批評，不一定要傷人！6種具建設性的批評

整理·撰文 / 陳芳毓；取材自《辭職不幹前該想的48件事》，世潮出版


批評可能引發憤怒、傷害和攻擊，但批評也可以改善工作、激勵他人，甚至在解決問題的過程中建立革命情感。

負面批評是對自尊、效率和態度造成傷害的破壞性力量，也是讓人討厭工作的主要原因。

4種要避免的負面情緒批評

以下4種造成負面情緒的批評方式，應儘量避免：

X造成攻擊的批評：
「你真以為這樣子做事會有任何效果嗎？」

X造成威脅的批評：
「你最好趕快提升你的電腦技巧，否則一定會影響到工作。」

X造成侮辱的批評：
「你花多少時間準備你的簡報？它真是糟透了。」

X造成困窘的批評：
「我們可以把他的工作成果貼在布告欄，做為錯誤的範例。」

建設性批評的6個做法

批評，不一定要語出責備。參考以下6種做法，可以幫你做出更具建設性的批評。

○語帶關心的批評：
「我希望你能順利完成這項工作。讓我跟你分享一個成功的祕訣。」

○不潑冷水的批評：
當對方情緒低落或接受讚美時，不要用批評讓他們更沮喪，或破壞他們的興致。選個雙方都心情平靜的時間，確定你的批評是在私下進行的。

○可被執行的批評：
只需討論下一次能夠做到的事情，並且確定遭到批評的人，有足夠的時間、空間或能力，去改善你所批評的情況。例如，要求同事改變工作方向，卻規定完成期限不得後延，就只會讓對方失去信心、感到洩氣。

○舉例明確的批評：
含糊不清的批評，只會造成充滿疑慮的情感隔閡。清楚舉出你認為對方有所缺失的例子，並且提出你認為有助於改善的方法。

○願意傾聽的批評：
問問接受批評的人，事後有什麼感覺。仔細聽他說，判斷他是否了解你的話。

○不說「應該」的批評：
不要說「你知道嗎？你其實應該這樣子寫報告。」當你的態度抱持開放且具有建設性，而不是僵硬賣弄知識時，你的批評就比較容易被接受。要開放不同的選擇，讓對方以創造性的方式來思考，進而提出更好的構想。

邏輯思考4道習題，鍛鍊正確判斷力

整理‧撰文 / 文及元，取材自《邏輯思考力》，西村克已著，三采文化出版

邏輯思考不是學術象牙塔裡的長篇大論，而是日常生活與職場裡都能派上用場的實用技巧。養成做出正確判斷的習慣，就是邏輯思考的基礎。做做以下4個邏輯思考的練習題，將有助於培養精準的「判斷力」。

邏輯思考練習題1
見樹又見林，了解全貌
【案例提要】為了爭取客戶，公司在正式對外提案前，先進行內部提案審查。在參加內審的兩名員工之中，A小姐天性謹慎，個性一板一眼，雖然對於細節解說得非常清楚，卻讓人無法抓到大方向。B先生明確說明了提案的大方向，整體描述也不錯。
【狀況】如何判斷口才較好的是A小姐？還是B先生？
【判斷選項】
1.A小姐說明仔細、淺顯易懂
2.A小姐說明瑣碎、很難了解
3.B先生對描述明確，抓得住大方向，較容易接受
4.B先生最好能針對細節再多加說明

【思考過程】提案的訣竅在於先讓客戶掌握全貌，再進一步說明細節，以增加客戶同意提案的機率。A小姐從細節開始說明，見樹不見林，很難讓聽者抓到整體概念，也容易混亂聽者的思考。B先生的說明能協助聽者了解全貌，但最好能針對細節充分說明，以讓聽者更容易理解。
【思考後的判斷】234

邏輯思考練習題2
不同對象，要用不同手法
【案例提要】老王工作能力很強、做事很有魄力。最近，太太說想換一台液晶電視，老王調查了各個機種的價格、性能與機種，決定試圖說服太太購買某個品牌。
【狀況】老王做了那麼多功課，對太太也說明得非常清楚，如何判斷太太不接受建議的原因？
【判斷選項】
1.市面上的液晶電視有60種，老王只調查20種
2.太太的感性大於理性
3.太太聽不進有邏輯、理性的分析
4.比起液晶電視，太太其實更想買電漿電視

【思考過程】
為了說服非特定多數人，提出的理由必須更強調邏輯。不過，對於經常見面的朋友或同事而言，「凡事講理」有時候反而行不通，只會讓人格外緊繃，尤其是夫妻之 間，太太通常不喜歡丈夫總是講「理」。所以，雖然老王調查過60種品牌，太太應該也不會改變她原有的心意，因為女性多半較為感性，通常不喜歡聽有條有理的 理性分析。
【思考後的判斷】234

邏輯思考練習題3
能在短時間內說服別人
【案例說明】辦公室同事C小姐總是喜歡天馬行空地漫談，聽她說話的人心中常會出現OS（旁白）：「小姐，妳的重點到底是什麼？」另一位同事D先生的自我意識很強，經常強迫對方接受自己的想法，他的口頭禪是：「你也這樣想吧！」其實D先生的意見經常讓人無法恭維。
【狀況】如何判斷這兩人誰真的是「說話沒重點」呢？
【判斷選項】
1.C小姐滔滔不絕地長篇大論，表示她口才很好
2.C小姐說話內容空泛、下不了結論
3.D先生缺乏「讓他人接受自己看法」的說服力
4.D先生的主張明確，很有邏輯

【思考過程】長篇大論並不等於口才好；無法做出結論的對話，就形同浪費彼此時間的空談；主張不夠明確，就無法說服對方；即使主張明確，說服力不足，也不能算是合乎邏輯。在職場上，最佳溝通方式就是「在短時間內做出結論」。
【思考後的判斷】23

邏輯思考練習題4
找出問題點，再對症下藥
【案例說明】業務課員工一個比一個愛講電話，業務課長煩惱不已，心想：「長話短說很難嗎？」而且，要是經常因為員工電話講太久，導致顧客的緊急電話打不進來，可就更不好了。
【狀況】業務課長如何解決業務人員「煲電話粥」（電話占線）的問題？
【判斷選項】
1.增加電話線，就不怕漏接緊急電話
2.要求所有員工每通電話，一定要在2分鐘內結束
3.進行調查，了解電話講很久的原因
4.設置總機，減輕業務部的負擔

【思考過程】不找出問題點就思考解決方法，只會流於「治標不治本」。因此，首要之務是先了解「員工為什麼總要講很久的電話」，之後再對症下藥。
增加電話線固然能減少占線情況，但如果客戶致電要找的業務人員仍在電話中，也無濟於事。要求所有員工在2分鐘內講完電話，雖說也是一種解決方法，卻可能讓通話對象對員工留下「很沒禮貌」的不良印象。至於設置總機，則不但會增加成本，更會造成客戶和業務員之間的關係疏遠。
【思考後的判斷】3

養成4個小習慣，時間分秒不浪費

整理、撰文 / 文及元；取材自《時間活用術》，弘兼憲史著，晨星出版。

忙碌的現代人常有「時間不夠用」的困擾，而新年開端的一月，正好是擬定計畫、重新檢視時間管理的最佳時機。以下4個時間管理訣竅，可讓自己更有效地運用時間，以提升工作效率。



1.集中處理電子郵件
每天寄來信箱的電郵多達數十封、甚至上百封，立即逐一回覆，並非最好的方式，因為必須打斷自己原有的工作。不妨將收信及回信時間訂在「早上」「午餐後」「下班前」這3個時段，只處理必須馬上回覆的電郵。如此一來，每天節省10分鐘，一個月就能節省5小時，可讓時間更充裕。



2.善用空檔時間
等遲到的人、等捷運……都是在所難免的時間空檔。善用時間的人，會懂得「活動空檔」，整理出在不同的空檔裡可以做的事情。例如3分鐘空檔，可以打一通電 話、看一遍資料、整理筆記或寫感謝函。如果有10分鐘空檔，可以整理桌子、收發電子郵件，或是整理名片。如果有30分鐘空檔，則可以看報章雜誌、製作電子 檔的文件，或是前往書店翻閱新書。



如果平時就養成習慣，計算自己完成一項工作所需的時間，就能了解如何更有效地運用空檔時間。此外，外出時最好也能事先做準備，例如帶文件、書籍或筆記型電腦，以善加利用多出來的空檔。



3.行程表的進度管理
即使是擬定完整的計畫，也可能會有非預期的意外發生。換句話說，懂得研擬和執行企畫的人，不見得懂得如何確認執行進度，到了發現問題之時，往往已經不可收拾。



因此，想防止「開天窗」的情事發生，就必須時時確認整體的進度，以「天」「星期」為單位，一旦發現問題或失誤，就在問題擴大前修正。確認進度之時，可以4 個原則進行，包括：「是否發生無謂浪費」（花太多時間或工作順序是否重複）、「是否有疏漏」（是否漏掉沒有處理好的工作，或是漏掉客戶資訊）、「是否有失 誤」（例如期限是否正確）、「是否太勉強」（例如工作行程進度是否強人所難、經費超出預算）。

4.為明天做好準備
下班前，先確認當天完成的工作，再列出今天尚未完成的工作，並且集中到明日的工作清單裡，如此隔日進辦公室時就能立即工作。

How companies make good decisions

How companies make good decisions: McKinsey Global Survey Results

source: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Strategy/Strategic_Thinking/How_companies_make_good_decisions_McKinsey_Global_Survey_Results_2282

Companies get a lot of advice about how to make good decisions. Which decision-making disciplines really make a difference?

JANUARY 2009

Do strong decision-making processes lead to good decisions? This McKinsey survey highlights several process steps that are strongly associated with good financial and operational outcomes. In the survey, we asked executives from around the world about a specific capital or human-resources decision their companies made in the course of normal business. We learned who was involved, what drove the decisions, how deep the analysis was, how unfettered the discussions, and how and where politics were involved. Respondents also described the financial and operational outcomes of the decisions.¹

The results highlight the hard business benefits—such as increased profits and rapid implementation—of several decision-making disciplines. These disciplines include ensuring that people with the right skills and experience are included in decision making, making decisions based on transparent criteria and a robust fact base, and ensuring that the person who will be responsible for implementing a decision is involved in making that decision. Finally, although corporate politics sometimes seems to undermine strong decision making, some types of consensus-building and alliances apparently can help create good outcomes.

Notes

¹The survey was in the field in November 2008 and received responses from 2,327 executives from the full range of industries, regions, and functions.

Describing the decisions

The survey covered the gamut of typical corporate decisions, from expanding into new products or services to maintaining infrastructure. More than three-quarters of investments were aimed at revenue growth, and among decisions related to human resources, the majority aimed to improve efficiency or productivity.

A majority of decisions were undertaken at the behest of the CEO or the executive committee, with only a minority (23 percent) driven by some sort of immediate threat. More decisions were made outside an annual planning process than within one. And nearly two-thirds of respondents say they expected their decision to pay off within two years of implementation. Operations executives had significant influence on only about a third of the most financially unsuccessful decisions, reinforcing findings from other surveys that companies frequently overlook execution when making decisions.²

Overall, outcomes for these decisions were good. Among decisions for which the outcome was known, about two-thirds met or exceeded executives’ expectations for revenue growth and cost savings.³ Furthermore, strong majorities of respondents say the results of their initiatives met their expectations for speed, implementation cost, and gains in market share or efficiency.

Notes

²See “Flaws in strategic decision making: McKinsey Global Survey Results,” mckinseyquarterly.com, January 2009.

³Outcomes are not known for about 20 percent of decisions aimed at revenue growth and 16 percent of decisions aimed at cost savings.

What goes into a good decision

For starters, the survey emphasizes that good decision making involves avoiding some basic mistakes. Decisions initiated and approved by the same person generate the worst financial results—indicating the value of good discussion. And decisions made at companies without any strategic planning process are twice as likely to have generated extremely poor results as extremely good ones—more than a fifth of them generated revenue 75 percent or more below expectations. This may indicate an overall lack of rigor at these companies.

Furthermore, this survey highlights several elements of decision-making processes that are associated with good financial and operational outcomes, whether the goal is revenue growth or cost savings. One relatively straightforward finding is of strong relationships linking financial success, clarity about who is responsible for implementation, and the involvement of that individual in the decision-making process . Other important findings concern the types of analysis, discussion, and corporate politics that are associated with successful decision making.

Analysis

We asked about 11 aspects of analysis.⁴ Four are associated with financial success, speed of project completion, cost to implement, and improved efficiency or productivity:

• Performing sensitivity analysis and creating financial-risk models
• Including comparable situations from one’s own or the firm’s experience
• Examining the risks of this project combined with the risks of other projects in the firm’s portfolio
• Creating a detailed financial model of the decision

The survey also indicates that including analogous situations from outside of the organization improves some outcomes, notably expected profitability and revenue growth.

Discussion

Respondents also describe the discussions surrounding their decisions. Of the eight potential discussion types we asked about,⁵ three are associated with financial success and with completion of the project in less time than expected:

• Encouragement of participation on the basis of individuals’ skills or experiences
• Reliance upon transparent approval criteria for the decision
• Discussion of this decision as part of the firm’s whole portfolio of decisions

Politics

Corporate politics has a bad name, but respondents suggest that the effect of politics depends on the nature of the tactics used. When executives involved in a decision were primarily concerned with its effect on their business unit rather than the overall organization, for example, financial results and all other measures of success were much likelier to fall far below expectations. Simply put, a silo mind-set hurts performance. In addition, slow project completion times are associated with selective information reporting.

However, the survey results suggest some types of informal alliance-building and horse-trading among executives may help companies make good decisions. We asked about six ways that politics can affect decisions.⁶ Better-than-expected completion speed is associated with executives forming alliances to craft consensus for action across business units and with executives making exchanges across alliances to build support for different projects.

Finally, a word about CEO involvement: Respondents say CEOs tended to have a large role in instigating both the most and the least successful decisions. Perhaps this indicates CEOs are more likely than other executives to place—or be able to secure approval of—risky bets with big upsides and downsides. This result also suggests that thorough examination and devil’s advocacy will be particularly valuable when CEOs champion pet projects.

Looking ahead

Unlike the external risks that accompany most strategic initiatives, the analysis of a project, its discussion, and the management of the internal politics lie entirely within the control of the top leadership team. Companies not using the best practices identified here should be able to improve their decisions simply by following these guidelines:

• Pay particular attention to the risks of the project, examined through a detailed financial model, sensitivity analysis, and the relationship of those risks to the risks of other projects in the firm’s portfolio. Learning from past comparable situations also is beneficial.
• Ensure that participants in the discussion about any decision are included on the basis of skills and experience, that decision criteria are transparent, and that the decision is discussed in relation to the organization’s other strategic decisions.
• Put organizational goals ahead of business unit goals, and encourage efforts to build consensus across business units.

About the Contributors

Contributors to the development and analysis of this survey include Massimo Garbuio, a lecturer at the University of Sydney; Dan Lovallo, a professor at the university and a research fellow at the Institute for Management, Innovation and Organization at the University of California, Berkeley, as well as an adviser to McKinsey; and Patrick Viguerie, a director in McKinsey’s Atlanta office.

Notes

⁴Including intelligence about the likely reactions of current and of potential competitors, doing sensitivity analysis and financial models of risk, examining the risks of this projects combined with the risks of other company projects, studying multiple comparable cases to provide a reality check on financial analysis, creating a detailed financial model of the decision, analyzing the potential reaction of capital markets and analysts, studying comparable situations from both inside and outside the firm, including information that would contradict the investment hypothesis, and basing the decision largely on intuition.

⁵Respondents were asked whether the discussion of this decision included the firm’s whole portfolio of decisions, the major uncertainties inherent in this decision, participants determined by their skills and experience, transparent approval criteria, points of view contradictory to those of senior leaders, and a robust fact base. Also, they were asked whether the decision was made and implemented at least as quickly as it would have been by competitors.

⁶The six effects of politics are reporting information selectively in order to induce approval, regardless of the merits; withholding information to overcome organizational inertia; forming alliances to create buy-in for the decision among business units; forming alliances to overcome disagreement; forming alliances to exchange support for different proposals; and being concerned primarily with the decision’s effect on one’s own business unit, rather than overall organizational goals.

百花叢裡過，片葉不沾身

百花叢裡過．片葉不沾身

昨夜得一夢，夢中一團空；朝來擬說夢，舉頭又見空。
為當空是夢，為復夢是空；相計浮生裡，還同一夢中。

＊寒山子＊

◎林清玄

朋友帶我去看一位古董收藏家的收藏，據說他收藏的都是國寶級的東西，隨便拿一件出來都是價逾千萬。

我們穿過一條條的巷弄，來到一家不起眼的公寓前面，我心中正自納悶：國寶級的古董怎麼會收藏在這地方呢？

◆三道鐵門

收藏家來開門了，連續打開三座不鏽鋼門，才走進了屋內，室內的燈光非常黝暗，等了幾秒鐘我才適應了室內的光線，這時才赫然看到整個房子堆滿古董，多到連走路都要小心錯身才能前進。

到處都是陶瓷器、銅錫器，還有許多書畫卷軸像是滿天星一樣擁擠的插在水缸裡，主人好不容易帶我們到沙發（沙發也是埋在古物堆中），經過一番清理，才得以落座。

我不知道要怎麼樣才能形容那種感覺，古董過度擁塞，使人彷彿置身在垃圾堆中。

我想到，任何事物都不能太多，一到「太」的程度，就可怕了。

我們都喜歡蝴蝶，可是如果屋子裡堆滿蝴蝶，就不美了，再想到蝴蝶會生滿屋的毛蟲，那多可怕！

我們都喜歡鳥，但鳥如果太多，也是傷人的，希區考克的名作「鳥」，那恐怖的情景想起來汗毛就要豎立了。

正在出神的時候，主人端出來一個盤子，但盤子裡裝的不是茶水或咖啡，而是一盤玉。因為我的朋友向主人吹噓我是個行家，雖然我據實的極力否認，主人只當我是謙虛，迫不及待拿他的收藏要給我「鑑賞」了。

既是如此，我也只好一件一件給予鑑賞，並極力的稱讚，在說著一塊茶色的玉時，我心裡還想：為什麼端出來的不是茶水呢？

看完玉石，我們轉到主人的臥房看陶瓷和銅器，我才發現主人的臥室中只有一個床可以容身，其餘的從地板到屋頂，都堆得密不透風。

雖說這些古董都是價逾千萬，堆在一起卻感覺不出它的價值。後來又看了幾個房間，依然如此，最令我吃驚的是，連廚房和廁所都堆著古董，主人家已經很久沒有開伙了。

古董的主人告訴我，他為什麼選擇居住在陋巷，是因為台北的治安太壞，恐引起歹徒的覬覦。而他設了那麼多的鐵門，有各種安全功能，一般人從門外窺探他的古董，連一眼也不可得。朋友補充說﹕「他愛古物成癡。太太小孩都不能忍受，移民到國外去了。」

古董的主人說﹕「女人和小孩子懂? 不懂!」

我對他說﹕「你的古物這麼值錢，又這麼多，何不賣幾件，買一個大的展示空間，讓更多的人欣賞呢？這樣，房子也不會塞成連坐的地方都沒有呀！」

他說，好古董一件也捨不得賣。而且那些俗人懂得什麼古董！

◆百花叢中

告辭出來的時候，我感到有一些悲哀，再怎麼了不起的古董，都只是「物件」，怎麼比得上有情的人？

再說，為了佔有古董，活著的時候擔心受怕像囚犯困居於數道鐵門的囚室，像乞丐住在垃圾堆中，又何苦來哉！

何況，有一天這個人會離開世界!

就像他手中的古董從前的主人一樣，總有一刻，會兩手一放，一件也不能帶走。

真正的擁有，不一定要佔有；真正的古董鑑賞家，不一定要做收藏家；偶而想要欣賞古董，到故宮博物院走走，花四十元門票，就有真正國寶級的古物。

累了，花八十五元在三希堂喝故宮特選的烏龍茶，生活不是非常寫意嗎？

回到家，窗明几淨，也不需要三道鐵門來保衛，也不需要和無情的東西爭位置，役物而不役於物，不亦快哉！

我們的生命如此短暫，有所營謀，必有所煩惱；
有所執著，必有所束縛；有所得，必有所失！

我們如果把時間花在財貨，就沒有時間花在心靈。
我們如果日夜為欲望奔走，就會耗失自己的健康。

我們若成為壺癡、石癡、玉癡、古物癡，就會忘失有情世間的珍貴。

◆一物也無

有一位股票市場的大戶告訴我，他只要一個早上在股市就可以賺一千萬。

我說﹕「一個早上賺一千萬看起來很多，但總有一天你會發現一千萬買不到一個早上。」何況一千萬的得失是很難說得清的，陪家人在河邊散步值不值得一千萬呢？

讀到一本開智慧的好書值不值得一千萬呢？

有一個早上的覺悟之心，值不值得一千萬呢？
好好吃一頓飯，歡喜喝一碗茶，一日喜樂無惱，一夜安眠無夢，又是價值多少？

「百花叢裡過，片葉不沾身。」

那樣的生活才是我們嚮往的生活，
百花叢裡是「有情」，葉不沾身是「覺悟」。

我想起許多年以前，朋友送我一個名貴的古董，我歡喜的收下了。過幾天，朋友說送錯了，來要回去，我歡喜的還給他了。

世間事物來來去去，我還是我。
人我是非、利害得失去去來來，我們既未曾加、也不減少。