I want to talk a little bit today about labor and work.
Danas bih hteo malo da govorim o poslu i radu.
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 o tome kako ljudi rade, naša naivna intuicija nam kaže da su ljudi kao pacovi u lavirintu - sve što žele je novac i čim im damo novac, možemo uticati da rade na jedan način ili na neki drugi način. Zato se bankarima daju bonusi i razna druga plaćanja. I zaista imamo neverovatno 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."
Istovremeno, ako razmislite, oko nas postoje razni vidovi neuobičajenog ponašanja. Pomislite samo na planinarenje. Ako čitate knjige o planinarima koji se penju na visoke planine, da li su te knjige pune radosnih i srećnih trenutaka? Ne, pune su patnje. Zapravo te knjige govore o promrzlinama i teškom hodanju i teškoćama u disanju - o hladnim i izazovnim okolnostima. I kada bi ljudi samo pokušavali da budu srećni, onoga trenutka kada stignu na vrh, rekli bi: "Ovo je bila užasna greška. Nikada je neću ponoviti."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
"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.
"Umesto toga, sedeću negde na plaži i piti koktele." Ali, umesto toga silaze u podnožje i nakon što se oporave, ponovo se penju. I ako planinarenje uzmemo kao primer, to nas navodi na razne zaključke. Sugeriše da nam je važno da stignemo do kraja, do vrha. Sugeriše da nam je važna borba, izazov. Sugeriše da postoje mnoge stvari koje nas motivišu 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.
A što se mene lično tiče, počeo sam da razmišljam o tome nakon posete jednog studenta. To je bio student kome sam nekoliko godina ranije predavao. I jednog dana se vratio u studentski grad. Ispričao mi je sledeću priču: Rekao je da je više od dve nedelje radio na jednoj prezentaciji. Radio je u velikoj banci gde je u toku bila priprema za integraciju i akviziciju. Veoma je naporno radio na toj prezentaciji - na grafikonima, tabelama, podacima. Svakog dana je radio do kasno u noć. I dan pre roka, svoju prezentaciju je poslao svom šefu, koji mu je odgovorio: "Lepa prezentacija, ali integracija je otkazana." Momak je zbog toga bio jako depresivan. No, dok je radio, bio je zapravo prilično srećan. Svake noći tokom koje je uživao u svom radu je ostajao budan do kasno, usavršavajući svoju prezentaciju. Ali saznanje da to niko neće videti ga je duboko rastužilo.
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.
Zato sam počeo da razmišljam kako da napravim eksperiment sa idejom o plodovima našeg rada. Za početak, osmislili smo mali eksperiment u kom smo ljudima dali LEGO igračke i zamolili ih da ih sastavljaju. Nekima smo dali LEGO igračku i rekli "Da li biste za tri dolara voleli da sagradite robota?" Za to bismo vam platili tri dolara." I rekli su da bi voleli, tako da su i pravili igračke. Kada su završili, mi smo robote stavili pod sto i rekli: "Da li biste napravili još jednog, ovog puta za 2,70 dolara?" Rekli su da bi, dali smo im još jednog. Kada su i to završili, pitali smo ih "Da li biste napravili još jednog". za 2,40 dolara, 2,10 dolara itd. dok u nekom momentu nisu rekli: "Ne. Nije vredno." Ovo smo nazvali smislenim uslovima. Ljudi su pravili jednog robota, pa drugog. Nakon što su svakog završili, mi smo ih postavljali pod sto. Na kraju eksperimenta smo im rekli da ćemo sve te robote rastaviti i vratiti u kutije, za sledećeg 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.
Napravili smo i drugu verziju eksperimenta. Ovo je bilo inspirisano Dejvidom, mojim studentom. Ovu verziju smo nazvali Sizifovi uslovi. I ako se sećate priče o Sizifu, njega su kaznili bogovi time da uz brdo gura jedan isti kamen, a nakon što je zamalo bio na vrhu, kamen bi se otkotrljao nizbrdo, a on bi morao krenuti ispočetka. Ovo možete gledati kao na suštinu uzaludnog rada. Možete zamisliti da bi, da je kamen gurao uz različita brda barem imao neki osećaj napretka. Takođe, u filmovima o zatvoru ponekad zatvorski čuvari muče zatvorenike time što ih nateraju da iskopaju veliku rupu, a kada to zatvorenik završi, kažu im da rupu zatrpaju i kopaju ponovo. Postoji nešto u vezi sa ovim ponavljajućim obrascem, kada se nešto iznova i iznova radi, što izgleda da posebno demotiviše.
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.
U drugoj verziji našeg eksperimenta smo uradili baš to. Pitali smo: "Da li biste za tri dolara napravili robota?" Ako su se složili, napravili bi ga. Zatim smo ih pitali: "Da li biste napravili još jednog za 2,70 dolara?". Ako su i tada rekli da bi, dali smo im još jednog. Dok su pravili ovog novog, mi smo rastavili onog kog su prethodno napravili. Nakon što su završili sa drugim robotom, rekli smo: "Da li biste napravili još jednog, ovog puta za 30 centi manje?" Ako su se složili, dali bismo im delove robota koji su bili napravili, a mi zatim rastavili. Dakle, to je bio beskrajni ciklus u kom su oni pravili, a mi to rastavljali pred njima.
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 šta se dešava kada uporedimo ove dve verzije eksperimenta? Prvo što se desilo jeste da su ljudi pravili daleko više robota - 11 u odnosu na 7 - u svrsishodnim uslovima u odnosu na Sizifove prilike. Da naglasim, ovo nije bilo nešto jako značajno. Ljudi se nisu lečili od raka ili gradili mostove. Gradili su robote za nekoliko centi. I ne samo to, svi su znali da će ti roboti biti vrlo brzo rastavljeni. Dakle, nije bilo prave prilike za nešto jako značajno. Ali, čak i male stvari su napravile razliku.
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.
Nakon toga smo napravili drugačiji eksperiment. U ovoj sledećoj verziji eksperimenta učesnike nismo dovodili u ovu situaciju, nego smo im je samo opisali, kao što ja to radim upravo sada. Pitali smo ih da predvide šta bi bio rezultat. Šta se desilo? Razmišljali su u dobrom pravcu, ali ne u pravom opsegu stvari. Oni kojima smo eksperiment samo opisali su rekli da bi u smislenim uslovima ljudi verovatno pravili jednog robota više. Dakle, razumeli su da je smisao važan, ali nisu razumeli koliko je to važno i stepen do kog je to značajno.
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.
Sagledali smo još jedan podatak. Ako pomislite, neki ljudi više vole LEGO igračke od drugih. Pomislili biste da bi oni koji vole LEGO igračke pravili više robota, čak i za manje novca. Uostalom, to ih više raduje. A oni koji manje vole LEGO igračke bi se manje bavili time zato što manje uživaju u tome. I to je zapravo ono što smo otkrili u smislenim uslovima. Postojala je veoma lepa korelacija između ljubavi ka LEGO igračkama i broju LEGO robota koje su ljudi napravili.
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.
Šta se desilo u uslovima koje smo nazvali Sizifovim? Tada je korelacija bila nula. Nije postojala povezanost ljubavi ka LEGO igračkama i broja napravljenih robota što meni ukazuje na to da smo manipulacijom rastavljanja stvari pred njihovim očima, praktično ugušili radost koju su mogli dobiti ovim. Sasvim smo je eliminisali.
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 ovaj eksperiment razgovarao sam sa velikom programerskom kompanijom u Sijetlu. Ne mogu vam reći njihov naziv, već samo to da su velika firma u Sijetlu. Grupa zaposlenih ove kompanije je bila premeštena u drugu zgradu. Zamolili su ih da osmisle i naprave novi značajan proizvod za firmu. I nedelju dana pre nego što sam ja došao, izvršni direktor ove velike programerske firme je obišao tu grupu od 200 inženjera i otkazao projekat. A ja sam stajao ispred 200 najdepresivnijih ljudi sa kojima sam ikada razgovarao. Opisao sam im neke od ovih LEGO eksperimenata i rekli su mi da su se osećali kao da su upravo učestvovali u njemu. Pitao sam ih: "Koliko vas sada na posao dolazi kasnije nego što je to bilo pre?" Svi su podigli ruku. Pitao sam: "Koliko vas sada ide kući ranije nego što je to bilo pre?". Svi su podigli ruku. Pitao sam ih: "Koliko vas sada upisuje ne-baš-tačne rashode u svojim izveštajima?" I nisu baš podigli svoje ruke, ali su me odveli na večeru i pokazali mi šta mogu raditi sa svojim izveštajima o rashodima. Zatim sam ih pitao: "Šta je izvršni direktor mogao uraditi da ne biste postali tako depresivni?" Imali su razne ideje.
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 izvršni direktor mogao zamoliti da celoj firmi prezentuju svoj rad u protekle dve godine i šta su odlučili da urade. Mogao ih je zamoliti da razmisle o tome koji deo njihove tehnologije je mogao da se iskoristi u drugim sektorima njihove organizacije. Mogao ih je zamoliti da naprave nekoliko prototipova najnovije generacije da bi video kako bi radili. Ali činjenica je da bi bilo šta od navedenog zahtevalo trud i motivaciju. A ja mislim da taj izvršni direktor ustvari nije razumeo značaj smislenosti Da je izvršni direktor, baš kao naši učesnici, mislio da je suština smislenosti nevažna, onda ne bi mario za to. I rekao bi im: "Tada sam vas uputio na jedan način, a sada vam dajem drugačija uputstva, sve će biti u redu." Ali da ste razumeli značaj smislenosti, shvatili biste da je zapravo bitno provesti neko vreme, potrošiti energiju i trud u to da ljudi više mare za ono što rade.
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.
Sledeći eksperiment je bio nešto drugačiji. Uzeli smo list papira sa nasumičnim slovima, i zamolili ljude da nađu parove slova koji su identični, a stoje jedan pored drugog. Ovo je bio zadatak. Učesnici su prošli kroz prvi list papira. Zatim smo ih pitali da li bi uradili još jedan za nešto manje para, a zatim još jedan za još malo manje novca, i tako dalje. Imali smo tri verzije uslova. U prvoj, ljudi su napisali svoje ime na list papira, pronašli sve parove slova i predali papir rukovodiocu eksperimenta. On bi ih pogledao, od vrha do dna lista, rekao "aham" i ostavio na gomilu pored. U drugoj verziji, ljudi se nisu potpisivali na papir. Rukovodilac eksperimenta ga je pogledao, uzeo papir u svoje ruke, nije ga uopšte pregledao, već samo položio na hrpu drugih papira. Dakle, papir se preuzme i samo ostavi sa strane. A u trećoj verziji, rukovodilac eksperimenta je list papira direktno uništio u uništivaču papira.
(Laughter)
What happened in those three conditions?
Šta se desilo u ove tri verzije eksperimenta?
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.
Ovde prikazujem na kojoj visini isplate su učesnici stali sa radom. Manji brojevi znače da su vredno radili. Radili su mnogo duže. U verziji u kojoj dobijaju potvrdu, radili su sve do 15 centi. Na 15 centi po stranici, prestali su sa svojim trudom. U verziji sa uništivačem papira, granica je bila duplo viša - 30 centi po listu.
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.
U suštini, ovo je isti rezultat koji smo imali ranije. Pocepate li napore ljudi, njihov proizvod. postižete to da neće biti srećni onim što rade. Ali trebao bih da ukažem i na to da su u verziji sa uništivačem papira ljudi mogli varati. Mogli su da se ne potrude, jer su shvatili da se to samo uništava. Možda su se potrudili na prvom listu papira, ali kada su videli da niko to ne proverava, mogli su da rade više i više. Tako da su u verziji sa uništivačem učesnici mogli predati više listova i dobiti više novca, a uložiti manje truda u to. Ali šta ćemo sa verzijom gde se rad samo ignoriše? Da li bi tada rezultati bili sličniji verziji kada se rad priznaje ili uništava, ili negde između? Ispostavilo se da je bilo skoro isto kao u verziji sa uništivačem.
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.
Imamo dobru i lošu vest. Loša vest je da kada se učinak ignoriše to je skoro toliko loše kao kada se napor uništava pred vašim očima. Zanemarivanje vas dovodi do sličnog rezultata. Dobra vest je da ako se samo pogleda ono što je neko uradio, pregleda i kaže "aham", to može biti sasvim dovoljno da dramatično poveća motivaciju ljudi. Dakle, dobra vest je da povećanje motivacije nije tako teško. Loša vest je da se otklanjanje motivacije čini neverovatno jednostavnim. i ako ne mislimo pažljivo o tome, mogli bismo preterati. Dakle, ovo je bilo sve o negativnoj motivaciji ili uklanjanju 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.
Sledeće što bih vam pokazao je nešto o pozitivnoj motivaciji. U Americi postoji prodavnica IKEA. IKEA prodaje dosta dobar nameštaj za koji je potrebno vremena da se sklopi.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Ne znam za vas, ali svaki put kada nešto od toga sastavim, treba mi više vremena i truda, svaki put je sve zbunjujuće. Stvari postavljam na pogrešan način. Ne mogu reći da uživam u tim delićima. Ne mogu reći da uživam u procesu. Ali, kada završim, sviđaju mi se ti komadi IKEA nameštaja više od bilo kog drugog.
(Laughter)
Postoji stara priča o smešama za pravljenje torti.
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.
Kada su sa tim započeli u 1940-im godinama, sipali bi prah u kutije, i zamolili domaćice da ga jednostavno sipaju u činiju i preliju vodom, izmešaju, stave u rernu, i - eto torte! Ali se ispostavilo da ovo nije zaživelo. Ljudi ih nisu želeli. Razmišljali su o razlozima za to. Možda ukus nije bio dobar. Ne, ukus je bio odličan. Ono do čega su došli jeste da nije uloženo dovoljno truda. Postupak je bio toliko jednostavan da niko nije mogao poslužiti tortu gostima i reći: "Ovo je moja torta". Ne, tu tortu je napravio neko drugi. To je kao da ste je kupili u prodavnici. Nedostajao je osećaj da je to nešto vaše. I šta su uradili? Iz smeše su izostavili jaja i mleko.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Tako da ste sada morali da razbijete jaja i umešate ih u smesu. Morali ste da izmerite mleko i dodate ga, mešajući. Sada je to bila vaša torta. I sve je bilo u redu.
(Laughter)
(Aplauz)
(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.
Mislim da je ovo slično efektu IKEA nameštaja, da time što ste učinili da ljudi rade više, zapravo su više zavoleli to što su radili. A kako ovo pitanje posmatramo putem eksperimenta?
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 učesnike da naprave origami. Dali smo im uputstva za to, i dali smo im list papira. Ovo su sve bili početnici i napravili su nešto dosta loše - ništa što je ličilo na žabu ili ždrala. Ali nakon toga smo im rekli: "Vidite, ovaj origami je u stvari naš. Radili ste za nas, ali hajde da mi to vama prodamo. Koliko biste za to platili?". Merili smo koliko su novca bili spremni da plate. Imali smo dve vrste ljudi. Imali smo ljude koji su ga napravili, i ljude koji uopšte nisu pravili origami, već su samo posmatrali. I otkrili smo da su oni koji su pravili origami mislili da su to divna dela origamija,
(Laughter)
i bili su voljni da plate i do 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.
nego oni koji su samo procenjivali sa strane. No, možete reći da, ako biste pravili origami da biste mislili: "Oh, volim ovaj origami, ali znam da se nikom drugom ne sviđa"? Ili biste mislili: "Volim ovaj origami, i svima ostalima se takođe sviđa"? Šta je od ovoga tačno? Ispostavilo se da oni koji su pravili origami, ne samo da su ga više voleli, već su mislili da će svi ostali razmišljati isto. Mislili su da će se i ostalima svideti.
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 sledećoj verziji smo pokušali da postignemo IKEA efekat. Pokušali smo da sve napravimo komplikovanije. Nekim učesnicima smo dali isti zadatak. Ostalima smo otežali tako što smo sakrili uputstva. Na vrhu lista papira smo imali male dijagrame kako se savija origami. Nekima smo to izbrisali. Tako je ovo bilo teže. Šta se desilo? Objektivno, origami je bio ružniji, i bilo je komplikovanije napraviti ga. Kada smo analizirali lakši origami, zaključak je bio isti: onima koji su ga pravili se više sviđao nego posmatračima. Kada smo analizirali verziju sa težom izradom, efekat je bio značajniji. Zašto? Jer se onima koji su ga pravili još više svideo.
(Laughter)
Više su se potrudili oko izrade.
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.
A posmatrači? Njima se svideo još manje. Jer je realno stvarno bio ružniji od prve verzije.
(Laughter)
Naravno, ovo vam govori o tome kako da ocenite 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.
Pomislite na decu, zamislite da vas pitam: "Za koliko novca biste prodali svoju decu?" Uzimajući u obzir vaša sećanja, asocijacije, i tako dalje. Većina bi rekla da bi to bilo puno, puno novca -
(Laughter)
kada im je dan dobar.
On good days.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 situacija nešto drugačija. Zamislite da nemate decu, i da jednog dana odete u park i sretnete neku decu, i ona su kao vaša deca. Sa njima se igrate nekoliko sati. I kada krenete, roditelji kažu: "Hej, pre nego što krenete, ako ste zainteresovani, deca su na prodaju."
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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 sada platili za njih? Većina bi rekla, ne baš puno. A to je zato što su nam naša deca toliko dragocena, ne samo zbog toga ko su, već i zbog nas, jer smo toliko povezani i zbog vremena i veze sa njima. Inače, ako mislite da uputstva IKEA-e nisu dobra, pomislite na uputstva koja nam stižu uz decu. Ta su stvarno teška.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Inače, ovo su moja deca koja su, naravno, divna i tako dalje. Što nas dovodi do sledeće stvari, a to je da, kao što naši sastavljači origamija, kada su gledali šta su sami napravili, ne primeti se da drugi ljudi to ne vide na isti 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.
Dozvolite da još nešto primetim. Ako uporedite Adama Smita i Karla Marksa, Adam Smit je imao značajnu misao o efikasnosti. Dao je primer fabrike čioda. Rekao je da se čiode sastavljaju u 12 različitih koraka, i ako jedna osoba prolazi svih 12 koraka, nivo proizvodnje je veoma nizak. Ako ako jednoj osobi poverite prvi korak, a sledećoj osobi korak broj dva, pa korak broj tri i tako dalje, nivo proizvodnje može izuzetno porasti. I zaista, ovo je odličan primer i razlog pokretanja industrijske revolucije i efikasnosti. S druge strane, Karl Marks je rekao da je otuđenje posla izuzetno važno za to kako se ljudi povezuju sa onim što rade. Ako prođete svih 12 koraka, stalo vam je do te čiode. Ali ako svaki put ponavljate samo jedan korak, možda vam neće toliko stati.
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 Smit bio više u pravu od Karla Marksa, ali u stvarnosti je suprotno i sada smo u ekonomiji znanja. I možete se zapitati, šta se dešava u ekonomiji znanja? Da li je efikasnost i dalje važnija od smislenosti? Mislim da je odgovor ne. Mislim da kako smo prolazili kroz situacije u kojima je trebalo da ljudi sami odluče koliko će truda, pažnje, brige i povezanosti imati, da li o svom radu misle na putu do posla ili pod tušem i tako dalje, odjednom Marks ima više smisla za nas. Kada razmišljamo o radu, obično su motivacija i zarada ista stvar, ali u stvarnosti bi tome verovatno trebalo dodati još stvari - smislenost, stvaranje, izazove, vlasništvo, 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.
Dobra vest je da ako dodamo sve nabrojano i mislimo o tome, kako ostvarujemo svoj smisao, ponos, motivaciju, i kako to radimo na svom radnom mestu i za zaposlene, mislim da možemo dobiti produktivnije i srećnije ljude. Hvala.
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)