×

Vi använder kakor för att göra LingQ bättre. Genom att besöka sajten, godkänner du vår cookie-policy.

image

TED, Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation

Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation

I need to make a confession at the outset here.

A little over twenty 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. (Laughter)

In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. (Laughter) Now, in America law is a professional degree: you get your university degree, then you go on to law school. And when I got to law school, I didn't do very well. To put it mildly, I didn't do very well. I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90 percent possible. (Laughter) Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to. (Laughter) But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills --what's left of those legal skills. I don't want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is called the candle problem.

Some of you might have seen this before. It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker . Karl Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science. And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. 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?

Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall.

Doesn't work. 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. It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work. And eventually, after five or 10 minutes, most people figure out the solution, which you can see here. The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle problem.

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.This shows the power of incentives.

Here's what he did. He gathered his participants. And he said, "I'm going to time you. How quickly you can solve this problem?" 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. " To the second group he offered rewards. 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. "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.

Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?

Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes no sense right? I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. That's not how it's supposed to work. Right? (Laughter) If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That's how business works. But that's not happening here. You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.

And what's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over and over again, for nearly 40 years. These contingent motivators - if you do this, then you get that - work in some circumstances.

But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored.

I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators.

And I'm telling you, it's not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what's alarming here is that our business 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. That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm. Let me show you what I mean.

So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here.

Okay?

Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we're timing for norms. You: we're incentivizing. What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it? (Laughter) 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. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that's why they work in so many cases. 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. But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this. The solution is not over here. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.

Let me tell you why this is so important.

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. That routine, rule-based, left-brain work --certain kinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programming --has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

Think about your own work.

Think about your own work. 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. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we've built so many of our businesses, don't work.

Now, I mean it makes me crazy.

And this is not -- here's the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy. (Laughter)This is a fact --or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact. (Laughter) (Applause) Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let me marshal the evidence here, because I'm not telling you a story, I'm making a case.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration.

And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward.Okay? If you do really well you get the large reward, on down. What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance.Okay? But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.

Then they said, "Okay let's see if there's any cultural bias here.

Let's go to Madurai, India and test this. "Standard of living is lower. In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards,is more meaningful there.Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards. What happens?

People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.

Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?

No. These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. And do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That's the American experience.

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. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.

(Laughter )Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here's what the economists there said: "We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance. " There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. 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. 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.We need a whole new approach.

And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach.

It's an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.

I want to talk today only about autonomy.

In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. Management is like -- it's not a tree, it's a television set. Okay? Somebody invented it. And it doesn't mean it's going to work forever. Management is great. Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.

Let me give you some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction.

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 fairly, absolutely --getting the issue of money off the table, and then giving people lots of autonomy. Let me give you some examples.

How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian?

It looks like less than half. (Laughter) Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something incredibly cool. 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. Work on anything you want. "So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant hack. 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. And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer.

They call them FedEx Days.

Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. It's pretty. It's not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever. (Laughter) That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.

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. They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. Okay?

Radical amounts of autonomy. And at Google, 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.

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 in place at about a dozen companies around North America.

In a ROWE people don't have schedules. They show up when they want. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.

What happens?

Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turn over goes down. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, These are the building blocks of a new way of doing things. Now some of you might look at this and say, "Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian. "And I say, "Nope. I have proof. " The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives, all the right incentives. They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. A few years later another encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen. Do it because you like to do it.

Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to 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?" 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.

This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation.

Right? This is the Thrilla' in Manila. Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up.

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.

And here is what science knows. 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. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. 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.The drive to do things cause they matter.

And here's the best part.

Here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. 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 businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. I rest my case. (Applause)

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Dan Pink: The puzzle of motivation |||задача|| Dan Pink||||| |||难题|| دان بينك: لغز التحفيز Dan Pink: Das Rätsel der Motivation Dan Pink: El rompecabezas de la motivación Dan Pink : Le puzzle de la motivation Dan Pink: Il puzzle della motivazione ダン・ピンクモチベーションのパズル Dan Pink: Zagadka motywacji Dan Pink: O puzzle da motivação Дэн Пинк: Головоломка мотивации Dan Pink: Motivasyon bulmacası Ден Пінк: головоломка мотивації 丹·平克:动机之谜 丹·平克:動機之謎

I need to make a confession at the outset here. ||||||||в начале| |||||admission|||at the beginning| |||||confissão|||início| ||||||||bắt đầu| |||||Geständnis|||Anfang| ||||||||principio| |||złożyć|||||| أحتاج إلى الإدلاء باعتراف في البداية هنا. Je dois faire une confession au départ ici. 여기서 먼저 고백할 게 있습니다. Eu preciso fazer uma confissão desde o início aqui. Я должен сделать признание в самом начале здесь. Başlarken bir itirafta bulunmam gerekiyor.

A little over twenty 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. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||обязан|| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||verpflichtet|| |||||||||||||||||||||in this||||||||||||||||required||disclose |||||||||że||żałuję||||||||||||||||||||||||||zobowiązany|do|ujawnić |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||有点儿必须|| منذ أكثر من 20 عامًا بقليل، فعلت شيئًا ندمت عليه، شيئًا لست فخورًا به بشكل خاص، شيئًا، في كثير من النواحي، أتمنى ألا يعرفه أحد على الإطلاق، ولكن هنا أشعر أنني مضطر للكشف عنه. A little over twenty 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. Um pouco mais de vinte anos atrás, eu fiz algo do qual me arrependo, algo do qual não me orgulho particularmente, algo que, de muitas maneiras, eu gostaria que ninguém soubesse, mas aqui me sinto meio que obrigado a revelar. Чуть более 20 лет назад я сделал то, о чем сожалею, чем не особенно горжусь, что-то, о чем, во многих смыслах, я бы хотел, чтобы никто никогда не узнал, но здесь я чувствую себя обязанным раскрыть. 20 yıldan biraz daha uzun bir süre önce pişmanlık duyduğum, gurur duymadığım, pek çok açıdan kimsenin bilmemesini dilediğim ama burada açıklamak zorunda hissettiğim bir şey yaptım. (Laughter) (Risos)

In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. ||||||||impulsive young|impulsive behavior||||| |||||||||sự thiếu suy nghĩ||||| ||||||||jugendlicher|Indiskretion||||| |||||||||轻率||||| ||||||||شبابية|طيش||||| |||||||||indiscreción||||| ||||||||młodzieńczej|niedyskrecja||||prawo| في أواخر الثمانينيات، وفي لحظة من طيش الشباب، ذهبت إلى كلية الحقوق. In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. В конце 1980-х, в момент юношеской неосмотрительности, я пошел в юридическую школу. 1980'lerin sonunda, bir anlık gençlik patavatsızlığıyla hukuk fakültesine gittim. (Laughter) Now, in America law is a professional degree: you get your university degree, then you go on to law school. (ضحك) الآن، القانون في أمريكا هو شهادة مهنية: تحصل على شهادتك الجامعية، ثم تلتحق بكلية الحقوق. (Gülüşmeler) Şimdi, Amerika'da hukuk profesyonel bir derecedir: üniversite derecenizi alırsınız, sonra hukuk fakültesine gidersiniz. And when I got to law school, I didn't do very well. وعندما التحقت بكلية الحقوق، لم يكن أدائي جيدًا. И когда я попал в юридическую школу, я не очень хорошо учился. Hukuk fakültesine gittiğimde de pek başarılı olamadım. To put it mildly, I didn't do very well. |||gelinde gesagt||||| |||بشكل معتدل||||| |||suavemente||||| Aby|||łagodnie||||| بعبارة ملطفة، لم أقم بعمل جيد جدًا. Мягко говоря, у меня не очень получилось. En hafif tabirle, pek iyi değildim. I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90 percent possible. |||absolvierte|||||||||||||| في الواقع، لقد تخرجت في الجزء الذي كنت أدرسه في كلية الحقوق والذي جعل نسبة الـ 90% الأعلى ممكنة. 실제로 저는 로스쿨에서 상위 90%에 속하는 학급을 졸업했습니다. На самом деле я окончил юридический факультет в той части класса, которая позволила мне войти в число 90 процентов лучших. Aslında ben, hukuk fakültesi sınıfımın ilk yüzde 90'ını mümkün kılan bölümünden mezun oldum. 我事实上在法学院班级的前90%中毕业。 (Laughter) Thank you. (笑声) 谢谢。 I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to. ||مارست|||||||||||| لم أمارس المحاماة يومًا واحدًا في حياتي؛ لم يُسمح لي بذلك إلى حد كبير. 저는 평생 단 하루도 법률 업무를 해본 적이 없었고, 거의 허용되지도 않았습니다. Я ни дня в жизни не занимался юридической практикой; Мне почти не разрешали. 我一生中从没有一天从事法律工作;我几乎是不被允许的。 (Laughter) But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills --what's left of those legal skills. |但是||||||||||||||||||恢复|||||||||||| |||gegen|||Urteil|gegen||Rat||||||||||abstauben|||||rechtlichen||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||reactivate||||||||||| ||||||osąd|||||||||||||kurz|||||||||||| (ضحك) لكن اليوم، ضد حكمي الأفضل، وضد نصيحة زوجتي، أريد أن أحاول نفض الغبار عن بعض تلك المهارات القانونية -- ما تبقى من تلك المهارات القانونية. (웃음) 하지만 오늘은 제 판단과 아내의 조언에 반하여, 그 법률적 기술들, 즉 남은 법률적 기술들 중 일부를 털어내려고 합니다. (Смех) Но сегодня, вопреки здравому смыслу, вопреки совету собственной жены, я хочу попробовать стряхнуть пыль с некоторых из этих юридических навыков — того, что осталось от этих юридических навыков. (Gülüşmeler) Ama bugün, daha iyi bir karar vermeme rağmen, kendi karımın tavsiyesine karşı, bu yasal becerilerin bazılarının tozunu almak istiyorum - bu yasal becerilerden geriye ne kaldıysa. I don't want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. Bir dava açmak istiyorum. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses. |||||||||осмелиться|||юридический|||переосмысление||||| |||||practical and realistic|||||||legalistic|||||||| ||||||kopf-|||wage|||juristisch|||Überdenken||||| |||||坚定的|坚定的|证据|||||律师式的|||重新思考||||| ||||||||||||قانوني|||إعادة التفكير||نحن||| ||||||||||||abogado|||replantear||||| ||||||twardy||||||prawniczy|||przemyślenia||||| 저는 비즈니스 운영 방식을 재고하기 위해 증거에 기반한, 감히 법률가적인 주장을 하고 싶습니다. Я хочу создать серьезное, основанное на фактах, осмелюсь сказать, юридическое дело, чтобы переосмыслить то, как мы ведем наш бизнес. İşlerimizi nasıl yürüttüğümüzü yeniden düşünmek için sert başlı, kanıta dayalı, avukatça diyebileceğim bir dava açmak istiyorum.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is called the candle problem. |women|||||||||||||||wax light source| ||||||هيئة المحلفين||||||||||| 배심원 여러분, 이것 좀 보세요. 이것을 촛불 문제라고 합니다. Итак, дамы и господа присяжные, взгляните на это. Это называется "проблема свечи". Jürideki bayanlar ve baylar, şuna bir bakın. Buna mum problemi deniyor.

Some of you might have seen this before. Bazılarınız bunu daha önce görmüş olabilir. It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker . Karl Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science. |||||心理学家|||||||||||||||||||行为科学| ||||||||Karl Duncker||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||Duncker||||||||||||||| ||||||||Duncker||||||||||||||||| ||||||||Карл Дункер||||||||||||||||| It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker . Karl Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science. 1945 yılında Karl Duncker adlı bir psikolog tarafından yaratılmıştır. Karl Duncker, davranış bilimlerinde çok çeşitli deneylerde kullanılan bu deneyi yaratmıştır. And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter. 假设|||实验者 |||researcher |||experimentador I bring you into a room. |||||habitación I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. |||||||||спички ||||||push pins|||fire-starting sticks ||||||alfinetes||| ||||||Reißnägel||| ||||||图钉||| ||||||دبابيس||| ||||||chinchetas||| ||||||pinezki||| Я даю тебе свечу, несколько кнопок и несколько спичек. And I say to you, "Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table." |||||||||||||||||melted candle substance||||| |||||||||||||||||||goteje||| |||||||||||||||||sáp||nhỏ giọt||| |||||||||||||||||蜡||||| |||||||||تعلق||||||||الشمع||||| |||||twoja praca||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||gotee||| 그리고 "네가 할 일은 양초를 벽에 붙여서 왁스가 테이블에 떨어지지 않게 하는 거야"라고 말합니다. И я говорю вам: "Ваша задача - прикрепить свечу к стене, чтобы воск не капал на стол". Ben de size "Sizin işiniz mumu duvara tutturmak, böylece balmumu masaya damlamayacak" diyorum. 我对你说,“你的工作就是把蜡烛固定在墙上,这样蜡就不会滴到桌子上。” Now what would you do?

Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. ||||versuchen||||||| ||||||دبوس||||| ||||||przyczepić||||| |||||a|clavar con chincheta||||| ||||||pin up||||| Şimdi birçok kişi mumu duvara raptiyelemeye çalışıyor.

Doesn't work. İşe yaramıyor. 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. |||||||||||||||||||||||||make soft|||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||schmelzen||Seite||||||kleben|||| |||||||||||动作|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||يذوب||||||||يلصق|||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||adherir|||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||przykleić|||| Кто-то, некоторые люди — и я видел, как кто-то сделал движение здесь — у некоторых людей есть отличная идея, где они зажигают спичку, плавят край свечи, пытаются прикрепить ее к стене. Birileri, bazı insanlar - ve burada birisinin bu hareketi yaptığını gördüm - bazı insanların harika bir fikri var, kibriti yakıyorlar, mumun yan tarafını eritiyorlar ve duvara yapıştırmaya çalışıyorlar. It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work. And eventually, after five or 10 minutes, most people figure out the solution, which you can see here. ||und|||||||||||||||| Не работает. И, в конце концов, через пять-десять минут большинство людей находят решение, которое вы можете увидеть здесь. İşe yaramıyor. Ve sonunda, beş ya da 10 dakika sonra, çoğu insan burada görebileceğiniz çözümü buluyor. The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness. ||||||||mental rigidity ||||||||fixidez ||||||||tính cố định ||||||||funktionale Fixierung |||||||功能固定性|功能固定性 ||||||||الثبات ||||||||fijeza funcional ||||||||sztywność funkcjonalna Ключ в том, чтобы преодолеть то, что называется функциональной неподвижностью. Anahtar, işlevsel sabitlik denen şeyin üstesinden gelmektir. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. ||||||||||||container for tacks|||small metal pins ||||||||||||chứa đựng||| ||||||||||||Behälter|||Reißzwecken ||||||||||||容器||| ||||||||||||وعاء|||دبابيس ||||||||||||recipiente|||tachuelas ||||||||||||pojemnik|||tacków 그 상자를 보면 압정을 담는 용기로만 보입니다. Вы смотрите на эту коробку и видите в ней только место для кнопок. O kutuya baktığınızda onu sadece çiviler için bir hazne olarak görürsünüz. 你看那个盒子,你只会看到它是大头钉的容器。 But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. ||||||||||supporting base||| Ancak mum için bir platform olarak başka bir işleve de sahip olabilir. 但它还可以具有其他功能,作为蜡烛的平台。 The candle problem.

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.This shows the power of incentives. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||motivational rewards |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Anreize ||||||||||||||||||||||||普林斯顿|||||||||||激励的力量 ||||||||||||||||||||||||برينستون||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||Glucksberg(1)|||||Uniwersytet Princeton||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||Glucksberg|||||||||||||||| Теперь я хочу рассказать вам об эксперименте с использованием задачи о свечах, проведенном ученым по имени Сэм Глюксберг, который сейчас работает в Принстонском университете в США. Он показывает силу стимулов. Şimdi size, şu anda ABD'deki Princeton Üniversitesi'nde görev yapan Sam Glucksberg adlı bir bilim adamı tarafından mum problemi kullanılarak yapılan bir deneyden bahsetmek istiyorum.

Here's what he did. He gathered his participants. |Er versammelte seine Teilnehmer.|| Он собрал своих участников. Katılımcılarını topladı. And he said, "I'm going to time you. 그리고는 "시간을 알려줄게요. И он сказал: «Я собираюсь засечь время. How quickly you can solve this problem?" 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. |||||||||||||المتوسطات||||||||||||| |||||||||||||promedios||||||||||||| 한 그룹에게는 "이런 종류의 문제를 해결하는 데 일반적으로 걸리는 시간, 즉 평균을 정할 수 있도록 시간을 정해주겠다"고 말했습니다. Bir gruba şöyle dedi: "Bu tür bir sorunu çözmenin tipik olarak ne kadar zaman alacağına dair normlar, ortalamalar oluşturmak için size zaman vereceğim. 他对一组人说:“我将给你们计时,让你们建立规范,平均解决这类问题通常需要多长时间。 " To the second group he offered rewards. |||||oferował|nagrody «Второй группе он предложил награды. He said, "If you're in the top 25 percent of the fastest times, you get five dollars. ||||||||||الأسرع||||| Dedi ki, "En hızlı zamanların ilk yüzde 25'indeyseniz, beş dolar alırsınız. If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today, you get 20 dollars. "Now this is several years ago. "Şimdi bu birkaç yıl önceydi. Adjusted for inflation, it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work. |||||angemessen||||||||| معدل|||||||||||||| ||inflację|||||||||||| 인플레이션을 감안하면 몇 분의 노동에 비해 적지 않은 금액입니다. С поправкой на инфляцию, это приличная сумма денег за несколько минут работы. Enflasyona göre ayarlandığında, birkaç dakikalık iş için makul bir para. It's a nice motivator. |||محفز Güzel bir motivasyon kaynağı.

Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem? Soru: Bu grup problemi ne kadar hızlı çözdü?

Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.Three and a half minutes longer. 답변: 평균 3분 30초가 더 걸렸습니다.3분 30초가 더 걸렸습니다. Cevap ver: Ortalama olarak üç buçuk dakika daha uzun sürdü. Üç buçuk dakika daha uzun. Now this makes no sense right? Теперь это не имеет смысла, верно? I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. That's not how it's supposed to work. 저는 자유 시장을 믿습니다. 그런 식으로 작동해서는 안 됩니다. Ben serbest piyasaya inanırım. İşlerin böyle yürümesi gerekmiyor. 我相信自由市场。这不是它应该如何工作的。 Right? (Laughter) If you want people to perform better, you reward them. (Смех) Если вы хотите, чтобы люди работали лучше, вы вознаграждаете их. (Gülüşmeler) İnsanların daha iyi performans göstermesini istiyorsanız, onları ödüllendirirsiniz. Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. |Boni|Provisionen|||| |المكافآت|عمولات|||| ||prowizje|||| |bonificaciones|comisiones|||| 그렇죠? 보너스, 커미션, 그들만의 리얼리티 쇼. Değil mi? İkramiyeler, komisyonlar, kendi reality şovları. Incentivize them. Motivate them.| Incentivieren| 激励他们| حفز| Incentívalos.| Zachęć ich| 인센티브를 제공하세요. Стимулируйте их. That's how business works. But that's not happening here. You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. ||||||||激励措施||||||||||||| ||||||||Anreiz||||||||||||| |||||||||||شحذ|||تسريع||||||| ||||||||||||||przyspieszyć||||||| 하지만 여기서는 그런 일이 일어나지 않습니다. 사고력을 키우고 창의력을 촉진하도록 고안된 인센티브가 오히려 정반대의 결과를 낳고 있습니다. Но это не происходит здесь. У вас есть стимул, предназначенный для обострения мышления и ускорения творчества, а он делает как раз обратное. Ama burada öyle olmuyor. Düşünceyi keskinleştirmek ve yaratıcılığı hızlandırmak için tasarlanmış bir teşvikiniz var ve bu tam tersini yapıyor. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity. |Diminishes|||| |entorpece|||| |使思维迟钝|||| |يُضعف|||| |entorpece|||| |tępi|||| Il émousse la réflexion et bloque la créativité. 사고력을 둔화시키고 창의력을 차단합니다. Это притупляет мышление и блокирует творчество.

And what's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over and over again, for nearly 40 years. These contingent motivators - if you do this, then you get that - work in some circumstances. |||||||||||deviation from norm|||||||||||||||dependent incentives||||||||||||| |||||||||||Abweichung|||||||||||||||bedingte Anreize||||||||||||| |||||||||||异常现象||||重复|||||||||||条件性||||||||||||| |||||||||||شذوذ|||||||||||||||الطوارئ|المحفزات|||||||||||| |||||||||||aberracja||||powtórzone|||||||||||warunkowe||||||||||||| |||||||||||aberración||||||||||||||||incentivos condicionados|||||||||||| Das Interessante an diesem Experiment ist, dass es sich nicht um eine Abweichung handelt. Es wurde seit fast 40 Jahren immer und immer wieder reproduziert. Diese kontingenten Motivatoren - wenn du dies tust, dann bekommst du das - funktionieren unter bestimmten Umständen. 그리고 이 실험의 흥미로운 점은 이것이 일탈이 아니라는 점입니다. 이 실험은 거의 40년 동안 계속해서 반복되어 왔습니다. 이렇게 하면 저렇게 하는 우발적 동기는 어떤 상황에서는 효과가 있습니다. И что интересно в этом эксперименте, так это то, что это не отклонение от нормы. Это повторялось снова и снова на протяжении почти 40 лет. Эти условные мотиваторы — если вы сделаете это, то получите это — работают в некоторых обстоятельствах.

But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm. 하지만 많은 작업에서 실제로는 효과가 없거나 오히려 해가 되는 경우가 많습니다. Но для многих задач они на самом деле либо не работают, либо часто приносят вред. 但对于很多任务来说,它们实际上要么不起作用,要么常常有害。 This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored. ||||||强有力的||||||||||| ||||||قوية|||||||||||المهملة |||||||wyników|||||||||| 이는 사회과학 분야에서 가장 강력한 연구 결과 중 하나이지만, 가장 무시되는 연구 결과 중 하나이기도 합니다. Это одно из самых надежных открытий в социальных науках, а также одно из самых игнорируемых.

I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. ||||||||||||||||||external rewards|||Internal or inherent| ||||||||||||||||||extrinsischen|||intrinsischen| ||||||||||||||||动力学||外在动机|||内在| ||||||||||||||||||الخارجية|||الداخلية| ||||||||||||||||||extrínsecos|||| ||||||||||||||||||zewnętrzne|||wewnętrzny| Я провел последние пару лет, изучая науку о человеческой мотивации, особенно динамику внешних и внутренних мотиваторов.

And I'm telling you, it's not even close. ||告诉你||||| If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. |||||||||descompasso|||||||| |||||||||niedopasowanie|||||||| 과학을 살펴보면 과학이 알고 있는 것과 비즈니스가 하는 것 사이에는 불일치가 있습니다. 如果你审视科学,就会发现科学知识与商业行为之间存在不匹配。 And what's alarming here is that our business 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. That's actually fine for many kinds of  20th century tasks. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Anreize und Strafen|||||||||| ||المقلق|||||||||||||||البروتوكولات|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||external incentives||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||zanahorias|||||||||||| |||||||||||||||założenia||protokół|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 여기서 놀라운 점은 비즈니스 운영 시스템, 즉 비즈니스의 근간이 되는 일련의 가정과 프로토콜, 사람들에게 동기를 부여하는 방법, 인적 자원을 활용하는 방법 등이 전적으로 이러한 외적 동기, 즉 당근과 채찍을 중심으로 구축되었다는 점입니다. 사실 20세기의 많은 종류의 업무에는 이러한 방식이 적합합니다. И что здесь тревожно, так это то, что наша бизнес-операционная система — подумайте о наборе предположений и протоколов, лежащих в основе нашего бизнеса, о том, как мы мотивируем людей, как мы используем наши человеческие ресурсы — она полностью построена вокруг этих внешних мотиваторов, вокруг кнута и пряника. Это на самом деле хорошо для многих видов задач 20-го века. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm. ||||||cơ chế||||||||||||| ||||||آلي||||||||||||| |||||||||惩罚|||||||||| Но для задач 21-го века этот механистический подход с поощрением и наказанием не работает, часто не работает и часто приносит вред. Let me show you what I mean.

So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here.

Okay?

Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we're timing for norms. ||计时|| ||zeitnehmen|| ||نحدد|| 사용자: 우리는 규범을 위한 타이밍을 잡고 있습니다. You: we're incentivizing. ||Wir belohnen. ||نحفز ||zachęcając ||Estamos incentivando. 사용자: 인센티브를 제공하고 있습니다. Вы: мы стимулируем. What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt. |||||||||bunda |||được khuyến khích||||||đánh bại |||Anreizgruppe|||||| |||المحفز|||||| |||incentivado|||||| |||||||||tyłek 今回、インセンティブを与えられたグループは、もう一方のグループの尻を蹴った。 На этот раз мотивированная группа надрала задницу другой группе. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it? |||tachas|||||||||| 왜냐하면 압정이 상자에서 나오면 꽤 쉽기 때문이죠? Потому что, когда гвозди готовы, это довольно просто, не так ли? (Laughter) 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. (単純なルールと明確な目的地があるような仕事では、ご褒美はとても効果的です。 (Смех) Награды «если-то» очень хорошо работают для таких задач, где есть простой набор правил и четкая цель, к которой нужно идти. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that's why they work in so many cases. 報酬はその性質上、私たちの焦点を絞り、精神を集中させる。 Награды по самой своей природе сужают наше внимание, концентрируют ум; вот почему они работают во многих случаях. 奖励,就其本质而言,可以缩小我们的注意力,集中注意力;这就是为什么它们在很多情况下都有效。 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. だから、このような仕事では、狭い範囲に集中し、ゴールをすぐそこに見て、そこに向かってまっすぐズームする。 But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this. The solution is not over here. ||||||||||||||Ten||||| The solution is on the periphery. |||||Peripherie |||||الهامش |||||na obrzeżach Решение находится на периферии. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility. |||||||||يُضيّق||||تقيّد|| |||||||||||||restringe|| Вы хотите оглядеться. Эта награда на самом деле сужает наш фокус и ограничивает наши возможности.

Let me tell you why this is so important.

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. ||||||||||||||office worker|||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||العمّال|||||||||||||||| |||||||Azji||||||pracownicy umysłowi||||||||||||||||| That routine, rule-based, left-brain work --certain kinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programming --has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. ||||||||||المحاسبة||||||||||||||||تعهيد||||أتمتة ||||||||||||||||||||||||||externalizar|||| Эту рутинную, основанную на правилах работу левого полушария — определенные виды бухгалтерского учета, определенные виды финансового анализа, определенные виды компьютерного программирования — стало довольно легко отдавать на аутсорсинг, довольно легко автоматизировать. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities. ||||||||دماغ||المفاهيمية||| ||||||||cerebrales||conceptuales|||

Think about your own work.

Think about your own work. 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. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. |||misteriosas|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||khó hiểu|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||verwirrend|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||محيرة|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||misteriosas|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||tajemniczy|||||||||||||||||||||||||| And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we've built so many of our businesses, don't work. И для проблем свечей любого рода, в любой области, эти вознаграждения «если-тогда», вещи, вокруг которых мы построили так много наших предприятий, не работают.

Now, I mean it makes me crazy.

And this is not -- here's the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy. (Laughter)This is a fact --or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact. (Laughter) (Applause) Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let me marshal the evidence here, because I'm not telling you a story, I'm making a case. ||die Beweise darlegen|||||||||||||| ||ترتيب|||||||||||||| ||zgromadzić|||||||||||||| Позвольте мне привести доказательства здесь, потому что я не рассказываю вам историю, я делаю дело.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. |||||||||Ariely||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||Ariely(1)|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward.Okay? И предложил им, за производительность, три уровня вознаграждения: маленькое вознаграждение, среднее вознаграждение, большое вознаграждение. Хорошо? If you do really well you get the large reward, on down. ||||||||||na| Если вы действительно хорошо справляетесь, вы получаете большую награду. What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance.Okay? |||||||ميكانيكية||||||||||||||||| But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance. |||||||rudimentäre||||||||| |||||||أساسية||||||||| |||||||rudamentarny||||||||| |||||||rudimentarias||||||||| Но как только задание требовало даже элементарных когнитивных навыков, более крупная награда приводила к снижению производительности.

Then they said, "Okay let's see if there's any cultural bias here. Затем они сказали: «Хорошо, давайте посмотрим, нет ли здесь каких-либо культурных предубеждений.

Let's go to Madurai, India and test this. |||Madurai|||| |||Madurai|||| |||Madurai|||| "Standard of living is lower. In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards,is more meaningful there.Same deal. В Мадурае награда, скромная по меркам Северной Америки, там имеет большее значение. То же самое. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards. Куча игр, три уровня наград. What happens?

People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. Люди, которым предлагали вознаграждения среднего уровня, справились не лучше, чем люди, которым предлагали небольшие вознаграждения. But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all. Но на этот раз люди предложили самые высокие награды, они сделали хуже всех. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance. В восьми из девяти задач, которые мы рассмотрели в трех экспериментах, более высокие стимулы привели к снижению производительности.

Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here? ||||||||Verschwörung||| ||||||sentimentalista||||| |||||wrażliwy|||||| Здесь происходит какой-то обидчивый социалистический заговор?

No. These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. ||||||||Mellon||||| |||||||Carnegie Mellon|Carnegie Mellon||||| And do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That's the American experience.

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. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger. ||||||||||||||||||||الجوائز||||||||المفكرين||||||||| |||||||||||LSE||||||||||||||||||||||Friedrich|||Mick|Jagger |||||||||||Londyńska Szkoła Ekonomiczna|Londyn||||uczelnia macierzysta|uczelnia macierzysta|||||||||||||||||Friedrich Hayek||Mick Jagger|Mick Jagger Давайте перейдем через океан в Лондонскую школу экономики — LSE, Лондонскую школу экономики, альма-матер 11 лауреатов Нобелевской премии по экономике. Тренировочная площадка для таких великих экономических мыслителей, как Джордж Сорос, Фридрих Хайек и Мик Джаггер.

(Laughter )Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here's what the economists there said: "We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||الحوافز||||||||| ||||||||LSE||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| (Смех) В прошлом месяце, только в прошлом месяце, экономисты Лондонской фондовой биржи изучили 51 исследование планов оплаты по результатам внутри компаний. Вот что сказали тамошние экономисты: «Мы считаем, что финансовые стимулы могут негативно сказаться на общей производительности. " There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. 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. ||||||||||Trümmern|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||Folklore||| ||||||||||أنقاض|||||||||المنظمات||||||السياسات|||||||||||غير مُفَحَّصَة|||||الفولكلور||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||folklore||| ||||||||||gruz|||||||||||||||||||||||||przestarzałe||||||||| И что меня беспокоит, когда мы стоим здесь, среди обломков экономического коллапса, так это то, что слишком многие организации принимают свои решения и свою политику в отношении талантов и людей на основе устаревших, непроверенных предположений, уходящих корнями скорее в фольклор, чем в наука. 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.We need a whole new approach. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||tentar|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||định nghĩa|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||verlocken|||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||التعريفية|||||||||||||||||||||(1) أ|أكثر حلاوة|||تهدد||||أكثر حدة||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||definitorios||||||||||||||||||||||más dulce|||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||kusić ludzi|||||||||||||||||| И если мы действительно хотим выбраться из этой экономической неразберихи, и если мы действительно хотим добиться высоких результатов в решении определяющих задач 21-го века, решение состоит не в том, чтобы делать больше неправильных вещей, соблазнять людей более сладкой морковкой или угрожать им более острой палкой. Нам нужен совершенно новый подход.

And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach.

It's an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. |||||||intrinsische| Это подход, основанный на внутренней мотивации. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. |||||||||||dreht sich um||||Autonomie|Beherrschung||Zweck И, на мой взгляд, эта новая операционная система для нашего бизнеса вращается вокруг трех элементов: автономии, мастерства и цели. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Автономия: стремление управлять собственной жизнью. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Мастерство: желание становиться все лучше и лучше в чем-то важном. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses. ||Sehnsucht||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||pragnienie||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Цель: стремление делать то, что мы делаем, на службе чему-то большему, чем мы сами. Это строительные блоки совершенно новой операционной системы для нашего бизнеса.

I want to talk today only about autonomy.

In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. |||stammen von|| |||emanó|| Менеджмент не исходит из природы. Management is like -- it's not a tree, it's a television set. Okay? Somebody invented it. And it doesn't mean it's going to work forever. Management is great. Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. ||||Vorstellungen||||||||Befolgung ||||||||||||conformidade ||||pojęcia|||||||| Управление отличное. Традиционные представления об управлении хороши, если вы хотите соблюдения требований. But if you want engagement, self-direction works better. ||||Engagement|||| |||||samo-kierowanie||| Но если вы хотите вовлечения, самоуправление работает лучше.

Let me give you some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction. Позвольте мне привести вам несколько примеров некоторых радикальных представлений о самоуправлении.

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 fairly, absolutely --getting the issue of money off the table, and then giving people lots of autonomy. |||||||||||||||初步迹象|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||erste Anzeichen|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||sinais|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||pierwsze oznaki|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||indicios|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Что это означает — вы не видите многого, но вы видите первые признаки того, что происходит что-то действительно интересное, потому что это означает адекватную и справедливую оплату труда людей, абсолютно — снятие с обсуждения денежного вопроса. , а затем дать людям большую автономию. Let me give you some examples.

How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? |||||||||Atlassian |||||||||Atlassian

It looks like less than half. (Laughter) Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something incredibly cool. 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. Несколько раз в год они говорят своим инженерам: «Идите в течение следующих 24 часов и работайте над чем угодно, если это не является частью вашей обычной работы. Work on anything you want. "So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant hack. 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. |||||||||||||||||||||||chaotisch||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||szalonym i nieprzewidywalnym||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||desenfrenada||||||||| And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer.

They call them FedEx Days. |||FedEx| |||dni FedEx|

Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. Почему? Потому что вы должны доставить что-то за одну ночь. It's pretty. It's not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever. |||marca registrada||||| Это серьезное нарушение прав на товарный знак, но это довольно умно. (Laughter) That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed. ||||||||||||||poprawek|||||

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. They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. Okay? И это сработало так хорошо, что Atlassian вывела его на новый уровень с 20 Percent Time — сделано, как известно, в Google — где инженеры могут работать, тратить 20 процентов своего времени, работая над чем угодно. У них есть автономия в отношении своего времени, своей задачи, своей команды, своей техники. Хорошо?

Radical amounts of autonomy. And at Google, 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. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||Gmail|Orkut|| |||||||||||||||||||nacidos||||||||Orkut||

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 in place at about a dozen companies around North America. ||||||||||||||||||||||||Berater|||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||ROWE|||||konsultantów||||||||||||

In a ROWE people don't have schedules. They show up when they want. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.

What happens?

Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turn over goes down. |||||||||||||||rotacja||| Практически повсеместно производительность растет, вовлеченность работников растет, удовлетворенность работников растет, текучесть кадров снижается. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, These are the building blocks of a new way of doing things. Автономия, мастерство и целеустремленность — вот строительные блоки нового способа ведения дел. Now some of you might look at this and say, "Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian. ||||||||||||||||utópico ||||||||||||||||utopijne "And I say, "Nope. I have proof. " The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. ||||||||Encarta |||Microsoft|||||Encarta They had deployed all the right incentives, all the right incentives. Они использовали все правильные стимулы, все правильные стимулы. They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. 高薪||||||||||||||||| |||supervisaron|||||||||||||| dobrze opłacani|||nadzorowali|||||||||||||| Хорошо оплачиваемые менеджеры наблюдали за всем этим, чтобы убедиться, что все уложилось в бюджет и в срок. A few years later another encyclopedia got started. |||||百科全书|| Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen. ||||||||Euro||| ||||||||euro|||jen Do it because you like to do it.

Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, and said, "Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. |||||||||||||经济学家||||||||||||||

If they went head to head, who would win?" 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model. ||||||||||||||||||||维基百科| |||||||||nüchtern|||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||model Wikipedii| |||||||||sobrio|||||||||||| 10 лет назад вы не смогли бы найти ни одного трезвого экономиста нигде на планете Земля, который предсказал бы модель Википедии.

This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation. |||泰坦尼克|||||||||阿里||| |||||||||||||Frazier(1)||

Right? This is the Thrilla' in Manila. ||||||Manila ||||Thrilla||Manila Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Внутренние мотиваторы против внешних мотиваторов. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. Автономия, мастерство и цель против кнута и пряника. And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. ||||||||golpe ||||||to jest||rywalizacji Внутренняя мотивация, автономия, мастерство и цель в нокауте. Let me wrap up. ||总结一下| Позвольте мне закончить.

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.

And here is what science knows. 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. Первый: эти вознаграждения 20-го века, те мотиваторы, которые мы считаем естественной частью бизнеса, работают, но только в удивительно узком диапазоне обстоятельств. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Второе: эти вознаграждения «если-то» часто разрушают творческий потенциал. 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.The drive to do things cause they matter. ||||||||||||unsichtbare||||||||||||||||||| Третье: секрет высокой производительности не в поощрениях и наказаниях, а в незримом внутреннем побуждении — стремлении делать что-то ради самого себя. Стремление делать что-то, потому что оно имеет значение.

And here's the best part.

Here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. 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 businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. I rest my case. (Applause) |||||||||||||||||||Vorstellungen|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Итак, если мы исправим это несоответствие между тем, что знает наука, и тем, что делает бизнес, если мы перенесем нашу мотивацию, представления о мотивации в 21 век, если мы преодолеем эту ленивую, опасную идеологию кнута и пряника, мы сможем укрепить наш бизнес. , мы можем решить многие проблемы со свечами, и, может быть, может быть, мы сможем изменить мир. Я считаю так. (Аплодисменты)