????而這就是一段關(guān)系的盡頭！

????這種針對組織機(jī)構(gòu)日常事務(wù)的反應(yīng)每天都會重復(fù)出現(xiàn)無數(shù)次，全世界都是這樣。它就是公司經(jīng)常無法建立信任文化和關(guān)系網(wǎng)絡(luò)的主要原因，而信任文化和關(guān)系網(wǎng)絡(luò)能給公司帶來很高的員工留任率、高效的團(tuán)隊(duì)和高額的利潤。同時(shí)，它也是員工對工作“心不在焉”的主要原因之一。

????2006年，民意調(diào)查機(jī)構(gòu)蓋洛普（Gallup）曾發(fā)布過一份廣為流傳的員工敬業(yè)（和不敬業(yè)）程度調(diào)查報(bào)告。蓋洛普研究人員的目的是找出敬業(yè)員工（占29%）和不敬業(yè)員工（占56%）或者對工作心不在焉的員工（占15%）之間存在哪些顯著的差異。

????調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，敬業(yè)的員工：

????? 生產(chǎn)率更高，創(chuàng)造的利潤更多，而且更安全

????? 和客戶建立的關(guān)系更為牢固

????? 待在一家公司的時(shí)間比不敬業(yè)的員工長久

????? 能促使管理層和客戶服務(wù)方面產(chǎn)生新的思路

????這項(xiàng)調(diào)查同時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)，僅2006年，“由于員工對待工作心不在焉（占15%）而造成生產(chǎn)率下降給美國經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來的成本約為3280億美元（2.02萬億元人民幣）?！薄@還不包括那56% “不敬業(yè)”的員工。

????蓋洛普全球調(diào)查（Gallup World Survey）顯示，在員工不敬業(yè)問題上，亞洲也不例外。這項(xiàng)調(diào)查從2012年9月份開始，范圍覆蓋澳大利亞、新西蘭、韓國、新加坡、臺灣和日本。調(diào)查將員工對待工作的態(tài)度分為三類：“積極向上、勉強(qiáng)維持和痛苦不堪”。結(jié)果表明，在某個(gè)國家的調(diào)查中，61%的員工認(rèn)為自己上班時(shí)只是在“勉強(qiáng)維持”，只有34%的人對工作“積極向上”。

????蓋洛普的報(bào)告指出，“工作待遇欠佳和生產(chǎn)率低以及人員留任率低之間存在著直接聯(lián)系?！倍覀兌贾?，人員留任率低和公司利潤下降之間存在著關(guān)聯(lián)。

????無論是就整個(gè)世界、還是就某個(gè)地區(qū)而言，員工不敬業(yè)都會給企業(yè)帶來令人震驚的高成本，這一點(diǎn)顯而易見。而且可以認(rèn)為，不敬業(yè)員工和組織機(jī)構(gòu)中其他成員的關(guān)系并不融洽。我們建議，可以從兩個(gè)方面著重尋找員工不敬業(yè)的原因：

????1. 政策、計(jì)劃、系統(tǒng)以及流程。

????2. 系統(tǒng)盲區(qū)（以及這個(gè)盲區(qū)所引起的反應(yīng)）。

????要想方設(shè)法制定更為開明的政策，同時(shí)建立更為開明的系統(tǒng)和程序，從而幫助企業(yè)獲得成功并幫助企業(yè)成員提高幸福感。但我們要在此指出，即使你這樣做了，如果忽略了第二個(gè)因素，也就是系統(tǒng)盲區(qū)，還是會繼續(xù)看到人們之間的關(guān)系頻繁破裂以及與之相關(guān)的信任缺失；而你就得為此支付信任稅，而且是數(shù)額不菲的信任稅。

????And that’s the end of partnership!

????This re-active response to the daily “stuff” that happens in the world of organizations is repeated countless times every day, all over the world. It is the main reason why organizations regularly fail to build the culture of trust and networks of partnerships that lead to high retention, high-performing teams, and high profits. And it is one of the major reasons why employees are “actively disengaged” from their work.

????In a widely read 2006 Gallup Survey on Employee Engagement (And Disengagement), Gallup researchers sought to discover which factors differed most strongly among engaged employees (29% of respondents) and those who were not engaged(56%) or actively disengaged (15%).

????The survey found that engaged employees:

????? Are more productive, profitable, and safe.

????? Create stronger customer relationships.

????? Stay longer with their companies than disengaged employees.

????? Catalyze “outside-the-box” thinking in management and customer service.

????The same survey also found that in 2006 alone, the “l(fā)ower productivity of actively disengaged workers (15%) cost the U.S. economy about $328 billion” – without taking into account the 56% of the workforce that was simply “not engaged.”

????Asia is no exception when it comes to disengaged employees, according to a Gallup World Survey from September 2012 that covered Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan. The survey explored employee satisfaction across three dimensions: “Thriving, Struggling, and Suffering.” Results showed that in one country 61%of employees fell into the “Struggling” zone, while only 34% of respondents were “Thriving” in the workplace.

????According to the Gallup report, there is a “direct link between low Career Wellbeing and low productivity and low retention.” And we all know the correlation between low retention and decreased profits.

????It’s easy to see, globally and locally, that the cost to business of disengaged employees is staggering. And it is safe to assume that disengaged employees are not experiencing thriving partnerships with others in the organization. We’d like to suggest two major areas to look to for the causes of disengagement among employees:

????1. Policies, plans, systems, processes.

????2. System Blindness (and the reactive responses that blindness engenders).

????By all means, create more enlightened policies, systems, and processes that support business success and make for happier people. But we are here to tell you that even if you do, if you overlook the second factor, System Blindness, you will continue to witness the regular breakdown of partnerships and the related loss of trust, and you are going to be paying the Trust Tax, big time.