|
Most of us can probably search our past and quickly identify a team
experience that stands apart from the rest. Whether it was in the
workplace, in a Toastmasters club, on a performing-arts stage or on an
athletic field, we remember the team fondly for its diverse set of
individuals who just seemed to click, who consistently met or exceeded
its performance goals or rarely got bogged down in interpersonal
squabbles.
多數人可以透過自己的閱歷，很快地看出一個團隊所具有的經驗，和其他團隊的不同。不論是在職場上、演講會中、在表演舞台上、或是競技場中，表現多元的隊伍，總會讓我們印象深刻，這樣的隊伍似乎合作無間，總是能達成，或是超越他們的目標，也較不會因為彼此爭執而動彈不得。
Conversely, we can
likely point to a group experience where recurring conflict or poor
communication regularly undermined productivity or performance, one that
suffered from “me first” thinking and questionable leadership.
相反地，我們同樣也有類似的經驗，一眼就看出某個團隊經常產生衝突、溝通不良，以至於影響效率或表現。原因往往是來自「以我為先」的想法，以及有問題的領導。
Research has shown
that high-performing teams display characteristics that are vital to
their success – qualities that distinguish them from less productive
groups. These characteristics include sharing accountability for team
results, embracing differences among members, putting the right people
in the right roles and openly addressing issues of conflict so they can
be resolved in a healthy manner.
研究顯示，表現良好的團隊，流露著邁向成功的特質，也是這種特質讓他們與眾不同。這些特質包括勇於承擔責任、包容成員的不同、能將對的人放在對的位置、公開的陳述衝突，並用健康的態度處理。
Over the years, many
management consultants and organizational psychologists have pondered
the question, What factors separate extraordinary teams from their
mediocre or otherwise forgettable counterparts? Few, however, have
explored it with as much depth or rigor as consultants Geoffrey Bellman
and Kathleen Ryan. Their findings hold lessons for anyone seeking to
create a more effective and cohesive Toastmasters team or speaking
experience.
多年來，許多管理顧問和組織心理學家，不斷思考這個問題：究竟是什麼因素，讓這些團隊脫穎而出？但是，只有少數人對這個議題深入研究，傑歐佛利•貝曼和卡西林•萊恩是其中二位。他們的研究，已經成為尋求演說經驗，或是想成為有效率，及凝聚力的演講會團隊的教材。
In their
groundbreaking research and 2009 book, Extraordinary Groups: How
Ordinary Teams Achieve Amazing Results (www.extraordinarygroups.com),
Bellman and Ryan spent three years studying more than 60 self-declared
“great” groups ranging in size from two to 20 members. Their aim was to
discover what factors made these teams exceptional. The two consultants
interviewed insurance executives, project designers, financial
strategists, community-service workers and river rafters, to name a few,
who were part of for- profit, volunteer and virtual work groups.
他們在2009年發表的新書《優異團隊：平凡的團隊如何完美達陣》中，提出突破性的研究報告。貝曼和萊恩花了三年時間，研究超過60個自稱「非凡」的團體，人數界於2人到20人之間。研究目的，在發掘造就優異團隊的因素。這2位顧問訪問過保險業務員、專案經理、財務顧問、社區社工和水上救生員等等，包含職業上的、志工性質的和實務工作的團體。
Bellman says the field study identified eight indicators linked to
“extraordinary” performance. (For a full list of the indicators, see the
accompanying article on page 11, “8 Traits of Extraordinary Work
Groups.”) Among the defining traits of these top groups were Shared
Leadership and Embracing Differences. Reflecting the first
quality, leadership in these groups comes from many directions, Bellman
says, not just from a leader- by-title. Designated leaders “see to it
that the group is always led, but don’t feel the need to lead all of the
time,” Bellman says, and are secure enough to let others share the
spotlight. By taking a minimalist approach, these leaders create room
for other team members to step in and grow, building a sense of shared
accountability for results among all members of the group.
貝曼提道，這項田野調查發現，八種指標和「傑出」的表現有關聯(詳細內容，請參閱第11頁的附錄文章)。這些傑出的團體共同的特色是，領導力的分享和接受差異。在這些團體，領導力來自多方面的，而不是僅止於一個頭銜。被選任的領導者「很清楚知道，他的團隊是被領導的，卻又不會常常感覺被領導。」「很清楚知道，對團隊的領導要像空氣一樣，確實存在，卻又感覺不到。」貝曼說，並且要切記，讓其他成員分享領導的鎂光燈。領導者可以先試試看，主動創造一個領導空間，讓團隊其他成員踏進來，並且在其中成長，進而營造一個讓全體成員共同為結果負責的氛圍。
What did this shared leadership look like in practice? Members of these
exemplary groups frequently volunteered to lead projects, research a
pressing issue or bring draft proposals to the group; willingly offered
their content expertise; asked critical questions to help focus a group;
and when group discussion became contentious, often invited the group to
talk about the dynamics of the conflict.
這種領導力的分享，在實務上會是怎麼樣的呢？在這些可作為典範的團隊裡，成員常常主動去主導專案進行、研究迫切的議題、或為團隊提供草案；也願意提供自己的專業知識；點出關鍵問題，幫助聚焦；一旦團隊出現爭議性的辯論，會協助探討問題的來龍去脈。
Extraordinary groups also embraced their differences, be they
distinctions of culture, working style, communication preferences or
age. Bellman says team members were usually intrigued by such diversity
of information, perspectives and backgrounds. Rather than using these
differences to separate them, they capitalized on their strengths.
“Respect for differences enables people to bring their true selves to
the group,” Bellman says, and from that freedom often emerges creative
alternatives to problems, enhanced innovation and productivity.
出色的團隊接納差異，不論是文化上的不同、做事的風格、溝通的方式或是年齡的差距。這些差異甚至能激發其他成員的興趣。他們不會因為其他人的不同而排斥，反而會吸收這些差異成為力量。貝曼說：「尊重他人的不同，讓人更樂意在團體中展現真實的自我。」這種無拘束的自在，常常能為問題找到靈丹妙藥，增加創意及提高效率。
Don’t Avoid Conflict
不要避免衝突
Some
level of disagreement, misunderstanding or frustration will occur on any
team, even the most extraordinary ones. Messy group interaction and
conflict were common in the groups he studied, Bellman says. Yet rather
than seek to avoid conflict or sweep it under the rug, high- performing
teams appeared to embrace it openly, believing the quicker they
addressed problems, the less corrosive they would be to group
productivity, morale and results. Indeed, they seemed to take to heart
the quote from well-known mediator Ron Kraybill, “No meaningful
change takes place in the absence of conflict.”
即使是出色的團隊，不同程度的爭議、誤解或挫折都在所難免。在他研究的團體中，層出不窮的衝突比比皆是，貝曼說，優秀團隊不會刻意避免衝突，或是置之不理；他們表現出開放的接納心態，相信越早提出問題，團隊的效率、士氣和成果就越不容易受到影響。事實上，這樣的作法和知名的調停專家榮恩•克雷歐所說的如出一轍：「少了衝突，改變是沒有意義的。」
“Those who seemed best at dealing with conflict didn’t feel like they
had to play nice and cover it up, but rather they took time to openly
explore polarities in team member positions, and in that gap sought to
find creative alternatives that incorporated ideas from both sides,”
Bellman says.
貝曼說：「處理衝突的最佳人選，通常不會扮演一個好好先生，或只是想粉飾太平。他們會花時間，開誠佈公地站在成員的立場上，探討彼此的分歧，再進一步尋求雙方都能接受的解決方案。」
Tammy Lenski, an organizational-conflict management expert and mediator,
says problems that commonly emerge on teams over issues, such as
managing big workloads or ambiguous expectations, don’t evaporate
because the teams choose to ignore them. “They usually reappear later,
often at inopportune times,” she says.
身為一個組織性衝突管理專家，同時也是一個談判人員，泰咪•蘭奇認為，團隊的問題通常出現在，像是龐大的工作量，或是對於進程模糊不清這類的議題上；也因為常常選擇忽略這些問題，所以更不能放任不管。「問題通常會再出現，而且是在不恰當的時候。」她說。
Lenski stresses that how the conflict is addressed is often more
important than what the conflict is about. The healthiest teams
she knows don’t assume conflict is a sign of something being
fundamentally wrong, but rather see it as a natural part of working with
teammates who have diverse personalities, backgrounds or belief systems.
“Teams that can robustly debate, but do so in a way that doesn’t damage
relationships, usually make better decisions, are more creative and lose
less time to unhealthy conflict,” she notes.
蘭奇強調，「『如何』提出衝突」，通常比「衝突是『什麼』」來得重要。她所知道最健康的團隊不會理所當然地認為，衝突是某種根本的錯誤的表現；反而會將衝突看作是，和不同性格、背景和信仰的人一起工作，本來就會存在的現象。她指出：「團隊中可能會有激烈的爭論，也能因此得到較好的決定，但是要避免傷害彼此關係。如此一來，不僅更有創造力，又能減少不健康的衝突所浪費的時間。」
Patrick Lencioni, author of the book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,
believes that many work groups are dysfunctional simply because they are
made up of human beings, with all their varied frailties and interests.
The best leaders manage their teams by always taking that humanity into
account.
《團隊的五種官能障礙》一書的作者派翠克•藍西尼認為，許多工作團體都有類似的官能障礙，因為都是由人組成的，而人都有不同的缺點和興趣。最好的團隊領導者，一定不會忽略人性的管理。
“When you put [individuals] together and leave them to their own
desires, even the most well-intentioned people will often deviate toward
dysfunctional, unproductive behavior,” Lencioni says. “And because most
leaders and managers are not schooled in the art of building teams,
small problems are left untreated and can spiral further into ugliness
or politics.”
藍西尼說：「將一群人集合在一起，但任由他們各行其是，即使是最善意的人，也經常會產生官能障礙，出現無效率的行為。」「大部分的領導者，或管理者並沒有真正學習過建立團隊的藝術，因此常對一些小問題視而不見，並且導致整個團隊醜態畢露，或是陷入政治僵態。」
When Conflict Resolution
Isn’t Working
萬一衝突無法解決
Lenski says poor conflict resolution has several causes. Here are three
of the main culprits:
蘭奇提到許多種原因，都會導致衝突解決方案無效。其中有三種主要肇因：
1.
Moving too quickly to “fix-it” mode.
太快進入「導正」模式
Lenski, who is based in New Hampshire, jokes that in American culture,
there is a 20/80 rule rather than an 80/20 rule regarding conflict
resolution: “We spend just 20 percent of our time trying to understand
the root cause of problems, and 80 percent trying to fix them.”
住在美國新罕布夏州的蘭奇開玩笑地說，對於衝突解決，美國文化適用20/80法則，而不是80/20法則，「我們只花了20%的時間試圖了解問題根本；然後花80%的時間，努力解決問題。」
The fix-it mentality comes from wanting to avoid the “groan zone,” a
term coined by Sam Kaner, an expert on consensus decision-making. “It’s
that messy place in conflict where people are complaining and no one
knows what’s going to happen yet,” Lenski says, “and it usually feels
frustrating, hopeless and confusing as you are hashing things out.” But
hurrying through the zone is a mistake, she says, because that is where
the real learning and understanding comes from amid conflicts. Tanya
Maslach is the president of Elevati, Inc., a San Diego, California-based
consulting firm that helps leaders build stronger relationships with
multi-cultural and multi- generational teams. She says the most
effective leaders view conflict like scientists – with an inquisitive
mindset rather than a fix-it approach. By asking a repeated series of
“why” questions, leaders can find long-term solutions to recurring
conflict rather than short- term fixes, while at the same time sending a
powerful message to team members: that the leaders care enough to invest
time to uncover the truth.
這種急於導正的心態，源自於人們想要避免「呻吟區域」，這個名詞是專精於意識決定的專家山姆•坎納所創造。「呻吟區域是一個充滿衝突的混亂地方，沒有人清楚知道發生了什麼事。」蘭奇解釋，「身陷其中，會令人感到挫折、無助和迷惘。」但是急於逃離「呻吟區域」也不對，因為那裡正是衝突的漩渦，最容易真正了解和學習的地方。潭雅•馬斯律，位於加州聖地牙哥Elevati公司的總裁，專門協助經理人在多元文化，和世代間建立團隊關係的諮商公司。她說，那些最有效率的領導者，會用科學家的方式來看待衝突，用一種好奇的心態，而不是導正的方式。運用一連串重複性的提問，往往能為一再發生的衝突，找到長期的解方，同時對團隊傳遞一項有力的訊息
- 領導者願意花時間讓真相大白。
For example, a manager might hear grumblings that one team member, John,
isn’t holding his own weight and is a “slacker.” John is charged with
missing deadlines, showing up unprepared for some meetings and not
responding promptly to e-mail. With a little investigation and
questioning, the leader might find that John isn’t lacking work ethic or
commitment, but rather has had so much added to his work plate that he
doesn’t know what to focus on first – the new project he was given last
week or the others he’s been working on for a month. His manager needs
to help him prioritize his work.
例如，某個經理可能會聽到這樣的報怨，團隊中的一員，約翰，常常偷雞摸狗，沒有負起他該負的責任，被控訴的過失包括：錯過最後限期，開會時準備不周，或是沒有適時回應電子郵件。經過簡單的調查和詢問後，他的經理發現，約翰並非不適任或是瀆職，而是太多的工作量，導致他無所適從，是要著手進行上週的新任務，還是繼續這個月以來還沒完成的工作。他的經理需要協助他安排工作的優先順序。
“The smart leader doesn’t get in the middle, and asks, ‘What is the data
or observable behavior that shows this claim to be true?’” Maslach says.
“And if they are forced to confront someone, their initial approach
isn’t to scold or accuse before all the facts are in, but to drill down
to find out first-hand why something might be happening, and ask those
‘why’ questions.”
「聰明的領導者不會一下子就單刀直入地質問：『拿出證據證明你們的指控都是真的？』」馬斯律說道：「即便是不得已要面對某人，他們的出發點也不是拿著證據去責備或是控訴；而是想深入地找出一些頭緒，以便於問清楚事情的前因後果。」
2. People aren’t solving the same problem.
雞同鴨講
Say there’s a conflict and you have a difficult encounter with a peer or
co-worker you think has been too direct or harsh in addressing the
problem. They, in turn, might perceive you as a conflict-avoider,
someone too fearful to confront problems head-on.
假設你和同事或同儕間有了衝突，又覺得太直接，或草率地去談論這個問題，是一件難事。如此一來，他們會認為你是一個想要避免衝突、不敢直接面對問題的人。
“Regardless of the content of the conflict, what the two team members
are really arguing about is the diagnosis they have done of each other’s
personalities or work styles,” Lenski says. Both also are liable to
disagree with the labels placed on them.
「不管為了什麼事衝突，凡是二個團隊成員真正爭執的，正是一種對彼此個性，或工作態度的實際診斷。」蘭奇說，雙方也都不會認同那些貼在他們身上的標籤。
In essence, they are trying to solve separate problems – the conflict
itself and their co-worker’s contradictory approach to resolving it.
“Those two aren’t magically going to become different people overnight,
so they need to learn to embrace their differences, capitalize on the
strengths of each approach, and work together for the common good,”
Lenski says.
本質上，他們在處理不同的問題 -
衝突本身，以及同事間對於解決方式的對立。「這兩個人並非一夕之間變得不同，所以必須學習接納差異，透過不同的解決方式讓彼此成長，並且一起努力求得最大利益。」蘭奇說。
3.
Staying in the conversation too long.
浪費太多口水
Most of us don’t know when to disengage from escalating conflict and
step back to get perspective. The problem is particularly acute when
communicating via e-mail or text message. “When one or both people are
hot under the collar, unhappy or anxious, they aren’t bringing their
best selves to the table,” Lenski says, “yet most of us will stay
engaged and plow through that conversation until we are proven ‘right,’”
rather than taking a break and coming back to the interaction more
level-headed.
多數人不懂得何時從逐漸升溫的衝突中脫身，退一步看清整個局勢。特別是透過電子郵件或是簡訊的爭辯。「當一方或是雙方正在氣頭上、不高興或是憂慮時，不會有好的態度，」蘭奇說，「而且多數人在不被認同前，寧可大打口水戰，也不考慮休息一下，等頭腦冷靜些後再討論。」
But it’s not just taking a break – it’s how you spend that “time out”
that makes all the difference. Research shows it takes at least 30
minutes to have “the emotional hijacking brought back to a baseline calm
after reaching a boiling point,” Lenski says. Going for a walk, run or a
short drive usually won’t do the trick, because your mind simply replays
the conflict over and over again. Instead, Lenski says, you must fully
engage your brain in another task, such as doing a crossword puzzle or
editing a presentation or document.
不是僅僅為了「休息」而休息，而是運用「暫停」讓事情有轉機。研究發現，一旦情緒達到沸點，至少要30分鐘才能恢復冷靜。蘭奇提到，散步、跑步或開車，往往達不到冷靜的效果，反而不斷重複地想到衝突。要全心全意將心思放在另一件事情才行，例如玩拼字遊戲或寫寫講稿、文章。
Pick the Right People
選擇對的人
Creating highly successful teams of any stripe starts far upstream, by
putting the right people in the right roles. As any hiring manager
knows, an ounce of selection is worth a pound of training. Consultant
Jim Collins explored this concept in his groundbreaking book, Good To
Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t. In his
research, Collins found something surprising: The first step that most
leaders took in transforming their companies from good to great wasn’t
setting a new direction, vision or strategy. In other words, they didn’t
focus first on where to drive the bus, then on getting the right people
to transport it there. Instead they first got the right people on
the bus and the wrong people off the bus, and then figured out
where to drive it.
把對的人放在對的位置，往往是創造一個高度成功團隊的轉捩點。任何一位人事經理都認同，一盎司的選擇勝過一磅的訓練。知名顧問，吉姆•科林思，在他的著作《從A到A+：上相提升，或向下沉淪？企業從優秀到卓越的奧秘》中闡述這個觀念。他的研究發現許多令人驚訝的現象：大部分的領導者，將他們的公司由優秀提升到卓越的第一件事，並不是設定新的方向、遠景或策略。換言之，如果將公司比喻為一輛公車，他們一開始並不在意這輛公車開往何處，然後找對的人來開這部公車。實際上，他們先找到對的人上公車，請那些不適任的人下車，然後再決定開往何處。
The lesson for those seeking to create great work groups: If you begin
with “who” instead of “what,” you can more easily adapt to a changing
world or shifting business strategies, Collins believes. “If people join
your bus primarily because of where it is going, what happens if you get
10 miles down the road and you need to change direction?”
科林斯相信，對於想方設法要創造卓越成果的團隊來說，這是寶貴的一課：如果一開始專注在「人」而不是「事」，將更容易達成一項改變世界，或是企業轉型的策略。「如果因為公車要開往某個地方才上車的人，開了10公里後，一旦你要轉換目的地，那會有什麼後果？」
The best people can adapt to almost any strategic goal or mission, and
they don’t need to be tightly managed or consistently cajoled. Perhaps
guided or led, Collins says, but not micro-managed. “They will be
self-motivated by the inner drive to produce the best results and to be
part of something great.”
好的人才可以適應不同目標或任務，他們也無須被緊緊看管，或需要不斷的激勵。柯林斯提到，可能需要被指引或領導，卻不需要鉅細靡遺的管理。「這些人可以自我激勵，透過內在的驅動力，完成最好的結果；他們同時也是卓越的一部分。」
In the end, extraordinary groups become that way by accepting their
human flaws, embracing their differences and understanding there are few
things in life as rewarding as joining forces with others in pursuit of
a common goal. Sometimes our lesser instincts threaten to derail a
positive group dynamic, but with effort and awareness, we can get past
that and thrive. As teamwork expert Lencioni put it:
最後，這些團隊之所以會如此不同凡響，因為他們接納人性的瑕疵，包容異己，並且了解到，能和其他人同心協力，去追求一項共同的目標，是多麼難能可貴的事情。有時，因為我們一時的粗心大意，導致團隊的運作出軌；透過努力和警覺，我們依然能克服困難，再創高峰。團隊工作專家蘭斯尼寫下這段話：
“Successful teamwork is not about mastering subtle, sophisticated
theories, but rather about embracing common sense with uncommon levels
of discipline and persistence,” he says. “Ironically, teams succeed
because they are exceedingly human. By acknowledging the imperfections
of their humanity, members of functional teams overcome the natural
tendencies that make good teamwork so elusive.”
「成功的團隊工作，與其歸功於精湛的管控能力，或是複雜的理論，不如說是運用常識來包容不同程度的原則和堅持。」「諷刺的是，團隊之所以會成功，因為他們是平凡人。藉由接納人性中的不完美，克服難以理解的原始性格，才能完成優秀的團隊工作。」
Dave Zielinski is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to
the Toastmaster.
作者：代夫柴林斯基，自由作家，經常投稿國際演講人雜誌
譯者：邱少為Alex,
屏東國際演講會
8 Traits of
Extraordinary Work Groups
8種成為優異工作團隊的訣竅
In their three-year field study of extraordinary work groups across many
disciplines, consultants Geoffrey Bellman and Kathleen Ryan found these
eight performance indicators that defined group practices:
專業顧問傑歐佛利•貝曼和卡西林•萊恩花了3年的時間所進行的田野調查中發現，８種指標可以定義各領域的優異工作團隊的實務表現：
• Compelling purpose: We are inspired and stretched in making this
group’s work our top priority.
強迫性的目標：可以積極讓我們能把這項團隊的工作放在首位。
• Shared Leadership: We readily step forward to lead by
demonstrating our mutual responsibility for moving our
group toward success.
領導分享：我們為了讓團隊邁向成功，藉由執行共同的責任達到領導的目的。
• Just enough structure: We create the minimal structure (systems,
plans, roles and tasks) necessary to move our work
forward.
恰到好處的組合：為了工作需求，我們僅僅設定最小的組合（系統、計畫、角色、目標）。
• Full
engagement: We dive into our work with focus, enthusiasm and passion.
全力投入：我們將專注、熱情和情感全部投入在工作中。
• Embracing differences: We value the creative alternatives that
result from engaging differing points of view.
包容差異：因為接納不同觀點，才能得到許多創造性的選項，這是我們所重視的。
• Unexpected learning: We are excited by what we learn here and how
it applies to other work, other groups and our
lives outside of work.
預期之外的學習：對於我們所學到的，可以運用在其他工作上，或是其他團隊上，甚至工作之外的生活
上，是我們所樂見的。
• Strengthened relationships: Our work leads us to greater trust,
interdependence and friendship.
鞏固關係：因為工作關係，讓我們更信任，更相互倚重，友誼更深。
• Great results: We work toward and highly value the tangible and
intangible outcomes of our work together
完美結局：全力以赴後，不論是預期中或是預期外的結果，對我們來說，都是彌足珍貴的。 |
