【中英双语】如何避免被裁员
你的优势会让你获得晋升——但在动荡时期，也应该看一下自己的缺点，因为你也有可能因此被解雇。
公司召开了一个很重要的会议，你却没有被邀请。在会议上，一位高级主管宣布，由于没能完成公司业绩目标，有150 名管理者要被裁掉。这次会议的目的就是确定裁员名单。对你来说，关键问题是：“怎么让自己逃过此劫？”
A very important meeting is held, and you’re not invited. At this meeting, a senior leader announces that since targets were not reached, 150 managers will be laid off, and the purpose of this meeting is to create a list identifying exactly who those people will be. The key question for you is, “How do you keep your name off that list?”
20 世纪60 年代时，梅尔文·勒纳（Melvin J. Lerner）曾描述过一个叫做“公正世界理论”的心理现象：人们更愿意相信坏事只会发生在坏人身上。比如说，在裁员过后，幸存者普遍会认为公司解雇的都是表现很差的员工。
In the 1960s Melvin J. Lerner described a psychological phenomenon called the “just world hypothesis”: People want to believe that bad things happen to bad people. After downsizings, for instance, it’s common for the survivors to believe that only the poor performers were fired.
但事实真是如此吗？
But is that so?
为了回答这个问题，我们找到了一家美国《财富》100 强的公司，该公司刚刚经历了一次大规模裁员，我们从中收集了丰富的数据，试图找出公司决定员工去留的依据。结果发现了一个意料之外的因素：一贯优秀的工作考核记录。在被裁掉的员工中，只有23% 的员工前一年获得了负面的工作考核评价。也就是说，被裁的员工中77% 的人根本不知道被解雇的原因。
To begin to answer that question, we gathered a substantial amount of data from one U.S.-based Fortune 100 company after it had gone through an organizational downsizing to see if we could identify factors that might predict which people were most likely to be let go.One factor that wasn’t very predictive, it turned out, was a history of good performance reviews. Only 23% of those who were laid off had been given a negative review the previous year. The implication is that the other 77% who were asked to leave had no clue this was coming.
但是当我们研究了所有被裁员工前两年的360 度工作评定，并询问了裁员的原因之后，发现了一系列持续性的问题，一切都不是毫无征兆。我们总结了六个因素，它们是危险来临的信号。那些被裁掉的人，至少符合其中两项。
But when we examined the 360-degree assessments for the previous two years of all those who’d been let go and surveyed their managers to ask why, we found a very consistent array of problems, all of which were apparent in advance. Specifically, we were able to identify six factors that should have raised red flags. Everyone who’d been laid off shared at least two of the following:
1. 公司认为他们没有战略眼光。在这不幸被裁的150 名员工中，多数都没有担任过战略制定的工作。这导致在360 度评估中，同事们认为他们制定战略的能力很差。整体来说，在战略能力的排名中，那些被裁员的人排在32 百分位，也就是说，有2/3 的同事排在他们之前。关于这点，他们其实有机会亡羊补牢，因为在前两年的评估中，他们就已经收到过关于自己战略能力的反馈了。
They were not viewed as strategic. Many of the unfortunate 150 had not been working in roles that provided them with opportunities to create new strategies, and as a result colleagues rated them very poorly on their strategic ability in the 360 assessments. As a group, those who were downsized rated, on average, only in the 32nd percentile on their strategic ability – that is, worse than two-thirds of their colleagues. This is a factor that they might have rectified before it was too late, since they all had received feedback about their strategic ability in the previous two years.
但他们为什么没有改观？其中一个原因是他们虽然工作努力，但太过专注和狭隘，过分强调当下的运营、技术或者职能问题。这些人都拥有很有价值的技术或者职能专长。但问题是，在艰难的岁月里，大多数公司最需要的是那些能够找到致胜战略，确保公司竞争优势的领导者。
What stopped them? The picture that emerges is of leaders who worked hard but were too heads-down and narrowly focused on immediate operational, technical, or functional issues. Many of these were people with valuable technical or functional expertise. But the sad fact is that when times are tough, what most organizations need most are leaders who can create a winning strategy that will ensure competitive advantage.
2. 表现不稳定。360 度评估同样发现了问题所在：被解雇的员工在成果交付（Delivering Results）的排名中，位于37 百分位。这些人在过去两年里曾有过各种问题，比如没有按时完成工作，参与的项目最终失败，或者表现太差，拖垮了团队水平。尽管他们自认为工作非常努力，但在360 度评估中，别人眼中的他们效率不高，每况愈下。一些人则被认为工作懒散。其中一些较为年长的员工，在同事眼中似乎提前过上了退休的日子。
They failed to consistently deliver results. Here, too, 360 feedback predicted problems: Those who were terminated were rated, on average, in the 37th percentile on delivering results. These were the people who over that previous two years had had missed deadlines, had committed to projects they hadn’t delivered, or had set the bar too low for others. While they perceived themselves to be working very hard, they looked to everyone else in their 360 evaluations like they were running out of energy and losing effectiveness over time. Some had reputations for not working hard; the older ones in this group appeared to their colleagues to have started their retirements early.
3. 职业道德和诚信有污点。这点并不常见，但是一旦出现这类问题，员工就会被解雇。道德滑坡的范围很广，包括不遵守公司的规定；对同事有不当言论，或不当关系；在财务方面有不当行为，比如通过制造虚假发票，将剩余款从一个预算年移到另一年。这些问题除了说明该员工不诚实以外，更大程度上反映了此人孱弱的判断是非的能力。
Their ethics or integrity had been called into question. This was not a common problem, but whenever it existed people were let go. These ethical lapses covered a wide range, from failure to comply with company policies, to inappropriate comments to or relationships with co-workers, to financial improprieties like moving excess funds from one budget year to another by generating fictitious invoices. These were indications, for the most part not of outright dishonesty but of poor judgment.
4. 人际交往能力（ 非常） 差。很多人际交往技巧差的人因为技术能力获得晋升，但却无法在新岗位上提高自己的社交技能，最终失败。总体而言，这150 名管理者在人际关系和交往技能的360 度评估中，排名位于37百分位。很多人被看做是软弱的领导者，无法影响他人，带动革新。一些人则很难相处，甚至让人觉得充满恶意、暴力、愤怒、好斗、控制不了冲动的行为。还有人认为他们毒害了工作的气氛。为什么公司一定要等到裁员时才将这些张狂的员工裁掉呢？别忘了，他们当中很多人也非常有才华。
They had (very) poor interpersonal skills. Many people with weak interpersonal skills had been promoted based on their technical ability and then were not able to improve their social skills enough to succeed in their new roles. As a group, those laid off averaged in only the 37th percentile in the 360 evaluations of their relationship-building and people skills. Many were viewed as weak leaders who were unable to influence others and foster necessary change. Some were difficult to deal with — or even hostile, volatile, angry, combative, and unable to manage their impulsive behavior. Some were described as creating a psychically toxic work environment. Why had the company waited for a downsizing to get rid of these obvious candidates? Keep in mind that many of these people were also described as brilliant.
5. 拒绝改变，无论涉及个人还是公司。在包含了全球3.5 万名领导者的360 度评估数据中，我们发现，管理者寻求并积极对待反馈的意愿和其整体的领导力之间有着强烈的相关性。我们甚至发现，随着工龄的增长，人们会逐渐减少寻求建议和积极应对反馈的行为（在我们的数据库中，年长的员工比年轻的得分低）。总的来说，最差的领导者认为，自己是依靠才华获得晋升，只要一如既往就可以了。但最好的领导者会持续寻求反馈，找到改进的方法。所以，自然地在360 度评估中，许多被解雇的管理者被认为拒绝改变，排斥新方法。
They were resistant to change, both personally and organizationally. In our global database of 360 feedback from 35,000 leaders, we’ve found a strong correlation between managers’ willingness to ask for and respond to feedback and their overall leadership effectiveness. What’s more, we’ve found that the willingness to ask for advice and respond to feedback declines over time (that is, older workers in our database tend to score lower than younger ones). In general, the worst leaders assume that they’re promoted because of their brilliance and all they need to do is keep on doing what they did in the past. But the best leaders continue to look for feedback and to find ways to improve. So it did not surprise us that many of the managers who were let go at this company were described as resistant to change and inflexible to new approaches in their 360 reviews.
6. 没有保荐人或支持者。在被解雇的人中，几乎过半的管理者最近失去了支持者。因此，在这个生死攸关的会议中，没人为他们说话，他们没有支持者。教训显而易见。你不仅要知道“谁是你最强的支持者？”重要的是，要有超过一个这样的支持者。
They had lost sponsors or support. Over half the managers who were downsized indicated that they had recently lost the support of their sponsor. So in that fateful meeting where was no one to speak up for them. The lesson here is clear. Not only do you need to ask “Who will be your strong advocate?” but it’s important to have more than one.
最后这点带有很强的政治性，而且无处不在。这说明，在裁员期间，每个人都要谨小慎微。但总的来说，我们的研究为“公正世界理论”提供了一些强有力的证据，因为在这150 个被解雇的人当中，没人仅仅因为这个原因被解雇。公司决定解雇某个人，至少出于一个或一个以上的正当理由。
That last factor is clearly political, and its pervasiveness suggests that everyone should be a little bit paranoid when layoffs are in the offing. But generally speaking, our research with this company offers up some strong evidence for the just world hypothesis, since none of the unfortunate 150 were laid off for that reason only. Everyone was let go for at least one, and generally more than one, justifiable reason.
这些结论也说明：积极的考核评价，甚至晋升，都可能带来虚假的安全感。在360 度评估中，积极的考核评定和消极评定之间的差别，证明了我们长期以来的一个发现，那就是，你的优势会让你获得晋升——但在动荡时期，也应该看一下自己的缺点，因为你也有可能因此被解雇。
What these results also suggest is that positive reviews, and even promotions, can bring a false sense of security. The disparities between the positive performance reviews and the negative comments on the 360s reinforce our longtime findings that it is your strengths that get you promoted – but also suggest that in uncertain times you should take a second look at your flaws, which may leave you vulnerable to being laid off.
如果你的公司正面临裁员危机，你有把握自己的名字不会出现在那份“名单”上吗？
If your organization were facing a cutback today, would be you prepared and certain your name wouldn’t appear on “the list”?
杰克·曾格是Zenger/Folkman 咨询公司的CEO。
约瑟夫·福尔克曼是Zenger/Folkman 咨询公司总裁。
