---
author: TED
date: '2026-04-12'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvV8vMV105E
speaker: TED
tags:
  - organizational-behavior
  - network-analysis
  - burnout
  - employee-wellbeing
  - workplace-psychology
title: 组织行为学中的四种关系陷阱与倦怠：网络分析视角下的深度解析
summary: 本内容深入探讨了组织行为学教授埃里克·昆坦（Eric Quintane）关于组织网络结构如何影响员工倦怠的研究。文章详细阐述了凝聚型与开放型两种网络结构，揭示了可能导致员工倦怠的“四种关系陷阱”：绑定性规范、情绪传染、失控的相互依赖以及过度需求。最后，提出了通过“关系健康检查”来识别并采取相应策略（如网络多样化或内部协同）来应对这些陷阱，从而促进员工福祉。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: psychology
area: society-thinking
project: []
people:
  - Eric Quintane
companies_orgs:
  - McKinsey
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 组织行为学中的网络视角：洞察隐藏的动态

作为一名组织行为学教授，我的研究核心在于理解组织中的个体及其互动模式。具体而言，我专注于人际关系网络，即个体在组织内部构建的联系模式。这种聚焦让我们能够以一种全新的视角审视组织，发现那些初看之下不甚明显，但实则至关重要的信息。例如，通过可视化网络结构，我们可以清晰地看到不同部门之间的互联程度，抑或某个部门为何显得与整体相对孤立。

网络视角为我们提供了强大的分析工具，包括数学和统计学方法，用以精确地解析个体在组织中所处的位置，以及他们所处的网络环境如何深刻影响他们的思维方式。这些网络位置与个体及其周围的连接体，已被证实与一系列关键的组织成果息息相关，包括员工的绩效、创造力、晋升机会，甚至其是否会选择离开组织。过去三十余年的大量实证研究，跨越不同的文化、行业和组织类型，都累积了无可辩驳的证据，表明这些网络至关重要。在此基础上，我们识别出两种特别重要的典型网络结构。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

I'm a professor
of organizational behavior,
and as my students very well know,
it means that I study people
in organizations.
Now I study them with a very
specific perspective.
I focus on their relationships.
I focus on networks,
the pattern of relationships
people build with each other
inside organizations.
And when we do that,
we have a different image of organizations
that start to appear in front of our eyes.
So let me give you an example.
This is an organization I've studied.
You see people represented by circles,
and their colors represent departments
that they belong to.
Now when we apply this network
perspective to this organization,
we start to see another image
of the organization that appears.
We start to see some things
that were not visible at first
and they become obvious.
For example, these departments
are much more interconnected
than what we thought before.
Or this purple department
all the way at the top,
feels like it's almost completely
disconnected from the organization.
Now the network perspective
gives us many more tools,
mathematical, statistical tools
to understand precisely
the position of individuals
in organizations
and how those positions,
the network that surrounds them,
actually affect how they think.
And this has been related
in the world of organizations
to many important outcomes
like their performance, their creativity,
their ability to be promoted,
or whether they're going
to leave the organization.
And over the last 30 years,
we've accumulated a vast body
of empirical evidence
showing that these networks matter,
and they matter across cultural contexts,
they matter across industries,
across types of organizations.
And we've learned that there are two
typical network structures
that particularly matter.

</details>

### 两种典型网络结构：凝聚型与开放型网络的深度解析

让我们来认识一下**凯莉（Kelly）**。凯莉身处一种我们称之为**凝聚型网络结构（cohesive network structure）**的环境。这意味着她与同事们有着牢固的关系，更重要的是，她的所有同事彼此熟悉、相互信任，并频繁沟通。即使我们对凯莉及其同事的个情了解不多，也能对她的一些情况做出推断。我们知道她可以依靠同事的支持；当危机发生时，她能够信赖他们。由于人们频繁交流，关于彼此工作的 Thus，信息能够迅速且有效地传播，凯莉因此能够快速地协调工作，快速解决问题，并相对迅速地执行她的想法。

**亚历克斯（Alex）**则处于一种截然不同的网络结构中。她身处**开放型网络结构（open network structure）**。这意味着她的同事之间并不相互认识，他们之间缺乏沟通，对彼此的了解甚少。我们研究发现，这通常是因为他们来自不同的社交群体、职能部门或地理区域。这种结构的重要性在于，亚历克斯能够接触到极其多元化的信息、不同的视角和解决问题的全新方式。这不仅为她提供了丰富的信息来源，更重要的是，随着时间的推移，她发展出了以不同方式思考问题、并将某个解决方案或想法从一个情境迁移到另一个情境的能力——她拥有宝贵的**翻译技能（translation skills）**。亚历克斯对这些信息还拥有相当的控制权，这赋予了她极大的影响力。因此，在这种网络结构下，亚历克斯往往因其**创造力**而受到认可，她能够带来创新的解决方案，并能够将不同的视角融会贯通。这是一个非常有力量的职场位置。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

And I'll tell you a little bit
more about them.
Meet Kelly.
Kelly is in what we call
a cohesive network structure.
That means Kelly has strong
relationships with her colleagues,
but also all of her colleagues
know each other,
they trust each other,
they talk with each other frequently.
And without knowing anything
else about Kelly or her colleagues,
we can actually know
a few things about her.
We know that she can rely
on support from her coworkers.
When there is a crisis,
something goes wrong,
she can count on them.
And because people talk often,
they exchange information
about each other's work,
they actually have a lot
of recognition at work
and validation at work.
We also know that they talk frequently,
that means communication
spreads quickly and effectively,
it means that Kelly is able
to coordinate quickly.
She's able to solve problems fast,
and she is able to implement
her ideas pretty quickly as well.
Alex is in a very different type
of network structure.
Alex is in an open network structure,
which means that her colleagues
don't know each other.
They don't talk to each other.
They have little awareness of each other.
What we’ve learned is that this means,
well, they come
from different social groups,
different functions, different departments
in the organizations,
they might work in different countries.
And that's important
because what we've identified with this
is that Alex is exposed
to very different information,
different perspectives,
different ways to think about problems.
What this gives Alex
is a source of information,
but also it gives her skills
that are developed over time
about how to think differently
about problems,
how to translate a solution,
an idea, from one context to another.
She has translation skills
that have been developed.
Alex also has control
over that information,
which gives her quite a lot of power.
So with this network structure,
we know that Alex tends
to be recognized for creativity.
She tends to be recognized
because she brings different
solutions to the table.
She sees things from
different perspectives,
and she's able to combine them together.
It's a very powerful position.

</details>

### 网络的阴暗面：倦怠的悄然兴起与四种关系陷阱的揭示

正如我之前所提到的，我们对这些网络结构及其带来的积极益处已经有了广泛的认识，这得益于过去三十年的大量研究。然而，对于可能伴随这些网络结构出现的**负面后果（negative outcomes）**，我们却知之甚少。这或许令人惊讶，但从积极到消极，这似乎是一个显而易见的跳跃，然而对我个人而言，花了多年时间才意识到我们对这些负面因素的了解是多么匮乏。

事实上，这种意识的萌芽可以追溯到我读博士期间。我攻读管理学博士，而我当时的妻子也在攻读博士学位，研究方向是家庭暴力。与我不同，我是一位**定量研究者（quantitative researcher）**，我依赖大型数据集、统计学和数学。而我的妻子则通过与人交谈，倾听他们的故事来开展研究。当她与我分享一些家庭暴力受害者的经历时，让我印象深刻的是，有些受害者竟然会长期（数年甚至数十年）滞留在虐待关系中。其中一个主要原因在于，受害者的家人和朋友常常持有固有的、强烈的观点，特别是关于“什么是恋爱关系”、“什么是婚姻”的定义。这些外部观点阻碍了受害者逃离并获得自由。

在组织的世界里，负面关系同样存在。我们可能会遇到难以相处的同事，或是糟糕的上司，这些都可以被识别出来。但此前，我们对这些网络结构可能带来的潜在负面影响知之甚少。大约在六年前，**职业倦怠（burnout）**作为一种新兴的职场流行病，其认知度大幅提升。2019年，世界卫生组织（WHO）正式将倦怠列为一种**职业综合征（occupational syndrome）**，其典型特征是**精疲力竭（exhaustion）**、**愤世嫉俗（cynicism）**，通常由过度的职场压力引起。此后进行的众多调查都证实了其普遍性——一份由**麦肯锡（McKinsey）**进行的调查显示，49%的受访员工表示他们正经历某种程度的倦怠。

调查中一个有趣的发现是，他们指出**有毒的工作环境（toxic work environment）**是导致倦怠的典型原因。但“典型工作环境”究竟意味着什么？如何衡量它？这些描述相当模糊且不够精确。正是在这里，我看到了**网络分析（network analysis）**的价值——它能够将隐藏的现象可视化，并精确地描绘网络特征。因此，我启动了一系列研究项目。在过去五到六年中，我们与七个不同规模、不同行业的组织合作，总计服务超过5000名员工。我们通过访谈和问卷收集他们关于倦怠的体验，同时收集电子邮件流量来理解他们在社会结构中的位置。我们将这些数据与倦怠体验相结合，利用预测模型进行关联分析。

研究发现，网络结构能够以相当高的精度（超过80%）预测倦怠体验。尽管这项研究仍在进行中，部分论文已发表，但仍有许多未完成的工作。尽管如此，我想在此分享一些我们已经识别出的关键洞见，我将它们命名为**“四种关系陷阱”（four relational traps）**。这四种陷阱分别对应于我们之前讨论过的两种网络结构。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

Now as mentioned, we’ve learned
a lot about those network structures.
And there's a big body of work
over the last three decades
that has accumulated
evidence, mine included,
about all the positive benefits
that we can get from belonging
to some of those structures.
But we have very little understanding
of any negative outcomes,
problems that can be associated with them.
Now, it might [be] surprising,
it's not a big leap.
You know, positive, negative.
But it took us, or it took me, years
to realize we don't know
those negative aspects.
In fact, and it's interesting
because there were a few seeds
that were planted very early on,
a long time ago, when I was doing my PhD.
And I did my PhD in management,
but I did my PhD
at the same time as my wife,
and my wife did her PhD
in domestic violence.
She was studying victims
of domestic violence.
And unlike me, I'm
a quantitative researcher,
that means I use large data sets.
I look at statistics, mathematics.
My wife actually talks to people.
She hears, she listens to the stories.
And when she was telling me
about some of the stories
of victims of domestic violence,
what struck me
is that some of those victims
will stay in abusive relationships
for years, decades, even.
One of the main reasons
was that the family and friends
of the victims of domestic violence
had strong views,
in particular, views about what it means
to be in a relationship,
about what it means to be married.
And they wouldn't let the victims
of domestic violence
escape from the relationship
and break free.
Now in the world of organizations,
there are negative relationships.
We can have a difficult coworker,
we can have a bad boss
and we can identify them,
but we don't know or we did not know
about the potential negative impacts
of those network structures.
About six years ago,
there was a big rise
in consciousness of burnout
as the next epidemic in the workplace.
In 2019, the World Health
Organization recognized burnout
as an occupational syndrome.
It's characterized
by exhaustion, by cynicism,
and it's typically caused
by excessive stress at work.
There have been many surveys
that have been conducted since then,
and this one shows
that it's a widespread phenomenon,
with 49 percent of employees,
in this survey done by McKinsey,
reporting that they were experiencing
some sort, some type of burnout.
One interesting element
is that they identify
that a toxic work environment
will typically cause this burnout.
Now what is a typical work environment?
How do you measure it,
what does it actually mean?
That was vague,
that was a bit ambiguous.
It's not very precise.
And so that's where I thought
that network analysis,
with its ability to make
visible things that are hidden,
to characterize networks
very precisely, could be helpful.
So I started research projects.
And research projects,
for the last 5 to 6 years,
we've been studying and working
with seven organizations,
different sizes, different industries,
over 5,000 employees in total
we've worked with
and we've been doing interviews,
surveys to capture
their experience of burnout,
but also collecting email traffic
to understand their positions
in social structures.
And we've tried to associate that,
using predictive models, with burnout.
And we found that actually,
those network structures can predict
the experience of burnout
with a fair amount of precisions,
over 80 percent precisions.
Now this is still a work in progress.
Some papers have been published,
but a lot of them have not,
and I'm still working on them.
But I wanted to highlight
a few of the insights
that we've already been able to identify.
And these insights,
I’m calling them now
the four relational traps.
So those four traps, they correspond
to the two network structures
that we discussed before.
The cohesive network structure
that Kelly is embedded in
has the characteristics
that people know each other.
Kelly's coworkers know each other,
they talk with each other,
they trust each other,
which means that over time,
norms of behavior start to emerge.
And those norms of behavior,
they start to say what is appropriate,
what is not appropriate to do or to think,
and the type of topics that you can raise
in the context of the group.
And when those norms become too strong,
they can actually feel very binding.
And this is the example of domestic
violence I was giving before.
These norms can become so strong
that when the interest of the person
diverged substantially
from the interests of the group,
it becomes very difficult to break free
and to escape from those norms.
The second trap is called
emotional contagion,
or we call it emotional contagion,
and it's based on the research projects
I'm conducting right now
with one of my former PhD students.
And we're studying communications
and spread of emotions at the university.
And what we find is that when people
communicate frequently with each other,
like in Kelly's cohesive structure,
well, they also share emotions.
They share how they feel.
And when they feel good,
then everything's fine, no problem.
But when they start complaining,
they feel frustration,
they start to have negative thoughts
about the organizations,
then the cohesive structure
acts like an echo chamber.
It amplifies those negative emotions,
which generates stress.
It generates a fair amount
of exhaustion and burnout.
So the open structure is very different.
You don't have strong norms
in an open structure.
You don't have an echo chamber
in an open structure,
but it's still subject
to a couple of those relational traps.
The first one, we call it
uncontrollable interdependencies.
And it comes from a study we did
with a former student in a hospital.
In the hospital, we identified
that nurses who were exposed,
or who had to rely
on very different people,
in order to deliver their job,
to deliver their care,
will actually experience
higher levels of burnout.
That means when they need to coordinate
between the doctors, the radiologists,
the legal experts,
the administrative people,
they will depend on so many people
to deliver the care to the patients,
that they ended up having no control
about the quality of their work,
or when they could do their work.
And this led them to experience
inordinate amount of stress
which led to burnout.
The last trap, we call it
excessive demands.
And the idea is that here is not
that they depend on other people,
but that many people depend on Alex.
And if there are many people
who depend on Alex
in these open structures,
that means they come
from different perspectives,
different departments,
they have different requirements.
And this increases the workload on Alex
so much that it can become excessive.
And we have a paper we just published
based on a research project
where we demonstrate
that individuals who are placed
in these positions,
where they are receiving those demands
from disconnected individuals,
disconnected coworkers,
are significantly more likely
to experience burnout.

</details>

### 识别与规避关系陷阱：诊断与策略

首先，**绑定性规范（binding norms）**是凝聚型网络结构下的第一重陷阱。当群体内部的规范变得异常强大时，它们会产生巨大的约束力，使得个体难以摆脱。这就像我之前提到的家庭暴力案例，受害者因家人朋友根深蒂固的观念而难以逃离。在组织中，这些强化的规范可能导致个体与群体利益发生严重偏差时，也难以从中解脱。

第二种陷阱是**情绪传染（emotional contagion）**，这源于当前一项与前博士生合作的研究。我们正在研究大学内的沟通及情绪传播现象。我们发现，当人们像凯莉那样在凝聚型结构中频繁交流时，他们也会共享情感。如果大家情绪积极，一切都很好；但一旦有人开始抱怨、表达沮丧或对组织产生负面看法，这种凝聚型结构就会成为一个**回音室（echo chamber）**，放大负面情绪，从而引发压力、疲惫甚至倦怠。

然而，开放型结构虽然没有强烈的规范或情绪回音室，但同样存在陷阱。第一个陷阱是**失控的相互依赖（uncontrollable interdependencies）**。我们曾在一所医院进行一项研究，发现那些需要依赖众多不同人员才能完成工作（如护理工作）的护士，往往会经历更高程度的倦怠。当她们需要协调医生、放射科医生、法律专家、行政人员等众多角色时，她们对最终服务质量或工作时效的控制力会大大降低。这种失控感带来了巨大的压力，最终导致倦怠。

最后一个陷阱是**过度需求（excessive demands）**。这里的核心在于，不是个体依赖他人，而是许多人依赖个体。在开放结构中，如果众多来自不同视角、不同部门、有不同需求的个体都依赖于亚历克斯，那么亚历克斯的工作量将急剧增加，变得难以承受。我们最近发表的一篇论文基于一项研究，表明处于这种接收来自分散联系的同事的过度需求中的个体，经历倦怠的可能性显著增加。

需要认识到的是，这些陷阱的识别并非易事。你或许能感知到自己有一个糟糕的老板或难缠的同事，但要识别自己是否身处这些陷阱之中则更为困难。身处凯莉的位置，被亲近的同事环绕，起初会感到舒适，但最终可能觉得受到束缚，过于狭窄。而身处亚历克斯的位置，接触到各种不同的视角和观点，会让人感觉很棒，充满活力。但最终，你可能会感到**被过度拉扯（stretched too thin）**，被推向四面八方。这便是停下来思考的时刻。

那么，我们该如何应对呢？我们提出一个简单的建议，作为第一步：每六个月进行一次**定期的关系健康检查（regular relationship health check）**。在检查中，你可以问自己几个简单的问题。为了识别陷阱一，你会问：我从同事那里学到新东西了吗？我能和他们讨论新的想法和视角吗？我能提出新观点而不用担心被迅速拒绝或驳回吗？对于陷阱二，你可以问：身边的人是否仍然能给我带来能量？我是否期待去上班并与同事见面？或者，我是否感到疲惫，因为周围充斥着闲言碎语和沮丧情绪？对于陷阱三，问题是：我是否仍然对自己的工作有控制力？还是感觉工作依赖太多人，以至于无法保证结果的质量和及时性？对于陷阱四，你是否感到被不断地拉向不同的方向？是否因桌上的各种需求和请求而感到过度劳累？

一旦你识别出了这些陷阱，下一步就是采取行动。如果你处于陷阱一或陷阱二，即凯莉那样的凝聚型结构，并开始感到压力，你需要做的是**多样化你的网络（diversify your network）**。找到新的同事进行互动。每月与一位新同事共进午餐或咖啡，就足以带来新鲜空气和不同的视角。你也可以尝试减少与核心小圈子同事的互动。

而当你处于陷阱三或陷阱四，即亚历克斯的处境，感到被过度拉扯时，你需要**重新聚焦于你的核心群体（refocus on your core group）**。你需要实际地在你的群体内部建立支持。这可能意味着将这些人聚集在一起，创造他们相互认识的机会，比如共进午餐或参加活动，让他们能够建立更强的联系。这样一来，尽管你可能仍需满足他们的部分需求，但整个群体可以形成协同效应，从而减轻你个人的压力。

总而言之，网络是强大的，它们具有诸多显著的好处。但同时，我们也应警惕其潜在的负面影响。如果今天有两点是你需要记住的：第一，如果你处于凯莉那样的凝聚型网络，并且感到它开始变得封闭，你需要**打破僵局，寻求连接**——识别新的人，建立新的联系。第二，如果你处于亚历克斯那样的开放型网络，并感到自己被分散的联系拉向不同方向，你需要**汇聚他们，开始构建更具凝聚力的网络**。对我而言，这并非终点。正如我读博士时一样，我对通过网络研究能够学到的知识充满好奇与兴奋。希望今天我与你分享了这份激动人心的探索。感谢大家。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

Now what you need to realize
is that these traps
are not easy to identify.
You can see that you have a bad boss,
you can see that you have
difficult coworkers,
but it's not easy to identify
if you are part of those traps.
You know, it can feel comfortable
to be in Kelly's position,
surrounded by close colleagues.
You feel well in this group
until at some point you start
to feel that it's constraining,
that it's a little bit too tight.
When you are in Alex's position,
you actually feel great.
It's very exciting to be exposed
to all those different perspectives,
these different ideas.
But at some point you might
feel that you stretch too thin,
you're pulled into different directions,
and that's the moment where
you might want to stop and think.
So what can you do about it?
Well, we have a simple recommendation,
which would be a first step,
is to do a regular
relationship health check
every six months, for example.
And in that check, you ask yourself
very simple questions.
If you want to identify trap one,
do you actually learn
from your coworkers?
Are there new ideas
that you're getting from them?
And importantly, can you discuss
new ideas and perspective?
Can you propose something new
without fearing that you're going to be
rejected or dismissed too quickly?
For trap two,
you want to ask yourself
if people around you still energize you.
If you feel that there is a vibe
that you're excited to go to work
and to meet your colleagues.
Or, on the contrary, do you feel
that you’re exhausted
because there is so much gossip,
so much frustration
that's swirling around you?
For trap three,
the question is, are you
still in control over your work?
Or do you feel that your work
depends on so many different people
that you can't ensure the quality
or the timeliness of your outcomes?
And for trap four,
do you feel that you're actually
constantly pulled
in different directions?
Are you stretched too thin
by all the demands and requests
that come to your desk?
OK, so now if you have
identified those traps,
the question is,
what do you do about them?
If you are in traps one or two,
if you are like Kelly
in that cohesive structure
and you start to feel the pressure
that's coming to you,
what you need to do
is diversify your network.
You need to identify new coworkers
that you could interact with.
Simply having lunch or coffee
once per month
with a new coworker is enough.
It gives you a breath of fresh air,
different perspectives
that you can rely on.
You can also try
to reduce the interactions
with your very close group of colleagues.
When you are in traps three
or four, in Alex's position,
you start to feel stretched too thin,
well you need to refocus
on your core group.
You need to actually build
support in your group.
What this might mean
is bringing those people together,
creating opportunities
that they meet each other,
a lunch, an event where they can
actually know each other
and start to build those connections,
because that's going
to bypass you to some extent,
but create synergies
where you're not needed
to satisfy their demands.
So as a summary, networks are great.
They are really powerful.
They are really important.
They have many strong benefits.
But there’s also a negative side
that you should be careful with.
And if there are two things I want you
to remember from this talk,
it's, one,
if you are in a position like Kelly,
where you have a cohesive network
and it's starting to close in,
you need to break free.
You need actually to identify new people,
create new connections.
If you are in Alex's position
and you see that you have
these disconnected contacts
that start to pull you
in different directions,
bring them in, start to close,
and create a more cohesive network.
For me, that's not the end of the journey.
I'm still as I was when I started my PhD,
fascinated and excited by everything
we can learn about those networks,
and I hope I shared some
of the excitement today with you.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)

</details>