Ted英语演讲：伟大的领导者如何激发购买力
TED Technology, Entertainment, Design在英语中的缩写，美国的一家私有非营利机构，以它组织的TED大会著称；将”用思想的力量来改变世界”作为宗旨。事实上，除了科技、娱乐、设计的主题，这场盛会涉及的领域还在不断扩展，展现着涉及几乎各个领域的各种见解，TED的演讲简短且深刻，参加者们称它为 “超级大脑SPA”。
西蒙·斯涅克用一个简单但是震撼的模型来阐释激励人心的领袖力，这个模型的核心是一个“黄金”圆圈，意思是领袖素质的根本来源是回答“为什么？”。他列举了苹果公司、马丁•路德•金还有莱特兄弟成功的例子，同时以蒂沃（Tivo）数码录像机为失败的典型。虽然蒂沃最近打赢一场官司，使得其股价上涨了 3倍，但是它仍在挣扎中。
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.
你怎样解释当一些事情出乎我们意料的进行？或者说，你怎样解释当别人能成就一些看似不符合所有猜想的事？例如：为什么苹果那样的乐于创新？一年一年又一年，他们比他所有的竞争对手都要敢于创新。可是，他只是一家电脑公司。他们就象其他人一样。他们拥有同样的方法吸取同样的人才，拥有同样的代理商，同样的顾问，同样的媒体。但是为什么他们看上去会某些不同之处呢？为什么Martin Luther King领导公民权利运动？他不是唯一一个遭遇非公民待遇的美国公民。他无疑不只仅仅是那个时候伟大的演讲家。为什么是他？为什么怀特兄弟能够发明人造带动力控制的飞行器，而当时其他人无疑拥有更好的资格，更好的基础，但他们却没能完成人造动力飞行器，而怀特兄弟于这点打败了他们。这是因为有其他东西于此发挥作用。
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.
大约三年半之前，我有个新发现，这个发现深深的改变了我的对于我曾经认为这个世界如何工作的观点。并且它甚至深深的改变了我运营事物的方式。如它所示——这是一个图案——如这个所示，这个世界上所有伟大的有感染力的领导者们或者组织，无论是苹果，或者Martin Luther King或者怀特兄弟，他们都确切的以同一种方式思考，行动和交流。但是这个是完全不同于其他人的方式。所有我做的只是把他整理出来。并且这可能是世界上最简单的注意。我把它叫做黄金圆圈。
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.
为何？如何？是何？这个小模型就解释了为什么一些组织和一些领导者们能有能力鼓舞那些其他人不能做到的地方。让我快速的定义这些标题。地上上每个单独的个人，每个单独的组织都百分之百的明白他们在做什么。其中一些知道如何去做，无论你们把他叫做你们的差异价值，或者是你们的独特工序，或者你们的专利。但是很少很少的人们或者组织知道为什么他们做他们所做的。这里的“为何”不是指“为利润”。利润是个结果。他总会是结果。而“为何”我所指的是：你的目的是什么？你的动机是什么？你的信仰是什么？为什么你的组织会出现？你为什么而在早上早起？为什么其他人需要在乎你的这些？那么，结果是，我们思考的方式，我们行动的方式，和我们交流的方式都是由外而内的。这个很明显，我们的方式都是从清晰的事物到模糊的事物。但是激励型领导者们和组织，不论他们的大小，行业，所有的思想，行动和交流都是自内于外的。
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.
让我给你们一个例子。我用苹果公司作为例子是因为他们很容易去理解，并且每个人都能理解。如果苹果公司如同其他公司一样，他们的市场营销信息就可能是这样。“我们做最棒的电脑。设计精美，使用简单，界面友好。你想要买一台吗？”不怎么样吧。这就是我们大部分人的交流方式。这就是大部分的市场营销所采取的。这也是大部分商家所采取的。这也是我们中大部分人于人际间的交流方式。我们说我们做什么工作的，我们说我们是何如与众不同，或者我们是如何的更优秀，然后我们就期待着别人的一些反应，一个购买力，一个投票支持，类似于这些的反应。这是我们新开的律师事务所。我们拥有最好的律师和最大的客户。我们总是能满足我们的客户们的要求。这是我们的新车型。非常省油。舒适的座椅。买我们的车吧。但是这些是毫无鼓舞作用的。
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.
而这是苹果公司事实上如何交流的。“我们做的所有事，我们相信在挑战现状。我们相信用不同的方式思考。而我们挑战现状的方式就是我们开发我们的产品拥有精美的设计，使用简单，并且界面友好。我们让最棒的电脑得以呈现。你想要买一台吗？”完全不一样对吗？你们乐意从我这里购买一台电脑吗。我所做的只是将这些信息的顺序重新排列。这些证明了人们不想从你那里买你所做的产品；人们买的是你的信念和宗旨。人们买的不是你做的什么产品；他们买的是你做这些的信念和宗旨。
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:
这个解释了每个在座的人为什么非常明白的自然的要买一台苹果公司的电脑。但是我们同样完全明白自然的买一个苹果公司的MP3播放器，或者一部苹果电话，或者苹果DVR。但是如我之前所说，苹果公司只是一个计算机公司。从结构上没有什么能把它同其他竞争者区别开。它的竞争者都同样具备制作所有这样产品的资格和能力。而事实上，他们也尝试过，几年前，Gateway公司推出了平板电视机。他们非常能胜任生产制造平板电视。他们已经制造平板显示器许多年了。却没人购买。Dell公司推出了MP3播放器和掌上电脑。他们产品质量好。他们的产品设计同样出众。却没人购买。事实上，现在来谈论这些，我们甚至无法想象买一台Dell的MP3播放器。你为什么会从一家电脑公司买一台MP3播放器呢？但是我们每天都在这么做。人们不会因为你做什么而购买；他们因为你做的产品的信念而购买。目标不是与每个需要你生产的人做生意。目标是与那些与你有共同景愿的人做生意。这就是最精彩的部分。
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.
我所告诉你们的这些都不是我自己的观点。这些观点都能从生物学里找到根源。不是心理学，而是生物学。如果你观察人类大脑的横截面，由上自下观察，你会发现人类大脑实际上是分成三个主要组成部分，而这三个部分和黄金圆圈匹配的非常好。我们最新的脑部，我们管辖智力的脑部，我们的大脑皮层，对应着“是什么”这个圆环。大脑皮层负责我们所有的理智和分析性思维和语言。中间的两个部分组成我们的边缘大脑。我们的边缘大脑负责于我们所有的感受，象信任和忠诚。它还负责所有的人类行为，所有的决策，而他没有语言的能力。
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.
换句话说，当我们由外自内交流时，是的，人们能理解大量的复杂信息，比如特征，优点，事实和图标。但不会激发行为。当我们能由内自外的交流时，我们是直接同大脑负责控制行为的部分进行交流，然后我们通过一些我们所说和所做的实际的事物使得人们理性的思考这些。这就是内心决策的由来。你们知道，有时候你们给某人展示所有的事实和图表，他们会说，“我知道所有的事实和细节说明什么，但是就是感觉有什么不对。”为什么我们会用那个动词，“感觉”不对？因为我们大脑中负责控制决策的部分不负责控制语言。我们只好说，“我不知道，这个就是感觉不对。”或者有时候你们会说你是由你的内心所引导，或者由你的灵魂所引导。我不想对你们把这些观点分得太彻底，这些不是身体的其他部分在控制着你的行为。它全发生在你的边缘大脑里，大脑中控制决策但不负责语言的那部分。
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.
但是如果你不知道你问什么做你所有的，而人们对你所做事物的动机做出反应，然后，你曾如何得到人们对你的投票，或者从你购买某些东西，或者更正要的，忠诚的想要成为你所做事物或事业的一员。再者，目的不是仅仅出售给那些需要你所有用的物品的人们；目的是销售给那些同你拥有共同景愿的人们。目标不是仅仅雇佣那些需要工作的人们；是雇佣那些与你拥有同样景愿的人。我总是说，你们知道，如果你雇佣一个仅仅是因为他们能胜任这项工作的人，他们会为了你的钱而工作，但是如果你雇佣同你拥有共同景愿的人，他们会为你付出血汗，辛酸和泪水般的工作。这一点没有比怀特兄弟故事更好的例子了。
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?
大部分人不知道Samuel Pierpont Langley这个人。然而回到20th世纪初期，投入人造农历飞行器的热情就象如今的网站一样热。每个人都在尝试它。Samuel Pierpont Langley拥有，我们认为，最能成功的要领。我的意思是，即使是现在，你问别人，“为什么你的产品或者你的公司失败了，破裂了？”人们总是给你同样的三个东西以同样的顺序，缺乏资金，用人不善，形势不好。总会是这三个原因，那么让我们仔细观察下。国防部投资Samuel Pierpont Langley 50，000美元作为研发飞行器。资金不是问题。他曾在哈佛工作过，也在Smithsonian工作过，并且他拥有极其宽广的人脉。他认识当时最优秀的人才。因此，他雇佣能用资金吸引到的最优秀的人才。并且当时的形势更是空前的出色。纽约时报时刻跟踪报道他。每个人都支持他。但是为什么你们连听都没听说过他呢？
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.
与此同时，几百英里外的俄亥俄洲Dayton小镇，Orville Wright和Wilbur Wright两兄弟，他们没有任何我们认为是成功的要素的基础。他们没有钱。他们把他们在单车店的收益作为梦想的资金。团队里没有一人受过大学教育，就连两兄弟一样也没有上过大学。没有纽约时报的跟踪报道。不同的是，怀特兄弟是发自内心的想去做这件事。他们相信，如果他们能够制造出飞行机器，那会改变世界前进的脚步。Samuel Pierpont Langley却不同。他想要变得富有，他想要出名。他在追求最终结果。他在追求富裕。看吧，看接下来怎么样。那些相信怀特兄弟梦想的人们，与他俩付出血汗，辛酸与泪水的工作。而另外的只是为了薪水支票而工作。后来流传的故事说，怀特兄弟每次出去工作，都必须带五组零件，因为那是他们回来吃晚饭前将会坠毁的次数。
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.
最后，在1903年12月17日，怀特兄弟成功试飞，甚至没人在场见证这个。我们在数天之后才得知此消息。后来的事情进一步证明了Langley的动机不纯，他在怀特兄弟成功试飞的当天就辞职了。他本应该说：“大家，这是一个伟大的发明，我将会改进你们的技术，”但是他没有。他不是第一个发明飞行器的人，他没能变的富有，他没能成为名人，因此他离开了。
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.
人们不会因为你做的而去购买；他们因为你的信念而去购买。如果你谈论你的信仰是什么，你将会吸引那些与有同样景愿的人。但是为什么吸引那些与你有同样景愿的人很重要呢？有种叫做创新的扩散的定律。如果你们不知道这个定律，你们肯定知道这个说法。首先，人口中2.5%是革新者。剩下的13.5%是我们早期的采纳者。接下来的34%是我们早期接受的大多数对象，是比较晚接受的大多数的行动的。这部分最后行动的人买按键电话的唯一原因是因为他们再也买不到转盘电话了。
(Laughter)
（笑声）
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.
虽然我都在不同的时间不同的地点在这个范围内，但是创新扩散定律告诉我们如果你想要在大众市场让一个点子成功或者被接受，在你获得15%到18%的市场接受度这个转折点前是无法实现的。那时之后市场之门才会得以打开。我喜欢问一些公司，“你的新生意怎么样啊？”他们就喜欢很自豪的告诉你，“哦,大约是10%吧”。你可能抓住10%的客户后就难再上升了。我们都能那10%的客户“了解。”是的，这是我们如何描述他们的。那就象内心的感觉。“哦，他们就只是了解。”问题是：你如何发泄那些在你与之做生意前能意会的，和那些没能意会的？那么就是这点缝隙，你必须填补这个小小的缝隙，如Jeffrey Moore把他叫做“跨越鸿沟”。因为，你知道，早期的大部分在某些人已经作为第一个尝试之前是不会去尝试某些事物的。这些人们，革新者和早期接受者，他们是很乐意尝试这个勇敢的决定。他们更乐意去做这些由他们对这个的信念和世界观的直觉去决定这些，而不是因为产品是什么样的。
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.
这是一批在iPhone刚出来时排队等上六小时去购买的人，而其实你只要一星期后进入商店就能在货架上买到一个。这是一批在平板电脑刚出来时花40，000美元买上一台的人们，尽管当时技术还不够好。顺便说句，他们这么做的原因并不是当时产品技术很好。而是因为他们自己的原因。因为他们想成为第一个体验的人。人们不会因为你的产品而去购买；他们因为你的信念而去购买。你所做的不过是简单的表达了你的信念。事实上，人们会做那些表现他们信念的事。那些在iPhone刚出来的六个小时，去花上六个小时排队的人，是因为他们的世界观，出于别人怎么去想他们。他们作为第一批体验者购买不是因为你的产品，而是你的信念。
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.
那么让我给你们一个很著名的例子，一个关于创新扩散定律的著名的失败和著名的成功的例子。首先是这个著名的失败的例子。是一个商业例子。如我一秒之前所说的，成功的要素是资金，人才，和良好的市场环境。是的，是不是你拥有这些你就应该会成功。看看TiVo（数字视频公司）。自TiVo推出之时，大概是八年，九年以前，一直到如今，他们是唯一的最高品质的产品，这没有任何意义。他们的资金实力非常雄厚。市场环境也极其之好。我的意思是，我们把TiVo作为一个动词。如我经常把东西蒂沃到我那台华纳数码视频录像机里面。
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.
但TiVo却是一个商业上的失败。他们未曾赚一分钱。当他上市时，他们的股票大概在30或40美元，随后就一落千丈，成交价没能超过10美元。事实上，我的印象中他的成交价没有超过6美元，除开一些小的震荡。因为你会发现，当TiVo发行他们的产品时，他们告诉我们的只是他们拥有什么产品。他们说道，“我们的产品能让直播电视得以暂停，跳过商业广告，恢复电视直播，并且不需要你的刻意设置就能记住你的收看习惯。”挑剔的人们就说了，“我们不相信你们。我们不需要你的产品。我们不喜欢他。你在吓唬我们。”但如果他们这样说，“如果你是想要完全掌控你生活方方面面的人，朋友，我们有你想要的产品。它能暂停直播节目，跳过广告，记忆你的收看习惯，等等等等。”人们不会因为你的产品而购买；他们因为你的信念而购买。你所做的仅仅是要证明你的信念而已。
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.
现在让我给你们一个创新扩散定律成功的例子。1963年的夏天，250，000人出现在华盛顿广场前，只为听到Dr. King的演讲。他们未收到任何请帖，也没有网站能确定时间日期。怎么会有这么多人参加的呢？Dr. King不是美国唯一一个伟大的演讲家。他也不是唯一一个在民权法案出台前在美国遭受歧视的美国人。事实上，他的有些想法并不好。但是他有个天赋。他并没有到处给人们说美国需要改变什么。他只是到处告诉人们他相信什么。“我相信。我相信。我相信。”这是他告诉人们的。而那些与他有同样信念的人受到了他的启发，他们也开始把自己的信念告诉别人。有些人就建立起一些组织让这些话传给更多人。就这样，250，000人在那天准确的时间出现了，去聆听他的演讲。
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.
有多少人是因为他而去的呢？没有。他们是为他们自己去的。是他们对美国的一种信念使得他们会坐八小时的公车到达，并且站在八月中旬的烈日下的华盛顿。是因为他们的信念，而不是因为黑人与白人的斗争。25%的听众是白人。Dr. King相信世界上有两种类型的法律，一种是上帝制定的，另一种则是人制定的。在人们制定的所有法律同上帝制定的法律完全一致之前，我们将会生活在一个公正的世界里。而公民权利运动则恰巧一个绝好的机会帮助他把这个信念实现。我们追随的不是他，而是我们自己。顺便说句，他发表了“我有一个梦想”的演讲，而不是“我有一个计划”的演讲。
(Laughter)
（笑声）
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.
听听现在政治家提出的12点的大杂烩计划。他们没能鼓动任何人。因为一些是人当官的，一些是领袖。领导者拥有权利和身份。但是那些具有领袖气质的才能领导我们的，无论是个人或组织，我们追随那些领导者，不是因为我们必须追随，因为我们想要追随。我们追随的那些领导者，不是因为他，而是因为我们自己。也只有那些从 “为什么”这个圆圈出发的人 才有能力 激励周围的人， 或者找到能够激励他们的人。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢大家。
(Applause)
(掌声)