How do you explain when things don't go as we assume? Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day. Why him? And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded -- and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here.
你會怎麼解釋 當事情不如我們所想的一般時? 或者更好的是,你如何解釋 當其他人能夠完成似乎 違反所有假設的事時? 比如: 為什麼蘋果電腦這麼地有創意? 年復年 他們比其他的競爭對手都要有創意 然而,他們只是一個電腦公司 就像其他電腦公司一樣 他們對有同樣才華的人有相同的管道接觸 同樣的廣告商、同樣的顧問、同樣的媒體 那麼為什麼他們 似乎有點與眾不同? 為什麼是馬汀路德金恩 領導黑人民權運動? 他不是唯一一個 在美國受到平等公民權不公平待遇的人 而且他絕不是當時最偉大的演說家 為什麼是他? 而為什麼是華特兄弟 能夠想到控制力量,操控飛機 當正有其他團隊 更有資格、更有資本 然而他們並沒有完成飛機 反而是華特兄弟打敗他們完成了這件事。 這似乎有其他的因素在其中
About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery. And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it. As it turns out, there's a pattern. As it turns out, all the great inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act and communicate the exact same way. And it's the complete opposite to everyone else. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle.
大約三年半前 我有一個發現 而這個發現深深地改變 我對世界運作方式的看法 而它甚至深深改變 我生活的方式 因為它變成—有個模式 而它引證了,所有偉大且具有啟發性的領袖 以及世界上的機構 不管是蘋果電腦,或馬汀路德金恩或華特兄弟 他們都以同樣的方式 思考、行動與溝通 而這也完全與其他人 相反 我做的事就是解讀它 而它或許是世界上 最簡單的想法 我稱它做黃金圈
Why? How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why," I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? As a result, the way we think, we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in, it's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations -- regardless of their size, regardless of their industry -- all think, act and communicate from the inside out.
為什麼?怎麼做?做什麼? 這個小小的想法解釋了 為什麼有些機構和有些領袖 能夠激勵群眾而別人做不到 讓我很快地定義這些詞 在這個星球上的每個人,每個機構都 知道他們在做什麼 - 百分之百肯定 有些知道如何做事 這裡可以叫做是你不同的價值主張 或者你的屬性過程或你的USP (賣點) 但很少很少人或機構 知道為什麼做他們正在做的事 而〞為什麼〞不是指〞創造利潤“ 那是結果。它永遠是結果。 〞為什麼〞指的是:你的目的是什麼? 你的出發點是什麼?你的信念是什麼? 為什麼你的機構存在? 為什麼你早上要起床? 而且為什麼其他人要在乎? 好的,結果是我們所想、所為 以及我們所溝通的方式都是由外而內的 很明顯。我們從最清楚到最模糊不明 但激勵人的領導者 以及激勵人們的機構 不管它們的規模,不管它們的產業 都以由內而外的方式 去思考、行動與溝通
Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." That's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing and sales are done, that's how we communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats. Buy our car. But it's uninspiring.
讓我給你們舉個例子 我使用蘋果電腦是因為它很容易明白,而所有人都明白它 如果蘋果電腦就像其他的電腦 給的行銷訊息很可能聽起來像 我們製造最棒的電腦 他們都有美好的設計、容易上手 也迎合使用者的要求 想買一台嗎?...呃,不要。 這就是多數人溝通的方式 這就是多數行銷的方式。 這是多數業務銷售的方式 而這也是我們多數人與人相處時的溝通方式 我們說我們做了什麼,我們說我們如何不同或我們如何比較好 然後我們期待某種行為 可能是購買行為、投票行為或這類的事 這裡是我們新的法律公司 我們有最好的律師和最大的客戶 我們總是為和我們做生意的客戶著想 這是我們的新車 它有很好的油耗表現。它有皮革製的座椅。買我們的車吧。 但這都不激勵人心
Here's how Apple actually communicates. "Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different, right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. I just reversed the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it.
這裡有蘋果電腦實際上溝通的方式: 我們所做的每件事 我們相信都在挑戰現狀 我們相信用不同的角度思考 我們挑戰現狀的方式 是使我們的產品有美好的設計 容易使用而且迎合使用者。 我們只是恰巧做了很棒的電腦。 想要買一台嗎? 完全不一樣,對吧?你準備要從我這裡買一台電腦了。 我只要改變資訊的順序 這個例子告訴我們人們不會買你做了什麼 人們要買你為什麼做它 人們不會買你做什麼;他們要買你的為什麼。
This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. As I said before, Apple's just a computer company. Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs. They've been making flat-screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy one from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.
這解釋了為什麼 在場的每個人 都對買蘋果電腦感到很好 但我們也同樣感覺很好 當購買蘋果電腦 的MP3播放器,或蘋果電腦的手機 或蘋果電腦的DVR 但如同我前述所說,蘋果電腦只是一家電腦公司 結構上沒有什麼使它們與 其他的競爭者不同 他們的競爭者都有同樣能力做這些產品 事實上,他們試過 幾年前,Gateway推出他們的平面電視 他們很明顯夠資格製造平面電視 他們已經做平面監視器好幾年了 沒有人買 戴爾電腦推出mp3播放器與PDA. 他們的產品都有很好的品質 而且他們也能完美地製造精美設計的產品 然而沒有人買。 事實上,現在我們說這些事,我們甚至無法想像 從戴爾電腦買一台mp3播放器 為什麼你會從一家電腦公司買一台mp3播放器? 但我們每天都這麼做 人們不買你做什麼;他們買你的為什麼 目標不是 與每個需要你有什麼的人在做生意 目標是要與
Here's the best part: None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, from the top down, the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.
那些相信你所相信的人做生意 這就是最美好的部份 我告訴你們的都不是我個人的意見 這在生物學裡證實 不是心理學,是生物學 如果你去看人腦裡的切面,從上往下看 你看到的人腦實際上是 分成三個主要部份的 這和黃金圈完美地相關 我們最新的腦,或說我們人類的腦 我們的大腦皮層 對應的是〞什麼〞的層次 大腦皮層負責我們所有的 理性、分析的想法 以及語言 中間兩個部份組成我們腦的邊緣 而我們邊緣的腦是負責所有的感情 如信任與忠誠 它也同時負責所有人類的行為 所有的決策 而它沒有語言的空間
In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do. This is where gut decisions come from. Sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language. The best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart or soul. I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.
換句話說,當我們從外而內地溝通時 是的,人們可以了解很多複雜的資訊量 像是特色、好處、事實與數字 但這不能刺激行為 當我們能由內而外溝通時 我們就正對著我們的腦說話 那控制行為的腦 然後我們允許人們去分析它 以我們可以說與做的可見事物 這就是我們用膽識做決定的來源 你們知道,有時候你們可以給人們 所有的事實與數字 然後他們說,〞我知道事實與細節是什麼, 但就是感覺不對勁〞 為什麼我們會用這個動詞,〝感覺〞不對勁? 因為管控決策的腦 並不管控語言 而我們最多能整理出的是〝我不知道,就是覺得不對〞 或者有時你說你隨心所欲 或者你跟隨你靈魂的聲音 嗯,我很不想對你說,那些都不是身體的其他部份 在控制你的行為 所有的發生都在你邊緣的腦裡 是控制決策而不是語言的腦
But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you, or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do. The goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if they believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.
但如果你不知道為什麼做你正在做的事 而人們對為什麼你正在做的事有反應 然後甚至是你如何贏得人們 的選票或買你的東西 或更重要的,忠實 而且想成為你正在做的事的一份子 再一次,目標不是僅僅將需要你所有賣給需要的人而已 目標是要賣東西給那些相信你所相信的事的人 目標不是只在雇 那些需要工作的人 而是要雇用那些相信你所相信的事的人 我會一直這麼說,你知道。 如果你雇用人僅是因為他們能做事,他們將會為了你的錢而做事 但如果你雇用那些相信你所相信的人們 他們將與你工作:用血汗與淚水。 而沒有比這個萊特兄弟
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.
更好的例子了
And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. Even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?
多數人不認識Samuel Pierpont Langley. 在20世紀初 追尋人類飛翔就像今天的網路公司一樣 每個人都在嘗試 而Samuel Pierpont Langley曾經擁有,我們假設的 成功的關鍵 我的意思是,即使現在,你去問人們 〝為什麼你的產品為或什麼你的公司失敗?〞 而人們總會給你 相類似的三個原因 資金不足,不適合的人,市場情況不良 總是這相同的三個原因,所以我們來研究一下 Samuel Pierpont Langley 從國防部得到5萬美金 去研發這個飛行機器 資金不是問題 他有哈佛大學的學位 在Smithsonian工作而且有很好的人脈 他認識當時所有著名的知識份子 他雇用最好的人才 資金有管道 而市場情況呈現一片榮景 紐約時報跟著他到處跑 而且每個人都為Langley加油 那麼你怎麼會從沒聽過Samuel Pierpont Langley?
A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop. Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur. And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.
幾百英哩遠在俄亥俄州的Dayton 萊特兄弟 他們沒有我們認為的 成功關鍵 他們沒有資金 他們用他們腳踏車店裡的現金來支付他們的夢想 沒有任何一個在萊特兄弟的團隊裡 的人有大學學歷 兄弟倆都沒有 而他們也沒有紐約時報的報導
The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts, because that's how many times they would crash before supper.
不同的是 萊特兄弟是有個目的去驅動他們的 因為目的、因為相信 他們相信如果他們 能想出這架飛行機器 這將改變世界的軌道 Samuel Pierpont Langley 不同 他想變得富有,而且他想成名 他在追求結果 他在追求財富 所以你們看,看看發生了什麼 這些相信萊特兄弟的夢想的人 用血汗與淚水和他們一同努力工作的人 另外那些人則只是為錢工作 而他們述說的故事是每次萊特兄弟出門 他們都會帶上五套零件 因為這是他們會墜機的次數 在他們回家吃飯前
And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.
於是,最後在1903年12月17日 萊特兄弟起飛 而在場甚至沒有其他人可以體驗它 我們在幾天後發現這件事 更進一步的證明Langley 因為錯誤的動機 在萊特兄弟起飛那天,離職了 他可以說 〝那真是很驚人的發現啊 而我將在你們的技術上加以改良〞,但他沒有。 他跑第一,但他沒有變有錢 他沒有變有名,所以他離職
People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.
人們不會買你買什麼;他們買你的為什麼 而如果你談的是你相信的事物 你會吸引那些相信你所相信的人們
But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, if you don't know the law, you know the terminology. The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators. The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters. The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.
但為什麼吸吲那些相信你所相信的人們很重要? 有種東西叫創意的散播法則 如果你不知道這個法則,你絕對知道它的術語 在我們人口之中前2.5%的人 是發明家 接下來的13.5% 是早期使用者 再接下來的34%是早期的大多數 晚期的大多數以及落後者 這些人買觸控式手機的唯一原因是 因為你不能再買到轉盤式的電話了
(Laughter)
(笑)
We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us is that if you want mass-market success or mass-market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers. We all have about 10% who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it."
在這個尺度上我們都坐在不同的位置,不同的時間上 但創意的散播法則告訴我們的是 如果你想要在大眾市場成功 或者讓大眾市場接受一個想法 你不能擁有它 直到你到達了 在15%到18%之間的市場占有率的引爆點 然後系統就會一面倒到你這邊 我喜歡問企業:在新事業上你們的轉換率是多少 然後他們會很樂意並驕傲地告訴你:哦,大約10% 嗯,你可以有10%的顧客 我們都有約10%的顧客〝知道〞 這是我們描述他們的方式,對吧。 這就像是膽識,哦,他們就是知道。
The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before doing business versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available. These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week. These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: they were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.
問題是,你如何找到這些知道的人 在你和他們做生意之前以及那些不知道的人 所以這就是這裡,一個小小的差距 是你必須要填滿的 如同Jeffrey Moore稱它為〞跨越分歧 因為,你看,早期的多數人 不會嘗試 直到其他人 已經先嘗試 而這些人,這些發明家以及早期的採用者 他們對做這些需要膽試的決定感到很自在 他們對做這些直覺的決定感到更為自在 也就是他們被他們自己對世界的相信所驅動 而不僅只是可得的產品 這些是排隊排了六個小時 買剛上市iPhone的人 而其實可以在下個星期走進店裡 從架上買一枝手機 這些是花40,000美金 當平版電視剛上市的人 雖然科技還未臻完美 而且,順便提一下,他們這麼做並不 因為這項科技有多好 他們這麼做是為了他們自己 因為他們想當第一 人們不買你做什麼;他們買你為什麼做。 而且你做什麼就 證明了你相信什麼 事實上,人們會去做 那些證明他們所相信的事 為什麼人們買iPhone 在最初的六個小時 排隊排六個小時 是因為他們所相信的世界 以及他們想要每個人如此看他們 他們是第一 人們不買你做什麼;他們買你的為什麼
So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions. You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.
所以讓我說一個有名的例子 一個有名的失敗以及有名的成功 關於創意的散播法則 首先,這個有名的失敗 它是個商業的例子 如同我們之前所說,一秒鐘前 成功的要素是資金以及適當的人與對的市場狀況 是的。那麼你就應該要成功。 看看TiVo的例子 當TiVo上市時,約8,9年前 時至今日 他們仍是市場上有高品質的產品 毫無疑問的,沒有爭議 他們有很充沛的資金 市場的狀況好得不得了 我的意思是,我們把TiVo當做動詞 我總是TiVo東西在我時代華納的DVR
(Laughter)
But TiVo's a commercial failure. They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes.
但是TiVo卻失敗了 他們從不賺錢 而當他們股票上市的時候 股價約30到40美金 然後一瀉千里,從沒在10美元以上交易 事實上,我想它從沒在6美元以上交易 除了幾次小漲幅
Because you see, when TiVo launched their product, they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us."
因為你看,當TiVo推出他們的產品 他們告訴我們他們有的是什麼 他們說〞我們的產品可以暫停現場的電視節目 跳過廣告,回播現場電視節目 還有記錄你的收視習慣 你連問都不必問 然後,吹毛求疪的大眾說 我們不相信 我們不需要它,我們不喜歡它。 你嚇到我們了。
What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe.
如果他們說, 要是你是這樣的人: 想要完全的掌控 生活的各個層面 那麼,我們有這麼一樣適合你的產品 它可以暫停現場節目,跳過商業廣告 記得你的收視習慣等等 人們不買你做什麼,他們買你的為什麼 而你做什麼僅僅是 你相信什麼的證明
Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.
現在讓我給你們另一個成功的例子 有關創意的散播法則 在1963年夏天 25,000人在 華盛頓的一個購物中心集結 準備聽金恩博士演說 他們沒有寄出任何一張邀請函 而當時也沒有網站去查看日期 你會怎麼做 金恩博士不是在美國唯一一個 偉大的演說者 他不是在美國唯一一個受到迫害的人 在美國公民權普及前的時代 事實上,他的想法有一些很糟 但他有個天賦 他沒有到處告訴人們在美國什麼需要被改變 他到處告訴人們他所相信的 我相信。我相信。我相信 他這麼告訴人們 而那些相信他所相信的人們 接受了他的原因,而使這個原因也成為他們自己的 並告訴其他人們 而這些人之中的某些人創造了制度 使這些言論散播給更多人 於是 25,000人出現 在這個時間、這個地點
How many of them showed up for him?
去聽他的演講
Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25% of the audience was white.
有多少人為了他而出現 零 他們為了他們自己出現 那是他們所相信的美國 使他們踏上八個小時車程的旅行 在八月中時站在華盛頓的陽光下 那是他們所相信的,這不是關於黑人與白人 25%的觀眾是白人
Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men. And not until all the laws that are made by men are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.
金恩博士相信 在這個世界上有兩種不同的法律 那些由較高權威制定的法律 以及那些由一般人所定的法律 而一直到所有法律都由一般人所定 與那些較高權威制定的法律一致時 我們才會活在一個公平的世界 這於是發動了公民運動 而這對他而言也是最佳的幫助 將他的理由帶入生命中 我們追隨,不是為了他,而是為了我們自己 而且,他的演說是〞我有一個夢想〞 而不是〞我有一個計劃
(Laughter)
(笑)
Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them.
聽現在的政客們完整的12點計劃 根本就不會啟發任何人 因為有"領導人"與"領導的人" 領導人持有權力 或權威的位階 但那些領導的人啟發我們 不管是個人或者組織 我們跟隨那些領導的人 不是因為我們必須 而是因為我們想要 我們跟隨那些領導的人,不是為了他們 而是為了我們自己 而且是那些以〝為什麼〞開始的人 擁有這個能力 來啟發他們周遭的人 或者找到那些啟發他們的人
Thank you very much.
非常感謝你們
(Applause)
(鼓掌)