ear(完整版)TED《出人意料的工作动机》中英文对照演讲稿)

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,

but

here

I

feel

kind

of

obliged

to

reveal.

In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful

indiscretion, I went to law school.

Now, in America law is a professional degree: you

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

但今日我

认为我有必要揭发我自己

80

年代晚期

因为年少轻狂

我进入法律

学院就读

get your university degree, then you go on to law

school.

And

when

I

got

to

law

school,

I

didn't

do

very

well.

To put it mildly, I didn't do very well.

I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school

class that made the top 90 percent possible.

Thank you.

I never practiced law a day in my life;

I pretty much wasn't allowed to.

But today, against my better judgment, against the

advice of my own wife, I want to try dust off some

of

those

legal

skills

--

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, 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 have seen this before.

It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl

Duncker.

Karl

Dunker

created

this

experiment

that

is

used

in

a whole variety of experiments in behavioral

science.

And here's how it e I'm the

experimenter.

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

我的毕业成绩成 就了在我之上那其他九

成的同学

谢谢你们

我这辈子从来没做过律师

基本上那样做可能还会犯法

但今日

我违背我的理性

违背我太太的

忠告

< br>我想重拾那些过去所学的诉讼技

巧，所剩无几的诉讼技巧

我不想向你们说故事

而是提出一个陈述

提出一个有根据

货真价实的法庭陈述

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

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

I bring you into a room. I give you a candle,

Some thumbtacks and some matches.

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?

Now

many

people

begin

trying

to

thumbtack

the

candle

我带你进入一个房间

给你一根蜡烛

一

些图钉和火柴

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

to the wall.

Doesn't work.

Somebody,

some

people

--

and

I

saw

somebody

kind

of

make

the

motion

over

here

--

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

10

minutes,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. The candle problem.

Now

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 in

the U.S.

This shows the power of incentives.

Here's what he did. He gathered his participants.

And

he

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.

He said,

“

If you're in the top 25 percent of the

fastest times, you get five dollars. If you're the

fastest of everyone we're testing here today, you

get 20 dollars.

”

许多人尝试用图钉把蜡烛钉在墙上

行不通

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

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

那就是作为蜡烛的

平台

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

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

他说

如果你是前

25%

最快解决问题的人

就能拿到五块钱

< br>

如果你是今日所有人

里解答最快的

< /p>

你就有

20

块钱

Now this is several years ago. Adjusted for

inflation, 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.

Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes no

这个实验是几年前的事了

按照通货膨

胀

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

花了三分半钟

sense right?

I

mean,

I'm

an

American.

I

believe

in

free

markets.

That's not how it's supposed to work. Right?

If you want people to perform better, you reward

them. Right?

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, and it does just the

opposite.

It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.

And

what's

interesting

about

this

experiment

is

that

it's not an aberration.

This has been replicated over and over and over

again, for nearly 40 years.

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, and also one of the most ignored.

I spent the last couple of years looking at the

science of human motivation, particularly the

dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic

motivators.

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.

And what's alarming here is that our business

整整三分半钟

这不合理

不是吗

我是个美国人

我相信自由市场

这个实验不太对劲吧

对吗

如果你想要人们做得更好

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

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

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

他们不是没有作用

更

有可能产生反效果

这是在社会科学中一项最有力的发现

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

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

我们必须注意的是

我们的商业机制

想

operating

system

--

think

of

the

set

of

assumptions

想这些商业的协议和假设

我们如何激

and protocols beneath our businesses, how we

motivate people, how we apply our human resources

-- it's built entirely around these extrinsic

motivators, around carrots and sticks.

That's

actually

fine

for

many

kinds

of

20th

century

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

tasks.

But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic,

reward-and-punishment

approach

doesn't

work,

often

doesn't work, and often does harm.

Let me show you what I mean.

So

Glucksberg

did

another

experiment

similar

to

this

where he presented the problem in a slightly

different way, like this up here. Okey?

Attach

the

candle

to

the

wall

so

the

wax

doesn't

drip

onto the table.

Same : we're timing for norms.

You: we're incentivizing.

What happened this time?

This time, the incentivized group kicked the other

group's butt.

Why?

Because

when

the

tacks

are

out

of

the

box,

it's

pretty easy isn't it?

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.

And 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 not over here. The solution is on

the periphery.

You want to be looking around.

That

reward

actually

narrows

our

focus

and

restricts

对许多

20

世纪的工作来说是可行的

但面对