How great leaders inspire action
一个伟大的领导者如何激发购买力
注解：
Simon Sinek has a simple but powerful model for inspirational leadership all starting with a golden circle and the question "Why?" His examples include Apple, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers -- and as a counterpoint Tivo, which (until a recent court victory that tripled its stock price) appeared to be struggling.
正文： 
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 control-powered, manned 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 t
he 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 si
mplest 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。
sort of中文翻译Let me give you an example. I use Apple because they're easy to understand and everybody gets it. If Apple were like everyon
e 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?" Neh. And that's how most of us communicate. That's how most marketing is done. That's how most sales are 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 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 h
uman 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 you 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 i

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。