本文共 13244 字，大约阅读时间需要 44 分钟。
语言认知偏差
by Osman (Ozzie) Ahmed Osman
通过奥斯曼(Ozzie)艾哈迈德·奥斯曼
Often, at work, you might come across someone who is “not doing their job”. It can be a peer, a report, or even your own manager. If it’s a report, we’ll often refer to this as a “performance problem”. As a manager of managers, I see examples of this all the time with my peers and colleagues.
通常，在工作中，您可能会遇到“没有做好工作”的人。 它可以是同行，报告，甚至是您自己的经理。 如果是报告，我们通常将其称为“性能问题”。 作为经理的经理，我一直与同事和同事一起看到这样的例子。
It’s important that you accurately diagnose the problem before trying to fix it. Google has “open-sourced” its , and they have a great framework for diagnosis. In their framework, performance problems tend to be caused by:
在尝试解决问题之前，准确诊断问题很重要。 Google已将其 “开源”，并且它们具有很好的诊断框架。 在他们的框架中，性能问题通常是由以下原因引起的：
Unclear expectations: Your colleague does not know what is expected of them. Maybe their manager (you?) hasn’t set expectations for them clearly, or a team-mate has not clarified that they are blocked on their work or harmed by their quality of work.
期望值不清楚：您的同事不知道他们期望什么 。 也许他们的经理(您？)没有对他们明确设定期望，或者队友没有澄清他们的工作受阻或工作质量受到损害。
Lack of skill: Your colleague does not know how to perform the tasks expected of them.
缺乏技能：您的同事不知道如何 执行他们期望的任务。
Lack of will: Your colleague is not motivated or interested in doing those tasks (they lack understanding or agreement of why they should be doing those tasks).
缺乏意志：您的同事对执行这些任务没有动力或兴趣(他们缺乏对为什么应该执行这些任务的理解或共识)。
Andy Grove has a similar framework in his High Output Management book:
安迪·格罗夫(Andy Grove)在他的《高产出管理》一书中有一个类似的框架：
“When a person is not doing his job, there can only be two reasons for it. The person either can’t do it or won’t do it; he is either not capable or not motivated.”
“当一个人不干工作时，只有两个原因。 这个人要么做不到，要么不做。 他要么没有能力，要么没有动力 。”
Have you ever tried to improve one of these situations and made it worse? I have. When I look back, many times it’s because I applied what I thought was the right solution, but to the wrong problem.
您是否曾经尝试过改善其中一种情况并使情况变得更糟？ 我有。 当我回头看时，很多时候是因为我应用了我认为是正确的解决方案，但却解决了错误的问题。
For instance, have you tried to motivate someone to do something that they don’t really know how to do, only causing them (and you) further frustration? On the flip side, have you tried to train someone to do a task they already know how to do, but just have no interest in doing — belittling them and further undermining their motivation?
例如，您是否曾试图激励某人去做某人真正不知道该怎么做的事情，而只会使他们(以及您)进一步感到沮丧？ 另一方面，您是否尝试过训练某人去完成一个他们已经知道该怎么做的任务，但对做却没有兴趣-轻视他们并进一步削弱他们的动力？
So… then it’s pretty easy, right? Let’s say one of your reports, John, is not getting his tasks done when you expect him to. Just use this framework, diagnose the problem, and then work on addressing it.
所以……那很容易，对吧？ 假设您的一份报告，约翰，没有按预期完成他的任务。 只需使用此框架，诊断问题，然后再解决它。
Unfortunately, it’s not so straightforward. The model is simplistic. Our brains tend to work against us in these situations through what are known as “cognitive biases” that tend to simplify situations and misattribute behavior.
不幸的是，它并不是那么简单。 该模型过于简单。 在这种情况下，我们的大脑倾向于通过所谓的“认知偏见”来对我们不利，这种偏见会简化情况并误导行为。
Our brains have evolved to constantly creating simplifications of the world around us. In social situations, we have evolved to quickly label those around us as “good” or “bad”, along two dimensions: competency and motivations.
我们的大脑已经进化为不断创造对我们周围世界的简化。 在社交环境中，我们已经进化为可以在两个方面快速地将周围的人标记为“好”或“坏”：能力和动机。
People are competent or incompetent. They are friends or foes. They can be any combination of that: competent friends (collaborators or leaders), incompetent friends (those we can help), competent foes (rivals, enemies), and so on. (A lot of times, we view ourselves positively on those two dimensions — a phenomenon that has been called “”: beneficial and effective.)
人们有能力或无能。 他们是朋友还是敌人。 它们可以是以下各项的任意组合：称职的朋友(合作者或领导者)，不称职的朋友(我们可以提供帮助的朋友)，称职的敌人(竞争对手，敌人)等等。 (很多时候，我们认为自己 在这两个方面都具有积极意义-一种被称为“ ”的现象：有益而有效。)
Do those two dimensions sound familiar? Competency = skill. Motivations = will. Lack-of-will vs. lack-of-skill is basically a workplace version of that simplification.
这两个维度听起来很熟悉吗？ 能力=技能。 动机=意志。 意志力与技能的缺乏基本上是这种简化的工作场所版本。
The “friend or foe” instinct tends to kick in faster, and from an evolutionary perspective, that makes sense. When our ancestors encountered each other, they had to quickly make that assessment for “fight or flight”, so we tend to be faster and less accurate at making that assessment. We take a little longer to judge competency of others in our tribe or group based on whom we interact with more closely/frequently.
“敌对友”本能趋于更快，并且从进化的角度来看，这是有道理的。 当我们的祖先遇到彼此时，他们必须Swift进行“战斗或逃跑”评估，因此我们在进行评估时往往会更快，更不准确。 我们需要花费更长的时间来判断我们部落或团队中其他人的能力，具体取决于我们与他们进行更紧密/频繁的互动的方式。
Your brain is constantly simplifying, but you have to prevent your brain from jumping to these conclusions — because we’re often wrong. There’s a few psychological phenomena you can use to fight your own cognitive biases.
您的大脑在不断简化，但是您必须防止大脑跳到这些结论-因为我们常常错了。 您可以使用一些心理现象来对抗自己的认知偏差。
The first is the . In short, we tend to attribute the behavior of others to their internal characteristics, instead of their circumstances. John is lazy instead of John is unable to do a task because he is busy with other things.
首先是 。 简而言之，我们倾向于将他人的行为归因于他们的内部特征，而不是他们的情况。 约翰很懒，而不是因为他忙于其他事情而无法执行任务。
Compounding the fundamental attribution error is . Now that our brain has already created an incorrect attribution, we tend to seek out evidence to support that hypothesis. And, often, if you combine the fundamental attribution error and confirmation bias, you end up with some major and . Since now, John is lazy, we start to find “evidence” of that all over the place, and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
归因于基本归因误差的是 。 现在我们的大脑已经产生了错误的归因，我们倾向于寻找证据来支持这一假设。 而且，通常，如果将基本的归因误差和确认偏差结合在一起，最终会遇到一些主要的和 。 从现在开始， 约翰很懒惰 ，我们开始在各处寻找“证据”，而忽略任何相反的证据。
Let’s throw one last cognitive bias into the mix: . As a person’s manager (or even peer), in difficult and ambiguous situations, we’re much more likely to simplify and mis-attribute problems in a way that removes any blame from us. Putting blame on someone’s inherit characteristics (laziness, lack of ability) is easier than admitting that maybe, as managers, we’ve failed to motivate or coach that person.
让我们把最后一个认知偏见混入其中： 。 作为一个人的经理(或同伴)，在困难和模棱两可的情况下，我们更有可能以消除任何责任的方式来简化和错误地分配问题。 将责任归咎于某人的继承特征(懒惰，缺乏能力)比承认作为管理者的我们可能未能激励或指导该人容易。
Check out resources to read more.
查看 资源以了解更多信息。
For example, a split brain subject’s left eye received a command to stand. The person stood, but when asked why she stood up, she responded, using the language center of the left hemisphere, that she wanted a soda.
例如，大脑裂开的受试者的左眼收到了站立的命令。 这个人站了起来，但是当被问到为什么要站起来时，她用左半球的语言中心回答说，她想要苏打水。
So our brains are constantly working against us — simplifying, misattributing, and confabulating. Basically going rogue. On the other hand, in reality, people tend to be much, much more complicated than we think. In fact, the three “reasons” (lack of will, lack of skill, and unclear expectations) tend to bleed into each other in ways that are nuanced and difficult to disentangle.
因此，我们的大脑一直在与我们作斗争-简化，错误分配和虚构。 基本上是无赖。 另一方面，实际上，人们往往比我们想象的要复杂得多。 实际上，三个“原因”(缺乏意志，缺乏技能和不清楚的期望)往往以细微差别和难以解开的方式相互渗入。
Let’s take that laziness example again. Someone on your team isn’t doing something that they should clearly know how to do. Sometimes, a “lack of will” problem might have nothing to do with incentives at all, and might be more related to other psychological factors. There’s an excellent piece about by :
让我们再次以懒惰为例。 您团队中的某人没有做他们应该清楚知道该怎么做的事情。 有时，“缺乏意志力”问题可能与激励措施根本无关，并且可能与其他心理因素更为相关。 有一篇关于的出色文章：
If you look at a person’s action (or inaction) and see only laziness, you are missing key details. There is always an explanation. There are always barriers.
如果您查看一个人的行为(或不作为)，而只看到懒惰，则说明您缺少关键细节。 总会有一个解释。 总有障碍。
More specifically…
进一步来说…
When a person fails to begin a project that they care about, it’s typically due to either or b. Not laziness. In fact, procrastination is more likely
当一个人未能开始他们关心的项目时 大约是由于以下原因造成的： 或b 。 不懒惰。 实际上， ，拖延的可能性就更大
The first reason, if you boil it down, is actually not a lack of will problem at all. Rather, it’s a perceived lack of skill. Note that it doesn’t really matter whether you think they have the skill to do their task or not. In this case, it’s about their perceived lack of skill/ability. You might have no idea what’s going on in their mind — insecurities, , depression, past failures. In other words, perceived lack of skill leads to lack of will.
如果把它归结为第一个原因，实际上根本不是缺乏意志问题。 相反，这是一种感知 缺乏技巧。 请注意， 您是否认为他们是否有能力执行任务并不重要。 在这种情况下，这与他们的 感觉缺乏技能/能力。 您可能不知道他们的想法-不安全感， ，沮丧，过去的失败。 换句话说，缺乏技能会导致意志不足。
Trying to motivate a person to do a task that they’re procrastinating on due to anxiety is likely to have the opposite effect — it makes the task more meaningful, and increases anxiety.
试图激励一个人去完成因焦虑而拖延的任务，可能会产生相反的效果，它会使任务更加有意义，并增加焦虑感。
The second reason, confusion about first steps, is equally as murky. In this case, they lack clarity on how to get started. The ability to start a task is a very different skill than the ability to execute it. If often involves breaking a larger task down into smaller tasks. I might know how to do each of those individual tasks, but I might not actually know how to break the larger task itself down.
第二个原因，即关于第一步的困惑，同样令人困惑。 在这种情况下，他们缺乏如何入门的明确性。 启动任务的能力与执行任务的能力大不相同。 如果经常涉及将较大的任务分解为较小的任务。 我可能知道如何完成这些单独的任务，但实际上我可能不知道如何分解较大的任务本身。
This is especially true in software engineering, where the skill to think about an entire system or group of changes is very different than the skill of making smaller, more incremental changes. The former is known as “architecture”, and many companies have very senior roles for people who are purely “architects”.
在软件工程中尤其如此，考虑整个系统或一组更改的技能与进行较小，更多增量更改的技能大不相同。 前者被称为“架构”，许多公司对纯粹是“架构师”的人都扮演非常高级的角色。
So, what are we to do?
那么我们该怎么办呢？
Let’s take that laziness example one more time. John isn’t starting or delivering his tasks on time. He seems to get distracted by other things, some of which might not even be work-related. In fact, he doesn’t seem to want to do any work at all.
让我们再举一个懒惰的例子。 约翰没有按时开始或完成任务。 他似乎被其他事情分散了注意力，其中有些甚至可能与工作无关。 实际上，他似乎根本不想做任何工作。
First, look at the history, but don’t let cognitive biases trap you. Has John always been like this, or did something change? Surely he was hired or moved to the team with an expectation that he could perform those tasks.
首先，请看一下历史，但不要让认知偏见困住您。 约翰一直是这样吗，还是有什么变化？ 当然，他是被录用或转入团队，并期望他能够执行这些任务。
Has this behavior been triggered before? If so, when? Was it related to the nature/difficulty of the tasks? Maybe those tasks are tedious and not challenging. Or maybe they’re too challenging, and trigger a “procrastination” mechanism. Maybe there’s something going on in his personal life. Or maybe he’s unhappy with someone else on his team… or with you!
此行为以前被触发过吗？ 如果是这样，什么时候？ 它与任务的性质/难度有关吗？ 也许这些任务是乏味的而不是挑战性的。 也许它们太具有挑战性，并引发了“精进”机制。 也许他的个人生活中发生了一些事情。 也许他对团队中的其他人或您不满意！
So on one hand, you need to look at history and patterns to diagnose the situation. However, if you’ve already colored John as being lazy and unmotivated, you will view the history and patterns through that lens, without digging in deep. So beware of those cognitive biases, and seek out evidence to the contrary.
因此，一方面，您需要查看历史记录和模式以诊断情况。 但是，如果您已经将John染成懒惰和干劲十足的话，那么您将通过该镜头来查看历史和模式，而无需深入了解。 因此要当心那些认知偏见，并寻找相反的证据。
Trust and open communication can also go a long way. Hopefully you’ve invested in relationships with your colleagues, and so can have an open conversation about these issues.
信任和开放式沟通也可以走很长一段路。 希望您已与同事建立关系，因此可以就这些问题进行公开对话。
I usually start by asking how they feel about how their work is going, and making it clear I’m trying to help (which you can’t fake, you have to actually want to help). Ask questions with an open mind.
我通常首先询问他们对工作进展的感觉，并明确说明我正在努力提供帮助(您不能伪造，您实际上需要帮助)。 开诚布公地问问题。
Are you satisfied with how things are going?
您对事情的进展感到满意吗？
Do you think other stakeholders are satisfied?
您认为其他利益相关者满意吗？
Why do you think this is happening?
您为什么认为这种情况正在发生？
How do you feel?
你觉得怎么样？
When, in the past, have you felt this way before?
过去的什么时候您有过这种感觉？
There are hard, uncomfortable questions. But if you have a good relationship and positive intentions, you can work through them to uncover (and fix) the root cause.
有困难，不舒服的问题。 但是，如果您有良好的关系和积极的意愿，则可以通过它们来发现(并解决)根本原因。
In summary, a few tips:
总而言之，一些技巧：
Familiarize yourself with the various . Understand the traps you, and others around you, might fall into. Question your own judgment, constantly. The biggest enemy of good performance management is a manager’s tendency to slip into cognitive bias.
熟悉各种 。 了解您和您周围其他人可能陷入的陷阱。 不断质疑自己的判断。 良好绩效管理的最大敌人是经理趋向于陷入认知偏差的趋势。
Establish trust and openness with your peers and reports. Understanding someone is infinitely harder if they don’t trust you and if you can’t communicate about problems when they arise. Be empathetic and .
与同事和报告建立信任和开放。 如果某人不信任您并且当问题出现时您无法就问题进行交流，那么了解某人将变得更加困难。 要有同情心和 。
Understand motivational theory, especially intrinsic motivation. There’s a lot of literature on that subject, but one of my favorites is Daniel Pink’s .
了解动机理论，尤其是内在动机。 关于该主题的文献很多，但我最喜欢的之一是丹尼尔·平克的《 。
翻译自:
语言认知偏差
转载地址：http://knkzd.baihongyu.com/