????有一次參加電話會(huì)議之前，我問(wèn)會(huì)議組織者是否安排了硬性休會(huì)的安排。他說(shuō)，沒(méi)有，不過(guò)他希望會(huì)議能在45分鐘內(nèi)結(jié)束。

????會(huì)議開(kāi)始70分鐘以后，我中斷了通話，因?yàn)槲仪宄?，我可以?jīng)常假裝Skype斷線。對(duì)此沒(méi)有人會(huì)有意見(jiàn)。因?yàn)椋坪醪⒉皇侵挥形乙粋€(gè)人對(duì)這種會(huì)議感到失望。

????我失望的原因不僅僅是會(huì)議耗時(shí)過(guò)長(zhǎng)，也不是因?yàn)樵谶@70分鐘的時(shí)間里沒(méi)有實(shí)現(xiàn)任何有價(jià)值的結(jié)果。我也并不是因?yàn)闀r(shí)間被浪費(fèi)而感到惱怒。經(jīng)過(guò)仔細(xì)考慮，我更加確信，電話會(huì)議之所以很少能令人滿意，原因在于，我們參會(huì)是希望能實(shí)現(xiàn)有意義的協(xié)作?？墒聦?shí)上，這種環(huán)境讓我們內(nèi)心更傾向于防止損失和顧全面子。我們之所以發(fā)言，是因?yàn)椴话l(fā)言就會(huì)降低自己在這個(gè)群體中的地位。我們之所以不停說(shuō)話，是因?yàn)槲覀儞?dān)心還沒(méi)有證明自己的價(jià)值。所有人都只在乎如何讓自己聽(tīng)起來(lái)聰明絕頂，卻往往忘記了要給予其他人我們自己同樣渴望的那種認(rèn)可。

????沃倫?貝格爾在自己即將出版的新書(shū)《更好的問(wèn)題：詢問(wèn)的力量》（ A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas）中提到，類(lèi)似這樣的經(jīng)歷充分證明了“提問(wèn)文化”的必要性。

????貝格爾寫(xiě)道，許多公司并不鼓勵(lì)真正的交流——說(shuō)白了，就是不給你機(jī)會(huì)去質(zhì)疑規(guī)劃、創(chuàng)意乃至其他同事。他認(rèn)為，鼓勵(lì)集體提問(wèn)的辦公室文化能夠形成巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)。谷歌（Google）每周一次的TGIF討論會(huì)有時(shí)候非?；靵y，所有員工在討論會(huì)上都可以向拉里?佩奇和謝爾蓋?布林提問(wèn)。貝格爾對(duì)這種做法非常贊賞。此外，麻省理工學(xué)院媒體實(shí)驗(yàn)室(MIT's Media Lab)的做法也獲得了貝格爾的認(rèn)可。這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室的工程師們不斷地進(jìn)行廣泛的實(shí)驗(yàn)，雖然一再失敗，但每一次失敗都是向成功邁近了一步。

????在這種環(huán)境中，不懂不會(huì)受到懲罰。設(shè)計(jì)公司IDEO的保羅?本奈特告訴貝格爾：“我一直都把自己看成一個(gè)傻瓜。”他相信，這種愿意提出“令人難以置信的天真問(wèn)題”的態(tài)度卻幫助他的公司實(shí)現(xiàn)了茁壯成長(zhǎng)。

????本奈特所謂的“令人難以置信的天真問(wèn)題”是指那些非?；镜膯?wèn)題，以致于有些人會(huì)認(rèn)為他是一個(gè)遲鈍的人。有一次，他受邀在冰島議會(huì)就該國(guó)的金融危機(jī)發(fā)表演說(shuō)，他問(wèn)道：“錢(qián)都到哪兒去了？”后來(lái)他解釋說(shuō)，提這個(gè)問(wèn)題并不是出于無(wú)禮，而是因?yàn)檫@種“首要之事優(yōu)先提問(wèn)”的方式可以激發(fā)聽(tīng)眾，用簡(jiǎn)單的語(yǔ)言解釋問(wèn)題，而問(wèn)題的根源也會(huì)隨之變得清清楚楚。

????令人難以置信的天真問(wèn)題之所以“有效”是因?yàn)?，它們?huì)降低聽(tīng)眾的防衛(wèi)心理。此外，它們會(huì)迫使我們放棄那些死板的答案。貝格爾認(rèn)為，這種方式雖然會(huì)放緩對(duì)話的節(jié)奏——但卻大有裨益。

????“在大多數(shù)會(huì)議以及大多數(shù)商業(yè)場(chǎng)合，我們往往會(huì)努力推動(dòng)事情的發(fā)展，只考慮‘把事情做好’。這是一種天生的沖動(dòng)。把事情做好和保持進(jìn)度當(dāng)然很重要?？蓡?wèn)題在于，它會(huì)讓我們無(wú)暇質(zhì)疑其他設(shè)想。比如：我們?yōu)槭裁匆鲞@件事？我們是不是真的考慮周詳了？是否考慮過(guò)其他的可能性？”

????貝格爾建議，暫停下來(lái)，給自己一個(gè)提問(wèn)的機(jī)會(huì)，對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)基本的操作假設(shè)提出質(zhì)疑。（我想提的一個(gè)問(wèn)題是：“我們希望在70分鐘的時(shí)間里實(shí)現(xiàn)哪些無(wú)法用45分鐘實(shí)現(xiàn)的結(jié)果？”）

????這種暫停的設(shè)計(jì)沒(méi)有理想的準(zhǔn)則。但隨著時(shí)間的推移，團(tuán)隊(duì)會(huì)培養(yǎng)出對(duì)這種暫停的寬容?！半m然它看起來(lái)拖累了進(jìn)度，但實(shí)際上，它可以保證你們不會(huì)被事先設(shè)定的‘進(jìn)度’引向錯(cuò)誤的方向。”

????我認(rèn)為，只要有明智的CEO鼎力支持，用確鑿的實(shí)例證明，令人難以置信的天真問(wèn)題并不一定代表軟弱、愚蠢，也不代表缺乏團(tuán)隊(duì)精神，建立這種提問(wèn)的文化就不會(huì)很難。但如果你的上司是一位沒(méi)有安全感的中層管理者，他并不喜歡這種觀點(diǎn)，也不喜歡人們提出的問(wèn)題，又該怎么辦？

????對(duì)此，貝格爾并不擔(dān)心。

????“領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必須讓拒不合作的人知道，公司希望他們能提出問(wèn)題，同時(shí)也歡迎其他人提出的問(wèn)題。此外，要鼓勵(lì)人們提出有雄心的、積極的、經(jīng)過(guò)深思熟慮的和具有可行性的問(wèn)題?！保ǘ皇悄切╆P(guān)于休假政策的問(wèn)題。）

????它或許意味著要對(duì)好的問(wèn)題給以獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。也意味著為了保證質(zhì)疑討論會(huì)的效果，需要確定新的集體責(zé)任?！安灰獞土P（提問(wèn)的人）。比如說(shuō)：‘好，既然你提出了問(wèn)題，現(xiàn)在就由你（親自）來(lái)找出答案吧?！?/p>

????大多數(shù)好問(wèn)題不會(huì)有令人滿意的答案。但只有欣然接受這種混亂，以及時(shí)不時(shí)冒出來(lái)的粗魯或傻氣，我們才能摸索出一條通向智慧的路。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者： 劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????I was about to get on a conference call and asked the call organizer if he had scheduled a hard stop. No, he said, but he hoped the call would be over in 45 minutes.

????The call started, and after 70 minutes I hung up knowing I could always pretend Skype had dropped the call. But no one complained. It seems I wasn't the only one frustrated.

????It wasn't just that the call was long, or that in an hour and 10 minutes nothing noteworthy had been accomplished. Nor was I irritated because time had been wasted. The more I thought about it, the more convinced I was that conference calls rarely satisfy because we join them hoping to enjoy meaningful collaboration when, in fact, the whole set-up trains our minds toward loss-prevention and saving face. We talk because not talking will lower our status in the group. We keep talking because we worry we haven't yet proven our value. And everyone becomes so focused on sounding smart that we often don't give others the recognition we ourselves crave.

????Experiences like these amply demonstrate the need for a "questioning culture," Warren Berger argues in his forthcoming book, A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas.

????Many workplaces, Berger writes, discourage real dialogue -- the kind you get when people feel free to challenge plans, ideas, even one another. He argues that office cultures that encourage group questioning gain an edge. Google's (GOOG) "sometimes chaotic" weekly TGIF sessions, during which all employees are invited to ask Larry Page and Sergey Brin questions, gets a nod from Berger, as does MIT's Media Lab, where engineers experiment widely and fail, fail again, and fail better on the way toward a solution.

????In such settings, not knowing isn't penalized. "I consistently position myself as an idiot," Paul Bennett, of the design firm IDEO, tells Berger. He believes this willingness to ask what he himself calls "incredibly na?ve questions" has helped their firm thrive.

????By incredibly na?ve Bennett means those painfully elementary questions that in some audiences would get him branded a dim bulb. Called to speak to Iceland's parliament in the wake of the country's financial crisis, he asked, "Where's the money?" Not to be disrespectful, he later explained, but because first-things-first questions prompt an audience to explain things simply, and with that simplicity comes clarity.

????Incredibly na?ve questions "work" because they lower defenses. They also force us to put aside stock answers. This can slacken a conversation's pace -- but that's all for the good, Berger argues.

????"In most meetings -- and in most everything we do in business -- we are usually trying to keep things moving forward and just 'get things done.' This is a natural impulse, and of course it's important to get things done and stay on schedule. The problem is, this leaves little time to question assumptions, as in, Why are we doing this particular thing? Have we really thought it through, and considered other possibilities?"

????Berger recommends instituting a pause for questions that challenge the group's basic operating assumptions. (Among my questions would be, "What do we hope to accomplish in 70 minutes that could not be done in 45?")

????There is no ideal formula for how to engineer this pause. But over time, a group develops a tolerance for it. "And while it may seem as if this is slowing progress, what you're actually doing is making sure that your 'progress' isn't taking you down the wrong path."

????Achieving such a questioning culture would be easy, I thought, if enlightened CEOs stood behind it, demonstrating by confident example that incredibly na?ve questions are not necessarily a sign of weakness, stupidity, or lack of team spirit. But what about people who report to insecure middle managers who don't like the idea -- or the questions?

????Berger isn't worried.

????"Leaders must signal to holdouts that this is now part of what's expected of them: to question and welcome questions. And also to encourage a kind of questioning that is ambitious, positive, thoughtful, and potentially actionable." (As opposed to people just asking about vacation policies.)

????This might mean rewards for beautiful questions. It also means a new collective responsibility for the outcomes of questioning sessions. "Don't punish [the asker] by saying, 'Okay, you raised this question, now it's on you [alone] to find the answer.'"

????Most good questions don't have tidy answers. But only in embracing that messiness -- and sometimes rudeness or foolishness -- do we fumble our way toward brilliance.