A little over 20 years ago

二十多年前，

I did something that I regret,

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)

Now, in America law is a professional degree:

現今在美國，法律學位是專業學位，

you get your university degree, then you go on to law school.

你先要拿一個大學學位，才能入讀法學院，

And 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 percent 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, evidence-based,

一個實實在在，有根有據的陳述，

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, take a look at this.

好了，各位陪審員先生女士，請看看﹔

This is called the candle problem.

這個叫作「蠟燭難題」

Some of you might have seen this before.

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，

Karl Duncker created this experiment

頓克這個實驗，

that is used in a whole variety of 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. I give you a candle,

我帶你進入一個房間，給你一支蠟燭，

some thumbtacks and some matches.

一些按釘和幾根火柴，

And I say to you, "Your job

然後跟你說：「請你

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." Now what would you do?

但蠟不可滴到桌子上。」你會怎麼做？

Now 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，

Somebody, some people -- and I saw somebody

我見到一些在座的朋友，

kind of make the motion over here --

在用動作示意，

some people have a great idea where they

有些人想到了，

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

用火柴把蠟燭的邊融了，試圖把它黏到牆上，

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

這個主意很好，但也不成功，

And eventually, after five or 10 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. The candle problem.

若把它作為蠟燭的平台，難題便得到解決，

Now I want to tell you about an experiment

現在我要講一個

using the candle problem,

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 in the U.S.

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，

Here's what he did. He gathered his participants.

實驗是這樣的：他找來一批參與者，

And he said, "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。」

To one group he said,

對其中一組，他說﹔

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

「你們的時間

averages for how long it typically takes

會用作建立平均數，

someone to solve this sort of problem."

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 percent 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: How much faster

問題是：

did this group solve the problem?

這一組比另一組快了多少呢?

Answer: It took them, on average,

答案：

three and a half minutes longer.

是慢了三分半鐘，

Three and a half minutes longer. Now this makes no sense right?

是慢了三分半鐘！你會覺得沒有道理吧？

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,

如果你想某人改善表現，

you reward them. Right?

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. That's how business works.

都是獎勵，商業社會就是這樣運作的，

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 to

你一心以為你設的奬勵，

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，

And what's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration.

你要知道，這個實驗結果並不是偶然的偏差，

This has been replicated over and over

重複又重複都得到同一結果，

and over again, 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

這是在社會科學界裡，

in social science,

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 looking at the science of

這兩年來，我鑽研了

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 and what business does.

科學認知的和企業實行的並不相符，

And 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, often doesn't work, and often does harm.

甚至會造成傷害，

Let me show you what I mean.

讓我解釋一下，

So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this

格魯茲堡再做另一個相似的實驗，

where he presented the problem in a slightly different way,

他把問題稍作改動，

like this up here. Okay?

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

這次，有奬勵的一組

kicked the other group's butt.

贏得很漂亮！

Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box,

為甚麼？因為那些按釘不是放在盒子裡，

it's pretty easy isn't it?

答案很明顯吧！

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

If-then rewards work really well

「因果」式的獎勵

for those sorts of tasks,

在這些有簡單規則，

where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination

並有清晰目標的工作上

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，

And 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 not over here. The solution is on the periphery.

答案並不在那裡，答案在周邊，

You want to be looking around.

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，

in many parts of Asia,

在亞洲很多地區，

in North America, in Australia,

在北美、澳洲，

white-collar workers are doing less of

白領員工越來越少做

this kind of work,

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, certain kinds of financial analysis,

如某類會計、財務分析、

certain kinds of 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 around the world can do it cheaper.

世界各地都有較低價的服務提供者，

So what really matters are the more right-brained

所以關鍵的是那些右腦式的

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, or even the problems

你面對的問題，

we've been talking about here,

甚至我們現在在談的問題，

are those kinds of problems -- do they have a clear set of rules,

是不是那類問題？

and a single solution? No.

它們有沒有清晰的規則和單一的答案？沒有！

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

都在應付各自的

of the candle problem.

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，

Now, I mean it makes me crazy.

那真叫我摸不著頭腦，

And this is not -- 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）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

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，

because I'm not telling you 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

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

做得越好，奬勵越大，

What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill

結果怎樣呢？只要遊戲只要求機械性的技巧

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? But one the task called for

但只要那個遊戲，

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，

Then they said,

他們想：

"Okay let's see if there's any cultural bias here.

「文化差異是不是一個因素呢？

Lets go to Madurai, India and test this."

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

這是不是甚麼社會主義者

socialist conspiracy going on here?

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

And 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 11 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. (Laughter)

和米積加，（笑聲）

Last month, just last month,

就在上個月，

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 the economists there said: "We find that financial incentives

經濟學家們的結論是這樣的：

can result in a negative impact on overall performance."