????組織內(nèi)部的沖突、辦公室政治、或者鬧劇，它們盡管名目各異，其實(shí)相近。然而，在工作還是其他場(chǎng)合，很少有人喜歡與別人發(fā)生爭(zhēng)執(zhí)或?qū)埂?shí)際上，為避免這種情況，許多人花費(fèi)大量了的時(shí)間和精力。

????在近期召開的一次管理會(huì)議上，一位中層管理人員對(duì)我們抱怨說：“我不懂怎么處理辦公室政治。大家一直在明爭(zhēng)暗斗。在我上一份工作中，我只需要埋頭專心做好自己的事情。但是這次不同了。我怎樣才能置身事外？”

????很可惜，我們的答案或許并不是她想要的。她本人并不需要玩弄辦公室政治，但是組織沖突是無法回避的，也不應(yīng)該回避。

????根據(jù)我們的經(jīng)驗(yàn)，她對(duì)待辦公室政治的這種態(tài)度在經(jīng)理人中非常普遍。但這卻會(huì)成為他們工作中的巨大障礙，影響他們的工作效率。

????這并非空穴來風(fēng)。另一位出版行業(yè)經(jīng)理人曾對(duì)我們講述過他的經(jīng)歷。在一次重要的工作小組會(huì)議上，對(duì)于跨部門使用編輯內(nèi)容的問題，他認(rèn)為應(yīng)該堅(jiān)持公司的政策，他甚至給出了非常有說服力的實(shí)例來支持自己的主張。

????公司的政策是鼓勵(lì)免費(fèi)共享非競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性內(nèi)容，這對(duì)他的業(yè)務(wù)模式至關(guān)重要。但在會(huì)上，他發(fā)現(xiàn)，很顯然，那些反對(duì)他的人在會(huì)前就已經(jīng)通過氣了；并且，針對(duì)希望調(diào)整的部分，他們已經(jīng)事先達(dá)成了一致。實(shí)際上，在他還沒給出自己的理由之前，他們就已經(jīng)確定了工作小組的正式立場(chǎng)。

????你是否覺得這不公平？對(duì)他來說，這是又一個(gè)骯臟的辦公室政治的例子。他告訴我們：“我從來不玩這種把戲?！?/p>

????我們認(rèn)為，他混淆了兩種不同的辦公室政治。一種是狹隘的，只是為了滿足個(gè)人的抱負(fù)和需求，而另外一種則是純粹是在某些重要問題上的分歧。我們想知道，當(dāng)某一業(yè)務(wù)真的面臨危機(jī)時(shí)，尋求同盟，建立統(tǒng)一戰(zhàn)線有什么錯(cuò)呢？我們問他：“你為什么不在會(huì)議之前與工作小組的成員進(jìn)行溝通，與他們?nèi)〉靡恢履兀俊?/p>

????其實(shí)，我們從來不建議，經(jīng)理人要“有政治意識(shí)”，或者要“玩政治”。但是，對(duì)于無處不在的政治環(huán)境，經(jīng)理人必須愿意，并且能夠在其中發(fā)揮有效作用。他們的成功不僅取決于他們對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)的管理能力，還包括對(duì)組織內(nèi)其他部門施加有效影響的能力。

????我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，許多經(jīng)理人會(huì)選擇遠(yuǎn)離是非，只有在迫不得已的時(shí)候，他們才會(huì)硬著頭皮去處理是非。他們誤解了組織沖突的本質(zhì)。他們只是簡(jiǎn)單地認(rèn)為，組織沖突就是不和諧，或者是組織設(shè)計(jì)缺陷的體現(xiàn)。甚至有人認(rèn)為，組織沖突只是因?yàn)椴煌F(tuán)體在爭(zhēng)權(quán)奪利。

????實(shí)際上，沖突是不可避免的，也很自然。主要原因在于，所有現(xiàn)代化組織內(nèi)部都具有三個(gè)特點(diǎn)。

????1. 勞動(dòng)分工。組織通過為不同個(gè)人和團(tuán)隊(duì)分配任務(wù)實(shí)現(xiàn)有效運(yùn)行。沒有人是無所不能的。雖然他們?cè)谕粋€(gè)機(jī)構(gòu)框架下工作，但這些團(tuán)隊(duì)會(huì)形成各自的觀點(diǎn)、目標(biāo)和需要優(yōu)先完成的任務(wù)，這是不可避免的。

????2. 相互依賴。要完成各自的工作，每個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)都需要依賴組織內(nèi)的其他團(tuán)隊(duì)。沒有一個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)靠單打獨(dú)斗就能正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)，或取得成功。

????3. 資源稀少。沒有一個(gè)組織能夠滿足內(nèi)部團(tuán)隊(duì)的所有要求，因此必須要做出取舍。在分配資金、人力、空間、時(shí)間和精力等資源時(shí)，總會(huì)有輸家和贏家。很明顯，所有團(tuán)隊(duì)都希望自己是贏家。

????大部分組織沖突的產(chǎn)生并不是為了自身利益，而是因?yàn)椴煌瑘F(tuán)隊(duì)對(duì)于公司應(yīng)采取的行動(dòng)在觀念上存在合理的差別。比如，公司應(yīng)該投資哪個(gè)市場(chǎng)？應(yīng)該在哪里建廠？應(yīng)該生產(chǎn)哪種產(chǎn)品？

????當(dāng)然，肯定會(huì)有人玩辦公室政治。確實(shí)有一些“職場(chǎng)惡棍”希望高人一頭。由團(tuán)隊(duì)成員個(gè)性引發(fā)的組織沖突確實(shí)會(huì)帶來組織功能的紊亂。對(duì)確實(shí)存在的業(yè)務(wù)問題所持的不同觀點(diǎn)，我們認(rèn)為是合理沖突。但更多情況下，合理沖突看起來更像是個(gè)人沖突，因?yàn)楦鞣綖榱藞?jiān)持己見，不免變得情緒化。這種反應(yīng)雖然很可悲，但也符合人性的特點(diǎn)。但這并不會(huì)使問題本身變成私人事務(wù)，這只是意味著，所有當(dāng)事人必須將自我與根本基本問題剝離開來。

????既然組織沖突不可避免，而且因?yàn)橥ǔ?huì)涉及重大問題而無法回避，因此經(jīng)理人需要了解組織沖突典型的解決辦法。我們總是認(rèn)為，只有依靠數(shù)據(jù)、通過理性分析才能做出選擇，才能告訴所有當(dāng)事人，什么是“正確的”或者“最佳的”答案。但可惜的是，盡管分析非常有用，并且常常能帶給人啟發(fā)，但一些重要的問題太過復(fù)雜，根本就找不到毫無爭(zhēng)議的答案。

????大多數(shù)組織沖突都是通過影響力得以解決的。老板具有影響力，他的團(tuán)隊(duì)便能實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)。若老板缺乏影響力，那么他的團(tuán)隊(duì)便只能承受失敗。

????如果經(jīng)理人對(duì)于有意識(shí)地積累和利用影響力感到困擾，不妨設(shè)想一下缺乏影響力的后果。他和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)只能任人擺布。權(quán)力確實(shí)會(huì)帶來腐敗，但無權(quán)力也會(huì)帶來同樣的后果。比如歷史上那些作惡多端的人，他們?cè)跒樽约旱膼盒修q護(hù)時(shí)總是會(huì)說：“我別無選擇。我必須遵守指令?！?/p>

????要成為高效的管理者，必須具備足夠的影響力。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)自己團(tuán)隊(duì)的目標(biāo)，并為自己團(tuán)隊(duì)的理想而努力，管理者必須有能力對(duì)其職權(quán)范圍之外的人員和團(tuán)隊(duì)施加有效影響。團(tuán)隊(duì)成員都指望團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)袖具有這樣的影響力，否則他們便無法有效地工作。組織也需要有影響力的管理人員發(fā)出自己的聲音，來保證組織的正常運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)。

????培養(yǎng)影響力的最佳途徑是建立互利的長(zhǎng)期關(guān)系。只要始終以高標(biāo)準(zhǔn)要求自己公開、誠實(shí)、公平和尊重，擁有影響力也是水到渠成的事。

????“玩政治”與在政治環(huán)境中發(fā)揮影響力截然不同。但頗具諷刺意味的是，應(yīng)對(duì)不良“政治斗爭(zhēng)”的方法是與身邊的人加強(qiáng)往來，而不是躲著他們。獨(dú)善其身只會(huì)降低管理者的影響力和效率。

????如果你希望完成你認(rèn)為有價(jià)值的任務(wù)，那么就調(diào)動(dòng)身邊的人吧！不過，我們不是去玩政治游戲，我們要做的是搭建真正能通往成功的橋梁。

????本文作者：Linda A. Hill，哈佛商學(xué)院（Harvard Business School）教授；Kent Lineback，作家，擁有30年豐富的管理經(jīng)驗(yàn)。《做個(gè)真正的老板：成為偉大領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須具備的三個(gè)特質(zhì)》（Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader）一書由二人合著。

????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?"

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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.

????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?

????Of course, people do play organizational games. There are thugs and bullies who do seek to dominate. There are dysfunctional aspects of organizational conflict that are driven by individual personalities. More often, though, legitimate conflict -- differences of opinion about real business issues -- can seem personal because the people involved have become emotionally invested in the positions they take -- a lamentable but fully human response. That doesn't make the issues themselves personal. It just means those involved must work to separate their egos from the underlying questions.

????If organizational conflict is inevitable, and you cannot avoid it because it often involves important questions, you need to understand how it typically gets resolved. We'd like to think choices are made through rational analysis based on data, which will reveal to all involved the "right" or "best" answer. Unfortunately, while analysis is always useful and often illuminating, most important issues are too complex for it to produce indisputable answers.

????Most organizational conflicts are resolved through influence. The groups with bosses that have influence will get what they need. Those groups whose bosses lack influence will not.

????If the thought of consciously accumulating and exerting influence bothers you, imagine the consequences if you had no influence at all. You and your group would be at the mercy of what others demand of you. Yes, power can corrupt, but powerlessness corrupts too. Just think about all the people throughout history who have explained the evil they did by saying, "I had no choice. I had to do what I was told."

????To be an effective boss, you must influence others -- people and groups over whom you have no formal control -- to get what your group needs and to work for what you believe is best and right. Your own people count on you to do this because they cannot do their work well otherwise. Your organization depends on voices like yours to keep it on the right track.

????The best way to build influence is to create ongoing relationships for mutual advantage. There's no reason you cannot do this while holding yourself to high standards of openness, honesty, fairness, and respect.

????"Playing politics" and wielding influence in a political environment aren't the same. Ironically, the way to cope with dysfunctional "politics" is to engage others, not avoid them. Hunkering down will only make you less influential and so less effective.

????Engage those around you -- not to play political games but to build real bridges -- if you hope to accomplish the work that you believe needs doing.

????Linda A. Hill, a professor at Harvard Business School, and Kent Lineback, a writer with 30 years of management experience, are co-authors of Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader.