透视领导力是一个在线社区，美国最睿智、最有影响力的商界领袖会在这里及时回答一些与职业和领导力有关的问题。今天的问题是，“你如何解决一段办公室积怨？”回答者是Issuu公司CEO乔·海尔金。

大约十年前，我在一家资金实力雄厚的知名初创公司担任销售副总裁，正致力于实施一项似乎很复杂，但颇具创新性的游戏类广告。当管理团队聚在一起商讨此事时，我们都同意提步向前，但我对前进的步伐不太满意。于是，我私下里与负责实施的工程师磋商，并说服他尝试一个更快，更具风险性的解决方案。

交谈结束后，我急匆匆地冲向电梯，以便赶上飞往纽约的航班。就在这时候，我发现工程副总裁迈着重重的脚步，跟在我身后。他怒目而视，显然很生气。只花了大约三分钟，他就听闻我与工程师的谈话。我们咆哮如雷，相互吼叫。下电梯途中，人们都听到了我俩的吼声。这不是我们第一次吵架。多年来，我们两人经常轮流着挑起争端。

这场冲突进一步加剧了我们之间的紧张关系。问题是，作为这家公司的重要成员，我们两人都背负着至关重要的使命。事实上，CEO当初聘请我们，正是为了给公司团队增添专业知识和成熟度。

虽然我向工程师建议的解决方案可能是有效的，但我完全忽视了首先需要跟其上司讨论这个选项的重要性。仓促之下，我错失了说服他认同该计划的机会。我认为他不会听取，也不认为我能够足够有效地陈述我的理由。

结果发生了几件事。我背着副总裁直接找他的下属磋商，由此削弱了我自己的效力。我也让那位工程师陷入风险。此外，副总裁和我都向公司表明，这两个“成年人”现在表现得很不成熟，不能协同工作。随着人们开始窃窃私语，这种不耐烦和不信任彼此想法的表现所产生的反响，迅速波及整个公司。

当我从纽约之行返回时，副总裁和我决定，为了公司的利益，我们最好把事情搞清楚。我们同意下班后共进晚餐。一开始的气氛很紧张。同事们一直在办公室戏虐地谈论着要卖票来看我们的好戏。然而，这场讨论让我们都认识到，我们如此频繁地公开争吵的原因之一是，我们都觉得对方可以忍受。原来不是这样的。

随着交谈的深入，我们发现我们都认为公司需要做出相同的改变。一直以来，我们并没有花费时间去耐心地实施这些变化，只是专注于我们认为对方做错的事情，进而导致本该启动的变革停滞不前。到晚餐结束时，我们终于达成共识，并同意不再向对方发泄自己的沮丧心情。相反，我们将共同努力，推动公司前进。至关重要的是，其他同事都认为我们有能力解决分歧。

十年后，我们仍然是亲密的朋友。

这段经历教导我，如果你对一位同事的工作感到沮丧，务必要留心观察一下，相较于表面的分歧，你们是否真的有更多的相似之处。我还发现，有实力和有经验的人经常懒洋洋地互相攻击，因为这样做似乎比协作评估当前情势，并实施渐进（有时特别缓慢）的调整更容易一些。

如果同事之间爆发激烈的分歧，务必要确定这些争执背后的基本信念。这经常是跨越分歧的起点。也许最重要的是，最好是在远离办公室的餐桌上化干戈为玉帛。（财富中文网）

作者：Joe Hyrkin

译者：Kevin

The Leadership Insiders network is an online community where the most thoughtful and influential people in business contribute answers to timely questions about careers and leadership. Today’s answer to the question, “How do you resolve an office feud?” is written by Joe Hyrkin, CEO of Issuu.

As the vice president of sales at a well-known and well-financed startup about a decade ago, I was working on implementing some innovative gaming-related advertising that seemed to be complicated. When the management team discussed it, we all agreed to move forward, but I wasn’t happy with our pace. So I sat down myself with the engineer who would be responsible for implementation and convinced him to try a faster, riskier solution.

Following our meeting I rushed to the elevator so I could catch a flight to New York, and spotted our vice president of engineering stomping after me, glaring and clearly angry. It had taken about three minutes for him to get wind of that discussion. We snarled and yelled at each other. People heard us on the way down. It wasn’t the first time the two of us had argued. Over the years, we would often alternate starting an argument with each other.

That interaction only added to the tension between the two of us. The problem was that we were both critical to the success of the company. In fact, the CEO had hired us to add expertise and maturity to the team.

While my suggested solution to the engineer may have actually been an effective one, I completely ignored the importance of actually first needing to discuss this option with his boss. In my rush, I missed the opportunity to convince him of my plan. I assumed he wouldn’t listen and didn’t think I’d be able to make my case effectively enough.

Several things happened as a result. I undermined my own effectiveness by going behind the vice president’s back. I also put the engineer involved at risk. In addition, the vice president and I both made it clear to the company that these two “adults” were now behaving immaturely and weren’t working well together. The repercussions of impatience and not trusting in each other’s ideas trickled down to the whole company, as people began to gossip.

When I returned from my trip to New York, the vice president and I decided that we had better figure things out for the good of the company. We agreed to meet for dinner one evening after work. The beginning was tense. People in the office had been talking about selling tickets to watch us. However, during our discussion, we both recognized that part of the reason we were arguing with each other so often and so publicly is that we had a sense that the other person could absorb it. It turned out that wasn’t the case.

As we talked, we found that we both saw the need for the same changes in the company. Rather than take the time and patience necessary to implement these changes, we short-circuited it all by just focusing on what we thought each other was doing wrong. By the end of the dinner, we found common ground and agreed to stop taking our frustrations out on each other. Instead, we’d work together to move the company forward. It was essential that the rest of our colleagues saw we were able to work through our disagreements.

Ten years later, we are still close friends.

I learned from this experience that if you’re frustrated with a colleague at work, it’s important to see if you actually have more similarities than differences with them. I also learned that strong and experienced people often lazily attack each other because it can seem easier than collaboratively evaluating a situation and making incremental and sometimes slower adjustments.

If colleagues find themselves in passionate disagreement, it is critical to identify the foundational beliefs behind those passions. Oftentimes that is the starting point to move past differences. And perhaps most importantly, it’s best to do all of this over a good meal away from the office.