Margaret Heffernan: Why it's time to forget the pecking order at work

譯者: Regina Chu 審譯者: Marssi Draw

An evolutionary biologist at Purdue University

普渡大學有一位進化生物學家

named William Muir studied chickens.

名叫威廉·繆爾，他研究雞。

He was interested in productivity --

他對生產力非常有興趣──

I think it's something that concerns all of us --

我想這是大家都關心的問題──

but it's easy to measure in chickens because you just count the eggs.

但是要量雞的生產力很容易， 因為你只要算有多少蛋就好。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

He wanted to know what could make his chickens more productive,

他想知道要怎麼做 才能讓他的雞增進生產力，

so he devised a beautiful experiment.

所以他設計了一套很妙的實驗。

Chickens live in groups, so first of all, he selected just an average flock,

雞是群居的動物，所以首先 他選了一群很普通的雞，

and he let it alone for six generations.

任牠們自由生長、繁衍六代。

But then he created a second group

但是之後他弄了第二群雞，

of the individually most productive chickens --

由最有生產力的雞隻組成，

you could call them superchickens --

你可以叫牠們超級王牌雞，

and he put them together in a superflock,

然後他把牠們組成超級王牌雞群，

and each generation, he selected only the most productive for breeding.

他在每一代中只選出 最有生產力的繼續繁殖。

After six generations had passed,

經過六代之後，

what did he find?

他發現了什麼？

Well, the first group, the average group, was doing just fine.

第一群雞，很普通的那群， 表現良好。

They were all plump and fully feathered

牠們各個胖嘟嘟、羽毛豐盈，

and egg production had increased dramatically.

蛋的產量大幅增加。

What about the second group?

第二群雞呢？

Well, all but three were dead.

只剩三隻，其他都死了。

這三隻把其他的都啄死了。

They'd pecked the rest to death.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The individually productive chickens had only achieved their success

生產力高的雞隻會成功只是因為

by suppressing the productivity of the rest.

抑制其他雞隻的產能。

Now, as I've gone around the world talking about this and telling this story

在我環遊世界演講這個主題 說這個故事的時候，

in all sorts of organizations and companies,

各種組織及公司的人

people have seen the relevance almost instantly,

都能馬上會意，

and they come up and they say things to me like,

他們會走過來對我說：

"That superflock, that's my company."

「那群超級王牌雞， 我的公司就是那樣。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Or, "That's my country."

或是，「我的國家就是那樣。」

Or, "That's my life."

或是，「那就是我的人生寫照。」

All my life I've been told that the way we have to get ahead is to compete:

我一生都聽到有人說， 如果我們要出人頭地非得競爭：

get into the right school, get into the right job, get to the top,

去好學校，找好工作，晉升到頂端，

and I've really never found it very inspiring.

但我從來都不覺得 這有什麼啟發性。

I've started and run businesses because invention is a joy,

我開始開公司是因為 發明是種喜悅，

and because working alongside brilliant, creative people

而且與聰明、 有創意的人一同工作

is its own reward.

本身就是一種獎勵。

And I've never really felt very motivated by pecking orders or by superchickens

我從不覺得論資排輩 或超級王牌雞

or by superstars.

或超級明星員工制度能夠激勵我。

But for the past 50 years,

但是過去 50 年，

we've run most organizations and some societies

我們管理大部分的組織及某些社會

along the superchicken model.

都是用這種超級王牌模式。

We've thought that success is achieved by picking the superstars,

我們都以為成功就是選出超級員工，

the brightest men, or occasionally women, in the room,

選出公司裡最聰明的人， 偶爾會是女性，

and giving them all the resources and all the power.

給他們所有的資源及權力。

And the result has been just the same as in William Muir's experiment:

但結果卻和威廉·繆爾的 實驗一模一樣：

aggression, dysfunction and waste.

侵略、無法發揮功效、浪費。

If the only way the most productive can be successful

如果最有生產力的人僅能以

is by suppressing the productivity of the rest,

壓抑其他人的生產力來取得成功，

then we badly need to find a better way to work

那我們真的迫切需要找到 更好的工作方式，

and a richer way to live.

及更好的生活方式。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

So what is it that makes some groups

所以到底是什麼讓某些團體

obviously more successful and more productive than others?

顯然比其他團體更成功、更有效率？

Well, that's the question a team at MIT took to research.

那正是麻省理工 某個研究團體的主題。

They brought in hundreds of volunteers,

他們找了數百位志願者，

they put them into groups, and they gave them very hard problems to solve.

把他們分成幾組， 讓他們解決非常難的問題。

And what happened was exactly what you'd expect,

結果如你所料，

that some groups were very much more successful than others,

某些小組就是比其他小組更成功，

but what was really interesting was that the high-achieving groups

但是耐人尋味的是高成就小組

were not those where they had one or two people

並不是小組裡有一兩位

with spectacularly high I.Q.

超高智商的人，

Nor were the most successful groups the ones that had the highest

也不是總體智商

aggregate I.Q.

最高的小組。

Instead, they had three characteristics, the really successful teams.

相反的，最成功的團隊有三個特質。

First of all, they showed high degrees of social sensitivity to each other.

第一，他們對彼此顯示出 高程度的社會敏感性。

This is measured by something called the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test.

這是以眼神測驗法測出。

It's broadly considered a test for empathy,

它是廣為接受的一種同理心測驗，

and the groups that scored highly on this

這項測驗得分高的小組

did better.

表現比較好。

Secondly, the successful groups gave roughly equal time to each other,

第二，成功的小組裡 每個人都分到差不多的上場時間，

so that no one voice dominated,

所以沒有誰的聲音比較大，

but neither were there any passengers.

也沒有不積極的成員。

And thirdly, the more successful groups

第三，愈成功的小組

had more women in them.

女性成員愈多。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Now, was this because women typically score more highly on

那麼，難道這是因為女人通常

在眼神測驗中得高分，

the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test,

so you're getting a doubling down on the empathy quotient?

所以同情智商也得高分？

Or was it because they brought a more diverse perspective?

或是因為她們看事情的角度更多變？

We don't really know, but the striking thing about this experiment

我們真的不知道答案， 但是這項實驗驚人之處，

is that it showed what we know, which is some groups do better than others,

在於它證實了我們所知， 即某些群體比其他群體表現更好，

but what's key to that

但是要達到如此的關鍵

is their social connectedness to each other.

是他們彼此之間的社會聯結。

So how does this play out in the real world?

所以要怎麼運用在現實生活中呢？

Well, it means that what happens between people really counts,

這意味著人與人之間的 互動真的很重要，

because in groups that are highly attuned and sensitive to each other,

因為在彼此間 契合度及敏感度高的群組，

ideas can flow and grow.

想法可以自由流動及發展，

People don't get stuck. They don't waste energy down dead ends.

大家不會卡住。 他們不會在死角上浪費精力。

An example: Arup is one of the world's most successful engineering firms,

舉例來說：英商奧雅納是世界上 數一數二的工程顧問公司，

and it was commissioned to build the equestrian center

它被委託建設馬術中心

for the Beijing Olympics.

給北京奧運使用。

Now, this building had to receive

這座建築物必須能容納及照顧

two and a half thousand really highly strung thoroughbred horses

二千五百匹十分緊張的純種馬，

that were coming off long-haul flights,

因為牠們歷經長途飛行，

highly jet-lagged, not feeling their finest.

時差很嚴重，不在最佳狀態。

And the problem the engineer confronted was,

工程師面對的問題是，

what quantity of waste to cater for?

要處理多少量的排泄物？

Now, you don't get taught this in engineering school -- (Laughter) --

工學院不會教你這個， （笑聲）

and it's not really the kind of thing you want to get wrong,

而你也絕不想搞砸這部分，

so he could have spent months talking to vets, doing the research,

工程師大可花數個月 與獸醫討論、做研究、

tweaking the spreadsheet.

在試算表上東改西改。

Instead, he asked for help

然而，他卻去找人幫忙，

and he found someone who had designed the Jockey Club in New York.

他在紐約找到一位 曾設計過北美馬會的人。

The problem was solved in less than a day.

這個問題不到一天的時間就解決了。

Arup believes that the culture of helpfulness

奧雅納相信樂於助人的文化

is central to their success.

是他們成功的核心。

Now, helpfulness sounds really anemic,

樂於助人聽起來真的很沒力，

but it's absolutely core to successful teams,

但這絕對是團隊成功的核心，

and it routinely outperforms individual intelligence.

而且往往比個人智商還厲害。

Helpfulness means I don't have to know everything,

樂於助人意味著 我不需要全知全能，

I just have to work among people who are good at getting and giving help.

我只需要與很會求助 及善於助人者一起工作就好。

At SAP, they reckon that you can answer any question in 17 minutes.

在德商 SAP，他們算出 你可以在 17 分鐘內回答任何問題。

But there isn't a single high-tech company I've worked with

但是我合作過的高科技公司，

that imagines for a moment that this is a technology issue,

沒有一家想過這是科技面的問題，

because what drives helpfulness is people getting to know each other.

因為樂於助人的風氣， 在於大家彼此熟悉。

Now that sounds so obvious, and we think it'll just happen normally,

這聽起來很顯而易見， 我們都以為這會自然發生，

but it doesn't.

卻並非如此。

When I was running my first software company,

我開第一家軟體公司的時候，

I realized that we were getting stuck.

我意識到我們卡住了。

There was a lot of friction, but not much else,

公司裡除了有很多摩擦， 什麼都沒有。

and I gradually realized the brilliant, creative people that I'd hired

我漸漸了解到我僱用這些 既聰明又有創意的人

didn't know each other.

他們並不認識彼此。

They were so focused on their own individual work,

他們太專注於自己手上的工作，

they didn't even know who they were sitting next to,

以至於他們根本不知道 隔壁桌坐的是誰，

and it was only when I insisted that we stop working

直到我堅持我們一定要 放下手邊的工作、

and invest time in getting to know each other

花時間彼此瞭解認識後，

that we achieved real momentum.

我們才產生真正的動力。

Now, that was 20 years ago, and now I visit companies

那是 20 年前的事了， 我現在去幾家公司拜訪，

that have banned coffee cups at desks

看到他們禁止在桌上擺咖啡杯，

because they want people to hang out around the coffee machines

因為他們想要大家 聚在咖啡機旁混一混，

and talk to each other.

彼此聊聊天。

The Swedes even have a special term for this.

瑞典人甚至還為此 發明了一個名詞。

They call it fika, which means more than a coffee break.

他們說這叫啡咖， 這不僅是指休息時間而已。

It means collective restoration.

這還意味著集體復元。

At Idexx, a company up in Maine,

愛德士這家位於緬因的公司，

they've created vegetable gardens on campus so that people

在公司園區闢了幾座菜園，

from different parts of the business

所以不同部門的人 可以一起種菜，

can work together and get to know the whole business that way.

藉由互相認識 而對公司產生整體概念。

Have they all gone mad?

他們都瘋了嗎？

Quite the opposite -- they've figured out that when the going gets tough,

恰恰相反。他們明白一個道理：

情況棘手時，

and it always will get tough

如果你的工作正面臨重大突破， 情況總是很棘手，

if you're doing breakthrough work that really matters,

what people need is social support,

大家需要的是社交支援，

and they need to know who to ask for help.

而且他們必須知道可以向誰求助。

Companies don't have ideas; only people do.

公司本身沒有想法；員工才有。

And what motivates people

而能激勵員工的

are the bonds and loyalty and trust they develop between each other.

是彼此之間建立的關係、 忠誠與信任。

What matters is the mortar,

重要的是水泥，

not just the bricks.

而不只是磚頭。

Now, when you put all of this together,

你把這些結合在一起，

what you get is something called social capital.

就會得到所謂的社會資本。

Social capital is the reliance and interdependency that builds trust.

社會資本是建立信任 所需的信賴及相互依賴。

The term comes from sociologists who were studying communities

這個名詞來自於一群社會學家，

他們研究在逆境下 適應力特別好的社群。

that proved particularly resilient in times of stress.

Social capital is what gives companies momentum,

社會資本賦予公司動力，

and social capital is what makes companies robust.

社會資本也讓公司健全。

What does this mean in practical terms?

這有什麼實際意義呢？

It means that time is everything,

這意味著時間就是一切，

because social capital compounds with time.

因為社會資本由時間建構。

So teams that work together longer get better, because it takes time

合作愈久的團隊表現愈好， 因為你需要花時間

to develop the trust you need for real candor and openness.

才能建立信任感， 而有坦率而開放的風氣。

And time is what builds value.

而且時間能夠建立價值。

When Alex Pentland suggested to one company

當麻省理工教授潘特蘭 建議一家公司

that they synchronize coffee breaks

把員工的休息時間調整到同步，

so that people would have time to talk to each other,

讓員工有時間彼此聊聊，

profits went up 15 million dollars,

公司的利潤增加了一千五百萬美金，

and employee satisfaction went up 10 percent.

員工滿意度增加了 10%。

Not a bad return on social capital,

以社會資本的角度看 這樣的投資報酬率還不錯，

which compounds even as you spend it.

即使你花錢還能增值。

Now, this isn't about chumminess, and it's no charter for slackers,

這與友好無關， 也不是給懶人豁免權，

because people who work this way tend to be kind of scratchy,

因為以這種方式做事的人 通常講話很毒、

impatient, absolutely determined to think for themselves

沒耐心、完全只想到為自己打算，

because that's what their contribution is.

因為那就是他們的貢獻。

Conflict is frequent because candor is safe.

衝突很正常， 因為率直不會被暗算。

And that's how good ideas turn into great ideas,

這就是好想法 如何變成絕妙的想法，

because no idea is born fully formed.

因為沒有什麼想法 從一開始就是完美的。

It emerges a little bit as a child is born,

好點子冒出頭來就像孩子出生，

kind of messy and confused, but full of possibilities.

有點混亂、有點迷惑， 但是充滿了機會。

And it's only through the generous contribution, faith and challenge

只有透過慷慨的貢獻、 信念及挑戰，

that they achieve their potential.

他們才能發揮潛能。

And that's what social capital supports.

而這就是社會資本所支持的。

Now, we aren't really used to talking about this,

現在這真的已經是老生常談，

about talent, about creativity, in this way.

用這種方式談才能及創意。

We're used to talking about stars.

我們很習慣超級明星的說法。

So I started to wonder, well, if we start working this way,

所以我想知道， 如果我們以這種方式做事，

does that mean no more stars?

是否意味著超級明星就不復存在？

So I went and I sat in on the auditions

所以我就去位於倫敦的 皇家戲劇藝術學院，

at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London.

坐在裡面看他們的甄選會。

And what I saw there really surprised me,

而我看到的讓我非常吃驚，

because the teachers weren't looking for individual pyrotechnics.

因為老師不是在找魅力四射的個人。

They were looking for what happened between the students,

他們在看學生之間的互動，

because that's where the drama is.

因為那才是演戲的真正所在。

And when I talked to producers of hit albums,

而且當我與暢銷專輯的製作人談時，

they said, "Oh sure, we have lots of superstars in music.

他們說道： 「喔當然，音樂界有很多超級巨星，

It's just, they don't last very long.

只是他們都紅不久。

It's the outstanding collaborators who enjoy the long careers,

只有優秀的合作者 才能享有長遠的事業，

because bringing out the best in others is how they found the best

因為讓別人有最好的表現

是他們找出自己最佳狀態的方法。」

in themselves."

And when I went to visit companies that are renowned

我去拜訪幾間以獨創性

for their ingenuity and creativity,

及創意著稱的公司時，

I couldn't even see any superstars,

我甚至看不到超級巨星，

because everybody there really mattered.

因為那裡的每一個人都很重要。

And when I reflected on my own career,

我反思自己的事業，

and the extraordinary people I've had the privilege to work with,

及我有幸合作的那群卓越人才，

I realized how much more we could give each other

我才明瞭我們可以貢獻 更多東西給彼此的方式很簡單，

if we just stopped trying to be superchickens.

只要大家試著不當 超級明星雞就可以了。

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲）（掌聲）

Once you appreciate truly how social work is,

一旦你真正體會社交是什麼，

a lot of things have to change.

很多事都要跟著改變。

Management by talent contest has routinely pitted

才藝大賽的管理方法就是

employees against each other.

一直讓員工彼此挖陷阱競爭。

Now, rivalry has to be replaced by social capital.

現在競爭必須以社會資本取代。

For decades, we've tried to motivate people with money,

數十年來，我們試著以金錢激勵人，

even though we've got a vast amount of research that shows

即使有大量的研究顯示

that money erodes social connectedness.

金錢會侵蝕社會聯結。

Now, we need to let people motivate each other.

現在我們必須讓大家彼此激勵。

And for years, we've thought that leaders were heroic soloists who were expected,

許多年來，我們以為領導者 皆為單打獨鬥的英雄，

all by themselves, to solve complex problems.

大家期待他們 能自己解決複雜的問題。

Now, we need to redefine leadership

現在我們需要重新定義領導力

as an activity in which conditions are created

為一種行動，在其中創造條件，

in which everyone can do their most courageous thinking together.

讓所有人都能一同實現 最勇敢的思維。

We know that this works.

我們知道這種方法有用。

When the Montreal Protocol called for the phasing out of CFCs,

當蒙特婁議定書 要求大家逐步禁用 CFC，

the chlorofluorocarbons implicated in the hole in the ozone layer,

即可能造成臭氧層破洞的 氟氯碳化物時，

the risks were immense.

風險十分巨大。

CFCs were everywhere,

氟氯碳化物到處都是，

and nobody knew if a substitute could be found.

而且沒有人知道是否能找到替代物。

But one team that rose to the challenge adopted three key principles.

但是有個團隊勇敢面對挑戰， 採取了三個主要原則。

The first was the head of engineering, Frank Maslen, said,

第一是工程部的主管， 法蘭克·梅斯蘭說，

there will be no stars in this team.

這個團隊裡不會有明星。

We need everybody.

我們需要每一個人。

Everybody has a valid perspective.

每一個人的觀點都有用。

Second, we work to one standard only:

第二，我們只有一項標準：

the best imaginable.

做到最好。

And third, he told his boss, Geoff Tudhope,

第三，他告訴老闆傑夫·塔德波，

that he had to butt out,

他必須放手不管，

because he knew how disruptive power can be.

因為他知道老闆的破壞力有多強。

Now, this didn't mean Tudhope did nothing.

這不是說塔德波沒做任何事。

He gave the team air cover,

他幫這個團隊擋下壓力，

and he listened to ensure that they honored their principles.

而且他聆聽， 確保他們的確遵守原則。

And it worked: Ahead of all the other companies tackling this hard problem,

這個方法成功了：他們領先其他 也在解決這個難題的公司，

this group cracked it first.

這個團隊最先找到答案。

And to date, the Montreal Protocol

至今，蒙特婁議定書

is the most successful international environmental agreement

仍是過去曾簽署實施的 國際環境協定中

最成功的一個。

ever implemented.

There was a lot at stake then,

過去有很多勝敗關鍵，

and there's a lot at stake now,

現在也有很多勝敗關鍵，

and we won't solve our problems if we expect it to be solved

我們不可能解決問題， 如果我們還在期待這些問題

by a few supermen or superwomen.

只能由超人或超女來解決。

Now we need everybody,

現在我們需要每一個人，

because it is only when we accept that everybody has value

因為只有當我們承認 每一個人都有價值，

that we will liberate the energy and imagination and momentum we need

我們才能釋放我們所需的 能量、想像力及動力，

to create the best beyond measure.

共同創造無可估量的最佳狀態。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）