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.
Evolucioni biolog sa Univerziteta Perdu koji se zvao Vilijam Mjur je izučavao živinu. Intersovala ga je produktivnost - mislim da to interesuje sve nas - ali je to lako izmeriti kod živine jer se sve svodi na brojanje jaja. (Smeh) Želeo je da zna kako da uspe da mu živina bude produktivnija, pa je osmislio prelep eksperiment. Kokoške žive u grupama, pa je prvo izabrao prosečno jato i nije ga dirao narednih šest generacija. No, potom je sačinio drugu grupu od najproduktivnijih pojedinaca među kokoškama - mogli biste ih zvati superkokoškama - i sve ih je okupio u superjato a iz svake generacije je birao samo najproduktivnije potomke.
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, šta je otkrio? Pa, prvoj grupi, grupi prosečnih je išlo sasvim dobro. Bili su jedri i sa svim perjem a proizvodnja jaja je dramatično porasla. Šta je sa drugom grupom? Pa, samo je troje preživelo. Kljucali su druge do smrti. (Smeh) Pojedinačno produktivna živina je jedino postizala uspeh potiskujući produktivnost ostalih.
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."
Pa, kako sam išla svetom govoreći o ovome i pričajući ovu priču u raznim organizacijama i firmama, ljudi su prepoznavali njen značaj skoro momentalno, i prilazili su mi, govoreći nešto kao: "To superjato, to je moja firma." (Smeh) Ili: "To je moja država." Ili: "To 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)
Čitav život mi govore da je takmičenje jedini put do uspeha: upišite se u odgovarajuću školu, dobijte odgovarajući posao, stignite do vrha a meni to nikada nije izgledalo inspirativno. Osnovala sam firmu i vodila je jer je inovativnost užitak i jer je rad sa briljantnim, kreativnim ljudima sam po sebi nagrada. I nikada me zaista nisu motivisali hijerarhija ili superkokoške ili superzvezde. Ali poslednjih 50 godina, upravljali smo većinom organizacija i nekim društvima vodeći se modelom superkokoški. Smatrali smo da se uspeh postiže odabirom superzvezda, najbistrijih muškaraca, povremeno žena u prostoriji, i pružajući im sva sredstva i svu moć. A rezultat je bio identičan kao u eksperimentu Vilijama Mjura: agresija, disfunkcionalnost i rasipanje. Ako je jedini način na koji najproduktivniji mogu da budu uspešni, taj da potiskuju produktivnost ostalih, onda nam je neophodno da pronađemo bolji način rada i ispunjeniji način života. (Aplauz)
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.
Pa šta to neke grupe čini vidljivo uspešnijim i produktivnijim nego druge? Pa, to pitanje je izučavala ekipa sa MIT-a. Uzeli su na stotine volontera, podelili ih u grupe i dali su im da reše veoma teške probleme. A desilo se ono što biste i očekivali, neke grupe su bile izuzetno uspešnije od drugih, ali ono što je bilo zaista zanimljivo je da najuspešnije grupe nisu bile one gde su imali jedno ili dvoje ljudi sa spektakularno visokim koeficijentom inteligencije. Niti su najuspešnije grupe bile one sa najvišim ukupnim zbirom koeficijenta inteligencije. Umesto toga, imali su tri karakteristike istinski uspešnih ekipa. Pod jedan, pokazivali su visok stepen međusobne društvene osetljivosti. Ovo se meri takozvanim testom "Čitanje uma u očima". On se naširoko smatra testom empatije i grupe koje su imale visoke rezultate na njemu prolazile su bolje. Pod dva, uspešne grupe su davale približno jednak prostor svima, tako da nijedan glas nije dominirao, ali nije bilo ni zabušanata. I pod tri, u uspešnijim grupama je bilo više žena. (Aplauz) E sad, da li je to zbog toga što žene uglavnom imaju bolje rezultate na testu "Čitanja uma u očima", pa se koeficijent empatije tako udvostručava? Ili je tako jer su unele raznovrsniju perspektivu? Uistinu ne znamo, ali zapanjujuće kod ovog eksperimenta je to što je otkrio praznu istinu, to jest da su neke grupe bolje od drugih, ali tu je ključna njihova međusobna 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.
Onda, kako to izgleda u stvarnosti? Pa, to znači da ono što se dešava među ljudima je uistinu važno, jer u grupama koje su veoma usaglašene i gde su ljudi osetljivi prema drugima, ideje mogu da teku i da se razvijaju. Ljudi ne upadaju u škripac. Ne traće energiju na ćorsokake.
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.
Jedan primer: Arap je jedna od najuspešnijih inženjerskih firmi u svetu i zatraženo je od njih da sagrade jahački centar za Olimpijadu u Pekingu. Sad, zgrada je trebalo da primi dve i po hiljade čistokrvnih konja uistinu vrhunskog uzgoja koji su stizali dotegljeni dugim letovima, sa ozbiljnom cirkadijalnom disritmijom, ne osećajući se najbolje. A problem s kojim se susreo inženjer je bio na koliku količinu izmeta da računa? E sad, ovome vas ne uče u školi za inženjere - (Smeh) - a i nije nešto gde biste voleli da pogrešite, pa je mogao da provede mesece razgovarajući s veterinarima, istražujući, gubeći se u tabelama. Umesto toga, zatražio je pomoć i pronašao je nekoga ko je dizajnirao njujorški džokejski klub. Problem je rešen za manje od jednog dana. Arap veruje da je kultura predusretljivosti u srži njihovog uspeha.
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.
Sad, predusretljivost zvuči zaista bledunjavo, ali je apsolutno suštinska za uspešne ekipe i rutinski pobeđuje inteligenciju pojedinaca. Predusretljivost znači da ne moram sve da znam, samo moram da radim među ljudima koji su dobri u pružanju i primanju pomoći. U SAP-u smatraju da možete da odgovorite na bilo koje pitanje za 17 minuta. Ali nijedna kompanija za visoku tehnologiju sa kojom sam radila ne smatra ni za sekund da je ovo tehnološki problem, jer predusretljivost pokreću međusobna poznanstva. Sad, to zvuči očigledno i mislimo da se dešava spontano, ali se ne dešava. Kada sam upravljala svojom prvom softverskom kompanijom, shvatila sam da upadamo u škripac. Bilo je mnogo trvenja i slabo čega drugog i vremenom sam shvatila da briljantni, kreativni ljudi koje sam zaposlila nisu se međusobno poznavali. Toliko su bili usredsređeni na svoj posao, da uopšte nisu znali ni ko sedi pored njih i tek nakon što sam insistirala da prestanemo da radimo i da uložimo vreme u međusobno upoznavanje, tek tada smo ostvarili istinski zamah.
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.
Sad, to je bilo pre 20 godina, a sada posećujem firme koje su zabranile korišćenje šolja za kafu na stolovima jer žele da im se ljudi druže oko aparata za kafu i da međusobno razgovaraju. Šveđani čak imaju poseban izraz za to. Oni to nazivaju "fika", a ima šire značenje od pauze za kafu. Ima značenje kolektivne obnove. U Idexx-u, kompaniji iz Mejna, napravili su bašte s povrćem na kampusu kako bi ljudi iz različitih oblasti poslovanja mogli da rade zajedno i da na taj način upoznaju celokupno poslovanje. Jesu li svi oni poludeli? Baš naprotiv - shvatili su da kada postane teško, a neminovno hoće, ako obavljaš bitan posao koji je uistinu važan, ljudima je potrebna podrška društva i potrebno je da znaju kome da se obrate za pomoć. Firme nemaju ideje; jedino ljudi. A ono što motiviše ljude su veze i odanost i poverenje koje međusobno razvijaju. Važan je malter, 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.
Sad, kada sve ovo spojite, dobijate nešto što se zove društveni kapital. Društveni kapital čine oslonac i međuzavisnost kojima se gradi poverenje. Termin potiče od sociologa koji su izučavali zajednice koje su se pokazale naročito otpornim u teškim vremenima. Društveni kapital firmama daje vetar u leđa i zbog društvenog kapitala firme postaju snažne. Šta to znači u smislu praktičnosti? Znači da je vreme sve, jer je društveni kapital nerazdvojiv od vremena. Pa ekipe koje duže rade zajedno, sve su bolje jer je potrebno vreme da se razvije poverenje koje je potrebno za istinsku iskrenost i otvorenost. A vremenom se grade vrednosti. Kada je Aleks Pentland predložio jednoj firmi da sinhronizuju pauze za kafu kako bi ljudi imali vremena da međusobno razgovaraju, profit je narastao za 15 miliona dolara a zadovoljstvo zaposlenih je poraslo za 10 procenata. Nije loša zarada na društvenom kapitalu, koja se uvećava čak i dok je trošite. Sad, ovde se ne radi o drugarstvu i ovo nije rezervisano za zabušante jer ljudi koji rade ovako znaju da budu nekako neugodni, nestrpljivi, u potpunosti odlučni da misle samo u svoje ime jer to je njihov doprinos. Konflikti su česti jer je iskrenost na sigurnom. I tako se dobre ideje pretvaraju u sjajne ideje jer nijedna ideja ne dolazi potpuno uobličena. Nastaje, pomalo nalik detetu koje se rađa, nekako zbrkana i zbunjena, ali puna mogućnosti. I samo kroz velikodušnu saradnju, nadu i izazov, ideje ostvaruju svoj potencijal. A to 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.
Sad, zaista nismo navikli da govorimo o ovome, o talentu, kreativnosti, ovako. Navikli smo da govorimo o zvezdama. Pa sam počela da se pitam, dobro, ako počnemo da radimo ovako, da li to znači da više neće biti zvezda? Pa sam otišla da pogledam audicije na Kraljevskoj akademiji dramskih umetnosti u Londonu. A ono što sam tamo videla zaista me je iznenadilo jer profesori nisu tražili pojedince koji blistaju. Tragali su za onim što se dešava između studenata jer tu se dešava drama. I kada sam razgovarala s producentima hit albuma, rekli su mi: "Ah, naravno da imamo mnogo superzvezda u muzici. Nego one prosto ne traju dugo. Izuzetni saradnici su oni koji uživaju duge karijere jer izvlačeći najbolje iz drugih, oni pronalaze najbolje u sebi samima." I kada sam posetila firme koje su poznate po inovativnosti i kreativnosti, uopšte nisam mogla ni da zapazim bar jednu superzvezdu jer su svi bili uistinu bitni. I kada sam bacila pogled na sopstvenu karijeru i izuzetne ljude s kojima sam imala privilegiju da radim, shvatila sam koliko više možemo pružiti jedni drugima, ako bismo prosto prestali da se trudimo da budemo superkokoške. (Smeh) (Aplauz) Jednom kada uistinu počente da cenite rad kao društvenu aktivnost, mnogo toga će morati da se menja. Menadžment kao takmičenje za talentovane rutinski je okretao radnike jedne protiv drugih. Sad, rivalstvo mora da bude zamenjeno društvenim kapitalom. Decenijama smo pokušavali da motivišemo ljude novcem, iako nam ogroman broj istraživanja pokazuje da novac podriva društvenu povezanost. Sad moramo da pustimo ljude da se međusobno motivišu. Godinama smo mislili da su vođe samostalni heroji od kojih se očekuje da sami reše kompleksne probleme. Sada moramo da redefinišemo vođstvo kao aktivnost kojom se stvaraju uslovi da svako razmišlja najodvažnije zajedno s drugima.
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.
Znamo da je ovo delotvorno. Kada je Montrealski protokol pozvao na promene u lučenju hlorofluorkarbonata, hlorofluorkarbonate krive za rupe u ozonu, rizik je bio ogroman. Hlorofluorkarbonati su bili svuda i niko nije znao da li je zamena moguća. Ali ekipa koja je bila dorasla izazovu, usvojila je tri ključna principa. Kao prvo, glavni inženjer, Frenk Maslen je rekao: "U ovoj ekipi neće biti zvezda. Svi su nam potrebni. Svačija perspektiva je važeća. Pod dva, radimo samo prema jednom standardu: najbolje moguće." I pod tri, rekao je svom šefu Džefu Tadhopu da mora da se skloni jer je znao kako moć može da remeti poredak. Sad, to nije značilo da Tadhop nije ništa radio. Pružao je ekipi moralnu podršku i pazio je na poštovanje principa. I delovalo je: ispred svih drugih firmi koje su se bavile ovim teškim problemom, ova ekipa ga je prva rešila. I do danas je Montrealski protokol najuspešniji međunarodni ekološki sporazum koji je ikad implementiran.
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.
Veliki je ulog bio tada, veliki je ulog i danas i nećemo rešiti naše probleme, ako očekujemo da ih reši nekoliko supermuškaraca ili superžena. Sada su nam svi potrebni jer tek kad prihvatimo da svako vredi, oslobodićemo enegiju i maštu i potisak koji nam je potreban da stvorimo neuporedivo najbolje.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)