Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

或者更好的是，當其他人能夠取得似乎違背所有假設的成就時，你該如何解釋？

For example, why is Apple so innovative?

例如，蘋果公司為何如此創新？

Year after year after year after year, they're more innovative than all their competition.

年復一年，年復一年，他們比所有競爭對手都更具創新性。

And yet, they're just a computer company.

然而，他們只是一家電腦公司。

They're just like everyone else.

他們和其他人一樣。

They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media.

他們可以接觸到同樣的人才、同樣的機構、同樣的顧問、同樣的媒體。

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

那為什麼他們似乎有不同的東西呢？

Why is it that Martin Luther King led the civil rights movement?

為什麼馬丁-路德-金上司了民權運動？

He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America, and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.

在民權運動之前的美國，受苦受難的人不止他一個，他當然也不是當時唯一的偉大演說家。

Why him?

為什麼是他？

And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams who were better qualified, better funded, and they didn't achieve powered man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it?

為什麼萊特兄弟能夠成功實現可控的動力載人飛行，而其他團隊資質更好、資金更充足，卻沒有實現動力載人飛行，而萊特兄弟卻比他們更勝一籌？

There's something else at play here.

這裡面還有別的原因。

About three and a half years ago, I made a discovery, and this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.

大約三年半前，我有了一個發現，這個發現深刻地改變了我對世界運行方式的看法，甚至深刻地改變了我在這個世界上的運行方式。

As it turns out, there's a pattern.

事實證明，這是有規律可循的。

As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world, whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers, they all think, act, and communicate the exact same way, and it's the complete opposite to everyone else.

事實證明，世界上所有偉大的、鼓舞人心的領袖和組織，無論是蘋果公司、馬丁-路德-金還是萊特兄弟，他們的思維、行為和溝通方式都完全相同，與其他人完全相反。

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

我所做的只是把它編成法典，這可能是世界上最簡單的想法了。

I call it the golden circle.

我稱之為黃金圈。

Why, how, what?

為什麼？

This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't.

這個小小的想法解釋了為什麼一些組織和一些領導者能夠激勵他人，而其他組織和領導者卻不能。

Let me define the terms really quickly.

讓我快速定義一下這些術語。

Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do 100%.

地球上的每個人、每個組織都對自己的工作了如指掌。

Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiating value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP, but very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.

有些人知道他們是怎麼做的，不管你稱之為差異化價值主張、專有流程還是 USP，但很少有人或組織知道他們為什麼要這麼做。

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

我說的 "為什麼 "不是指盈利。

That's a result.

這就是結果。

It's always a result.

它總是一個結果。

By why, I mean what's your purpose, what's your cause, what's your belief?

我說的 "為什麼 "是指你的目的是什麼，你的事業是什麼，你的信念是什麼？

Why does your organization exist?

貴組織為何存在？

Why do you get out of bed in the morning, and why should anyone care?

你早上為什麼要起床？

Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in.

是以，我們的思維方式、行為方式和交流方式都是由外而內的。

It's obvious.

這是顯而易見的。

We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.

我們從最清晰的東西到最模糊的東西。

But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations, regardless of their size, regardless of their industry, all think, act, and communicate from the inside out.

但是，受啟發的領導者和受啟發的組織，無論其規模大小，也無論其所屬行業如何，都是由內而外地思考、行動和交流。

Let me give you an example.

我來舉個例子。

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

我用蘋果是因為它們簡單易懂，每個人都能理解。

If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this.

如果蘋果公司和其他人一樣，他們的營銷資訊可能會是這樣的。

We make great computers.

我們製造的電腦很棒。

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

它們設計精美、使用簡單、界面友好。

Want to buy one?

想買嗎？

Meh.

我。

And that's how most of us communicate.

這就是我們大多數人的交流方式。

That's how most marketing is done.

大多數營銷活動都是這樣做的。

That's how most sales are done.

大多數銷售都是這樣完成的。

And that's how most of us communicate interpersonally.

這就是我們大多數人的人際交流方式。

We say what we do.

我們說到做到。

We say how we're different or how we're better, and we expect some sort of behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that.

我們說我們如何與眾不同或我們如何更好，然後我們期待某種行為、購買、投票，諸如此類。

Here's our new law firm.

這是我們的新律師事務所

We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients.

我們擁有最好的律師和最大的客戶。

We always perform for our clients, do business with us.

我們始終為客戶服務，請與我們合作。

Here's our new car.

這是我們的新車。

It gets great gas mileage.

它的油耗很低。

It has, you know, leather seats.

它有真皮座椅。

Buy our car.

買我們的車

But it's uninspiring.

但這並不令人振奮。

Here's how Apple actually communicates.

以下是蘋果公司的實際溝通方式。

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

我們所做的一切，都是為了挑戰現狀。

We believe in thinking differently.

我們相信換位思考。

The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use, and user-friendly.

我們挑戰現狀的方式就是讓我們的產品設計精美、簡單易用、方便用戶。

We just happen to make great computers.

我們只是碰巧製造了很棒的電腦。

Want to buy one?

想買嗎？

Totally different, right?

完全不同，對吧？

You're ready to buy a computer from me.

你已經準備好向我購買電腦了。

All I did was reverse the order of the information.

我所做的只是顛倒了資訊的順序。

What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do.

它向我們證明的是，人們不買你的賬。

People buy why you do it.

人們買你的理由。

People don't buy what you do.

人們不買你的賬。

They buy why you do it.

他們相信你為什麼這麼做。

This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.

這就解釋了為什麼在座的每一個人都非常樂意購買蘋果公司的電腦。

But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple or a phone from Apple or a DVR from Apple.

但我們也完全可以購買蘋果公司的 MP3 播放器、蘋果公司的手機或蘋果公司的 DVR。

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

但正如我之前所說，蘋果只是一家電腦公司。

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

在結構上，它們與任何競爭對手都沒有什麼區別。

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

他們的競爭對手都同樣有資格生產所有這些產品。

In fact, they tried.

事實上，他們嘗試過。

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

幾年前，Gateway 推出了平板電視。

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

他們完全有資格製造平板電視。

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

多年來，他們一直在生產平板顯示器。

Nobody bought one.

沒人買

And Dell.

還有戴爾

Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs.

戴爾推出了 MP3 播放器和掌上電腦。

And they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products.

他們能製造出質量上乘的產品，也能製造出設計完美的產品。

And nobody bought one.

但沒人買。

In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell.

事實上，現在說起來，我們甚至無法想象從戴爾公司購買 MP3 播放器的情景。

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

為什麼要從電腦公司購買 MP3 播放器？

But we do it every day.

但我們每天都這樣做。

People don't buy what you do.

人們不買你的賬。

They buy why you do it.

他們相信你為什麼這麼做。

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

我們的目標不是與每一個需要你所擁有的東西的人做生意。

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

我們的目標是與那些相信你所相信的東西的人做生意。

Here's the best part.

最精彩的部分來了

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

我告訴你的都不是我的觀點。

It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.

這一切都以生物學原理為基礎。

Not psychology.

不是心理學。

Biology.

生物學

If you look at a cross-section of the human brain, looking from the top down, what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.

如果你從上往下看人腦的橫截面，你會發現人腦實際上分為三個主要部分，這三個部分與金色圓環完全相關。

Our newest brain, our homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the what level.

我們最新的大腦，我們的智人大腦，我們的新皮質，與 "什麼 "層次相對應。

The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language.

新皮質負責我們所有的理性分析思維和語言。

The middle two sections make up our limbic brains.

中間兩部分構成了我們的邊緣大腦。

And our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty.

我們的邊緣腦負責我們所有的情感，比如信任和忠誠。

It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.

它還負責人類的所有行為和決策，卻沒有語言能力。

In other words, when we communicate from the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information, like features and benefits and facts and figures.

換句話說，當我們從外向內傳播資訊時，是的，人們可以理解大量複雜的資訊，比如功能和優點、事實和數據。

It just doesn't drive behavior.

它只是無法推動行為。

When we communicate from the inside out, we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and then we allow people to rationalize it with the tangible things we say and do.

當我們進行由內而外的溝通時，我們是在直接與大腦中控制行為的部分對話，然後讓人們通過我們所說的和所做的具體事情將其合理化。

This is where gut decisions come from.

這就是直覺決定的來源。

You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and your figures, and they say, I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right.

你知道，有時你可以把所有的事實和數據都告訴別人，而他們會說，我知道所有的事實和細節，但就是感覺不對。

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

我們為什麼要用這個動詞，感覺不對嗎？

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

因為大腦中控制決策的部分並不控制語言。

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

我們只能說，我也不知道，就是感覺不對。

Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul.

有時你會說，你在用心上司，或者你在用靈魂上司。

Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior.

好吧，我不想打斷你，那些並不是控制你行為的其他身體部位。

It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.

這一切都發生在你的邊緣腦中，也就是大腦中控制決策而非語言的部分。

But if you don't know why you do what you do, and people respond to why you do what you do, then how will you ever get people to vote for you or buy something from you, or more importantly, be loyal and want to be a part of what it is that you do?

但是，如果你不知道自己為什麼這樣做，人們也不知道你為什麼這樣做，那麼你怎麼能讓人們投票支持你或購買你的東西，或者更重要的是，讓人們忠誠於你，並願意成為你所做事情的一部分呢？

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

同樣，我們的目標不僅僅是向需要你的產品的人銷售，而是向相信你所相信的人銷售。

The goal is not just to hire people who need a job, it's to hire people who believe what you believe.

我們的目標不僅僅是僱用需要工作的人，而是僱用相信你所相信的人。

I always say that if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money.

我常說，如果你僱人只是因為他們能幹，那麼他們就會為你的錢工作。

But if you hire people who believe what you believe, they work for you with blood and sweat and tears.

但是，如果你僱用的人與你的信念一致，他們就會為你流血流汗流淚地工作。

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

萊特兄弟就是最好的例子。

Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

大多數人都不知道塞繆爾-皮爾龐特-蘭利。

And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot-com of the day.

早在 20 世紀初，人類對動力飛行的追求就像當時的網絡公司。

Everybody was trying it.

每個人都在嘗試。

And Samuel Pierpont Langley had what we assume to be the recipe for success.

塞繆爾-皮爾龐特-蘭利擁有我們認為的成功祕訣。

I mean, even now, when you ask people, why did your product or why did your company fail, and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things.

我的意思是，即使是現在，當你問別人，你的產品或公司為什麼會失敗時，人們總是給出同樣的三件事。

Undercapitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.

資本不足、用錯人、市場環境惡劣。

It's always the same three things.

總是同樣的三件事。

So let's explore that.

讓我們來探討一下。

Samuel Pierpont Langley was given $50,000 by the War Department to figure out this flying machine.

塞繆爾-皮爾龐特-蘭利（Samuel Pierpont Langley）從陸軍部獲得了 5 萬美元來研製這種飛行器。

Money was no problem.

錢不是問題。

He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected.

他曾在哈佛大學任職，在史密森尼博物館工作，人脈極廣。

He knew all the big minds of the day.

他了解當時所有的大人物。

He hired the best minds money could find, and the market conditions were fantastic.

他僱傭了資金所能找到的最優秀的人才，市場條件也非常好。

The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley.

紐約時報》跟著他到處跑，每個人都在為蘭利加油。

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

為什麼我們從未聽說過塞繆爾-皮爾龐特-蘭利？

A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright.

幾百英里外的俄亥俄州代頓市，奧維爾和威爾伯-萊特。

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

他們沒有我們認為的成功祕訣。

They had no money.

他們沒有錢。

They paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop.

他們用自行車店的收入為夢想買單。

Not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur.

萊特兄弟的團隊中沒有一個人受過大學教育，就連奧維爾和威爾伯也沒有。

And the New York Times followed them around nowhere.

紐約時報》也跟著他們到處跑。

The difference was Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief.

不同的是，奧維爾和威爾伯是被一種事業、一種目標、一種信念所驅使。

They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world.

他們相信，如果能弄明白這個飛行器，就能改變世界的進程。

Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.

塞繆爾-皮爾龐特-蘭利與眾不同。

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

他想發財，他想出名。

He was in pursuit of the result.

他在追求結果。

He was in pursuit of the riches.

他在追求財富。

And lo and behold, look what happened.

結果，看看發生了什麼。

The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.

相信萊特兄弟夢想的人們與他們一起付出了血汗和淚水。

The others just worked for the paycheck.

其他人只是為了薪水而工作。

And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out, they would have to take five sets of parts because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.

他們還講述了萊特兄弟每次外出都要帶上五套零件的故事，因為在他們回來吃晚飯之前，他們要墜毀多少次。

And eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight.

最終，1903 年 12 月 17 日，萊特兄弟實現了飛行。

And no one was there to even experience it.

甚至沒有人親身經歷。

We found out about it a few days later.

幾天後，我們才知道這件事。

And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing, the day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit.

萊特兄弟飛天的那一天，他辭職了，這進一步證明了蘭利的動機是錯誤的。

He could have said, that's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology.

他本可以說，這是一個了不起的發現，夥計們，我會改進你們的技術。

But he didn't.

但他沒有。

He wasn't first.

他不是第一個。

He didn't get rich.

他沒有發財。

He didn't get famous.

他沒有成名。

So he quit.

所以他辭職了。

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

人們買的不是你做了什麼，而是你為什麼這麼做。

And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.

如果你談論你所相信的，你就會吸引那些相信你所相信的人。

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

但是，為什麼吸引那些相信你所相信的東西的人很重要呢？

Something called the Law of Diffusion of Innovation.

這就是所謂的 "創新擴散定律"。

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

即使你不懂法律，你也一定懂術語。

The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators.

前 2.5%的人口是我們的創新者。

The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters.

接下來的 13.5% 的人口是我們的早期採用者。

The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority, and your laggards.

接下來的 34% 是早期多數、後期多數和落後者。

The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

這些人購買按鍵式電話的唯一原因是，你再也買不到旋轉式電話了。

We all sit at various places at various times on this scale, but what the Law of Diffusion of Innovation tells us is that if you want mass market success or mass market acceptance of an idea, you cannot have it until you achieve this tipping point between 15% and 18% market penetration, and then the system tips.

在這個天平上，我們在不同的時間處於不同的位置，但 "創新擴散定律 "告訴我們的是，如果你想讓一個想法在市場上獲得巨大成功或被大眾所接受，你必須在市場滲透率達到 15%到 18%之間的臨界點時才能實現，然後系統就會出現問題。

And I love asking businesses, what's your conversion on new business?

我喜歡問企業，你們的新業務轉化率是多少？

And they love to tell you, oh, it's about 10% proudly.

他們喜歡驕傲地告訴你，哦，只有 10%。

Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers.

好吧，你可以絆倒 10% 的顧客。

We all have about 10% who just get it.

我們每個人都有 10% 左右的人明白這一點。

That's how we describe them, right?

我們就是這樣描述它們的，對嗎？

That's like that gut feeling, oh, they just get it.

這就像直覺一樣，哦，他們就是懂了。

The problem is, how do you find the ones that just get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it?

問題是，在與他們做生意之前，你如何找到明白的人和不明白的人呢？

So it's this here, this little gap, that you have to close, as Geoffrey Moore calls it, crossing the chasm.

是以，你必須彌合這個小小的鴻溝，傑弗裡-摩爾稱之為 "跨越鴻溝"。

Because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first.

因為，你看，早期的大多數人不會嘗試別人先嚐試過的東西。

And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions.

而這些人，創新者和早期採用者，他們能自如地做出這些直覺決定。

They're more comfortable making those intuitive decisions that are driven by what they believe about the world and not just what product is available.

他們更願意根據自己對世界的看法，而不僅僅是現有的產品，憑直覺做出決定。

These are the people who stood on line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have just walked into the store the next week and bought one off the shelf.

iPhone 剛上市時，這些人排了 6 個小時的隊才買到，而你完全可以在下週走進商店，從貨架上買一部。

These are the people who spent $40,000 on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard.

這些人在平板電視剛問世時就花了 4 萬美元購買，儘管當時的技術並不達標。

And by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great.

順便說一句，他們這樣做並不是因為技術有多先進。

They did it for themselves.