TEDxMaastricht - Simon Sinek - "First why and then trust"

Summary

This script explores the critical role of shared values and trust in human relationships and organizational success. It emphasizes that trust is a distinctly human experience, emerging from common beliefs rather than reliability alone. The speaker illustrates this with the example of choosing a babysitter and contrasts it with the focus on resumes in professional settings. The script delves into the challenges of maintaining trust and purpose as organizations grow and suggests that technology, while beneficial, cannot replace the human connection necessary for trust. It concludes by advocating for more 'handshake conversations' to foster genuine human interaction and trust.

Takeaways

• 🤝 Trust is a distinctly human experience that emerges from shared values and beliefs, not just reliability.
• 🌐 The survival of the human race is tied to our ability to connect with others who share our beliefs, creating a sense of community and support.
• 👶 We instinctively trust members of our community more than outsiders, even when it comes to something as valuable as our children.
• 📚 Organizations often prioritize resumes and past achievements over shared values, which can hinder the development of trust among employees.
• 📈 The success of an organization can lead to a 'split' where the original purpose becomes obscured, causing stress and reducing passion.
• 🔑 The founders of organizations embody the 'why' of the company, and their presence can help maintain the original vision and values.
• 🏛 The United States, as an example, may be experiencing a 'split' where the original values and unity are being challenged.
• 📊 The pursuit of wealth and success does not necessarily lead to increased happiness or fulfillment; trust and shared values are crucial.
• 💡 Technology, while beneficial for information exchange, is not a substitute for human connection and the creation of trust.
• 🧠 The human brain is wired for empathy and trust through mirror neurons, which are activated by face-to-face interactions, not digital ones.
• 🤝 Physical interactions like handshakes are essential for establishing trust and cannot be replaced by digital agreements.

Q & A

What is the main theme of the speech?

The main theme of the speech is the importance of shared values and beliefs in fostering trust among individuals, which is essential for human survival and the success of organizations.

Why does the speaker emphasize the importance of surrounding ourselves with like-minded people?

The speaker emphasizes this because it is through shared values and beliefs that trust emerges, which is crucial for taking risks, experimenting, and exploring, knowing that there is support within the community.

What does the speaker mean by 'the split' in an organization?

The 'split' refers to the disconnection between the original purpose and values of an organization and its current operations, often leading to increased stress, decreased passion, and a shift in focus from internal goals to external competition.

Can you provide an example from the script that illustrates the importance of trust in everyday life?

The example given is the choice between a 16-year-old from the community with no babysitting experience and a 32-year-old with 10 years of experience but unknown origins and beliefs. People tend to choose the 16-year-old, highlighting the importance of trust based on shared community values.

How does the speaker relate the concept of trust to the workplace?

The speaker questions why workplaces focus heavily on resumes and past experiences rather than on shared beliefs and values, which are the foundations of trust.

What historical examples does the speaker use to illustrate the impact of shared values and beliefs on a nation?

The speaker uses the 'greatest generation' of the 1940s, the 'boomers' of the 1950s, the irresponsibility of the 1960s, the 'ME-generation' of the 1970s, and the business-focused 1980s to show how shared values and beliefs have shifted over time and impacted society.

What is the speaker's view on the role of technology in creating human connections?

The speaker believes that while technology is excellent for exchanging information and speeding up transactions, it is not effective for creating human connections and fostering trust.

Why does the speaker argue that a handshake is important in business agreements?

The handshake is important because it represents a human interaction that goes beyond verbal agreement, signifying a deeper level of commitment and trust.

What does the speaker suggest as a solution to the lack of human connection and trust in modern society?

The speaker suggests that we need more 'handshake conversations' and interactions, emphasizing the need for real, face-to-face communication to rebuild trust and connection.

How does the speaker describe the difference between leadership and authority in the context of trust?

Leadership is associated with reminding people of the 'why' behind their actions, inspiring them through shared values and beliefs. Authority, on the other hand, is about dictating 'what' needs to be done, which may not necessarily foster trust.

What ethical concerns does the speaker raise regarding the use of technology in business?

The speaker raises concerns about the dehumanizing effects of technology in business, where decisions are made without considering their human impact, similar to the unethical experiment by Stanley Milgram.

Outlines

00:00

🤝 The Power of Shared Beliefs and Trust

The speaker emphasizes the importance of shared values and beliefs in fostering trust among people, which is crucial for the survival of humanity. They discuss how trust emerges from a sense of common values rather than merely reliability, and how it enables people to take risks and explore, knowing they have the support of their community. The speaker uses the example of choosing a babysitter to illustrate the preference for trusting someone from within the community over an outsider with more experience but unknown beliefs. They also question why organizations focus on resumes rather than shared values when hiring, and introduce the concept of 'the split' in organizations, which occurs when the original purpose becomes obscured as the organization grows and becomes more focused on metrics and competition.

05:02

🔄 The Cultural Shift and the Pursuit of Fulfillment

This paragraph delves into the cultural shifts observed throughout the 20th century in the United States, starting with the unity and high trust of the 'greatest generation' post-World War II. It contrasts this with the subsequent generations' search for purpose, from the responsibility of the 1950s to the irresponsibility of the 1960s, the self-centeredness of the 1970s, and the business-centric 1980s. The speaker highlights how despite increasing affluence, a sense of fulfillment and happiness did not grow, leading to a continuous search for meaning. The paragraph also touches on the impact of technology, suggesting that while it has sped up transactions and information exchange, it has not been effective in creating human connections and trust.

10:03

🧠 The Role of Empathy and Human Interaction in Trust Building

The speaker discusses the biological basis for empathy and trust, referencing the discovery of mirror neurons and their role in human interaction. They argue that video conferencing cannot replace the importance of face-to-face meetings for establishing trust and a 'gut feeling.' The speaker also critiques the over-reliance on technology in modern business practices, noting the loss of human touch in customer service and internal communications. They highlight the importance of direct human interaction and the non-verbal cues that contribute to building trust and authority, contrasting it with the impersonal nature of online interactions.

15:04

🤝 The Importance of Human Connection for Fulfillment and Trust

In the final paragraph, the speaker calls for a return to more human interaction, using the handshake as a metaphor for the kind of personal, trust-building encounters that are essential for fulfillment and trust. They argue that despite technological advancements, the need for real conversations, discussions, and debates remains paramount. The speaker warns that without genuine human connections, we risk losing our sense of fulfillment, happiness, and inspiration, and that we must strive to be among people who share our beliefs to truly thrive.

Keywords

💡Trust

Trust, in the context of the video, is a distinctly human experience that emerges from a sense of shared values and beliefs. It is not merely about reliability but also about the confidence to take risks and explore, knowing that someone from within the community will support you. The video uses the example of choosing a babysitter to illustrate the importance of trust over experience, emphasizing that we inherently trust those who share our community values, even if they lack professional credentials.

💡Values

Values are the principles and standards that guide behavior and decision-making. The video emphasizes that shared values are crucial for building trust and community. It points out that organizations, cultures, and nations are fundamentally groups of people with common values. The video also discusses how the alignment of values within an organization can lead to its success or 'the split' when the original purpose becomes obscured by growth and metrics.

💡Community

Community, as discussed in the video, refers to a group of people who share a common set of values and beliefs. It is highlighted as a fundamental aspect of human survival, as it is within communities that trust is formed and maintained. The script uses the babysitter scenario to demonstrate how community ties can influence our trust decisions, even over more objectively qualified outsiders.

💡Survival

Survival in the video is tied to the concept of surrounding oneself with like-minded individuals who share the same beliefs. It suggests that the human race's survival depends on our ability to form communities where trust can flourish. The video implies that this trust is essential for risk-taking and exploration, which are vital for progress and adaptation.

💡Resumé

In the video, a resumé represents a person's work history and qualifications. It contrasts the common practice of valuing a resumé in the workplace over understanding a person's beliefs and values. The video challenges the audience to consider why we prioritize professional experience over shared values when building trust and community within organizations.

💡The Split

The 'split' is a term used in the video to describe the phenomenon where an organization's original purpose becomes disconnected from its day-to-day operations as it grows and becomes more successful. Symptoms of the split include increased stress, decreased passion, and a shift in focus from internal goals to external competition. The video illustrates this concept with examples of successful companies that have experienced a split and had to bring back their founders to realign with their original purpose.

💡Fulfilment

Fulfilment, as discussed in the video, refers to a sense of satisfaction and purpose in life. The speaker argues that despite increasing affluence and technological advancements, a sense of fulfilment has not grown accordingly. The video suggests that genuine fulfilment comes from human connections and shared values rather than material wealth or technological progress.

💡Human Interaction

Human interaction is a central theme in the video, which posits that face-to-face communication is essential for building trust and understanding. The speaker criticizes the reliance on technology for human connection, stating that it cannot replace the empathy and trust built through physical presence and personal contact. The concept is exemplified through the importance of a handshake in business agreements.

💡Technology

Technology is portrayed in the video as a double-edged sword. While it accelerates information exchange and transactions, it is also depicted as detrimental to the creation of genuine human connections. The video argues that technology cannot replace the nuanced understanding that comes from direct human interaction, particularly in building trust and empathy.

💡Handshake

A handshake in the video symbolizes a human connection and an agreement that goes beyond verbal consent. It is used to illustrate the importance of physical contact in business and personal relationships. The video suggests that a refusal to shake hands, even after agreeing to terms, can undermine trust and the sense of commitment.

💡Leadership

Leadership, according to the video, is about inspiring and reminding people of the 'why' behind their actions—the shared values and beliefs that brought them together. It contrasts with authority, which is more about dictating 'what' needs to be done. The video emphasizes the importance of leaders who embody the cause that motivates the community, as seen in examples of company founders who had to return to realign their organizations with the original vision.

Highlights

The importance of shared values and beliefs for the survival of the human race and the emergence of trust.

Trust is a distinctly human experience that comes from common values, not just reliability.

Surrounding ourselves with like-minded people makes us more willing to take risks and explore.

The paradox of choosing a less experienced babysitter from the community over a more experienced outsider.

Questioning why organizations focus more on resumes than on shared beliefs and trustworthiness.

The challenge of maintaining a strong 'why' as organizations grow and success blurs the original purpose.

Symptoms of a 'split' in an organization include increased stress, decreased passion, and a focus on competition.

The role of founders in embodying the original cause and reminding employees why they come to work.

The United States as an example of a potential 'split' due to a loss of shared values and increasing distrust.

The progression of American generations from the 'greatest generation' to genX and the 'ME-generation', reflecting changing values and trust levels.

The ineffectiveness of technology in creating human connections and building trust.

The discovery of mirror neurons and their role in empathy and trust formation through face-to-face interaction.

The limitations of online communication in forming meaningful human bonds and trust.

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment highlighting the impact of authority on decision-making and its ethical implications.

The importance of human interaction and physical presence in business and leadership.

The metaphorical significance of a handshake in establishing trust and human connection.

A call to action for more 'handshake conversations' to foster trust and shared fulfillment.

Transcripts

Transcriber: Rik Delaet Reviewer: Diba Szamosi

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

What I love about events like these

is that it is not just people coming together to hear ideas.

It's that we all came here for the same reason.

Every single one of us came here because we share something,

we have similar values and similar beliefs

and that's the reason we showed up.

We don't know each other and yet

we know something about each other.

Now this is important, you see,

because the very survival of the human race

depends on our ability

to surround ourselves with people who believe what we believe.

When we're surrounded by people

who believe what we believe something remarkable happens:

Trust emerges. Make no mistake of it, trust is a feeling,

a distinctly human experience.

Simply doing everything that you promise you're going to do

does not mean people will trust you.

It just means you're reliable.

And we all have friends who are total screw ups and yet we still trust them.

Trust comes from a sense of common values and beliefs.

And the reason trust is important,

is because when we are surrounded with people

who believe what we believe,

we're more confident to take risks.

We're more confident to experiment,

which requires failure, by the way.

We are more confident to go off and explore

knowing that there is someone from within our community,

someone who believes what we believe,

someone we trust and who trusts us, will watch our back,

help us when we fall over

and watch our stuff and look after our children while we're gone.

Our very survival depends on our ability to surround ourselves

with people who believe what we believe.

I'll show you an example that freaks me out every time I talk about it.

What is our most valuable possession on the planet?

Our children, right?

Our most valuable possession on the planet are our children.

So let's game out a scenario.

Let's imagine we're going out on a date. So we require a babysitter.

We've two options.

Option number one: there's a 16-year old

from just down the street from within the community

with barely, if any, babysitting experience.

There's a 32-year old who just moved

into the neighbourhood -- we don't know from where --

but she's got 10 years of babysitting experience.

Who do we choose?

The 16-year old. Think about that for a second.

We'd rather trust our children, our most valuable possession on the planet,

with somebody from within our community

with no experience

over somebody with vast amounts of experience,

but we've no idea where they're from

or what they believe.

Then why do we do it differently at work?

Why are we so preoccupied with somebody’s resumé

and where they worked and what they've done for our competition.

And yet we never seem to consider what they believe, where they're from.

How can we trust them? How can they trust us?

The problem with most organizations, believe it or not,

whether it's a community or a culture.

What's a community? What's a culture?

It's a group of people with a common set of values and beliefs, right?

What's a nation? It's a group of people

with a common set of values and beliefs.

And the single biggest challenge that any culture

or any organisation will ever face is it's own success.

When an organisation is founded...

All organisations are founded on the same basic principle.

There's some sort of measurement, it's often money but it could be anything.

And there is time.

And when an organisation is founded what they do and why they do it

are inextricably linked.

There is usually some founder or some small group of founders,

that are able to put their vision into words.

And their passion inspires others to come and join them

in pursuit of something greater then all of themselves.

And they trust their guts and off they go and it is an amazing experience.

The problem is, as they grow,

as what they do becomes more successful,

they can no longer rely on themselves.

They have to hire somebody who hires somebody

who hires somebody who hires somebody...

who has to make a decision.

Based on what? And what they do starts to grow.

That metric. The problem is why they do it

starts to go fuzzy.

And this is the biggest single challenge any organisation will face.

It's this thing right here, the thing that I call 'the split'.

Symptoms of the split inside an organisation

are when stress goes up and passion goes down.

Symptoms of split are things like when the old-timers,

the people who were there from the founding,

from the beginning start saying things like,

"It's not like it used to be. It doesn't feel the same anymore."

They can't quite put it into words, but hey know it's not the same.

Even though the organisation might be more successful

than it ever was in the past,

it's just not the same.

Other symptoms are when the organisation

starts focussing more on what the competition is doing

and worrying less about what they are doing.

When they start asking outsiders,

"Who should we be, how should we talk to you?"

At the beginning they never asked anybody,

they ran on their own passion, on their own energy.

This is what happens in such organisations like Apple.

In 1985 Steve Jobs left Apple and the company went like this

and Steve Jobs came back.

And Howard Schultz left Starbucks and Howard Schultz had to come back.

And Michael Dell left Dell and Dell had to come back.

Now whether they're clear on their own whys now or not is yet to be seen.

But the point is that these founders,

these visionary guys physically embodied the reason,

the cause around which people showed up in the first place

and it reminds them why they come to work.

Now, my fear is

that one of my favourite organisations, an organisation that I love

may be going through a split.

United States of America. Maybe you've heard of it.

(Laughter)

It's important to study America

because like a lot of things happen in America

everything there is exaggerated.

So we can learn a lot of them and hopefully

learn things that we can apply to ourselves.

Something started to happen in 1947 that embodies this idea here.

My grandparents' generation was called the greatest generation,

that's what we called them, the greatest generation.

Because here was a generation that went off to war to fight this great evil

and everybody was united and unified

in some sense of common cause and purpose and belief

and trust was at an all time high.

Even those who didn't go off to war they were back and buying war bonds

and everybody was one.

And there were stories of young men who would commit suicide,

they'd shoot themselves when they didn't get called to action.

We call them the greatest generation.

What do I get? I'm genX, the unknown variable.

They get the greatest generation, I get X.

My parents are called the 'boomers'. Why?

Because their parents were 'doing it' when they came back from war.

(Laughter)

They get the greatest generation.

This sense of purpose, this sense of cause, this sense of why.

But then they came back from war

and most of them had grown up during the Depression

and they wanted now to experience life a bit,

they wanted to buy some stuff

and sort of, you know, care about themselves a little more.

They had been giving so much their entire lives.

And so the 1950's came.

And the 1950's were defined by responsibility.

Going out to give the same kind of loyalty to your company

as you gave to your country or to the cause.

And we know what the fifties were like.

Everybody gave and you devoted your life to the company.

The problem is, as we started to become more affluent

and the wealth of the country started to grow

that sense of purpose and that sense of cause

and that sense of fulfilment and that sense of trust

and that sense of happiness didn't grow with it.

And this is bad. This is confusing.

And so, the 1960's we responded to it.

And we thought, "Well, this responsibility thing didn't work, so let's try irresponsibility."

Then the hippie movement was born, right?

And the reason that the whole hippie movement could exist in the first place

is because the country was wealthier,

so we could afford for people to drop off the grid

and our parents were wealthier, they were more affluent.

So they could pay for us to do it.

But we didn't get that sense of fulfilment.

So the pendulum swung again.

And then we had the 1970's, the ME-generation.

Defined about looking after your own happiness.

Everybody had his own guru, starting to become very selfish.

That didn't work either.

And again the whole time we were becoming more affluent and more affluent

and that sense of fulfilment and happiness and trust is not growing with it.

And then the 1980's.

Still that sense of me, but now business was cool again.

And in the 1980's we started to see something that had never been seen before.

In the 1980's we started to see companies using people to balance the books.

This has never happened before,

where they would use lay-offs to make the numbers work.

People to make numbers work.

And then the 1990's came by and dotcom,

about the most selfish behaviour you could find.

Everyone wanted to get rich regardless of anything else.

And again, the split continues.

The only thing that happens, the only thing that really grows

in organisations and societies without going through a split

is that distrust increases.

We become distrustful of each other inside our own organisations,

we become distrustful of management,

we become distrustful of our politicians.

And now we find ourselves here today wondering what to do next.

How we gonna find a sense of fulfilment, technology is no help.

Andy Grove, the founder of Intel said

that the only thing that the microprocessor ever did

was make things go faster.

And he is right. And it is making this go faster as well.

Don't forget, technology is absolutely fantastic.

For the exchange of information and the exchange of ideas,

technology is absolutely wonderful for speeding transactions,

it's wonderful for resourcing and finding people,

but it is terrible for creating human connections.

You cannot form trust through the internet.

There's something called a mirror-neuron which they've recently discovered

that is one of the things that contributes

to how people relate to each other and how we empathize.

It's the feeling you get,

it's the same part of the brain that lights up --

they did these pictures-- they did MRIs.

They gave people a picture of someone smiling.

And then in our own brain, when we see someone smiling,

the same part of the brain lights up when we smile.

It's what creates empathy and it is necessary to create trust.

Again this very human bond.

This is the reason why the video conference

will never replace the business trip.

You can't get a good gut feeling over a video conference.

I'm a big fan of the blogosphere.

The bloggers think that the internet is the end all be all of the world.

Then explain to me why once a year 20.000 bloggers descend on Las Vegas

for a huge big convention?

Why didn't they do it online?

(Laughter)

It's because nothing replaces human contact.

It's the difference between leadership and authority.

Leadership tells us why we're here in the first place.

They remind us why we came here.

Authority tell us what to do.

Or tells us what goal to achieve.

In the 1960's Stanley Milgram did an experiment

that we consider now quite unethical,

but the results were remarkable.

He invited two people to come to his laboratory.

Someone who played the role of a teacher, a volunteer,

and someone who played the role of a student who was actually a scientist

pretending to be a volunteer.

They told the 'teacher' to sit in front of a counter

that had a button and a dial.

And they said that they were going to ask some questions

of the student and if the student answers the wrong question,

or refuse to answer, the teacher was to press the button

and administer an electric shock.

And after each shock they would turn up the dial one notch.

And the notch said: mild, medium, slightly painful,

more painful, very painful, and eventually it went red and said XXX.

And what happened was

there was really only one electric shock administered throughout the whole experiment.

And it was a small shock administered to the teacher

so they could feel what it felt like.

And so the experiment would progress

and the questions would be asked and the teacher would press the button

and the scientist, pretending to be the student,

would pretend to get an electric shock.

What ended up happening was that when the student could see and hear --

when the teacher could see and hear the student, they would scream,

he couldn't go very far before he quit,

he said, "I can't do this anymore. I'm hurting the guy"

and he would quit the experiment.

When he could see him but not hear him,

he could go further but still not very far before he quit.

And the authority figure would stand over him

every time he would say, "But I'm hurting the guy",

the authority figure would say,

"It's imperative that the experiment goes on."

And they would say over and over and over in their head,

"The experiment must go on."

They said it out loud "The experiment must go on."

And it was like Nazi Germany when people said,

"I'm just following orders. I'm just following orders."

And this mantra to justify their behaviour of hurting somebody.

And when they could hear them but not see them, they could go further still,

but they still couldn't go all the way.

But when they could neither see nor hear the impact of their decision,

65% of the teachers were able to kill the guy.

The reason the experiment is unethical is because 65% of these people came to help,

thinking they were good people,

went home at the end of the day with the knowledge

that they could kill someone.

Now what's our mantra of this day and age I wonder?

Is it "shareholder value, shareholder value, shareholder value"?

What is our mantra that we're using

to justify the decisions we're making for people

that we cannot see and we cannot hear.

And we don't know the impact of the decisions we are making.

And you know what the people who had 'killed the guy'

what their biggest concern was?

'Is anything going to happen to me?

Am I going to get into trouble?'

There was no concern for the person they just potentially killed.

Now think how we do business today.

We largely do business on screen.

There was a time that if you wanted to know

what your employees thought about you,

you walked out on the factory floor and you asked them.

Customer service meant actually talking to the people who came into your shop.

Now customer service means getting a reply to your email within 24 hours.

I actually saw a bank advertising that you could talk to a person.

(Laughter)

I fly on an airline and I have miles up the wazoo on this one airline

and you know what they offered me, when I reached the highest status possible?

They offered me a phone number that I could talk to a person.

Since when is a person a luxury?

Our very survival depends on our ability to interact with human beings

and as growth and scale and size come into play,

all of a sudden the humanity of things starts to go away.

There is a time when a desktop meant something horizontal.

Now it is something vertical.

And a folder used to be a picture, is a picture that we used to use.

These are fun ideas, funny examples

of how technology has co-opted some of our vocabulary.

The problem is that it has co-opted some other ideas too.

A friend is not somebody you check their status.

Your network is not on LinkedIn,

your conversation does not happen on a blog

and you can't have a discussion on Twitter.

These are human experiences and we need them.

We need to learn about each others values and beliefs.

And we can't simply do it through the Internet.

These mirror neurons don't light up when we're sending text or receiving I.M. messages.

What I imagine is the day in which we start to have more human interaction,

something that requires this thing, a handshake. A handshake.

Imagine that you want to do business with somebody

and they're standing there with you

and they agree to all the terms that you offer. 100% they agree.

And you say, "Great! Let's shake on it."

And they say, "No, no. I agree to all the terms you laid out. We can just do business."

And you go, 'Good, if we agreed let's shake on it.' And they say,

"No, no. I agreed to all the terms. Let's just do business."

If they refuse to shake your hand,

even if rationally speaking they've agreed to everything you want,

if they refuse to shake your hand,

the odds are you won't do business with them.

And if you do you feel very nervous about it.

This is what trust is, trust is human.

It's about human interaction, it's about real conversations.

What we need is more handshake conversations.

What we need is more handshake discussion,

more handshake debate, more handshake friends, more handshake leadership.

If we don't

then we continue to go through this.

and we will not find our own sense of fulfilment and happiness and inspiration.

It requires being among people who believe what we believe.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Thank you very much.

Thank you.