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. (Laughter) In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school. (Laughter)

開始前我必須先向你們告解 二十多年前 我做了一件讓我后悔莫及的事 一件我絲毫不感到驕傲的事 一件我希望沒有任何人會知道的事 但今日我認為我有必要揭發我自己 (笑聲) 80年代晚期 因為年少輕狂 我進入法律學院就讀 (笑聲)

Now, in America law is a professional degree: you 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. (Laughter) Thank you. I never practiced law a day in my life; I pretty much wasn't allowed to. (Laughter)

在美國，法律學位是個專業學位 你得先拿到學士，才能進入法律學院 當我進入法律學院時 我的成績不怎么好 客氣地說，我的成績不怎么好 我的畢業成績成就了在我之上 那其他九成的同學 (笑聲) 謝謝你們 我這輩子從來沒做過律師 基本上那樣做可能還會犯法 (笑聲)

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 -- 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.

但今日，我違背我的理性 違背我太太的忠告 我想重拾那些過去所學的訴訟技巧 所剩無幾的訴訟技巧 我不要向你們說故事 而是提出一個陳述 提出一個有根有據，貨真價實的 法庭陳述 來重新思考我們的管理方法

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 Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of 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. 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?

陪審團的女士先生們，請看看這個 這便是有名的蠟燭問題 你們之中有些人可能已經看過了 它是在1945年 由心理學家 Karl Duncker 所創造的 Karl Duncker 創造了這個實驗 在行為科學中被廣泛運用 情況是，假設我是實驗者 我帶你進入一個房間，給你一根蠟燭 一些圖釘和火柴 告訴你說”現在 嘗試把蠟燭固定在墻上 讓燭淚不要滴到桌上。“你會怎么做？

Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle 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.

許多人嘗試用圖釘把蠟燭釘在墻上 行不通 有些人，臺下也有些人 做出這樣的動作 有些人想到他們可以 點燃火柴，溶化蠟燭的底部，嘗試把它黏在墻上 好主意。但行不通 差不多過了五到十分鐘 大部分的人便會想出解決辦法 就像圖片上那樣 重點是克服”功能固著“ 當你看到盒子，你不過把它當成裝大頭針的容器 但它還有其它功能 那就是作為放蠟燭的平臺。

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."

現在我想告訴你另一個實驗 利用蠟燭問題 由一個現在在普林斯頓大學 叫做 Sam Glucksberg 的科學家所做的實驗 這實驗讓我們看見動機的力量 他是這么做的。他將參與者聚集在一個房間里 告訴他們“我要開始計時。看看你們能多快解決這個問題？” 他對其中一群人說， 我只是想取個平均值 看一般人需要花多久的時間 才能解決這樣的問題。

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." 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.

他提供獎勵給另一群人 他說“如果你是前25%最快解決問題的人 就能拿到五塊錢。 如果你是今日所有人里解答最快的 你就有20塊錢。" 這個實驗是幾年前的事了，按照通貨膨脹 幾分鐘就能拿到20塊是很不錯的 是個不錯的誘因

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 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? 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.

問題是：這群人比另一群人 的解題速度快了多少呢？ 答案是：平均來說，他們比另一組人 多花了三分半種。 整整三分半種。這不合理，不是嗎？ 你想想，我是個美國人。我相信自由市場 這個實驗不太對勁吧？對嗎？ (笑聲) 如果你想要人們做得更好， 你便給他們獎賞，對嗎？ 紅利、傭金、他們自己的真人秀 賦予他們動機。這就是商業法則 但實驗里卻不是這樣 獎勵是為了 增強思考能力及創意 但事實卻是相反。 它阻斷了思考和創意能力

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.

有趣的事情是，這個實驗不是誤差 它被一再重復 在過去的四十年間 這些不同的誘因 如果你這樣做，你就得到那個 在某些情況里是可行的 但在許多任務中，它們不是沒作用 更有可能產生反效果 這是在社會科學中一項 最有力的發現。 同時也是最為人忽略的

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 operating system -- think of the set of assumptions 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 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.

過去兩年，我研究 人類的動機 尤其是那些外部的激勵因素 和內在的激勵因素 我可以告訴你，兩者相差懸殊 如果你使用科學方法查證，你會發現 科學知識和商業行為之間有條鴻溝 我們必須要注意的是，我們的商業機制 想想這些商業的協議和假設 我們如何激勵人心，如何運用人資 全是以這些外部激勵因素作為基礎 打手心給塊糖 對許多20世紀的工作來說是可行的 但面對21世紀的工作 這些機械化的，獎懲分明的作法 已經不管用了，有時更招致反效果 讓我呈現我想表達的

So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here. Okay? 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. Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box, it's pretty easy isn't it? (Laughter)

Glucksberg 做了一個類似的實驗 這次他給了他們一個比較不同的問題 像這個圖里面的 實驗對象必須要找出一個讓蠟燭黏在墻上，又不會流下燭淚的方法 相同地，這邊：我們要的是平均時間 這邊：一樣的給他們不同誘因 結果呢？ 這次，有誘因的那組人 遠遠地勝過了另一組人 為什么？一旦我們把圖釘從盒子里拿出來 問題就變得相當簡單不是嗎？ (笑聲)

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 our possibility.

假設 - 在這個情況下 獎勵就變得非常有效 在規則簡單，目標明顯 的情況下 獎勵，產生了作用 讓我們集中精神，變得專注 這便是為何獎勵在許多情況下有效的緣故 當我們面對的工作是 范圍狹窄，你能清楚見到目標 向前直沖時 獎勵便非常有效 但在真正的“蠟燭問題”中 你不能只是這樣看 解答不在那里，解答是在周圍 你需要四處找尋 獎勵卻令我們眼光狹隘 限制了我們的想象力

Let me tell you why this is so important. In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, 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, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programming -- has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

讓我告訴你這個問題的重要性 在西歐 亞洲的許多地方 北美洲、澳洲 白領工作者比較少處理 這種問題 更多的是這種問題 那些例行的、常規性的、左腦式的工作 一些會計、一些財務分析 一些電腦編程 變得極為容易外包 變得自動化 軟件能處理的更快 世界其他地方的低價供應商能以更便宜的成本來完成 所以更重要的是右腦的 創意，概念式的能力

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, are those kinds of problems -- do they have a clear set of rules, 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. 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.

想想你的工作 想想你自己的工作 你所面對的問題，甚至是我們 今天所談論到的問題 這些問題 - 它們有清楚的規則 和一個簡單的解答嗎？不 它們的規則模糊 解答，如果有解答的話 通常是令人意外而不明顯的 在這里的每個人 都在嘗試解決他自己的 “蠟燭問題” 對所有形式的“蠟燭問題” 在所有領域 這些「如果 - 那就」的獎勵 這些在商業世界里無處不在的獎懲系統 其實沒用

Now, I mean it makes me crazy. And this is not -- 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. I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy. (Laughter) This is a fact -- or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C., a true fact. (Laughter) (Applause) Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let me marshal the evidence here, because I'm not telling you a story, I'm making a case.

這簡直讓我發狂 這不是 - 重點是 這不是一種“感覺” 我是個律師，我才不信什么感覺 這也不是哲學 我是個美國人，我才不信什么哲學 (笑聲) 這是真相 或是我們在華盛頓特區的政治圈常說的 一個“事實真相” (笑聲) (掌聲) 讓我給你一個例子 讓我收集這些證據 因為我不是在告訴你一個故事，而是陳述一個案子

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. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small reward, medium reward, large reward. Okay? 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. Okay? But one the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.

陪審團的女士們先生們，證據在此： Dan Ariely,一位當代偉大的經濟學家 他和三位同仁，對麻省理工學院的學生做了一些研究 他給這些學生一些游戲 一些需要創造力的游戲 需要動力和專注 依照他們的表現給他們 三種不同程度的獎勵 小獎勵、中獎勵、大獎勵 如果你做得好，你就得到大獎勵，依此類推 結果呢？只要是機械形態的工作 紅利就像我們所認知的 獎勵越高，表現越好 是的。但如果這個工作需要 任何基本的認知能力 越大的獎勵卻帶來越差的表現

Then they said, "Okay let's see if there's any cultural bias here. Lets go to Madurai, India and test this." 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. 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. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.

于是他們說 “讓我們試試是否有什么文化差距 讓我們去印度的馬杜賴試試。” 生活水平較低 在馬杜賴，北美標準的的中等獎勵 在這里有意義多了 一樣地，一些不同游戲，三種獎勵 結果呢？ 中等獎勵的人 做得不比那些小獎勵的人好 但這次，那些能夠得到大獎勵的人 表現最差 三種實驗中，在我們提供的九個游戲中有八個 獎勵越高的表現越差

Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here? No. These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. And do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. That's the American experience.

難道這是一種感情用事的 社會主義的陰謀詭計嗎？ 不。這些經濟學家來自麻省理工 卡內基梅隆、和芝加哥大學 你知道贊助這實驗的是誰嗎？ 是美國聯邦儲備銀行 完全的美國經驗

Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics -- LSE, London School of Economics, alma mater of 11 Nobel Laureates in economics. Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, 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 the economists there said: "We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance."

讓我們跨海到倫敦政經學院看看 LSE,倫敦經濟學院 十一位諾貝爾經濟獎得主的母校 訓練偉大經濟學家的地方 有喬治索羅斯、弗里德里希•哈耶克 和滾石樂團的米克•賈格爾（笑聲） 上個月，才剛過去的那個月 政經學院的經濟學家匯整了51個關于 企業內部績效薪酬的研究 這些經濟學家說，“我們發現金錢的誘因 能對整體績效帶來負面效果。”

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, 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. And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, and 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, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach.

科學知識和商業行為之間 有條鴻溝 我所憂心的是，在我們站在金融風暴 廢墟之間的此刻 仍然有太多團體 仍然以一些過時的、 未經驗證的、非科學的 幾乎是來自天方夜譚的假設 來制定規則和管理人事 如果我們真的想要擺脫這個經濟危機 如果我們真的想要在這些 屬于21世紀的核心工作中獲取績效的話 這解答無異是錯上加錯： 用紅蘿卜來吸引人 或是用棍子來威脅人 我們需要一種新做法

And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach. It's an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose: 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 for our businesses.

好消息是這些研究人類動機的科學家 已經給了我們一個新方向 這個新方向講求內在的誘因 我們想做是因為它能改變世界 因為我們喜歡，因為它很有趣 因為它能影響的范圍很廣 在我心里，這種新的商業機制 圍繞在三個基礎上 自主性、掌握力和使命感 自主性，想要主掌自己人生的需求 掌握力，想要在舉足輕重的事情上做得更好的欲望 使命感，希望我們所做的事情 是為了更高遠的理想的渴望 這些便是建立新商業機制的 基石

I want to talk today only about autonomy. In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management. Management did not emanate from nature. Management is like -- it's not a tree, it's a television set. Okay? Somebody invented it. And 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.

今天我只想提到自主性 20世紀產生了管理學的想法 管理學不是自然發生的 管理學像是 － 它不是一棵樹 而是個電視機 對嗎？有人發明它 不代表它永遠都好用 管理學很好 傳統的管理學的概念是好的 如果你需要的是服從 但如果你想要員工全心投入，自動自發更好

Let me give you some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction. What this means -- you don't see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on, because 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. Let me give you some examples.

有關自動自發，讓我給你一些 革命性的例子 代表著 --這樣的例子不多 但是你可以發現一些有趣的事情正開始發生 它代表著付給人們合理與 足夠的工資 讓錢不再是問題 然后給人們很大的自治權 讓我舉一些例子

How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half. (Laughter) Atlassian is an Australian software company. 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." So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, 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 wooly all-hands meeting at the end of the day. And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer.

在座誰聽過一家叫 Atlassian 的公司？ 看起來一半都不到 （笑聲） Atlassian 是一個澳大利亞的軟件公司 他們做了一件很酷的事 一年有幾次，他們跟公司里的軟件工程師說 “接下來的24個小時，去做你自己想做的事， 只要它和你每天的工作無關 隨便你要做什么都行。” 這些工程師便利用這些時間 寫出一套有趣的編程，優雅地包裝這些想法 在那天的最后 在這個全員到齊，萬眾一心的會議中 對他們的組員和整個公司 介紹他的發明 當然，身為澳大利亞人，大家都得來罐啤酒

They call them FedEx Days. Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight. It's pretty. It's not bad. It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever. (Laughter) That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.

他們叫這是 FedEx 聯邦快遞日 因為你必須在隔夜交出你的作品 很不賴的想法。雖然違反商標法 但這個想法很聰明。 （笑聲） 在高度自主的一日中 他們做出了許多軟件編程的革新 之前根本沒人想到的

And it's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20 Percent Time -- done, famously, at Google -- where engineers can work, spend 20 percent of their time working on anything they want. They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique. Okay? Radical amounts of autonomy. And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20 Percent Time: things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.

這個計劃的成功，讓 Altlassian 更進一步的發明了 五分之一時間 谷歌把這個想法發揚光大 工程師可以用五分之一的時間 做所有他們想做的事情 他們可以自由的分配他們的時間 工作，組員，和作法 就是這樣。完全的自主權 誠如大家所知，在谷歌 一年中有一半的新商品 都來自這五分之一時間 像谷歌信箱、Orkut、谷歌新聞

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 in place at about a dozen companies around North America. In a ROWE people don't have schedules. 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. Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.

讓我給你一個更具革命性的例子 一個叫做“只論結果的工作環境” 簡寫是ROWE 由兩個美國分析師所創造 用在十多家北美公司上 在 ROWE 之中，人們沒有日程表 他們想來就來 他們不需要在特定時間到公司 任何時間 他們只需要把工作完成 怎么做、何時做 在哪里做、都取決于他們自己 甚至連開會都是選擇性的

What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, These are the building blocks of a new way of doing things. Now some of you might look at this and say, "Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian." And I say, "Nope. I have proof."

結果呢？ 幾乎所有公司的生產力都提升了 工作投入度提升 工作滿意度提升，人力流失降低 自主性、掌握力和使命感 這便是新工作方式的新基礎 在座的某些人可能會看著然后說 ”嗯，聽起來不錯，就是太理想化了。“ 我說”錯了。我有證據。“

The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta. They had deployed all the right incentives, 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. 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.

在90年代中，微軟開始了一個 叫做 Encarta 的百科全書計劃 他們使用了所有正確的誘因 所有的誘因。他們付錢給專業人士 讓他們寫和編輯這些文章 收入頗豐的主管們監督著整個計劃 確定它不會超過預算和時間 幾年后另一個百科全書計劃開始了 完全不同的模式 為了興趣而作。沒有人能拿到任何一毛錢 因為自己喜歡做而做

Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, and said, "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 anywhere on planet Earth who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.

如果你在十年前 到一個經濟學家那里去 對他說”我有兩種撰寫百科全書的模式 拿來相比，誰會贏？“ 十年前你絕對不會找到任何一個清醒的經濟學家 在這個地球的任何角落 能夠預知維基百科的模式

This is the titanic battle between these two approaches. This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation. Right? This is the Thrilla' in Manila. Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators. Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks. And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout. Let me wrap up.

這是一個兩種模式之間的世紀戰役 動機的阿里與弗雷澤之戰 就像那場在馬尼拉的拳王之戰 是嗎？內在動機和外在動機 自主性、掌握力和使命感 和胡蘿卜和棍子。誰贏了？ 內在動機、自主性、掌握力和使命感 獲得壓倒性勝利。結論是

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And 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. Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive -- the drive to do things for their own sake. The drive to do things cause they matter.

科學知識和商業行為之間 有條鴻溝 一：這些20世紀的獎勵 這些我們當作商業中自然一部分的誘因 是有用的。但意外地只在一個非常狹窄的情況下 二：這些獎勵往往會破壞創造力 三：高績效的秘密 不是獎勵和懲罰 而是看不見的內在動力 讓人為了自己而做的動力 讓人有使命感的動力

And here's the best part. Here's the best part. We already know this. The science confirms what we know in our hearts. So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world. I rest my case. (Applause)

最好的是 我們了然于心。科學不過確認了我們心里的聲音 如果我們改變 科學知識和商業行為之間有的那條鴻溝 如果我們把我們的動機，對誘因的想法 帶進21世紀 如果我們越過懶惰的、危險的、理想化的 胡蘿卜和棍子的想法 我們可以強化我們的公司 解決許多的“蠟燭問題” 那么或許，或許，或許 我們便能改變世界。 陳述完畢。 （掌聲）

更多 英語演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語演講稿 相關文章和資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全