Joni Saj-nicole A, Beyer Damon
Cambridge International Group, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Harv Bus Rev. 2009 Dec;87(12):48-57, 125.
Peace and harmony are overrated. Though conflict-free teamwork is often held up as the be-all and end-all of organizational life, it actually can be the worst thing to ever happen to a company. Look at Lehman Brothers. When Dick Fuld took over, he transformed a notoriously contentious workplace into one of Wall Street's most harmonious firms. But his efforts backfired--directors and managers became too agreeable, afraid to rock the boat by pointing out that the firm was heading into a crisis. Research shows that the single greatest predictor of poor company performance is complacency, which is why every organization needs a healthy dose of dissent. Not all kinds of conflict are productive, of course -companies need to find the right balance of alignment and competition and make sure that people's energies are pointed in a positive direction. In this article, two seasoned business advisers lay down ground rules for the right kinds of fights. First, the stakes must be worthwhile: The issue should involve a noble purpose or create noticeable--preferably game-changing--value. Next, good fights focus on the future; they're never about placing blame for the past. And it's critical for leaders to keep fights sportsmanlike, allow informal give-and-take in the trenches, and help soften the blow for the losing parties.
和平与和谐被高估了。尽管毫无冲突的团队合作常常被视为组织生活的重中之重，但实际上它可能是一家公司遭遇的最糟糕的事情。看看雷曼兄弟公司。迪克·富尔德接任时，他把一个出了名的充满争议的工作场所变成了华尔街最和谐的公司之一。但他的努力适得其反——董事和经理们变得过于随和，不敢指出公司正走向危机，以免惹麻烦。研究表明，公司业绩不佳的最大单一预测因素是自满，这就是为什么每个组织都需要适度的不同意见。当然，并非所有类型的冲突都是有成效的——公司需要在团结与竞争之间找到正确的平衡，并确保人们的精力朝着积极的方向发展。在本文中，两位经验丰富的商业顾问为正确类型的争论制定了基本规则。首先，利害关系必须是值得的：问题应该涉及崇高的目标或创造显著的——最好是改变游戏规则的——价值。其次，良性争论着眼于未来；它们从不纠缠于追究过去的责任。对于领导者来说，至关重要的是要保持争论的风度，允许在实际工作中有非正式的交流，并帮助减轻失败方所受的打击。
