TED Talk：Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action 中文翻譯

Simon Sinek: How great leaders inspire action

How do you explain when thing don't go as we assume?

當事情無法依照你預設的想法執行時，你要如何去解釋？

Or better, how do you explain when others are able to achieve things that seem to defy all of the assumptions?

或更好的，你要如何解釋，當別人能夠完成這些所預定的事情呢?

For example: Why is Apple so innovative? Year after year, after year, they're more innovative than all their competition

舉例來說：為什麼蘋果可以如此創新？一年又一年過去，它們仍然要比其他競爭者要更創新。

And yet, they're just a computer company. They're just like everyone else

然而，它們不過就是一間電腦公司，它們就像其他的公司是一樣的

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 somthing different?

它們有同樣的天分，同樣的機構，同樣的顧客，同樣的媒體。但是為什麼他們可以如此不一樣？

Why is it that Martin Luther King led the Civil Right Movement? He wasn't the only man who suffered in pre-civil rights America, and he certanily wasn't the only great orator of the day 

為什麼馬丁路達皇帝可以帶領民權運動？他絕對不是唯一個承受美國民權思想的人，他也絕對不是唯一個個偉大的演說家

Why him? and why is the Wright brothers were able to figure out controlled, powered man flight when there were certainly other theams who were better qualified, better funded

為什麼是他？又為什麼布萊特兄弟能夠想出人類飛行的方法，當其他的團隊顯然更有品質，也更有資金的時候。

and they didn't achievent power man flight, and the Wright brothers beat them to it. There's something else at play here

他們並沒有達成人類飛行的成就，布萊特兄弟打敗了他們，這裡有一些其他的因素

About three and a half year ago, I made a discovery. And this discovery profundly changed my view on how I thought the world worked, and it even profoundly changed way in which I operate in it.

大約在三年半前，我做了一個研究，這個研究深深的改變了我對世界運行的觀點，它甚至深深改變了我操作的方式。

As it turns out, there's a pattern. As it turns out,  all the great inspiring leaders and organization in the world, whether Apple and Martin Luther King or the Wright brothers , they all think, act and communicaition 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.

他們有一個共同的現象，這世上所有偉大的領導者以及組織，無論是蘋果或是馬丁路德皇帝，或是萊特兄弟，他們所有的思想、行動，以及溝通都使用相同正確的方法。並且這些完全和其他人士相對的，我過去所做的就是要解開這些顯然這可能是世界上最簡單的想法，我把它稱為黃金循環。

Why? How? What? This little idea explans why some organization and leaders are able to inspire where aren't. Let me define the terms really quickly. Every single person, every single organization on the planet know what they do, 100 percent.

為什麼？如何？什麼？這些小想法解釋了為什麼一些組織和領導者能夠去激勵人，其他的則無法。讓我很快的定義這個術語。每單一個人，每一個單一組織，在這個星球上100%都知道他們在做什麼。

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 organization know why they do what they do.

一些則知道他們如何做，無論你稱之為主張差異化的價值，或是你在歷程中的所有權，或是你的USP。但是非常、非常少的人或組織知道為什麼他們要做他們正在做的事情。

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 morining?

這個為什麼我並不是意指要製造利潤。那是指結果，永遠都是指結果。我在這邊的為什麼所指的是：你的目的是什麼？你的原因什麼？你的信念是什麼？你的組織的出口是什麼？為什麼妳每天早上要起床？

And why should anyone care? As a result, the way we think, we act, we communication is from the outside in, it's obvious. We go from the clearest thing to the fuzziest thing. But the inspire leaders and the inspire organizations - - regardless of the size, regardless of the industry -- all think,  act and communicate from the inside out.

為什麼每一個人都應該要關心？視其結果，我們思考的方式，我們的行動，我們的溝通顯然都是來自於外面再到裡面。我們從最清楚的事到最模糊的事。但可以激發人的領導者及組織，無論規模，無論產業，他們的思考、行動，以及溝通方式都是由裡到外。

Let me give you an example. I use apple because they're esay 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 beautiful designed, simple to use and user friendly. Want to buy one?" "Meh." That's how most of us communicate.

讓我為你舉一個例子。我使用蘋果是因為很簡單易懂，且每個人都拿著它。假如蘋果向其他人一樣，營銷訊息聽起來像是：我們製作了偉大的電腦，有著美麗的設計，簡單且親切的使用者介面。你要買一台嗎？那就是我們最常使用的溝通技巧。

That's how most marketing and sales are done, that's how we communicate interpersonally. We say what we do, we say how we are different or 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. Here's our new car: It gets great gas mileage, it has leather seats. But it's uninspiring.

那就是大多營銷及銷售所做的，那就是我們如何做的人際溝通。我們說我們做了什麼，我們說我們有什麼不同或是更好的地方，我們預期某些行為，一個購買、一個投票，或是一些像這些的事情。這是我們的新公司：我們對顧客有最好的律師，我們永遠為我們的顧客表現。這是我們的新車：它在油耗的表現非常好，它有著真皮座椅。但這些是無法鼓舞人心的。

Here's how Apple acutally commnuicates. "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 and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one? "

以下是蘋果真正所做的溝通。"我們所有所做的，我們相信挑戰持續挑戰現狀。我們相信要有不同的思考模式。我們挑戰現狀的方法就是讓我們的產品用美麗的方式來設計，並且簡單易於使用。我們單純的想要製造偉大的電腦，你想要買一台嗎？

Totally different, right? You're ready to buy a computer from me. I just reversed 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.

完全不同對嗎？你已經準備好為我買一台了。我只是轉換了訊息的順序。這證明了人們不會因為你做了什麼而買；人們會為了你為什麼做而買。

This explains why every single person in the room is perfectly comfortable buying a computer from Apple. But we're also perfectly comfortable buying MP3 player from Apple, or a phone from Apple, or a DVR from Apple. As I said before, Apple's just a computer company. Nothing distinguishes them structurally from any of their competitors. Their competitors are equally qualified to make all of these products. In face, they tried. A few year 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.

這解釋了為什麼每一個在這個房間中的人都會完美舒適的買了蘋果的電腦。同樣的我們也完美舒適的從蘋果買了MP3播放器，或是蘋果的手機，或是蘋果的DVR。就像我之前所書的，蘋果也就只是一間電腦公司。他們的結構和其他的競爭者並沒有什麼不同。它們的競爭者有製造其他的產品有著相同的品質。事實上，從幾年前它們就開始嘗試，Gatway推出了平板電視。它們絕對有資格製造平板電視，它們也的確在幾年就製造了平板電視，但是沒有人買一台。

 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.

Dell推出了MP3播放器和PDA，它們製造了非常好的品質的產品，並且它們可以製造完美絕佳設計的產品，但同樣沒有人買他們的產品。

 In fact, talking about it now, we can't even imagine buying a MP3 player from Dell. Why would you buy one 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 be 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:

事實上，直到今日我們甚至無法想像會去買Dell的MP3或是PDA。為什麼我們會從電腦公司買產品？但我們現在每天都在做。人們不會去買你做了什麼；他們會去買你為什麼做這個產品。目標不是要讓每個人需要你有的東西。目標生意應該是讓人們相信你所相信的。下面是最棒的部分：

None of what I'm telling you is my opinion. It's all grounded in the tenets of biology. Not psycology, biology. If you look at a cross-section the human brain, from the top down, 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 us feelings, like trust and loyalty. It's also responsible for all human behavior, all decision-making, and it has no capacity for language.

我正在告訴你的是我的意見。這一切都是基於生物學原理。不是心理學，是生物學。假如你能夠看人類腦袋的橫截面，從上而下，人類的腦袋的確被分成三個主要部分，這是和黃金循環式息息相關的。我們最新的腦袋，我們的新皮層，對應於"什麼"階層。新皮層負責我們所有理性和分析性的思維想法及語言。中間兩個部分則組成我們的大腦邊緣系統，並且我們的大腦邊緣系統是負責我們所有個感覺，像是我們的信念及忠誠。它同樣也負責我們所有人類的行為，所有決策，以及它有非語言的能力。

In other words, when we communicate on the outside in, yes, people can understand vast amounts of complicated informaiton like features and benefits and facts and figures. It just doesn't drive behavior. When we 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.

換句話書，當我們從外到裡的溝通，是的，人們可以瞭解大量的複雜資訊，像是特點、優勢、事實，以及人物，只是無法驅動行為。當我們從裡到外溝通時，我們直接對腦袋控制行為的部分說話，接著我們允許人們去理解我們說的話做的有形的事。

This is where gut decisions come from. 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."

這裡就是我們做決定的地方。有些時候你可以給一些人事實及人物，然後他人會說："我知道所有你說的事實及細節，但就是感覺不太對。

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.

為什麼我們使用那個動詞。"感覺"不太對？因為控制決定的腦袋的部分並不是控制語言的部分。

 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 soul.

最好的鼓起就是："我不知道，就是感覺不大對" 或者有些時候你會說引領你的心及靈魂。

 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.

我厭惡去打破你的想法，那些並不是身體其他的部位來控制你的行為。所有都是發生在你腦袋的邊緣，腦袋的部分控制決策而不是語言。

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.

但是假如你不知道為什麼你要做你正在做的事，人們回應你為什麼你要做你正在做的事。然後你要如何讓人們來對你投票，或是向你買東西，又或者更重要的，對你效忠並要成為你正在做的事的一部分。

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.

目標並不只因為你有什麼東西，所以將需求兜售給人；目標應該因為你相信什麼，所以將你所相信的賣給人。目標並不只是雇用需要工作的人；應該是要雇用相信你所相信的信念的人。

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 they believe what you believe, they'll work for you with blood and sweat and tears. Nowhere else is there a better example than with the Wright brothers.

我總是這樣說，你知道的，假如你只是因為他們可以做一項工作而雇用人，他們將為你的金錢而工作，但是假如他們可以相信你所相信的，他們將與你一同拚死命地工作。最好的例子就是萊特兄弟。

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.

大部分的人並不認識山姆爾皮爾朋蘭格利，回到20世紀早期，追求飛行動力的人每天都像繁星依樣多。每個人都想嘗試看看。山姆爾也曾經嘗試，我們認為成功的祕訣。

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.

即使到了現在，當你問人："為什麼你的產品或公司會失敗？" 人們總是回答同樣的三件事情：資本不足、錯誤的人、糟糕的市場狀況。

 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.

總是同樣的三件事情，所以讓我們來探索一下。戰爭部門給了山姆爾五萬塊錢來讓他搞清楚飛行機器。金錢並不是問題，他在哈佛有屬於他的位子，且他在史密森工作，有著非常好的連結性；他在當時認識所有有著偉大想法的人。

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?

他用金錢雇用最好的想法，且他的市場條件都非常出色。紐約時報無時無刻都跟著他，每個人都相信他。然而現在為何我們沒有人聽過山姆爾？

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.

在幾百英里以外的美國俄亥俄州戴頓，奧維爾和威爾伯 懷特，他們沒有任何一個所謂成功的要件。

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.

他們沒有錢；他們用他們腳踏車店的收益來支付他們的夢想；萊特兄弟團隊中的人沒有一個是大學畢業生，甚至奧維爾和威爾伯也不是；紐約時代雜誌從來沒有跟隨過他們。

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.

不同的點在於，奧維爾及威爾伯被一個原因、一個目的，以及一個信念所驅動。他們相信若他們能搞清楚飛行機器，他們將能夠改變這個世界。

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.

山姆爾就不同了，他用成為有錢人，他要出名。他追求的是結果。他所追求的是要發財。

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.

結果你看發生了什麼。相信萊特兄弟的夢想的人，用鮮血、汗水，以及淚水與他們一同工作。而其他的人則只為了薪水而工作。

 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 supper.

他們說了一個故事，每當萊特兄弟出去時，他們不得不採取五套配件，因為不知有多少次在晚餐前他們就崩潰了。

And, eventually, on December 17th, 1903, the Wright brothers took flight, and no one was there to even experience it.

到了最後，1903年12月17日，萊特兄弟能夠飛翔了，其他人完全無法體驗到。

We found out about it a few days later. And further proof that Langley was motivated by the wrong thing:

我們發現在數天後。進一步證明藍格利藉由錯誤的事來促進動機：

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.

當萊特兄弟能夠飛行後，他放棄了。他當時可以說："這真是一個令人驚奇的發現，大夥們，我可以提升你們的科技" 但是他沒有這樣做。他不是第一個，他沒有辦法發財，他沒有辦法得到名聲，所以他放棄了。

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it. If you talk about what you believe, you will attract those who believe what you believe.

人們不會買你做什麼；他們會買你為什做。假如你談到你的信念是什麼，你將能夠吸引那些相信你的信念的人。

But why is it important to attract those who believe what you believe? Something called the law of diffusion of innovation, if you don't know the law, you know the terminology.

但是為什麼吸引那些相信你信念的人是如此重要呢？有些時候我們將他稱為創新擴散定律，假如你不相信這個定律，你知道這個術語。

The first 2.5% of our population are our innovators. The next 13.5% of our population are our early adopters.

首先我們人口中有2.5%的人是創新者。接下來有13.5%的人是嘗鮮者。

The next 34% are your early majority, your late majority and your laggards.

再來34%的人是你的早期大眾，你的後期大眾以及你的落伍者。

The only reason these people buy touch-tone phones is because you can't buy rotary phones anymore.

這些人買案件電話的唯一原因是因為再也無法買到旋轉式電話。

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.

在這個階段我們在不同的時間點坐在不同的位子上，但是創新擴散定律告訴我們假如你要大眾市場成功或是大眾市場可以接受一個想法，這是沒有辦法的，除非你能夠達到15至18百分比的市場滲透率，然後才能達到系統技巧。

 I love asking businesses, "What's your conversion on new business?" They love to tell you, "It's about 10 percent," proudly.

我喜歡問企業："在新企業上你的轉換是什麼？" 他們喜歡告訴你："大概有10%," 很驕傲的說。

Well, you can trip over 10% of the customers. We all have about 10% who just "get it." That's how we describe them, right?

沒錯，你可以讓你的顧客超過10%。若我們只是要得到他，我們都將有10%。事實上那是關於我們要如何描述它，對嗎？

That's like that gut feeling, "Oh, they just get it." The problem is: How do you find the ones that get it before doing business 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"

那就像是直覺一樣，"喔，他們就只是得到它。" 問題在於：你要如何找到一個人在得到它之前能和沒有得到它的人做生意？所以關鍵就在這裡，這個你曾經如此靠近的小差距，就像傑瑞莫爾所說的，"跨越鴻溝"

-- 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.

因為，你看，早期的大眾在某些人首先嘗試之前不會去嘗試。然而這些傢伙，這些創新者以期嘗鮮者，他們能夠舒服的做出直覺性的決定。

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.

他們因著他們的信念舒服的做出值觀性的決定，而不只是因為對產品的需要而做決定。

These are the people who stood in line for six hours to buy an iPhone when they first came out, when you could have bought one off the shelf the next week.

這些就是為什麼人們會在iPhone第一次出來的時候站在外面排隊六小時等候，且明明就可以在一週後就可以在架上買到。

These are the people who spent 40,000 dollars on flat-screen TVs when they first came out, even though the technology was substandard.

這些人願意在平板電視首次出現時花4萬塊在它身上，即使這個科技並不是主要的標準。

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.

總之他們並不是因為科技有多棒而這樣做；他們是為了他們自己而做，是因為他們要當第一個。

People don't buy what you do; they buy why you do it and what you do simply proves what you believe.

人們不會因為你做了什麼而買；他們會因為你為什麼要做，以及因為你如何用簡單的方式來證明你的信念而買。

 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.

事實上，人們會為了證明他們的信念而做事情。人們iPhone排隊排六小時，站在房子外面站了六小時，是因為他們對這個世界的信念，並且他們要世界上的人能夠看見他們：他們想當第一個。人不會因你所做而買；人會因你為何做而買。

So let me give you a famous example, a famous failure and a famous success of the law of diffusion of innovation.

讓我來告訴你有名的例子，關於創新擴散定律的法則的一個著名的失敗例子以及一個著名的成功例子。

First, the famous failure. It's a commercial example. As we said before, the recipe for success is money and the right people and the right market conditions.

首先是著名的失敗。那是關於廣告的例子。就像我們之前說的，成功的食譜就是金錢以及對的人以及正確的市場條件。

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.

你應該要獲得成功。看看TiVo。TiVo在八或九年前出現直到今天，它們是唯一個在市場上的高品質產品，雙手向下，這是毫無爭議的。

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.

它們有著非常好的資金。市場條件非常出色。我的意思是，我們已經把TiVo當作動詞。我在我所有的垃圾時間TiVo東西。

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.

但是TiVo的廣告是失敗的，他們從來沒有賺到錢。而且他們上市之後，他們的股價從30或40開始暴跌，且他們從沒有超過10 的交易。

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.

事實上，我並不認為有超過6的交易，除了幾個小高潮以外。因為你看，當TiVo發表他們的產品，他們告訴我們所有他們有的。他們說："我們能夠暫停電視、跳過廣告、將電視節目倒帶，還能夠依照你平常的習慣將影像錄起來。

" And the cynical majority said, "We don't believe you. We don't need it. We don't like it. You're scaring us."

許多憤青們說："我們不相信你，我們不需要，我們不喜歡，你在嚇唬我們。

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."

他們是怎麼說的，"假如你喜歡完全控制你的生活，男孩，我們有一個產品是為你設計的。它可以暫停電視節目、跳過廣告、將你平常習慣看的節目錄下來等等...

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.

人不會買你做了什麼；他們會買你為什麼做這個東西，以及他們會買你為了證明你的信念所做的簡單服務。

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?

現在讓我來說一個創新擴散定律的成功案例。在1963年夏天，25萬人在華盛頓商場聽金博士的演講，他們並沒有發出邀請函，而且也沒有網站來確定日期，那他們究竟是如何做到的？

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.

事實上金博士並不是美國唯一一個偉大的演說家，他也不是美國唯一一個接受預先公民訓練的人。事實上，他甚至有些觀念是不好的。

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.

但他有一個禮物，就是他不會到處跟人說美國需要改變，他到處跟人說他相信 "我相信，我相信，我相信" 他跟人們說著。

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.

人們相信他所相信的造就了他的事業，他們提出了自己的想法，又再告訴了其他人。他們創造出有架構性的組織讓越來越多人知道這些想法。你瞧，25萬人在正確的日子、正確的時間來聽他的演說。

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.

有多少人是為他來的？沒有人。他們是為了他們自己而來。他們對於美國的信念讓他們做了八小時的車過來，站在華社頓中的八月豔陽中。

It's what they believed, and it wasn't about black versus white: 25% of the audience was white.

這是他們所相信的，這並不是關於黑人和白人的對立：有25%的聽眾是白人。

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 men.

金博士相信在這個世界上有兩個種類的法則：那些藉由掌權者所決定的，以及那些藉由人民所決定的。

And not until all the laws that are made by men are consistent with the laws made by the higher authority will we live in a just world.

除非所有的法律都能夠一致的讓人民來決定，而不是讓掌權者決定，這才是真正公正的世界。

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. By the way, he gave the "I have a dream" speech, not the "I have a plan" speech.

民權運動能夠完美的幫助他的事業生命。我們跟隨這場運動，並不是因為他，而是為了我們自己。順道一提，他演說的標題是 "我有一個夢想" 演說，而不是 "我有一個計畫" 演說。

Listen to politicians now, with their comprehensive 12-point plans. They're not inspiring anybody.

聽聽現在的政治家，隨著他們全面的12點計畫，他們無法鼓動任何人。

Because there are leaders and there are those who lead. Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us.

因為他們是領導者，領導者擁有能力及權力的位置，但是誰能夠鼓舞我們呢？

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.

無論他們式個人或是組織，我們跟隨他們的領導，並不是因為我們必須這樣做，而是因為我們要這樣做。我們跟隨的，並不是為了他們，而是為了我們自己。那些開始思考 "為什麼" 的人，能夠開始有能力去激勵他們身邊的人，或者能夠激勵其他的人。

Thank you very much.

非常謝謝你們。