Leaders have a trust issue. According to the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer, 60% of people believe that the average person is just as credible a source of information about a company as a technical or academic expert—and far more credible than a CEO (37%) or government official (29%).
領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們都會受到一個關(guān)于信譽的問題的困擾。根據(jù)愛德曼信任度調(diào)查在2017年發(fā)布的報告顯示，有百分之六十的受訪者認為，普通人對一家公司的信息來源的可信度如同一位技術(shù)專家或?qū)W術(shù)專家——并且遠遠超過一位行政總裁（可信度為37%）或者是政府官員（可信度為29%）。

In this atmosphere of distrust, leaders have a big job to build credibility and trust. When it comes to communication, one major problem is a lack of authenticity and truth-telling, says leadership communication expert Terry Pearce, author of Leading Out Loud: A Guide for Engaging Others in Creating the Future.
在這種信譽危機的大環(huán)境下，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們需要花好大的功夫才能建立起信譽和信任?！爱斦?wù)摰綔贤ㄟ@個問題，有一個主要的問題，便是缺乏可靠性與真實性?！盩erry Pearce說道，他是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)層溝通專家，也是《大聲領(lǐng)導(dǎo)：引領(lǐng)他人共同創(chuàng)造未來指南》的作者。

When it comes to habits that can ding your credibility, there are some common ones that many people either may not realize they’re doing—or may have even been trained to do, he says. Here are five credibility-busters you should drop if you want a better shot at building trust.
當談?wù)摰侥切p害信譽的習(xí)慣時，有一些人們可能無法意識到的常見錯誤——或者曾經(jīng)被訓(xùn)練養(yǎng)成的習(xí)慣，他表示。如果你想要更好地建立信譽，那么以下這5個損害信譽的習(xí)慣你必須拋棄了。

THE FAKE APOLOGY
虛假道歉

One way to damage your credibility is to offer a “non-apology apology” when you owe an authentic one, says Michael Maslansky, CEO of Maslansky + Partners and coauthor of The Language of Trust: Selling Ideas in a World of Skeptics. So, instead of, “I’m sorry if you were offended,” which puts the ownership of the issue on the other party, a sincere and effective apology acknowledges and accepts responsibility for a situation or transgression.
其中一個損害信譽的方法，就是當你需要真誠道歉的時候你卻給予一個“并非道歉的道歉”。Michael Maslansky說道，他是Maslansky + Partners公司的行政總裁，也是《信任的語言：在懷疑論者的世界里宣傳你的想法》的合著者。因此，與其說“如果你感到被冒犯了，我很抱歉。”這樣只會把問題的主導(dǎo)方放在了對方的位置，倒不如用真誠而有效的致歉，這樣能夠意識并承擔問題或冒犯的責任。

“You can often tell the difference based on whether there is an acceptance of responsibility—an authentic understanding of why the person feels or, the group of people feel like they were wronged,” Maslansky explains. In addition, in corporate context, the apology includes an agreement or a statement about what the organization or the individual is going to do to make sure that it doesn’t happen again or to address the wrong.
“通常你還可以根據(jù)是否承擔責任從而發(fā)現(xiàn)兩者的區(qū)別——真誠理解那個人或這一個群體出錯時有什么感受?！盡aslansky解釋道。除此之外，在公司里，道歉包含著這家組織或個人將會采取什么措施，以確保同類的事情不會再次發(fā)生或加強錯誤效果的協(xié)定或聲明。

THE BLAME GAME
責怪別人

“Finger-pointing” or shifting blame onto someone else also damages people’s faith in your word and authenticity, says communication coach Kate Bennis. While sometimes situations require consequences, such as for carelessness or bad actions, publicly making someone else a scapegoat is just going to make people wonder about how much you can be trusted.
指責他人或者把錯誤歸罪到別人身上也會損害人們對你的信任度與真誠度,人際溝通教練Kate Bennis表示。雖然有時候出現(xiàn)了問題需要一個結(jié)果，比如由于粗心大意或行為失當，但是公開找別人當替罪羊只會讓人開始思考你的信任度到底有多高。

“In order to have credibility, leaders must immediately take full responsibility for their behaviors and actions of all of those in the organization without acting clueless, finger-pointing, or denying,” she says.
“為了獲取他人的信任，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們必須為機構(gòu)內(nèi)出現(xiàn)的所有的行為與舉動負全責，不能消失得無影無蹤，諉過他人或否認事實?！彼硎尽?/div>

THE NON-DENIAL DENIAL
似是而非的否認

Playing games with words, such as the “non-denial denial” is a big credibility-buster, Maslansky says. Today’s audiences are sophisticated, and aren’t tricked when leaders dance around a subject. When you appear to deny something but, upon closer inspection, the actual meaning of what you said is ambiguous, people begin to wonder if you’re being honest with them overall, he says.
玩弄文字游戲，例如“似是而非的否認”就是最大的信任度破壞器，Maslansky表示。如今聽眾們都很成熟老練，并且當領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們在一個問題上繞圈子的時候他們都不會被騙。當你想要否認某些事情，但是經(jīng)過詳細的檢查后就會發(fā)現(xiàn)，你所說的真正含義是非常含糊的，人們就會開始尋思你是否完全對他們坦白，他說道。

A better way to handle tough questions or information is to be truthful and, if possible, try to emphasize the positive or a solution, he says. So, instead of saying, “We have no intention of making changes,” when it’s clear that a reorganization or other changes may be on the horizon, be more forthright. You may say that you’re exploring options and give a concrete timeline when employees can expect more answers.
有一個更好的處理難搞問題或信息的方法，便是真誠以待，并且如果有可能的話，盡量強調(diào)積極的一面或者解決的方法，他說道。所以，與其說“我們并不打算作出改變，”當重組或其他改變是即將采取的解決方法的時候，要表現(xiàn)得更直截了當。你可能會說你正在尋找不同的解決方法，然后給大家提出一個確切的時間軸，這樣員工們就能接收更多的回復(fù)。

“Your best strategy is to get ahead of it rather than trying to go through the process that we’ve all seen happen before, like a slow motion car crash, where there is the non-denial, denial. Then there’s the revelation, then there is the belated apology and the sense of remorse. Then there is the departure from the scene while you hope that everybody forgets what happened,” Maslansky says.
“你的最佳策略就是提前辦好而不是試著度過這個之前早已見過的階段，就像慢動作的撞車，就會有‘看似承認’的否認。然后就是真相的揭露，然后就是遲來的道歉與懊悔。然后就是遠離場景，希望大家都忘了發(fā)生什么事情?！盡aslansky說道。

THE AGENDA-DRIVEN MESSAGE
用日程驅(qū)使員工辦事

However, when you’re being straight with your audience, don’t mistake that for an opportunity to push your agenda, Maslansky says. When you put forth an assertion that is clearly self-serving with no data to back it up, your audience is going to see through it.
然而，當你對你的觀眾坦白的時候，請不要錯誤地認為這是一個推進個人日程的機會，Maslansky表示。當你發(fā)表一份明顯是利己的、毫無數(shù)據(jù)支撐的聲明的時候，你的聽眾總是會發(fā)現(xiàn)的。

So, instead of saying that there might be a reorganization, but no one needs to worry about losing their jobs, which is counter-intuitive and probably false, recognize that changes need to be made, give context for the issue and the action being taken (e.g., sales have fallen off, so the company is looking at a combination of cost-cutting and organizational changes), and information on when they can expect to hear more gives them a sense that you’re sharing all that you can, he says.
因此，與其說公司將會重組，但是大家不需要擔心自己會丟掉工作（違反常理的而且很有可能是錯誤的決定），倒不如意識到需要做出改變，道出問題的來龍去脈以及采取的行動措施（比如，銷售額下滑，公司正在考慮削減開支和組織性調(diào)整），以及他們希望聽到的更多的信息，這樣就能給大家一種你盡己所能與大家分享的感覺，他說道。

THE QUESTION-DODGE
逃避問題

When someone asks you a difficult question and you answer by evading the question, “it sticks out like a sore thumb,” Pearce says. A response that ignores the question or acknowledges, “That’s a good question, but I think the more important point is,” doesn’t fool anyone and leaves the questioning party feeling duped. It happens often in question-and-answer sessions, Pearce says.
當有人給你提出了一個困難的問題，而你只是逃避回答，“這樣就會很明顯，”Pearce表示。一個忽略問題或認可的回應(yīng)，“這是一個好問題，不過我認為重大應(yīng)該關(guān)注在，”這樣不會戲弄任何，還能讓提問的人感到被欺騙了。這種情況通常出現(xiàn)在提問與答復(fù)的環(huán)境中，Pearce說道。

“The person never does get satisfied and, of course, they leave thinking that their question was avoided and the damage is done. But the leader rarely thinks about that. They think about how clever they were to get around it,” he says.
“提問的人總不能滿足于一個答案，當然，他們給大家留下了思考的空間，問題回避了，傷害也造成了。不過領(lǐng)導(dǎo)很少會意識到這一點。他們總會想著自己多么的聰明能夠避開這個問題?！八f道。

Overall, most of these situations can be solved by leaders providing context and being as honest as possible, Pearce says. He likens leaders to the “captain of the ship.” Standing on the deck with a clearer view of the horizon than others, they can communicate what’s coming with more authority and vision than those who are below deck and relying on them. When they ignore context and dismiss their responsibility to be truthful, their credibility is at risk.
總的來說，大多數(shù)的這些問題都能夠通過領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們提供事情的來龍去脈以及盡可能表現(xiàn)真誠得以解決，Pearce表示。他把領(lǐng)導(dǎo)們比作“一艘船的船長“。站在甲板上，比其他人擁有更清晰的視野，他們能夠利用更多的權(quán)力及視野與那些甲板層底下或賴以生存的人們溝通正在發(fā)生的事情。當他們脫離了場景，忽視個人責任，無法表現(xiàn)真誠，那么他們的信譽就易受損害。

聲明：本雙語文章的中文翻譯系滬江英語原創(chuàng)內(nèi)容，轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處。中文翻譯僅代表譯者個人觀點，僅供參考。如有不妥之處，歡迎指正。