????我們都了解這樣的感受：老板交給我們一項(xiàng)討厭的任務(wù),，對(duì)此我們自己可能都不認(rèn)可，但最終必須得做,。很多時(shí)候,，這些命令是讓公司運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)下去的關(guān)鍵。但并不總是如此,。有時(shí)候,，（這些命令）可能完全是錯(cuò)的。

????康奈爾大學(xué)（Cornell）約翰遜商學(xué)院（Johnson school）的管理學(xué)教授詹姆斯?迪特稱(chēng),，這時(shí)候,，如果下屬能直言不諱，公司最終能獲益,。但在最需要員工給出意見(jiàn)的時(shí)候,，很多員工往往都會(huì)失聲。他說(shuō)：“絕大多數(shù)情況下當(dāng)公司最終陷入值得警醒的災(zāi)難之中，我們幾乎總能追溯到早期就有人試圖進(jìn)行自下而上的溝通,，只是由于害怕或不能這么做,，任由問(wèn)題日積月累?！?/p>

????有些時(shí)候,，不可能拒絕老板。但員工們總是有一些資源可以武裝自己,，只是他們自己可能還沒(méi)有意識(shí)到,。

????每一個(gè)值得警醒的災(zāi)難都有其溝通和文化上的失誤。2010年英國(guó)石油（BP）漏油事件發(fā)生后,，該公司在上報(bào)安全事故方面存在的系統(tǒng)性問(wèn)題大白于天下,。瑞銀（UBS）的一位魔鬼交易員正在倫敦接受審判，涉嫌非法操作,、致使2011年該行損失超過(guò)20億美元,。但他很可能是鼓勵(lì)高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)押注、注重高回報(bào)的企業(yè)文化的集中體現(xiàn),。

????有些組織懲罰直言不諱的雇員,。與此同時(shí)，太多高管聲稱(chēng),，他們鼓勵(lì)“開(kāi)放的文化”,，迪特表示。經(jīng)理們可以采取多種方式達(dá)到目的,，但同時(shí)所有的員工們也有幾種方式,，保護(hù)自己不受老板強(qiáng)人所難。

????第一步是質(zhì)疑權(quán)威,。我們可能認(rèn)為權(quán)威與職務(wù)高低直接相關(guān),，但事實(shí)不完全是這樣。達(dá)特茅斯塔克商學(xué)院（Tuck School of Business）教授亞當(dāng)?克萊伯姆說(shuō)：“權(quán)威事實(shí)上源于你對(duì)他人的依賴(lài),，和他人對(duì)你的依賴(lài),。”他建議下屬可以通過(guò)幾種方式提高權(quán)威性,?！耙皇枪ぷ鞒錾蔀橹鞴芙?jīng)理不可或缺的得力干將,?！倍墙V泛的同事和導(dǎo)師網(wǎng)絡(luò)，降低對(duì)主管經(jīng)理的依賴(lài),。一旦經(jīng)理提出在倫理上處于灰色地帶的要求,，員工就可以借助同盟的支持,，使其發(fā)生改變。

????思考我們上述關(guān)于權(quán)威的觀點(diǎn),，能讓所有的下屬受益,。迪特在2011年共同撰寫(xiě)并發(fā)布在《管理學(xué)會(huì)學(xué)報(bào)》（Academy of Management Journal）上的一份研究報(bào)告指出，不管企業(yè)高管和經(jīng)理實(shí)際是怎么做的,，我們很多人對(duì)他們的行為都會(huì)有先入為主的看法,。研究人員對(duì)一家科技公司的190名員工進(jìn)行采訪后發(fā)現(xiàn)，很多人都存在所謂的“固有”信念,，缺乏證據(jù)支持,、但根深蒂固。包括：就算員工看到了相反的證據(jù),，但如果發(fā)表與管理者不同的意見(jiàn),，就有挑戰(zhàn)上級(jí)能力的嫌疑。

????迪特說(shuō)：“看起來(lái)有一些真的很荒謬的觀點(diǎn),，如果我們不裝作管理者懂的更多,，整個(gè)等級(jí)制度就會(huì)轟然倒塌?！?/p>

????希望打造開(kāi)放式文化的管理者首先要解決的問(wèn)題是如何讓員工改變對(duì)權(quán)威的固有觀念,。實(shí)際上，密歇根大學(xué)（University of Michigan）羅斯商學(xué)院（Ross School of Business）教授雪莉?科佩爾曼2012年的一項(xiàng)研究顯示,，自詡權(quán)威的人可能會(huì)在不經(jīng)意間發(fā)出不接受不同意見(jiàn)的信號(hào),。研究進(jìn)行過(guò)程中，讓參與者看了很多的學(xué)院院長(zhǎng)照片,。在沒(méi)有提供這些院長(zhǎng)的具體工作時(shí)，很多人就表示,，來(lái)自高排名大學(xué)的院長(zhǎng)看起來(lái)沒(méi)有來(lái)自低排名大學(xué)的人那么容易合作,。當(dāng)被問(wèn)到他們將如何申請(qǐng)學(xué)費(fèi)補(bǔ)助時(shí)，參與者普遍表示,，他們會(huì)向那些高排名大學(xué)的院長(zhǎng)要求較少的補(bǔ)助,。

????We all know the feeling: the boss has given us an unpleasant task we may not even agree with but ultimately have to perform. Many times, these orders are essential to making a company run. But not always. And sometimes they seem plain wrong.

????In those cases, companies ultimately benefit when a subordinate speaks up, according to James Detert, a management professor at Cornell's Johnson school. But right when their input is needed most, many employees lose their voice. "In the vast majority of cases where companies end up with whistleblowing-level disasters, almost always we can trace them back to an early conversation where somebody tried to communicate directly up the chain and couldn't or were so afraid to do so that they let it pile up," he says.

????Sometimes, it's impossible to push against powerful people. But employees often have resources to empower themselves that they may not recognize.

????Every whistleblowing-level disaster comes with its unique combination of communication and cultural mishaps. After the 2010 BP oil spill, it came to light that the company had a systemic problem with reporting safety issues up the chain. A rogue trader at UBS (UBS) is currently on trial in London on charges that he acted illegally when he made trades that lost the bank over $2 billion in 2011. Yet, he was probably part of a corporate culture that encouraged risky bets and big returns.

????Some organizations penalize staffers for speaking out. At the same time, plenty of executives claim they want to encourage an "open culture," Detert says. Managers can take several steps to pull this off, but in the meantime, there are a couple of ways all employees can protect themselves from a boss forcing their hand.

????The first step is to question the nature of power at work. We may think power is directly related to job titles, but it's more nuanced than that. "Power really resides in one's dependence on somebody else, and their dependence on you in the other direction," says Adam Kleinbaum, a professor at Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business. Subordinates can increase their power in a couple of ways, he suggests. "One is by doing excellent work that makes them completely indispensable to the manager." The second is to reduce dependence on that manager by developing a broad network, including peers and mentors. When a manager makes an ethically gray request, an employee can use his or her allies as backup to deflect it.

????All of us who have bosses could benefit by thinking about the origin of our ideas about power. Many of us have set beliefs about how executives and managers behave regardless of how they actually act, according to a 2011 study co-authored by Detert that was published in the Academy of Management Journal. After interviewing 190 people at a tech company, the researchers found that many demonstrated what's called "implicit" -- or non-evidence-based, yet deep-rooted -- beliefs. Those included the idea that voicing an opinion different from the manager's would seem like a challenge to his or her ability, even if employees had seen evidence to the contrary.

????"There seems to be some really silly notion that if we don't all pretend that managers know more, then the whole hierarchy would all crumble down," Detert says.

????Managers who want to create an open culture first have to work to overcome how their employees naturally understand power. In fact, people who consider themselves powerful may unintentionally give off signals that they aren't open to another perspective, according to a 2012 study by Professor Shirli Kopelman at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business. In the study, participants viewed pictures of deans from various schools. Without any information about where the deans work, people said that those from higher-ranked universities seemed less cooperative than those from lower-ranked universities. Furthermore, when asked how they would negotiate funding, participants generally said they would ask for less money from the deans from higher-ranked universities.