What really motivates people to be honest in business | Alexander Wagner

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: NAN-KUN WU

How many companies have you interacted with today?

今天你和多少間公司互動過？

Well, you got up in the morning,

你早上起床，

took a shower,

先去淋浴，

washed your hair,

洗洗頭髮，

used a hair dryer,

用了吹風機，

ate breakfast --

吃了早餐──

ate cereals, fruit, yogurt, whatever --

吃的是穀片、水果、優格、等等──

had coffee --

喝了咖啡

tea.

或茶。

You took public transport to come here,

你搭乘大眾交通工具到這裡，

or maybe used your private car.

或是開你自己的車過來。

You interacted with the company that you work for or that you own.

你和你上班的公司或是 你自己開的公司互動。

You interacted with your clients,

你和你的客戶互動，

your customers,

和你的顧客互動，

and so on and so forth.

諸如此類。

I'm pretty sure there are at least seven companies

我非常確定

你今天至少和七間公司互動過。

you've interacted with today.

Let me tell you a stunning statistic.

讓我告訴各位一個驚人的統計數據。

One out of seven large, public corporations

每七間大型的上市公司中

commit fraud every year.

每年會有一間犯下詐欺罪。

This is a US academic study that looks at US companies --

這是美國的學術研究， 調查的對象是美國的公司──

I have no reason to believe that it's different in Europe.

但我認為歐洲公司的情況類似。

This is a study that looks at both detected and undetected fraud

被發現、未被發現的詐欺 兩者都被調查研究，

using statistical methods.

使用的方法是統計。

This is not petty fraud.

不是小欺小騙。

These frauds cost the shareholders of these companies,

這些詐欺會造成公司股東的損失，

and therefore society,

因此也造成社會的損失，

on the order of 380 billion dollars per year.

每年損失約三千八百億美元。

We can all think of some examples, right?

我們都能想出一些例子，對嗎？

The car industry's secrets aren't quite so secret anymore.

汽車產業的秘密不再那麼秘密了。

Fraud has become a feature,

在金融服務業，

詐欺已經變成了一種特性，

not a bug,

而不是錯誤。

of the financial services industry.

That's not me who's claiming that,

並不是我自己在這麼說，

that's the president of the American Finance Association

是美國財務學會的會長

who stated that in his presidential address.

在他的會長演說當中說的。

That's a huge problem if you think about, especially,

如果你仔細想想， 這是個很大的問題，

an economy like Switzerland,

特別是在像瑞士這樣的經濟體中，

which relies so much on the trust put into its financial industry.

瑞士非常仰賴人們對其 金融業投入的信任。

On the other hand,

另一方面，

there are six out of seven companies who actually remain honest

七間中的六間事實上維持著誠信，

despite all temptations to start engaging in fraud.

它們抗拒了各種引誘 它們進行詐欺的誘惑。

There are whistle-blowers like Michael Woodford,

有像邁克爾伍德福特這樣的告密者，

who blew the whistle on Olympus.

他告了奧林巴斯的密。

These whistle-blowers risk their careers,

這些告密者賭上他們的職涯

their friendships,

和友情，

to bring out the truth about their companies.

揭露他們公司的真相。

There are journalists like Anna Politkovskaya

有像安娜波利特科夫 斯卡婭這樣的記者，

who risk even their lives to report human rights violations.

冒著生命危險去報導 違反人權的事件。

She got killed --

後來她被殺了──

every year,

每年，

around 100 journalists get killed

有大約一百名記者

because of their conviction to bring out the truth.

因為堅定地想要揭露真相而被殺害。

So in my talk today,

在今天這場演說，

I want to share with you some insights I've obtained and learned

我想和各位分享的是我過去十年間

in the last 10 years of conducting research in this.

在研究這個主題時 所學到的一些洞見。

I'm a researcher, a scientist working with economists,

我是個研究者、科學家，

合作的對象有經濟學家、

financial economists,

金融經濟學家、

ethicists, neuroscientists,

倫理學家、神經科學家、 律師，以及其他的人。

lawyers and others

trying to understand what makes humans tick,

我嘗試要了解是什麼在驅使人類，

and how can we address this issue of fraud in corporations

以及我們如何處理 企業內的詐欺議題，

and therefore contribute to the improvement of the world.

因而對改善世界貢獻一份心力。

I want to start by sharing with you two very distinct visions

一開始，我想分享兩個 非常不同的看法，

of how people behave.

對於人的行為的看法。

First, meet Adam Smith,

首先，來見見亞當史密斯，

founding father of modern economics.

現代經濟學之父。

His basic idea was that if everybody behaves in their own self-interests,

他的基本想法是： 如果每個人都依自身利益而行，

that's good for everybody in the end.

最終，那對每個人而言都是好的。

Self-interest isn't a narrowly defined concept

自身利益不是一個 定義很狹隘的觀念，

just for your immediate utility.

不是只為了立即的功利。

It has a long-run implication.

它有著長期的意涵。

Let's think about that.

我們來想想這一點。

Think about this dog here.

想想圖上的這隻狗。

That might be us.

牠可能就是我們。

There's this temptation --

圖上有著誘惑──

I apologize to all vegetarians, but --

我要向所有的素食者道歉，但──

(Laughter)

Dogs do like the bratwurst.

（笑聲）

狗確實喜歡臘腸。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now, the straight-up, self-interested move here

這裡最直接、最以 自身利益為主的做法，

is to go for that.

就是去取得臘腸。

So my friend Adam here might jump up,

所以我的朋友亞當，可能會跳上去，

get the sausage and thereby ruin all this beautiful tableware.

取得臘腸，因而把 所有的美麗餐具都給毀了。

But that's not what Adam Smith meant.

但那並不是亞當史密斯的意思。

He didn't mean disregard all consequences --

他並不是說要不顧一切的後果──

to the contrary.

其實相反。

He would have thought,

他會想，

well, there may be negative consequences,

也許會有負面的後果，

for example,

比如，

the owner might be angry with the dog

主人可能會對狗發怒，

and the dog, anticipating that, might not behave in this way.

而狗能預期到這一點， 就不會做出這個行為。

That might be us,

那可能就是我們，

weighing the benefits and costs of our actions.

權衡我們每個行動的利益和成本。

How does that play out?

那會產生什麼結果？

Well, many of you, I'm sure,

我相信，在座許多人，

have in your companies,

在你們的公司裡，

especially if it's a large company,

特別是大公司裡，

a code of conduct.

會有「行為準則」。

And then if you behave according to that code of conduct,

如果你根據行為準則來做事，

that improves your chances of getting a bonus payment.

就能讓你比較有機會得到獎金。

And on the other hand, if you disregard it,

另一方面，如果你漠視它，

then there are higher chances of not getting your bonus

就比較有可能得不到獎金，

or its being diminished.

或是獎金會縮水。

In other words,

換言之，

this is a very economic motivation

這是個非常經濟的動機，

of trying to get people to be more honest,

試圖讓人們更誠實，

or more aligned with the corporation's principles.

或是更符合公司的原則。

Similarly, reputation is a very powerful economic force, right?

同樣地，名聲也是種非常 強大的經濟力量，對吧？

We try to build a reputation,

我們試圖建立名聲，

maybe for being honest,

也許是誠實的名聲，

because then people trust us more in the future.

因為這樣做，人們將來會更信任我們。

Right?

對嗎？

Adam Smith talked about the baker

亞當史密斯談到一個麵包師傅，

who's not producing good bread out of his benevolence

他為那些消費者製作好的麵包，

for those people who consume the bread,

並不是出於善心，

but because he wants to sell more future bread.

而是因為他想要在未來 能賣出更多麵包。

In my research, we find, for example,

在我的研究中，我們發現，比如，

at the University of Zurich,

在蘇黎世大學，

that Swiss banks who get caught up in media,

瑞士銀行被捲入媒體當中，

and in the context, for example,

例如在逃稅或稅務詐欺的情況下，

of tax evasion, of tax fraud,

have bad media coverage.

有很糟的媒體報導。

They lose net new money in the future

他們就會在未來失去淨新增資金，

and therefore make lower profits.

因此賺的利潤就會減少。

That's a very powerful reputational force.

那是非常強大的名聲力量。

Benefits and costs.

利益和成本。

Here's another viewpoint of the world.

世界上有另一種觀點。

Meet Immanuel Kant,

來見見伊曼努爾康德，

18th-century German philosopher superstar.

十八世紀的明星德國哲學家。

He developed this notion

他發展出了這個概念：

that independent of the consequences,

和結果無關，

some actions are just right

有些行為就是對的，

and some are just wrong.

有些就是錯的。

It's just wrong to lie, for example.

比如，說謊就是錯的。

So, meet my friend Immanuel here.

所以，來見見我的朋友伊曼努爾。

He knows that the sausage is very tasty,

牠知道香腸非常可口，

but he's going to turn away because he's a good dog.

但牠打算調頭走開， 因為牠是條好狗。

He knows it's wrong to jump up

牠知道跳上去是錯的，

and risk ruining all this beautiful tableware.

有可能會打破所有這些漂亮的餐具。

If you believe that people are motivated like that,

如果你相信人們會被 這樣的動機驅使，

then all the stuff about incentives,

那麼所有關於獎勵的一切，

all the stuff about code of conduct and bonus systems and so on,

那麼所有關於行為準則、 獎金制度等等的一切，

doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

就不是很有道理了。

People are motivated by different values perhaps.

人們被不同的價值觀驅使，也許吧。

So, what are people actually motivated by?

所以人們的動機到底是什麼？

These two gentlemen here have perfect hairdos,

這裡的兩位先生有著完美的髮型，

but they give us very different views of the world.

但他們給我們非常不同的世界觀。

What do we do with this?

對此，我們該怎麼辦？

Well, I'm an economist

嗯，我是經濟學家，

and we conduct so-called experiments to address this issue.

而我們會進行所謂的實驗， 來處理這個議題。

We strip away facts which are confusing in reality.

我們會剝除在現實中讓我們困惑的事實，

Reality is so rich, there is so much going on,

現實非常的豐富， 有太多事情在發生，

it's almost impossible to know what drives people's behavior really.

幾乎不可能知道 什麼真正驅動人類的行為。

So let's do a little experiment together.

所以，讓我們一起來做個小實驗。

Imagine the following situation.

想像下面的情境。

You're in a room alone,

你單獨在一間房間中，

not like here.

不像這裡這麼多人。

There's a five-franc coin like the one I'm holding up right now

有一個五法郎硬幣， 就像我手上的這個，

in front of you.

硬幣就在你面前。

Here are your instructions:

你得到的指示是：

toss the coin four times,

擲硬幣四次，

and then on a computer terminal in front of you,

接著，在你面前的電腦終端機上，

enter the number of times tails came up.

輸入硬幣出現反面的次數。

This is the situation.

情境就是這樣。

Here's the rub.

難處在這裏：

For every time that you announce that you had a tails throw,

每次你宣佈你擲出了反面，

you get paid five francs.

你就會得到五法郎。

So if you say I had two tails throws,

所以如果你說我擲出兩次反面，

you get paid 10 francs.

你就會得十法郎。

If you say you had zero, you get paid zero francs.

如果你說你沒擲出反面， 你就會得到零法郎。

If you say, "I had four tails throws,"

如果你說：「我擲出四次反面」，

then you get paid 20 francs.

你就會得到二十法郎。

It's anonymous,

這是匿名的，

nobody's watching what you're doing,

沒有人在看你做，

and you get paid that money anonymously.

付錢給你時也是匿名的。

I've got two questions for you.

我要問各位兩個問題。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You know what's coming now, right?

你們知道接下來是什麼吧？

First, how would you behave in that situation?

第一，在這個情境，你會怎麼做？

The second, look to your left and look to your right --

第二，看看你的左邊， 看看你的右邊──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

and think about how the person sitting next to you

想想坐在你旁邊的人

might behave in that situation.

在這情境可能會怎麼做。

We did this experiment for real.

我們真做了這個實驗。

We did it at the Manifesta art exhibition

我們是在最近蘇黎世這裡舉行的

that took place here in Zurich recently,

Manifesta 藝術展覽上做的，

not with students in the lab at the university

不是在大學實驗室裡對學生做的，

but with the real population,

對象是真正的一般大眾，

like you guys.

就像在座各位。

First, a quick reminder of stats.

首先，快速提醒大家一下統計數字，

If I throw the coin four times and it's a fair coin,

如果你擲硬幣四次， 且它是個公平的硬幣，

then the probability that it comes up four times tails

四次都是反面的機率

is 6.25 percent.

是 6.25%。

And I hope you can intuitively see

希望你們用直覺就能看出，

that the probability that all four of them are tails is much lower

四次都是反面的機率

than if two of them are tails, right?

遠低於兩次是反面的機率，對吧？

Here are the specific numbers.

這裡是明確的數據。

Here's what happened.

而結果如下。

People did this experiment for real.

人們真的做了這個實驗。

Around 30 to 35 percent of people said,

大約 30%~35% 的人說：

"Well, I had four tails throws."

「嗯，我擲出四次反面。」

That's extremely unlikely.

那是極度不可能的。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But the really amazing thing here,

但，真正驚人的是，

perhaps to an economist,

也許對經濟學家而言，驚人的是：

is there are around 65 percent of people who did not say I had four tails throws,

大約 65% 的人 沒說他們擲出四次反面，

even though in that situation,

即使在那個情境中，

nobody's watching you,

沒有人在看你，

the only consequence that's in place

唯一會發生的後果是：

is you get more money if you say four than less.

假如你說四次而不是少於四次， 得的錢就會比較多；

You leave 20 francs on the table by announcing zero.

如果你宣稱零次，就放棄了二十法郎。

I don't know whether the other people all were honest

我不知道其他人是否都誠實，

or whether they also said a little bit higher or lower than what they did

或是他們會把數字向上或向下調整，

because it's anonymous.

因為這是匿名的。

We only observed the distribution.

我們只是觀察數據分佈。

But what I can tell you -- and here's another coin toss.

但我可以告訴各位── 這是另一次擲硬幣結果。

There you go, it's tails.

來了，是反面。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Don't check, OK?

別來確認，好嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

What I can tell you

我能告訴你們的是，

is that not everybody behaved like Adam Smith would have predicted.

並非每個人的行為 都如亞當史密斯所預測。

So what does that leave us with?

所以這告訴我們什麼？

Well, it seems people are motivated by certain intrinsic values

嗯，似乎人們會被某種 內在的價值觀所驅使，

and in our research, we look at this.

在研究中，我們調查了這點。

We look at the idea that people have so-called protected values.

我們探討了人會有所謂的 「被保護的價值觀」的這個想法。

A protected value isn't just any value.

被保護的價值觀並非任何價值觀。

A protected value is a value where you're willing to pay a price

被保護的價值觀是 你願意付出一個代價

to uphold that value.

來維持的價值。

You're willing to pay a price to withstand the temptation to give in.

你願意付出一個代價來 對抗要你屈服的誘惑。

And the consequence is you feel better

而結果就是，如果你賺到錢的方式

if you earn money in a way that's consistent with your values.

和你的價值觀是一致的， 你的感覺會比較好。

Let me show you this again in the metaphor of our beloved dog here.

讓我再次用我們都愛的 狗狗比喻來說明。

If we succeed in getting the sausage without violating our values,

如果我們不違反價值觀 而成功地取得香腸，

then the sausage tastes better.

那麼香腸嚐起來的味道比較好。

That's what our research shows.

那就是我們的研究發現。

If, on the other hand,

另一方面，

we do so --

若我們這樣做──

if we get the sausage

如果我們取得香腸，

and in doing so we actually violate values,

用的是違反價值觀的方式，

we value the sausage less.

我們也會比較不珍視這香腸。

Quantitatively, that's quite powerful.

就量化而言，相當強而有力。

We can measure these protected values,

我們能夠測量這些被保護的價值觀，

for example,

比如，

by a survey measure.

可以用問卷調查來測量。

Simple, nine-item survey that's quite predictive in these experiments.

簡單的九題問卷調查

是非常容易預測結果的實驗。

If you think about the average of the population

如果考量人數平均值，

and then there's a distribution around it --

平均值的周邊會呈現一種分佈──

people are different, we all are different.

人各不相同，我們都不一樣。

People who have a set of protected values

持有著一組保護價值觀

that's one standard deviation above the average,

比平均值高出一個標準差的那些人，

they discount money they receive by lying by about 25 percent.

透過說謊得到的金錢價值 大約會被他們打個 75 折。

That means a dollar received when lying

也就是說，說謊得到的一塊錢，

is worth to them only 75 cents

和誠實得到的一塊錢相比，

without any incentives you put in place for them to behave honestly.

只值 75 分錢而已。

It's their intrinsic motivation.

那是他們的內在動機。

By the way, I'm not a moral authority.

順便一提，我並非道德權威。

I'm not saying I have all these beautiful values, right?

我並不是說我有所有這些 美好的價值觀。

But I'm interested in how people behave

但我感興趣的是人的行為，

and how we can leverage that richness in human nature

以及如何讓人類本性中的 豐富特性能夠發揮功效，

to actually improve the workings of our organizations.

來實際改善在組織內的工作。

So there are two very, very different visions here.

所以，這裡有兩種非常不同的觀點。

On the one hand,

一方面，

you can appeal to benefits and costs

你可以訴諸利益和成本，

and try to get people to behave according to them.

嘗試讓人們依利益和成本而行。

On the other hand,

另一方面，

you can select people who have the values

當然你可以篩選具有價值觀

and the desirable characteristics, of course --

和具有你所想要之特質的人──

competencies that go in line with your organization.

能夠配合你的組織。

I do not yet know where these protected values really come from.

我還不知道

這些受保護的價值觀來自何處。

Is it nurture or is it nature?

是後天養成還是天性？

What I can tell you

但我能告訴各位，

is that the distribution looks pretty similar for men and women.

男性和女性的分佈很類似。

It looks pretty similar for those who had studied economics

學經濟的人和學心理學的人，

or those who had studied psychology.

他們的分佈看起來很相似。

It looks even pretty similar around different age categories

不同年齡層的成人 他們的分佈還更相似。

among adults.

But I don't know yet how this develops over a lifetime.

但我還不知道一輩子的進展會怎樣。

That will be the subject of future research.

那將會是未來的研究主題。

The idea I want to leave you with

我想留給各位的想法是，

is it's all right to appeal to incentives.

被獎勵所吸引是沒關係的。

I'm an economist;

我是經濟學家；

I certainly believe in the fact that incentives work.

我肯定相信獎勵是有效的。

But do think about selecting the right people

但你一定要考慮篩選對的人，

rather than having people and then putting incentives in place.

而不只是先把人招來，再提供獎勵。

Selecting the right people with the right values

篩選對的、有正確價值觀的人，

may go a long way to saving a lot of trouble

可成功地為你的組織

省掉很多麻煩、

and a lot of money

和很多金錢。

in your organizations.

In other words,

換言之，

it will pay off to put people first.

把「人」放在首位必有好收穫。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）