There's a man by the name of Captain William Swenson who recently was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor for his actions on September 8, 2009.
最近 William Swenson 隊長 由於佢喺 2009 年 9 月 8 日嘅表現 獲國會頒授榮譽勳章
On that day, a column of American and Afghan troops were making their way through a part of Afghanistan to help protect a group of government officials, a group of Afghan government officials, who would be meeting with some local village elders. The column came under ambush, and was surrounded on three sides, and amongst many other things, Captain Swenson was recognized for running into live fire to rescue the wounded and pull out the dead. One of the people he rescued was a sergeant, and he and a comrade were making their way to a medevac helicopter.
就喺嗰日 一班美國同阿富汗軍人組成嘅步隊 經過阿富汗一個地方 去保護一班阿富汗政府官員 班官員正係前往 同當地一啲村落長老見面 呢一步隊中途遇到埋伏 被人三面包圍 當中隊長 William Swenson 喺駁火其間衝入去救受傷嘅戰友 同埋拖返死咗嘅戰友出嚟 其中一個被佢救出嚟嘅係一位軍士 佢同另一個冇受傷嘅士兵 帶住軍士行去一架醫療直升機
And what was remarkable about this day is, by sheer coincidence, one of the medevac medics happened to have a GoPro camera on his helmet and captured the whole scene on camera. It shows Captain Swenson and his comrade bringing this wounded soldier who had received a gunshot to the neck. They put him in the helicopter, and then you see Captain Swenson bend over and give him a kiss before he turns around to rescue more.
嗰日之所以特別係因為 咁啱嗰日其中一位救護人員 頭盔上有一個 GoPro 牌嘅攝錄機 架機錄低成個畫面 畫面中隊長 William Swenson 同佢嘅隊員 將呢位頸中咗槍嘅士兵帶返嚟 佢哋將呢位士兵運到直升機上 然後睇到隊長 William Swenson 彎低身 錫咗呢位士兵一啖 然後返返去救更多受傷嘅戰友
I saw this, and I thought to myself, where do people like that come from? What is that? That is some deep, deep emotion, when you would want to do that. There's a love there, and I wanted to know why is it that I don't have people that I work with like that? You know, in the military, they give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain. In business, we give bonuses to people who are willing to sacrifice others so that we may gain. We have it backwards. Right? So I asked myself, where do people like this come from? And my initial conclusion was that they're just better people. That's why they're attracted to the military. These better people are attracted to this concept of service. But that's completely wrong. What I learned was that it's the environment, and if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too. I've had the great honor of getting to meet some of these, who we would call heroes, who have put themselves and put their lives at risk to save others, and I asked them, "Why would you do it? Why did you do it?" And they all say the same thing: "Because they would have done it for me." It's this deep sense of trust and cooperation. So trust and cooperation are really important here. The problem with concepts of trust and cooperation is that they are feelings, they are not instructions. I can't simply say to you, "Trust me," and you will. I can't simply instruct two people to cooperate, and they will. It's not how it works. It's a feeling.
睇到呢樣之後,我沉思 好似 William Swenson 嘅人 喺邊度嚟嘅呢? 乜嘢令佢有咁嘅舉動? 就係深層嘅情感 就係當你想做某樣嘢嘅時候就會有 呢種情感裏面係有愛 我想知道點解同我共事嘅人裏面 冇好似佢一樣嘅人? 你知啦,軍隊裏面 獎牌係俾嗰啲捨己為人嘅人 喺商場上,獎金係俾嗰啲損人利己嘅人 我哋倒返轉做。係嗎? 所以我問自己 好似佢一樣嘅人喺邊度嚟架? 我開頭嘅結論係 佢哋心地只係比一般人好 就係點解軍隊吸引佢哋嘅原因 呢啲人更講求服務精神 但呢一個諗法係完全錯嘅 我所學到嘅係,係環境導致噉樣嘅情況 如果將個環境較返啱 任何人都可以好似佢咁 做到呢啲咁有愛心嘅嘢 而更重要嘅係,其他人都會變得有愛心 我好榮幸有機會見到佢哋其中一啲人 我哋稱之為英雄嘅人 佢哋唔理自己生命去拯救其他人 我會問佢哋 「點解你會噉樣做?」 佢哋所有人都講咗同一個理由: 「 因為佢哋都會噉樣對我 」 呢個就係信任同合作嘅精神 因此,信任同合作喺呢度係非常重要 問題係,信任同合作係講緊感覺 而唔係指令 我冇可能同你講,「 信我呀 」 然後你就會信我 我冇可能叫兩個人合作,佢哋就會合作 信唔係咁樣
So where does that feeling come from?
佢係講感覺
If you go back 50,000 years to the Paleolithic era, to the early days of Homo sapiens, what we find is that the world was filled with danger, all of these forces working very, very hard to kill us. Nothing personal. Whether it was the weather, lack of resources, maybe a saber-toothed tiger, all of these things working to reduce our lifespan. And so we evolved into social animals, where we lived together and worked together in what I call a circle of safety, inside the tribe, where we felt like we belonged. And when we felt safe amongst our own, the natural reaction was trust and cooperation. There are inherent benefits to this. It means I can fall asleep at night and trust that someone from within my tribe will watch for danger. If we don't trust each other, if I don't trust you, that means you won't watch for danger. Bad system of survival.
噉呢種感覺係點樣嚟嘅呢? 如果我哋返到五萬年前 舊石器時代嗰陣、人類起源嘅時候 我哋會發現,成個世界充滿危險 所有呢啲危險嘅力量 都好似要趕絕人類噉 冇嘢係私人嘅 無論係天氣、資源缺乏 或者一隻劍齒虎 所有呢啲嘢都會縮短人類嘅壽命 所以,人類進化成群居動物 我哋住埋一齊、一齊做嘢 就係咁部落成為咗一個安全嘅環境 就係呢個部落,我哋搵到歸屬 當我哋喺其他人當中感到安全嘅時候 最本能夠嘅反應就係發展信任同合作 信任同合作有本質嘅好處 我意思係我哋夜晚就可以瞓得著 同埋會放心部落裏邊嘅人 幫我哋提防危險 如果我哋彼此唔信任,如果我唔信任你 啫係話你唔保護我哋安全 噉就會係一個非常差劣嘅生存模式
The modern day is exactly the same thing. The world is filled with danger, things that are trying to frustrate our lives or reduce our success, reduce our opportunity for success. It could be the ups and downs in the economy, the uncertainty of the stock market. It could be a new technology that renders your business model obsolete overnight. Or it could be your competition that is sometimes trying to kill you. It's sometimes trying to put you out of business, but at the very minimum is working hard to frustrate your growth and steal your business from you. We have no control over these forces. These are a constant, and they're not going away.
現代社會也係一樣 呢個世界充滿危險 好多嘢都喺度糟蹋我哋生活 阻止我哋嘅成功、減少我哋嘅成功率 危險可以係經濟嘅波動 股票市場唔穩定 或者會有一個新技術 令你嘅商業模式喺一夜之間過時 或者係你嘅競爭對手硬係想將你打敗 有時可能係試圖將你由商場上面淘汰 但係至少佢哋會盡一切辦法 阻止你嘅業務增長、搶你嘅生意 我哋只係唔能夠控制呢啲危險嘅力量 佢哋永恆存在、唔會消失 唯一可以改變嘅就係組織裏面嘅情況
The only variable are the conditions inside the organization, and that's where leadership matters, because it's the leader that sets the tone. When a leader makes the choice to put the safety and lives of the people inside the organization first, to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice the tangible results, so that the people remain and feel safe and feel like they belong, remarkable things happen.
亦啫係領袖發揮作用嘅地方 因為係領袖決定成個調子 當一個領袖選擇 將組織入面嘅人嘅安全同生命 放喺第一位嘅時候 即使噉樣會犧牲佢哋嘅舒適度 同埋佢哋嘅物質財富 啲人仍然會覺得安全 覺得自己屬於呢個組織 然後犀利嘅嘢就會發生
I was flying on a trip, and I was witness to an incident where a passenger attempted to board before their number was called, and I watched the gate agent treat this man like he had broken the law, like a criminal. He was yelled at for attempting to board one group too soon. So I said something. I said, "Why do you have treat us like cattle? Why can't you treat us like human beings?" And this is exactly what she said to me. She said, "Sir, if I don't follow the rules, I could get in trouble or lose my job." All she was telling me is that she doesn't feel safe. All she was telling me is that she doesn't trust her leaders. The reason we like flying Southwest Airlines is not because they necessarily hire better people. It's because they don't fear their leaders.
有一次旅行搭飛機 我親身經歷咗一件事 當時一個乘客喺未嗌號碼之前就想上機 然之後我睇到地勤職員 將呢位乘客當做係犯咗法咁 嗰名乘客因為早咗一輪上機而被人喝著 於是我同地勤職員講 我話 ︰ 「點解你對我哋好似對畜牲一樣? 點解唔可以用對人嘅態度對我哋?」 佢就真係咁樣同我講 佢話︰「 先生,如果我唔跟返個規定, 我會有麻煩或者冇我份工。」 從佢嘅話裏面感覺到佢冇安全感 佢唔信佢嘅組長 我哋鍾意坐西南航空 並唔係因為佢哋請更加好嘅員工 而係因為呢啲員工唔會驚佢哋嘅上頭
You see, if the conditions are wrong, we are forced to expend our own time and energy to protect ourselves from each other, and that inherently weakens the organization. When we feel safe inside the organization, we will naturally combine our talents and our strengths and work tirelessly to face the dangers outside and seize the opportunities.
呢樣嘢反映咗如果情況出錯 我哋就要被迫花自己嘅時間同精神 去保護自己 而呢樣嘢本質上削弱組織嘅力量 當我哋喺一個組織裏面感覺安全時 人就會自然集合本身嘅才華同力量 唔會覺得攰咁 不斷工作去應對外部嘅威脅 同埋會捉緊機會
The closest analogy I can give to what a great leader is, is like being a parent. If you think about what being a great parent is, what do you want? What makes a great parent? We want to give our child opportunities, education, discipline them when necessary, all so that they can grow up and achieve more than we could for ourselves. Great leaders want exactly the same thing. They want to provide their people opportunity, education, discipline when necessary, build their self-confidence, give them the opportunity to try and fail, all so that they could achieve more than we could ever imagine for ourselves.
最貼切嘅比喻係 一個偉大嘅領袖就好似父母一樣 如果你諗下偉大嘅父母係點嘅時候 你會諗到乜嘢? 點先能夠成就出偉大嘅父母? 我哋都想俾機會、教育孩子 同埋適當嘅紀律 令佢哋比我哋 能夠更好咁成長、成就更多 偉大嘅領袖都想要同樣嘅嘢 佢哋希望能夠俾到人機會 教育、同適當嘅紀律 塑造佢哋嘅自信 俾機會佢哋去試下失敗嘅滋味 以至於佢哋能夠獲得 連我哋自己都唔會有、更大嘅成就
Charlie Kim, who's the CEO of a company called Next Jump in New York City, a tech company, he makes the point that if you had hard times in your family, would you ever consider laying off one of your children? We would never do it. Then why do we consider laying off people inside our organization? Charlie implemented a policy of lifetime employment. If you get a job at Next Jump, you cannot get fired for performance issues. In fact, if you have issues, they will coach you and they will give you support, just like we would with one of our children who happens to come home with a C from school. It's the complete opposite.
Charlie Kim 係 Next Jump 嘅首席執行官 Next Jump 係喺紐約一家科技公司 佢話如果你屋企處於一個艱難時期 你會考慮唔養你其中一個細路嗎? 冇人會噉做 噉點解我哋會解僱 我哋組織裏邊嘅人呢? Charlie Kim 喺公司實施終身聘用制度 如果你喺 Next Jump 公司裏面有一份工 你唔會因為工作問題而俾人炒 實際上,如果你有問題 佢哋會教你同支援你 就好似對住個我哋成績得 C 嘅孩子一樣 而好多公司嘅做法卻係啱啱相反
This is the reason so many people have such a visceral hatred, anger, at some of these banking CEOs with their disproportionate salaries and bonus structures. It's not the numbers. It's that they have violated the very definition of leadership. They have violated this deep-seated social contract. We know that they allowed their people to be sacrificed so they could protect their own interests, or worse, they sacrificed their people to protect their own interests. This is what so offends us, not the numbers. Would anybody be offended if we gave a $150 million bonus to Gandhi? How about a $250 million bonus to Mother Teresa? Do we have an issue with that? None at all. None at all. Great leaders would never sacrifice the people to save the numbers. They would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save the people.
呢個就係點解會有咁多人 對著銀行首席執行官嘅時候 內心會有怨恨 而呢啲執行官收著 唔成比例嘅人工同獎金 其實並唔係因為錢嘅問題 而係因為佢哋違背做領導嘅原義 佢哋違反呢一條根深蒂固喺社會嘅原則 佢哋容許職員犧牲自己 去維護佢哋嘅利益 更甚者,佢哋犧牲其他人 去維護佢哋自己嘅利益 唔係錢嘅問題 而係佢哋做出嚟嘅嘢好睇唔過眼 如果我哋俾甘地一千五百萬美元嘅獎金 有冇人覺得被冒犯嗎? 如果二億五千萬美元獎金俾咗德蘭修女 我哋對於嗰樣嘅做法會有意見嗎? 唔會 真正嘅領袖絕唔會犧牲他人去換取金錢 相反,佢哋總係犧牲金錢去幫其他人 Bob Chapman,喺美國中西部
Bob Chapman, who runs a large manufacturing company in the Midwest called Barry-Wehmiller, in 2008 was hit very hard by the recession, and they lost 30 percent of their orders overnight. Now in a large manufacturing company, this is a big deal, and they could no longer afford their labor pool. They needed to save 10 million dollars, so, like so many companies today, the board got together and discussed layoffs. And Bob refused. You see, Bob doesn't believe in head counts. Bob believes in heart counts, and it's much more difficult to simply reduce the heart count. And so they came up with a furlough program. Every employee, from secretary to CEO, was required to take four weeks of unpaid vacation. They could take it any time they wanted, and they did not have to take it consecutively. But it was how Bob announced the program that mattered so much. He said, it's better that we should all suffer a little than any of us should have to suffer a lot, and morale went up. They saved 20 million dollars, and most importantly, as would be expected, when the people feel safe and protected by the leadership in the organization, the natural reaction is to trust and cooperate. And quite spontaneously, nobody expected, people started trading with each other. Those who could afford it more would trade with those who could afford it less. People would take five weeks so that somebody else only had to take three.
經營一家大型製造商叫做 Barry-Wehmiller 喺 2008 年,由於經濟危機 佢受影響得好深 一夜之間,佢哋損失咗 30% 嘅訂單 呢樣對於大型嘅製造商嚟講 係好大嘅損失 佢哋唔能夠再養咁多嘅員工 公司需要減少一千萬美元嘅開支 所以好以好多其他公司一樣 董事開會傾裁員 但係,Bob Chapman 拒絕 可以睇到,佢唔講錢 佢係講人情呢樣嘢 相比起開源節流,拋棄感情要難得多 於是乎佢提出咗一個休假嘅計畫 每一個員工,由秘書到首席執行官 都被要求放四星期無薪假期 員工可以喺任何時間放咗呢個假去 而且唔需要連續咁放 而 Bob Chapman 公佈呢樣嘢 至係更加重要 佢同大家講 「我哋每個人損失少少, 總好過只係某啲人失去好多」 佢呢番話公司士氣上升 佢哋省咗二千萬美元 但更重要嘅係,金額超出咗佢哋預期 當員工因為組織嘅領導 而覺得安全同有保障之後 自然反應就係信任同合作 冇人估到,大家都自發地調配呢啲假期 等錢用嘅員工 會同冇咁等錢用嘅員工賣假期 有啲員工就有五個星期嘅無薪假期 而其他員工就放三星期嘅無薪假期
Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank. I know many people at the seniormost levels of organizations who are absolutely not leaders. They are authorities, and we do what they say because they have authority over us, but we would not follow them. And I know many people who are at the bottoms of organizations who have no authority and they are absolutely leaders, and this is because they have chosen to look after the person to the left of them, and they have chosen to look after the person to the right of them. This is what a leader is.
領導其實係一種個人選擇 而唔係一種等級 我知道好多人 喺組織裏面坐最高級嘅職位 但係佢哋唔係真正嘅領袖 佢哋只係有權威 我哋下屬只係按佢哋嘅要求做嘢 因為佢哋對我哋有權力 但係我哋唔會跟隨佢哋 我仲知道好多人 佢哋係屬於組織嘅底層 佢哋冇權力 但係佢哋絕對係領袖 噉係因為 佢哋選擇去照顧佢哋身邊嘅人 呢個至係真正嘅領導
I heard a story of some Marines who were out in theater, and as is the Marine custom, the officer ate last, and he let his men eat first, and when they were done, there was no food left for him. And when they went back out in the field, his men brought him some of their food so that he may eat, because that's what happens. We call them leaders because they go first. We call them leaders because they take the risk before anybody else does. We call them leaders because they will choose to sacrifice so that their people may be safe and protected and so their people may gain, and when we do, the natural response is that our people will sacrifice for us. They will give us their blood and sweat and tears to see that their leader's vision comes to life, and when we ask them, "Why would you do that? Why would you give your blood and sweat and tears for that person?" they all say the same thing: "Because they would have done it for me." And isn't that the organization we would all like to work in?
我聽過一個關於海軍嘅故事 呢個並唔係電影裏面嘅情節 而係海軍歷嚟嘅傳統 長官會最後一個食飯 佢俾部下食先 而當佢哋嘅部下吃完之後 冇曬嘢食 但係當佢哋返到自己崗位時 佢嘅部下便會帶一啲食物俾佢 呢個就係佢哋嘅傳統 我哋稱長官做領袖 係因為佢哋總係會行頭、甘願冒險 係因為佢哋選擇犧牲自己,保護其他人 當領袖噉樣做,人最自然嘅反應 就係願意為領袖犧牲自己 佢哋願意為實現佢哋領袖嘅夢想 而流血汗、流眼淚 而當佢哋被問到點解會噉樣做時 點解要流血汗、流眼淚 佢哋會不約而同咁回答: 因為,佢哋都咁樣為我哋做 唔通噉嘅組織 唔係我哋想留喺度做嘢嘅地方嗎? 多謝
Thank you very much.
多謝
Thank you. (Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you. (Applause)
多謝