William Swenson

威廉．斯文森，

who recently was awarded the congressional Medal of Honor

最近獲頒國會榮譽勳章

for his actions on September 8, 2009.

以表揚他在 2009 年 9 月 8 日的行為。

On that day, a column of American

那天，

and Afghan troops

一個美軍縱隊和阿富汗軍隊

were making their way

路經阿富汗某地方，

through a part of Afghanistan

以協助保護

to help protect

一組阿富汗政府官員，

a group of government officials,

官員們將拜訪當地村裡的耆老。

a group of Afghan government officials,

縱隊遭遇到伏擊，

who would be meeting with some local

被敵軍三面包圍，

village elders.

除此之外，

The column came under ambush,

斯文森上尉被目睹

and was surrounded on three sides,

在槍林彈雨中

and amongst many other things,

搶救傷員，

Captain Swenson was recognized

並將死者從戰場撤出。

for running into live fire

其中一位被救的士兵是位中士，

to rescue the wounded

他和他的戰友都被送到

and pull out the dead.

傷兵撤離用直升機。

One of the people he rescued was a sergeant,

這天特別的地方是，

and he and a comrade were making their way

很巧地

to a medevac helicopter.

其中一位醫護兵

And what was remarkable about this day

裝了個 GoPro 攝影機在頭盔上，

is, by sheer coincidence,

並拍攝到整個現場。

one of the medevac medics

顯示上尉斯文森和他的戰友

happened to have a GoPro camera on his helmet

把這位頸部受到槍傷的 士兵帶回來。

and captured the whole scene on camera.

他們把他送上直升機，

It shows Captain Swenson and his comrade

然後上尉斯文森俯身，

bringing this wounded soldier

給他一個吻，

who had received a gunshot to the neck.

之後轉身再拯救更多的傷兵。

They put him in the helicopter,

看到這幕，我思索到，

and then you see Captain Swenson bend over

像這樣的人從哪裡來的？

and give him a kiss

那是什麼？ 那是種很深很深的情感，

before he turns around to rescue more.

你才會那樣做。

I saw this, and I thought to myself,

有種愛在其中。

where do people like that come from?

我想知道為什麼

What is that? That is some deep, deep emotion,

跟我一起工作的，沒有那樣的人？

when you would want to do that.

大家知道，在軍中他們頒發勳章

There's a love there,

給那些願意犧牲自我

and I wanted to know why is it that

而使其他人可以受益的人；

I don't have people that I work with like that?

在商界，我們把獎金

You know, in the military, they give medals

頒給那些願意犧牲他人

to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves

而使我們受益的員工。

so that others may gain.

亂套了，是吧？

In business, we give bonuses to people

於是我問自己， 像這樣的人從哪裡來？

who are willing to sacrifice others

我的初步結論是 他們本來就是更好的人。

so that we may gain.

這讓他們對軍隊感興趣。

We have it backwards. Right?

這些較好的人

So I asked myself, where do people like this come from?

被奉獻的概念吸引。

And my initial conclusion was that they're just better people.

但那徹底錯了。

That's why they're attracted to the military.

我的後來發現這跟環境有關，

These better people are attracted

如果你營造正確的環境，

to this concept of service.

我們每個人都有能力

But that's completely wrong.

做到這些意義重大的事情，

What I learned was that it's the environment,

而更重要的是， 其他人也有這個能力。

and if you get the environment right,

我非常榮幸能會見

every single one of us has the capacity

其中一些我們稱之為英雄的人。

to do these remarkable things,

他們曾經把自身生命

and more importantly, others have that capacity too.

置於危險中以拯救他人。

I've had the great honor of getting to meet

我問他們：「你為什麼會這樣做？

some of these, who we would call heroes,

你為什麼這樣做？」

who have put themselves and put their lives

他們都說同樣的話：

at risk to save others,

「因為其他人也會為我這麼做。」

and I asked them, "Why would you do it?

這是深深的信任和合作。

Why did you do it?"

因此信任和合作非常重要，

And they all say the same thing:

關於信任和合作的問題是：

"Because they would have done it for me."

它們是情感，不是命令。

It's this deep sense of trust and cooperation.

我無法簡單地對你說「相信我」， 然後你就相信。

So trust and cooperation are really important here.

我不能簡單地指示兩人合作， 然後他們就合作，

The problem with concepts of trust and cooperation

並不是這樣的，這是一種感覺。

is that they are feelings, they are not instructions.

那麼，這種感覺從哪裡來的？

I can't simply say to you, "Trust me," and you will.

如果你回到五萬年前的

I can't simply instruct two people to cooperate, and they will.

舊石器時代，

It's not how it works. It's a feeling.

到人類文明的初期，

So where does that feeling come from?

我們發現這世界

If you go back 50,000 years

充滿了危險，

to the Paleolithic era,

所有的這些力量 致力於殺死我們。

to the early days of Homo sapiens,

對什麼東西都一樣。

what we find is that the world

無論是天氣、

was filled with danger,

缺乏資源、

all of these forces working very, very hard to kill us.

或者是一隻劍齒虎，

Nothing personal.

所有這些事情

Whether it was the weather,

都在削減我們的壽命。

lack of resources,

因此，我們演化成群居動物，

maybe a saber-toothed tiger,

我們住在一起，一起工作，

all of these things working

在我稱之為安全範圍的部落裡面，

to reduce our lifespan.

那我們視為歸宿的地方。

And so we evolved into social animals,

當我們在群體中感到安全，

where we lived together and worked together

自然反應就是信任和合作。

in what I call a circle of safety, inside the tribe,

連帶好處是，

where we felt like we belonged.

這意味我可以在晚上睡覺，

And when we felt safe amongst our own,

並且信任部落裡的 其他人會防範危險。

the natural reaction was trust and cooperation.

如果我們不信任彼此， 如果我不信任你，

There are inherent benefits to this.

也就是你不會擔任警戒。

It means I can fall asleep at night

這將是糟糕的生存機制。

and trust that someone from within my tribe will watch for danger.

現代的情況完全一樣，

If we don't trust each other, if I don't trust you,

這個世界充滿危險，

that means you won't watch for danger.

使我們感到挫敗、

Bad system of survival.

阻撓我們成功、

The modern day is exactly the same thing.

降低我們成功的機會。

The world is filled with danger,

或許是跌宕起伏的經濟、

things that are trying to frustrate our lives

股市的不確定性；

or reduce our success,

或許是種新技術，

reduce our opportunity for success.

使你的商業模式瞬間被淘汰；

It could be the ups and downs in the economy,

或許是不時試著毀掉你的 競爭對手，

the uncertainty of the stock market.

可能沒讓你倒閉，

It could be a new technology that renders

但是他們至少

your business model obsolete overnight.

也會奮力阻撓你的成長，

Or it could be your competition

搶走你的業務。

that is sometimes trying to kill you.

我們無法控制這些力量。

It's sometimes trying to put you out of business,

這東西不會變，

but at the very minimum

也不會消失。

is working hard to frustrate your growth

唯一的變數

and steal your business from you.

是組織的內部情況，

We have no control over these forces.

這才是領導才能彰顯之處，

These are a constant,

因為領導者決定風氣。

and they're not going away.

當一個領導者作出選擇，

The only variable are the conditions

把組織裡面的人

inside the organization,

的安全和性命放在第一位，

and that's where leadership matters,

犧牲自己的安逸

because it's the leader that sets the tone.

以及一些有形的結果，

When a leader makes the choice

以使大家感到安全和歸屬感，

to put the safety and lives

就會發生很棒的事情。

of the people inside the organization first,

我搭飛機的時候，

to sacrifice their comforts and sacrifice

親眼目睹這麼一件事：

the tangible results, so that the people remain

一名乘客在被叫到號碼前 就企圖登上飛機，

and feel safe and feel like they belong,

我看著登機門的地勤人員，

remarkable things happen.

待這男人像是他犯了法，

I was flying on a trip,

像罪犯一樣。

and I was witness to an incident

他被衝著叫喊，

where a passenger attempted to board

就因為他太快登機。

before their number was called,

於是我說了些話。

and I watched the gate agent

我說：「為什麼你 非得把我們當作牲畜？

treat this man like he had broken the law,

為什麼不能把我們當人看？」

like a criminal.

而她確切是這麼回答，

He was yelled at for attempting to board

她說：「先生， 如果我不遵守規定，

one group too soon.

我可能會惹上麻煩或失去工作。」

So I said something.

她再再告訴我的是

I said, "Why do you have treat us like cattle?

她缺乏安全感。

Why can't you treat us like human beings?"

她再再告訴我的是

And this is exactly what she said to me.

她並不信任她的領導者。

She said, "Sir, if I don't follow the rules,

我們喜歡搭西南航空的原因，

I could get in trouble or lose my job."

並不是因為他們 必然聘請更好的員工，

All she was telling me

而是因為他們 不會害怕他們的領導者。

is that she doesn't feel safe.

你要知道，如果狀況不對，

All she was telling me is that

我們就被迫耗費時間和精力

she doesn't trust her leaders.

去保護自己不受彼此傷害！

The reason we like flying Southwest Airlines

這從根本上使組織弱化。

is not because they necessarily hire better people.

當我們在組織裡感到安全，

It's because they don't fear their leaders.

自然就會把才能和實力結合，

You see, if the conditions are wrong,

不屈不撓地

we are forced to expend our own time and energy

面對外界危險，

to protect ourselves from each other,

並把握各式各樣的機遇。

and that inherently weakens the organization.

最貼切的比喻是，

When we feel safe inside the organization,

優秀的領導者要像為人雙親。

we will naturally combine our talents

如果你想一下 一個優秀的雙親是什麼樣的，

and our strengths and work tirelessly

你想要什麼？怎樣才能 成為優秀的雙親？

to face the dangers outside

我們希望給孩子們 各種機會、教育，

and seize the opportunities.

必要時管教他們，

The closest analogy I can give

使他們成長

to what a great leader is, is like being a parent.

並實現比我們更多的成就。

If you think about what being a great parent is,

偉大領袖的想法完全一致。

what do you want? What makes a great parent?

他們要給追隨者提供機會、

We want to give our child opportunities,

教育，必要時管教他們，

education, discipline them when necessary,

建立他們的自信心， 給他們嘗試和失敗的機會，

all so that they can grow up and achieve more

使他們能夠做得更多，

than we could for ourselves.

以至於超出我們想像。

Great leaders want exactly the same thing.

查理．金是 Next Jump 的執行長，

They want to provide their people opportunity,

這家科技公司位於紐約市。

education, discipline when necessary,

他提出一個論點：

build their self-confidence, give them the opportunity to try and fail,

如果你家庭遭遇困難，

all so that they could achieve more

你會考慮裁掉一個孩子嗎？

than we could ever imagine for ourselves.

我們絕不會這麼做。

Charlie Kim, who's the CEO of a company called Next Jump

那我們為什麼考慮裁掉

in New York City, a tech company,

公司的員工呢？

he makes the point that

查理實施了一項

if you had hard times in your family,

終身僱用的政策，

would you ever consider laying off one of your children?

如果 Next Jump 聘了你，

We would never do it.

你就不會因為績效問題 而遭到解僱，

Then why do we consider laying off people

事實上，當你遇到問題時，

inside our organization?

他們會指導你、提供支持，

Charlie implemented a policy

如我們待自己孩子，

of lifetime employment.

即使他成績不理想。

If you get a job at Next Jump,

這完全相反。

you cannot get fired for performance issues.

這就是為何這麼多人

In fact, if you have issues,

深惡痛絕

they will coach you and they will give you support,

那些銀行執行長，

just like we would with one of our children

及其不相稱的薪資與獎金結構。

who happens to come home with a C from school.

這和表面數字無關。

It's the complete opposite.

這是因為他們違背了 領導的根本定義，

This is the reason so many people

這是因為他們已違反了 這份深植的社會契約。

have such a visceral hatred, anger,

我們知道，他們容許 員工權益被犧牲，

at some of these banking CEOs

以保護自身利益，

with their disproportionate salaries and bonus structures.

或更糟的是， 他們犧牲員工權益，

It's not the numbers.

以保護自身利益。

It's that they have violated the very definition of leadership.

我們因此憤怒， 而不是數字。

They have violated this deep-seated social contract.

如果我們給甘地 1.5 億 獎金，會犯眾怒嗎？

We know that they allowed their people

給德蕾莎修女 2.5 億獎金？

to be sacrificed so they could protect their own interests,

對此我們有爭議嗎？ 完全沒有。

or worse, they sacrificed their people

完全沒有。

to protect their own interests.

偉大的領袖絕不會犧牲大家

This is what so offends us, not the numbers.

以獲得利益。

Would anybody be offended if we gave

他們會先犧牲利益，

a $150 million bonus to Gandhi?

以挽救大家。

How about a $250 million bonus to Mother Teresa?

鮑勃．查普曼經營一間

Do we have an issue with that? None at all.

位於中西部的大型製造公司

None at all.

叫 Barry-Wehmiller，

Great leaders would never sacrifice

在 2008 年受經濟衰退衝擊，

the people to save the numbers.

他們突然失去了 30% 的訂單。

They would sooner sacrifice the numbers

對一個大製造商來說，

to save the people.

這是件大事，

Bob Chapman, who runs

他們無法再負擔 這樣的人力成本，

a large manufacturing company in the Midwest

他們需要省下一千萬美金，

called Barry-Wehmiller,

就像如今許多公司一樣，

in 2008 was hit very hard by the recession,

董事會聚集在一起 召開會議商討裁員，

and they lost 30 percent of their orders overnight.

然而鮑勃拒絕裁員。

Now in a large manufacturing company,

鮑勃並不相信「人頭」，

this is a big deal,

鮑勃在意的是「人心」，

and they could no longer afford their labor pool.

而「人心」不是那種 可以隨意縮減的東西。

They needed to save 10 million dollars,

於是他們想出一個休假計劃，

so, like so many companies today,

由秘書到執行長，

the board got together and discussed layoffs.

每位員工都必須休四星期無薪假，

And Bob refused.

他們可以在任何時間休假，

You see, Bob doesn't believe in head counts.

也無須連續休假。

Bob believes in heart counts,

但重要的是， 鮑勃如何宣布此計劃。

and it's much more difficult to simply reduce

他說，我們所有人都受一點苦，

the heart count.

會比由任何一個人 承受所有苦來得好。

And so they came up with a furlough program.

員工士氣不降反升。

Every employee, from secretary to CEO,

他們節省了二千萬美金，

was required to take four weeks of unpaid vacation.

而最重要的是，正如預期，

They could take it any time they wanted,

當大家感到安全， 感受到領導者的保護，

and they did not have to take it consecutively.

自然反應就是信任和合作，

But it was how Bob announced the program

這是自發的，沒有人預料到，

that mattered so much.

大家開始互相交換，

He said, it's better that we should all suffer a little

能夠承擔起較多的

than any of us should have to suffer a lot,

就跟能承擔起較少的交換。

and morale went up.

有人放假五星期，

They saved 20 million dollars,

有人就可以放假三星期。

and most importantly, as would be expected,

領導是一項選擇，和職位無關。

when the people feel safe and protected by the leadership in the organization,

我認識很多組織裡的高層，

the natural reaction is to trust and cooperate.

他們絕對不是一位領袖。

And quite spontaneously, nobody expected,

他們是當權者， 我們聽他們的，

people started trading with each other.

因為他們的職權高於我們，

Those who could afford it more

但我們不會追隨他們。

would trade with those who could afford it less.

我認識很多位於

People would take five weeks

組織基層的人們，

so that somebody else only had to take three.

他們無權無勢，

Leadership is a choice. It is not a rank.

但絕對是一位領袖，

I know many people at the seniormost

因為他們選擇照顧

levels of organizations

他們身邊所有的人。

who are absolutely not leaders.