Leading Through Partnership.In this 2-part series we will focus on the importance of partnership, define it, and explore why partnerships regularly fail to reach their potential in organizations. And then we will see “what else is possible.”Everyone knows successful organizations depend on people to form and maintain effective partnerships with one another, as well as with external stakeholders on whose goodwill their business depends.

    But what is the reality that we regularly experience? Instead of a vibrant, empowering and robust network of partnerships, what we often experience is something like open warfare. And we will show that when partnerships do not emerge or are lost, the costs to business are staggering.

    The Trust Tax.In his best-selling book Business at the Speed of Trust, author and organizational leadership expert Stephen Covey, Jr. makes a compelling case that lack of trust between members of an organization and external stakeholders is the main problem of suffering businesses. He introduces a new model for mapping systems results:

    Old Model:Strategy x Execution = Results (S x E) = R

    Updated Model:(Strategy x Execution) x Trust = Results (S x E)T = R

    Do the simple math. In the updated model, when “T” (trust) is high, Results are going to be higher; when T is low, Results are going to be lower.

    Of course, we all know that Trust is the cornerstone of any relationship, whether personal or organizational. And that every business is really a network of relationships that are either flourishing or floundering. When Trust is low, partnerships flounder, never reaching the potential we want them to. When Trust is high, the business moves ahead much faster, “at the Speed of Trust.”

    The big questions are:what happens to the trust that we hoped would be there? Why is it quickly lost on a regular basis, almost before it can take root? And how can we develop a culture of partnership characterized by deep, ongoing trust?

    Let’s consider the following definition of Partnership:“A relationship in which we are jointly committed to the success of whatever endeavor, process or project we are in.” The key elements of this definition are:

    • Relationship

    • Jointly Committed to Success

    • Whatever Process or Project (we are in)

    That’s fairly simple.“It should be easy,” we think. But as we all know, something happens with great regularity that knocks us out of partnership with different people in the organization of which we are a part. What is that?

    According to systems expert Barry Oshry, author of Seeing Systems and Leading Systems, there is a simple answer to this question. What knocks us out of partnership is that when “stuff happens,” we:

    • Take it personally.

    • Make up a story about the other person.

    • Assess the other person as incompetent, insensitive, or malicious.

    • Get mad, get angry, get even.

    通过合作当领导。本文分两部分，我们将把重点放在合作的重要性上，明确合作的定义，同时探讨为什么合作常常无法在组织机构中充分发挥潜力。然后我们会看一看“另外的可能性”。大家都知道，成功的公司依赖人们在成员之间以及成员和外部股东之间建立、维系有效的合作关系，而公司业务也依赖于外部股东的善意。

    但我们面临的显示处境如何呢？我们所处的环境往往像一场战争，而不是一个生气勃勃、有能力又有活力的合作网络。本文将说明，如果未能建立合作关系，或者说丢失了合作关系将给企业带来难以置信的成本。

    信任税。组织机构领导力专家小史蒂芬•科维在他的畅销书《信任的速度》（Business at the Speed of Trust）中令人信服地阐明，公司成员之间以及公司成员和外部股东之间缺乏信任是企业面临的一个主要问题。他提出了一个新的模型来分析整个体系的业绩：

    原模型：策略（S） x 执行（E） = 业绩（R） （S x E） = R

    更新后模型：（策略 x 执行） x 信任（T） = 业绩 (S x E)T = R

    大家可以简单地计算一下。在更新后的模型中，如果信任（T）程度高，业绩就会上升；如果信任程度低，业绩就会下降。

    当然，大家都知道，无论是个人还是组织机构，信任都是一切关系的基石。所有公司实际上都是一个关系网络，它要么欣欣向荣，要么步履蹒跚。信任程度低，合作就不稳固，也就永远发挥不出我们所期望的潜力。信任程度高，公司增长的速度就会快得多，就会以“信任的速度”发展。

    主要问题在于：我们所盼望的信任到底出了什么问题？为什么信任经常会迅速消失，而且几乎总是在它能够扎根之前就已经消失不见？我们怎样才能培育一种以深度、持久信任为特点的合作文化？

    我们一起来思考一下下面这个合作的定义：“合作是我们共同为之努力的一种关系，它的目的是让我们所参与的活动、过程或项目获得成功。”这个定义的要素包括：

    • 关系

    • 齐心协力谋求成功

    • （我们所参与）的过程或项目

    这个定义相当简单。我们觉得，“它原本就应该很简单。”但正如我们所知，问题非常频繁地出现，可能会让我们和组织机构中其他成员的关系分崩离析。为什么会这样？

    系统专家、《了解系统，领导系统》（Seeing Systems and Leading Systems）一书的作者巴里•奥什里认为，这个问题有一个很简单的答案。破坏我们和他人关系的就是“某些状况出现”的时候，也就是我们

    • 带入个人感情。

    • 胡思乱想，自己编故事。

    • 认为别人能力不足、感觉迟钝或者心怀不轨。

    • 愤怒、生气、报复别人。

    And that’s the end of partnership!

    This re-active response to the daily “stuff” that happens in the world of organizations is repeated countless times every day, all over the world. It is the main reason why organizations regularly fail to build the culture of trust and networks of partnerships that lead to high retention, high-performing teams, and high profits. And it is one of the major reasons why employees are “actively disengaged” from their work.

    In a widely read 2006 Gallup Survey on Employee Engagement (And Disengagement), Gallup researchers sought to discover which factors differed most strongly among engaged employees (29% of respondents) and those who were not engaged(56%) or actively disengaged (15%).

    The survey found that engaged employees:

    • Are more productive, profitable, and safe.

    • Create stronger customer relationships.

    • Stay longer with their companies than disengaged employees.

    • Catalyze “outside-the-box” thinking in management and customer service.

    The same survey also found that in 2006 alone, the “lower productivity of actively disengaged workers (15%) cost the U.S. economy about $328 billion” – without taking into account the 56% of the workforce that was simply “not engaged.”

    Asia is no exception when it comes to disengaged employees, according to a Gallup World Survey from September 2012 that covered Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan. The survey explored employee satisfaction across three dimensions: “Thriving, Struggling, and Suffering.” Results showed that in one country 61%of employees fell into the “Struggling” zone, while only 34% of respondents were “Thriving” in the workplace.

    According to the Gallup report, there is a “direct link between low Career Wellbeing and low productivity and low retention.” And we all know the correlation between low retention and decreased profits.

    It’s easy to see, globally and locally, that the cost to business of disengaged employees is staggering. And it is safe to assume that disengaged employees are not experiencing thriving partnerships with others in the organization. We’d like to suggest two major areas to look to for the causes of disengagement among employees:

    1. Policies, plans, systems, processes.

    2. System Blindness (and the reactive responses that blindness engenders).

    By all means, create more enlightened policies, systems, and processes that support business success and make for happier people. But we are here to tell you that even if you do, if you overlook the second factor, System Blindness, you will continue to witness the regular breakdown of partnerships and the related loss of trust, and you are going to be paying the Trust Tax, big time.

    而这就是一段关系的尽头！

    这种针对组织机构日常事务的反应每天都会重复出现无数次，全世界都是这样。它就是公司经常无法建立信任文化和关系网络的主要原因，而信任文化和关系网络能给公司带来很高的员工留任率、高效的团队和高额的利润。同时，它也是员工对工作“心不在焉”的主要原因之一。

    2006年，民意调查机构盖洛普（Gallup）曾发布过一份广为流传的员工敬业（和不敬业）程度调查报告。盖洛普研究人员的目的是找出敬业员工（占29%）和不敬业员工（占56%）或者对工作心不在焉的员工（占15%）之间存在哪些显著的差异。

    调查发现，敬业的员工：

    • 生产率更高，创造的利润更多，而且更安全

    • 和客户建立的关系更为牢固

    • 待在一家公司的时间比不敬业的员工长久

    • 能促使管理层和客户服务方面产生新的思路

    这项调查同时发现，仅2006年，“由于员工对待工作心不在焉（占15%）而造成生产率下降给美国经济带来的成本约为3280亿美元（2.02万亿元人民币）。”——这还不包括那56% “不敬业”的员工。

    盖洛普全球调查（Gallup World Survey）显示，在员工不敬业问题上，亚洲也不例外。这项调查从2012年9月份开始，范围覆盖澳大利亚、新西兰、韩国、新加坡、台湾和日本。调查将员工对待工作的态度分为三类：“积极向上、勉强维持和痛苦不堪”。结果表明，在某个国家的调查中，61%的员工认为自己上班时只是在“勉强维持”，只有34%的人对工作“积极向上”。

    盖洛普的报告指出，“工作待遇欠佳和生产率低以及人员留任率低之间存在着直接联系。”而我们都知道，人员留任率低和公司利润下降之间存在着关联。

    无论是就整个世界、还是就某个地区而言，员工不敬业都会给企业带来令人震惊的高成本，这一点显而易见。而且可以认为，不敬业员工和组织机构中其他成员的关系并不融洽。我们建议，可以从两个方面着重寻找员工不敬业的原因：

    1. 政策、计划、系统以及流程。

    2. 系统盲区（以及这个盲区所引起的反应）。

    要想方设法制定更为开明的政策，同时建立更为开明的系统和程序，从而帮助企业获得成功并帮助企业成员提高幸福感。但我们要在此指出，即使你这样做了，如果忽略了第二个因素，也就是系统盲区，还是会继续看到人们之间的关系频繁破裂以及与之相关的信任缺失；而你就得为此支付信任税，而且是数额不菲的信任税。

    What is “System Blindness?”In Oshry’s book Seeing Systems, he demonstrates how most organizations are divided into distinct “worlds” of Tops, Bottoms, Middles, and Customers. These four distinct worlds come with their own “pre-existing conditions” that shape the worldview of their inhabitants. Living within those conditions are people, using all their best resources and abilities simply to survive. They are entirely focused on surviving in their own worlds. As a result, they do not “see” the conditions of the others’ worlds, and since they can’t see the conditions of others, neither can they understand or empathize with them.

    From time to time, even though we don’t “see” behind the walls that make others’ world’s invisible to us, what we do see is “Stuff” that floats over those walls and into our worlds. “Stuff!” We all know what that is:

    • Plans, adjustments, directives.

    • Mysterious behaviors or requests.

    • Nothing (a lack of response to our input).

    • Toxic messages, attitudes, rebuffs, etc.

    And because we don’t understand that this “Stuff” most often came from the best intentions of those others struggling to survive in their worlds (which we don’t see), we routinely and automatically:

    • Take it personally

    • Make up a story

    • Assess “them” as incompetent, insensitive, malicious, etc.

    • Get angry, get mad, get even

    And that is the end of the partnership. Or is it? In the next article in this series we will look at “what else is possible” and how leaders can actively make a difference by learning to “see the systems they are in” and help others to do the same to keep partnerships flourishing throughout the organization.

    什么是“系统盲区？”奥什里在《了解系统，领导系统》这本书中介绍了如何将大多数组织机构划分到上层、下层、中层和客户 “世界”里。这四个不同的世界有着各自的“先决条件”，它们决定了各个世界中“居民”的世界观。人们受到这些条件的限制，最大限度地利用手头的资源，全力以赴，目的只是为了求得生存。他们把注意力完全集中于在自己的世界求得生存。因此，他们“看”不到其他世界的条件，所以也无法看到他人所处的条件。因此，他们既不了解，也无从体会。

    有时，尽管高墙遮蔽了我们的实现，导致我们“看”不到别人的世界，但我们却能看到越过高墙，漂到我们世界里的那些“东西”。我们都知道，这些“东西”就是：

    • 计划、调整、指令。

    • 不可理喻的行为或要求。

    • 虚无（我们发出的信息没有得到反馈）。

    • 有毒的信息、态度、回绝、等等。

    因为我们不知道（我们看不到他们的世界）这些“东西”绝大多数往往只是别人在他们的世界中奋力求生的产物，我们常常会自动地：

    • 认为这些东西是冲着我们个人而来

    • 编故事

    • 认为“别人”能力不足、感觉迟钝或者心怀不轨，等等

    • 愤怒、生气、报复别人

    于是，关系就走到了尽头。一定得这样吗？在本系列的下一篇文章中，我们将探讨“另外的可能性”以及管理者如何才能学会“了解别人所处的系统”，同时借此主动改变局势，并帮助别人采取同样的行动，从而让整个组织机构中的关系都生机勃勃。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie