The puzzle of motivation | Dan Pink | TED

譯者: Gabrielle Wong 審譯者: Jeannie Cheng

我首先想坦白供認一件事，

I need to make a confession at the outset here.

A little over 20 years ago, I did something that I regret,

二十多年前，

我做了一件使我後悔至今的事，

something that I'm not particularly proud of.

這件事不太光采，

Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know,

我也不想有人知道，

but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.

但今天，我覺得我有必要把它公開，

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

In the late 1980s,

在一九八零年代後期，

in a moment of youthful indiscretion,

因為年輕人的一時輕率，

I went to law school.

我居然入了法學院，

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

In America, law is a professional degree:

現今在美國，法律學位是專業學位，

after your university degree, you go on to law school.

你先要拿一個大學學位，才能入讀法學院，

When I got to law school,

當年我進了法學院後

I didn't do very well.

並沒有好好學習，

To put it mildly, I didn't do very well.

這個已是客氣的說法，

I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class

老實點說，我畢業時的成績，

that made the top 90% possible.

成就了在我之上的十分之九的學生；

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Thank you.

謝謝！

I never practiced law a day in my life;

我一生中從沒當過律師，

I pretty much wasn't allowed to.

基本上，我是沒有資格的，

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

But today, against my better judgment,

但今天，我要漠視自己的良好判斷，

against the advice of my own wife,

漠視我太太的忠告，

I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills --

把我那些封塵的法律知識拿出來，

what's left of those legal skills.

雖然已經所餘無幾，

I don't want to tell you a story.

我並不是要講故事，

I want to make a case.

我想作一個陳述，

I want to make a hard-headed,

一個實實在在，有根有據的陳述，

evidence-based,

dare I say lawyerly case,

一個使我們重新思考

for rethinking how we run our businesses.

我們的企業運作的法律陳述。

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

好了，各位陪審員先生女士，請看看﹔

take a look at this.

This is called the candle problem.

這個叫作「蠟燭難題」

Some of you might know it.

你們或者曾經見過，

It's created in 1945

這是由一位名叫頓克的心理學家

by a psychologist named Karl Duncker.

在一九四五年想出來的，

He created this experiment

頓克這個實驗，

that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science.

被廣泛的應用在各類的行為科學研究中，

And here's how it works. Suppose I'm the experimenter.

實驗是這樣的，設想我是實驗人員，

I bring you into a room.

我帶你進入一個房間，給你一支蠟燭，

I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches.

一些按釘和幾根火柴，

And I say to you,

然後跟你說：「請你

"Your job is to attach the candle to the wall

把蠟燭黏到牆壁上去，

so the wax doesn't drip onto the table."

但蠟不可滴到桌子上。」你會怎麼做？

Now what would you do?

Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall.

很多人會嘗試用按釘把蠟燭釘在牆上，

Doesn't work.

那當然不成，

I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here --

我見到一些在座的朋友，

在用動作示意，

some people have a great idea where they light the match,

有些人想到了，

用火柴把蠟燭的邊融了，試圖把它黏到牆上，

melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall.

It's an awesome idea. Doesn't work.

這個主意很好，但也不成功，

And eventually, after five or ten minutes,

慢慢地，五分鐘、十分鐘後，

most people figure out the solution,

很多人都找到答案了，

which you can see here.

就是這個，

The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness.

關鍵在於我們要克服一個叫「功能固着」的心理障礙，

You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks.

你見到這個盒子，就把它當成載釘子的工具，

But it can also have this other function,

但它也可以有其他用途啊，

as a platform for the candle.

若把它作為蠟燭的平台，難題便得到解決，

The candle problem.

I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem,

現在我要講一個

利用蠟燭難題的實驗，

done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg,

這是由一位叫格魯茲堡的科學家做的，

who is now at Princeton University, US,

他現在美國普林斯頓大學工作，

This shows the power of incentives.

這個實驗表現出奬勵的力量，

He gathered his participants and said:

實驗是這樣的：他找來一批參與者，

"I'm going to time you, how quickly you can solve this problem."

對他們說：「我會為你們計時，看看誰最快能找到問題的答案。」

對其中一組，他說﹔

To one group he said,

"I'm going to time you to establish norms,

「你們的時間

averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem."

會用作建立平均數，

來量度解決這個問題需時的標準。」

To the second group he offered rewards.

對另外一組，他卻提供獎勵，

He said, "If you're in the top 25% of the fastest times,

他說﹔「最快解難的四分一人

you get five dollars.

可以得到五塊錢，

If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today,

而今天最快的一位，

you get 20 dollars."

可以得到二十塊錢。」

Now this is several years ago, adjusted for inflation,

這個實驗在多年前進行，把通漲算在內，

it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work.

以幾分鐘的實驗來說，那是不錯的報酬，

It's a nice motivator.

也是一個很好的推動原素，

Question:

問題是：

How much faster did this group solve the problem?

這一組比另一組快了多少呢?

Answer:

答案：

It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.

是慢了三分半鐘，

3.5 min longer.

是慢了三分半鐘！你會覺得沒有道理吧？

This makes no sense, right?

I mean, I'm an American. I believe in free markets.

我們美國人都相信自由市場嘛，

That's not how it's supposed to work, right?

事情不應該是這樣的，你說是不是？

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right?

如果你想某人改善表現，

你便要給他獎勵，對嗎？

Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show.

獎金啦，分紅利啦，讓他個人表演機會啦，

Incentivize them.

都是獎勵，商業社會就是這樣運作的，

That's how business works.

But that's not happening here.

但這個實驗卻發現了事情並非這樣，

You've got an incentive designed

你一心以為你設的奬勵，

to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity,

能使他們思考更快，創造力更高，

and it does just the opposite.

誰知卻弄巧反拙，

It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.

思考失色了，創造力受到窒礙，

What's interesting about this experiment

你要知道，這個實驗結果並不是偶然的偏差，

is that it's not an aberration.

This has been replicated over and over again

重複又重複都得到同一結果，

for nearly 40 years.

四十年來，沒有例外，

These contingent motivators --

這種外設的推動力，

if you do this, then you get that --

你做了這個，便得到那個，

work in some circumstances.

在某些情況下可行，

But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work

但在很多其他事情上卻不行，

or, often, they do harm.

甚至有時會適得其反，

This is one of the most robust findings in social science,

這是在社會科學界裡，

最穩健的研究發現之一，

and also one of the most ignored.

卻也是最被人忽略的一個，

I spent the last couple of years

這兩年來，我鑽研了

looking at the science of human motivation,

激發人類動機的科學研究，

particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators

尤其是外在和內在動機

and intrinsic motivators.

的互動，

And I'm telling you, it's not even close.

我可以告訴你，兩者簡直南轅北轍，

If you look at the science, there is a mismatch

從科學的角度看，

between what science knows

科學認知的和企業實行的並不相符，

and what business does.

What's alarming here is that our business operating system --

這很令人擔心，想想我們的商業運作，

think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses,

建基於這樣的一套假設和慣例，

how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources--

無論去推動員工，運用人力資源，

it's built entirely around these extrinsic motivators,

都是利用這些外在動機，

around carrots and sticks.

一是物質奬勵，一是懲罰，

That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks.

那在二十世紀的多類工作上都可行，

But for 21st century tasks,

但到了二十一世紀，

that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach

那種機械性、獎與罰的方法非但不可行，

doesn't work,

甚至會造成傷害，

often doesn't work,

and often does harm.

Let me show you.

讓我解釋一下，

Glucksberg did another similar experiment,

格魯茲堡再做另一個相似的實驗，

he presented the problem in a slightly different way,

他把問題稍作改動，

like this up here.

像這樣，

Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table.

把蠟燭黏到牆上而蠟不能滴到桌子上，

Same deal. You: we're timing for norms.

同樣地：你的時間會用來定標準，

You: we're incentivizing.

而你會得到奬勵，

What happened this time?

結果怎樣？

This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt.

這次，有奬勵的一組

贏得很漂亮！

Why?

為甚麼？因為那些按釘不是放在盒子裡，

Because when the tacks are out of the box,

it's pretty easy isn't it?

答案很明顯吧！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks,

「因果」式的獎勵

在這些有簡單規則，

where there is a simple set of rules

並有清晰目標的工作上

and a clear destination to go to.

很有效；

Rewards, by their very nature,

獎勵的本身，

narrow our focus, concentrate the mind;

把我們的視野收窄，思想聚焦，

that's why they work in so many cases.

它就是這樣發揮作用，

So, for tasks like this,

所以，像這一類工作，

a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there,

視線瞄準，目標明確，

zoom straight ahead to it,

思路就直向答案進發，

they work really well.

奬勵就有效了；

But for the real candle problem,

但對於真正的蠟燭難題，

you don't want to be looking like this.

你不會想這樣看，

The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around.

答案並不在那裡，答案在周邊，

你要到處看去尋找靈感，

That reward actually narrows our focus

獎勵只會收窄我們的視線，

and restricts our possibility.

限制了可能性，

Let me tell you why this is so important.

讓我告訴你這個認知的重要性，

In western Europe,

在西歐，

在亞洲很多地區，

in many parts of Asia,

in North America, in Australia,

在北美、澳洲，

white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work,

白領員工越來越少做

這類工作，

and more of this kind of work.

卻多做這類工作，

That routine, rule-based, left-brain work --

那些流水式的、循規蹈矩的左腦工作，

certain kinds of accounting, financial analysis,

如某類會計、財務分析、

computer programming --

某類電腦程式寫作，

has become fairly easy to outsource,

已經很容易被外判，

fairly easy to automate.

很容易自動化，

Software can do it faster.

用軟件可以做得更快，

Low-cost providers can do it cheaper.

世界各地都有較低價的服務提供者，

So what really matters

所以關鍵的是那些右腦式的

are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

創造性、概念性的工作，

Think about your own work.

想想你自己的工作，

Think about your own work.

想想你自己的工作，

Are the problems that you face,

你面對的問題，

or even the problems we've been talking about here,

甚至我們現在在談的問題，

do they have a clear set of rules,

是不是那類問題？

它們有沒有清晰的規則和單一的答案？沒有！

and a single solution?

No. The rules are mystifying.

只有令人困惑的規則，

The solution, if it exists at all,

答案，如果有的話，

is surprising and not obvious.

是意想不到的、不明顯的，

Everybody in this room

在座的每一位，

is dealing with their own version of the candle problem.

都在應付各自的

蠟燭難題，

And for candle problems of any kind,

而對於各式各樣的蠟燭難題，

in any field,

各行各業的蠟燭難題，

those if-then rewards,

現在的商業社會賴於的

the things around which we've built so many of our businesses,

那「因果」式的獎勵制度，

don't work!

是行不通的，

It makes me crazy.

那真叫我摸不著頭腦，

And here's the thing.

這個問題，並非

This is not a feeling.

只是一種感覺，

Okay? I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings.

我是律師嘛，我不信感覺的，

This is not a philosophy.

這也非哲學，

I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy.

我是美國人，我不相信哲學，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This is a fact --

這是事實，

or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C.,

像我們華盛頓人講的

a true fact.

一個「真的事實」，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

（掌聲）

(Applause)

Let me give you an example.

讓我用一個例子說明一下，

Let me marshal the evidence here.

讓我整理一下我的論據，

I'm not telling a story, I'm making a case.

因為我不是在講故事，我在陳述一個論點，

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence:

陪審員先生女士，論據如下：

Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time,

當代數一數二的經濟學家阿拉利，

he and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students.

他和三位同事，利用麻省理工的學生，做了一個研究，

They gave these MIT students a bunch of games,

他們給學生們一大堆各類

games that involved creativity,

需要創意、

and motor skills, and concentration.

靈巧和專注的遊戲，

And the offered them, for performance,

並因應表現，

three levels of rewards:

提供三重奬勵，

small reward, medium reward, large reward.

小奬勵、中奬勵、大奬勵

If you do really well you get the large reward, on down.

做得越好，奬勵越大，

What happened?

結果怎樣呢？只要遊戲只要求機械性的技巧

As long as the task involved only mechanical skill

bonuses worked as they would be expected:

奬品就如所料的發揮作用，

the higher the pay, the better the performance.

奬勵越大，表現越好，

Okay?

但只要那個遊戲，

But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill,

要求即使是最低層次的思考方法，

a larger reward led to poorer performance.

奬勵越大，表現越差，

他們想：

Then they said,

"Let's see if there's any cultural bias here.

「文化差異是不是一個因素呢？

Let's go to Madurai, India and test it."

讓我們到印度馬度拉去測試一下。」

Standard of living is lower.

在馬度拉，生活指數較低，

In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards,

一個在美國一般的奬勵，

is more meaningful there.

在那裡已經很有吸引力，

Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.

同一樣的規則，一堆遊戲，三重奬勵，

What happens?

結果呢？

People offered the medium level of rewards

得到中級奬勵的人，

did no better than people offered the small rewards.

並不比拿小奬勵的做得好，

But this time, people offered the highest rewards,

但這次，得到大奬的人，

they did the worst of all.

表現是最差的，

In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments,

在九個遊戲當中，有八個

higher incentives led to worse performance.

是奬勵越高，表現越差的，

Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?

這是不是甚麼社會主義者

裝神弄鬼的陰謀？

No, these are economists from MIT,

可不是呢，他們是麻省理工、卡内基·梅隆、

from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago.

芝加哥大學的經濟學家啊

Do you know who sponsored this research?

還有，你猜是誰贊助這個研究？

The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.

是美國的聯邦儲備銀行，

That's the American experience.

好一個美國式體驗！

Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics,

又讓我們越洋到倫敦經濟學院，

LSE, London School of Economics,

是LSE，倫敦的經濟學院！

alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics.

十一位諾貝爾經濟學得主的母校，

Training ground for great economic thinkers

偉大經濟思想家的搖籃，

like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek,

例如索羅斯、海耶克、

and Mick Jagger.

和米積加，（笑聲）

(Laughter)

Last month,

就在上個月，

just last month,

economists at LSE looked at 51 studies

LSE的經濟學家分析五十一個研究，

of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies.

都是圍繞企業内據工作表現決定薪酬的計劃，

Here's what they said:

經濟學家們的結論是這樣的：

"We find that financial incentives

can result in a negative impact on overall performance."

「我們發現金錢的奬勵可以造成整體表現的負面影響。」

There is a mismatch between what science knows

科學的結論和企業的實踐

and what business does.

背道而馳，

And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble

使我憂慮的是，我們今天

of the economic collapse,

站在經濟陷落後的廢墟中，

is that too many organizations are making their decisions,

卻仍有太多的機構，

還是根據一些過時、沒受考驗的，

their policies about talent and people,

只憑傳統而非科學驗證的想法，

based on assumptions that are outdated,

去作出決定，

unexamined,

and rooted more in folklore than in science.

去製定人力資源的政策，

And if we really want to get out of this economic mess,

而我們極需走出這個經濟爛攤子，

if we really want high performance

如果我們真正想在二十一世紀的工作上，

on those definitional tasks of the 21st century,

有高水準的表現，

the solution is not to do more of the wrong things,

就要改變那行不通的路，

to entice people with a sweeter carrot,

利用甜頭去利誘人，

or threaten them with a sharper stick.

或用手段去恐嚇人，

We need a whole new approach.

我們需要一個全新的取向，

The good news is that the scientists

好消息是，

who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach.

那些研究行為動機的科學家，已經給了我們答案，

It's built much more around intrinsic motivation.

新的理念是多利用內在動機，

Around the desire to do things because they matter,

我們對重要的事、喜歡做的事、

because we like it, they're interesting, or part of something important.

有意思的事、可以有更大貢獻的事，

都有想把它做好的渴望，

And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses

我認為，新的企業運作模式，

revolves around three elements:

圍繞三個元素，

autonomy, mastery and purpose.

自主性、掌握度、使命感，

Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives.

自主性是主宰自己生命的動力，

Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters.

掌握度，是對自己重視的工作有做好的願望，

Purpose: the yearning to do what we do

使命感，是對自己工作

in the service of something larger than ourselves.

能對個人以外有所貢獻的渴望，

These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system

這都是全新企業運作系統

for our businesses.

的基石，

I want to talk today only about autonomy.

我今天只想談一談自主性，

In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management.

二十世紀，冒出了「管理」這個概念，

Management did not emanate from nature.

管理並非由自然產生出來，

Management is not a tree, it's a television set.

它不像一棵樹，

它像一台電視機，

Somebody invented it.

它是由人發明出來的，

It doesn't mean it's going to work forever.

那並不表示，它能永遠運作良好，

Management is great.

管理學很管用，

Traditional notions of management are great

若你要追求遵從規矩的制度，

if you want compliance.

傳統的管理概念很有效，

But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.

但如果你要對工作投入，自我主導會更見效，

Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction.

讓我用一些例子，解釋一下

自我主導的概念，

You don't see a lot of it,

你不會常常見到自我主導的出現，

but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on,

但你已經可以見到一些很有意思的事情在發展，

what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely --

它的意思是：給予人足夠的、

合理的薪金，

getting the issue of money off the table,

錢不再是著眼點，

and then giving people lots of autonomy.

然後給他們很多的自決空間，

Some examples.

讓我給你一些例子，

How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian?

你們有沒有聽過一間叫阿拉斯安的公司？

It looks like less than half.

好像不夠一半人聽過，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Atlassian is an Australian software company.

阿拉斯安是一間澳洲的軟件公司，

And they do something incredibly cool.

他們做的東西真夠酷，

A few times a year they tell their engineers,

每年有幾次他們會對工程師們說：

"Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want,

「由現在起二十四小時内，你們做甚麼也可以，

as long as it's not part of your regular job.

只要不是你平常的工作，

做甚麼也可以。」

Work on anything you want."

Engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code,

他們的工程師就用了這些時間，

編些很有趣的碼、絕妙的駭客程式等，

come up with an elegant hack.

Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed

在當天完結前，

to their teammates, to the rest of the company,

他們舉行一個意念橫飛的會議，

in this wild and woolly all-hands meeting at the end of the day.

在組員和公司的其他同事面前，

發表他們想出來的東西，

Being Australians, everybody has a beer.

然後，身為澳洲人，當然都喝啤酒盡興，

They call them FedEx Days.

他們叫這天為聯邦快遞日，

Why?

為甚麼？因為他們要在一天之內「交貨」，

Because you have to deliver something overnight.

It's pretty; not bad.

這個做法不錯，雖然侵用了別人的商標，

It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever.

但這個主意很聰明，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That one day of intense autonomy

這一天的高度自主，

has produced a whole array of software fixes

促進了各類

that might never have existed.

原本可能永不會出現的軟件提升，

It's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level

發現這個方法的好處，阿拉斯安把它提升到更高的層次，

叫作「五分一時間」，

with 20% time --

done, famously, at Google --

這個方法在谷歌得到發揚光大，

where engineers can spend 20% of their time

谷歌的員工，可以花五分之一的時間，

working on anything they want.

做任何他們想做的事，

They have autonomy over their time,

他們在自己的工作時間、

their task, their team, their technique.

工作內容 、所屬團隊 、所需技巧等都有自主權，

Radical amounts of autonomy.

那是很全面性的自主權，

And at Google, as many of you know,

有很多人都知道，在谷歌，

about half of the new products in a typical year

差不多一半的新產品，

are birthed during that 20% time:

都是在這五分一時間内誕生的，

things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.

例如Gmail、Orkut、谷歌新聞等，

Let me give you an even more radical example of it:

讓我再舉一個更革命性的例子，

something called the Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE),

有一種叫「只看結果的工作環境」

英文簡稱為ROWE，

created by two American consultants,

由兩位美國的顧問專家創造，

in place at a dozen companies around North America.

在十多所北美的公司實行，

In a ROWE people don't have schedules.

在ROWE的制度下，員工沒有工作時間表，

They show up when they want.

他們喜歡就上班，

They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time.

沒有設定待在辦公室的時段，

甚至不用到辦公室，

They just have to get their work done.

他們只需把工作完成，

How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them.

至於他們怎麼完成，甚麼時候完成，

在甚麼地方完成，完全由他，

Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.

在這種工作環境下，會議並不是必須的，

效果怎樣呢？

What happens?

Almost across the board,

差不多所有此類公司的生產力都上升，

productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up,

員工的投入感上升，

worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.

員工的滿足感上升，人力流失降低，

Autonomy, mastery and purpose,

自主性、掌握度、使命感，

the building blocks of a new way of doing things.

這都是新工作方式的基本單元，

Some of you might look at this and say,

你們或許會說：

"Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian."

「嗯，雖然很好聽，但那是烏托邦，並不存在的。」

And I say, "Nope.

我回答：「錯，我有證據。」

I have proof."

The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta.

在一九九零年代中期，

微軟著手建立一套叫Encarta的百科全書，

They had deployed all the right incentives,

他們調動了最理想的獎勵，

請來一群專家，

They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles.

去撰寫幾千篇文章，

Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing

還高薪聘請好些管理人員去統籌，

to make sure it came in on budget and on time.

以期能在預定的時間和開支範圍內完成，

A few years later, another encyclopedia got started.

幾年後，另外一個百科全書誕生了，

Different model, right?

用不同的模式運作，

Do it for fun.

大家純為興趣而做，

No one gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen.

沒有人收到分毫，

Do it because you like to do it.

請你設想，十年前，

Just 10 years ago,

if you had gone to an economist, anywhere,

如果你問任何一個經濟學家，

"Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia.

「我手上有這兩個編輯百科全書的方法，

If they went head to head, who would win?"

若兩個競賽，那個會勝？」

10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist

十年前，踏遍全球，你都不會找到

anywhere on planet Earth

一個頭腦清醒的經濟學家，

who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.

能預見維基百科的成功，

This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.

這是兩個動機方式的世紀決戰，

This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation, right?

就像當年拳王阿里和費舍的大戰，對嗎?

This is the Thrilla in Manila.

就是那場《決戰馬尼拉》，

Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators.

內在動機對撼外在動機，

Autonomy, mastery and purpose,

自主性、掌握度、使命感，

versus carrot and sticks, and who wins?

對抗獎與罰，誰勝?

Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.

內在動機：自主性、掌握度、使命感，

獲得技術性擊倒。

Let me wrap up.

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.

現在讓我總結，科學所知與企業所行並不相符，

科學所知的如下﹔

Here is what science knows.

One: Those 20th century rewards,

第一：那些二十世紀的獎勵方式，

those motivators we think are a natural part of business,

那些我們以為是企業運作的自然元素，

do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances.

只能在一個比我們想像更狹窄的環境下發揮作用，

Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity.

第二：那種「因果」式的獎勵往往摧毀創意，

Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments,

第三：提高工作表現的祕訣，

不在獎與罰，

but that unseen intrinsic drive--

而是在見不到的內在動力，

the drive to do things for their own sake.

那種為做好工作的動力，

The drive to do things cause they matter.

那種因為工作有意義而做的動力，

And here's the best part.

最精采的是，

We already know this.

科學已經把我們心知的道理證實，

The science confirms what we know in our hearts.

So, if we repair this mismatch between science and business,

所以，如果我們修補企業所行

與科學所知的落差，

if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation

如果要把我們的工作動機，和對工作動機的理解，

into the 21st century,

帶到二十一世紀，

if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology

如果我們克服這種因循、危險、理想化

of carrots and sticks,

的獎罰制度，

we can strengthen our businesses,

我們可以強化企業，

we can solve a lot of those candle problems,

我們可以解決很多「蠟燭難題」

and maybe, maybe --

而可能，可能，可能，

we can change the world.

我們能夠改變世界，

I rest my case.

我的陳述完畢。

(Applause)

（掌聲）