TED演講:你是給予者還是索取者?
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，請你們看看周圍，找出最像妄想狂的人，然后幫我把他指出來。好吧，別真這么做。不過，作為一名組織心理學家，我花了很多時間去研究職場，結果發現到處都有妄想癥。
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.
人為引起的妄想癥，我叫他們“獲取者”。獲取者在職場互動中，總是以自利為目的。他們總是在想“你能為我做什么？”這些人對立面叫做“付出者”。他們在職場互動中總是想著：“我能為你做什么？”大家可以想想自己是哪種類型。
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]
我們都有付出和獲取的時候。你的類型取決于大多數時候你對待大多數人的方式，也就是你的默認類型。我這里有個小測試，看看你們偏向于付出者還是獲取者，現在測試開始！【自戀測試】
[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：花點時間想想你自己】
【第二步：如果你已經到了這一步，那么你不是自戀的人】
這是我今天講到的唯一沒有數據支撐的東西，但我覺得，你在笑之前沉迷于自己的時間越長，我們就越擔心你是獲取者。
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.
當然，不是所有獲取者都很自戀。有些是被傷害過太多次的付出者。還有另一種獲取者，我們今天不作討論，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，我很好奇這種極端的人有多普遍，于是我研究了三萬多人，他們來自不同的行業，有著不同的文化背景。結果我發現大多數人正好處在付出和獲取的中間。他們選擇了第三種類型，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，你會力求付出與獲取的平衡等價交換——你幫了我，我才會幫你。這似乎是一種穩妥的生活方式。但這種生活方式是最高效的嗎？答案非常非常確定：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.
我研究了許多組織，成千上萬人。我讓工程師們估測自己的工作效率。我觀察了醫學生的成績，甚至營銷人員的銷售額。出乎意料的是，上述工作中表現最差的都是付出者。完成任務最少的工程師，總是幫別人多，回報卻很少。
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.
他們光給別人干活了，完全沒有時間和精力干自己的活。在醫學院，成績最差的學生基本都“十分贊同”類似這樣的陳述：“我很樂于助人”。這說明你得以信賴的醫生，在讀醫學院時懷揣著“我誰都不幫”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."
在銷售中，最低的銷售額來自于最慷慨的銷售人員。我曾經接觸過的其中一個，他的付出者分數很高。我問他“你怎么做得這么爛...”我沒敢這么問，但是--“在銷售中，慷慨大方的代價是什么？”他說，“我太在意我的顧客了，所以我才不肯把垃圾產品賣給他們。”
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，你們有多少人，比起獲取者和互利者覺得自己更偏向于“付出者”？請舉手。好吧，我講這些之前應該人會更多。但實際上，有一個意外轉折，雖然付出者總是犧牲自己，但他們讓整個組織變得更好了。
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.
我們有大量的證據，許多關于團隊或組織中“付出”行為頻率的研究都說明：人們越樂于幫助別人、分享知識、或是提供指導，整個組織的各項指標都會變好——高利潤，高顧客滿意度，低員工流失率，甚至經營成本也會變低。
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.
付出者花了許多時間去幫助別人，使團隊進步，但不幸的是，他們卻要獨自受苦。因此，我想聊聊怎樣的組織文化才會讓付出者取得成功。于是我想知道，既然付出者的工作表現不好，那誰的表現最好呢？先說好消息：并不是獲取者。
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.
獲取者通常在工作中得道容易，失道也容易。并且他們一般會栽在互利者手里。如果你是互利者，你會堅信“以眼還眼”--一個公平的世界。當你遇到獲取者的時候，你感覺被賦予了一項使命——要把那個獲取者整的無法自理。于是正義得以伸張。
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.
因為大多數人是互利者，這意味著如果你是獲取者，終有一天會面臨正義的審判。“風水輪流轉，你做了什么總有一天會輪到自己頭上。”所以符合邏輯的結論應該是：工作表現最好的一定是互利者。然而事實并非如此。在我研究的每種職業，每個組織中工作表現最好的也是付出者。
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.
讓我們看看從幾百個銷售人員那收集的數據，他們的銷售額。你們應該能發現，付出者在兩個極端。在最低銷售額的那端，他們占了絕大多數，但也同樣占據了最高的那端。同樣的規律也適用于工程師的工作效率以及醫學生的成績。
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?
從任何一個我可以追蹤的指標去看。付出者顯著代表了最低水平和最高水平，這又提出了一個問題：我們應該創造怎樣的世界，能讓更多付出者成功呢？這個問題不僅僅指企業里還有非盈利機構，學校里——甚至包括在政府里。準備好了嗎？
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.
沒準備好我也要講，不過還是感謝你們的熱情。第一件事十分關鍵——認識到付出者才是你最有價值的員工。但是如果他們自己不留心，很容易精疲力盡，所以你不得不保護你們中的付出者。我是從《財富》評出的人脈最廣的人那學到的。是這哥們，不是那只貓。
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."
他叫亞當·里夫金。他是一位非常成功出色的企業家，同時也花了大量時間去幫助別人。他的秘密武器是“五分鐘小忙”。亞當說，“想成為付出者，不是非要像特蕾莎修女或者甘地那樣。你只需要幫一些給別人的生活帶去巨大的價值的小忙。”
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."
這個可以簡單到只是為兩人做個介紹而他們卻會因結識彼此而獲益。也可以是分享知識或是給一點反饋意見。甚至可以是簡單的說這么一句，“唔...我想試試看我能不能找到那個做了很多事但卻一直沒被注意的人。
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.
”這些“五分鐘小忙”對于幫助付出者劃分界限和保護自己十分重要。如果你想創造一個讓付出者功成名就的文化，第二件重要的事情是：你需要打造一種氛圍，把求助當成家常便飯，每個人都樂于尋求幫助。這可能說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，你都得是付出者嗎？]每個成功的付出者都具備的特質是他們同樣也愿意被施以援手。如果你在管理一個組織，你可以讓這變得簡單。你可以讓開口求助變得不那么困難。我和幾個同事研究了醫院的情況。
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.
發現某幾層樓的護士求助很頻繁，但其他樓層卻很少。這幾個樓層的求助之所以頻繁且常見的原因是每層都安排了一個護士，她唯一工作就是幫助其他護士。
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.
當有這么一個角色時，其他護士覺得，“找人幫忙不會很丟臉也不會招來閑話——反而應該如此。”鼓勵求助不僅在確保付出者成功，保護他們的利益方面非常重要更關鍵的是能讓更多人像付出者學習，因為數據顯示，組織中75%-90%的“付出”行為都始于一個請求。
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.
然而許多人不想求助于人，他們不想被覺得無能，不知道找誰幫忙，也不想麻煩別人。但是如果沒人求助，組織里的付出者們就會變得萎靡不振。而只要知道誰需要幫助以及怎么幫付出者們就會站出來并且幫助他們。
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.
想要構建有利于付出者的組織文化，我認為最重要的事就是認真挑選你的團隊成員。一開始我以為，如果想構建這種有效的慷慨文化，那就多雇些付出者。后來我驚訝的發現，這是不對的。獲取者對文化的負面效應通常是付出者正面效應的兩三倍。
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?"
給你們打個比方：一顆老鼠屎能壞一鍋粥，（原句：一個壞蘋果能壞一整桶）但是一粒好米可做不出一鍋好粥。（一個好雞蛋卻湊不出一整打）我自己都不懂我說了什么，不過希望你們能懂。假如把一個獲取者放進團隊，你就會發現付出者都不愿幫忙了。他們會抱怨說，“我周圍都是小人和騙子。我何必幫那么多忙？”
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.
反過來，假如把一個付出者放進團隊大家并不會突然變得互幫互助。久而久之，人們反而會覺得，“太好了！事情都能給那個人去做！”所以，有效的雇傭篩選并組建團隊并不是單純的增加付出者數量，而是要清除獲取者。如果你能把這個做好，就會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.
付出者會繼續慷慨相助，因為他們不必擔心結果。而互利者的美德則會讓他們遵守這個行為的規則來進行付出。那么如何及時的找出獲取者呢？其實我們非常難分辨出誰是獲取者，尤其是僅憑第一印象。
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 ..."
因為有一種性格會迷惑我們的雙眼。這種性格叫“親和力”。一種在不同文化中廣泛存在的性格。親和力強的人熱情而友好，他們很親切，很禮貌。你在加拿大能遇到很多這樣的人。他們還弄了個全國競賽，讓大家給新的加拿大標語填空：“像...一樣的加拿大人”
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.
我一開始覺得獲勝標語應該是：“像楓蜜一樣的加拿大人”或者換成“冰球”結果不是，不開玩笑，加拿大的新國家標語是：“盡量像加拿大人，看情況吧”現在那些非常有親和力的人，或者像加拿大人的人，應該立馬就明白了。
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.
我怎么可能找得出別人的毛病呢，因為我在不停的調整自己以取悅別人。親和力弱的人就很少會這樣。他們愛挑刺，愛質疑，愛反駁別人。并且他們相比其他人更有可能去上法學院。不是開玩笑，這是經驗證明過的事實。
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?
所以我一直假定親和力強的人是付出者，而親和力弱的人是獲取者。然后我收集了一些數據，卻驚奇的發現它們之間并沒有聯系。最后結果說明親和力強或者弱只是一個表象。只是和你互動時表情是否顯得愉悅。
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.
而付出和獲取卻是源自內在動機。你的價值觀是什么？你對別人的目的是什么？如果你想知道怎么準確地判斷，那我們就來到了每個咨詢顧問翹首期盼的時刻，讓我們畫個2X2網格。
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.
親和力強的付出者很容易看出來，他們對任何事都說好。親和力弱的獲取者也很好區分，不過你們會叫他們一個不太一樣的名字。別忘了另外兩種人。親和力弱的付出者在組織中隨處可見。
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.
這些人表面強勢且脾氣差，但心底里還是為別人著想。引用一位工程師的話：“噢，脾氣差的付出者啊，就像是一個非常優秀的操作系統，不過用戶界面不太友好。”但愿這個比喻你能懂。
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."
親和力弱的付出者是組織中最被低估的人，因為他們給出的批評性建議沒人愛聽，但是每個人都需要去聽。我們應該要更好的評價他們，而不是拒之門外，并說“這人好難搞，一定是個自私的獲取者。”
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?"
最后一種人最為致命——親和力強的獲取者，又名偽裝者。這種人表面上和你客客氣氣，然后轉身在背后插你兩刀。我最常用的鑒別辦法是在面試時問這個問題：“能否告訴我四個你在工作中用心培養過的四個人的名字？”
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.
獲取者會告訴你的四個人都比他們自己有影響力，因為獲取者善于一邊奉承上級一邊打壓下屬。付出者則一般會列舉幾個層級比他們低的人，這些人并沒有多少權力，也不能帶來太多好處。
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,
事實上，我們想了解一個人的性格可以從這人對待餐廳服務員和優步司機的態度來判斷。如果我們能把這些做好，如果我們能把獲取者掃地出門，如果我們能讓求助變得安心，
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.
如果我們能保護付出者不讓他們覺得精疲力盡，而是去實現自己的雄心壯志的同時對他人施以援手。我們就能改變人們對成功的定義——不是在競爭中獨占鰲頭，而是意識到成功更多是付出與貢獻。
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.
我堅信最有意義的成功是幫助他人取得成功。如果能傳遞這個信念，我們就能完全顛覆偏執癥。它有一個新的名字，叫做"積極妄想".積極妄想是一種妄想信念，相信其他人會密謀著讓你飛黃騰達。
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.
他們還會悄悄的在你背后把你夸得天花亂墜。值得慶幸的是付出者的文化并不是妄想，而是現實。我夢想中的世界里付出者們功成名就，希望你們能幫我實現這個夢想。
Thank you.
謝謝。
來源:TED官網
TED演講:你是給予者還是索取者?
| 上一條:俄語網站建設 | 下一條:?這70個詞，可能99%的人不會讀！ |
首頁
電話咨詢
在線下單
在線咨詢