目前的就业市场哀鸿遍野。所以，上班一族即使郁郁寡欢也很难唤起人们的同情之心，因为他们最起码还能领到医疗福利。但实际上，人人都有难言之隐，即便是职场高薪一族一样有自己的烦心事。

    自从2007年12月经济衰退以来，“离职率”或者主动辞去带薪职位的人数一直偏低，目前依然在1.5%左右徘徊。大部分经济学家认为，这么低的比例是一种不正常的现象。

    经济形势良好时，对工作不满意的员工可以辞掉令他不爽的工作，但对未来还是相对乐观。他们要么是已经找到一份更有前途的工作，要么就是非常自信，相信自己能够在几周内就可找到一份不错的工作，并且相对而言，不会经历太痛苦的过程。但就业市场低迷时，即便自己并不喜欢，甚至永远也谈不上热爱，人们还是会选择坚守自己的岗位。

    低迷的“离职率”问题还有其他负面影响。由于担心哪怕一点点不称职的表现都会砸了饭碗，年轻人在职场中的表现更是如履薄冰，不敢跟同事和老板讨论工作中遇到的难题。（20岁左右年轻人的失业率是总体失业率的两倍左右。）

    还有一些人即便面对近乎恶劣的工作环境，依然会选择沉默，原因自然还是担心丢掉饭碗。如果自己的抱怨太多，谁知道上司会不会炒自己的鱿鱼？毕竟，还有一群20多岁的小青年正愁没工作呢，他们当中肯定有人更能容忍这样的工作环境。

    我曾经与一家著名图片社的客户经理交流过。她提到，有一次公司的人力资源总监对她说，关心个人健康是“她自己的事”，但公司更希望她不要频繁地去看医生（为了治疗一种慢性病）。而实际上，她每次都会把耽误的工作时间补回来。她的三位上司彼此之间从不进行交流，所以，如果她自己不说，他们也就从来不会知道其他两位对她提出的要求。但她又担心，一旦说出来，也许会被当成哭哭啼啼的怨妇。她的升职计划推迟了几个月之后才最终如愿。但在这个过程中，她学会了把日积月累的焦虑隐藏起来，做一只“沉默的鸵鸟”。

    但《高风险情境中的沟通技巧》（Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High）一书的合著作者约瑟夫•格雷尼却认为，在职场中保持沉默往往伴随着沉重的代价。格雷尼认为，在职场中，面对自己并不满意的状况，不与其他人当面交涉，表面看来是一种“安全的”策略，但实际上却并不安全。他认为，经济低迷导致的职场沉默会使越来越多的年轻人无法获得进行具有挑战性的、充满情感的对话技巧，他认为如今只有这种技巧才能带来真正的职场安全感；也就是说，员工作为无价资产得到认可所带来的安全感。

    It's hard, given how swollen the unemployment ranks are these days, to conjure up much sympathy for those who are unhappily employed with health benefits. But even the gainfully employed have their job troubles.

    The "quits rate," or the number of voluntary leave-taking from paid positions, has been low since the economic downturn began in December 2007 and still hovers around 1.5% -- a number that most economists consider unhealthily low.

    When an economy is humming along, unsatisfied employees can quit cruddy jobs with relative gusto. They either have a more promising job lined up, or are confident they'll be able to find one within a few relatively painless weeks of pavement pounding. But when jobs are scarce, people keep showing up for jobs they don't like, perhaps never liked.

    The low "quits rate" problem suggests other side effects. Young people are often wary of approaching colleagues and bosses to discuss on-the-job dilemmas out of fear that the slightest whiff of incompetence will get them canned. (The unemployment rate for people in their 20s is nearly double that of the general population.)

    Others stay silent in the face of work situations that border on hostile because, again, who's to say that managers -- staring at a vast pool of available 20-something labor -- wouldn't rather fire the squeaky wheel and replace her with someone more accommodating of inter-office nonsense?

    I talked to an account manager at a prominent photo agency who once sat and listened to the head of HR inform her that while taking care of herself was "her decision," the company would prefer she not have to visit the doctor so often (to control a chronic medical condition), even though she made up the lost hours every time. Her three supervisors did not communicate with one another, and would not hear of other demands placed on her unless she said something -- at which point she worried whether she sounded like a whiner. A promotion was dangled and delayed for months. Meanwhile, she learned to suck her mounting anxieties up and keep quiet.

    But keeping silent on the job comes with considerable costs, says Joseph Grenny, coauthor of Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. Grenny argues that the seemingly "safe" strategy of never confronting an unsatisfactory job situation is actually not safe. According to Grenny, downturn-induced reticence means that more young people are not gaining the skills of conducting challenging, emotionally charged conversations -- a skill he believes ultimately fosters the only kind of job security available these days; namely, the security that comes from being regarded as an invaluable asset.

    格雷尼称：“我们进行了30年的研究，结果证明，勇于进行关键的对话，不但不会削弱职场安全感，反而有助于提高安全感。所以，根本不用担心自己最终会被打上‘麻烦制造者’或者‘刁民’的烙印。”

    他发现，其实问题的根源在于对对峙行为本质的理解不够成熟，或者“认为自己必须要在坦率与尊重之间做出选择。简单来说，坦率直言就是不尊重对方。或者说，如果坦率地说出实情，必然会冒犯对方。”

    但他却认为，真正擅长正面交锋的人往往已经掌握了兼顾诚实与尊重的艺术。

    要想两者兼顾，并不在于多么巧妙的措辞，而是要聪明地提出问题。比如，如果你认为老板执行的一项政策愚蠢无比，有失公平，根本无益于你的工作。这时你要先问自己：“我该如何让对方接受我说的都是事实，并且让他们相信，我的出发点是为他们好，而我对他们本人非常尊重？”

    有了这个框架，所谓的二元选择（坦率还是尊重？）问题就变成了一个灵活、微妙甚至是有趣的情景。

    格雷尼坚决认为，这条建议与所谓“打一巴掌给个甜枣”的建议完全不同。不痛不痒的积极言辞对自己的情况根本于事无补，也无法帮助你扭转糟糕的局面。他说：“真正擅长关键谈话的人从来不会说一些虚伪的话语，因为这只会削弱对方对自己的信任。他们会直言不讳，绝不虚情假意地奉承、迎合。”

    那么，沮丧的员工到底应该怎么做？以下为一些小贴士：

    不要一上来就表达不满情绪。要表现出成熟的心智，对新政策的推出表示理解，明白它们往往凝聚了很多人的努力，不论其本身明智与否，目的是要解决或预防真正的问题，而不是用来无中生有地折磨人。

    明智地选择需要发言的问题。如果一遇到问题，无论大小，你都跳出来，这会让你的同事很不舒服。格雷尼建议：“别说‘我永远正确，特立独行。我就是要挑战公司的文化’这样的话。”相反，应该针对一两个能够从根本上改善自己状况的问题，发表自己的意见。

    做好充分准备。如果只是断章取义或“即兴发飙”，会让听者感觉缺乏尊重，而且会让自己的处境更加不利。

    是不是有时我们必须保持沉默？格雷尼表示，其实谈话产生完全相反效果的情况非常罕见，远远比人们想象的要少。“通常情况下，当我们与对方进行关键谈话时，如果他们出现抵触反应，这并非是因为他们性格上存有缺陷，而是因为我们缺乏技巧。”

    那么，如果我们实施了成功的关键谈话，会有什么收获呢？答案就是，给对方以启发，并带来真正的改变。格雷尼称：“一旦有人进入一家公司，证明可以以一种更有效的方式讨论问题，就会在公司内产生影响。或许这是一个缓慢、渐进的过程，但总比一直在痛苦中煎熬要好得多。”

    译者：阿龙/汪皓

    "Our research for 30 years now is consistently clear that stepping up to crucial conversations does not decrease your job security," Grenny says. "In fact, it increases it. So this anxiety we have about being branded a troublemaker or muckraker ... it just doesn't play out that way."

    The real problem, as he sees it, comes from flawed thinking about the nature of confrontation, or "a belief that you have to choose between candor and respect. In short, that candor means being disrespectful. Or you think that if you tell people what you really think about how things are run, they're invariably going to be offended."

    He argues, however, that people who excel at confrontation have mastered the art of being honest and respectful at the same time.

    Doing that successfully is less a matter of felicitous phrasing but rather one of intelligently framing an issue. Say your employer implemented a policy you think is stupid, unfair, and will hurt rather than help you do your job. Ask yourself, "How do I get the entire truth across in a way that the other person knows that I'm looking out for their interests, and that I respect them as a person?"

    With that framework in mind, what seems like a binary choice -- candor or respect? -- is revealed to be a situation that's supple, more nuanced, even interesting.

    Grenny is adamant that this advice is not akin to "give two compliments for every piece of criticism" type of advice. Making positive statements that don't reflect reality will neither help your case nor increase your chances of fixing a bad situation. "People who are really gifted at crucial conversations," he says, "don't undermine trust … by making disingenuous statements ever. They don't sugarcoat, and they don't give false praise and flattery."

    So what should a frustrated employee do? Here are some tips:

    Don't lead with the disappointment. Demonstrate that you have the emotional maturity to realize that a policy -- wise or not -- was implemented to solve or anticipate a real problem, took some effort to devise, and wasn't pulled out of thin air just to torment you.

    Choose your issues wisely. If you confront every single issue, your colleagues will start to associate you with discomfort. As Grenny advises, "Don't say, 'I'm going to be this self-righteous example of someone that's going to be so contrary to the whole culture around here." Instead focus on one or two conversations that could substantially help improve your situation.

    Be prepared. If you shrink from the full message, or if your unrehearsed, off-the-cuff remarks sound disrespectful, then you'll undermine your case.

    Are there times when you really should just shut it? Grenny suggests that situations in which the conversation could completely backfire are more rare than many think. "More often than not, when people react defensively when we broach a crucial conversation with them, the problem was not their lack of character, it was our lack of skill."

    The good news? If successful, stepping up to a confrontation could prove inspiring -- and create real change. "When somebody enters an organization and demonstrates that it's possible to talk about things in a more effective way, it has an influence," Grenny says. "It may take time, it may be incremental, but people don't like wallowing in misery."