- Intro -
In every workplace, there are three basic kinds of people: givers, takers and matchers. Organizational psychologist Adam Grant breaks down these workplace personalities and offers simple strategies to promote a culture of generosity and keep self-serving employees from taking more than their share.
在每个职场之中，都有三种类型的人：付出者，获取者，互利者。组织心理学家亚当·格兰特不仅细致分析了这三类人，还提供了简明的策略以帮助营造慷慨付出的组织文化，并防范自私自利的员工不劳而获。
- Audio -
- Transcript -
I want you to look around the room for a minute and try to find the most paranoid person here --
首先，请你们看看周围， 找出最像妄想狂的人，
And then I want you to point at that person for me.
然后帮我把他指出来。
OK, don't actually do it.
好吧，别真这么做。
But, as an organizational psychologist, I spend a lot of time in workplaces, and I find paranoia everywhere. Paranoia is caused by people that I call "takers." Takers are self-serving in their interactions. It's all about what can you do for me. The opposite is a giver. It's somebody who approaches most interactions by asking, "What can I do for you?"
不过，作为一名组织心理学家， 我花了很多时间去研究职场， 结果发现到处都有妄想症。 人为引起的妄想症， 我叫他们“ 获取者”。 获取者在职场互动中， 总是以自利为目的。 他们总是在想“你能为我做什么？” 这些人对立面叫做“付出者”。 他们在职场互动中总是想着： “我能为你做什么？”
I wanted to give you a chance to think about your own style. We all have moments of giving and taking. Your style is how you treat most of the people most of the time, your default. I have a short test you can take to figure out if you're more of a giver or a taker, and you can take it right now.
大家可以想想自己是哪种类型。 我们都有付出和获取的时候。 你的类型取决于 大多数时候你对待大多数人的方式， 也就是你的默认类型。 我这里有个小测试， 看看你们偏向于付出者还是获取者， 现在测试开始！
[The Narcissist Test]
【自恋测试】
[Step 1: Take a moment to think about yourself.]
【第一步：花点时间想想你自己】
[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2, you are not a narcissist.]
【第二步：如果你已经到了这一步， 那么你不是自恋的人】
This is the only thing I will say today that has no data behind it, but I am convinced the longer it takes for you to laugh at this cartoon, the more worried we should be that you're a taker.
这是我今天讲到的唯一 没有数据支撑的东西， 但我觉得， 你在笑之前沉迷于自己的时间越长， 我们就越担心你是获取者。
Of course, not all takers are narcissists. Some are just givers who got burned one too many times. Then there's another kind of taker that we won't be addressing today, and that's called a psychopath.
当然，不是所有获取者都很自恋。 有些是被伤害过太多次的付出者。 还有另一种获取者， 我们今天不作讨论， 那就是精神病患者。
I was curious, though, about how common these extremes are, and so I surveyed over 30,000 people across industries around the world's cultures. And I found that most people are right in the middle between giving and taking.
然而，我很好奇 这种极端的人有多普遍， 于是我研究了三万多人， 他们来自不同的行业， 有着不同的文化背景。 结果我发现大多数人 正好处在付出和获取的中间。
They choose this third style called "matching." If you're a matcher, you try to keep an even balance of give and take: quid pro quo -- I'll do something for you if you do something for me. And that seems like a safe way to live your life. But is it the most effective and productive way to live your life? The answer to that question is a very definitive ... maybe.
他们选择了第三种类型， 叫作“互利者”。 如果你是互利者， 你会力求付出与获取的平衡 等价交换—— 你帮了我，我才会帮你。 这似乎是一种稳妥的生活方式。 但这种生活方式是最高效的吗？ 答案非常非常确定： 可能吧！
I studied dozens of organizations, thousands of people. I had engineers measuring their productivity. I looked at medical students' grades -- even salespeople's revenue.
我研究了许多组织， 成千上万人。 我让工程师们估测自己的工作效率。 我观察了医学生的成绩， 甚至营销人员的销售额。
And, unexpectedly, the worst performers in each of these jobs were the givers. The engineers who got the least work done were the ones who did more favors than they got back. They were so busy doing other people's jobs, they literally ran out of time and energy to get their own work completed. In medical school, the lowest grades belong to the students who agree most strongly with statements like, "I love helping others," which suggests the doctor you ought to trust is the one who came to med school with no desire to help anybody.
出乎意料的是， 上述工作中表现最差的都是付出者。 完成任务最少的工程师， 总是帮别人多，回报却很少。 他们光给别人干活了， 完全没有时间和精力干自己的活。 在医学院，成绩最差的学生 基本都“十分赞同” 类似这样的陈述： “我很乐于助人”。 这说明你得以信赖的医生，在读医学院时 怀揣着“我谁都不帮”的想法。
And then in sales, too, the lowest revenue accrued in the most generous salespeople. I actually reached out to one of those salespeople who had a very high giver score. And I asked him, "Why do you suck at your job --" I didn't ask it that way, but --
在销售中， 最低的销售额来自于 最慷慨的销售人员。 我曾经接触过的其中一个， 他的付出者分数很高。 我问他“你怎么做得这么烂...” 我没敢这么问，但是—
"What's the cost of generosity in sales?" And he said, "Well, I just care so deeply about my customers that I would never sell them one of our crappy products."
“在销售中，慷慨 大方的代价是什么？” 他说，“我太在意我的顾客了， 所以我才不肯把垃圾 产品卖给他们。”
So just out of curiosity, how many of you self-identify more as givers than takers or matchers? Raise your hands. OK, it would have been more before we talked about these data. But actually, it turns out there's a twist here, because givers are often sacrificing themselves, but they make their organizations better. We have a huge body of evidence -- many, many studies looking at the frequency of giving behavior that exists in a team or an organization -- and the more often people are helping and sharing their knowledge and providing mentoring, the better organizations do on every metric we can measure: higher profits, customer satisfaction, employee retention -- even lower operating expenses. So givers spend a lot of time trying to help other people and improve the team, and then, unfortunately, they suffer along the way. I want to talk about what it takes to build cultures where givers actually get to succeed.
所以，只是出于好奇， 你们有多少人，比起获取者和互利者 觉得自己更偏向于“付出者”？ 请举手。 好吧， 我讲这些之前应该人会更多。 但实际上，有一个意外转折， 虽然付出者总是牺牲自己， 但他们让整个组织变得更好了。 我们有大量的证据， 许多关于团队或组织中 “付出”行为频率的研究都说明： 人们越乐于帮助别人、分享知识、 或是提供指导， 整个组织的各项指标都会变好—— 高利润，高顾客满意度， 低员工流失率， 甚至经营成本也会变低。 付出者花了许多时间去帮助别人， 使团队进步， 但不幸的是， 他们却要独自受苦。 因此， 我想聊聊怎样的组织文化 才会让付出者取得成功。
So I wondered, then, if givers are the worst performers, who are the best performers? Let me start with the good news: it's not the takers. Takers tend to rise quickly but also fall quickly in most jobs. And they fall at the hands of matchers. If you're a matcher, you believe in "An eye for an eye" -- a just world. And so when you meet a taker, you feel like it's your mission in life to just punish the hell out of that person.
于是我想知道， 既然付出者的工作表现不好， 那谁的表现最好呢？ 先说好消息： 并不是获取者。 获取者通常在工作中 得道容易，失道也容易。 并且他们一般会栽在互利者手里。 如果你是互利者，你会坚信 “以眼还眼”—一个公平的世界。 当你遇到获取者的时候， 你感觉被赋予了一项使命—— 要把那个获取者整的无法自理。
And that way justice gets served.
于是正义得以伸张。
Well, most people are matchers. And that means if you're a taker, it tends to catch up with you eventually; what goes around will come around. And so the logical conclusion is: it must be the matchers who are the best performers. But they're not. In every job, in every organization I've ever studied, the best results belong to the givers again.
因为大多数人是互利者， 这意味着如果你是获取者， 终有一天会面临正义的审判。 “风水轮流转，你做了什么 总有一天会轮到自己头上。” 所以符合逻辑的结论应该是： 工作表现最好的一定是互利者。 然而事实并非如此。 在我研究的每种职业，每个组织中 工作表现最好的也是付出者。
Take a look at some data I gathered from hundreds of salespeople, tracking their revenue. What you can see is that the givers go to both extremes. They make up the majority of people who bring in the lowest revenue, but also the highest revenue. The same patterns were true for engineers' productivity and medical students' grades. Givers are overrepresented at the bottom and at the top of every success metric that I can track. Which raises the question: How do we create a world where more of these givers get to excel? I want to talk about how to do that, not just in businesses, but also in nonprofits, schools -- even governments. Are you ready?
让我们看看 从几百个销售人员那收集的数据， 他们的销售额。 你们应该能发现， 付出者在两个极端。 在最低销售额的那端， 他们占了绝大多数， 但也同样占据了最高的那端。 同样的规律也适用于 工程师的工作效率 以及医学生的成绩。 从任何一个我可以追踪的指标去看。 付出者显著代表了 最低水平和最高水平， 这又提出了一个问题： 我们应该创造怎样的世界， 能让更多付出者成功呢？ 这个问题不仅仅指企业里 还有非盈利机构，学校里— 甚至包括在政府里。 准备好了吗？
I was going to do it anyway, but I appreciate the enthusiasm.
没准备好我也要讲， 不过还是感谢你们的热情。
The first thing that's really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they're not careful, they burn out. So you have to protect the givers in your midst. And I learned a great lesson about this from Fortune's best networker. It's the guy, not the cat.
第一件事十分关键—— 认识到付出者才是 你最有价值的员工。 但是如果他们自己不留心， 很容易精疲力尽， 所以你不得不保护你们中的付出者。 我是从《财富》评出的 人脉最广的人那学到的。 是这哥们，不是那只猫。
His name is Adam Rifkin. He's a very successful serial entrepreneur who spends a huge amount of his time helping other people. And his secret weapon is the five-minute favor. Adam said, "You don't have to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi to be a giver. You just have to find small ways to add large value to other people's lives." That could be as simple as making an introduction between two people who could benefit from knowing each other. It could be sharing your knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback. Or It might be even something as basic as saying, "You know, I'm going to try and figure out if I can recognize somebody whose work has gone unnoticed." And those five-minute favors are really critical to helping givers set boundaries and protect themselves.
他叫亚当·里夫金。 他是一位非常成功出色的企业家， 同时也花了大量时间去帮助别人。 他的秘密武器是“五分钟小忙”。 亚当说，“想成为付出者， 不是非要像特蕾莎修女 或者甘地那样。 你只需要帮一些给别人的生活 带去巨大的价值的小忙。” 这个可以简单到只是为两人做个介绍 而他们却会因结识彼此而获益。 也可以是分享知识 或是给一点反馈意见。 甚至可以是简单的说这么一句， “唔... 我想试试看我能不能找到那个 做了很多事但却 一直没被注意的人。” 这些“五分钟小忙”对于帮助付出者 划分界限和保护自己十分重要。
