员工惹祸怎么办？别学谷歌连夜裁员

我在科技行业当HR已经有20多年了，对很多事早已见怪不怪。不过当我听说谷歌解雇了一名撰写了一份“性别歧视备忘录”的工程师时，我还是挺惊讶的。令我惊讶的并不是谷歌的解聘决定，而是它的行动竟然来得如此之快。

当然，我并不是谷歌HR团队的一员，所以我也没法知道他们是如何进行此次调查的。这次调查或许是彻底而详尽的。从外部视角看，谷歌的解聘决定是迅速而果断的。不过虽然谷歌在文件泄出后不到２４小时就做出了解聘决定，但此举非但没有平息外界的质疑，反而又给群众高涨的情绪添了一把火。

据我猜测，谷歌之所以雷厉风行地裁掉了这名工程师，是因为它想清晰地表明自己在性别平权上的立场。这个目标它显然达到了。不过此次闪电般的裁员或许会使谷歌来不及反思此次丑闻背后的一些深层次的东西。而这些思考是比较花时间的，一天之内肯定无法完成如此深刻的反思。谷歌其实有很多东西需要反省——比如这位工程师为什么要将这些想法写成备忘录；在这份文件中，哪些部分违反了公司政策，哪些部分没有；此事是否还涉及其他人，等等。对于谷歌来说，对此事的最终决定是显而易见的（我们必须要开除这个家伙）。不过更重要的是，谷歌是否花时间考虑过其他选项，比如停职或调整岗位等等。

对于这种舆论事故，光裁掉惹祸的员工是不够的。发生了这种事，企业应该反省一下自己的内部文化。尽管谷歌并不认可这名工程师的言论，但归根结底，它营造了一种任由此类言论被自由表达的环境。谷歌CEO桑德尔·皮查伊也曾表示，公司“坚决支持谷歌人自由表达的权利”。但是如果一家企业尊重员工自我表达的权利，它就必须在开放与尊重之间达到平衡。而至于这个平衡点在什么地方，就是管理层的事了。

谷歌首先应该意识到自己在这方面的职责，并且切实负起相关责任，明确自己必须做出哪些改变，并且进行相应的引导，从而使以后的对话更具建设性。而对于HR部门来说，他们在调查中应该更好地了解多方面的观点，发掘事件背后的根本性因素，建议领导层采取哪些着眼长远的改革。

对于一名HR来说，最艰难也是最重要的任务，就是不要让个人好恶左右对事实的判断。HR在雇主和雇员之间扮演着一个联络官的作用，一个HR必须站在胸怀企业全局的高度想问题。不过这也将我们放在了一个很棘手的位置上。尤其是有时我们会对一件事情产生个人的好恶——比如我讨厌他发表的大多数言论，但我个人的感觉不应该影响事件的公正处理。

那么，这件事如果交给我处理，我会怎么做呢？首先要把节奏放慢。第一步要尽可能化解紧张局势。首先要做的不是类似这样的最终决定，而是先要冷却一下此事给公司内部和外部造成的紧张情绪。在此类事件中，停职是一个常见的手段，我们可以暂时将该员工调离工作岗位，而不是一看到媒体和群众群情激愤，就急惶惶地将员工开除了事。然后要花充足的时间进行一次客观而彻底的调查，了解清楚这种事为什么会发生，更重要的是我们可以从中学到什么经验教训。

有意思的是，在这方面做得很好的一个例子，是Uber前CEO特拉维斯·卡兰尼克在最终辞职前的暂时“离岗”。当初我看到这则报道时，我就觉得这可能是一种淡化媒体关注的拖延战术。想出这个办法的一定是个聪明的HR，它拉出了一定的间隔，给了企业更多的控制力，同时也使卡兰尼克的退出显得不那么戏剧性。

最后我要说的是，人们眼中能看到的往往只有黑与白，但在黑与白之间，也有一些灰色地带存在。而在谷歌这件事中，灰色就是以言论自由的形式呈现的。这份备忘录的一部分提出了一些合理的观点，有助于我们进一步讨论在职场中如何适当地表达不同的观点，还有一部分则显然“越线”了，是不可接受的。而就是在这些灰色地带中，你才得以了解我们自己、我们的价值观，以及对彼此产生更深入的了解。所以，只要多花一些时间，等待事件逐步降温，对“灰色地带”进行梳理，我们还是能找到如何一起工作和更加善待彼此的方法的。（财富中文网） 

本文作者Rachel Bitte是Jobvite公司的人力总监。她有20年的人力资源管理和流程优化经验，特别是在科技行业，尤其对变革领导和人才管理很有心得。

译者：贾政景

I’ve been in HR in the tech industry for over 20 years. It takes a lot to shock me. But when I learned Google fired the male engineer who authored the now-notorious gender inequality memo, I was surprised. It’s not the termination that shocked me—it’s the speed at which it all came to a head.

Of course, I'm not on Google’s HR team, so I will never know how they handled this investigation. It may have been thorough and exhaustive. From an outside perspective, the decision to terminate appears swift and decisive. But by firing him in less than 24 hours, the company added fuel to a very public fire, rather than try to defuse the situation.

My guess is that Google made the move because the company wants to be clear about what it stands for. It accomplished that. But this lightning-fast termination could stunt Google’s ability to understand why the situation happened in the first place. That takes time, and it’s hard to do in a day. You have to examine everything—what pushed the engineer to put these thoughts in writing, what portions of the memo did and didn’t violate policies, and who else is involved.

For Google, even if the eventual decision is glaringly obvious (i.e., we need to fire this guy), taking the time to weigh the pros and cons of every option—including suspension, departmental move, etc.—is critical.

And firing isn’t enough. In an instance like this, it’s important to look inward. While Google didn’t sanction this engineer’s words, it created the environment in which they were expressed. CEO Sundar Pichai’s response affirmed the company “strongly support[s] the right of Googlers to express themselves.” If an organization is going to place value on self-expression, it must seek to balance that openness with respect—and it's the job of leadership to communicate what that balance is.

Google should hold itself accountable by acknowledging its role, identifying the changes it must make, and having conversations so future dialogue is more constructive. The primary goal of any HR investigation should be to better understand the multiple views of a situation, unearth the root cause of why an incident happened and recommend changes to make for the future.

The hardest (but most important) HR task is to suspend personal judgment in favor of facts. HR acts as a liaison between employees and employers. We have to keep the well-being of the entire company in mind. Unfortunately, that puts us in a tricky position, especially when it’s something we don’t personally agree with. I abhor most of the remarks he made. But my feelings are beside the point.

So, what would I have done differently? Taken it slower. Defused the situation as much as possible. Tried to cool internal and external tensions at least slightly—before making such a finite decision. Suspension is a common tactic; remove the employee from the workplace at least temporarily. Instead of reacting to headlines and inflamed passions, spend as much time as needed conducting a thorough, objective investigation into why this happened and, more importantly, what you can learn.

Ironically, a good example of this is Travis Kalanick's temporary “leave of absence” before his eventual resignation from Uber. When I saw that, I thought: likely a delay tactic to take the story out of the headlines, at least temporarily. That’s smart HR. It allowed for distance, control, and a slightly less dramatic exit.

The final takeaway: as black and white as some things seem, shades of gray always exist. The “gray” in this memo comes in the form of a freedom of speech debate. Portions of the memo raised fair points for further discussion about how to appropriately express different views in the workplace. However, many other points clearly crossed the boundaries of what’s acceptable. It’s in those shades of gray that you find learnings about ourselves, our values and better understanding of each other. By taking the extra time to deescalate the situation and tease out the gray areas, we can figure out how to work together and be better to each other.

Rachel Bitte is chief people officer at Jobvite. She has 20 years of HR leadership and process excellence experience—particularly in the tech industry—with a focus on change leadership and talent management.