如何引领员工积极主义的新时代

在这个员工激进主义的新时代领导意味着什么？梅根·雷茨 (Megan Reitz) 提供了一个四点速成课程，内容是关于员工希望从他们的组织中得到什么，以及领导者如何应对挑战，建立积极主动和高效的工作场所，让每个声音和观点都有机会发挥作用。

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.

说出来。 全身心投入工作。 成为您想看到的差异。 听起来有点熟？ 对于不少员工来说开始听起来很熟悉。 现在，许多领导人要求不同的声音大声疾呼。 那是因为在我们的工作场所中，说什么，不说什么，会对道德行为、 创新、包容、人才保留等事情产生巨大影响。

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，目前越来越多的员工开始谈论 社会和环境问题。 这很好，但并不总是为每个人都计划好。 我一直在与之合作的一位财务总监，他一直要求他的员工大声疾呼， 现在他们已经开始了。 所以他们说，好吧，让我们谈谈种族。 让我们谈谈性别平等。 气候变化，我想谈谈这个。 现代奴隶制。 这位财务总监有些吃惊地走过来对我说： “你知道，梅根，我必须承认，当我要求人们说出来时， 我有点想我” 我并没有真正指望得到其他一切。”

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.

但这是一个员工激进主义的时代， 这很好，但为什么 有时会因为错误的原因登上报纸的头版？ 员工走出去，被解雇，进入社交媒体。组织声誉受损或投资者在组织高层寻求变革。

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.

因此，过去几年我与约翰·希金斯 的研究涉及采访数百名活动家和领导人 以及活动家领导人。 我们的工作是服务于让不同的声音 在工作场所有所作为。 现在，今天，我将总结出四个关键发现， 并且我还将 为想要积极、高效地驾驭这一领域的领导者介绍一些该做的事情和不该做的事情。

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.

所以让我从一个问题开始。 当我说“激进主义者”这个词时， 会想到什么？ 什么图像，什么想法，什么假设？ 好吧，我们已经问过成千上万的人这个问题， 我可以肯定地说，“激进主义者”和“激进主义”这两个词 都是加载的术语。 它们意味着一切，从进步 、勇气、激情和变化 到抗议、反叛、暴力。 在世界某些地区和某些问题上被贴上活动家的标签是很酷的。 在世界的其他地方，就其他问题而言，被贴上激进分子的标签会危及生命。

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?

因此，我们需要了解 我们为激进主义带来的假设和关联， 因为这当然会影响我们对它的反应。 我正在与一家医疗保健组织的董事会合作。 在咖啡休息时间， 他们开始谈论一位 在内部通讯渠道上对气候变化直言不讳的员工， 他对组织一直在做的事情持批评态度。 这真的很有趣，因为一些高管 给他贴上了麻烦制造者的标签， 有点想摆脱他。 但有一些高管将他视为开拓者， 实际上有一对夫妇 想邀请他加入董事会以教育他们。 好的？

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.

因此，对于我们的领导人来说，第一个关键点 是要理解激进主义是旁观者的眼中， 正如作家和激进主义者鲁奇卡·图尔希安（Ruchika Tulshyan）告诉我们的那样： “在你看来，反叛是另一个人的基本人性权利。” 因此，您要做的第一件事就是真正意识到 您和您的同事为激进主义带来的假设和判断， 以便您可以以更多的意识和更多的正念做出回应。

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， 领导者会发现自己处于乐观泡沫中， 我们有时称之为“妄想泡沫”。 当你变得更高级时， 你会高估其他人说话的程度。 你高估了自己的平易近人， 也高估了自己的倾听技巧。 这一切都意味着你低估 了一些员工可能存在的感受力。 现在，造成这种情况的一个关键原因 是我们称之为“优势盲区”。 因此，例如，当我们拥有在特定环境（如等级制度）中传达地位和权威的标签和头衔时， 我们通常是最后一个意识到这些标签所产生影响的人 关于其他人如何能够对我们说话。 事实上，直到我们没有这些标签 ，我们才能看到它们并说， “天哪，它们对人们在这里发声的方式产生了影响。”

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?

所以对于领导者来说，这一点就是要理解， 你知道，你是否处于这些乐观泡沫中？ 你是不是有点疏离？ 你怎么知道你的员工 在他们的组织中发现了什么？ 你？如何？

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.

我正在与一家零售组织的负责人交谈， 她说她的领导团队 花了很多时间在商店里倾听。 她说了一些我认为非常有趣的话。 她说， “你不能把你的听力责任委托给脉搏调查。” 你必须张开耳朵出现。 所以这意味着，不要假设你知道什么是重要的。 你知道的，磨尖你的触角。 试着弄清楚。 我们已经写了很多你可以做到这一点的方法。但所有这些方法的基础 是一种理解，即你几乎不可避免地会有点超然 ，实际上你需要做更多的工作， 真正找出对员工来说重要的事情。

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.

所以第三点， 不作为和行动一样具有政治意义。 我们见过不少领导人说他们在某些问题上保持中立 或不关心政治。 没有这样的事情。在气候变化等问题上不作为与行动一样具有政治意义。 我正在与建筑行业的一位人力资源总监合作， 当时一位竞争对手 对行业中的女性说了一些相当贬低的话。 这是一个巨大的争议。 而这位人力资源总监真的不想参与其中。 他只是想避免冲突，置身事外。 但他的员工不会让他 这样做，因为他的沉默会传达出同谋。 现在我不是说，尽管我经常被指责这样说，但 我并不是说因此你需要对 存在的每一个问题采取行动。 你当然不知道。 当然你不能，这是不可行的。作为一名领导者，我要说 的是，你需要对 你将坚持什么和不坚持什么做出有意识的、连贯的、真实的选择。 并与您的利益相关者一起这样做，当然，您的员工是您那里的主要利益相关者之一。

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.

最后一点是，了解 您的员工认为您迄今为止 对激进问题的反应是有用的。 不是你认为的那样， 而是你的员工认为它是什么？ 在我们的研究中，我们提出了一种 不同领导反应的分类法。

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.

它以不存在 或“激进主义？ 什么激进主义？”开头。 我们与制造业的一位首席执行官进行了交谈。 在我们谈话的中途，我向他询问了气候变化 以及他在环境问题上的战略和立场。 他完全困惑地看着我。它不在议程上。 现在，这看起来越来越不可思议，实际上， 但它肯定仍然会发生。

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.

然后你得到压制。 或者，“让我们在它传播之前驱逐那些声音。” 现在这是领导者明确沉默或含蓄的地方， 因为员工知道，如果他们真的说出来， 可能会让他们失去下一次晋升的机会。 或者实际上，如果他们真的发声，他们可能会被忽略。 我们在最近的一个项目中对 3,000 多名员工进行了调查，如果他们说出 更广泛的社会和环境问题，五分之一以上的员工 预计会被忽视。

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.

之后是我们称之为“facadism”的东西， 或者，“让我们说正确的话”。 这是领导者宣布重要的事情的时候， 他们甚至可能会说他们将要做什么， 但什么都没有发生。 在乔治·弗洛伊德（George Floyd）被谋杀之后， 有许多组织发表声明支持 “黑人的命也是命”运动。 当美国营销协会不久后进行调查时， 他们发现只有不到十分之一的人做出了任何具体的改变。

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.

然后你会得到我们称之为防御性参与的东西， 或者，“让我们按照律师告诉我们的去做。” 现在，这是领导者参与某个话题的地方，但这只是因为他们确实必须这样做。 同样，最近与农民行业的一个高级团队合作， 多样性和包容性问题被提上了议事日程。 大概五分钟左右就处理好了。 基本上他们说， “让我们让每个人参加一个课程并计算女性的数量。” 就这样吧。 他们做到了最低限度。

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.

然后，我们所说的对话参与 或“让我们坐下来，倾听和学习”有了一个阶段性的变化。 而之所以会出现阶梯式的变化 ，是因为这里的领导者知道他们不知道答案， 他们真的很想找出他们不知道的东西。好的？ 因此，我们与一位接管了前英国汽车制造厂的企业家进行了交谈。 那里的工人对工作条件非常不满。所以这位企业家决定按照麦克里斯特尔将军的条款分享信息，直到它几乎是非法的。换句话说，他找到了员工并打开了账簿， 这与他们习惯的领导风格截然不同。

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.

现在就在最后，我们有刺激的行动主义。 这是领导者说，“让我们成为积极分子”的时候。 这是Ben and Jerry's 和世界的Patagonias。 他们招募活动家。 他们提拔活动家。 他们在他们的组织中保留积极分子。

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.

现在，我可以从这个分类法中得出很多东西。 让我在这里只画出两个关键的教训。 首先， 你需要知道你的员工认为你的反应到目前为止 在哪里，而不是你认为它在哪里。 因为你猜怎么着？ 让我们回到那个乐观泡沫。 你越老，你 就越有可能认为你在对话。 但如果我问一个更初级的员工， 他们更有可能说，“不，那是表面现象。”甚至实际上，“我害怕说出来。” 第二个关键点是对话混乱。 它充满了脆弱性、 模棱两可和分歧。 那' 但你不能再避免它了，这不是一个可持续的策略。 因此，我们需要在尝试、 预期后果、 从错误中学习方面做得更好。

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.

总而言之，我们正在进入一个员工激进主义的时代。 如果我们不能或不会听到我们组织中不同的声音， 我们需要像煤矿里的金丝雀一样考虑这一点。 换句话说，危险的信号。 因为如果我们不能谈论对我们很重要 但我们有分歧的东西， 那会给我们的组织带来灾难。对于道德行为、创新、包容、 人才保留、绩效等方面。

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.

所以也许面对这些巨大的社会和环境问题， 也许我们终于开始重新评估好的领导力是什么样的。 也许我们开始将领导力视为行动主义。 在这样做的过程中， 也许我们会让不同 的声音在工作场所 产生影响，让他们对权力说真话。