????格雷尼稱：“我們進行了30年的研究，結果證明,，勇于進行關鍵的對話,，不但不會削弱職場安全感，反而有助于提高安全感,。所以,，根本不用擔心自己最終會被打上‘麻煩制造者’或者‘刁民’的烙印?！?/p>

????他發(fā)現(xiàn),，其實問題的根源在于對對峙行為本質的理解不夠成熟，或者“認為自己必須要在坦率與尊重之間做出選擇,。簡單來說,，坦率直言就是不尊重對方?；蛘哒f,，如果坦率地說出實情，必然會冒犯對方,?！?/p>

????但他卻認為，真正擅長正面交鋒的人往往已經(jīng)掌握了兼顧誠實與尊重的藝術,。

????要想兩者兼顧,，并不在于多么巧妙的措辭，而是要聰明地提出問題,。比如,，如果你認為老板執(zhí)行的一項政策愚蠢無比,，有失公平，根本無益于你的工作,。這時你要先問自己：“我該如何讓對方接受我說的都是事實,，并且讓他們相信，我的出發(fā)點是為他們好,，而我對他們本人非常尊重,？”

????有了這個框架，所謂的二元選擇（坦率還是尊重,？）問題就變成了一個靈活,、微妙甚至是有趣的情景。

????格雷尼堅決認為,，這條建議與所謂“打一巴掌給個甜棗”的建議完全不同,。不痛不癢的積極言辭對自己的情況根本于事無補，也無法幫助你扭轉糟糕的局面,。他說：“真正擅長關鍵談話的人從來不會說一些虛偽的話語,，因為這只會削弱對方對自己的信任。他們會直言不諱,，絕不虛情假意地奉承,、迎合?！?/p>

????那么,，沮喪的員工到底應該怎么做？以下為一些小貼士：

????不要一上來就表達不滿情緒,。要表現(xiàn)出成熟的心智,，對新政策的推出表示理解，明白它們往往凝聚了很多人的努力,，不論其本身明智與否,，目的是要解決或預防真正的問題，而不是用來無中生有地折磨人,。

????明智地選擇需要發(fā)言的問題,。如果一遇到問題，無論大小,，你都跳出來,，這會讓你的同事很不舒服。格雷尼建議：“別說‘我永遠正確,，特立獨行,。我就是要挑戰(zhàn)公司的文化’這樣的話?！毕喾?，應該針對一兩個能夠從根本上改善自己狀況的問題,，發(fā)表自己的意見。

????做好充分準備,。如果只是斷章取義或“即興發(fā)飆”，會讓聽者感覺缺乏尊重,，而且會讓自己的處境更加不利,。

????是不是有時我們必須保持沉默？格雷尼表示,，其實談話產(chǎn)生完全相反效果的情況非常罕見,，遠遠比人們想象的要少?！巴ǔＧ闆r下,，當我們與對方進行關鍵談話時，如果他們出現(xiàn)抵觸反應,，這并非是因為他們性格上存有缺陷,，而是因為我們缺乏技巧?！?/p>

????那么,，如果我們實施了成功的關鍵談話，會有什么收獲呢,？答案就是,，給對方以啟發(fā)，并帶來真正的改變,。格雷尼稱：“一旦有人進入一家公司,，證明可以以一種更有效的方式討論問題，就會在公司內產(chǎn)生影響,?；蛟S這是一個緩慢、漸進的過程,，但總比一直在痛苦中煎熬要好得多,。”

????譯者：阿龍/汪皓

????"Our research for 30 years now is consistently clear that stepping up to crucial conversations does not decrease your job security," Grenny says. "In fact, it increases it. So this anxiety we have about being branded a troublemaker or muckraker ... it just doesn't play out that way."

????The real problem, as he sees it, comes from flawed thinking about the nature of confrontation, or "a belief that you have to choose between candor and respect. In short, that candor means being disrespectful. Or you think that if you tell people what you really think about how things are run, they're invariably going to be offended."

????He argues, however, that people who excel at confrontation have mastered the art of being honest and respectful at the same time.

????Doing that successfully is less a matter of felicitous phrasing but rather one of intelligently framing an issue. Say your employer implemented a policy you think is stupid, unfair, and will hurt rather than help you do your job. Ask yourself, "How do I get the entire truth across in a way that the other person knows that I'm looking out for their interests, and that I respect them as a person?"

????With that framework in mind, what seems like a binary choice -- candor or respect? -- is revealed to be a situation that's supple, more nuanced, even interesting.

????Grenny is adamant that this advice is not akin to "give two compliments for every piece of criticism" type of advice. Making positive statements that don't reflect reality will neither help your case nor increase your chances of fixing a bad situation. "People who are really gifted at crucial conversations," he says, "don't undermine trust … by making disingenuous statements ever. They don't sugarcoat, and they don't give false praise and flattery."

????So what should a frustrated employee do? Here are some tips:

????Don't lead with the disappointment. Demonstrate that you have the emotional maturity to realize that a policy -- wise or not -- was implemented to solve or anticipate a real problem, took some effort to devise, and wasn't pulled out of thin air just to torment you.

????Choose your issues wisely. If you confront every single issue, your colleagues will start to associate you with discomfort. As Grenny advises, "Don't say, 'I'm going to be this self-righteous example of someone that's going to be so contrary to the whole culture around here." Instead focus on one or two conversations that could substantially help improve your situation.

????Be prepared. If you shrink from the full message, or if your unrehearsed, off-the-cuff remarks sound disrespectful, then you'll undermine your case.

????Are there times when you really should just shut it? Grenny suggests that situations in which the conversation could completely backfire are more rare than many think. "More often than not, when people react defensively when we broach a crucial conversation with them, the problem was not their lack of character, it was our lack of skill."

????The good news? If successful, stepping up to a confrontation could prove inspiring -- and create real change. "When somebody enters an organization and demonstrates that it's possible to talk about things in a more effective way, it has an influence," Grenny says. "It may take time, it may be incremental, but people don't like wallowing in misery."