手機版
Conventional wisdom tells us that leaders are the men and women who stand up, speak out, give orders, make plans and are generally the most dominant, outgoing people in a group. But that is not always the case, according to new research on leadership and group dynamics from Wharton management professor Adam Grant and two colleagues, who challenge the assumption that the most effective leaders are extraverts。
In fact, introverted leaders can be more effective than extraverts in certain circumstances. The determining factor is who leaders are managing, according to Grant and co-authors Francesca Gino of Harvard Business School and David Hofmann of the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School.
Extraverted leadership involves commanding the center of attention: being outgoing, assertive, bold, talkative and dominant. This offers the advantages of providing a clear authority structure and direction. However, pairing extraverted leaders with employees who take initiative and speak out can lead to friction, while pairing the same group of employees with an introverted leader can be a pathway to success, the researchers note. This has implications for leaders and managers at all levels who want to improve their own leadership styles. "If you look at existing leadership research, extraversion stands out as the most consistent and robust predictor of who becomes a leader and who is rated an effective leader," Grant says. "But I thought this was incomplete. It tells us little about the situations in which introverted leaders can be more effective than extraverted leaders."
So he and his fellow researchers began looking at the issue through the lens of a business that could easily track productivity and team effectiveness -- pizza delivery franchises。
"We wanted to study an organization where we could actually see differences in performance, and where people were generally doing the same work," Grant notes. "If there is variation in franchise profitability, as a function of who leads and who your employees are, then that would be a very powerful statement about the true impact of a leader on a group."
Threatened By Proactivity
The researchers obtained data from a national pizza delivery company. They sent questionnaires to 130 stores and received complete responses from 57; the responses included 57 store leaders and 374 employees. To adjust for differences in location that were beyond the leaders' influence, the researchers also controlled for the average price of pizza orders and worker hours. Leaders were asked to rate their own extraversion -- the degree to which they commanded the center of attention by acting talkative, assertive, outgoing and dominant. Employees were asked to rate levels of proactive behavior in the store, such as improving procedures, correcting faulty practices, speaking up with ideas and stating opinions about work issues。
What Grant and his colleagues found was a simple inverse relationship: When employees are proactive, introverted managers lead them to earn higher profits. When employees are not proactive, extraverted managers lead them to higher profits. "These proactive behaviors are especially important in a dynamic and uncertain economy, but because extraverted leaders like to be the center of attention, they tend to be threatened by employee proactivity," Grant notes. "Introverted leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to listen carefully to suggestions and support employees' efforts to be proactive."
Pairing an extraverted leader with a proactive team, he says, can hurt, not just hinder, the company's effectiveness. "Once the extraverted leader responds in a less receptive way, that becomes discouraging for employees and makes them less willing to work hard," Grant states. "It may also make them less willing to share ideas in the future, which would limit creativity and innovation."
In fact, the personality conflicts can lead to a power struggle within an organization, openly pitting leaders against employees. This is especially true in companies or groups with a flat hierarchy -- for example, if the leaders were recently promoted from the peer level, or if a new leader's competence and skills are not yet established. Such situations would "be much more likely to lead employees to challenge, and leaders to feel threatened," a situation known as "status uncertainty," according to Grant。
"If you are leading a pizza franchise, you are often doing this as your full-time job, and you might be managing high school and college students who have a different set of aspirations and, in some cases, might actually look down upon you as the leader," Grant points out. At that point, an employee with a better idea for how to get orders processed efficiently on Super Bowl night, or a suggestion for a new coupon or special deal, could make extraverted leaders feel like their "status is being threatened. They might say, 'I'm supposed to be in charge here. Let me reassert my authority.' Whereas the introverted leader, with less of a concern for position, status and power -- and a willingness to spend more time listening and less time talking -- is likely to quietly process the ideas that come up. That leader is worrying less about the ego or image implications of employees taking charge and introducing ideas."
The T-shirt Challenge
The research team also conducted another study that looked specifically at extraverted leadership behavior, not just self-reported traits. They took 163 college students from a university in the Southeastern U.S. and designated them as team members and leaders in a T-shirt folding group. The aim was to fold as many shirts as possible in 10 minutes, with iPods as a reward for the top performers。
Some students were randomly assigned to lead in either an extraverted or introverted manner. The extraverted leaders were given examples of famous leaders who were bold, talkative and assertive, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jack Welch. The introverted leaders were given examples of famous leaders who were quiet and reserved, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. Both groups were then asked to reflect on a time when they led effectively in a similar manner. Meanwhile, two other graduate students, or "confederates," were paired with each group and secretly told to act either passively or proactively, with proactive confederates offering a new, efficient away to fold T-shirts。
The researchers found a significant interaction between extraverted leadership and proactive behavior that meshed with the findings from the pizza study. When the confederates were passive, teams performed better when led in an extraverted manner, but when the confederates were proactive, teams performed better when led in an introverted manner. "When the confederates were proactive, participants perceived the more extraverted leaders as less receptive to ideas, and they invested less effort in the task," the researchers write。
The implications of the power struggle for the leader-employee relationship and labor relations became very clear, according to Grant. "At some level, the power struggle is finished, with the leader asserting authority and the employees saying, 'We're not going to work as hard on your behalf.'" The employees basically decided that "Hey, these leaders are not receptive to good ideas .... We don't really have a ton of respect for the leader. We don't want this leader to be one of the top performers. We want to feel, at the end of the day, like our ideas are valued and our contributions are appreciated."
Interestingly, neither the introverted leaders nor the extraverted leaders showed higher productivity or profitability than the other. The difference, Grant and his researchers found, was in the pairing of leaders and employees。
"It shows that introverted and extraverted leadership styles can be equally effective, but with different groups of employees," he says. "As a social scientist, this is appealing -- people in organizations are sufficiently complex that you can rarely ever conclude that one style is always more effective than another.... Our research provides insight into when each style is effective, as opposed to trying to test which one is better -- which I think is the wrong question."
Given these conclusions, why does the popular view persist that extraverts are better leaders across the board? The authors point to several possible reasons: One is that extraverts are often perceived as more effective because of a "halo effect." "This may occur because extraverted leaders match the prototypes of charismatic leaders that dominate both [Western and Eastern cultures] and are especially prevalent in business," they write. One online survey of 1,500 senior leaders earning at least six-figure salaries found that 65% actually saw introversion as a negative quality in terms of leadership。
Creating Space for Employees
Grant says the study has broad implications for corporate leaders who want to examine their own leadership styles as well as make changes in the lower management ranks. "We tend to assume that we need to be extremely enthusiastic, outgoing and assertive, and we try to bring employees on board with a lot of excitement, a clear vision and direction," Grant says, "but there is real value in a leader being more reserved, quieter, in some cases silent, in order to create space for employees to enter the dialogue."
He worked with the CEO of one Fortune 500 company who has a policy of silence for the first 15 minutes of meetings. He does not utter a single word, although he is an extravert. "He feels that he has a tendency, once he gets excited about ideas, to run with them to the point where, at times, it leaves employees feeling like they weren't included," Grant says. "So he tries to combat that: 'I want you guys to tell me whatever you're thinking about -- suggestions, feedback, questions -- and the floor is yours.' He listens quietly and takes notes."
There are also lessons to be learned about giving employees authority and autonomy to make decisions on their own -- "providing them with choice about what work they do, as well as how, when and where they complete it," Grant notes. "One of the strongest predictors of proactivity is a sense of responsibility for the larger team or department or organization. When employees feel like they are responsible for a larger unit, they are much more likely to broaden their roles beyond their specific individual job descriptions."
So how can managers actually implement some of the lessons from the study? Grant suggests that once prospective team members have the required skills and expertise, leaders can explicitly look at personality in making the final selection -- examining both the employees and the managers, figuring out which teams will work best together. "When I have extraverted leaders, if I have the opportunity I tend to invite in some of the less proactive employees who I think are more likely to want a clear, dominant vision from a leader and who are also more likely to get energized, to step a little bit out of their comfort zones."
And how do you identify those employees who might fit better with an introverted leader at the helm? By looking and listening, Grant says. "Proactive employees, by definition, spend more of their time and energy taking initiative -- whether that's in terms of generating ideas, coming up with a new work process, staying late to help their colleagues or even going out of their way to seek feedback. You develop a reputation pretty quickly for that set of tendencies."
Extraverted leaders also need to be careful to delegate responsibility to proactive employees, Grant suggests -- putting such workers in areas where they have ideas for moving forward or want to take on larger responsibility. These leaders also should actively solicit feedback, positive and negative, and listen to it. Some companies employ 360-degree feedback surveys, but those can be harder to use in small groups. "Asking for advice from employees on how to change can kill two birds with one stone," Grant says. "It allows the leader to actually learn, and it creates opportunities for employees to contribute right there and then."
參考譯文：
傳統觀念總是認為領導者都是那些積極表現、勇於發言、擅於發號施令、製定計劃的人，通常在人群中處於最主導的地位。然而事實未必如此。沃頓商學院管理學教授亞當•格蘭特(Adam Grant)與兩位同事近期就領導力和群體動力學發表最新研究，對最高效的領導者往往是外向的人這一傳統假設提出了質疑。
事實上，在某些環境下，內向的領導者要比外向的領導者更加高效，關鍵就在於被領導的人。格蘭特在與哈佛商學院的弗蘭切斯卡• 吉諾(Francesca Gino)以及北卡羅來納大學克南-弗拉格勒商學院的大衛•霍夫曼(David Hofmann)共同撰寫的研究報告中提出了這一論點。
這份報告指出，外向型領導風格意味著成為注意力的中心：開朗、決斷、大膽、能neng言yan善shan辯bian並bing有you能neng力li占zhan據ju主zhu導dao地di位wei。這zhe種zhong領ling導dao者zhe能neng提ti供gong明ming確que的de權quan力li結jie構gou和he發fa展zhan方fang向xiang。但dan是shi，如ru果guo這zhe些xie領ling導dao者zhe所suo管guan理li的de員yuan工gong同tong樣yang具ju有you良liang好hao的de主zhu動dong性xing並bing勇yong於yu發fa言yan，就jiu有you可ke能neng產chan生sheng摩mo擦ca。而er如ru果guo把ba這zhe些xie員yuan工gong與yu內nei向xiang型xing領ling導dao組zu合he起qi來lai，就jiu可ke以yi通tong往wang成cheng功gong。
這對於任何想要改善領導風格的領導者和管理者而言都具有一定的指導意義。“縱觀當下流行的領導力研究報告，外向的性格總是一致被看作是成為一名領導者以及高效領導者的最重要因素，”格蘭特表示：“但我認為這種觀點並不完善。某些情況下，內向型領導者可能比外向型更為有效，而傳統觀點並沒有涉及這一領域。”
zaizhezhongbeijingxia，gelantehetadeyanjiuhuobanshituyimouzhongrongyigenzongshengchanlihetuanduixiaolvdejingyingyewuweiduixiang，jiushangshuwentijinxingguanchafenxi。tamenxuanqulepisawaisongliansuodian。
“我們希望選取那些容易比較業務績效的企業，且組織內部的人員所從事的工作具有同質性，”格蘭特表示。“作為有領導者以及被領導者的組織，如果各分店的盈利性出現差異，那麼就可以證明領導者對群體的真實影響。”
主動性帶來的威脅
研究人員從一家全國性的披薩外送公司獲取數據。向130家門店發送了問卷調查，其中57家門店反饋了完整的信息，這些反饋來自於57位門店經理和374位(wei)員(yuan)工(gong)。為(wei)了(le)排(pai)除(chu)不(bu)受(shou)領(ling)導(dao)力(li)影(ying)響(xiang)的(de)地(di)段(duan)差(cha)異(yi)等(deng)因(yin)素(su)，研(yan)究(jiu)人(ren)員(yuan)還(hai)對(dui)披(pi)薩(sa)訂(ding)單(dan)的(de)平(ping)均(jun)價(jia)格(ge)和(he)工(gong)作(zuo)小(xiao)時(shi)數(shu)進(jin)行(xing)了(le)控(kong)製(zhi)。在(zai)問(wen)卷(juan)中(zhong)，領(ling)導(dao)者(zhe)需(xu)對(dui)自(zi)己(ji)的(de)外(wai)向(xiang)程(cheng)度(du)進(jin)行(xing)評(ping)分(fen)——即通過言辭、決斷力、開朗的性格和主導力能夠在多大程度上引導注意力。而員工則需對自己在門店工作中的主動行為進行評分，例如積極改善流程、糾正不良行為、大膽表達自己的想法以及發表對工作問題的意見。
格蘭特和他的研究夥伴發現領導者及其員工呈現出一種直接簡單的反向關係：如果員工主動性高，內向型管理人員能夠帶領他們創造更高的盈利；如果員工不是那麼的積極主動，那麼外向型管理人員則更能夠帶領他們創造高盈利。“在zai動dong態tai且qie不bu確que定ding的de經jing濟ji中zhong，這zhe種zhong主zhu動dong的de行xing為wei尤you其qi重zhong要yao，但dan由you於yu外wai向xiang型xing領ling導dao者zhe本ben身shen就jiu容rong易yi成cheng為wei注zhu意yi力li的de中zhong心xin，因yin此ci員yuan工gong太tai過guo主zhu動dong反fan而er可ke能neng令ling他ta們men遭zao受shou威wei脅xie，”格蘭特表示“相反，內向型領導者更傾向於認真聽取建議，並支持員工發揮主觀能動性。”
同(tong)時(shi)，格(ge)蘭(lan)特(te)還(hai)進(jin)一(yi)步(bu)指(zhi)出(chu)，如(ru)果(guo)將(jiang)積(ji)極(ji)主(zhu)動(dong)的(de)員(yuan)工(gong)與(yu)外(wai)向(xiang)型(xing)領(ling)導(dao)者(zhe)相(xiang)組(zu)合(he)，那(na)麼(me)不(bu)僅(jin)僅(jin)會(hui)阻(zu)礙(ai)，甚(shen)至(zhi)可(ke)能(neng)會(hui)損(sun)害(hai)公(gong)司(si)的(de)經(jing)營(ying)效(xiao)率(lv)。他(ta)認(ren)為(wei)“如(ru)果(guo)外(wai)向(xiang)型(xing)領(ling)導(dao)者(zhe)不(bu)能(neng)很(hen)好(hao)地(di)接(jie)受(shou)建(jian)議(yi)，就(jiu)會(hui)讓(rang)員(yuan)工(gong)感(gan)到(dao)沮(ju)喪(sang)，降(jiang)低(di)他(ta)們(men)對(dui)工(gong)作(zuo)的(de)積(ji)極(ji)性(xing)。同(tong)時(shi)，還(hai)會(hui)讓(rang)他(ta)們(men)變(bian)得(de)不(bu)願(yuan)分(fen)享(xiang)觀(guan)點(dian)，從(cong)而(er)限(xian)製(zhi)創(chuang)造(zao)力(li)和(he)創(chuang)新(xin)。”
事shi實shi上shang，性xing格ge衝chong突tu可ke能neng會hui導dao致zhi組zu織zhi內nei權quan力li無wu法fa發fa揮hui，造zao成cheng領ling導dao與yu員yuan工gong的de公gong開kai對dui抗kang。如ru果guo公gong司si或huo群qun體ti采cai取qu的de是shi扁bian平ping式shi的de組zu織zhi架jia構gou，這zhe一yi問wen題ti則ze會hui更geng為wei突tu出chu——舉例來說，如果平級的同事近期內獲得提升成為領導，或是新領導的能力和技巧尚未成熟的情況下，就有可能“誘發員工對權威的挑戰，並讓領導遭受威脅”。格蘭特把這種情況稱為“地位不確定”(status uncertainty)。
“如(ru)果(guo)你(ni)是(shi)一(yi)家(jia)披(pi)薩(sa)連(lian)鎖(suo)店(dian)的(de)管(guan)理(li)人(ren)員(yuan)，你(ni)通(tong)常(chang)會(hui)將(jiang)其(qi)作(zuo)為(wei)全(quan)職(zhi)工(gong)作(zuo)，而(er)你(ni)管(guan)理(li)的(de)人(ren)員(yuan)可(ke)能(neng)是(shi)些(xie)高(gao)中(zhong)生(sheng)和(he)大(da)學(xue)生(sheng)，他(ta)們(men)有(you)著(zhe)不(bu)一(yi)樣(yang)的(de)誌(zhi)向(xiang)，有(you)時(shi)還(hai)很(hen)可(ke)能(neng)對(dui)你(ni)這(zhe)個(ge)領(ling)導(dao)根(gen)本(ben)不(bu)屑(xie)一(yi)顧(gu)，”格蘭特說道。“這時，如果有員工提出改善流程，從而能在‘超級碗’比賽當晚送出更多的披薩或是有員工提出發放新的優惠券或特別優惠的建議時，外向型領導會覺得他們的‘地位受到了威脅’。他們很可能會說‘我才是這裏的負責人。讓我重申一下我的權力’。而內向型領導人則不那麼在乎職級、diweihequanli，tamenshuodebuduo，bingyuanyihuagengduodeshijianlaitingqujianyi，ruguoyudaotongyangdeqingkuang，tamenhenkenenghuianjingdicainabingzhixingzhexiejianyi。zhezhonglingdaozhebuhuitaizaiyiziwo，yebuhuixiangxiangyuangongkenengduoqutamendeweizhi、施加自己的觀點。
疊T恤比賽帶來的啟示
yanjiuxiaozuhaijinxinglelingyixiangyanjiu，duiwaixiangxinglingdaodexingweijinxingzaixiguancha，erbujinjinyilaiyuzhexielingdaozhedeziwomiaoshu。yanjiurenyuanzaimeiguodongnanbudeyisuodaxuexuanqule163位大學生，並把他們分為不同的小組，每個小組都有成員和組長。他們的任務是在10分鍾之內疊好盡量多的T恤，疊的最多的小組的每位成員都可以獲得一個iPod作為獎勵。
研究人員隨機挑選了部分學生作為組長，既有外向型，也有內向型。對於外向型的組長，研究人員向他們展示了那些以大膽、能neng言yan善shan辯bian和he決jue斷duan力li著zhu稱cheng的de著zhu名ming領ling導dao人ren的de例li子zi，例li如ru小xiao馬ma丁ding路lu德de金jin和he傑jie克ke威wei爾er士shi。而er針zhen對dui內nei向xiang型xing組zu長chang，研yan究jiu人ren員yuan則ze向xiang他ta們men展zhan示shi了le類lei似si聖sheng雄xiong甘gan地di和he阿e伯bo拉la罕han林lin肯ken等deng安an靜jing保bao守shou的de著zhu名ming領ling導dao者zhe形xing象xiang。之zhi後hou，需xu要yao兩liang組zu人ren員yuan按an照zhao所suo展zhan示shi的de風feng格ge來lai有you效xiao地di領ling導dao他ta們men的de團tuan隊dui。與yu此ci同tong時shi，研yan究jiu人ren員yuan還hai選xuan取qu了le另ling外wai兩liang名ming大da學xue生sheng作zuo為wei“盟友”，並將其分配給兩個小組，暗中讓他們采取被動或主動的表現。配合采取主動表現的“盟友”需要向組長建議一種新型高效地疊衣服方式。
yanjiurenyuanfaxianzaiwaixiangxinglingdaofenggehezhudongxingxingweizhijiancunzaizhezhongyaodehudongguanxi，yupisayanjiudejieguoyizhi。mengyoucaiqubeidongbiaoxianshi，waixiangxinglingdaofenggedailingxiadetuanduiqudelegenghaodejixiao；而當盟友采取主動表現時，則是內向型領導風格下的團隊取得更高的成績。“當盟友表現積極時，小組成員會認為外向型領導人不能很好地接受意見，因此也就不願意賣力工作，”研究人員在報告中如此分析。
領導者和員工關係以及勞動關係之間權力的對抗變得非常明顯，格蘭特說，“當領導者重申權力，員工表示‘我們才不會為你賣力工作’時，權力的對抗就會結束。”然而員工會認為“瞧，這些領導人根本不接受好的意見…我wo們men沒mei必bi要yao對dui他ta們men表biao示shi尊zun敬jing。我wo們men可ke不bu想xiang讓rang這zhe種zhong人ren奪duo第di一yi。我wo們men希xi望wang在zai一yi天tian結jie束shu的de時shi候hou，能neng讓rang他ta們men體ti會hui到dao我wo們men的de意yi見jian是shi有you價jia值zhi的de，我wo們men的de貢gong獻xian能neng夠gou得de到dao認ren可ke。”
youqudeshi，jiuyinglixingeryan，waixiangxinglingdaozheheneixiangxinglingdaozhebenshenbingbucunzaishuyoushulie。gelantehetadeyanjiuhuobanfaxian，zhenzhengdechayilaiziyulingdaozhehebeilingdaozhedezuhe。
“事實證明內向型和外向型領導風格的效率不分上下，但成員組合的方式不同，就會對結果造成差異，”格蘭特表示。“作為一名社會科學家，這樣的結論無疑有著重大的意義——一個組織內的成員結構非常複雜，你很難說哪種風格就一定比另一種風格更有效…我們的研究著重在於在何種環境下哪種風格更有效，而不是簡單地嚐試證明哪種更好——我認為這根本就是個錯誤的命題。”
既然結論如此，那麼為什麼整體而言流行觀點都認為外向型的人才是更好的領導者呢？報告給出了幾個可能的原因：其中之一就是“暈輪效應”(halo effect)。“造成這種觀點的原因可能是因為外向型領導人更符合東西方文化中人們對於魅力型領導者的描繪，這一點在商場上尤為突出，”報告指出。一項針對收入在六位數以上的1500位高級管理人員的在線調查顯示，65%的受訪者認為內向是影響領導力的負麵品質。
為員工創造空間
格蘭特表示他們的研究對於希望改善領導風格、改革低層管理級別的企業管理人員來說有著廣泛的意義。“我們總是傾向於認為我們需要表現得熱情、開朗並富有決斷力，嚐試讓員工感到興奮，為他們描繪清晰的願景、指明方向，”格蘭特說，“但事實上，有時候領導者需要采取更為保守和安靜的姿態，某些情況下，甚至是一言不發，從而為員工創造更多的參與對話的空間。”
格蘭特曾與一家財富500強企業的CEO共事，這位CEO為自己定了一個規矩，即在會議開始的15分鍾內保持緘默，不說一句話——盡管他是個非常外向的人。“他發現他有種傾向，就是一旦想到一個他認為很棒的點子，就急於讓員工接受，有時，這會讓員工覺得自己並沒有參與在過程中，”格蘭特表示，“所以他嚐試改變這一現象：‘我希望你們告訴我你們的任何想法——建議、反饋或是疑問——這個舞台是你們的。’而他則會安靜的聆聽並記錄重點。”
對於為員工提供更大的權力和決策自主權——即“讓員工選擇做什麼工作、如何做、何時及何處完成工作”——研究報告也給出了許多值得借鑒的意見。格蘭特指出：“想xiang讓rang員yuan工gong變bian得de積ji極ji主zhu動dong的de一yi個ge最zui重zhong要yao因yin素su就jiu是shi培pei養yang他ta們men對dui於yu大da團tuan體ti或huo部bu門men或huo整zheng個ge企qi業ye的de責ze任ren感gan。如ru果guo員yuan工gong覺jiao得de自zi己ji應ying該gai為wei集ji體ti利li益yi負fu責ze，他ta們men就jiu會hui在zai特te定ding的de個ge人ren崗gang位wei描miao述shu範fan圍wei之zhi外wai，主zhu動dong承cheng擔dan更geng多duo的de責ze任ren。”
那na麼me管guan理li人ren員yuan應ying當dang如ru何he將jiang研yan究jiu報bao告gao中zhong的de發fa現xian運yun用yong到dao實shi踐jian中zhong呢ne？格ge蘭lan特te建jian議yi一yi旦dan潛qian在zai的de團tuan隊dui成cheng員yuan已yi經jing掌zhang握wo必bi需xu的de技ji能neng和he專zhuan業ye知zhi識shi，領ling導dao者zhe就jiu可ke以yi開kai始shi觀guan察cha他ta們men的de性xing格ge，以yi便bian進jin行xing最zui終zhong的de團tuan隊dui組zu合he——領導者應對員工及管理人員同時進行觀察，思考如何組合成員才能讓團隊發揮最大的效率。“如果我的管理人員都是外向型的，那麼有機會的話，我會傾向於招一些不是那麼主動的員工，這些員工更能夠從領導那裏獲得清晰、主導性的願景，更容易被鼓舞，從而發揮更大的積極性。”
至於如何定義那些適合內向型風格領導的員工，格蘭特認為可以靠觀察和聆聽。“積極主動的員工會花更多的時間和精力來主導自己的工作——無論是提出建議、規劃新的工作流程、加班幫助同事或是超越自己的工作範圍來征求反饋。你會很快發現這些趨勢和特征。”
除chu此ci之zhi外wai，外wai向xiang型xing領ling導dao在zai下xia放fang責ze任ren給gei主zhu動dong性xing員yuan工gong時shi也ye需xu保bao持chi謹jin慎shen，格ge蘭lan特te指zhi出chu，應ying當dang讓rang這zhe些xie員yuan工gong從cong事shi他ta們men所suo希xi望wang的de領ling域yu，這zhe樣yang他ta們men才cai會hui有you動dong力li前qian進jin並bing承cheng擔dan更geng大da的de責ze任ren。這zhe些xie領ling導dao者zhe還hai應ying該gai主zhu動dong搜sou集ji反fan饋kui，無wu論lun是shi正zheng麵mian還hai是shi負fu麵mian意yi見jian都dou應ying該gai悉xi心xin接jie受shou。有you些xie公gong司si會hui采cai用yong360度全麵反饋調查，但這很難適用於小的群體。“向員工征詢如何進行改革的意見可謂是一石二鳥的舉措，”格蘭特說道，“既可以讓領導更多地了解員工的想法，也可以為員工創造更大的貢獻空間。”
