TED《出人意料的工作动机》中英文对照演讲稿)

I need to make a confession at the outset here. 开始前我必须先向你们告解A little over 20 years ago I did something that I regret, something that I'm not particularly proud of, something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know, but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal. 二十多年前我做了一件让我后悔莫及的事一件我丝毫不感到骄傲的事一件我希望没有任何人会知道的事但今日我认为我有必要揭发我自己In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. 80年代晚期因为年少轻狂我进入法律学院就读Now, in America law is a professional degree: you get your university degree, then you go on to law school. 在美国法律学位是个专业学位你得先拿到学士才能进入法律学院And when I got to law school, I didn't do very well. 当我进入法律学院时我的成绩不怎么好To put it mildly, I didn't do very well. 客气地说我的成绩不怎么好I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90 percent possible. 我的毕业成绩成就了在我之上那其他九成的同学Thank you. 谢谢你们I never practiced law a day in my life; 我这辈子从来没做过律师I pretty much wasn't allowed to. 基本上那样做可能还会犯法But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try dust off some of those legal skills -- what's left of those legal skills. 但今日我违背我的理性违背我太太的忠告我想重拾那些过去所学的诉讼技巧，所剩无几的诉讼技巧I don't want to tell you a story. 我不想向你们说故事I want to make a case. 而是提出一个陈述I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses. 提出一个有根据货真价实的法庭陈述来重新思考我们的管理方法So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a lookat this.陪审团的女士先生们请看看这个This is called the candle problem. 这便是有名的蜡烛问题Some of you might have seen this before. 你们之中有些人可能已经看过了It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. 它是在1945年由心理学家Karl Duncker所创造的Karl Dunker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science. Karl Duncker创造了这个实验在行为科学中被广泛运用And here's how it works.Suppose I'm theexperimenter.情况是假设我是实验者I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, Some thumbtacks and some matches. 我带你进入一个房间给你一根蜡烛一些图钉和火柴And I say to you, “your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table.”Now what would you do? 告诉你说现在尝试把蜡烛固定在墙上让烛泪不要滴到桌上你会怎么做Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candleto the wall.许多人尝试用图钉把蜡烛钉在墙上Doesn't work. 行不通Somebody, some people -- and I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here -- some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall. 有些人台下也有些人做出这样的动作有些人想到他们可以点燃火柴溶化蜡烛的底部尝试把它黏在墙上It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work. 好主意但行不通And eventually, after five or 10 minutes,most people figure out the solution, which you can see here. 差不多过了五到十分钟大部分的人便会想出解决办法就像图片上那样The key is to overcome what's called functionalfixedness.重点是克服功能固着You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. 当你看到盒子你不过把它当成装大头针的容器But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle problem. 但它还有其它功能那就是作为蜡烛的平台Now I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University in the U.S. 现在我想告诉你另一个实验利用蜡烛问题由一个现在在普林斯顿大学叫做Sam Glucksberg 的科学家所做的实验This shows the power of incentives. 这实验让我们看见动机的力量Here's what he did. He gathered his participants. 他是这么做的他将参与者聚集在一个房间里And he said,“I'm going to time you. How quickly you can solve this problem ?”告诉他们我要开始计时看看你们能多快解决这个问题To one group he said, “I'm going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem.”他对其中一群人说我只是想取个平均值看一般人需要花多久的时间才能解决这样的问题To the second group he offered rewards. 他提供奖励给另一群人He said,“If you're in the top 25 percent of the fastest times, you get five dollars. If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today, you get 20 dollars.”他说如果你是前25%最快解决问题的人就能拿到五块钱如果你是今日所有人里解答最快的你就有20块钱Now this is several years ago. Adjusted for inflation, it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work. It's a nice motivator. 这个实验是几年前的事了按照通货膨胀几分钟就能拿到20块是很不错的是个不错的诱因Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem? 问题是这群人比另一群人的解题速度快了多少呢？Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. 答案是平均来说他们比另一组人多花了三分半钟Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes nosense right?整整三分半钟这不合理不是吗I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. 我是个美国人我相信自由市场That's not how it's supposed to work. Right? 这个实验不太对劲吧对吗If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? 如果你想要人们做得更好你便给他们奖赏对吗Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. 红利佣金他们自己的真人秀Incentivize them. That's how business works. 赋予他们动机这就是商业法则But that's not happening here. 但实验里却不是这样You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. 奖励是为了增强思考能力及创意但事实却是相反It dulls thinking and blocks creativity. 它阻断了思考和创意能力And what's interesting about this experiment is thatit's not an aberration.有趣的事情是这个实验不是误差This has been replicated over and over and overagain, for nearly 40 years.它被一再重复在过去的四十年间These contingent motivators -- if you do this, then you get that -- work in some circumstances. 这些不同的诱因如果你这样做你就得到那个在某些情况里是可行的But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm. 但在许多任务中他们不是没有作用更有可能产生反效果This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored. 这是在社会科学中一项最有力的发现同时也是最为人忽略的I spent the last couple of years looking at thescience of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. 过去两年我研究人类的动机尤其是那些外部的激励因素和内在的激励因素And I'm telling you, it's not even close. 我可以告诉你两者相差悬殊If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. 如果你使用科学方法查证你会发现科学知识和商业行为之间有条鸿沟And what's alarming here is that our business 我们必须注意的是我们的商业机制想operating system -- think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources -- it's built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. 想这些商业的协议和假设我们如何激励人心如何运用人资全是以这些外部激励因素作为基础打手心给块糖That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th centurytasks.对许多20世纪的工作来说是可行的But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm. 但面对21世纪的工作这些机械化的奖惩分明的作法已经不管用了有时更招致反效果Let me show you what I mean. 让我呈现我想表达的So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here. Okey? Glucksberg做了一个类似的实验这次他给了他们一个比较不同的问题像这个图里面的Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table. 实验对象必须要找出一个让蜡烛黏在墙上又不会流下烛泪的方法Same deal.You: we're timing for norms. 相同地这边：我们要的是平均时间You: we're incentivizing. 这边：一样的给他们不同的诱因What happened this time? 结果呢This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt. 这次有诱因的那组人远远地胜过了另一组人Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it? 为什么一旦我们把图钉从盒子里拿出来问题就变得相当简单不是吗If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. 假设在这个情况下奖励就变得非常有郊在规则简单目标明显的情况下Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that's why they work in so many cases. 奖励产生了作用让我们集中精神变得专注这便是为何奖励在许多情况下有效的缘故And so, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well. 当我们面对的工作是范围狭窄你能清楚见到目标向前直冲时奖励便非常有效But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this. 但在真正的蜡烛问题中你不能只是这样看The solution is not over here. The solution is onthe periphery.解答不在那里解答是在周围You want to be looking around. 你需要四处找寻That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts 奖励却令我们眼光狭隘限制了我们的our possibility. 想像力Let me tell you why this is so important. 让我告诉你这个问题的重要性In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. 在西欧亚洲的许多地方北美洲澳洲白领工作者比较少处理这种问题更多的是这种问题（指钉放在盒中的）That routine, rule-based, left-brain work--certainkinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computerprogramming--has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. 那些例行的常规性的左脑式的工作一些会计一些财务分析一些电脑编程变得极为容易外包变得自动化Software can do it faster. 软件能处理的更快Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. 世界其他地方的低价供应商能以更便宜的成本来完成So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities. 所以更重要的是右脑的创意概念式的能力Think about your own work. 想想你的工作Think about your own work. 想想你自己的工作Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we've been talking about here, are those kinds of problems--do they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. 你所面对的问题甚至是我们今天所谈论到的问题这些问题它们有清楚的规则和一个简单的解答吗没有The rules are mystifying. 它们的规则模糊The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. 解答如果有解答的话通常是令人意外而不明显的Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. 在这里的每个人都在尝试解决他自己的蜡烛问题And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which built so many of our businesses, don't work. 对所有形式的蜡烛问题在所有领域这些如果-那就的奖励这些在商业世界里无处不在的奖惩系统其实没用Now, I mean it makes me crazy. 这简直让我发狂And this is not--here's the thing. 这不是重点是This is not a feeling. 这不是一种感觉Okey? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings. 我是个律师我才不信什么感觉This is not a philosophy. 这也不是哲学I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy. 我是个美国人我才不信什么哲学This is a fact--or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact. 这是真相或是我们在华盛顿特区的政治圈常说的一个事实真相Let me give you an example of what I mean. 让我给你一个例子Let me marshal the evidence here, because I'm not telling you a story, I'm making a case. 让我收集这些证据因为我不是在告诉你一个故事而是陈述一个案子Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: 陪审团的女士们先生们证据在此Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students. Dan Ariely 一位当代伟大的经济学家他和三位同仁对麻省理工学院的学生做了一些研究They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. 他给这些学生一些游戏一些需要创造力的游戏需要动力和专注And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward. 依照他们的表现给他们三种不同程序的奖励小奖励中奖励大奖励Okey? If you do really well you get the large reward, on down. 如果你做得好你就得到大奖励依此类推What happened? As long as the task involved onlymechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance. 结果呢只要是机械形态的工作红利就像我们所认知的奖励越高表现越好Okey? But one the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance. 是的但如果这个工作需要任何基本的认知能力越大的奖励却带来越差的表现Then they said:“Okey let's see if there's any cultural bias here. Lets go to Madurai, India and test this.”于是他们说让我们试试是否有什么文化差距让我们去印度的马杜赖试试Standard of living is lower. 生活水平较低In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful there. 在马杜赖北美标准的中等奖励在这里有意义多了Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards. 一样地一些不同游戏三种奖励What happens? 结果呢People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. 中等奖励的人做的不比那些小奖励的人好But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all. 但这次那些能够得到大奖励的人表现最差In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance. 三种实验中在我们提供的九个游戏中有八个奖励越高的表现越差Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist 难道这是一种感情用事的社会主义的阴conspiracy going on here? 谋诡计吗No. These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. 不这些经济学家来自麻省理工卡内基梅隆和芝加哥大学And do you know who sponsored this research? 你知道赞助这实验的是谁吗The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. 是美国联邦储备银行That's the American experience. 完全的美国经验Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics--LSE, London School of Economics, alma mater of 11 Nobel Laureates in economics. 让我们跨海到伦敦政经学院看看LSE 伦敦经济学院十一位诺贝尔经济奖得主的母校Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger. 训练伟大经济学家的地方有乔治索罗斯弗里德里希·哈耶克和滚石乐团的米克·贾格尔Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. 上个月才刚过去的那个月政经学院的经济学家汇整了51个关于企业内部绩效薪酬的研究Here's what the economists there said:“ We find that financial incentives can result a negative impact on overall performance.”这些经济学家说我们发现金钱的诱因能对整体绩效带来负面效果There is a mismatch between what science knows andwhat business does.科学知识和商业行为之间有条鸿沟And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. 我所忧心的是在我们站在金融风暴废墟之间的此刻仍然有太多团体仍然以一些过时的未经验证的非科学的几乎是来自天方夜谭的假设来制定规则和管理人事And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, and if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. 如果我们真的想要摆脱这个经济危机如果我们真的想要在这些属于21世纪的核心工作中获取绩效的话这解答无异是错上加错用胡萝卜来吸引人或是用棍子来威胁人We need a whole new approach. 我们需要一种新做法And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach. 好消息是这些研究人类动机的科学家已经给了我们一个新方向It's an approach built much more around intrinsicmotivation.这个新方向讲求内在的诱因Around the desire to do things because they matter，because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important. 我们想做的是因为它能改变世界因为我们喜欢因为它很有趣因为它能影响的范围很广And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. 在我心里这种新的商业机制围绕在三个基础上自主性掌握力和使命感Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. 自主性想要主掌自己人生的需求Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. 掌握力想要在举足轻重的事情上做得更好的欲望Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. 使命感希望我们所做的事情是为了更高远的理想的渴望These are the building blocks of an entirely newoperating system for our businesses.这些便是建立新商业机制的基石I want to talk today only about autonomy. 今天我只想提到自主性In the 20th century, we came up with this idea ofmanagement.20世纪产生了管理学的想法Management did not emanate from nature. 管理学不是自然发生的Management is like -- it's not a tree, it's a television set. 管理学像是它不是一棵树而是个电视机Okey? Somebody invented it. 对吗有人发明它And it doesn't mean it's going to work forever. 不代表它永远都好用Management is great. 管理学很好Trditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. 传统的管理学的概念是好的如果你需要的是服从But if you want engagement, self-direction works better. 但如果你想要员工全心投入自动自发更好Let me give you some examples of some kind if radical notions of self-direction. 有关自动自发让我给你一些革命性的例子What this means -- you don't see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on, because what it means is paying people adequately and firly, absolutely -- getting the issue of money off the table, and then giving people lots of autonomy. 代表着这样的例子不多但是你可以发现一些有趣的事情正开始发生因为他代表着付给人们合理与足够的工资让钱不再是问题然后给人们很大的自主权Let me give you some examples. 让我举一些例子How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? 在座谁听过一家叫Atlassian的公司It looks like less than half. 看起来一半都不到Atlassian is an Australian software company. Atlassian是一个澳大利亚的软件公司And they do something incredibly cool. 他们做了一件很酷的事A few times a year they tell their engineers, “Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it's not part of your regular job. 一年有几次他们跟公司里的软件工程师说接下来的24个小时去做你自己想做的事只要它和你每天的工作无关Work on anything you want.”随便你要做什么都行So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant hack. 这些工程师便利用这些时间写出一套有趣的编程优雅地包装这些想法Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed to their teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and wooly all-hands meeting at the end of the day. 在那天的最后在这个全员到齐万众一心的会议中对他们的组员和整个公司介绍他的发明And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer. 当然身为澳大利亚人大家都得来罐啤酒They call them FedEx Days. 他们叫这是FedEx联邦快递日Why? Because you have to deliver somethingovernight.国为你必须在隔夜交出你的作品It's pretty. It's not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever. 很不赖的想法虽然违反商标法但这个想法很聪明That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed. 在高度自主的一日中他们做出了许多软件编程的革新之前根本没人想到的And it's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20 Percent Time -- done, famously, at Google -- where engineers can work, spend 20 percent of their time working on anything they want. 这个计划的成功让Altlassian更进一步的发明了五分之一时间谷歌把这个想法发扬光大工程师可以用五分之一的时间做所有他们想做的事情They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. 他们可以自由的分配他们的时间工作组员和作法Okey? Radical amounts of autonomy. 就是这样完全的自主权And at Google, as most as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20 Percent Time: things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News. 诚如大家说所在谷歌一年中有一半的新商品都来自这五分之一时间像谷歌信箱 Qrkut 谷歌新闻Let me give you an even more radical example of it: something called the Results Only Work Environment, the ROWE, created by two American consultants, in place at about a dozen companies around North America. 让我给你一个更具革命性的例子一个叫做只论结果的工作环境简写是ROWE 由两个美国分析师所创造用在十多家北美公司上In a ROWE people don't have schedules. 在ROWE之中人们没有日程表They show up when they want. 他们想来就来They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. 他们不需要在特定时间到公司任何时间They just have to get their work done. 他们只需要把工作完成How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them. 怎么做何时做在哪里做都取决于他们自己Meetings in these kinds of environments areoptional.甚至连开会都是选择性的What happens? 结果呢Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down. 几乎所有公司的生产力都提升了工作投入度提升工作满意度提升人才流失降低Autonomy, mastery and purpose, these are the buiding blocks of a new way of dong things. 自主性掌握力和使命感这便是新工作方式的新基础Now some of you might look at this and say,“hmm,that sounds nice, but it's utopian.”在座的某些人可能会看着然后说嗯听起来不错就是太理想化了And I say,“Nope. I have proof.”我说错了我有证据The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. 在90年代中微软开始了一个叫做Encarta的百科全书计划They had deployed all the right incentives, all the right incentives. They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. 他们使用了所有正确的诱因所有的诱因他们付钱给专业人士让他们写和编辑这些文章Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. 收入颇丰的主管们监督着整个计划确定它不会超过预算和时间A few years later another encyclopedia got started. 几年后另一个百科全书计划开始了Different model, right? 完全不同的模式Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen. 为了兴趣而作没有人能拿到任何一毛钱Do it because you like to do it. 因为自己喜欢而做Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had goneto an economist, anywhere, and said,“Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they went head to head, who would win?”如果你在十年前到一个经济学家那里去对他说我有两种撰写百科全书的模式拿来相比谁会赢10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.十年前你绝对不会找到任何一个清醒的经济学家在这个地球的任何角落能够预知维基百科的模式This is the titanic battle between these twoapproaches.这是一个两种模式之间的世纪战役This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation. Right? 动机的阿里与弗雷泽之战This is the Thrilla' in Manila. 就像那场在马尼拉的拳王之战Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsicmotivators.是吗内在动机和外在动机Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. And who wins? 自主性掌握力和使命感和胡萝卜和棍子谁赢了Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up. 内在动机自主性掌握力和使命感获得压倒性胜利结论是There is a mismatch between what science knows andwhat business does.科学知识和商业行为之间And here is what science knows. 有条鸿沟One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. 一这些20世纪的奖励这些我们当作商业中自然一部分的诱因是有用的但意外地只在一个非常狭窄的情况下Two: Those if-then rewards often destroycreativity.二这些奖励往往会破坏创造力Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive -- the drive to do things for their own sake. 三高绩效的秘密不是奖励和惩罚而是看不见的内在动力让人为了自己而做的动力The drive to do things cause they matter. 让人有使命感的动力And here's the best part. Here's the best part. 最好的是We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. 我们了然于心科学不过确认了我们心里的声音So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our business, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. 如果我们改变科学知识和商业行为之间有的那条鸿沟如果我们把我们的动机对诱因的想法带进21世纪如果我们越过懒惰的危险的理想化的胡萝卜和棍子的想法我们可以强化我们的公司解决许多的蜡烛问题那么或许或许或许我们便能改变世界I rest my case. 陈述完毕。