×

我們使用cookies幫助改善LingQ。通過流覽本網站，表示你同意我們的 cookie 政策.

立即開始學習本課
image

TED, Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

How do you explain when things don't go as we assume?

Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? 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. Why him? 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. There's something else at play here. 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. As it turns out, there's a pattern. 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. All I did was codify it, and it's probably the world's simplest idea. I call it the golden circle. Why?

How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. And by "why" I don't mean "to make a profit." That's a result. It's always a result. By "why," I mean: What's your purpose? What's your cause? What's your belief? Why does your organization exist? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? And why should anyone care? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. 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. Let me give you an example.

I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. They're beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Here's our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car. But it's uninspiring. Here's how Apple actually communicates.

"Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?" Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. All I did was reverse the order of the information. What it proves to us is that people don't buy what you do; people buy why you do it. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

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

But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. But, as I said before, Apple's just a computer company. There's nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. In fact, they tried. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. They've been making flat screen monitors for years. Nobody bought one. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? But we do it every day. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Here's the best part: None of what I'm telling you is my opinion.

It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psychology, biology. 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. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language. 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.

It just doesn't drive behavior. When we can 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. This is where gut decisions come from. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right." Why would we use that verb, it doesn't "feel" right? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't control language. And the best we can muster up is, "I don't know. It just doesn't feel right." Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart, or you're leading with your soul. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts controlling your behavior. It's all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language. 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.

Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it's to hire people who believe what you believe. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers. Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. Everybody was trying it. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. I mean, even now, 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: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. It's always the same three things, so let's explore that. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Then how come we've never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success.

They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop; not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur; and The New York Times followed them around nowhere. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it'll change the course of the world. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches. And lo and behold, look what happened. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. The others just worked for the paycheck. 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. And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it.

We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't. He wasn't first, he didn't get rich, he didn't get famous so he quit. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don't know the law, you definitely know the terminology. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore. (Laughter)

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 percent market penetration, and then the system tips.

And I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" And they love to tell you, "Oh, it's about 10 percent," proudly. Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right? That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you're doing business with them versus the ones who don't get it? So it's this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they're comfortable making those gut decisions. 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. These are the people who stood in 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.

These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. And, by the way, they didn't do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It's because they wanted to be first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: They were first. People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.

First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? You should have success then. Look at TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. They were extremely well-funded. Market conditions were fantastic. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time. But TiVo's a commercial failure.

They've never made money. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it's never traded above 10. In fact, I don't think it's even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us." What if they had said, "If you're the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe. Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation.

In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. How do you do that? Well, Dr. King wasn't the only man in America who was a great orator. He wasn't the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. But he had a gift. He didn't go around telling people what needed to change in America. He went around and told people what he believed. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak. How many of them showed up for him?

Zero. They showed up for themselves. It's what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech. (Laughter)

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans.

They're not inspiring anybody. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it's those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them. Thank you very much.

Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action Simon Sinek: Wie große Führungskräfte zum Handeln inspirieren Simon Sinek: Cómo los grandes líderes inspiran a la acción Simon Sinek : Comment les grands leaders inspirent l'action サイモン・シネック：偉大なリーダーはいかに行動を促すか 사이먼 시넥: 위대한 리더가 행동에 영감을 주는 방법 Simon Sinek: Jak wielcy liderzy inspirują do działania Simon Sinek: Como os grandes líderes inspiram a ação Саймон Синек: Как великие лидеры вдохновляют на действия Simon Sinek: Büyük liderler eyleme nasıl ilham verir? Саймон Сінек: Як великі лідери надихають на дії 西蒙-辛克：伟大的领导者如何激励行动 西蒙-辛克：伟大的领导者如何激励行动

How do you explain when things don’t go as we assume? 物事が想定通りに進まないとき、どう説明しますか？ İşler tahmin ettiğimiz gibi gitmediğinde bunu nasıl açıklıyorsunuz?

Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions? あるいは、他の人たちがすべての前提を覆すようなことを成し遂げることができたとき、あなたはどう説明するのだろうか？ Или, что еще лучше, как объяснить, что другим удается достичь того, что, казалось бы, противоречит всем предположениям? For example: Why is Apple so innovative? 例えば、こうだ：アップルはなぜ革新的なのか？ Year after year, after year, after year, they’re more innovative than all their competition. And yet, they’re just a computer company. They’re just like everyone else. Они такие же, как и все остальные. They have the same access to the same talent, the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media. У них одинаковый доступ к одним и тем же талантам, одним и тем же агентствам, одним и тем же консультантам, одним и тем же средствам массовой информации. Then why is it that they seem to have something different? Почему же тогда кажется, что у них что-то другое? Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement? Почему Мартин Лютер Кинг возглавил движение за гражданские права? 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. Он был не единственным человеком, страдавшим в Америке до введения гражданских прав, и уж точно не единственным великим оратором того времени. Why him? 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. И почему именно братья Райт смогли создать управляемый полет человека на электротяге, когда, конечно, были и другие команды, более квалифицированные, более финансируемые... но они не достигли полета человека на электротяге, а братья Райт их опередили. There’s something else at play here. Здесь есть еще кое-что. About three and a half years ago I made a discovery. Около трех с половиной лет назад я сделал открытие.

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. И это открытие глубоко изменило мой взгляд на то, как, по моему мнению, устроен мир, и даже глубоко изменило то, как я в нем действую. As it turns out, there’s a pattern. Как оказалось, здесь есть своя закономерность. 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. Оказывается, все великие и вдохновляющие лидеры и организации в мире - будь то Apple, Мартин Лютер Кинг или братья Райт - думают, действуют и общаются совершенно одинаково. And it’s the complete opposite to everyone else. И это полная противоположность всем остальным. All I did was codify it, and it’s probably the world’s simplest idea. Все, что я сделал, - это кодифицировал ее, и это, вероятно, самая простая в мире идея. I call it the golden circle. Я называю это "золотым кругом". Why?

How? What? This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders are able to inspire where others aren’t. Эта маленькая идея объясняет, почему одни организации и одни лидеры способны вдохновлять, а другие - нет. Let me define the terms really quickly. Позвольте мне быстро определить термины. Every single person, every single organization on the planet knows what they do, 100 percent. Каждый человек, каждая организация на планете знает, что они делают, на 100 процентов. Some know how they do it, whether you call it your differentiated value proposition or your proprietary process or your USP. Некоторые знают, как они это делают, называя это своим дифференцированным ценностным предложением, запатентованным процессом или УТП. But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do. Но очень, очень немногие люди или организации знают, почему они делают то, что делают. And by "why" I don’t mean "to make a profit." И под "зачем" я не имею в виду "чтобы получить прибыль". That’s a result. Это результат. It’s always a result. Это всегда результат. By "why," I mean: What’s your purpose? Говоря "почему", я имею в виду: какова ваша цель? What’s your cause? Какова ваша причина? What’s your belief? Why does your organization exist? Зачем существует ваша организация? Why do you get out of bed in the morning? Почему вы встаете с постели по утрам? And why should anyone care? И почему это должно кого-то волновать? Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act, the way we communicate is from the outside in. В результате мы думаем, действуем, общаемся извне. It’s obvious. Это очевидно. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. Мы переходим от самого ясного к самому туманному. 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. Но вдохновляющие лидеры и вдохновляющие организации - независимо от их размера, независимо от отрасли - все думают, действуют и общаются изнутри. Let me give you an example.

I use Apple because they’re easy to understand and everybody gets it. Я пользуюсь продукцией Apple, потому что она проста и понятна всем. If Apple were like everyone else, a marketing message from them might sound like this: "We make great computers. Если бы Apple была такой же, как все остальные, маркетинговое сообщение от них могло бы звучать так: "Мы делаем отличные компьютеры. They’re beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Они прекрасно оформлены, просты в использовании и удобны для пользователя. Want to buy one?" Хотите купить?" "Meh." And that’s how most of us communicate. И именно так общается большинство из нас. That’s how most marketing is done, that’s how most sales is done and that’s how most of us communicate interpersonally. Именно так осуществляется маркетинг, именно так осуществляется продажа, и именно так большинство из нас общаются между собой. We say what we do, we say how we’re different or how we’re better and we expect some sort of a behavior, a purchase, a vote, something like that. Мы говорим, что мы делаем, мы говорим, чем мы отличаемся от других или чем мы лучше, и ожидаем какого-то поведения, покупки, голосования, чего-то в этом роде. Here’s our new law firm: We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients, we always perform for our clients who do business with us. Вот наша новая юридическая фирма: у нас лучшие юристы с самыми крупными клиентами, мы всегда работаем для наших клиентов, которые ведут с нами дела. Here’s our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats, buy our car. Вот наша новая машина: у нее отличный пробег, кожаные сиденья, покупайте нашу машину. But it’s uninspiring. Но это не вдохновляет. Here’s how Apple actually communicates. Вот как на самом деле общается компания Apple.

"Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. "Мы верим, что все, что мы делаем, бросает вызов статус-кво. We believe in thinking differently. Мы верим в то, что нужно мыслить по-другому. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. Мы бросаем вызов существующему положению вещей, делая наши продукты красиво оформленными, простыми в использовании и удобными для пользователя. We just happen to make great computers. Так получилось, что мы производим отличные компьютеры. Want to buy one?" Хотите купить?" Totally different right? Совершенно разные, верно? You’re ready to buy a computer from me. Вы готовы купить у меня компьютер. All I did was reverse the order of the information. Все, что я сделал, это изменил порядок информации. What it proves to us is that people don’t buy what you do; people buy why you do it. Это доказывает нам, что люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете.

This explains why every single person in this room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. Это объясняет, почему каждый человек в этой комнате совершенно спокойно покупает компьютер от Apple.

But we’re also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. Но мы также совершенно спокойно покупаем MP3-плеер от Apple, или телефон от Apple, или видеорегистратор от Apple. But, as I said before, Apple’s just a computer company. Но, как я уже говорил, Apple - это всего лишь компьютерная компания. There’s nothing that distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Нет ничего, что отличало бы их конструктивно от конкурентов. Their competitors are all equally qualified to make all of these products. Их конкуренты обладают одинаковой квалификацией для производства всех этих продуктов. In fact, they tried. На самом деле, они пытались. A few years ago, Gateway came out with flat screen TVs. Несколько лет назад компания Gateway выпустила телевизоры с плоским экраном. They’re eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs. Они обладают исключительной квалификацией для производства телевизоров с плоским экраном. They’ve been making flat screen monitors for years. Они производят мониторы с плоским экраном уже много лет. Nobody bought one. Никто не купил. Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products, and they can make perfectly well-designed products -- and nobody bought one. Dell выпустила MP3-плееры и КПК, и они делают продукты отличного качества, и они могут делать продукты с прекрасным дизайном - и никто их не купил. In fact, talking about it now, we can’t even imagine buying an MP3 player from Dell. На самом деле, говоря об этом сейчас, мы даже не можем представить себе покупку MP3-плеера от Dell. Why would you buy an MP3 player from a computer company? Зачем вам покупать MP3-плеер у компьютерной компании? But we do it every day. Но мы делаем это каждый день. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете.

The goal is not to do business with everybody who needs what you have. Цель не в том, чтобы вести бизнес со всеми, кому нужно то, что есть у вас. The goal is to do business with people who believe what you believe. Цель - вести дела с людьми, которые верят в то же, во что и вы. Here’s the best part: А вот и самое интересное: None of what I’m telling you is my opinion. Все, что я вам говорю, не является моим мнением.

It’s all grounded in the tenets of biology. Все это основано на постулатах биологии. Not psychology, biology. Не психология, а биология. 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. Если вы посмотрите на поперечный срез человеческого мозга сверху вниз, то увидите, что он разделен на три основных компонента, которые идеально соотносятся с золотым кругом. Our newest brain, our Homo sapien brain, our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level. Наш самый новый мозг, мозг Homo sapiens, наш неокортекс, соответствует уровню "что". The neocortex is responsible for all of our rational and analytical thought and language. Неокортекс отвечает за все наши рациональные и аналитические мысли и язык. The middle two sections make up our limbic brains, and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings, like trust and loyalty. Средние два отдела составляют наш лимбический мозг, а лимбический мозг отвечает за все наши чувства, такие как доверие и преданность. It’s also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language. Он также отвечает за все поведение человека, за принятие решений и не обладает способностью к языку. 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. Другими словами, когда мы общаемся изнутри, да, люди могут понять огромное количество сложной информации, такой как характеристики и преимущества, факты и цифры.

It just doesn’t drive behavior. Это просто не стимулирует поведение. When we can 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. Когда мы можем общаться изнутри, мы обращаемся непосредственно к той части мозга, которая контролирует поведение, а затем позволяем людям рационализировать его с помощью ощутимых вещей, которые мы говорим и делаем. This is where gut decisions come from. Вот откуда берутся интуитивные решения. You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures, and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn’t feel right." Знаете, иногда вы можете предоставить кому-то все факты и цифры, а он скажет: "Я знаю, что все факты и детали говорят, но это просто не то, что нужно". Why would we use that verb, it doesn’t "feel" right? Почему мы используем этот глагол, ведь он не подходит? Because the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn’t control language. Потому что та часть мозга, которая контролирует принятие решений, не контролирует язык. And the best we can muster up is, "I don’t know. И лучшее, что мы можем вымолвить, это "Я не знаю". It just doesn’t feel right." Это просто неправильно". Or sometimes you say you’re leading with your heart, or you’re leading with your soul. Иногда говорят, что руководят сердцем или душой. Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren’t other body parts controlling your behavior. Не хочу вас огорчать, но это не другие части тела, контролирующие ваше поведение. It’s all happening here in your limbic brain, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language. Все это происходит в вашем лимбическом мозге, той части мозга, которая контролирует принятие решений, а не язык. 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. Но если вы не знаете, почему вы делаете то, что делаете, и люди реагируют на то, почему вы делаете то, что делаете, то как вы сможете заставить людей голосовать за вас, или покупать что-то у вас, или, что еще важнее, быть лояльными и хотеть быть частью того, что вы делаете.

Again, the goal is not just to sell to people who need what you have; the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe. Опять же, цель не в том, чтобы продавать людям, которым нужно то, что у вас есть; цель в том, чтобы продавать людям, которые верят в то, во что верите вы. The goal is not just to hire people who need a job; it’s to hire people who believe what you believe. Цель - не просто нанимать людей, которым нужна работа, а нанимать людей, которые верят в то, во что верите вы. I always say that, you know, if you hire people just because they can do a job, they’ll work for your money, but if you hire people who believe what you believe, they’ll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. Я всегда говорю, что, если вы нанимаете людей просто потому, что они могут выполнить какую-то работу, они будут работать за ваши деньги, но если вы нанимаете людей, которые верят в то, во что верите вы, они будут работать на вас с кровью, потом и слезами. And nowhere else is there a better example of this than with the Wright brothers. И нигде нет лучшего примера этому, чем братья Райт. Most people don’t know about Samuel Pierpont Langley. Большинство людей не знают о Сэмюэле Пирпонте Лэнгли.

And back in the early 20th century, the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day. А в начале XX века стремление к полетам человека на электротяге было сродни дот-кому того времени. Everybody was trying it. Все пробовали. And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume, to be the recipe for success. И у Сэмюэля Пирпонта Лэнгли был, как мы полагаем, рецепт успеха. I mean, even now, you ask people, "Why did your product or why did your company fail?" Ведь даже сейчас вы спрашиваете людей: "Почему ваш продукт или ваша компания потерпели неудачу?". and people always give you the same permutation of the same three things: under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions. и люди всегда дают вам одну и ту же комбинацию из трех вещей: недостаточная капитализация, неправильные люди, плохие рыночные условия. It’s always the same three things, so let’s explore that. Это всегда одни и те же три вещи, так что давайте изучим их. Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department to figure out this flying machine. Сэмюэл Пирпонт Лэнгли получил от военного министерства 50 000 долларов на создание летательного аппарата. Money was no problem. He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian and was extremely well-connected; he knew all the big minds of the day. Он занимал место в Гарварде, работал в Смитсоновском институте и обладал огромными связями; он знал всех крупных умов того времени. He hired the best minds money could find and the market conditions were fantastic. Он нанял лучших специалистов, которых только могли найти деньги, а условия на рынке были фантастическими. The New York Times followed him around everywhere, and everyone was rooting for Langley. Газета New York Times повсюду следовала за ним, и все болели за Лэнгли. Then how come we’ve never heard of Samuel Pierpont Langley? A few hundred miles away in Dayton Ohio, Orville and Wilbur Wright, they had none of what we consider to be the recipe for success. В нескольких сотнях миль от них, в Дейтоне, штат Огайо, жили Орвилл и Уилбур Райт, у которых не было ничего из того, что мы считаем залогом успеха.

They had no money; they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop; not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education, not even Orville or Wilbur; and The New York Times followed them around nowhere. У них не было денег; свою мечту они оплатили из выручки своей велосипедной мастерской; ни один человек из команды братьев Райт не имел высшего образования, даже Орвилл и Уилбур; а газета New York Times нигде не следовала за ними. The difference was, Orville and Wilbur were driven by a cause, by a purpose, by a belief. Разница была в том, что Орвиллом и Уилбуром двигала причина, цель, вера. They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine, it’ll change the course of the world. Они верили, что если им удастся создать эту летающую машину, то она изменит ход развития мира. Samuel Pierpont Langley was different. Сэмюэл Пирпонт Лэнгли был другим. He wanted to be rich, and he wanted to be famous. Он хотел быть богатым и знаменитым. He was in pursuit of the result. Он стремился к результату. He was in pursuit of the riches. Он гнался за богатством. And lo and behold, look what happened. И вот, смотрите, что получилось. The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream worked with them with blood and sweat and tears. Люди, которые верили в мечту братьев Райт, работали с ними, обливаясь кровью, потом и слезами. The others just worked for the paycheck. Остальные просто работали за зарплату. 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. И они рассказывают истории о том, как каждый раз, когда братья Райт отправлялись в полет, им приходилось брать с собой пять комплектов деталей, потому что именно столько раз они разбивались, прежде чем приходили к ужину. And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it. И в конце концов 17 декабря 1903 года братья Райт отправились в полет, и никто из присутствующих даже не успел этого почувствовать.

We found out about it a few days later. Мы узнали об этом через несколько дней. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing: The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit. И еще одно доказательство того, что Лэнгли руководствовался не теми соображениями: в день, когда братья Райт отправились в полет, он уволился. He could have said, "That’s an amazing discovery, guys, and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn’t. Он мог бы сказать: "Это потрясающее открытие, ребята, и я усовершенствую вашу технологию", но он этого не сделал. He wasn’t first, he didn’t get rich, he didn’t get famous so he quit. Он не стал первым, не разбогател, не прославился, поэтому ушел. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете.

And if you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe. И если вы будете говорить о том, во что верите, вы привлечете тех, кто верит в то, во что верите вы. But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Но почему так важно привлекать тех, кто верит в то же, что и вы? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, and if you don’t know the law, you definitely know the terminology. Это называется законом распространения инноваций, и если вы не знаете этот закон, то уж точно знаете терминологию. The first two and a half percent of our population are our innovators. Первые два с половиной процента населения - это наши новаторы. The next 13 and a half percent of our population are our early adopters. Следующие 13 с половиной процентов населения - это наши ранние последователи. The next 34 percent are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards. Следующие 34 процента - это раннее большинство, позднее большинство и отстающие. The only reason these people buy touch tone phones is because you can’t buy rotary phones anymore. Единственная причина, по которой эти люди покупают сенсорные телефоны, заключается в том, что вы больше не можете купить роторные телефоны. (Laughter)

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 percent market penetration, and then the system tips. Мы все находимся в разных точках этой шкалы, но закон распространения инноваций говорит нам, что если вы хотите добиться массового успеха или массового признания идеи на рынке, вы не сможете этого сделать, пока не достигнете переломного момента между 15 и 18 процентами проникновения на рынок, и тогда система перевернется.

And I love asking businesses, "What’s your conversion on new business?" И я люблю спрашивать у компаний: "Какова ваша конверсия в новый бизнес?". And they love to tell you, "Oh, it’s about 10 percent," proudly. И они с гордостью говорят вам: "О, это около 10 процентов". Well, you can trip over 10 percent of the customers. Ну, вы можете споткнуться на 10 процентах клиентов. We all have about 10 percent who just "get it." У каждого из нас есть около 10 процентов тех, кто просто "понимает". That’s how we describe them, right? Именно так мы их и описываем, верно? That’s like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." Это как внутреннее чувство: "О, они просто поняли". The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before you’re doing business with them versus the ones who don’t get it? Проблема в том, как найти тех, кто понимает это, прежде чем начать с ними бизнес, и тех, кто не понимает этого? So it’s this here, this little gap that you have to close, as Jeffrey Moore calls it, "Crossing the Chasm" -- because, you see, the early majority will not try something until someone else has tried it first. Именно этот небольшой зазор вам предстоит преодолеть, как называет это Джеффри Мур, "Пересекая пропасть" - потому что, как вы понимаете, раннее большинство не будет пробовать что-то, пока кто-то не попробует это первым. And these guys, the innovators and the early adopters, they’re comfortable making those gut decisions. А эти парни, новаторы и ранние последователи, они принимают решения, руководствуясь интуицией. 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. Им удобнее принимать интуитивные решения, основанные на том, что они думают о мире, а не только о том, какой продукт доступен. These are the people who stood in 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. Это те люди, которые стояли в очереди по шесть часов, чтобы купить iPhone, когда он только вышел, хотя можно было просто зайти в магазин на следующей неделе и купить его с полки.

These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard. Это те люди, которые тратили 40 000 долларов на телевизоры с плоским экраном, когда они только появились, хотя технология была некачественной. And, by the way, they didn’t do it because the technology was so great; they did it for themselves. It’s because they wanted to be first. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете, и то, что вы делаете, просто доказывает, во что вы верите. In fact, people will do the things that prove what they believe. На самом деле, люди будут делать то, что подтверждает их веру. The reason that person bought the iPhone in the first six hours, stood in line for six hours, was because of what they believed about the world, and how they wanted everybody to see them: They were first. Причина, по которой человек купил iPhone в первые шесть часов, отстояв шесть часов в очереди, заключалась в том, что он верил в мир и хотел, чтобы все видели его таким: он был первым. People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете, а то, почему вы это делаете.

So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation. Итак, позвольте мне привести вам известный пример, известный провал и известный успех закона распространения инноваций.

First, the famous failure. Во-первых, знаменитый провал. It’s a commercial example. Это коммерческий пример. As we said before, a second ago, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions, right? Как мы уже говорили секунду назад, рецепт успеха - это деньги, правильные люди и правильные рыночные условия, верно? You should have success then. Тогда вас ждет успех. Look at TiVo. Посмотрите на TiVo. From the time TiVo came out about eight or nine years ago to this current day, they are the single highest-quality product on the market, hands down, there is no dispute. С момента появления TiVo восемь или девять лет назад и до сегодняшнего дня они являются самым качественным продуктом на рынке, и это бесспорно. They were extremely well-funded. Они были очень хорошо профинансированы. Market conditions were fantastic. Рыночные условия были фантастическими. I mean, we use TiVo as verb. Я имею в виду, что мы используем TiVo как глагол. I TiVo stuff on my piece of junk Time Warner DVR all the time. Я все время записываю на свой кусок хлама Time Warner DVR. But TiVo’s a commercial failure. Но TiVo - это коммерческий провал.

They’ve never made money. Они никогда не зарабатывали деньги. And when they went IPO, their stock was at about 30 or 40 dollars and then plummeted, and it’s never traded above 10. Когда они вышли на IPO, их акции стоили около 30 или 40 долларов, а потом резко упали, и никогда не торговались выше 10. In fact, I don’t think it’s even traded above six, except for a couple of little spikes. На самом деле, я не думаю, что он торговался выше шести, за исключением пары небольших скачков. Because you see, when TiVo launched their product they told us all what they had. Потому что, когда TiVo выпустила свой продукт, они рассказали нам, что у них есть. They said, "We have a product that pauses live TV, skips commercials, rewinds live TV and memorizes your viewing habits without you even asking." Они сказали: "У нас есть продукт, который ставит на паузу прямой эфир, пропускает рекламу, перематывает прямой эфир и запоминает ваши привычки просмотра, даже не спрашивая вас". And the cynical majority said, "We don’t believe you. И циничное большинство сказало: "Мы вам не верим. We don’t need it. Нам это не нужно. We don’t like it. Нам это не нравится. You’re scaring us." Вы нас пугаете". What if they had said, "If you’re the kind of person who likes to have total control over every aspect of your life, boy, do we have a product for you. Что, если бы они сказали: "Если вы из тех, кто любит полностью контролировать каждый аспект своей жизни, то у нас есть продукт для вас. It pauses live TV, skips commercials, memorizes your viewing habits, etc., etc." Он ставит на паузу прямой эфир, пропускает рекламу, запоминает ваши привычки просмотра и т. д. и т. п.". People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it, and what you do simply serves as the proof of what you believe. Люди покупают не то, что вы делаете; они покупают то, почему вы это делаете, а то, что вы делаете, просто служит доказательством того, во что вы верите. Now let me give you a successful example of the law of diffusion of innovation. А теперь позвольте мне привести вам успешный пример закона распространения инноваций.

In the summer of 1963, 250,000 people showed up on the mall in Washington to hear Dr. King speak. Летом 1963 года 250 000 человек собрались на торговом центре в Вашингтоне, чтобы послушать речь доктора Кинга. They sent out no invitations, and there was no website to check the date. Они не рассылали приглашений, и на сайте не было информации о дате. How do you do that? Как вы это делаете? Well, Dr. King wasn’t the only man in America who was a great orator. Доктор Кинг был не единственным человеком в Америке, который был великим оратором. He wasn’t the only man in America who suffered in a pre-civil rights America. Он был не единственным человеком в Америке, который страдал в Америке, существовавшей до введения гражданских прав. In fact, some of his ideas were bad. На самом деле, некоторые из его идей были плохими. But he had a gift. Но у него был дар. He didn’t go around telling people what needed to change in America. Он не ходил по улицам и не рассказывал людям о том, что нужно изменить в Америке. He went around and told people what he believed. Он ходил и рассказывал людям, во что верит. "I believe, I believe, I believe," he told people. "Я верю, верю, верю", - говорил он людям. And people who believed what he believed took his cause, and they made it their own, and they told people. И люди, которые верили в то, во что верил он, приняли его дело, сделали его своим и рассказали людям. And some of those people created structures to get the word out to even more people. А некоторые из этих людей создали структуры, чтобы донести информацию до еще большего числа людей. And lo and behold, 250,000 people showed up on the right day at the right time to hear him speak. И вот, 250 000 человек пришли в нужный день и в нужное время, чтобы послушать его речь. How many of them showed up for him? Сколько из них пришли за ним?

Zero. They showed up for themselves. Они показали себя сами. It’s what they believed about America that got them to travel in a bus for eight hours to stand in the sun in Washington in the middle of August. Именно то, что они верили в Америку, заставило их восемь часов ехать в автобусе, чтобы стоять на солнце в Вашингтоне в середине августа. It’s what they believed, and it wasn’t about black versus white: 25 percent of the audience was white. Это то, во что они верили, и дело было не в том, что черные против белых: 25 процентов аудитории были белыми. Dr. King believed that there are two types of laws in this world: those that are made by a higher authority and those that are made by man. Доктор Кинг считал, что в этом мире существует два типа законов: те, которые устанавливает высшая власть, и те, которые устанавливает человек. And not until all the laws that are made by man are consistent with the laws that are made by the higher authority will we live in a just world. И только когда все законы, созданные человеком, будут соответствовать законам, созданным высшей властью, мы будем жить в справедливом мире. It just so happened that the Civil Rights Movement was the perfect thing to help him bring his cause to life. Так получилось, что Движение за гражданские права стало идеальной вещью, которая помогла ему воплотить свое дело в жизнь. We followed, not for him, but for ourselves. Мы следовали за ним не ради него, а ради себя. And, by the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech. И, кстати, он произнес речь "У меня есть мечта", а не "У меня есть план". (Laughter)

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. Прислушайтесь к политикам, которые уже сейчас предлагают свои комплексные планы из 12 пунктов.

They’re not inspiring anybody. Они никого не вдохновляют. Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. لأن هناك قادة وهناك من يقود. Потому что есть лидеры, а есть те, кто ведет за собой. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Лидеры занимают позицию власти или авторитета, но те, кто ведет за собой, вдохновляют нас. Whether they’re individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to. Будь то отдельные люди или организации, мы следуем за теми, кто ведет за собой, не потому, что должны, а потому, что хотим этого. We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. Мы следуем за теми, кто ведет за собой, не ради них, а ради себя. And it’s those who start with "why" that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them. И именно те, кто начинает с "почему", способны вдохновить окружающих или найти тех, кто вдохновляет их самих. Thank you very much. Большое спасибо.