I need to make a confession at the outset here. A little over 20 years ago, I did something that I regret, something that I'm not particularly proud of. Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know, but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.
Moram vam odmah nešto priznati. Prije malo više od 20 godina napravio sam nešto što sam zažalio, nešto na što nisam posebno ponosan, nešto što, na mnogo načina, nisam želio da itko sazna, ali ovdje nekako osjećam obvezu to otkriti.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school.
Kasnih 1980-ih, u trenutku mladenačke neopreznosti, upisao sam pravni fakultet.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
In America, law is a professional degree: after your university degree, you go on to law school. When I got to law school, I didn't do very well. To put it mildly, I didn't do very well. I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90% possible.
U Americi, pravo je stručna razina. Prvo dobijete sveučilišnu diplomu. Onda idete na pravne studije. I kada sam došao na pravni fakultet, nije mi baš išlo najbolje. Blago rečeno, nisam bio dobar. Ja sam, u stvari, diplomirao u onom dijelu svog razreda koji je omogućio ostalih 90 posto najboljih.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to.
Hvala vam. Nikada nisam prakticirao pravo u svom životu. Uglavnom mi nije bilo dozvoljeno.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills -- what's left of those legal skills. I don't want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.
Ali danas, usprkos vlastitom uvjerenju, usprkos savjetu moje žene, želim skinuti prašinu s pravničkih vještina, onoga što je ostalo od pravničkih vještina. Ne želim vam ispričati priču. Želim vam predstaviti slučaj. Želim napraviti tvrdoglavi, dokazivi, usuđujem se reći, pravnički slučaj, o preispitivanju načina na koji poslujemo.
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is called the candle problem. Some of you might know it. It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. He created this experiment that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science. And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches. And I say to you, "Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table." Now what would you do?
Dakle, dame i gospodo porotnici, pogledajte ovo. Ovo se naziva problem sa svijećom. Možda su neki od vas već ovo vidjeli. Ovo je osmislio 1945. psiholog pod imenom Karl Duncker. Karl Duncker je kreirao ovaj eksperiment koji se koristi u cijelom nizu eksperimenata u bihevioralnim znanostima. I ovako ide. Pretpostavimo da sam ja voditelj eksperimenta. Uvedem vas u sobu. Dam vam svijeću, nekoliko pribadača i nekoliko šibica. I kažem vam, "Vaš posao je pričvrstiti svijeću na zid tako da vosak ne pada na stol. "Što biste napravili? Mnogo ljudi započinje pokušajem pribadanja svijeće na zid.
Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn't work. I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here -- some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall. It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work. And eventually, after five or ten minutes, most people figure out the solution, which you can see here.
Ne funkcionira. Netko, neki ljudi, i vidio sam da je netko napravio pokret ovdje negdje. Neki ljudi imaju sjajnu ideju da bi upalili šibicu, otopili jednu stranu svijeće i pokušali je zalijepiti za zid. To je sjajna ideja. Ne radi. I konačno, poslije 5-10 minuta, većina ljudi pronađe rješenje. Koje možete vidjeti ovdje.
The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle. The candle problem.
Ključno je savladati ono što se zove funkcionalna fiksiranost. Pogledate kutiju i vidite ju samo kao spremnik za pribadače. Ali može imati i drugu funkciju, kao platforma za svijeću. Problem sa svijećom.
I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University, US, This shows the power of incentives.
Sada, želim vam ispričati o jednom eksperimentu koristeći se problemom sa svijećom, koji je napravio znanstvenik Sam Glucksberg, koji sada radi na Sveučilištu Princeton u SAD-u. Ovo ukazuje na snagu poticaja.
He gathered his participants and said: "I'm going to time you, how quickly you can solve this problem." To one group he said, "I'm going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem."
Evo što je napravio. Okupio je učesnike. I rekao im, "Mjeriti ću vam vrijeme. Koliko brzo možete riješiti ovaj problem?" Jednoj grupi je rekao, mjeriti ću vam vrijeme kako bih postavio norme, prosjeke koliko tipično treba nekome da riješi tu vrstu problema.
To the second group he offered rewards. He said, "If you're in the top 25% of the fastest times, you get five dollars. If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today, you get 20 dollars." Now this is several years ago, adjusted for inflation, it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work. It's a nice motivator.
Drugoj grupi je ponudio nagrade. Rekao je, "Ako ste u gornjih 25 posto s najboljim vremenom dobiti ćete pet dolara. Ako ste najbrži od svih koje ćemo danas testirati dobiti ćete 20 dolara." To je bilo prije nekoliko godina. Korigirano za inflaciju. To je pristojna svota novca za nekoliko minuta posla. To je lijepi motiv.
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
Pitanje: Koliko brže je ta grupa riješila problem?
Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer. 3.5 min longer. This makes no sense, right? I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. That's not how it's supposed to work, right?
Odgovor: U prosjeku im je trebalo, tri i pol minute duže. Tri i pol minute duže. Dakle, to nema nikakvog smisla, zar ne? Mislim, ja sam Amerikanac. Vjerujem u slobodno tržište. To ne bi tako trebalo funkcionirati. Zar ne?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That's how business works. But that's not happening here. You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.
Ako želite da ljudi bolje rade, nagradite ih. Točno? Bonusi, provizije, njihov osobni "reality show". Potaknite ih. Tako poslovni svijet funkcionira. Ali to se ovdje ne događa. Imate poticaj koji je osmišljen kako bi potaknuo britko razmišljanje i ubrzao kreativnost. A čini upravo suprotno. Otupljuje razmišljanje i blokira kreativnost.
What's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over again for nearly 40 years. These contingent motivators -- if you do this, then you get that -- work in some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored.
Ono što je interesantno za ovaj eksperiment jest da ne predstavlja odstupanje. Rezultati se ponavljaju stalno i opet iznova, već gotovo 40 godina. Ti situacijski motivatori, ako napravite ovo, onda ćete dobiti ono, u nekim okolnostima fukcioniraju. Ali za mnogo zadataka, oni zapravo ili ne rade ili, često, štete. To je jedno od opsežnijih otkrića u društvenim znanostima. I jedno koje se najviše zanemaruje.
I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I'm telling you, it's not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.
Posljednjih nekoliko godina promatrao sam znanost o motivaciji ljudi. Posebno dinamiku ekstrinzičnih motivatora i intrinzičnih motivatora. I kažem vam, nije ni blizu. Ako gledate znanost, postoji nepodudaranje između onoga što znanost zna i onoga što poslovni svijet radi. I ono što je alarmantno ovdje jest da je naš operativni poslovni sustav --
What's alarming here is that our business operating system -- think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources-- it's built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks. That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm. Let me show you.
razmislite o setu pretpostavki i protokola u pozadini naših poslova, kako motiviramo ljude, kako primijenjujemo ljudske resurse -- izgrađeno je u potpunosti oko tih ekstrinzičnih motivatora, oko mrkvi i štapova. To je u stvari dobro za mnoge vrste poslova 20. stoljeća. Ali za poslove 21. stoljeća, taj mehanicistički, nagrada-i-kazna pristup ne funkcionira, često ne radi, i često čini štetu. Dopustite da vam pokažem na što mislim.
Glucksberg did another similar experiment, he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here. Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we're timing for norms. You: we're incentivizing.
Tako je Glucksberg napravio novi eksperiment sličan ovome gdje je prezentirao problem na malo drugačiji način, od ovoga gore. OK? Pričvrstite svijeću na zid tako da vosak ne pada na stol. Jednaka ponuda. Vi: mjerimo vam norme. Vi: potičemo vas.
What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it?
Što se dogodilo ovaj puta? Ovaj puta, grupa koja je poticana rasturila je drugu grupu. Zašto? Jer kada su pribadače izvan kutije prilično je jednostavno, zar ne?
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that's why they work in so many cases. So, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well.
Ako-onda nagrade su dobre za ovakvu vrstu zadataka, gdje postoji set jednostavnih pravila i jasna destinacija prema kojoj se ide. Nagrade, po svojoj prirodi, sužavaju naš fokus, koncentriraju um. Zato funkcioniraju u mnogo slučajeva. I zato, za zadatke poput ovog, uski fokus, gdje odmah tamo vidite cilj, zumirate ravno na njega, nagrade su sasvim dovoljne.
But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.
Ali za pravi problem sa svijećom, ne želite gledati ovako. Rješenje nije ovdje. Rješenje je na periferiji. Želite gledati uokolo. Nagrade nam u stvari sužavaju fokus i ograničavaju nam mogućnosti.
Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That routine, rule-based, left-brain work -- certain kinds of accounting, financial analysis, computer programming -- has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.
Dozvolite da vam objasnim zašto je to toliko važno. U zapadnoj Europi, u mnogim dijelovima Azije, u Sjevernoj Americi, u Australiji službenici rade manje ovakvih poslova, i više ovakvih poslova. Ta rutina, zasnovana na pravilima i lijevoj strani mozga, neke vrste računovodstva, neke vrste financijskih analiza, neke vrste računalnog programiranja, postalo je jednostavno eksternalizirati, prilično jednostavno automatizirati. Softver to može brže. Jeftini posrednici širom svijeta mogu to napraviti jeftinije. Ono što je zapravo važno je više na desnoj strani mozga kreativnost, konceptualne vrste vještina.
Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we've been talking about here, do they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we've built so many of our businesses, don't work!
Razmislite o svom poslu. Razmislite o svom poslu. Jesu li problemi s kojima se suočavate, čak i problemi o kojima smo ovdje pričali, vrste problema -- imaju li jasan set pravila, i jedno jedino rješenje? Ne. Pravila mistificiraju. Rješenje, ako uopće postoji, iznenađujuće je i nije očito. Svi u ovoj sobi nose se s vlastitom verzijom problema sa svijećom. I za problem sa svijećom bilo koje vrste, u bilo kojem polju, te ako-onda nagrade, stvari oko kojih smo izgradili toliko puno poslova, ne funkcioniraju.
It makes me crazy. And here's the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy.
To me izluđuje. I to nije -- evo u čemu je stvar. To nije osjećaj. OK? Ja sam pravnik. Ja ne vjerujem u osjećaje. To nije filozofija. Ja sam Amerikanac. Ja ne vjerujem u filozofiju.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
This is a fact -- or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact.
To je činjenica. Ili, kako to kažemo u mom rodnom gradu Washington D.C. istinita činjenica.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
Let me give you an example. Let me marshal the evidence here. I'm not telling a story, I'm making a case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward. If you do really well you get the large reward, on down.
Dozvolite da vam dam primjer na što mislim. Dozvolite da izložim dokaze. Jer vam ja ne pričam priču. Ja gradim slučaj. Dame i gospodo porotnici, neki dokazi: Dan Ariely, jedan od velikih ekonomista našeg vremena, on i troje kolega, napravili su studiju na studentima sa MIT-a. Dali su tim studentima s MIT-a gomilu igara. Igre koje uključuju kreativnost, i motoričke vještine, i koncentraciju. I ponudili su im, za njihovu izvedbu, tri razine nagrada. Malu nagradu, srednju nagradu, veliku nagradu. OK? Ako ste stvarno dobri, dobijete veliku nagradu i tako naniže.
What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance. Okay? But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.
Što se dogodilo? Sve dok je zadatak uključivao samo mehaničke vještine bonusi su radili kao što se i očekivalo: što ste više platili, bolja je bila izvedba. OK? Ali jednom kada bi zadatak tražio samo rudimentarne kognitivne vještine, veća nagrada vodila je ka slabijoj izvedbi.
Then they said, "Let's see if there's any cultural bias here. Let's go to Madurai, India and test it." Standard of living is lower. In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.
Onda su rekli, "OK pogledajmo postoji li neka kulturološka pristranost. Hajdemo u Madurai, Indija i ispitajmo ovo." Standard života je tamo niži. U Maduraiu, nagrada koja je skromna za američke standarde, tamo je značajnija. Jednaka stvar. Gomila igara, tri razine nagrada.
What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.
Što se dogodilo? Ljudi kojima je ponuđena srednja razina nagrada nisu imali ništa bolju izvedbu od onih s malim nagradama. Ali ovaj puta, ljudi kojima su ponuđene najveće nagrade, bili su najgori od svih. U osam od devet zadataka koje smo pregledali kroz tri eksperimenta, viši poticaji vodili su ka lošijoj izvedbi.
Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here? No, these are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. Do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That's the American experience.
Događa li se ovdje neka intimna socijalistička zavjera? Ne. To su ekonomisti s MIT-a, s Carnegie Mellona, sa Sveučilišta u Chicagou. I znate li tko je sponzorirao to istraživanje? Banka Federalnih Rezervi SAD-a. To je američko iskustvo.
Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics, LSE, London School of Economics, alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.
Pogledajmo preko oceana u London School of Economics. LSE, London School of Economics. Alma mater 11 nobelovaca iz ekonomskih znanosti. Mjesto za obuku velikih mislilaca ekonomije poput George Sorosa, i Friedrich Hayeka, i Mick Jaggera. (Smijeh)
(Laughter)
Prošli mjesec, samo prošlog mjeseca,
Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here's what they said: "We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance."
ekonomisti s LSE-a su pregledali 51 studiju planova plaćanja po učinku, u raznim kompanijama. Evo što su ekonomisti rekli, "Otkrili smo kako financijski poticaji mogu rezultirati negativnim utjecajem na ukupnu izvedbu."
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach.
Postoji nesklad između onoga što znanost poznaje i onoga što poslovni svijet čini. I ono što me brine, dok stojimo ovdje u kršu ekonomske propasti, jest da jako puno organizacija donosi svoje odluke, svoje politike o talentima i ljudima, bazirane na pretpostavkama koje su zastarjele, neispitane, i ukorijenjene više u folkloru nego u znanosti. I ako stvarno želimo izaći iz tog ekonomskog nereda, i ako stvarno želimo visoku izvedbu na tim definiranim zadacima 21. stoljeća, rješenje je ne raditi još više pogrešnih stvari. Mamiti ljude slađom mrkvom ili im prijetiti oštrijim štapom. Trebamo skroz novi pristup.
The good news is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach. It's built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, they're interesting, or part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.
I dobra vijest u svemu tome jest da su nam znanstvenici koji su proučavali motivaciju dali taj novi pristup. To je pristup koji je više izgrađen oko intrinzičnih motivatora. Na želji da se rade stvari zato što su važne, jer ih volimo, jer su zanimljive, i zato jer su dio nečega važnog. I po mom mišljenju, taj novi operativni poslovni sustav vrti se oko tri elementa: autonomije, majstorstva i svrhe. Autonomija, potreba da usmjeravamo svoje živote. Majstorstvo, želja da budemo sve bolji u onome što nam je važno. Svrha, čežnja da radimo ono što radimo u svrhu nečega što je veće od nas samih. To su ključni elementi od kojih se gradi skroz novi operativni sustav našeg poslovnog svijeta.
I want to talk today only about autonomy. In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. Management is not a tree, it's a television set. Somebody invented it. It doesn't mean it's going to work forever. Management is great. Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.
Danas želim govoriti samo o autonomiji. U 20. stoljeću, osmislili smo menadžment. Menadžment nije emanentan u prirodi. Menadžment je poput -- to nije drvo. To je kao televizija. OK? Netko ga je izmislio. I to ne znači da će funkcionirati vječno. Menadžment je sjajan. Tradicionalno poimanje menadžmenta je sjajno ako želite suglasnost. Ali ako želite angažman, samousmjeravanje je bolje.
Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction. You don't see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on, what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely -- getting the issue of money off the table, and then giving people lots of autonomy.
Dozvolite da vam dam nekoliko primjera nekih vrsta radikalnih ideja o samousmjeravanju. Što to znači -- ne vidite toga puno, ali vidite prva komešanja nečega stvarno interesantnog. Jer to znači plaćati ljude adekvatno i potpuno pošteno. Micanje problema novca s dnevnog reda. I davanja ljudima velike autonomije.
Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half.
Dozvolite da vam dam nekoliko primjera. Koliko vas je čulo za kompaniju Atlassian? Čini mi se manje od polovice.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
Atlassian is an Australian software company. And they do something incredibly cool. A few times a year they tell their engineers, "Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it's not part of your regular job. Work on anything you want." Engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant hack. Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed to their teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and woolly all-hands meeting at the end of the day. Being Australians, everybody has a beer.
Atlassian je australska kompanija koja se bavi softverom. I oni rade nešto stvarno sjajno. Nekoliko puta godišnje kažu svojim inžinjerima, "Idite i slijedeća 24 sata radite na čemu god želite, sve dok to nije dio vašeg redovnog posla. Radite na čemu god hoćete." Tako inžinjeri koriste to vrijeme kako bi došli do "cool" ispravaka za kodove, elegantnih prečaca. I onda prezentiraju sve te stvari koje su razvili svojim članovima tima, ostatku kompanije, na tom divljem i razuzdanom zajedničkom sastanku na kraju dana. I onda, s obzirom da su Australci, svi odu na pivu.
They call them FedEx Days. Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. It's pretty; not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever.
Zovu ih "Dani FedEx-a". Zašto? Jer morate dostaviti nešto preko noći. To je lijepo. To nije loše.To je velika povreda zaštitnog znaka. Ali to je jako pametno.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.
Taj jedan dan intenzivne autonomije stvorio je cijeli niz softverskih zakrpi koje možda nikada ne bi postojale.
It's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20% time -- done, famously, at Google -- where engineers can spend 20% of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. Radical amounts of autonomy. And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20% time: things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.
I to im je toliko dobro išlo da je Atlassian odlučio podići sve na slijedeću razinu davši im 20 posto vremena. Taj pristup je popularizirao Google. Gdje inžinjeri mogu raditi, potrošiti 20 posto svog vremena radeći na čemu god žele. Oni imaju autonomnost nad svojim vremenom, svojim zadacima, svojim timom, svojim tehnikama. OK? Radikalne količine autonomije. A u Googleu, kao što većina vas zna, se oko pola novih proizvoda u tipičnoj godini rodi upravo za vrijeme "20 posto vremena". Stvari poput Gmaila, Orkuta, Google Newsa.
Let me give you an even more radical example of it: something called the Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE), created by two American consultants, in place at a dozen companies around North America. In a ROWE people don't have schedules. They show up when they want. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them. Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.
Dozvolite mi da vam dam jedan, još radikalniji primjer. Nečega što se zove "Radna okolina orijentirana samo na rezultate". ROWE (akronim od Results Only Work Environment) Stvorena od strane dvaju američkih konzultanata, za desetak kompanija širom Sjeverne Amerike. U ROWE-u ljudi nemaju raspored. Oni se pojavljuju kada žele. Ne moraju biti u uredu u neko određeno rijeme, ili uopće. Oni samo moraju obaviti svoj posao. Kako to rade, kada to rade, gdje to rade, ovisi isključivo o njima. Sastanci u takvoj vrsti okruženja su neobavezni.
What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, the building blocks of a new way of doing things.
Što se događa? Skoro u svim područjima produktivnost raste, angažiranost radnika raste, zadovoljstvo radnika raste, promjena radnika opada. Autonomija, majstorstvo i svrha. To su ključni elementi novog načina kako obavljamo stvari.
Some of you might look at this and say, "Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian." And I say, "Nope. I have proof." The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives, They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time. A few years later, another encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen. Do it because you like to do it.
Sada, neki od vas bi mogli ovo gledati i reći, "Hmm, to zvuči zgodno. Ali to je utopija." A ja ću vam reći, "Ne. Ja imam dokaz." Sredinom 1990-ih, Microsoft je pokrenuo enciklopediju Encarta. Iskoristili su sve prave poticaje. Sve prave poticaje. Platili su profesionalcima da pišu i uređuju tisuće članaka. Dobro plaćeni menadžeri su nadgledali cijelu stvar kako bi bili sigurni da će ostati unutar zadanog budžeta i vremena. Nekoliko godina kasnije druga enciklopedija je započeta. Drugačiji model, točno? Radili su to iz zabave. Nitko nije bio plaćen ni cent, ni Euro ni Yen. Radili su jer im se sviđalo. Kada biste, samo prije 10 godina,
Just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, "Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they went head to head, who would win?" 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.
otišli do nekog ekonomiste, bilo gdje, i rekli, "Hey, imam ova dva modela na raspolaganju za stvaranje enciklopedije. Kada bi se suprotstavili, tko bi pobijedio?" Prije 10 godina ne biste našli niti jednog trijeznog ekonomistu nigdje na planetu Zemlja, koji bi predvidio Wikipedijin model.
This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation, right? This is the Thrilla in Manila. Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks, and who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.
To je titanska borba između dva pristupa. To je za motivaciju poput meča Ali-Frazier. Točno? Ovo je triler u Manili. Točno? Intrinzični motivatori protiv ekstrinzičnih motivatora. Autonomija, majstorstvo i svrha, nasuprot mrkve i štapa. Tko će pobijediti? Intrinzični motivatori, autonomija, majstorstvo i svrha,
Let me wrap up. There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. Here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity. Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive-- the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter.
nokautom. Dozvolite mi da sažmem. Postoji nesklad između onoga što znanost zna i onoga što poslovni svijet radi. A evo što znanost zna. Jedan: Te nagrade iz 20. stoljeća, ti motivatori za koje mislimo da su prirodni dio posla, funkcioniraju, ali samo u iznenađujuće uskom pojasu situacija. Dva: Te ako-onda nagrade često uništavaju kreativnost. Tri: Tajna uspješne izvedbe nije u nagradama i kaznama, već u nevidljivom intrinzičnom pokretaču. Pokretaču da se stvari rade zbog njih samih. Pokretaču da se stvari rade jer su važne.
And here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between science and business, if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe -- we can change the world.
I evo najboljeg dijela. Evo najboljeg dijela. Već to znamo. Znanost je potvrdila ono što znamo u našim srcima. Tako, u slučaju da popravimo taj nesklad između onoga što znanost zna i što poslovni svijet radi, ako dovedemo motivaciju, ideje motivacije u 21. stoljeće, ako savladamo tu lijenu, opasnu, ideologiju mrkve i štapa, možemo osnažiti naše poslove, možemo riješiti mnoge probleme sa svijećom, i možda, možda, možda možemo promijeniti svijet.
I rest my case.
Ovdje ću stati.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)