【TED】How to lead in the new era of emplo

Speak up. Bring your whole selves to work. Be the difference that you want to see. Sound familiar? Started to sound very familiar to quite a few employees. Now many leaders are asking voices of difference to speak up. And that's because what gets said, and what doesn't, in our workplaces has a huge consequence for things like ethical conduct, innovation, inclusion, talent retention.

大声说出来吧。 在职场中做真实的自己。 做你想要的那个不一样的自己。 是不是听着很耳熟？ 对于很多员工来说也是如此。 现在许多领导者 都在鼓励不同的声音发声。 是因为在职场中，说或不说 影响着诸如道德规范， 企业创新、 包容度和人才保留等问题。

So more and more employees at the moment are starting to speak up about social and environmental concerns. And this is great, but it's not always going quite to plan for everybody. A finance director I've been working with, he's been asking his employees to speak up for quite a while, and now they've started to. So they're saying, OK, let's talk about race. Let's talk about gender equity. Climate change, I want to talk about that. Modern slavery. And this finance director came to me somewhat stunned and said, "You know, Megan, I've got to admit, when I asked people to speak up, I was kind of thinking that I'd get more transparency around compliance issues and a few good ideas. I didn't really bank on getting everything else."

因此现在越来越多员工敢于发声， 并发表对社会和环境问题的看法。 这当然是好事， 但并不适用于每一个人。 我身边有位财务总监， 他一度鼓励员工畅所欲言， 员工们也这么做了。 然后他们说， 那我们讨论种族问题吧。 谈谈性别平等吧。 我想聊聊气候变化。 还有现代奴隶制。 这位财务总监来找我， 脸上微带着惊讶，然后说： “梅根你知道吗，我必须承认， 每当我让他们发表意见的时候， 我认为公司在合规问题上 变得更加透明的同时 还得到了一些好主意。 我甚至都没有采取其他 手段就得到了想要的东西。”

But this is an era of employee activism and that's great, but why does it end up on the front pages of the newspaper for the wrong reasons sometimes? Employees walking out, getting fired, taking to social media. Organizational reputations destroyed or investors seeking change at the top of organizations.

现在是员工行动主义的时代， 这当然好事， 但是为什么有时它出现在报纸头条时 都是负面消息呢？ 员工离开公司、被解雇， 被挂到网上。 结果就是企业名声毁于一旦， 或者投资者 要求组织内高层进行转变。

So my research over the past few years with John Higgins has involved interviewing hundreds of activists and leaders and activist leaders. And our work’s in service of enabling voices of difference to make a difference in the workplace. Now today, I'm just going to draw out four key findings, and I'm also going to go through a few dos and don'ts for leaders who want to navigate this territory proactively, productively.

在过去几年在我跟约翰·希金斯 （John Higgins）做的研究里 采访了上百位行动主义者、领导人 以及活动领袖。 我们的工作 是为不同的声音发声而服务 来为职场增添不一样的色彩。 今天在这里， 我只会阐述四个主要研究结果， 同时给领导者一些建议， 让他们主动且高效地 应对员工行动主义的快速发展。

So let me start with a question. When I say the word "activist," what comes to mind? What images, what thoughts, what assumptions? Well, we've asked thousands of people that question, and I can safely say that the words "activist" and "activism" are loaded terms. They mean everything from progress and courage and passion and change through to protest, rebellion, violence. It's quite cool to be labeled an activist in some parts of the world and in relation to some issues. And in other parts of the world and in relation to other issues, being labelled an activist is life-threatening.

开始之前我先问一个问题吧。 当我说到“行动主义者”这个词， 你脑海里浮现出的是什么？ 是什么样的画面、想法或者设想呢？ 我们曾经问了上万人这个问题， 我可以确切地说 “行动主义者”和“行动主义” 这两个词并不仅限于字面的积极意义。 它们承载了从进步、 勇气、激情、蜕变 到抗议、反抗和暴力等 有褒有贬的含义。 有时候被称为行动主义者， 并成为活动的一份子是很酷的事情。 但是有时在跟某些事情扯上关系时， 会被标榜为活跃分子则会危及生命。

So we need to understand the assumptions and the associations that we bring to activism because of course that affects how we respond to it. I was working with the board of a health care organization. And in the coffee break, they started to talk about an employee who'd been pretty vocal on the internal comms channels about climate change, and he was quite critical of what the organization had been doing. It was really interesting, because some of the executives labeled him as a troublemaker, kind of wanted to get rid of him. But there were a few executives that saw him as a trailblazer, and actually a couple that wanted to invite him into the board to educate them. OK?

所以我们需要理清行动主义 跟我们的关系以及 会给我们带来什么设想 因为这些跟我们的 应对方式有必然联系。 我曾经跟一家医疗 保健公司的董事会合作。 在茶歇的时候， 他们开始讨论一位 时常直言不讳的员工。 这位员工会在 国际平台上讨论气候变化， 也会批判机构正在做的事情。 结果很有趣，因为一些高管 称他为麻烦制造者， 像是试图要跟他撇的一干二净。 但是有不少高层视他为先驱者， 甚至有一对夫妻 想要邀请他给董事会上课。 事情就是这样。

So we've got to the first key point for our leaders is to understand that activism is in the eye of the beholder, as Ruchika Tulshyan, an author and activist, told us: “What looks like rebellion to you is another person’s basic human rights.” So the first thing you've got to do is really become aware of the kind of assumptions and judgments that you and your colleagues bring to activism in order that you can then respond with more awareness and more mindfulness.

此时要引出第一个给领导层的关键点 是他们要明白行动 主义是见仁见智的东西， 正如作家和活动分子鲁奇卡·图拉什扬 （Ruchika Tulshyan）所说： ”你眼里的反抗不过 是他人的基本人权罢了。“ 因此我们第一件要做的 是要意识到那些 你跟你的同事从行动主义中 获得的设想和判断 来方便你可以在做出回应的时候 多加留意，多加思考。

Second point, leaders can find themselves in an optimism bubble, we sometimes call a “delusion bubble.” As you get more senior, you overestimate the degree to which other people are speaking up. You overestimate your approachability, and you overestimate your listening skills. And that all means that you underestimate the strength of feeling that might exist with some of your employees. Now, one of the key reasons for this is something we call an “advantage blindness.” So when we have the labels and titles that convey status and authority in a particular context like hierarchy, for example, we're often the last person to realize the impact that those labels have on how other people are able to speak up to us. In fact, it's not until we don't have those labels that we can kind of look at them and go, "Gosh, they make a difference to how people can voice around here."

第二点， 有时候领导人 会陷入乐观主义泡沫当中， 我们称之为“妄想的怪圈”。 当你的职位越高， 你听到的来自员工的 声音没有你想象中多。 你高估了他人对你倾诉时的安全感， 以及你倾听不同观点的能力。 这一切都意味着你低估了 员工在面临问题时的感受。 为什么会出现这样的情况呢？ 其中一个诱因是 我们所说的“优势盲区”。 当我们被贴上代表 地位和权力的标签和头衔， 尤其是身处在等级制度之中， 我们常常是最后一个意识到那些标签 影响着别人跟我们 交谈方式与社交距离。 事实上，只有我们 撕下那些标签的时候 我们才能看到这些问题，并意识到： “原来它们影响着 人们是否能畅所欲言。”

So this point for leaders is all about understanding, you know, are you in one of these optimism bubbles? Are you a bit detached? How do you know what your employees find matters in their organizations? Do you? How?

对于领导层的人，要去反思 你是不是陷入乐观主义 泡沫的一份子呢？ 你是否已经跟现实脱节了？ 你怎么知道你的员工们 认为在组织里哪些事非常重要呢？ 你真的知道吗？如何得知的呢？

I was talking to the head of a retail organization, and she was saying that her leadership team spend a lot of time in stores, listening. And she said something I thought was really interesting. She said, "You can't delegate your listening responsibility to pulse surveys." You've got to show up with your ears wide open. So what this means is, don't assume you know what matters. You know, sharpen your antennae. Try and figure out. We've written about lots of ways that you can do that. But underlying all of those methods is an understanding that it’s almost inevitable that you’re detached a bit, and you need to do a lot more work, actually, to really find out what matters to employees.

我之前跟一位 零售组织的负责人聊天， 她说她的领导团队 花了很多时间亲自到 店里去倾听员工的声音。 她告诉了我一些很有趣的事情。 她说： “你不能用员工满意度调查 替你完成倾听这一步骤。” 你需要亲自到场，用心倾听。 这意味着， 不要假装你都知道什么是重要的。 让自己变得敏感一点。 尝试倾听然后再去解决问题。 我们写了很多 可以实现这个目标的建议。 但是这些方法的根本 是要清楚你几乎 无可避免地会与现实脱节， 而你需要下更多功夫， 去找到对于员工来说 到底什么才是重要的。

So third point, inaction is as political as action. We’ve met quite a few leaders that say that they’re neutral on certain issues or apolitical. There's no such thing. Inaction on things like climate change is as political as action. I was working with an HR director in the construction industry right at the moment where a competitor had said some fairly disparaging things about women in the industry. It's a huge controversy. And this HR director really didn't want to get involved. He just wanted to avoid the conflict, stay out of it. But his employees wouldn’t let him because his silence would have communicated complicity. Now what I am not saying, even though I am often accused of saying it, what I am not saying is that therefore you need to act on every issue that's out there. Of course you don't. And of course you can't, it's infeasible. What I am saying, as a leader, is that you need to make conscious, coherent, authentic choices about what you will make a stand on and what you won't. And do that in conjunction with your stakeholders and, of course, your employees are one of your key stakeholders there.

第三点是， 无论是否作为都有政治意义。 有不少领导人说他们 在某些问题上会保持中立 或者避免任何政治倾向， 但这种事情不存在的。 在诸如气候变化这种问题上， 无论站在哪一方都有政治意义。 我先前跟建筑 公司的人力资源总监一起工作， 那个时候他们一位竞争对手发表了 一些相当诋毁该行业内 女性工作者的言论。 这是非常有争议的话题。 因此人力总监不想参与其中， 他只想置身事外， 避免陷入这场争论。 但是他的老板不让他这么做 因为他的沉默会有站队的嫌疑。 我的意思是， 虽然我经常在 说这个事的时候被指责， 但是我并不是说你需要 对每件事都做出行动来回应。 当然你也不会这么做。 你也不能这么做，这不现实。 我想说的是， 作为领导人， 你需要做出慎重、有条理， 以及真实可靠的决定。 决定你在面对不同 事情的时候站在哪个立场， 并且你们的董事需要与你统一战线。 当然了，这时候你的 员工们也是“董事”之一了。

Final point is that it's useful to understand what your employees think your response has been to activist issues so far. Not what you think it is, but what do your employees think it's been? And in our research, we came up with a kind of taxonomy of different leadership responses.

第三点是， 无论是否作为都有政治意义。 有不少领导人说他们 在某些问题上会保持中立 或者避免任何政治倾向， 但这种事情不存在的。 在诸如气候变化这种问题上， 无论站在哪一方都有政治意义。 我先前跟建筑 公司的人力资源总监一起工作， 那个时候他们一位竞争对手发表了 一些相当诋毁该行业内 女性工作者的言论。 这是非常有争议的话题。 因此人力总监不想参与其中， 他只想置身事外， 避免陷入这场争论。 但是他的老板不让他这么做 因为他的沉默会有站队的嫌疑。 我的意思是， 虽然我经常在 说这个事的时候被指责， 但是我并不是说你需要 对每件事都做出行动来回应。 当然你也不会这么做。 你也不能这么做，这不现实。 我想说的是， 作为领导人， 你需要做出慎重、有条理， 以及真实可靠的决定。 决定你在面对不同 事情的时候站在哪个立场， 并且你们的董事需要与你统一战线。 当然了，这时候你的 员工们也是“董事”之一了。

It starts with nonexistent or, "Activism? What activism?" We talked to a chief executive in the manufacturing industry. And midway through our conversation, I asked him about climate change and his strategy and stance on environmental issues. And he looked at me utterly baffled. It was nowhere on the agenda. Now, that looks increasingly inconceivable, actually, but it certainly still happens.

首先是否认存在 他们会说，“行动主义？ 什么行动主义？” 我们跟制造业的首席执行官聊过天。 在聊天的过程中， 我提起了气候变化这个话题， 问他在这个问题上的立场和策略。 他不解地看向我。 因为议程上并没有这一环节。 现在看来， 这种事情实际上非常难以置信， 但仍然会发生。

And then you get suppression. Or, "Let's just expel those voices before it spreads." Now this is where leaders explicitly silence or implicitly, because employees know that if they do speak up, it will probably cost them their next promotion. Or indeed, if they do speak up, they might be ignored. We surveyed just over 3,000 employees in a recent project, and just over one in five employees expect to be ignored if they speak up about wider social and environmental concerns.

因为领导者会干脆闭口不谈。 或者，“把那些 声音扼杀在摇篮里吧。” 这个时候领导就会有意无意地保持沉默， 不想做出任何行动， 因为员工们清楚一旦发表了意见， 可能会对下一次的晋升有影响。 或者说，就算他们说了， 这些声音也会被忽略。 我们在最近的调查中 访问了 3000 多位雇员， 超过五分之一的人 希望他们的声音 在发表社会和环境 问题看法时被忽略掉。

After that comes something that we call "facadism" or, "Let's just say the right things." This is when leaders make proclamations about what’s important, and they may even say what they're going to do about it, but nothing happens. In the wake of George Floyd's murder, there were many organizations that made statements of support for the Black Lives Matter movement. When the American Marketing Association investigated things shortly after, they found that less than one in 10 had made any concrete changes.

Then you get to something we call defensive engagement, or, "Let's just do what the lawyers tell us." Now, this is where leaders do engage on a topic, but only because they really have to. Again, working with a senior team recently in the farmer industry, the issue of diversity and inclusion came up on the agenda. It was dealt with in about five minutes. And essentially they said, "Let's send everybody on a course and count the number of women." That was kind of as far as it got. They did the bare minimum.

面对这种情况 他们会做一些“表面工夫” 比如，“说一些政治正确的东西。” 当领导宣布重要事项时， 员工们甚至可能会说 他们将要采取什么样的行动， 但最终什么也没改变。 在乔治·弗洛伊德 （George Floyd）被谋杀后， 很多组织都支持 “黑人的命也是命”运动。 随后美国市场营销协会调查此事时， 他们发现只有不足十分之一 的机构做出了具体改变。 这就是我们所说的“防御性参与”， 也就是，“我们就做 律师让我们做的事吧。” 这时候领导就参与进来了， 但仅仅是因为他们必须要这么做。 还有一个例子是我最近 跟农业行业的高层团队工作时， 在议程上安排了多样性 和包容性话题的讨论。 大约五分钟就可以结束。 他们说， “我们让每个人都参与课程 并且看看有多少名女性参与其中。” 这是他们目前能做的事。 但不多。

And then there's a step change to what we call dialogic engagement or, "Let's sit down, listen and learn." And the reason why it's a step change is because leaders here know that they don’t know the answer, and they really want to find out what they don't know. OK? So we talked to an entrepreneur who had taken over ex-UK car manufacturing plant. And the workers there were very upset about working conditions. And so this entrepreneur decided in, General McChrystal's terms, to share information until it was almost illegal. In other words, he'd gotten the employees and opened up the books, shared information and shared decision making with them about what they needed to do. And that was a vastly different leadership style from the ones that they've been used to.

接下来发生了一个阶段性 变化称之为“对话参与”。 确切地说，“坐下来， 倾听并且学习。” 之所以认为他们迈出了重要的一步 是因为领导们不仅意识到 他们都不知道问题的答案， 并且从未停止探索未知的脚步。 可以理解吗？ 我们认识一位企业家， 他接管了前英国汽车制造厂。 那里的员工对工作环境非常不满。 他便决定沿用 麦克里斯特尔上将的军事战略， 尽最大可能做到信息共享。 换句话说， 他了解员工在想什么并决定开诚布公， 就他们需要做的事情 与他们共享信息和决策。 这是一种崭新的领导方式， 跟以往的截然不同。

Now right at the end, we've got stimulating activism. This is when leaders say, "Let's be the activist." This is the Ben and Jerry's and the Patagonias of the world. And they recruit activists. They promote activists. They keep hold of activists in their organizations.

最后要提到的是推动行动主义。 企业的领导们自己就是行动主义者。 本杰理冰激淋和冲锋衣 品牌巴塔哥尼亚就是很好的例子。 他们将行动主义者纳入公司。 提拔他们。 挽留他们。

Now, there's many things that I could take out from this taxonomy. Let me draw just two key learnings out here. First of all, you need to know where your employees think your response has been so far, not where you think it's been. Because guess what? Let's go back to that optimism bubble. The more senior you are, the more likely you are to think that you're in dialogue. But if I ask a more junior employee, they're more likely to say, "No, that's a facade." Or even actually, "I'm scared to speak up." And the second key point is dialogue is messy. It's jam-packed full of vulnerability, ambiguity, disagreement. That's why leaders try and avoid it so much. But you can't avoid it any longer, that's not a sustainable strategy. So we need to get far better at experimenting, at expecting fallout, about learning from mistakes.

以上就是我想跟大家分享的研究成果。 现在就上述内容， 我想提出两个建议。 首先， 你需要知道你的员工对你 目前为止的行动有什么看法， 而不是你自己的看法。 为什么呢？ 回顾一下我们刚刚 提到的乐观主义泡沫的观点。 你的职位越高， 你越有可能高估你的对话参与度。 如果我问一位资历较深的员工， 他们有可能会说， “这些都是表面功夫罢了。” 真正的原因可能是，“我害怕发声。” 第二点是因为对话 背后牵扯到很多东西。 脆弱性， 模凌两可和分歧。 这就是为什么 领导人会对此闭口不谈。 但是你不可能永远都在逃避问题， 这不是长远之计。 因此我们要在现实实践， 结果预测， 以及错误复盘上多下功夫。

So in summary, we are entering an age of employee activism. And if we can't or won't hear voices of difference in our organization, we need to consider that like the canary in the coal mine. In other words, a signal of danger. Because if we can't talk about stuff that matters to us, but that we differ on, that spells disaster in our organizations. For things like ethical conduct, innovation, inclusion, talent retention, performance.

总的来说，我们已经进入了 员工行动主义的时代。如果我们不去 或者无法倾听不同的声音，就像“煤矿中的金丝雀”。 换句话说，迟早会陷入危险的境地。 因为如果我们 不能谈论那些对我们很重要， 但是同时有分歧的事， 则会让我们的组织招来灾难。 对于道德规范、创新、包容、 人才保留、 职场表现等方面皆有影响。

So maybe in the face of some of these enormous social and environmental issues, maybe we're finally starting to reassess what good leadership looks like. Maybe we're starting to see leadership as activism. And in doing that, maybe we'll enable voices of difference to make a difference in the workplace by allowing them to speak truth to power.

所以也许在面对这些 巨大的社会和环境问题时候， 我们才真正开始去 重新定义什么是优秀的领导才能。 我们才开始将领导力 和行动主义划上等号。 通过这些改变， 可能我们会听到不同的声音 来让职场做出改变。 让员工们真正“向权力说真话”。

Thank you.

谢谢