ted演讲:你是给予者还是索取者?
i want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here -- and then i want you to point at that person for me. ok, don t actually do it. but, as an organizational psychologist, i spend a lot of time in workplaces, and i find paranoia everywhere.
首先，请你们看看周围，找出最像妄想狂的人，然后帮我把他指出来。好吧，别真这么做。不过，作为一名组织心理学家，我花了很多时间去研究职场，结果发现到处都有妄想症。
paranoia is caused by people that i call "takers." takers are self-serving in their interactions. it s all about what can you do for me. the opposite is a giver. it s somebody who approaches most interactions by asking, "what can i do for you?" i wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style.
人为引起的妄想症，我叫他们“获取者”。获取者在职场互动中，总是以自利为目的。他们总是在想“你能为我做什么？”这些人对立面叫做“付出者”。他们在职场互动中总是想着：“我能为你做什么？”大家可以想想自己是哪种类型。
we all have moments of giving and taking. your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time, your default. i have a short test you can take to figure out if you re more of a giver or a taker, and you can take it right now. [the narcissist test]
我们都有付出和获取的时候。你的类型取决于大多数时候你对待大多数人的方式，也就是你的默认类型。我这里有个小测试，看看你们偏向于付出者还是获取者，现在测试开始！【自恋测试】
[step 1: take a moment to think about yourself.]
[step 2: if you made it to step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
this is the only thing i will say today that has no data behind it, but i am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon, the more worried we should be that you re a taker.
【第一步：花点时间想想你自己】
【第二步：如果你已经到了这一步，那么你不是自恋的人】
这是我今天讲到的唯一没有数据支撑的东西，但我觉得，你在笑之前沉迷于自己的时间越长，我们就越担心你是获取者。
of course, not all takers are narcissists. some are just givers who got burned one too many times. then there s another kind of taker that we won t be addressing today, and that s called a psychopath.
当然，不是所有获取者都很自恋。有些是被伤害过太多次的付出者。还有另一种获取者，我们今天不作讨论，那就是精神病患者。
i was curious, though, about how common these extremes are, and so i surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world s cultures. and i found that most people are right in the middle between giving and taking. they choose this third style called "matching."
然而，我很好奇这种极端的人有多普遍，于是我研究了三万多人，他们来自不同的行业，有着不同的文化背景。结果我发现大多数人正好处在付出和获取的中间。他们选择了第三种类型，叫“互利者”。
if you re a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo -- i ll do something for you if you do something for me. and that seems like a safe way to live your life. but is it the most effective and productive way to live your life? the answer to that question is a very definitive ... maybe.
如果你是互利者，你会力求付出与获取的平衡等价交换——你帮了我，我才会帮你。这似乎是一种稳妥的生活方式。但这种生活方式是最高效的吗？答案非常非常确定：可能吧！
i studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. i had engineers measuring their productivity. i looked at medical students grades -- even salespeople s revenue. and, unexpectedly, the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers. the engineers who got the least work done were the ones who did more favors than they got back.
我研究了许多组织，成千上万人。我让工程师们估测自己的工作效率。我观察了医学生的成绩，甚至营销人员的销售额。出乎意料的是，上述工作中表现最差的都是付出者。完成任务最少的工程师，总是帮别人多，回报却很少。
they were so busy doing other people s jobs, they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed. in medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students who agree most strongly with statements like, "i love helping others," which suggests the doctor you ought to trust is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.
他们光给别人干活了，完全没有时间和精力干自己的活。在医学院，成绩最差的学生基本都“十分赞同”类似这样的陈述：“我很乐于助人”。这说明你得以信赖的医生，在读医学院时怀揣着“我谁都不帮”的想法。
and then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued in the most generous salespeople. i actually reached out to one of those salespeople who had a very high giver score. and i asked him, "why do you suck at your job --" i didn t ask it that way, but -- "what s the cost of generosity in sales?" and he said, "well, i just care so deeply about my customers that i would never sell them one of our crappy products."
在销售中，最低的销售额来自于最慷慨的销售人员。我曾经接触过的其中一个，他的付出者分数很高。我问他“你怎么做得这么烂...”我没敢这么问，但是--“在销售中，慷慨大方的代价是什么？”他说，“我太在意我的顾客了，所以我才不肯把垃圾产品卖给他们。”
so just out of curiosity, how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers? raise your hands. ok, it would have been more before we talked about these data. but actually, it turns out there s a twist here, because givers are often sacrificing themselves, but they make their organizations better.
所以，只是出于好奇，你们有多少人，比起获取者和互利者觉得自己更偏向于“付出者”？请举手。好吧，我讲这些之前应该人会更多。但实际上，有一个意外转折，虽然付出者总是牺牲自己，但他们让整个组织变得更好了。
we have a huge body of evidence -- many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior that exists in a team or an organization -- and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge and providing mentoring, the better organizations do on every metric we can measure: higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention -- even lower operating expenses.
我们有大量的证据，许多关于团队或组织中“付出”行为频率的研究都说明：人们越乐于帮助别人、分享知识、或是提供指导，整个组织的各项指标都会变好——高利润，高顾客满意度，低员工流失率，甚至经营成本也会变低。
so givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people and improve the team, and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way. i want to talk about what it takes to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed. so i wondered, then, if givers are the worst performers, who are the best performers? let me start with the good news: it s not the takers.
付出者花了许多时间去帮助别人，使团队进步，但不幸的是，他们却要独自受苦。因此，我想聊聊怎样的组织文化才会让付出者取得成功。于是我想知道，既然付出者的工作表现不好，那谁的表现最好呢？先说好消息：并不是获取者。
takers tend to rise quickly but also fall quickly in most jobs. and they fall at the hands of matchers. if you re a matcher, you believe in "an eye for an eye" -- a just world. and so when you meet a taker, you feel like it s your mission in life to just punish the hell out of that person. and that way justice gets served.
获取者通常在工作中得道容易，失道也容易。并且他们一般会栽在互利者手里。如果你是互利者，你会坚信“以眼还眼”--一个公平的世界。当你遇到获取者的时候，你感觉被赋予了一项使命——要把那个获取者整的无法自理。于是正义得以伸张。
well, most people are matchers. and that means if you re a taker, it tends to catch up with you eventually; what goes around will come around. and so the logical conclusion is: it must be the matchers who are the best performers. but they re not. in every job, in every organization i ve ever studied, the best results belong to the givers again.
因为大多数人是互利者，这意味着如果你是获取者，终有一天会面临正义的审判。“风水轮流转，你做了什么总有一天会轮到自己头上。”所以符合逻辑的结论应该是：工作表现最好的一定是互利者。然而事实并非如此。在我研究的每种职业，每个组织中工作表现最好的也是付出者。
take a look at some data i gathered from hundreds of salespeople, tracking their revenue. what you can see is that the givers go to both extremes. they make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue, but also the highest revenue. the same patterns were true for engineers productivity and medical students grades.
让我们看看从几百个销售人员那收集的数据，他们的销售额。你们应该能发现，付出者在两个极端。在最低销售额的那端，他们占了绝大多数，但也同样占据了最高的那端。同样的规律也适用于工程师的工作效率以及医学生的成绩。
givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top of every success metric that i can track. which raises the question: how do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel? i want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses, but also in nonprofits, schools -- even governments. are you ready?
从任何一个我可以追踪的指标去看。付出者显著代表了最低水平和最高水平，这又提出了一个问题：我们应该创造怎样的世界，能让更多付出者成功呢？这个问题不仅仅指企业里还有非盈利机构，学校里——甚至包括在政府里。准备好了吗？
i was going to do it anyway, but i appreciate the enthusiasm. the first thing that s really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they re not careful, they burn out. so you have to protect the givers in your midst. and i learned a great lesson about this from fortune s best networker. it s the guy, not the cat.
没准备好我也要讲，不过还是感谢你们的热情。第一件事十分关键——认识到付出者才是你最有价值的员工。但是如果他们自己不留心，很容易精疲力尽，所以你不得不保护你们中的付出者。我是从《财富》评出的人脉最广的人那学到的。是这哥们，不是那只猫。
his name is adam rifkin. he s a very successful serial entrepreneur who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people. and his secret weapon is the five-minute favor. adam said, "you don t have to be mother teresa or gandhi to be a giver. you just have to find small ways to add large value to other people s lives."
他叫亚当·里夫金。他是一位非常成功出色的企业家，同时也花了大量时间去帮助别人。他的秘密武器是“五分钟小忙”。亚当说，“想成为付出者，不是非要像特蕾莎修女或者甘地那样。你只需要帮一些给别人的生活带去巨大的价值的小忙。”
that could be as simple as making an introduction between two people who could benefit from knowing each other. it could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback. or it might be even something as basic as saying, "you know, i m going to try and figure out if i can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed."
这个可以简单到只是为两人做个介绍而他们却会因结识彼此而获益。也可以是分享知识或是给一点反馈意见。甚至可以是简单的说这么一句，“唔...我想试试看我能不能找到那个做了很多事但却一直没被注意的人。
and those five-minute favors are really critical to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves. the second thing that matters if you want to build a culture where givers succeed, is you actually need a culture where help-seeking is the norm; where people ask a lot. this may hit a little too close to home for some of you.
”这些“五分钟小忙”对于帮助付出者划分界限和保护自己十分重要。如果你想创造一个让付出者功成名就的文化，第二件重要的事情是：你需要打造一种氛围，把求助当成家常便饭，每个人都乐于寻求帮助。这可能说到某些人心坎里去了。
[so in all your relationships, you always have to be the giver?] what you see with successful givers is they recognize that it s ok to be a receiver, too. if you run an organization, we can actually make this easier. we can make it easier for people to ask for help. a couple colleagues and i studied hospitals.
[在你的每段感情中，你都得是付出者吗？]每个成功的付出者都具备的特质是他们同样也愿意被施以援手。如果你在管理一个组织，你可以让这变得简单。你可以让开口求助变得不那么困难。我和几个同事研究了医院的情况。
we found that on certain floors, nurses did a lot of help-seeking, and on other floors, they did very little of it. the factor that stood out on the floors where help-seeking was common, where it was the norm, was there was just one nurse whose sole job it was to help other nurses on the unit.
发现某几层楼的护士求助很频繁，但其他楼层却很少。这几个楼层的求助之所以频繁且常见的原因是每层都安排了一个护士，她唯一工作就是帮助其他护士。
when that role was available, nurses said, "it s not embarrassing, it s not vulnerable to ask for help -- it s actually encouraged." help-seeking isn t important just for protecting the success and the well-being of givers. it s also critical to getting more people to act like givers, because the data say that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of all giving in organizations starts with a request.
当有这么一个角色时，其他护士觉得，“找人帮忙不会很丢脸也不会招来闲话——反而应该如此。”鼓励求助不仅在确保付出者成功，保护他们的利益方面非常重要更关键的是能让更多人像付出者学习，因为数据显示，组织中75%-90%的“付出”行为都始于一个请求。
but a lot of people don t ask. they don t want to look incompetent, they don t know where to turn, they don t want to burden others. yet if nobody ever asks for help, you have a lot of frustrated givers in your organization who would love to step up and contribute, if they only knew who could benefit and how.
然而许多人不想求助于人，他们不想被觉得无能，不知道找谁帮忙，也不想麻烦别人。但是如果没人求助，组织里的付出者们就会变得萎靡不振。而只要知道谁需要帮助以及怎么帮付出者们就会站出来并且帮助他们。
but i think the most important thing, if you want to build a culture of successful givers, is to be thoughtful about who you let onto your team. i figured, you want a culture of productive generosity, you should hire a bunch of givers. but i was surprised to discover, actually, that that was not right -- that the negative impact of a taker on a culture is usually double to triple the positive impact of a giver.
想要构建有利于付出者的组织文化，我认为最重要的事就是认真挑选你的团队成员。一开始我以为，如果想构建这种有效的慷慨文化，那就多雇些付出者。后来我惊讶的发现，这是不对的。获取者对文化的负面效应通常是付出者正面效应的两三倍。
think about it this way: one bad apple can spoil a barrel, but one good egg just does not make a dozen. i don t know what that means -- but i hope you do. no -- let even one taker into a team, and you will see that the givers will stop helping. they ll say, "i m surrounded by a bunch of snakes and sharks. why should i contribute?"
给你们打个比方：一颗老鼠屎能坏一锅粥，（原句：一个坏苹果能坏一整桶）但是一粒好米可做不出一锅好粥。（一个好鸡蛋却凑不出一整打）我自己都不懂我说了什么，不过希望你们能懂。假如把一个获取者放进团队，你就会发现付出者都不愿帮忙了。他们会抱怨说，“我周围都是小人和骗子。我何必帮那么多忙？”
whereas if you let one giver into a team, you don t get an explosion of generosity. more often, people are like, "great! that person can do all our work." so, effective hiring and screening and team building is not about bringing in the givers; it s about weeding out the takers. if you can do that well, you ll be left with givers and matchers.
反过来，假如把一个付出者放进团队大家并不会突然变得互帮互助。久而久之，人们反而会觉得，“太好了！事情都能给那个人去做！”所以，有效的雇佣筛选并组建团队并不是单纯的增加付出者数量，而是要清除获取者。如果你能把这个做好，就会只剩下付出者和互利者。
the givers will be generous because they don t have to worry about the consequences. and the beauty of the matchers is that they follow the norm. so how do you catch a taker before it s too late? we re actually pretty bad at figuring out who s a taker, especially on first impressions.
付出者会继续慷慨相助，因为他们不必担心结果。而互利者的美德则会让他们遵守这个行为的规则来进行付出。那么如何及时的找出获取者呢？其实我们非常难分辨出谁是获取者，尤其是仅凭第一印象。
there s a personality trait that throws us off. it s called agreeableness, one the major dimensions of personality across cultures. agreeable people are warm and friendly, they re nice, they re polite. you find a lot of them in canada -- where there was actually a national contest to come up with a new canadian slogan and fill in the blank, "as canadian as ..."
因为有一种性格会迷惑我们的双眼。这种性格叫“亲和力”。一种在不同文化中广泛存在的性格。亲和力强的人热情而友好，他们很亲切，很礼貌。你在加拿大能遇到很多这样的人。他们还弄了个全国竞赛，让大家给新的加拿大标语填空：“像...一样的加拿大人”
i thought the winning entry was going to be, "as canadian as maple syrup," or, "... ice hockey." but no, canadians voted for their new national slogan to be -- i kid you not -- "as canadian as possible under the circumstances." now for those of you who are highly agreeable, or maybe slightly canadian, you get this right away.
我一开始觉得获胜标语应该是：“像枫蜜一样的加拿大人”或者换成“冰球”结果不是，不开玩笑，加拿大的新国家标语是：“尽量像加拿大人，看情况吧”现在那些非常有亲和力的人，或者像加拿大人的人，应该立马就明白了。
how could i ever say i m any one thing when i m constantly adapting to try to please other people? disagreeable people do less of it. they re more critical, skeptical, challenging, and far more likely than their peers to go to law school. that s not a joke, that s actually an empirical fact.
我怎么可能找得出别人的毛病呢，因为我在不停的调整自己以取悦别人。亲和力弱的人就很少会这样。他们爱挑刺，爱质疑，爱反驳别人。并且他们相比其他人更有可能去上法学院。不是开玩笑，这是经验证明过的事实。
so i always assumed that agreeable people were givers and disagreeable people were takers. but then i gathered the data, and i was stunned to find no correlation between those traits, because it turns out that agreeableness-disagreeableness is your outer veneer: how pleasant is it to interact with you?
所以我一直假定亲和力强的人是付出者，而亲和力弱的人是获取者。然后我收集了一些数据，却惊奇的发现它们之间并没有联系。最后结果说明亲和力强或者弱只是一个表象。只是和你互动时表情是否显得愉悦。
whereas giving and taking are more of your inner motives: what are your values? what are your intentions toward others? if you really want to judge people accurately, you have to get to the moment every consultant in the room is waiting for, and draw a two-by-two.
而付出和获取却是源自内在动机。你的价值观是什么？你对别人的目的是什么？如果你想知道怎么准确地判断，那我们就来到了每个咨询顾问翘首期盼的时刻，让我们画个2x2网格。
the agreeable givers are easy to spot: they say yes to everything. the disagreeable takers are also recognized quickly, although you might call them by a slightly different name. we forget about the other two combinations. there are disagreeable givers in our organizations.
亲和力强的付出者很容易看出来，他们对任何事都说好。亲和力弱的获取者也很好区分，不过你们会叫他们一个不太一样的名字。别忘了另外两种人。亲和力弱的付出者在组织中随处可见。
there are people who are gruff and tough on the surface but underneath have others best interests at heart. or as an engineer put it, "oh, disagreeable givers -- like somebody with a bad user interface but a great operating system." if that helps you.
这些人表面强势且脾气差，但心底里还是为别人着想。引用一位工程师的话：“噢，脾气差的付出者啊，就像是一个非常优秀的操作系统，不过用户界面不太友好。”但愿这个比喻你能懂。
disagreeable givers are the most undervalued people in our organizations, because they re the ones who give the critical feedback that no one wants to hear but everyone needs to hear. we need to do a much better job valuing these people as opposed to writing them off early, and saying, "eh, kind of prickly, must be a selfish taker."
亲和力弱的付出者是组织中最被低估的人，因为他们给出的批评性建议没人爱听，但是每个人都需要去听。我们应该要更好的评价他们，而不是拒之门外，并说“这人好难搞，一定是个自私的获取者。”
the other combination we forget about is the deadly one -- the agreeable taker, also known as the faker. this is the person who s nice to your face, and then will stab you right in the back. and my favorite way to catch these people in the interview process is to ask the question, "can you give me the names of four people whose careers you have fundamentally improved?"
最后一种人最为致命——亲和力强的获取者，又名伪装者。这种人表面上和你客客气气，然后转身在背后插你两刀。我最常用的鉴别办法是在面试时问这个问题：“能否告诉我四个你在工作中用心培养过的四个人的名字？”
the takers will give you four names, and they will all be more influential than them, because takers are great at kissing up and then kicking down. givers are more likely to name people who are below them in a hierarchy, who don t have as much power, who can do them no good.
获取者会告诉你的四个人都比他们自己有影响力，因为获取者善于一边奉承上级一边打压下属。付出者则一般会列举几个层级比他们低的人，这些人并没有多少权力，也不能带来太多好处。
and let s face it, you all know you can learn a lot about character by watching how someone treats their restaurant server or their uber driver. so if we do all this well, if we can weed takers out of organizations, if we can make it safe to ask for help,
事实上，我们想了解一个人的性格可以从这人对待餐厅服务员和优步司机的态度来判断。如果我们能把这些做好，如果我们能把获取者扫地出门，如果我们能让求助变得安心，
if we can protect givers from burnout and make it ok for them to be ambitious in pursuing their own goals as well as trying to help other people, we can actually change the way that people define success. instead of saying it s all about winning a competition, people will realize success is really more about contribution.
如果我们能保护付出者不让他们觉得精疲力尽，而是去实现自己的雄心壮志的同时对他人施以援手。我们就能改变人们对成功的定义——不是在竞争中独占鳌头，而是意识到成功更多是付出与贡献。
i believe that the most meaningful way to succeed is to help other people succeed. and if we can spread that belief, we can actually turn paranoia upside down. there s a name for that. it s called "pronoia." pronoia is the delusional belief that other people are plotting your well-being.
我坚信最有意义的成功是帮助他人取得成功。如果能传递这个信念，我们就能完全颠覆偏执症。它有一个新的名字，叫做"积极妄想".积极妄想是一种妄想信念，相信其他人会密谋着让你飞黄腾达。
that they re going around behind your back and saying exceptionally glowing things about you. the great thing about a culture of givers is that s not a delusion -- it s reality. i want to live in a world where givers succeed, and i hope you will help me create that world.
他们还会悄悄的在你背后把你夸得天花乱坠。值得庆幸的是付出者的文化并不是妄想，而是现实。我梦想中的世界里付出者们功成名就，希望你们能帮我实现这个梦想。
thank you.
谢谢。
来源:ted9001cc金沙以诚为本官网
ted演讲:你是给予者还是索取者?
| 上一条:俄语网站建设 | 下一条:这70个词，可能99%的人不会读！ |
金沙9001cc以诚为本首页
在线下单