I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
Želim da se osvrnete za trenutak po prostoriji i pokušate da otkrijete najparanoičniju osobu ovde -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
I želim da mi pokažete prstom tu osobu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
OK, don't actually do it.
OK, nemojte to stvarno uraditi.
(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?"
Međutim, kao organizacioni psiholog, provodim mnogo vremena na radnim mestima i svuda zatičem paranoju. Paranoju uzrokuju ljudi koje nazivam "uzimaocima". Uzimaoci su sebični u svojim interakcijama. Samo je važno šta vi možete da učinite za mene. Suprotan mu je davalac. To je neko ko pristupa većini interakcija pitajući: "Šta mogu da učinim za vas?"
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.
Želeo sam da vam dam priliku da razmislite o sopstvenom stilu. Svi imamo trenutke davanja i uzimanja. Vaš stil je ono kako se većinom odnosite prema većini ljudi, vi u osnovi. Imam kratak test za vas da otkrijete da li ste više davalac ili uzimalac i možete odmah da ga uradite.
[The Narcissist Test]
[Test za narcise]
[Step 1: Take a moment to think about yourself.]
[Korak 1: Odvojite trenutak da razmislite o sebi.]
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
[Korak 2: ako ste stigli do drugog koraka, niste narcis.]
(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.
Ovo je jedina stvar koju ću danas reći iza koje ne stoje podaci, ali sam ubeđen da što vam je više potrebno da se nasmejete ovom crtežu, više bi trebalo da ste zabrinuti da ste uzimalac.
(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.
Naravno, nisu svi uzmaoci narcisi. Neki su prosto davaoci koji su se opekli previše puta. Potom imamo još jedan tip uzimaoca o kome nećemo danas govoriti, a to je psihopata.
(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 me je, pak, to koliko su zastupljeni ovi ekstremi, pa sam ispitao preko 30000 ljudi iz raznih grana industrije širom svetskih kultura. I otkrio sam da je većina ljudi u sredini između davanja i uzimanja. Oni biraju treći stil koji se zove "odmeravanje". Ako ste odmeravalac, pokušavate da održavate ravnotežu davanja i uzimanja: quid pro quo - učiniću ti uslugu, ako ti meni učiniš uslugu. I to izgleda kao bezbedan način da živite svoj život. Ali da li je to najefikasniji i najproduktivniji način da živite? Odgovor na to pitanje je veoma izričito... možda.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity.
Izučavao sam desetine organizacija, hiljade ljudi. Inženjeri su merili produktivnost za mene.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
Posmatrao sam ocene studenata medicine - čak i prihod trgovaca.
(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.
I, neočekivano, najgore rezultate u svim ovim poslovima su imali davaoci. Inženjeri koji su najmanje posla obavljali su oni koji su više usluga davali nego primali. Toliko su bili zauzeti radeći tuđe poslove da su bukvalno ostajali bez vremena i energije da završe sopstveni posao. U medicinskoj školi, najniže ocene su pripadale đacima koji se najsnažnije slažu sa izjavama tipa: "Volim da pomažem drugima", što nagoveštava da je doktor kome treba da verujete onaj koji je završio medicinu bez želje da pomogne bilo kome.
(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 --
Takođe i u trgovini, najniži prihod je bio kod najdarežljivijih trgovaca. Zapravo sam se obratio jednom od tih trgovaca koji se visoko kotirao kao davalac. Upitao sam ga: "Zašto si tako loš u svom poslu -" nisam ga pitao tako, ali -
(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."
"Koja je cena darežljivosti u trgovini?" A on je rekao: "Pa, prosto mi je toliko stalo do mojih mušterija da im nikad ne bih prodao neki od naših loših proizvoda."
(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.
Iz čiste radoznalosti, koliko vas se identifikuje više kao davaoci, pa uzimaoci pa odmeravaoci? Podignite ruke. U redu, bilo bi vas više pre nego što smo izneli 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, zapravo, ispostavlja se da ovde postoji preokret zato što se davaoci često žrtvuju, oni unapređuju svoje organizacije. Imamo ogroman broj dokaza - mnoga, mnoga istraživanja koja su razmatrala zastupljenost kulture davanja koja postoji u ekipi ili organizaciji - i što češće ljudi pomažu i dele svoje znanje i pružaju mentorstvo, organizacije su sve bolje po svim jedinicama mere: veći profit, zadovoljstvo mušterija, zadržavanje radnika - čak i niži troškovi rada. Davaoci provode mnogo vremena pokušavajući da pomognu drugima i unapređujući ekipu, a potom usput, nažalost, ispaštaju. Želim da govorim o tome šta je potrebno da se izgrade kulture u kojima davaoci zapravo uspevaju.
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.
Pa sam se zapitao, dakle, ako davaoci daju najgore rezultate, ko daje najbolje rezultate? Započeću dobrim vestima: ne radi se o uzimaocima. Uzimaoci imaju tendenciju brzog uspona, ali i brzog pada na većini poslova. A dopadaju šaka odmeravaocima. Ako ste odmeravalac, verujete u "oko za oko" - pravedan svet. Pa, kad upoznate uzimaoca, osećate da je vaša životna misija da kaznite i boga u toj osobi.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
And that way justice gets served.
I na taj način se sprovodi pravda.
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.
Pa, ljudi su uglavnom odmeravaoci. A to znači da ako ste uzimalac, kad-tad će vas to sustići; sve se vraća, sve se plaća. Te je logičan zaključak: mora da odmeravaoci imaju najbolje rezultate. Međutim nemaju. Na svakom poslu, u svakoj organizaciji koju sam ikad izučavao najbolji rezultati pripadaju ponovo davaocima.
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?
Uzmite neke podatke koje sam sakupio od stotina trgovaca, prateći njihov prihod. Ono što vidite je da davaoci idu do oba ekstrema. Sačinjavaju većinu ljudi koji imaju najniže prihode, ali i najveće prihode. Isti obrasci su tačni za produktivnost inženjera i ocene studenata medicine. Davaoca ima previše na dnu i na vrhu svakog merenja uspešnosti koje sam preduzeo. To povlači pitanje: kako da stvorimo svet u kome više ovih davaoca uspeva? Želim da govorim kako da to postignemo, ne samo u poslu, već i u neprofitnim organizacijama, školama - čak i vladama. Da li ste spremni?
(Cheers)
(Klicanje)
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
Svejedno bih to uradio, ali cenim vaš entuzijazam.
(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 stvar koja je ključna je spoznaja da su vam davaoci najdragoceniji ljudi, ali ako nisu pažljivi, istroše se. Pa morate da zaštitite davaoce u središtu. A naučio sam sjajnu lekciju o ovome od najboljeg mrežnog radnika firme Forčun. Radi se o momku, ne mački.
(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.
Zove se Adam Rifkin. Veoma je uspešan serijski preduzetnik koji provodi veoma mnogo svog vremena pomažući drugima. A njegovo tajno oružje je petominutna usluga. Adam kaže: "Ne morate da budete Majka Tereza ili Gandi da biste bili davalac. Prosto morate da nađete sitne načine da dodate veliku vrednost životima drugih ljudi." To može biti prosto kao upoznavanje dvoje ljudi koji bi mogli da imaju koristi od međusobnog poznanstva. Moglo bi biti deljenje znanja ili pružanje nešto povratnih informacija. Ili bi moglo da bude nešto tako elementarno kao reči: "Znate, pokušaću da otkrijem da li mogu da prepoznam nekoga čiji je posao prošao neprimećeno." A te petominutne usluge su zaista ključne u pomaganju davaocima da podese granice i da se zaštite.
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.
Druga važna stvar, ako želite da izgradite kulturu gde davaoci uspevaju je da zapravo trebate kulturu u kojoj je traženje pomoći norma; gde ljudi mnogo pitaju. Ovo će izgledati suviše blisko nekima od vas.
[So in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?]
[Dakle, u svim svojim vezama uvek morate da budete davalac?]
(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."
Ono što vidite kod uspešnih davaoca je da prepoznaju da je u redu biti i primalac. Ako upravljate organizacijom, zapravo možemo to da olakšamo. Možemo da olakšamo ljudima da traže pomoć. Nekoliko kolega i ja smo izučavali bolnice. Otkrili smo da na određenim spratovima medicinske sestre često traže pomoć, dok su na drugim spratovima veoma retko to radile. Uočiv faktor na spratovima gde je bilo uobičajeno traženje pomoći, gde je to bila norma, bilo je prisustvo jedne sestre čiji je jedini posao bio da pomaže drugim sestrama iz jedinice. Kad je ta uloga bila dostupna, sestre su govorile: "Nije sramota, nije ranjivost tražiti pomoć - zapravo je podsticajno."
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 radi zaštite uspešnosti i dobrobiti davalaca. Takođe je i ključno za navođenje više ljudi da delaju kao davaoci jer podaci otkrivaju da negde između 75 i 90 procenata sveg davanja u organizacijama započinje zahtevom. Međutim, mnogi ljudi ne pitaju. Ne žele da izgledaju nesposobno, ne znaju kome da se obrate, ne žele da opterećuju druge. Ipak, ako niko nikad ne traži pomoć, imate mnogo isfrustriranih davalaca u svojoj organizaciji koji bi voleli da istupe i doprinesu, kad bi samo znali ko 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 --
Ali mislim da je najvažnije, ako želite da izgradite kulturu uspešnih davalaca, da budete pažljivi kod toga koga primate u ekipu. Otkirio sam, želite li kulturu produktivne darežljivosti, trebalo bi da zaposlite gomilu davalaca. Ali sam bio zatečen otkrićem da zapravo to nije tačno - da je negativan uticaj uzimaoca na kulturu obično dvostruko ili trostruko veći od pozitivnog uticaja davaoca. Mislite o tome ovako: kamenčić zamuti bistar potok, ali jedna lasta ne čini proleće. Ne znam šta to znači -
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
But I hope you do.
Ali se nadam 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.
Ne - pustite samo jednog uzimaoca u ekipu i videćete da davaoci prestaju da pomažu. Reći će: "Okruženi smo gomilom hijena i harpija. Zašto bismo doprinosili?" Dok, ako pustite jednog davaoca u ekipu, nećete dobiti eksploziju darežljivosti. Češće su ljudi u fazonu: "Odlično! Ta osoba će da mi radi sav posao." Pa efikasno zapošljavanje i proveravanje i ekipna izgradnja nisu o dovođenju davaoca; već se radi o iskorenjivanju uzimaoca. Ako to dobro obavite, ostaće vam davaoci i odmeravaoci. Davaoci će da budu darežljivi jer neće morati da brinu za posledice. A lepota odmeravaoca je da prate normu.
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 --
Pa, kako da uhvatite uzimaoca na vreme? Zapravo smo prilično loši u prepoznavanju uzimaoca, naročito kod prvih utisaka. Ima jedna crta ličnosti koja nas zavara. Naziva se prijatnošću, to je jedna od glavnih dimenzija ličnosti širom kultura. Prijatni ljudi su topli i druželjubivi, fini su i pristojni. Zateći ćete ih mnogo u 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."
Gde je zapravo bio nacionalni konkurs da se smisli novi kanadski slogan i popuni praznina: "Kanadski kao..." Mislio sam da će pobednički unos biti: "Kanadski kao javorov sirup" ili "... hokej na ledu". Ali ne, Kanađani su izglasali da im novi slogan bude - ne zezam vas - "Kanadski koliko je to moguće u datim okolnostima."
(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.
Vi, koji ste izuzetno prijatni ili malčice Kanađani, odmah ovo razumete. Kako ikada mogu reći da sam nešto kad se stalno prilagođavam kako bih ugodio drugima? Neprijatni ljudi to ređe rade. Više su kritični, skeptični, zahtevni i daleko skloniji od svojih vršnjaka da pohađaju pravo.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
That's not a joke, that's actually an empirical fact.
To nije šala, to je zapravo empirijska činjenica.
(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?
Pa sam uvek preptostavljao da su prijatni ljudi davaoci, a da su neprijatni ljudi uzimaoci. No onda sam sakupio podatke i bio sam zatečen saznanjem da ne postoji veza između ovih osobina jer se ispostavlja da je prijatnost-neprijatnost vaša spoljna fasada: koliko je prijatno interagovati s vama? Dok su davanje i uzimanje pre vaše unutrašnje motivacije: koje su vaše vrednosti? Koje su vaše namere 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 precizno da procenjujete ljude, morate da stignete do trenutka koji svaki savetnik iščekuje i nacrtate dva-sa-dva tabelu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Prijatne davaoce je lako zapaziti: oni na sve kažu da. Neprijatne uzimaoce je takođe lako uočiti, iako biste ih nazvali malčice drugačijim imenom.
(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."
Zaboravljamo druge dve kombinacije. Postoje neprijatni davaoci u našim organizacijama. Postoje ljudi koji su osorni i grubi spolja, ali ispod površine imaju tuđe interese u srcu. Ili kako je to inženjer sročio: "Ah, neprijatni davaoci - kao neko lošeg korisničkog interfejsa, ali sjajnog operativnog sistema."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
If that helps you.
Ako vam to pomaže.
(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."
Neprijatni davaoci su najpotcenjeniji ljudi u našim organizacijama jer oni pružaju kritičke povratne informacije koje niko ne želi da čuje, ali svako mora da ih čuje. Moramo biti mnogo bolji u cenjenju ovih ljudi nasuprot tome što ih rano otpisujemo i govorimo: "Ah, nekako su drski, mora da su sebični uzimaoci."
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, koju zaboravljamo, je smrtonosna - prijatni uzimalac, poznat i kao folirant. To je osoba koja je naoko fina, ali će vam zabosti nož u leđa.
(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.
A moj omiljeni način hvatanja ovih ljudi tokom intervjua je tako što ih pitam: "Možete li da imenujete četvoro ljudi čije ste karijere temeljno unapredili?" Uzimaoci će da vam daju četiri imena, i to će da budu uticajniji ljudi od njih jer su davaoci dobri u ulizivanju, a potom u srozavanju. Davaoci će pre da imenuju ljude koji su hijerarhijski niže od njih, koji nemaju jednaku moć, koji im ne mogu pomoći. I da se ne lažemo, svi znate da možete da saznate mnogo o karakteru posmatrajući kako se neko odnosi prema konobaru u restoranu ili prema svom taksisti.
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.
Ako sve dobro odradimo, ako uspemo da iskorenimo uzimaoce iz organizacija, ako obezbedimo traženje pomoći, ako uspemo da zaštitimo davaoce od razočaranja i omogućimo im da budu ambiciozni u ostvarivanju ciljeva kao i u pomaganju drugim ljudima, zapravo možemo da promenimo to kako ljudi određuju uspeh. Umesto da tvrdimo da se sve svodi na pobedu na takmičenju, ljudi će da shvate da se kod uspeha više radi o doprinosu.
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.
Verujem da je najsmisleniji način uspeha pomaganje drugima da uspeju. Ako uspemo da raširimo to uverenje, zapravo ćemo preokrenuti paranoju naglavačke. Postoji naziv za to. Naziva se "pronoia". Pronoia je pogrešno verovanje da su se drugi ljudi urotili zarad vaše dobrobiti.
(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 vam idu iza leđa i govore izvanredno blistave stvari o vama. Sjajno kod kulture davaoca je da to nije obmana - već stvarnost. Želim da živim u svetu u kom davaoci uspevaju i nadam se da ćete mi pomoći da stvorimo taj svet.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)