广东36选7定位走势图:英語聽力

聽力入門英語演講VOA慢速英語美文聽力教程英語新聞名??緯?/a>聽力節目影視聽力英語視頻

Ted演講:如何將一群陌生人變成一個團隊?

zlxxm 于2019-12-25發布 l 已有人瀏覽
增大字體 減小字體
哈佛商學院領導力與管理教授埃米·埃德蒙森:如何將一群陌生人變成一個團隊?
    小E英語歡迎您,請點擊播放按鈕開始播放……

广东36选7好彩3开奖奖金多少 www.oabxa.com Amy Edmondson: How to turn a group of strangers into a team

哈佛商學院領導力與管理教授埃米·埃德蒙森:如何將一群陌生人變成一個團隊?

It's August 5, 2010. A massive collapse at the San José Copper Mine in Northern Chile has left 33 men trapped half a mile -- that's two Empire State Buildings -- below some of the hardest rock in the world. They will find their way to a small refuge designed for this purpose, where they will find intense heat, filth and about enough food for two men for 10 days. Aboveground, it doesn't take long for the experts to figure out that there is no solution. No drilling technology in the industry is capable of getting through rock that hard and that deep fast enough to save their lives. It's not exactly clear where the refuge is. It's not even clear if the miners are alive. And it's not even clear who's in charge. Yet, within 70 days, all 33 of these men will be brought to the surface alive. This remarkable story is a case study in the power of teaming.

時間是2010年8月5日。智利北部的圣荷西銅礦礦坑發生重大坍崩,33個人被困在世上最堅硬的巖石下方半英哩處——那是兩棟帝國大廈的高度。他們會找到一個為了這種狀況所設計的庇護所,在那里,他們會找到的,是很高的溫度、骯臟物,以及大約夠2名男性生存10天的食物。在地面上,沒有多久專家就知道沒有可行的解決方案。在這個產業中,沒有任何鉆洞技術能夠穿過這么堅硬的巖石,且要鉆這么深,還要夠快才能在出人命前救到人。庇護所的確切位置是未知的??蠊ど踔遼牢疵?。更不知道是誰在負責主導。然而,在70天之后,33個人都被活著帶回地面。這個了不起的故事,是很好的個案研究,可以說明聯手的力量。

So what's "teaming"? Teaming is teamwork on the fly. It's coordinating and collaborating with people across boundaries of all kinds -- expertise, distance, time zone, you name it -- to get work done.

「聯手」是什么?聯手就是快速的團隊合作。它是與人協調及合作,且要跨越各種界線——專長、距離、時區,想得到的都是——來把事情搞定。

Think of your favorite sports team, because this is different. Sports teams work together: that magic, those game-saving plays. Now, sports teams win because they practice. But you can only practice if you have the same members over time. And so you can think of teaming . . . Sports teams embody the definition of a team, the formal definition. It's a stable, bounded, reasonably small group of people who are interdependent in achieving a shared outcome. You can think of teaming as a kind of pickup game in the park, in contrast to the formal, well-practiced team. Now, which one is going to win in a playoff? The answer is obvious. So why do I study teaming? It's because it's the way more and more of us have to work today. With 24/7 global fast-paced operations, crazy shifting schedules and ever-narrower expertise, more and more of us have to work with different people all the time to get our work done. We don't have the luxury of stable teams. Now, when you can have that luxury, by all means do it. But increasingly for a lot of the work we do today, we don't have that option. One place where this is true is hospitals. This is where I've done a lot of my research over the years. So it turns out hospitals have to be open 24/7. And patients -- well, they're all different. They're all different in complicated and unique ways. The average hospitalized patient is seen by 60 or so different caregivers throughout his stay. They come from different shifts, different specialties, different areas of expertise, and they may not even know each other's name. But they have to coordinate in order for the patient to get great care. And when they don't, the results can be tragic.

想想你最喜歡的運動隊伍,因為這是不同的。運動隊伍會同心協力:那魔法,那些逆轉勝的關鍵發揮。運動隊伍會贏,是因為他們有練習。但只有在你的成員不會隨時間改變的情況下才有可能練習。所以,你可以把聯手想象成……運動隊伍是團隊定義的具體呈現,正式的定義。它很穩固、有界線、人數合理的一小群人,他們互相依賴以達成一個共同的結果。你們可以把聯手想象成公園里的一種臨時游戲,和正式、練習良好的隊伍是個對比。哪一種會贏得季后賽?答案很明顯。那我為什么還要研究聯手?因為那是現今我們越來越多人不得不使用的工作方式。隨著全天營業、全年無休的全球快步調營運、瘋狂轉變的時程表,以及狹隘許多的專長,有越來越多人總是得要和不同的人合作才能把工作完成。我們沒有穩定團隊的奢侈優勢。若你有幸能有這種奢侈優勢,務必好好用它。但漸漸地,對于現今我們所做的許多工作,我們并沒有那個選項。在醫院,這個現象就很明顯。數年來,我就是在醫院中做了許多研究。結果發現,醫院必須要全天營業、全年無休。而病人——嗯,他們全都不一樣。他們的不同是很復雜且很獨特的。平均來說,住院病人在住院期間,會被60個左右不同的照護者來照顧。他們有不同的班表、不同的專長、不同的專門知識領域,他們可能甚至不知道彼此的名字。但他們得要協調,才能讓病人得到好的照護。如果他們辦不到,就可能會有悲劇性的結果。

Of course, in teaming, the stakes aren't always life and death. Consider what it takes to create an animated film, an award-winning animated film. I had the good fortune to go to Disney Animation and study over 900 scientists, artists, storytellers, computer scientists as they teamed up in constantly changing configurations to create amazing outcomes like "Frozen." They just work together, and never the same group twice, not knowing what's going to happen next. Now, taking care of patients in the emergency room and designing an animated film are obviously very different work. Yet underneath the differences, they have a lot in common. You have to get different expertise at different times, you don't have fixed roles, you don't have fixed deliverables, you're going to be doing a lot of things that have never been done before, and you can't do it in a stable team.

當然,在聯手時牽涉到的利害關系不見得一定是生死。想想看,要制作出一部動畫電影,得獎的動畫電影,需要什么?我有幸能夠到迪斯尼動畫公司去研究超過900名科學家、藝術家、故事講述者、信息科學家,他們常常就會和不同的人搭配組成團隊,來創造出很了不起的作品,像是《冰雪奇緣》。他們只是一起工作,團隊變來變去,不知道接下來會發生什么事。在急診室照顧病人和設計一部動畫電影很顯然是非常不同的工作。但在不同的背后,它們卻有很多共同之處。在不同的時候,你得要取得不同的專門知識,你扮演的角色不固定,你要交付的產品也不固定,你得要做很多以前沒做過的事,且你無法在穩定的團隊中做它。

Now, this way of working isn't easy, but as I said, it's more and more the way many of us have to work, so we have to understand it. And I would argue that it's especially needed for work that's complex and unpredictable and for solving big problems. Paul Polman, the Unilever CEO, put this really well when he said, "The issues we face today are so big and so challenging, it becomes quite clear we can't do it alone, and so there is a certain humility in knowing you have to invite people in." Issues like food or water scarcity cannot be done by individuals, even by single companies, even by single sectors. So we're reaching out to team across big teaming, grand-scale teaming.

這種工作方式并不容易,但我剛才說過,越來越多人必須用這樣的方式工作,所以我們得了解這種方式。而且,我認為,針對復雜且無法預測的工作,以及要解決大問題的情況,了解這種方式更是有必要。保羅波曼,聯合利華的執行長,就有段非常棒的描述,他說:「我們現今面對的議題太大了、太有挑戰性了,很顯然我們無法靠自己完成,所以,知道你得要邀請別人一起合作,這也是一種謙卑?!瓜袷鞘澄锘蛩試床蛔閼飫嘁樘?,不可能由個人來解決,甚至不可能由單一公司,或單一部門來解決。所以我們要向外尋求協助,做大型的聯手,大規模的聯手。

Take the quest for smart cities. Maybe you've seen some of the rhetoric: mixed-use designs, zero net energy buildings, smart mobility, green, livable, wonderful cities. We have the vocabulary, we have the visions, not to mention the need. We have the technology. Two megatrends -- urbanization, we're fast becoming a more urban planet, and climate change -- have been increasingly pointing to cities as a crucial target for innovation. And now around the world in various locations, people have been teaming up to design and try to create green, livable, smart cities. It's a massive innovation challenge.

比如打造智慧城市的計劃。也許你曾經看過一些相關言論:采用混合用途的設計、零凈能建筑、智慧行動力、綠色、適合居住、美好的城市。我們有詞匯,我們有遠景,更不用說,我們有需求。我們有技術。兩項巨大潮流——都市化,我們正在快速變成一個更都市化的星球,還有氣候變遷——這兩項潮流越來越多清楚顯示,城市是創新的關鍵目標。現在,全世界各地,人們團結起來,設計并試圖創造綠色、適合居住、智慧的城市。這是個很大的創新挑戰。

To understand it better, I studied a start-up -- a smart-city software start-up -- as it teamed up with a real estate developer, some civil engineers, a mayor, an architect, some builders, some tech companies. Their goal was to build a demo smart city from scratch. OK. Five years into the project, not a whole lot had happened. Six years, still no ground broken. It seemed that teaming across industry boundaries was really, really hard. OK, so . . . We had inadvertently discovered what I call "professional culture clash" with this project. You know, software engineers and real estate developers think differently -- really differently: different values, different time frames -- time frames is a big one -- and different jargon, different language. And so they don't always see eye to eye. I think this is a bigger problem than most of us realize. In fact, I think professional culture clash is a major barrier to building the future that we aspire to build. And so it becomes a problem that we have to understand, a problem that we have to figure out how to crack. So how do you make sure teaming goes well, especially big teaming? This is the question I've been trying to solve for a number of years in many different workplaces with my research.

為了更了解它,我研究了一間新創公司——一間智慧城市的新創軟件公司——它組隊的對象包括一間不動產開發業者、一些土木工程師、一位市長、一位建筑師、一些建造商、一些科技公司。他們的目標是要從無到有,建立一個示范智慧城市。好。項目已經開始五年了,沒有發生很多事。六年了,仍然沒有破土動工??綺到縵叩牧炙坪跏欠淺7淺@訓?。好,所以……我們不經意地發現,這個項目中有著我所謂的「專業文化碰撞」。你們知道的,軟件工程師和不動產開發商思考方式不同——非常不同:不同的價值觀、不同的時間表——時間表是個大問題——還有不同的行話、不同的語言。所以他們不見得總是能有一致看法。我想,這個問題比我們大部分人所意識到的還要嚴重些。事實上,我認為,職業文化碰撞是個重大的阻礙,讓我們無法建立我們向往的未來。所以,它變成了我們需要去了解的問題,我們得要針對這個問題想出解決辦法。所以,你要如何確保聯手能夠順利?特別是大型的聯手?數年來我一直試圖在不同的工作場所解決這個問題,應用我的研究。

Now, to begin to get just a glimpse of the answer to this question, let's go back to Chile. In Chile, we witnessed 10 weeks of teaming by hundreds of individuals from different professions, different companies, different sectors, even different nations. And as this process unfolded, they had lots of ideas, they tried many things, they experimented, they failed, they experienced devastating daily failure, but they picked up, persevered, and went on forward. And really, what we witnessed there was they were able to be humble in the face of the very real challenge ahead, curious -- all of these diverse individuals, diverse expertise especially, nationality as well, were quite curious about what each other brings. And they were willing to take risks to learn fast what might work. And ultimately, 17 days into this remarkable story, ideas came from everywhere. They came from André Sougarret, who is a brilliant mining engineer who was appointed by the government to lead the rescue. They came from NASA. They came from Chilean Special Forces. They came from volunteers around the world. And while many of us, including myself, watched from afar, these folks made slow, painful progress through the rock.

現在,為了要讓大家能一瞥這個問題的答案,咱們先回到智利。在智利,我們目睹了數百人聯手合作十周,他們有不同的職業,來自不同的公司,不同的部門,甚至不同的國家。隨著這個過程進展下去,他們有許多的點子,他們做了許多嘗試,他們試驗,他們失敗,他們每天都要經歷讓人身心交瘁的失敗,但他們振作起來,不屈不撓,繼續向前走。其實,我們在那里所看見的,是他們能夠做到謙遜地面對眼前的挑戰,好奇——所有這些多元化的人,在專門知識與國籍上特別多樣化,他們相當好奇彼此能夠帶來什么。他們愿意冒險做快速的學習,以了解什么行得通。最終,這個了不起的故事進行到第17天時,點子開始從各方涌現。點子來自安德烈蘇格瑞特,他是個出色的采礦工程師,他被政府指定來領導救援任務。點子來自美國太空總署,點子來自智利的特種部隊,點子來自全世界的志工。當我們許多人,包括我自己,從遠處看著這些人很緩慢、艱苦地試圖穿過巖石。

On the 17th day, they broke through to the refuge. It's just a remarkable moment. And with just a very small incision, they were able to find it through a bunch of experimental techniques. And then for the next 53 days, that narrow lifeline would be the path where food and medicine and communication would travel, while aboveground, for 53 more days, they continued the teaming to find a way to create a much larger hole and also to design a capsule. This is the capsule. And then on the 69th day, over 22 painstaking hours, they managed to pull the miners out one by one.

在第17天,他們突破到了庇護所。那是個了不起的時刻??孔乓桓齜淺P〉那鋅?,他們得以透過許多實驗性的技術來找到庇護所。在接下來的53天,這狹窄的生命線,就成了食物、藥品,和溝通的通路,在地面上,他們持續聯手合作了53天,來想出方法,創造出一個更大的洞,同時設計一個膠囊。這就是那個膠囊。接著,在第69天,辛苦了22個小時,他們成功把礦工一個一個救出來。

So how did they overcome professional culture clash? I would say in a word, it's leadership, but let me be more specific. When teaming works, you can be sure that some leaders, leaders at all levels, have been crystal clear that they don't have the answers. Let's call this "situational humility." It's appropriate humility. We don't know how to do it. You can be sure, as I said before, people were very curious, and this situational humility combined with curiosity creates a sense of psychological safety that allows you take risks with strangers, because let's face it: it's hard to speak up, right? It's hard to ask for help. It's hard to offer an idea that might be a stupid idea if you don't know people very well. You need psychological safety to do that. They overcame what I like to call the basic human challenge: it's hard to learn if you already know. And unfortunately, we're hardwired to think we know. And so we've got to remind ourselves -- and we can do it -- to be curious; to be curious about what others bring. And that curiosity can also spawn a kind of generosity of interpretation.

他們是如何克服職業文化碰撞的?我可以用一個詞說明,就是「領導力」,但讓我說清楚些。在成功的聯手合作中,你可以很確定,一些領導人,各層級的領導人,一直都很清楚知道他們并沒有答案。咱們就稱之為「情境式謙遜」。它是種適當的謙遜。我們不知道要怎么做。我之前提到的,可以肯定大家很好奇,這種情境式謙遜和好奇心結合,就會創造出一種心理安全感,讓你能和陌生人一起冒險,因為,咱們面對現實吧,要說出來挺難的,對吧?要向人求助很困難。要提出一個可能很蠢的點子也很困難,如果你跟其他人不熟的話。所以你需要心理的安全感才能做到。他們克服了我所謂的基本人類挑戰:如果你已經知道了,就很難學習。不幸的是,我們天生就覺得我們知道。所以我們得要提醒自己——且我們能做到——要有好奇心;好奇其他人能帶來什么。那種好奇心也能夠產生一種在詮釋上的寬宏大量。

But there's another barrier, and you all know it. You wouldn't be in this room if you didn't know it. And to explain it, I'm going to quote from the movie "The Paper Chase." This, by the way, is what Hollywood thinks a Harvard professor is supposed to look like. You be the judge. The professor in this famous scene, he's welcoming the new 1L class, and he says, "Look to your left. Look to your right. one of you won't be here next year." What message did they hear? "It's me or you." For me to succeed, you must fail. Now, I don't think too many organizations welcome newcomers that way anymore, but still, many times people arrive with that message of scarcity anyway. It's me or you. It's awfully hard to team if you inadvertently see others as competitors.

但還有另一個阻礙,是你們都知道的。如果你不知道,你就不會在這間房間里。為了解釋它,我要引述《寒窗戀》這部電影。順道一提,這是好萊塢認為哈佛教授應該就是這個樣子。你們自己判斷。在這段知名的橋段中,這位教授在歡迎一個1L的班級,他說:「看看你的左邊,看看你的右邊。你們其中一個人明年不會在這里?!顧翹攪聳裁囪斷??「不是你,就是我?!谷粑乙曬?,你就得失敗。我不認為還有很多組織會用那種方式來歡迎新人,但人們常?;夠崠耪庵忠簧講蝗荻⒌難斷⒌嚼?。不是我,就是你。如果你在不經意中就把其他人視為競爭者,要聯手就會很困難。

So we have to overcome that one as well, and when we do, the results can be awesome. Abraham Lincoln said once, "I don't like that man very much. I must get to know him better." Think about that -- I don't like him, that means I don't know him well enough. It's extraordinary. This is the mindset, I have to say, this is the mindset you need for effective teaming. In our silos, we can get things done. But when we step back and reach out and reach across, miracles can happen. Miners can be rescued, patients can be saved, beautiful films can be created.

所以我們也得要克服那一點,當我們克服了,結果就會很棒。林肯有一次這么說:「我不太喜歡那個人,我得要再多了解他一點?!瓜胂肟?mdash;—我不喜歡他,那就表示我不夠了解他。那很不簡單。我得要說,就是這種心態,要有這種心態,才能有效地聯手合作。在我們的谷倉中(指谷倉效應),我們能把事情搞定。但當我們退一步,向外求助,跨出界線,奇跡就有可能會發生??蠊た贍芑岜瘓瘸隼?,病人可能會得救,美麗的電影也可能會被創作出來。

To get there, I think there's no better advice than this: look to your left, look to your right. How quickly can you find the unique talents, skills and hopes of your neighbor, and how quickly, in turn, can you convey what you bring? Because for us to team up to build the future we know we can create that none of us can do alone, that's the mindset we need.

要做到這些,我想,最好的忠告就是:看看你的左邊,看看你的右邊。你能多快地在你的鄰居身上找到獨特的才華、技能,和希望,還有,你能多快地傳達出你能帶給他們什么?因為,對我們來說,若要聯手建立一個我們知道可行的,但不能只靠一己之力來創造的未來,我們就需要那種心態。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

I started teaching MBA students 17 years ago. Sometimes I run into my students years later. And when I run into them, a funny thing happens. I don't remember just their faces; I also remember where exactly in the classroom they were sitting. And I remember who they were sitting with as well. This is not because I have any special superpowers of memory. The reason I can remember them is because they are creatures of habit. They are sitting with their favorite people in their favorite seats. They find their twins, they stay with them for the whole year.

我17年前開始教授 MBA課程。有時,我會在幾年后巧遇我的學生。當我巧遇他們時,有個很有趣的現象。我不僅記得他們的臉,也記得他們坐在教室的哪個位置,和誰坐在一起。我能記住這些,不是因為我記憶超群,而是因為他們是跟著習慣走的人。他們總會與最喜歡的人坐在一起,坐他們最喜歡的座位,找和自己極相似的人,然一整年都和這些人待在一起。

Now, the danger of this for my students is they're at risk of leaving the university with just a few people who are exactly like them. They're going to squander their chance for an international, diverse network. How could this happen to them? My students are open-minded. They come to business school precisely so that they can get great networks.

這種情況對我的學生的危險之處在于,當學生們離開大學步入社會,他們很可能只認識很少的人,并且認識的這些人還與他們很像。他們會浪費掉接觸國際化,多樣化關系網的機會。怎么會在他們身上發生這種事呢?我的學生思想開放。他們來到商學院為的正是擴大社交圈子。

Now, all of us socially narrow in our lives, in our school, in work, and so I want you to think about this one. How many of you here brought a friend along for this talk? I want you to look at your friend a little bit. Are they of the same nationality as you? Are they of the same gender as you? Are they of the same race? Really look at them closely. Don't they kind of look like you as well?

我們所有人在生活上、在學校、,在工作中的社交都是狹窄的,所以,我希望你們能想想這一點。在座有多少人,帶了朋友,一起來聽這場演講?我希望你們能看一下你們的朋友。他們的國籍和你相同嗎?他們的性別和你相同嗎?他們的種族相同嗎?真正去近看他們。他們是不是看起來也和你很像?

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

The muscle people are together, and the people with the same hairstyles and the checked shirts.

肌肉發達的人與肌肉發達的人在一起;發型相同的人與發型相同的人在一起;穿格子上衣的人與穿格子上衣的人在一起。

We all do this in life. We all do it in life, and in fact, there's nothing wrong with this. It makes us comfortable to be around people who are similar. The problem is when we're on a precipice, right? When we're in trouble, when we need new ideas, when we need new jobs, when we need new resources -- this is when we really pay a price for living in a clique.

我們在生活中都會這么做。我們所有人在人生中都會這么做,事實上,這并沒有什么不好。和相似的人在一起讓我們感到舒服。當我們在危急處境中時,才會有問題,對嗎?當我們有麻煩時,需要新點子時,需要新工作時,需要新資源時──,這時,身在小團體中,就會要付出代價。

Mark Granovetter, the sociologist, had a famous paper "The Strength of Weak Ties," and what he did in this paper is he asked people how they got their jobs. And what he learned was that most people don't get their jobs through their strong ties -- their father, their mother, their significant other. They instead get jobs through weak ties, people who they just met. So if you think about what the problem is with your strong ties, think about your significant other, for example. The network is redundant. Everybody that they know, you know. Or I hope you know them. Right? Your weak ties -- people you just met today -- they are your ticket to a whole new social world.

社會學家馬克格蘭諾維特,有一篇著名的論文,叫「弱連結的力量」,他在這篇論文中做的是去問人們,他們如何得到他們的工作。他發現大部分的人,不是從他們的強連結,──父親、母親、另一半──,得到工作,而是從弱連結,──剛認識的人──得到工作。所以,如果你要思考,強連結的問題在哪,想想比如你的另一半。這個圈子是多余的。他們認識的人,你也都認識。我希望你認識他們,對吧?,你的弱連結──你今天才認識的人──,他們是讓你通往全新社交世界的門票。

The thing is that we have this amazing ticket to travel our social worlds, but we don't use it very well. Sometimes we stay awfully close to home. And today, what I want to talk about is: What are those habits that keep human beings so close to home, and how can we be a little bit more intentional about traveling our social universe?

問題是,我們有這張很棒的門票,可以遨游我們的社交世界,但我們沒有好好用它。有時,我們待在離家非常近的地方。今天,我想要談的是這個:是什么習慣讓人類持續待在離家近的地方,以及我們要如何更刻意一點,去游遍我們的社交宇宙?

So let's look at the first strategy. The first strategy is to use a more imperfect social search engine. What I mean by a social search engine is how you are finding and filtering your friends. And so people always tell me, "I want to get lucky through the network. I want to get a new job. I want to get a great opportunity." And I say, "Well, that's really hard, because your networks are so fundamentally predictable." Map out your habitual daily footpath, and what you'll probably discover is that you start at home, you go to your school or your workplace, you maybe go up the same staircase or elevator, you go to the bathroom -- the same bathroom -- and the same stall in that bathroom, you end up in the gym, then you come right back home. It's like stops on a train schedule. It's that predictable. It's efficient, but the problem is, you're seeing exactly the same people. Make your network slightly more inefficient. Go to a bathroom on a different floor. You encounter a whole new network of people.

我們先來談第一條策略。第一條策略是要用更多不完美的社交搜尋引擎。我所謂的社交搜尋引擎,是你如何找到和篩選你的朋友。人們總是告訴我:「我想要透過關系網來走運。我想要找份新工作。我想要有很好的機會」。我說:「嗯,那真的很難,因為你的關系網基本上是非常容易預測的?!夠瞿閬骯叩娜粘B肪?,你可能會發現,你從家里開始,你去上學或上班,你可能會從同樣的樓梯或電梯上樓,你去廁所是去同一間廁所,且用的是那個廁所的同一隔間,你最后到了健身房,然后你就回家了。就像火車靠站時刻表一樣。就是那么可預測。它很有效率,但問題是,你遇見的人都一樣。讓你的關系網稍微不要那么有效率。去不同樓層的廁所。你會遇到一個全新的人脈網絡。

The other side of it is how we are actually filtering. And we do this automatically. The minute we meet someone, we are looking at them, we meet them, we are initially seeing, "You're interesting." "You're not interesting." "You're relevant." We do this automatically. We can't even help it. And what I want to encourage you to do instead is to fight your filters. I want you to take a look around this room, and I want you to identify the least interesting person that you see, and I want you to connect with them over the next coffee break. And I want you to go even further than that. What I want you to do is find the most irritating person you see as well and connect with them.

另一面,是我們實際做篩選的方式。我們會自動篩選。在我們見到一個人時,我們會看他們,見到他們,我們一開始就會看到:「你很有趣?!?,「你不有趣?!埂改愫苤匾??!?,我們會自動做這件事。我們無法控制。我想要鼓勵各位做的是,對抗你的篩選器。我希望你們能環視一下這間房間,我希望你們找出,你所看見最無趣的人,我希望你們能在下次休息時間去與他們聯系。我希望你們還能做更多。我也希望你們能去找到你們所看見最惱人的人,去與他們聯系。

What you are doing with this exercise is you are forcing yourself to see what you don't want to see, to connect with who you don't want to connect with, to widen your social world. To truly widen, what we have to do is, we've got to fight our sense of choice. We've got to fight our choices. And my students hate this, but you know what I do? I won't let them sit in their favorite seats. I move them around from seat to seat. I force them to work with different people so there are more accidental bumps in the network where people get a chance to connect with each other. And we studied exactly this kind of an intervention at Harvard University. At Harvard, when you look at the rooming groups, there's freshman rooming groups, people are not choosing those roommates. They're of all different races, all different ethnicities. Maybe people are initially uncomfortable with those roommates, but the amazing thing is, at the end of a year with those students, they're able to overcome that initial discomfort. They're able to find deep-level commonalities with people.

做這項練習的目的是要強迫你自己,去看見你不想看見的,去和你不想連結的人連結,去拓寬你的社交世界。要真正拓寬,我們必須要做的是,我們得要對抗我們對選擇的感受。我們得要對抗我們的選擇。我的學生很討厭這樣,但猜猜我怎么做?我不讓他們坐在他們最愛的位子。我讓他們一直換位子坐。我強迫他們去和不同的人合作,在人脈網絡中就會有更意外的起伏,讓人們有機會可以彼此連結。我們在哈佛大學就是在研究這種干預方法。在哈佛,如果去看宿舍群體,會有新鮮人宿舍群體,大家不選擇室友。他們都是不同的種族、不同的人種。許多人一開始對自己的室友感到不舒服,但讓人驚奇的是,在年末,那些學生,能夠克服一開始的不舒服。他們能在人身上找到更深層的共同性。

So the takeaway here is not just "take someone out to coffee." It's a little more subtle. It's "go to the coffee room." When researchers talk about social hubs, what makes a social hub so special is you can't choose; you can't predict who you're going to meet in that place. And so with these social hubs, the paradox is, interestingly enough, to get randomness, it requires, actually, some planning. In one university that I worked at, there was a mail room on every single floor. What that meant is that the only people who would bump into each other are those who are actually on that floor and who are bumping into each other anyway. At another university I worked at, there was only one mail room, so all the faculty from all over that building would run into each other in that social hub. A simple change in planning, a huge difference in the traffic of people and the accidental bumps in the network.

這里要給各位的訊息不只是,「找人出去喝杯咖啡」?;掛⒚鉅壞閌恰溉タХ忍?。當研究者談論社交中心時,社交中心之所以特別,就是因為你無法選擇,你無法預測你在那個地方會遇見誰。關于這些社交中心,有趣的是一個悖論:若要有隨機性,需要的其實是規劃。在我工作的其中一所大學,每層樓都有一間收發室。那就意味著,會巧遇到的人就只有在同一層樓的人,而他們本來就會遇見彼此。在我工作的另一所大學,只有一間收發室,所以整棟大樓所有的教職員,就會在那社交中心巧遇彼此。在規劃上做個簡單的改變,就能對人脈關系中所巧遇的人群造成很大的不同。

Here's my question for you: What are you doing that breaks you from your social habits? Where do you find yourself in places where you get injections of unpredictable diversity? And my students give me some wonderful examples. They tell me when they're doing pickup basketball games, or my favorite example is when they go to a dog park. They tell me it's even better than online dating when they're there.

我想要問各位的問題是:你能做什么,來讓你脫離你的社交習慣?你在什么地方,能夠被注入無法預測的多樣性?我的學生給了我一些很棒的例子。他們告訴我:在比賽籃球時。和我最愛的例子──去公園遛狗時。他們告訴我,在那里,甚至比在線約會還要更好。

So the real thing that I want you to think about is we've got to fight our filters. We've got to make ourselves a little more inefficient, and by doing so, we are creating a more imprecise social search engine. And you're creating that randomness, that luck that is going to cause you to widen your travels, through your social universe.

我真正希望各位去思考,我們得要對抗我們的篩選器。我們得要讓自己不那么有效率,這么做時,我們就是在創造一個不那么精準的社交搜尋引擎。你是在創造隨機性,它就是運氣,能拓展你在社交宇宙中所旅行的范圍。

But in fact, there's more to it than that. Sometimes we actually buy ourselves a second-class ticket to travel our social universe. We are not courageous when we reach out to people. Let me give you an example of that. A few years ago, I had a very eventful year. That year, I managed to lose a job, I managed to get a dream job overseas and accept it, I had a baby the next month, I got very sick, I was unable to take the dream job. And so in a few weeks, what ended up happening was, I lost my identity as a faculty member, and I got a very stressful new identity as a mother. What I also got was tons of advice from people. And the advice I despised more than any other advice was, "You've got to go network with everybody." When your psychological world is breaking down, the hardest thing to do is to try and reach out and build up your social world.

但,事實上,不只是如此。有時,我們真的會買到二等艙的票,在我們的社交宇宙中旅行。當我們接觸別人時,我們不夠勇敢。讓我舉個例子:幾年前,我有一年遇到非常多事。那一年,我失去了一個工作,在海外得到了一個夢想的工作,且我接受了,而再下一個月我生了孩子,我病得非常重,我無法去接那份夢想的工作。所以,在僅僅幾周,最后發生的結果是,我失去了教職員的身份,我得了到一個非常有壓力的新身份:母親。我還得到了人們給的一大堆意見。在所有意見中,我最鄙視的一則是:「你得要去和每個人建立聯系?!溝蹦愕木袷瀾繚詒闌凳?,最困難的事就是試著向外伸出手,建立你的社交世界。

And so we studied exactly this idea on a much larger scale. What we did was we looked at high and low socioeconomic status people, and we looked at them in two situations. We looked at them first in a baseline condition, when they were quite comfortable. And what we found was that our lower socioeconomic status people, when they were comfortable, were actually reaching out to more people. They thought of more people. They were also less constrained in how they were networking. They were thinking of more diverse people than the higher-status people. Then we asked them to think about maybe losing a job. We threatened them. And once they thought about that, the networks they generated completely differed. The lower socioeconomic status people reached inwards. They thought of fewer people. They thought of less-diverse people. The higher socioeconomic status people thought of more people, they thought of a broader network, they were positioning themselves to bounce back from that setback.

所以,我們更大規模地探究了這個想法。我們的做法是,我們去看社會經濟地位高與低的人,我們在兩種情況下去看他們。我們先在基線條件下去看他們,也就是他們很舒適的時候。我們發現,社會經濟地位較低的人,在舒適的時候,其實比較會向外接觸更多的人。他們會去想更多的人。他們在建立聯系上比較沒有受限制。比起高社會經濟地位的人,他們會去想更多樣化的人。接著,我們要他們去想象,可能失去工作的情況。我們威脅他們。一旦他們有那樣的想法,他們產生出的關系網絡就全然不同了。社會經濟地位較低的人,會向內接觸人。他們會去想的人比較少。他們會去想的人比較不多樣化。社會經濟地位較高的人,會去想比較多的人,他們會去想比較廣的人際網絡,他們會把自己放在受挫,之后重整旗鼓的位置。

Let's consider what this actually means. Imagine that you were being spontaneously unfriended by everyone in your network other than your mom, your dad and your dog.

讓我們來想想這到底是什么意思。想象一下,你被你人際網絡中的所有人都自發性地解除朋友關系,只剩下你的媽媽、爸爸,和你的狗。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

This is essentially what we are doing at these moments when we need our networks the most. Imagine -- this is what we're doing. We're doing it to ourselves. We are mentally compressing our networks when we are being harassed, when we are being bullied, when we are threatened about losing a job, when we feel down and weak. We are closing ourselves off, isolating ourselves, creating a blind spot where we actually don't see our resources. We don't see our allies, we don't see our opportunities.

基本上,這就是我們在最需要網絡的時刻所做的事。想象一下──這就是我們在做的,我們對自己做的事。我們在心理上壓縮我們的網絡,當我們被騷擾時,當我們被霸凌時,當我們被威脅會失去工作時,當我們感到消沉且,軟弱時,就會發生。我們把自己封閉起來,把自己孤立起來,創造出一個盲點,讓我們看不見我們的資源??床患頤塹拿擻?,看不見我們的機會。

How can we overcome this? Two simple strategies. One strategy is simply to look at your list of Facebook friends and LinkedIn friends just so you remind yourself of people who are there beyond those that automatically come to mind. And in our own research, one of the things we did was, we considered Claude Steele's research on self-affirmation: simply thinking about your own values, networking from a place of strength. What Leigh Thompson, Hoon-Seok Choi and I were able to do is, we found that people who had affirmed themselves first were able to take advice from people who would otherwise be threatening to them.

我們要如何克服這狀況?,有兩項簡單的策略。其一很簡單,就是去看,你的臉書朋友名單,還有,LinkedIn,讓你能夠提醒自己,除了自動出現在你腦海中的人之外,還有別人在。在我們自己的研究中,我們做的其中一件事是,我們從自我肯定的角度,來思考克勞德斯蒂爾的研究:只要想想你自己的價值,從一個有力量的地方建立網絡。邁克湯普森、崔勛石,和我一起做的是,我們發現,先肯定自己的人能夠接受別人的意見,其他情況下,給意見者會被視為威脅。

Here's a last exercise. I want you to look in your email in-box, and I want you to look at the last time you asked somebody for a favor. And I want you to look at the language that you used. Did you say things like, "Oh, you're a great resource," or "I owe you one," "I'm obligated to you." All of this language represents a metaphor. It's a metaphor of economics, of a balance sheet, of accounting, of transactions. And when we think about human relations in a transactional way, it is fundamentally uncomfortable to us as human beings. We must think about human relations and reaching out to people in more humane ways.

以下是最后一個練習。我希望各位去看看,自己的電子郵件收件匣,找出最近一次你請別人幫忙是什么時候。請看看你所使用的表意方式。你是否有說這類的話:「你是很棒的資源?!?,或「我欠你一個人情?!?,「我對你有義務?!?,所有這些表意方式,背后都有一個象征。那象征就是經濟,資產負債表、會計、交易。如果你用交易的方式,來看待人際關系,對我們人類而言,從根本上就會覺得不舒服。我們應該要用更人性的方式,來看待人際關系,及向外去接觸人。

Here's an idea as to how to do so. Look at words like "please," "thank you," "you're welcome" in other languages. Look at the literal translation of these words. Each of these words is a word that helps us impose upon other people in our social networks. And so, the word "thank you," if you look at it in Spanish, Italian, French, "gracias," "grazie," "merci" in French. Each of them are "grace" and "mercy." They are godly words. There's nothing economic or transactional about those words. The word "you're welcome" is interesting. The great persuasion theorist Robert Cialdini says we've got to get our favors back. So we need to emphasize the transaction a little bit more. He says, "Let's not say 'You're welcome.' Instead say, 'I know you'd do the same for me.'" But sometimes it may be helpful to not think in transactional ways, to eliminate the transaction, to make it a little bit more invisible. And in fact, if you look in Chinese, the word "bú kè qì" in Chinese, "You're welcome," means, "Don't be formal; we're family. We don't need to go through those formalities." And "kembali" in Indonesian is "Come back to me." When you say "You're welcome" next time, think about how you can maybe eliminate the transaction and instead strengthen that social tie. Maybe "It's great to collaborate," or "That's what friends are for."

至于要怎么做,這里有個想法??純聰瘛蓋搿?、「謝謝你」、「不,客氣」這些詞在其他語言怎么說??純湊廡┐實淖置娣?。這每一個詞,都是在協助我們利用社交網絡中的其他人。所以,針對「謝謝你」這個詞,它們在西班牙文、,意大利文、法文分別是,「gracias」、「grazie」,以及「merci」。意思都是「優雅」和「慈悲」。它們是虔誠的詞。這些詞沒有任何經濟或交易的元素?!覆豢推拐飧齟屎苡腥?。偉大的說服理論學家羅伯特喬爾第尼說:我們得把人情要回來,所以我們得要多強調一點交易。他說:「讓我們別說『不客氣』」。改成「我知道換成你,也會為我這么做?!?,但,有時,不用交易的方式,來思考,可能會比較有幫助,把交易元素除去,讓它更不顯眼。事實上,如果看中文怎么說,「不客氣」在中文的意思是,「別這么拘泥禮節,我們是一家人,不需要這些禮節形式?!?,在印尼語中「kembali」的,意思是「回來我這里」。下次當你要說「不客氣」時,想想看你可以如何,除去一些交易元素,改成加強社交連結。也許說「能一起合作很棒」,或「朋友不就該如此嗎」。

I want you to think about how you think about this ticket that you have to travel your social universe. Here's one metaphor. It's a common metaphor: "Life is a journey." Right? It's a train ride, and you're a passenger on the train, and there are certain people with you. Certain people get on this train, and some stay with you, some leave at different stops, new ones may enter. I love this metaphor, it's a beautiful one. But I want you to consider a different metaphor. This one is passive, being a passenger on that train, and it's quite linear. You're off to some particular destination. Why not instead think of yourself as an atom, bumping up against other atoms, maybe transferring energy with them, bonding with them a little and maybe creating something new on your travels through the social universe.

我希望各位能思考一下,要怎么用你手上的這張票,在你的社交宇宙中旅行。以下是一個比喻。它是常見的比喻:「人生是一趟旅程?!茍園??,它是趟火車旅程,你是火車上的一名乘客,有些人和你在一起。有些人會搭上這臺火車,有些人會留下,有些人會在不同的站下車,可能有新乘客上車。我喜歡這個比喻,它很美麗。但我希望各位能想想另一個比喻。身為火車乘客的這個比喻很被動,且它是很線性的。你要前往特定的目的地。為什么不改個方式,把你自己想成,一個原子,和其他原子碰撞,也許和它們一起傳送能量,和它們結合一下,也許在你的社交宇宙中,旅行時,創造出新東西來。

Thank you so much. And I hope we bump into each other again.

非常謝謝。我希望我們有機會再次偶遇。

(Applause)

(掌聲)

 1 2 下一頁

英語演講排行