????我們能為公司所做的最有益的一件事情就是“跟公司對著干”。

????這話聽起來有些奇怪，尤其是當(dāng)企業(yè)文化中經(jīng)常充斥著令人沮喪的負(fù)面因素時。但是，不光是討論競爭對手可能采取的行動，切實進(jìn)入競爭狀態(tài)、直擊問題要害，更能幫助公司掌握有關(guān)自身弱點的寶貴信息。

????這一年中，通用汽車公司（General Motors）的高管們參加了一次演習(xí)，他們在演習(xí)中正是這樣做的。在六月初召開的年度股東大會上，CEO丹尼爾?阿克森介紹了通用的做法：將高管分為六組，并向每個小組提供一套關(guān)于競爭對手公司的材料，之后，要求各小組成員制定一個策略來攻擊通用公司。高管們必須考慮將通用的哪些業(yè)務(wù)領(lǐng)域作為攻擊目標(biāo)，并運用競爭對手的獨特優(yōu)勢，用最有效的方式將通用打敗。

????阿克森對股東們說：演習(xí)的結(jié)果“非常富有啟示性，同時也讓人有點害怕。萬一小組成員中有任何一個人退出演習(xí)，投奔我們的競爭對手，那我們只能祈求上帝保佑了”。

????他說，雖然最后一句話有些開玩笑的意思，但是言下之意是，通用公司與外界一樣深知自己的弱點。投入時間對自身的弱點進(jìn)行探討之后，通用公司就能搶先一步，趕在競爭對手發(fā)現(xiàn)和利用這些弱點之前采取行動。

????沃頓商學(xué)院（Wharton）管理學(xué)教授萬克爾?尤辛表示，即使這種做法伴隨著短期的痛苦，但是仍然值得其他公司效仿。通常情況下，做到這一點很難，特別是它要求自己團(tuán)隊的高管站在競爭對手的角度，用第一人稱侃侃而談他們可能采取的殘酷競爭策略。尤辛表示：“各種明槍暗箭襲來時，要想做到不畏懼、不退縮，確實需要有足夠的承受能力?！?/p>

????創(chuàng)造一個鼓勵批評的環(huán)境非常重要，因為一旦開始換位思考，站在對手的角度想問題，公司內(nèi)部的認(rèn)知就會發(fā)生關(guān)鍵的轉(zhuǎn)變。

????尤辛說：“如果你只是說，‘看看吧，這就是福特汽車公司（Ford）對我們的評價?！@樣的說法仍然太客氣，過濾了一些火藥味。但是，一旦要求你扮演某個競爭對手，你就得真正進(jìn)入角色，淋漓盡致地演好這個角色?！?/p>

????雖然犀利的內(nèi)部批評聽起來可能有些殘忍，但是，有能力展開這樣的對話通常表明這是一個健康的公司。至少，它表明領(lǐng)導(dǎo)愿意了解公司的真實情況，而不是只聽那些“糖衣”新聞。

????如果一家公司能從這個角度利用員工，那么它不僅可以解決問題，還能創(chuàng)造一種企業(yè)文化，鼓勵公開的內(nèi)部交流。員工以后就能輕松自如地向公司管理層反映問題。從長遠(yuǎn)來看，這種做法不無益處，因為通常情況下，主動預(yù)防比被動回應(yīng)更有利于處理管理中面臨的難題。

????尤辛表示，方法很簡單：不要去想競爭會帶來什么，而是從競爭對手的角度進(jìn)行思考。那些愿意承擔(dān)風(fēng)險、嘗試使用反直覺領(lǐng)導(dǎo)策略的公司往往能夠確立對競爭對手的優(yōu)勢。“這種方法其實就是制定策略，克服文過飾非的傾向” ，終極目標(biāo)就是將這些裹了糖衣的消息扼殺在萌芽狀態(tài)，避免他們流傳開來。

????One of the best things you can do for your company is turn against it.

????It sounds odd, especially when corporate culture is often consumed with deflating negative news. But companies can learn valuable information about their own weaknesses not just by talking about what moves competitors might make, but by actually stepping into the shoes of the competition, and going for the throat.

????This past year, General Motors (GM) executives participated in an exercise that did just that. At the automaker's annual shareholders meeting in early June, CEO Daniel Akerson explained how some of GM's leadership broke into six groups, each with a packet of information about a rival company. Then, group members were asked to devise a strategy to attack GM. Participants had to consider which areas of GM they would target: Given the specific strengths of those other companies, how were they best suited to take GM down?

????The results were "enlightening and a little bit frightening," Akerson told shareholders: "God forbid someone will leave that exercise and go to work for some of our competitors."

????The last comment may have been tongue-in-cheek, but the takeaway thought, he said, was that GM knew its weaknesses as well as anyone else. Having taken the time to discuss the company's flaws, GM could then take action before rivals could discover and capitalize on them.

????More companies should follow GM's example, even if it is temporarily painful, says Michael Useem, a professor of management at Wharton. That's not always easy, especially during an activity when your own executives talk about other companies' cutthroat strategies in the first person. "It does take a thicker skin to get those kind of darts thrown in your back without flinching when they hit," Useem says.

????But creating a dart-friendly environment is important because a crucial cognitive switch happens when you start thinking like the enemy.

????"If you say, 'Look, this is what Ford would say about us,' that's going to still be in polite language and some of the punches are pulled. But if you really are asked to play a role, you have to play it to the hilt," Useem says.

????While harsh internal criticism may be brutal to hear, the ability to have that kind of dialogue is often a sign of a healthy company. For one, it shows that leaders want to be in touch with reality at the corporation, not just the most flattering news.

????A company that can use its employees as resources in this way can not only patch problem spots, but also create a culture of open internal communication. In the future, employees could feel comfortable bringing potential problems to the C-suite's attention. That's good in the long-run, since it is often much better to address difficult management situations in a preventative setting rather than a reactive one.

????This particular trick is simple: don't think what the competition would do, think like competitors. Companies that are wiling to take risks and try counter-intuitive leadership tactics often gain an edge over those competitors, Useem says. "It really is a matter of creating a few devices like that to overcome this tendency to sugar-coat the news," with the ultimate goal of nipping that news in the bud before anyone else catches on.