How Great Leaders Inspire Action | Simon Sinek | TED

Translator: Rait Metsamaa Reviewer: Aari Lemmik

Miks ei lähe asjad alati nii nagu eeldame?

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume?

Või veelgi enam, kuidas on võimalik,

et inimesed suudavad saavutada midagi, mis ületab kõik ootused?

Or better, how do you explain

when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

Näiteks kuidas saab Apple

olla nii innovaatiline?

For example:

Aastaid järjest on Apple suutnud olla palju innovaatilisem

Why is Apple so innovative?

kui kõik tema konkurendid.

Year after year, after year,

they're more innovative than all their competition.

Ja ometi on see lihtsalt üks arvutifirma.

Nagu iga teinegi.

And yet, they're just a computer company.

Neil on ligipääs samadele talentidele, samadele agentuuridele,

They're just like everyone else.

They have the same access to the same talent,

samadele konsultantidele, samale meediale.

the same agencies,

Miks siis jääb mulje, et nendes on midagi erilist?

the same consultants, the same media.

Then why is it that they seem to have something different?

Miks just Marthin Luther King juhtis kodanikuõiguste liikumist?

Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement?

Ta polnud ju ainus ameeriklane, kes kannatas kodanikuõiguste puudumise all?

He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America,

Kindlasti oli tol ajal teisigi häid kõnemehi.

Miks siis just tema?

and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.

Ja miks õnnestus just vendadel Wrightidel

Why him?

And why is it that the Wright brothers

teha valmis juhitav mehitatud lennuk

kui samal ajal leidus teisi üritajaid,

were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight

kel olid paremad oskused ja rohkem raha,

when there were certainly other teams

kuid mehitatud lennuga nad siiski hakkama ei saanud

who were better qualified, better funded --

ja vennad Wrightid tegid neile ära.

and they didn't achieve powered man flight,

Siin peab olema mängus midagi enamat.

and the Wright brothers beat them to it.

Umbes kolme ja poole aasta eest tegin ma ühe avastuse.

There's something else at play here.

About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery.

See muutis täielikult mu arusaama, kuidas asjad siin maailmas käivad.

And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked,

Ja see muutis põhjalikult ka minu tegutsemisviisi.

and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.

Tuli välja, et on olemas üks reegel.

Tuli välja, et kõik suured juhid ja organisatsioonid siin maailmas,

As it turns out, there's a pattern.

As it turns out, all the great inspiring leaders and organizations in the world,

olgu see Apple, Martin Luther King või vennad Wrightid,

kõik nad mõtlevad, tegutsevad ja suhtlevad täpselt samamoodi.

whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers,

they all think, act and communicate the exact same way.

Ja see on täiesti vastupidine sellele, kuidas teised teevad.

And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.

Mina lihtsalt sõnastasin selle ära

ja arvatavasti on tegu maailma kõige lihtsama ideega.

All I did was codify it,

and it's probably the world's simplest idea.

Nimetan seda kuldseks ringiks.

I call it the golden circle.

Miks? Kuidas? Mida?

See lihtne idee annab seletuse,

Why? How? What?

miks mõned organisatsioonid ja juhid suudavad inspireerida, aga teised mitte.

This little idea explains

why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't.

Las ma selgitan kiirelt:

iga inimene ja iga organisatsioon siin planeedil teab,

Let me define the terms really quickly.

Every single person, every single organization on the planet

mida ta teeb, 100 protsenti.

knows what they do, 100 percent.

Mõnedel on selge, kuidas nad seda teevad,

on see siis diferentseeritud väärtuspakkumine,

Some know how they do it,

patenteeritud protsess või ainulaadne pakkumine.

whether you call it your differentiated value proposition

Kuid väga vähesed teavad, miks nad midagi teevad.

or your proprietary process or your USP.

But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.

Ja vastus ei ole siin, et teenida kasumit.

See on tulemus, alati tulemus.

And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit."

Miks tähendab minu jaoks, mis on asja mõte?

That's a result. It's always a result.

Mis on sinu ajend? Millesse sa usud?

By "why," I mean: What's your purpose?

Miks sinu organisatsioon eksisteerib?

What's your cause? What's your belief?

Why does your organization exist?

Miks sa hommikul üldse voodist tõused?

Ja miks peaks kedagi üldse huvitama?

Why do you get out of bed in the morning?

Selle tulemusena toimib meie mõtlemine, meie käitume,

And why should anyone care?

meie suhtlusviis väljaspoolt sissepoole.

As a result, the way we think, we act,

Me liigume kõige selgemast kõige segasema suunas.

the way we communicate is from the outside in, it's obvious.

Kuid inspireerivad juhid ja inspireerivad organisatsioonid

We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.

But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations --

sõltumata oma suurusest ja tegevusvaldkonnast

regardless of their size, regardless of their industry --

mõtlevad, tegutsevad ja suhtlevad seestpoolt väljapoole.

all think, act and communicate from the inside out.

Toon teile ühe näite.

Ma kasutan Apple’it, sest see on lihtne ja arusaadav igaühele.

Let me give you an example.

I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it.

Kui Apple oleks nagu kõik teised,

If Apple were like everyone else,

siis kõlaks nende sõnum umbes nii:

a marketing message from them might sound like this:

Me teeme häid arvuteid.

Need on ilusa disainiga, lihtsad kasutada ja kasutajasõbralikud.

"We make great computers.

They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly.

Tahad osta?

Mäh?

Want to buy one?"

Nii väljendab end enamik meist.

Nii tehakse reklaami ja müüki,

"Meh."

That's how most of us communicate.

nii käitume teiste inimestega.

That's how most marketing and sales are done,

Ütleme seda, mida teeme, kuidas see on erinev või parem

that's how we communicate interpersonally.

ja ootame mingit reaktsiooni,

We say what we do,

ostu, häält või muud taolist.

we say how we're different or better

Siin on meie uus advokaadibüroo,

and we expect some sort of a behavior,

meil on parimad advokaadid suurimate klientidega,

a purchase, a vote, something like that.

seisame alati oma klientide huvide eest.

Here's our new law firm:

We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients,

Siin on meie uus auto:

Sellel on väike kütusekulu ja nahkistmed.

we always perform for our clients.

Here's our new car:

Osta auto ära.

It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats.

Kuid see ei inspireeri.

Buy our car.

Tegelikult ütleb Apple hoopis seda:

But it's uninspiring.

Here's how Apple actually communicates.

Kõik, mida teeme, peab olema väljakutse status quo'le.

"Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo.

Me usume teistmoodi mõtlemisse.

We believe in thinking differently.

Meie viis status quo'le vastu astuda

on teha seda oma toodete ilusa disaini,

The way we challenge the status quo

lihtsuse ja kasutajasõbralikkuse kaudu.

is by making our products beautifully designed,

Juhuslikult on meie tooteks suurepärased arvutid.

simple to use and user friendly.

Tahaksid endale osta?

We just happen to make great computers.

Täiesti erinev, kas pole?

Want to buy one?"

Ja sa oled valmis seda arvuti ostma.

Ma lihtsalt pöörasin info jäjestuse ümber.

Totally different, right?

You're ready to buy a computer from me.

See tõestab, et inimesed ei osta mitte seda, mida sa teed

I just reversed the order of the information.

vaid seda, miks sa seda teed.

What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do;

See seletab, miks kõik siin ruumis

people buy why you do it.

This explains why every single person in this room

oleksid täiesti valmis Apple'ilt arvutit ostma.

Samas ei oleks meil midagi selle vastu,

is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.

et osta Apple’ilt ka MP3-mängija või telefon,

But we're also perfectly comfortable

või Apple’i digisalvesti.

buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple,

Nagu ma ennist ütlesin, on Apple lihtsalt arvutifirma.

or a DVR from Apple.

Struktuuri poolest ei erista neid miski oma konkurentidest.

As I said before, Apple's just a computer company.

Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors.

Konkurendid suudaksid kõike seda sama hästi toota.

Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products.

Nad on seda isegi üritanud.

Paari aasta eest tuli Gateway välja lameekraan TV-ga.

In fact, they tried.

Nad oskavad teha väga häid lameekraan TV-sid.

A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat-screen TVs.

Nad on teinud neid juba aastaid.

They're eminently qualified to make flat-screen TVs.

Keegi ei ostnud.

They've been making flat-screen monitors for years.

Nobody bought one.

Dell tuli välja MP3-mängijate ja pihuarvutitega,

Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs,

nende toodang on väga kõrge kvaliteediga,

ja nad suudavad neid ka hästi disainida.

and they make great quality products,

Ja ikka ei ostetud.

and they can make perfectly well-designed products --

Tegelikult ei tuleks me selle pealegi,

and nobody bought one.

et osta MP3-mängija Dellilt.

In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine

Miks peaks ostma MP3-mängija arvutifirmalt?

buying an MP3 player from Dell.

Samas teeme seda iga päev.

Why would you buy one from a computer company?

Inimesed ei osta, mida sa teed; ostetakse, miks seda tehakse.

But we do it every day.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

Eesmärk ei ole müüa oma toodet kõikidele, kes seda vajavad.

The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have.

Eesmärk on müüa asju inimestele, kes usuvad sinuga sama asja.

The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe.

Nüüd aga parim osa:

Mitte miski, mis ma räägin ei ole minu arvamus.

Here's the best part:

See tuleneb kõik bioloogiast.

None of what I'm telling you is my opinion.

Mitte psühholoogiast, bioloogiast.

It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.

Kui vaadata inimaju läbilõiget,

Not psychology, biology.

siis jaguneb inimaju ülalt alla vaadates

If you look at a cross-section of the human brain,

kolmeks suuremaks osaks,

from the top down, the human brain is actually broken

mis vastab täpselt meie kuldsele ringile.

into three major components

Kõige uuem aju osa, homo sapiensi aju

that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.

meie neokorteks ehk ajukoor,

Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain,

vastab “mida" tasandile.

our neocortex,

Ajukoor vastutab

corresponds with the "what" level.

ratsionaalse ja analüütiliste mõtlemise ja kõne eest.

The neocortex is responsible

for all of our rational and analytical thought and language.

Kaks keskmist osa moodustavad aju limbiline süsteem

Limbiline süsteem vastutab meie tunnete eest

The middle two sections make up our limbic brains,

nagu usaldus ja lojaalsus.

and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings,

See on ka vastutav käitumise eest

like trust and loyalty.

kogu otsustamise eest,

It's also responsible for all human behavior,

ja kõnega see osa tegeleda ei saa.

all decision-making,

Teisisõnu, kui edastada infot väljaspoolt sissepoole,

and it has no capacity for language.

siis inimesed suudavad mõista suurt hulka keerulist infot

In other words, when we communicate from the outside in,

nagu omadused ja kasu, faktid ja arvud,

yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information

aga see ei juhi nende käitumist.

like features and benefits and facts and figures.

Kui aga edastada sõnumeid seestpoolt väljapoole,

It just doesn't drive behavior.

siis kõnetame otseselt aju seda osa,

When we can communicate from the inside out,

mis juhib meie käitumist

we're talking directly to the part of the brain

ja seejärel anname võimaluse viia see kokku praktiliste sõnumite ja tegevusega.

that controls behavior,

and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do.

Nii sünnivadki kõhutunde järgi tehtud otsused.

Vahel võivad inimesel olla kõik faktid ja numbrid,

This is where gut decisions come from.

Sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures,

aga ikka ütleb ta,

“Ma tean kõiki fakte ja detaile,

aga see ei tundu lihtsalt päris see.”

and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say,

Miks kasutame tegusõna, öeldes, et see ei “tundu” õige?

but it just doesn't feel right."

Kuna see osa meie ajust, mis kontrollib otsustamist,

Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right?

ei kontrolli kõnet.

Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making

Parim, mis me öelda suudame ongi

doesn't control language.

"Ma ei tea, see lihtsalt ei tundu õige."

The best we can muster up is,

Vahel öeldakse, et järgitakse oma südame häält ja sisetunnet.

"I don't know. It just doesn't feel right."

Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart or soul.

See on ehk valus tõde, aga nendel kehaosadel

pole käitumisega midagi pistmist.

I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts

Kõik see toimub aju limbilises süsteemis,

controlling your behavior.

selles aju osas, mis juhib otsustusvõimet ja mitte kõnet.

It's all happening here in your limbic brain,

the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.

Aga kui sa ei tea, miks sa teed seda, mida teed,

ja inimesed reageerivad sellele, miks sa seda teed,

But if you don't know why you do what you do,

siis kuidas on võimalik võita inimesi enda poole

and people respond to why you do what you do,

või panna neid midagi ostma või enda poolt häält andma

then how will you ever get people

või mis kõige tähtsam, olema lojaalne

to vote for you, or buy something from you,

ja tahtma olla osa sellest, mida sa teed.

or, more importantly, be loyal

Eesmärk ei ole lihtsalt müüa midagi neile, kes seda vajavad,

and 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;

eesmärk on müüa inimestele seda, millesse sa usud.

the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe.

Eesmärk ei ole võtta tööle neid, kes otsivad tööd,

The goal is not just to hire people who need a job;

eesmärk on värvata inimesi, kes usuvad sama, millesse usud sina.

it's to hire people who believe what you believe.

Ma ütlen alati,

I always say that, you know,

et võttes kellegi tööle vaid tema oskuste pärast,

if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money,

siis töötabki ta sinu raha pärast,

kuid töötaja, kes usub sama asja,

annab endast tööl vere, higi ja pisarad.

but if they believe what you believe,

Siin ei ole paremat näidet kui vennad Wrightid.

they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.

Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.

Enamus ei teagi, kes on Samuel Pierpont Langley.

Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

20. sajandi alguses oli

mehitatud lennuki valmistamise buum sarnane praeguse dotcom buumiga.

And back in the early 20th century,

Igaüks proovis õnne.

the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day.

Samuel Pierpont Langleyl oli olemas kõik,

Everybody was trying it.

mida arvatakse, et eduks on vaja.

And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume,

Isegi kui tänapäeval inimestelt küsida,

to be the recipe for success.

miks mingi toode või firma ebaõnnestus,

Even now, you ask people,

tuuakse põhjuseks väikeste variatsioonidega need kolm asja:

"Why did your product or why did your company fail?"

and people always give you the same permutation

ebapiisav eelarve, valed inimesed, kehvad turutingimused.

of the same three things:

Alati need samad kolm asja, seega vaadakem asja lähemalt.

under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.

It's always the same three things, so let's explore that.

Samuel Pierpont Langley

sai 50 000 dollarit sõjaministeeriumilt,

Samuel Pierpont Langley

et see lennumasin välja mõelda.

was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department

Raha ei olnud probleem.

to figure out this flying machine.

Tal oli akadeemiline karjäär Harvardis,

Money was no problem.

töökoht Smithsonianis ning väga laialdased sidemed,

He held a seat at Harvard

ta tundis kõiki tolle aja suurkujusid.

and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected;

Ta palkas tööle parimad, keda võis leida

he knew all the big minds of the day.

He hired the best minds money could find

ja turutingimused olid fantastilised.

New York Times käis tal järel,

and the market conditions were fantastic.

kõik hoidsid talle pöialt.

The New York Times followed him around everywhere,

Aga miks keegi siis pole kuulnud Samuel Pierpont Langleyst?

and everyone was rooting for Langley.

Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley?

Paarisaja miili kaugusel Daytonis Ohios

A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio,

polnud Orville ja Wilbur Wrightil midagi,

mida õnnestumiseks tavaliselt vaja on.

Orville and Wilbur Wright,

they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success.

Raha neil polnud,

unistuse teostamiseks tuli neil mängu panna oma rattapoe tulu.

They had no money;

Mitte kellelegi Wrightide tiimist

they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop.

polnud kõrgemat haridust,

Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team

isegi mitte Orville’il ega Wilburil.

had a college education,

New York Times ei käinud nendega kaasas.

not even Orville or Wilbur.

And The New York Times followed them around nowhere.

Erinevus oli aga selles, et Orville ja Wilbur

järgisid oma kutsumust, kindlat eesmärki ja uskusid sellesse.

The difference was,

Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief.

Nad uskusid, et kui nad suudavad selle lennumasina välja mõelda,

They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine,

siis muudab see maailma.

Samuel Pierpont Langley oli teistsugune.

it'll change the course of the world.

Tema tahtis saada rikkaks ja kuulsaks.

Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.

Ta ajas taga tulemust.

He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous.

Tema eesmärgiks oli rikkus.

He was in pursuit of the result.

Ja näete siis, mis juhtus!

He was in pursuit of the riches.

Inimesed, kes uskusid vendade Wrightide unistussse,

And lo and behold, look what happened.

The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream

töötasid nende heaks vere, higi ja pisaratega.

Teised aga töötasid vaid palgatšeki nimel.

worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.

Räägitakse, et iga kord välja minnes,

The others just worked for the paycheck.

võtsid vennad Wrightid kaasa viit komplekti varuosi,

They tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out,

sest just nii mitu korda kukkusid nad enne õhtusööki alla.

they would have to take five sets of parts,

because that's how many times they would crash before supper.

Ja lõpuks, 17. detsembril 1903

And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903,

tõusid vennad Wrightid õhku,

aga kedagi ei juhtunud olema selle tunnistajaks.

the Wright brothers took flight,

Sellest saadi teada alles mõni päev hiljem.

and no one was there to even experience it.

We found out about it a few days later.

Kinnitus selle kohta, et Langley motiiv polnud õige, on ka see,

And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing:

et kohe kui vendade Wrightide lend õnnestus,

jättis ta asja pooleli.

the day the Wright brothers took flight,

Ta oleks võinud öelda: “Tegite erakordse avastuse,

he quit.

He could have said,

püüan teie tehnoloogiat edasi arendada.”

"That's an amazing discovery, guys,

kuid ta ei teinud seda.

and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't.

Ta ei olnud esimene, ei saanud rikkaks, ega kuulsaks, lool lõpp.

He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous, so he quit.

Inimesed ei osta mitte toodet, vaid mõtet, mis selle taga on.

Kui rääkida sellest, millesse sa usud,

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

siis tõmbad sa ligi neid, kes usuvad sama, mida sinagi.

If you talk about what you believe,

Aga miks on oluline tõmmata ligi neid, kes usuvad sama, mis sina?

you will attract those who believe what you believe.

But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe?

On olemas innovatsiooni leviku seadus,

isegi kui sa seda ei tea, on mõisted ilmselt tuttavad.

Something called the law of diffusion of innovation,

2,5% elanikkonnast on innovaatorid.

if you don't know the law, you know the terminology.

The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators.

Järgmised 13,5% elanikest on varajased omaksvõtjad.

The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters.

Siis tuleb 34% varajane enamus,

siis hiline enamus ja lõpuks viivitajad.

The next 34% are your early majority,

Ainus põhjus, miks need inimesed ostavad nuputelefone on see,

your late majority and your laggards.

et numbrikettaga telefone enam ei müüda.

The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones

(Naer)

is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

Me kõik paikneme erineval ajahetkel selle skaala erinevates kohtades,

(Laughter)

We all sit at various places at various times on this scale,

aga innovatsiooni leviku seaduse kohaselt

on masside seas edu saavutamise või idee omaksvõtu eeltingimuseks

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,

teatud kriitilise massi tarbijate poolehoiu saavutamine

you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point

mis on vahemikus 15-18% turust,

alles siis saab levik hoo sisse.

between 15 and 18 percent market penetration,

Mulle meeldib küsida firmadelt konversiooni näitajat.

and then the system tips.

Nad ütlevad uhkusega, et umbes 10%

I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?"

Ka 10% kliente võib saada otsustavaks.

They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly.

Kõigil on umbes 10% kliente, kes nö jagavad matsu.

Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers.

Nagu kõhutunne, nad lihtsalt jagavad matsu.

We all have about 10% who just "get it."

Probleem on aga selles, kuidas eristada neid,

That's how we describe them, right?

kes matsu jagavad, teistest enne tehingu toimumist?

That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it."

The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it

Siin ongi see väike lõhe, mis tuleb täita

before doing business versus the ones who don't get it?

So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close,

nagu Jeffrey Moore ütleb: “Kuristiku ületamine",

sest on ju teada, et varajane enamus ei proovi midagi enne

as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" --

because, you see, the early majority will not try something

kui keegi teine seda enne teda proovinud pole.

until someone else has tried it first.

Samas ei ole innovaatoritel ja varajastel omaksvõtjatel

mingit probleemi teha otsuseid pelgalt kõhutunde järgi.

And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters,

Nad on rohkem valmis tegema intutiivseid otsuseid,

they're comfortable making those gut decisions.

ajendatuna pigem sellest, millesse nad usuvad,

They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions

that are driven by what they believe about the world

kui sellest, mis toode saadaval on.

Need on need, kes seisid kuus tundi sabas,

and not just what product is available.

et osta endale iPhone esimene versioon,

These are the people who stood in line for six hours

olgugi, et seda oleks saanud nädala pärast vabalt poest osta.

to buy an iPhone when they first came out,

Need on need, kes maksid 40 000 dollarit

when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week.

esimese lameekraaniga teleri eest,

These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars

isegi kui tehnoloogia oli ebakvaliteetne.

on flat-screen TVs when they first came out,

Kusjuures ei teinud nad seda sellepärast, et see oli tehnika viimane sõna,

even though the technology was substandard.

And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great;

nad tegid seda iseenda pärast.

Sellepärast, et nad tahtsid olla esimesed.

they did it for themselves.

Inimesed ei osta, mida sa teed, nad ostavad, miks sa seda teed

It's because they wanted to be first.

ja see, mis sa teed, on lihtsalt märk sellest, millesse sa usud.

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it

and what you do simply proves what you believe.

Tegelikult teevadki inimesed neid asju, mis annavad nende usule kinnitust.

In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe.

Põhjus, miks keegi ostis iPhone esimesel kuue tunni jooksul

The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours,

seistes selleks kuus tundi sabas,

oli selles, millesse nad usuvad

stood in line for six hours,

ja millist muljet soovivad endast jätta.

was because of what they believed about the world,

Nemad ongi esimesed.

Inimesed ei osta, mida sa teed; nad ostavad, miks sa seda teed.

and how they wanted everybody to see them:

they were first.

Toon teile hästi teada näite

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

ühest läbikukkumisest ja õnnestumisest innovatsiooni leviku seaduse puhul.

So let me give you a famous example,

a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.

Esiteks läbikukkumine.

See on kaubanduslik näide.

First, the famous failure.

Nagu räägitud, on eduks vaja

It's a commercial example.

raha, õigeid inimeseid ja soodsat turuseisu.

As we said before, the recipe for success

is money and the right people and the right market conditions.

See peaks garanteerima edu.

Vaadakem TiVot.

You should have success then.

Alates TiVo väljatulemisest 8-9 aastat tagasi

Look at TiVo.

kuni tänase päevani

From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago

on see ainus kõrgeima kvaliteediga toode turul,

to this current day,

they are the single highest-quality product on the market,

kõik nõustuvad sellega.

hands down, there is no dispute.

Nad olid väga hästi rahastatud.

Turutingimused olid fantastilised.

They were extremely well-funded.

TiVo on muutunud tegusõnaks.

Market conditions were fantastic.

Ma TiVon pidevalt kraami oma vanale Time Warneri digisalvestile.

I mean, we use TiVo as verb.

(Naer)

I TiVo stuff on my piece-of-junk Time Warner DVR all the time.

Kuid kaubanduslikus mõttes on TiVo läbikukkumine.

(Laughter)

Nad ei hakanud kunagi tulu teenima.

But TiVo's a commercial failure.

Kui nad läksid avalikule aktsiaturu pakkumisele,

They've never made money.

oli aktsia hinnaks 30-40 dollarit,

And when they went IPO,

langes järsult ja ei ole tõusnud üle 10 dollari.

their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars

Tegelikult vist mitte üle 6,

and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10.

välja arvatud mõned väikesed kõikumised.

In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six,

Sest kui TiVo oma tootega turule tuli

except for a couple of little spikes.

rääkisid nad kõik ära, mis neil on.

Because you see, when TiVo launched their product,

Nad ütlesid, “Meie toode paneb otseülekande pausile,

they told us all what they had.

They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV,

jätab vahele reklaamid, kerib tagasi otsesaated

skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits

ja jätab meelde su eelistused ilma, et peaksid seda ekstra paluma.”

Ja küüniline enamus ütles,

without you even asking."

"Me ei usu teid.

And the cynical majority said,

Meil pole seda vaja. See ei meeldi meile.

"We don't believe you.

Te hirmutate meid."

We don't need it. We don't like it.

Aga mis siis, kui nad oleks öelnud,

You're scaring us."

“Kui te olete inimene,

What if they had said,

kes tahab alati olla oma elu täielik peremees,

"If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control

siis meil on midagi just teie jaoks.

over every aspect of your life,

Saate panna otsesaate seisma, jätta vahele reklaami,

boy, do we have a product for you.

salvestada oma vaatamisharjumused jne.”

It pauses live TV, skips commercials,

Inimesed ei osta, mida sa teed; nad ostavad, miks sa seda teed

memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc."

ja see, mida sa teed, on lihtsalt selle väljendus, millesse sa usud.

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.

Nüüd aga näide innovatsiooni leviku seaduse õnnestunud rakendusest.

Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation.

1963. aasta suvel

kogunes Washingtonis 250 000 inimest

In the summer of 1963,

250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington

et kuulata Martin Luhter Kingi kõnet.

Ei olnud saadetud ühtegi kutset,

to hear Dr. King speak.

polnud olemas veebilehte, kust ürituse kuupäeva vaadata.

They sent out no invitations,

Kuidas see saavutati?

and there was no website to check the date.

Dr King ei olnud ainus mees Ameerikas, kes oskas kõnet pidada.

How do you do that?

Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America

Ta ei olnud ainus,

who was a great orator.

kes USAs kannatas kodanikuõiguste puudumise tõttu

He wasn't the only man in America who suffered

Tõtt-öelda oli tal ka halbu ideid.

in a pre-civil rights America.

Kuid tal oli anne.

In fact, some of his ideas were bad.

Ta ei käinud ja rääkinud inimestele,

But he had a gift.

mida kõike peaks Ameerikas muutma.

Ta käis ja rääkis inimestele sellest, millesse ta uskus.

He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America.

“Ma usun, ma usun, ma usun," ütles ta.

He went around and told people what he believed.

"I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people.

Ja inimesed, kes uskusid samamoodi,

võtsid ta mõtte omaks ja jagasid seda edasi

And people who believed what he believed

took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people.

Oli inimesi, kes panid aluse organisatsioonile,

mis võimaldas veelgi laialdasemalt seda sõnumit levitada.

And some of those people created structures

to get the word out to even more people.

Ennäe imet, 250 000 inimest tulidki kohale

And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up

õigel päeval ja õigel ajal, et kuulda tema kõnet.

on the right day at the right time to hear him speak.

Kui paljud tulid kohale tema pärast?

How many of them showed up for him?

Null.

Nad tulid kohale nende endi pärast.

Zero.

Sellepärast, mida nad Ameerikast uskusid,

They showed up for themselves.

mis ajendas neid sõitma kaheksa tundi bussis,

It's what they believed about America

et seista Washingtonis augustipäikese lõõsas.

that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours

See on see, millesse nad uskusid ja see ei olnud must valge vastu:

to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August.

25% osalejatest olid valged.

It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white:

25% of the audience was white.

Dr King uskus, et maailmas on kahte sorti seadusi:

Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world:

need, mis on seatud kõigevägevama poolt ja need, mis on teinud inimene.

those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by men.

Ja alles siis, kui kõik seadused, mille on teinud inimene,

on kooskõlas kõigevägevama seadustega,

And not until all the laws that are made by men

on meie maailm õiglane.

are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority

Lihsalt juhtus nii, et kodanikuõiguste liikumine

will we live in a just world.

sattus olema täiuslik ajend, et tema uskumine ellu viia.

It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement

was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life.

Me järgnesime talle, kuid mitte tema pärast, vaid iseendi pärast.

Muide, tema kõne pealkiri oli “Mul on üks unistus”

We followed, not for him, but for ourselves.

mitte “Mul on üks plaan”.

By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech,

(Naer)

not the "I have a plan" speech.

(Laughter)

Kuulake tänaseid poliitikuid nende kõikehõlmavate 12-punkti plaanidega.

Nad ei inspireeri kedagi.

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans.

On olemas liidrid ja on need, kes tegelikult juhivad.

They're not inspiring anybody.

Liidrid hoiavad positsiooni formaalse võimuga,

Because there are leaders and there are those who lead.

Leaders hold a position of power or authority,

kuid need, kes juhivad, inspireerivad meid.

but those who lead inspire us.

Olgu nad siis inimesed või organisatsioonid,

järgneme me neile,

Whether they're individuals or organizations,

mitte kohustusest, vaid oma vabast tahtest.

we follow those who lead, not because we have to,

Me järgneme neile, kes näitavad teed, mitte nende, vaid meie endi pärast.

but because we want to.

We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves.

Neil, kes alustavad küsimusest “miks”,

And it's those who start with "why"

on võime inspireerida ümbritsevaid inimesi

that have the ability to inspire those around them

või leida teisi, kes inspireerivad neid.

or find others who inspire them.

Tänan teid väga.

(Aplaus)

Thank you very much.

(Applause)