|
????親愛的安妮：我近期經(jīng)歷了工作調(diào)動，現(xiàn)在主管新產(chǎn)品開發(fā)工作。這是（可能成為）令人興奮的事，但是我碰到一個奇怪的問題。參與項目合作的兩個團(tuán)隊相處得不好：各方都認(rèn)為對方設(shè)置的最后期限不切實際，而且最近他們都來我辦公室諷刺挖苦“對方”。 ????我知道這聽起來很幼稚，但是公司長期以來形成一種文化，即使同事之間不能相互忍受，每個人總是表現(xiàn)得很友好（至少當(dāng)面如此）。公司的人事部開設(shè)了沖突解決培訓(xùn)課程，但是培訓(xùn)內(nèi)容不涉及實際沖突，只是涉及這種敵對和不信任的氛圍。您或您的讀者對此有何建議？——I.C. ????親愛的I.C.：看來你遇到的真正問題，是同事之間不能坦誠相待，而是向你提出他們的抱怨。這種情況非常常見。伊夫?莫里厄表示，在許多工作場所，同事之間努力保持表面上的友好，因為這樣讓人覺得更愉快。盡管摩擦帶來壓力，但有時這正是項目需要的氛圍。 ????“當(dāng)同事之間相互爭論時，不一定比‘和睦相處’產(chǎn)生更壞的結(jié)果?！彼硎荆笆聦嵣?，不同意見、緊張和權(quán)衡是真正合作的基礎(chǔ)?！?/p> ????莫里厄是波士頓咨詢公司（Boston Consulting Group）的合伙人，也是新書《六個簡單法則》（Six Simple Rules）的合著者。他擁有與多家公司共事的經(jīng)驗。在此期間，太多的和諧掩蓋了重大問題，而這些問題只有在人們相互爭論時才能得到解決。 ????引用書中的一個案例：某移動通信網(wǎng)絡(luò)的多個工程團(tuán)隊爭執(zhí)不休，高層管理人員把他們召集在一起，并讓最不受歡迎的團(tuán)隊負(fù)責(zé)。這樣一來，他們不得不討論解決各種問題，例如不切實際的最后期限問題。討論有時很激烈，這是不可避免的。但是，在被迫詳細(xì)討論各方的需求和限制條件后，他們制定了有效的日程安排。 ????莫里厄建議，你可以在你的敵對團(tuán)隊中采取類似的做法。他建議分三步進(jìn)行： ?????不再忌諱敵對。因為現(xiàn)有文化建立在避免沖突的基礎(chǔ)之上，所以這需要一定的耐心。但是要讓他們看到你是認(rèn)真的，而且你不再容忍私下的“冷嘲熱諷”。他建議，“把雙方聚在一起，詢問他們?yōu)槭裁次淳筒煌庖娺_(dá)成解決方案。通常情況下，雙方會相互指責(zé)——對方團(tuán)隊頑固、不妥協(xié)、懶惰、自負(fù)等等。”這些都沒有關(guān)系?！鞍丫o張甚至憤怒攤開來說，這樣每個人都能意識到，這一點很重要?！?/p> |
????Dear Annie: I was recently transferred here from another part of the company and put in charge of developing a new product. It’s pretty exciting, or has the potential to be, but I’m running into a weird problem. The two teams responsible for collaborating on this project do not get along—each team thinks the other has set impossible deadlines, for one thing—and lately people have started coming into my office to make snide comments about the “other side.” ????This sounds infantile, I know, but there is a longstanding culture here of everyone being nice and polite all the time (at least to each other’s faces), even when they can’t stand each other. Our HR department offers training in conflict resolution, but there is no actual conflict; just this atmosphere of antagonism and distrust. Do you or your readers have any suggestions on how to handle this? —In the Crossfire ????Dear I.C.: It sounds as if the real problem here is that people are bringing their complaints to you instead of being honest with each other. That’s not unusual. In too many workplaces, says Yves Morieux, colleagues try to keep up a fa?ade of niceness because it’s more pleasant. But friction, however stressful, is sometimes what a project needs. ????“When people are arguing with each other, it’s not necessarily worse than ‘getting along,’” he says. “In fact, real cooperation depends on disagreements, tensions, and tradeoffs.” ????A partner at Boston Consulting Group and co-author of a new book, Six Simple Rules, Morieux has worked with plenty of companies where too much harmony masked big problems that were only resolved once people started yelling at each other. ????One example from the book: At a cell phone network where several engineering teams were at odds, senior management put them together—and put the least popular group in charge—so they’d have no choice but to hash out issues like unworkable deadlines. The discussions were unavoidably heated at times, but being forced to talk through everyone’s needs and constraints led to schedules that worked. ????Morieux suggests you do something similar with your warring teams. He recommends starting with these three steps: ?????Stop making confrontation taboo.This may take some patience, as the culture up until now has been built on avoiding conflict. But people have to see that you mean it, and that you will no longer tolerate snide remarks behind closed doors. “Bring the two sides together and ask them why there has been no solution yet to the disagreements between them,” he suggests. “Usually each side will blame the other—the other team is stubborn, inflexible, lazy, a bunch of prima donnas, whatever.” That’s fine. “It’s important to get tensions and even anger out on the table, where everyone can see them.” |
相關(guān)稿件
最新文章