Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • So, where do you start when you have a program that's about integrating lives with passions?

    你會如何開始一個整合生活與熱情的計畫?

  • Well, you start with "why."

    通常會從「為什麼」開始。

  • Why?

    為什麼?

  • And that kicks us off for the first speaker tonight - Simon Sinek

    這問題將引出我們今晚的第一位講者 Simon Sinek。

  • and his talk "Start with why."

    他的講題是「從為什麼開始」。

  • Simon Sinek: We assume, even, we know why we do what we do.

    我們假設,我們知道為什麼我們會做我們做的事。

  • But then how do you explain when things don't go as we assume?

    但當事情發展不如預期,你要如何解釋?

  • Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things

    或者好一點,你要如何解釋,當其他人有辦法達成

  • that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

    違反所有預期的事情?

  • For example: why is Apple so innovative?

    例如,為什麼蘋果公司如此創新?

  • Year after year, after year, after year, after year,

    年復一年又一年

  • they're more innovative than all their competition.

    他們都比競爭對手更創新。

  • And yet, they're just a computer company.

    但終究,他們只是一家電腦公司

  • They're just like everyone else.

    如同其他電腦公司一樣。

  • They have the same access to the same talent,

    他們同樣能夠獲取同樣的才能

  • the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media.

    同樣的廣告商、同樣的顧問、同樣的媒體

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

    為什麼他們似乎有獨到之處?

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

    為什麼當年領導黑人民權運動的人是馬丁路德金恩?

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

    他並不是在美國唯一遭受不平等待遇的人

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

    他也肯定不是當時唯一的傑出演說家。

  • Why him?

    為什麼是他?

  • And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out

    為什麼是萊特兄弟有能力去發明

  • controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams

    固定翼飛機,儘管當時肯定有其他研發團隊

  • who were better qualified, better funded --

    更有資格、更有資金

  • and they didn't achieve powered man flight,

    但卻沒有完成飛機的發明

  • the Wright brothers beat them to it.

    是萊特兄弟擊敗他們、完成了發明。

  • There's something else at play here.

    有其他因素在作用著。

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

    大約三年半前,我有個發現。

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

    這個發現深深地改變了我對這世界運作的看法

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

    也深深地改變了我在其中生活的方式。

  • As it turns out, there's a pattern.

    我發現,是有一個模式的。

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

    我發現,這世界上所有震古鑠今的領導者和組職──

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

    無論是蘋果公司、馬丁路德金恩、萊特兄弟──

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

    他們都確確實實用同一個方式來思考、行動、溝通。

  • And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.

    但這方式和一般人的正好相反。

  • All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea.

    我所做的只是拆解這個方法,可能是這世上最簡單的想法。

  • I call it the golden circle.

    我稱之為黃金圈 (golden circle)。

  • Why? How? What?

    為什麼?怎麼做?做什麼?

  • This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders

    這小小的想法解釋了為什麼有些組織或領導者

  • are able to inspire where others aren't.

    能夠啟發人心,但其他的不能。

  • Let me define the terms really quickly.

    我先快速地定義這些名詞。

  • Every single person, every single organization on the planet

    在世上的每一個人,每一個組織

  • knows what they do. 100 percent.

    都知道他們在做什麼。百分之百肯定。

  • Some know how they do it,

    有些會知道他們做事的方法

  • whether you call it your differentiated value proposition

    不管將方法稱為不同的價值主張

  • or your proprietary process or your USP.

    或專有的產製過程、獨特的賣點 (Unique Selling proposition)

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

    但是,非常、非常少的人或組織知道他們為什麼要做他們做的事。ㄒ

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

    這個「為什麼」並非指「獲取利潤」。

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

    那是結果,永遠都是結果。

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

    這個「為什麼」問的是,你的目的是什麼?

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

    你的動機是什麼?你的信念是什麼?

  • Why does your organization exist?

    為什麼你的組織要存在?

  • Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act,

    因此,我們的思考方式、我們的行動方式

  • the way we communicate is from the outside in.

    我們的溝通方式,都是從外圈到內圈。

  • It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.

    這很明顯。我們從最明瞭的事情出發,再到朦朧的事。

  • But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations --

    但那些已受啟發的領導者或者組織──

  • regardless of their size, regardless of their industry --

    無關規模、產業之分──

  • all think, act and communicate from the inside out.

    都從內圈到外圈來思考、行動、溝通。

  • Let me give you an example.

    嚷我舉個例子。

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

    我用蘋果公司的產品因為很容易理解,人人都能上手。

  • If Apple were like everyone else,

    如果蘋果公司像其他公司一樣

  • a marketing message from them might sound like this:

    他們的宣傳文案可能會像這樣:

  • "We make great computers.

    「我們製造優秀的電腦

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

    設計精良、使用簡單、容易上手。

  • Wanna buy one?" "Meh."

    要買一個嗎?」「喔。」

  • And that's how most of us communicate.

    這是大部分的人溝通的方式。

  • That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done

    大部分市場行銷的方式、大部分銷售的方式

  • and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally.

    大部分人際溝通的方式。

  • We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better

    我們講出我們做的事,接著說我們如何不同或更好

  • and we expect some sort of a behavior,

    然後我們期待帶來某些行為

  • a purchase, a vote, something like that.

    例如購買、投票等等。

  • Here's our new law firm.

    以下是新律師事務所的廣告。

  • "We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients,

    「我們有最棒的律師團和最大的客戶群

  • we always perform for our clients who do business with us.

    我們總是和與我們有商業往來的客戶一同上場

  • Here's our new car. It gets great gas mileage,

    這是我們的新車,它有非常好的油耗

  • it has leather seats, buy our car." But it's uninspiring.

    皮椅,買我們的車吧。」但這不具啟發性

  • Here's how Apple actually communicates.

    以下是蘋果公司實際溝通的方式。

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

    「我們做的每件事,是因為我們相信能改變現狀。

  • We believe in thinking differently.

    我們相信不同的思維。

  • The way we challenge the status quo

    而我們改變現狀的方式

  • is by making our products beautifully designed,

    是讓我們的產品設計精良

  • simple to use and user friendly.

    使用簡單、容易上手。

  • We just happen to make great computers.

    結果我們做出了優秀的電腦。

  • Wanna buy one?"

    要買一台嗎?」

  • Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me.

    感覺完全不同對吧?你已經準備好跟我買一台電腦了

  • All I did was reverse the order of the information.

    我只是倒轉了訊息的順序。

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

    人們不會買你做的東西,但會因你為什麼做而買單。

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

    人們不會買你做的東西,但會因你為什麼做而買單。

  • This explains why every single person in this room

    這解釋了為什麼在場的每一個人

  • is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.

    完全能接受跟蘋果公司買電腦

  • But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple,

    但我們也同樣能完全接受去買一台蘋果的 MP3 播放器

  • or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple.

    或一支蘋果手機,或一台蘋果錄影機

  • But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company.

    但如同我說過的,蘋果只是一家電腦公司。

  • There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors.

    結構上來說,蘋果公司並沒有和它的競爭對手有所不同。

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

    這些競爭對手都同樣有資格去製造這些產品。

  • In fact, they tried.

    實際上,他們的確嘗試了。

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

    幾年前,Gateway 公司推出一台平板電視。

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

    他們很明顯有足夠資格來作平板電視。

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

    他們製作平板顯示器已經非常多年了。

  • Nobody bought one.

    但沒有人買

  • Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products,

    戴爾曾推出 MP3 播放器和掌上型電腦,且是高品質的產品

  • and they can make perfectly well-designed products --

    也做成完美精良設計的產品

  • and nobody bought one.

    但沒有人買。

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

    事實上,現在說起這個,我們根本無法想像。

  • buying an MP3 player from Dell.

    去購買戴爾的 MP3 播放器。

  • Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company?

    你為什麼要向一家電腦公司買 MP3 播放器?

  • But we do it every day.

    但我們每天都這樣。

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

    人們不會買你做的東西,但會因你為什麼做而買單。

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

    目標不應是和需要你的產品的人做生意

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

    而是和相信你信念的人做生意。

  • Here's the best part:

    接下來是最精彩的部分:

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

    以上這些都不是我個人的創見

  • It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.

    而早就深植在生物法則中

  • Not psychology, biology.

    不是心理學,是生物學。

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

    如果你去看人腦中交叉的部分

  • looking from the top down,

    由上往下看

  • what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components

    你會看到人腦實際上被分成三大部分

  • that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.

    完美地與黃金圈相關。

  • Our newest brain, our Homo Sapien brain,

    我們最新的腦,智人的腦

  • our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level.

    大腦新皮質,與「做什麼」這層思維相關。

  • The neocortex is responsible for all of our

    新皮質負責我們所有的

  • rational and analytical thought and language.

    理性思考、分析思想、語言功能。

  • The middle two sections make up our limbic brains,

    中間的兩個區域組成邊緣系統

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

    我們的邊緣系統掌管我們全部的情感

  • like trust and loyalty.

    像是信任和忠心。

  • It's also responsible for all human behavior,

    它也掌管所有人類的行為

  • all decision-making,

    所有的決策

  • and it has no capacity for language.

    但它沒有語言能力。

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

    也就是說,當我們從外圈開始向內溝通

  • yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information

    人們的確能理解大量複雜的訊息

  • like features and benefits and facts and figures.

    像是功能、好處、事實、數據

  • It just doesn't drive behavior.

    但卻不能驅動行為。

  • When we can communicate from the inside out,

    當我們從內圈往外圈溝通時

  • we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior,

    我們是直接和控制行為的腦溝通

  • and then we allow people to rationalize it

    然後讓人們理智地分析

  • with the tangible things we say and do.

    我們說或做的那些可以感知的事情。

  • This is where gut decisions come from.

    這是產生大膽決策的所在。

  • You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures,

    你知道的,有時候你明明解釋了所有的事實和數據

  • and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right."

    但他們卻說:「我知道這些事實和細節的意義,但就感覺不太對。」

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

    為什麼我們會用這個動詞,「感覺」不太對?

  • Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language.

    因為控制決策的腦並沒有控制語言。

  • And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right."

    因此我們最好的描述就是「我不知道,就感覺不太對」

  • Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart,

    或者有時候你會說你跟著心之所向

  • or you're leading with your soul.

    或跟著你的靈魂走

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

    但是,蠻討厭的,我要打破這個想法,其實並不是其他身體器官

  • controlling your behavior.

    在掌控你的行為。

  • It's all happening here in your limbic brain,

    都是你腦的邊緣系統在控制。

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

    那掌管決策、沒有語言功能的腦。

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

    但如果你不知道為什麼你會做你做的事

  • and people respond to why you do what you do,

    然後人們只對你的為什麼有反應

  • then how will you ever get people to vote for you,

    那你要怎麼讓人們支持你

  • or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal

    跟你買東西,或者更重要的,對你忠心

  • and want to be a part of what it is that you do?

    並想要成為你事業的一份子?

  • Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have,

    再次強調,目標不應是和需要你的產品的人做生意

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

    而是和相信你信念的人做生意。

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

    人資目標不應只是僱用需要一份工作的人

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

    而是僱用相信你信念的人。

  • I always say that, you know,

    我總是說

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

    如果你僱用人只是因為他們能夠勝任,他們會為了你的錢而工作。

  • but if you hire people who believe what you believe,

    但如果你僱用相信你的信念的人

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

    他們會為了這份工作赴湯蹈火。

  • And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers.

    沒有比萊特兄弟更好的例子了。

  • Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

    大部分的人並不知道 Samuel Pierpont Langley。

  • And back in the early 20th century,

    在二十世紀初期

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

    對發明飛機的渴望就像是現今對網路世界的追求。

  • Everybody was trying it.

    每個人都在嘗試。

  • And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume,

    而 Samuel Pierpont Langley 擁有我們一般認為的

  • to be the recipe for success.

    一切成功的條件

  • I mean, even now, when you ask people,

    我是說,即使到現在,當你問大家

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

    「為什麼你的產品或公司失敗了?」

  • And people always give you the same permutation of the same three things:

    人們總是回答你同樣三件事的同樣排列組合:

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

    資金不足、合作對象出錯、市場情況不佳。

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

    總是這三件事,讓我們仔細探究吧。

  • Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department

    Samuel Pierpont Langley 獲得了戰爭部門的 50 萬美元補助

  • to figure out this flying machine.

    來發明這飛行器。

  • Money was no problem.

    錢不是問題。

  • He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian

    他在哈佛佔一席之地且在史密森尼學會工作

  • and was extremely well-connected.

    有極好的人際網路連結。

  • He knew all the big minds of the day.

    他認識當時所有的頂尖學者。

  • He hired the best minds money could find

    他聘僱當時最好的學者。

  • and the market conditions were fantastic.

    當時的市場情況極佳。

  • The New York Times followed him around everywhere,

    紐約時報的記者緊盯著他的動態

  • and everyone was rooting for Langley.

    每個人都為 Langley 加油。

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

    那為什麼我們都沒有聽過 Samuel Pierpont Langley 這號人物?

  • A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio,

    在幾百里外的俄亥俄州代頓市

  • Orville and Wilbur Wright,

    奧維爾萊特和威伯爾萊特兩兄弟

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

    完全沒有我們認為的成功條件。

  • They had no money

    他們沒有錢

  • they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop,

    僅用開腳踏車店的微薄收入來支撐夢想。

  • not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education,

    萊特兄弟的團隊裡,沒有一個人有受過大學教育

  • not even Orville or Wilbur,

    包括奧維爾和威伯爾。

  • and The New York Times followed them around nowhere.

    紐約時報完全沒有採訪他們。

  • The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause,

    但不同的是,奧維爾和威伯特兩兄弟是被動機驅使的

  • by a purpose, by a belief.

    被目的、被信念。

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

    他們相信如果他們能發明飛行器

  • it'll change the course of the world.

    會改變世界的發展方向。

  • Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.

    Samuel Pierpont Langley 則不同。

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

    他只是想要名利雙收。

  • He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches.

    他是在追求那個結果,追求富貴。

  • And lo and behold, look what happened.

    結果呢,看發生了什麼事。

  • The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream

    那些相信萊特兄弟夢想的人

  • worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.

    赴湯蹈火地和他們同工

  • The others just worked for the paycheck.

    不像其他人工作只為了換取報酬。

  • And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out,

    他們常傳述著,每一次萊特兄弟出們

  • they would have to take five sets of parts,

    會帶著五組零件

  • because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.

    因為那就是他們在回家吃晚餐之前,墜落的次數。

  • And, eventually, on December 17th 1903,

    終於,在 1903 年的 12 月 17 號

  • the Wright brothers took flight,

    萊特兄弟起飛了。

  • and no one was there to even experience it.

    但沒有人在那裡見證奇蹟。

  • We found out about it a few days later.

    幾天後我們才得知。

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

    這進一步證明了 Langley 的動機不純。

  • The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit.

    他在萊特兄弟起飛的那天,放棄了。

  • He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys,

    他明明可以說「那真是個奇妙的發現,兄弟

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

    我會在你建立的基礎上改良」,但他沒有。

  • He wasn't first, he didn't get rich,

    他並不是第一人,他沒有發大財

  • he didn't get famous so he quit.

    他沒有出名,所以他放棄了。

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

    人們不會買你做的東西,但會因你為什麼做而買單。

  • And if you talk about what you believe,

    如果你談論你相信的事物

  • you will attract those who believe what you believe.

    你會吸引到那些相信你信念的人。

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

    但為什麼吸引那些相信你信念的人很重要呢?

  • Something called the law of diffusion of innovation,

    因為那個創新擴散理論。

  • and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology.

    如果你不知道這個理論,你一定知道那些名詞解釋。

  • The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators.

    佔我們人口 2.5% 的人是創新者

  • The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters.

    接下來的 13.5% 的人是早期接納者

  • The next 34 percent are your early majority,

    再下來的 34% 是早期追隨者

  • your late majority and your laggards.

    後期追隨者和落後者。

  • The only reason these people buy touch tone phones

    這些落後者買按鍵式電話的唯一原因

  • is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

    是因為再也買不到轉盤撥號電話。

  • (Laughter)

    (笑)

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

    在不同的時間,我們都坐落在這曲線的不同地方。

  • but what the law of diffusion of innovation tells us

    但這創新擴散理論告訴我們的是

  • is that if you want mass-market success

    如果你想要取得大眾市場的成功

  • or mass-market acceptance of an idea,

    或讓一個想法被大眾市場接受

  • you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point,

    你要達到這個臨界點才會成功

  • between 15 and 18 percent market penetration, and then the system tips.

    約 15% 到 18% 的市場滲透率,然後整個系統才會達到頂點。

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

    我很愛問許多企業「你到新業務轉換是什麼?」

  • And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly.

    他們會很樂意回答「噢,大概10%」,很驕傲的樣子。

  • Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers.

    你可以有 10% 的客戶

  • We all have about 10 percent who