I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
Želim da se na minutu osvrnete oko sebe i pokušate naći najparanoičniju osobu ovdje.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
A zatim želim da mi pokažete tu osobu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
OK, don't actually do it.
OK, nemojte to zaista raditi.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But, as an organizational psychologist, I spend a lot of time in workplaces, and I find paranoia everywhere. Paranoia is caused by people that I call "takers." Takers are self-serving in their interactions. It's all about what can you do for me. The opposite is a giver. It's somebody who approaches most interactions by asking, "What can I do for you?"
No, kao organizacijski psiholog mnogo vremena provodim na radnim mjestima i paranoju susrećem svugdje. Paranoju uzrokuju ljudi koje nazivam "oni koji uzimaju". Te osobe su sebične u odnosima s drugima. Sve se vrti oko toga što ti možeš učiniti za mene. Suprotan mu je "onaj koji daje". Takva osoba većinom drugima pristupa pitanjem "Što ja mogu učiniti za tebe?"
I wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style. We all have moments of giving and taking. Your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time, your default. I have a short test you can take to figure out if you're more of a giver or a taker, and you can take it right now.
Želio sam vam dati priliku da razmislite o vlastitom stilu. Svi imamo trenutke kada dajemo i uzimamo. Vaš stil je onaj kojim se odnosite najčešće prema većini ljudi, vaša konstanta. Imam za vas kratki test, kako biste saznali jeste li više onaj koji daje ili uzima, i možete to provjeriti odmah.
[The Narcissist Test]
[Test narcisoidnosti]
[Step 1: Take a moment to think about yourself.]
[1. korak: Razmislite nakratko o sebi.]
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
[2. korak: Ako ste došli do 2. koraka, niste narcisoidni.]
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
This is the only thing I will say today that has no data behind it, but I am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon, the more worried we should be that you're a taker.
Ovo je jedino što ću danas reći, a da iza toga ne stoje podaci, no uvjeren sam, što vam duže treba da se nasmijete ovom stripu, trebali bismo biti zabrinutiji da ste onaj koji uzima.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Of course, not all takers are narcissists. Some are just givers who got burned one too many times. Then there's another kind of taker that we won't be addressing today, and that's called a psychopath.
Naravno, nisu svi koji uzimaju narcisoidni. Neki su i oni koji daju, ali su se previše puta opekli. Tu je i još jedan tip onih koji uzimaju, o kojima danas nećemo govoriti, a zovu se psihopati.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I was curious, though, about how common these extremes are, and so I surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world's cultures. And I found that most people are right in the middle between giving and taking. They choose this third style called "matching." If you're a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo -- I'll do something for you if you do something for me. And that seems like a safe way to live your life. But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life? The answer to that question is a very definitive ... maybe.
Ipak, bio sam znatiželjan koliko su česta ova dva ekstrema, stoga sam ispitao preko 30.000 ljudi iz različih grana kroz različite kulture. I otkrio sam da je većina ljudi točno u sredini, između davanja i uzimanja. Oni biraju treći način, tzv. usklađivanje. Ako ste ovaj tip, nastojite držati ravnotežu između davanja i uzimanja: Quid pro quo - Učinit ću nešto za tebe, ako ćeš i ti za mene. I to se čini kao siguran način da se ide kroz život. No, je li to najučinkovitiji i najproduktivniji način za vaš život? Odgovor na to pitanje vrlo je sigurno... možda.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity.
Proučavao sam desetke organizacija, na tisuće ljudi. Imao sam inženjere kojima se mjerila produktivnost.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
Pogledao sam ocjene studenata medicine, čak i prodajne rezultate ljudi iz prodaje.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And, unexpectedly, the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers. The engineers who got the least work done were the ones who did more favors than they got back. They were so busy doing other people's jobs, they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed. In medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students who agree most strongly with statements like, "I love helping others," which suggests the doctor you ought to trust is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.
I, neočekivano, najlošije rezultate u svakom od ovih poslova, imali su oni koji daju. Inženjeri koji su obavili najmanje posla, oni su koji su više usluga davali nego primali. Toliko su bili zauzeti radeći tuđe poslove, da im je doslovno ponestalo vremena i energije za dovršenje vlastitog posla. Na medicinskom fakultetu najlošije ocjene imali su studenti, koji se najviše slažu s izjavama poput, "Volim pomagati drugima". To znači da je liječnik kojem trebate vjerovati, onaj koji je došao na fakultet bez želje da ikome pomaže.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued in the most generous salespeople. I actually reached out to one of those salespeople who had a very high giver score. And I asked him, "Why do you suck at your job --" I didn't ask it that way, but --
Isto je i u prodaji, najmanje prihoda dolazilo je od najvelikodušnijih prodavača. Došao sam do jednog od tih ljudi u prodaji, visoko ocjenjenog kao "davatelj". I pitao sam ga: "Zašto si tako loš u svom poslu?" Nisam ga baš tako pitao, ali...
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"What's the cost of generosity in sales?" And he said, "Well, I just care so deeply about my customers that I would never sell them one of our crappy products."
"Koja je cijena velikodušnosti u prodaji?" A on je rekao: "Pa, jednostavno mi je toliko stalo do mojih klijenata, da im nikada ne bih prodao neki od naših užasnih proizvoda."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So just out of curiosity, how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers? Raise your hands. OK, it would have been more before we talked about these data.
Čisto iz znatiželje, koliko vas se više smatra onima koji daju, od onih koji uzimaju ili usklađuju? Podignite ruku. OK, bilo bi vas više prije nego što bismo iznijeli ove podatke.
But actually, it turns out there's a twist here, because givers are often sacrificing themselves, but they make their organizations better. We have a huge body of evidence -- many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior that exists in a team or an organization -- and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge and providing mentoring, the better organizations do on every metric we can measure: higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention -- even lower operating expenses. So givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people and improve the team, and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way. I want to talk about what it takes to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed.
No, izgleda da se ovdje radi o jednom obratu, jer oni koji daju često se žrtvuju, ali i čine svoje organizacije boljima. Imamo mnoštvo dokaza... Mnoge studije promatrale su učestalost ponašanja "davanja" koje postoji u timu ili organizaciji, i što češće ljudi pomažu i dijele svoje znanje te nude mentorstvo, organizacije imaju bolje rezultate u svemu što mjerimo: veći profit, zadovoljnije klijente, ostajanje zaposlenih u tvrtci, čak i niže operativne troškove. Dakle, "davatelji" provode mnogo vremena pokušavajući pomoći drugima te poboljšati svoj tim, no tada, nažalost, putem i ispaštaju. Želim pričati o tome što je potrebno za stvaranje kultura gdje oni koji daju, ujedno i postaju uspješni.
So I wondered, then, if givers are the worst performers, who are the best performers? Let me start with the good news: it's not the takers. Takers tend to rise quickly but also fall quickly in most jobs. And they fall at the hands of matchers. If you're a matcher, you believe in "An eye for an eye" -- a just world. And so when you meet a taker, you feel like it's your mission in life to just punish the hell out of that person.
I zato sam se upitao, ako oni koji daju imaju najlošije rezultate, tko su oni s najboljim rezultatima? Odmah ću reći dobru vijest - to nisu oni koji uzimaju. Oni koji uzimaju brzo se uspinju, ali i brzo padaju u većini poslova. A padaju "onima koji usklađuju". Ako ste onaj koji usklađuje, vjerujete u izreku - "Oko za oko,..." I kada sretnete onoga koji uzima, mislite da je vaša životna misija apsolutno strogo kazniti takvu osobu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And that way justice gets served.
I tada je pravda zadovoljena.
Well, most people are matchers. And that means if you're a taker, it tends to catch up with you eventually; what goes around will come around. And so the logical conclusion is: it must be the matchers who are the best performers. But they're not. In every job, in every organization I've ever studied, the best results belong to the givers again.
Većina ljudi i jest ona koja usklađuje. To znači, ako ste onaj koji uzima, prije ili kasnije će se s vama obračunati, sve se vraća, sve se plaća. Dakle, logičan zaključak je: mora da oni koji usklađuju, ujedno imaju i najbolje rezultate. Ali nemaju. U svakom poslu i organizaciji koju sam ikada proučavao, najbolji rezultati ponovo pripadaju onima koji daju.
Take a look at some data I gathered from hundreds of salespeople, tracking their revenue. What you can see is that the givers go to both extremes. They make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue, but also the highest revenue. The same patterns were true for engineers' productivity and medical students' grades. Givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top of every success metric that I can track. Which raises the question: How do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel? I want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses, but also in nonprofits, schools -- even governments. Are you ready?
Pogledajte podatke koje sam prikupio od stotina prodavača, prateći njihovu prodaju. Možete vidjeti da oni koji daju idu u obje krajnosti. Oni čine većinu onih koji imaju najnižu prodaju, ali i najvišu prodaju. Isti obrasci javljaju se i kod produktivnosti inženjera, te kod ocjena studenata medicine. Oni koji daju prevladavaju i na dnu i na vrhu, u svakom mjerenju uspješnosti koje sam pratio. Što dovodi do pitanja: Kako stvoriti svijet u kojem će više briljirati oni koji daju? Objasnit ću kako to učiniti, ne samo u poslovanju, već i u neprofitnom sektoru, školstvu, čak i u državnim upravama. Jeste li spremni?
(Cheers)
(Klicanje)
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
Ionako sam to htio učiniti, no cijenim entuzijazam.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
The first thing that's really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they're not careful, they burn out. So you have to protect the givers in your midst. And I learned a great lesson about this from Fortune's best networker. It's the guy, not the cat.
Prva, zaista ključna stvar, prepoznati one koje daju kao vaše najdragocjenije ljude, no ako nisu oprezni, istrošit će se. Zato one koji daju morate zaštititi u svojoj sredini. I naučio sam važnu lekciju o tome od najutjecajnije osobe, prema Fortune-u, Radi se o ovom čovjeku, ne o mački.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
His name is Adam Rifkin. He's a very successful serial entrepreneur who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people. And his secret weapon is the five-minute favor. Adam said, "You don't have to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi to be a giver. You just have to find small ways to add large value to other people's lives." That could be as simple as making an introduction between two people who could benefit from knowing each other. It could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback. Or It might be even something as basic as saying, "You know, I'm going to try and figure out if I can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed." And those five-minute favors are really critical to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves.
Njegovo ime je Adam Rifkin. Vrlo je uspješan serijski poduzetnik, koji provodi ogromnu količinu svog vremena pomažući drugima. Njegovo tajno oružje je "petominutna usluga." Adam je rekao, "Ne moraš biti Majka Tereza ili Gandhi, da bi davao. Samo moraš naći male načine davanja velike vrijednosti životima drugih ljudi." To može biti nešto jednostavno, kao upoznavanje dvoje ljudi koji će od tog susreta imati koristi. To može biti dijeljenje znanja ili pružanje povratne informacije. A može biti i nešto osnovno, kao da kažete, "Znaš, potrudit ću se saznati ako mogu prepoznati nekoga, čiji rad je prošao nezapaženo." I takve male usluge zaista su ključne, kako bi onima koji daju pomogle postaviti granice i zaštititi se.
The second thing that matters if you want to build a culture where givers succeed, is you actually need a culture where help-seeking is the norm; where people ask a lot. This may hit a little too close to home for some of you.
I druga važna stvar, ako želite stvoriti kulturu gdje davatelji uspijevaju, zapravo trebate kulturu gdje je traženje pomoći pravilo, tamo gdje ljudi puno pitaju. Ovo će nekima od vas izgledati i suviše blisko.
[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]
[Znači, u svim svojim odnosima, uvijek moraš biti onaj koji daje?]
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
What you see with successful givers is they recognize that it's OK to be a receiver, too. If you run an organization, we can actually make this easier. We can make it easier for people to ask for help. A couple colleagues and I studied hospitals. We found that on certain floors, nurses did a lot of help-seeking, and on other floors, they did very little of it. The factor that stood out on the floors where help-seeking was common, where it was the norm, was there was just one nurse whose sole job it was to help other nurses on the unit. When that role was available, nurses said, "It's not embarrassing, it's not vulnerable to ask for help -- it's actually encouraged."
Kod uspješnih davatelja primjećujete, što oni prepoznaju da je u redu biti i primatelj. Ako vodite organizaciju, možemo ovo i pojednostaviti. Možemo ljudima pojednostaviti da zatraže pomoć. Nekoliko kolega i ja proučavali smo bolnice. Uočili smo da na nekim katovima medicinske sestre često traže pomoć, a na drugima vrlo malo. Ono što se istaknulo na katovima gdje je traženje pomoći bilo uobičajeno, gdje je to bilo pravilo, što je tamo bila jedna sestra, čiji jedini posao je bio pomoći ostalim sestrama na odjelu. Kada je ta uloga bila dostupna, sestre su rekle: "Nije sramotno, nije slabost tražiti pomoć, zapravo je poticajno."
Help-seeking isn't important just for protecting the success and the well-being of givers. It's also critical to getting more people to act like givers, because the data say that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all giving in organizations starts with a request. But a lot of people don't ask. They don't want to look incompetent, they don't know where to turn, they don't want to burden others. Yet if nobody ever asks for help, you have a lot of frustrated givers in your organization who would love to step up and contribute, if they only knew who could benefit and how.
Traženje pomoći nije važno samo za zaštitu uspjeha i dobrobiti onih koji daju. Ono je ključno i za pridobivanje ljudi da i sami počnu davati, jer podaci govore, da negdje između 75%-90% svih davanja u organizacijama počinje upitom. No, mnogo ljudi ne pita. Ne žele izgledati nesposobno, ne znaju koga pitati, ne žele biti teret drugima. I ako nitko nikada ne zatraži pomoć, imate mnogo frustriranih davatelja u organizaciji, koji bi voljeli istaknuti se i doprinijeti, samo ako bi znali tko bi i kako imao koristi.
But I think the most important thing, if you want to build a culture of successful givers, is to be thoughtful about who you let onto your team. I figured, you want a culture of productive generosity, you should hire a bunch of givers. But I was surprised to discover, actually, that that was not right -- that the negative impact of a taker on a culture is usually double to triple the positive impact of a giver. Think about it this way: one bad apple can spoil a barrel, but one good egg just does not make a dozen. I don't know what that means --
No, mislim da je najvažnije, ako želite stvoriti kulturu gdje su oni koji daju uspješni, da dobro promislite koga puštate u svoj tim. Shvatio sam, ako želite kulturu produktivne velikodušnosti, zaposlit ćete mnogo onih koji daju. No, bio sam iznenađen otkrivši da to, zapravo, nije točno, da negativni utjecaj onoga koji uzima na samu kulturu, zapravo je dvostruko ili trostruko veći od pozitivnog utjecaja davatelja. Zamislite to ovako: jedna trula jabuka kvari ostale jabuke, no jedna lasta ne čini proljeće. Ne znam što to znači...
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But I hope you do.
Ali nadam se da vi znate.
No -- let even one taker into a team, and you will see that the givers will stop helping. They'll say, "I'm surrounded by a bunch of snakes and sharks. Why should I contribute?" Whereas if you let one giver into a team, you don't get an explosion of generosity. More often, people are like, "Great! That person can do all our work." So, effective hiring and screening and team building is not about bringing in the givers; it's about weeding out the takers. If you can do that well, you'll be left with givers and matchers. The givers will be generous because they don't have to worry about the consequences. And the beauty of the matchers is that they follow the norm.
Dovedete li u tim jednoga koji uzima, vidjet ćete kako oni koji daju prestaju pomagati. Reći će: "Okružen sam zmijama i morskim psima. Zašto da ičemu pridonesem?" No, ako u tim dovedete jednoga koji daje, ne dolazi do explozije velikodušnosti. Češće će ljudi reći: "Super! Ta osoba osoba može odraditi sav naš posao!" Zato uspješno zapošljavanje, analiziranje i stvaranje tima nije u dovođenju onih koji daju, već o odvođenju onih koji uzimaju. Ako to dobro izvedete, ostat će vam oni koji daju i koji usklađuju. Davatelji će biti velikodušni jer neće morati brinuti o posljedicama. A najbolje kod onih koji usklađuju je to što slijede pravila.
So how do you catch a taker before it's too late? We're actually pretty bad at figuring out who's a taker, especially on first impressions. There's a personality trait that throws us off. It's called agreeableness, one the major dimensions of personality across cultures. Agreeable people are warm and friendly, they're nice, they're polite. You find a lot of them in Canada --
I kako ćete uloviti onoga koji uzima prije nego bude prekasno? Mi sami slabi smo u procjeni tko je onaj koji uzima, naročito kod prvog dojma. Ima jedna crta osobnosti koja nas odvraća u tome, a zove se prijaznost, jedna od najvažnijih osobina ličnosti u svim kulturama. Prijazni ljudi su topli, prijateljski, dragi i ljubazni. Mnogo takvih ljudi naći ćete u Kanadi...
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Where there was actually a national contest to come up with a new Canadian slogan and fill in the blank, "As Canadian as ..." I thought the winning entry was going to be, "As Canadian as maple syrup," or, "... ice hockey." But no, Canadians voted for their new national slogan to be -- I kid you not -- "As Canadian as possible under the circumstances."
gdje je, zapravo, bilo i jedno državno natjecanje za novi kanadski slogan kako bi se popunila praznina u "Kanadski kao..." Mislio sam da će pobijediti izraz "Kanadski kao javorov sirup" ili "... hokej na ledu". Ali ne, Kanađani su za svoj novi nacionalni slogan odabrali, ne šalim se, "Kanadski koliko je moguće, obzirom na okolnosti."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now for those of you who are highly agreeable, or maybe slightly Canadian, you get this right away. How could I ever say I'm any one thing when I'm constantly adapting to try to please other people? Disagreeable people do less of it. They're more critical, skeptical, challenging, and far more likely than their peers to go to law school.
Oni od vas koji su jako prijazni, ili možda i malo Kanađani, odmah ovo shvaćaju. Kako bih uopće mogao reći da sam išta, kada se stalno trudim udovoljavati drugima? Neprijazni ljudi to manje čine. Oni su kritičniji, skeptičniji, izazovniji, i vjerojatnije je da će studirati pravo, nego njihovi vršnjaci.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.
Ovo nije vic, već, zapravo, empirijska činjenica.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
So I always assumed that agreeable people were givers and disagreeable people were takers. But then I gathered the data, and I was stunned to find no correlation between those traits, because it turns out that agreeableness-disagreeableness is your outer veneer: How pleasant is it to interact with you? Whereas giving and taking are more of your inner motives: What are your values? What are your intentions toward others?
Uvijek sam pretpostavljao da su prijazni ljudi oni koji daju, a neprijazni oni koji uzimaju. No, tada sam prikupio podatke, i bio zapanjen činjenicom da nema korelacije između ova dva svojstva, jer ispada da su prijaznost-neprijaznost vaš zaštitni omotač. Koliko je ugodno družiti se s vama? Davanje i uzimanje više su vaši unutarnji motivi. Koje su vaše vrijednosti? Koje su vaše namjere prema drugima?
If you really want to judge people accurately, you have to get to the moment every consultant in the room is waiting for, and draw a two-by-two.
Ako zaista želite točno procijeniti ljude, morate doći do trenutka kojeg svaki savjetnik iščekuje i nacrtati tabelu "dva na dva".
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
The agreeable givers are easy to spot: they say yes to everything. The disagreeable takers are also recognized quickly, although you might call them by a slightly different name.
One prijazne koji daju lako je uočiti: oni na sve kažu "da". One neprijazne koji uzimaju također se brzo prepozna, iako ćete ih možda zvati nešto drugačijim imenom.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
We forget about the other two combinations. There are disagreeable givers in our organizations. There are people who are gruff and tough on the surface but underneath have others' best interests at heart. Or as an engineer put it, "Oh, disagreeable givers -- like somebody with a bad user interface but a great operating system."
Zaboravljamo na preostale dvije kombinacije. Jedni su oni neprijazni koji daju u vašoj organizaciji. To su osorne i grube osobe na površini, no iznutra misle i na ono najbolje za druge. Ili, kako to inženjer kaže: "Ah, neprijazni davatelji, kao netko tko ima loše korisničko sučelje, ali sjajan operativni sustav."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
If that helps you.
Ako vam je to pomoglo.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Disagreeable givers are the most undervalued people in our organizations, because they're the ones who give the critical feedback that no one wants to hear but everyone needs to hear. We need to do a much better job valuing these people as opposed to writing them off early, and saying, "Eh, kind of prickly, must be a selfish taker."
Neprijazni davatelji su najpodcjenjeniji ljudi u organizacijama, jer daju kritički povratnu informaciju, ono što nitko ne želi, ali bi svatko trebao čuti. Trebamo biti puno bolji u procjeni takvih ljudi, umjesto što ih rano otpišemo i kažemo: "Ah, malo je drzak, sigurno je onaj sebični koji samo uzima."
The other combination we forget about is the deadly one -- the agreeable taker, also known as the faker. This is the person who's nice to your face, and then will stab you right in the back.
Preostala kombinacija koju smo zaboravili je opaka, onaj prijazni koji uzima, poznat i kao lažnjak. To je osoba koja je s vama naoko ljubazna, a onda će vam zabiti nož u leđa.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
And my favorite way to catch these people in the interview process is to ask the question, "Can you give me the names of four people whose careers you have fundamentally improved?" The takers will give you four names, and they will all be more influential than them, because takers are great at kissing up and then kicking down. Givers are more likely to name people who are below them in a hierarchy, who don't have as much power, who can do them no good. And let's face it, you all know you can learn a lot about character by watching how someone treats their restaurant server or their Uber driver.
Moj omiljeni način da se takvi ljudi otkriju tijekom razgovora za posao je postaviti im pitanje, "Možete li mi navesti četiri osobe, čije ste karijere iz temelja unaprijedili?" Oni koji uzimaju dat će vam četiri imena, i svi će biti mnogo utjecajniji od njih, jer ovaj tip ljudi je odličan u ulizivanju i srozavanju drugih. Oni koji daju vjerojatno će imenovati osobe koje su hijerarhijski ispod njih, koje nisu toliko moćne, koje im nisu od koristi. Priznajmo, svi znate da možete mnogo naučiti o karakteru promatrajući kako se osoba ponaša prema konobaru u restoranu, ili prema vozaču taksija.
So if we do all this well, if we can weed takers out of organizations, if we can make it safe to ask for help, if we can protect givers from burnout and make it OK for them to be ambitious in pursuing their own goals as well as trying to help other people, we can actually change the way that people define success. Instead of saying it's all about winning a competition, people will realize success is really more about contribution.
I ako sve ovo dobro napravimo, ako se riješimo onih koji uzimaju, ako omogućimo slobodno traženje pomoći, ako davatelje zaštitimo od sagorijevanja na poslu i omogućimo im da budu ambiciozni u ostvarenju svojih ciljeva, kao i u pomaganju drugima, promijenit ćemo način na koji ljudi definiraju uspjeh. Umjesto da govorimo kako je sve u pobjeđivanju, ljudi će shvatiti da je uspjeh zapravo u tome koliko pridonosiš.
I believe that the most meaningful way to succeed is to help other people succeed. And if we can spread that belief, we can actually turn paranoia upside down. There's a name for that. It's called "pronoia." Pronoia is the delusional belief that other people are plotting your well-being.
Vjerujem da je najsmisleniji način uspjeha pomoći drugima da uspiju. I ako možemo raširiti ovakvo vjerovanje, preokrenut ćemo paranoju naopako. Postoji i ime za to. A to je "pronoja." Pronoja je zavaravajuće vjerovanje da su se drugi urotili u korist vaše dobrobiti.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
That they're going around behind your back and saying exceptionally glowing things about you. The great thing about a culture of givers is that's not a delusion -- it's reality. I want to live in a world where givers succeed, and I hope you will help me create that world.
Da vam hodaju iza leđa i govore fenomenalne stvari o vama. U kulturi onih koji daju odlična stvar je što to nije zabluda, već stvarnost. Želim živjeti u svijetu gdje uspijevaju oni koji daju, i nadam se da ćete mi pomoći u stvaranju takvog svijeta.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)