沒(méi)有這樣的事情。在氣候變化等問(wèn)題上不作為與行動(dòng)一樣具有政治意義。?我正在與建筑行業(yè)的一位人力資源總監(jiān)合作，?當(dāng)時(shí)一位競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手?對(duì)行業(yè)中的女性說(shuō)了一些相當(dāng)貶低的話。?這是一個(gè)巨大的爭(zhēng)議。?而這位人力資源總監(jiān)真的不想?yún)⑴c其中。?他只是想避免沖突，置身事外。?但他的員工不會(huì)讓他?這樣做，因?yàn)樗某聊瑫?huì)傳達(dá)出同謀。?現(xiàn)在我不是說(shuō)，盡管我經(jīng)常被指責(zé)這樣說(shuō)，但?我并不是說(shuō)因此你需要對(duì)?存在的每一個(gè)問(wèn)題采取行動(dòng)。?你當(dāng)然不知道。?當(dāng)然你不能，這是不可行的。作為一名領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，我要說(shuō)?的是，你需要對(duì)?你將堅(jiān)持什么和不堅(jiān)持什么做出有意識(shí)的、連貫的、真實(shí)的選擇。?并與您的利益相關(guān)者一起這樣做，當(dāng)然，您的員工是您那里的主要利益相關(guān)者之一。

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.

最后一點(diǎn)是，了解?您的員工認(rèn)為您迄今為止?對(duì)激進(jìn)問(wèn)題的反應(yīng)是有用的。?不是你認(rèn)為的那樣，?而是你的員工認(rèn)為它是什么？?在我們的研究中，我們提出了一種?不同領(lǐng)導(dǎo)反應(yīng)的分類法。

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.

它以不存在?或“激進(jìn)主義？?什么激進(jìn)主義？”開(kāi)頭。?我們與制造業(yè)的一位首席執(zhí)行官進(jìn)行了交談。?在我們談話的中途，我向他詢問(wèn)了氣候變化?以及他在環(huán)境問(wèn)題上的戰(zhàn)略和立場(chǎng)。?他完全困惑地看著我。它不在議程上。?現(xiàn)在，這看起來(lái)越來(lái)越不可思議，實(shí)際上，?但它肯定仍然會(huì)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.

然后你得到壓制。?或者，“讓我們?cè)谒鼈鞑ブ膀?qū)逐那些聲音。”?現(xiàn)在這是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者明確沉默或含蓄的地方，?因?yàn)閱T工知道，如果他們真的說(shuō)出來(lái)，?可能會(huì)讓他們失去下一次晉升的機(jī)會(huì)。?或者實(shí)際上，如果他們真的發(fā)聲，他們可能會(huì)被忽略。?我們?cè)谧罱囊粋€(gè)項(xiàng)目中對(duì) 3,000 多名員工進(jìn)行了調(diào)查，如果他們說(shuō)出?更廣泛的社會(huì)和環(huán)境問(wèn)題，五分之一以上的員工?預(yù)計(jì)會(huì)被忽視。

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.

之后是我們稱之為“facadism”的東西，?或者，“讓我們說(shuō)正確的話”。?這是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者宣布重要的事情的時(shí)候，?他們甚至可能會(huì)說(shuō)他們將要做什么，?但什么都沒(méi)有發(fā)生。?在喬治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）被謀殺之后，?有許多組織發(fā)表聲明支持?“黑人的命也是命”運(yùn)動(dòng)。?當(dāng)美國(guó)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)協(xié)會(huì)不久后進(jìn)行調(diào)查時(shí)，?他們發(fā)現(xiàn)只有不到十分之一的人做出了任何具體的改變。

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.

然后你會(huì)得到我們稱之為防御性參與的東西，?或者，“讓我們按照律師告訴我們的去做。”?現(xiàn)在，這是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者參與某個(gè)話題的地方，但這只是因?yàn)樗麄兇_實(shí)必須這樣做。?同樣，最近與農(nóng)民行業(yè)的一個(gè)高級(jí)團(tuán)隊(duì)合作，?多樣性和包容性問(wèn)題被提上了議事日程。?大概五分鐘左右就處理好了。?基本上他們說(shuō)，?“讓我們讓每個(gè)人參加一個(gè)課程并計(jì)算女性的數(shù)量?！?就這樣吧。?他們做到了最低限度。

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.

然后，我們所說(shuō)的對(duì)話參與?或“讓我們坐下來(lái)，傾聽(tīng)和學(xué)習(xí)”有了一個(gè)階段性的變化。?而之所以會(huì)出現(xiàn)階梯式的變化?，是因?yàn)檫@里的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者知道他們不知道答案，?他們真的很想找出他們不知道的東西。好的？?因此，我們與一位接管了前英國(guó)汽車(chē)制造廠的企業(yè)家進(jìn)行了交談。?那里的工人對(duì)工作條件非常不滿。所以這位企業(yè)家決定按照麥克里斯特爾將軍的條款分享信息，直到它幾乎是非法的。換句話說(shuō)，他找到了員工并打開(kāi)了賬簿，?這與他們習(xí)慣的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格截然不同。

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.

現(xiàn)在就在最后，我們有刺激的行動(dòng)主義。?這是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者說(shuō)，“讓我們成為積極分子”的時(shí)候。?這是Ben and Jerry's 和世界的Patagonias。?他們招募活動(dòng)家。?他們提拔活動(dòng)家。?他們?cè)谒麄兊慕M織中保留積極分子。

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.

現(xiàn)在，我可以從這個(gè)分類法中得出很多東西。?讓我在這里只畫(huà)出兩個(gè)關(guān)鍵的教訓(xùn)。?首先，?你需要知道你的員工認(rèn)為你的反應(yīng)到目前為止?在哪里，而不是你認(rèn)為它在哪里。?因?yàn)槟悴略趺粗?讓我們回到那個(gè)樂(lè)觀泡沫。?你越老，你?就越有可能認(rèn)為你在對(duì)話。?但如果我問(wèn)一個(gè)更初級(jí)的員工，?他們更有可能說(shuō)，“不，那是表面現(xiàn)象?！?/span>甚至實(shí)際上，“我害怕說(shuō)出來(lái)。”?第二個(gè)關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)是對(duì)話混亂。?它充滿了脆弱性、?模棱兩可和分歧。?那'?但你不能再避免它了，這不是一個(gè)可持續(xù)的策略。?因此，我們需要在嘗試、?預(yù)期后果、?從錯(cuò)誤中學(xué)習(xí)方面做得更好。

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.

總而言之，我們正在進(jìn)入一個(gè)員工激進(jìn)主義的時(shí)代。?如果我們不能或不會(huì)聽(tīng)到我們組織中不同的聲音，?我們需要像煤礦里的金絲雀一樣考慮這一點(diǎn)。?換句話說(shuō)，危險(xiǎn)的信號(hào)。?因?yàn)槿绻覀儾荒苷務(wù)搶?duì)我們很重要?但我們有分歧的東西，?那會(huì)給我們的組織帶來(lái)災(zāi)難。對(duì)于道德行為、創(chuàng)新、包容、?人才保留、績(jī)效等方面。

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.

所以也許面對(duì)這些巨大的社會(huì)和環(huán)境問(wèn)題，?也許我們終于開(kāi)始重新評(píng)估好的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力是什么樣的。?也許我們開(kāi)始將領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力視為行動(dòng)主義。?在這樣做的過(guò)程中，?也許我們會(huì)讓不同?的聲音在工作場(chǎng)所?產(chǎn)生影響，讓他們對(duì)權(quán)力說(shuō)真話。