你培养出冲突智慧了吗？

我是艾迪·伊格内修斯。

I'm Adi Ignatius.

我是艾莉森·比尔德，这里是《哈佛商业评论》创意播客。

I'm Allison Beard, and this is the HBR Ideacast.

好的。那么，艾莉森，今天我们将重点关注职场中的冲突。其中一些冲突是由外部因素驱动的。我们生活在一个党派分歧严重的时代，这种分歧可能会蔓延到办公室。另一部分则是由内部冲突驱动的。

Alright. So, Allison, today, we're gonna focus on conflict in the workplace. Now some of this conflict is driven by external factors. We live in very divisive partisan times, and that can spill into the office. And part of this is is driven by internal conflict.

问题是领导者该如何应对？冲突何时会升级到需要领导者介入的程度？他们又该如何以保持公司运转、维护文化完整性的方式来解决这些冲突？

The question is how do leaders respond? When does conflict rise to the level where leaders need to get involved? And how do they resolve them in ways that keep the company moving and and keep the culture intact?

这似乎是一个当下非常相关的话题，因为，你知道，存在典型的内部分歧，比如管理者争夺资源或高管们争论战略，这在经济动荡和不确定时期太常见了。但正如你所说，还有一些外部力量正在渗透到日常业务运营中。人力资源管理协会最近的一项研究发现，足足有76%的员工在上个月目睹过不文明行为。

This seems like a really relevant topic right now because, you know, there are the typical internal disagreements that might happen between managers fighting for resources or a c suite execs debating strategy, which happens all too often when there is economic turbulence and uncertainty. But then as you say, there's also these sort of outside forces that are seeping into the daily running of business. A recent study from the Society for Human Resource Management found that a full seventy six percent of workers had witnessed acts of incivility in the last month.

是的。你不能忽视它。这类冲突会损害文化，让员工觉得不想待在这样的工作场所。所以，显然这其中有人力成本，但这种冲突、这种争执也会在生产力和金钱方面给公司和员工带来损失。是有方法处理这些冲突的。

Yeah. And you can't ignore it. This kind of conflict can damage a culture, can make workers feel that they don't wanna be in this workplace. So, obviously, there's the human cost of all this, but this kind of conflict, this kind of contentiousness can also cost a company and workers in terms of both productivity and money. There are ways to handle these conflicts.

这种技能不是与生俱来的。你可以学习这种技能，而且我认为我们正在更加关注那些能够有效处理冲突的领导者。

You are not born with the skill. You can learn the skill, and I think we're paying more attention to leaders who are able to handle conflicts effectively.

我想情商是能够管理冲突、化解冲突的重要组成部分，但不是唯一的部分吧？

I imagine that emotional intelligence is a big part of being able to manage conflict, diffuse conflict, but it's not the only piece?

不完全是。我的意思是，还有一种叫做冲突智力的概念。我今天的嘉宾是哥伦比亚大学师范学院的彼得·科尔曼教授，他还负责指导该校的合作与冲突解决中心。他最近为《哈佛商业评论》撰写了一篇题为《冲突智慧型领导者》的文章。

No. I mean, there's so there's something called conflict intelligence. And my guest today is Peter Coleman, a professor at Columbia University's Teachers College. He also directs their center on cooperation and conflict resolution. He wrote a recent article for HBR called the conflict intelligent leader.

我和他交流是为了弄清楚如何培养这种技能，如何应用这种技能，如何更好地管理组织内的所有这些冲突。以下是我与彼得·科尔曼的对话。好的，你在文章中的前提是，你知道，世界上的冲突正在加剧，政治、种族、性别等方面的冲突日益增多，工作中的冲突也是如此。所以，我对冲突文化很感兴趣。

And I spoke to him to figure out how do we develop that skill, how do we apply that skill, how do we get better at managing all of these conflicts within our organization. So here's my conversation with Peter Coleman. Alright. So your premise in the article is that, you know, conflict in the world is on the rise, clashes over politics, race, gender, and so on, and so is conflict at work. So, you know, I'm interested in the in the in the culture of conflict, I guess.

我曾在不同类型的公司工作过。你知道，有些公司喜欢他们没有混蛋员工，并认为这是成功秘诀的一部分。而我也在其他一些公司工作过，这些公司说，不，你实际上应该鼓励那些直言不讳的人。不是说要刻薄无礼，而是可能需要一种犀利的风格，这实际上可能有助于在创意或策略等方面达到更好的结果。

I I I've worked for for different kinds of companies. You know, some that love the fact that they're no jerks and that that is part of the secret sauce. And I've worked at other companies that said, no. You you you actually wanna encourage the flamethrowers. Not not to be, you you know, mean and and uncivil, but to maybe bring a sharp edge that that that actually might be how you get to a good place in terms of of ideation or strategy or something like that.

你对此有什么看法？你知道，在这种背景下，健康的文化是什么样的？

What's your view on that? You know, what what what does a healthy culture look like in that context?

我会像调解员那样说，那就是两者都对。你知道，你基本上需要足够的礼貌、融洽、体面和与同事的乐趣，这样才能有心理安全感，能够完成工作，偶尔在想法上说出一些出格的话。所以，坦诚是有帮助的。有时有直率的人挑战你的想法也是有益的。但在像现在这样，我们更广泛的文化氛围如此两极分化，常常如此容易引发情绪反应的时候，人们对这种行为的容忍度降低了。

I'll say what a mediator says, which is they're both right. You know, you want basically, enough civility and rapport and decency and sort of fun with your colleagues to be able to have, you know, psychological safety and be able to get things done and say things that are outrageous occasionally in terms of ideas. So it's helpful to have candor. It's helpful to have people that are kinda straight talkers sometimes that will challenge your ideas. But in times like this where our broader cultural ethos is so polarized and so oftentimes so triggering, people have less tolerance for that.

所以我认为这取决于公司。取决于你的重点是什么，你在做什么。但如果你真的想要能够批判性思考并相互挑战的人，你需要创造他们能够相对安全地这样做的条件，这并不意味着没有冲突。我是冲突的忠实拥护者，让我这么说吧。

So I think it depends on the company. It depends on what you're do you know, what your focus is, what you're doing. But if you really want people who can think critically and challenge each other, you need to create the conditions where they can do that relatively safely, and that doesn't mean no conflict. I'm I'm a I'm a big fan of conflict. Let me put it that way.

对吧？它是变革的驱动力。所以你需要在两者之间找到某种最佳平衡，而这种具体平衡会因行业和公司的不同而变化。

Right? It is a driver of change. So you wanna have some kind of optimal balance of both, and the particular balance of that will change from industry to industry and company to company.

好的。所以你，我理解起点。我理解你试图解决的问题。是的。我对你正在进行的研究性质很感兴趣，这项研究旨在探讨如何建设性地处理冲突。

Okay. So you're you know, I understand the starting point. I understand the problem you're trying to solve. Yep. I'm interested in the nature of the research you're doing that's trying to address how to deal constructively with with conflict.

所以请简单谈谈这项研究以及你试图梳理出的内容。

So just talk a little bit about about about the research and what you're trying to tease out.

我师从一位名叫莫顿·多伊奇的学者，他经历过二战，深入研究冲突问题。他主要研究良性冲突与恶性冲突，他称之为建设性或破坏性冲突过程。他认为冲突是自然现象，是我们存在的一部分，我们需要它来学习、相互挑战、创新和前进，但它也可能变糟。所以你需要理解冲突向良性方向发展的条件。我们在他的研究以及他学生的研究基础上继续探索，这就是我们的研究方向。我们特别研究领导者创造条件的能力，在这种条件下，他们能鼓励人们进行建设性方向的冲突，让人们在学习的同时保持良好的人际关系。

I was trained by a man named Morten Deutsch who came out of World War two and, really studied conflict, and he studied basically good and bad conflict, what he called constructive or destructive conflict processes. He argued that conflict is a natural thing. It's part of our existence, and we need it in order to be able to, you know, learn and challenge one another and innovate and move forward, but it can go bad. So you wanna understand the conditions under which conflict goes in a good direction. We've built on their research, on his research, and his, you know, students' research, and that's what we study, and we study particularly the capacities of leaders to create conditions where they can encourage people to have conflict that moves in a constructive direction where they learn and be able to, you know, hold on to their relationships.

因此我们研究的正是试图找到那种最佳平衡。

And so it is trying to find that optimal balance that we study.

好的。那么你们发现了什么？善于处理、化解和引导冲突的领导者具备哪些特质？

Okay. And and so what have you found? What are the attributes of a leader who is good at handling, diffusing, moving through conflict?

我们已经识别出一系列基本能力。部分在于自我控制能力。部分在于具备一定能力来了解自己的反应方式、触发点，并能在困难情况下保持冷静。这很有帮助。我们有一个称为冲突焦虑反应量表的测量工具。

There's a series of basic competencies that we've identified. Part of it is self control. Part of it is having some capacity to know how you how you react, what triggers you, and to be able to sort of be calm in difficult circumstances. That helps. We have a measure called the conflict anxiety response scale.

它指出当人们处于某些类型的冲突中时，往往会变得焦虑，然后会以某些可预测的方式偏离正轨。因此意识到这一点很有帮助。这是一个基础，我认为需要一定的自我意识和自我调节能力。但接下来你还需要更高层次的技能，即社交技能。明白吗？

It argues that when people are in certain kinds of conflicts, they tend to get anxious, and then they tend to get derailed in certain predictable ways. So being aware of that is helpful. That's a baseline, and I think is some self awareness and ability to self regulate. But then you have a kinda next level of skills, which are social skills. You know?

你能有效谈判吗？这可以是共同解决问题的双赢谈判，也可以是为自己争取利益的竞争性谈判，或是两者的结合。对吧？在这方面特别有效的领导者能够找到两者的结合点，他们既能为某个立场辩护，也会倾听并整合新想法。对吗？

Can you negotiate effectively? And that can be, you know, kinda win win negotiation where we problem solve together or, you know, more competitive negotiation where you advocate for yourself or combining both. Right? So leaders that are particularly effective at this are able to sort of do find combinations of both where they advocate for a certain position, but they also listen and integrate new ideas. And right?

所以这更像是一个协作与竞争同时进行的过程。这些技能至关重要。它们有不同的层次：一个是自我控制，一个是社交控制。

So it's more of a kind of collaborative and a competitive process happening simultaneously. Those are critical. There are different levels of these skills. One is self control. One is social control.

然后是随着情况变化而运用不同策略的能力，最终，对整个局势有把握是很重要的。你可能像我们一样处在一个政治氛围非常严峻的时期，理解这一点并认识到这些问题有时会渗透进来，可能需要采取不同的应对方式，这很关键。

Then it's the capacity to use different tactics and different kinds of situations as they change, and ultimately, it's helpful to have a sense of the the whole. You may be at a time like we are where the political ethos is really severe, And having an understanding of that and recognizing that sometimes those issues trickle in and that they may require a sort of different approach is critical.

在你的文章中，你使用了这个术语——也许是你首创的——冲突智能。它听起来像情商，但我觉得你的意思有些不同。你会如何定义什么是冲突智能？

In your article, you use the term, and maybe you coined the term conflict intelligence. It sounds like emotional intelligence, but I think you mean something a little bit different. How how would you define you know, what is conflict intelligence?

冲突智能建立在情商的基础上，因为情商通常是指了解自己、必要时调节自己、理解情感动态的能力。但它超越了情商，因为它实际上是一种能力——我们讨论的一个策略或战略是适应性。适应性意味着，你知道，有时候你对员工或客户的惯常回应方式可能很建设性，但有时你需要转变。有时你需要认识到：不，这不是往常的情况。

Conflict intelligence builds on emotional intelligence because that is the sort of oftentimes the capacity to, you know, know yourself, regulate yourself when necessary, understand emotional dynamics. But it goes beyond that because it really is the capacity then to one tactic or strategy we talk about is adaptivity. And adaptivity is that, you know, sometimes, you know, you may have your go to way of responding to employees or to clients that's pretty constructive, but sometimes you need to pivot. Sometimes you need to recognize, no. This isn't business as usual.

这是不同的情况。他们变得更爱争论、易怒、有问题，我需要真正站出来应对他们。所以这种适应能力——即改变策略以适应情况，同时保持诚信——至关重要。对吧？

This is something different. They're being more contentious, peevish, problematic, and I need to really kind of stand up to them. So that capacity to adapt, which means to change your strategies to fit the situation in a way where you maintain integrity. Right? So that's critical.

这不仅仅是适应。不仅仅是随风转向。而是清楚什么对你重要，你的北极星是什么，你在这个情境中与这个客户的关系里想要达成什么，但同时也要认识到有时你需要转向、划定一些红线并为自己挺身而出。

It's not just adapting. It's not just shifting with the winds. It's having a sense of what is important to you, what your North Star is, what you're trying to do in this situation with this relationship with this client, but also recognizing that sometimes you need to pivot and draw some red lines and stand up for yourself.

我们谈话的方式，你知道，到目前为止，似乎像是处理这些问题的CEO或高层领导 somehow 超脱于纷争之上或需要试图超脱。而这，你知道，引出了我们过去十年左右一直在讨论的整个问题：CEO是否需要在当下对政治和社会问题表态。你知道，几年前我们可能都会说，是的。他们必须表态，因为员工要求、客户要求、利益相关者要求，而他们的沉默会在社交媒体上被解读——

The way we're speaking, you know, so far, it sort of seems like, you know, the the CEO or the the senior leader who's handling these issues is somehow, you know, above the fray or or needs to try to be above the fray. And that, you know, that brings into this whole question about that we've been having for, you know, a decade or so, whether CEOs need to weigh in on political and social issues at the moment. You know, a few years ago, we would have all said, yes. They have to because their employees demand it, their customers demand it, stakeholders demand it, and their silence will be interpreted on social media

是的。

Yeah.

可能是负面的。所以你需要某种程度上参与纷争。你知道，我认为这个问题没有唯一正确答案。但在我们讨论的背景下，你怎么看当今的CEO行动主义？

Probably negatively. So you need to kind of enter the fray. You know, I don't think there's one right answer to this. But but in the context that we're talking about, you know, what what do you think about CEO activism these days?

我认为由于我们所处的时代，这充满风险。我是哥伦比亚大学的教员，我们立刻就知道哥伦比亚大学因为表态或不表态、站队或不站队而陷入的麻烦。所以在这个时代走这条线非常困难。我确实认为，再次强调，每个公司都不同。人们必须关注他们员工和职员的内在需求以及他们所在的位置。

I think it's fraught because of the time we're in. I mean, I I am on faculty at Columbia University, and we know right away the trouble that Columbia University has gotten into by either speaking out or not speaking out, taking a side or not taking aside. So it's a very difficult time to walk that line. I do think, again, each company is different. People have to pay in attention to their their internal needs of their staff and employees and where they're they are.

你知道，特别是年轻员工高度期望他们的领导人为某些问题站出来。过去组织往往不太倾向于这样做。乔治·弗洛伊德谋杀案是一个转折点，许多不同类型组织的领导人站出来说，这是错误的，我们需要对此非常明确。而现在随着最高法院关于平权行动等问题的裁决，他们一直在后退一些。所以在这个层面谈论政治问题是一个充满风险的时代。

You know, particularly younger employees are highly expecting their leaders to stand up for some issues. It used to be that organizations were less inclined to do so. There was a tipping point around George Floyd's murder where the many heads leaders of different types of organizations would step up and say, you know, this is this is wrong, and we need to be really clear about that. And now with the supreme court rulings around affirmative action and things like that, they've been they've been backing up a little bit. So it's a fraught time to speak on political issues at that level.

我认为，你能做的是谈论与你的工作、你的领域、你所做的事情、你合作的伙伴直接相关的问题。我认为越保持本地化，就越显得合理，越不太可能踩到这些绊索。

I think, you know, you what you can do is speak to issues that are directly relevant to your work, to your space, to what it is you do, what it is you work with, your partners out there. I think the the more local you can keep it, the more reasonable it seems, and the less likely you're gonna step on one of these tripwires.

是的。那么，这个问题的另一面是，我们在多大程度上能够接受员工，你知道，所谓的'把完整的自我带到工作中'。是的，我会说一些原本感觉半确定的事情现在又重新被讨论。而半确定的是你希望员工把完整的自我带到工作中，因为这样才能获得，你知道，一个健康的劳动力等等。

Yeah. Well, so then the flip side of this is to what extent we're comfortable with employees, you know, quote, unquote, bringing their whole selves to work. And Yeah. I would say there's certain things that felt semi settled that are now in play. And and semi settled was you want your employees to bring their whole selves to work because that's how you get, you know, a healthy workforce, etcetera, etcetera.

你知道，马克·安德森说过，我为什么要让某人把完整的自我带到工作中？这对我有什么帮助？这对我的公司完成工作有什么帮助？我们可以辩论这是否确实是完成工作的正确方式。是的。

You know, Marc Andreessen said, why would I want somebody to bring their whole self to work? How does that how does that help me? How does that help my company get things done? And and we can debate whether or not that's exactly how to get things done or it's not. Yeah.

但是，但是，你知道，通过告诉人们'是的，把一些东西留在家里'，你在多大程度上帮助解决了冲突问题？你不必把你感受到的和你热衷的一切都带到工作中。有些东西适合工作，有些不适合。你对这个怎么看？

But but but, you know, to what extent do you solve the help solve the conflict problem by telling people, yeah, leave some of that stuff at home. You don't have to you don't have to bring everything to work that you're feeling and that you're passionate about. There's stuff for work, and there's stuff not for work. What what do you think about that?

我认为围绕这个问题尽可能进行透明的对话并帮助设定期望很重要。因为如果你有一个自上而下的政策说，这是你不能谈论的事情清单，这真的会阻止人们把对自身重要的部分带到工作中，而这些部分本可以帮助公司理解不同的市场，理解不同的，你知道，那些存在的问题以及它们的普遍程度。所以我不认为这是正确的方式。我认为正确的方式是明确期望是什么。我也认为建立关于何时，例如会议偏离主题的规范和期望非常重要。

I think it's important to have as much as possible transparent conversations around this issue and to help set expectations. Because if you have a a top down policy that says, you know, here's a list of things you can't talk about, you know, it's really going to stop people bringing important parts of themselves to work that will will help the company understand different markets, understand different, you know, sort of issues that are out there, how prevalent they are. So I I don't think that's the way to go. I do think that the way to go is to be clear about what expectations are. I also think it's really important to set up norms and expectations about when, for example, meetings derail.

对吧？所以我在我的课堂上——我在哥伦比亚大学教一门关于冲突的课程。可以想象，很多挑衅性的问题会出现。课堂很容易偏离轨道，所以我立即与学生建立了一个契约，你知道，第一天就说：看，事情会发生。

Right? So I in my class, it's I teach a class in conflict at Columbia. As you can imagine, a lot of provocative issues come in. It's very easy for the class to get derailed, and so I set up a contract right away with students first, you know, first day and say, look. Things are gonna come up.

人们会偏离主题。课堂上会开始一些不适合在这里进行的对话，因为我们没有时间，没有引导者，而且可能会伤害一些人。如果发生这种情况，我保留暂停它的权利，说：暂停这个对话。我们会设置一个'出口匝道'，安排一个时间我来，我们会好好谈谈，花更多时间来解决。

People are gonna get derailed. Conversations will start in class that this isn't a place to have it because we don't have the time. We don't have the facilitation, and it's gonna harm some people. If that happens, then I maintain the right to kind of pause it and say, pause this conversation. We'll set up an off ramp, set up a time when I'll come, and we'll talk it out, and we'll spend more time to do that.

但我们不能在这里这样做，因为我们当前的工作是这个，而这正在让我们偏离轨道。所以预见这种情况并设定这些期望，基本上与你的员工达成共识，这就是我们的工作方式，认识到事情可能会变得糟糕，我们不想完全关闭这些对话，但我们希望以一种富有成效的方式进行。而通常，在一个半小时或四十五分钟的会议上，还有其他议程事项，这些对话并不适合。

But we can't do that here because our work right now is this, and this is derailing us. So anticipating that and setting up those expectations and basically getting agreement with your employees that this is how we'll work recognizes that things can go south, and we'll and we don't wanna shut those conversations down, but we wanna have them in a way that can be fruitful. And oftentimes, in a meeting of a half hour or forty five minutes with other things on the agenda, they're not.

所以听起来你会建议公司也这样做。是的。不是在棘手问题出现时，而是在那之前。

So it sounds like you would suggest companies do the same thing. Yeah. Not when a thorny issue comes up, but before that.

准备工作。绝对是的。我的意思是，在我们讨论的这篇哈佛商业评论文章中，我首先谈到要建立基本规则，建立一种融洽关系和期望感，特别是在当下，为此建立基础设施。这并非总是必要的，也不是每家公司都需要，但由于我们生活的这个充满紧张的时代，我认为管理者和领导者预期事情可能变糟并为此做好准备非常重要，这样他们就有一些选择。

Preparation. Absolutely. I mean, in in the article, the HBR article that we're talking about, I start with sort of, you know, build the ground rules, build a sense of rapport and a sense of, you know, expectations, build the infrastructure for this, particularly right now. This isn't always necessary. It's not necessary in every company, but because of the fraught times we live in, I think it's really important that managers, leaders expect that things can go south and prepare for that, and so they have some options.

这能让管理者感受到效能和可能性，他们不会感到像被车灯照到的鹿一样不知所措——这种情况在很多大学教授身上都会发生。课堂上突然爆发冲突，他们不知道如何处理，不知道该说什么，于是要么压制下去，要么任其发展过头。所以我认为预见到这一点非常关键。

It just gives managers a sense of efficacy and possibility, and they don't feel like a deer in the headlights, which happens with a lot of university press professors. Something breaks out in the classroom. They don't know how to deal with it. They don't know what to say, and so they either shut it down or they let it go too far. So to anticipate that, I think, is really critical.

那么在企业内部，你如何决定什么时候冲突需要这种程度的介入或调解？我们之前谈到劳资对抗、更微妙的问题，以及那种大的政治社会议题，你知道介入的阈值是什么？

So inside a business, you know, how do you decide when a conflict requires this level of engagement or mediation? And we were talking about, you know, labor versus management, more subtle issues, the sort of big political, social issue, know, what's what's the threshold for getting involved?

对我来说，设定议程的应该是：我们在做什么？比如，我们的目标是什么？我们在这个会议或这个部门试图达成什么？你知道，我们的重点是什么？这相关吗？这会有助于服务我们的重点，还是会让我们陷入一个我们实在没有时间有效处理且无助于实现目标的兔子洞？

To me, what needs to set the agenda is what are we doing? Like, what's our objective here? What are we trying to do in this meeting or in this department? You know, what is our focus? And is this relevant, and is this gonna help serve our focus, or is this gonna take us off in a rabbit hole that we really don't have time to deal with effectively, and it won't serve what we're trying to do?

所以我认为管理者需要有相对清晰的认识，与员工核查并偶尔重新审视：我们的行动模式是什么？我们真正试图…你知道，我们的北极星是什么？我们想要达成什么？并以此作为试金石来思考：这真的偏离正题了，或者人们变得非常激动，我能感觉到那种苗头。你知道，有些领导者更具同理心，更善于察言观色。

So I think managers having a relatively clear sense and checking this out with their staff and employees and and revisiting it once in about a while about what is our MO? What are we really trying to you know, what is our North Star? What are we trying to do? And use that as a litmus test to think about, you know, this is really getting offline or people are getting really heated, and I can sort of feel that coming on. You know, some leaders are, again, much more empathetic, much more willing to able to read the room socially.

有些则不是。所以如果我不擅长，我会希望身边有一个擅长的人，他能对我说：彼得，这是个有趣的讨论，我建议我们…比如安排在周六处理。你知道？你可以分担掉一部分。

Some aren't. So if I'm not, I wanna have somebody with me who is, you know, and who can say to me, you know, Peter, this is an interesting conversation. I suggest we, you know, set this up on Saturday. You know? You can offload some of this.

这并非全由一人承担。你可以组建一个团队，其中每个人在不同方面都能真正发挥作用。这样也会非常有帮助。

It's not all on one person. You can have a team of people that are actually effective in different ways. That can be really helpful as well.

有哪些榜样人物呢？你知道有哪些伟大的谈判者，或者因为有人处理得当而解决了真正棘手问题的例子？你能举出一两个做对了的人的例子吗？

Who are sort of models? You know? Who are some of the great negotiators or or or examples of really difficult things that got resolved because somebody somebody handled this well? Do you have do you have one or two examples of someone who's done it right?

我倾向于在国际组织工作，比如联合国和联合国儿童基金会等地方，因此我有幸与乔治·米切尔共事。乔治·米切尔曾是参议员和法官，但后来在他的人生中参与了和平进程，例如参与了北爱尔兰的《耶稣受难日和平协议》。他介入了一场持续三十年的冲突，期间有3500人死于所谓的‘动乱’，因为克林顿请他担任特使，他在那里花了两年时间摸索如何解决这个问题。他是大师。他声称这是在政治中学到的——作为参议院多数党领袖，他必须斡旋所有这些非常困难、紧张的冲突，达成某种理解，并推动人们前进。

So I I tend to work in international organizations, UN and UNICEF and places like that, and so I've had the pleasure and honor of working with, like, George Mitchell. And George Mitchell was, you know, a senator and was a a judge and, but then got involved in peace processes later in his life and got involved, for example, in the Northern Irish Good Friday peace agreements, which was you know, he he went into a thirty year conflict with 3,500 people, you know, killed in the, quote, troubles and wandered into this thing because Clinton asked him to be his envoy and then spent two years there figuring out how to do this. Master. And he claims that he learned this in politics. He learned this as the as the majority leader in the senate, right, that he had to broker all of these really difficult tense conflicts, come to some kind of understanding, and move people forward.

所以米切尔是一个很好的例子。曼德拉也是——如果你从未读过《漫漫自由路》，曼德拉的书是一本关于冲突的非凡之作。他从童年时期一直谈到担任南非总统及之后，都在讲述冲突。他是我们所谓的适应性冲突管理者的典范，因为他使用了非常不同的策略，有时甚至在同一个行动中采用看似矛盾的策略，对吧？

So Mitchell is a great example. Mandela is also if you've never read the long walk to freedom, Mandela's book is an extraordinary book about conflict. He speaks about conflict as a child all the way up to president of South Africa and beyond. He is a poster child for what we call adaptive conflict managers because he used very different strategies, sometimes even contradictory strategies in the same move. Right?

还有像百事公司的英德拉·努伊这样的人，她接手时，组织正因趋向更健康饮料、苏打水和营养价值的食品运动而偏离轨道，她被请来运营并拯救百事公司。因此她必须兼顾两者：既要尊重新运动，又要认识到我们的核心业务，并如何管理这一点？她确实有并行的方法来协商这些事务。

People like Indra Nguyen of Pepsi who came in and was dealing with an organization that was being derailed because there was this movement towards more healthful, you know, drinks and sodas and and nutrit nutritional value, you know, foods, and she was running pop you know, brought in to run run and save Pepsi, and so she had to sort of do both, figure out how do you honor the sort of new movement and recognize our core business, and how do you manage that? And she really had kind of parallel tracks about how she would negotiate those.

所以你在文章中提到的例子之一是苹果公司的蒂姆·库克。那似乎是一个经典的商业难题，一方是坚定的隐私倡导者，对吧？对。另一方则希望优先考虑增长，这包括更多而非更少地提取客户的个人数据。对。这是一个经典案例。

So one of the examples you mentioned in the article is Tim Cook at Apple. And and that seemed to be like a classic sort of, you know, business, you know, conundrum where you have a conflict between the sort of committed privacy advocates, right Yeah. Versus others who wanted to prioritize growth, which included extracting more and not less of of customers' personal data. Yeah. That's a classic.

对吧？他处理这个问题有效吗？你怎么看他？

Right? Has he approached the issue effectively? How do you look at him?

我认为这对蒂姆·库克来说是一次巨大的成功。想想看，因为这件事与恐怖主义有关。发生了恐怖主义行为，政府想要获取所谓恐怖分子的手机数据，这确实是问题的核心。所以你面临着一个宏观的政治问题，而且非常紧迫。他们真的在向苹果施压，要求获取这些手机的数据，那么界限应该划在哪里呢？

I I think this was a big success for Tim Cook. I think that think about it because it was an issue that was tied to terrorism. There'd been this act of terrorism, and the government wanted access to the phones of the supposed terrorists and wanted, you know and this was really what it was about. So you've got this kind of macro political thing happening that is acute. They're really putting pressure on Apple to sort of give access to the data of these phones, and how where do you draw a line in that?

我认为他处理得非常高明，一方面坚守立场，表示隐私是一项人权。隐私是一个关键问题，是我们苹果公司非常重视的。另一方面，我们认识到开发一些基于服务的产品来保护人们的隐私，也能为我们带来收入增长。所以他能够 respectfully 地对政府说不，同时认识到围绕隐私问题创造收入流的重要性。因此他们进军人工智能领域，利用AI来保护手机用户，这成为了他任期中的一个关键转折点。

And I I think he was masterful in a, standing his ground and saying privacy is a human right. Privacy is a, you know, critical issue, and it's something that we, Apple, take very seriously. And b, we recognize that creating some kind of service based products that will protect people's privacy is also a revenue gain for us. So I was able to sort of say no to the government respectfully, but also at the same time recognize that the need to, you know, basically create a revenue stream around privacy issues was critical. So their move into AI and to the use of that to, protect us on the phone, right, became a really kind of critical point in in his in his tenure.

让我们来做一两个假设性的场景分析。

Let's do some one or two hypothetical scenarios.

很好。

Great.

好的。那么假设你公司的员工希望CEO支持一项LGBTQ倡议。但是一些高管担心这会引发保守派市场的反弹。

Okay. So alright. So let's say, employees of your company want you, the CEO, to support an LGBTQ initiative. Yeah. But some executives fear a backlash among the conservative segment of of your market that could Yeah.

可能会影响销售额。在2025年，你会如何处理这种情况？

Could cost you sales. You know, 2025, what do you what do you do with that?

嗯，同样地，我会希望房间里有一些优秀的人才。我会想要那些能够为一方或另一方有力辩护的人。例如，我有一位同事大卫·希斯纳，他在哥伦比亚法学院工作过一段时间，曾是法学院院长。他是一位保守派律师，也是鲁斯·巴德·金斯伯格的法律助理，因为她希望找到最聪明的保守派法律人才，在办公室里时刻挑战她的观点。

Well, again, I would want really good minds in the room. I would want people that would be good advocates for one side or the other. For example, I have a colleague named David Schisner who's at the law school, was the dean of the law school at Columbia for a while. He's a conservative lawyer, and he was Ruth Bader Ginsburg's clerk because she wanted to have the smartest conservative that she could find with a legal mind in her office to challenge her at every moment. Right?

所以当遇到这种棘手问题时，无论是组织内部要求表态，还是来自市场和客户的外部压力，我都会感到压力。我希望能够巧妙地应对这种局面。可能没有简单的选择，最终你或许不得不表明立场，但我觉得必须对自己的决策过程保持清晰透明。为此，你需要梳理不同的论点、权衡利弊、认清面临的困境，最终做出决断、表明立场。

So if a thorny issue comes up like this, I feel pressure either internally within my organization, you know, to take a position or from the market itself, from the clients and customers. I wanna be able to thread that needle effectively. There may not be a simple choice. You may ultimately have to take a stand somewhere, but I think you wanna be very clear and transparent about your processes. And so to do so, I think you need to have the different arguments, the trade offs, the dilemmas you're facing, and then ultimately take a stand, take a position.

就像大学那样，它们必须重新回归教育的本质，而非倡导立场。我认为大学在乔治·弗洛伊德事件期间开创了发表公开声明的先例，而现在它们正在退后一步并表示：这不是我们的职责。对吧？我们的任务不是告诉人们该想什么，而是教会他们如何思考。

So, you know, like with universities, they had to become reconnect themselves to their mission of education, not advocacy. And so universities, I think, set a precedent during the George Floyd movement to make public statements, and now there's really a move for them to back off of that and say, this is not what we we do. Right? We're not supposed to tell people what to think. We're supposed to teach them how to think.

这就是我们的行事准则。我们需要避免采取那些立场。但重申一点，每个行业、每家公司、每个商业环境都各不相同。因此如果你预见到可能会引发反弹，就必须认真权衡。我们无法总是预料到所有后果，但让最优秀的人才在会议室里质疑你的决策是非常有益的。

So that's our MO. We need to back off of taking those positions. But again, for every sector, every company, every, business landscape will be different. And so I think you have to take serious considerations if you feel there'll be blowback. We can't always anticipate that, but it's useful to have your best minds particularly challenging your decisions in a room.

我们再来讨论另一个场景。这个场景...我猜非常普遍，尽管可能不会被公开讨论。结果可能两极分化，但我们姑且这样设定：我在一家白领公司工作。

Let's do another scenario. And this one Yeah. I I suspect is very common even if it's not aired. It could go either way, but let's let's do it this way. I work for a white collar company.

我支持特朗普。但我觉得无法公开表达这个立场。我不想捶胸顿足地表现得像个极端特朗普支持者，但我确实支持他。然而办公室的氛围显然是——任何明事理的人都是反特朗普的，我感觉...无法做真实的自己，无法畅所欲言。

I am pro Trump. I feel like I can't voice that in public. I don't wanna pound my chest and be, you know, radically pro Trump, but I'm pro Trump. But but the language in the office is that, obviously, any anyone who knows anything is anti Trump, and I just I feel, you know, I I can't be myself. I can't speak up.

这种情况肯定很常见。而且可能双方都会遇到这种困境。对此你有什么建议？

That that has to be common. And, again, it probably goes both ways. What what's your advice for for that?

我的第一反应是——有时候尽可能避免政治话题讨论会更好。但如果环境让你突然感受到这种分裂，察觉到职场中的'我们vs他们'对立，你就必须直面这个问题。事实上，如果处理得当，这种方式可能会带来巨大的益处。

My inclination is to say I mean, look. Sometimes it's better to avert conversations over politics if possible. But if the if the climate is such that suddenly you feel this rift and you feel the us them dynamic within your workplace, you have to take it on. Right? And the truth is there can be great benefits within that if you do it correctly, if you do it effectively.

所以我确实认为，有时候作为领导者参与其中，表达你的观点并倾听他人的立场，但真正能够做到这一点并找到某种平衡或综合，这并不容易。对吧？因为现在的政治如此部落化，人们如此充满激情。所以为了做到这一点，比如，如果你要召开市政厅会议，如果你决定召开市政厅会议，因为你感觉这个问题真的在让人们偏离轨道，那么你需要好好安排并做好它。过去一年里，哥伦比亚大学的教职员工在加沙问题上分歧严重，非常敌对，在社交媒体上互相攻击。

So I do think that sometimes you being involved as a leader and your voice and laying out, you know, your positions and hearing others' positions, but really being able to do that and find some kind of balance or synthesis, it's not easy. Right? Because politics is so tribal right now, and people are so passionate. So in order to do it, you know, like, for example, if you're gonna have a town hall meeting, if you decide to call in a town hall meeting because you feel like this is really an issue that's derailing people, then you need to sort of set that up and do it well. Over, the last year, the faculty at Columbia were really divided around Gaza, really hostile, attacking each other on social media.

这变得非常不稳定，而且变得非常个人化。于是我组织了一个会议，让100多名教职员工在一个房间里待了三个小时。我让校长和教务长来坐在那里，但什么也不说。我说，我希望你们不要成为问题的一部分。我希望你们倾听，我设定了一些基本规则，说，好吧。

It became very destabilizing, and it became very personal. And so I organized a session where I had over a 100 faculty in a room for three hours. I had the president and the provost come and sit there but not say anything. I said, I want you to not be the problem. I want you to listen, and I set up some ground rules and say, okay.

我们要进行交谈，我希望每个人都从个人经历出发，而不是政治观点，而是这个问题如何 personally 影响你？我希望你们互相尊重，并且，你们知道，管理好时间。开始吧。三个小时里，我们进行了这个非常深刻的过程，说实话。有些人之前已经停止交谈，但真的没有意识到这些问题如何 personally 影响他们。

We're gonna talk, and I want everybody to talk from their personal experience, not their political opinions, but how is this personally affecting you? I want you to respect each other, and I want you to, you know, manage your time. Go. And for three hours, we had this process that was very profound, to be honest with you. You had people that had stopped talking to each other but really had no sense of how these issues were affecting them personally.

那个过程是一个强大的过程，让我们能够开始以某种团结感重新走到一起，并认识到彼此的人性，而不仅仅是彼此的政治立场。所以我不可能主动去做。是学院请我去做的。我说，我只会在这些条件下做。是的。

That process was a powerful process for us being able to start to come back together in some sense of solidarity and recognize the kind of humanity of each other, not just the politics of each other. So I wouldn't have done that. I you know, the college asked me to do that. I said, I'll only do it under these conditions. Yeah.

必须由我负责。他们必须同意这一点，然后我们必须遵循这些规则，才能使这次对话富有成果，而它确实如此。然后坦率地说，领导层做的是，一周后，他们出现在一次教职员工会议上，邀请所有教职员工回来，并说，这是我们听到的。这些是我们立场上的关切，这些是我们想做的事情来推动前进。所以他们后来能够进入解决问题的阶段，但不是在当下。

I have to be in charge. They have to agree to this, and then we have to sort of follow these rules in order to make this a fruitful conversation, and it was. And then frankly, what the leadership did was a week later, they showed up at a faculty meeting and invited all the faculty back and said, this is what we heard. These are our concerns from our position, and these are the things we wanna do to move forward. So they were able to move into problem solving later, but not in the moment.

在当下，我们必须让人们发言并被倾听。

In the moment, we had to allow people to speak and be heard.

所以这可以落到CEO身上，或者，你知道，几乎似乎每个公司，大公司，都可以用一位首席冲突官。

So this could fall to the CEO, or, you know, it almost seems like every company, large companies, could use a chief conflict officer.

阿门。我完全同意你的观点。你知道，我确实感觉如今由于职场中经历的紧张关系，这些事情经常爆发，而我们却不清楚谁是和平缔造者，谁是人力资源部门、申诉专员、调解员，或者仅仅是因自身原因受到尊重的人？我们的资源在哪里？你知道吗？

Amen. I can't agree with you more. I, you know, I I do feel like oftentimes these days because of the tensions we're experiencing in the workplace, that oftentimes these things break out, and we don't we're not aware of who are the kind of peacemakers, who are the people around in HR, the ombuds, mediators, or just people that are respected for their own reasons? Who where are our assets? You know?

哪些人是我们能够联系并说'我们感觉这些分歧正在发生，但你似乎处理得很好，你是怎么做到的？' 这就是所谓的'积极偏差'概念。我相信你熟悉这个概念，它指的是找出你组织中已经在有效管理分歧和冲突的方法，主动利用它们，并思考我们需要什么样的基础设施来实现这一点。这样就不会把所有责任都压在领导者身上，尽管我很乐意担任首席冲突官，我想。

Who are the people that we could, you know, call and say, we feel these divisions are happening, but you seem to be managing it well. How do you do that? That, you know, that's a concept called positive deviance. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but it is finding what's already working to manage divisions and conflict well in your organizations, tapping into them proactively, and saying, let's think about what kind of infrastructure do we have to do this. So it doesn't all fall on a leader or the leader, although I'd be happy to be a chief conflict officer, I guess.

是的。让我们...

Yeah. Let's let's

听起来你肯定是在竞选这个职位。

point that like you're running for the job for sure.

是的。没错。

Yeah. Right.

好的。那么让我们来点非常实用的建议吧。你知道？是的。对于任何听到这个并思考'是的，我希望我的组织能持续展现高冲突智慧'的人。

Okay. So so let's get super practical then. You know? Yeah. For anyone who's listening to this and thinks, yeah, I would like my organization to consistently display high conflict intelligence.

你如何做到这一点？你如何建立这样的组织？

How do you do that? How do you build that organization?

嗯，部分原因再次始于领导者。你知道吗？它始于你如何示范、如何展现、以及你在冲突周围使用的语言。冲突智慧的一部分很简单，其实就是认识到冲突存在，并且它可以是有益的。

Well, part of it's again, starts with leaders. You know? It starts with how you model it, how you show it, the language you use around conflict. Part of conflict intelligence is simple. It's really just recognizing that conflict exists, and it can be beneficial.

对吧？它可以带来伟大的事物、创新、新想法，你知道，避免长期问题。所有这些好处都可能来自冲突。如果你是一个回避冲突的人，或者真的把冲突看作是需要回避的问题，这本身就是一个问题。所以部分是一种心态，但部分也是一套技能。

Right? It can lead to great things, innovation, new ideas, you know, heading off, long term problems. All of those things benefits can come from conflict. If you're a conflict avoidant or, you know, really sort of see conflict as a problem to put away, that is in and of itself is a problem. So it's part of it's a mindset, but also part of it is a set of skills.

这是一套关于管理者能够管理自己情绪、焦虑和触发点的技能，当他们处于风口浪尖时。对吧？他们在那种情况下保持冷静或至少保持正念的能力。他们提升社交技能、变得更加适应性强并运用不同策略的能力，所有这些。这些都是可训练的能力。

It's a set of skills about managers being able to manage their own emotions and, you know, anxieties and tripwires when they're they're in the hot seat. Right? Their capacity to be calm or to at least be mindful when they're in that. Their capacity to work on social skills, to be more adaptive and using different kinds of strategies, all of those things. These are trainable, competencies.

这些不一定是特质。对吧？我们中有些人天生倾向于做和事佬，但许多和事佬是学会这样做的。你知道，这就是乔治·米切尔所说的。他并不是天生就会。

These are not necessarily traits. Right? Some of us are born and inclined to be peacemakers, but many peacemakers learn to do that. You know, that's what George Mitchell said. He he didn't do that.

他是一名法官。他是决策者，然后他必须去学习如何谈判。对吧？所以即使是成年人也可以做到这一点。因此有一些能力，我们已经阐明的基本能力，可以帮助你培养这些技能，领导者需要这样做，以便他们能够示范。

He was a judge. He was the decision maker, and then he had to go and, like, learn how to negotiate. Right? So even adults can do this. And so there are competencies, basic competencies that we've spelled out that help you develop, these skills, and leaders need to do it so that they're modeling it.

但最终，你可以通过培训和工具来帮助你的员工改变文化。对吧？所以这是短期和长期的。短期是让领导者思考并有效管理他们示范的冲突。长期是你希望以某种方式让员工融入组织，告诉他们，嘿。

But ultimately, you can have, you know, trainings and tools that can help your staff and your employees change the culture. Right? So that's the short term, long term. The short term is that get the leaders thinking and effectively managing conflicts of their model. The long term is you wanna socialize people into your organization in ways that say, hey.

冲突是必要的。它会发生，如果我们这样看待它，它可以成为一种强大的资源。

Conflict is necessary. It happens, and it can be a powerful resource if we see it as such.

如果我经营一家公司，你知道，我感觉我的团队越来越紧张，也许是因为世界上似乎存在着前所未有的不确定性、冲突和党派之争。我能主动做些什么来帮助缓和局势，并在力所能及的范围内改善文化？

If I'm running a company, you know, I feel like my my teams are feeling increasingly tense, and maybe it's because there seems to be unprecedented, you know, uncertainty, conflict, partisanship in the world. What can I do proactively to help kind of ratchet things down and and, you know, improve culture to the extent that I can?

嗯，首先，还是我之前提到的一些方法，特别是管理者和领导者的示范作用，我认为这很有帮助，因为它确实能营造某种氛围。正如我们所知，社会示范是一种非常强大的影响力工具。但也有一些自下而上的方法。我要为 Rapport 这个组织打个广告，我已经和他们合作几年了。这是范·琼斯创立的。

Well, so one, again, is some of the things I've said, particularly modeling, I think, of managers, leaders, is helpful because it does establish a certain climate. Social modeling, as we know, is such a powerful influential tool. But there are some bottom up things. Know, I'm gonna give a plug for, a group that I've been working with for a couple of years called Rapport. This is something Van Jones set up.

这就像是工作流程中的嵌入式提醒，Rapport 有点像一种每日签到，只需十到十五秒，让人们可以谈论他们的工作量、精力消耗以及任何担忧。这样，就不必等到季度调查、年度或半年度调查——那都太迟了。对吧？当你意识到‘糟糕，出大事了’的时候已经晚了。你可以在团队层面、部门层面乃至整个公司看到趋势。

This is all, like in role workplace flow nudges, and rapport is a it's kind of like a a daily check-in that people have that takes ten to fifteen seconds, and it it allows them to talk about their workload, to talk talk about their energy load, and any concerns that they have. And so instead of getting a quarterly survey or an annual survey, biannual survey, that is too late. Right? You realize, uh-oh, we're on fire. You can see sort of trends at the team level, at the department level, all the way up.

所以你获得了这种实时信息，但它也让员工能够表达‘是的，我在这方面遇到困难’。这为管理者提供了背景信息。对吧？如果有个员工突然经常迟到，我很生气，然后通过这个信息了解到，原来他的孩子生病了，家里有严重问题，他不方便直接谈论，但愿意通过这种方式分享，这就改变了互动动态。所以，Rapport 是个很有用的工具。

So you get this kind of real time information, but it also allows employees, a, to sort of say, yeah, I'm struggling with this. And it gives managers context. Right? If I have an employee that suddenly is, you know, chronically late, and I'm pissed off about this, and then I learn from this information that, yeah, his kid's sick, you know, and he's got serious problems at home that he's not comfortable talking about, but he's willing to share this way, it it changes the dynamic. So this is a thing, you know, rapport is a thing.

这同样是我们一直在开发的一种人工智能工具，旨在以自下而上的方式，每日跟踪员工的担忧、抱怨、工作量和精力状态，然后利用这些信息，要么在团队和小组层面局部应用，要么在宏观层面理解公司整体状况，从而在问题变得过于严重之前预见它们。

It's, again, a kind of AI tool that we've been building, which is an attempt to work bottom up in a in a daily way to track employees' concerns and grievances, workload, and energy, and then use that information in an in a either localized way with teams and groups, or in a macro way to understand the company, so that you can, again, anticipate problems before they become too big.

好的，彼得。听着，我只想感谢你参加《创意播客》。这是一次引人入胜的对话，我认为你给了大家很多思考的内容。

Alright, Peter. I look. I just wanna thank you for for for being on IdeaCast. This is a fascinating conversation, and I think you've given everybody a lot to think about.

嗯，谢谢你。非常愉快，我真的很感谢你的提问。

Well, thank you. It was a lot of fun, and I really appreciate your questions.

是的。我希望你能得到那个首席冲突官的工作。

Yeah. I hope you get that job as chief conflict officer.

好的。谢谢。我会告诉你的。

Alright. Thanks. I'll let you know.

这位是彼得·科尔曼，哥伦比亚大学师范学院的教授，他在那里领导莫顿·多伊奇国际合作与冲突解决中心。他撰写了HBO文章《冲突智能型领导者》。下周，艾莉森将与莱斯利·珀洛讨论即使是最忙碌的人如何在日常生活中找到更多快乐。如果你觉得这期节目有帮助，请与同事分享，并务必在苹果播客、Spotify或你收听的地方订阅并给《创意播客》评分。如果你想帮助领导者推动世界向前发展，请考虑订阅《哈佛商业评论》。

That's Peter Coleman, professor at Columbia's Teachers College, where he heads up the Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution. He wrote the HBO article, The Conflict Intelligent Leader. Next week, Allison will speak with Leslie Perlow on how even the busiest people can find more joy in their day to day. If you found this episode helpful, share it with a colleague, and be sure to subscribe to and rate Idea Cast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you wanna help leaders move the world forward, please consider subscribing to Harvard Business Review.

你将获得HBR移动应用的访问权限、每周独家内部通讯，以及HBR在线的无限访问权限。只需前往hbr.org/subscribe。感谢我们的团队，高级制片人玛丽·杜、音频产品经理伊恩·福克斯和高级制作专家罗布·埃克哈特。感谢你收听HBR创意播客。我们将在周二带来新的一期节目。

You'll get access to the HBR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter, and unlimited access to HBR online. Just head to hbr.org/subscribe. So thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Du, audio product manager Ian Fox, and senior production specialist Rob Eckhart. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR Ideacast. We'll be back with a new episode on Tuesday.

我是艾迪·伊格内修斯。

I'm Adi Ignatius.