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.
有位美軍上尉名叫 威廉.斯文森, 最近獲頒國會榮譽勳章 以表揚他在 2009 年 9 月 8 日的行為。
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.
那天, 一個美軍縱隊和阿富汗軍隊 路經阿富汗某地方, 以協助保護 一組阿富汗政府官員, 官員們將拜訪當地村裡的耆老。 縱隊遭遇到伏擊, 被敵軍三面包圍, 除此之外, 斯文森上尉被目睹 在槍林彈雨中 搶救傷員, 並將死者從戰場撤出。 其中一位被救的士兵是位中士, 他和他的戰友都被送到 傷兵撤離用直升機。 這天特別的地方是,
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.
很巧地 其中一位醫護兵 裝了個 GoPro 攝影機在頭盔上, 並拍攝到整個現場。 顯示上尉斯文森和他的戰友 把這位頸部受到槍傷的 士兵帶回來。 他們把他送上直升機, 然後上尉斯文森俯身, 給他一個吻, 之後轉身再拯救更多的傷兵。 看到這幕,我思索到,
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.
像這樣的人從哪裡來的? 那是什麼? 那是種很深很深的情感, 你才會那樣做。 有種愛在其中。 我想知道為什麼 跟我一起工作的,沒有那樣的人? 大家知道,在軍中他們頒發勳章 給那些願意犧牲自我 而使其他人可以受益的人; 在商界,我們把獎金 頒給那些願意犧牲他人 而使我們受益的員工。 亂套了,是吧? 於是我問自己, 像這樣的人從哪裡來? 我的初步結論是 他們本來就是更好的人。 這讓他們對軍隊感興趣。 這些較好的人 被奉獻的概念吸引。 但那徹底錯了。 我的後來發現這跟環境有關, 如果你營造正確的環境, 我們每個人都有能力 做到這些意義重大的事情, 而更重要的是, 其他人也有這個能力。 我非常榮幸能會見 其中一些我們稱之為英雄的人。 他們曾經把自身生命 置於危險中以拯救他人。 我問他們:「你為什麼會這樣做? 你為什麼這樣做?」 他們都說同樣的話: 「因為其他人也會為我這麼做。」 這是深深的信任和合作。 因此信任和合作非常重要, 關於信任和合作的問題是: 它們是情感,不是命令。 我無法簡單地對你說「相信我」, 然後你就相信。 我不能簡單地指示兩人合作, 然後他們就合作, 並不是這樣的,這是一種感覺。
So where does that feeling come from? 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.
那麼,這種感覺從哪裡來的? 如果你回到五萬年前的 舊石器時代, 到人類文明的初期, 我們發現這世界 充滿了危險, 所有的這些力量 致力於殺死我們。 對什麼東西都一樣。 無論是天氣、 缺乏資源、 或者是一隻劍齒虎, 所有這些事情 都在削減我們的壽命。 因此,我們演化成群居動物, 我們住在一起,一起工作, 在我稱之為安全範圍的部落裡面, 那我們視為歸宿的地方。 當我們在群體中感到安全, 自然反應就是信任和合作。 連帶好處是, 這意味我可以在晚上睡覺, 並且信任部落裡的 其他人會防範危險。 如果我們不信任彼此, 如果我不信任你, 也就是你不會擔任警戒。 這將是糟糕的生存機制。
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.
現代的情況完全一樣, 這個世界充滿危險, 使我們感到挫敗、 阻撓我們成功、 降低我們成功的機會。 或許是跌宕起伏的經濟、 股市的不確定性; 或許是種新技術, 使你的商業模式瞬間被淘汰; 或許是不時試著毀掉你的 競爭對手, 可能沒讓你倒閉, 但是他們至少 也會奮力阻撓你的成長, 搶走你的業務。 我們無法控制這些力量。 這東西不會變, 也不會消失。 唯一的變數
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.
是組織的內部情況, 這才是領導才能彰顯之處, 因為領導者決定風氣。 當一個領導者作出選擇, 把組織裡面的人 的安全和性命放在第一位, 犧牲自己的安逸 以及一些有形的結果, 以使大家感到安全和歸屬感, 就會發生很棒的事情。 我搭飛機的時候,
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.
親眼目睹這麼一件事: 一名乘客在被叫到號碼前 就企圖登上飛機, 我看著登機門的地勤人員, 待這男人像是他犯了法, 像罪犯一樣。 他被衝著叫喊, 就因為他太快登機。 於是我說了些話。 我說:「為什麼你 非得把我們當作牲畜? 為什麼不能把我們當人看?」 而她確切是這麼回答, 她說:「先生, 如果我不遵守規定, 我可能會惹上麻煩或失去工作。」 她再再告訴我的是 她缺乏安全感。 她再再告訴我的是 她並不信任她的領導者。 我們喜歡搭西南航空的原因, 並不是因為他們 必然聘請更好的員工, 而是因為他們 不會害怕他們的領導者。 你要知道,如果狀況不對,
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.
我們就被迫耗費時間和精力 去保護自己不受彼此傷害! 這從根本上使組織弱化。 當我們在組織裡感到安全, 自然就會把才能和實力結合, 不屈不撓地 面對外界危險, 並把握各式各樣的機遇。
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.
最貼切的比喻是, 優秀的領導者要像為人雙親。 如果你想一下 一個優秀的雙親是什麼樣的, 你想要什麼?怎樣才能 成為優秀的雙親? 我們希望給孩子們 各種機會、教育, 必要時管教他們, 使他們成長 並實現比我們更多的成就。 偉大領袖的想法完全一致。 他們要給追隨者提供機會、 教育,必要時管教他們, 建立他們的自信心, 給他們嘗試和失敗的機會, 使他們能夠做得更多, 以至於超出我們想像。
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.
查理.金是 Next Jump 的執行長, 這家科技公司位於紐約市。 他提出一個論點: 如果你家庭遭遇困難, 你會考慮裁掉一個孩子嗎? 我們絕不會這麼做。 那我們為什麼考慮裁掉 公司的員工呢? 查理實施了一項 終身僱用的政策, 如果 Next Jump 聘了你, 你就不會因為績效問題 而遭到解僱, 事實上,當你遇到問題時, 他們會指導你、提供支持, 如我們待自己孩子, 即使他成績不理想。 這完全相反。
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.
這就是為何這麼多人 深惡痛絕 那些銀行執行長, 及其不相稱的薪資與獎金結構。 這和表面數字無關。 這是因為他們違背了 領導的根本定義, 這是因為他們已違反了 這份深植的社會契約。 我們知道,他們容許 員工權益被犧牲, 以保護自身利益, 或更糟的是, 他們犧牲員工權益, 以保護自身利益。 我們因此憤怒, 而不是數字。 如果我們給甘地 1.5 億 獎金,會犯眾怒嗎? 給德蕾莎修女 2.5 億獎金? 對此我們有爭議嗎? 完全沒有。 完全沒有。 偉大的領袖絕不會犧牲大家 以獲得利益。 他們會先犧牲利益, 以挽救大家。 鮑勃.查普曼經營一間
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.
位於中西部的大型製造公司 叫 Barry-Wehmiller, 在 2008 年受經濟衰退衝擊, 他們突然失去了 30% 的訂單。 對一個大製造商來說, 這是件大事, 他們無法再負擔 這樣的人力成本, 他們需要省下一千萬美金, 就像如今許多公司一樣, 董事會聚集在一起 召開會議商討裁員, 然而鮑勃拒絕裁員。 鮑勃並不相信「人頭」, 鮑勃在意的是「人心」, 而「人心」不是那種 可以隨意縮減的東西。 於是他們想出一個休假計劃, 由秘書到執行長, 每位員工都必須休四星期無薪假, 他們可以在任何時間休假, 也無須連續休假。 但重要的是, 鮑勃如何宣布此計劃。 他說,我們所有人都受一點苦, 會比由任何一個人 承受所有苦來得好。 員工士氣不降反升。 他們節省了二千萬美金, 而最重要的是,正如預期, 當大家感到安全, 感受到領導者的保護, 自然反應就是信任和合作, 這是自發的,沒有人預料到, 大家開始互相交換, 能夠承擔起較多的 就跟能承擔起較少的交換。 有人放假五星期, 有人就可以放假三星期。 領導是一項選擇,和職位無關。
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.
我認識很多組織裡的高層, 他們絕對不是一位領袖。 他們是當權者, 我們聽他們的, 因為他們的職權高於我們, 但我們不會追隨他們。 我認識很多位於 組織基層的人們, 他們無權無勢, 但絕對是一位領袖, 因為他們選擇照顧 他們身邊所有的人。 領袖就是這樣子的。 我聽過一個故事,
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?
關於海軍陸戰隊的, 他們在營區裡, 根據海軍陸戰隊的傳統, 軍官最後才吃, 他讓手下先吃飯, 當士兵用餐後, 卻沒有剩食物給他。 而當他們又回到戰場, 手下給他帶來他們的一些食物, 好讓他可以吃點東西。 事情是這樣的。 我們稱他們為領袖, 因為他們身先士卒; 因為他們甘願冒險, 在任何其他人之前; 因為他們犧牲自己, 使追隨者得到安全和保護, 使追隨者能夠受益, 而當我們這麼做,自然而然 追隨者就會願意為我們犧牲, 他們會為我們揮灑熱血、 汗水和淚水, 為他們的領導者實現願景, 當我們問他們: 「你為什麼要這麼做? 為什麼為那個人揮灑熱血、 汗水和淚水?」 他們都訴說著同樣的話語: 「因為他們會為我這麼做。」 難道這不是我們想要 在其中工作的組織嗎?
Thank you very much.
謝謝大家。
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝。 (掌聲)
Thank you. (Applause)
謝謝。 (掌聲)