What makes us feel good about our work?假期结束该收心了，一个TED演讲让你快速进入工作状态 时间:2018-05-04 单词数:35040
双语 中文 英文
I want to talk a little bit today about labor and work.
When we think about how people work, the naive intuition we have is that people are like rats in a maze -- that all people care about is money, and the moment we give them money, we can direct them to work one way, we can direct them to work another way. Therefore, we give bonuses to bankers and pay in all kinds of ways. And we really have this incredibly simplistic view of why people work, and what the labor market looks like.
当谈到人们是如何工作的时候，我们首先联想到的是 迷宫中的老鼠 -- 他们在乎的只有金钱， 只要我们付钱给他们， 我们就能随心所欲地指挥他们，让他们这样工作，或者那样工作。 正因为此，我们给银行家奖金， 用各种方式进行金钱激励。 我们用一种非常简单的方法 来看待人们工作的动因 以及劳动市场的状况。
At the same time, if you think about it, there’s all kinds of strange behaviors in the world around us. Think about something like mountaineering and mountain climbing. If you read books of people who climb mountains, difficult mountains, do you think that those books are full of moments of joy and happiness? No, they are full of misery. In fact, it’s all about frostbite and having difficulty walking, and difficulty breathing-- cold, challenging circumstances. And if people were just trying to be happy, the moment they would get to the top, they would say, "This was a terrible mistake. I’ll never do it again."
同时，如果你稍微想想就会发现这个世界上有各种各样奇怪的行为。以登山运动为例,如果你读读那些登山人写的书， 那些有挑战性的山， 你认为那些书是充满着欢乐和幸福的瞬间吗? 不，全是描写痛苦的。实际上，书中所讲的都是 关于冻伤之苦，前行之艰难， 和呼吸困难 -- 寒冷，极具挑战性的生存环境。 如果人们追求的是快乐，当他们到达山顶的那一刻， 他们可能会说，“这真是个可怕的错误。我再也不会做这种事情了。”
Instead, let me sit on a beach somewhere drinking mojito. But instead, people go down, and after they recover, they go up again. And if you think about mountain climbing as an example, it suggests all kinds of things. It suggests that we care about reaching the end, a peak. It suggests that we care about the fight, about the challenge. It suggests that there’s all kinds of other things that motivate us to work or behave in all kinds of ways.
“我还是坐在沙滩上喝 Mojito(鸡尾酒)吧。”但相反，在人们下了山， 恢复了之后，他们又一次向山顶进发了。 如果将登山当做一个例子的话， 它可以说明很多事情。它说明，我们在意实现目标，到达峰顶。它说明，我们在意竞争，在意挑战。 它还意味着， 有很多不同的事情， 以不同的方式来激励我们去工作。
And for me personally, I started thinking about this after a student came to visit me. This was one of my students from a few years earlier, and he came one day back to campus. And he told me the following story: He said that for more than two weeks, he was working on a PowerPoint presentation. He was working in a big bank, and this was in preparation for a merger and acquisition. And he was working very hard on this presentation -- graphs, tables, information. He stayed late at night every day. And the day before it was due, he sent his PowerPoint presentation to his boss, and his boss wrote him back and said, "Nice presentation, but the mergers canceled." And the guy was deeply depressed. Now now when he was working, he was quite happy. Every night he was enjoying his work, he was staying late, he was perfecting this PowerPoint presentation. But knowing that nobody would ever watch it made him quite depressed.
对我个人而言，我开始思考这个问题是因一个学生的拜访而起。几年前，他是我的一个学生。有一天他回到了校园。 他给我讲了个故事： 他说，他用了两个多星期的时间 来做一个演示文稿。 那时他在一家很大的银行工作。这个演示文稿是用于公司合并和收购的。他非常努力地在做这份演示文稿 -- 图表，表格，相关信息。 每天都熬夜到很晚。在截止日期的前一天， 他把这份演示文稿传给了他的老板，老板在回信中说道， “ 演示文稿做得很不错，但这项合并计划取消了。” 这消息让这家伙非常沮丧。 本来在他做这个任务的时候， 他是很开心的。 每天晚上都享受着这份工作， 享受着熬着夜，不断完善他的演示文稿。但在知道没人会看到他的成果之后，他沮丧极了。
So, I started thinking about how we experiment with this idea of the fruits of our labor. And to start with, we created a little experiment in which we gave people Legos, and we asked them to build with Legos. And for some people, we gave them Legos and we saithe, would you like to build this Bionicle for three dollars? We’ll pay you three dollars for it." And people said yes, and they built with these Legos. And when they finished, we took it, we put it under the table, and we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for $2.70?" If they said yes, we gave them another one, and when they finished, we asked them, “Do you want to build another one?" for $2.40, $2.10, and so on, until at some point people said, "No more. It’s not worth it for me."This was what we called the meaningful condition. People built one Bionicle after another. After they finished every one of them, we put them under the table. And we told them that at the end of the experiment, we will take all these Bionicle’s, we will disassemble them, we will put them back in the boxes, and we will use it for the next participant.
于是我开始思索如何通过实验来验证劳动成果所能发挥的作用。 首先，我们设计了一个小实验 我们先给测试者一些乐高积木，让他们来搭建。 在给其中一些人提供积木的时候， 我们对他们说， “嘿， 想不想拼装这样一个生化战士来赚 3 美元? 我们为此会付给你 3 美元的。” 他们答应了，然后就开始动手拼装乐高积木。 等他们完成了，我们就拿走它，放在桌子下面，然后们说，“再做一个怎么样? 这次我们会付你 2.7 美元。” 如果他们同意的话，我们就再给他们一个。 等他们拼完之后，我们又问， “还想再做一个吗?” 分别付给他们2.4 美元，2.1 美元，依此类推。 直到人们说 “不用了，已经不值得我去做了。” 这就是我们所称作的意义条件。 人们一个接一个地制作生化战士。 每当他们完成一个， 我们就把它拿到桌子底下。 然后在实验的最后我们告诉他们，他们做的这些生化战士将会被拿走拆掉， 被放回盒子里，给下一个测试者用。
There was another condition. This other condition was inspired by David, my student. And this other condition we called the Sisyphus condition. And if you remember the story about Sisyphus, Sisyphus was punished by the gods to push the same rock up a hill, and when he almost got to the end, the rock would roll over, and he would have to start again. And you can think about this as the essence of doing futile work. You can imagine that if he pushed the rock on different hills, at least he would have some sense of progress. Also, if you look at prison movies, sometimes the way that the guards torture the prisoners is to get them to dig a hole, and when the prisoner is finished, they ask him to fill the hole back up and then dig again. There’s something about this cyclical version of doing something over and over and over that seems to be particularly demotivating.
还有另外一种情境。这情境是受我的学生 David 而启发。 这种情况被我们称为西西弗斯情境。 还记得关于西西弗斯的那个传说吗? 西西弗斯被神惩罚将一块岩石推到山上去， 每当他就要到达山顶的时候， 那石头就会滚回去， 然后他必须重头再来。 这个故事告诉人们无用工作的本质。 你可以想象，如果他是在不同的山上推着石头，至少他会有点儿成就感。 或者，如果你看过监狱题材的电影的话， 有时看守是这样折磨犯人的 先让他们去挖洞 当他们挖好洞之后， 又叫他们把那个洞填上，然后再重新挖。这种循环模式 反复再反复地做同一件事情 似乎特别的让人感到消极。
So, in the second condition of this experiment, that’s exactly what we did. We asked people, "Would you like to build one Bionicle for three dollars?" And if they said yes, they built it. Then we asked them, "Do you want to build another one for $2.70?"And if they said yes, we gave them a new one, and as they were building it, we took apart the one that they just finished. And when they finished that, we said, "Would you like to build another one, this time for 30 cents less?" And if they said yes, we gave them the one that they built, and we broke. So, this was an endless cycle of them building, and us destroying in front of their eyes.
而我们的第二种实验情境正是用这个方法。 我们问道：“给你 3 美元， 你愿意拼装这个生化战士吗?” 如果他们同意，就开始拼装。 我们接着问，“现在给你 2.7 美元，你愿意再做一个吗?” 如果他们愿意，我们就再给他们一个， 就在他们拼装第二个的时候，我们把他们之前做好的那个拆开。 在他们拼完后， 我们问，“这次再少给你 30美分， 你还愿意再做一个吗?” 如果他们愿意， 我们就把之前拼完又拆开的那个给他们。 这就成了一个无限循环他们忙着拼装， 而我们当着他们的面把它们拆了。
Now what happens when you compare these two conditions? The first thing that happened was that people built many meridionals -- eleven in the meaningful condition, versus seven in the Sisyphus condition. And by the way, we should point out that this was not big meaning. People were not curing cancer or building bridges. People were building Bionicle’s for a few cents. And not only that, everybody knew that the Bionicle would be destroyed quite soon. So, there was not a real opportunity for big meaning. But even the small meaning made a difference.
当把这两种情况对比会发生什么呢?首先我们发现， 相比西西弗斯情境，在意义情境下 受试者拼装了更多的生化战士 -- 11 比 7。 同时，我们必须指出， 这个意义条件并非特别重大。 他们不是在治疗癌症也不是建造大桥， 只是拼装生化战士赚几美分而已。不仅如此，每个人都知道，它们将很快被拆掉。 因此这并没有什么重大的意义。 但即使再小的意义也有所影响。
Now we had another version of this experiment. In this other version of the experiment, we didn’t put people in this situation, we just described to them the situation, much as I am describing to you now, and we asked them to predict what the result would be. What happened? People predicted the right direction but not the right magnitude. People who were just given the description of the experiment said that in the meaningful condition, people would probably build one more Bionicle. So, people understand that meaning is important, they just don’t understand the magnitude of the importance, the extent to which it’s important.
然后我们又做了另外一个版本的实验。在新的实验中， 我们不把人们至于这个情境之中， 而只是向他们描述实验情境， 就像我现在向你们所描述的这样， 然后我们让他们预测实验的可能结果。 这次发生了什么呢? 受试者都预测对了结果， 但是没有猜对这个结果的程度。 那些被告知实验细节的测试者 认为在有意义情景中， 人们可能会多拼装一个生化战士。由此可见，人们是知道意义的重要性的。 只是不清楚有多重要， 它的重要程度到底多深。
There was one other piece of data we looked at. If you think about it, there are some people who love Legos, and some people who don’t. And you would speculate that the people who love Legos would build more Legos, even for less money, because after all, they get more internal joy from it. And the people who love Legos less would build less Legos because the enjoyment that they derive from it is lower. And that’s what we found in the meaningful condition. There was a very nice correlation between the love of Legos and the number of Legos people built.
我们还将考虑了另一项因素。考虑到在这其中， 有些人喜欢乐高而有些则不喜欢。 你可以推测那些喜欢乐高的人 会愿意拼乐高，即使回报少一点， 毕竟他们会从中得到更多的快乐。 而那些没那么喜欢乐高的人拼装的数量较少 因为他们从中得到的快乐较少。 这正是我们在意义情境中得到的结论。 对乐高的喜爱程度和拼装的乐高的数量之间 有一种十分奇妙的关联。
What happened in the Sisyphus condition? In that condition, the correlation was zero -- there was no relationship between the love of Legos, and how much people built, which suggests to me that with this manipulation of breaking things in front of people’s eyes, we basically crushed any joy that they could get out of this activity. We basically eliminated it.
那么在西西弗斯情境下发生了什么呢?这种情境下的关联度为零。 人们对乐高的喜爱程度与拼装数量没有关联， 这也就说明我们通过 当着人们的面拆掉他们的劳动成果 会毁掉了人们从劳动中得到的乐趣。 我们几乎彻底抹杀了乐趣。
Soon after I finished running this experiment, I went to talk to a big software company in Seattle. I can’t tell you who they were, but they were a big company in Seattle. This was a group within the software company that was put in a different building, and they asked them to innovate, and create the next big product for this company. And the week before I showed up, the CEO of this big software company went to that group, 200 engineers, and canceled the project. And I stood there in front of200 of the most depressed people I’ve ever talked to. And I described to them some of these Lego experiments, and they said they felt like they had just been through that experiment. And I asked them, I said, "How many of you now show up to work later than you used to?" And everybody raised their hand. I said, "How many of you now go home earlier than you used to? “Everybody raised their hand. I asked them, "How many of you now add not-so-kosher things to your expense reports?" And they didn’t raise their hands, but they took me out to dinner and showed me what they could do with expense reports. And then I asked them, I said, "What could the CEO have done to make you not as depressed?" And they came up with all kinds of ideas.
在完成了这项实验的之后不久，我去了西雅图的一家软件公司。 我不能告诉你们具体是哪家公司，但那是西雅图的一家大公司。 在这家软件公司里有一群人 是被安置在另一座大楼里工作的 他们负责为公司创造和革新下一代产品。而就在我到那儿一周之前， 这家公司的CEO来到这个有200个工程师的小组，取消了这项研发计划。 当时在我面前的这 200 个人 是我所交谈过的人中最郁闷的一群。我向他们描述了这些乐高实验，他们说他们感觉就像 刚刚经历过这些实验一样。 于是我问道， “现在你们中哪些人比以前更晚上班了?” 所有人都举手了。我说，“现在你们中哪些人比以前下班更早了?” 所有人都举手了。我又问道：“现在你们哪些人对开支报表动手脚了?” 他们并没有举手承认，但他们邀请我去聚餐，然后向我演示了 他们能对开支报表做些什么。于是我问道， “ 当初你们的CEO要怎么做才能让你们不这么沮丧呢?” 他们给出了各种各样的想法。
They said the CEO could have asked them to present to the whole company about their journey over the last two years and what they decided to do. He could have asked them to think about which aspect of their technology could fit with other parts of the organization. He could have asked them to build some next-generation prototypes and see how they would work. But the thing is that any one of those would require some effort and motivation. And I think the CEO basically did not understand the importance of meaning. If the CEO, just like our participants, thought the essence of meaning is unimportant, then he [wouldn’t] care. And he would say, "At the moment I directed you in this way, and now that I’m directing you in this way, everything will be okay." But if you understood how important meaning is, then you would figure out that it’s important to spend some time, energy and effort in getting people to care more about what they’re doing.
比如 CEO 可以让他们向整个公司展示 他们这两年来走过的路， 以及他们原本计划做的事情。 他本可以请他们思考这之中有哪些技术可以应用于公司的其他领域。 他本可以要他们做一些原型， 一些下一代产品的原型， 然后看它们是如何运行的。 事实上每一个补救方案 都包含着努力和激励。 而我认为这位 CEO 没有意识到意义的重要性。 如果这位 CEO，像我们的受试者一样，认为意义的本质并不重要， 那他当然不会在意。 他只会告诉他们，“当时我要你这样做， 而现在我要你这样做， 一切都没有问题。” 但如果你知道意义是多么地重要， 你就会了解到 去把时间、精力、努力花在让人们更在意他们所做的事情上实际上有多么重要。
The next experiment was slightly different. We took a sheet of paper with random letters, and we asked people to find pairs of letters that were identical next to each other. That was the task. People did the first sheet, then we asked if they wanted to do another for a little less money, the next sheet for a little bit less, and so on and so forth. And we had three conditions. In the first condition, people wrote their name on the sheet, found all the pairs of letters, gave it to the experimenter, the experimenter would look at it, scan it from top to bottom, say "Uh huh," and put it on the pile next to them. In the second condition, people did not write their name on it. The experimenter looked at it, took the sheet of paper, did not look at it, did not scan it, and simply put it on the pile of pages. So, you take a piece, you just put it on the side. In the third condition, the experimenter got the sheet of paper, and put it directly into a shredder.
下一个实验有点儿不同，我们用一张写着随机单词的纸， 要求人们将其中相似的词语配对。 这就是他们的任务。 当人们完成了第一张， 我们会问他们是否愿意再做一张， 但这次报酬再少一点 然后再下一张更少，依此类推。我们创设了三种情境。 在第一种情境中， 测试者把自己的名字写在纸上， 找到所有配对的单词 并把它交给实验员。 实验员会检查一遍，从头到尾， 轻声说“嗯哼”， 然后把它放在边上一堆纸上。 在第二种情境中，测试者不在纸上署名。实验员扫视一下， 接过来，看也不看一眼， 就直接放到那堆纸上面。 只是拿过来然后放到一边去。 而在第三种情境中， 实验员接过那张纸， 看也不看就把它丢进碎纸机。
What happened in those three conditions?
In this plot, I’m showing you at what payrate people stopped. So, low numbers mean that people worked harder. They worked for much longer. In the acknowledged condition, people worked all the way down to 15 cents. At 15 cents per page, they basically stopped these efforts. In the shredder condition, it was twice as much -- 30 cents per sheet.
这个实验显示人们在什么时候会放弃。报酬越低说明人们越努力，撑得越久。 在上述情境中，有人一直坚持到 15 美分那一步， 到每张值 15 美分的时候，人们就不干了。 在粉碎情境中，结果为两倍 -- 每张 30 美分的时候人们不干了。
And this is basically the result we had before. You shred people’s efforts, output -- you get them not to be as happy with what they’re doing. But I should point out, by the way, that in the shredder condition, people could have cheated. They could have done not so good work, because they realized people were just shredding it. So maybe the first sheet you’d do good work, but then you see nobody is really testing it, so you would do more and more and more. So, in fact, in the shredder condition, people could have submitted more work and gotten more money and put less effort into it. But what about the ignored condition? Would the ignored condition be more like the acknowledged or more like the shredder, or somewhere in the middle? It turns out it was almost like the shredder.
这和我们之前的结果是差不多的。你粉碎了人们的努力和成果， 他们对自己所做的就没有快乐可言。 但我也顺便要指出， 在粉碎情境中，人们可能有作弊行为。 他们的工作质量可能不高， 因为他们知道人们会直接把纸粉碎掉。所以可能第一张纸你会做得认真， 但后来你发现没人会检查， 那你就会不停地做下去。 所以实际上，在粉碎情境中，人们可能做更多次实验，得更多的钱 但付出的努力却更少。但那个忽视情境又如何呢? 它是更类似于认可情境还是粉碎情境， 或者介于两者之间? 结果发现它和粉碎情境几乎是相同的。
Now there’s good news and bad news here. The bad news is that ignoring the performance of people is almost as bad as shredding their effort in front of their eyes. Ignoring gets you a whole way out there. The good news is that by simply looking at something that somebody has done, scanning it and saying, "Uh huh," that seems to be quite sufficient to dramatically improve people’s motivations. So, the good news is that adding motivation doesn’t seem to be so difficult. The bad news is that eliminating motivations seems to be incredibly easy, and if we don’t think about it carefully, we might overdo it. So, this is all in terms of negative motivation, or eliminating negative motivation.
现在有一个好消息和一个坏消息。坏消息是忽视人们的表现 几乎和在他们面前 粉碎他们的成果一样糟糕。 忽视让结果完全不同。 好消息是只要稍微注意一下人们所做的， 浏览一下并应声“嗯哼，” 似乎就能非常有效地 提高人们的工作动力。 所以好消息是提高动力并非难事。坏消息是打消动力 似乎也是非常简单， 如果我们不小心，可能就做过了头。 所以一切都是关于负面动力 以及消除负面动力。
The next part I want to show you is something about positive motivation. So, there is a store in the U.S. called KEA. And IKEA is a store with kind of okay furniture that takes a long time to assemble.
下面我想让你们看看正面动力。在美国有一家店，叫宜家。 宜家卖的都是质量一般 并且需要花很长时间组装的家具。
I don’t know about you, but every time I assemble one of those, it takes me much longer, it’s much more effortful, it’s much more confusing, I put things in the wrong way -- I can’t say I enjoy those pieces. I can’t say I enjoy the process. But when I finish it, I seem to like those IKEA pieces of furniture more than I like other ones.
我不知道你们，但是每次我组装家具，都要花费更长的时间， 投入更多精力，更加令人迷惑。我把东西放错了位置， 我并不喜欢那些家具， 我也并不享受这个过程， 但当我完成后，比起其他家具，我似乎更喜欢宜家的家具。
And there’s an old story about cake mixes. So, when they started cake mixes in the ’40s, they would take this powder and they would put it in a box, and they would ask housewives to basically pour it in, stir some water in it, mix it, put it in the oven, and -- voila -- you had cake. But it turns out they were very unpopular. People did not want them, and they thought about all kinds of reasons for that. Maybe the taste was not good? No, the taste was great. What they figured out was that there was not enough effort involved. It was so easy that nobody could serve cake to their guests and say, "Here is my cake." No, it was somebody else’s cake, as if you bought it in the store. It didn’t really feel like your own. So, what did they do? They took the eggs and the milk out of the powder.
有一个关于蛋糕粉的故事。当他们在 40 年代发明蛋糕粉的时候，他们把蛋糕粉装进盒子里， 让主妇们只要倒出来加点水， 搅拌后放进烤箱，然后 -- 你看!蛋糕就有了。 但结果它们并不非常受欢迎。 人们不想要这些。 他们思考了各种可能的原因， 可能是味道不够好， 不对，味道其实很好。他们发现其实是 人们要付出的努力不够。 过程太简单了， 没人想就这么对客人说， “这是我做的蛋糕。” 不，不，不，那人别人的蛋糕。 就好像你从店里买了现成的。感觉不像是你自己做的。 然后人们怎么做呢? 他们把鸡蛋和奶都从蛋糕粉了去掉。
Now you had to break the eggs and add them, you had to measure the milk and add it, mixing it. Now it was your cake. Now everything was fine.
Now, I think a little bit like the O’Keeffe, by getting people to work harder, they got them to love what they’re doing to a higher degree.
So how do we look at this question experimentally? We asked people to build some origami. We gave them instructions on how to create origami, and we gave them a sheet of paper. And these were all novices, and they built something that was quite ugly --nothing like a frog or a crane. But then we told them, "Look, this origami really belongs to us. You worked for us, but I’ll tell you what, we’ll sell it to you. How much do you want to pay for it?" And we measured how much they were willing to pay for it. And we had two types of people: We had the people who built it, and the people who did not build it, and just looked at it as external observers. And what we found was that the builders thought that these were beautiful pieces of origami --
那从实验角度我们如何看待这个问题呢?我们让受试者做折纸手工。 我们告诉他们折纸方法， 然后给他们一张纸。 他们都是新手，折的东西都很难看 -- 不像青蛙也不像鹤鸟。然后我们说，“你瞧，这个折纸实际上属于我们。 你为我们工作，但你知道吗， 我们可以把它卖给你。 你愿意出多少钱?” 然后我们看看他们愿意出多少。 我们发现有两种人。 有些人选择折纸， 有些人选择不折，只是做个旁观者。 我们发现选择折的那些人认为这些折纸很美，
and they were willing to pay five times more for them than the people who just evaluated them externally. Now you could say -- if you were a builder, do you think [you’d say], "Oh, I love this origami, but I know that nobody else would love it?" Or "I love this origami, and everybody else will love it as well?" Which one of those two is correct? Turns out the builders not only loved the origami more, they thought that everybody would see the world in their view. They thought everybody else would love it more as well.
与那些观察的人相比，他们愿意出 5 倍的价钱买这些折纸。 现在你说，如果你是折纸的人， 你会觉得，“哦，我喜欢这个折纸， 但我知道没有其他人会喜欢?” 还是，“我喜欢这个折纸， 其他人也会一样喜欢?” 这两种哪一种是正确的? 结果发现折纸的人不仅更喜欢折纸，他们还认为所有人都和他们一样。 他们认为所有人都会喜欢。
In the next version, we tried to do theine effect. We tried to make it more difficult. So, for some people, we gave the same task. For some people, we made it harder by hiding the instructions. At the top of the sheet, we had little diagrams of how you fold origami. Foursome people, we just eliminated that. So now this was tougher. What happened? Well in an objective way, the origami now was uglier, it was more difficult. Now when we looked at the easy origami, we saw the same thing -- builders loved it more, evaluators loved it less. When you looked at the hard instructions, the effect was larger. Why? Because now the builders loved it even more.
接下去一个实验版本，我们尝试了宜家效应。 我们把实验难度提高。 所以我们给一些人同样的任务。 对另一些人我们把说明说藏起来， 增加难度。 纸张顶部有关于折纸的小说明。 对一些人我们就把说明删掉。现在难度增加了。会发生什么呢? 客观来看，折纸现在更难看了， 难度更大了。 当我们观察简单的折纸时， 我们有了同样的发现： 折纸的人更喜欢它，而观察的人则更不喜欢。当说明书难度增高的时候， 该效应更为明显。 为什么?因为折纸的人更喜欢它了。
They put all this extra effort into it. And evaluators? They loved it even less. Because, it was even uglier than the first version.
Of course, this tells you something about how we evaluate things.
Now think about kids. Imagine I asked you, “How much would you sell your kids for?" Your memories and associations and so on. Most people would say for a lot, a lot of money.
现在想想孩子。想象一下我问你， “要多少钱你肯把你的孩子卖了?” 包括记忆以及相关联的东西等等。大多数人会说，得要一大笔钱 -- 孩子乖的时候。
On good days.
But imagine this was slightly different. Imagine if you did not have your kids. And one day you went to the park and you met some kids. They were just like your kids, and you played with them for a few hours, and when you were about to leave, the parents said, "Hey, by the way, just before you leave, if you’re interested, they’re for sale."
但想象一下如果情况稍微有些不同。想象如果你自己的孩子没了， 有一天你去公园看见一些孩子， 他们和你的孩子好像， 你和他们玩了一会儿， 当你准备走的时候，父母说， “嘿，你走之前顺便提一下， 如果你有兴趣可以买我的孩子。”
How much would you pay for them now? Most people say not that much. And this is because our kids are so valuable, not just because of who they are, but because of us, because they are so connected to us, and because of the time and connection. By the way, if you think IKEA instructions are not good, what about the instructions that come with kids,those are really tough.
你现在愿意出多少钱买呢?大多数人会说不多。 这是因为我们的孩子是无价的， 不仅是因为他们本身， 还因为我们自己， 因为他们和我们如此亲密， 因为我们一起度过的时光和联系。 另外，如果你觉得宜家的说明书不好，想想孩子自带的说明书是怎么样的。 难度真的很高。
By the way, these are my kids, which, ofcourse, are wonderful and so on. Which comes to tell you one more thing, whichis, much like our builders, when they look at the creature of their creation,we don’t see that other people don’t see things our way.
另外，这些是我的孩子，当然他们非常棒。这表明了另外一个问题， 就是，和我们的创造者一样， 当看自己所创造出的东西， 我们不知道别人看到的和我们不一样。
Let me say one last comment. If you thinkabout Adam Smith versus Karl Marx, Adam Smith had a very important notion ofefficiency. He gave an example of a pin factory. He said pins have 12 differentsteps, and if one person does all 12 steps, production is very low. But if youget one person to do step one, and one person to do step two and step three andso on, production can increase tremendously. And indeed, this is a greatexample, and the reason for the Industrial Revolution and efficiency. KarlMarx, on the other hand, said that the alienation of labor is incrediblyimportant in how people think about the connection to what they are doing. Andif you do all 12 steps, you care about the pin. But if you do one step everytime, maybe you don’t care as much.
让我说最后一个观点。当你想起亚当.史密斯和卡尔.马克思， 亚当史密斯有一句关于效率的名言。他举了一个制针工厂的例子。 他说制针共有 12 个步骤， 如果一个人做完12 步，生产率非常低。 但如果一个人负责一步， 另一个人负责下一步，以此类推， 生产率就会大大提高。 确实，这是个很好的例子， 也是工业革命及生产效率的起因。反过来，卡尔马克思说， 人们与劳动的异化 对人们对自己工作的认识非常重要。 你如果负责 12 个步骤，你会在意你的劳动成果。但如果你只负责一步，那就不会这么在意了。
I think that in the Industrial Revolution,Adam Smith was more correct than Karl Marx. But the reality is that we’veswitched, and now we’re in the knowledge economy. You can ask yourself, whathappens in a knowledge economy? Is efficiency still more important thanmeaning? I think the answer is no. I think that as we move to situations inwhich people have to decide on their own about how much effort, attention,caring, how connected they feel to it, are they thinking about labor on the wayto work, and in the shower and so on, all of a sudden Marx has more things tosay to us. So when we think about labor, we usually think about motivation andpayment as the same thing, but the reality is that we should probably add allkinds of things to it -- meaning, creation, challenges, ownership, identity,pride, etc.
而我认为在工业革命中，亚当斯密斯比卡尔马克思更正确， 但现实是我们环境变了， 现在处在知识经济时代中。 你可以自问，知识经济时代会带来什么? 效率是否仍然比意义重要? 我认为答案是否定的。我认为我们已经过渡到了另一种状态， 人们必须自己决定 要投入多少精力、注意力和心意， 要多大关联性， 他们上班路上或者洗澡的时候会想着工作吗， 突然间马克思更有道理了。因此当我们谈到劳动， 我们通常认为报酬就是动力， 但事实是它不止这些 -- 还包括意义、创造性、挑战、 所有权、自我意识、自豪感等等。
The good news is that if we added all ofthose components and thought about them -- how do we create our own meaning,pride, motivation, and how do we do it in our workplace, and for the employees-- I think we could get people to be both more productive and happier.
好消息是如果我们加上并且考虑所有这些因素， 如何创造我们自己的意义、自豪感、动力， 如何在工作地点实施，为雇员创造条件， 我相信我们能让人 既能高产出又能感觉更幸福。
Thank you very much.
01Huawei now under criminal investigation over Iran trade04.27美国对华为下手了！
02Man’s best friendship is forever, tail and all 05.03人类最好的朋友狗狗为啥这么忠心耿耿
03Mr. Jack Ma Meets Future Global Leaders at Waseda University05.01马云日本第一次全英文演讲：不要轻易pick up，也不要轻易give up
04In China, Peppa Pig Is a Street Couture Icon04.28小猪佩奇为什么在中国火了？
05A Trade War the U.S. Is Actually Winning05.01美中贸易冲突的根源：美元与人民币之争
06Critical window for learning a language 05.02研究发现：要想外语达到母语水平，十岁前就得开始学
07Koreas make nuclear pledge after historic summit 04.28金正恩：两韩向世界传递讯息 “温暖的春天已经开始”
08White House tree: Emmanuel Macron’s sapling disappears 04.30马克龙和川普共同种下的小树苗神秘失踪，到底怎么回事？
09Macron attacks nationalism in speech to US Congress04.28法国总统马克龙美国国会发表演讲 字字在怼特朗普
10Nobel Prize for Literature may be cancelled this year after Academy is rocked by sex scandal05.01受性侵丑闻影响 2018年诺贝尔文学奖或延后颁发