(单词翻译:单击)
Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Alison Beard.
欢迎来到哈佛商业评论的HBR IdeaCast。我是艾莉森·比尔德。
Work can be challenging for lots of reasons; deadlines to meet, bugs to fix, profit margins to hit.
由于许多原因，工作可能是具有挑战性的；要在最后期限前完成，要修复错误，要达到利润率。
But most of us have probably come to realize that what makes or breaks a professional experience is people.
但我们大多数人可能已经意识到，决定职业经历成败的是人。
We all have our own strengths and weaknesses, our own habits and hangups, and we’re lucky if we find colleagues we gel with.
我们都有自己的长处和短处，都有自己的习惯和喜好，如果我们能找到志同道合的同事，我们就很幸运了。
Invariably, though, you’re going to encounter a boss, peer, or direct report that isn’t at all fun to work with. They’re very difficult.
然而，你不可避免地会遇到一位老板、同事或直接下属，与他们一起工作一点也不有趣。他们很难相处。
Today’s guest has spent a lot of time thinking about the best ways to deal with these kinds of coworkers, how to identify them, engage with them and how to manage yourself through the conflict.
今天的嘉宾花了很多时间思考处理这类同事的最好方法，如何识别他们，与他们打交道，以及如何在冲突中管理自己。
Hey, Amy. Hi Alison. So happy to have you on the show. I’m happy to be here.
嗨，艾米。嗨，艾莉森。很高兴你能出现在节目中。我很高兴来到这里。
You are not a difficult coworker. You’re one of my favorites.
你不是一个难相处的同事。你是我的最爱之一。
Thank you. And likewise. I never find you difficult.
谢谢。我也是，我从来不觉得你难相处。
So in a world where we are increasingly trying to not label people, can we really pinpoint certain individuals as being “difficult”?
因此，在一个我们越来越多地试图不给人贴上标签的世界里，我们真的能准确地指出某些人是“难相处的”吗？
Oh, I’m so glad you asked this first because I have mixed feelings about the use of the archetypes in the book.
哦，我很高兴你先问了这个问题，因为我对书中原型的使用有复杂的感觉。
There are eight archetypes.
有八个原型。
They are personalities that we all recognize: the passive aggressive peer, the biased coworker, the insecure manager.
他们是我们都认识到的个性：消极好斗的同龄人、有偏见的同事、缺乏安全感的经理。
However, I don’t want people to use them as a pejorative label that really either tries to diagnose someone or distance yourself from someone.
然而，我不希望人们把它们用作贬义的标签，真正地要么试图诊断某人，要么疏远你自己。
They’re meant to be a tool to help you get the advice you need for your specific situation.
它们是一种工具，可以帮助你获得针对你的特定情况所需的建议。
They’re meant to be an internal usage, not something you say out loud.
它们应该是内部使用，而不是你大声说出来的东西。
And to not put the colleague into a box that says, that’s all you are.
不要把同事放进一个盒子里，上面写着，这就是你的全部。
You’re only a know-it-all. You’re only a passive aggressive person.
你只是个百事通。你只是个消极好斗的人。
Exactly. That’s where the confirmation bias can be really dangerous.
一点儿没错。这就是确认偏误非常危险的地方。
If I decide Alison’s a know-it-all, every time you say anything with any sort of confidence, I might say to myself, “Oh, there’s the know-it-all behavior.”
如果我认定艾莉森是个百事通，每次你满怀信心地说任何话时，我都会对自己说：“哦，这就是百事通的行为。”
And that’s why it’s important to be open to change.
这就是为什么对变化持开放态度是很重要的。
Ideally, you’re engaging in a conversation with this coworker because you want a more positive relationship, and being so certain that you’re seeing it the right way and they’re seeing it the wrong way is only going to lock you into position and not give room for the dynamic to change.
理想情况下，你与这位同事交谈是因为你想要一种更积极的关系，而如此确定你的看法是正确的，而他们的看法是错误的，这只会把你锁定在合适的位置，而不会给动态的改变留出空间。
And so you seem to be suggesting that each of these types need to be approached in a different way.
因此，你似乎是在暗示，这些类型中的每一种都需要以不同的方式来处理。
There is directed advice, but is there also some common advice?
有针对性的建议，但也有一些常见的建议吗？
Of course, yeah. There is a lot of general advice that works regardless of what category people fall into or if they defy categorization together.
当然，有很多通用的建议是有效的，无论人们属于什么类别，或者他们是否无视分类在一起。
