“勝負(fù)不重要，重要的是你怎樣比賽”，這是美國(guó)最著名體育記者格蘭特蘭德?賴斯的座右銘。在我們的童年中，如果自己一方屬掉了重大比賽，一定會(huì)有人用這句話安慰你。

而今，許多公司高層都相信這句話只能屬于童年?，F(xiàn)實(shí)世界的人們都說(shuō)，結(jié)果才是真正重要的，別的什么都不重要。

雖然大家確實(shí)都關(guān)心結(jié)果，但執(zhí)著于結(jié)果，往往會(huì)妨礙我們關(guān)注實(shí)現(xiàn)結(jié)果的具體手段。而且，不同的手段之間差別非常大，在追求最終結(jié)果的過(guò)程中，哪怕是細(xì)小的差別，也會(huì)極大地影響到別人的看法。

舉個(gè)例子，推特給全體員工發(fā)了一份備忘錄宣布裁員，CEO在其中表示，裁員時(shí)“將盡可能地尊重每位員工”，被裁員工將得到“高額離職補(bǔ)償，而且公司會(huì)盡力幫助他們找到新工作”。

高額離職補(bǔ)償可能會(huì)讓被裁員工略感安慰，但盡量尊重員工這條承諾并未兌現(xiàn)，主要是因?yàn)橥铺氐奶幚矸绞教愀?。比如，推特的軟件工程師巴?提外茲，他就是要在手機(jī)上查郵件時(shí)，因?yàn)闊o(wú)法正常登陸，這才發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被裁了。按規(guī)定，員工一旦被裁，他的辦公郵件賬戶立刻就會(huì)被鎖定。如果推特能嚴(yán)格遵守承諾，通知員工離職的方式就完全可以體面一點(diǎn)。不過(guò)，在執(zhí)行過(guò)程處理失當(dāng)?shù)囊膊恢煌铺匾粋€(gè)。

我們研究的一家公司在客戶服務(wù)方面一直做得很差，而且員工流動(dòng)率很高。因此，他們決定嘗試改善。新員工入職時(shí)，該公司高層多花了一個(gè)小時(shí)，讓其中一組人描述自己的性格優(yōu)勢(shì)，以及如何在工作中發(fā)揮這些優(yōu)勢(shì)。

性格外向又好為人師的人也許會(huì)表示，有機(jī)會(huì)指導(dǎo)別人是件不錯(cuò)的事。讓新員工描述優(yōu)點(diǎn)不光帶來(lái)了積極的自我評(píng)價(jià)，還增強(qiáng)了員工的認(rèn)同感。這項(xiàng)一小時(shí)訓(xùn)練帶來(lái)了巨大回報(bào)——在隨后的六個(gè)月中，這組新員工的客戶滿意度和組織歸屬感都遠(yuǎn)高于其他新員工。

看來(lái)，管理者在處理工作時(shí)的細(xì)小差別會(huì)產(chǎn)生巨大影響。有鑒于此，多多追究進(jìn)展不順利的原因就顯得很重要。有時(shí)可能是因?yàn)槿狈ο鄳?yīng)知識(shí)；有時(shí)則是因?yàn)檫^(guò)程中細(xì)小改變的重要性并不明顯。不過(guò)，我經(jīng)常聽公司管理者說(shuō)，做決策時(shí)主要是沒時(shí)間考慮怎樣讓員工感到獲得充分授權(quán)，得到尊重并加強(qiáng)認(rèn)同感。

但管理者應(yīng)該考慮到，如果做決策時(shí)不花工夫思考各種細(xì)節(jié)，實(shí)施時(shí)就有可能給自己和公司帶來(lái)大麻煩，而且解決麻煩的過(guò)程中很可能制造出更多麻煩。換句話說(shuō)就是，要么早點(diǎn)解決小麻煩，要么最后收拾大爛攤。

這就有現(xiàn)成的例子，推特前員工巴特?提外茲之所以會(huì)憤怒地發(fā)布推文吐槽，就是因?yàn)樗l(fā)現(xiàn)自己被裁的實(shí)際和推特CEO“尊重每個(gè)人”的承諾相差太大。教訓(xùn)很明顯，那就是不僅輸贏重要，怎樣比賽也很重要。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

喬爾?布羅克納是哥倫比亞商學(xué)院Phillip Hettleman講席教授，他撰寫的《過(guò)程很重要》一書已于2015年12月出版。

譯者：Charlie

校對(duì)：夏林

“It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” That maxim from Grantland Rice, one of America’s most famous sportswriters, was undoubtedly trotted out at some point during your childhood to console you after the team lost a big game.

And today, many executives believe that’s exactly where it should stay. In the real world, we’re told, it is results, and only results, that really matter.

Yet, while of course we care about outcomes, our obsession with results tends to blind us to the reality that how people get to the results they seek also makes a big difference; and, that even small differences in how a process is managed can have a big impact on how well the results are perceived by others.

Twitter TWTR -1.36% shared a memo to all employees announcing that there would be layoffs at the company, but in the note the CEO promised layoffs would be handled “with the utmost respect for each and every person,” and that those being laid off would receive “generous exit packages and assistance in finding a new job.”

While the generous exit package may have been well-intended, the message of utmost respect fell by the wayside because the approach Twitter took was a process disaster. Bart Teeuwisse was a software engineer at Twitter who discovered he had been laid off when he tried to access email on his cell phone. Twitter had blocked his e-mail account. Given Twitter’s professed intentions, it seems that they could have found a more dignified way to tell people that they were being let go. But Twitter isn’t alone in process dysfunction.

One company we’ve studied had been plagued by shoddy customer service and high levels of employee turnover, so they decided to experiment a bit to improve results. When bringing on new employees, company executives took an additional 60 minutes with one group to describe their “signature strengths” and how such assets could be used on the job.

Extroverts, with a knack for teaching, might indicate that they would welcome the opportunity to play a mentoring role. Asking new hires to pinpoint their strengths not only fostered positive self-evaluations, it also enabled employees to affirm their sense of identity. The payoff for this 60-minute exercise was huge: over the next six months, customer satisfaction and employees’ organizational commitment was significantly higher for the “signature strength” group of employees than it was for other new hires not subjected to the same exercise.

Given that seemingly small differences in how managers handle processes can have such big impact, it is important to ask why the process isn’t executed well more often. It may come down to a lack of knowledge; sometimes, it just isn’t obvious how a small shift in process can matter so much. Frequently, however, what I hear from executives is that they don’t have time to handle decisions in ways that would allow employees to experience a sense of control, positive self-esteem, and a reinforcing sense of identity.

But, here’s something executives need to consider: if you don’t invest the time needed to consider the howof your decisions, you’re likely to create an even bigger mess for yourself and your organization down the road—and that means more of a mess to clean up. Put differently, pay now or pay (a lot more) later.

Look at the outrage expressed on Bart Teeuwisse’s Twitter feed on the disconnect between how he found out he was being laid off, and the CEO’s words about treating people with respect. The lesson is clear: It’s not only whether you win or lose, butalso how you play the game.

Joel Brockner is the Phillip Hettleman Professor of Business at the Columbia Business School. He is the author of the book, The Process Matters, which published this month.