ted英语演讲双语

Ihave spent the last years, trying to resolve two enigmas: why is productivity so disappointing in all the companies where I work? I have worked with more than 500 companies. Despite all the technological advance – computers, IT, communications, telecommunications, the internet. Enigma number two: why is there so little engagement at work? Why do people feel so miserable, even actively disengaged? Disengaged their colleagues. Acting against the interest of their company. Despite all the affiliation events, the celebration, the people initiatives, the leadership development programs to train managers on how to better motivate their teams. At the beginning, I thought there was a chicken and egg issue: because people are less engaged, they are less productive. Or vice versa, because they are less productive, we put more pressure and they are less engaged. But as we were doing our analysis we realized that there was a common root cause to these two issues that relates, in fact, to the basic pillars of management. The way we organize is based on two pillars. The hard—structure, processes, systems. The soft—feeling, sentiments, interpersonal relationship, traits, personality. And whenever a company reorganizes, restructures, reengineers, goes through a cultural transformation program, it chooses these two pillars. Now we try to refine them, we try to combine them. The real issue is – and this is the answer to the two enigmas – these pillar are obsolete. Everything you read in business books is based either two of the other or their combine. They are obsolete. How do they work when you try to use these approaches in front of the new complexity of business? The hard approach, basically is that you start from strategy, requirement, structure, processes, systems, KPIs, scorecards, committees, headquarters, hubs, clusters, you name it. I forgot all the metrics, incentives, committees, middle offices and interfaces. What happens basically on the left, you have more complexity, the new complexity of business. We need quality, cost, reliability, speed. And every time there is a new requirement, we use the same approach. We create dedicated structure processed systems, basically to deal with the new complexity of business. The hard approach creates just complicatedness in the organization. Let’s take an example. An automotive company, the engineering division is a five-dimensional matrix. If you open any cell of the matrix, you find another 20-dimensional matrix. You have Mr. Noise, Mr. Petrol Consumption, Mr. Anti-Collision Propertise. For any new requirement, you have a dedicated function in charge of aligning engineers against the new requirement. What happens when the new requirement emerges? Some years ago, a new requirement appeared on the marketplace: the length of the warranty period. So therefore the requirement is repairability, making cars easy to repair. Otherwise when you bring the car to the garage to fix the light, if you have to remove the engine to access the lights, the car will have to stay one week in the garage instead of two hours, and the warranty budget will explode. So, what was the solution using the hard approach? If repairability is the rew requirement, the solution is to create a new function, Mr. Repairability. And Mr. Repairability creates the repairability process. With a repairability scorecard, with a repairability metric and eventually repairability incentive.That came on top of 25 other KPIs. What percentage of these people is variable compensation? Twenty percent at most, divided by 26 KPIs, repairability makes a difference of 0.8 percent. What difference did it make in their action, their choices to simplify? Zero. But what occurs for zero impact? Mr. Repairability, process, scorecard, evaluation, coordination with the 25 other coordinators to have zero impact. Now, in front of the new complexity of business, the only solution is not drawing box es with reporting lines. It is basically the interplay. How the parts work together. The connection, the interaction, the synapse. It is not skeleton of boxes, it is the nervous system of adaptiveness and intelligence. You know, you could call it cooperation, basically. Whenever people cooperate, they use less resources. In everything. You know, the repairability issue is a cooperation problem. When you design cars, please take into account the need of those who will repair the cars in the after sales garage. When we don’t cooperate we need more time, more equipment, more system, more teams. We need – when procurement, supply chain, manufacturing don’t cooperate we need more stock, more investories, more working capital. Who will pay for that? Shareholder? Customers? No, they will refuse. So who is left? The employees, who have tocompensate through their super individual efforts for the lack of cooperation. Stress, burnout, they are overwhelmed, accidents. No wonder they disengage. How do the hard and the soft try to foster cooperation? The hard: in banks, when there is problem between the back office and the front office, they don’t cooperate. What is the solution? They create a middle office. What happens one years later? Instead of one problem between the back and front, now have to problems. Between the back and the middle and between the middle and the front. Plus I have to pay for the middle office. The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton. The soft approach: to make people cooperate, we need to make then like each other. Improve interpersonal feelings, the more people laike each other, the more they will cooperate. It is totally worng. It even counterproductive. Look, at home I have two TVs. Why? Precisely not to have to cooperate with my wife. Not to have to impose tradeoffs to my wife. And why I try not to impose tradeoffs to my wife is precisely because I love my wife. If I didn’t love my wife, one TV would be enough: you will watch my favorite football game, if you are not happy, how is the book or the door? The more we like each other, the more we avoid the real cooperation that would strain our relationships by imposing tough tradeoffs. And we go for a second TV or we escalate the decision above for arbitration. Definitely, these approaches are obsolete. To deal with complexity, to enhance nervous system, we have created what we call the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. Simple rule number one: understand what others do. What is their real work? We need go beyond the boxes, the job description, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content. Me, designer, if I put a wire here, I know that it will mean that we will have to remove the engine to access the lights. Second, you need to reinforce integrators.

TED英语演讲稿优秀范文五篇

演讲稿具有逻辑严密，态度明确，观点鲜明的.特点。在不断进步的社会中，接触并使用演讲稿的人越来越多，大家知道演讲稿的格式吗？以下是我为大家收集的TED英语演讲稿优秀范文五篇，希望对大家有所帮助。

In 20x — not so long ago — a professor who was then at Columbia University took that case and made it [Howard] Roizen. And he gave the case out, both of them, to two groups of students. He changed exactly one word: "Heidi" to "Howard." But that one word made a really big difference. He then surveyed the students, and the good news was the students, both men and women, thought Heidi and Howard were equally competent, and that's good.The bad news was that everyone liked Howard. He's a great guy. You want to work for him. You want to spend the day fishing with him. But Heidi? Not so sure. She's a little out for herself. She's a little political.You're not sure you'd want to work for her. This is the complication. We have to tell our daughters and our colleagues, we have to tell ourselves to believe we got the A, to reach for the promotion, to sit at the table, and we have to do it in a world where, for them, there are sacrifices they will make for that, even though for their brothers, there are not. The saddest thing about all of this is that it's really hard to remember this. And I'm about to tell a story which is truly embarrassing for me, but I think important.

Why does this matter? Boy, it matters a lot. Because no one gets to the corner office by sitting on the side, not at the table, and no one gets the promotion if they don't think they deserve their success, or they don't even understand their own success.I wish the answer were easy. I wish I could go tell all the young women I work for, these fabulous women,"Believe in yourself and negotiate for yourself. Own your own success." I wish I could tell that to my daughter. But it's not that simple. Because what the data shows, above all else, is one thing, which is that success and likeability are positively correlated for men and negatively correlated for women. And everyone's nodding, because we all know this to be true.There's a really good study that shows this really well. There's a famous Harvard Business School studyon a woman named Heidi Roizen. And she's an operator in a company in Silicon Valley, and she uses her contacts to become a very successful venture capitalist.

I gave this talk at Facebook not so long ago to about 100 employees, and a couple hours later, there was a young woman who works there sitting outside my little desk, and she wanted to talk to me. I said, okay, and she sat down, and we talked. And she said, "I learned something today. I learned that I need to keep my hand up." "What do you mean?"She said, "You're giving this talk, and you said you would take two more questions. I had my hand up with many other people, and you took two more questions. I put my hand down, and I noticed all the women did the same, and then you took more questions, only from the men." And I thought to myself,"Wow, if it's me — who cares about this, obviously — giving this talk — and during this talk.

I can't even notice that the men's hands are still raised, and the women's hands are still raised, how good are we as managers of our companies and our organizations at seeing that the men are reaching for opportunitiesmore than women?" We've got to get women to sit at the table.Message number two: Make your partner a real partner. I've become convinced that we've made more progress in the workforce than we have in the home. The data shows this very clearly. If a woman and a man work full-time and have a child, the woman does twice the amount of housework the man does, and the woman does three times the amount of childcare the man does. So she's got three jobs or two jobs, and he's got one. Who do you think drops out when someone needs to be home more? The causes of this are really complicated, and I don't have time to go into them. And I don't think Sunday football-watching and general laziness is the cause.

The problem with these stories is that they show what the data shows: women systematically underestimate their own abilities. If you test men and women, and you ask them questions on totally objective criteria like GPAs, men get it wrong slightly high, and women get it wrong slightly low. Women do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce. A study in the last two years of people entering the workforce out of college showed that 57 percent of boys entering, or men, I guess, are negotiating their first salary, and only seven percent of women. And most importantly, men attribute their success to themselves, and women attribute it to other external factors. If you ask men why they did a good job,they'll say, "I'm awesome. Obviously. Why are you even asking?" If you ask women why they did a good job, what they'll say is someone helped them, they got lucky, they worked really hard.