I want to talk a little bit today about labor and work.
Pričat ću vam danas malo o radu i poslu.
When we think about how people work, the naive intuition we have is that people are like rats in a maze -- that all people care about is money, and the moment we give them money, we can direct them to work one way, we can direct them to work another way. This is why we give bonuses to bankers and pay in all kinds of ways. And we really have this incredibly simplistic view of why people work, and what the labor market looks like.
Kada razmišljamo kako ljudi rade, naša naivna intuicija je da su ljudi kao štakori u labirintu -- da je novac sve o čemu ljudi brinu i u trenutku kada ljudima damo novac, možemo ih usmjeriti prema radu u jednom smjeru, možemo ih usmjeriti prema radu u drugom smjeru. Zato dajemo bonuse bankarima i plaćamo ih na razne načine. I imamo stvarno nevjerojatno pojednostavljen pogled na to zašto ljudi rade i kako izgleda tržište rada.
At the same time, if you think about it, there's all kinds of strange behaviors in the world around us. Think about something like mountaineering and mountain climbing. If you read books of people who climb mountains, difficult mountains, do you think that those books are full of moments of joy and happiness? No, they are full of misery. In fact, it's all about frostbite and having difficulty walking, and difficulty breathing -- cold, challenging circumstances. And if people were just trying to be happy, the moment they would get to the top, they would say, "This was a terrible mistake. I'll never do it again."
U isto vrijeme, ako malo razmislite, postoje svakojake vrste čudnih ponašanja u svijetu oko nas. Razmislite o nečemu poput planinarenja i alpinizma. Ako čitate knjige ljudi koji planinare, na teške dionice, mislite li da su te knjige pune trenutaka radosti i sreće? Ne, pune su jada. Zapravo, pišu o ozeblinama i poteškoćama pri hodanju i poteškoćama pri disanju -- o hladnim, izazovnim okolnostima. I da su ljudi samo pokušavali biti sretni, u trenutku kada bi došli do vrha rekli bi, "Ovo je bila grozna pogreška. Nikada ovo neću ponoviti."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
"Instead, let me sit on a beach somewhere drinking mojitos." But instead, people go down, and after they recover, they go up again. And if you think about mountain climbing as an example, it suggests all kinds of things. It suggests that we care about reaching the end, a peak. It suggests that we care about the fight, about the challenge. It suggests that there's all kinds of other things that motivate us to work or behave in all kinds of ways.
Umjesto toga, pustite me da sjedim negdje na plaži i pijem mojitose." Ali umjesto toga, ljudi se spuste, i nakon što se oporave, ponovo se penju. I ako razmislite o planinarstvu kao primjeru ono sugerira razne stvari. Sugerira da nam je stalo da dođemo do kraja, do vrha. Sugerira da nam je stalo do borbe, do izazova. Sugerira da postoje svakakve druge stvari koje nas motiviraju da radimo ili se ponašamo na razne načine.
And for me personally, I started thinking about this after a student came to visit me. This was one of my students from a few years earlier, and he came one day back to campus. And he told me the following story: He said that for more than two weeks, he was working on a PowerPoint presentation. He was working in a big bank, and this was in preparation for a merger and acquisition. And he was working very hard on this presentation -- graphs, tables, information. He stayed late at night every day. And the day before it was due, he sent his PowerPoint presentation to his boss, and his boss wrote him back and said, "Nice presentation, but the merger is canceled." And the guy was deeply depressed. Now at the moment when he was working, he was actually quite happy. Every night he was enjoying his work, he was staying late, he was perfecting this PowerPoint presentation. But knowing that nobody would ever watch it made him quite depressed.
Ja sam osobno počeo razmišljati o tome nakon što me posjetio jedan od studenata. Bio je to jedan od mojih studenata nekoliko godina ranije. I jednog se dana vratio na kampus. I ispričao mi je slijedeću priču: Rekao mi je da je više od dva tjedna radio na Power Point prezentaciji. Radio je u velikoj banci. Radilo se o pripremama za pripajanje i kupnju. I uložio je puno truda u tu prezentaciju -- grafovi, tabele, informacije. Svakog je dana ostajao do kasno u noći, I dan prije roka za predaju, poslao je svoju Power Point prezentaciju svome šefu, i njegov mu je šef odgovorio, "Lijepa prezentacija, ali pripajanje je otkazano." I mladić je bio strašno deprimiran. Ali u trenutku kada je radio zapravo je bio jako sretan. Svake je večeri uživao u svom poslu, ostajao je do kasno, usavršavao je tu Power Point prezentaciju. Ali saznanje da ju nitko nikada neće vidjeti ga je učinilo depresivnim.
So I started thinking about how do we experiment with this idea of the fruits of our labor. And to start with, we created a little experiment in which we gave people Legos, and we asked them to build with Legos. And for some people, we gave them Legos and we said, "Hey, would you like to build this Bionicle for three dollars? We'll pay you three dollars for it." And people said yes, and they built with these Legos. And when they finished, we took it, we put it under the table, and we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for $2.70?" If they said yes, we gave them another one, and when they finished, we asked them, "Do you want to build another one?" for $2.40, $2.10, and so on, until at some point people said, "No more. It's not worth it for me." This was what we called the meaningful condition. People built one Bionicle after another. After they finished every one of them, we put them under the table. And we told them that at the end of the experiment, we will take all these Bionicles, we will disassemble them, we will put them back in the boxes, and we will use it for the next participant.
I tako sam počeo razmišljati o tome kako da eksperimentiramo sa idejom o plodovima našeg rada. I za početak, stvorili smo mali eksperiment u kojem smo ljudima dali Lego kockice, i zamolili smo ih da grade tim Lego kockicama. I nekim smo ljudima dali Lego kockice i rekli, "Hej, bi li htio izraditi ovu Lego Bionicle igračku za tri dolara? Platit ćemo ti tri dolara za nju." I ljudi su rekli da bi, i gradili su tim Lego kockicama. I kada su završili, uzeli smo je, stavili ispod stola, i rekli, "Bi li htjeli izraditi drugu, ovog puta za 2.70 dolara?" I ako su rekli da bi, dali smo im drugu. I kada su završili smo ih pitali, "Bi li htjeli izraditi drugu?" za 2,40, 2,10 dolara, i tako dalje, dok u jednom trenutku nebi rekli, "Više ne. Nije vrijedno mog truda." I to smo nazvali smislenim uvjetom. Ljude izgrađuju jednu igračku Bionicle za drugom. I kad svaku završe, mi ih stavimo ispod stola. I rekli smo im da ćemo na kraju eksperimenta uzeti te igračke i rastaviti ih, stavit ćemo ih natrag u kutije i iskoristiti za slijedećeg učesnika.
There was another condition. This other condition was inspired by David, my student. And this other condition we called the Sisyphic condition. And if you remember the story about Sisyphus, Sisyphus was punished by the gods to push the same rock up a hill, and when he almost got to the end, the rock would roll over, and he would have to start again. And you can think about this as the essence of doing futile work. You can imagine that if he pushed the rock on different hills, at least he would have some sense of progress. Also, if you look at prison movies, sometimes the way that the guards torture the prisoners is to get them to dig a hole, and when the prisoner is finished, they ask him to fill the hole back up and then dig again. There's something about this cyclical version of doing something over and over and over that seems to be particularly demotivating.
Postojao je i drugi uvjet. Inspiracija za drugi uvjet je bio David, moj student. I taj smo drugi uvjet nazvali Sizifov uvjet. I ako se sjećate priče o Sizifu, Sizifa su kaznili bogovi na način da je morao gurati isti kamen uz brijeg i kada bi bio blizu vrha, kamen bi se otkotrljao natrag i on bi morao početi ispočetka. I možete o tome razmišljati kao o srži uzaludnog rada. Možete zamisliti ako bi gurao kamen uz druge brežuljke, da bi barem imao nekakav osjećaj napretka. Također, ako se osvrnete na filmove o zatvorima, ponekad način na koji stražari muče zatvorenike je natjerati ih da iskopaju rupu i kada je zatvorenik pri kraju, zatraže ga da natrag napuni rupu i ponovo je iskopa. Ima nešto u toj cikličkoj verziji ponavljanja nečeg ispočetka i opet i opet što se čini posebno demotivirajućim.
So in the second condition of this experiment, that's exactly what we did. We asked people, "Would you like to build one Bionicle for three dollars?" And if they said yes, they built it. Then we asked them, "Do you want to build another one for $2.70?" And if they said yes, we gave them a new one, and as they were building it, we took apart the one that they just finished. And when they finished that, we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for 30 cents less?" And if they said yes, we gave them the one that they built and we broke. So this was an endless cycle of them building, and us destroying in front of their eyes.
Znači u drugom uvjetu ovog eksperimenta, točno smo to učinili. Pitali smo ljude, "Bi li htjeli izgraditi jednu igračku Bionicle za tri dolara?" I ako bi rekli da žele, sagradili bi ju. Onda bi ih pitali, "Želite li sagraditi drugu za 2.70 dolara?" I ako bi rekli da žele, dali bi im drugu, i dok bi je sastavljali, oduzeli bi im onu koju bi bili završili. I kad bi završili tu, rekli bi, "Bi li htjeli sastaviti drugu, ovog puta za 30 centi manje?" I ako bi rekli da bi htjeli, dali bi im onu koju su sastavili i koju smo rastavili. I to je bio beskonačan ciklus u kojem su oni gradili, a mi uništavali pred njihovim očima.
Now what happens when you compare these two conditions? The first thing that happened was that people built many more Bionicles -- eleven in the meaningful condition, versus seven in the Sisyphus condition. And by the way, we should point out that this was not big meaning. People were not curing cancer or building bridges. People were building Bionicles for a few cents. And not only that, everybody knew that the Bionicles would be destroyed quite soon. So there was not a real opportunity for big meaning. But even the small meaning made a difference.
I što se dogodi kada se usporede ta dva uvjeta? Prva stvar koja se dogodila je da su ljudi sastavili puno više igračaka Bionicle --- sastavili su 11 nasuprot 7 --- u značajnom uvjetu nasuprot Sizifovog uvjeta. I usput, trebali bi istaknuti da se ovome ne pridodaje veliko značenje. Ljudi nisu liječili rak ili gradili mostove. Sastavljali su igračke Bionicle za nekoliko centi. I ne samo to, svi su znali da će igračke biti uskoro uništene. I nije bilo stvarne prilike za veliko značenje. Ali čak je i malo značenje bilo značajno.
Now we had another version of this experiment. In this other version of the experiment, we didn't put people in this situation, we just described to them the situation, much as I am describing to you now, and we asked them to predict what the result would be. What happened? People predicted the right direction but not the right magnitude. People who were just given the description of the experiment said that in the meaningful condition, people would probably build one more Bionicle. So people understand that meaning is important, they just don't understand the magnitude of the importance, the extent to which it's important.
Imali smo i drugu verziju tog eksperimenta. U toj drugoj verziji eksperimenta, nismo ljude stavili u tu situaciju, samo smo im opisali situaciju, kao što je ja sada opisujem vama, I zamolili smo ih da predvide koji bi bio rezultat. I što se dogodilo? Ljudi su predvidjeli pravi put ali ne pravu magnitudu. Ljudi kojima smo samo opisali eksperiment su rekli da bi u smislenom uvjetu ljudi najvjerojatnije sagradili još jednu igračku Bionicle. Dakle ljudi razumiju da je značenje važno, samo ne razumiju magnitudu značajnosti, opseg važnosti.
There was one other piece of data we looked at. If you think about it, there are some people who love Legos, and some people who don't. And you would speculate that the people who love Legos would build more Legos, even for less money, because after all, they get more internal joy from it. And the people who love Legos less would build less Legos because the enjoyment that they derive from it is lower. And that's actually what we found in the meaningful condition. There was a very nice correlation between the love of Legos and the amount of Legos people built.
Postoji drugi podatak koji smo sagledali. Ako bolje razmislite, postoje ljudi koji vole Lego kockice i ljudi koji ne vole Lego kockice. I možete nagađati da bi ljudi koji vole Lego kockice sagradili više legosa, čak i za manje novaca, jer, nakon svega, dobivaju više unutarnje radosti iz toga. I ljudi koji manje vole Lego kockice će sagraditi manje legosa jer zadovoljstvo koje dobivaju iz njega je manje. I to je zapravo ono što pronalazimo u smislenom uvjetu. Postojala je krasna povezanosti između ljubavi prema Lego kockama i količine Lego kockica koju su ljudi sagradili.
What happened in the Sisyphic condition? In that condition, the correlation was zero -- there was no relationship between the love of Legos, and how much people built, which suggests to me that with this manipulation of breaking things in front of people's eyes, we basically crushed any joy that they could get out of this activity. We basically eliminated it.
Što se dogodilo u Sizifovom uvjetu? U tom je uvjetu povezanost bila na nuli. Nije postojala nikakva veza između ljubavi prema Lego kockicama i količini sagrađenih legosa, što mi predlaže da sa tom manipulacijom uništavanja stvari pred tuđim očima, načelno uništavamo bilo kakvu radost koju bi oni mogli dobiti iz tog rada. U stvari smo ju eliminirali.
Soon after I finished running this experiment, I went to talk to a big software company in Seattle. I can't tell you who they were, but they were a big company in Seattle. This was a group within the software company that was put in a different building, and they asked them to innovate, and create the next big product for this company. And the week before I showed up, the CEO of this big software company went to that group, 200 engineers, and canceled the project. And I stood there in front of 200 of the most depressed people I've ever talked to. And I described to them some of these Lego experiments, and they said they felt like they had just been through that experiment. And I asked them, I said, "How many of you now show up to work later than you used to?" And everybody raised their hand. I said, "How many of you now go home earlier than you used to?" Everybody raised their hand. I asked them, "How many of you now add not-so-kosher things to your expense reports?" And they didn't raise their hands, but they took me out to dinner and showed me what they could do with expense reports. And then I asked them, I said, "What could the CEO have done to make you not as depressed?" And they came up with all kinds of ideas.
Ubrzo nakon što sam završio s provođenjem tog eksperimenta, otišao sam na razgovor sa velikom software kompanijom u Seattleu. Ne mogu vam reći tko su bili, ali se radi o velikoj kompaniji u Seatlleu. I radilo se o grupi unutar te softwarske kompanije koja je bila smještena u drugu zgradu. I zamolili su ih da inoviraju i osmisle slijedeći veliki proizvod za tu kompaniju. I tjedan dana prije nego sam ja stigao, glavni izvršni direktor te softwarske kompanije je otišao u tu grupu, 200 inžinjera, i otkazao projekt. I ja sam stajao ispred najviše depresivnih 200 ljudi s kojima sam ikad razgovarao. I opisao sam im neke od tih eksperimenata Lego kockicama, i odgovorili su da se osjećaju kao da su upravo prošli kroz taj eksperiment. I pitao sam ih, rekao sam, "Koliko vas sada dolazi na posao kasnije nego prije?" I svi su digli ruku. Rekao sam, "Koliko vas sada odlazi kući ranije nego prije?" I svi su digli ruku. I pitao sam ih, "Koliko vas sada dodaje ne toliko dobro pripremljene stvari u izvješćima o izdatku?" I zapravo i nisu digli ruke, ali su me odveli na večeru i pokazali su mi što bi mogli učiniti sa tim izvješćima o izdatku. I nakon toga sam ih pitao, rekao sam, "Što bi glavni izvršni direktor mogao učiniti da ne budete toliko depresivni?" I došli su do puno različitih ideja.
They said the CEO could have asked them to present to the whole company about their journey over the last two years and what they decided to do. He could have asked them to think about which aspect of their technology could fit with other parts of the organization. He could have asked them to build some next-generation prototypes, and see how they would work. But the thing is that any one of those would require some effort and motivation. And I think the CEO basically did not understand the importance of meaning. If the CEO, just like our participants, thought the essence of meaning is unimportant, then he [wouldn't] care. And he would say, "At the moment I directed you in this way, and now that I'm directing you in this way, everything will be okay." But if you understood how important meaning is, then you would figure out that it's actually important to spend some time, energy and effort in getting people to care more about what they're doing.
Rekli su da ih je glavni izvršni direktor mogao pitati da naprave prezentaciju za cijelu kompaniju o njihovom putu u protekle dvije godine i o svemu što su odlučiti učiniti. Mogao ih je zatražiti da razmisle o tome koji bi aspekt njihove tehnologije mogao odgovarati drugim dijelovima udruženja. Mogao ih je zamoliti da izrade nekoliko prototipa, nekoliko prototipa slijedeće generacije, i vidjeti kako rade. Ali stvar je u tome da bilo koji od tih zahtjeva napor i motivaciju. I mislim da glavni izvršni direktor zapravo nije razumio važnost značenja. Da je glavni izvršni direktor, baš kao i naši sudionici, smatrao da bit značenja nije važan, onda mu nebi bilo stalo. I rekao bi im, "U ovom vas trenutku usmjeravam na ovaj put, i sada kada vas usmjeravam tim putem, sve će biti u redu." Ali ako ste razumjeli kako je važno značenje nečeg, onda ste shvatili da je zapravo važno provesti neko vrijeme, potrošiti energiju i uložiti trud u tjeranju ljude da im je više stalo do onog čime se bave.
The next experiment was slightly different. We took a sheet of paper with random letters, and we asked people to find pairs of letters that were identical next to each other. That was the task. People did the first sheet, then we asked if they wanted to do another for a little less money, the next sheet for a little bit less, and so on and so forth. And we had three conditions. In the first condition, people wrote their name on the sheet, found all the pairs of letters, gave it to the experimenter, the experimenter would look at it, scan it from top to bottom, say "Uh huh," and put it on the pile next to them. In the second condition, people did not write their name on it. The experimenter looked at it, took the sheet of paper, did not look at it, did not scan it, and simply put it on the pile of pages. So you take a piece, you just put it on the side. In the third condition, the experimenter got the sheet of paper, and put it directly into a shredder.
Slijedeći je eksperiment bio malo drugačiji. Uzeli smo list papira sa nesumičnim slovima, i zamolili ljude da pronađu parove slova identične onima pokraj istih. To je bio zadatak. I ljudi su ispunili prvi list papira. I nakon toga smo ih pitali bi li htjeli raditi i na drugom listu papira za malo manje novaca i slijedeći list papira za malo manje novaca, i tako dalje, i tako dalje. I postavili smo tri uvjeta. U prvom uvjetu, ljudi su napisali svoje ime na papir, pronašli sve parove slova, dali ih zaduženoj osobi za eksperiment. Zadužena bi ga osoba pogledala, detaljno istražila od početka do kraja, rekla "aha" i stavila na hrpu pokraj sebe. U drugom uvjetu, ljudi nisu stavili svoje ime na papir. Zadužena ga je osoba pogledala, uzela list papira, nije pogledala, nije detaljno istražila, i jednostavno ga stavila na hrpu s drugim papirima. Znači uzmete dio, jednostavno ga stavite na stranu. I u trećem uvjetu, zadužena je osoba uzela list papira i stavila ga direktno u sjeckalicu.
(Laughter)
What happened in those three conditions?
Što se desilo u tih tri uvjeta?
In this plot I'm showing you at what pay rate people stopped. So low numbers mean that people worked harder. They worked for much longer. In the acknowledged condition, people worked all the way down to 15 cents. At 15 cents per page, they basically stopped these efforts. In the shredder condition, it was twice as much -- 30 cents per sheet.
Kroz ovaj prikaz vam želim prikazujem na kojem su stupnju plaćanja ljudi prestali. Znači manji brojevi znače da su ljudi radili više. Radili su puno duže. U priznatom uvjetu, ljudi su radili sve do 15 centa. Na 15 centa po stranici, zapravo su se prestali truditi. U uvjetu sa sjeckalicom, bilo je dva puta više -- 30 centa po stanici.
And this is basically the result we had before. You shred people's efforts, output -- you get them not to be as happy with what they're doing. But I should point out, by the way, that in the shredder condition, people could have cheated. They could have done not so good work, because they realized people were just shredding it. So maybe the first sheet you'd do good work, but then you see nobody is really testing it, so you would do more and more and more. So in fact, in the shredder condition, people could have submitted more work and gotten more money, and put less effort into it. But what about the ignored condition? Would the ignored condition be more like the acknowledged or more like the shredder, or somewhere in the middle? It turns out it was almost like the shredder.
I to je zapravo rezultat koji smo dobili prije. Sameljete ljudski trud, proizvod, i dođete do toga da nisu baš toliko sretni s onim što rade. Ali trebao bih istaknuti, usput, da su u uvjetu sa sjeckalicom ljudi mogli varati. Mogli su odraditi ne tako dobar posao, jer su shvatili da ih ljudi jednostavno uništavaju. Pa znači na prvom papiru bi vjerojatno odradili dobar posao, ali onda bi vidjeli da ih nitko zapravo ne provjerava, pa bi radili više i više i više. Pa zapravo u situaciji sa sjeckalicom, ljudi su mogli predati jedan rad i dobiti više novca ali uložiti manje truda. Ali što sa uvjetom koji smo ignorirali? Bi li taj ignorirani uvjet bio više kao onaj priznati ili kao onaj sa sjeckalicom, ili bi bio negdje između? Ispada da je bio skoro kao onaj sa sjeckalicom.
Now there's good news and bad news here. The bad news is that ignoring the performance of people is almost as bad as shredding their effort in front of their eyes. Ignoring gets you a whole way out there. The good news is that by simply looking at something that somebody has done, scanning it and saying "Uh huh," that seems to be quite sufficient to dramatically improve people's motivations. So the good news is that adding motivation doesn't seem to be so difficult. The bad news is that eliminating motivations seems to be incredibly easy, and if we don't think about it carefully, we might overdo it. So this is all in terms of negative motivation, or eliminating negative motivation.
Dakle imamo ovdje dobru i lošu vijest. Loša vijest je da ignoriranje dostignuća ljudi je skoro toliko loše kao uništavanje njihovog truda pred njihovim očima. Ignoriranjem dobivate cijeli novu sliku svega. Dobra vijest je da kroz jednostavno naziranje na nešto što je neki drugi napravio, pogledati i reći "aha", je čini se prilično dovoljno da dramatično poveća ljudsku motivaciju. Znači dobra vijest je da dodavanje motivacije ne treba biti toliko teško. Loša vijest je da se eliminacija motivacije čini nevjerojatno laganom, i ako ne razmišljamo pažljivo o njoj, možemo pretjerati. Znači sve je ovo u smislu negativne motivacije ili eliminacije negativne motivacije.
The next part I want to show you is something about positive motivation. So there is a store in the U.S. called IKEA. And IKEA is a store with kind of okay furniture that takes a long time to assemble.
Slijedeće što bih vam htio pokazati ima veze s pozitivnom motivacijom. Postoji robna kuća u SADu koji se naziva IKEA. I IKEA je robna kuća sa prilično u redu namještajem za koji treba puno vremena da se sastavi.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
I don't know about you, but every time I assemble one of those, it takes me much longer, it's much more effortful, it's much more confusing, I put things in the wrong way -- I can't say I enjoy those pieces. I can't say I enjoy the process. But when I finish it, I seem to like those IKEA pieces of furniture more than I like other ones.
I ne znam za vas, ali za svaki put kada sastavim jedan od njih, treba mi sve više, potrebno je više truda, više je zbunjujuće. Sastavim stvari na krivi način. Ne mogu reći da uživam u tim dijelovima. Ne mogu reći da uživam u postupku. Ali kada završim, čini se da mi se sviđaju ti dijelovi IKEA namještaja više nego mi se sviđaju ostali.
(Laughter)
I postoji stara priča o mješavini za kolače.
And there's an old story about cake mixes. So when they started cake mixes in the '40s, they would take this powder and they would put it in a box, and they would ask housewives to basically pour it in, stir some water in it, mix it, put it in the oven, and -- voila -- you had cake. But it turns out they were very unpopular. People did not want them, and they thought about all kinds of reasons for that. Maybe the taste was not good? No, the taste was great. What they figured out was that there was not enough effort involved. It was so easy that nobody could serve cake to their guests and say, "Here is my cake." No, it was somebody else's cake, as if you bought it in the store. It didn't really feel like your own. So what did they do? They took the eggs and the milk out of the powder.
Znači kada su krenuli sa mješavinama za kolače u četrdesetima uzeli bi taj prašak i stavili bi ga u kutiju, i zamolili bi domaćice da ga jednostavno sipaju, dodaju vodu, promiješaju, stave u pećnicu i -- voila! -- imate kolač. Ali ispada da su bili jako nepopularni. Ljudi ih nisu željeli. I razmišljali su o svim mogućim razlozima za to. Možda nije bilo ukusno. Ne, bilo je jako ukusno. I došli su do zaključka da nije bilo uloženo dovoljno truda. Bilo je toliko lako da nitko nije mogao ponuditi kolač svojim gostima i reći, "Ovo je moj kolač." Ne, ne, ne bio je to kolač od nekog drugog. Bilo je kao da ste ga kupili u prodavaonici. Niste osjećali da je vaš. I što su učinili? Maknuli su jaja i mlijeko iz praška.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Now you had to break the eggs and add them, you had to measure the milk and add it, mixing it. Now it was your cake. Now everything was fine.
Sada ste trebali razbiti jaja i dodati ih. Morali ste odmjeriti mlijeko i dodati ga, mješajući ga. Sada je to vaš kolač. Sada je sve u redu.
(Laughter)
(Pljesak)
(Applause)
Now, I think a little bit like the IKEA effect, by getting people to work harder, they actually got them to love what they're doing to a higher degree.
Sada razmišljam pomalo kao i IKEA efekt, u kojem se tjera ljude da rade više, zapravo su ih naveli da vole ono što rade na višoj razini. Kako gledamo na to pitanje pokusno?
So how do we look at this question experimentally? We asked people to build some origami. We gave them instructions on how to create origami, and we gave them a sheet of paper. And these were all novices, and they built something that was really quite ugly -- nothing like a frog or a crane. But then we told them, "Look, this origami really belongs to us. You worked for us, but I'll tell you what, we'll sell it to you. How much do you want to pay for it?" And we measured how much they were willing to pay for it. And we had two types of people: We had the people who built it, and the people who did not build it, and just looked at it as external observers. And what we found was that the builders thought that these were beautiful pieces of origami --
Zamolili smo ljude da slože origami. Dali smo im upute o tome kako složiti origami, i dali smo im list papira. I svi su bili početnici, i složiti su nešto što je bilo zapravo jako ružno -- ništa kao žaba ili ždral. Ali onda smo im rekli, kazali smo, "Gledaj, ovaj origami zapravo pripada nama. Radio si za nas, ali znaš što, mi ćemo ti ga prodati. Koliko želiš platiti za njega? I mjerili smo koliko su bili spremni platiti za njega. I imali smo dvije vrste ljudi. Imali smo ljude koji su ih složili, i imali smo ljude koji ih nisu slagali i gledali na njih kao vanjski promatrači. I doznali smo da su sastavljači mislili da su to predivni uzorci origamija,
(Laughter)
i da su bili spremni platiti pet puta više
and they were willing to pay five times more for them than the people who just evaluated them externally. Now you could say -- if you were a builder, do you think [you'd say], "Oh, I love this origami, but I know that nobody else would love it?" Or "I love this origami, and everybody else will love it as well?" Which one of those two is correct? Turns out the builders not only loved the origami more, they thought that everybody would see the world in their view. They thought everybody else would love it more as well.
od ljudi koji su ih vanjski procijenili. Mogli bi reći, da ste sastavljač, da mislite, "Oh, volim taj origami, ali znam da ga nitko drugi ne bi volio?" Ili mislite, "Volim taj origami, i svi će ga ostali također voljeti?" Koje je od tog dvoje točno? Ispada da sastavljači ne samo da vole origamije više, nego su mislili da bi svi vidjeli svijet njihovim očima. Mislili su da bi ih svi ostali također voljeli više.
In the next version, we tried to do the IKEA effect. We tried to make it more difficult. So for some people, we gave the same task. For some people, we made it harder by hiding the instructions. At the top of the sheet, we had little diagrams of how you fold origami. For some people, we just eliminated that. So now this was tougher. What happened? Well in an objective way, the origami now was uglier, it was more difficult. Now when we looked at the easy origami, we saw the same thing -- builders loved it more, evaluators loved it less. When you looked at the hard instructions, the effect was larger. Why? Because now the builders loved it even more.
U slijedećoj verziji smo isprobali IKEA efekt. Pokušali smo ga učiniti težim. I nekim smo ljudima dali isti zadatak. Nekima smo otežali i sakrili im upute. Na vrhu papira, imali smo male prikaze o kako složiti origami. Nekim smo ljudima taj dio izbrisali. I sada je bilo teže. Što se dogodilo? Pa objektivno govoreći, origami je bio ružniji, bio je teži. I kada smo pogledali laki origami, vidjeli smo istu stvar: sastavljači su ih voljeli više, promatrači manje. Kada pogledate teže upute, učinak je bio veći. Zašto? Zato jer su ga sada sastavljači voljeli još više.
(Laughter)
U njega su uložili sav taj dodatan trud.
They put all this extra effort into it. And evaluators? They loved it even less. Because in reality, it was even uglier than the first version.
I promatrači? Oni su ga voljeli čak i manje. Zato jer je zapravo bio ružniji nego u prvoj verziji.
(Laughter)
Naravno, to vam govori nešto o tome kako ocijenjujemo stvari.
Of course, this tells you something about how we evaluate things.
Now think about kids. Imagine I asked you, "How much would you sell your kids for?" Your memories and associations and so on. Most people would say for a lot, a lot of money.
Sada razmislite o djeci. Zamislite da sam vas pitao, "Za koliko biste prodali vašu djecu?" Vaša sjećanja i asocijacije i tako dalje. Većina bi ljudi rekla za puno, puno novaca --
(Laughter)
na dobre dane.
On good days.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But imagine this was slightly different. Imagine if you did not have your kids. And one day you went to the park and you met some kids. They were just like your kids, and you played with them for a few hours, and when you were about to leave, the parents said, "Hey, by the way, just before you leave, if you're interested, they're for sale."
Ali zamislite da je ovo malo drugačije. Zamislite da nemate vlastitu djecu, i jednog dana odete u park i upoznate neku djecu, i oni su baš kao vaša djeca. I igrate se s njima nekoliko sati. I kada ste već na odlasku, njihovi roditelji kažu, "Da, usput, prije nego što odete, ako vas zanima, na prodaju su."
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
How much would you pay for them now? Most people say not that much. And this is because our kids are so valuable, not just because of who they are, but because of us, because they are so connected to us, and because of the time and connection. By the way, if you think IKEA instructions are not good, what about the instructions that come with kids, those are really tough.
Koliko biste platili za njih? Većina bi ljudi rekla da ne puno. Iz razloga što su nam naša djeca dragocjena, ne samo iz razloga tko su, nego zbog nas, zbog toga jer su povezani s nama i zbog vremena i povezanosti. I usput, ako smatrate da Ikeine upute nisu dobre, razmislite o uputama koje dolaze s djecom. Te su stvarno teške.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
By the way, these are my kids, which, of course, are wonderful and so on. Which comes to tell you one more thing, which is, much like our builders, when they look at the creature of their creation, we don't see that other people don't see things our way.
Usput, ovo su moja djeca, koja su, naravno, krasna i tako dalje. Što se svede na još jednu stvar, koja je, kao i naši sastavljači, koji kada pogledaju stvorenje svog stvaranja, ne prepoznajemo da ljudi ne vide stvari na naš način.
Let me say one last comment. If you think about Adam Smith versus Karl Marx, Adam Smith had a very important notion of efficiency. He gave an example of a pin factory. He said pins have 12 different steps, and if one person does all 12 steps, production is very low. But if you get one person to do step one, and one person to do step two and step three and so on, production can increase tremendously. And indeed, this is a great example, and the reason for the Industrial Revolution and efficiency. Karl Marx, on the other hand, said that the alienation of labor is incredibly important in how people think about the connection to what they are doing. And if you do all 12 steps, you care about the pin. But if you do one step every time, maybe you don't care as much.
Dopustite mi da dodam i zadnji komentar. Ako razmislite o Adamu Smithu nasuprot Karlu Marxu, Adam Smith je imao vrlo važnu ideju o efikasnosti. Dao je primjer tvornice pribadača. Rekao je da za pribadače postoji 12 različitih koraka, i ako jedna osoba napravi svih 12 koraka, proizvodnja je vrlo niska. Ali ako navedete jednu osobu da napravi prvi korak i drugu osobu da napravi drugi korak i treći korak i tako dalje, proizvodnja se može strahovito povećati. I doista, ovo je odličan primjer i razlog Industrijske Revolucije i korisnosti. Karl Marx je, s druge strane, rekao da je otuđenost rada vrlo važna u načinu razmišljanja ljudi o povezanosti s onime što rade. I ako napravite svih 12 koraka, stalo vam je do pribadače. Ali ako napravite jedan korak svaki put, možda vam i nije toliko stalo.
I think that in the Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith was more correct than Karl Marx. But the reality is that we've switched, and now we're in the knowledge economy. You can ask yourself, what happens in a knowledge economy? Is efficiency still more important than meaning? I think the answer is no. I think that as we move to situations in which people have to decide on their own about how much effort, attention, caring, how connected they feel to it, are they thinking about labor on the way to work, and in the shower and so on, all of a sudden Marx has more things to say to us. So when we think about labor, we usually think about motivation and payment as the same thing, but the reality is that we should probably add all kinds of things to it -- meaning, creation, challenges, ownership, identity, pride, etc.
I mislim da je u Industrijskoj Revoluciji, Adam Smith bio više u pravu od Karla Marxa, ali u stvarnosti je zamijenjeno i sada smo u ekonomiji znanja. I možete se zapitati, što se događa u ekonomiji znanja? Je li efikasnost i dalje važnija od značenja? Mislim da je odgovor da ne. Mislim da kada krenemo u situacije u kojima ljudi trebaju sami odlučiti o koliko truda, pažnje, brige, koliko se povezanim osjećaju, razmišljaju li o radu na putu prema poslu i pod tušem i tako dalje i odjednom nam Marx ima puno više za reći. I kada razmišljamo o radu, obično razmišljamo o motivaciji i radu na isti način ali u stvarnosti bi vjerojatno trebali dodati svakojake stvari -- značenje, stvaranje, izazov, posjed, identitet, ponos itd.
The good news is that if we added all of those components and thought about them -- how do we create our own meaning, pride, motivation, and how do we do it in our workplace, and for the employees -- I think we could get people to be both more productive and happier.
I dobra vijest je da ako smo dodali sve te elemente i razmislili o njima kako stvaramo svoje vlastito značenje, ponos, motivaciju, i kako to radimo na radnom mjestu i za zaposlenike, smatram da bi mogli ljude dovesti da budu i produktivniji i sretniji. Puno vam hvala.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)