出人意料的工作动机

I need to make a confession at the outset here. A little over 20 years ago, I did something that I regret, something that I'm not particularly proud of. Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know,

开始前我必须先向你们告解二十多年前我做了一件让我后悔莫及的事一件我丝毫不感到骄傲的事一件我希望没有任何人会知道的事

but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal. (Laughter) In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. (Laughter)

但今日我认为我有必要揭发我自己(笑声)80年代晚期因为年少轻狂我进入法律学院就读(笑声)

In America, law is a professional degree: after your university degree, you go on to law school. When I got to law school, I didn't do very well. To put it mildly, I didn't do very well.

在美国，法律学位是个专业学位你得先拿到学士，才能进入法律学院当我进入法律学院时我的成绩不怎么好客气地说，我的成绩不怎么好

I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90% possible. (Laughter) Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life;

我的毕业成绩成就了在我之上那其他九成的同学(笑声)谢谢你们我这辈子从来没做过律师

I pretty much wasn't allowed to. (Laughter) But today, against my better judgment, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills --

基本上那样做可能还会犯法(笑声)但今日，我违背我的理性违背我太太的忠告我想重拾那些过去所学的诉讼技巧

what's left of those legal skills. I don't want to tell you a story. I want to make a case. I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case,

所剩无几的诉讼技巧我不要向你们说故事而是提出一个陈述提出一个有根有据，货真价实的法庭陈述

for rethinking how we run our businesses. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this. This is called the candle problem. Some of you might know it. It's created in 1945

来重新思考我们的管理方法陪审团的女士先生们，请看看这个这便是有名的蜡烛问题你们之中有些人可能已经看过了它是在1945年

by a psychologist named Karl Duncker. He created this experiment that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science. And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches.

由心理学家 Karl Duncker 所创造的Karl Duncker 创造了这个实验在行为科学中被广泛运用情况是，假设我是实验者我带你进入一个房间，给你一根蜡烛一些图钉和火柴

And I say to you, "Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table." Now what would you do? Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn't work. I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here --

告诉你说”现在尝试把蜡烛固定在墙上让烛泪不要滴到桌上。“你会怎么做？许多人尝试用图钉把蜡烛钉在墙上行不通

some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall. It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work. And eventually, after five or ten minutes,

有些人，台下也有些人做出这样的动作有些人想到他们可以点燃火柴，溶化蜡烛的底部，尝试把它黏在墙上好主意。但行不通差不多过了五到十分钟

most people figure out the solution, which you can see here. The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle.

大部分的人便会想出解决办法就像图片上那样重点是克服”功能固着“当你看到盒子，你不过把它当成装大头针的容器但它还有其它功能那就是作为放蜡烛的平台。

The candle problem. I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University, US, This shows the power of incentives.

现在我想告诉你另一个实验利用蜡烛问题由一个现在在普林斯顿大学叫做 Sam Glucksberg 的科学家所做的实验这实验让我们看见动机的力量

He gathered his participants and said: "I'm going to time you, how quickly you can solve this problem." To one group he said, "I'm going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem." To the second group he offered rewards.

他是这么做的。他将参与者聚集在一个房间里告诉他们“我要开始计时。看看你们能多快解决这个问题？”他对其中一群人说，我只是想取个平均值看一般人需要花多久的时间才能解决这样的问题。他提供奖励给另一群人

He said, "If you're in the top 25% of the fastest times, you get five dollars. If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today, you get 20 dollars." Now this is several years ago, adjusted for inflation,

他说“如果你是前25%最快解决问题的人就能拿到五块钱。如果你是今日所有人里解答最快的你就有20块钱。"这个实验是几年前的事了，按照通货膨胀

it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work. It's a nice motivator. Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem? Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.

几分钟就能拿到20块是很不错的是个不错的诱因问题是：这群人比另一群人的解题速度快了多少呢？答案是：平均来说，他们比另一组人多花了三分半种。

3.5 min longer. This makes no sense, right? I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets. That's not how it's supposed to work, right? (Laughter) If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right?

整整三分半种。这不合理，不是吗？你想想，我是个美国人。我相信自由市场这个实验不太对劲吧？对吗？(笑声)如果你想要人们做得更好，

Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That's how business works. But that's not happening here. You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity（创造力）,

你便给他们奖赏，对吗？红利、佣金、他们自己的真人秀赋予他们动机。这就是商业法则但实验里却不是这样奖励是为了增强思考能力及创意

and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity（创造力）. What's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over again for nearly 40 years.

但事实却是相反。它阻断了思考和创意能力有趣的事情是，这个实验不是误差它被一再重复在过去的四十年间

These contingent motivators -- if you do this, then you get that -- work in some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm. This is one of the most robust findings in social science,

这些不同的诱因如果你这样做，你就得到那个在某些情况里是可行的但在许多任务中，它们不是没作用更有可能产生反效果这是在社会科学中一项

and also one of the most ignored. I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation（动机）, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic（外在的） motivators and intrinsic（内在的） motivators.

最有力的发现。同时也是最为人忽略的过去两年，我研究人类的动机尤其是那些外部的激励因素和内在的激励因素

And I'm telling you, it's not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. What's alarming here is that our business operating system -- think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses,

我可以告诉你，两者相差悬殊如果你使用科学方法查证，你会发现科学知识和商业行为之间有条鸿沟我们必须要注意的是，我们的商业机制想想这些商业的协议和假设

how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources-- it's built entirely around these extrinsic（外在的） motivators, around carrots and sticks. That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks,

我们如何激励人心，如何运用人资全是以这些外部激励因素作为基础打手心给块糖对许多20世纪的工作来说是可行的但面对21世纪的工作

that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach（方法） doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm. Let me show you. Glucksberg did another similar experiment, he presented the problem in a slightly different way,

这些机械化的，奖惩分明的作法已经不管用了，有时更招致反效果让我呈现我想表达的Glucksberg 做了一个类似的实验这次他给了他们一个比较不同的问题

like this up here. Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table. Same deal. You: we're timing for norms. You: we're incentivizing. What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt.

像这个图里面的实验对象必须要找出一个让蜡烛黏在墙上，又不会流下烛泪的方法相同地，这边：我们要的是平均时间这边：一样的给他们不同诱因结果呢？这次，有诱因的那组人

Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it? (Laughter)

远远地胜过了另一组人为什么？一旦我们把图钉从盒子里拿出来问题就变得相当简单不是吗？(笑声)

If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that's why they work in so many cases.

假设 - 在这个情况下奖励就变得非常有效在规则简单，目标明显的情况下奖励，产生了作用让我们集中精神，变得专注这便是为何奖励在许多情况下有效的缘故

So, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well. But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around.

当我们面对的工作是范围狭窄，你能清楚见到目标向前直冲时奖励便非常有效但在真正的“蜡烛问题”中你不能只是这样看解答不在那里，解答是在周围

That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility（可能性）. Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia,

你需要四处找寻奖励却令我们眼光狭隘限制了我们的想象力让我告诉你这个问题的重要性在西欧亚洲的许多地方北美洲、澳洲

white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work. That routine, rule-based, left-brain work -- certain kinds of accounting, financial analysis,

白领工作者比较少处理这种问题更多的是这种问题那些例行的、常规性的、左脑式的工作一些会计、一些财务分析

computer programming -- has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

一些电脑编程变得极为容易外包变得自动化软件能处理的更快世界其他地方的低价供应商能以更便宜的成本来完成所以更重要的是右脑的

Think about your own work. Think about your own work. Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we've been talking about here, do they have a clear set of rules,

创意，概念式的能力想想你的工作想想你自己的工作你所面对的问题，甚至是我们今天所谈论到的问题这些问题 - 它们有清楚的规则

and a single solution? No. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem.

和一个简单的解答吗？不它们的规则模糊解答，如果有解答的话通常是令人意外而不明显的在这里的每个人都在尝试解决他自己的

And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we've built so many of our businesses, don't work!

“蜡烛问题”对所有形式的“蜡烛问题”在所有领域这些「如果 - 那就」的奖励这些在商业世界里无处不在的奖惩系统其实没用

It makes me crazy. And here's the thing. This is not a feeling. Okay? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy（哲学）.

这简直让我发狂这不是 - 重点是这不是一种“感觉”我是个律师，我才不信什么感觉这也不是哲学

I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy（哲学）. (Laughter) This is a fact -- or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact. (Laughter) (Applause)

我是个美国人，我才不信什么哲学(笑声)这是真相或是我们在华盛顿特区的政治圈常说的一个“事实真相”(笑声)(掌声)

Let me give you an example. Let me marshal the evidence here. I'm not telling a story, I'm making a case. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students.

让我给你一个例子让我收集这些证据因为我不是在告诉你一个故事，而是陈述一个案子陪审团的女士们先生们，证据在此：Dan Ariely,一位当代伟大的经济学家他和三位同仁，对麻省理工学院的学生做了一些研究

They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity（创造力）, and motor skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward.

他给这些学生一些游戏一些需要创造力的游戏需要动力和专注依照他们的表现给他们三种不同程度的奖励小奖励、中奖励、大奖励

If you do really well you get the large reward, on down. What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance.

如果你做得好，你就得到大奖励，依此类推结果呢？只要是机械形态的工作红利就像我们所认知的奖励越高，表现越好

Okay? But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive（认知的） skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.

是的。但如果这个工作需要任何基本的认知能力越大的奖励却带来越差的表现于是他们说

Then they said, "Let's see if there's any cultural bias（偏见） here. Let's go to Madurai, India and test it." Standard of living is lower. In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.

“让我们试试是否有什么文化差距让我们去印度的马杜赖试试。”生活水平较低在马杜赖，北美标准的的中等奖励在这里有意义多了一样地，一些不同游戏，三种奖励

What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all.

结果呢？中等奖励的人做得不比那些小奖励的人好但这次，那些能够得到大奖励的人表现最差

In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance. Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?

三种实验中，在我们提供的九个游戏中有八个奖励越高的表现越差难道这是一种感情用事的社会主义的阴谋诡计吗？

No, these are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. Do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That's the American experience.

不。这些经济学家来自麻省理工卡内基梅隆、和芝加哥大学你知道赞助这实验的是谁吗？是美国联邦储备银行完全的美国经验

Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics, LSE, London School of Economics, alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek,

让我们跨海到伦敦政经学院看看LSE,伦敦经济学院十一位诺贝尔经济奖得主的母校训练伟大经济学家的地方有乔治索罗斯、弗里德里希•哈耶克

and Mick Jagger. (Laughter) Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here's what they said: "We find that financial incentives

和滚石乐团的米克•贾格尔（笑声）上个月，才刚过去的那个月政经学院的经济学家汇整了51个关于企业内部绩效薪酬的研究这些经济学家说，“我们发现金钱的诱因

can result in a negative impact（影响） on overall performance." There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic collapse（崩溃）,

能对整体绩效带来负面效果。”科学知识和商业行为之间有条鸿沟我所忧心的是，在我们站在金融风暴废墟之间的此刻

is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science.

仍然有太多团体仍然以一些过时的、未经验证的、非科学的几乎是来自天方夜谭的假设来制定规则和管理人事

And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a sweeter carrot,

如果我们真的想要摆脱这个经济危机如果我们真的想要在这些属于21世纪的核心工作中获取绩效的话这解答无异是错上加错：用红萝卜来吸引人

or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach（方法）. The good news is that the scientists who've been studying motivation（动机） have given us this new approach. It's built much more around intrinsic（内在的） motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter,

或是用棍子来威胁人我们需要一种新做法好消息是这些研究人类动机的科学家已经给了我们一个新方向这个新方向讲求内在的诱因我们想做是因为它能改变世界

because we like it, they're interesting, or part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy（自主权）, mastery（精通） and purpose（目的）. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives.

因为我们喜欢，因为它很有趣因为它能影响的范围很广在我心里，这种新的商业机制围绕在三个基础上自主性、掌握力和使命感自主性，想要主掌自己人生的需求

Mastery（精通）: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose（目的）: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system

掌握力，想要在举足轻重的事情上做得更好的欲望使命感，希望我们所做的事情是为了更高远的理想的渴望这些便是建立新商业机制的

for our businesses. I want to talk today only about autonomy（自主权）. In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. Management is not a tree, it's a television set.

基石今天我只想提到自主性20世纪产生了管理学的想法管理学不是自然发生的管理学像是 － 它不是一棵树而是个电视机

Somebody invented it. It doesn't mean it's going to work forever. Management is great. Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance. But if you want engagement, self-direction works better. Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction.

对吗？有人发明它不代表它永远都好用管理学很好传统的管理学的概念是好的如果你需要的是服从但如果你想要员工全心投入，自动自发更好有关自动自发，让我给你一些

You don't see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on, what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely -- getting the issue of money off the table, and then giving people lots of autonomy（自主权）.

革命性的例子代表着 --这样的例子不多但是你可以发现一些有趣的事情正开始发生它代表着付给人们合理与足够的工资让钱不再是问题然后给人们很大的自治权

Some examples. How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half. (Laughter) Atlassian is an Australian software company.

让我举一些例子在座谁听过一家叫 Atlassian 的公司？看起来一半都不到（笑声）Atlassian 是一个澳大利亚的软件公司

And they do something incredibly cool. A few times a year they tell their engineers, "Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it's not part of your regular job. Work on anything you want." Engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code,

他们做了一件很酷的事一年有几次，他们跟公司里的软件工程师说“接下来的24个小时，去做你自己想做的事，只要它和你每天的工作无关随便你要做什么都行。”这些工程师便利用这些时间写出一套有趣的编程，优雅地包装这些想法

come up with an elegant hack. Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed to their teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and woolly all-hands meeting at the end of the day. Being Australians, everybody has a beer. They call them FedEx Days.

在那天的最后在这个全员到齐，万众一心的会议中对他们的组员和整个公司介绍他的发明当然，身为澳大利亚人，大家都得来罐啤酒他们叫这是 FedEx 联邦快递日

Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. It's pretty; not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever. (Laughter) That one day of intense autonomy（自主权）

因为你必须在隔夜交出你的作品很不赖的想法。虽然违反商标法但这个想法很聪明。（笑声）在高度自主的一日中

has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed. It's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20% time -- done, famously, at Google -- where engineers can spend 20% of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy（自主权） over their time,

他们做出了许多软件编程的革新之前根本没人想到的这个计划的成功，让 Altlassian 更进一步的发明了五分之一时间谷歌把这个想法发扬光大工程师可以用五分之一的时间做所有他们想做的事情他们可以自由的分配他们的时间

their task, their team, their technique. Radical amounts of autonomy（自主权）. And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20% time: things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.

工作，组员，和作法就是这样。完全的自主权诚如大家所知，在谷歌一年中有一半的新商品都来自这五分之一时间像谷歌信箱、Orkut、谷歌新闻

Let me give you an even more radical example of it: something called the Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE), created by two American consultants, in place at a dozen companies around North America. In a ROWE people don't have schedules.

让我给你一个更具革命性的例子一个叫做“只论结果的工作环境”简写是ROWE由两个美国分析师所创造用在十多家北美公司上在 ROWE 之中，人们没有日程表

They show up when they want. They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time. They just have to get their work done. How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them.

他们想来就来他们不需要在特定时间到公司任何时间他们只需要把工作完成怎么做、何时做在哪里做、都取决于他们自己

Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional. What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.

甚至连开会都是选择性的结果呢？几乎所有公司的生产力都提升了工作投入度提升工作满意度提升，人力流失降低

Autonomy（自主权）, mastery（精通） and purpose（目的）, the building blocks of a new way of doing things. Some of you might look at this and say, "Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian." And I say, "Nope. I have proof."

自主性、掌握力和使命感这便是新工作方式的新基础在座的某些人可能会看着然后说”嗯，听起来不错，就是太理想化了。“我说”错了。我有证据。“

The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives, They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles. Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time.

在90年代中，微软开始了一个叫做 Encarta 的百科全书计划他们使用了所有正确的诱因所有的诱因。他们付钱给专业人士让他们写和编辑这些文章收入颇丰的主管们监督着整个计划确定它不会超过预算和时间

A few years later, another encyclopedia got started. Different model, right? Do it for fun. No one gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen. Do it because you like to do it.

几年后另一个百科全书计划开始了完全不同的模式为了兴趣而作。没有人能拿到任何一毛钱因为自己喜欢做而做

Just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, "Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia. If they went head to head, who would win?" 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist

如果你在十年前到一个经济学家那里去对他说”我有两种撰写百科全书的模式拿来相比，谁会赢？“十年前你绝对不会找到任何一个清醒的经济学家

anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model. This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation（动机）, right? This is the Thrilla in Manila. Intrinsic（内在的） motivators versus extrinsic（外在的） motivators.

在这个地球的任何角落能够预知维基百科的模式这是一个两种模式之间的世纪战役动机的阿里与弗雷泽之战就像那场在马尼拉的拳王之战是吗？内在动机和外在动机

Autonomy（自主权）, mastery（精通） and purpose（目的）, versus carrot and sticks, and who wins? Intrinsic（内在的） motivation（动机）, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up. There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.

自主性、掌握力和使命感和胡萝卜和棍子。谁赢了？内在动机、自主性、掌握力和使命感获得压倒性胜利。结论是科学知识和商业行为之间

Here is what science knows. One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances. Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity（创造力）.

有条鸿沟一：这些20世纪的奖励这些我们当作商业中自然一部分的诱因是有用的。但意外地只在一个非常狭窄的情况下二：这些奖励往往会破坏创造力

Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic（内在的） drive-- the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter. And here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts.

三：高绩效的秘密不是奖励和惩罚而是看不见的内在动力让人为了自己而做的动力让人有使命感的动力最好的是我们了然于心。科学不过确认了我们心里的声音

So, if we repair this mismatch between science and business, if we bring our motivation（动机）, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology（意识形态）

如果我们改变科学知识和商业行为之间有的那条鸿沟如果我们把我们的动机，对诱因的想法带进21世纪如果我们越过懒惰的、危险的、理想化的

of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe -- we can change the world. I rest my case.

胡萝卜和棍子的想法我们可以强化我们的公司解决许多的“蜡烛问题”那么或许，或许，或许我们便能改变世界。陈述完毕。

(Applause)

（掌声）