立即打开
是时候谈谈男性在工作中的平庸了

是时候谈谈男性在工作中的平庸了

ROSS MCCAMMON 2023-02-04
要持续地审视自己的行为和工作场所根深蒂固的制度,当你犯了错或表现出“战略性无能”时,要改正错误并为此道歉。

图片来源:ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

乱蓬蓬的头发并不能说明什么。超特大号的T恤衫也不能说明什么。那张困窘的脸,那自嘲的笑容却将加密货币交易所创始人萨姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名誉扫地暴露无遗。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上写道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了。”他几乎是耸耸肩,承认了一场让他人损失了80亿美元的加密货币灾难。“如果当时我能更专注于我所做的事情,我办事会更缜密。”班克曼-弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮台时告诉《纽约时报》。

鉴于班克曼-弗里德面临刑事欺诈指控,他如此张扬地展示自己的无能可能是为了自保,但其言下之意是确定无疑的:其他无足轻重的人本该为小事忐忑不安。

当我读到班克曼-弗里德自称无能时,我的第一反应是“真是个小丑!”但我开始感到我们需要密切注意这样的联系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顾……”。

我写了一本关于职场行为的书。好吧,也许不是那本书。而是一本题为《与他人合作无间》(Works Well With Others)的书。该书于2015年出版,讲述了我作为一名年轻的、来自德克萨斯州的机上杂志编辑,如何在纽约市媒体界(以注重身份地位而闻名)游刃有余的故事。我这本书的论点是,无论你在哪个领域,得到同事和雇主青睐是通往职业成功的路径。书中有介绍握手、寒暄和祝酒礼仪的章节,还有一章的标题是“如何在满是重要人物的高级餐厅吃一顿有意义的午餐”。

我写这本书的目标受众并不仅仅是男性。但现在回想起来,我发现其中一些建议更适合我所在的群体: 直男、白人、男性。

在过去几年的某个时刻,我开始意识到那些特殊的“人际技能”对我来说不再像以前那样有效。也许是因为新冠肺炎疫情和远程工作的兴起,消除了许多职场等级制度、惯例和装模作样。也许是对性别歧视和种族主义的考量,侵蚀了像我这样的人的基本特权,同时提升了历史上被边缘化的人的地位。也许废话已经变得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我惯用的幽默、讨好和自嘲的招数似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我开始理解其中一些行为是操纵性的,可以让别人做我不想做的工作。当我在自己身上看到这些倾向时,我无法忽视它们。我开始发现这种行为对女性和有色人种的伤害,以及对工作场所中每个人的士气、生产力和创造力的伤害。

不管他们是否真正有能力,许多男性都很擅长表现自己。实际上,这很容易。你在会议上要言不烦,当你发言的时候,你向提出论断的人提问,或者重复和赞扬别人很有思想见地的观点。你可以乘着别人敢为人先和勇于冒险的东风。

与此相关的一种行为是“战略性无能”(有时也被称为“技能型无能”或“武器化无能”)。莉莎•韦斯特伦德(Lise Vesterlund)与三位合著者合著了《拒绝俱乐部:给女性毫无前途的工作画上句号》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一书。战略性无能指的是同事声称自己数学很差,这样就能让你处理所有的电子表格。丈夫打扫卫生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承担家务。这并不是懒惰那么简单,而是不愿意做那些低价值工作(韦斯特伦德和合著者琳达•巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布伦达•佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和劳里•温格特(Laurie Weingart)将这些工作称为“不利于升职”的工作)。这些工作无法获得太多荣誉或赞誉;这些工作人们往往视而不见。不仅仅是男性会回避这些工作——但我在骗谁呢?主要是男性会回避这些工作。

韦斯特伦德告诉我:"这非常方便。"女性和有色人种往往会承担这种不利于升职的工作——组织办公室派对,参加招聘委员会,主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作组会议。"很多时候,我们让女性承担这种类型的工作的原因是,哦,她们很擅长这种工作,因为她们一次又一次地证明了她们擅长这种工作。但或许有必要退一步(对男性)说,你们怎么能只做那些有利于升职的工作,而把那些不利于升职的工作丢给别人呢?”

我立即意识到韦斯特伦德在说什么,这让我想起了几年前我和两名女同事的一次Zoom电话会议。我的老板是一位有色人种女性,她要求我为项目制定时间表。"这个计划非常好。"我说,然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你帮我制定项目流程。"我对她说。我开了个自嘲的玩笑,说自己无法在没有帮助的情况下制定复杂的计划。

问题是:我实际上并不知道自己是否真的不擅长制定项目时间表。我只是从来没有做过,也不是特别想学。我知道我的同事是一个优秀的项目经理,所以对我来说,她承担起这个责任才合情合理。

但这一次,我的请求没有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的却是漫长而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持枪歹徒带着一顶可疑的边缘平整的帽子走进一家酒馆。在几秒钟(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意。“话说,我自己来处理吧!”我说。然后我倒退着穿过来回晃动的酒馆大门,慢吞吞地走着。

对我当时的老板来说,她只是翻了个白眼而已。(最近我问起她这件事的时候,她都不记得了。)但那次会议是我第一次意识到——真正理解——我已经养成了用魅力(或阿谀奉承,取决于你如何看待它)来让别人为我做事的习惯。

多元化、公平和包容咨询公司ReadySet的首席执行官伊-冯娜·哈钦森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)说,女性和有色人种一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定无罪的情况。她说:"这一点司空见惯,无处不在。人们对能力的定义存在偏见。这存在种族偏见,也存在性别偏见......这种偏见无孔不入。"

这种现象造成的后果是对妇女和有色人种的持续低估。韦斯特伦德讲述了她书中的一个例子,律所要求一位律师招募一批实习生。韦斯特伦德解释说,这位律师认为这是一个很好的发展机会,但查看申请表和面试实习生这样耗时的工作最终削减了她的计费工时,还阻碍了她的职业发展。"所以谈话不应该只是:你擅长招聘实习生吗?或者你享受招聘实习生的乐趣吗?”韦斯特伦德告诉我。这样的对话应该是:"如果你想成为合伙人,你就要拿出一年时间招募实习生,但之后我们会把[这份工作]交给其他人。"

在《2022年职场女性报告》中,LeanIn.org和麦肯锡公司发现,女性领导人正以前所未有的速度换工作。研究人员对4万名员工的调查发现,与男性一样,这些女性有远大抱负,但“她们的权威会受到轻度冒犯,也有迹象表明她们将更难获得晋升"。

在阅读这篇材料的时候,我想起了另一个让我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要与远程办公的同事进行视频聊天,这样他才能参与讨论。我没带手机,就问同事能不能用一下她的。“当然可以。”她说。这项任务要求她在我们讨论想要做出修改的地方时,把手机对着墙举15分钟左右。我没把这件事当回事,但在那之后的几个星期里,我和她交流都会感到不寒而栗。最终我明白了,电话事件是导火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。当时,我认为自己的行为并没什么不妥。

现在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能觉得自己被冒犯了,很泄气。当我把这段轶事告诉韦斯特伦德时,她说:“这可能不是她第一次身处这样的境地:她做的事情相当于拿着电话,无法与其他人一样参加会议。”

为什么我同事不直接拒绝,或者把手机递给我让我拿着? 在一个仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,这说起来容易做起来难。在一系列的实验中,韦斯特伦德和她的合著者发现,女性被男经理要求做会议记录等不利于升职的工作的几率比男性高出44%,女性答应完成这样的工作的几率比男性高出50%。只有当女性不在办公室里的时候,男性才会主动去做那些必要却乏味的工作。

我在职业生涯的早期就认识到,让别人做你的工作才是成功的应有之义。在《绅士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鲜亮丽的杂志那种类似《广告狂人》(Mad men)的环境中工作,就如同置身于虚张声势和战略性无能的大师级课堂。

打电话的时候我会提高音量,这样同事们就会知道我在和重要人物通话。只要我在电脑前,我就会皱起眉头。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉馅煎蛋饼食谱时皱起眉头,作沉思状,否则你无法体会现代职场男性的感受。)

我所供职的男性杂志,就像许多其他传统的男性组织一样,是一个由恐惧和机会驱动的地方。失败的风险,或者让自己难堪的风险,尤其是如果你是一个已经晋升到领导职位的男人,会感觉到自己很可悲。你必须从第一天起就取得成功。

这是个不切实际的标准,显然,唯一的策略就是假装,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持会议,那就避免这样做。如果你从未制作过损益表,那就委托他人去做。

显然,这种行为对于那些被留下来做实际工作的人(不论性别或种族)来说是不公平的。但这种行为也会侵蚀那些主张这种特权的人自己和公司。这种行为会抑制冒险和创新,也会影响“心理安全”。谷歌2015年对成功团队的研究被广泛引用。该研究发现,“心理安全”“无疑”是表现优异的团队最重要的驱动力。如果没有心理上的安全感,我们就不愿意尝试新事物,就会错过学习和职业成长的机会。

学习如何举办大型会议的最好方法就是举办一场大型会议——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你会犯一些可笑的错误。如果没有试错的经验,就无法真正精通,许多男人都罹患冒名顶替综合症:我认为这是男性平庸症。我们能够取得成功,甚至得到美差和晋升,但我们并不知道自己是否擅长相应的工作。通常情况下,我们并不擅长。

澄清一下,我不是在寻求同情。如果男性废话在工作中失去了影响力,这是件好事。专攻关键性调整的职业教练斯泰西•施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每个行业都在发生代际变化。她说:“谢天谢地,Z世代带来了变化。现在人们无所遁形了。要掩盖你的罪恶很难。要掩盖你的不足也很难。”

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那种坦率是令人鼓舞的。他们很快就会告诉你他们已经超负荷了,不能再承担更多的工作了——为什么有人要超负荷工作?这难道不是对员工和企业都不利吗?他们会迅速提出问题。他们对自己的不足之处和需要成长的地方持开放态度。而他们对那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的经理感到困惑。

如果我有机会对我的书做一些修改,我会说:不管你属于什么群体,都要内省,问一些让自己脱离舒适区的、发人深省的问题。我的弱点是什么?如果我必须和自己一起工作,我会怎么评价自己?我不擅长什么?我下意识会避免什么事情?也许最重要的是:谁来收拾残局?

最近,我开始把那些我一直试图避免的“不利于升职”的工作视为成长机会——比如项目计划和做笔记。在完成这些工作的过程中,我发现了多年前就该找到的拼图碎片:那些让我成为更好的同事、表现更优异的品质。

我已经开始以不同的方式运用我的人际技能——沟通、协作和情商。现在,当我靠直觉分析在特定环境下人们的总体情绪时,我想的不是人们如何看待我,而是他们如何看待、理解和影响彼此。我还在自己身上发现了意想不到的天赋。例如,我经常发现我能够感知和发现不安,并在这种不安升级之前化解它。

传统上,这些“软技能”更多地是与女性相关,而非男性。如今,在已经转型的职场中,这些软技能是取得成功的关键——除非你在工作上也表现优异,否则它们不会起作用。

但是,谢天谢地,放任自流的男性平庸时代即将落幕。这对所有人来说都是一种解脱,包括平庸的男人们自己。

如何杜绝工作中的 "战略性无能"现象

经理和公司领导可以做很多事情,以确保每个人都分担"不利于升职"的工作任务。

解释合理的委托和减轻苦差事之间的区别

把工作委托给别人没有错;事实上,这往往是一种善意,是让同事脱颖而出的机会。有些任务必须完成,即使这些任务收获不大。尽管如此,如果承担"办公室家务"的同事总是同一批人,而其他人则完全推卸责任,这就很能说明问题了。让"不利于升职"的工作成为你工作场所词汇的一部分。鼓励就所有任务的价值进行公开对话,即使这些任务不属于可计费工时或不是备受瞩目的任务。

不要让志愿者做没人想做的工作

研究表明,当需要做会议记录或为团队点餐时,与男性相比,女性更有可能举手承担这项任务。为了避免这种不平衡现象一再发生,随机选人(从帽子里抽取名字牌)完成这项任务,或者大家轮流来。

心理安全建设

一项又一项研究表明,创造一个让员工敢于冒险、不惧失败的工作环境,是创新和生产力的关键。员工通过试错来培养技能和能力,所以只有在安全的环境中,他们才敢尝试新的、不熟悉的工作。

尽可能让更多人享有备受瞩目、“有晋升空间”的工作机会

多元化、公平和包容咨询公司ReadySet的首席执行官伊-冯娜·哈钦森说:“人们对能力的定义存在偏见。她补充说,遗憾的是,许多公司“认可某些领域的天才,而非其他领域的天才”。比如典型的神童创始人或衣衫不整的技术天才,但许多明星员工并不符合这些相当有局限性的群体画像。要给整个公司的员工挑战自我、证明自己才能的机会。你很可能会找到下一位明星员工。

当你犯了错或表现出“战略性无能”时,要改正错误并为此道歉

要持续地审视自己的行为和工作场所根深蒂固的制度。询问如今合作的同事和以前合作过的同事的体验和印象。人无完人,有时你可能会在某件事发生后意识到有人觉得自己被排挤或冒犯了。职业教练斯泰西•施塔特曼说,承认已经造成的伤害并为此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公开承认自己造成的伤害,并为此道歉。”(财富中文网)

本文另一版本登载于《财富》杂志2023年2/3月刊,标题为《是时候谈谈男性在工作中的平庸了》(It’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

译者:中慧言-王芳

乱蓬蓬的头发并不能说明什么。超特大号的T恤衫也不能说明什么。那张困窘的脸,那自嘲的笑容却将加密货币交易所创始人萨姆·班克曼-弗里德(Sam Bankman-Fried)如何走向名誉扫地暴露无遗。

11月,班克曼-弗里德在推特上写道:“我很抱歉……我搞砸了。”他几乎是耸耸肩,承认了一场让他人损失了80亿美元的加密货币灾难。“如果当时我能更专注于我所做的事情,我办事会更缜密。”班克曼-弗里德在他的加密交易所FTX垮台时告诉《纽约时报》。

鉴于班克曼-弗里德面临刑事欺诈指控,他如此张扬地展示自己的无能可能是为了自保,但其言下之意是确定无疑的:其他无足轻重的人本该为小事忐忑不安。

当我读到班克曼-弗里德自称无能时,我的第一反应是“真是个小丑!”但我开始感到我们需要密切注意这样的联系:“你瞧,若非天恩眷顾……”。

我写了一本关于职场行为的书。好吧,也许不是那本书。而是一本题为《与他人合作无间》(Works Well With Others)的书。该书于2015年出版,讲述了我作为一名年轻的、来自德克萨斯州的机上杂志编辑,如何在纽约市媒体界(以注重身份地位而闻名)游刃有余的故事。我这本书的论点是,无论你在哪个领域,得到同事和雇主青睐是通往职业成功的路径。书中有介绍握手、寒暄和祝酒礼仪的章节,还有一章的标题是“如何在满是重要人物的高级餐厅吃一顿有意义的午餐”。

我写这本书的目标受众并不仅仅是男性。但现在回想起来,我发现其中一些建议更适合我所在的群体: 直男、白人、男性。

在过去几年的某个时刻,我开始意识到那些特殊的“人际技能”对我来说不再像以前那样有效。也许是因为新冠肺炎疫情和远程工作的兴起,消除了许多职场等级制度、惯例和装模作样。也许是对性别歧视和种族主义的考量,侵蚀了像我这样的人的基本特权,同时提升了历史上被边缘化的人的地位。也许废话已经变得不那么流行了。不管是什么原因,我惯用的幽默、讨好和自嘲的招数似乎并不奏效。

更糟糕的是,我开始理解其中一些行为是操纵性的,可以让别人做我不想做的工作。当我在自己身上看到这些倾向时,我无法忽视它们。我开始发现这种行为对女性和有色人种的伤害,以及对工作场所中每个人的士气、生产力和创造力的伤害。

不管他们是否真正有能力,许多男性都很擅长表现自己。实际上,这很容易。你在会议上要言不烦,当你发言的时候,你向提出论断的人提问,或者重复和赞扬别人很有思想见地的观点。你可以乘着别人敢为人先和勇于冒险的东风。

与此相关的一种行为是“战略性无能”(有时也被称为“技能型无能”或“武器化无能”)。莉莎•韦斯特伦德(Lise Vesterlund)与三位合著者合著了《拒绝俱乐部:给女性毫无前途的工作画上句号》(The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work)一书。战略性无能指的是同事声称自己数学很差,这样就能让你处理所有的电子表格。丈夫打扫卫生做得很糟糕,以至于你不得不承担家务。这并不是懒惰那么简单,而是不愿意做那些低价值工作(韦斯特伦德和合著者琳达•巴布科克(Linda Babcock), 布伦达•佩瑟(Brenda Peyser)和劳里•温格特(Laurie Weingart)将这些工作称为“不利于升职”的工作)。这些工作无法获得太多荣誉或赞誉;这些工作人们往往视而不见。不仅仅是男性会回避这些工作——但我在骗谁呢?主要是男性会回避这些工作。

韦斯特伦德告诉我:"这非常方便。"女性和有色人种往往会承担这种不利于升职的工作——组织办公室派对,参加招聘委员会,主持多元化、公平和包容(DEI)工作组会议。"很多时候,我们让女性承担这种类型的工作的原因是,哦,她们很擅长这种工作,因为她们一次又一次地证明了她们擅长这种工作。但或许有必要退一步(对男性)说,你们怎么能只做那些有利于升职的工作,而把那些不利于升职的工作丢给别人呢?”

我立即意识到韦斯特伦德在说什么,这让我想起了几年前我和两名女同事的一次Zoom电话会议。我的老板是一位有色人种女性,她要求我为项目制定时间表。"这个计划非常好。"我说,然后看向屏幕上的另一位同事。"我只需要你帮我制定项目流程。"我对她说。我开了个自嘲的玩笑,说自己无法在没有帮助的情况下制定复杂的计划。

问题是:我实际上并不知道自己是否真的不擅长制定项目时间表。我只是从来没有做过,也不是特别想学。我知道我的同事是一个优秀的项目经理,所以对我来说,她承担起这个责任才合情合理。

但这一次,我的请求没有得到支持。我期待的是“好啊!”,但我得到的却是漫长而令人痛苦的沉默,就像在西部片里,持枪歹徒带着一顶可疑的边缘平整的帽子走进一家酒馆。在几秒钟(度秒如年)之后,我改了主意。“话说,我自己来处理吧!”我说。然后我倒退着穿过来回晃动的酒馆大门,慢吞吞地走着。

对我当时的老板来说,她只是翻了个白眼而已。(最近我问起她这件事的时候,她都不记得了。)但那次会议是我第一次意识到——真正理解——我已经养成了用魅力(或阿谀奉承,取决于你如何看待它)来让别人为我做事的习惯。

多元化、公平和包容咨询公司ReadySet的首席执行官伊-冯娜·哈钦森(Y-Vonne Hutchinson)说,女性和有色人种一直都能看到一些白人男性被假定无罪的情况。她说:"这一点司空见惯,无处不在。人们对能力的定义存在偏见。这存在种族偏见,也存在性别偏见......这种偏见无孔不入。"

这种现象造成的后果是对妇女和有色人种的持续低估。韦斯特伦德讲述了她书中的一个例子,律所要求一位律师招募一批实习生。韦斯特伦德解释说,这位律师认为这是一个很好的发展机会,但查看申请表和面试实习生这样耗时的工作最终削减了她的计费工时,还阻碍了她的职业发展。"所以谈话不应该只是:你擅长招聘实习生吗?或者你享受招聘实习生的乐趣吗?”韦斯特伦德告诉我。这样的对话应该是:"如果你想成为合伙人,你就要拿出一年时间招募实习生,但之后我们会把[这份工作]交给其他人。"

在《2022年职场女性报告》中,LeanIn.org和麦肯锡公司发现,女性领导人正以前所未有的速度换工作。研究人员对4万名员工的调查发现,与男性一样,这些女性有远大抱负,但“她们的权威会受到轻度冒犯,也有迹象表明她们将更难获得晋升"。

在阅读这篇材料的时候,我想起了另一个让我感到局促不安的插曲。我和一位女同事正在看一些印刷材料,需要与远程办公的同事进行视频聊天,这样他才能参与讨论。我没带手机,就问同事能不能用一下她的。“当然可以。”她说。这项任务要求她在我们讨论想要做出修改的地方时,把手机对着墙举15分钟左右。我没把这件事当回事,但在那之后的几个星期里,我和她交流都会感到不寒而栗。最终我明白了,电话事件是导火索。我存有戒心,也感到很困惑。当时,我认为自己的行为并没什么不妥。

现在我明白了,那一刻,我同事很可能觉得自己被冒犯了,很泄气。当我把这段轶事告诉韦斯特伦德时,她说:“这可能不是她第一次身处这样的境地:她做的事情相当于拿着电话,无法与其他人一样参加会议。”

为什么我同事不直接拒绝,或者把手机递给我让我拿着? 在一个仍然期望女性做苦差事的文化中,这说起来容易做起来难。在一系列的实验中,韦斯特伦德和她的合著者发现,女性被男经理要求做会议记录等不利于升职的工作的几率比男性高出44%,女性答应完成这样的工作的几率比男性高出50%。只有当女性不在办公室里的时候,男性才会主动去做那些必要却乏味的工作。

我在职业生涯的早期就认识到,让别人做你的工作才是成功的应有之义。在《绅士》(Esquire)和《智族》(GQ)等光鲜亮丽的杂志那种类似《广告狂人》(Mad men)的环境中工作,就如同置身于虚张声势和战略性无能的大师级课堂。

打电话的时候我会提高音量,这样同事们就会知道我在和重要人物通话。只要我在电脑前,我就会皱起眉头。(除非你在谷歌上搜索肉馅煎蛋饼食谱时皱起眉头,作沉思状,否则你无法体会现代职场男性的感受。)

我所供职的男性杂志,就像许多其他传统的男性组织一样,是一个由恐惧和机会驱动的地方。失败的风险,或者让自己难堪的风险,尤其是如果你是一个已经晋升到领导职位的男人,会感觉到自己很可悲。你必须从第一天起就取得成功。

这是个不切实际的标准,显然,唯一的策略就是假装,你要避免任何可能暴露你不足的情形。如果你不知道如何主持会议,那就避免这样做。如果你从未制作过损益表,那就委托他人去做。

显然,这种行为对于那些被留下来做实际工作的人(不论性别或种族)来说是不公平的。但这种行为也会侵蚀那些主张这种特权的人自己和公司。这种行为会抑制冒险和创新,也会影响“心理安全”。谷歌2015年对成功团队的研究被广泛引用。该研究发现,“心理安全”“无疑”是表现优异的团队最重要的驱动力。如果没有心理上的安全感,我们就不愿意尝试新事物,就会错过学习和职业成长的机会。

学习如何举办大型会议的最好方法就是举办一场大型会议——即使你在第一次、第二次、第三次都把事情搞砸了; 即使你会犯一些可笑的错误。如果没有试错的经验,就无法真正精通,许多男人都罹患冒名顶替综合症:我认为这是男性平庸症。我们能够取得成功,甚至得到美差和晋升,但我们并不知道自己是否擅长相应的工作。通常情况下,我们并不擅长。

澄清一下,我不是在寻求同情。如果男性废话在工作中失去了影响力,这是件好事。专攻关键性调整的职业教练斯泰西•施塔特曼(Stacey Staaterman)表示,每个行业都在发生代际变化。她说:“谢天谢地,Z世代带来了变化。现在人们无所遁形了。要掩盖你的罪恶很难。要掩盖你的不足也很难。”

我在Z世代同事身上看到的那种坦率是令人鼓舞的。他们很快就会告诉你他们已经超负荷了,不能再承担更多的工作了——为什么有人要超负荷工作?这难道不是对员工和企业都不利吗?他们会迅速提出问题。他们对自己的不足之处和需要成长的地方持开放态度。而他们对那些不愿意坦白自己境遇的经理感到困惑。

如果我有机会对我的书做一些修改,我会说:不管你属于什么群体,都要内省,问一些让自己脱离舒适区的、发人深省的问题。我的弱点是什么?如果我必须和自己一起工作,我会怎么评价自己?我不擅长什么?我下意识会避免什么事情?也许最重要的是:谁来收拾残局?

最近,我开始把那些我一直试图避免的“不利于升职”的工作视为成长机会——比如项目计划和做笔记。在完成这些工作的过程中,我发现了多年前就该找到的拼图碎片:那些让我成为更好的同事、表现更优异的品质。

我已经开始以不同的方式运用我的人际技能——沟通、协作和情商。现在,当我靠直觉分析在特定环境下人们的总体情绪时,我想的不是人们如何看待我,而是他们如何看待、理解和影响彼此。我还在自己身上发现了意想不到的天赋。例如,我经常发现我能够感知和发现不安,并在这种不安升级之前化解它。

传统上,这些“软技能”更多地是与女性相关,而非男性。如今,在已经转型的职场中,这些软技能是取得成功的关键——除非你在工作上也表现优异,否则它们不会起作用。

但是,谢天谢地,放任自流的男性平庸时代即将落幕。这对所有人来说都是一种解脱,包括平庸的男人们自己。

如何杜绝工作中的 "战略性无能"现象

经理和公司领导可以做很多事情,以确保每个人都分担"不利于升职"的工作任务。

解释合理的委托和减轻苦差事之间的区别。

把工作委托给别人没有错;事实上,这往往是一种善意,是让同事脱颖而出的机会。有些任务必须完成,即使这些任务收获不大。尽管如此,如果承担"办公室家务"的同事总是同一批人,而其他人则完全推卸责任,这就很能说明问题了。让"不利于升职"的工作成为你工作场所词汇的一部分。鼓励就所有任务的价值进行公开对话,即使这些任务不属于可计费工时或不是备受瞩目的任务。

不要让志愿者做没人想做的工作。

研究表明,当需要做会议记录或为团队点餐时,与男性相比,女性更有可能举手承担这项任务。为了避免这种不平衡现象一再发生,随机选人(从帽子里抽取名字牌)完成这项任务,或者大家轮流来。

心理安全建设。

一项又一项研究表明,创造一个让员工敢于冒险、不惧失败的工作环境,是创新和生产力的关键。员工通过试错来培养技能和能力,所以只有在安全的环境中,他们才敢尝试新的、不熟悉的工作。

尽可能让更多人享有备受瞩目、“有晋升空间”的工作机会。

多元化、公平和包容咨询公司ReadySet的首席执行官伊-冯娜·哈钦森说:“人们对能力的定义存在偏见。她补充说,遗憾的是,许多公司“认可某些领域的天才,而非其他领域的天才”。比如典型的神童创始人或衣衫不整的技术天才,但许多明星员工并不符合这些相当有局限性的群体画像。要给整个公司的员工挑战自我、证明自己才能的机会。你很可能会找到下一位明星员工。

当你犯了错或表现出“战略性无能”时,要改正错误并为此道歉。

要持续地审视自己的行为和工作场所根深蒂固的制度。询问如今合作的同事和以前合作过的同事的体验和印象。人无完人,有时你可能会在某件事发生后意识到有人觉得自己被排挤或冒犯了。职业教练斯泰西•施塔特曼说,承认已经造成的伤害并为此道歉大有裨益:“重拾正直本心的方法就是公开承认自己造成的伤害,并为此道歉。”(财富中文网)

本文另一版本登载于《财富》杂志2023年2/3月刊,标题为《是时候谈谈男性在工作中的平庸了》(It’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work)。

译者:中慧言-王芳

ILLUSTRATION BY JOAN WONG; PHOTO OF BANKMAN-FRIED BY GOTHAM/GC IMAGES/GETTY IMAGES

The unkempt hair wasn’t the tell. The XXXL T-shirt wasn’t the tell. No, the giveaway about disgraced cryptocurrency exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried was on his sheepish face: that self-deprecating grin.

“I’m sorry … I fucked up,” Bankman-Fried tweeted in November, owning up with a virtual shrug to a crypto calamity that erased $8 billion in other people’s money. “Had I been a bit more concentrated on what I was doing, I would have been able to be more thorough,’’ Bankman-Fried told the New York Times as his crypto exchange, FTX, unraveled.

Bankman-Fried’s ostentatious display of incompetence is likely self-serving, given that he faces criminal fraud charges, but the implication is unmistakable: Other, lesser minds should have been sweating the small stuff.

When I read about Bankman-Fried’s professed ineptitude, my first thought was “What a clown!” But increasingly I’ve begun to feel a wary connection: “There, but for the grace of God …”

I wrote the book on workplace behavior. Okay, maybe not the book. But a book. It’s called Works Well With Others. Published in 2015, it tells the story of how I, as a young in-flight-magazine editor from Texas, navigated New York City’s famously status-conscious media world. My book’s thesis is that being well-liked by your colleagues and bosses is a path to professional success, in whatever field you’re in. There are chapters on shaking hands, making small talk, and giving a toast, and a chapter called “How to Have a Meaningful Lunch in a Fancy Restaurant Full of Important People.”

I didn’t write the book just for men. But in retrospect I see that some of its advice works best for the demographic I happen to belong to: straight, white, male.

And at some point in the last few years, I started to realize that those particular “people skills” weren’t working for me the way they used to. Maybe it was the COVID-19 pandemic and rise of remote work, which stripped away many of the hierarchies, conventions, and pretensions of office life. Maybe it was the reckonings about sexism and racism that have eroded some of the baseline privilege granted to people who look like me, while elevating some of those who have been historically marginalized. Maybe bullshit has simply become less of a currency. Whatever it was, my go-to moves of humor, ingratiation, and self-deprecation just didn’t seem to be landing.

Even worse, I started to understand some of those behaviors as manipulative, a way of getting others to do work I didn’t want to do. When I saw those tendencies in myself, I couldn’t unsee them. And I began to see the damage this kind of behavior does to women and people of color—and to the morale, productiveness, and creativity of everyone in a workplace.

Whether they are truly competent or not, many men are very good at performing competence. It’s kind of easy, actually. You don’t talk a lot in meetings, and when you do you ask questions of the people who made assertions, or repeat and praise good points others made. You ride the wake of the boldness and risk-taking of others.

A related behavior, says Lise Vesterlund, who along with three coauthors wrote The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work, is “strategic incompetence” (sometimes called “skilled incompetence” or “weaponized incompetence”). Strategic incompetence is the colleague who claims to be terrible at math, so that you handle all the spreadsheets. The husband who does such a bad vacuuming job that you take on the chore yourself. It’s not straightforward laziness—it’s a reluctance to do the lower-value jobs that Vesterlund and coauthors Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, and Laurie Weingart call “non-promotable.” This is the work that doesn’t get much credit or garner accolades; work that’s often invisible. It’s not just men who avoid it—but who am I kidding? It’s mostly men.

“It’s very convenient,” Vesterlund told me, that women and people of color tend to get saddled with this non-promotable work—organizing the office party, sitting on hiring committees, chairing a DEI task force. “Oftentimes the reason we ask women is because, Oh, they’re so good at it, because they’ve demonstrated time and time again that they are good at it. But it might be worth sort of taking a step back and saying [to men], How could you possibly do all the promotable work, and not be able to do the non-promotable work?”

I immediately recognized what Vesterlund was talking about, and it made me think of a Zoom call I was on with two women colleagues a couple of years ago. My boss, a woman of color, asked that I map out a timeline for completing a project. “That’s a great plan,” I said, then looked to my other colleague on the screen. “I’ll just need help working up a project flow,” I said to her. I made a self-deprecating joke about my inability to plan complex initiatives without help.

The thing is: I didn’t actually know if I was bad at mapping out a project timeline. I just had never done it, and I didn’t particularly want to learn how. I knew my colleague to be an excellent project manager, so it only made sense to me that she should take on that responsibility.

But this time, my request was not seconded. What I was expecting was a “Sure!,” but what I got was a protracted, excruciating silence, like in a Western, when a gunslinger with a suspiciously clean hat enters a saloon. After a few long seconds, I backtracked. “You know what? I’ll handle it myself!” I said. Then I metaphorically backed through the swinging saloon doors and shuffled on my way.

For my then boss, the incident didn’t amount to more than an eye roll. (She didn’t even remember it when I asked her about it recently.) But that meeting was the first time I realized—really understood—that I had made a habit of using charm (or smarm, depending on how you see it) as a way of getting other people to do work for me.

Of course, the benefit of the doubt granted to some white men has never been invisible to women and people of color, says Y-Vonne Hutchinson, CEO of a diversity, equity, and inclusion consulting firm ReadySet. “I see it in almost every aspect of the work that we do,” she says. “There is a bias toward what competence looks like. It’s a racial bias, a gender bias … it’s incredibly pervasive.”

The converse of this phenomenon is the persistent underestimation of women and people of color. Vesterlund recounted an example from her book of an attorney who was asked to recruit a cohort of interns. It was presented as a terrific opportunity for growth, Vesterlund explained, but the time-consuming work of reading applications and interviewing ended up cutting into her billable hours, and stalling her advancement at the firm. “So the conversation shouldn’t just be, Are you good at recruiting interns, or do you enjoy recruiting interns?”

Vesterlund told me. It should be: “If you want to make partner, you can recruit interns for one year, but then we’re going to give [that job] to somebody else.”

In their 2022 Women in the Workplace report, LeanIn.org and McKinsey & Company found that women leaders were switching jobs at an unprecedented rate. The researchers’ surveys of 40,000 employees found that the women had similar ambitions to men, but that “they experience microaggressions that undermine their authority and signal that it will be harder for them to advance.”

Reading this, another professional episode came to mind, and made me cringe. A woman colleague and I were looking at some printed materials and needed to FaceTime someone who was working remotely so that he could weigh in. I didn’t have my phone on me, so I asked my colleague if she could use hers. “Sure,” she said. The task required her to hold her phone toward a wall for about 15 minutes as we talked about things we wanted to change. I thought nothing of it, but for weeks after that I felt a chill in communications with her. Eventually it became clear to me that the phone incident was the reason. I was defensive and confused. I didn’t think what I’d done was even remotely objectionable behavior.

Now I understand that my colleague may well have experienced the moment as offensive and demoralizing. When I told Vesterlund the anecdote, she said, “This probably wasn’t the first time that she was in a position where she was doing the equivalent of holding the phone, unable to participate in the meeting on the same level as everybody else.”

Why didn’t my colleague just say no, or hand me the phone to hold? That’s easier said than done, in a culture that still expects women to do much of the grunt work. In a series of experiments, Vesterlund and her coauthors found that women are 44% more likely than men to be asked by male managers to perform non-promotable tasks such as taking meeting notes, and 50% more likely to say yes. It’s only when women aren’t in the room that men volunteer to do that necessary, unglamorous work.

I learned early in my career that getting other people to do your job was what success looked like. Working in the Mad Men–like environment of glossy magazines, including Esquire and GQ, was a master class in bluster and strategic incompetence.

I would raise my voice while I was on the phone, so colleagues would know I was talking with someone important. I would furrow my brow anytime I was at my computer. (You can’t relate to what it’s like to be a man in the modern workplace unless you’ve scowled pensively while Googling frittata recipes.)

The men’s magazines I worked at, like so many other traditionally masculine organizations, are places driven by fear as much as opportunity. The risk of failing, or embarrassing oneself, especially if you’re a man who has risen to a leadership position, can feel pathetically existential. You must succeed from day one.

This is an impossible standard, so the obvious strategy is to fake it, and to avoid any situation where your inadequacy will be visible. If you don’t know how to run a meeting, avoid doing so. If you haven’t ever created a profit and loss statement, delegate it.

This behavior is obviously unfair to those who are left doing the real work, of any gender or race. But it’s also corrosive to those asserting this privilege themselves, and to companies. It suppresses risk-taking, innovation, and “psychological safety”—the quality that Google’s much-cited 2015 study of successful teams found to be “far and away” the most important dynamic of the highest-performing groups. Without psychological safety, we’re reluctant to try new things, and we miss out on opportunities to learn and grow professionally.

The best way to learn how to run a big meeting is to run a big meeting—even if you screw it up the first, second, third time; even if you make ridiculous flubs. Without the experience of trial and error that leads to real mastery, many men suffer from a kind of strange impostor syndrome: I think of it as a male mediocrity disorder. We can be successful, and even get plum assignments and promotions, but we have no real idea whether we’re any good at our jobs. Often, we’re not.

To be clear, I’m not asking for sympathy. If traditionally masculine bullshit is losing its currency at work, that’s a good thing. A generational change is underway in every industry, says Stacey Staaterman, a career coach specializing in pivots. “Thank God for what Gen Z has brought to the table,” she says. “It’s harder to hide now. It’s harder to cover up your sins. It’s harder to cover up your inadequacies.”

The kind of candor I see in Gen Z colleagues is inspiring. They are quick to tell you when they are overloaded and can’t take on more—because why should anyone be overloaded with work? Isn’t that bad for the employee and the business? They are quick to ask questions. They’re open about their deficiencies and areas for growth. And they are bewildered by managers who won’t come clean about their own.

If I had a chance to revise my book, I’d say: Whatever your demographic profile, ask uncomfortable, revealing questions about yourself. What are my weak spots? What would I say about myself if I had to work with me? What am I bad at? What do I avoid in a knee-jerk way? And perhaps most important: Who picks up the slack?

Lately, I’ve begun to see the “non-promotable” work I’ve always tried to avoid as an opportunity for growth—project planning and note-taking, for example. And in doing these tasks, I have found puzzle pieces that I should have located years ago: qualities that make me a better colleague who produces better work.

I have started using my people skills—communication, collaboration, and emotional intelligence—in a different way. When I read a room now, it’s less about how I think people are seeing me, but how they are seeing and understanding and influencing one another. And I’ve discovered unexpected talents in myself. For instance, I often find that I can sense and identify unrest, and defuse it before it escalates.

These “soft skills,” traditionally associated more with women than men, are key for getting ahead in today’s transformed workplace—but they don’t work unless you’re also doing a great job.

But the sun is setting on the age of unchecked male mediocrity, and thank goodness. It’s a relief for everyone, including mediocre men.

How to stamp out ‘strategic incompetence’ at work

There’s a lot that managers and company leaders can do to ensure that everyone is sharing the burden of “non-promotable” work.

Explain the difference between reasonable delegating and the offloading of drudgery.

There’s nothing wrong with delegating; indeed, often it can be a kindness, an opportunity to let colleagues shine. And some tasks have to get done, even if they’re not particularly rewarding. Still, it helps to name what’s happening when the same colleagues always take on the “office housework” and others shirk it entirely: Make “non-promotable” work a part of your workplace’s vocabulary. Encourage clear conversations about the value of all tasks, even if they’re not billable hours or high-profile assignments.

Don’t ask for volunteers to do tasks nobody wants.

Studies show that women are more likely than men to raise their hand when it comes time to take meeting notes or order lunch for the group. To avoid this imbalance, pick names out of a hat, or take turns.

Build psychological safety.

Creating a work environment where employees feel safe taking risks and failing is key to innovation and productivity, study after study has shown. Employees build skills and competence through trial and error, so it must feel safe for them to try out new, unfamiliar kinds of work.

Spread widely the opportunities for high-profile, “promotable” work.

“There is a bias toward what competence looks like,” says Y-Vonne Hutchinson of the DEI consulting organization ReadySet. Unfortunately, many companies “recognize genius in some spaces and not others,” she adds. Some geniuses look like the archetypal wunderkind founder or the disheveled tech brainiac—but many great minds don’t fit those rather limited demographic contours. Give people throughout your organization opportunities to challenge themselves and prove their talents. You’ll likely find your next star performer.

When you make a mistake or display “strategic incompetence,” fix it and apologize.

On an ongoing basis, examine your own behavior and the entrenched systems of your workplace. Ask colleagues present and past about their experiences and impressions. Nobody’s perfect, and sometimes you may realize after an incident that someone felt sidelined or offended. Acknowledging the harm that was done and apologizing for it can go a long way, says Stacey Staaterman, a professional coach: “The way to renew integrity is to speak the words out loud.”

This article appears in the February/March 2023 issue of Fortune with the headline, “It’s time to talk about male mediocrity at work.”

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP