最近，許多有關(guān)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的描寫都很負(fù)面，說他們無能、傲慢、道德缺失、貪得無厭，種種惡劣品質(zhì)不一而足。

毋庸置疑，員工、股東和選民提到領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者時(shí)都滿腹怒火和牢騷。生活中遇到問題時(shí)，人們很快把種種不順歸咎于領(lǐng)導(dǎo)，又常常指望領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者改變現(xiàn)狀。

這么做是否合情合理？或者說，我們指責(zé)管理者時(shí)是不是在轉(zhuǎn)移自身的問題？現(xiàn)在，我們是不是應(yīng)該承擔(dān)應(yīng)負(fù)的責(zé)任，采取行動(dòng)做出改善？

我們生活的世界并不完美，充斥著暴力、貧富差距、工作崗位不足，腐敗，病痛，劣質(zhì)產(chǎn)品等等。雖然我們迫切希望根除所有弊端，但領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者也沒辦法輕松解決問題。

與此同時(shí)，政界領(lǐng)袖為了獲得廣泛支持煽動(dòng)大眾的怒火和疑心。24小時(shí)滾動(dòng)播出的新聞不斷放大他們言辭的影響，媒體又在拼命強(qiáng)調(diào)治理弊端的緊迫性以贏得觀眾。

這種氛圍造成了惡性循環(huán)。我們所做的不過是在加劇種種差距，窮人與富人之間、保守人士和自由人士之間、自由貿(mào)易者和保守主義者之間、以及鷹派和鴿派之間。下一屆美國總統(tǒng)在消除差距方面再有能力也沒法比兩位前任做得更好。指責(zé)媒體也無濟(jì)于事，因?yàn)槊襟w的激勵(lì)機(jī)制就是做出能增加觀眾的報(bào)道。

在商界，主動(dòng)投資者能迫使董事會(huì)接受一些簡單的短期解決方法，如拆分企業(yè)、提高資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表的杠桿，或者通過削減實(shí)現(xiàn)企業(yè)戰(zhàn)略成功所需的投資來回購股票。這類投資者在任何一家公司都能挑出毛病。為了股價(jià)短期內(nèi)走高，股東往往也會(huì)鼓勵(lì)他們挑刺。

可是，有害的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)方法會(huì)讓企業(yè)付出巨大代價(jià)。不善領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的人會(huì)激發(fā)員工采取錯(cuò)誤的做事方式，拖累所有人。就像惡性腫瘤一樣，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)傳遞的負(fù)能量會(huì)在整個(gè)企業(yè)蔓延，最后人人都會(huì)責(zé)怪別人，出現(xiàn)問題后逃避應(yīng)負(fù)的責(zé)任。一旦出現(xiàn)這種狀況，企業(yè)就走上了自我毀滅之路，將給員工和股東等造成莫大的傷害。到那時(shí)，企業(yè)就無法持續(xù)生存，開始土崩瓦解了。美國老牌百貨公司西爾斯、通用汽車、雷曼兄弟、柯達(dá)和其他政治爭斗、疑心病和短視的受害者就是這樣走向末路的。

與上述例子相反，真正的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)設(shè)法讓下屬展現(xiàn)最優(yōu)秀的一面。他們的目標(biāo)是發(fā)掘他人的潛能，充分授權(quán)下屬為個(gè)人行為負(fù)責(zé)，充滿合作精神并努力改善所有人的狀況。多年前，羅納德?里根、富蘭克林.D.羅斯福、納爾遜?曼德拉等偉大的政界領(lǐng)袖就是這么做的。這也正是今天商界、醫(yī)療衛(wèi)生、非盈利組織、學(xué)術(shù)界、當(dāng)然還有政界領(lǐng)袖需要做的，他們要團(tuán)結(jié)所有人，讓生活變得更好，并改進(jìn)種種弊端。

任何一種有意義的持續(xù)進(jìn)步都要經(jīng)歷多次試錯(cuò)和眾多磨難。而優(yōu)秀的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者會(huì)想辦法慶祝前進(jìn)道路上每一次的小勝利。正如我在近作《正確的方向：發(fā)現(xiàn)可信的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)》中強(qiáng)調(diào)的，新近科研結(jié)果顯示，積極向下屬授權(quán)是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者必備的素質(zhì)。總體來說，我熟知的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者都做到了。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者應(yīng)當(dāng)竭盡所能鼓勵(lì)下屬成長、奉獻(xiàn)、過上幸福而且有意義的生活。用作家亞當(dāng)?格蘭特的話說就是，要當(dāng)“給予者”，不是“索取者”。

這種方式與心理學(xué)家馬丁?塞格利曼倡導(dǎo)的積極心理運(yùn)動(dòng)一致。積極心理有以下三大目的：

?增強(qiáng)實(shí)力

?讓人生活充實(shí)

?培養(yǎng)身邊的人才

丹尼爾?戈曼在自己的《專注的力量》一書中介紹了多個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)，展示了積極互動(dòng)對(duì)員工的影響。其中一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)顯示，如果以熱情、鼓勁的口氣表達(dá)消極的反饋，員工會(huì)更容易接受。反之，如果用消極的口吻傳達(dá)好消息或者積極的反饋，員工在討論結(jié)束后會(huì)感覺很不好，不會(huì)為自己的成功高興。塞格利曼的研究顯示，要保持健康的職場(chǎng)關(guān)系，應(yīng)該讓積極與消極的言論比例達(dá)到三比一。

當(dāng)企業(yè)遇到攔路虎的時(shí)候，員工自然士氣受挫，通常怒火也會(huì)滋生，但解決不了任何問題。《正向力》的作者希爾扎德?查米恩說，每個(gè)人內(nèi)心的“圣人”和“破壞者”都會(huì)無意之間對(duì)話。如果領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者能意識(shí)到這種對(duì)話的存在就會(huì)警惕，避免負(fù)面的反應(yīng)損害健康的關(guān)系。如果領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者多積極詢問而不是簡單地下指令，就能在企業(yè)面對(duì)的挑戰(zhàn)中找到機(jī)會(huì)。借此，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者也能與周圍依靠他們解決問題的同事改善關(guān)系。

領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力案例：艾倫?穆拉利如何在福特汽車轉(zhuǎn)型中發(fā)揮作用？

在嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)中把握方向需要強(qiáng)有力又膽色過人的真正領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。這就是艾倫?穆拉利在福特汽車展現(xiàn)的特質(zhì)。

穆拉利2006年出任福特汽車首席執(zhí)行官。上任第一天，他要求參觀赫赫有名的Rouge汽車廠，也就是該司創(chuàng)始人亨利?福特一手打造福特T型車的地方。一位高管告訴穆拉利：“我們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)不會(huì)直接和廠里的員工講話。”他沒有聽取這個(gè)建議，而是立即走訪工廠，和一線工人交談。

穆拉利還規(guī)定，每周管理層必須開周會(huì)。他將這類會(huì)議稱為企業(yè)流程再造（BPR），目的是讓高管深入探討公司長期存在的問題根源是什么。他很快發(fā)現(xiàn)，福特汽車的挑戰(zhàn)遠(yuǎn)不止財(cái)務(wù)虧損，企業(yè)文化已經(jīng)崩潰，公司需要大轉(zhuǎn)型。他表示：“福特實(shí)質(zhì)上已經(jīng)破產(chǎn)40年，但沒人愿意面對(duì)這個(gè)現(xiàn)實(shí)。”

為了解決種種問題，穆拉利啟動(dòng)了“一個(gè)福特”計(jì)劃，基于“通過專注、團(tuán)隊(duì)合作和全球一致的方式，讓員工都朝著同一個(gè)目標(biāo)努力。”他從重新設(shè)計(jì)內(nèi)部會(huì)議著手。據(jù)穆拉利傳記《勇者不懼》的作者布萊斯?霍夫曼所述，過去的內(nèi)部會(huì)議都是員工努力保護(hù)自己的“決斗場(chǎng)地”，每個(gè)人都在指出別人計(jì)劃的缺陷，而不是為想辦法解決問題。穆拉利將會(huì)議的性質(zhì)由負(fù)面變?yōu)檎妫瑺I造了一種安全的氛圍，人人都可以坦誠討論，暢所欲言，不怕遭到指責(zé)。穆拉利沒有批評(píng)把問題拿到會(huì)上討論的高管，而是鼓勵(lì)大家聯(lián)手解決問題。他注意到：“如果有共同的目的，又有人人都愿意幫助他人成功的環(huán)境，問題很快就能得到解決。”

穆拉利在每周BPR里啟用了“紅綠燈”系統(tǒng)，與會(huì)高管會(huì)用紅、黃、綠三色標(biāo)示重要計(jì)劃的進(jìn)展。開過四次會(huì)議后所有計(jì)劃都被標(biāo)示為綠色，穆拉利向團(tuán)隊(duì)發(fā)難：“我們今年會(huì)虧損180億美元，究竟有沒有進(jìn)展不利的計(jì)劃？”現(xiàn)場(chǎng)一片死寂。

接下來一周，福特的北美區(qū)總裁馬克?菲爾德斯帶來了一個(gè)紅色信號(hào)，代表一款新車要推遲問世。其他高管都以為，菲爾德斯會(huì)因?yàn)閳?bào)告壞消息而被解雇。穆拉利卻開始鼓掌，并且說：“馬克，很有遠(yuǎn)見。”他又問管理團(tuán)隊(duì)：“我們?cè)鯓硬拍軒椭R克解決問題？”他經(jīng)常對(duì)手下的高管說：“你自己沒有問題，只是遇到了麻煩而已。”

穆拉利稱自己的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)風(fēng)格是“正面領(lǐng)導(dǎo)——傳遞一種車到山前必有路的觀念”。他說，正面領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的關(guān)鍵是“強(qiáng)化人人參與的觀念。當(dāng)大家覺得人人有責(zé)的時(shí)候，做事情也更有意思。在一個(gè)相互支持的環(huán)境下共事收獲也更多。”

憑借堅(jiān)定的決心和正面領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的作風(fēng)，穆拉利打造了有效解決問題和團(tuán)隊(duì)合作的企業(yè)文化。最終，他的管理團(tuán)隊(duì)帶領(lǐng)福特走出破產(chǎn)危機(jī)，提高了福特汽車的設(shè)計(jì)水平和產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量，扭轉(zhuǎn)了市場(chǎng)份額下降的局面，將海外工廠的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)帶回美國，福特在成本方面與國外同行相比競爭力大大提高，盈利能力也增強(qiáng)了。

不力的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者眼里只盯著下屬犯的錯(cuò)，而像穆拉利這樣的優(yōu)秀領(lǐng)導(dǎo)則努力讓下屬發(fā)揮出最大潛力。卓有成效的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者遵循積極心理的法則，確保與員工的互動(dòng)既正面又有建設(shè)性。盡管面對(duì)挫折，他們對(duì)未來仍保持樂觀，讓人更相信前路總有希望。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

比爾?喬治曾任全球醫(yī)療科技巨頭美敦力董事長兼首席執(zhí)行官，現(xiàn)任哈佛商學(xué)院高級(jí)研究員，著有《正確的方向：發(fā)現(xiàn)可信的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)》一書。

譯者：Pessy

校對(duì)：夏林

Much that is written about leaders these days seems to be negative: they are incompetent, arrogant, unethical, greedy, the list goes on and on.

No doubt, there is a great deal of anger and cynicism from employees, shareholders, and voters. When things go wrong in our lives, we are quick to place the blame for our ills on our leaders, and we often expect our leaders to fix things.

Are we justified in doing so? Or are we externalizing our problems by blaming those in charge? Is it time to accept responsibility for our lives and take action to make things better?

We live in an imperfect world, filled with violence, income inequality, a lack of jobs, corruption, ill health, and defective products. As much as we would like to eradicate these ills, there are no easy solutions that leaders can apply to make such problems disappear.

Meanwhile, political leaders are fanning the flames of anger and distrust in order to gain popular support. Their words are intensified by the 24-hour news cycle, with every outlet looking to gain viewers by highlighting the urgency of these ills.

This atmosphere brings out the worst in us. All we are doing is further dividing the country between rich and poor, conservatives and liberals, free traders and protectionists, hawks and doves. The next American president will be no more able to eliminate these problems than the last two have been. And blaming the media doesn’t solve anything because their incentive structure is built on giving people stories they want to grow the size of their audience.

In business, activist investors assault corporate boards with simplistic, short-term solutions to break up companies, leverage their balance sheets, or buy back stock by cutting investment required for their strategic success. These investors can find something to criticize at every company. And shareholders often give them the benefit of the doubt in order to see near-term bumps in stock prices.

But toxic leadership comes at a great cost. Such leaders create environments that bring out the worst in people and drag everyone down. Like malignant tumors, negative attitudes spread throughout organizations until everyone is playing “the blame game” and avoiding responsibility for the problems they create. Once this happens, organizations are on a path to self-destruction, creating in their wake enormous harm for employees and shareholders alike. At this point, the organization is no longer able to sustain itself and begins to unravel. That’s what happened to Sears, General Motors, Lehman Brothers, Kodak, and other victims of politics, cynicism, and short-term thinking.

Authentic leaders, by contrast, try to bring out the best in people. They aim to see others’ potential, to empower people to take responsibility for their actions, and to work together to make things better for all people. That’s what great political leaders like Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Nelson Mandela have done in years past. It is what today’s leaders in business, health care, nonprofits, academia, and yes – in politics – need to do to bring us together to make life better for all people and to ameliorate our ills.

Sustainable, meaningful progress of any kind comes with a multitude of trials and tribulations. Yet the best leaders find ways to celebrate the incremental victories. As I highlight in my latest book, Discover Your True North, recent scientific research shows that positive approaches to empower people is amust-have leadership trait. By and large, the leaders I know are doing just that. They are doing their best to encourage people to grow, contribute, and live happy and meaningful lives. To use the words of author Adam Grant, they are “givers,” not “takers.”

This approach is consistent with the positive psychology movement pioneered by psychologist Martin Seligman. The three aims of positive psychology are:

Building human strength

Making the lives of people fulfilling

Nurturing the talent that resides in all of us

In his book Focus, Daniel Goleman describes multiple experiments that demonstrate the impact of positive interactions with employees. One experiment showed employees perceived negative feedback more favorably when it was delivered in warm, supportive tones. When good news or positive feedback was delivered in negative tones, employees left the discussions feeling poorly, instead of feeling elated by their successes. Seligman’s research shows a 3:1 “positive-to-negative” statements ratio is necessary for healthy professional relationships.

When organizations hit roadblocks, people naturally get upset, and often their anger shows, but that doesn’t resolve anything. As Positive Intelligence author ShirzadChamine says, there is an inner, often unconscious dialogue going on between your “sage” and your “saboteurs.” As leaders recognize this dialogue, they will be alert to avoiding negative responses that sabotage healthy relationships. By inquiring rather than directing, leaders can find opportunities within the challenges their organizations face. They also can build better relationships with colleagues who count on them to help solve problems.

Alan Mulally’s Positive Transformation at Ford

Navigating severe challenges requires strong, courageous, and authentic leaders. That’s what Alan Mulally offered at Ford Motor.

On his first day as Ford’s CEO in 2006, Mulally asked to tour Ford’s famous Rouge plant where Henry Ford created the Model T. Mulally was informed by one of his top executives, “Our leaders don’t talk directly to factory employees.” Ignoring that advice, he went to the plant immediately to talk to front-line workers.

Mullaly also set up mandatory weekly management meetings he called the business process review (BPR) for his top executives to get to the root cause of Ford’s long-standing problems. He quickly discovered that Ford’s challenges went way beyond financial losses: the culture at Ford was broken and in need of massive transformation. He observed, “Ford had been going out of business for 40 years, and no one would face that reality.”

In response, Mulally developed One Ford, an initiative based on “focus, teamwork and a single global approach, aligning employee efforts toward a common definition of success.” He started by redesigning internal meetings. As described in Bryce Hoffman’s American Icon, meetings had become “arenas for mortal combat” in which employees practiced self-preservation, trying to identify flaws in each other’s plans instead of recommending solutions to their problems.

Mulally reframed these meetings from negative to positive, fostering a safe environment where people had open and honest discussions without fear of blame. Instead of attacking executives for the issues they brought to the table, Mulally encouraged collaborative approaches to problem solving. He noted, “If you have a common purpose and an environment in which people want to help others succeed, the problems will be fixed quickly.”

Mulally introduced a “traffic light” system to weekly BPRs in which executives indicated progress on key initiatives as green, yellow, or red. After four meetings in which all programs were labelled green, Mulally confronted his team, “We are going to lose $18 billion this year, so is there anything that’s not going well?” His question was met with stony silence.

The following week, Ford’s North American President, Mark Fields, showed a red indicator that a new vehicle launch would be delayed. Other executives assumed Fields would be fired over the bad news. Instead, Mulally began clapping and said, “Mark, that is great visibility.” He asked the group, “What can we do to help Mark out?” As he frequently told his leaders, “You have a problem;you are not the problem.”

Mulally describes his leadership style as “positive leadership—conveying the idea that there is always a way forward.” He says a critical part of positive leadership is “reinforcing the idea that everyone is included. When people feel accountable and included, it is more fun. It is just more rewarding to do things in a supportive environment.”

With determination and positive leadership, Mulally created a culture of effective problem solving and teamwork. As a result, his team kept Ford out of bankruptcy, reversed market share losses with improved auto designs and quality, brought jobs back to the U.S. from overseas plants, and restored the company’s profitability by becoming cost competitive with foreign producers.

Weak leaders focus on all the things that are going wrong. Great leaders like Mulally bring out the best in us. The most effective leaders apply the principles of positive psychology, ensuring their interactions with employees contain a healthy balance of positive and constructive feedback. They maintain an optimistic outlook despite the setbacks, reinforcing that there is a hopeful way forward.

Bill George is Senior Fellow at Harvard Business School, former Chairman & CEO of Medtronic, and author of Discover Your True North.