How to Lead in the New Era of Employee Activism | Megan Reitz | TED

翻译人员: katherine leung 校对人员: Yan Li Xiao

Speak up.

大声说出来吧。

Bring your whole selves to work.

在职场中做真实的自己。

Be the difference that you want to see.

做你想要的那个不一样的自己。

Sound familiar?

是不是听着很耳熟？

Started to sound very familiar to quite a few employees.

对于很多员工来说也是如此。

Now many leaders are asking voices of difference to speak up.

现在许多领导者 都在鼓励不同的声音发声。

And that's because what gets said, and what doesn't, in our workplaces

是因为在职场中，说或不说

has a huge consequence for things like ethical conduct,

影响着诸如道德规范，

innovation, inclusion, talent retention.

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

因此现在越来越多员工敢于发声，

about social and environmental concerns.

并发表对社会和环境问题的看法。

And this is great, but it's not always going quite to plan for everybody.

这当然是好事， 但并不适用于每一个人。

A finance director I've been working with,

我身边有位财务总监，

he's been asking his employees to speak up for quite a while,

他一度鼓励员工畅所欲言，

and now they've started to.

员工们也这么做了。

So they're saying, OK, let's talk about race.

然后他们说， 那我们讨论种族问题吧。

Let's talk about gender equity.

谈谈性别平等吧。

Climate change, I want to talk about that.

我想聊聊气候变化。

Modern slavery.

还有现代奴隶制。

And this finance director came to me somewhat stunned and said,

这位财务总监来找我， 脸上微带着惊讶，然后说：

"You know, Megan, I've got to admit, when I asked people to speak up,

“梅根你知道吗，我必须承认， 每当我让他们发表意见的时候，

I was kind of thinking that I'd get more transparency around compliance issues

我认为公司在合规问题上 变得更加透明的同时

and a few good ideas.

还得到了一些好主意。

I didn't really bank on getting everything else."

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

现在是员工行动主义的时代，

and that's great,

这当然好事，

but why does it end up on the front pages of the newspaper

但是为什么有时它出现在报纸头条时

for the wrong reasons sometimes?

都是负面消息呢？

Employees walking out, getting fired,

员工离开公司、被解雇，

taking to social media.

被挂到网上。

Organizational reputations destroyed

结果就是企业名声毁于一旦，

or investors seeking change at the top of organizations.

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

在过去几年在我跟约翰·希金斯 （John Higgins）做的研究里

has involved interviewing hundreds of activists and leaders

采访了上百位行动主义者、领导人

and activist leaders.

以及活动领袖。

And our work’s in service of enabling voices of difference

我们的工作 是为不同的声音发声而服务

to make a difference in the workplace.

来为职场增添不一样的色彩。

Now today, I'm just going to draw out four key findings,

今天在这里， 我只会阐述四个主要研究结果，

and I'm also going to go through a few dos and don'ts

同时给领导者一些建议，

for leaders who want to navigate this territory proactively, productively.

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.

开始之前我先问一个问题吧。

When I say the word "activist,"

当我说到“行动主义者”这个词，

what comes to mind?

你脑海里浮现出的是什么？

What images, what thoughts, what assumptions?

是什么样的画面、想法或者设想呢？

Well, we've asked thousands of people that question,

我们曾经问了上万人这个问题，

and I can safely say that the words "activist" and "activism"

我可以确切地说 “行动主义者”和“行动主义”

are loaded terms.

这两个词并不仅限于字面的积极意义。

They mean everything from progress

它们承载了从进步、

and courage and passion and change

勇气、激情、蜕变

through to protest, rebellion, violence.

到抗议、反抗和暴力等 有褒有贬的含义。

It's quite cool to be labeled an activist in some parts of the world

有时候被称为行动主义者，

and in relation to some issues.

并成为活动的一份子是很酷的事情。

And in other parts of the world and in relation to other issues,

但是有时在跟某些事情扯上关系时，

being labelled an activist is life-threatening.

会被标榜为活跃分子则会危及生命。

So we need to understand the assumptions

所以我们需要理清行动主义

and the associations that we bring to activism

跟我们的关系以及 会给我们带来什么设想

because of course that affects how we respond to it.

因为这些跟我们的 应对方式有必然联系。

I was working with the board of a health care organization.

我曾经跟一家医疗 保健公司的董事会合作。

And in the coffee break,

在茶歇的时候，

they started to talk about an employee who'd been pretty vocal

他们开始讨论一位 时常直言不讳的员工。

on the internal comms channels about climate change,

这位员工会在 国际平台上讨论气候变化，

and he was quite critical of what the organization had been doing.

也会批判机构正在做的事情。

It was really interesting, because some of the executives

结果很有趣，因为一些高管

labeled him as a troublemaker,

称他为麻烦制造者，

kind of wanted to get rid of him.

像是试图要跟他撇的一干二净。

But there were a few executives that saw him as a trailblazer,

但是有不少高层视他为先驱者，

and actually a couple

甚至有一对夫妻

that wanted to invite him into the board to educate them.

想要邀请他给董事会上课。

OK?

事情就是这样。

So we've got to the first key point for our leaders

此时要引出第一个给领导层的关键点

is to understand that activism is in the eye of the beholder,

是他们要明白行动 主义是见仁见智的东西，

as Ruchika Tulshyan, an author and activist, told us:

正如作家和活动分子鲁奇卡·图拉什扬 （Ruchika Tulshyan）所说：

“What looks like rebellion to you is another person’s basic human rights.”

”你眼里的反抗不过 是他人的基本人权罢了。“

So the first thing you've got to do is really become aware

因此我们第一件要做的

of the kind of assumptions and judgments

是要意识到那些 你跟你的同事从行动主义中

that you and your colleagues bring to activism

获得的设想和判断

in order that you can then respond

来方便你可以在做出回应的时候

with more awareness and more mindfulness.

多加留意，多加思考。

Second point,

第二点，

leaders can find themselves in an optimism bubble,

有时候领导人 会陷入乐观主义泡沫当中，

we sometimes call a “delusion bubble.”

我们称之为“妄想的怪圈”。

As you get more senior,

当你的职位越高，

you overestimate the degree to which other people are speaking up.

你听到的来自员工的 声音没有你想象中多。

You overestimate your approachability,

你高估了他人对你倾诉时的安全感，

and you overestimate your listening skills.

以及你倾听不同观点的能力。

And that all means that you underestimate

这一切都意味着你低估了

the strength of feeling that might exist with some of your employees.

员工在面临问题时的感受。

Now, one of the key reasons for this

为什么会出现这样的情况呢？ 其中一个诱因是

is something we call an “advantage blindness.”

我们所说的“优势盲区”。

So when we have the labels and titles that convey status and authority

当我们被贴上代表 地位和权力的标签和头衔，

in a particular context like hierarchy, for example,

尤其是身处在等级制度之中，

we're often the last person to realize the impact that those labels have

我们常常是最后一个意识到那些标签

on how other people are able to speak up to us.

影响着别人跟我们 交谈方式与社交距离。

In fact, it's not until we don't have those labels

事实上，只有我们 撕下那些标签的时候

that we can kind of look at them and go,

我们才能看到这些问题，并意识到：

"Gosh, they make a difference to how people can voice around here."

“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,

对于领导层的人，要去反思

you know, are you in one of these optimism bubbles?

你是不是陷入乐观主义 泡沫的一份子呢？

Are you a bit detached?

你是否已经跟现实脱节了？

How do you know what your employees

你怎么知道你的员工们

find matters in their organizations?

认为在组织里哪些事非常重要呢？

Do you? How?

你真的知道吗？如何得知的呢？

I was talking to the head of a retail organization,

我之前跟一位 零售组织的负责人聊天，

and she was saying that her leadership team

她说她的领导团队

spend a lot of time in stores, listening.

花了很多时间亲自到 店里去倾听员工的声音。

And she said something I thought was really interesting.

她告诉了我一些很有趣的事情。

She said,

她说：

"You can't delegate your listening responsibility to pulse surveys."

“你不能用员工满意度调查 替你完成倾听这一步骤。”

You've got to show up with your ears wide open.

你需要亲自到场，用心倾听。

So what this means is, don't assume you know what matters.

这意味着， 不要假装你都知道什么是重要的。

You know, sharpen your antennae.

让自己变得敏感一点。

Try and figure out.

尝试倾听然后再去解决问题。

We've written about lots of ways that you can do that.

我们写了很多 可以实现这个目标的建议。

But underlying all of those methods

但是这些方法的根本

is an understanding that it’s almost inevitable that you’re detached a bit,

是要清楚你几乎 无可避免地会与现实脱节，

and you need to do a lot more work, actually,

而你需要下更多功夫，

to really find out what matters to employees.

去找到对于员工来说 到底什么才是重要的。

So third point,

第三点是，

inaction is as political as action.

无论是否作为都有政治意义。

We’ve met quite a few leaders that say that they’re neutral on certain issues

有不少领导人说他们 在某些问题上会保持中立

or apolitical.

或者避免任何政治倾向，

There's no such thing.

但这种事情不存在的。

Inaction on things like climate change is as political as action.

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。

I was working with an HR director in the construction industry

我先前跟建筑 公司的人力资源总监一起工作，

right at the moment where a competitor had said

那个时候他们一位竞争对手发表了

some fairly disparaging things about women in the industry.

一些相当诋毁该行业内 女性工作者的言论。

It's a huge controversy.

这是非常有争议的话题。

And this HR director really didn't want to get involved.

因此人力总监不想参与其中，

He just wanted to avoid the conflict, stay out of it.

他只想置身事外， 避免陷入这场争论。

But his employees wouldn’t let him

但是他的老板不让他这么做

because his silence would have communicated complicity.

因为他的沉默会有站队的嫌疑。

Now what I am not saying,

我的意思是，

even though I am often accused of saying it,

虽然我经常在 说这个事的时候被指责，

what I am not saying is that therefore you need to act

但是我并不是说你需要

on every issue that's out there.

对每件事都做出行动来回应。

Of course you don't.

当然你也不会这么做。

And of course you can't, it's infeasible.

你也不能这么做，这不现实。

What I am saying,

我想说的是，

as a leader, is that you need to make conscious, coherent,

作为领导人， 你需要做出慎重、有条理，

authentic choices

以及真实可靠的决定。

about what you will make a stand on and what you won't.

决定你在面对不同 事情的时候站在哪个立场，

And do that in conjunction with your stakeholders and, of course,

并且你们的董事需要与你统一战线。

your employees are one of your key stakeholders there.

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

最后一点也是十分有用的一点是

what your employees think your response has been

到目前为止你的员工们

to activist issues so far.

对于你在积极分子 的问题回应上有什么看法。

Not what you think it is,

注意，不是你的想法，

but what do your employees think it's been?

而是你的员工有什么看法。

And in our research, we came up with a kind of taxonomy

我们的研究发现

of different leadership responses.

不同领导对此事有不同反应。

It starts with nonexistent

首先是否认存在

or, "Activism?

他们会说，“行动主义？

What activism?"

什么行动主义？”

We talked to a chief executive in the manufacturing industry.

我们跟制造业的首席执行官聊过天。

And midway through our conversation, I asked him about climate change

在聊天的过程中， 我提起了气候变化这个话题，

and his strategy and stance on environmental issues.

问他在这个问题上的立场和策略。

And he looked at me utterly baffled.

他不解地看向我。

It was nowhere on the agenda.

因为议程上并没有这一环节。

Now, that looks increasingly inconceivable, actually,

现在看来， 这种事情实际上非常难以置信，

but it certainly still happens.

但仍然会发生。

And then you get suppression.

因为领导者会干脆闭口不谈。

Or, "Let's just expel those voices before it spreads."

或者，“把那些 声音扼杀在摇篮里吧。”

Now this is where leaders explicitly silence or implicitly,

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，

because employees know that if they do speak up,

因为员工们清楚一旦发表了意见，

it will probably cost them their next promotion.

可能会对下一次的晋升有影响。

Or indeed, if they do speak up, they might be ignored.

或者说，就算他们说了， 这些声音也会被忽略。

We surveyed just over 3,000 employees in a recent project,

我们在最近的调查中 访问了 3000 多位雇员，

and just over one in five employees

超过五分之一的人

expect to be ignored if they speak up

希望他们的声音

about wider social and environmental concerns.

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"

面对这种情况 他们会做一些“表面工夫”

or, "Let's just say the right things."

比如，“说一些政治正确的东西。”

This is when leaders make proclamations about what’s important,

当领导宣布重要事项时，

and they may even say what they're going to do about it,

员工们甚至可能会说 他们将要采取什么样的行动，

but nothing happens.

但最终什么也没改变。

In the wake of George Floyd's murder,

在乔治·弗洛伊德 （George Floyd）被谋杀后，

there were many organizations that made statements of support

很多组织都支持

for the Black Lives Matter movement.

“黑人的命也是命”运动。

When the American Marketing Association investigated things shortly after,

随后美国市场营销协会调查此事时，

they found that less than one in 10 had made any concrete changes.

他们发现只有不足十分之一 的机构做出了具体改变。

Then you get to something we call defensive engagement,

这就是我们所说的“防御性参与”，

or, "Let's just do what the lawyers tell us."

也就是，“我们就做 律师让我们做的事吧。”

Now, this is where leaders do engage on a topic,

这时候领导就参与进来了，

but only because they really have to.

但仅仅是因为他们必须要这么做。

Again, working with a senior team recently in the farmer industry,

还有一个例子是我最近 跟农业行业的高层团队工作时，

the issue of diversity and inclusion came up on the agenda.

在议程上安排了多样性 和包容性话题的讨论。

It was dealt with in about five minutes.

大约五分钟就可以结束。

And essentially they said,

他们说，

"Let's send everybody on a course and count the number of women."

“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。”

That was kind of as far as it got.

这是他们目前能做的事。

They did the bare minimum.

但不多。

And then there's a step change to what we call dialogic engagement

接下来发生了一个阶段性 变化称之为“对话参与”。

or, "Let's sit down, listen and learn."

确切地说，“坐下来， 倾听并且学习。”

And the reason why it's a step change

之所以认为他们迈出了重要的一步

is because leaders here know that they don’t know the answer,

是因为领导们不仅意识到 他们都不知道问题的答案，

and they really want to find out what they don't know.

并且从未停止探索未知的脚步。

OK?

可以理解吗？

So we talked to an entrepreneur

我们认识一位企业家，

who had taken over ex-UK car manufacturing plant.

他接管了前英国汽车制造厂。

And the workers there were very upset about working conditions.

那里的员工对工作环境非常不满。

And so this entrepreneur decided in, General McChrystal's terms,

他便决定沿用 麦克里斯特尔上将的军事战略，

to share information until it was almost illegal.

尽最大可能做到信息共享。

In other words,

换句话说，

he'd gotten the employees and opened up the books,

他了解员工在想什么并决定开诚布公，

shared information and shared decision making with them

就他们需要做的事情

about what they needed to do.

与他们共享信息和决策。

And that was a vastly different leadership style

这是一种崭新的领导方式，

from the ones that they've been used to.

跟以往的截然不同。

Now right at the end, we've got stimulating activism.

最后要提到的是推动行动主义。

This is when leaders say, "Let's be the activist."

企业的领导们自己就是行动主义者。

This is the Ben and Jerry's and the Patagonias of the world.

本杰理冰激淋和冲锋衣 品牌巴塔哥尼亚就是很好的例子。

And they recruit activists.

他们将行动主义者纳入公司。

They promote activists.

提拔他们。

They keep hold of activists in their organizations.

挽留他们。

Now, there's many things that I could take out from this taxonomy.

以上就是我想跟大家分享的研究成果。

Let me draw just two key learnings out here.

现在就上述内容， 我想提出两个建议。

First of all,

首先，

you need to know where your employees think your response has been so far,

你需要知道你的员工对你 目前为止的行动有什么看法，

not where you think it's been.

而不是你自己的看法。

Because guess what?

为什么呢？

Let's go back to that optimism bubble.

回顾一下我们刚刚 提到的乐观主义泡沫的观点。

The more senior you are,

你的职位越高，

the more likely you are to think that you're in dialogue.

你越有可能高估你的对话参与度。

But if I ask a more junior employee,

如果我问一位资历较深的员工，

they're more likely to say, "No, that's a facade."

他们有可能会说， “这些都是表面功夫罢了。”

Or even actually, "I'm scared to speak up."

真正的原因可能是，“我害怕发声。”

And the second key point is dialogue is messy.

第二点是因为对话 背后牵扯到很多东西。

It's jam-packed full of vulnerability,

脆弱性，

ambiguity, disagreement.

模凌两可和分歧。

That's why leaders try and avoid it so much.

这就是为什么 领导人会对此闭口不谈。

But you can't avoid it any longer, that's not a sustainable strategy.

但是你不可能永远都在逃避问题， 这不是长远之计。

So we need to get far better at experimenting,

因此我们要在现实实践，

at expecting fallout,

结果预测，

about learning from mistakes.

以及错误复盘上多下功夫。

So in summary, we are entering an age of employee activism.

总的来说，我们已经进入了 员工行动主义的时代。

And if we can't or won't hear voices of difference in our organization,

如果我们不去 或者无法倾听不同的声音，

we need to consider that like the canary in the coal mine.

就像“煤矿中的金丝雀”。

In other words, a signal of danger.

换句话说，迟早会陷入危险的境地。

Because if we can't talk about stuff that matters to us,

因为如果我们 不能谈论那些对我们很重要，

but that we differ on,

但是同时有分歧的事，

that spells disaster in our organizations.

则会让我们的组织招来灾难。

For things like ethical conduct, innovation, inclusion,

对于道德规范、创新、包容、

talent retention, performance.

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,

所以也许在面对这些 巨大的社会和环境问题时候，

maybe we're finally starting to reassess what good leadership looks like.

我们才真正开始去 重新定义什么是优秀的领导才能。

Maybe we're starting to see leadership as activism.

我们才开始将领导力 和行动主义划上等号。

And in doing that,

通过这些改变，

maybe we'll enable voices of difference

可能我们会听到不同的声音

to make a difference in the workplace

来让职场做出改变。

by allowing them to speak truth to power.

让员工们真正“向权力说真话”。

Thank you.

谢谢。