管理者做了这六件事，迟早会被员工抛弃

新冠疫情及随后的职场巨变，将长期以来被当成小问题的不佳的职场体验，曝光到了聚光灯下。事实证明，这些看似无关痛痒的问题的破坏性，可能比想象中严重得多。从某种程度上说，大批员工选择离开职场就是在郑重宣告，他们不能、也不会继续容忍管理层的欺凌、不公和无能，特别是不会再以牺牲自身尊严和价值观为代价搏得领导欢心。

相关社会科学理论表明，人心里有一种与生俱来的正义感。如果工作条件违背了这种正义感，则会导致精神创伤。也就是说，对职场公正与否的认知会对员工产生深远影响。本文作者对组织公正问题的研究也可以证实这一点。在员工感觉遭遇不公或有损尊严的对待时，他们做出自私或不诚实行为的可能性会增加四倍。

精神创伤，又称心理创伤，指员工因为在高风险环境中目睹或参与违背自己道德信念，且可能伤害他人身体、心理、社会形象或经济的职场行为，而产生的一种创伤反应。

虽然精神创伤与创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）不同，但二者均为可以产生生物标记和后果的心理创伤。创伤后应激障碍会降低人们的安全感，严重时可能威胁生命。精神创伤则会对人们的精神构成伤害，降低我们对他人的信任。越来越多的证据表明，社交经历和情感体验可以产生生理性后果。MRI研究表明，处理心理伤痛与身体疼痛的大脑区域相同，在大多数语言中，人们描述身体疼痛的词汇，与描述心理伤痛的相同。

对精神创伤的研究最早始于亲历过战争的退役军人。最近，这项研究又扩展到医疗保健、教育、社会工作等压力较大，且往往无法得到足够资源的职业领域。而职场精神创伤导致的幻灭，可能会促使员工选择辞职，并对老东家心生怨恨。

随着新的职场样态在我们面前逐渐展开，雇员与雇主之间的关系得到重塑，管理者必须学习适应，通过自我调整跟上环境的变化。需要明确的是，我们并非提倡管理者在工作中谨小慎微，过度照顾员工。事实上，在面临艰难处境时，领导者与员工之间更需要彼此理解、互相包容。

本文中，作者提出了六种措施，帮助管理者避免无意中伤害员工的内心感受。

许多事情的公平与否，都是旁观者清。不妨花些时间和团队成员们谈一谈，了解一下他们对公平和不公的看法。重要的是，要按照对别人的要求来约束自己。

举个例子，假设一位领导者戴夫为了表示对多样性与包容性的重视，宣布自己决定在确定某一岗位的人选时，考虑不同类型的候选人，同时整个团队都会参加相关的包容性培训。因为戴夫是公开宣布的这一决定，所以觉得自己已经做到了“公平公正”。但在这时，团队中希望晋升的员工私下找到戴夫提出想法，戴夫答复道：“别担心，大家不会找到合适的人选的，之后我就会把位子给你，这样至少可以说我努力过了。”

如此一来，对方可能已经在戴夫没有意识到的情况下，对自己的晋升方式产生了羞愧而非骄傲情绪。在之后进行培训的时候，戴夫“突然”因为要参加一场紧急会议而无法到场，事后又在团队面前假装自己是“受害者”，“他们要求我们做好相关培训，却在最后一刻拖了我们的后腿。”而这样做的效果可想而知。

所以领导者要做到公平公正，按照对他人的要求约束自己的行为，防止团队成员产生受伤、愤怒和怨恨情绪，同时避免给员工留下虚伪印象。

精神创伤往往因管理者行为与他人的价值观冲突而产生，由于我们很难在决策时照顾到所有人的想法，所以有时难免会让一些人感到失望。不过我们可以努力避免将这种失望情绪转变为精神创伤。

以本文作者罗恩指导过的一位高管艾琳遇到的困境为例：为满足客户的交期要求，她需要将某一项目的进度提前至少一周。她很清楚，这样会打乱两位团队成员的个人行程，还会让负责把控质量标准的两位质保人员担心产品质量。

在宣布相关变化时，艾琳首先承认了这些冲突，然后公开承认，交期调整将对自己支持的“家庭第一、质量至上”的价值观产生影响。随后，她与团队进行了一场对话，共同商讨如何在不牺牲质量、影响个人行程计划的情况下按期完成任务。通过避免将他人置于违背核心价值观的道德困境中，艾琳成功避免了潜在的精神创伤。

The pandemic and resulting upheaval of the workplace have shone a bright spotlight on organizational experiences we’ve too long written off as mere annoyances or ineffective management. But as it turns out, their consequences can be more damaging than we understood. The mass exodus from our workplaces is, in part, a proclamation that people can’t — and won’t — tolerate mistreatment, injustice, and incompetence from their leaders anymore, particularly at the expense of their dignity and values.

Organizational conditions that give rise to moral injury violate our sense of justice, which according to some social science theories is hardwired into our brains. This means that perceptions of justice (or injustice) in the workplace have profound effects on employees. Ron’s research on organizational justice bears this out. When people feel subjected to unfair or undignified conditions, they’re four times more likely to act with self-interest and dishonesty.

While moral injury is not the same as PTSD, both can be understood as psychological trauma with biological markers and consequences. PTSD is associated with a threat to our mortality and damages our sense of safety; moral injury wounds our morality and our sense of trust. There is growing evidence that social and emotional experiences have physiological consequences. Social pain is processed in the same brain regions as physical pain, according to MRI studies, and in most languages people use the same words to describe social pain as they do physical pain.

Moral injury has been shown to lead to lasting psychological, physical, spiritual, behavioral, and social harm. Psychological reactions include feelings of grief, anger, anxiety, guilt, shame, or disgust. Some individuals may experience a spiritual or existential crisis or even become physically ill. And, as was the case with Brian, disillusionment resulting from moral injury at work may prompt resignation and resentment.

To be clear, we’re not advocating for leaders to walk on eggshells, vigilantly scrutinizing everything they say in order to coddle people. And yes, sometimes facing difficult circumstances requires that empathy and grace go both ways when bosses aren’t at their best. But as this new world of work unfolds before us and the pact between employee and employer gets rewritten, leaders have to learn and evolve to keep pace. Here are a few things you can do to ensure your actions aren’t unintentionally injuring the moral center of those you lead.

Don’t hide hypocrisy under a cloak of fairness.

As is the case with many social experiences, fairness ultimately resides in the eye of the beholder. Set aside time to have a conversation with your team about what they perceive to be fair and unfair. And most importantly, make sure you’re living by the same rules you ask others to.

For example, let’s say that to demonstrate commitment to your company’s diversity and inclusion efforts, you announce that you aim to have a diverse slate of candidates for an open position and that your team will participate in inclusion training together. Because you’ve made this public, you feel you’ve been fair to everyone. But when the person on your team who’d hoped to be promoted into the position complains to you privately, you tell them, “Don’t worry, they won’t be able to find a suitable candidate and then I’ll be able to give you the job. Then at least I can say I tried.” Without realizing it, you’ve made them feel ashamed, not proud, of the way they’ll get promoted. Then, when the day of the training arrives, you “suddenly” have an urgent meeting and can’t attend, but later play the victim to your team: “They ask us to commit to this training and then pull us out at the last minute.”

Make sure you’re setting the example of fairness and keeping the commitments you’re asking others to make. This will prevent your team from feeling a sense of compromise, outrage, and resentment, and exposing the hypocrisy you worked so hard to conceal.

Know the values by which others are assessing your actions.

Moral injuries are often the result of a misalignment between values and actions — others’ values and your actions. While you can’t accommodate everyone’s preferences on all your decisions, you can avoid having the inevitable disappointments you’ll sometimes need to cause turn into moral injury.

For example, one executive Ron coached, Elaine,* was in a similar predicament to Brian and needed to move up the schedule on a project by more than a week to meet a customer’s deadline. She knew this was going to conflict with two team members’ previous personal commitments — a wedding and a planned vacation — and she knew that two of her quality assurance people would fear compromising the very quality standards they were charged to protect. The executive acknowledged these conflicts when she announced the change and openly affirmed the values of those it was impacting: values of putting family first and doing quality work, which she herself had publicly espoused. Then, she engaged the team in a problem-solving conversation on how to meet the deadline without sacrificing quality or personal commitments. The avoidance of putting others in the moral bind of compromising core values averted a potential moral injury.