????就事論事而非就人論事

????如何培養(yǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)以健康的方式解決問(wèn)題,？羅杰?費(fèi)舍爾與威廉姆?L?尤里的《達(dá)成一致：無(wú)需讓步的說(shuō)服藝術(shù)》（Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In）一書(shū)就是很好的資源,。該書(shū)的作者重點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)了直接關(guān)注公司或團(tuán)隊(duì)所面臨的問(wèn)題，而不是關(guān)注代表分歧另一方的個(gè)人,，否則只會(huì)讓矛盾升級(jí),，并分散人們對(duì)問(wèn)題的關(guān)注,。

????他們提到的另外一個(gè)主要觀點(diǎn)是，人們往往會(huì)固執(zhí)地堅(jiān)持非此即彼的立場(chǎng),，而不是展開(kāi)創(chuàng)造性地合作,，尋找解決方案。相反,，要培訓(xùn)團(tuán)隊(duì)走出自己的立場(chǎng)去考慮問(wèn)題,，努力判斷其他人的根本利益。他們是否擔(dān)心按照你所提議的程序會(huì)導(dǎo)致銷(xiāo)量減少,？他們是否擔(dān)心引發(fā)客戶不滿,？他們是否擔(dān)心團(tuán)隊(duì)的信譽(yù)會(huì)受到影響？費(fèi)舍爾和尤里曾寫(xiě)道,，立場(chǎng)或許始終無(wú)法協(xié)調(diào),，但利益卻可以調(diào)和。如果明確了矛盾雙方的根本利益,，就可以把精力用于尋找一種解決方案,，來(lái)滿足所有人最重要的需求。

????提出棘手的問(wèn)題

????坦誠(chéng)地討論可能引起同事,、（甚至更糟糕的是引起）老板負(fù)面反應(yīng)的問(wèn)題,，需要的不僅僅是勇氣。如果整個(gè)公司能夠自上而下堅(jiān)持這種做法,，往往能取得最大的效果,。同時(shí)還有巨大的潛在好處。

????2008年路透社（Reuters）與湯普森集團(tuán)（Thompson）合并時(shí),，CEO德文?維尼格很清楚,，真正的挑戰(zhàn)是如何整合兩批之前相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的員工——兩家公司共有50,000名員工，遍及93個(gè)國(guó)家,。有害環(huán)境的潛在影響是巨大的,。不過(guò)，在與維尼格進(jìn)行第一次討論時(shí),，我便知道,，他決定打造一個(gè)不會(huì)讓對(duì)方失望的團(tuán)隊(duì)。

????維尼格說(shuō)：“打造一支有凝聚力的團(tuán)隊(duì)是我的首要任務(wù),。我希望打造的團(tuán)隊(duì),，是讓人們感覺(jué)能夠最大程度發(fā)揮彼此的才能，并且知道始終有其他人在背后支持自己,?！?/p>

????經(jīng)過(guò)第一階段，維尼格自己的員工開(kāi)始打開(kāi)心扉,，把彼此看成是有細(xì)微差別的正常人,，所有人都有自己的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),。之后是第二階段：創(chuàng)造一種環(huán)境，讓人們可以向別人提出意見(jiàn),。比如,，一位高管就批評(píng)維尼格在解決問(wèn)題的時(shí)候總是不能集中注意力。雖然這位高管擔(dān)心自己的行為有越界之嫌,，但維尼格不僅接受了對(duì)方的批評(píng),，改變了自己的行為， 而且其他員工也感謝這位高管,，因?yàn)樗岢隽怂麄円恢备遗桓已缘膯?wèn)題,。

????并不是所有公司都愿意接受這種坦白的做法，但每一位團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者可以采取措施,，建立一種更加誠(chéng)實(shí)和支持性的文化,。它將有益于培養(yǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)凝聚力，大幅提高工作效率,。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者基斯?法拉奇是咨詢公司Ferrazzi Greenlight的創(chuàng)始人兼CEO,，并著有《誰(shuí)在背后挺你》和《不要一個(gè)人吃飯》等作品。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????

????Separate the person from the problem

????A great resource for coaching your team to healthy issue resolution is Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, by Roger Fisher and William L. Ury. They stress the importance of keeping the focus squarely on the problem that the company or team is facing, rather than on the person who represents the other side in the disagreement, which merely escalates tensions and pulls the focus away from the problem.

????Another key point they make is that people often become entrenched in either-or positions rather than working collaboratively and creatively to find solutions. Instead, coach your team to look beyond the positions and try to figure out what the other person's underlying interests are. Are they worried sales will decline if they follow the course you're proposing? Are they concerned customers will be angry? Do they fear their group's reputation will suffer? Positions can't always be reconciled. Interests often can be, write Fisher and Ury. When both sides' underlying interests have been uncovered, energies can be directed toward finding a solution that meets everyone's most important needs.

????Bring up tough issues

????Plainly discussing topics that might prompt a negative reaction from a coworker -- or worse, a boss -- not only takes courage, it's usually most successful when the whole firm, from top to bottom, is committed to doing it. But the potential benefits are significant.

????When Reuters and Thompson merged in 2008, CEO Devin Wenig knew that the real challenge would be bringing together the two formerly competing staffs -- a total of 50,000 employees in 93 countries. The potential for a toxic environment was huge. But from my first discussion with Wenig, I knew he was committed to creating a group that would not let each other fail.

????"Building a cohesive team is my No. 1 priority," said Wenig. "I want to build a team where people feel they can get the best out of each other … and know that everybody else has their back."

????After a first session in which Wenig's own staff opened up and began to see each other as nuanced human beings with strengths and weaknesses, we took it to the next level: establishing an environment where it was okay for people to call each other out. One executive called out Wenig himself for being distracted at times when approached about a problem. Despite the executive's fear that he'd overstepped a line, Wenig not only took the criticism and changed his behavior, but other employees expressed their gratitude that he'd brought up an issue that was on their minds.

????Not all companies are ready to make as full a commitment to being candid, but every team leader can take steps toward establishing a more honest -- and supportive -- culture. The potential upside in team cohesion and productivity is enormous.

????Keith Ferrazzi is the founder and CEO of consulting firm Ferrazzi Greenlight and the author of Who's Got Your Back and Never Eat Alone.