成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

首頁(yè) 500強(qiáng) 活動(dòng) 榜單 商業(yè) 科技 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力 專題 品牌中心
雜志訂閱

是時(shí)候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽?

ROSS MCCAMMON
2023-02-04

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場(chǎng)所根深蒂固的制度,當(dāng)你犯了錯(cuò)或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能”時(shí),要改正錯(cuò)誤并為此道歉。

文本設(shè)置
小號(hào)
默認(rèn)
大號(hào)
Plus(0條)

圖片來(lái)源:ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

亂蓬蓬的頭發(fā)并不能說(shuō)明什么。超特大號(hào)的T恤衫也不能說(shuō)明什么。那張困窘的臉,那自嘲的笑容卻將加密貨幣交易所創(chuàng)始人薩姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名譽(yù)掃地暴露無(wú)遺。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上寫(xiě)道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了?!彼麕缀跏锹柭柤纾姓J(rèn)了一場(chǎng)讓他人損失了80億美元的加密貨幣災(zāi)難?!叭绻?dāng)時(shí)我能更專注于我所做的事情,我辦事會(huì)更縝密?!卑嗫寺?弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮臺(tái)時(shí)告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》。

鑒于班克曼-弗里德面臨刑事欺詐指控,他如此張揚(yáng)地展示自己的無(wú)能可能是為了自保,但其言下之意是確定無(wú)疑的:其他無(wú)足輕重的人本該為小事忐忑不安。

當(dāng)我讀到班克曼-弗里德自稱無(wú)能時(shí),我的第一反應(yīng)是“真是個(gè)小丑!”但我開(kāi)始感到我們需要密切注意這樣的聯(lián)系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顧……”。

我寫(xiě)了一本關(guān)于職場(chǎng)行為的書(shū)。好吧,也許不是那本書(shū)。而是一本題為《與他人合作無(wú)間》(Works Well With Others)的書(shū)。該書(shū)于2015年出版,講述了我作為一名年輕的、來(lái)自德克薩斯州的機(jī)上雜志編輯,如何在紐約市媒體界(以注重身份地位而聞名)游刃有余的故事。我這本書(shū)的論點(diǎn)是,無(wú)論你在哪個(gè)領(lǐng)域,得到同事和雇主青睞是通往職業(yè)成功的路徑。書(shū)中有介紹握手、寒暄和祝酒禮儀的章節(jié),還有一章的標(biāo)題是“如何在滿是重要人物的高級(jí)餐廳吃一頓有意義的午餐”。

我寫(xiě)這本書(shū)的目標(biāo)受眾并不僅僅是男性。但現(xiàn)在回想起來(lái),我發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些建議更適合我所在的群體: 直男、白人、男性。

在過(guò)去幾年的某個(gè)時(shí)刻,我開(kāi)始意識(shí)到那些特殊的“人際技能”對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)不再像以前那樣有效。也許是因?yàn)樾鹿诜窝滓咔楹瓦h(yuǎn)程工作的興起,消除了許多職場(chǎng)等級(jí)制度、慣例和裝模作樣。也許是對(duì)性別歧視和種族主義的考量,侵蝕了像我這樣的人的基本特權(quán),同時(shí)提升了歷史上被邊緣化的人的地位。也許廢話已經(jīng)變得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我慣用的幽默、討好和自嘲的招數(shù)似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我開(kāi)始理解其中一些行為是操縱性的,可以讓別人做我不想做的工作。當(dāng)我在自己身上看到這些傾向時(shí),我無(wú)法忽視它們。我開(kāi)始發(fā)現(xiàn)這種行為對(duì)女性和有色人種的傷害,以及對(duì)工作場(chǎng)所中每個(gè)人的士氣、生產(chǎn)力和創(chuàng)造力的傷害。

不管他們是否真正有能力,許多男性都很擅長(zhǎng)表現(xiàn)自己。實(shí)際上,這很容易。你在會(huì)議上要言不煩,當(dāng)你發(fā)言的時(shí)候,你向提出論斷的人提問(wèn),或者重復(fù)和贊揚(yáng)別人很有思想見(jiàn)地的觀點(diǎn)。你可以乘著別人敢為人先和勇于冒險(xiǎn)的東風(fēng)。

與此相關(guān)的一種行為是“戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能”(有時(shí)也被稱為“技能型無(wú)能”或“武器化無(wú)能”)。莉莎?韋斯特倫德(Lise Vesterlund)與三位合著者合著了《拒絕俱樂(lè)部:給女性毫無(wú)前途的工作畫(huà)上句號(hào)》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一書(shū)。戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能指的是同事聲稱自己數(shù)學(xué)很差,這樣就能讓你處理所有的電子表格。丈夫打掃衛(wèi)生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承擔(dān)家務(wù)。這并不是懶惰那么簡(jiǎn)單,而是不愿意做那些低價(jià)值工作(韋斯特倫德和合著者琳達(dá)?巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布倫達(dá)?佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和勞里?溫格特(Laurie Weingart)將這些工作稱為“不利于升職”的工作)。這些工作無(wú)法獲得太多榮譽(yù)或贊譽(yù);這些工作人們往往視而不見(jiàn)。不僅僅是男性會(huì)回避這些工作——但我在騙誰(shuí)呢?主要是男性會(huì)回避這些工作。

韋斯特倫德告訴我:"這非常方便。"女性和有色人種往往會(huì)承擔(dān)這種不利于升職的工作——組織辦公室派對(duì),參加招聘委員會(huì),主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作組會(huì)議。"很多時(shí)候,我們讓女性承擔(dān)這種類型的工作的原因是,哦,她們很擅長(zhǎng)這種工作,因?yàn)樗齻円淮斡忠淮蔚刈C明了她們擅長(zhǎng)這種工作。但或許有必要退一步(對(duì)男性)說(shuō),你們?cè)趺茨苤蛔瞿切┯欣谏毜墓ぷ?,而把那些不利于升職的工作丟給別人呢?”

我立即意識(shí)到韋斯特倫德在說(shuō)什么,這讓我想起了幾年前我和兩名女同事的一次Zoom電話會(huì)議。我的老板是一位有色人種女性,她要求我為項(xiàng)目制定時(shí)間表。"這個(gè)計(jì)劃非常好。"我說(shuō),然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你幫我制定項(xiàng)目流程。"我對(duì)她說(shuō)。我開(kāi)了個(gè)自嘲的玩笑,說(shuō)自己無(wú)法在沒(méi)有幫助的情況下制定復(fù)雜的計(jì)劃。

問(wèn)題是:我實(shí)際上并不知道自己是否真的不擅長(zhǎng)制定項(xiàng)目時(shí)間表。我只是從來(lái)沒(méi)有做過(guò),也不是特別想學(xué)。我知道我的同事是一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理,所以對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō),她承擔(dān)起這個(gè)責(zé)任才合情合理。

但這一次,我的請(qǐng)求沒(méi)有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的卻是漫長(zhǎng)而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持槍歹徒帶著一頂可疑的邊緣平整的帽子走進(jìn)一家酒館。在幾秒鐘(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意?!霸捳f(shuō),我自己來(lái)處理吧!”我說(shuō)。然后我倒退著穿過(guò)來(lái)回晃動(dòng)的酒館大門(mén),慢吞吞地走著。

對(duì)我當(dāng)時(shí)的老板來(lái)說(shuō),她只是翻了個(gè)白眼而已。(最近我問(wèn)起她這件事的時(shí)候,她都不記得了。)但那次會(huì)議是我第一次意識(shí)到——真正理解——我已經(jīng)養(yǎng)成了用魅力(或阿諛?lè)畛校Q于你如何看待它)來(lái)讓別人為我做事的習(xí)慣。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)說(shuō),女性和有色人種一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定無(wú)罪的情況。她說(shuō):"這一點(diǎn)司空見(jiàn)慣,無(wú)處不在。人們對(duì)能力的定義存在偏見(jiàn)。這存在種族偏見(jiàn),也存在性別偏見(jiàn)......這種偏見(jiàn)無(wú)孔不入。"

這種現(xiàn)象造成的后果是對(duì)婦女和有色人種的持續(xù)低估。韋斯特倫德講述了她書(shū)中的一個(gè)例子,律所要求一位律師招募一批實(shí)習(xí)生。韋斯特倫德解釋說(shuō),這位律師認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)很好的發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì),但查看申請(qǐng)表和面試實(shí)習(xí)生這樣耗時(shí)的工作最終削減了她的計(jì)費(fèi)工時(shí),還阻礙了她的職業(yè)發(fā)展。"所以談話不應(yīng)該只是:你擅長(zhǎng)招聘實(shí)習(xí)生嗎?或者你享受招聘實(shí)習(xí)生的樂(lè)趣嗎?”韋斯特倫德告訴我。這樣的對(duì)話應(yīng)該是:"如果你想成為合伙人,你就要拿出一年時(shí)間招募實(shí)習(xí)生,但之后我們會(huì)把[這份工作]交給其他人。"

在《2022年職場(chǎng)女性報(bào)告》中,LeanIn.org和麥肯錫公司發(fā)現(xiàn),女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人正以前所未有的速度換工作。研究人員對(duì)4萬(wàn)名員工的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),與男性一樣,這些女性有遠(yuǎn)大抱負(fù),但“她們的權(quán)威會(huì)受到輕度冒犯,也有跡象表明她們將更難獲得晉升"。

在閱讀這篇材料的時(shí)候,我想起了另一個(gè)讓我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要與遠(yuǎn)程辦公的同事進(jìn)行視頻聊天,這樣他才能參與討論。我沒(méi)帶手機(jī),就問(wèn)同事能不能用一下她的。“當(dāng)然可以?!彼f(shuō)。這項(xiàng)任務(wù)要求她在我們討論想要做出修改的地方時(shí),把手機(jī)對(duì)著墻舉15分鐘左右。我沒(méi)把這件事當(dāng)回事,但在那之后的幾個(gè)星期里,我和她交流都會(huì)感到不寒而栗。最終我明白了,電話事件是導(dǎo)火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。當(dāng)時(shí),我認(rèn)為自己的行為并沒(méi)什么不妥。

現(xiàn)在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能覺(jué)得自己被冒犯了,很泄氣。當(dāng)我把這段軼事告訴韋斯特倫德時(shí),她說(shuō):“這可能不是她第一次身處這樣的境地:她做的事情相當(dāng)于拿著電話,無(wú)法與其他人一樣參加會(huì)議?!?/p>

為什么我同事不直接拒絕,或者把手機(jī)遞給我讓我拿著? 在一個(gè)仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,這說(shuō)起來(lái)容易做起來(lái)難。在一系列的實(shí)驗(yàn)中,韋斯特倫德和她的合著者發(fā)現(xiàn),女性被男經(jīng)理要求做會(huì)議記錄等不利于升職的工作的幾率比男性高出44%,女性答應(yīng)完成這樣的工作的幾率比男性高出50%。只有當(dāng)女性不在辦公室里的時(shí)候,男性才會(huì)主動(dòng)去做那些必要卻乏味的工作。

我在職業(yè)生涯的早期就認(rèn)識(shí)到,讓別人做你的工作才是成功的應(yīng)有之義。在《紳士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鮮亮麗的雜志那種類似《廣告狂人》(Mad men)的環(huán)境中工作,就如同置身于虛張聲勢(shì)和戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能的大師級(jí)課堂。

打電話的時(shí)候我會(huì)提高音量,這樣同事們就會(huì)知道我在和重要人物通話。只要我在電腦前,我就會(huì)皺起眉頭。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉餡煎蛋餅食譜時(shí)皺起眉頭,作沉思狀,否則你無(wú)法體會(huì)現(xiàn)代職場(chǎng)男性的感受。)

我所供職的男性雜志,就像許多其他傳統(tǒng)的男性組織一樣,是一個(gè)由恐懼和機(jī)會(huì)驅(qū)動(dòng)的地方。失敗的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),或者讓自己難堪的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),尤其是如果你是一個(gè)已經(jīng)晉升到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職位的男人,會(huì)感覺(jué)到自己很可悲。你必須從第一天起就取得成功。

這是個(gè)不切實(shí)際的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),顯然,唯一的策略就是假裝,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持會(huì)議,那就避免這樣做。如果你從未制作過(guò)損益表,那就委托他人去做。

顯然,這種行為對(duì)于那些被留下來(lái)做實(shí)際工作的人(不論性別或種族)來(lái)說(shuō)是不公平的。但這種行為也會(huì)侵蝕那些主張這種特權(quán)的人自己和公司。這種行為會(huì)抑制冒險(xiǎn)和創(chuàng)新,也會(huì)影響“心理安全”。谷歌2015年對(duì)成功團(tuán)隊(duì)的研究被廣泛引用。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn),“心理安全”“無(wú)疑”是表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異的團(tuán)隊(duì)最重要的驅(qū)動(dòng)力。如果沒(méi)有心理上的安全感,我們就不愿意嘗試新事物,就會(huì)錯(cuò)過(guò)學(xué)習(xí)和職業(yè)成長(zhǎng)的機(jī)會(huì)。

學(xué)習(xí)如何舉辦大型會(huì)議的最好方法就是舉辦一場(chǎng)大型會(huì)議——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你會(huì)犯一些可笑的錯(cuò)誤。如果沒(méi)有試錯(cuò)的經(jīng)驗(yàn),就無(wú)法真正精通,許多男人都罹患冒名頂替綜合癥:我認(rèn)為這是男性平庸癥。我們能夠取得成功,甚至得到美差和晉升,但我們并不知道自己是否擅長(zhǎng)相應(yīng)的工作。通常情況下,我們并不擅長(zhǎng)。

澄清一下,我不是在尋求同情。如果男性廢話在工作中失去了影響力,這是件好事。專攻關(guān)鍵性調(diào)整的職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每個(gè)行業(yè)都在發(fā)生代際變化。她說(shuō):“謝天謝地,Z世代帶來(lái)了變化?,F(xiàn)在人們無(wú)所遁形了。要掩蓋你的罪惡很難。要掩蓋你的不足也很難?!?/p>

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那種坦率是令人鼓舞的。他們很快就會(huì)告訴你他們已經(jīng)超負(fù)荷了,不能再承擔(dān)更多的工作了——為什么有人要超負(fù)荷工作?這難道不是對(duì)員工和企業(yè)都不利嗎?他們會(huì)迅速提出問(wèn)題。他們對(duì)自己的不足之處和需要成長(zhǎng)的地方持開(kāi)放態(tài)度。而他們對(duì)那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的經(jīng)理感到困惑。

如果我有機(jī)會(huì)對(duì)我的書(shū)做一些修改,我會(huì)說(shuō):不管你屬于什么群體,都要內(nèi)省,問(wèn)一些讓自己脫離舒適區(qū)的、發(fā)人深省的問(wèn)題。我的弱點(diǎn)是什么?如果我必須和自己一起工作,我會(huì)怎么評(píng)價(jià)自己?我不擅長(zhǎng)什么?我下意識(shí)會(huì)避免什么事情?也許最重要的是:誰(shuí)來(lái)收拾殘局?

最近,我開(kāi)始把那些我一直試圖避免的“不利于升職”的工作視為成長(zhǎng)機(jī)會(huì)——比如項(xiàng)目計(jì)劃和做筆記。在完成這些工作的過(guò)程中,我發(fā)現(xiàn)了多年前就該找到的拼圖碎片:那些讓我成為更好的同事、表現(xiàn)更優(yōu)異的品質(zhì)。

我已經(jīng)開(kāi)始以不同的方式運(yùn)用我的人際技能——溝通、協(xié)作和情商。現(xiàn)在,當(dāng)我靠直覺(jué)分析在特定環(huán)境下人們的總體情緒時(shí),我想的不是人們?nèi)绾慰创?,而是他們?nèi)绾慰创?、理解和影響彼此。我還在自己身上發(fā)現(xiàn)了意想不到的天賦。例如,我經(jīng)常發(fā)現(xiàn)我能夠感知和發(fā)現(xiàn)不安,并在這種不安升級(jí)之前化解它。

傳統(tǒng)上,這些“軟技能”更多地是與女性相關(guān),而非男性。如今,在已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)型的職場(chǎng)中,這些軟技能是取得成功的關(guān)鍵——除非你在工作上也表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異,否則它們不會(huì)起作用。

但是,謝天謝地,放任自流的男性平庸時(shí)代即將落幕。這對(duì)所有人來(lái)說(shuō)都是一種解脫,包括平庸的男人們自己。

如何杜絕工作中的 "戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能"現(xiàn)象

經(jīng)理和公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)可以做很多事情,以確保每個(gè)人都分擔(dān)"不利于升職"的工作任務(wù)。

解釋合理的委托和減輕苦差事之間的區(qū)別

把工作委托給別人沒(méi)有錯(cuò);事實(shí)上,這往往是一種善意,是讓同事脫穎而出的機(jī)會(huì)。有些任務(wù)必須完成,即使這些任務(wù)收獲不大。盡管如此,如果承擔(dān)"辦公室家務(wù)"的同事總是同一批人,而其他人則完全推卸責(zé)任,這就很能說(shuō)明問(wèn)題了。讓"不利于升職"的工作成為你工作場(chǎng)所詞匯的一部分。鼓勵(lì)就所有任務(wù)的價(jià)值進(jìn)行公開(kāi)對(duì)話,即使這些任務(wù)不屬于可計(jì)費(fèi)工時(shí)或不是備受矚目的任務(wù)。

不要讓志愿者做沒(méi)人想做的工作

研究表明,當(dāng)需要做會(huì)議記錄或?yàn)閳F(tuán)隊(duì)點(diǎn)餐時(shí),與男性相比,女性更有可能舉手承擔(dān)這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。為了避免這種不平衡現(xiàn)象一再發(fā)生,隨機(jī)選人(從帽子里抽取名字牌)完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù),或者大家輪流來(lái)。

心理安全建設(shè)

一項(xiàng)又一項(xiàng)研究表明,創(chuàng)造一個(gè)讓員工敢于冒險(xiǎn)、不懼失敗的工作環(huán)境,是創(chuàng)新和生產(chǎn)力的關(guān)鍵。員工通過(guò)試錯(cuò)來(lái)培養(yǎng)技能和能力,所以只有在安全的環(huán)境中,他們才敢嘗試新的、不熟悉的工作。

盡可能讓更多人享有備受矚目、“有晉升空間”的工作機(jī)會(huì)

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森說(shuō):“人們對(duì)能力的定義存在偏見(jiàn)。她補(bǔ)充說(shuō),遺憾的是,許多公司“認(rèn)可某些領(lǐng)域的天才,而非其他領(lǐng)域的天才”。比如典型的神童創(chuàng)始人或衣衫不整的技術(shù)天才,但許多明星員工并不符合這些相當(dāng)有局限性的群體畫(huà)像。要給整個(gè)公司的員工挑戰(zhàn)自我、證明自己才能的機(jī)會(huì)。你很可能會(huì)找到下一位明星員工。

當(dāng)你犯了錯(cuò)或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能”時(shí),要改正錯(cuò)誤并為此道歉

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場(chǎng)所根深蒂固的制度。詢問(wèn)如今合作的同事和以前合作過(guò)的同事的體驗(yàn)和印象。人無(wú)完人,有時(shí)你可能會(huì)在某件事發(fā)生后意識(shí)到有人覺(jué)得自己被排擠或冒犯了。職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼說(shuō),承認(rèn)已經(jīng)造成的傷害并為此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公開(kāi)承認(rèn)自己造成的傷害,并為此道歉?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))

本文另一版本登載于《財(cái)富》雜志2023年2/3月刊,標(biāo)題為《是時(shí)候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽恕罚↖t’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

譯者:中慧言-王芳

亂蓬蓬的頭發(fā)并不能說(shuō)明什么。超特大號(hào)的T恤衫也不能說(shuō)明什么。那張困窘的臉,那自嘲的笑容卻將加密貨幣交易所創(chuàng)始人薩姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名譽(yù)掃地暴露無(wú)遺。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上寫(xiě)道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了?!彼麕缀跏锹柭柤?,承認(rèn)了一場(chǎng)讓他人損失了80億美元的加密貨幣災(zāi)難?!叭绻?dāng)時(shí)我能更專注于我所做的事情,我辦事會(huì)更縝密。”班克曼-弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮臺(tái)時(shí)告訴《紐約時(shí)報(bào)》。

鑒于班克曼-弗里德面臨刑事欺詐指控,他如此張揚(yáng)地展示自己的無(wú)能可能是為了自保,但其言下之意是確定無(wú)疑的:其他無(wú)足輕重的人本該為小事忐忑不安。

當(dāng)我讀到班克曼-弗里德自稱無(wú)能時(shí),我的第一反應(yīng)是“真是個(gè)小丑!”但我開(kāi)始感到我們需要密切注意這樣的聯(lián)系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顧……”。

我寫(xiě)了一本關(guān)于職場(chǎng)行為的書(shū)。好吧,也許不是那本書(shū)。而是一本題為《與他人合作無(wú)間》(Works Well With Others)的書(shū)。該書(shū)于2015年出版,講述了我作為一名年輕的、來(lái)自德克薩斯州的機(jī)上雜志編輯,如何在紐約市媒體界(以注重身份地位而聞名)游刃有余的故事。我這本書(shū)的論點(diǎn)是,無(wú)論你在哪個(gè)領(lǐng)域,得到同事和雇主青睞是通往職業(yè)成功的路徑。書(shū)中有介紹握手、寒暄和祝酒禮儀的章節(jié),還有一章的標(biāo)題是“如何在滿是重要人物的高級(jí)餐廳吃一頓有意義的午餐”。

我寫(xiě)這本書(shū)的目標(biāo)受眾并不僅僅是男性。但現(xiàn)在回想起來(lái),我發(fā)現(xiàn)其中一些建議更適合我所在的群體: 直男、白人、男性。

在過(guò)去幾年的某個(gè)時(shí)刻,我開(kāi)始意識(shí)到那些特殊的“人際技能”對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō)不再像以前那樣有效。也許是因?yàn)樾鹿诜窝滓咔楹瓦h(yuǎn)程工作的興起,消除了許多職場(chǎng)等級(jí)制度、慣例和裝模作樣。也許是對(duì)性別歧視和種族主義的考量,侵蝕了像我這樣的人的基本特權(quán),同時(shí)提升了歷史上被邊緣化的人的地位。也許廢話已經(jīng)變得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我慣用的幽默、討好和自嘲的招數(shù)似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我開(kāi)始理解其中一些行為是操縱性的,可以讓別人做我不想做的工作。當(dāng)我在自己身上看到這些傾向時(shí),我無(wú)法忽視它們。我開(kāi)始發(fā)現(xiàn)這種行為對(duì)女性和有色人種的傷害,以及對(duì)工作場(chǎng)所中每個(gè)人的士氣、生產(chǎn)力和創(chuàng)造力的傷害。

不管他們是否真正有能力,許多男性都很擅長(zhǎng)表現(xiàn)自己。實(shí)際上,這很容易。你在會(huì)議上要言不煩,當(dāng)你發(fā)言的時(shí)候,你向提出論斷的人提問(wèn),或者重復(fù)和贊揚(yáng)別人很有思想見(jiàn)地的觀點(diǎn)。你可以乘著別人敢為人先和勇于冒險(xiǎn)的東風(fēng)。

與此相關(guān)的一種行為是“戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能”(有時(shí)也被稱為“技能型無(wú)能”或“武器化無(wú)能”)。莉莎?韋斯特倫德(Lise Vesterlund)與三位合著者合著了《拒絕俱樂(lè)部:給女性毫無(wú)前途的工作畫(huà)上句號(hào)》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一書(shū)。戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能指的是同事聲稱自己數(shù)學(xué)很差,這樣就能讓你處理所有的電子表格。丈夫打掃衛(wèi)生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承擔(dān)家務(wù)。這并不是懶惰那么簡(jiǎn)單,而是不愿意做那些低價(jià)值工作(韋斯特倫德和合著者琳達(dá)?巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布倫達(dá)?佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和勞里?溫格特(Laurie Weingart)將這些工作稱為“不利于升職”的工作)。這些工作無(wú)法獲得太多榮譽(yù)或贊譽(yù);這些工作人們往往視而不見(jiàn)。不僅僅是男性會(huì)回避這些工作——但我在騙誰(shuí)呢?主要是男性會(huì)回避這些工作。

韋斯特倫德告訴我:"這非常方便。"女性和有色人種往往會(huì)承擔(dān)這種不利于升職的工作——組織辦公室派對(duì),參加招聘委員會(huì),主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作組會(huì)議。"很多時(shí)候,我們讓女性承擔(dān)這種類型的工作的原因是,哦,她們很擅長(zhǎng)這種工作,因?yàn)樗齻円淮斡忠淮蔚刈C明了她們擅長(zhǎng)這種工作。但或許有必要退一步(對(duì)男性)說(shuō),你們?cè)趺茨苤蛔瞿切┯欣谏毜墓ぷ?,而把那些不利于升職的工作丟給別人呢?”

我立即意識(shí)到韋斯特倫德在說(shuō)什么,這讓我想起了幾年前我和兩名女同事的一次Zoom電話會(huì)議。我的老板是一位有色人種女性,她要求我為項(xiàng)目制定時(shí)間表。"這個(gè)計(jì)劃非常好。"我說(shuō),然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你幫我制定項(xiàng)目流程。"我對(duì)她說(shuō)。我開(kāi)了個(gè)自嘲的玩笑,說(shuō)自己無(wú)法在沒(méi)有幫助的情況下制定復(fù)雜的計(jì)劃。

問(wèn)題是:我實(shí)際上并不知道自己是否真的不擅長(zhǎng)制定項(xiàng)目時(shí)間表。我只是從來(lái)沒(méi)有做過(guò),也不是特別想學(xué)。我知道我的同事是一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的項(xiàng)目經(jīng)理,所以對(duì)我來(lái)說(shuō),她承擔(dān)起這個(gè)責(zé)任才合情合理。

但這一次,我的請(qǐng)求沒(méi)有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的卻是漫長(zhǎng)而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持槍歹徒帶著一頂可疑的邊緣平整的帽子走進(jìn)一家酒館。在幾秒鐘(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意。“話說(shuō),我自己來(lái)處理吧!”我說(shuō)。然后我倒退著穿過(guò)來(lái)回晃動(dòng)的酒館大門(mén),慢吞吞地走著。

對(duì)我當(dāng)時(shí)的老板來(lái)說(shuō),她只是翻了個(gè)白眼而已。(最近我問(wèn)起她這件事的時(shí)候,她都不記得了。)但那次會(huì)議是我第一次意識(shí)到——真正理解——我已經(jīng)養(yǎng)成了用魅力(或阿諛?lè)畛?,取決于你如何看待它)來(lái)讓別人為我做事的習(xí)慣。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)說(shuō),女性和有色人種一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定無(wú)罪的情況。她說(shuō):"這一點(diǎn)司空見(jiàn)慣,無(wú)處不在。人們對(duì)能力的定義存在偏見(jiàn)。這存在種族偏見(jiàn),也存在性別偏見(jiàn)......這種偏見(jiàn)無(wú)孔不入。"

這種現(xiàn)象造成的后果是對(duì)婦女和有色人種的持續(xù)低估。韋斯特倫德講述了她書(shū)中的一個(gè)例子,律所要求一位律師招募一批實(shí)習(xí)生。韋斯特倫德解釋說(shuō),這位律師認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)很好的發(fā)展機(jī)會(huì),但查看申請(qǐng)表和面試實(shí)習(xí)生這樣耗時(shí)的工作最終削減了她的計(jì)費(fèi)工時(shí),還阻礙了她的職業(yè)發(fā)展。"所以談話不應(yīng)該只是:你擅長(zhǎng)招聘實(shí)習(xí)生嗎?或者你享受招聘實(shí)習(xí)生的樂(lè)趣嗎?”韋斯特倫德告訴我。這樣的對(duì)話應(yīng)該是:"如果你想成為合伙人,你就要拿出一年時(shí)間招募實(shí)習(xí)生,但之后我們會(huì)把[這份工作]交給其他人。"

在《2022年職場(chǎng)女性報(bào)告》中,LeanIn.org和麥肯錫公司發(fā)現(xiàn),女性領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人正以前所未有的速度換工作。研究人員對(duì)4萬(wàn)名員工的調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn),與男性一樣,這些女性有遠(yuǎn)大抱負(fù),但“她們的權(quán)威會(huì)受到輕度冒犯,也有跡象表明她們將更難獲得晉升"。

在閱讀這篇材料的時(shí)候,我想起了另一個(gè)讓我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要與遠(yuǎn)程辦公的同事進(jìn)行視頻聊天,這樣他才能參與討論。我沒(méi)帶手機(jī),就問(wèn)同事能不能用一下她的?!爱?dāng)然可以?!彼f(shuō)。這項(xiàng)任務(wù)要求她在我們討論想要做出修改的地方時(shí),把手機(jī)對(duì)著墻舉15分鐘左右。我沒(méi)把這件事當(dāng)回事,但在那之后的幾個(gè)星期里,我和她交流都會(huì)感到不寒而栗。最終我明白了,電話事件是導(dǎo)火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。當(dāng)時(shí),我認(rèn)為自己的行為并沒(méi)什么不妥。

現(xiàn)在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能覺(jué)得自己被冒犯了,很泄氣。當(dāng)我把這段軼事告訴韋斯特倫德時(shí),她說(shuō):“這可能不是她第一次身處這樣的境地:她做的事情相當(dāng)于拿著電話,無(wú)法與其他人一樣參加會(huì)議?!?/p>

為什么我同事不直接拒絕,或者把手機(jī)遞給我讓我拿著? 在一個(gè)仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,這說(shuō)起來(lái)容易做起來(lái)難。在一系列的實(shí)驗(yàn)中,韋斯特倫德和她的合著者發(fā)現(xiàn),女性被男經(jīng)理要求做會(huì)議記錄等不利于升職的工作的幾率比男性高出44%,女性答應(yīng)完成這樣的工作的幾率比男性高出50%。只有當(dāng)女性不在辦公室里的時(shí)候,男性才會(huì)主動(dòng)去做那些必要卻乏味的工作。

我在職業(yè)生涯的早期就認(rèn)識(shí)到,讓別人做你的工作才是成功的應(yīng)有之義。在《紳士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鮮亮麗的雜志那種類似《廣告狂人》(Mad men)的環(huán)境中工作,就如同置身于虛張聲勢(shì)和戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能的大師級(jí)課堂。

打電話的時(shí)候我會(huì)提高音量,這樣同事們就會(huì)知道我在和重要人物通話。只要我在電腦前,我就會(huì)皺起眉頭。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉餡煎蛋餅食譜時(shí)皺起眉頭,作沉思狀,否則你無(wú)法體會(huì)現(xiàn)代職場(chǎng)男性的感受。)

我所供職的男性雜志,就像許多其他傳統(tǒng)的男性組織一樣,是一個(gè)由恐懼和機(jī)會(huì)驅(qū)動(dòng)的地方。失敗的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),或者讓自己難堪的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),尤其是如果你是一個(gè)已經(jīng)晉升到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)職位的男人,會(huì)感覺(jué)到自己很可悲。你必須從第一天起就取得成功。

這是個(gè)不切實(shí)際的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),顯然,唯一的策略就是假裝,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持會(huì)議,那就避免這樣做。如果你從未制作過(guò)損益表,那就委托他人去做。

顯然,這種行為對(duì)于那些被留下來(lái)做實(shí)際工作的人(不論性別或種族)來(lái)說(shuō)是不公平的。但這種行為也會(huì)侵蝕那些主張這種特權(quán)的人自己和公司。這種行為會(huì)抑制冒險(xiǎn)和創(chuàng)新,也會(huì)影響“心理安全”。谷歌2015年對(duì)成功團(tuán)隊(duì)的研究被廣泛引用。該研究發(fā)現(xiàn),“心理安全”“無(wú)疑”是表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異的團(tuán)隊(duì)最重要的驅(qū)動(dòng)力。如果沒(méi)有心理上的安全感,我們就不愿意嘗試新事物,就會(huì)錯(cuò)過(guò)學(xué)習(xí)和職業(yè)成長(zhǎng)的機(jī)會(huì)。

學(xué)習(xí)如何舉辦大型會(huì)議的最好方法就是舉辦一場(chǎng)大型會(huì)議——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你會(huì)犯一些可笑的錯(cuò)誤。如果沒(méi)有試錯(cuò)的經(jīng)驗(yàn),就無(wú)法真正精通,許多男人都罹患冒名頂替綜合癥:我認(rèn)為這是男性平庸癥。我們能夠取得成功,甚至得到美差和晉升,但我們并不知道自己是否擅長(zhǎng)相應(yīng)的工作。通常情況下,我們并不擅長(zhǎng)。

澄清一下,我不是在尋求同情。如果男性廢話在工作中失去了影響力,這是件好事。專攻關(guān)鍵性調(diào)整的職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每個(gè)行業(yè)都在發(fā)生代際變化。她說(shuō):“謝天謝地,Z世代帶來(lái)了變化?,F(xiàn)在人們無(wú)所遁形了。要掩蓋你的罪惡很難。要掩蓋你的不足也很難?!?/p>

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那種坦率是令人鼓舞的。他們很快就會(huì)告訴你他們已經(jīng)超負(fù)荷了,不能再承擔(dān)更多的工作了——為什么有人要超負(fù)荷工作?這難道不是對(duì)員工和企業(yè)都不利嗎?他們會(huì)迅速提出問(wèn)題。他們對(duì)自己的不足之處和需要成長(zhǎng)的地方持開(kāi)放態(tài)度。而他們對(duì)那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的經(jīng)理感到困惑。

如果我有機(jī)會(huì)對(duì)我的書(shū)做一些修改,我會(huì)說(shuō):不管你屬于什么群體,都要內(nèi)省,問(wèn)一些讓自己脫離舒適區(qū)的、發(fā)人深省的問(wèn)題。我的弱點(diǎn)是什么?如果我必須和自己一起工作,我會(huì)怎么評(píng)價(jià)自己?我不擅長(zhǎng)什么?我下意識(shí)會(huì)避免什么事情?也許最重要的是:誰(shuí)來(lái)收拾殘局?

最近,我開(kāi)始把那些我一直試圖避免的“不利于升職”的工作視為成長(zhǎng)機(jī)會(huì)——比如項(xiàng)目計(jì)劃和做筆記。在完成這些工作的過(guò)程中,我發(fā)現(xiàn)了多年前就該找到的拼圖碎片:那些讓我成為更好的同事、表現(xiàn)更優(yōu)異的品質(zhì)。

我已經(jīng)開(kāi)始以不同的方式運(yùn)用我的人際技能——溝通、協(xié)作和情商?,F(xiàn)在,當(dāng)我靠直覺(jué)分析在特定環(huán)境下人們的總體情緒時(shí),我想的不是人們?nèi)绾慰创遥撬麄內(nèi)绾慰创?、理解和影響彼此。我還在自己身上發(fā)現(xiàn)了意想不到的天賦。例如,我經(jīng)常發(fā)現(xiàn)我能夠感知和發(fā)現(xiàn)不安,并在這種不安升級(jí)之前化解它。

傳統(tǒng)上,這些“軟技能”更多地是與女性相關(guān),而非男性。如今,在已經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)型的職場(chǎng)中,這些軟技能是取得成功的關(guān)鍵——除非你在工作上也表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異,否則它們不會(huì)起作用。

但是,謝天謝地,放任自流的男性平庸時(shí)代即將落幕。這對(duì)所有人來(lái)說(shuō)都是一種解脫,包括平庸的男人們自己。

如何杜絕工作中的 "戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能"現(xiàn)象

經(jīng)理和公司領(lǐng)導(dǎo)可以做很多事情,以確保每個(gè)人都分擔(dān)"不利于升職"的工作任務(wù)。

解釋合理的委托和減輕苦差事之間的區(qū)別。

把工作委托給別人沒(méi)有錯(cuò);事實(shí)上,這往往是一種善意,是讓同事脫穎而出的機(jī)會(huì)。有些任務(wù)必須完成,即使這些任務(wù)收獲不大。盡管如此,如果承擔(dān)"辦公室家務(wù)"的同事總是同一批人,而其他人則完全推卸責(zé)任,這就很能說(shuō)明問(wèn)題了。讓"不利于升職"的工作成為你工作場(chǎng)所詞匯的一部分。鼓勵(lì)就所有任務(wù)的價(jià)值進(jìn)行公開(kāi)對(duì)話,即使這些任務(wù)不屬于可計(jì)費(fèi)工時(shí)或不是備受矚目的任務(wù)。

不要讓志愿者做沒(méi)人想做的工作。

研究表明,當(dāng)需要做會(huì)議記錄或?yàn)閳F(tuán)隊(duì)點(diǎn)餐時(shí),與男性相比,女性更有可能舉手承擔(dān)這項(xiàng)任務(wù)。為了避免這種不平衡現(xiàn)象一再發(fā)生,隨機(jī)選人(從帽子里抽取名字牌)完成這項(xiàng)任務(wù),或者大家輪流來(lái)。

心理安全建設(shè)。

一項(xiàng)又一項(xiàng)研究表明,創(chuàng)造一個(gè)讓員工敢于冒險(xiǎn)、不懼失敗的工作環(huán)境,是創(chuàng)新和生產(chǎn)力的關(guān)鍵。員工通過(guò)試錯(cuò)來(lái)培養(yǎng)技能和能力,所以只有在安全的環(huán)境中,他們才敢嘗試新的、不熟悉的工作。

盡可能讓更多人享有備受矚目、“有晉升空間”的工作機(jī)會(huì)。

多元化、公平和包容咨詢公司ReadySet的首席執(zhí)行官伊-馮娜·哈欽森說(shuō):“人們對(duì)能力的定義存在偏見(jiàn)。她補(bǔ)充說(shuō),遺憾的是,許多公司“認(rèn)可某些領(lǐng)域的天才,而非其他領(lǐng)域的天才”。比如典型的神童創(chuàng)始人或衣衫不整的技術(shù)天才,但許多明星員工并不符合這些相當(dāng)有局限性的群體畫(huà)像。要給整個(gè)公司的員工挑戰(zhàn)自我、證明自己才能的機(jī)會(huì)。你很可能會(huì)找到下一位明星員工。

當(dāng)你犯了錯(cuò)或表現(xiàn)出“戰(zhàn)略性無(wú)能”時(shí),要改正錯(cuò)誤并為此道歉。

要持續(xù)地審視自己的行為和工作場(chǎng)所根深蒂固的制度。詢問(wèn)如今合作的同事和以前合作過(guò)的同事的體驗(yàn)和印象。人無(wú)完人,有時(shí)你可能會(huì)在某件事發(fā)生后意識(shí)到有人覺(jué)得自己被排擠或冒犯了。職業(yè)教練斯泰西?施塔特曼說(shuō),承認(rèn)已經(jīng)造成的傷害并為此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公開(kāi)承認(rèn)自己造成的傷害,并為此道歉?!保ㄘ?cái)富中文網(wǎng))

本文另一版本登載于《財(cái)富》雜志2023年2/3月刊,標(biāo)題為《是時(shí)候談?wù)勀行栽诠ぷ髦械钠接沽恕罚↖t’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

譯者:中慧言-王芳

ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

The unkempt hair wasn’t the tell. The XXXL T-shirt wasn’t the tell. No, the giveaway about disgraced cryptocurrency exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was on his sheepish face: that self-deprecating grin.

“I’m sorry?…?I fucked up,” Bankman-Fried tweeted in November, owning up with a virtual shrug to a crypto calamity that erased $8 billion in other people’s money. “Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,’’ Bankman-Fried told the New York Times as his crypto exchange, FTX, unraveled.

Bankman-Fried’s ostentatious display of incompetence is likely self-serving, given that he faces criminal fraud charges, but the implication is unmistakable: Other, lesser minds should have been sweating the small stuff.

When I read about Bankman-Fried’s professed ineptitude, my first thought was “What a clown!” But increasingly I’ve begun to feel a wary connection: “There, but for the grace of God?…”

I wrote the book on workplace behavior. Okay, maybe not the book. But a book. It’s called Works Well With Others. Published in 2015, it tells the story of how I, as a young in-flight-magazine editor from Texas, navigated New York City’s famously status-conscious media world. My book’s thesis is that being well-liked by your colleagues and bosses is a path to professional success, in whatever field you’re in. There are chapters on shaking hands, making small talk, and giving a toast, and a chapter called “How to Have a Meaningful Lunch in a Fancy Restaurant Full of Important People.”

I didn’t write the book just for men. But in retrospect I see that some of its advice works best for the demographic I happen to belong to: straight, white, male.

And at some point in the last few years, I started to realize that those particular “people skills” weren’t working for me the way they used to. Maybe it was the COVID-19 pandemic and rise of remote work, which stripped away many of the hierarchies, conventions, and pretensions of office life. Maybe it was the reckonings about sexism and racism that have eroded some of the baseline privilege granted to people who look like me, while elevating some of those who have been historically marginalized. Maybe bullshit has simply become less of a currency. Whatever it was, my go-to moves of humor, ingratiation, and self-deprecation just didn’t seem to be landing.

Even worse, I started to understand some of those behaviors as manipulative, a way of getting others to do work I didn’t want to do. When I saw those tendencies in myself, I couldn’t unsee them. And I began to see the damage this kind of behavior does to women and people of color—and to the morale, productiveness, and creativity of everyone in a workplace.

Whether they are truly competent or not, many men are very good at performing competence. It’s kind of easy, actually. You don’t talk a lot in meetings, and when you do you ask questions of the people who made assertions, or repeat and praise good points others made. You ride the wake of the boldness and risk-taking of others.

A related behavior, says Lise Vesterlund, who along with three coauthors wrote The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work, is “strategic incompetence” (sometimes called “skilled incompetence” or “weaponized incompetence”). Strategic incompetence is the colleague who claims to be terrible at math, so that you handle all the spreadsheets. The husband who does such a bad vacuuming job that you take on the chore yourself. It’s not straightforward laziness—it’s a reluctance to do the lower-value jobs that Vesterlund and coauthors Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, and Laurie Weingart call “non-promotable.” This is the work that doesn’t get much credit or garner accolades; work that’s often invisible. It’s not just men who avoid it—but who am I kidding? It’s mostly men.

“It’s very convenient,” Vesterlund told me, that women and people of color tend to get saddled with this non-promotable work—organizing the office party, sitting on hiring committees, chairing a DEI task force. “Oftentimes the reason we ask women is because, Oh, they’re so good at it, because they’ve demonstrated time and time again that they are good at it. But it might be worth sort of taking a step back and saying [to men], How could you possibly do all the promotable work, and not be able to do the non-promotable work?”

I immediately recognized what Vesterlund was talking about, and it made me think of a Zoom call I was on with two women colleagues a couple of years ago. My boss, a woman of color, asked that I map out a timeline for completing a project. “That’s a great plan,” I said, then looked to my other colleague on the screen. “I’ll just need help working up a project flow,” I said to her. I made a self-deprecating joke about my inability to plan complex initiatives without help.

The thing is: I didn’t actually know if I was bad at mapping out a project timeline. I just had never done it, and I didn’t particularly want to learn how. I knew my colleague to be an excellent project manager, so it only made sense to me that she should take on that responsibility.

But this time, my request was not seconded. What I was expecting was a “Sure!,” but what I got was a protracted, excruciating silence, like in a Western, when a gunslinger with a suspiciously clean hat enters a saloon. After a few long seconds, I backtracked. “You know what? I’ll handle it myself!” I said. Then I metaphorically backed through the swinging saloon doors and shuffled on my way.

For my then boss, the incident didn’t amount to more than an eye roll. (She didn’t even remember it when I asked her about it recently.) But that meeting was the first time I realized—really understood—that I had made a habit of using charm (or smarm, depending on how you see it) as a way of getting other people to do work for me.

Of course, the benefit of the doubt granted to some white men has never been invisible to women and people of color, says Y-Vonne Hutchinson, CEO of a diversity, equity, and inclusion consulting firm ReadySet. “I see it in almost every aspect of the work that we do,” she says. “There is a bias toward what competence looks like. It’s a racial bias, a gender bias?…?it’s incredibly pervasive.”

The converse of this phenomenon is the persistent underestimation of women and people of color. Vesterlund recounted an example from her book of an attorney who was asked to recruit a cohort of interns. It was presented as a terrific opportunity for growth, Vesterlund explained, but the time-consuming work of reading applications and interviewing ended up cutting into her billable hours, and stalling her advancement at the firm. “So the conversation shouldn’t just be, Are you good at recruiting interns, or do you enjoy recruiting interns?”

Vesterlund told me. It should be: “If you want to make partner, you can recruit interns for one year, but then we’re going to give [that job] to somebody else.”

In their 2022 Women in the Workplace report, LeanIn.org and McKinsey & Company found that women leaders were switching jobs at an unprecedented rate. The researchers’ surveys of 40,000 employees found that the women had similar ambitions to men, but that “they experience microaggressions that undermine their authority and signal that it will be harder for them to advance.”

Reading this, another professional episode came to mind, and made me cringe. A woman colleague and I were looking at some printed materials and needed to FaceTime someone who was working remotely so that he could weigh in. I didn’t have my phone on me, so I asked my colleague if she could use hers. “Sure,” she said. The task required her to hold her phone toward a wall for about 15 minutes as we talked about things we wanted to change. I thought nothing of it, but for weeks after that I felt a chill in communications with her. Eventually it became clear to me that the phone incident was the reason. I was defensive and confused. I didn’t think what I’d done was even remotely objectionable behavior.

Now I understand that my colleague may well have experienced the moment as offensive and demoralizing. When I told Vesterlund the anecdote, she said, “This probably wasn’t the first time that she was in a position where she was doing the equivalent of holding the phone, unable to participate in the meeting on the same level as everybody else.”

Why didn’t my colleague just say no, or hand me the phone to hold? That’s easier said than done, in a culture that still expects women to do much of the grunt work. In a series of experiments, Vesterlund and her coauthors found that women are 44% more likely than men to be asked by male managers to perform non-promotable tasks such as taking meeting notes, and 50% more likely to say yes. It’s only when women aren’t in the room that men volunteer to do that necessary, unglamorous work.

I learned early in my career that getting other people to do your job was what success looked like. Working in the Mad Men–like environment of glossy magazines, including Esquire and GQ, was a master class in bluster and strategic incompetence.

I would raise my voice while I was on the phone, so colleagues would know I was talking with someone important. I would furrow my brow anytime I was at my computer. (You can’t relate to what it’s like to be a man in the modern workplace unless you’ve scowled pensively while Googling frittata recipes.)

The men’s magazines I worked at, like so many other traditionally masculine organizations, are places driven by fear as much as opportunity. The risk of failing, or embarrassing oneself, especially if you’re a man who has risen to a leadership position, can feel pathetically existential. You must succeed from day one.

This is an impossible standard, so the obvious strategy is to fake it, and to avoid any situation where your inadequacy will be visible. If you don’t know how to run a meeting, avoid doing so. If you haven’t ever created a profit and loss statement, delegate it.

This behavior is obviously unfair to those who are left doing the real work, of any gender or race. But it’s also corrosive to those asserting this privilege themselves, and to companies. It suppresses risk-taking, innovation, and “psychological safety”—the quality that Google’s much-cited 2015 study of successful teams found to be “far and away” the most important dynamic of the highest-performing groups. Without psychological safety, we’re reluctant to try new things, and we miss out on opportunities to learn and grow professionally.

The best way to learn how to run a big meeting is to run a big meeting—even if you screw it up the first, second, third time; even if you make ridiculous flubs. Without the experience of trial and error that leads to real mastery, many men suffer from a kind of strange impostor syndrome: I think of it as a male mediocrity disorder. We can be successful, and even get plum assignments and promotions, but we have no real idea whether we’re any good at our jobs. Often, we’re not.

To be clear, I’m not asking for sympathy. If traditionally masculine bullshit is losing its currency at work, that’s a good thing. A generational change is underway in every industry, says Stacey Staaterman, a career coach specializing in pivots. “Thank God for what Gen Z has brought to the table,” she says. “It’s harder to hide now. It’s harder to cover up your sins. It’s harder to cover up your inadequacies.”

The kind of candor I see in Gen Z colleagues is inspiring. They are quick to tell you when they are overloaded and can’t take on more—because why should anyone be overloaded with work? Isn’t that bad for the employee and the business? They are quick to ask questions. They’re open about their deficiencies and areas for growth. And they are bewildered by managers who won’t come clean about their own.

If I had a chance to revise my book, I’d say: Whatever your demographic profile, ask uncomfortable, revealing questions about yourself. What are my weak spots? What would I say about myself if I had to work with me? What am I bad at? What do I avoid in a knee-jerk way? And perhaps most important: Who picks up the slack?

Lately, I’ve begun to see the “non-promotable” work I’ve always tried to avoid as an opportunity for growth—project planning and note-taking, for example. And in doing these tasks, I have found puzzle pieces that I should have located years ago: qualities that make me a better colleague who produces better work.

I have started using my people skills—communication, collaboration, and emotional intelligence—in a different way. When I read a room now, it’s less about how I think people are seeing me, but how they are seeing and understanding and influencing one another. And I’ve discovered unexpected talents in myself. For instance, I often find that I can sense and identify unrest, and defuse it before it escalates.

These “soft skills,” traditionally associated more with women than men, are key for getting ahead in today’s transformed workplace—but they don’t work unless you’re also doing a great job.

But the sun is setting on the age of unchecked male mediocrity, and thank goodness. It’s a relief for everyone, including mediocre men.

How to stamp out ‘strategic incompetence’ at work

There’s a lot that managers and company leaders can do to ensure that everyone is sharing the burden of “non-promotable” work.

Explain the difference between reasonable delegating and the offloading of drudgery.

There’s nothing wrong with delegating; indeed, often it can be a kindness, an opportunity to let colleagues shine. And some tasks have to get done, even if they’re not particularly rewarding. Still, it helps to name what’s happening when the same colleagues always take on the “office housework” and others shirk it entirely: Make “non-promotable” work a part of your workplace’s vocabulary. Encourage clear conversations about the value of all tasks, even if they’re not billable hours or high-profile assignments.

Don’t ask for volunteers to do tasks nobody wants.

Studies show that women are more likely than men to raise their hand when it comes time to take meeting notes or order lunch for the group. To avoid this imbalance, pick names out of a hat, or take turns.

Build psychological safety.

Creating a work environment where employees feel safe taking risks and failing is key to innovation and productivity, study after study has shown. Employees build skills and competence through trial and error, so it must feel safe for them to try out new, unfamiliar kinds of work.

Spread widely the opportunities for high-profile, “promotable” work.

“There is a bias toward what competence looks like,” says Y-Vonne Hutchinson of the DEI consulting organization ReadySet. Unfortunately, many companies “recognize genius in some spaces and not others,” she adds. Some geniuses look like the archetypal wunderkind founder or the disheveled tech brainiac—but many great minds don’t fit those rather limited demographic contours. Give people throughout your organization opportunities to challenge themselves and prove their talents. You’ll likely find your next star performer.

When you make a mistake or display “strategic incompetence,” fix it and apologize.

On an ongoing basis, examine your own behavior and the entrenched systems of your workplace. Ask colleagues present and past about their experiences and impressions. Nobody’s perfect, and sometimes you may realize after an incident that someone felt sidelined or offended. Acknowledging the harm that was done and apologizing for it can go a long way, says Stacey Staaterman, a professional coach: “The way to renew integrity is to speak the words out loud.”

This article appears in the February/March 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “It’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work.”

財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)所刊載內(nèi)容之知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)為財(cái)富媒體知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)有限公司及/或相關(guān)權(quán)利人專屬所有或持有。未經(jīng)許可,禁止進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)載、摘編、復(fù)制及建立鏡像等任何使用。
0條Plus
精彩評(píng)論
評(píng)論

撰寫(xiě)或查看更多評(píng)論

請(qǐng)打開(kāi)財(cái)富Plus APP

前往打開(kāi)
熱讀文章
99在线精品免费视频九九视| 青青草国产在线观看| 日韩精品无码专区| 伊人无码精品久久一区二区| 欧美精品免费一区欧美久久| 国产精品99久久久久久人韩国| 国产精品亚洲一区二区三区久久| 国内一级一片内射免费视频观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人精品| 国产精品一线二线三线有什么区别| 无码精品视频一区二区三区| 成年女人黄网站18禁| 久久综合国产乱子伦精免费| 国产av人人夜夜澡人人爽麻豆| 无码国产精品视频一区二区,| 国产中文区四暮区2021| 国产乱子伦精品无码码专区| 欧美乱人伦中文在线观看不卡| 九热精品视频5月婷婷久久| 2021777久久人妻少妇嫩草AV| 亚洲国产AV玩弄放荡人妇| 7777精品伊人久久久大香线蕉| 亚欧免费无码Aⅴ在线观看网站| 久久无码AV中文出轨人妻| 亚洲国产天堂久久综合| 大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片免费| 国产精品国产三级国产潘金莲| 欧美精品中文字幕亚洲专区| 99久久精品美女高潮喷水十八| 91成人亚洲综合欧美日韩| 极品白嫩美女白浆成人福利在线看| 日产精品一线二线三线芒果| 公和熄小婷乱中文字幕| 国产香蕉97碰碰久久人人| 国产精品一区二区AV麻豆| 亚洲av永久无码精品秋霞电影影院| 国产精品一区久久久久久| 性一交一乱一乱一视频| 成熟人妻av无码专区| 亚洲永久国产一级大片在线观看| 国产a级一级久久毛片|