听懂这条面试核心理念，搞定一切behavioral interview｜访谈前亚马逊副总裁

We believe no matter what sport you're looking at, we believe that the coach makes a big difference. You have to have a good coach to have a winning team. So a good manager, the closest analogy is to a good coach of a sports team. That's actually interesting because sports teams have general managers and many managers consider them as the general manager instead of as the coach. So why did you choose the coach instead of the manager manager? It's a good question. Who is more famous for almost any sports team? We talk about the coach, not the general manager. Many, most people can name the coach of their favorite club, whether it's soccer or American football or ITACI or baseball. They can name the coach. Only the strongest fans can name the general manager, usually.

我们认为，不管是哪种运动，教练都能产生重大影响。要组建一支获胜的球队，必须有一个好的教练。因此，一个好的管理者可以类比为一支体育队伍的优秀教练。这其实很有趣，因为体育队伍中有总经理，许多管理者将自己看作总经理而不是教练。那么，为什么要选择教练而不是总经理呢？这是个好问题。在几乎所有运动队中，谁更出名？我们谈论的是教练，而不是总经理。很多人都能说出自己喜欢球队的教练，无论是足球、美式足球、或是棒球。他们知道教练的名字。但通常只有铁杆粉丝才能说出总经理的名字。

If I kind of break down the role of a manager, they actually have this dual rule. They have the responsibility of selecting people, like assemble the team to performance reviews. But the performance part, the leveling up people's performance, making them more productive, making the team a better team is the coaching part. You're correct that in business, we combine the roles that are split in sports. Often we combine them, not always, but normally the types of companies that normally split the roles are the consulting firms. Consulting firms usually have one set of people who do the hiring and the personnel management, more what you're calling the sports general manager role. And then they have the project manager who is more the coach to try to win in a particular engagement, to deliver an engagement.

如果我来解释一下经理的角色，实际上他们有双重职责。他们需要负责选择合适的人才，比如组建团队和进行绩效评估。但关于绩效这部分，提高员工表现、提高生产力和提升团队的能力是辅导的部分。确实，在商业中，我们通常将这些在体育中分开的角色合并起来使用。不过并非总是如此，通常将角色分开的公司类型是咨询公司。咨询公司通常有一组专门负责招聘和人员管理的人，这更类似于体育中的总经理角色。同时，他们还有项目经理，更像是教练的角色，旨在在特定项目中获得成功并顺利完成项目。

Yeah, that's actually that puzzled me because a lot of effective coaches are not the great players. But naturally, intuitively, people would think the best players would be the best coach because they understand the game the most and they'd have the best skills. The why is this a discrepancy? The two roles aren't the same though. But it turns out having the most skill at kicking a ball or whatever doesn't make you good at the soft skills of creating a team, aligning a team. Of course, there's an overlap and it helps to be able to tell people kick the ball like this or here was my training regimen. But it isn't enough. Some ability, you have to understand the game, but then coupled with those other skills that either nature or development gave you in terms of how to build a team and how to influence and so on is what makes the package of a winning coach. And I think that's also true of a manager.

是的，这一点让我感到困惑，因为很多有效的教练并不是出色的球员。但是，从自然直觉上，人们会认为最好的球员应该是最好的教练，因为他们最了解比赛，而且技能最好。那么，这种差异为什么存在呢？这两个角色虽然并不相同，但事实证明，拥有踢球等方面的最高技能，并不意味着你擅长创造团队、让团队步调一致的这些软技能。当然，技能上是有交集的，比如能够告诉别人如何踢球，或者分享自己的训练计划，但这还不够。你需要具备一定的游戏理解能力，再加上大自然或后天发展赋予你的其他技能，比如如何建立团队、如何影响他人等，这才能成就一个成功教练的整体能力。我认为这对经理人来说也是一样的。

Yeah, like Messi, no matter how good he is at coaching, he cannot make everyone messy. It's about the teamwork. It's about assembling the team. It's not about up-leveling particular skills for each individual. Right. When we come back, why is there not more training for managers? You've realized in our discussion how complicated being a good manager is. I think companies take a look at that. They say, oh, that's really big. Probably if we invest in this person, before they get good at it, they'll go take a better job somewhere else. So when companies hire managers, what do companies seek? Like I know on resume, how many people you manage before your previous school is an important thing at all. But if you in an interview want to evaluate if this person is an effective manager, how would you do that? We can ask what they should do and also what they actually do.

是的，就像梅西一样，无论他的教练能力有多强，他也无法让所有人都变得像他一样杰出。这主要是关于团队合作，是关于如何组建一个团队，而不是提升每个个体的某项技能。对吧，我们回到最初的话题，为什么对经理的培训不够多呢？通过我们的讨论，你已经意识到成为一个好经理有多么复杂。我想公司看到这一点后，会想，哦，这太大了。可能在他们变得出色之前，如果我们在这个人身上投资，他们就会去别的地方找更好的工作。那么，当公司招聘管理人员时，他们在寻找什么呢？我知道在简历上，之前管理过多少人和就读过的学校是很重要的。不过，如果在面试中想评估这个人是否是一个有效的管理者，该怎么判断呢？我们可以问问他们应该做什么以及他们实际做了什么。

So very common questions you would ask a manager would be about how they make decisions. So when they're under pressure or when there's a hard decision, the manager is often a decision maker. Amazon used this type of question that was phrased, tell me about a time because the idea was that what people have done is a better indicator of what they will do than what they say they might do. If you ask them, well, how would you handle this hypothetical situation? They make things up. Whereas if you ask them what they did do. A few different questions that were very common in our leadership in interviews was tell me about a time where you had to make a decision without all the data you wanted. And what we're trying to get at here is how do you handle time pressure and judgment? How have you handled it?

非常常见的问题，大家会问经理的是他们是如何做决策的。特别是在压力之下或遇到困难决策时，经理通常是决策者。亚马逊常用的一种提问方式是“告诉我一个你曾经……的时刻”，因为他们认为，人们过去的实际行动比他们声称可能会做的事情更能预测他们将来会如何行动。如果你问他们“你会如何处理这个假设情境？”他们可能会编造答案。然而，如果你问他们过去实际上做了什么，会得到更真实的答案。在我们的领导面试中，一些非常常见的问题是：“告诉我一个你在没有足够数据的情况下做决策的时刻。” 我们想要了解的是你如何在时间压力和判断力不足的情况下做出决策，以及你过去是如何处理这些情况的。

Another super common question is about personnel issues. Tell me about a time where you had someone who is struggling to perform. How did you handle that? What we're really trying to see in that case is a fairly basic thing, which is are you willing to engage with the interpersonal conflict of telling someone their work isn't what it needs to be? Because some managers avoid that. They are afraid of the conflict. And so we may also ask, tell us about a time where you disagree deeply with a peer. How did you resolve peer conflict? Another question for better for worse is tell me about a time where you had extreme date pressure and more work than you thought you could get done by a date.

另一个非常常见的问题是关于人事问题的。请告诉我一个你曾经遇到某人工作表现不佳的情况。你是如何处理的？我们实际上想了解的是一个相对简单的事情，那就是你是否愿意面对与他人产生的人际冲突，并告诉对方他们的工作没有达到要求。因为有些经理会避免这样的问题，他们害怕冲突。因此，我们可能还会问，请讲述一次你与同事有深度分歧的经历。你是如何解决的？另一个不论好坏的问题是，请讲述一次你在工作中面临极大时间压力，并且任务量超出你预期的经历。

Because this is common, right? Managers feel overloaded. And so how do they handle being overloaded or feeling overloaded? Those are a few of the things when you're asking what do companies look for. The thing is, I don't know as those capture, you'd like to ask them questions like, tell me how you've developed your skills as a manager or tell me what is your process for teaching yourself management. But those questions don't get asked because they don't feel very tangible. Other than the fact I like your answer, it's hard to evaluate what is a good answer. That's the problem with self-scales and everything is soft. It's very hard to evaluate. But I'm also curious what is a good answer to the last question, like how do you handle that day? There's always a lot of pressure and the more work. Ha ha ha.

因为这是常见的情况，对吧？管理者感到负荷过重。那么他们如何处理自身的过载或这种感觉呢？这就是在询问公司寻找什么时会想到的一些问题。问题是，我不知道这些是否能捕捉到你想要的。你可能会想问他们一些问题，比如“你是如何发展自己的管理技能的？”或者“你有什么方法来自学管理？”但这些问题往往不会被问到，因为它们看起来不太具体。除了你喜欢某个答案之外，很难评估什么是好的答案。这就是“软技能”的问题，一切都不容易评估。我也很好奇，对于最后一个问题来说，什么才是一个好的答案，比如你是如何处理高压或大量工作的？哈哈哈。

A good answer that will get you a job anyway is one that combines communication, prioritization and creativity. If I were answering that question, I would be sure to mention that I always keep everyone informed. I'm facing date pressure, I can't do everything. Here's what I'm doing to do as much as possible. Here's what's above and below the line so that no one is surprised. So the first thing I'm showing is I'm a good manager because I don't surprise people. The second thing I'm going to say is the only answer to not being able to do everything is prioritization. Here's my way of prioritizing correctly, like of getting the priorities right.

无论如何，能够让你获得工作的好答案是一个结合了沟通、优先排序和创造力的答案。如果我来回答这个问题，我会确保提到我始终让每个人都了解情况。我面临着时间的压力，不可能完成所有事情。这是我正在做的，以便尽可能多地完成任务。这是优先事项的分界线，这样没有人会感到意外。因此，我首先展示的是我是一个好的管理者，因为我不会让人感到意外。其次我要说的就是，解决无法完成所有事情的唯一办法就是优先排序。以下是我正确优先排序的方法，以确保确定正确的优先级。

And then my third answer, which is going to get me hired at most places is explaining somehow how because I'm able to show that I'm smart and creative, I magically get more done than expected. So I'm gonna tell some story relevant to the situation about how I overachieve. And that story varies, but what people want to hear, of course, when they ask this impossible question is they wanna hear that you're like a realistic person, but that somehow you still provide magic. As opposed to just saying, well, when I'm overloaded, I just only do part of the work and I try and do the most important work, they wanna hear that somehow you're very creative at expanding the envelope.

然后我的第三个回答，几乎能让我在大多数地方得到工作，就是解释为什么我能够通过展示自己的聪明和创造力，神奇地完成超出预期的工作。因此，我会讲一些与情况有关的故事，说明我如何超额完成任务。故事的内容可能会有所不同，但当人们问这个难以回答的问题时，他们当然想听到的是你是一个现实的人，同时又能创造出奇迹。而不是简单地说，当我工作量过大时，我只做部分工作并尽量完成最重要的部分，他们想听到的是你在扩展工作边界方面非常有创造力。

There are legitimate answers to that. We know, for example, a highly motivated team that's excited about their work will get more done than a team that is not excited or is disengaged. And so I would tell a story of maybe how in the past, I had gotten a team really excited so that the team voluntarily, without me really pressuring them, worked harder or worked smarter to get things done. I would talk about that coaching element, the mystical, I got my team of not superstars, play so well together that they beat the team of superstars that we're not playing well together. We all know the story of the team with no stars, but that somehow plays well together can sometimes beat the team that has a messy, but the rest of the team is not supporting a messy.

有一些合理的答案。我们知道，一支对工作充满激情的团队比那些不感兴趣或不投入的团队效率更高。因此，我会讲述一个过去的故事，说明我如何让团队变得非常兴奋，以至于他们在没有压力的情况下，自愿地更努力或更聪明地完成任务。我会谈到那种指导的元素，仿佛是某种神奇的力量，使得一个并非由明星组成的团队却能协作得非常好，乃至打败了那些没能很好合作的明星团队。我们都听过这样的故事：没有明星的团队由于良好的合作，有时能击败缺少团队支持的明星主导的队伍。

So let's go back to effective managers. And today's topic is, let's do the next question is, when you were as a manager, a director or VP, you work with many managers for long time. How would you characterize a good manager versus a not so effective manager? Their team is their engine. In the end, the manager isn't doing work. And in fact, if the manager is spending a lot of time, say trying to be a hands-on engineer, hands-on data scientist, they're often neglecting their team. I'm not against people being hands-on, but they have to have it in the right priority.

那么，让我们回到有效的管理者。今天的话题是：接下来的问题是，当你作为经理、主管或副总裁时，你与很多管理者共事过很长时间。你如何描述一个优秀的管理者与一个不那么有效的管理者之间的区别呢？他们的团队就是他们的引擎。最终，经理并不是真正做具体工作的。事实上，如果经理花很多时间，比如尝试去做一个动手的工程师或数据科学家，他们往往就忽略了自己的团队。我并不反对参与具体工作，但他们必须把工作重点放在正确的位置。

And so for me, are they hiring the right people? Are they being careful there? Are they growing their stars? The strongest performers on the team, are they recognizing them and giving them more and challenging them? At the same time, every team has a distribution of talent for your people who are struggling, not even necessarily struggling, who just aren't your strongest. Are you working with them? You try to improve them. I coached one person who had a very large team, and this is common, it's just this person is an example. This person had a team of, let's say, 1,000. And this person loved to work with their stars. And of course, if you pick the best 10 people out of 1,000 at a good company, they're going to be amazing. And so they really loved working with those people. And I asked them, I said, what are you doing for the bottom half of your team? Because the bottom half of your team is 500 people. Yes, maybe in that 500, there's a few that aren't ever going to do well, and the best thing to do is let them go. But you're not going to let go 500 people. And also on a team your size, those 500 people are costing your company at a tech company like $200 million a year. And so I was prompting this leader, what are you doing to make the bottom half better? Because they're a $200 million asset, and what you've told me in your leadership is you're basically ignoring them.

对我来说，他们是否在招聘合适的人才？他们在这方面是否足够谨慎？他们是否在培养自己的明星员工？对团队中表现最突出的人员，他们是否给予认可、更多机会和挑战？同时，每个团队都会有不同程度的人才分布，对于那些表现不那么突出的人，不一定是差劲的人，你是否在帮助他们改进？我曾辅导过一个管理着非常大团队的人，这种情况其实很常见，这个例子就是其中之一。假设这个人有一个由1000人组成的团队，他非常喜欢与那些明星员工合作。当然，如果你从1000人中选择表现最好的10个人，他们一定非常出色。所以他们非常热衷于和这些人一起工作。我问他，那你的团队中表现较弱的一半呢？因为这500人也是你的团队成员。可能在这500人中有一些确实不太适合，最好的方式可能是放弃他们。但你不可能让500人都离开。此外，在你这样规模的团队中，这500人在一家科技公司意味着每年大约2亿美元的成本。所以我提醒这位领导者，你在做什么来提升那一半人的表现？因为他们是价值2亿美元的资产，而从你的管理中，我听到的却是你基本上忽视了他们。

So when I think about a good leader, they have to lead their whole team. That's one element of management. Second element of management, I really think about is your peer relationships. How are you getting things done for your team? Because you need, usually, have dependencies on other people, and other people have dependencies on you, a manager really becomes a negotiator. They're busy negotiating schedules, and loaning resources, and commitments, and you build this, and I'll build that, and this is in scope, and this isn't out of scope. The two pieces there are communication and influence. The communication piece is being clear with your manager, maybe me, and with others. Where are we, and what are we blocked on, and what is red, and what is green?

当我想到一个优秀的领导者时，他们必须能够领导整个团队。这是管理的一个方面。管理的第二个方面是我认为需要关注的是与同事的关系。你如何为你的团队完成任务？因为通常你会依赖其他人，而其他人也依赖你，所以管理者实际上成了一个谈判者。他们忙于协商进度、借调资源、履行承诺，你负责这个，我负责那个，还有什么在范围内，什么不在范围内。这里涉及到两个关键点：沟通和影响力。沟通方面，是要对你的上司，比如我，还有其他人表达清楚。我们现在处在什么阶段，遇到了哪些阻碍，哪些任务是紧急的，哪些是顺利的。

Second piece is being influential. Can you get other people to change what they're doing? Can you work with another team, and get them to prioritize something you need, for example? The last part, I think, is a really good manager. The good leaders are also creative or inventive. They're seeing things that could be better, and they're inventing, they might be inventing new technology, they might be inventing a new business approach, they might be inventing a new way to organize, but somehow they are changing the playing field, to use our sports analogy again. In this case, they are seeing a way to play the game differently in order to have an advantage.

第二个部分是影响力。你能让其他人改变他们的做法吗？例如，你能与另一个团队合作，让他们优先考虑你需要的事情吗？最后一个部分，我认为是一个真正优秀的管理者。好的领导者也具备创造力或发明能力。他们看到可以改进的地方，并进行创新。他们可能在发明新技术，可能在探索新的商业方法，也可能在组织上有新的安排，但无论如何，他们都在改变游戏规则。用运动的比喻来说，他们找到了以不同方式进行比赛的方法，以获得优势。

Yeah, I read a book called the E-Meth Revisited, and they have the technician, entrepreneur, and managers in their definition. The managers focus on process, focus on how to make the machine run. Technicians are focusing on solving the problem. Entrepreneurs focus on seeing the gap, seeing the future, and have the vision. They constantly want to event. I can see why that leader, who manage a thousand people, focus on the top 10 people. Because the top 10 people can help him or her do the last two jobs. He can get a lot of benefit by working with innovative top performers. You're absolutely right. The attraction is obvious.

好的，我读了一本叫做《E-Myth回顾》的书，书中定义了技师、企业家和经理人。经理人专注于流程，关注如何让系统正常运行。技师则专注于解决问题。企业家则看到差距，洞察未来，并有远见。他们总是想要创新。我明白为什么一个领导者管理上千人时，会更关注前10名的员工。因为这前10名的员工可以帮助他或她完成后两个角色的任务。与这些优秀且具有创新精神的员工合作，他可以获得很多好处。你说的非常对，吸引力显而易见。

The problem is you have 500 people, it's a huge number and a huge cost. You either need to use that asset. So the normal sort of best answer here, it's a recursive answer. He has a programming analogy. As a leader at that level, you have to train and develop people who report to you. But also, part of training and developing them is making sure they are training and developing their managers. And then those managers are training and developing. So you have to recurse down, make sure as best you can. Of course, fidelity gets lost as you get further away. Like this recursion isn't like a computer that's perfect. There's a fidelity loss at each level. But you're trying to set up a recursive structure so that the manager at the bottom still has all these goals and is working on improving their team and being innovative and driving results just like you are.

问题在于你有500人，这是一个庞大的数字，也是一个巨大的成本。你需要利用这个资源。通常的最佳解决方案是递归的，这个解释可以类比编程。作为这个层级的领导者，你必须培训和发展向你汇报的员工。同时，培训和发展他们的一部分工作是确保他们在培训和发展他们的经理。然后这些经理再去培训和发展他们的下属。所以你需要向下递归，尽力确保这一点。当然，随着层级的递增，信息的准确性会有所降低。这种递归不像计算机那样完美，每一级都会有信息损失。但你是在试图建立一个递归结构，以便最底层的经理仍然拥有所有这些目标，并且在改善他们的团队、进行创新和推动结果方面与你保持一致。

This is very hard to do. When you go up, your way of influencing goes from conduction to conviction to radiation. It's kind of a physical metaphor. Like that. And it is true. Although there are some ways around that. Mass communication channels, I used to send my team a weekly email to my whole team, even when I had many hundreds of people. I sent some email to them every Sunday night bearing my perspective as a leader. Some people have told me those even 10 years later, they remember those emails. Mass communication allows you to get around one on one and flatten the structure. Of course, if you look at Jensen Wong at NVIDIA, he talks a lot about the virtue of a flat structure. And he's an extremist in terms of a flat reporting structure. But even in a hierarchical reporting structure, you can have flattened communication because someone at the front line can email me and I can email my largest team was 800 people. I can email all 800 at once. Or I can, if I have something that only applies to 300 of them, I can email all 300 at once.

这件事确实很难做到。当你步步高升时，你的影响方式会从传导变为信念再到辐射。这有点像物理学的比喻，确实如此。不过，也有一些方法可以绕过这种难题。大众传播渠道就是其中一种。以前我会每周给整个团队发一封电子邮件，即使当我管理着数百人的团队时，我也坚持这样做。每周日晚上，我都会以领导者的视角给他们发送邮件。有人告诉我，时隔十年，他们仍然记得这些邮件。大众传播可以帮助你绕过一对一的沟通，简化结构。比如，看看NVIDIA的黄仁勋，他非常推崇扁平化的组织结构，在这方面他是个极端主义者。不过即使在层级结构的环境中，也可以实现扁平化的沟通。因为前线人员可以直接给我发邮件，而我也可以一次性给我最大的800人团队发送邮件。如果只有其中的300人需要接收特定信息，我可以直接给这300人发送邮件。

So there is some ability to get around the radiation. I want to hear a story or an example of how you can convince someone that you can influence someone to realize their ideas are stupid without telling them. In terms of a story, Amazon bought Twit. And I went to Twit to work for their CEO, Emmett Sheer. And my initial job, we call being his spirit guide. But what it meant was my job was to tell him how Amazon worked so that he could understand Amazon. And I had zero authority, no one in Twit reported to me and I reported Emmett. So I had no authority to tell him anything, but I would see things that I knew weren't going to work within Amazon.

所以，有一些方法可以规避辐射。我想听一个故事或例子，说明如何在不直接告诉某人他们的想法很愚蠢的情况下，让他们意识到这一点。至于一个故事，就是亚马逊收购了Twit。我去Twit为他们的CEO Emmett Sheer工作，我的初始职位被称为他的精神向导。但实际上，我的工作是告诉他亚马逊是如何运作的，以便他能理解亚马逊。我没有任何权力，没有人在Twit向我汇报，而我直接向Emmett汇报。所以，我没有权力对他说什么，但我会看到一些我知道在亚马逊行不通的事情。

And I developed this phrase, which was, could I share how I've seen this done elsewhere? And why I would ask that is first, if I was say talking to his leadership team and I said, can I share how I've seen this done elsewhere? Number one, I could say, could I share how we do this at Amazon? But that would already raise their threat warning of like, oh, he's about to tell us what we have to do for Amazon. So I didn't want to use the Amazon word. The second thing though, was no one except a complete jerk will ever look at you and say, no, you can't share anything, like just get out. So they kind of had to say yes, but then once they said yes, they kind of had to at least listen. Didn't mean they had to do what I wanted. But it gave me a chance to say, well, I don't know enough about Twitch yet, but here's what our concerns are. Here's the constraints and why. Here's how it works. Remember, this person you're trying to influence is a smart person which had success as a high performer and they want to keep having that.

我创建了一个说法，就是“我能分享一下我在其他地方看到的做法吗？”我之所以这样问，首先，如果我在和领导团队谈话时说，“我能分享一下我在其他地方看到的做法吗？”一方面，我可以说“我能分享一下我们在亚马逊是怎么做的吗？”但这会让他们提高警觉，好像我要告诉他们必须按亚马逊的做法来做。我不想用“亚马逊”这个词。第二点是，几乎没有人会直接拒绝你说“你不能分享任何东西，快走”。因此，他们大多会说可以，这样一来，他们至少得听听我的意见。虽然这不意味着他们必须按照我的做法去做，但这给了我一个机会去说，目前我对Twitch的了解还不够，但这是我们的顾虑和限制，以及其背后的原因。这也是让对方倾听的一个策略，毕竟，对方是一个非常聪明并且曾在高绩效方面取得成功的人，他们希望继续保持这样的成功。

So they want to be right, they want their idea to be good. And if you can expose them to information without threatening them, without raising their defenses, their natural desire to want to succeed will make them take that information if it truly helps them. And so the way you influence people is you avoid threatening them and you gain over time in particular, you have to play the long game, you're trying to gain two thoughts in their mind. One, Ethan is always out for my good, he's always trying to help me. Two, Ethan often says smart things. You don't have to be perfect nor, but they have to believe when Ethan talks, he's trying to help me and when Ethan talks, he's usually pretty smart.

他们希望自己是对的，希望自己的想法是好的。如果你能在不威胁他们、不引起他们防备的情况下给他们提供信息，他们出于成功的本能会接受这些对他们真正有帮助的信息。所以，影响他人的方法是避免让他们感到威胁，特别是从长远来看，你需要争取在他们心中建立两个想法。首先，Ethan总是为我好，总是试图帮助我。其次，Ethan通常说得很有道理。你不需要做到完美，但他们必须相信，当Ethan讲话时，他是在帮助我，而且他说的话通常很有见地。

And at that point, if you start saying things, they're like, oh, that's a good point. I didn't think about whatever taxes or the cost of the technology stack or the security implication. Then they'll be like, oh, I haven't thought about that. How would you solve it? Or, and they're very open at that point because you've moved them. What you wanna do is switch the conversation from oppositional to collaborative. And I want to help the audience summarize what I just heard because the Twitch story is so great and you started with the collaboration. Like, yeah, like when you frame it as a conflict, you try to convince, you kind of shut down the door of collaboration. And collaboration is kind of the key of making effective influence.

当你开始说出一些观点时，他们可能会说：“哦，这是个好观点。我之前没考虑过税收、技术堆栈的成本或安全影响。”然后，他们可能会说：“哦，我没想过这个问题。你会怎么解决？”此时他们非常开放，因为你已经改变了他们的想法。你要做的是将对话从对立转为合作。我想帮助听众总结一下我刚听到的内容，因为Twitch的故事非常精彩，而你是从合作开始的。是的，当你把它框定为一个冲突时，你试图说服对方，但这其实关闭了合作的大门，而合作才是有效影响的关键。

You need to accept that you can be wrong and the other person can be right in order to, that's the start of collaboration. And in a particular situation, you are in a very difficult situation because no capital, no authority, you are supposed to represent, you are reporting to the CEO. So you started with respecting his agency and the agency of other senior leaders and cause it recognize the respect. And so they welcome your information. And by playing the long game of providing useful information, you slowly establish kind of your seat at the table. That is correct. That is very much correct.

你需要接受一个事实，就是你可能是错的，而另一个人可能是对的，这是合作的开始。在某种特定情况下，你面临非常困难的局面：没有资金支持，也没有权威影响，你需要向CEO汇报。因此，你要从尊重他的权利和其他高管的权利开始，这种尊重会被他们感受到。他们因此欢迎你的信息。通过长期提供有用的信息，你慢慢地在决策圈中找到了自己的位置。这是正确的，非常正确。