I have a confession to make. I'm a business professor whose ambition has been to help people learn to lead. But recently, I've discovered that what many of us think of as great leadership does not work when it comes to leading innovation.
我需要澄清一点: 我是一位经济学教授, 我的目标是去帮助其他人学会领导。 但是最近,我发现 大多数人认为良好的领导能力 在创新领域并不管用。
I'm an ethnographer. I use the methods of anthropology to understand the questions in which I'm interested. So along with three co-conspirators, I spent nearly a decade observing up close and personal exceptional leaders of innovation. We studied 16 men and women, located in seven countries across the globe, working in 12 different industries. In total, we spent hundreds of hours on the ground, on-site, watching these leaders in action. We ended up with pages and pages and pages of field notes that we analyzed and looked for patterns in what our leaders did. The bottom line? If we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again, we must unlearn our conventional notions of leadership.
我是一位人种论学者。 我用人类学的方法 去研究我感兴趣的问题。 与3个同事一起, 我花了接近十年的时间, 通过更私密的途径去观察那些 创新领域的领导者。 我们研究了16位男性和女性, 他们分布于全世界七个不同的国家, 在12个不同岗位上工作。 我们总共花了数百个小时, 在现场关注他们的一言一行。 我们最后得到了一页又一页的笔记, 从而能够通过分析去弄清 这些领导者的行为模式。 重点是什么呢? 如果我们想要建立可以 持续不断创新的机构, 我们必须抛开对领导力的传统认识。
Leading innovation is not about creating a vision, and inspiring others to execute it. But what do we mean by innovation? An innovation is anything that is both new and useful. It can be a product or service. It can be a process or a way of organizing. It can be incremental, or it can be breakthrough. We have a pretty inclusive definition.
领导创新不是去创造一种理念, 然后启发他人去执行它。 那我们所说的创新是什么意思呢? 创新是一种既新颖又实用的东西。 它既能是产品也能是服务。 它既可以是一个过程, 也可以是一种管理方式。 它可以是一提升长,或者是一项突破。 我们有一个很全面的定义。
How many of you recognize this man? Put your hands up. Keep your hands up, if you know who this is. How about these familiar faces? (Laughter) From your show of hands, it looks like many of you have seen a Pixar movie, but very few of you recognized Ed Catmull, the founder and CEO of Pixar -- one of the companies I had the privilege of studying.
有多少人认识这个人? 举起你们的手。 保持举手,如果你知道这个人。 那这些熟悉的面孔呢? (笑声) 从你们举手的情况来讲, 大多数人都看过Pixar出版的电影, 但是几乎没人认出 Ed Catmull, Pixar的创建者和CEO—— 这是我有幸去研究的公司之一。
My first visit to Pixar was in 2005, when they were working on "Ratatouille," that provocative movie about a rat becoming a master chef. Computer-generated movies are really mainstream today, but it took Ed and his colleagues nearly 20 years to create the first full-length C.G. movie. In the 20 years hence, they've produced 14 movies. I was recently at Pixar, and I'm here to tell you that number 15 is sure to be a winner.
我第一次去拜访Pixar是在2005年, 当时他们正在制作《料理鼠王》, 一部备受关注的关于一只老鼠 成为大厨的电影。 现在,电脑制作的电影是主流, 但是,Ed和他的团队花了接近20年的时间 才创造出第一部完整的电脑制作的电影。 在之后的20年里,他们制作了14部电影。 我前不久还去过Pixar, 现在在这里可以告诉你们, 第15部电影肯定会相当卖座。
When many of us think about innovation, though, we think about an Einstein having an 'Aha!' moment. But we all know that's a myth. Innovation is not about solo genius, it's about collective genius. Let's think for a minute about what it takes to make a Pixar movie: No solo genius, no flash of inspiration produces one of those movies. On the contrary, it takes about 250 people four to five years, to make one of those movies.
当我们当中的很多人想到创新的时候, 我们会想到爱因斯坦灵光一现的时刻。 但是我们都知道那是一个迷。 创新不是关于个人的天赋, 而是关于团体的智慧。 让我们想一想制作一部Pixar电影 都需要些什么: 不需要个人才智,不需要灵光一现 去制作那样的一部电影。 相反,这需要250人工作4到5年 去完成这样一部电影。
To help us understand the process, an individual in the studio drew a version of this picture. He did so reluctantly, because it suggested that the process was a neat series of steps done by discrete groups. Even with all those arrows, he thought it failed to really tell you just how iterative, interrelated and, frankly, messy their process was.
为了让我们明白这整个过程, 一名工作室人员画了 这样一个版本的流程图。 他画的时候很犹豫不决, 因为这个过程是一系列紧凑的步骤, 由一些独立的小组所完成。 即使有这些箭头, 他还是认为这并不能真正地告诉你们, 这是一个涵盖如此大量重复性和高度关联性, 以及说实话,相当杂乱的过程。
Throughout the making of a movie at Pixar, the story evolves. So think about it. Some shots go through quickly. They don't all go through in order. It depends on how vexing the challenges are that they come up with when they are working on a particular scene. So if you think about that scene in "Up" where the boy hands the piece of chocolate to the bird, that 10 seconds took one animator almost six months to perfect.
故事的发展贯穿一部Pixar电影的制作。 所以,设想一下。 一些镜头过得很快。 它们不全部按顺序过。 这取决于当他们在制作 一个特殊情节的时候, 遇到的挑战有多么令人烦恼。 所以当你想到《飞屋环游记》中 小男孩把一块巧克力递给小鸟的场景, 那10秒钟的场景花了一个动漫师 接近6个月的时间去达到完美的效果。
The other thing about a Pixar movie is that no part of the movie is considered finished until the entire movie wraps. Partway through one production, an animator drew a character with an arched eyebrow that suggested a mischievous side. When the director saw that drawing, he thought it was great. It was beautiful, but he said, "You've got to lose it; it doesn't fit the character." Two weeks later, the director came back and said, "Let's put in those few seconds of film." Because that animator was allowed to share what we referred to as his slice of genius, he was able to help that director reconceive the character in a subtle but important way that really improved the story.
另外一件关于Pixar电影的事, 是电影的任何一个部分都不能算完工, 直到整部电影制作完成。 制作到一半时,一位动画师画了一个拥有 弯眉毛的角色, 想表现出他淘气的一面。 当导演看到绘画的时候,他觉得很棒。 画的非常漂亮,但是他说: “你不能采用它,这不符合人物形象。“ 两周过后,那个导演回来说, “我们还是花几秒钟 把弯眉毛放进电影里吧。“ 因为那位动画师被允许去分享 我们所说的他自己那部分的智慧, 他才能够帮助导演重新构建那个角色 从而以一种微妙而又 重要的方式改进了故事。
What we know is, at the heart of innovation is a paradox. You have to unleash the talents and passions of many people and you have to harness them into a work that is actually useful. Innovation is a journey. It's a type of collaborative problem solving, usually among people who have different expertise and different points of view.
我们所知道的是, 创新的核心是一个悖论。 你必须释放很多人的才能和激情 并且有效地利用它们。 创新是一番旅程。 它是一种团队型解决问题的方式, 通常存在于一群拥有不同特长, 不同观点的人当中。
Innovations rarely get created full-blown. As many of you know, they're the result, usually, of trial and error. Lots of false starts, missteps and mistakes. Innovative work can be very exhilarating, but it also can be really downright scary. So when we look at why it is that Pixar is able to do what it does, we have to ask ourselves, what's going on here?
创新很少在一开始就达到完美。 正如大部分人知道的那样, 它们通常是尝试和犯错的结果。 很多错误的开始, 错误的步骤和错误的结果。 创新的产品可以令人非常振奋, 但也可以变得十分可怕。 所以当我们思考为什么Pixar能够获得成功, 我们必须先自问, 这是一个怎样的团队呢?
For sure, history and certainly Hollywood, is full of star-studded teams that have failed. Most of those failures are attributed to too many stars or too many cooks, if you will, in the kitchen. So why is it that Pixar, with all of its cooks, is able to be so successful time and time again? When we studied an Islamic Bank in Dubai, or a luxury brand in Korea, or a social enterprise in Africa, we found that innovative organizations are communities that have three capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility and creative resolution. Creative abrasion is about being able to create a marketplace of ideas through debate and discourse. In innovative organizations, they amplify differences, they don't minimize them. Creative abrasion is not about brainstorming, where people suspend their judgment. No, they know how to have very heated but constructive arguments to create a portfolio of alternatives.
当然,历史上还有好莱坞, 是一个星光璀璨却不断遭遇失败的团队。 大多数的失败是因为 有太多的明星或者说, 有太多的厨师在厨房里了。 那么为什么Pixar有那么多的“厨师”, 但仍能一次又一次地成功呢? 当我们研究一个在迪拜的伊斯兰银行时, 或者一个韩国的奢侈品牌, 或者一个非洲的社会企业, 我们发现创新机构 是拥有三个特点的团体: 创意摩擦,创造的灵活性, 以及创新的解决方式。 创意摩擦是指能够通过辩论和讨论的方式 创造出很多想法。 在创新机构里, 人们会放大差异, 而并不是弱化它们。 创意摩擦不是关于头脑风暴, 在这个过程中人们只是持保留意见。 不,他们知道如何进行激烈 而又有效的争论, 去创造一个充满不确定性的方案汇总。
Individuals in innovative organizations learn how to inquire, they learn how to actively listen, but guess what? They also learn how to advocate for their point of view. They understand that innovation rarely happens unless you have both diversity and conflict. Creative agility is about being able to test and refine that portfolio of ideas through quick pursuit, reflection and adjustment. It's about discovery-driven learning where you act, as opposed to plan, your way to the future. It's about design thinking where you have that interesting combination of the scientific method and the artistic process. It's about running a series of experiments, and not a series of pilots.
在创新集体里的个人 要学会如何去询问,如何去主动聆听, 但是你们知道么? 他们也知道如何去贡献他们自己的观点。 他们知道如果你不具备多样性的思维, 不知道如何争论, 创新就很难实现。 创造的灵活性是关于通过快速 追寻,反应和调整, 来检验并提炼这些点子。 这是以发现为动力的学习过程, 以不同于计划的方式创造你的未来。 这是关于设计一种思维方式,能够把 科学方法和艺术过程有趣地结合起来。 这是关于进行一系列的实验, 而不是一系列的试点。
Experiments are usually about learning. When you get a negative outcome, you're still really learning something that you need to know. Pilots are often about being right. When they don't work, someone or something is to blame. The final capability is creative resolution. This is about doing decision making in a way that you can actually combine even opposing ideas to reconfigure them in new combinations to produce a solution that is new and useful. When you look at innovative organizations, they never go along to get along. They don't compromise. They don't let one group or one individual dominate, even if it's the boss, even if it's the expert. Instead, they have developed a rather patient and more inclusive decision making process that allows for both/and solutions to arise and not simply either/or solutions. These three capabilities are why we see that Pixar is able to do what it does.
实验通常意味着一种学习。 当你得到负面的结果, 你依然在学习你需要知道的东西。 试点性实践通常要保证可行性。 当它们的效果不理想时, 某些人或某些事就要对此负责。 最后的能力是具有创造力的解决方式。 这是关于做决定的方式, 通过最终结合包括对立观点的方式 去重新塑造它们从而形成新的组合, 来得到一个新的,有用的解决方法。 当你分析创新机构时,会发现他们从不 以牺牲个人观点的方式去融入集体。 他们从不妥协。 他们不会让一组人或一个人做主, 即使是上司,或是专家。 相反,他们发展出了 一种既具备耐心又更包容的方式 去达成一个决定, 允许双方的解决办法都得到体现, 而不是简单的一方观点。 这三种能力就是为什么Pixar 能够实现目前成就的原因。
Let me give you another example, and that example is the infrastructure group of Google. The infrastructure group of Google is the group that has to keep the website up and running 24/7. So when Google was about to introduce Gmail and YouTube, they knew that their data storage system wasn't adequate. The head of the engineering group and the infrastructure group at that time was a man named Bill Coughran. Bill and his leadership team, who he referred to as his brain trust, had to figure out what to do about this situation. They thought about it for a while. Instead of creating a group to tackle this task, they decided to allow groups to emerge spontaneously around different alternatives.
再给你们举一个例子, 这个例子是关于Google的基础建设部门。 Google的基础设施部门是一个 让网站持续运作的部门。 当Google准备推出Gmail和Youtube时, 他们知道自己的数据库 还无法满足要求。 当时工程组和基础设施组的组长, 是一个叫做Bill Coughran的人。 Bill和他的领导小组或者说智囊团, 不得不想办法应对这种情况。 他们思考了很久。 他们没有选择新建一个团队去 强行执行这个任务, 而是决定让不同的小组 在不同的方案中 同时施展他们的才能。
Two groups coalesced. One became known as Big Table, the other became known as Build It From Scratch. Big Table proposed that they build on the current system. Build It From Scratch proposed that it was time for a whole new system. Separately, these two teams were allowed to work full-time on their particular approach. In engineering reviews, Bill described his role as, "Injecting honesty into the process by driving debate."
两个小组合并了。 一个就是我们现在了解的 大桌(Big Table), 另一个就是无中生有 (Built It From Scratch)。 大桌提议他们在现有的系统上工作。 无中生有却提议这是 重建另一个系统的时候了。 这两个队被允许分别从他们 自己的观点出发来全面开展工作。 从工程学的角度来讲, Bill把他的角色描述为 ”以倡导争论的方式向过程中注入诚实。“
Early on, the teams were encouraged to build prototypes so that they could "bump them up against reality and discover for themselves the strengths and weaknesses of their particular approach." When Build It From Scratch shared their prototype with the group whose beepers would have to go off in the middle of the night if something went wrong with the website, they heard loud and clear about the limitations of their particular design. As the need for a solution became more urgent and as the data, or the evidence, began to come in, it became pretty clear that the Big Table solution was the right one for the moment. So they selected that one.
最开始时,各组被鼓励去 打造原型,以能够 “与现实进行对比,从而发现 自己方案中的优势和不足”。 当无中生有与另一组分享原型时, 这一组的传呼机就会在半夜响个不停, 如果网站出问题的话, 他们会被明确告知这个独特设计的局限。 当对解决方案的需求越来越紧急, 然后数据,或者说证据开始浮现时, 很明显,大桌的解决方案 是当时最合适的。 所以他们选择了那一个。
But to make sure that they did not lose the learning of the Build it From Scratch team, Bill asked two members of that team to join a new team that was emerging to work on the next-generation system. This whole process took nearly two years, but I was told that they were all working at breakneck speed.
但是为了确定他们不会失去 无中生有团队的知识, Bill让两名无中生有的队员 加入这个新的,正在成长的队伍, 来一起建造下一代的系统。 整个过程花了接近两年, 但是我听说每个人都开足马力工作着。
Early in that process, one of the engineers had gone to Bill and said, "We're all too busy for this inefficient system of running parallel experiments." But as the process unfolded, he began to understand the wisdom of allowing talented people to play out their passions. He admitted, "If you had forced us to all be on one team, we might have focused on proving who was right, and winning, and not on learning and discovering what was the best answer for Google."
在过程刚开始时, 其中一位工程师找到Bill说 ”我们的时间全都花在 这个没有效率的体制上 去执行双向实验了。” 但是当整个系统充分运转起来, 他开始理解 这种能让有才能的人 充分释放激情的智慧了。 他承认, “如果你强迫我们全部组成一队, 我们也许会专注于谁对谁错, 而不是学习和寻求对于 Google而言最好的答案。”
Why is it that Pixar and Google are able to innovate time and again? It's because they've mastered the capabilities required for that. They know how to do collaborative problem solving, they know how to do discovery-driven learning and they know how to do integrated decision making.
那么为什么Pixar和Google 可以不断进行创新呢? 原因是他们已经掌握了 这一过程所需要的能力。 他们知道如何去解决集体问题, 知道如何进行以探索为动力的学习, 也知道如何去做集体决定。
Some of you may be sitting there and saying to yourselves right now, "We don't know how to do those things in my organization. So why do they know how to do those things at Pixar, and why do they know how to do those things at Google?" When many of the people that worked for Bill told us, in their opinion, that Bill was one of the finest leaders in Silicon Valley, we completely agreed; the man is a genius.
你们在座的有些人也许会心想, “我们不知道如何在我的机构里 实现这个过程。 那么为什么在Pixar他们就知道 如何做到这一点呢, 还有Google也同样做到了呢?“ 当很多为Bill工作的人告诉我们, 在他们看来, Bill是在硅谷最好的领导者之一, 我们完全同意,那个人是个天才。
Leadership is the secret sauce. But it's a different kind of leadership, not the kind many of us think about when we think about great leadership. One of the leaders I met with early on said to me, "Linda, I don't read books on leadership. All they do is make me feel bad." (Laughter) "In the first chapter they say I'm supposed to create a vision. But if I'm trying to do something that's truly new, I have no answers. I don't know what direction we're going in and I'm not even sure I know how to figure out how to get there." For sure, there are times when visionary leadership is exactly what is needed.
领导能力是其中的秘诀。 但这是另外一种领导能力, 而不是我们常说的那种 伟大的领导能力。 我之前见到的一位领导者告诉我, “Linda,我从不读关于领导能力的书。 这些书只会让我感觉很糟。“ (笑声) “在第一章他们说我应该创造一种理念。 但是如果我要去进行全新的尝试, 我没有答案。 我不知道我们在向什么方向前进, 我甚至都不确定要如何实现目标。“ 当然,有时具有预见性的领导能力 是十分必要的。
But if we want to build organizations that can innovate time and again, we must recast our understanding of what leadership is about. Leading innovation is about creating the space where people are willing and able to do the hard work of innovative problem solving.
但是如果我们想要打造 可以不断创新的组织, 我们必须重新树立我们对于 什么是领导能力的认识。 领导性创新是关于创造一种空间, 让人们愿意并能够努力工作, 以创新的方式解决问题。
At this point, some of you may be wondering, "What does that leadership really look like?" At Pixar, they understand that innovation takes a village. The leaders focus on building a sense of community and building those three capabilities. How do they define leadership? They say leadership is about creating a world to which people want to belong. What kind of world do people want to belong in at Pixar? A world where you're living at the frontier. What do they focus their time on? Not on creating a vision. Instead they spend their time thinking about, "How do we design a studio that has the sensibility of a public square so that people will interact? Let's put in a policy that anyone, no matter what their level or role, is allowed to give notes to the director about how they feel about a particular film. What can we do to make sure that all the disruptors, all the minority voices in this organization, speak up and are heard? And, finally, let's bestow credit in a very generous way." I don't know if you've ever looked at the credits of a Pixar movie, but the babies born during a production are listed there. (Laughter)
现在,你们中的有些人也许在想, “领导能力到底是什么呢?” 在Pixar, 他们知道创新需要集体的力量。 领导者们专注于建造集体意识 和培养那三种能力。 他们怎样定义领导能力呢? 他们说领导能力是关于创造一个 人们想置身于其中的世界。 在Pixar工作的人们想要 置身于一个什么样的世界呢? 一个让你身居前沿的世界。 他们把时间用在哪里了呢? 不是在创造理念上。 相反,他们把时间用在思考 “我们如何去设计一间拥有公共意识的, 能够让人们沟通融入的工作室? 让我们制定规矩:任何人, 抛开他们的级别或角色, 都可以向导演表达 他们对于某部影片的感受。 我们要如何确保 所有与集体意见相左的人, 所有少数人的 发言都会被听见呢? 还有最后,要能够大方地分享功劳。“ 我不知道你们是否仔细看过 一部Pixar电影片尾的贡献者列表, 就连在制作过程中诞生的 所有婴儿都被列出来了。 (笑声)
How did Bill think about what his role was? Bill said, "I lead a volunteer organization. Talented people don't want to follow me anywhere. They want to cocreate with me the future. My job is to nurture the bottom-up and not let it degenerate into chaos." How did he see his role? "I'm a role model, I'm a human glue, I'm a connector, I'm an aggregator of viewpoints. I'm never a dictator of viewpoints." Advice about how you exercise the role? Hire people who argue with you. And, guess what? Sometimes it's best to be deliberately fuzzy and vague.
Bill是如何看待他自己的角色呢? Bill说,“我领导着一个志愿者集体。 有才能的人不想到处跟着我。 他们想与我一起共创未来。 我的工作就是从一开始 就不断地在后方鼓励他们, 并且不让他们因为退步而造成混乱。“ 他是如何看待他自己的角色呢? “我是一个榜样, 我是一个人类胶水, 我是一个连接者, 我是一个观点的聚集者。 我从来不是一个观点的独裁者。“ 有任何关于如何实践 自己角色的忠告吗? 招聘与你争论的人。 还有,你猜什么? 有时最好谨慎地表现出一种模糊的态度。
Some of you may be wondering now, what are these people thinking? They're thinking, "I'm not the visionary, I'm the social architect. I'm creating the space where people are willing and able to share and combine their talents and passions." If some of you are worrying now that you don't work at a Pixar, or you don't work at a Google, I want to tell you there's still hope. We've studied many organizations that were really not organizations you'd think of as ones where a lot of innovation happens.
你们有的人现在也许在想, 这些人在想些什么? 他们在想, “我不是一个有远见的人, 我是一个社会建筑师。 我在创建空间, 让那里人们想要并且能够 去分享并融合他们的才能和激情。“ 如果你们其中的一些人 在担心你们没有在Pixar上班, 或者不在Google工作, 我想告诉你们,仍然有改进的空间。 我们也研究了很多并不是 你们所想像的以创新 而著称的机构。
We studied a general counsel in a pharmaceutical company who had to figure out how to get the outside lawyers, 19 competitors, to collaborate and innovate. We studied the head of marketing at a German automaker where, fundamentally, they believed that it was the design engineers, not the marketeers, who were allowed to be innovative. We also studied Vineet Nayar at HCL Technologies, an Indian outsourcing company. When we met Vineet, his company was about, in his words, to become irrelevant. We watched as he turned that company into a global dynamo of I.T. innovation. At HCL technologies, like at many companies, the leaders had learned to see their role as setting direction and making sure that no one deviated from it. What he did is tell them it was time for them to think about rethinking what they were supposed to do. Because what was happening is that everybody was looking up and you weren't seeing the kind of bottom-up innovation we saw at Pixar or Google. So they began to work on that.
我们研究了一个制药公司的 总法律顾问, 这个人不得不想办法让外围律师 和19个竞争对手一起进行合作和创新。 我们研究了一个德国汽车制造商的 营销总管, 他们从根本上相信设计工程师们 才是应该具备创新能力的人, 而并不是市场销售者。 我们还研究了在HCL Technologies, 一个印度外包公司任职的 叫做Vinneet Nayar的人。 当我们见到Vineet时, 据他所说, 他的公司正在变得无关紧要。 我们看着他把那个公司变成了一个 IT创新领域的全球引领者。 像其他许多公司一样,在HCL科技, 领导者们已经学会了去 把自己当做设置方向的角色, 并且确保没有人去偏离它。 他所做的是去告诉他们,是时候 该重新思考他们应该做什么了。 因为当时所有人都在 依据上层的决策而行动, 你还看不到像Pixar或Google那样 从下到上的创新。 所以他们开始向那个方向靠近。
They stopped giving answers, they stopped trying to provide solutions. Instead, what they did is they began to see the people at the bottom of the pyramid, the young sparks, the people who were closest to the customers, as the source of innovation. They began to transfer the organization's growth to that level. In Vineet's language, this was about inverting the pyramid so that you could unleash the power of the many by loosening the stranglehold of the few, and increase the quality and the speed of innovation that was happening every day.
他们不再给出答案,他们 不再尝试去给出解决方案。 取而代之的是,他们开始发现 在金字塔底层的,年轻的, 与客户最亲近的人, 才是创新的来源。 他们开始把机构的成长模式 转移到那个级别。 用Vineet的话来说, 这是关于颠倒金字塔, 以便你可以通过松开少数人的束缚 去释放众人的力量, 并且增强创新的质量和速度, 这的确是每天都在发生的事。
For sure, Vineet and all the other leaders that we studied were in fact visionaries. For sure, they understood that that was not their role. So I don't think it is accidental that many of you did not recognize Ed. Because Ed, like Vineet, understands that our role as leaders is to set the stage, not perform on it. If we want to invent a better future, and I suspect that's why many of us are here, then we need to reimagine our task. Our task is to create the space where everybody's slices of genius can be unleashed and harnessed, and turned into works of collective genius.
当然,Vineet和其他所有 我们研究过的领导者们, 实际上都是理念者。 当然,他们明白那不是他们的角色。 所以我认为你们当中的 许多人没有认出Ed不是偶然。 因为像Vinnet一样,Ed明白 我们作为领导者的角色 是去布置舞台,而不是在上面表演。 如果我们想创造一个更好的未来, 并且我认为那正是我们中的 许多人在这里的原因, 我们就需要去重新构想我们的任务。 我们的任务是去创造一个空间, 在那里,每个人的才华 都能被释放和驾驭, 并且转变成集体智慧的成果。
Thank you.
谢谢。
(Applause)
(掌声)