英语ted演讲稿中英文

演讲稿分为多种写作格式，有的演讲稿是以工作总结的方式，有的演讲稿是以主题的方式。你知道如何写出主题明确的演讲稿吗？以下是小编收集整理的《英语ted演讲稿中英文》，供大家参考借鉴，希望可以帮助到有需要的朋友。

第一篇：英语ted演讲稿中英文

TED演讲稿英文

当工作越来越复杂，给你6个简化守则

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. Integrators are not middle office, they are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. How can you reinforce your managers as integrators? By removing layers. When there are too many layers people are too far from the action. Therefore they need KPIs, metrics, they need poor proxies for reality. They don’t understand reality and they add the complicatedness of metrics, KPIs. By removing rules—the bigger we are, the more we need integrators, therefore the less rules we must have, to give discretionary power to managers. And we do the opposite – the bigger we are, the more rules we create. And we end up with the Encyclopedia Britannica of rules. You need to increase the quanitity of power so that you can empower everybody to use their judgment, their intelligence. You must give more cards to people so that they have the critical mass of cards to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw. They will disengage. These rules, they come from game theory and organizational sociology. You can increase the shadow of the future. Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions. This is what the automotive company did when they saw that Mr. Repairability had no impact. They said the design engineers: now, in the three years, when the new car is launched on the market, you will move to the after sales network, and become in charge of the warranty budget, and if the warranty budget explodes, it will explode in your face. Much more powerful than 0.8 percent variable compensation. You need also to increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, you hold me by the nose, I hold you by the ear. We will cooperate. Remove the second TV. There are many second TVs at work that don’t create value, they just provide dysfunctional self-sufficiency.

You need to reward those who cooperate and blame those who don’t cooperate. The CEO of The Lego Group, JK, has a great way to use it. He say, blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help. It changes everything. Suddenly it becomes in my interest to be transparent on my real weakness, my real forecast, because I know I will not be blamed if I fail, but if I fail to help or ask for help. When you do this, it has a lot of implications on organizational design. You stop drawing boxes, dotted lines, full lines; you look at their interplay.

It has a lot of implication on financial policies that we use. On human resource management practices. When you do that, you can manage complexity, the new complexity of business, without getting complicated. You create more value with lower cost. You simultaneously improve performance and satisfaction at work because you have remove the common root cause that hinders both. Complicatedness: this is your battle, business leader. The real battle is not against competitors. This is rubbish, very abstract. When do we meet competitors to fight them? The real battle is against ourselves, against our bureaucracy, our complicatedness. Only you can fight, can do it. Thank you!

第二篇：Matt Cutts TED中英文对照双语演讲稿

Try Something New for 30 Days

小计划帮你实现大目标

——Google工程师Matt Cutts在TED的励志演讲稿

A few years ago, I felt like I was stuck in a rut, so I decided to follow in the footsteps of the great American philosopher, Morgan Spurlock, and try something new for 30 days. The idea is actually pretty simple. Think about something you’ve always wanted to add to your life and try it for the next 30 days. It turns out, 30 days is just about the right amount of time to add a new habit or subtract a habit — like watching the news — from your life.

几年前， 我感觉对老一套感到枯燥乏味， 所以我决定追随伟大的美国哲学家摩根·斯普尔洛克的脚步，尝试做新事情30天。这个想法的确是非常简单。考虑下，你常想在你生命中做的一些事情 接下来30天尝试做这些。 这就是，30天刚好是这么一段合适的时间 去养成一个新的习惯或者改掉一个习惯——例如看新闻——在你生活中。

There’s a few things I learned while doing these 30-day challenges. The first was, instead of the months flying by, forgotten, the time was much more memorable. This was part of a challenge I did to take a picture everyday for a month. And I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that day. I also noticed that as I started to do more and harder 30-day challenges, my self-confidence grew. I went from desk-dwelling computer nerd to the kind of guy who bikes to work — for fun. Even last year, I ended up hiking up Mt. Kilimanjaro, the highest mountain in Africa. I would never have been that adventurous before I started my 30-day challenges.

当我在30天做这些挑战性事情时，我学到以下一些事。第一件事是，取代了飞逝而过易被遗忘的岁月的是 这段时间非常的更加令人难忘。挑战的一部分是要一个月内每天我要去拍摄一张照片。我清楚地记得那一天我所处的位置我都在干什么。我也注意到随着我开始做更多的，更难的30天里具有挑战性的事时，我自信心也增强了。我从一个台式计算机宅男极客变成了一个爱骑自行车去工作的人——为了玩乐。甚至去年，我完成了在非洲最高山峰乞力马扎罗山的远足。在我开始这30天做挑战性的事之前我从来没有这样热爱冒险过。

I also figured out that if you really want something badly enough, you can do anything for 30 days. Have you ever wanted to write a novel? Every November, tens of thousands of people try to write their own 50,000 word novel from scratch in 30 days. It turns out, all you have to do is write 1,667 words a day for a month. So I did. By the way, the secret is not to go to sleep until you’ve written your words for the day. You might be sleep-deprived, but you’ll finish your novel. Now is my book the next great American novel? No. I wrote it in a month. It’s awful. But for the rest of my life, if I meet John Hodgman at a TED party, I don’t have to say, “I’m a computer scientist.” No, no, if I want to I can say, “I’m a novelist.”

我也认识到如果你真想一些槽糕透顶的事，你可以在30天里做这些事。你曾想写小说吗?每年11月，数以万计的人们在30天里，从零起点尝试写他们自己的5万字小说。这结果就是，你所要去做的事就是每天写1667个字要写一个月。所以我做到了。顺便说一下，秘密在于除非在一天里你已经写完了1667个字，要不你就甭想睡觉。你可能被剥夺睡眠，但你将会完成你的小说。那么我写的书会是下一部伟大的美国小说吗?不是的。我在一个月内写完它。它看上去太可怕了。但在我的余生，如果我在一个TED聚会上遇见约翰·霍奇曼，我不必开口说，“我是一个电脑科学家。”不，不会的，如果我愿意我可以说，“我是一个小说家。”

So here’s one last thing I’d like to mention. I learned that when I made small, sustainable changes, things I could keep doing, they were more likely to stick. There’s nothing wrong with big, crazy challenges. In fact, they’re a ton of fun. But they’re less likely to stick. When I gave up sugar for 30 days, day 31 looked like this.

我这儿想提的最后一件事。当我做些小的、持续性的变化，我可以不断尝试做的事时，我学到我可以把它们更容易地坚持做下来。这和又大又疯狂的具有挑战性的事情无关。事实上，它们的乐趣无穷。但是，它们就不太可能坚持做下来。当我在30天里拒绝吃糖果，31天后看上去就像这样。

So here’s my question to you: What are you waiting for? I guarantee you the next 30 days are going to pass whether you like it or not, so why not think about something you have always wanted to try and give it a shot for the next 30 days.

所以我给大家提的问题是：大家还在等什么呀?我保准大家在未来的30天定会经历你喜欢或者不喜欢的事，那么为什么不考虑一些你常想做的尝试并在未来30天里试试给自己一个机会。

Thanks. 谢谢。

Matt Cutts简介：

Matt Cutts是Google所有工程师中最广为人知的一个，因为他几乎每天都在自己的blog上面和读者们分享与Google相关的一切信息，包括技术与非技术类。 Matt写的文章深入浅出，简明易懂，实用价值很高，因此他在互联网上具有相当高的名气。简言之，Matt Cutts是Google的Anti-spam之王。

第三篇：(TED英文演讲)为球鞋疯狂——观后感

“Be Crazy about sneakers.”————Feedback Almost every basketball fan is dreaming about getting one pair of sneakers of famous brands, like Air Jordan series. Many of them are constantly dedicated to their collections of various sneakers.

But through the speaker’s ideas, a clear marketing network emerged, which was seemingly invisible before. All of us who are fond of collecting limited-edition shoes may not realize that we are part of the market itself, although it isn’t a market at all. This is incredible, but it really exists. Basketball fans are enthusiastic about their beloved stars, and the sneakers endorsed by stars are to support their craze, which means a brilliant commercial opportunity to shoes’ industry. And the brand Nike was one of the biggest owners of profits from its sneakers, it is still earning money from us, and it will be as long as the devotion to basketball stars don’t fade away. In short, the intangible beneficial network is a successful example for sports industry. But what if they improve their commercial system? There will be more profits. Anyway, we can learn a lot from this and utilize what we got.

第四篇：(TED英文演讲)阅读全世界——观后感

“Reading the world.”————Feedback Key words: global reading plan abundance As the speaker described her plan of reading the world, she tried to get one book of each country around the world, translated into English. She got through many tough time and finally, she manged to finish her own reading. As for me, I learned just like what the speaker

While reading a book, it’s a chance not only to learn something new and discover a set of stories, but also expand our horizons. As those who enjoy reading will know, books have an extraordinary power to take you out of yourself and into someone else’s mindset. Therefore, for a quite while, you will look at the world through different views. Maybe there exists some cultural conflicts or values, but it can also be really enlightening. Wrestling with unfamiliar ideas can help clarify your own thinking. And it can also show up blind spots in the way you might have been looking at the world. If we can make our own plan like this, the information in those books can make me more alive to the richness, diversity and complexity of our remarkable planet than ever before.

第五篇：(TED英文演讲)我们能战胜贫穷吗？——观后感

Can we conquer poverty? —— Feedback In this lecture, the speaker’s statements really shocked me. He believed that the greatest failure of the human race was the fact that we had left more than one billion of our members behind. Extreme poverty were figured out as the most difficult problemneeded to solve. But there isn’t nothing to do for us. Like

生词 gigantic insurmountable solvable

lean on

disastrous dilemma humble scalable territory pursue constraint exceptional deploy