I want to talk a little bit today about labor and work.
我今天想來談談 勞動與工作。
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.
當談到人們是怎麼工作的時候, 我們的直覺是 人們就有如迷宮中的老鼠一樣 -- 都只在乎錢 (老鼠只在乎芝士) 只要我們給錢, 就可以隨意地命令他們這樣做, 或是那樣做。 這就是為什麼我們會給銀行家紅利和各種補貼。 我們對於人們工作的原因和勞工市場 也有著非常天真的看法。
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."
與此同時,如果你想想看,你就會發現 其實我們身邊充滿著千古百怪的行為。 拿登山和攀登來說好了。 當你閱讀克服高山的登山者傳記時, 你認為書中充滿喜悅和快樂的時刻嗎? 不,裡頭充滿痛苦。 事實上,全是凍傷、舉步維艱 呼吸困難 -- 寒冷、艱難的生存條件。 如果人們就只是想要獲得, 在攻頂那一剎那的快樂的話, 他們會說:「這真是個可怕的錯誤。 我打死也不會再做這種事了。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
"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.
「還是讓我坐在沙灘上享用莫吉托(雞尾酒) 吧。」 但卻恰好相反,他們下山後, 體力一旦恢復,他們又會再度出發。 若以登山為例, 它說明了很多事情。 它說明了我們是在乎能否抵達終點,直到巔峰。 也說明我們在乎過程中的堅持與挑戰。 它意味著世上還有許多事物可以 促使我們在各領域上努力工作或表現。
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.
對我來說,我是在一位學生來探望我之後 才開始思考這件事的。 他是我幾年前的學生。 有一天他回到校園 敘述以下的故事給我聽: 他說他為了一份簡報忙了兩個多禮拜。 那時他在一間大銀行工作。 這份簡報是為公司的併購計劃而準備的。 他也盡心盡力地去做這份簡報-- 圖表,表格,資料。 他每天都在熬夜。 在截止日的前一天 他把這份簡報寄給了他的老闆, 而他老闆則回應他說: 「這份簡報做得還不錯,但合併計劃已經取消了。」 之後他就覺得非常沮喪。 但當他在做這份簡報的時候 他其實還滿開心的。 每個晚上他都很享受著這份工作, 享受著熬夜,也享受著把簡報完美化。 可是得知沒有人會看到這份簡報之後,他大受打擊。
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.
所以我才開始思考我們該如何實驗 勞動的成果這個概念。 一開始,我們設計了一個小實驗。 實驗中,我們把樂高給實驗對象並要求他們堆出東西。 其中一部份的人,在我們給他們樂高之後,我們就跟他說, 「你願不願組出一個價值 $3.00 的 ”生化戰士” (Bionicle)?」 我們會用 $3.00 跟你買。」 他們答應之後便用樂高組出 ”生化戰士”。 完成之後,我們把成品拿走並將它放置在桌下, 然後再問:「你願不願意再組一個? 這次價格為 $2.70。」 如果他們答應,我們再給他們另一組樂高。 他們完成之後,我們又問他們, 「你想不想再組一個?」價格為 $2.40, 為$2.10… 以此類推, 直到他們說,「這根本划不來,我不做了。」 這就是我們稱為有意義的狀況。 實驗對象堆出一個又一個 ”生化戰士”。 當他們全部都完成之後,我們就把成品放在桌下 並在實驗最後告知他們, 我們會回收並拆解所有的 ”生化戰士”, 我們會把它們放回箱子給下一個對象使用。
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.
還有另一個情形。 這個情形是從我的學生,大衛,身上所得到的靈感。 我們稱它為西西弗斯的狀況。 如果你記得西西弗斯的故事, 西西弗斯受到上帝的懲罰 並要他把一塊特定的巨石推上山頂, 正當他將要抵達終點的時候, 這塊巨石就會滾下山,那他就得再來一次。 你可以把這當作是徒勞的本質。 你可以想像如果他把石塊推往其他的山, 他至少會感覺有些許的進展。 還有,如果你看過以監獄為題材的電影 那你就會發現有時候獄警虐待犯人的方法 就是叫他們去挖地洞。 當犯人挖完以後,獄警們就會讓他把洞給補滿然後再重挖。 在這個週期性 一而再地重復做某一件事的行為之中 彷彿有些什麼東西是特別讓人消極的。
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.
所以我們就在第二個情形的實驗當中這麼做。 我們問實驗對象,「你想不想堆出一個價值為 $3.00 的 "生化戰士"?」 如果他們說好,那他們就會去堆一個出來。 之後我們再問他們,「你想不想為$2.70再造一個? 」 如果他們說好,那我們就會給他們一個新的 "生化戰士"。 在他們在堆的時後, 我們就會把他們前一個成品給拆了。 然後當他們完成後, 我們又會說,「你願不願意再造一個? 這次會比上一個少 $0.30」 如果他們又說好,我們就會把之前拆掉的給他們。 所以,這就是個永無止境的循環, 他們不停地堆而我們則是不停地當著他們的面拆。
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.
如果你拿這兩種情形來比較,會發生什麼狀況呢? 第一件發生的事就是 一組人堆出較多的 "生化戰士" -- 數量為 11 比 7 這是有意義狀況和西西弗斯相較之下的比值。 我們應該順便提一下,這結果的意義其實並不大。 他們並不是在治療癌症,也不是在建橋梁。 他們只是在為了幾毛錢去堆 "生化戰士"罷了。 不僅如此,大家都知道堆出來的 "生化戰士" 很快就會被拆掉。 所以從頭到尾也沒所謂的重大意義。 但即便是意義小,也有影響力。
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.
現在我們有另一個實驗版本。 在這個版本中, 沒有人參與這個情況, 我們只跟他們講述, 就像我跟你們描述一樣。 然後我們請他們預測結果。 發生什麼事了呢? 大家的預測大致上都是對的,但數值上卻有所出入。 那些只聽過描述的實驗對象 表示他們大概會在有意義的情況下多堆一個 "生化戰士" 出來。 所以說,大家都了解意義很重要, 但他們只是不了解它有"多"重要, 是何種程度上的重要。
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.
我們還可以參考另一個數據。 你想一下就會發現有的人很喜歡樂高,也有的人不喜歡。 你應該可以推測出來,喜歡樂高的人 即使錢比較少,他們還是會去堆多些樂高 因為他們畢竟會從中得到更多的喜悅。 相對的,那些比較不喜歡樂高的人會堆較少的樂高 因為他們從中得到的喜悅較少。 其實就是我們在有意義的狀況中得到的結果。 對樂高的喜愛度和成品的數量 成正比。
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.
那西西弗斯狀況下出現了什麼情形呢? 在這個情況中,相關性為零。 對樂高的喜愛和成品的數量是毫無關係的 並告訴我,在人們面前 摧毀東西的這個手段, 基本上我們是在粉碎他們從中得到的任何喜悅。 我們根本就是把它給毀滅了。
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.
這實驗一結束, 我去跟一家在西雅圖的大軟體公司。 我不能跟你說他們是誰,但是他們在西雅圖是一家大公司。 在這個軟體公司的這組人被安置在另一個大廈。 為了創造出下一個創新的當紅產品。 在我出現的前一週, 這公司的執行長當著這一組,200位工程師的面 取消了他們的項目。 我站在這群我這輩子交談過最沮喪的200個人面前。 開始跟他們描述這些樂高實驗, 他們說,他們彷彿身歷其境。 我問他們, 「有多少人現在比以前晚到公司的?」 大家都舉手。 我又問:「又有多少人是比往常更早回家的?」 大家又舉起了手。 我再問他們:「你們現在有多少個人在開銷報告中加入了不太適當的事物?」 他們沒有舉手, 但在他們帶我去晚餐的時候, 實際展現了他們花公帳的能力。 於是我問他們: 「你們的執行長該如何做才能讓你們減低沮喪呢?」 他們想出一堆點子。
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.
他們說,執行長可以讓他們向整個公司報告 他們這兩年來的歷程以及想要執行的計劃。 或是請他們想一想他們的技術上哪一方面 可以跟公司其他的部門融合在一起。 他可以請他們製造一些原型, 一些新一代的原型 並測試它們。 但以上任何一項提議都 需要些許的努力與動機。 我覺得執行長基本上不懂"意義"的重要性。 如果這執行長像我們的實驗對象一樣, 覺得意義的本質是不重要的, 那他就不會在乎。 而且他就會告訴他們,「那時候,我叫你們去東, 現在我叫你們去西, 一切都會沒問題的。」 但如果你明白"意義"的重要性, 你應該知道花一些時間精力 努力讓人們關心自己所做的事 是很重要的。
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.
下一個實驗有點不同。 我們拿了一張紙,上面隨意的寫上了一些字母, 我們請實驗對象在紙上找出和相鄰相同的字母組。 這個就是他們的課題。(文書處理) 然後他們把第一張做完。 我們問他們願不願以較低的工資再做一張 下一張的錢又少了些,以此類推。 我們有三種情況。 在第一種情況,實驗對象把他們的名字寫在紙上, 等找到所有的字母組後,把紙交給研究人員。 研究人員會把那張紙重頭看到尾, 說聲「對」 然後把它放在旁邊的紙堆上。 第二種情況,實驗對象不用把名字寫在紙上。 研究人員看了它一眼 就把紙給拿走了,連讀也不讀 直接把它放在紙堆上。 也就是說,你拿了一張,然後就將它放在一旁。 然後,第三種狀況, 研究人員拿到紙後,直接把它放入碎紙機中。
(Laughter)
What happened in those three conditions?
這三種情況會造成什麼結果呢?
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.
現在我給你看的圖表是告訴你 人們是在什麼支付費率停止的。 也就是說,數字越低表示人們較努力,也做得較久。 在受到肯定的條件下,人們願意一直做到 $0.15 元。 當工資為每張 $0.15 時,基本上,他們就不再做了。 碎紙機的情況中,工資為前者整整高出兩倍之多 -- 每張 $0.30
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.
基本上和我們之前所得到的結果一樣。 你撕碎了他人的努力和成果, 你讓他們對自己所做得事感到不是那麼開心。 但同時,我應該指出, 在碎紙機的情況下,人們也許會作弊。 他們可以不把事情做好, 因為他們意識到之後人們也只會把它給撕碎。 因此,你第一張紙可能會做得不錯, 但當你看到沒有人會用心去撿查它, 那你就會做多點,多點,再多點。 所以事實上,在碎紙機的情形下, 人們可以遞交更多的成品並取得更多的錢 也較不用心工作。 那採取不理不睬的情況又是如何的呢? 這情況中會不會跟受肯定的情形較類似 還是跟碎紙機的情形較類似, 還是介於兩者之間? 結果顯示這個情形跟碎紙機十分相似。
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.
現在有一個好消息和一個壞消息。 壞消息是,忽略他人的表現 就有如在他人的眼前把他們的努力撕碎一樣的差。 忽略會讓你感到如此惡劣。 好消息就是,只要把他人的成果簡單的看一下, 略看一下並說聲"對", 這似乎就已經足夠 大大提昇人們的動機。 所以說,好消息就是要增加動機其實一點也不難。 壞消息就是要消滅動機 比想像中來得容易多了, 而且如果我們不謹慎思考一下, 我們也許會做過了頭。 因此這一切就是有關負面動機 或消除負面動機。
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.
接下來我要讓你們看些和正面動機相關的東西。 在美國有一家店叫 IKEA 。 IKEA 賣的傢俱還算可以, 但組裝起來卻很耗時。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
我不知道你啦,但每一次我組合它們的傢俱時 我都需要更久~~的時間、更大~~的努力、 非常非常混亂。 我會把東西裝錯。 我很難說我享受那些傢俱。 或是組裝傢俱的過程。 但一旦組合好後,我似乎喜愛 IKEA 的傢俱 勝過其它的傢俱。
(Laughter)
接下來,有一個關於蛋糕混合粉的古老故事。
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.
話說在 40 年代,他們開始弄蛋糕預拌粉的時候, 他們將這些粉放入盒子中, 並請家庭主婦直接倒出來,加入些許的水, 攪拌均勻,放入烤箱,然後 -- 就這樣! --- 你就有蛋糕了。 但結果卻是它們非常不受歡迎。 人們不想要它們。 之後,他們為了這件事想出各式各樣的原因。 可能是味道不好。 不,味道很棒。 他們得出的結果是,人們在製作過程中付出的心力不夠多。 因為過程太簡單,所以人們不能請客人品嚐這蛋糕 並說:「這是我做的蛋糕。」 不不不,這是別人的蛋糕。 它就跟你從商店中買到一樣。 它感覺上不是你自己的。 那他們怎麼做呢? 他們將粉中的雞蛋和牛奶拿走。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
現在你得敲開雞蛋,親自加入。 你得測量牛奶,加入並攪拌它。 現在它就是你的蛋糕了。這樣問題都解決了。
(Laughter)
(鼓掌聲)
(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.
我現在想法有點像 IKEA 效應, 要求人們更努力工作, 可能會讓他們更熱愛自己所作。 我們如何用實驗來看待這問題?
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 --
我們請人們做一些摺紙。 我們給了他們摺紙的步驟 和一張紙。 還有這些人全都是新手, 而他們摺出來的東西其實還滿醜的 根本不像青蛙或是鶴。 但之後我們跟他們說:「聽著,這摺紙其實是屬於我們的。 你幫我們工作,但我跟你說,我們會把它賣給你。 你願意為它付多少錢?」 我們就測量他們所願意付出的價錢。 當中,我們有兩種人。 我們有親自動手製造的人, 也有沒去製造而只是以觀察者的身份來觀察的人。 結果,我們所發現的是,製造者們會認為 這些是很漂亮的摺紙作品,
(Laughter)
而且他們所願意付出的金錢是
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.
在局外評估他們的人們的五倍之多。 現在你可以說,如果你是製造者, 你會不會想:「哦,我好喜歡這摺紙, 但我知道除了我之外,沒有人會喜歡它」? 還是說,你會想:「我好喜歡這摺紙, 而且大家都一樣會喜歡」? 上述哪一個正確? 結果是,製造者不旦比較喜歡他們的褶紙, 他們還認為大家都會跟他們的想法一樣。 他們以為所有人都跟他們一樣地喜歡他們的摺紙。
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.
下一個實驗,我們試著把難度提高 看看 IKEA 效應是否是真的。 因此,對一部分的人,我們給他們相同的任務。 對另一部分的人我們提高難度,藏起摺紙說明。 只在紙上簡單描述如何摺紙。 對一些人,我們直接連這個都沒有。 那這樣就更困難了。結果呢? 客觀上,作品現在更醜了,也更難了。 現在,當我們看看那些簡單的摺紙時, 我們會看到相同的事:製造者會更喜歡作品, 評估者沒那麼喜歡 當你看困難步驟實驗時, 這效果就更明顯了。 為什麼? 因為現在製造者更加喜歡成品了。
(Laughter)
在過程中,他們投入更多的精力。
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.
那評估者呢? 他們更不喜歡了。 因為事實上,它比第一版本更為醜陋了。
(Laughter)
當然,這跟說明了我們是如何做評估的。
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.
現在想想看小孩子。 想像我問你:「多少錢你才願意賣掉你的孩子?」 你的回憶和關係等等 大部分的人都會說,很多很多的錢 --
(Laughter)
如果那天我心情好的話。
On good days.
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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."
但想像稍微不一樣的狀況。 想像一下如果你沒有小孩, 然後有一天你去了公園,遇見了一些小孩子, 而他們就跟你的孩子一模一樣。 你跟他們玩了幾個小時之後。 就當你要離開的時候,他們的家長說, 「喂,在你離開之前跟你說一聲,如果你有興趣的話,你可以購買他們。」
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
那你現在會用多少錢來買他們呢? 大多數人會說,不用太多。 這是因為我們的孩子比較珍貴, 不只是因為他們的身份, 而是因為我們,因為他們跟我們之間有牽絆 也因為孩子和我們所相處的時間與關係。 順便提一下,如果你認為 IKEA 的說明不好, 想一下小孩所附帶的說明。 這才是真正的困難。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
順提一下,這些是我的孩子,當然他們很棒,你知道的。 這跟說明了一件事, 那就是,就像實驗中的製造者, 當他們看著他們創造的創造物時, 我們不會覺得其他人跟我們的看法不同。
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.
最後, 如果你把亞當‧斯密和卡爾‧馬克思拿來做比較, 亞當‧斯密對效率有個很重要的想法。 他用大頭釘工廠來舉例。 他說製造大頭釘有 12 個步驟, 如果都讓一個人做,那產量就很低。 但如果你讓一個人做第一步、 一個人做第二步,第三步,以此類推, 產量就會大大增加。 也沒錯,這是一個很棒的例子,也是工業革命和效率的原因。 相對而言,卡爾‧馬克思 認為異化勞工 對勞工本身如何看待自己的工作是很關鍵的。 如果你親自完成這 12 步驟,你會在乎這大頭釘。 但如果你每次只做某一步驟,也許你就不會那麼在乎了。
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.
我覺得在工業革命中, 亞當‧斯密比卡爾‧馬克思來得正確, 但事實上,我們相反了 而我們現在身在知識經濟中。 你可以問問自己了,知識經濟是怎麼回事? 效率還是比意義來得重要嗎? 我相信答案是"不"。 我認為當大環境變成人們可以自己 決定自己要放多少精力去關注、關心 自己選擇與工作的關係 他們是否在上班途上、洗澡時都想著工作? 突然之間,馬克思有更多的事要跟我們說了。 當我們在思考勞動時, 我們時常把動機和工資混為一談, 但事實上,我們應該把各式各類的東西都加進去 -- 意義、創造、挑戰、所有權、身分、榮耀等等。
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.
好消息是如果我們把所有元素加入考慮 包括我們如何創造自己的意義、榮耀、動機, 以及我們在職場上和對待員工的表現, 我想我們可以讓人們更有效率也更開心。 感謝大家。
Thank you very much.
(Applause)
(鼓掌聲)