Leadership is a language game. So said management scholars Louis Pondy and Jeffrey Pfeffer in the seventies when they asserted that leadership’s true impact is on human sentiment and understanding rather than on the bottom line. Leaders operate in uncertain, sometimes chaotic environments that are partly of their own creation: while leaders do not control events, they do influence how events are seen and understood. They are movers and shakers of their organizations, and their most important tools are symbolic and linguistic. 管理学者 LouisPondy 和JeffreyPfeffer于70年代就认定说：领袖是一门语言艺术，与其说领袖对业绩有影响作用，倒不如说其真正影响的是人的情感和理解力。领导者的工作环境有其不定因素，有时，无序环境的部分原因是领导者本身造成的。虽然领导者不控制事件，但他们却影响着对事件的看法和理解，他们是其所在组织的行动者和动摇者，而其最重要的手段是对于符号和语言的使用。 Leadership is a language game, one that many do not know they are playing. Even though most leaders spend nearly 70% of their time communicating, they pay relatively little attention to how they use language as a tool of influence. Technically grounded managers may talk a good game on technical matters. Trained in the knowledge and versed in the jargon of a particular field, they easily produce words and sentences that others seem to understand. But the ease with which they speak causes listeners to miss the fact that language cloaks, sedates, even seduces people into believing that many of the so-called facts of our world are objectively rather than socially created. No other reason can explain why the same market fluctuations are seen as problems for some and opportunities for others. No other reason can explain why new vision and programs become future realities in some companies and remain as pipe dreams in others. No other reason can explain why the same uttered words are treated as gospel coming from one leader but hot air coming from another. 领袖是一门语言艺术，一种多数人都没发觉的身不由己的游戏。即使众多领导者花70%的时间用于沟通，但极少会注意到他们是如何运用语言作为影响手段的。有技术背景的经理们对技术有关事宜可以谈吐如戏，经相关知识培训精通特定行业的本专业术语后，他们可以简练地说出他人能理解的话和句子。他们讲得如此轻松使听者无视语言具有蒙蔽和麻痹作用这一事实，甚至误导人们相信世界很多所谓的事实是客观形成，而不是社会人为造成的。没别的理由能解释为何市场波动同一件事，有人视为问题，有人却看成机会；没别的理由能解释为何新构想和新规划在有的公司已变成远景现实，而在其他一些公司却仍是空谈的梦想；没别的理由能解释为何同样的话某领导说的就是真理，而另一位说的就是吹热风呢！ "The Art of Framing" treats leaders as managers of the meanings for their world. In this book, we introduce the skill of framing: a quality of communication that causes others to accept one meaning over another. It is a skill with profound consequences for behavior that influences how we and others respond to the world in which we live. It is a skill that great leaders possess and one that most readers will redily recognize, yet it is a skill that is not often taught. Many believe that you either have framing skills or you don't. Not so. You can learn to manage meaning through framing; this book can teach you how. 《语言构建艺术》认为，领导者是他们所处那个世界的意图管理者。书中介绍了语言构建的技巧：有效沟通可使他人接受一种意图来取代另一种。这种技巧带有深奥的行为意义，它影响着我们自己及他人对我们所生存的这个世界作何种响应。这是伟大领袖们所拥有的一种技巧，一种众多读者能马上识别的技巧，但不是一种经常教授的技巧。多数人都认为人的语言构建技巧分成有和没有。不，人是可以通过掌握语言构建来管理意图的，本书现在就可以教你。 Psychologists, pastors, advertisers, and politicians make their living framing the realities thay want their clients and constituents to accept. These professionals recognize the power of framing to influence how others see and interpret reality. Those of us who lead and participate in organizations shoulod also recognize the power of this skill. This book provides a wealth of information that will give leaders new freedom－and new responsibility－in everyday communication， both inside and outside the organization。 心理学家、牧师、广告商和政治家们利用其自身生活，将要他们的客户或其团队成员接受下来的事用语言构建成现实，这些专业人士认识到可影响他人观察及理解事实真相的语言构建威力，组织中的领导者或参与者的我等之辈也应认识到这种技巧的威力。本书的大量信息为领导者每天在组织内外的沟通中提供了新的自由度（同时也是新的职责）。
Our Research into Framing
Our research into the subject of framing first began in 1987 when Gail Fairhurst took up residence in the organization for which Bob Sarr worked.The organization was an inviting place to spend a university sabbatical because it had a reputation for hiring the best and brightest and was a consistent blue-chip performer in the consumer products field nationally and internationally. Known for its leading-edge work in the field of organizational development, it was one of the first to institute self-managing team-based systems,to wrestle with issues of empowerment and diversity, and to adopt the Total Quality Management(TQM) philosophy of W.Edwards Deming. The company was in the midst of TQM adoption at the time of our study. What better place to study how communication contributes to a high-performance organization?
We talked with countless leaders and their direct reports throughout the manufacturing arm of this organization and asked them to complete questions. We tape-recorded many of their actual work conversations; our analyses of these conversations form one part of the research base of this book. Many of the conversations are valuable teaching tools, which is why we have chosen to include them. Those who spoke on tape expressed their views freely, probably because the conversations were tape-recorded in their own work settings without our presence and were not structured in any way. Willing participants were simply told just to turn on the recorder the next time they expected a conversation to last more than a few minutes. In two separate data gatherings, we collect over two hundred conversations of approximately thirty minutes in length. 我们与该组织整个生产部门的无数领导者及其直接下属谈话，并请他们回答相关问题。我们对他们实际工作中的很多沟通对话作了录音，而对这些沟通对话的分析是本书的部分研究基础，其中，很多对话是很有价值的教学工具，故才被选择进入本书。有些在录音中讲话自如发表其意见者，可能是在自己的工作环境录音时我们不在场且没有任何框框约束的缘故。自愿参与者被告知在预先知道要开始几分钟的对话前简单地按下录音机开关即可。在两组独立的资料汇总中，我们收集了长度约30分钟的200多次沟通对话。 In spite of the sophistication of the company and high level of professional training of its managers, the vast majority of the conversations were hit-or-miss when it came to constructing the right context or frames for management initiatives. Lost opportunities were frequent and apparent.It was in this astonishing discovery that we came to appreciate how leadership is realized in the everyday and routine aspects of the job－in a succession of moments rather than in landmark decision. Leaders repeatedly appeared oblivious to golden opportunities to help others make sense out of events, to explain the why and wherefore of company decision, and to secure commitment and buy-in from employees.Repeatedly, they missed opportunities to frame or reframe the negative framing practiced so skillfully by those who resist change. 尽管公司各方面完善，经理们均受过高级职业培训，但从构成管理创意真正的角度或系统来看，多数人的沟通对话没有固定模式，错过时机经常发生且显而易见，这一惊人发现使我们开始着手了解，如何在每天的日常工作方面利用一些成功的瞬间（而非里程碑式的决策）去实施领导。可以帮助他人客观了解事件、可以解释公司决策的理由和原因、以及可以得到员工承诺和认可的黄金时机，领导者们仿佛旁若无视地一再错过，反反复复地错过了对驾轻就熟实施消极计划的反变革者可以组织或重组的黄金时机。 Since our initial research in 1987, we have observed and spoken about framing communications and interviewed leaders and other professionals in a variety of organizations both in the United States and Europe. From these observations and conversations, we are convinced that our initial experience was not unique. Leaders everywhere can be numbered by the pressures and routines of their jobs. Or, because of their appreciation for framing everyday work issues, they can understand the power that lies within those routines. We are convinced that conversations like the ones we recorded and like those we have heard so many times are taking place in just about any company you could name. 从1987年最初研究开始，我们一直都在观察并表达对语言构建对话的看法，同时还会见了美国和欧洲各种机构的领导者和其他专业人士。通过观察和对话发现，我们最初的所见所闻不是独一无二的，承受着工作压力和例行公事的领导者们随处可见、数不胜数，但由于他们享受着用语言来构建每天的工作问题，因而能体会到例行公事中存在的某种威力。我们相信，诸如我们录音过的或我们无数次听到的此类沟通对话，肯定还在任何一个有名有姓的公司内上演。 Our research also included an intensive survey of the management and communication literature, focusing heavily on case studies, for examples of great and not-so-great framing by leaders. These case studies provided us with some framing examples that were highly creative. Finally, we looked beyond the management environment and the business pages and sought great examples of framing from the worlds of politics, sports, literature, entertainment, and religion. These too provided us with useful insights. 我们的研究还包括一份关于管理和沟通文献的深度调研，大量集中在对个例的研究上，如领导实施的十分成功或不十分成功的语言构建个例上。这些个案研究提供给我们的一些语言构建例子是很有创意的，最后，我们抛开管理环境和经营方面来看问题，从政治、运动、文学、娱乐和信仰各领域找出十分成功的语言构建案例，这些也都有助于我们加深理解。 We think that after reading "The Art of Framing" you will start to do your own research on framing because, like us, you will notice framing in every aspect of your life. 我们相信，一旦读完“语言构建艺术”，人们会开始各自的语言构建研究，因为人们将像我们一样，会发现生活中语言构建无处不在！
Who Should Read This Book?
The Art of Framing is written for all those who lead or aspire to lead in organizations today. Even if you are not currently a designated leader or managers, you can demonstrate leadership through mastering the framing skills in this book. If you aspire to leadership roles with greater responsibility, you will find this book useful. We believe that people become leaders through the ability to manager meaning. Indeed, all truly great leaders have mastered the skill of framing.
本书为当今一切组织领导者以及渴望成为领导者的人所写，即使你目前还未被指定为领导或经理，你也可以通过掌握本书的语言构建艺术来展示你的领袖魅力；如果你向往（肩负更重大责任）有神圣使命感的领导角色，你就会发现本书的价值所在。 我们相信，人都是通过自身的管理意图能力而成为领导的。的确如此，所有真正的伟大领袖都掌控有语言构建的技巧！ For all of you who seek to lead, the aim of our book is three fold. First, we want you to understand how you shape your own realities and co-construct meaning through your everyday conversations with others. Second, if communication is central function of leadership, there should be a message to communicate. Our goal is to help you be thoughtful about the messages you do send via your actions and words. Third, in light of the fact that you cannot carefully plan and script much of your daily communication, we will show you what you can do to become a more effective spontaneous communicator. 对所有想成为领导者的人来说，本书有三重目的。首先我们想让你了解，如何通过每天与他人的沟通对话来设计你自己的现实生活并重塑你的意图；其次，如果说沟通是领导者的中心功能，那就必须有一种信息可以展开对话，我们的目标是帮助你能够对确实要以言行发出的信息深思熟虑；第三，鉴于日常的沟通对话很多都不可能细心策划或书写这一事实，我们将向各位教授有朝一日可以成为一位高度自然对话者的做法。
Overview of the Contents 内容概要 Chapter One defines framing and establishes its importance. In this capter, we introduce the three chief components of framing: language, thought, and forethought. We also distinguish framing from manipulation, with which it is sometimes inappropriately confused. 第一章细述了语言构建并形成其要点，其中，我们介绍了语言构建三要素：语言、思考、预见。语言构建和（舆论操纵）控制有时会被混淆，所以，我们对两者也作了区分说明。 Chapter Two explores the principle that good framing starts from within. Our mental models form a foundation for all good framing. In this chapter, we show the consequences of working with underdeveloped mental models and important role mental models play in formulating communication goals. 第二章探讨了良好的语言构建始于内因的原理，我们的一些思维模式是所有良好语言构建的基础，其中，我们给出未开发思维模式下的工作成效，以及思维模式在表达沟通目的时所发挥的重要作用。 Chapter Three explores the mental models of particular importance to organizational leaders. It covers the development of mental models in support of an organizational vision and helps you deal with daily demands for framing that vision. We will show you some techniques for the continuous development of your mental models and help you understand two different forms of reasoning that you will use in framing your vision for others. 第三章讨论了对组织领导者来讲尤为重要的思维模式，包括对支持机构愿景思维模式的开发，以及帮助处理语言构建该愿景所提的日常要求。我们给出可持续开发人的思维模式的方法，帮助你了解人在向他人构建愿景时会用到的两种讲理形式。 Chapter Four shows how framing effectively and developing sensitivity to context go hand in hand. We offer six guidelines that will increase your sensitivity to context and your ability to identify good framing opportunities. 第四章展示了语言构建以及对语言角度敏感度的开发是多么地相辅相成，我们提供的六种导引可以提高人对角度的敏感度和辨别出语言构建良机的能力。 Chapter Five introduces a set of language tools－metaphors, jargon, catchphrases, contrast, spin, and stories－that will help you hone yur framing skills. The assets and liabilities of each tool are explored. The chapter also enables you to sharpen your skills with these tools while focusing on the framing of your vision. 第五章介绍了一些可以磨练个人语言构建技巧的语言方法（如隐喻、术语、关键短语、对比、悬念及故事等），每种方法的长短处都展开讨论。本章节帮助你在关注构建愿景时提高使用这些方法的技巧。 Chapter Six brings a cautionary note. All of us can and do mix our language tools, and sometimes this is done with powerful effect. However, when using tools in combination, we can create mixed messages. We can also create mixed messages when our language seems to contradict our behavior or when the expectations of others are not met by what we say or do. This chapter shows you how to avoid mixed messages of all varieties. 第六章提出一注意事项，任何人都有可能用错语言方法，有时用错后还极有成效，不过同时使用几种方法时却会混淆信息。如果我们所说好像与所做相矛盾，或者我们的言行不是他人所期望的，那么，我们也可能是在制造信息混乱。本章给出避免混淆各种不同信息的做法。
What percentage of your daily conversations do you consciously plan ahead of time? If you are like most people, the percentage is very small, Chapter Seven is about priming for spontaneity－preparing yourself mentally so that when opportunities present themselves, communication flows spontaneously. This chapter covers those situations that can be planned and those that are complete surprises. 人在日常沟通对话中有多少百分比是提前细心计划的？若你如多数人般都是很小比例，第七章将启动你的自身天分：机会一出现，思想就已准备好能自然应对沟通对话。本章给出可以计划的状况以及一些出乎意料的状况。 In framing, credibility is crucial. In Chapter Eight, we will show you how credibility is etablished－and how it is destroyed－through what you frame, how you frame, and how others frame you. Then, in the Epilogue, we stress that framing opportunities occur often and that, with forethought, we can make the most of them. With reflection and continued effort, we can even reclaim those opportunities that escaped us or that sailed by unnoticed the first time. 语言构建过程中，可靠性是关键。第八章讲述如何通过语言构建内容和语言构建方法建立（或销毁）可靠性，以及别人如何对你实施反构建。其次在Epilogue中，我们强调了语言构建机会是经常出现的，只要深思熟虑就能充分利用，只要反省并不断努力，那些错过或稍纵即逝且视而不见的机会也能再现！ 连载中英“组织艺术”和“沟通技巧”（续十）
Chaptor One Framing Seizing Leadership Moments in Everyday Conversations 第一章：语言构建――从每天的沟通对话中抓住当领袖的瞬间 This is a book about leadership and communicating, about learning to select words and phrases that really mean something to the people we wish to lead or influence. Effective leaders present the world with images that grab our attention and interest. They use language in ways that allow us to see leadership not only as big decisions but as series of moments in which images build upon each other to help us construct a reality to which we must then respond. 本书涉及“领袖”和“沟通对话”，涉及学会选择言语和用语――对那些需要引导或影响的人具有真正意义的言语和用语。有影响力的领导人呈现的是能抓住人们注意力和兴趣的栩栩如生的世界，他们使用语言的方法使人们发现：领袖不仅是重大决策，他们还从一些瞬间重叠勾画出一幅幅图画，使人们必须响应并将其变成现实。 Many such leadership moments are etched in our memories. We remember John F. Kenedy’s 1961 inaugural address when he said,＂Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.＂We remember Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech in the midst of the civil rights movement. We remember the vision of the “democratization of the computer,” coined and advocated by two young entrepreneurs who founded Apple Computer, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. And we remember the heralded theme of “drive out of fear” of W.Edwads Deming and the Total Quality Managemen(TQM) movement. 此类领袖有很多这样的瞬间深刻在人们的脑海，我们记得约翰F．肯尼迪在1961年就职演讲时说：“别问国家能为你做什么，问问你自己能为国家做什么！”；我们也记得马丁．路德．金在人权运动中＂我有一梦想＂的那篇演讲；我们还记得由创建＂苹果＂牌电脑的两位年轻的企业家（史蒂夫．乔布和史蒂夫．沃曾尼亚克）倡导的＂电脑民主运动＂的情景；我们更依稀记得Ｗ.爱德华．戴明“赶走恐惧”的预言性论文和全面质量管理（TQM）运动。
Seizing Leadership Moments in Everyday Conversations
This is a book about leadership and communicating, about learning to select words and phrases that really mean something to the people we wish to lead or influence. Effective leaders present the world with images that grab our attention and interest. They use language in ways that allow us to see leadership not only as big decisions but as series of moments in which images build upon each other to help us construct a reality to which we must then respond.
Many such leadership moments are etched in our memories. We remember John F. Kenedy’s 1961 inaugural address when he said,＂Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.＂We remember Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech in the midst of the civil rights movement. We remember the vision of the “democratization of the computer,” coined and advocated by two young entrepreneurs who founded Apple Computer, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. And we remember the heralded theme of “drive out of fear” of W.Edwads Deming and the Total Quality Managemen(TQM) movement.
These are the makings of headlines. Yet everyday leaders lead every day and in every possible situation. They seize leadership moments when coffee-room talk of problems leads to a discussion of the choices made available by the new company program. They seize moments to describe the next steps in achieving unit goals, forming an agenda. They ensure that the company’s mission is deftly described in terms of the day-in and day-out duties of an employee―and then take a few moments to say,“Okay，here’s how this applies to you right now.” Or they piece together new and existing company programs by initiating conversations such as,“Well, here’s how Total Quality and our performance-appraisal system go together for me.”
All leaders-famous or not-know that the simple but powerful lesson behind seizing leadership moments is to manage meaning. Uncertainty and ambiguity rear their heads often, thanks in part to the fast paceof change. In order to act, all of us are compelled to the affix meaning to the environments in which we find ourselves-at work and in the world. We must make sense of a situation before we can know how to respond. Yet many individuals prefer to look to others to define what is real, what is fair, and what should count now and in the future. They are reluctant to manage meaning for themselves or others because there is risk involved when the stakes are high.
Leadership is about taking the risk of managing meaning. We assume a leadership role, indeed we become leaders, through our ability to decipher and communicate meaning out of complex and confusing situations. Our communications actually do the work of leadership; our talk is the resource we use to get others to act (Gronn, 1983). Do our communications lead others to see only constraints and roadblocks or to see opportunity? Leadership is all about taking the risks necessary to positively affect the work lives of others and move an organization forward.
In discussing the effectiveness of leaders, management scholar Louis Pondy (1978) emphasized that leaders’ effectiveness lies in their “ability to make activity meaningful” for others; leaders “give others a sense of understanding what they are doing.” As Pondy said, “If in addition, the leader can put [the meaning of behavior] into words, then the meaning of what the group is doing becomes a social fact…. This dual capacity…to make sense of things and to put them into language meaningful to large numbers of people gives the person who has it enormous leverage”(pp.94-95).
This leverage is part of what distinguishes true leaders. Abraham Zaleznik (1977) wasamong the first to draw a distinction between managers and leaders, nothing that managers pay attention to how things get done, while leaders pay attention to what events and decisions mean. Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (1985) took this a step further and argued that leaders concern themselves with the organizations’ basic purpose and general direction and with articulating these ideas to others.
这种影响力即为是否真正领导者的区别，Abraham Zaleznik (1977)是将经理人和领导者之间的区别最早描写出来的人之一，经理人关注的是事情的落实，领导者却关注事件和决策的真正含义。Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus (1985)在此基础上又进一步探讨了"领导者本身关注的是组织宗旨和总体方向"，并将这些理念明确传达给他人"。 In addition, as many organizations have shifted toward greater employee empowerment and democratization, their communication environments have become significantly more dynamic and characterized by mutual influence and real dialogue than they were as recently as fifteen years ago. These factors lead us to an inescapable conclusion: to be effective leaders today, we must understand how to function as managers of meaning.
The skill that is required to manage meaning is called framing. In this first chapter, our goal is to introduce this skill to you. We want to show you that you do not have to be naturally eloquent or especially talented with language to secceed at framing. Framing is a skill that can be taught－and that you can learn.
The essential tool of the manager of meaning is the ability to frame. To determine the meaning of a subject is to make sense of it, to judge its character and significance. To hold die frame of a subject is to choose one particular meaning (or set of meanings) over another. When we share 0ur frames with others (the process of framing), we manage meaning; because we assert that our interpretations should be taken as real over other possible interpretations.
To understand this better, consider how gifted photographers show us their new of the world through their photographs. They capture a view point for others to understand and appreciate. They focus their cameras and frame their subjects so that by seeing their photographs others can know what each photographer intended.
Consider Dorothea Lange, who photographed images from the Great depression. She wanted to show the mood or plight of Americans affected by those hard times. Lange did not take pictures of empty factories, abandoned farms, or large throngs of unemployed people. Instead, she placed in her viewfinder die faces of the people of the Depression. Her message was clear because she framed the Depression in terms of the individuals who were suffering.
Ansel Adams's message was the grandeur of the "Big country— space for heart and imagination," as he once said (Great Photographers, 1971, p. 214). Adams did not dwell on a solitary flower or a plowed field; there were no side trips into "little-things." On the contrary, he placed enormous vistas in his viewfinder and used his technical and artistic skills to let us appreciate each vista's size and greatness.
Lange and Adams are great photographers not because of their subjects but because of their skill at framing, at transmitting their point of view. Just like a photographer, when we select a frame for a subject, we choose which aspect or portion of the subject we will focus on and which we will exclude. When we choose to highlight some aspect of our subject over others, wc make it more noticeable, more meaningful, and more memorable to others. Our framing adds color or accentuates the subject in unique ways. For this reason, frames determine whether people notice problems, how diey understand and remember problems, and how they evaluate and act upon them (Entnian, 1993).
Frames exert their power not only through what they highlight but also through what they leave out. In framing, when we create a bias towards one interpretation of our subject, we exclude other aspects, including those that may produce opposite or alternative interpretations. On promoting "the office family" as a way to frame a company, for example, self-styled office anthropologist David Graulich noted, "Your mom doesn't lay you off. She doesn't say, 'We've had 30 great years together, but it's time to let you go. We're downsizing the family.'" (Leibovich, 1995, p. 1)3). With a bit of humor, Graulich shows us that framing also has the power to distort.
In the complex and chaotic environments in which most of us work, often there is considerable maneuverability with respect to "die facts." Certainly, it is difficult to alter the reality of some events, such as an equipment breakdown. But if there is any uncertainty or ambiguity about, for example, why the equipment broke down, what is real is often what we say is real. What is important is what we choose to say is important.
This was a painful lesson learned during a training session at the Kroger Company, one of the nation's largest food retailers. A consultant was asked to lead twenty-four superstore managers in three days of communication and team building. Everything went pretty much as expected until everyone returned from lunch on the last day. Six of the seminar participants found that their table, chairs, and diplomas certifying their participation were all missing. As they and the consultant looked around in astonishment, a spokesman for the eighteen remaining class members said that the group, which they had named the Judas group (after the disciple who betrayed Jesus Christ), had gotten its just reward. "We no longer consider you a part of this class," the spokesman said boldly.
What could have produced this turn of events? The morning exercise had been based on an often-used game known as the "Prisoner's Dilemma," an exercise in which groups must choose whether to compete or cooperate with one another. If the groups cooperate, there is a win-win outcome. However, the gain by each group is small, and the cumulative gain of the class is moderate. If most groups choose cooperation and one chooses to compete, there is a win-lose outcome. The groups who choose cooperation lose, while the competitive group wins big—very big—and there is no cumulative gain for the class.
On the surface, the game is about figuring out who the team is. If the groups decide that the team is the individual group, they focus on getting points only for themselves and ignore the cumulative class points. If the group decides that the team is the entire class of four groups, all of the focus is on the cumulative score and not the individual group scores.
On a deeper level, the game is about constructing reality and, through framing, leading others to action. The exercise begins with a set of directions that are intentionally ambiguous, read only once by the consultant, and provide no opportunity forquestions. The intent is to simulate uncertain business conditions. Those individuals with an early take on the purpose of the exercise emerge as opinion leaders. Multiple interpretations are certainly possible, but the opinion leaders are usually sure that only one is correct.
Right from the start, the Judas group had an opinion leader who offered the following interpretation of the situation: "The exercise directions said to win as many points as possible. It didn't say anything else. It means that we have to assume responsibility for our own survival, because we can't always trust others to look out for our interests. Look at Group Two over there. Do you trust those guys?"
Meanwhile, the remaining three groups initially considered the same position and sensed some of the same distrust the Judas group felt. However, their opinion leaders felt that the cumulative class scores, which were consistently turning up zero points due to win-lose game behavior, could not be ignored. At several points in the exercise, they spoke to their groups and the class as a whole. Here is what one opinion leader said: 'The directions said win as many points as possible, but while you [the Judas group] are winning individual points, the class has no cumulative points. If this exercise is about individual group competition, why are cumulative points a part of this exercise? Can't you see what's going on here? This is an exercise about working together and cooperating as a class. We are many parts but we are all one body, and it's called the Kroger Company."
That argument proved futile with respect to the Judas group. They racked up a considerable individual group score while the other groups fell deep into the negative column. The latter groups felt betrayed; hence their naming of the Judas group. Having framed the Judas group as a bunch of traitors, the only logical response was to symbolically separate them from the class throughremoval of their chairs, tables, and diplomas.
The example of this game reveals ways in which reality is socially constructed. Since cues from the environment are often ambiguous, we are too often forced into making up the game as we go along, creating the reality to which we must then respond (Weick, 1979). Those individuals who think they understand the game and offer enticing or convincing opinions as to what it all means are those to whom we look for leadership. Certainly that was true for the Judas group when their opinion leader announced that the directions mean "we have to assume responsibility for our own survival." It was also true for the rest of the groups, especially when one of their opinion leaders said, "We are many parts but we are all one body, and it's called the Kroger Company." Two different frames of the situation, two different socially constructed realities.
Components of Framing: Language, Thought, and Forethought
There are three key components of framing. Languageh the most apparent component of the skill. The thought component refers to the internal framing we must do before we can frame for others. Finally, forethought is the secret ingredient that prepares us for on-the-spot framing.
A plumber we know used his backhoe to look for a broken sewer line under a neighbor's lawn and was successful in his search. When asked by the lady of the house, "How can you stand that stifling smell?" his reply was, "Smells like bacon and eggs to a plumber, ma'am." The plumber's frame of the situation, focusing on his economic gain, probably helps him tolerate a smell that most of us find repugnant.
As this example demonstrates, it is easy to create alternative views of the world with a mere turn of a phrase. Highlight the negatives, and a problem looks overwhelming. Accentuate tire positives, and a solution seems just around the corner. Choose an image ("stilling smell"), and you have highlighted one aspect of your subject; choose another ("bacon and eggs"), and a new aspect emerges.
Our language choices are critical to the management of meaning through framing. Framing creates understanding, in part, because of how language works naturally (Alexander, 1969). Let's look at the ways language works for us:
• Language helps in focusing, especially on aspects of situations that are abstract and only vaguely sensed at first. For example, you may describe the problems that you face with a group of employees as "increased apathy," "low morale," or "a growing lack of confidence in management to do the right thing." These terms help stabilize and secure what are, at first, vaguely held perceptions.
• Language helps us to classify and put things in categories. Through our use of language, we categorize. We might, for example, frame someone's performance as marginal as opposed to above average or good.
• Because our memory works through associations, language helps us to remember and retrieve information. If you have ever been ticketed for speeding in a school zone, when you next see a sign that says "20 miles per hour" in a school zone, you're likely to remember that it means "20 miles per hour or a large fine." Thus, our memory is triggered bylanguage.
• Through metaphoric language, we can understand one-thing in terms of another's properties, and so cross-fertilize our impressions (Alexander, 1969). Take a second look at our plumber's "bacon and eggs" metaphor for the fumes that his digging releases. The suggestion that we transfer the smell of bacon frying to something so completely opposite is testimony to the power of metaphor!
In order to frame for others, we must first frame for ourselves. To frame internally, we draw upon our mental models. In his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge (1990, p. 174) defines mental models as "deeply held internal images of how the world works." These images, which can range from simple generalizations to complex theories, have a powerful impact on our framing behavior because they affect what we see and, in turn, what we guide others to see. Consider the following conversation between Don, a team leader in the organization that we studied, and Sally, a member of his team. Don shares with Sally the behaviors he notices in the team. Review the conversation, and you will see that the particular behaviors Don notices reflect his image (mental model) of ideal team functioning.
为了能用语言向他人描述，人们应先向自己描述。关于内心构建语言，我们列举了几种思维模式。Peter Senge (1990, p. 174)的《第五学科》给思维模式的定义是：内心深处对宇宙规律的看法。这些看法从简单的概括到复杂的理论涉及面很广，它影响人们看到什么后并依此类推地影响他人的看法，因此对人们语言构建行为影响极大。用下例中Don（我们研究过的组织中的团队领导）和Sally（Don的团队成员）之间的对话来研究，我们可以看到，Don所发现的特殊性反映出他对理想团队作用的看法（思维模式）
(1)Don: But people seem to operate as if they're very restricted, and that's not right. The way that plays out is people want a lot of strong, clear direction.
(3)Don: But I have a picture of the process I want this team-based organization to follow. And one of the things that I am consciously choosing not to do is to give direction, because I want us to struggle a little bit. I know that it is a struggle for the organization. I've offered a couple suggestions about possible goals for the future, but I have not prescribed that yet. The way I tend to operate is, if we are in some kind of crisis mode, as was often the case in my last job, then I am prescriptive if necessary. I would say frequently, "Here's what we have to do."
(4)Don: My sense is that we're not in a crisis mode, so we have ample time and opportunity for involvement, participation, wrestling with the issues, and being a little frustrated with why we're not where we want to be. And my desire is that we, as a group, would say, "Hey, we are just not happy with where we are. We want to do something about that." And I'm waiting on our module to decide that.
(6)Don: This is very different for me. So one of the things that I keep telling myself is that this is a learning experience of being in a role that's not a crisis situation and giving the organization the space it needs.
(10)Sally: What you are doing is clearly different from previous leaders, previous managers. Actually, we haven't had many leaders. We have had managers, which would be the more directive-type person. And you are right; people have gotten used to that.
Don's mental model of desired team processes reflects a self-managing team philosophy and includes qualities such as "involvement," "participation," "wrestling with the issues," and "being frustrated" (4). Don sees rigidity in his team's behavior because these qualities are absent; this, in turn, leads him to frame the team's behavior as "not right" (1). Don also has a mental model for crisis situations that enabled him to determine that the group was "not in a crisis mode" (4). Thus, we can see how Don's mental models influence what he sees and how he frames the situation for Sally.
Sally has mental models as well; hers lead her to frame leaders as different than managers. A mental model is an essential resource: it identifies the dimensions along which our experiences will be judged and subsequently communicated to others.
It is important to bring our mental models to the conscious level. Without that step, our mental models may be limiting; incorrect assumptions about the world may escape our notice. So, whenever possible, we must think through our mental models in advance of our need for them.
Although it is not emphasized in most communication training, the reality is that to be effective, leaders at any level must communicate spontaneously—anytime, anywhere. They must know how to handle a wide range of people and situations in split-second moments of opportunity, when there is no time for carefully scripted speeches—only time to break into the conversation and frame. In a recent interview, Herb Kelleher (Lee, 1994, p. 65), CEO of the highly successful Southwest Airlines, said it well: "There's a lot being said about the importance of communication. But it can't be rigid; it can't be formal. It has to proceeddirectly from the heart. It has to be spontaneous, it has to be between individuals seeing each other on the elevator. 'Communication' is not getting up and giving formal speeches."
Here's the paradox: the time to exert control over our spontaneous framing is not when we're about to communicate, but when we are storing our memories. To explain this better, let's return to the conversation between Don and Sally, which we know was not planned ahead of time. Don was effective at communicating his mental models because he exerted control over his communications well before he spoke to Sally: he used a process called priming.
虽然多数沟通培训没有强调，但事实应是有效的事实，各级领导者在任何时间、任何地点的沟通对话都必须自然，在没时间（有的只是要马上切入沟通对话和语言描述的时间）细致推敲讲话内容的情况下，要懂得在稍纵即逝的瞬间机会中去处理好各种各样的人和事。在近期的一次采访中，极其成功的西南航空公司的执行总经理（CEO）Herb Kelleher (Lee, 1994, p. 65)就说得很好，“沟通对话的重要性要说的实在太多了，但无法定格、无法规范，只能直接发自内心去做，是自发的，应像电梯内双方面对面那样进行。‘沟通 ’不是起立去作演讲”。这里有一矛盾说法：对自发开展语言描述实施控制的事件不是我们想对话的时间，而是我们正在储存记忆的时间。为了解释清楚，我们还是回到Don和Sally之间的对话，大家知道那是一次没有事先设计的对话。Don在照其思维模式进行的对话是有效的，因为他对Sally表达之前已实施了对这次沟通的控制：他使用了“有备而来法”。
Just as you prime a pump before the water comes out, Don primed his unconscious mind before the words came out. As a result of his recent job change, Don had been forced to consider his mental models about how teams function in crisis and noncrisis situations. By becoming more conscious of his mental models, he primed them for use in spontaneous communication with Sally.
Priming produces the stale of readiness that is critical for effective spontaneous communication. Don's new job brought his mental models to the surface so that he did not need conscious control of his automatic and spontaneous communication. You can do the same, without changing jobs—in later chapters, we will show you how.
Once you become sensitized to the concept of framing, you will be surprised at how often you will notice instances of framing, whether effective orineffective. After analyzing countless examples, we have drawn four conclusions about powerful framing in action:
1. Framing increases the chances of achieving goals.
2. Framing requires initiative.
3. Framing is for everybody.
4. Framing opportunities are everywhere.
From getting buy-in on a new concept to achieving specific goals, framing is a powerful tool, available to everyone, in any circumstance.
Increasing the Chances of Achieving Goals
The path to goal achievement through framing is built on the fact that when the right frames are in place, the right behavior will naturally follow. This was beautifully demonstrated several years ago when the crisis in the U.S. auto industry peaked. Chrysler executives needed to convince Congress to grant $2.7 billion in loan guarantees to Chrysler, a private corporation that was not an essential part of the national defense establishment. The task was daunting, for Congress was inherently fearful of direct financial support of a private business. In addition, if someone had delivered a pure recitation of numbers and trends, Congress would have been numbed.