I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
Rad bi, da se za minuto ozrete po prostoru in poskusite najti najbolj paranoično osebo tukaj.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
In potem bi rad, da mi pokažete to osebo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
OK, don't actually do it.
Ok, ne delajte tega.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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?"
Ampak, kot organizacijski psiholog preživim veliko časa na delovnih mestih in vidim paranojo povsod. Paranojo povzročajo tako imenovani "jemalci." Jemalci so v družbi sebični. Gre le za to, kaj lahko ti storiš zame. Njihovo nasprotje so dajalci. To so ljudje, ki se pri večini interakcij vprašajo: "Kaj lahko storim zate?"
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.
Rad bi vam dal priložnost, da razmislite o svojem stilu. Vsak nekaj časa daje in prejema. Kakšni ste večino časa do večine ljudi, postane vaš stil, vaš privzet način. Za vas imam kratek test, da boste ugotovili, ali ste dajalec ali jemalec in lahko ga rešite takoj.
[The Narcissist Test]
[Test narcizma]
[Step 1: Take a moment to think about yourself.]
[Korak 1: Pomislite nase.]
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
[Korak 2: Če ste prišli do 2. koraka, niste narcistični.]
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
To je edino, kar bom danes povedal, da ne temelji za podatkih, ampak prepričan sem, da dlje kot traja, da se zasmejete tej skici, bolj bi morali biti zaskrbljeni, da ste jemalec.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Seveda, niso vsi jemalci narcistični. Nekateri so le dajalci, ki so se prevečkrat opekli. Obstaja pa še ena vrsta jemalcev, ki se ji danes ne bomo posvetili; pravimo jim psihopati.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Zanimalo pa me je, kako pogosti so ti ekstremi in sem anketiral več kot 30.000 ljudi v različnih panogah, različnih kultur po svetu. In ugotovil sem, da je večina ljudi prav na sredi med dajanjem in prejemanjem. Izbrali so tretji način, imenovan "izenačevanje." Izenačevalci vzpostavljajo ravnovesje med dajanjem in prejemanjem: quid pro quo - Naredil bom nekaj zate, če boš ti naredil kaj zame. In to zveni kot varen način življenja. Ampak, ali je to najbolj učinkovit in produktiven način življenja? Odgovor na to vprašanje je definitivno ... mogoče.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity.
Preučeval sem na ducate organizacij, na tisoče ljudi. Inženirje sem pripravil do tega, da so merili svojo produktivnost.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
Ogledal sem si ocene študentov medicine, celo prihodke prodajalcev.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
In, nepričakovano, v vsaki izmed teh služb so se najslabše odrezali dajalci. Inženirji, ki opravijo najmanj dela, so tisti, ki naredijo več uslug, kot jih prejmejo. Tako so zaposleni z delom drugih, da jim dobesedno zmanjka časa in energije, da bi dokončali svoje delo. Na medicinski fakulteti imajo najslabše ocene tisti, ki se najbolj strinjajo z izjavami, kot so: "Rad pomagam drugim," to pa namiguje, da je zaupanja vreden zdravnik tisti, ki je šel študirat brez želje, da pomaga drugim.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 --
In tudi v prodaji so najmanj zaslužili najbolj dobrosrčni prodajalci. Stopil sem v stik z enim takim prodajalcem, ki je veliko dajal. Vprašal sem: "Zakaj tako bedno opravljaš svoje delo? Nisem vprašal na tak način ...
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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."
"Kaj je davek velikodušnosti v prodaji?" Rekel je: "Tako zelo mi je mar za svoje stranke, da jim ne bi nikoli prodal enega od naših ušivih izdelkov."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Samo iz radovednosti, koliko od vas se ima bolj za dajalca kot za jemalca oz. izenačevalca? Dvignite roke. Ok, več bi vas bilo, če ne bi prej govorili o teh podatkih.
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.
Ampak, v bistvu se je izkazalo, da tukaj leži problem, saj se dajalci pogosto žrtvujejo, ampak so zaradi njih organizacije boljše. Tukaj imamo pomemben dokaz: številne študije, ki opazujejo, kako pogosto se daje v skupini ali organizaciji - in bolj pogosto, kot ljudje pomagajo, delijo svoje znanje in nudijo mentorstvo, bolje gre organizaciji na vsakem področju: večji dobiček, bolj zadovoljne stranke, zaposleni ostajajo, celo nižji stroški poslovanja. Dajalci tako porabijo veliko časa, da pomagajo drugim ljudem in se trudijo izboljšati skupino in, na žalost, med tem trpijo. Rad bi vam povedal, kaj je potrebno, da ustvarimo kulturo, v kateri dajalci dejansko uspejo.
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.
Vprašal sem se torej, če so dajalci najslabši pri delu, kateri so najboljši? Naj začnem z dobro novico: niso jemalci. Jemalci v večini služb hitro napredujejo, ampak hitro tudi nazadujejo. Nazadujejo zaradi izenačevalcev. Če si izenačevalec, verjameš v "oko za oko" - pravičen svet. In tako, ko spoznaš jemalca, imaš občutek, da moraš to osebo kruto kaznovati. (Smeh)
(Laughter)
In tako je pravici zadoščeno.
And that way justice gets served.
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.
No, večina ljudi je izenačevalcev. To pomeni, da če si jemalec, se ti bo prej ali slej vse povrnilo; vse se vrača, vse se plača. Logičen rezultat je torej: izenačevalci morajo biti najboljši pri svojem delu. Ampak niso. Pri vsakem delu, v vsaki organizaciji, ki sem jo preučeval, najboljše rezultate dosegajo dajalci.
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?
Poglejte nekaj podatkov, ki sem jih zbral od prodajalcev pri spremljanju njihovega prihodka. Vidite lahko, da dajalci gredo v oba ekstrema. Sestavljajo večino ljudi z najmanjšimi prihodki, ampak tudi z največjimi. Isti vzorci veljajo pri produktivnosti inženirjev in ocenah študentov medicine. Dajalci predstavljajo večino na dnu in na vrhu vsakega področja, kjer se lahko meri uspeh. Postavlja se vprašanje: Kako ustvariti svet, v katerem več dajalcev uspe? Rad bi govoril o tem, kako do tega priti ne le v poslu, temveč tudi v neprofitnih zavodih, šolah, celo v vladi. Ste pripravljeni?
(Cheers)
(Vzklikanje)
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
V vsakem primeru bi vam povedal, ampak cenim navdušenje.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 resnično kritična zadeva je, da spoznate, da so dajalci vaši najbolj dragoceni ljudje, ampak če niso previdni, izgorijo. Zato morate dajalce med vami obvarovati. O tem me je ogromno naučil odgovoren za navezovanje stikov pri reviji Fortune. Moški je, ne mačka.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ime mu je Adam Rifkin. Je uspešen lastnik številnih podjetij in ogromno časa posveti nudenju pomoči drugim. Njegovo skrivno orožje je pet-minutna usluga. Adam je rekel: "Ni treba, da si Mati Tereza ali Gandi, da si dajalec. Moraš le najti majhne načine, da veliko prispevaš v življenju drugih ljudi. Lahko je tako preprosto kot, da predstavite dve osebi, ki lahko imata koristi od poznanstva. Lahko nekoga nekaj naučiš ali mu daš povratne informacije. Lahko je celo nekaj osnovnega, kot je ta obljuba: "Veš, potrudil se bom in ugotovil, če lahko prepoznam koga, čigar delo ni nihče opazil." Te petminutne obljube so kritičnega pomena pri pomoči dajalcem, da si postavijo meje in se zaščitijo.
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.
Drugo, kar je pomembno, je če želite ustvariti okolje, kjer dajalci uspejo, da potrebujete okolje, kjer je iskanje pomoči norma; kjer se lahko prosi. To se bo morda nekaterim od vas zdelo precej znano.
[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]
[Ali morate biti v vseh odnosih res vi tisti, ki dajete?]
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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."
Kar je vidno pri uspešnih dajalcih, je to, da se zavedajo, da je v redu, če tudi prejemajo. Če vodite organizacijo, lahko to olajšate. Olajšamo lahko to, da ljudje prosijo za pomoč. Z nekaj kolegi smo preučevali bolnišnice. Na nekaterih oddelkih so sestre veliko prosile za pomoč, na drugih pa bolj malo. Faktor, ki je izstopal tam, kjer je bilo iskanje pomoči pogosto, kjer je bila to norma, je bil, da je ena sestra opravljala le eno delo; pomagala je drugim sestram na oddelku. Ko je bila ta vloga na voljo, so sestre rekle: "Ni sramotno, nisi ranljiv, če prosiš za pomoč - pravzaprav je zaželeno."
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.
Iskanje pomoči ni pomembno le za ohranjanje uspeha in dobrega počutja dajalcev. Bistvenega pomena je tudi zato, da dobimo več dajalcev, saj kot pravijo podatki, nekje med 75 % in 90 % vsega dajanja v organizacijah se začne s prošnjo. Ampak veliko ljudi ne prosi. Ne želijo izpasti nekompetentni, ne vedo, kam se obrniti, ne želijo motiti drugih. Ampak, če nihče ne prosi za pomoč, je v vaši organizaciji veliko frustriranih dajalcev, ki bi radi pristopili in pomagali, če bi le vedeli, komu in kako.
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 --
Mislim pa, da je najpomembnejše, če želite ustvariti kulturo uspešnih dajalcev, da ste previdni pri tem, komu dovolite v svojo ekipo. Mislil sem, da če želiš kulturo produktivne dobrosrčnosti, moraš zaposliti skupino dajalcev. Presenečen pa sem ugotovil, da pravzaprav temu ni tako - negativen vpliv jemalcev v kulturi je navadno dva- do trikrat bolj močen kot pozitivni vpliv dajalcev. Pomislite tako: slabo jabolko lahko uniči cel zaboj, eno dobro jajce pa ne naredi ducata. Ne vem, kaj to pomeni ...
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But I hope you do.
Upam pa, da vi veste.
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.
Ne - spustite le enega jemalca v skupino in videli boste, da bodo dajalci nehali pomagati. Rekli bodo: "Obkroža me skupina kač in morskih psov. Zakaj bi pomagal?" Če imate pa enega dajalca v skupini, to ne pomeni eksplozije dobrosrčnosti. Večina ljudi si misli: "Super! Ta oseba lahko opravi vse naše delo." Učinkovito zaposlovanje, preverjanje in gradnja ekipe torej ne pomeni, da pripeljemo dajalce, temveč da odstranimo jemalce. Če to dobro opravite, boste imeli dajalce in izenačevalce. Dajalci bodo dobrosrčni, saj jim ne bo treba skrbeti o posledicah. In dobra stran izenačevalcev je, da bodo sledili normi.
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 --
Kako torej opaziti jemalca, preden je prepozno? Pravzaprav smo precej slabi pri ugotavljanju, kdo je jemalec, predvsem ob prvem stiku. Ena osebnostna značilnost nas zmede. Pravimo ji prijetnost, ena izmed velikih dimenzij osebnosti v vseh kulturah. Prijetni ljudje so topli in prijateljski, so prijazni, so vljudni. Veliko jih je v Kanadi -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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."
V bistvu je tam potekalo državno tekmovanje iskanja novega kanadskega slogana z dokončanjem stavka, "Kanadski kot ..." Mislil sem, da bo zmagovalec, "Kanadski kot javorjev sirup," ali "... hokej." Ampak ne, Kanadčani so glasovali, da bo njihov nov slogan - ne šalim se - "Kanadski kot je možno, glede na okoliščine."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Tisti, ki ste izredno prijetni ali morda deloma Kanadčani, vam je takoj jasno. Kako lahko rečem, da sem nekaj, če pa se ves čas prilagajam, da ugodim drugim ljudem? Neprijetni ljudje niso taki. So bolj kritični, skeptični, kljubovalni in bolj pogosto kot sovrstniki se odločajo za študij prava.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.
To ni šala, to je empirično dejstvo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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?
Vedno sem predvideval, da so prijetni ljudje dajalci in neprijetni ljudje jemalci. Potem pa sem zbral podatke in presenečen ugotovil, da med temi lastnostmi ni povezave, saj se je izkazalo, da sta prijetnost oz. neprijetnost le maski: Kako prijeten si v medsebojnih stikih? Medtem ko dajanje in prejemanje izvirata iz notranjosti: Kaj so vaše vrednote? Kaj so vaši nameni z drugimi? Če želite človeka oceniti pravilno,
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.
morate priti do trenutka, na katerega čakajo vsi svetovalci v prostoru in narisati 2x2 tabelo. (Smeh)
(Laughter)
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.
Prijetne dajalce je lahko prepoznati: z vsem se strinjajo. Tudi neprijetne jemalce opazimo hitro, ampak imenovali bi jih nekoliko drugače.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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."
Pozabljamo na drugi dve kombinaciji. V organizacijah so neprijetni dajalci. So ljudje, ki so osorni in močni na zunaj, v sebi pa želijo vsem le najboljše. Kot je rekel nek inženir: "Oh, neprijetni dajalci ... kot nekdo s slabim uporabniškim vmesnikom, ampak odličnim operacijskim sistemom.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
If that helps you.
Če vam to kaj pomaga.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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."
Neprijetni dajalci so ljudje, ki jih v organizacijah najbolj podcenjujemo, saj so to tisti, ki podajo negativno oceno, ki je nihče ne želi slišati, vsak pa jo mora prejeti. Veliko bolj bi morali ceniti take ljudi, ne pa da jih takoj odpišemo in rečemo: "Ah, nekoliko občutljiv, najbrž je sebičen jemalec."
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.
Druga kombinacija, na katero pozabljamo, je smrtonosna - prijeten jemalec, poznan tudi kot slepar. To je oseba, ki je do vas prijazna, a vam bo zarila nož v hrbet.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 najljubši način, da ujamem te ljudi med razgovorom, je, da jih vprašam: "Ali mi naštejete štiri ljudi, ki ste jim temeljito izboljšali kariero? Jemalci bodo našteli štiri ljudi in vsi bodo bolj vplivni kot jemalci sami, saj jemalci so odlični pri prilizovanju in nato vas poteptajo. Dajalci bodo bolj verjetno podali imena ljudi, ki so pod njimi, ki nimajo toliko moči, ki jim nič ne koristijo. In priznajmo si, o karakterju osebe se lahko veliko naučimo, če jo opazujemo, kako se obnaša do natakarja ali do voznika 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.
Če smo dobri pri tem, če odstranimo jemalce iz organizacije, če spodbujamo spraševanje po pomoči, če zavarujemo dajalce, da ne izgorijo in odobrimo njihovo ambicioznost in željo bo doseganju ciljev, kot tudi željo po pomoči drugim ljudem, lahko spremenimo definicijo uspeha. Namesto, da rečemo, da je vse tekmovanje in da gre za zmago, se bodo ljudje zavedli, da gre pri uspehu bolj za prispevanje.
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.
Verjamem, da je najbolj smiseln način uspeha ta, da pomagamo drugim ljudem uspeti. In če bo ta ideja zaokrožila, lahko obrnemo paranojo na glavo. To ima ime. To imenujemo "pronoja" Pronoja je blodno prepričanje, da drugi načrtujejo, da se boste dobro počutili.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 za vašimi hrbti govorijo izredno bleščeče stvari o vas. Dobra stvar kulture dajalcev je, da ni blodnja; je resničnost. Želim živeti v svetu, kjer dajalci uspejo in upam, da mi boste uspeli ustvariti tak svet.
Thank you.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)