從登山災(zāi)難看團(tuán)隊(duì)差異重要性

In his book Into Thin Air, the harrowing account of the ill-fated 1996 expeditions to Mount Everest, mountaineer Jon Krakauer recalls his sense of foreboding as he helicoptered into the Himalayas with an ad hoc team of amateurs.

登山家喬恩•克拉考爾(Jon Krakauer)在他的書《進(jìn)入空氣稀薄地帶》(Into Thin Air)中，講述了1996年攀登珠穆朗瑪峰的慘痛經(jīng)歷，回憶了自己和一個(gè)臨時(shí)組建的業(yè)余登山者團(tuán)隊(duì)乘直升機(jī)進(jìn)入喜馬拉雅山脈時(shí)心里的不祥之感。

“I attributed my growing unease to the fact that I’d never climbed as a member of such a large group — a group of complete strangers, no less,” he writes. “One climber’s actions can affect the welfare of the entire team. The consequences of a poorly tied knot, a stumble, a dislodged rock, or some other careless deed are as likely to be felt by the perpetrator’s colleagues as the perpetrator . . . I suspected that each of my team mates hoped as fervently as I that [Rob] Hall [their professional guide] had been careful to weed out clients of dubious ability, and would have the means to protect each of us from one another’s shortcomings.”

“我把自己不斷加劇的不安歸結(jié)為一個(gè)事實(shí)，即我從未作為如此龐大團(tuán)隊(duì)的一員去登山，而整個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)里居然全是陌生人，”他寫道。“一名登山者的行為可能影響整個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)的安全。一個(gè)結(jié)沒(méi)打好，一次跌倒，一塊踢落的巖石，或者其他的粗心大意，對(duì)犯錯(cuò)者造成的后果可能和對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)中其他人造成的后果一樣嚴(yán)重……我猜，我的每一名隊(duì)友都跟我一樣熱切地希望，羅布•霍爾(Rob Hall)(他們的專業(yè)向?qū)?小心地把那些能力可疑的客戶剔除掉了，并有辦法保護(hù)我們每個(gè)人免受其他人缺點(diǎn)的拖累。”

In fact, eight climbers died in one day — including Hall — when storms closed in on the many groups, from first-timers and “tourists” to hardened professionals, who were trying to make it to the summit and back.

而事實(shí)上，那一天當(dāng)風(fēng)暴襲擊眾多登山隊(duì)時(shí)，8名登山者在1天內(nèi)喪生，霍爾也在其中。這些登山隊(duì)中有新手和“游客”，也有經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的專業(yè)人士，他們?cè)谂Φ琼敳⒎祷亍?/p>

Confusion and controversy shrouded what happened in the “death zone” above 8,000m in 1996, but Krakauer’s concern that the individual actions of one team member could doom the others should have been overlaid by another worry. Collective dedication to a goal can itself be dangerous if it covers up important individual differences, according to a new study, with fascinating implications for how lower-altitude teams are built, motivated and run.

1996年發(fā)生在海拔8000米以上“死亡區(qū)”的事充滿著困惑和爭(zhēng)議，但克拉考爾除了擔(dān)心單個(gè)團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的個(gè)別行動(dòng)可能給其他人帶來(lái)厄運(yùn)，應(yīng)該還心存另一種擔(dān)憂。一項(xiàng)新研究表明，如果掩蓋了重要的個(gè)體差異的話，眾人致力于實(shí)現(xiàn)同一個(gè)目標(biāo)本身可能是危險(xiǎn)的，這對(duì)于如何組建、激勵(lì)和管理普通團(tuán)隊(duì)也具有非凡的意義。

Jennifer Chatman from UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and her co-authors studied records of more than 60 years of expeditions to the Nepalese Himalayas. It is a rich bank of information — about 40,000 climbers from some 80 countries. Unlike workplace teams, these groups had a clear goal: to reach their summit. They shared one objective and unambiguous measure of failure: the death of a team member.

加州大學(xué)伯克利分校(UC Berkeley)哈斯商學(xué)院(Haas School of Business)的詹尼弗•查特曼(Jennifer Chatman)和她的合著者們研究了60多年的尼泊爾喜馬拉雅山脈探險(xiǎn)記錄。這些記錄的信息量非常大，涵蓋了來(lái)自約80個(gè)國(guó)家的約4萬(wàn)名登山者。跟職場(chǎng)團(tuán)隊(duì)不同的是，這些登山隊(duì)有一個(gè)清晰的目標(biāo)：攀上頂峰。他們有一個(gè)客觀、明了的失敗衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)：團(tuán)隊(duì)成員喪生。

By parsing this sometimes grim data set and combining it with teamwork experiments, the researchers found that a collective mindset helped diverse teams ignore differences, such as nationality, that were not relevant to their task. But when the collective spirit overrode vital individual differences of, say, experience, the result could be fatal. For example, teams that got into trouble at altitude and assumed that all members had the same expertise as their most knowledgeable climbers sometimes took risks that put lives in jeopardy.

研究者們解析這一有時(shí)殘忍的數(shù)據(jù)集、并與團(tuán)隊(duì)試驗(yàn)相結(jié)合發(fā)現(xiàn)，集體思維會(huì)幫助多樣化的團(tuán)隊(duì)忽視跟他們的任務(wù)無(wú)關(guān)的差異，比如國(guó)籍。但是，當(dāng)集體精神碾壓了重要的個(gè)體差異(比如經(jīng)驗(yàn)差異)時(shí)，后果可能是致命的。例如，有些在高海拔處遇到麻煩的登山隊(duì)想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為，所有成員都擁有跟他們當(dāng)中知識(shí)最淵博的登山者相同的技能，這些團(tuán)隊(duì)有時(shí)會(huì)冒一些危及團(tuán)隊(duì)成員生命的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。

Lessons from extreme situations may seem irrelevant to staffers discussing projects in air-conditioned corporate conference rooms. But Prof Chatman says the research suggests perhaps “the whole team-building fad has overshot the mark”, by placing too much emphasis on cohesion. Lives may not be on the line, but teams that do not value and recognise their differences could be less effective.

對(duì)于在公司空調(diào)會(huì)議室里討論項(xiàng)目的職場(chǎng)人士而言，極端情形下的教訓(xùn)看起來(lái)或許無(wú)關(guān)緊要。但查特曼教授表示，研究表明，由于太過(guò)強(qiáng)調(diào)凝聚力，“團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)的整個(gè)風(fēng)潮可能過(guò)度了”。生命倒是可能無(wú)虞，但不重視、不承認(rèn)成員差異的團(tuán)隊(duì)，可能效率更低。

There are few more pressing management challenges than how to run diverse teams. Big companies are experimenting with ways to go beyond traditional recruitment in order to widen the pool of staff in which they fish. Deutsche Bank, for instance, is exploring behavioural profiling and testing in its hiring. In her book What Works — shortlisted for this year’s FT Business Book of the Year — Iris Bohnet focuses on the difficulties of achieving, then reaping the advantages of, gender balance in the workplace. “Getting it right is not easy,” she writes of the task of designing appropriately balanced, creative and productive teams.

很少有比管理多元化團(tuán)隊(duì)更艱巨的管理挑戰(zhàn)。大公司正在進(jìn)行超越傳統(tǒng)招聘的實(shí)驗(yàn)，以便擴(kuò)大備選人才池。例如，德意志銀行(Deutsche Bank)正在探索在招聘中使用行為分析與測(cè)驗(yàn)。艾里斯•博內(nèi)特(Iris Bohnet)的《什么管用?》(What Works)一書主要研究了實(shí)現(xiàn)職場(chǎng)中性別平衡并利用這種平衡的優(yōu)勢(shì)的種種困難。她在寫到如何設(shè)計(jì)適當(dāng)平衡、創(chuàng)造性強(qiáng)和效率高的團(tuán)隊(duì)時(shí)稱，“做好并不容易”。這本書進(jìn)入了2016年英國(guó)《金融時(shí)報(bào)》最佳商業(yè)圖書獎(jiǎng)候選名單

In the first place, managers need to assess diversity correctly. They then need to set out a clear, collective mission. But they must also identify which of the differences between the team members — nationality, gender, race — have little bearing on the task in hand, and which, such as specific skills and experience, are highly relevant. Cohesion and co-operation may look like virtues, but they could be symptoms of groupthink. The greater the collective will of the team — and the higher the stakes — the less likely people are to dissent, because, in Prof Chatman’s words, “speaking up about risks is like saying you have no confidence in the group”.

首先，管理人員需要對(duì)多樣性做出正確評(píng)估。接著，他們需要設(shè)定一個(gè)明確的共同使命。但是，他們也必須確認(rèn)，在團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的差異(國(guó)籍、性別和種族)中，哪些是對(duì)手頭任務(wù)基本沒(méi)有影響的，以及哪些是高度相關(guān)的，比如具體技能和經(jīng)驗(yàn)。凝聚力與合作或許看似美德，但它們可能是集體思維的征兆。集體意志越強(qiáng)大，并且事情越是事關(guān)重大，人們表達(dá)不同意見的可能性就越小，因?yàn)椋貌樘芈淌诘脑捴v，“大聲談?wù)擄L(fēng)險(xiǎn)就好像是說(shuō)，你對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)沒(méi)有信心”。

In the workplace, these findings place even more burden on the team leader, for whom dissent and friction are unlikely signals of success. But as Prof Chatman says: “Maybe we need to live with a little more discomfort and difference to get these valuable outcomes.”

這些發(fā)現(xiàn)給職場(chǎng)中的團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)袖增添了更大壓力，對(duì)他們而言，異議和摩擦不大可能是成功的標(biāo)志。但如查特曼所說(shuō)：“或許我們需要對(duì)不舒服和差異忍受更多一點(diǎn)兒，才能得到有益的結(jié)果。”

Emphasising the ways in which team members are not the same could increase tension within the team. It could mean the group takes longer to reach its goal. But those would be small prices to pay to improve the overall performance — and avoid disaster.

對(duì)團(tuán)隊(duì)成員在哪些方面存在差異加以強(qiáng)調(diào)，可能加劇團(tuán)隊(duì)內(nèi)部的緊張情緒。這可能意味著，團(tuán)隊(duì)需要更長(zhǎng)時(shí)間來(lái)達(dá)成目標(biāo)。但對(duì)于提高整體業(yè)績(jī)、避免災(zāi)難而言，這些將是小小的代價(jià)。