在浪漫喜劇的緊張時(shí)刻,,一對(duì)分居的夫婦會(huì)在不合時(shí)宜的時(shí)候哀怨地對(duì)視——有時(shí)直到分心的布拉德·皮特(Brad Pitt)飾演的角色被車(chē)撞了,。在另一些浪漫喜劇中,,這對(duì)夫婦會(huì)逃避交流,,不屑理睬對(duì)方,以至于觀(guān)眾感覺(jué)就像在搖晃保羅·麥斯卡(Paul Mescal)在《正常人》(Normal People)中喃喃自語(yǔ)的角色,告訴他倆要互相交流,。
無(wú)論是在電影《當(dāng)哈利遇到莎莉》(When Harry Met Sally)中,,還是在辦公室里,,極容易規(guī)避的溝通不暢都會(huì)破壞一段關(guān)系,。在極端情況下,,員工和他們的經(jīng)理可能會(huì)表現(xiàn)得像一對(duì)關(guān)系失常的夫婦,,其中一方認(rèn)為自己在給予贊賞和贊揚(yáng),,而另一方則覺(jué)得自己被忽視和低估。
蓋洛普(Gallup)對(duì)2700多名管理者和12700多名個(gè)人貢獻(xiàn)者進(jìn)行了調(diào)查,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),,問(wèn)題的部分原因在于管理者和員工在如何看待他們之間的互動(dòng)上存在差距,。
問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)在于,,老板們?cè)诮Y(jié)束與員工的會(huì)議后,,可能比他們應(yīng)有的更自信。給予贊美是他們的致命弱點(diǎn),,盡管他們自己并不知道這一點(diǎn),。約有60%的管理者表示,,他們覺(jué)得自己很擅長(zhǎng)認(rèn)可團(tuán)隊(duì)做出的努力。但這與他們團(tuán)隊(duì)的看法并不一致:只有35%的個(gè)人貢獻(xiàn)者這么認(rèn)為,。雖然老板們知道他們的許多主要弱點(diǎn)對(duì)參與度有著至關(guān)重要的影響,,但這仍然是一個(gè)巨大的盲點(diǎn)。
本·威格特(Ben Wigert)在蓋洛普的報(bào)告中寫(xiě)道:“認(rèn)可并不像管理者想象的那樣頻繁出現(xiàn),,或是沒(méi)有以一種讓員工難忘的方式表現(xiàn)出來(lái),?!?/p>
從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看,,忽視員工的辛勤工作會(huì)造成極大的傷害,。如果員工感到倦怠而離職還不能引起高管的共鳴,那么生產(chǎn)力下降的必然性可能會(huì)引起他們的共鳴,。Atlassian的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn),,大多數(shù)《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)企業(yè)的高管都認(rèn)為生產(chǎn)率低下是他們面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn),。
首席執(zhí)行官們似乎可以解決自己身上的問(wèn)題:管理不力往往會(huì)導(dǎo)致生產(chǎn)力低下,,這讓高管們夜不能寐,。威格特解釋說(shuō):“改變?nèi)藛T管理方式也許是提高組織內(nèi)部生產(chǎn)力的最簡(jiǎn)單方法,?!?/p>
對(duì)于高績(jī)效員工來(lái)說(shuō),他們占據(jù)公司生產(chǎn)力的較大份額,如果不認(rèn)可或獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)其付出的努力,,可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致他們離開(kāi)公司,。耶魯大學(xué)(Yale School)管理學(xué)院組織行為學(xué)高級(jí)講師海蒂·布魯克斯(Heidi Brooks)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志的特雷·威廉姆斯(Trey Williams)表示:“你不關(guān)注這些人,,并不意味著他們沒(méi)有需求,?!彼a(bǔ)充說(shuō),,“通常他們的需求非常簡(jiǎn)單”,,并指出“簡(jiǎn)單的認(rèn)可就能帶來(lái)深遠(yuǎn)的影響,。”
在反饋頻率方面,,管理者還有一個(gè)盲點(diǎn),。雖然50%的管理者認(rèn)為他們每周都會(huì)給予反饋,但只有30%的員工這么認(rèn)為。也許老板認(rèn)為有建設(shè)性的批評(píng)可能只是一閃而過(guò)的評(píng)論,,尤其是在遠(yuǎn)程或混合型工作團(tuán)隊(duì)中通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行反饋時(shí)(這可能會(huì)造成溝通不暢),。
另一個(gè)未解決的關(guān)鍵弱點(diǎn)是管理層承諾的企業(yè)文化,。根據(jù)蓋洛普的報(bào)告,,管理者比非管理者更傾向于認(rèn)為自己營(yíng)造了一種“協(xié)作的團(tuán)隊(duì)環(huán)境”,。
但在某些方面,,員工和他們的老板關(guān)于合作方式的看法是一致的,。一些人認(rèn)為管理層的優(yōu)勢(shì)包括反應(yīng)迅速,、高質(zhì)量反饋和平易近人。威格特指出,,如果不包括高質(zhì)量的反饋,這些優(yōu)勢(shì)中有很多都比較直接,。他解釋說(shuō),這些后勤技能,,如能夠提供資源,對(duì)參與度和生產(chǎn)率的影響較小,。
有些弱點(diǎn)是雙方都知道的,包括缺乏有意義的每周反饋,、激勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的能力不足以及無(wú)法消除績(jī)效障礙。蓋洛普補(bǔ)充稱(chēng),,與管理層的優(yōu)勢(shì)不同,這些弱點(diǎn)與參與度高度相關(guān),,因此也與員工留任率和生產(chǎn)率密切相關(guān),。
誠(chéng)然,對(duì)這些盲點(diǎn)負(fù)有責(zé)任的不僅僅是管理者,。許多人都陷入了一個(gè)更大的循環(huán),,他們?cè)谔幚砩霞?jí)和下屬之間的緊張關(guān)系時(shí),體驗(yàn)到了職業(yè)倦怠,。在疫情期間,,這種壓力變得更加明顯。還有很多老板是“偶然的管理者”,,他們?nèi)狈φ降墓芾斫?jīng)驗(yàn),卻發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的培訓(xùn)要求被忽視了,。
只有36%的管理者向蓋洛普?qǐng)?bào)告說(shuō),他們收到了來(lái)自同行的正式反饋,。許多人發(fā)現(xiàn)了自己的痛點(diǎn):40%的人表示,,他們?cè)谖龁T工或管理員工績(jī)效方面的能力還不夠高超或不夠?qū)I(yè),。60%的人表示在“培養(yǎng)員工并幫助他們開(kāi)辟職業(yè)道路”方面的能力還不夠高超或不夠?qū)I(yè),,這一比例更高,。
管理層似乎也在經(jīng)歷憂(yōu)郁情緒,,并意識(shí)到自己的盲點(diǎn)正導(dǎo)致工作效率低下。也許高層可以伸出援助之手,,讓這兩股對(duì)立的力量以愛(ài)情喜劇的方式達(dá)成和解,。如果首席執(zhí)行官們確實(shí)想解決他們最可怕的噩夢(mèng),就必須為經(jīng)理們提供培訓(xùn),,這樣他們就可以擁有企業(yè)版的最后一刻奔跑,,即在某人搭乘最后一班航班出城之前趕上他,,或是在員工換到下一份工作之前解決問(wèn)題,。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
在浪漫喜劇的緊張時(shí)刻,,一對(duì)分居的夫婦會(huì)在不合時(shí)宜的時(shí)候哀怨地對(duì)視——有時(shí)直到分心的布拉德·皮特(Brad Pitt)飾演的角色被車(chē)撞了,。在另一些浪漫喜劇中,,這對(duì)夫婦會(huì)逃避交流,不屑理睬對(duì)方,,以至于觀(guān)眾感覺(jué)就像在搖晃保羅·麥斯卡(Paul Mescal)在《正常人》(Normal People)中喃喃自語(yǔ)的角色,,告訴他倆要互相交流,。
無(wú)論是在電影《當(dāng)哈利遇到莎莉》(When Harry Met Sally)中,還是在辦公室里,,極容易規(guī)避的溝通不暢都會(huì)破壞一段關(guān)系,。在極端情況下,,員工和他們的經(jīng)理可能會(huì)表現(xiàn)得像一對(duì)關(guān)系失常的夫婦,其中一方認(rèn)為自己在給予贊賞和贊揚(yáng),,而另一方則覺(jué)得自己被忽視和低估,。
蓋洛普(Gallup)對(duì)2700多名管理者和12700多名個(gè)人貢獻(xiàn)者進(jìn)行了調(diào)查,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),,問(wèn)題的部分原因在于管理者和員工在如何看待他們之間的互動(dòng)上存在差距,。
問(wèn)題的癥結(jié)在于,老板們?cè)诮Y(jié)束與員工的會(huì)議后,可能比他們應(yīng)有的更自信,。給予贊美是他們的致命弱點(diǎn),盡管他們自己并不知道這一點(diǎn),。約有60%的管理者表示,,他們覺(jué)得自己很擅長(zhǎng)認(rèn)可團(tuán)隊(duì)做出的努力,。但這與他們團(tuán)隊(duì)的看法并不一致:只有35%的個(gè)人貢獻(xiàn)者這么認(rèn)為。雖然老板們知道他們的許多主要弱點(diǎn)對(duì)參與度有著至關(guān)重要的影響,,但這仍然是一個(gè)巨大的盲點(diǎn),。
本·威格特(Ben Wigert)在蓋洛普的報(bào)告中寫(xiě)道:“認(rèn)可并不像管理者想象的那樣頻繁出現(xiàn),,或是沒(méi)有以一種讓員工難忘的方式表現(xiàn)出來(lái)?!?/p>
從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看,,忽視員工的辛勤工作會(huì)造成極大的傷害。如果員工感到倦怠而離職還不能引起高管的共鳴,,那么生產(chǎn)力下降的必然性可能會(huì)引起他們的共鳴,。Atlassian的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn),,大多數(shù)《財(cái)富》美國(guó)500強(qiáng)企業(yè)的高管都認(rèn)為生產(chǎn)率低下是他們面臨的最大挑戰(zhàn),。
首席執(zhí)行官們似乎可以解決自己身上的問(wèn)題:管理不力往往會(huì)導(dǎo)致生產(chǎn)力低下,這讓高管們夜不能寐,。威格特解釋說(shuō):“改變?nèi)藛T管理方式也許是提高組織內(nèi)部生產(chǎn)力的最簡(jiǎn)單方法,。”
對(duì)于高績(jī)效員工來(lái)說(shuō),,他們占據(jù)公司生產(chǎn)力的較大份額,,如果不認(rèn)可或獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)其付出的努力,可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致他們離開(kāi)公司,。耶魯大學(xué)(Yale School)管理學(xué)院組織行為學(xué)高級(jí)講師海蒂·布魯克斯(Heidi Brooks)對(duì)《財(cái)富》雜志的特雷·威廉姆斯(Trey Williams)表示:“你不關(guān)注這些人,,并不意味著他們沒(méi)有需求?!彼a(bǔ)充說(shuō),“通常他們的需求非常簡(jiǎn)單”,,并指出“簡(jiǎn)單的認(rèn)可就能帶來(lái)深遠(yuǎn)的影響,。”
在反饋頻率方面,,管理者還有一個(gè)盲點(diǎn),。雖然50%的管理者認(rèn)為他們每周都會(huì)給予反饋,,但只有30%的員工這么認(rèn)為。也許老板認(rèn)為有建設(shè)性的批評(píng)可能只是一閃而過(guò)的評(píng)論,,尤其是在遠(yuǎn)程或混合型工作團(tuán)隊(duì)中通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)行反饋時(shí)(這可能會(huì)造成溝通不暢)。
另一個(gè)未解決的關(guān)鍵弱點(diǎn)是管理層承諾的企業(yè)文化,。根據(jù)蓋洛普的報(bào)告,,管理者比非管理者更傾向于認(rèn)為自己營(yíng)造了一種“協(xié)作的團(tuán)隊(duì)環(huán)境”。
但在某些方面,,員工和他們的老板關(guān)于合作方式的看法是一致的,。一些人認(rèn)為管理層的優(yōu)勢(shì)包括反應(yīng)迅速、高質(zhì)量反饋和平易近人,。威格特指出,,如果不包括高質(zhì)量的反饋,這些優(yōu)勢(shì)中有很多都比較直接,。他解釋說(shuō),,這些后勤技能,如能夠提供資源,,對(duì)參與度和生產(chǎn)率的影響較小,。
有些弱點(diǎn)是雙方都知道的,包括缺乏有意義的每周反饋,、激勵(lì)團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的能力不足以及無(wú)法消除績(jī)效障礙,。蓋洛普補(bǔ)充稱(chēng),與管理層的優(yōu)勢(shì)不同,,這些弱點(diǎn)與參與度高度相關(guān),,因此也與員工留任率和生產(chǎn)率密切相關(guān)。
誠(chéng)然,,對(duì)這些盲點(diǎn)負(fù)有責(zé)任的不僅僅是管理者,。許多人都陷入了一個(gè)更大的循環(huán),他們?cè)谔幚砩霞?jí)和下屬之間的緊張關(guān)系時(shí),,體驗(yàn)到了職業(yè)倦怠,。在疫情期間,這種壓力變得更加明顯,。還有很多老板是“偶然的管理者”,,他們?nèi)狈φ降墓芾斫?jīng)驗(yàn),卻發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的培訓(xùn)要求被忽視了,。
只有36%的管理者向蓋洛普?qǐng)?bào)告說(shuō),,他們收到了來(lái)自同行的正式反饋。許多人發(fā)現(xiàn)了自己的痛點(diǎn):40%的人表示,他們?cè)谖龁T工或管理員工績(jī)效方面的能力還不夠高超或不夠?qū)I(yè),。60%的人表示在“培養(yǎng)員工并幫助他們開(kāi)辟職業(yè)道路”方面的能力還不夠高超或不夠?qū)I(yè),,這一比例更高。
管理層似乎也在經(jīng)歷憂(yōu)郁情緒,,并意識(shí)到自己的盲點(diǎn)正導(dǎo)致工作效率低下,。也許高層可以伸出援助之手,讓這兩股對(duì)立的力量以愛(ài)情喜劇的方式達(dá)成和解,。如果首席執(zhí)行官們確實(shí)想解決他們最可怕的噩夢(mèng),,就必須為經(jīng)理們提供培訓(xùn),這樣他們就可以擁有企業(yè)版的最后一刻奔跑,,即在某人搭乘最后一班航班出城之前趕上他,,或是在員工換到下一份工作之前解決問(wèn)題。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:中慧言-王芳
In the tense moments of a rom-com, the estranged couple will glance mournfully at each other at inopportune times—sometimes until the distracted Brad Pitt character gets hit by a car. In others, the partners will shirk communication and shrug to the point where the viewer feels like shaking Paul Mescal’s mumbling character in Normal People and telling the two to just talk to each other.
Whether it be in When Harry Met Sally or an office, easily avoided miscommunication can damage a relationship. At the extreme, employees and their managers can act like a dysfunctional couple, where one partner thinks they are offering appreciation and praise and the other partner feels unseen and undervalued.
Part of the problem is a gap in how managers and workers separately perceive their interactions, finds Gallup in a survey of more than 2,700 managers and 12,700 individual contributors.
At issue is the fact that bosses are perhaps more confident than they should be when walking away from a meeting with their employees. Giving praise is a particular achilles heel for them, even though they don’t know it. Some 60% of managers report feeling like they are good at acknowledging a team’s efforts. But that doesn’t match up with how their team perceives things: Only 35% of individual contributors report feeling similarly. While bosses know a lot of their main weaknesses have a critical impact on engagement, this remains a gargantuan blind spot.
“Recognition isn’t happening as often as managers think, or it’s not being delivered in a memorable way for employees,” writes Ben Wigert in the Gallup report.
Ignoring the hard work that people put in can be incredibly damaging in the long run. If employees feeling burnt and leaving doesn’t strike a chord with executives, the promise of weakened productivity might. CEOs are preoccupied with the pace at how things get done, as an Atlassian study found that most Fortune 500 executives think low productivity is their top challenge.
It seems as if CEOs can resolve their own problem, as weak management often feeds into the productivity bind that keeps the C-suite up at night. “Changing how people are managed is perhaps the easiest way to boost productivity within organizations,” explains Wigert.
In the case of high-performers, who account for an oversized amount of productivity, failing to recognize or reward their efforts can lead to them walking out the door. “Just because you’re not paying attention to those folks, doesn’t mean they don’t have needs,” senior lecturer in organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management, Heidi Brooks, told Fortune’s Trey Williams. “And usually their needs are very simple,” she added, noting that “simple acknowledgment goes far.”
And managers have another blind spot when it comes to the frequency of their feedback. While 50% of managers think they give weekly feedback, only 30% of employees feel similarly. Perhaps what a boss thinks of a moment of constructive criticism might come off as a passing comment, especially when delivered online in remote or hybrid workforces which can breed avenues of miscommunication.
Another critical point of unaddressed weakness is the culture that management promises. Managers are more likely to think they foster a “collaborative team environment” than non-managers are, per Gallup’s report.
But there are some points where employees and their bosses are aligned about how they work together. Some agreed management’s expertise included responsiveness, high-quality feedback, and approachability. Not including the high-quality feedback, many of these strengths are more straightforward, notes Wigert. He explains that these logistical skills, like being able to provide resources, have low impact on engagement and productivity.
Some points of weakness are known by both parties, including a lack of meaningful weekly feedback, ability to motivate team members, and elimination of the barriers to performance. Unlike management’s strengths, these weaknesses are highly correlated with engagement and therefore also retention and productivity, Gallup adds.
Of course, managers are not the only ones responsible for these blind spots. Many are caught in a larger cycle, experiencing burnout as they navigate tension between higher-ups and those who report to them. During the pandemic, this pressure became all the more apparent. And a good number of bosses are “accidental managers,” who have no formal experience in their roles and are finding their requests for training ignored.
Only 36% of managers report to Gallup that they receive formal feedback from peers. And many see their sore spots: as four in 10 say they’re not advanced or at expert levels of proficiency in engaging employees or managing their performance. A higher share, six in 10, say they’re not advanced or expert at “developing employees and helping them create career paths.”
It seems as if management is also experiencing the blues, aware that their blind spots are bleeding into productivity woes. Perhaps a helping hand could come from the higher-ups, and in rom-com style, the two opposing forces can come to a resolution. If CEOs are to really fix their worst nightmare, they’ll have to provide training for managers so they can have their own corporate version of last-minute running to catch someone before they get on the last flight out of town—or into their next job.