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.
我首先想坦白供認一件事, 二十多年前, 我做了一件使我後悔至今的事, 這件事不太光采, 我也不想有人知道, 但今天,我覺得我有必要把它公開,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school.
在一九八零年代後期, 因為年輕人的一時輕率, 我居然入了法學院,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
現今在美國,法律學位是專業學位, 你先要拿一個大學學位,才能入讀法學院, 當年我進了法學院後 並沒有好好學習, 這個已是客氣的說法, 老實點說,我畢業時的成績, 成就了在我之上的十分之九的學生;
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to.
謝謝! 我一生中從沒當過律師, 基本上,我是沒有資格的,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
但今天,我要漠視自己的良好判斷, 漠視我太太的忠告, 把我那些封塵的法律知識拿出來, 雖然已經所餘無幾, 我並不是要講故事, 我想作一個陳述, 一個實實在在,有根有據的陳述, 一個使我們重新思考 我們的企業運作的法律陳述。
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?
好了,各位陪審員先生女士,請看看﹔ 這個叫作「蠟燭難題」 你們或者曾經見過, 這是由一位名叫頓克的心理學家 在一九四五年想出來的, 頓克這個實驗, 被廣泛的應用在各類的行為科學研究中, 實驗是這樣的,設想我是實驗人員, 我帶你進入一個房間,給你一支蠟燭, 一些按釘和幾根火柴, 然後跟你說:「請你 把蠟燭黏到牆壁上去, 但蠟不可滴到桌子上。」你會怎麼做? 很多人會嘗試用按釘把蠟燭釘在牆上,
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.
那當然不成, 我見到一些在座的朋友, 在用動作示意, 有些人想到了, 用火柴把蠟燭的邊融了,試圖把它黏到牆上, 這個主意很好,但也不成功, 慢慢地,五分鐘、十分鐘後, 很多人都找到答案了, 就是這個,
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.
關鍵在於我們要克服一個叫「功能固着」的心理障礙, 你見到這個盒子,就把它當成載釘子的工具, 但它也可以有其他用途啊, 若把它作為蠟燭的平台,難題便得到解決,
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.
現在我要講一個 利用蠟燭難題的實驗, 這是由一位叫格魯茲堡的科學家做的, 他現在美國普林斯頓大學工作, 這個實驗表現出奬勵的力量,
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."
實驗是這樣的:他找來一批參與者, 對他們說:「我會為你們計時,看看誰最快能找到問題的答案。」 對其中一組,他說﹔ 「你們的時間 會用作建立平均數, 來量度解決這個問題需時的標準。」
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.
對另外一組,他卻提供獎勵, 他說﹔「最快解難的四分一人 可以得到五塊錢, 而今天最快的一位, 可以得到二十塊錢。」 這個實驗在多年前進行,把通漲算在內, 以幾分鐘的實驗來說,那是不錯的報酬, 也是一個很好的推動原素,
Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem?
問題是: 這一組比另一組快了多少呢?
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?
答案: 是慢了三分半鐘, 是慢了三分半鐘!你會覺得沒有道理吧? 我們美國人都相信自由市場嘛, 事情不應該是這樣的,你說是不是?
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
如果你想某人改善表現, 你便要給他獎勵,對嗎? 獎金啦,分紅利啦,讓他個人表演機會啦, 都是獎勵,商業社會就是這樣運作的, 但這個實驗卻發現了事情並非這樣, 你一心以為你設的奬勵, 能使他們思考更快,創造力更高, 誰知卻弄巧反拙, 思考失色了,創造力受到窒礙,
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.
你要知道,這個實驗結果並不是偶然的偏差, 重複又重複都得到同一結果, 四十年來,沒有例外, 這種外設的推動力, 你做了這個,便得到那個, 在某些情況下可行, 但在很多其他事情上卻不行, 甚至有時會適得其反, 這是在社會科學界裡, 最穩健的研究發現之一, 卻也是最被人忽略的一個,
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.
這兩年來,我鑽研了 激發人類動機的科學研究, 尤其是外在和內在動機 的互動, 我可以告訴你,兩者簡直南轅北轍, 從科學的角度看, 科學認知的和企業實行的並不相符, 這很令人擔心,想想我們的商業運作,
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.
建基於這樣的一套假設和慣例, 無論去推動員工,運用人力資源, 都是利用這些外在動機, 一是物質奬勵,一是懲罰, 那在二十世紀的多類工作上都可行, 但到了二十一世紀, 那種機械性、獎與罰的方法非但不可行, 甚至會造成傷害, 讓我解釋一下,
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.
格魯茲堡再做另一個相似的實驗, 他把問題稍作改動, 像這樣, 把蠟燭黏到牆上而蠟不能滴到桌子上, 同樣地:你的時間會用來定標準, 而你會得到奬勵,
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?
結果怎樣? 這次,有奬勵的一組 贏得很漂亮! 為甚麼?因為那些按釘不是放在盒子裡, 答案很明顯吧!
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
「因果」式的獎勵 在這些有簡單規則, 並有清晰目標的工作上 很有效; 獎勵的本身, 把我們的視野收窄,思想聚焦, 它就是這樣發揮作用, 所以,像這一類工作, 視線瞄準,目標明確, 思路就直向答案進發, 奬勵就有效了;
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.
但對於真正的蠟燭難題, 你不會想這樣看, 答案並不在那裡,答案在周邊, 你要到處看去尋找靈感, 獎勵只會收窄我們的視線, 限制了可能性,
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.
讓我告訴你這個認知的重要性, 在西歐, 在亞洲很多地區, 在北美、澳洲, 白領員工越來越少做 這類工作, 卻多做這類工作, 那些流水式的、循規蹈矩的左腦工作, 如某類會計、財務分析、 某類電腦程式寫作, 已經很容易被外判, 很容易自動化, 用軟件可以做得更快, 世界各地都有較低價的服務提供者, 所以關鍵的是那些右腦式的 創造性、概念性的工作,
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!
想想你自己的工作, 想想你自己的工作, 你面對的問題, 甚至我們現在在談的問題, 是不是那類問題? 它們有沒有清晰的規則和單一的答案?沒有! 只有令人困惑的規則, 答案,如果有的話, 是意想不到的、不明顯的, 在座的每一位, 都在應付各自的 蠟燭難題, 而對於各式各樣的蠟燭難題, 各行各業的蠟燭難題, 現在的商業社會賴於的 那「因果」式的獎勵制度, 是行不通的,
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.
那真叫我摸不著頭腦, 這個問題,並非 只是一種感覺, 我是律師嘛,我不信感覺的, 這也非哲學, 我是美國人,我不相信哲學,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
This is a fact -- or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact.
這是事實, 像我們華盛頓人講的 一個「真的事實」,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
(Applause)
(掌聲)
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.
讓我用一個例子說明一下, 讓我整理一下我的論據, 因為我不是在講故事,我在陳述一個論點, 陪審員先生女士,論據如下: 當代數一數二的經濟學家阿拉利, 他和三位同事,利用麻省理工的學生,做了一個研究, 他們給學生們一大堆各類 需要創意、 靈巧和專注的遊戲, 並因應表現, 提供三重奬勵, 小奬勵、中奬勵、大奬勵 做得越好,奬勵越大,
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.
結果怎樣呢?只要遊戲只要求機械性的技巧 奬品就如所料的發揮作用, 奬勵越大,表現越好, 但只要那個遊戲, 要求即使是最低層次的思考方法, 奬勵越大,表現越差,
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.
他們想: 「文化差異是不是一個因素呢? 讓我們到印度馬度拉去測試一下。」 在馬度拉,生活指數較低, 一個在美國一般的奬勵, 在那裡已經很有吸引力, 同一樣的規則,一堆遊戲,三重奬勵,
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.
結果呢? 得到中級奬勵的人, 並不比拿小奬勵的做得好, 但這次,得到大奬的人, 表現是最差的, 在九個遊戲當中,有八個 是奬勵越高,表現越差的,
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.
這是不是甚麼社會主義者 裝神弄鬼的陰謀? 可不是呢,他們是麻省理工、卡内基·梅隆、 芝加哥大學的經濟學家啊 還有,你猜是誰贊助這個研究? 是美國的聯邦儲備銀行, 好一個美國式體驗!
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.
又讓我們越洋到倫敦經濟學院, 是LSE,倫敦的經濟學院! 十一位諾貝爾經濟學得主的母校, 偉大經濟思想家的搖籃, 例如索羅斯、海耶克、 和米積加,(笑聲)
(Laughter)
就在上個月,
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."
LSE的經濟學家分析五十一個研究, 都是圍繞企業内據工作表現決定薪酬的計劃, 經濟學家們的結論是這樣的: 「我們發現金錢的奬勵可以造成整體表現的負面影響。」
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.
科學的結論和企業的實踐 背道而馳, 使我憂慮的是,我們今天 站在經濟陷落後的廢墟中, 卻仍有太多的機構, 還是根據一些過時、沒受考驗的, 只憑傳統而非科學驗證的想法, 去作出決定, 去製定人力資源的政策, 而我們極需走出這個經濟爛攤子, 如果我們真正想在二十一世紀的工作上, 有高水準的表現, 就要改變那行不通的路, 利用甜頭去利誘人, 或用手段去恐嚇人, 我們需要一個全新的取向,
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.
好消息是, 那些研究行為動機的科學家,已經給了我們答案, 新的理念是多利用內在動機, 我們對重要的事、喜歡做的事、 有意思的事、可以有更大貢獻的事, 都有想把它做好的渴望, 我認為,新的企業運作模式, 圍繞三個元素, 自主性、掌握度、使命感, 自主性是主宰自己生命的動力, 掌握度,是對自己重視的工作有做好的願望, 使命感,是對自己工作 能對個人以外有所貢獻的渴望, 這都是全新企業運作系統 的基石,
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.
我今天只想談一談自主性, 二十世紀,冒出了「管理」這個概念, 管理並非由自然產生出來, 它不像一棵樹, 它像一台電視機, 它是由人發明出來的, 那並不表示,它能永遠運作良好, 管理學很管用, 若你要追求遵從規矩的制度, 傳統的管理概念很有效, 但如果你要對工作投入,自我主導會更見效,
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.
讓我用一些例子,解釋一下 自我主導的概念, 你不會常常見到自我主導的出現, 但你已經可以見到一些很有意思的事情在發展, 它的意思是:給予人足夠的、 合理的薪金, 錢不再是著眼點, 然後給他們很多的自決空間,
Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half.
讓我給你一些例子, 你們有沒有聽過一間叫阿拉斯安的公司? 好像不夠一半人聽過,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
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.
阿拉斯安是一間澳洲的軟件公司, 他們做的東西真夠酷, 每年有幾次他們會對工程師們說: 「由現在起二十四小時内,你們做甚麼也可以, 只要不是你平常的工作, 做甚麼也可以。」 他們的工程師就用了這些時間, 編些很有趣的碼、絕妙的駭客程式等, 在當天完結前, 他們舉行一個意念橫飛的會議, 在組員和公司的其他同事面前, 發表他們想出來的東西, 然後,身為澳洲人,當然都喝啤酒盡興,
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.
他們叫這天為聯邦快遞日, 為甚麼?因為他們要在一天之內「交貨」, 這個做法不錯,雖然侵用了別人的商標, 但這個主意很聰明,
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.
這一天的高度自主, 促進了各類 原本可能永不會出現的軟件提升,
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.
發現這個方法的好處,阿拉斯安把它提升到更高的層次, 叫作「五分一時間」, 這個方法在谷歌得到發揚光大, 谷歌的員工,可以花五分之一的時間, 做任何他們想做的事, 他們在自己的工作時間、 工作內容 、所屬團隊 、所需技巧等都有自主權, 那是很全面性的自主權, 有很多人都知道,在谷歌, 差不多一半的新產品, 都是在這五分一時間内誕生的, 例如Gmail、Orkut、谷歌新聞等,
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.
讓我再舉一個更革命性的例子, 有一種叫「只看結果的工作環境」 英文簡稱為ROWE, 由兩位美國的顧問專家創造, 在十多所北美的公司實行, 在ROWE的制度下,員工沒有工作時間表, 他們喜歡就上班, 沒有設定待在辦公室的時段, 甚至不用到辦公室, 他們只需把工作完成, 至於他們怎麼完成,甚麼時候完成, 在甚麼地方完成,完全由他, 在這種工作環境下,會議並不是必須的,
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.
效果怎樣呢? 差不多所有此類公司的生產力都上升, 員工的投入感上升, 員工的滿足感上升,人力流失降低, 自主性、掌握度、使命感, 這都是新工作方式的基本單元,
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.
你們或許會說: 「嗯,雖然很好聽,但那是烏托邦,並不存在的。」 我回答:「錯,我有證據。」 在一九九零年代中期, 微軟著手建立一套叫Encarta的百科全書, 他們調動了最理想的獎勵, 請來一群專家, 去撰寫幾千篇文章, 還高薪聘請好些管理人員去統籌, 以期能在預定的時間和開支範圍內完成, 幾年後,另外一個百科全書誕生了, 用不同的模式運作, 大家純為興趣而做, 沒有人收到分毫, 請你設想,十年前,
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.
如果你問任何一個經濟學家, 「我手上有這兩個編輯百科全書的方法, 若兩個競賽,那個會勝?」 十年前,踏遍全球,你都不會找到 一個頭腦清醒的經濟學家, 能預見維基百科的成功,
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.
這是兩個動機方式的世紀決戰, 就像當年拳王阿里和費舍的大戰,對嗎? 就是那場《決戰馬尼拉》, 內在動機對撼外在動機, 自主性、掌握度、使命感, 對抗獎與罰,誰勝? 內在動機:自主性、掌握度、使命感,
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.
獲得技術性擊倒。 現在讓我總結,科學所知與企業所行並不相符, 科學所知的如下﹔ 第一:那些二十世紀的獎勵方式, 那些我們以為是企業運作的自然元素, 只能在一個比我們想像更狹窄的環境下發揮作用, 第二:那種「因果」式的獎勵往往摧毀創意, 第三:提高工作表現的祕訣, 不在獎與罰, 而是在見不到的內在動力, 那種為做好工作的動力, 那種因為工作有意義而做的動力,
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.
最精采的是, 科學已經把我們心知的道理證實, 所以,如果我們修補企業所行 與科學所知的落差, 如果要把我們的工作動機,和對工作動機的理解, 帶到二十一世紀, 如果我們克服這種因循、危險、理想化 的獎罰制度, 我們可以強化企業, 我們可以解決很多「蠟燭難題」 而可能,可能,可能, 我們能夠改變世界,
I rest my case.
我的陳述完畢。
(Applause)
(掌聲)