The surprising ingredient that makes businesses work better Marco Alver

For me, it was not being invited
to a friend’s wedding.

At first, I didn’t really mind.

I thought he was having a small reception.

But then I kept meeting people
who were going to the same wedding,

and they weren’t as close
to the groom as I was …

and I felt left out.

That really sucked.

It felt really unfair.

For my daughters, Lipsi
and Greta, it was last week.

They were taking turns
massaging their mom’s back

with a toy for back rubs,

and then one of the girls felt
that the other girl had a longer go.

That’s when I walk into the room

to find Greta in a rage,
shouting, “That’s not fair!”

and Lipsi in tears,

and my wife holding a stopwatch

to make sure that each girl
had precisely one minute on the toy.

So if you’re anything like me or my girls,

the last thing that upset you

probably also had to do with unfairness.

That’s because unfairness
triggers us so strongly

that we can’t think straight.

We become afraid and suspicious.

Our unfairness antennae stick up.

We feel pain, and we walk away.

Unfairness is one of the defining
issues of our society,

it’s one of the root causes
of polarization,

and it’s bad news for business.

At work, unfairness makes people
defensive and disengaged.

A study shows that 70 percent
of workers in the US are disengaged,

and this is costing the companies

550 billion dollars a year every year.

This is, like, half the total
spent on education in the US.

This is the size of the GDP
of a country like Austria.

So removing unfairness
and promoting fairness

should be our priority.

But what does it mean in practice?

Is it about more rules?
Is it about systems?

Is it about equality?

Well, partly, but fairness is more
interesting than rules and equality.

Fairness works in surprising ways.

15 years ago, I left a US investment bank

to join a large Italian
state-owned oil company.

It was a different world.

I thought the key to getting
the best performance

was a risk-reward system

where you could give the high performers
bonuses and promotions

and give the underperformers
something to worry about.

But in this company, we had fixed salaries

and lifelong jobs.

Careers were set,

so my toolkit wasn’t very effective,

and I was frustrated.

But then I saw that this company
was producing some pockets of excellence,

areas in which they beat the competition

in very tough, competitive sectors.

This was true in trading,

in project management –

it was very true in exploration.

Our exploration team
was finding more oil and gas

than any other company in the world.

It was a phenomenon.

Everyone was trying
to figure out how this was possible.

I thought it was luck,

but after each new discovery,
that became less and less likely.

So did we have a special tool? No.

Did we have a killer application
that no one else had? No.

Was it one genius who was finding oil
for the whole team?

No, we hadn’t hired a senior guy in years.

So what was our secret sauce?

I started looking at them
really carefully.

I looked at my friend,

who drilled seven dry wells,

writing off more than a billion
dollars for the company,

and found oil on the eighth.

I was nervous for him …

but he was so relaxed.

I mean, these guys
knew what they were doing.

And then it hit me: it was about fairness.

These guys were working in a company

where they didn’t need to worry
about short-term results.

They weren’t going to be penalized
for bad luck or for an honest mistake.

They knew they were valued
for what they were trying to do,

not the outcome.

They were valued as human beings.
They were part of a community.

Whatever happened,
the company would stand by them.

And for me, this is
the definition of fairness.

It’s when you can lower those
unfairness antennae, put them at rest.

Then great things follow.

These guys could be true to their purpose,
which was finding oil and gas.

They didn’t have to worry
about company politics or greed or fear.

They could be good risk-takers,

because they weren’t too defensive

and they weren’t gambling
to take huge rewards.

And they were excellent team workers.

They could trust their colleagues.

They didn’t need to look
behind their backs.

And they were basically having fun.

They were having so much fun,

one guy even confessed

that he was having more fun
at the company Christmas dinner

than at his own Christmas dinner.

(Laughter)

But these guys, essentially,
were working in a fair system

where they could do
what they felt was right

instead of what’s selfish,
what’s quick, what’s convenient,

and to be able to do what we feel is right

is a key ingredient for fairness,
but it is also a great motivator.

And it wasn’t just explorers
who were doing the right thing.

There was an HR director who proposed
that I hire someone internally

and give him a managerial job.

This guy was very good,
but he didn’t finish high school,

so formally, he had no qualifications.

But he was so good, it made sense,
and so we gave him the job.

Or the other guy, who asked me
for a budget to build a cheese factory

next to our plant in Ecuador,
in the village.

It didn’t make any sense:
no one ever built a cheese factory.

But this is what the village wanted,
because the milk they had would spoil

before they could sell it,
so that’s what they needed.

And so we built it.

So in these examples and many others,

I learned that to be fair,

my colleagues and I, we needed
to take a risk and stick our head out,

but in a fair system, you can do that.

You can dare to be fair.

So I realized that these guys
and other colleagues

were achieving great results,
doing great things,

in a way that no bonus could buy.

So I was fascinated.

I wanted to learn
how this thing really worked,

and I wanted to learn it also for myself,
to become a better leader.

So I started talking
to colleagues, to coaches,

to headhunters and neuroscientists,

and what I discovered

is that what these guys were up to
and the way they worked

is really supported
by recent brain science.

And I’ve also discovered
that this can work at all levels

in any type of company.

You don’t need the fixed salaries
or the stable careers.

This is because science shows

that humans have
an innate sense of fairness.

We know what is right and what is wrong

before we can talk or think about it.

My favorite experiment

has six-month old babies

watching a ball
trying to struggle up a hill.

And there’s a helpful, friendly square
that pushes the ball up the hill,

and then a mean triangle
pushes the ball back down.

After watching this several times,

they ask the babies to pick,

to choose what to play with.

They can pick a ball,
a square or a triangle.

They never pick up the triangle.

All the babies want to be the square.

And science also shows

that when we see or perceive fairness,

our brain releases a substance
that gives us pleasure,

proper joy.

But when we perceive
unfairness, we feel pain …

even greater pain

than the same type of pain
as if I really hurt myself.

That’s because unfairness triggers
the primitive, reptile part of our brain,

the part that deals
with threats and survival,

and when unfairness triggers a threat,
that’s all we can think about.

Motivation, creativity, teamwork,

they all go way back.

And it makes sense
that we’re wired this way,

because we’re social animals.

We need to be part
of a community to survive.

We’re born so helpless

that someone needs to look after us
until we’re maybe 10 years old,

so our brain evolves towards food.

We need to be in that community.

So whether I like it or not,

not being invited to the friend’s wedding,

my lizard brain is generating
the same response

as if I’m about to be pushed out
from my community.

So science explains quite nicely
why fairness is good

and why unfairness
makes us really defensive,

but science also shows
that in a fair environment,

not only do we all want to be the square,

but we tend to be the square,

and this allows other people
to be fair in turn.

This creates a beautiful fairness circle.

But while we start off fair …

one drop of unfairness
contaminates the whole pool,

and unfortunately,
there’s plenty of drops in that pool.

So our effort should be to filter out

as much unfairness
as we can from everywhere,

starting from our communities,
starting from our companies.

I worry about this a lot because I lead
a team of 3,000 excellent people,

and the difference between
3,000 happy, motivated team workers

and 3,000 clock-watchers is everything.

So the first thing I try to do
in my fairness crusade

is to try to take myself
out of the equation.

That means being aware of my own biases.

For example, I really like
people who say yes

to whatever I suggest.

(Laughter)

But that’s not very good for the company

and not very good
for anyone who has different ideas.

So we try to actively promote
a culture of diversity of opinions

and diversity of character.

The second thing we do
is a little more procedural.

We look at all the rules, the processes,
the systems in the company,

the ones we use to take decisions
and allocate resources,

and we try to get rid
of anything that’s not very clear,

not very rational, doesn’t make sense,

and we also try to fix
anything that’s limiting

the transfer of information
within the company.

We then look at the culture
and the motivation for the same reasons.

But my point is that however hard
you look at the rules,

the processes, the systems –
and we have to do that –

but however hard we look,

we’re never going to do enough
to get to the real essence of fairness.

That’s because the last mile of fairness
requires something else.

It’s about what people’s emotions are,

what their needs are,

what’s going on in their private lives,

what society needs.

These are all questions and elements

that are very hard to put
into a spreadsheet, into an algorithm.

It’s very hard to make them
part of our rational decision.

But if we miss these,
we’re missing key important points,

and the outcome is likely to feel unfair.

So we should cross-check our decisions
with our fairness center switched on.

Is it right that this guy should get
the job he’s really hoping to get?

Is it right that this guy should be fired?

Is it right that we should be charging
so much for this product?

These are tough questions.

But if we take the time to ask ourselves

whether the rational answer
is the right one …

we all know deep inside
what the answer is.

We’ve known since we were babies.

And to know what the right answer is

is pretty cool for decision-making.

And if we turn on our hearts,

that’s the key to getting
the real best out of people,

because they can smell it if you care,

and only when you really care
will they leave their fears behind

and bring their true selves to work.

So if fairness is a keystone of life,

why isn’t every leader
making it their priority?

Wouldn’t it be cool to work
in a company that was more fair?

Wouldn’t it be great to have
colleagues and bosses

that were selected and trained
for fairness and for character

and not based on 60-year-old GMATs?

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able
to knock on the door

of a Chief Fairness Officer?

We’ll get there,
but why is it not happening now?

Well, partly, it’s because of inertia,

partly, it’s because fairness
isn’t always easy.

It requires judgment and risk.

Drilling that eighth well was a risk.

Promoting the guy who didn’t finish
high school was a risk.

Building a cheese factory
in Ecuador was a risk.

But fairness is a risk worth taking,

so we should be asking ourselves,

where can we take this risk?

Where can we push ourselves
a little bit further,

to go beyond what’s rational
and do what’s right?

Thank you.

(Applause)

对我来说,它不是被邀请
参加朋友的婚礼。

起初,我真的不介意。

我以为他正在举行一个小型招待会。

但后来我不断遇到
要参加同一场婚礼的人

,他们
不像我那样接近新郎

……我觉得自己被冷落了。

那真是糟透了。

感觉真的很不公平。

对于我的女儿 Lipsi
和 Greta,这是上周。

他们轮流

用一个玩具按摩他们妈妈的背部,

然后其中一个女孩
觉得另一个女孩有更长的时间。

就在我走进房间的时候

,发现葛丽塔大怒,
大喊:“这不公平!”

Lipsi 泪流满面

,我的妻子拿着

秒表确保每个女孩
在玩具上的时间精确到一分钟。

所以,如果你和我或我的女儿们一样

,最后让你不高兴的事情

可能也与不公平有关。

那是因为不公平
会如此强烈地触发我们,

以至于我们无法正确思考。

我们变得害怕和怀疑。

我们的不公平触角竖起。

我们感到痛苦,我们走开了。

不公平是
我们社会的决定性

问题之一,是两极分化的根本原因
之一

,对企业来说是个坏消息。

在工作中,不公平使人们
防御和脱离。

一项研究表明,美国 70%
的工人没有工作

,这使公司

每年损失 5500 亿美元。


相当于美国教育支出总额的一半。

这是
像奥地利这样的国家的国内生产总值的规模。

因此,消除不公平
和促进公平

应该是我们的首要任务。

但这在实践中意味着什么?

是关于更多规则吗?
是关于系统的吗?

是关于平等吗?

嗯,部分,但公平
比规则和平等更有趣。

公平以令人惊讶的方式运作。

15年前,我离开一家美国投资银行

,加入了意大利一家大型
国有石油公司。

那是一个不同的世界。

我认为获得最佳表现的关键

是风险回报系统

,你可以给表现出色的人
奖金和晋升

,让表现不佳的
人担心。

但是在这家公司,我们有固定的薪水

和终身工作。

职业是固定的,

所以我的工具包不是很有效

,我很沮丧。

但后来我看到这家公司
正在创造一些卓越的

领域,他们

在非常艰难、竞争激烈的领域中击败了竞争对手。

在交易

、项目管理

中都是如此——在探索中也是如此。

我们的勘探
团队发现的石油和天然气

比世界上任何其他公司都多。

这是一种现象。

每个人都
试图弄清楚这怎么可能。

我认为这是运气,

但在每次新发现之后,
这种可能性越来越小。

那么我们有没有特殊的工具?

不。我们有
没有其他人有的杀手级应用程序? 不,

是一个天才
为整个团队寻找石油吗?

不,我们已经很多年没有聘请过高级人员了。

那么我们的秘诀是什么呢?

我开始
非常仔细地观察它们。

我看了看我的朋友,

他钻了七口干井,为公司

注销了超过十亿
美元,

并在第八天发现了石油。

我为他感到紧张……

但他很放松。

我的意思是,这些家伙
知道他们在做什么。

然后它击中了我:这是关于公平的。

这些人在

一家他们不需要
担心短期结果的公司工作。

他们不会
因为运气不好或诚实的错误而受到惩罚。

他们知道他们的
价值在于他们试图做的事情,

而不是结果。

他们被视为人类。
他们是社区的一部分。

无论发生什么
,公司都会支持他们。

对我来说,这就是
公平的定义。

是时候你可以放下那些
不公平的触角,让它们休息。

然后伟大的事情随之而来。

这些人可能忠实于他们的目的,
即寻找石油和天然气。

他们不必
担心公司政治、贪婪或恐惧。

他们可能是很好的冒险者,

因为他们不会太防守

,也不会
为了获得巨额回报而赌博。

他们是优秀的团队合作者。

他们可以信任他们的同事。

他们不需要回头看

他们基本上玩得很开心。

他们玩得很开心,

一个人甚至

承认他
在公司的圣诞晚宴上

比在他自己的圣诞晚宴上玩得更开心。

(笑声)

但这些人本质上
是在一个公平的系统

中工作,他们可以
做他们认为正确

的事情,而不是自私
、快速、方便的事情

,能够做我们认为正确的事情

是关键因素 为了公平,
但这也是一个很大的动力。

做正确事情的不只是探险
家。

有一个人事主管
提议我在内部招聘一个人

,给他一个管理职位。

这家伙很好,
只是他高中没毕业,

所以正式的,他没有资格。

但他很好,很有道理
,所以我们给了他这份工作。

或者另一个人,他问
我预算要

在我们厄瓜多尔的工厂旁边
的村庄里建一个奶酪工厂。

这没有任何意义:
从来没有人建过奶酪工厂。

但这正是村里人想要的,
因为他们的牛奶

在卖之前就变质了,
所以这就是他们所需要的。

所以我们建造了它。

因此,在这些例子和许多其他例子中,

我了解到,为了公平起见,

我和我的同事们,我们
需要冒险并坚持不懈,

但在一个公平的系统中,你可以做到这一点。

你可以敢于公平。

所以我意识到这些
人和其他同事

正在以一种没有奖金可以买到的方式取得了巨大的成果
,做着伟大的事情

所以我很着迷。

我想
了解这件事是如何运作的

,我也想为自己学习
,成为一个更好的领导者。

所以我开始
与同事、教练

、猎头和神经科学家交谈

,我

发现这些人的所作所为
和他们的工作

方式确实得到
了最近的脑科学的支持。

而且我还
发现这可以

在任何类型的公司的各个层面上发挥作用。

你不需要固定的薪水
或稳定的职业。

这是因为科学表明

,人类
具有与生俱来的公平感。 在我们谈论或思考之前,

我们知道什么是对的,什么是错的

我最喜欢的实验是

让 6 个月大的婴儿

看着一个
试图爬上山的球。

还有一个有用的、友好的
方格将球推上山,

然后一个平均三角形
将球推回山下。

看了几遍后,

他们让宝宝们挑选

,选择玩什么。

他们可以选择一个球、
一个正方形或一个三角形。

他们从不拿起三角形。

所有的婴儿都想成为广场。

科学还表明

,当我们看到或感知到公平时,

我们的大脑会释放出一种物质
,给我们带来快乐,

适当的快乐。

但是当我们感觉到
不公平时,我们会感到痛苦……

甚至比

我真的伤害自己的那种痛苦还要大。

那是因为不公平触发
了我们大脑中原始的、爬行动物

的部分,
处理威胁和生存的部分

,当不公平触发威胁时,
这就是我们所能想到的。

动力、创造力、团队合作,

它们都可以追溯到很久以前。

我们以这种方式连接是有道理的,

因为我们是社会动物。

我们需要
成为社区的一部分才能生存。

我们生来如此无助,

以至于我们可能需要有人照顾我们,
直到我们可能 10 岁,

所以我们的大脑进化为食物。

我们需要在那个社区中。

所以不管我喜不喜欢,

没有被邀请参加朋友的婚礼,

我的蜥蜴大脑正在
产生同样的反应

,就好像我即将被
赶出我的社区一样。

所以科学很好地解释了
为什么公平是好的

,为什么不公平
会让我们真正防御,

但科学也表明
,在公平的环境中,

我们不仅都想成为正方形,

而且我们倾向于成为正方形

,这允许其他人 人们
反过来要公平。

这创造了一个美丽的公平圈。

但是当我们开始公平时……

一滴不公平
污染了整个游泳池

,不幸
的是,那个游泳池里有很多水滴。

因此,我们的努力应该是

尽可能多
地从任何地方过滤掉不公平,

从我们的社区
开始,从我们的公司开始。

我非常担心这一点,因为我领导着
一个由 3,000 名优秀人员组成的团队,


3,000 名快乐、积极进取的团队成员

和 3,000 名守时者之间的区别就是一切。

因此,
在我的公平运动

中,我尝试做的第一件事就是尝试让自己
脱离等式。

这意味着要意识到我自己的偏见。

例如,我真的很
喜欢那些对我的建议说“是”的人

(笑声)

但这对公司

来说不是很好,
对任何有不同想法的人来说都不是很好。

因此,我们试图积极促进
一种观点

多元化和性格多元化的文化。

我们做的第二
件事是程序化一点。

我们查看公司的所有规则、流程
、系统,

以及我们用来做出决策
和分配资源的系统

,我们试图
摆脱任何不太清楚、

不太合理、没有意义的东西,

我们还尝试解决
任何

限制公司内部信息传输的问题

然后,
出于同样的原因,我们研究文化和动机。

但我的观点是,无论你如何努力
看待规则

、流程、系统
——我们必须这样做——

但无论我们如何努力,

我们永远不会做足够
的事情来了解公平的真正本质 .

那是因为公平的最后一英里
需要别的东西。

这是关于人们的情绪是

什么,他们的需求是

什么,他们的私人生活中

发生了什么,社会需要什么。

这些都是很难
放入电子表格和算法的问题和元素。

很难让它们
成为我们理性决定的一部分。

但如果我们错过了这些,
我们就会错过关键的要点

,结果可能会让人感到不公平。

所以我们应该
在公平中心开启的情况下交叉检查我们的决定。

这个人应该得到
他真正希望得到的工作是对的吗?

这种人应该被解雇是对的吗?

我们应该
为这个产品收取这么多钱是对的吗?

这些都是棘手的问题。

但是,如果我们花时间问自己

理性的答案
是否正确……

我们都知道
答案是什么。

我们从小就知道。

并且知道什么是正确的答案

对于决策来说非常酷。

如果我们打开我们的心,

这就是
让人们真正最好的关键,

因为如果你在乎,他们就能闻到它

,只有当你真正在乎
时,他们才会把恐惧抛在脑后

,把真实的自我带到工作中。

因此,如果公平是生活的基石,

为什么不是每个领导者都
将其作为优先事项?

在更公平的公司工作不是很酷吗?

如果
同事和老板

不是基于 60 年的 GMAT 考试,而是为了公平和品格而挑选和培训的,那不是很好吗?

能够敲开

首席公平官的门不是很好吗?

我们会到达那里,
但为什么现在没有发生呢?

嗯,部分是因为惯性,

部分是因为公平
并不总是那么容易。

它需要判断力和风险。

钻第八口井是有风险的。

提拔那个没有读完
高中的人是有风险的。 在厄瓜多尔

建立奶酪工厂
是有风险的。

但公平是值得冒的风险,

所以我们应该问自己,

我们可以在哪里冒这个风险?

我们在哪里可以把自己推
得更远一点

,超越理性
,做正确的事?

谢谢你。

(掌声)