The Puzzle of Motivation
I need to make a confession at the outset here.
我首先需要在这里坦白。
A little over 20 years ago, I did something that I regret,
二十多年前，我做了一件让我后悔的事，
something that I'm not particularly proud of.
我并不感到特别自豪。
Something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know,
从很多方面来说，我希望没有人知道这一点，
but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.
但在这里我觉得有必要透露一下。
in a moment of youthful indiscretion,
在青春年少的不经意间，
I went to law school.
我去了法学院。
In America, law is a professional degree:
在美国，法律是一个专业学位：
after your university degree, you go on to law school.
获得大学学位后，您将继续进入法学院。
When I got to law school,
当我进入法学院时，
I didn't do very well.
我做得不太好。
To put it mildly, I didn't do very well.
温和地说，我做得不太好。
I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class
事实上，我是法学院课程的一部分毕业的
that made the top 90% possible.
这使得前 90% 成为可能。
I never practiced law a day in my life;
我一生中从未从事过法律工作。
I pretty much wasn't allowed to.
我几乎不被允许这样做。
But today, against my better judgment,
但今天，与我更好的判断相反，
against the advice of my own wife,
不顾自己妻子的建议，
I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills --
我想尝试重新掌握一些法律技能——
what's left of those legal skills.
这些法律技能还剩下什么。
I don't want to tell you a story.
我不想给你讲故事。
I want to make a case.
我想做一个案例。
I want to make a hard-headed,
我想做一个顽强的人
dare I say lawyerly case,
我敢说律师案件，
for rethinking how we run our businesses.
重新思考我们如何经营我们的业务。
So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
那么，陪审团的女士们、先生们，
take a look at this.
看看这个。
This is called the candle problem.
这就是所谓的蜡烛问题。
Some of you might know it.
你们中有些人可能知道。
It's created in 1945
它创建于1945年
by a psychologist named Karl Duncker.
由一位名叫卡尔·邓克的心理学家提出。
He created this experiment
他创造了这个实验
that is used in many other experiments in behavioral science.
它被用于行为科学的许多其他实验中。
And here's how it works.
这是它的工作原理。
Suppose I'm the experimenter.
假设我是实验者。
I bring you into a room.
我带你进一个房间。
I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches.
我给你一支蜡烛、一些图钉和一些火柴。
"Your job is to attach the candle to the wall
“你的工作是将蜡烛固定在墙上
so the wax doesn't drip onto the table."
这样蜡就不会滴到桌子上。”
Now what would you do?
现在你会做什么？
Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall.
许多人开始尝试将蜡烛用图钉钉在墙上。
I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here --
我看到有人在这里提出动议——
some people have a great idea where they light the match,
有些人很清楚在哪里点燃火柴，
melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall.
熔化蜡烛的侧面，尝试将其粘附在墙上。
It's an awesome idea.
这是一个很棒的主意。
Doesn't work.
不起作用。
And eventually, after five or ten minutes,
最终，五到十分钟后，
most people figure out the solution,
大多数人都想出了解决办法
which you can see here.
你可以在这里看到。
The key is to overcome what's called functional fixedness.
关键是要克服所谓的功能固定性。
You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks.
你看那个盒子，你只会看到它是大头钉的容器。
But it can also have this other function,
但它还可以有其他功能，
as a platform for the candle.
作为蜡烛的平台。
I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem,
我想告诉你一个使用蜡烛问题的实验，
done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg,
由一位名叫萨姆·格鲁克斯伯格的科学家完成，
who is now at Princeton University, US,
现就读于美国普林斯顿大学，
This shows the power of incentives.
由此可见激励的力量。
He gathered his participants and said:
他召集了参与者并说道：
"I'm going to time you, how quickly you can solve this problem."
“我要给你计时，你能多快解决这个问题。”
To one group he said,
他对一组人说，
"I'm going to time you to establish norms,
“我会安排你建立规范的时间，
averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem."
平均解决此类问题通常需要多长时间。”
To the second group he offered rewards.
他向第二组提供了奖励。
He said, "If you're in the top 25% of the fastest times,
他说，“如果你在最快时间中名列前 25%，
you get five dollars.
你得到五美元。
If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today,
如果你是我们今天测试的所有人中最快的，
you get 20 dollars."
你得到20美元。”
Now this is several years ago, adjusted for inflation,
现在这是几年前，根据通货膨胀进行调整，
it's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work.
对于几分钟的工作来说，这是一笔不错的钱。
It's a nice motivator.
这是一个很好的激励因素。
How much faster did this group solve the problem?
该小组解决问题的速度有多快？
It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.
他们平均多花了三分半钟。
This makes no sense, right?
这没有意义，对吧？
I mean, I'm an American.
我的意思是，我是美国人。
I believe in free markets.
我相信自由市场。
That's not how it's supposed to work, right?
这不是它应该如何工作的，对吧？
If you want people to perform better, you reward them.
如果你希望人们表现得更好，你就奖励他们。
Right?
正确的？
Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show.
奖金、佣金、他们自己的真人秀。
That's how business works.
商业就是这样运作的。
But that's not happening here.
但这里并没有发生这种情况。
You've got an incentive designed
你已经设计了一个激励措施
to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity,
锐化思维并加速创造力，
and it does just the opposite.
但它的作用恰恰相反。
It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.
它使思维迟钝并阻碍创造力。
What's interesting about this experiment
这个实验有什么有趣的地方
is that it's not an aberration.
是它不是一种畸变。
This has been replicated over and over again
这已经被重复了一遍又一遍
for nearly 40 years.
近40年。
These contingent motivators --
这些偶然的激励因素——
if you do this, then you get that --
如果你这样做，那么你就会得到——
work in some circumstances.
在某些情况下工作。
But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work
但对于很多任务来说，它们实际上要么不起作用
or, often, they do harm.
或者，它们常常造成伤害。
This is one of the most robust findings in social science,
这是社会科学中最有力的发现之一，
and also one of the most ignored.
也是最被忽视的之一。
I spent the last couple of years
我在过去的几年里度过了
looking at the science of human motivation,
审视人类动机的科学，
particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators
特别是外部激励因素的动态
and intrinsic motivators.
和内在动机。
And I'm telling you, it's not even close.
我告诉你，这还差得很远。
If you look at the science, there is a mismatch
如果你看看科学，就会发现这是不匹配的
between what science knows
科学知识之间
and what business does.
以及做什么业务。
What's alarming here is that our business operating system --
令人担忧的是我们的业务操作系统——
think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses,
想想我们业务背后的一系列假设和协议，
how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources--
我们如何激励人们，我们如何运用我们的人力资源——
it's built entirely around these extrinsic motivators,
它完全是围绕这些外在激励因素构建的，
around carrots and sticks.
胡萝卜加大棒。
That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks.
对于 20 世纪的许多任务来说，这实际上已经足够了。
But for 21st century tasks,
但对于 21 世纪的任务，
that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach
机械式的奖励和惩罚方法
and often does harm.
并且经常造成伤害。
Glucksberg did another similar experiment,
格鲁克斯伯格做了另一个类似的实验，
he presented the problem in a slightly different way,
他以稍微不同的方式提出了这个问题，
Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table.
将蜡烛固定在墙上，这样蜡就不会滴到桌子上。
Same deal.
同样的交易。
You: we're timing for norms.
你：我们正在制定规范。
You: we're incentivizing.
你：我们正在激励。
What happened this time?
这次发生了什么？
This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt.
这一次，受到激励的小组打败了另一组。
Because when the tacks are out of the box,
因为当图钉从盒子里拿出来时，
it's pretty easy isn't it?
这很容易不是吗？
If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks,
如果-那么奖励对于这类任务非常有效，
where there is a simple set of rules
有一套简单的规则
and a clear destination to go to.
以及一个明确的目的地。
Rewards, by their very nature,
奖励，就其本质而言，
narrow our focus, concentrate the mind;
缩小焦点，集中思想；
that's why they work in so many cases.
这就是为什么它们在很多情况下都有效。
So, for tasks like this,
所以，对于这样的任务，
a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there,
一个狭窄的焦点，你只能看到目标就在那里，
zoom straight ahead to it,
直接放大到它，
they work really well.
他们工作得很好。
But for the real candle problem,
但对于真正的蜡烛问题，
you don't want to be looking like this.
你不想看起来像这样。
The solution is on the periphery.
解决方案就在外围。
You want to be looking around.
你想要四处看看。
That reward actually narrows our focus
这种奖励实际上缩小了我们的注意力
and restricts our possibility.
并限制了我们的可能性。
Let me tell you why this is so important.
让我告诉你为什么这如此重要。
in many parts of Asia,
在亚洲许多地方，
in North America, in Australia,
在北美、在澳大利亚、
white-collar workers are doing less of this kind of work,
白领做这种工作越来越少，
and more of this kind of work.
以及更多此类工作。
That routine, rule-based, left-brain work --
这种例行公事、基于规则的左脑工作——
certain kinds of accounting, financial analysis,
某些类型的会计、财务分析、
computer programming --
计算机编程——
has become fairly easy to outsource,
外包变得相当容易，
fairly easy to automate.
相当容易实现自动化。
Software can do it faster.
软件可以更快地做到这一点。
Low-cost providers can do it cheaper.
低成本提供商可以更便宜地做到这一点。
So what really matters
那么真正重要的是
are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.
是更右脑的创造性、概念性能力。
Think about your own work.
想想你自己的工作。
Think about your own work.
想想你自己的工作。
Are the problems that you face,
您所面临的问题，
or even the problems we've been talking about here,
甚至是我们在这里讨论的问题
do they have a clear set of rules,
他们有一套明确的规则吗
and a single solution?
和单一的解决方案？
No. The rules are mystifying.
不，规则很神秘。
The solution, if it exists at all,
解决方案，如果存在的话，
is surprising and not obvious.
令人惊讶且不明显。
Everybody in this room
这个房间里的每个人
is dealing with their own version of the candle problem.
正在处理他们自己版本的蜡烛问题。
And for candle problems of any kind,
对于任何类型的蜡烛问题，
those if-then rewards,
那些如果-那么的奖励，
the things around which we've built so many of our businesses,
我们围绕这些事物建立了如此多的业务，
And here's the thing.
事情是这样的。
This is not a feeling.
这不是一种感觉。
Okay?
好的？
I'm a lawyer; I don't believe in feelings.
我是一名律师；我不相信感情。
This is not a philosophy.
这不是一种哲学。
I'm an American; I don't believe in philosophy.
我是美国人；我不相信哲学。
or, as we say in my hometown of Washington, D.C.,
或者，正如我们在我的家乡华盛顿特区所说的那样，
Let me give you an example.
让我举个例子。
Let me marshal the evidence here.
让我整理一下这里的证据。
I'm not telling a story, I'm making a case.
我不是在讲故事，我是在讲一个案例。
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence:
陪审团的女士们先生们，一些证据：
Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time,
丹·艾瑞里 (Dan Ariely)，我们这个时代最伟大的经济学家之一，
he and three colleagues did a study of some MIT students.
他和三位同事对麻省理工学院的一些学生进行了一项研究。
They gave these MIT students a bunch of games,
他们给了这些麻省理工学院的学生一堆游戏，
games that involved creativity,
涉及创造力的游戏，
and motor skills, and concentration.
以及运动技能和注意力。
And the offered them, for performance,
为了表现，他们提供了，
three levels of rewards:
三个级别的奖励：
small reward, medium reward, large reward.
小奖励、中奖励、大奖励。
If you do really well you get the large reward, on down.
如果你做得很好，你会得到丰厚的奖励。
As long as the task involved only mechanical skill
只要任务只涉及机械技能
bonuses worked as they would be expected:
奖金按预期发挥作用：
the higher the pay, the better the performance.
工资越高，绩效就越好。
But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill,
但一旦这项任务需要最基本的认知技能
a larger reward led to poorer performance.
更大的奖励会导致更差的表现。
"Let's see if there's any cultural bias here.
“让我们看看这里是否存在任何文化偏见。
Let's go to Madurai, India and test it."
我们去印度马杜赖测试一下吧。”
Standard of living is lower.
生活水平较低。
In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards,
在马杜赖，按照北美标准，奖励是微不足道的，
is more meaningful there.
那里更有意义。
Same deal.
同样的交易。
A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.
一堆游戏，三个级别的奖励。
People offered the medium level of rewards
人们提供了中等水平的奖励
did no better than people offered the small rewards.
并没有比人们提供的小奖励更好。
But this time, people offered the highest rewards,
但这一次，人们给出了最高的奖励，
they did the worst of all.
他们做了最糟糕的事情。
In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments,
在我们通过三个实验检查的九项任务中的八项中，
higher incentives led to worse performance.
更高的激励导致更差的绩效。
Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy going on here?
这是某种敏感的社会主义阴谋吗？
No, these are economists from MIT,
不，这些是麻省理工学院的经济学家，
from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago.
来自卡内基梅隆大学、芝加哥大学。
Do you know who sponsored this research?
你知道谁赞助了这项研究吗？
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.
美国联邦储备银行。
That's the American experience.
这就是美国的经验。
Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics,
让我们穿过池塘去伦敦政治经济学院，
LSE, London School of Economics,
LSE，伦敦政治经济学院，
alma mater of eleven Nobel Laureates in economics.
十一位诺贝尔经济学奖获得者的母校。
Training ground for great economic thinkers
伟大经济思想家的培训基地
like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek,
像乔治·索罗斯和弗里德里希·哈耶克，
economists at LSE looked at 51 studies
伦敦经济学院的经济学家研究了 51 项研究
of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies.
公司内部的绩效工资计划。
Here's what they said:
他们是这样说的：
"We find that financial incentives
“我们发现经济激励
can result in a negative impact on overall performance."
可能会对整体性能产生负面影响。”
There is a mismatch between what science knows
科学知识之间存在不匹配
and what business does.
以及做什么业务。
And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble
当我们站在废墟中时，令我担心的是
of the economic collapse,
经济崩溃的影响，
is that too many organizations are making their decisions,
是有太多的组织在做出决定，
their policies about talent and people,
他们关于人才和人员的政策，
based on assumptions that are outdated,
基于过时的假设，
and rooted more in folklore than in science.
并且更多地植根于民间传说而不是科学。
And if we really want to get out of this economic mess,
如果我们真的想摆脱这场经济混乱
if we really want high performance
如果我们真的想要高性能
on those definitional tasks of the 21st century,
关于 21 世纪的那些定义性任务，
the solution is not to do more of the wrong things,
解决办法就是不要做更多错误的事情
to entice people with a sweeter carrot,
用更甜的胡萝卜来吸引人们，
or threaten them with a sharper stick.
或者用更锋利的棍子威胁他们。
We need a whole new approach.
我们需要一种全新的方法。
The good news is that the scientists
好消息是科学家们
who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach.
那些一直在研究动机的人给了我们这种新方法。
It's built much more around intrinsic motivation.
它更多地围绕内在动机而建立。
Around the desire to do things because they matter,
围绕着因为重要而做事的愿望，
because we like it, they're interesting, or part of something important.
因为我们喜欢它，它们很有趣，或者是重要事物的一部分。
And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses
在我看来，我们企业的新操作系统
revolves around three elements:
围绕三个要素：
autonomy, mastery and purpose.
自主、掌握和目的。
Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives.
自主：指导我们自己生活的冲动。
Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters.
精通：渴望在重要的事情上变得越来越好。
Purpose: the yearning to do what we do
目的：渴望做我们所做的事情
in the service of something larger than ourselves.
为比我们更伟大的事物服务。
These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system
这些是全新操作系统的构建块
I want to talk today only about autonomy.
我今天只想谈谈自治。
In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management.
在20世纪，我们提出了这种管理理念。
Management did not emanate from nature.
管理并非源于自然。
Management is not a tree, it's a television set.
管理不是一棵树，而是一台电视机。
Somebody invented it.
有人发明了它。
It doesn't mean it's going to work forever.
这并不意味着它会永远有效。
Management is great.
管理很棒。
Traditional notions of management are great
传统的管理理念是伟大的
if you want compliance.
如果你想要合规。
But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.
但如果你想要参与，自我指导效果更好。
Some examples of some kind of radical notions of self-direction.
一些自我指导的激进概念的例子。
You don't see a lot of it,
很多你都看不到，
but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on,
但你会看到一些真正有趣的事情正在发生，
what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely --
这意味着给人们足够的、公平的、绝对的报酬——
getting the issue of money off the table,
把金钱问题从桌面上移开，
and then giving people lots of autonomy.
然后给予人们很大的自主权。
How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian?
你们中有多少人听说过 Atlassian 公司？
It looks like less than half.
看起来还不到一半。
Atlassian is an Australian software company.
Atlassian 是一家澳大利亚软件公司。
And they do something incredibly cool.
他们做了一些非常酷的事情。
A few times a year they tell their engineers,
他们每年都会告诉工程师几次，
"Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want,
“在接下来的 24 小时里，做任何你想做的事情，
as long as it's not part of your regular job.
只要它不是您日常工作的一部分。
Work on anything you want."
做任何你想做的事。”
Engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code,
工程师利用这段时间为代码提供了一个很酷的补丁，
come up with an elegant hack.
想出一个优雅的技巧。
Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed
然后他们展示了他们开发的所有东西
to their teammates, to the rest of the company,
对他们的队友，对公司的其他人，
in this wild and woolly all-hands meeting at the end of the day.
在一天结束时举行的这场疯狂而混乱的全体会议上。
Being Australians, everybody has a beer.
作为澳大利亚人，每个人都喝啤酒。
They call them FedEx Days.
他们称之为联邦快递日。
Because you have to deliver something overnight.
因为你必须连夜交付一些东西。
It's pretty; not bad.
很漂亮；不错。
It's a huge trademark violation, but it's pretty clever.
这是一个巨大的商标侵权行为，但它非常聪明。
That one day of intense autonomy
高度自治的那一天
has produced a whole array of software fixes
已经制作了一整套软件修复程序
that might never have existed.
那可能永远不存在。
It's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level
它的效果非常好，Atlassian 将其提升到了一个新的水平
done, famously, at Google --
著名的做法是在谷歌完成的——
where engineers can spend 20% of their time
工程师可以花费 20% 的时间
working on anything they want.
做他们想做的任何事情。
They have autonomy over their time,
他们对自己的时间有自主权
their task, their team, their technique.
他们的任务、他们的团队、他们的技术。
Radical amounts of autonomy.
极大的自主权。
And at Google, as many of you know,
正如你们很多人所知，在谷歌，
about half of the new products in a typical year
一般年份大约有一半的新产品
are birthed during that 20% time:
在那 20% 的时间内出生：
things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.
Gmail、Orkut、Google 新闻等。
Let me give you an even more radical example of it:
让我给你举一个更激进的例子：
something called the Results Only Work Environment (the ROWE),
称为“只注重结果的工作环境”（ROWE），
created by two American consultants,
由两位美国顾问创建，
in place at a dozen companies around North America.
北美各地有十几家公司都有这种服务。
In a ROWE people don't have schedules.
在 ROWE 中，人们没有日程安排。
They show up when they want.
他们会在需要的时候出现。
They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time.
他们不必在特定时间或任何时间出现在办公室。
They just have to get their work done.
他们只需要完成他们的工作。
How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them.
他们如何做、何时做、在哪里做，完全取决于他们。
Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.
在此类环境中召开会议是可选的。
Almost across the board,
几乎全线，
productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up,
生产力提高，员工敬业度提高，
worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.
员工满意度上升，流动率下降。
Autonomy, mastery and purpose,
自主、掌握和目标，
the building blocks of a new way of doing things.
新的做事方式的基石。
Some of you might look at this and say,
你们中有些人可能会说，
"Hmm, that sounds nice, but it's Utopian."
“嗯，这听起来不错，但它是乌托邦式的。”
The mid-1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta.
20 世纪 90 年代中期，微软推出了一本名为 Encarta 的百科全书。
They had deployed all the right incentives,
他们部署了所有正确的激励措施，
They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles.
他们聘请专业人员撰写和编辑数千篇文章。
Well-compensated managers oversaw the whole thing
薪酬丰厚的经理监督整个事情
to make sure it came in on budget and on time.
确保它按预算按时完成。
A few years later, another encyclopedia got started.
几年后，另一部百科全书开始出版。
Different model, right?
不同型号吧？
No one gets paid a cent, or a euro or a yen.
没有人得到一分钱、一欧元或一日元的报酬。
Do it because you like to do it.
做因为你喜欢做。
if you had gone to an economist, anywhere,
如果你去任何地方找经济学家，
"Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia.
“嘿，我有这两种不同的模型来创建百科全书。
If they went head to head, who would win?"
如果他们正面交锋，谁会赢？”
10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist
十年前你不可能找到一个清醒的经济学家
anywhere on planet Earth
地球上的任何地方
who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.
谁会预测维基百科模型。
This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.
这是这两种方法之间的激烈战斗。
This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation, right?
这就是阿里-弗雷泽的动机，对吧？
This is the Thrilla in Manila.
这就是马尼拉的惊险。
Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators.
内在激励因素与外在激励因素。
Autonomy, mastery and purpose,
自主、掌握和目标，
versus carrot and sticks, and who wins?
胡萝卜加大棒，谁赢了？
Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.
淘汰赛中的内在动机、自主性、掌控力和目标。
There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.
科学知识与商业行为之间存在不匹配。
Here is what science knows.
这是科学所知道的。
One: Those 20th century rewards,
一：那些20世纪的奖励，
those motivators we think are a natural part of business,
我们认为这些激励因素是商业的自然组成部分，
do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances.
确实有效，但只在极少数情况下有效。
Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity.
第二：那些“如果-那么”奖励往往会破坏创造力。
Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments,
三：高绩效的秘诀不是奖励和惩罚，
but that unseen intrinsic drive--
但那看不见的内在驱动力——
the drive to do things for their own sake.
为了自己而做事的动力。
The drive to do things cause they matter.
做事的动力，因为它们很重要。
And here's the best part.
这是最好的部分。
We already know this.
我们已经知道这一点了。
The science confirms what we know in our hearts.
科学证实了我们心中所知道的事情。
So, if we repair this mismatch between science and business,
因此，如果我们修复科学与商业之间的这种不匹配，
if we bring our motivation, notions of motivation
如果我们带来我们的动机、动机的概念
into the 21st century,
进入21世纪，
if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology
如果我们克服这种懒惰、危险的意识形态
of carrots and sticks,
胡萝卜加大棒，
we can strengthen our businesses,
我们可以加强我们的业务，
we can solve a lot of those candle problems,
我们可以解决很多蜡烛问题，
we can change the world.
我们可以改变世界。