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 odmah na početku nešto da priznam. Nešto pre dvadeset godina uradio sam nešto zbog čega žalim, nešto na šta nisam posebno ponosan, nešto za šta sam se nadao da, zbog mnogo čega, niko neće saznati, ali ovde nekako osećam obavezu da kažem.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school.
Kasnih osamdesetih, u trenutku mladalačke nerazboritosti, upisao sam pravni fakultet.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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, to je profesionalni nivo. Završite fakulktet. Onda idete na pravne studije. I kada sam dospeo do prava, nije mi baš dobro išlo. Da to ublažim, nije mi dobro išlo. Ustvari, diplomirao sam u klasi koja je omogućila postojanje najboljih 90%.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to.
Hvala. Nisam se uopšte bavio pravom u životu. Uglavnom mi nije bilo dozvoljeno.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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, uprkos svom zdravom razumu, uprkos savetu sopstvene žene, želim da probam da skinem paučinu sa tih pravničkih veština ili s toga šta je od njih ostalo. Ne želim da vam ispričam priču. Želim da predstavim slučaj. Želim da predstavim realan, na dokazima zasnovan, usuđujem se da kažem advokatski 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 svećom. Neki od vas su ga možda i videli ranije. Osmislio ga je, 1945., psiholog po imenu Karl Dunker. Karl Dunker je osmislio ovaj eksperiment koji se koristi u raznovrsnim eksperimentima u naukama o ponašanju. Evo kako ide. Pretpostavimo da sam ja eksperimentator. Dovedem vas u sobu. Dam vam sveću, gomilu čioda i gomilu šibica. I kažem vam, "Vaš posao je da pričvrstite sveću na zid tako da vosak ne kaplje na sto". Šta biste vi uradili? Mnogi ljudi počinju time da ubodu sveću 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 ide. Neko, neki ljudi, i video sam da neko ovde pravi sličan pokret. Neki imaju odličnu ideju da zapale šibicu, otope stranicu sveće i pokušaju da je pričvrste za zid. To je super ideja. Ne ide. I konačno, posle pet ili deset minuta, većina ljudi ukapira rešenje. Koje možete videti ovde.
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.
Ključ je u tome da se prevaziđe ono što se zove funkcionalna fiksiranost. Vidite tu kutiju i posmatrate je samo kao kutiju u kojoj stoje čiode. Ali ona može da ima i ovu drugu funkciju, kao platforma za sveće. Problem sa svećom.
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.
Želim da vam ispričam eksperiment koji koristi ovaj problem, koji je uradio naučnik po imenu Sem Gluksberg, koji je trenutno na Prinstonu u SAD-u. Ovo pokazuje moć motivacije.
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 šta je uradio. Okupio je učesnike. I rekao je, "Meriću vam vreme. Koliko brzo možete da rešite ovaj problem?" Jednoj grupi je rekao, meriću vam vreme da bih postavio norme, proseke koliko je tipično potrebno nekome da reši ovu 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 budete u prvih 25% najbržih, dobićete 5 dolara. Ako budete najbrži od svih koje testiramo danas, dobićete 20 dolara." To je bilo pre nekoliko godina. Prilagođeno inflaciji. To je pristojna suma novca za nekoliko minuta posla. To je lep motivator.
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
Pitanje: koliko je ova grupa bila brža u rešavanju problema?
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: Bilo im je potrebno, prosečno, tri ipo minuta duže. Tri ipo minuta duže. Ovo nema nikakvog smisla, zar ne? Mislim, ja sam Amerikanac. Verujem u slobodna tržišta. To ne bi trebalo tako da funkcioniše. Zar ne?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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 rade bolje, nagradite ih. Je l' tako? Bonusi, provizije, njihov sopstveni reality show. Motivišete ih. Tako poslovi funkcionišu. Ali to se ne događa ovde. Imate motiv koji je osmišljen da izoštri mišljenje i ubrza kreativnost. A on radi sasvim suprotno. Otupljuje mišljenje 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 u vezi s ovim eksperimentom interesantno je to da on nije greška. Ovo se ponavlja iznova i iznova i iznova, skoro 40 godina. Ovi zavisni motivatori, ako radite ovo, dobijete ono, funkcionišu u nekim okolnostima. Ali u mnogim zadacima oni stvarno ili ne rade, ili često čine štetu. Ovo je jedno od najsnažnijih otkrića u socijalnoj nauci. I takođe jedno od najviše ignorisanih.
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.
Poslednjih nekoliko godina sam proveo ispitujući nauku ljudske motivacije. Naročito dinamiku ekstrinzičnih i intrinzičnih motivatora. I kažem vam, nije ni blizu. Ako gledate nauku, postoji neslaganje između onoga što nauka zna i šta posao radi. Ono što je uznemiravajuće je to da naš poslovni sistem -
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.
pomislite na sve pretpostavke i protokole u pozadini našeg biznisa, kako motivišemo ljude, kako primenjujemo ljudske resurse - izgrađen je u potpunosti oko tih ekstrinzičnih motivatora, oko šargarepa i štapova. Ustvari to je dobro za mnoge zadatke dvadesetog veka. Ali za zadatke 21. veka, taj mehanistički prisup nagrade-i-kazne ne funkcioniše, često ne funkcioniše i često šteti. Dozvolite da pokažem šta 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.
Gluksberg je uradio eksperiment sličan ovome gde je problem predstavio na malo drugačiji način, kao što je ovde. OK? Pričvrstite sveću za zid, tako da vosak ne kaplje na sto. Ista stvar. Vi: merimo vam vreme za norme. Vi: vas motivišemo.
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?
Šta se desilo ovog puta? Ovog puta, motivisana grupa razvalila je drugu grupu. Zašto? Pa kad su čiode van kutije prilično je lako, zar ne?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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 funkcionišu prilično dobro za takve vrste zadataka, gde postoje jednostavna pravila i jasan cilj kome se teži. Nagrade, po samoj svojoj prirodi, sužavaju naš fokus, usmeravaju mozak. Upravo zato su dobre u toliko mnogo prilika. Tako, za zadatke kao što je ovaj, ograničen fokus, kad jednostavno vidite cilj tamo i usredsredite se na njega, one služe vrlo dobro.
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 svećom, ne želite da gledate ovako. Rešenje nije ovde. Rešenje je na periferiji. Želite da gledate okolo. Ta nagrada nam usvari sužava fokus i ograničava 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.
Reći ću vam zašto je to tako važno. U zapadnoj Evropi, u mnogim delovima Azije, u Severnoj Americi, Australiji, službenici rade manje ovakvih poslova, a više ovakvih poslova. Taj rutinski posao, zasnovan na pravilima i aktivnosti leve strane mozga, neke vrste računovodstva i finansijske analize, kompjuterskog programiranja, postao je prilično jednostavan za prepustiti drugima, prilično jednostavan za automatizovanje. Softver to može da uradi brže. Niskobudžetni posrednici širom sveta to mogu jevtinije. Ono što je stvarno bitno su sposobnosti koje su kreativne, konceptualne i aktiviraju desnu stranu mozga.
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. Da li problemi sa kojima se suočavate ili čak problemi o kojima pričamo ovde, da li te vrste problema - da li imaju jasna pravila i jedno rešenje? Ne. Pravila su tajanstvena. Rešenje, ako uopšte postoji, je iznenađujuće i nije očigledno. Svako u ovoj sobi se nosi sa svojom verzijom problema sa svećom. A za bilo kakve probleme sa svećom, u bilo kojoj oblasti, te ako-onda nagrade, stvari oko kojih smo izgradili toliko naših poslova, ne funkcionišu.
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.
Mislim, to me izluđuje. I to nije - evo u čemu je stvar. To nije neko osećanje. Okej? Ja sam advokat. Ne verujem u osećanja. To nije neka filozofija. Ja sam Amerikanac. Ne verujem u filozofiju.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
This is a fact -- or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact.
Ovo je činjenica. Ili, kako mi to kažemo u mom rodnom Vašingtonu, istinita činjenica.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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.
Daću vam primer onoga što mislim. Dozvolite da izložim dokaze. Jer ne pričam vam priču. Predstavljam vam slučaj. Dame i gospodo porotnici, evo dokaza: Den Arili, jedan od najvećih ekonomista našeg doba, sa troje kolega je uradio studiju sa studentima tehnologije u Masačusetsu. Dali su studentima MIT-a gomilu igara. Igara koje uključuju kreativnost, motorne veštine i koncentraciju. I za izvršenje su im ponudili tri nivoa nagrada. Malu nagradu, srednju nagradu, veliku nagradu. Okej? Ako odlično uradite, 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.
Šta se desilo? Sve dok je zadatak uključivao samo mehaničke veštine bonusi su funkcionisali kao što je očekivano: što je veća nagrada, bolja je izvedba. Okej? Ali čim zadatak aktivira čak i samo osnovne kognitivne sposobnosti, veća nagrada vodi to slabijeg izvršenja.
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, "Okej, hajde da vidimo da li ovde postoji neka kulturna pristrasnost. Hajdemo u Madurai, u Indiju, i testirajmo ovo." Životni standard je niži. Nagrada koja je po američkim standardima skromna, u Maduraju mnogo više znači. Ista stvar. Gomila igara, tri nivoa 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.
Šta se dešava? Ljudi kojima je ponuđen srednji nivo nagrade nisu bili ništa bolji od onih kojima su ponuđene male nagrade. Ali ovog puta, ljudi kojima je ponuđena najveća nagrada su postigli najlošije rezultate. U osam od devet zadataka koje smo proučili kroz tri eksperimenta, veće nagrade vodile su lošijim izvedbama.
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.
Da li se to ovde dešava nekakva intuitivna socijalistička zavera? Ne. Ovo su ekonomsti sa MIT-a, sa Karnegi Melona, sa univerziteta u Čikagu. A znate li ko je sponzorisao ovo istraživanje? Banka Federalnih Rezervi Sjedinjenih Država. 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.
Pođimo preko bare u londonsku Školu Ekonomije. LSE (London Shcool of Economics), londonska škola ekonomije. Kolevka 11 dobitnika Nobelove nagrade za ekonomiju. Mesto gde su učili velikani ekonomije kao što su Džordž Soros i Fridrih Hajek i Mik Džeger. (smeh)
(Laughter)
Prošlog meseca, samo prošlog meseca,
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 sa LSE pregledali su 51 studiju planova za plaćanje po učinku, iz kompanija. Evo šta su tamošnji ekonomisti rekli: "Mislimo da finansijski motivi za rezultat mogu imati negativan uticaj na ukupno postignuće."
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 neslaganje između onoga što nauka zna i onoga što biznis radi. Ono što me brine, dok stojimo na ruševinama ekonomske propasti, jeste to što previše organizacija donosi odluke i pravila o talentu i ljudima, koje su zasnovane na zastarelim, neproverenim pretpostavkama, i ukorenjene u folkloru, a ne u nauci. I ako stvarno želimo da izađemo iz ovog ekonomskog haosa i ako želimo visoko postignuće na tim jasnim zadacima 21. veka, rešenje nije u tome da radimo još pogrešnih stvari. Da mamimo ljude slađom šargarepom ili da im pretimo oštrijim štapom. Potreban nam je potpuno 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.
A dobra vest u vezi sa svim ovim je da su nam naučnici, koji se bave proučavanjem motivacije, dali taj novi pristup. To je pristup koji je zasnovan mnogo više na intrinzičnoj motivaciji. Na želji da se rade stvari jer su bitne, jer nam se sviđaju, jer su zanimljive, jer su deo nečeg važnog. I po mom mišljenju, taj novi operativni sistem za naše poslove se vrti oko tri elementa: autonomije, majstorstva i svrhe. Autonomija, potreba da upravljamo svojim životima. Majstorstvo, želja da budemo bolji i bolji u nečemu što je bitno. Svrha, želja da radimo ono što radimo u svrhu nečega što je veće od nas samih. To je građa potpuno novog operativnog sistema za naše poslove.
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 da pričam samo o autonomiji. U dvadesetom veku izmislili smo menadžment. Menadžment ne potiče iz prirode. Menadžment je - to nije nešto kao drvo. To je kao televizor. Okej? Neko ga je izmislio. I to ne znači da će zauvek da funkcioniše. Menadžement je super. Tradicionalne ideje menadžmenta su odlične ako želite potčinjenost. Ali ako želite uključenost, samo-usmeravanje 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.
Daću vam neke primere nekih radikalnih ideja samousmeravanja. Šta ovo znači - ne vidite ga mnogo, ali vidite prva komešanja nečega veoma interesantnog. Jer to znači adekvatno i fer plaćanje ljudi, apsolutno. Otklanjanje problema novca sa dnevnog reda. I onda, davanje ljudima mnogo autonomije.
Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half.
Daću vam neke primere. Koliko vas je čulo za kompaniju Atlassian? Izgleda manje od pola.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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 australijska softverska kompanija. Oni rade nešto neverovatno kul. Nekoliko puta godišnje kažu svojim inženjerima, "Naredna 24 sata idite i bavite se čime god želite, samo da to ne bude vaš redovan posao. Radite na bilo čemu što želite." To vreme inženjeri koriste da smisle kul kod, ili elegantne izmene. Onda predstavljaju svojim kolegama i ostatku kompanije sve što su razvili, na tom ludom zajedničkom sastanku na kraju dana. I onda, pošto su Australijanci, svi popiju po pivo.
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.
Oni to zovu FedEx (kurirska služba) dani. Zašto? Zato što morate da isporučite nešto preko noći. Simpatično je. Nije loše. To je ogromna povreda zaštitnog znaka. Ali je prilično pametno.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.
Taj jedan dan intenzivne autonomije proizveo je čitav niz popravki za softver 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 je tako dobro išlo, da je Atlassian to digao na viši nivo, sa "20 posto vremena". Što je popularizovao Gugl. Kada inženjeri mogu da potroše 20% svog vremena radeći na bilo čemu što požele. Vladaju svojim vremenom, svojim zadatkom, svojim timom, svojom tehnikom. Okej? Radikalne količine autonomije, i u Guglu, kao što mnogi od vas znaju, oko polovina novih proizvoda u prosečnoj godini nastaje tokom tih 20 Procenata vremena. Stvari kao što su Gmail, Orkut, Google News.
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.
Daću vam još radikalniji primer toga. Nešto što se zove Results Only Work Environment. ROWE (Radno okruženje usmereno na rezultate). Kreirala su ga dva američka konsultanta za desetak kompanija širom Severne Amerike. U ROWE programu ljudi nemaju rasporede. Pojave se kad god žele. Ne moraju da budu u kancelariji u određeno vreme, ili u bilo koje vreme. Samo moraju da završe svoj posao. Kako rade, kada rade, gde rade, potpuno je prepušteno njima. Sastanci u ovakvim radnim okruženjima su potpuno opcioni.
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.
Šta se dešava? Skoro u svim delovima produktivnost raste, angažovanost radnika raste, zadovoljstvo radnika raste, fluktuacija je manja. Autonomija, majstorstvo i svrha. To je građa novog načina na koji se rade 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.
Neki od vas će možda pogledati ovo i reći, "Hmm, to zvuči lepo. Ali to je Utopija." A ja kažem, "Jok. Imam dokaz." Sredinom osamdesetih, Microsoft je pokrenuo jednu enciklopediju koja se zvala Enkarta. Razvijali su sve ispravne motivatore. Sve ispravne motivatore. Platili su profesionalcima da pišu i uređuju hiljade članaka. Dobro plaćeni menadžeri nadgledali su celu stvar da se uvere da će biti na vreme i u okviru budžeta. Nekoliko godina kasnije jedna druga enciklopedija je krenula. Drugačiji model, je l' tako? Radi zabave. Niko nije plaćen nijedan cent, ni euro, ni jen. Radite zato što volite da radite. Da ste, pre samo 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 kod ekonomiste, bilo gde, i rekli, "Hej, imam dva modela za kreiranje enciklopedije. Da je mrtva trka, ko bi pobedio?" Pre 10 godina niste mogli naći jednog pribranog ekonomistu bilo gde na planeti Zemlji, koji bi predvideo Wikipedia 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.
Ovo je bitka titana između ova dva pristupa. Ovo je motivacioni Ali-Frejzer meč. Zar ne? Ovo je "Triler u Manili". U redu? Intrinzični motivatori protiv ekstrinzičnih. Autonomija, majstorstvo, svrha, protiv šargarepe i štapova. I ko pobeđuje? 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. Završiću. Postoji neslaganje između onoga što nauka zna i što biznis radi. A evo šta nauka zna. Jedan: nagrade dvadesetog veka, ti motivatori za koje mislimo da su prirodni deo posla, dobre su, ali samo u iznenađujuće malom opsegu situacija. Dva: ako-onda nagrade često uništavaju kreativnost. Tri: tajna visokog postignuća nisu nagrade i kazne, nego nevidljivi unutrašnji pokretač. Pokretač da se rade stvari zbog njih samih. Pokretač da se rade stvari jer su bitne.
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.
A evo i najboljeg dela. Evo najboljeg dela. Mi ovo već znamo. Nauka potvrđuje ono što u srcima znamo. Dakle, ako popravimo ovaj raskorak između toga što nauka zna i onoga što biznis radi, ako unesemo motivaciju, ideje o motivaciji, u 21. vek, ako prođemo pored ove lenje, opasne ideologije šargarepe i štapova, možemo ojačati svoje poslove, možemo rešiti mnogo onih problema sa svećom, i možda, možda, možda, možemo promeniti svet.
I rest my case.
Slučaj završen.
(Applause)
(aplauz)