分類：職場
時間：2019-09-12
片長：18：04
簡介：How great leaders inspire action ‖ 西蒙·斯涅克用一個簡單但是震撼的模型來闡釋激勵人心的領(lǐng)袖力，這個模型的核心是一個“黃金”圓圈，意思是領(lǐng)袖素質(zhì)的根本來源是回答“為什么？”。他列舉了蘋果公司、馬丁·路德·金還有萊特兄弟成功的例子，同時以蒂沃（Tivo）數(shù)碼錄像機為失敗的典型。雖然蒂沃最近打贏一場官司，使得其股價上漲了3倍，但是它仍在掙扎中。
演講者：Simon Sinek 西蒙·斯涅克
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.
當(dāng)事情的發(fā)展出乎意料之外的時候，你怎么解釋？換句話說，當(dāng)別人似乎出乎意料地取得成功的時候，你怎么解釋？比如說，為什么蘋果公司創(chuàng)新能力這么強？這么多年來，年復(fù)一年，他們比所有競爭對手都更加具有創(chuàng)新性。而其實他們只是一家電腦公司。他們跟其他公司沒有任何分別。
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?
有同樣的途徑，接觸到同樣的人才，同樣的代理商、顧問和媒體。那為什么他們就似乎有那么一點不同尋常呢？同樣的，為什么是由馬丁·路德·金來領(lǐng)導(dǎo)民權(quán)運動？那個時候在美國，民權(quán)運動之前，不僅僅只有他一個人飽受歧視。他也決不是那個時代唯一的偉大演說家。為什么會是他？
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.
又為什么懷特兄弟能夠造出動力控制的載人飛機，跟他們相比，當(dāng)時的其他團隊似乎更有能力、更有資金，他們卻沒能制造出載人飛機，懷特兄弟打敗了他們。一定還有一些什么別的因素在起作用。
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.
大概三年半之前，我有了個新發(fā)現(xiàn)，這個發(fā)現(xiàn)完全改變了我對這個世界如何運作的看法。甚至從根本上改變了我的工作生活方式。那就是我發(fā)現(xiàn)了一種模式，我發(fā)現(xiàn)世界上所有偉大的令人振奮的領(lǐng)袖和組織，無論是蘋果公司、馬丁·路德·金還是懷特兄弟，他們思考、行動、交流溝通的方式都完全一樣，但是跟所有其他人的方式完全相反。我所做的僅僅是把它整理出來。這可能是世上 最簡單的概念。我稱它為黃金圓環(huán)。
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.
為什么？怎么做？是什么？這小小的模型就解釋了為什么一些組織和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者能夠在別人不能的地方激發(fā)出靈感和潛力。我來盡快地解釋一下這些術(shù)語。地球上的每個人、每個組織都明白自己做的是什么，百分之百。其中一些知道該怎么做，你可以稱之為是你的差異價值，或是你的獨特工藝，或是你的獨特賣點也好，怎么說都行。
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?
但是非常非常少的人和組織明白為什么做。這里的“為什么”和“為利潤” 沒有關(guān)系，利潤只是一個結(jié)果，永遠只能是一個結(jié)果。我說的“為什么” 指的是：你的目的是什么？你這樣做的原因是什么？你懷著什么樣的信念？你的機構(gòu)為什么而存在？你每天早上是為什么而起床？為什么別人要在乎你？
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.
結(jié)果是，我們思考的方式，行動的方式，交流的方式都是由外向內(nèi)的。很顯然的，我們所采用的方式是從清晰開始，然后到模糊的東西。但是激勵型領(lǐng)袖以及組織機構(gòu)，無論他們的規(guī)模大小，所在領(lǐng)域，他們思考，行動和交流的方式都是從里向外的。
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.
舉個例子吧。 我舉蘋果公司是因為這個例子簡單易懂，每個人都能理解。如果蘋果公司跟其他公司一樣，他們的市場營銷信息就會是這個樣子：“我們做最棒的電腦、設(shè)計精美、使用簡單、界面友好。 你想買一臺嗎？” 不怎么樣吧。這就是我們大多數(shù)人的交流方式，也是大多數(shù)市場推廣的方式，大部分銷售所采用的方式，也是我們大部分人互相交流的方式。
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.
我們說我們的職業(yè)是干什么的，我們說我們是如何的與眾不同，或者我們怎么比其他人更好，然后我們就期待著一些別人的反應(yīng)，比如購買，比如投票，諸如此類。這是我們新開的的律師事務(wù)所，我們擁有最棒的律師和最大的客戶，我們總是能滿足客戶的要求。這是我們的新車型， 非常省油，真皮座椅，買一輛吧。但是這些推銷詞一點勁都沒有。
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.
這是蘋果公司實際上的溝通方式： “我們做的每一件事情，都是為了突破和創(chuàng)新。我們堅信應(yīng)該以不同的方式思考。我們挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)狀的方式是通過把我們的產(chǎn)品設(shè)計得十分精美，使用簡單和界面友好。我們只是在這個過程中做出了最棒的電腦。想買一臺嗎？” 感覺完全不一樣，對吧？你已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)備從我這里買一臺了。我所做的只是將傳遞信息的順序顛倒一下而已。事實已經(jīng)向我們證明，人們買的不是你做的產(chǎn)品， 人們買的是你的信念和宗旨。人們買的不是你做的產(chǎn)品，人們買的是你的信念。
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.
這就解釋了為什么這里的每個人從蘋果公司買電腦時都覺得理所當(dāng)然。但是我們從蘋果公司買MP3播放器、手機或者數(shù)碼攝像機時，也感覺很舒服。而其實，我剛才已經(jīng)說過，蘋果公司只是個電腦公司。沒有什么能從結(jié)構(gòu)上將蘋果公司同競爭對手區(qū)分開來。競爭對手和蘋果公司有同樣的能力制造所有這些產(chǎn)品。
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.
實際上，他們也嘗試過。幾年前，捷威（Gateway）公司推出了平板電視。他們制造平板電視的能力很強，因為他們做平板顯示器已經(jīng)很多年了。但是沒有人買他們的平板電視。戴爾公司推出了MP3播放器和掌上電腦，他們產(chǎn)品的質(zhì)量非常好，產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計也非常不錯。但是也沒有人買他們的這些產(chǎn)品。
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.
其實，說到這里，我們無法想象會從戴爾公司買MP3播放器。你為什么會從一家電腦公司買MP3播放器呢？但是每天我們都這么做。人們買的不是你做的產(chǎn)品，人們買的是你的信念。做公司的目標(biāo)不是要跟所有需要你的產(chǎn)品的人做生意，而是跟與你有著相同理念的人做生意。這是最精彩的部分。
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.
我說的這些沒有一個是我自己的觀點。這些觀點都能從生物學(xué)里面找到根源。不是心理學(xué)，是生物學(xué)。當(dāng)你俯視看大腦的橫截面，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)人類大腦實際上分成三個主要部分，而這三個主要部分和黃金圓環(huán)匹配得非常好。
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.
我們最新的腦部，管轄智力的腦部，或者說我們的大腦皮層，對應(yīng)著“是什么” 這個圓環(huán)。大腦皮層負責(zé)我們所有的理性和邏輯的思考和語言功能。中間的兩個部分是我們的兩個邊腦。邊腦負責(zé)我們所有的情感，比如信任和忠誠，也負責(zé)所有的行為和決策，但這部分沒有語言功能。
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.
換句話說，當(dāng)我們由外向內(nèi)交流時，沒錯，人們可以理解大量的復(fù)雜信息，比如特征、優(yōu)點、事實和圖表。但不足以激發(fā)行動。當(dāng)我們由內(nèi)向外交流時，我們是在直接同控制行為的那一部分大腦對話，然后我們由人們理性地思考我們所說和做的事情。這就是那些發(fā)自內(nèi)心的決定的來源。
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."
你知道，有時候你展示給一些人所有的數(shù)據(jù)圖表，他們會說“我知道這些數(shù)據(jù)和圖表是什么意思，但就是感覺不對。” 為什么我們會用這個動詞，“感覺” 不對？因為控制決策的那一部分大腦并不支配語言，我們只好說 “我不知道為什么，就是感覺不對。”
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.
或者有些時候，你說聽從心的召喚，或者說聽從靈魂。我不想把這些觀念分解得太徹底，但心和靈魂都不是控制行為的部分。所有這一切都發(fā)生在你的邊腦，控制決策行為而非語言的邊腦。
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 loyaland 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.
如果你自己都不知道你為什么干你所做的事情，而別人要對你的動機作出反應(yīng)，那么你怎么可能贏得大家對你的支持，從你這里購買東西，或者，更重要的，對你忠誠并且想成為你正在做的事情的一分子呢？再說一次，目標(biāo)不僅僅是將你有的東西賣給需要它們的人； 而是將東西賣給跟你有共同信念的人。 目標(biāo)不僅僅是雇傭那些需要一份工作的人，目標(biāo)是雇傭那些同你有共同信念的人。
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.
你知道嗎，我總是說，如果你雇傭某人只是因為他能做這份工作，他們就只是為你開的工資而工作，但是如果你雇傭跟你有共同信念的人，他們會為你付出熱血、汗水和淚水。這一點，沒有比懷特兄弟的故事更恰當(dāng)?shù)睦恿恕?/p>
Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. 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.
大多數(shù)人都沒聽說過塞繆爾·蘭利這個人。20世紀(jì)初期，投入機動飛行器的熱情就像當(dāng)今的網(wǎng)站熱，每個人都在做嘗試。塞繆爾·蘭利擁有所有大家認(rèn)為是成功的要素。我的意思是，即便是現(xiàn)在，你問別人 “為什么你的產(chǎn)品或者公司失敗了呢？” 人們總是用同樣的三個東西以同樣的排列順序來回答你，缺乏資金，用人不善，形勢不好。總是那三種理由，所以讓我們來逐個分析一下。
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?
國防部給了塞繆爾·蘭利 5萬美金作為研制飛行器的資金。所以說，資金不是問題。他在哈佛大學(xué)工作過，也在史密森尼學(xué)會工作過，人脈極其廣泛。他認(rèn)識當(dāng)時最優(yōu)秀的人才。因此，他雇傭了用資金能吸引到的最優(yōu)秀的人才。當(dāng)時的市場形勢相當(dāng)有利。紐約時報對他做跟蹤報道，每個人都支持他。但是為什么你們連聽都沒聽說過他呢？
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.
與此同時，幾百公里之外的俄亥俄州代頓市，有一對兄弟，奧維爾·萊特和維爾伯·萊特，他們倆沒有任何我們認(rèn)為的成功的要素。他們沒有錢。他們用自行車店的收入來追求他們的夢想。萊特兄弟的團隊中沒有一個人 上過大學(xué)，就連奧維爾和維爾伯也沒有。紐約時報更是不沾邊的。
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.
不同的是，奧維爾和維爾伯追求的是一個事業(yè)、一個目標(biāo)、一種信念。他們相信如果他們能研制出飛行器，將會改變?nèi)澜绲陌l(fā)展進程。塞繆爾·蘭利就不同了，他想要發(fā)財，他想要成名。他追求的是最終結(jié)果，是變得富有。
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.
看吧，看接下來怎么樣了。那些懷有和懷特兄弟一樣夢想的人跟他們一起熱血朝天地奮斗著。另一邊的人則是為了工資而工作。后來流傳的故事說，每次懷特兄弟出去實驗時，都必須帶著五組零件，因為那是在他們回來吃晚飯之前將要墜毀的次數(shù)。
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.
最后，在1903年12月17日，懷特兄弟成功起飛，但是當(dāng)時沒有任何其他人在場目睹。我們是在幾天后才知道的。后來的事情進一步證實了蘭利動機不純，他在懷特兄弟成功的當(dāng)天就辭職了。他本來應(yīng)該可以說： “伙計們，這真是一項偉大的發(fā)明，我可以改進你們的技術(shù)。” 但是他沒有，因為他不是第一個制造出飛機的人，他就不會變得富有，他也不會變得有名，所以他辭職了。
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.
人們買的不是你的產(chǎn)品，而是你的信念。如果你講述你的信念，你將吸引那些跟你擁有同樣信念的人。
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.
但是為什么吸引那些跟你擁有同樣信念的人非常重要呢？創(chuàng)新的傳播有一個規(guī)律，如果你不知道這個規(guī)律，你一定了解這個概念。我們的社會中，有2.5%的人是革新者。13.5%的人 是早期的少部分采納者。接下來的34%是早期接受的大多數(shù)，然后是比較晚接受的大多數(shù)和最后行動的。這部分最后行動的人買按鍵電話的唯一原因是因為他們再也買不到轉(zhuǎn)盤電話了。
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."
雖然我們在不同的時候會處在這個曲線上不同的位置，但是創(chuàng)新的傳播規(guī)律告訴我們，如果你想在大眾市場上獲得成功，或者要大眾接納一個點子，你得等到 獲得15%-18%的市場接受度這個轉(zhuǎn)折點之后才行。那時之后市場才真正打開。我喜歡問公司：“你的新生意怎么樣呀？” 他們會很自豪地告訴你 “哦，大概有10%吧。” 是呀你有可能就在10%的顧客群這里過不去了。我們都能讓10%的人“意會”，對，我們一般這樣形容他們。就好比描述那種感覺： “哦，他們有點心領(lǐng)神會了”。
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.
問題是：你怎么在他們還沒有成為你的顧客之前就發(fā)現(xiàn)那些能意會的人，和那些不能意會的人？這就是問題的所在，就是這點間隙，你得把這個間隙給填上，正如杰弗里穆爾所說的，“跨越鴻溝”。因為早期的大多數(shù)不會嘗試新事物，除非有些人已經(jīng)先嘗試過了。而這些人，創(chuàng)新者和早期的少數(shù)人，他們喜歡大膽的嘗試。他們更自然地憑直覺做事情，發(fā)自于他們的世界觀的直覺，而不僅僅是因為市場上有什么樣的產(chǎn)品。
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.
這是一批在IPhone上市的頭幾天去排隊等六個小時來購買的人，而其實只要等一個星期你就可以隨便走進店里從貨架上買到。這是一批在平板電視剛推出時會花4萬美金買一臺的人，盡管當(dāng)時的技術(shù)還不成熟。補充說一下，他們并不是因為技術(shù)的先進而買那些產(chǎn)品，而是為了他們自己。因為他們想成為第一個體驗新產(chǎn)品的人。人們買的不是你的產(chǎn)品；人們買的是你的信念。你的行動只是證明了你的信念。
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.
實際上，人們會去做能夠體現(xiàn)他們的信念的事情。那些為了搶先在頭六個小時內(nèi)買到iPhone而排六個小時的隊的人，是出于他們的世界觀，出于他們想別人怎么看自己。他們是第一批體驗者。人們買的不是你的產(chǎn)品，他們買的是你的信念。
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 successis money and the right people and the right market conditions.
我再舉些著名的例子吧，證實創(chuàng)新傳播規(guī)律的一個失敗的例子和一個成功的例子。首先我們講這個失敗的例子。還是商業(yè)上的。就如我們一秒鐘前剛剛說過的，成功的要素是充足的資金、優(yōu)秀的人才和良好的市場形勢。
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.
那么，是不是如果有這些你就應(yīng)該獲得成功。看看蒂沃（TiVo）數(shù)字視頻公司吧。自從推出蒂沃機頂盒以來，大概是八、九年前，直到今天，它們一直是市場上唯一的最高品質(zhì)的產(chǎn)品，這沒有任何異議。它們絕對是資金充足，市場形勢也大好。其實，“蒂沃” 都變成了一個日常用的動詞。比如：我經(jīng)常把東西蒂沃到我那臺華納數(shù)碼視頻錄像機里面。
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.
但是蒂沃是個商業(yè)上的失敗案例，他們沒有賺到一分錢。他們上市時，股票價格大約在30到40美元，然后就直線下跌，而成交價格從沒超過10美元。實際上，我印象中它的交易價格從來沒有超過6美元，除了幾次小的震蕩之外。
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 habitswithout 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."
因為你會發(fā)現(xiàn)，蒂沃公司新推出他們的產(chǎn)品時，他們只是告訴我們他們產(chǎn)品是什么，他們說 “我們的產(chǎn)品可以把電視節(jié)目暫停，跳過廣告，回放電視節(jié)目，還能記住你的觀看習(xí)慣，你甚至都不用刻意設(shè)置它。” 挑剔的人們說： “我們不相信你，我們不需要這樣的東西，我們也不喜歡這樣的東西。你在唬人。”
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.
假如他們這么說： “如果你想掌控生活的方方面面，朋友，那么就試試我們的產(chǎn)品吧。它可以暫停直播節(jié)目、跳過廣告、回放直播節(jié)目，還能記下你的觀看習(xí)慣，等等。人們買的不是你的產(chǎn)品，人們買的是你的信念。你所做的僅僅只是你的信念的證明而已。
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.
下面我給大家介紹一個成功的例子。1963年的夏天，25萬人聚集在華盛頓特區(qū)聆聽馬丁·路德·金博士的演講。那時，既沒有發(fā)請?zhí)矝]有可能在網(wǎng)上查看日期。怎么會有 25萬人參加呢？而且，金博士不是美國唯一的偉大演說家，也不是美國唯一一位在民權(quán)法案實施前遭受歧視的人。實際上，他的一些想法甚至不正確。
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.
但是他有個天賦。他沒有到處宣揚美國需要改變什么方面，他只是到處告訴別人他所相信的。“我相信。我相信。我相信。” 他總是這么跟別人說。而那些和他懷有同樣信念的人受了他的啟發(fā)，他們也開始將自己的信念告訴別人。有些人建立起一些組織機構(gòu)將這些話傳給更多的人。你看，就這樣，25萬人在那天，那個時候，聚集在一起聽他演講。
How many of them showed up for him? 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.
有多少人是為了聽 “他” 演說而去的呢？沒有人。他們是為了他們自己而去的。那是他們對于美國的信念支持著他們坐 8個小時的公車，站在華盛頓八月中旬的烈日下。是他們所相信的信念，而不是黑人跟白人之間的斗爭。25%的聽眾是白人。
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.
金博士相信世界上有兩種律法， 一種是上天制定的，一種是世人制定的。直到世人制定的法律和上天制定的律法相符合，我們才真正生活在公正的世界里。民權(quán)運動只是碰巧幫他將信念付諸于現(xiàn)實的一件事情。我們跟隨他，不是為了他，而是為了我們自己。順便說一下，他的演講是 “我有一個夢想”， 而不是 “我有一個方案”。
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.
聽聽現(xiàn)在的政治家們提出的12點的大雜燴計劃，沒一點勁。一些人是當(dāng)官的，而另一些人是領(lǐng)袖。當(dāng)官的只是占據(jù)在有權(quán)力和威嚴(yán)的位置上，但是只有具有領(lǐng)袖素質(zhì)的人才能激勵我們。無論他們是個人還是組織，我們都追隨領(lǐng)袖，不是因為我們必須這樣做，而是因為我們愿意。我們跟隨具有領(lǐng)袖能力的人，不是為他們，而是為我們自己。也只有那些從 “為什么”這個圓圈出發(fā)的人才有能力 激勵周圍的人，或者找到能夠激勵他們的人。
Thank you very much.(Applause)
非常謝謝大家。（鼓掌）
?? TED系列，摘取自@TED博物館（公眾號），詳情自行前往了解
?? 當(dāng)一名安靜的聆聽者，聽別人的故事，走進別人的世界
?? 當(dāng)一名文明的表達者，敢于表達，尊重表達
