Well, you start with "why."

通常會從「為什麼」開始。

Why?

為什麼？

And that kicks us off for the first speaker tonight - Simon Sinek

這問題將引出我們今晚的第一位講者 Simon Sinek。

and his talk "Start with why."

他的講題是「從為什麼開始」。

Simon Sinek: We assume, even, we know why we do what we do.

我們假設，我們知道為什麼我們會做我們做的事。

But then how do you explain when things don't go as we assume?

但當事情發展不如預期，你要如何解釋？

Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things

或者好一點，你要如何解釋，當其他人有辦法達成

that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

違反所有預期的事情？

For example: why is Apple so innovative?

例如，為什麼蘋果公司如此創新？

Year after year, after year, after year, after year,

年復一年又一年

they're more innovative than all their competition.

他們都比競爭對手更創新。

And yet, they're just a computer company.

但終究，他們只是一家電腦公司

They're just like everyone else.

如同其他電腦公司一樣。

They have the same access to the same talent,

他們同樣能夠獲取同樣的才能

the same agencies, the same consultants, the same media.

同樣的廣告商、同樣的顧問、同樣的媒體

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

為什麼他們似乎有獨到之處？

Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Rights Movement?

為什麼當年領導黑人民權運動的人是馬丁路德金恩？

He wasn't the only man who suffered in a pre-civil rights America,

他並不是在美國唯一遭受不平等待遇的人

and he certainly wasn't the only great orator of the day.

他也肯定不是當時唯一的傑出演說家。

Why him?

為什麼是他？

And why is it that the Wright brothers were able to figure out

為什麼是萊特兄弟有能力去發明

controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other teams

固定翼飛機，儘管當時肯定有其他研發團隊

who were better qualified, better funded --

更有資格、更有資金

and they didn't achieve powered man flight,

但卻沒有完成飛機的發明

the Wright brothers beat them to it.

是萊特兄弟擊敗他們、完成了發明。

There's something else at play here.

有其他因素在作用著。

About three and a half years ago I made a discovery.

大約三年半前，我有個發現。

And this discovery profoundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked,

這個發現深深地改變了我對這世界運作的看法

and it even profoundly changed the way in which I operate in it.

也深深地改變了我在其中生活的方式。

As it turns out, there's a pattern.

我發現，是有一個模式的。

As it turns out, all the great and inspiring leaders and organizations in the world --

我發現，這世界上所有震古鑠今的領導者和組職──

whether it's Apple or Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers --

無論是蘋果公司、馬丁路德金恩、萊特兄弟──

they all think, act and communicate the exact same way.

他們都確確實實用同一個方式來思考、行動、溝通。

And it's the complete opposite to everyone else.

但這方式和一般人的正好相反。

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

我所做的只是拆解這個方法，可能是這世上最簡單的想法。

I call it the golden circle.

我稱之為黃金圈 (golden circle)。

Why? How? What?

為什麼？怎麼做？做什麼？

This little idea explains why some organizations and some leaders

這小小的想法解釋了為什麼有些組織或領導者

are able to inspire where others aren't.

能夠啟發人心，但其他的不能。

Let me define the terms really quickly.

我先快速地定義這些名詞。

Every single person, every single organization on the planet

在世上的每一個人，每一個組織

knows what they do. 100 percent.

都知道他們在做什麼。百分之百肯定。

Some know how they do it,

有些會知道他們做事的方法

whether you call it your differentiated value proposition

不管將方法稱為不同的價值主張

or your proprietary process or your USP.

或專有的產製過程、獨特的賣點 (Unique Selling proposition)

But very, very few people or organizations know why they do what they do.

但是，非常、非常少的人或組織知道他們為什麼要做他們做的事。ㄒ

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

這個「為什麼」並非指「獲取利潤」。

That's a result. It's always a result.

那是結果，永遠都是結果。

By "why" I mean: What's your purpose?

這個「為什麼」問的是，你的目的是什麼？

What's your cause? What's your belief?

你的動機是什麼？你的信念是什麼？

Why does your organization exist?

為什麼你的組織要存在？

Well, as a result, the way we think, the way we act,

因此，我們的思考方式、我們的行動方式

the way we communicate is from the outside in.

我們的溝通方式，都是從外圈到內圈。

It's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing.

這很明顯。我們從最明瞭的事情出發，再到朦朧的事。

But the inspired leaders and the inspired organizations --

但那些已受啟發的領導者或者組織──

regardless of their size, regardless of their industry --

無關規模、產業之分──

all think, act and communicate from the inside out.

都從內圈到外圈來思考、行動、溝通。

Let me give you an example.

嚷我舉個例子。

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

我用蘋果公司的產品因為很容易理解，人人都能上手。

If Apple were like everyone else,

如果蘋果公司像其他公司一樣

a marketing message from them might sound like this:

他們的宣傳文案可能會像這樣：

"We make great computers.

「我們製造優秀的電腦

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

設計精良、使用簡單、容易上手。

Wanna buy one?" "Meh."

要買一個嗎？」「喔。」

And that's how most of us communicate.

這是大部分的人溝通的方式。

That's how most marketing is done, that's how most sales is done

大部分市場行銷的方式、大部分銷售的方式

and that's how most of us communicate interpersonally.

大部分人際溝通的方式。

We say what we do, we say how we're different or how we're better

我們講出我們做的事，接著說我們如何不同或更好

and we expect some sort of a behavior,

然後我們期待帶來某些行為

a purchase, a vote, something like that.

例如購買、投票等等。

Here's our new law firm.

以下是新律師事務所的廣告。

"We have the best lawyers with the biggest clients,

「我們有最棒的律師團和最大的客戶群

we always perform for our clients who do business with us.

我們總是和與我們有商業往來的客戶一同上場

Here's our new car. It gets great gas mileage,

這是我們的新車，它有非常好的油耗

it has leather seats, buy our car." But it's uninspiring.

皮椅，買我們的車吧。」但這不具啟發性

Here's how Apple actually communicates.

以下是蘋果公司實際溝通的方式。

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

「我們做的每件事，是因為我們相信能改變現狀。

We believe in thinking differently.

我們相信不同的思維。

The way we challenge the status quo

而我們改變現狀的方式

is by making our products beautifully designed,

是讓我們的產品設計精良

simple to use and user friendly.

使用簡單、容易上手。

We just happen to make great computers.

結果我們做出了優秀的電腦。

Wanna buy one?"

要買一台嗎？」

Totally different right? You're ready to buy a computer from me.

感覺完全不同對吧？你已經準備好跟我買一台電腦了

All I did was reverse the order of the information.

我只是倒轉了訊息的順序。

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

人們不會買你做的東西，但會因你為什麼做而買單。

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

人們不會買你做的東西，但會因你為什麼做而買單。

This explains why every single person in this room

這解釋了為什麼在場的每一個人

is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple.

完全能接受跟蘋果公司買電腦

But we're also perfectly comfortable buying an MP3 player from Apple,

但我們也同樣能完全接受去買一台蘋果的 MP3 播放器

or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple.

或一支蘋果手機，或一台蘋果錄影機

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

但如同我說過的，蘋果只是一家電腦公司。

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

結構上來說，蘋果公司並沒有和它的競爭對手有所不同。

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

這些競爭對手都同樣有資格去製造這些產品。

In fact, they tried.

實際上，他們的確嘗試了。

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

幾年前，Gateway 公司推出一台平板電視。

They're eminently qualified to make flat screen TVs.

他們很明顯有足夠資格來作平板電視。

They've been making flat screen monitors for years.

他們製作平板顯示器已經非常多年了。

Nobody bought one.

但沒有人買

Dell came out with MP3 players and PDAs, and they make great quality products,

戴爾曾推出 MP3 播放器和掌上型電腦，且是高品質的產品

and they can make perfectly well-designed products --

也做成完美精良設計的產品

and nobody bought one.

但沒有人買。

In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine

事實上，現在說起這個，我們根本無法想像。

buying an MP3 player from Dell.

去購買戴爾的 MP3 播放器。

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

你為什麼要向一家電腦公司買 MP3 播放器？

But we do it every day.

但我們每天都這樣。

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

人們不會買你做的東西，但會因你為什麼做而買單。

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

目標不應是和需要你的產品的人做生意

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

而是和相信你信念的人做生意。

Here's the best part:

接下來是最精彩的部分：

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

以上這些都不是我個人的創見

It's all grounded in the tenets of biology.

而早就深植在生物法則中

Not psychology, biology.

不是心理學，是生物學。

If you look at a cross-section of the human brain,

如果你去看人腦中交叉的部分

looking from the top down,

由上往下看

what you see is the human brain is actually broken into three major components

你會看到人腦實際上被分成三大部分

that correlate perfectly with the golden circle.

完美地與黃金圈相關。

Our newest brain, our Homo Sapien brain,

我們最新的腦，智人的腦

our neocortex, corresponds with the "what" level.

大腦新皮質，與「做什麼」這層思維相關。

The neocortex is responsible for all of our

新皮質負責我們所有的

rational and analytical thought and language.

理性思考、分析思想、語言功能。

The middle two sections make up our limbic brains,

中間的兩個區域組成邊緣系統

and our limbic brains are responsible for all of our feelings,

我們的邊緣系統掌管我們全部的情感

like trust and loyalty.

像是信任和忠心。

It's also responsible for all human behavior,

它也掌管所有人類的行為

all decision-making,

所有的決策

and it has no capacity for language.

但它沒有語言能力。

In other words, when we communicate from the outside in,

也就是說，當我們從外圈開始向內溝通

yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated information

人們的確能理解大量複雜的訊息

like features and benefits and facts and figures.

像是功能、好處、事實、數據

It just doesn't drive behavior.

但卻不能驅動行為。

When we can communicate from the inside out,

當我們從內圈往外圈溝通時

we're talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior,

我們是直接和控制行為的腦溝通

and then we allow people to rationalize it

然後讓人們理智地分析

with the tangible things we say and do.

我們說或做的那些可以感知的事情。

This is where gut decisions come from.

這是產生大膽決策的所在。

You know, sometimes you can give somebody all the facts and figures,

你知道的，有時候你明明解釋了所有的事實和數據

and they say, "I know what all the facts and details say, but it just doesn't feel right."

但他們卻說：「我知道這些事實和細節的意義，但就感覺不太對。」

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

為什麼我們會用這個動詞，「感覺」不太對？

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

因為控制決策的腦並沒有控制語言。

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

因此我們最好的描述就是「我不知道，就感覺不太對」

Or sometimes you say you're leading with your heart,

或者有時候你會說你跟著心之所向

or you're leading with your soul.

或跟著你的靈魂走

Well, I hate to break it to you, those aren't other body parts

但是，蠻討厭的，我要打破這個想法，其實並不是其他身體器官

controlling your behavior.

在掌控你的行為。

It's all happening here in your limbic brain,

都是你腦的邊緣系統在控制。

the part of the brain that controls decision-making and not language.

那掌管決策、沒有語言功能的腦。

But if you don't know why you do what you do,

但如果你不知道為什麼你會做你做的事

and people respond to why you do what you do,

然後人們只對你的為什麼有反應

then how will you ever get people to vote for you,

那你要怎麼讓人們支持你

or buy something from you, or, more importantly, be loyal

跟你買東西，或者更重要的，對你忠心

and want to be a part of what it is that you do?

並想要成為你事業的一份子？

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

再次強調，目標不應是和需要你的產品的人做生意

the goal is to sell to people who believe what you believe.

而是和相信你信念的人做生意。

The goal is not just to hire people who need a job,

人資目標不應只是僱用需要一份工作的人

it's to hire people who believe what you believe.

而是僱用相信你信念的人。

I always say that, you know,

我總是說

if you hire people just because they can do a job, they'll work for your money,

如果你僱用人只是因為他們能夠勝任，他們會為了你的錢而工作。

but if you hire people who believe what you believe,

但如果你僱用相信你的信念的人

they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears.

他們會為了這份工作赴湯蹈火。

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

沒有比萊特兄弟更好的例子了。

Most people don't know about Samuel Pierpont Langley.

大部分的人並不知道 Samuel Pierpont Langley。

And back in the early 20th century,

在二十世紀初期

the pursuit of powered man flight was like the dot com of the day.

對發明飛機的渴望就像是現今對網路世界的追求。

Everybody was trying it.

每個人都在嘗試。

And Samuel Pierpont Langley had, what we assume,

而 Samuel Pierpont Langley 擁有我們一般認為的

to be the recipe for success.

一切成功的條件

I mean, even now, when you ask people,

我是說，即使到現在，當你問大家

"Why did your product or why did your company fail?"

「為什麼你的產品或公司失敗了？」

And people always give you the same permutation of the same three things:

人們總是回答你同樣三件事的同樣排列組合：

under-capitalized, the wrong people, bad market conditions.

資金不足、合作對象出錯、市場情況不佳。

It's always the same three things, so let's explore that.

總是這三件事，讓我們仔細探究吧。

Samuel Pierpont Langley was given 50,000 dollars by the War Department

Samuel Pierpont Langley 獲得了戰爭部門的 50 萬美元補助

to figure out this flying machine.

來發明這飛行器。

Money was no problem.

錢不是問題。

He held a seat at Harvard and worked at the Smithsonian

他在哈佛佔一席之地且在史密森尼學會工作

and was extremely well-connected.

有極好的人際網路連結。

He knew all the big minds of the day.

他認識當時所有的頂尖學者。

He hired the best minds money could find

他聘僱當時最好的學者。

and the market conditions were fantastic.

當時的市場情況極佳。

The New York Times followed him around everywhere,

紐約時報的記者緊盯著他的動態

and everyone was rooting for Langley.

每個人都為 Langley 加油。

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

那為什麼我們都沒有聽過 Samuel Pierpont Langley 這號人物？

A few hundred miles away in Dayton, Ohio,

在幾百里外的俄亥俄州代頓市

Orville and Wilbur Wright,

奧維爾萊特和威伯爾萊特兩兄弟

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

完全沒有我們認為的成功條件。

They had no money

他們沒有錢

they paid for their dream with the proceeds from their bicycle shop,

僅用開腳踏車店的微薄收入來支撐夢想。

not a single person on the Wright brothers' team had a college education,

萊特兄弟的團隊裡，沒有一個人有受過大學教育

not even Orville or Wilbur,

包括奧維爾和威伯爾。

and The New York Times followed them around nowhere.

紐約時報完全沒有採訪他們。

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

但不同的是，奧維爾和威伯特兩兄弟是被動機驅使的

by a purpose, by a belief.

被目的、被信念。

They believed that if they could figure out this flying machine,

他們相信如果他們能發明飛行器

it'll change the course of the world.

會改變世界的發展方向。

Samuel Pierpont Langley was different.

Samuel Pierpont Langley 則不同。

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

他只是想要名利雙收。

He was in pursuit of the result. He was in pursuit of the riches.

他是在追求那個結果，追求富貴。

And lo and behold, look what happened.

結果呢，看發生了什麼事。

The people who believed in the Wright brothers' dream

那些相信萊特兄弟夢想的人

worked with them with blood and sweat and tears.

赴湯蹈火地和他們同工

The others just worked for the paycheck.

不像其他人工作只為了換取報酬。

And they tell stories of how every time the Wright brothers went out,

他們常傳述著，每一次萊特兄弟出們

they would have to take five sets of parts,

會帶著五組零件

because that's how many times they would crash before they came in for supper.

因為那就是他們在回家吃晚餐之前，墜落的次數。

And, eventually, on December 17th 1903,

終於，在 1903 年的 12 月 17 號

the Wright brothers took flight,

萊特兄弟起飛了。

and no one was there to even experience it.

但沒有人在那裡見證奇蹟。

We found out about it a few days later.

幾天後我們才得知。

And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing:

這進一步證明了 Langley 的動機不純。

The day the Wright brothers took flight, he quit.

他在萊特兄弟起飛的那天，放棄了。

He could have said, "That's an amazing discovery, guys,

他明明可以說「那真是個奇妙的發現，兄弟

and I will improve upon your technology," but he didn't.

我會在你建立的基礎上改良」，但他沒有。

He wasn't first, he didn't get rich,

他並不是第一人，他沒有發大財

he didn't get famous so he quit.

他沒有出名，所以他放棄了。

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

人們不會買你做的東西，但會因你為什麼做而買單。

And if you talk about what you believe,

如果你談論你相信的事物

you will attract those who believe what you believe.