An evolutionary biologist at Purdue University named William Muir studied chickens. He was interested in productivity -- I think it's something that concerns all of us -- but it's easy to measure in chickens because you just count the eggs. (Laughter) He wanted to know what could make his chickens more productive, so he devised a beautiful experiment. Chickens live in groups, so first of all, he selected just an average flock, and he let it alone for six generations. But then he created a second group of the individually most productive chickens -- you could call them superchickens -- and he put them together in a superflock, and each generation, he selected only the most productive for breeding.
Evolucijski biolog William Muir sa sveučilišta Purdue proučavao je kokoši. Zanimala ga je produktivnost -- mislim da je to nešto što se tiče svakog -- ali je lako mjerljivo kod kokoši jer treba samo prebrojati jaja. (Smijeh) Želio je znati kako učiniti kokoši produktivnijima i osmislio je predivan eksperiment. Kokoši žive u grupama pa je najprije izabrao prosječno jato i pustio ih samima preko šest generacija. Tada je stvorio i drugu grupu od pojedinačno, najproduktivnijih kokoši možemo ih nazvati superkokošima, i stavio ih zajedno u superkokošinjac, i u svakoj generaciji je izabrao samo najproduktivnije za rasplod.
After six generations had passed, what did he find? Well, the first group, the average group, was doing just fine. They were all plump and fully feathered and egg production had increased dramatically. What about the second group? Well, all but three were dead. They'd pecked the rest to death. (Laughter) The individually productive chickens had only achieved their success by suppressing the productivity of the rest.
Nakon šest generacija, što je otkrio? Prva grupa, prosječna grupa, je dobro napredovala. Kokoši su bile ugojene i pernate, a broj jaja se znatno povećao. Što se dogodilo drugoj grupi? Sve osim tri kokoši su bile mrtve. Prokljucale su ostale do smrti. (Smijeh) Pojedinačno produktivne kokoši su uspjele ostvariti uspjeh tako da su suzbile uspjeh drugih.
Now, as I've gone around the world talking about this and telling this story in all sorts of organizations and companies, people have seen the relevance almost instantly, and they come up and they say things to me like, "That superflock, that's my company." (Laughter) Or, "That's my country." Or, "That's my life."
Kako sam obilazila svijet i pričala tu priču u svim mogućim organizacijama i poduzećima, ljudi su uvidjeli važnost priče skoro pa odmah, te bi mi prišli i rekli nešto poput "Taj superkokošinjac, takvo je moje poduzeće." (Smijeh) Ili, "Takva je moja država." Ili, "Takav je moj život."
All my life I've been told that the way we have to get ahead is to compete: get into the right school, get into the right job, get to the top, and I've really never found it very inspiring. I've started and run businesses because invention is a joy, and because working alongside brilliant, creative people is its own reward. And I've never really felt very motivated by pecking orders or by superchickens or by superstars. But for the past 50 years, we've run most organizations and some societies along the superchicken model. We've thought that success is achieved by picking the superstars, the brightest men, or occasionally women, in the room, and giving them all the resources and all the power. And the result has been just the same as in William Muir's experiment: aggression, dysfunction and waste. If the only way the most productive can be successful is by suppressing the productivity of the rest, then we badly need to find a better way to work and a richer way to live. (Applause)
Cijeli život su mi govorili da je jedini način za napredovanje natjecanje: idi u pravu školu, nađi pravi posao, budi na vrhu ali mene to nikad nije nadahnjivalo. Započela sam svoje poduzeće zato što je inovacija radost i zato što je rad s nadarenim, kreativnim ljudima sam po sebi nagrada. I zato što me kljucanje drugih nikad nije motiviralo, kao niti superkokoši ili superzvijezde. Tijekom zadnjih 50 godina, vodimo većinu organizacija i poneka društva po tom modelu superkokošinjca. Smatramo da se uspjeh postiže odabirom superzvijezda, najpametnijih muškaraca ili ponekad žena u prostoriji te dajući im sva sredstva i svu moć. A rezultat je isti kao i u eksperimentu William Muira: agresija, nefunkcionalnost i gubitak. Ako je jedini način da najproduktivniji budu uspješni tako da suzbijaju produktivnost drugih tada pod hitno trebamo naći bolji način rada i bogatiji način življenja. (Pljesak)
So what is it that makes some groups obviously more successful and more productive than others? Well, that's the question a team at MIT took to research. They brought in hundreds of volunteers, they put them into groups, and they gave them very hard problems to solve. And what happened was exactly what you'd expect, that some groups were very much more successful than others, but what was really interesting was that the high-achieving groups were not those where they had one or two people with spectacularly high I.Q. Nor were the most successful groups the ones that had the highest aggregate I.Q. Instead, they had three characteristics, the really successful teams. First of all, they showed high degrees of social sensitivity to each other. This is measured by something called the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test. It's broadly considered a test for empathy, and the groups that scored highly on this did better. Secondly, the successful groups gave roughly equal time to each other, so that no one voice dominated, but neither were there any passengers. And thirdly, the more successful groups had more women in them. (Applause) Now, was this because women typically score more highly on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, so you're getting a doubling down on the empathy quotient? Or was it because they brought a more diverse perspective? We don't really know, but the striking thing about this experiment is that it showed what we know, which is some groups do better than others, but what's key to that is their social connectedness to each other.
Dakle, što čini neke grupe naočigled uspješnije i produktivnije nego druge? To je pitanje koje je tim na MIT-u odlučio istražiti. Doveli su stotine dobrovoljaca, svrstali ih u grupe i dali im teške probleme koje su trebali riještiti. Ono što se dogodilo je točno ono što bi i očekivali, neke grupe su bile uspješnije nego druge, ali ono što je zaista bilo zanimljivo jest da grupe s visokim rezultatima nisu bile one koje su imale jedno ili dvoje ljudi sa iznimno visokim kvocijentom inteligencije. Niti su najuspješnije grupe bile one koje su imale najviši zbir kvocijenta inteligencije. Umjesto toga, vrlo uspješne grupe su imale tri karkateristike. Prvo, pokazivale su međusobno visoki stupanj društvene osjetljivosti. To je mjereno pomoću testa koji se zove Čitanje uma u očima. To je opće prihvaćeni test za empatiju, i grupe koje su dobile više bodova na njemu su imale i bolje postignuće. Drugo, unutar uspješne grupe svi članovi su imali jednako vremena na raspolaganju, tako da niti jedan glas nije dominirao, ali nitko nije bio niti prolaznik. Treće, uspješnije grupe su imale više žena. (Pljesak) Je li to zato što žene najčešće ostvaruju više bodova na testu Čitanje uma u očima, što je rezultiralo povećanjem kvocijenta empatije? Ili je razlog taj što su žene doprinijele raznolikosti u perspektivi? Nismo sigurni, ali iznenađujuća činjenica u vezi eksperimenta je pokazala ono što znamo. Neke grupe su bolje od drugih, a ono što je ključno jest njihova društvena povezanost.
So how does this play out in the real world? Well, it means that what happens between people really counts, because in groups that are highly attuned and sensitive to each other, ideas can flow and grow. People don't get stuck. They don't waste energy down dead ends.
Kako se to odražava u stvarnom svijetu? To znači da je važno ono što se događa među ljudima, jer u grupama kod kojih su članovi svjesni i osjetljivi jedni prema drgima, ideje se mogu razmjenjivati i rasti. Ljudi ne zapnu. Ne troše energiju na stvari bez mogućnosti završetka.
An example: Arup is one of the world's most successful engineering firms, and it was commissioned to build the equestrian center for the Beijing Olympics. Now, this building had to receive two and a half thousand really highly strung thoroughbred horses that were coming off long-haul flights, highly jet-lagged, not feeling their finest. And the problem the engineer confronted was, what quantity of waste to cater for? Now, you don't get taught this in engineering school -- (Laughter) -- and it's not really the kind of thing you want to get wrong, so he could have spent months talking to vets, doing the research, tweaking the spreadsheet. Instead, he asked for help and he found someone who had designed the Jockey Club in New York. The problem was solved in less than a day. Arup believes that the culture of helpfulness is central to their success.
Primjer: Arup je jedna od najuspješnijih svjetskih inženjerskih poduzeća, i od njih je naručena izgradnja konjičkog centra za Olimpijske igre u Pekingu. Ta zgrada je trebala primiti dvije i pol tisuće razdražljivih prvoklasnih konja koji su dolazili sa dugih letova, neprilagođeni drugoj vremenskoj zoni, i ne baš u vrhunskom izdanju. Problem s kojim se suočio inženjer je bio o kojoj količini otpada će se trebati brintui? To vas ne uče u inženjerskoj školi -- (Smijeh) -- i to nije jedna od stvari koju smijete pogriješiti. On je mogao provesti mjesece razgovarajući s veterinarima i istražujući slažući tablice s podacima. Umjesto toga, potražio je pomoć i pronašao nekog tko je dizajnirao Jahački klub u New Yorku. Problem je riješen u manje od dana. Arup vjeruje da je gajenje kulture pomaganja središnji dio njihovog uspjeha.
Now, helpfulness sounds really anemic, but it's absolutely core to successful teams, and it routinely outperforms individual intelligence. Helpfulness means I don't have to know everything, I just have to work among people who are good at getting and giving help. At SAP, they reckon that you can answer any question in 17 minutes. But there isn't a single high-tech company I've worked with that imagines for a moment that this is a technology issue, because what drives helpfulness is people getting to know each other. Now that sounds so obvious, and we think it'll just happen normally, but it doesn't. When I was running my first software company, I realized that we were getting stuck. There was a lot of friction, but not much else, and I gradually realized the brilliant, creative people that I'd hired didn't know each other. They were so focused on their own individual work, they didn't even know who they were sitting next to, and it was only when I insisted that we stop working and invest time in getting to know each other that we achieved real momentum.
No, pomaganje zvuči prilično anemično, a istovremeno je i osnova uspješnih timova i rutinski nadmašuje iteligenciju pojedinca. Pomoć znači da ja ne moram znati sve, već trebam raditi među ljudima koji su dobri u davanju i primanju pomoći. U SAP-u su izračunali da možete dati odgovor na bilo koje pitanje u 17 minuta. No, nema niti jednog visoko tehnološkog poduzeća s kojem sam radila koje i za trenutak pomišlja da je to zapravo tehnološki problem, jer ono što pokreće pomaganje su ljudi koji se međusobno poznaju. To, naravno, zvuči vrlo očito i mi mislimo da će se to dogoditi samo po sebi, iako se ne događa. Dok sam vodila svoje prvo softversko poduzeće shvatila sam da jednostavno ne napredujemo Bilo je prilično trvenja, no ništa više, osim što sam s vremenom shvatila da se sjajni, kreativni ljudi koje sam zaposlila međusobno ne poznaju. Bili su toliko fokusirani, na njihov individualni posao da nisu niti znali do koga sjede i tek kad sam inzistirala da svi prestanemo raditi i uložimo vrijeme da bismo se bolje upoznali smo postigli stvarni napredak.
Now, that was 20 years ago, and now I visit companies that have banned coffee cups at desks because they want people to hang out around the coffee machines and talk to each other. The Swedes even have a special term for this. They call it fika, which means more than a coffee break. It means collective restoration. At Idexx, a company up in Maine, they've created vegetable gardens on campus so that people from different parts of the business can work together and get to know the whole business that way. Have they all gone mad? Quite the opposite -- they've figured out that when the going gets tough, and it always will get tough if you're doing breakthrough work that really matters, what people need is social support, and they need to know who to ask for help. Companies don't have ideas; only people do. And what motivates people are the bonds and loyalty and trust they develop between each other. What matters is the mortar, not just the bricks.
Danas, 20 godina poslije, posjećujem druga poduzeća koja brane šalice s kavom na stolovima jer žele da se njihovi radnici druže oko uređaja za kavu i razgovaraju jedni s drugima. Šveđani čak imaju i poseban izraz za tako nešto Oni to zovu --fika-- što znači puno više od pauze za kavu. To znači zajedničko obnavljanje. U Idexx-u, poduzeću u Mainu kreirali su povrtnjake oko poduzeća kako bi ljudi iz različitih dijelova njihovog poduzeća mogli zajedno raditi u njima i na taj način upoznati čitavo poslovanje. Jesu li oni svi poludjeli? Upravo obrnuto -- oni su shvatili kad stvari postanu guste a uvijek će postati gusto ako se bavite pionirskim poslovima koji su zaista važni ono što ljudima treba je društvena podrška i spoznaja kome se mogu obratiti za pomoć. Poduzeća nemaju ideje, imaju ih samo ljudi. A ono što motivira ljude su veze i privrženost i povjerenje koje su razvili između sebe. Ono što je važno jest vezivo, a ne samo cigle.
Now, when you put all of this together, what you get is something called social capital. Social capital is the reliance and interdependency that builds trust. The term comes from sociologists who were studying communities that proved particularly resilient in times of stress. Social capital is what gives companies momentum, and social capital is what makes companies robust. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that time is everything, because social capital compounds with time. So teams that work together longer get better, because it takes time to develop the trust you need for real candor and openness. And time is what builds value. When Alex Pentland suggested to one company that they synchronize coffee breaks so that people would have time to talk to each other, profits went up 15 million dollars, and employee satisfaction went up 10 percent. Not a bad return on social capital, which compounds even as you spend it. Now, this isn't about chumminess, and it's no charter for slackers, because people who work this way tend to be kind of scratchy, impatient, absolutely determined to think for themselves because that's what their contribution is. Conflict is frequent because candor is safe. And that's how good ideas turn into great ideas, because no idea is born fully formed. It emerges a little bit as a child is born, kind of messy and confused, but full of possibilities. And it's only through the generous contribution, faith and challenge that they achieve their potential. And that's what social capital supports.
Kad sve to zbrojite dobijete nešto što nazivamo društveni kapital. Društveni kapital je oslonac i međuovisnost koji grade povjerenje. Pojam su osmislili sociolozi koji su proučavali zajednice koje su se pokazale posebno otporne u stresnim vremenima. Društveni kapital daje poduzećima podstrek i društveni kapital je to što poduzeća čini otpornima. Što to znači u praksi? To znači da je vrijeme najvažnije jer društveni kapital se spaja s vremenom. Pa onda timovi koji duže rade zajedno postaju bolji, jer je potrebno vrijeme za razvoj povjerenja koje je potrebno za stvarnu iskrenost i otvorenost. Vrijeme je potrebno za stvaranje vrijednosti. Kad je Alex Pentland predložio jednom poduzeću da sinkroniziraju pauze za kavu kako bi ljudi imali vremena za razgovor, profit je narastao za 15 milijuna dolara, a zadovoljstvo radnika je poraslo 10%. Nije loša investicija u društveni kapital, koji se stvara čak i kad ga trošite. Ovdje ne govorimo o druženjima ili opravdanjima za lijenčine, jer su ljudi koji rade na takav način malo grublji, nestrpljivi i apsolutno usmjereni samo na sebe jer takav je njihov doprinos. Sukob je čest jer iskrenost daje sigurnost. I to je način na koji dobre ideje postaju velike jer niti jedna ideja nije stvorena potpuno osmišljena. Na neki način se čini kao da je rođeno dijete, pomalo smotano i smeteno, a puno mogućnosti. I samo kroz velikodušan doprinos, vjeru i izazove ona dostižu svoj potencijal. I to je ono što društveni kapital podržava.
Now, we aren't really used to talking about this, about talent, about creativity, in this way. We're used to talking about stars. So I started to wonder, well, if we start working this way, does that mean no more stars? So I went and I sat in on the auditions at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London. And what I saw there really surprised me, because the teachers weren't looking for individual pyrotechnics. They were looking for what happened between the students, because that's where the drama is. And when I talked to producers of hit albums, they said, "Oh sure, we have lots of superstars in music. It's just, they don't last very long. It's the outstanding collaborators who enjoy the long careers, because bringing out the best in others is how they found the best in themselves." And when I went to visit companies that are renowned for their ingenuity and creativity, I couldn't even see any superstars, because everybody there really mattered. And when I reflected on my own career, and the extraordinary people I've had the privilege to work with, I realized how much more we could give each other if we just stopped trying to be superchickens. (Laughter) (Applause) Once you appreciate truly how social work is, a lot of things have to change. Management by talent contest has routinely pitted employees against each other. Now, rivalry has to be replaced by social capital. For decades, we've tried to motivate people with money, even though we've got a vast amount of research that shows that money erodes social connectedness. Now, we need to let people motivate each other. And for years, we've thought that leaders were heroic soloists who were expected, all by themselves, to solve complex problems. Now, we need to redefine leadership as an activity in which conditions are created in which everyone can do their most courageous thinking together.
Mi nismo baš navikli pričati o tome, o talentu, o kreativnosti, na takav način. Mi smo navikli pričati o zvijezdama. Počela sam se pitati, ako počnemo raditi na takav način znači li to da ćemo biti bez zvijezda? Stoga sam posjetila audiciju Kraljevske akademije dramskih umjetnosti u Londonu, a ono što sam tamo vidjela me je zaista iznenadilo, jer učitelji nisu tražili individualni vatromet. Oni su pratili što se dešava među kandidatima jer tu se odvija prava drama. Kada sam razgovarala s producentima hit ploča oni su rekli "Naravno, da imamo puno zvijezda u glazbi. Samo one kratko traju. Izvrsni suradnici su oni čija karijera dugo traje jer izvlačeći najbolje iz drugih je način da izvuku najbolje iz sebe samih. Kada sam posjećivala poduzeća poznata po svojoj genijalnosti i kreativnosti nisam zamjećivala zvijezde jer svatko je tamo bio važan. I kada sam se prisjetila svoje karijere i izvanrednih ljudi s kojima sam imala privilegiju raditi shvatila sam koliko puno više možemo dati jedni drugima samo ako prestanemo biti superkokoši. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Jednom kad počnete stvarno cijeniti što društveni rad jest, mnoge će se stvari promijeniti. Natjecanja za najbolje talente su u u pravilu razdvojila radnike jedne od drugih. Suparništvo treba biti zamijenjeno društvenim kapitalom. Desetljećima, smo pokušali motivirati ljude pomoću novca iako imamo ogroman broj istraživanja koja pokazuju da novac nagriza društvenu povezanost. Trebamo omogućiti ljudima da motiviraju jedni druge. Godinama smo učili da su vođe junački pojedinci od kojih se očekuje da složene problem rješavaju potpuno sami. Trebamo preformulirati vodstvo kao aktivnost tijekom koje se stvaraju uvjeti kod kojih svatko zajedno s drugima može ostvariti svoje najhrabrije zamisli.
We know that this works. When the Montreal Protocol called for the phasing out of CFCs, the chlorofluorocarbons implicated in the hole in the ozone layer, the risks were immense. CFCs were everywhere, and nobody knew if a substitute could be found. But one team that rose to the challenge adopted three key principles. The first was the head of engineering, Frank Maslen, said, there will be no stars in this team. We need everybody. Everybody has a valid perspective. Second, we work to one standard only: the best imaginable. And third, he told his boss, Geoff Tudhope, that he had to butt out, because he knew how disruptive power can be. Now, this didn't mean Tudhope did nothing. He gave the team air cover, and he listened to ensure that they honored their principles. And it worked: Ahead of all the other companies tackling this hard problem, this group cracked it first. And to date, the Montreal Protocol is the most successful international environmental agreement ever implemented.
Mi znamo da to radi. Kada je izglasan montrealski pravilnik o izbacivanju CFC-a iz upotrebe jer je uzrokovao širenje oznoske rupe u zemljinoj atmosferi rizik je bio ogroman. CFC je bio svugdje i nitko nije znao je li moguće pronaći zamjenu. No jedan tim, stvoren za tu namjenu, usvojio je tri načela. Prvo je bilo, rekao je glavni inženjer Frank Maslen, da u njegovom timu neće biti zvijezda. Trebamo svakog pojedinca. Svatko ima ispravnu perspektivu. Drugo, radimo prema samo jednom standardu: Najbolje što možemo zamisliti. I treće, rekao je svom šefu, Geoffu Tudhopeu da se ne miješa jer je znao kako razorna može biti njegova moć. To ne znači da Tudhope nije radio ništa. Pružio je timu zračnu potporu i osluškivao poštuju li svoja vlastita načela. I uspjeli su. Riješili su ovaj problem prije svih drugih grupa koje su ga, također, pokušavale riješiti. I, dan danas, montrealski pravilnik je najuspješniji međunarodni sporazum o okolišu ikad primjenjen.
There was a lot at stake then, and there's a lot at stake now, and we won't solve our problems if we expect it to be solved by a few supermen or superwomen. Now we need everybody, because it is only when we accept that everybody has value that we will liberate the energy and imagination and momentum we need to create the best beyond measure.
Puno je toga bilo stavljeno na kocku tada, a puno je toga na kocki i sad i mi nećemo riješiti naše probleme, ako očekujemo da ih riješi nekolicina super muškaraca i super žena. Sada trebamo svakog jer tek kad prihvatimo da je svatko vrijedan oslobodit ćemo energiju i maštu i podstrek koje trebamo za stvaranje najboljeg što možemo.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)