退避三舍不能化解办公室冲突

Q168

对办公室政治，总怕惹火上身的管理者注定要失败。想成为高效的上司，必须对他人保持足够的影响力。

组织内部的冲突、办公室政治、或者闹剧，它们尽管名目各异，其实相近。然而，在工作还是其他场合，很少有人喜欢与别人发生争执或对抗。实际上，为避免这种情况，许多人花费大量了的时间和精力。


    在近期召开的一次管理会议上，一位中层管理人员对我们抱怨说：“我不懂怎么处理办公室政治。大家一直在明争暗斗。在我上一份工作中，我只需要埋头专心做好自己的事情。但是这次不同了。我怎样才能置身事外？”

Call it organizational conflict, office politics, or just plain drama, few of us enjoy disagreement or confrontation, at work or elsewhere. In fact, many of us spend a significant portion of our time and energy avoiding it.


    "I don't know how to handle the office politics," said one mid-level manager who approached us at a recent management conference. "Everybody's fighting all the time. In my last job, I could just keep my head down and stick to my knitting. How can I stay out of all that?"

Q168

很可惜，我们的答案或许并不是她想要的。她本人并不需要玩弄办公室政治，但是组织冲突是无法回避的，也不应该回避。


    根据我们的经验，她对待办公室政治的这种态度在经理人中非常普遍。但这却会成为他们工作中的巨大障碍，影响他们的工作效率。


    这并非空穴来风。另一位出版行业经理人曾对我们讲述过他的经历。在一次重要的工作小组会议上，对于跨部门使用编辑内容的问题，他认为应该坚持公司的政策，他甚至给出了非常有说服力的实例来支持自己的主张。

Unfortunately, we had to tell her what she probably didn't want to hear. She didn't need to play political games, but she couldn't and shouldn't avoid the organizational conflict that leads people to play those games.


    In our experience, her attitude is rampant among managers and it's a huge barrier that often makes them far less effective than they need to be.


    This lesson came through loud and clear in the experience described to us by another manager in publishing. At a crucial task force meeting on the use of editorial content across divisions, he delivered a compelling case for not changing company policy.

Q168

公司的政策是鼓励免费共享非竞争性内容，这对他的业务模式至关重要。但在会上，他发现，很显然，那些反对他的人在会前就已经通过气了；并且，针对希望调整的部分，他们已经事先达成了一致。实际上，在他还没给出自己的理由之前，他们就已经确定了工作小组的正式立场。


    你是否觉得这不公平？对他来说，这是又一个肮脏的办公室政治的例子。他告诉我们：“我从来不玩这种把戏。”

   The policy, which was to encourage non-competitive sharing of content without charge, was crucial to his business model. At the meeting, however, he discovered that those who opposed him had obviously met beforehand and agreed on the change they wanted. In effect, they'd decided the official position of the task force before he could even make his case.


    Unfair? For him, it was yet another example of dirty office politics. "I'll never play those games," he told us.

Q168

我们认为，他混淆了两种不同的办公室政治。一种是狭隘的，只是为了满足个人的抱负和需求，而另外一种则是纯粹是在某些重要问题上的分歧。我们想知道，当某一业务真的面临危机时，寻求同盟，建立统一战线有什么错呢？我们问他：“你为什么不在会议之前与工作小组的成员进行沟通，与他们取得一致呢？”


    其实，我们从来不建议，经理人要“有政治意识”，或者要“玩政治”。但是，对于无处不在的政治环境，经理人必须愿意，并且能够在其中发挥有效作用。他们的成功不仅取决于他们对团队的管理能力，还包括对组织内其他部门施加有效影响的能力。

We think he was mistaken. He confused petty politics, the pursuit of personal aspirations and needs, with genuine disagreement about an important question. What's wrong, we wanted to know, with seeking allies and presenting a united front when real business issues are at stake? "Why weren't you," we asked, "the one talking to task force members and seeking allies before the meeting?


    Let's be clear. We never tell any manager to "be political" or to "play politics." We do tell them, however, that they must be willing and able to operate effectively in the political environment that exists in all organizations. Their success will depend on their ability to manage not just their own groups but the broader organizations within which they operate.

Q168

我们发现，许多经理人会选择远离是非，只有在迫不得已的时候，他们才会硬着头皮去处理是非。他们误解了组织冲突的本质。他们只是简单地认为，组织冲突就是不和谐，或者是组织设计缺陷的体现。甚至有人认为，组织冲突只是因为不同小团体在争权夺利。


    实际上，冲突是不可避免的，也很自然。主要原因在于，所有现代化组织内部都具有三个特点。


    1. 劳动分工。组织通过为不同个人和团队分配任务实现有效运行。没有人是无所不能的。虽然他们在同一个机构框架下工作，但这些团队会形成各自的观点、目标和需要优先完成的任务，这是不可避免的。

We see too many managers who hold themselves above the fray and deal with others only when absolutely necessary. They misunderstand the nature of organizational conflict. They think it's dysfunctional or a sign of poor organizational design. Or, they assume it springs from groups vying for dominance.


    In fact, conflict is inevitable and natural because of three features inherent in all modern organizations.


    1. Division of labor. Organizations function by assigning different tasks to different individuals and groups. Not everyone can do everything. Though they operate under the same organizational umbrella, these groups inevitably develop their own points of view, goals, and priorities.

Q168

2. 相互依赖。要完成各自的工作，每个团队都需要依赖组织内的其他团队。没有一个团队靠单打独斗就能正常运转，或取得成功。


    3. 资源稀少。没有一个组织能够满足内部团队的所有要求，因此必须要做出取舍。在分配资金、人力、空间、时间和精力等资源时，总会有输家和赢家。很明显，所有团队都希望自己是赢家。

2. Interdependence. Every group depends on other groups in the organization to do its work. No group can function or succeed on its own.


    3. Scarce resources. No organization can do everything that those in it would like to do. Choices must be made. When resources like money, people, space, time, and attention are divvied up, there will always be winners and losers. Obviously, every group wants to win.

Q168

大部分组织冲突的产生并不是为了自身利益，而是因为不同团队对于公司应采取的行动在观念上存在合理的差别。比如，公司应该投资哪个市场？应该在哪里建厂？应该生产哪种产品？

Most organizational conflict springs not from battling egos but from legitimate differences of opinion among different groups about what the business should do. Should it invest in this or that market? Should it build a plant here or there? Should it make this product or another one?

Q168

当然，肯定会有人玩办公室政治。确实有一些“职场恶棍”希望高人一头。由团队成员个性引发的组织冲突确实会带来组织功能的紊乱。对确实存在的业务问题所持的不同观点，我们认为是合理冲突。但更多情况下，合理冲突看起来更像是个人冲突，因为各方为了坚持己见，不免变得情绪化。这种反应虽然很可悲，但也符合人性的特点。但这并不会使问题本身变成私人事务，这只是意味着，所有当事人必须将自我与根本基本问题剥离开来。


    既然组织冲突不可避免，而且因为通常会涉及重大问题而无法回避，因此经理人需要了解组织冲突典型的解决办法。我们总是认为，只有依靠数据、通过理性分析才能做出选择，才能告诉所有当事人，什么是“正确的”或者“最佳的”答案。但可惜的是，尽管分析非常有用，并且常常能带给人启发，但一些重要的问题太过复杂，根本就找不到毫无争议的答案。

Q168

大多数组织冲突都是通过影响力得以解决的。老板具有影响力，他的团队便能实现目标。若老板缺乏影响力，那么他的团队便只能承受失败。


    如果经理人对于有意识地积累和利用影响力感到困扰，不妨设想一下缺乏影响力的后果。他和他的团队只能任人摆布。权力确实会带来F·B，但无权力也会带来同样的后果。比如历史上那些作恶多端的人，他们在为自己的恶行辩护时总是会说：“我别无选择。我必须遵守指令。”


    要成为高效的管理者，必须具备足够的影响力。为了实现自己团队的目标，并为自己团队的理想而努力，管理者必须有能力对其职权范围之外的人员和团队施加有效影响。团队成员都指望团队领袖具有这样的影响力，否则他们便无法有效地工作。组织也需要有影响力的管理人员发出自己的声音，来保证组织的正常运转。

chenfei1998

很有道理，学习了