作文出人意料又在情理之中

第一篇：作文出人意料又在情理之中

出人意料又在情理之中——叙事技巧之一

阅读文学作品，欣赏影视剧作，常常会被扣人心弦的情节所吸引，为出人意料的结局所震撼；而这“出人意料”的结局，正是作者所要表现的“情理之中”的主旨。写记叙文也应遵循这个规律，抓住叙事的技巧即写出“出人意料又在情理之中”的结局。

以鲁迅先生的《一件小事》为例，文章第二部分具体叙述“一件小事”的经过，写“我”因生计关系雇了一辆人力车到S门去，车夫跑得快，快到S门时车把带倒一个老女人，“我”说没事，并让车夫快走，可是出乎“我”的意料，车夫“毫不踌躇”留下来想办法并承担责任。这个“结局”反映了“车夫”高贵的品德，正是情理之中的事。又如一篇题为《桌上的表》的记叙文，写的是人民子弟兵纪律严明的故事：突击队进洛阳，楼上主人不在，房里东西很多，有一只怀表很显眼，战士搜索后便离去，东西一件不少，突破任务完成后，战士在楼上休息，对这块镶有四颗宝石的瑞士怀表议论纷纷。部队出发了，出人意外的是“那只钢表依然放在桌上，滴滴答答地走着。”

这个结局就是“出人意料又在情理之中”。人民子弟兵纪律严明，必然是这种结局。以上两个例子说明故事的结局，常常是作者立意之所在。作者正是从“出人意料”的结局里挖掘给人以启迪的生活哲理。

请看一篇例文：

追车

开学的第一天，爸爸骑着自行车送我去上学。刚出家门，他指着前面的一辆白色公交车对我说：“君，那辆车和我们顺路都是到北站，我们跟它比比谁先到目的地，行不？”还没容我回答，爸爸已骑着车飞快地向前驶去。我开始埋怨爸爸：自行车怎么能赶上汽车？我看你怎么收场？

路上的车辆很少，我们的目标也很明显，刚开始时，我们与那辆车差了没多远。我暗自庆幸。眼看就要追上了，谁知，车主好像知道我们要和他比赛似的，加大了油门向前奔去。车离我们越来越远了，不多久，连影子都没有了。我十分扫兴，以为再也追不上了。可爸爸没有一丝沮丧，反而蹬得更快了。

过了金钢桥，我又发现了我们的竞争对手，高兴地对爸爸喊：“爸，再快一点呀，我们就要追上那辆车啦！”爸爸冲我笑了笑，继续加速向前蹬。我正在兴头上，满以为这回准能赶上这辆车，可是它却屁股一冒烟，迅速而去，一会儿又不见踪影了。这次我可彻底失望了。我看到爸爸的额头上正冒着汗，就对他说：“爸，我们反正追不上了，你就慢点骑吧。”爸爸没理我的话，还是朝前使劲蹬。一路上我觉得心里空荡荡的，也没心气再理会那辆公交车了。

终于到了北站，我和爸爸正准备进校，一辆公交就在离我们十几步的地方停了下来。“啊！”我不禁惊叫了起来，瞪大了眼睛朝那辆公车看去，没错，那辆公交正是我们竞争对手，我有点纳闷，它怎么竟比我们晚到站？爸爸却不以为奇，笑着对我说：“我早就知道它会比我们晚到，我说得没错吧！”我疑惑地看着爸爸，他好像看出了我的心思，不紧不慢地说：“公交车的速度当然要比自行车快得多，可是它在途中要停下来好多次，因为每到一站都会有乘客上下车，而我们却没有停下来，是一直在前进，最后，我们当然能超过它。孩子，在学习上也是这样呀，不怕慢，就怕站，以后可要记住！”

听了爸爸的话，我豁然开朗，我终于明白了父亲的良苦用心。是啊，不怕慢，就怕站，凭着这种毅力和勇气去开拓自己的人生之路，就会信心百倍地迈出坚实的每一步。”

简评：《追车》这篇记叙文写的是自行车同公交汽车比赛的故事，按常理自行车的速度自然没有汽车快，但故事的结局却出人意料之外，与“我们”比赛的公交车竟晚到站，在爸爸的解释下，使“我”明白了“不怕慢，就怕站”的道理，这种收获和体验正是情理中的事。文章的立意正是由结局引发出来的。

生活中，我们直接或间接参与的活动中，有些事让人难以忘怀，其中一个重要的原因，就是事情的“结局”出人意外，和这件事原来的结局一对比，让我们心灵怦然一动，从中悟出些道理，受到某种启迪，于是也就产生了创作的动机，有了文章的立意。

下面例举一些生活中出人意外的故事，请同学由这些出人意料的“结局”，生发出情理之中的文章立意，然后运用“三句九词”演绎成记叙文，题目自拟，字数600字左右。

事例

（一）入冬开始供暖了。我想，晚上又要睡不好觉了。因为楼房旁边的小区锅炉房贮煤厂的皮带运煤机又要昼夜响个不停了。

供暖的第一天晚上，睡觉时，我躺在床上等着铲煤机响，不知怎地，一直没响。第二天醒来，还没听见铲煤机的响声，是坏了？上学路过贮煤厂，发现皮带运煤机放在煤厂院内的南墙边上，贮煤厂工人正用手推车往锅炉房里运煤。

提示：事例的结局是“皮带运煤机放在煤厂院内的南墙边上，贮煤厂工人正用手推车往锅炉房里运煤”。这种出人意料的结局反映什么？反映了工人宁可自己辛苦也不扰民的可贵精神。这就是文章的中心思想。然后运用“三问九词”将其演绎的一个故事。

事例

（二）我刚跑到14路汽车和平门站，雨就下起来了。车还没来，我又没带伞，只好挨淋了。就在这时，一把红色的雨伞伸过来遮住了我。

事例

（三）早上，我从存车库推出自行车，一看后带瘪了，原来是扎了。怎么办？离上课只有20分钟了。这时存车库看车的王大爷说：“姑娘，骑我的车上学去吧。”

提示：

事例

（二）、（三）出人意外的结局反映了人和人之间互相帮助的诚挚关系。有了这一立意，便可以运用“三句九词”写出一篇较好的记叙文。

事例

（四）今天语文课上，我第一个举手回答老师的提问，结果答错了。老师不但没批评我，反而表扬了我，同学们也都为我鼓掌，我真的好高兴。

提示：此事例有三个“出人意外”的地方。其一，“我”第一个举手回答恐怕出乎老师和同学们的意料，因为“我”胆子小，缺乏自信，从来未敢第一个举手回答问题。其二，“我”答错了，原以为老师会批评“我”，没想到不但没批评反而表扬了“我”。其三，同学们没有嘲讽“我”，反而为我鼓掌。由此结局，可有两种立意：一是通过自己的实践，说明只要有勇气战胜自我，就会拥有自信。二使“我”明白了一个道理：鼓励真的很有用。拟题为《难忘的掌声》。

第二篇：高考语文 优秀作文 出人意料和情理之中素材

满分欣赏:出人意料和情理之中

“成功的花儿，人们只惊慕它现时的明艳，然而当初的芽儿却浸透了奋斗的泪泉。”冰心的话语，时常是我遇到艳羡他人而又惰于学习和行动时的一种激励。

成功有时只是一个小细节，天道酬勤，持之以恒，胜利的曙光就会灿然向你招手。物理学家兼化学家居里夫人一生成就卓越，曾两次获得诺贝尔奖，它取得的惊人成绩出乎意料，但却在情理之中，她的成功是用汗水和心血换来的。

有一次，一位客人来访看见她的女儿正在把玩着诺贝尔奖杯，就十分惊讶地问她：“这么重要的奖杯怎么可以随便让孩子玩呢？”而居里夫人却出乎意料地说：“奖杯只能代表着以前的成绩，如果太看重它，就会停滞不前。”那位客人意味深长地点了点头，更加敬佩她了。

记得一位著名的演讲家，他在年轻时，就立志要当一位成功的演讲者。渴望登台时意气风发，挥斥方遒的一幕，然而先天的短舌使他吐字不清晰，发音自然不到位，遭到了同行的耻笑和讥讽。

此后，他开始沉寂了，人们也渐渐忘了他的名字甚至他的存在。可他却没有丧失信心，于是每天和朝阳准时约会于大海边，口含石子，面朝大海，尽情地朗涌着，激昂着„„后来，当他再次登台时，以清晰、圆润、流畅的表达征服了所有听众的心。

他克服了先天的不足，出人意料地再次站在演讲台上，他的努力没有白费，实现了他自己的梦想，而这种梦想的实现又在情理之中。

一个人的心态和性格就决定了他或她的命运前程。乐观者会“死里逃往”，悲观者则“虽生犹死”。看似出人意料，但一切又在情理之中。

生活中还有很多的新鲜和新奇等我们去发掘，只有善于发现，才会有更多的惊喜，而每一份惊喜都是人生的一抹亮色。

点评

作者以事实为依据，清晰地亮出了自己的观点，举出典型事例进行论证，紧扣中心。层次分明。缜密的思维与语言，显示了作者良好的辩论能力，所举事例虽不新颖，但正因为被人们熟知才更有说服力。一个人可以经过努力或后天弥补把缺点克服，甚至转化为优点，这些无不体现了个人的耐力、毅力和坚韧。有些事不是我们做不到，而是我们还没有做就轻言放弃了，除了后悔之外，只能留下无尽的遗憾和伤痛。人的潜力是巨大的，只看你是否善于发掘，意料之外而又在情理之中的惊喜来自于有备而来的心，时刻为成功准备着，等待成功的每一秒和每一分，都是一种甜蜜的苦涩。（严敬群）（新华网：中国教育在线）

第三篇：出人意料,情理之中——作文结尾的手法

出人意料，情理之中——作文结尾的手法

教学课题：出人意料，情理之中——作文结尾的手法

教学目标：

1、鉴赏小小说结尾出人意料的特点

2、学写小小说结尾

3、在记叙文写作中布局出人意料的结尾

教学重点：鉴赏小小说结尾出人意料的特点

教学难点：学写出人意料的作文结尾

教学课时：两课时

教学过程：

一、导入

上周我们学习了莫泊桑的名篇《项链》，主要分析了这篇小说在情节结构上的特色，除了“物线法”、波澜起伏，跌宕多姿的特色外，还有一个就是结尾出人意料，又在意料之中，在课后补充阅读的名作《最后一片树叶》《警察和赞美诗》中也有这样出人意料的结尾，而这正是小小说的特点之一，在课本第四单元作文训练中要求我们学写小小说，我们不如从小小说的结尾入手来学习写一些出人意料，又在情理之中的结尾。

打开课本P215，阅读【写作指导】

小小说的特点以及写作注意点。

二、鉴赏小小说结尾出人意料的特点

1、请学生阅读《“书法家”》和《德军剩下来的东西》

2、分组讨论这两篇小小说在结尾的特点

教师总结：出人意料

《“书法家”》：在省略号中结束全篇，没有明示，但是可以看出这位书法家并非真正的书法家，讽刺当今官场的一些丑陋现象。

“盆中藏月，以小见大”，它留下的“空白”非读者以更大的想象余地，以补充“空白”，进行艺术再创造，言短而意长。

《德军剩下来的东西》：德军剩下来的不只是劫后的城市，可怜的女人，战争摧毁了城市，也摧毁了灵魂。

“无巧不成书”，深挖细掘，领异标新。短短的篇幅表现出很大的社会容量。→小小说的结尾是小小说的灵魂所在，但结尾的写作技巧是为了体现小说的主旨。

3、分析作者是如何结尾达到这样的效果的？

教师总结：⑴精心布局

补充回忆高一时作文训练第二单元《写出事件的波澜》中的主要方法

巧设悬念，暗布疑阵

草蛇灰线，前伏后应

运用蓄势，着力突转

⑵突破常理（找到生活中的方西瓜、逆向思维）

创新无非是在合乎情理的范围内将切入的角度稍稍偏开人们思维习惯的方向而已。当一个故事在接近收场的时候，再写出几笔绝的，使得从头道来的故事临近尾声却又兀然的山回路转，预示出别一番情景，仿佛还有新的故事可讲述、可想象、可回味，但又确确实实地结束了，“出乎意料之外，合乎情理之中”。

三、口头练习：试给这篇小小说增加一句话，制造一种出人意外的效果

尴尬瞬间

我对已搬来一星期却仍不识“庐山真面目”的邻居很是好奇，总想一睹“芳容”。终于有一天，隔壁传来开门的声音。机不可失，赶忙打开门一看，哇，好一位秀发披肩清纯美丽的现代淑女！当我上上下下“饱餐秀色”时，一声河东狮吼：“见鬼，瞅什么瞅，没见过人哪？”唬得我心里直发毛，灰溜溜地关了门。

一天，我正要下楼，楼下传来了脚步声。糟糕，“见鬼”来了，真是冤家路窄。无奈，只好昂首阔步视而不见，下楼梯如履平地，一脚踏了三个台阶，结果可想而知——让“见鬼”笑了个够。而由于自己“光荣负伤”在床上趴了好几日，恨恨发誓与“见鬼”誓不两立。几天后，忽有人敲门，一看，是“见鬼”，“你的腿怎么样了？”满脸灿烂的笑容和关切的神情让我如坠千里迷雾，又受宠若惊。“没，没事儿。”“那你可以帮我抬煤气罐吗？” 啊？！

（此文获第三届“跨世纪”杯全国中学生作文大赛特等奖）

参考：“那你可以帮我抬煤气罐吗？”

学生口头回答，教师进行点评。

这个结尾要体现出现代社会之中人和人在相处中缺乏交集和共鸣。

四、练笔：给下面这篇小小说增加一个出人意料的结尾

一双手套

事情发生在世界屋脊青藏高原上，一个部队被派出去拯救被冰封的火车„„

离发生事故现场不远的小镇上，猛烈的寒风叫嚣着，几乎要吞噬掉这偏僻的镇子，鹅毛般的大雪已纷纷扬扬下了三天，眼看就要埋没这个小镇了。在这奇冷的深夜，一处灯光在风雪里摇晃着。街道上没有一个人。这点微弱的灯光也成了大地上唯一的光亮，这仅有的光亮是从这镇子边缘处的一家手套店里放出来的。店里一位憨厚的老人裹在厚重的羊皮底下，坐在火炉旁嘴里喃喃着些什么。不大的店里挂着样式不多的手套，柜台、货架十分简单，在这灰黄色的灯光里显得黯然无光。

“咚咚！”传来急促的敲门声、老人家不相信自己的耳朵，挪着踌躇的身体，怯生生地开了门，发现了一个被雪包裹了的大兵。大兵的脸上、眉毛上、大衣上全是雪，站在风里抖动着。风狂野地掀门进来，上牙下牙碰出了几句话：“老大爷，手套，加厚的。”他断断续续地重复着。老人拿出一双羊皮手套交给了他。当他用一双瑟瑟发抖的双手摸遍身上每一个布袋时，他脸上的窘色让他那苍白的脸有些发红了，带着乞求的语气小声说：“大爷，对不起，三天后，我们完成任务后，我一定把钱给你送来。”眼光中闪烁着坚定的承诺。老人点了点头。大兵深深地对这位老人行了个军礼，然后，消失在这黑暗与风雪交加的夜色里。风更加猛烈地扑打着这点残余的光„„

转眼三天过去了，那个大兵没有来„„风停了，雪也停了，阳光充满了银状素裹的小镇，已经七天了，那个大兵依然没来。老人快将那天晚上的事忘却了。中午老人像往常一样在店里打点着。突然，一声沉重的脚步划破了这店里的沉寂，进来的也是一个大兵，但不是那天晚上的那个。大兵说了些什么，将一张崭新的人民币和那双手套放在柜台上。老汉禁不住问那天晚上的解放军战士为什么没来。士兵的脸上略浮起了一丝忧伤：“他再也不需要这双手套了，„„”

1、给学生十分钟时间完成交流

2、投影学生写作的结尾，并与原作进行比较

“他在抢救一些送往西藏的急需药品时，被一块巨大的冰砸去了双臂，而今那些药品已按时送到了，而他却躺在病床上学着用脚来对付一切，还再三叮嘱我要把这钱送来，至于这双手套，他再也用不着了。”

【简评】小说结尾，出奇制胜，除了“诚信”之外，更可感受到强者的生命之音。简单原本中的“铺垫”，说明其理由

五、延伸：出人意料的结尾在记叙文中的运用

1、欣赏《人情，被竞争压迫着》

人情，被竞争压迫着

看着远处漫天的火光，我想庞涓已经死在了那棵树下„„

“考磐在涧，硕人其宽。”想当年，我和庞涓同师鬼谷，那时候，庞涓、我、一缕幽泉、一把箜篌，鸟的鸣叫和那阵阵弦音化作了高山流水。同一个屋檐我们亲如兄弟。

谁知道，他后来去了魏国，谁知道，他当了大将，又有谁知道，他怕我和他竞争竟对我用了膑刑，又在我脸上刺字！

他不顾当年和我同窗的日日夜夜，为了名利，不择手段，人情在他心里早已流水无痕，当我明白这一点，我毅然决定离他而去，并且开始了我的报复。

当魏国的车马驶向赵国的时候，我对田忌说道：“围魏救赵。”庞涓对人情的淡漠已经让他遇到了两个空前强大的对手——一个我，一个他自己，当他慌忙地指挥军队回救魏国，他的心里一定是后悔的，可能是对我施刑的忏悔，也可能是没有把我处死的另一点些许人情。但是，我与他的竞争才刚刚开始，我的报复才刚刚开始„„

魏国出兵伐齐，又是庞涓主帅，一个模糊的意识告诉我，我和他的决战将要来临，日见齐兵的素来怯弱，我出计“减灶”，我料定庞涓的骄傲自大，料定魏兵的轻敌，料定他“弃其步兵，取轻锐倍日逐之。”

当庞涓拿着火把读着他一生中最后一行兵法时：“庞涓死于此树下。”

他为他淡漠的人情负责，报销了生命，我似乎可以轻松地想象他拔剑自刎的情形。这一剑的结果是我胜了，在和他的竞争中我赢了。

但是，我却怎么也高兴不起来，起初我的报复似乎是一个怒气充斥的灵魂，仇一报，灵魂便被战国的大风吹走。我的泪开始模糊了眼睛，然后滴落在这被血腥掩盖了人情的土地上。想起曾经和庞涓同师鬼谷的日子，那一份天真、欢愉又怎会在我复仇的心质中抹去？

当我成就了自己时，猛然发现我究竟做了些什么？我和庞涓只是战国君王的棋子！我所做的是否是我自己的意愿？我的心凉了，谁能懂得我心中那份因为竞争而忘记人情的无奈？ 也许，庞涓当时和我一样的无奈。

人情被竞争压迫着，我的心在疼痛！

2、讨论分析：楷体字部分，即结尾在全文中的作用

教师总结：结尾反思，更贴近话题，深化主题，人情被竞争压迫着。这就是希望大家在今后的记叙文写作中可以达到的目标。

六、作业：写一篇记叙文，要求结尾出人意料，又在情理之中

《作文的结尾》课的授后一得

语文组顾燕

出人意料，又在情理之中的结尾是小小说的特点之一，在备课的时候，我主要考虑从第二单元小说的学习，从莫泊桑《项链》的结尾手法导入，结合课本第四单元写作《小小说》的结尾特色，通过欣赏《德军剩下来的东西》和《“书法家”》熟悉出人意料、又在情理之中的结尾手法，接着通过三个练习让学生逐步实践结尾的手法，使学生在实践中了解、熟悉这种写作技巧，并运用于自己以后的写作中。

今日的课堂效果比想象的好，学生并没有因为听课老师比较多而怯场，而是和平常一样积极地思考、回答课堂的上的每一个问题，特别是在练习中，学生的创意中出现了比我原先准备好的例子中更好的点子和结尾，课堂效果良好。

但是，由于在讨论中运用的时间较多，所以做最后一个练习的时候，学生思考的时间比较短，而且写的时候没有注意用的笔，所以后来在投影的时候效果不是特别的好，结尾显得有点儿仓促，缺乏必要的总结。

评课的时候，部分老师提出了用多媒体课件代替实物投影，这样做可以节省时间，然后用这些时间来进行总结。其实，在备课之初，我也曾经考虑过制作PowerPiont课件，一样具有实物投影的直观性，也可以节省很多时间，但是我也考虑用多媒体课件的缺陷就是答案过于唯一，而作文课是比较开放的，续写的结尾也应该是多姿多彩的，这些是多媒体课件无法实现的，在制作上难度比较高，也是目前我的水平无法解决的一大难题。但是，既然听课老师有这样的建议，我相信一定可以在多媒体课件和多样性之间寻找一个平衡点，今后多学习一些课件制作的技巧，在课件制作方面可以多花一点心思，希望可以在直观性和可操作性上都有突破。

今天的公开课让我受益匪浅，在今后的课堂的教学中，我会更多的考虑课堂教学实际，特别是对于时间的把握，对于学生讨论比较激烈的问题可以继续延伸下去，不一定要强求完成教学任务，这样的意外，虽然课堂教学并不完整，但是学生的体会会更深刻，效果可能反而会更好，例如在今天的课堂上，学生对于《人情，被竞争压迫着》这篇记叙文很有想法，很多想法比我预先准备的材料更宽、更深，如果在这个时候考虑把这个练习继续挖深，而不是让学生留到课下再讨论，一定会更有新意，并且可以把多余的时间用来总结，把最后一个练习留到课下做作业，我想效果会更好。

套用今天用来结尾的一句话：教学中不可能每天都有意外，倘若可以把这些意外都作为经验和教训，以后的课一定会越上越好，我有信心。

第四篇：出人意料的近反义词

导语：每个人的心里，其实都有一个纯净的世界。有静静的阳光，一直温暖着自己，以下小编为大家介绍出人意料的近反义词文章，欢迎大家阅读参考!

出人意料的近反义词

【拼音】：chūrényìliào

【解释】：出：超出；意料：预先的估计。出乎人们的意料之外。

【出自】：《南史?袁宪传》：“宪常招引诸生与之谈论新义，出人意表，同辈咸嗟服焉,人生语录。”

【示例】：明?无名氏《赠书记?奉诏团圆》：“才貌却相当，缘合未堪奇赏，～，在那错联鸾凰。”

【语法】：动宾式；作谓语、定语、状语；指事物出乎人们意料之外

【褒贬】：中性词

【英语】：beyondallexpectations；comeasasurprise；unexpected

成语辨析

“出人意料”和“出其不意”都有“让人不曾想到或料到”的意思。但“出其不意”是表示出对方的意料之外，可表示在对方意料不到的条件下，突然袭击；“出人意料”是表示出于人们意料之外，着重在当事人对事物情况事先已有所估计。

出人意料的近义词

出其不意 出乎意料 出人意表 出乎预料 意想之外 预料之外 突如其来 不期而然 始料不及

出人意料的反义词

不出所料 情理之中 正中下怀 意料之中 如愿以偿 本在意中 意想之中 大势所趋 使料所及

出人意料造句

平时学习很好的小明同学，这次考试竟然成绩很差，真是出人意料。

他是个不正经的男孩，经常做出让大家感觉出人意料的举动。

出人意料的是，这次中国足球竟然进入了前三名。

第五篇：出人意料的工作动机--英文演讲稿

I need to make a confession at the outset here.A little over 20 years ago I did something that I regret, something that I'm not particularly proud of, something that, in many ways, I wish no one would ever know, but here I feel kind of obliged to reveal.(Laughter)In the late 1980s, in a moment of youthful indiscretion, I went to law school.(Laughter)

Now, in America law is a professional degree.You get your university degree.Then you go on to law school.And when I got to law school, I didn't do very well.To put it mildly, I didn't do very well.I, in fact, graduated in the part of my law school class that made the top 90 percent possible.(Laughter)Thank you.I never practiced law a day in my life.I pretty much wasn't allowed to.(Laughter)

But today, against my better judgement, against the advice of my own wife, I want to try to dust off some of those legal skills, what's left of those legal skills.I don't want to tell you a story.I want to make a case.I want to make a hard-headed, evidence-based, dare I say lawyerly case, for rethinking how we run our businesses.So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take a look at this.This is called the candle problem.Some of you might have seen this before.It's created in 1945 by a psychologist named Karl Duncker.Karl Duncker created this experiment that is used in a whole variety of experiments in behavioral science.And here's how it works.Suppose I'm the experimenter.I bring you into a room.I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches.And I say to you, “Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table.” Now what would you do?

Now many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall.Doesn't work.Somebody, some people, and I saw somebody kind of make the motion over here.Some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall.It's an awesome idea.Doesn't work.And eventually, after five or 10 minutes, Most people figure out the solution, Which you can see here.The key to to overcome what's called functional fixedness.You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks.But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle.The candle problem.Now I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University in the U.S.This shows the power of incentives.Here's what he did.He gathered his participants.And he said, “I'm going to time you.How quickly you can solve this problem?” To one group he said, I'm going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem.To the second group he offered rewards.He said, “If you're in the top 25 percent of the fastest times you get five dollars.If you're the fastest of everyone we're testing here today you get 20 dollars.” Now this is several years ago.Adjusted for inflation.It's a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work.It's a nice motivator.Question: How much faster did this group solve the problem? Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.Three and a half minutes longer.Now this makes no sense right? I mean, I'm an American.I believe in free markets.That's not how it's supposed to work.Right?(Laughter)If you want people to perform better, you reward them.Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show.Incentivize them.That's how business works.But that's not happening here.You've got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity.And it does just the opposite.It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.And what's interesting about this experiment is that it's not an aberration.This has been replicated over and over and over again, for nearly 40 years.These contingent motivators, if you do this, then you get that, work in some circumstances.But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don't work or, often, they do harm.This is one of the most robust findings in social science.And also one of the most ignored.I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation.Particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators.And I'm telling you, it's not even close.If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.And what's alarming here is that our business operating system--think of the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources--it's built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks.That's actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks.But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach doesn't work, often doesn't work, and often does harm.Let me show you what I mean.So Glucksberg did another experiment similar to this where he presented the problem in a slightly different way, like this up here.Okay? Attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn't drip onto the table.Same deal.You: we're timing for norms.You: we're incentivizing.What happened this time? This time, the incentivized group kicked the other group's butt.Why? Because when the tacks are out of the box it's pretty easy isn't it?(Laughter)If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to.Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind.That's why they work in so many cases.And so, for tasks like this, a narrow focus, where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well.But for the real candle problem, you don't want to be looking like this.The solution is not over here.The solution is on the periphery.You want to be looking around.That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.Let me tell you why this is so important.In western Europe, in many parts of Asia, in North America, in Australia, white collar workers are doing less of this kind of work, and more of this kind of work.That routine, rule-based, left brain work, certain kinds of accounting, certain kinds of financial analysis, certain kinds of computer programing, has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate.Software can do it faster.Low-cost providers around the world can do it cheaper.So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.Think about your own work.Think about your own work.Are the problems that you face, or even the problems we've been talking about here, are those kinds of problems--do they have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No.The rules are mystifying.The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious.Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem.And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we've built so many of our businesses, don't work.Now, I mean it makes me crazy.And this is not--here's the thing.This is not a feeling.Okay? I'm a lawyer.I don't believe in feelings.This is not a philosophy.I'm an American.I don't believe in philosophy.(Laughter)This is a fact.Or, as we say in my hometown of Washington D.C., a true fact.(Laughter)(Applause)Let me give you an example of what I mean.Let me marshal the evidence here.Because I'm not telling you a story.I'm making a case.Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, some evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, he and three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students.They gave these MIT students a bunch of games.Games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration.And the offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards.Small reward, medium reward, large reward.Okay? If you do really well you get the large reward, on down.What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance.Okay? But one the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.Then they said, “Okay let's see if there's any cultural bias here.Lets go to Madurai, India and test this.” Standard of living is lower.In Madurai, a reward that is modest in North American standards, is more meaningful there.Same deal.A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards.But this time, people offered the highest rewards, they did the worst of all.In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.Is this some kind of touchy feely socialist conspiracy going on here? No.These are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago.And do you know who sponsored this research? The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States.That's the American experience.Let's go across the pond to the London School of Economics.LSE, London School of Economics.Alma mater of 11 Nobel Laureates in economics.Training ground for great economic thinkers like George Soros, and Friedrich Hayek, and Mick Jagger.(Laughter)Last month, just last month, economists at LSE looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies.Here's what the economists there said, “We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.And what worries me, as we stand here in the rubble of the economic collapse, is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science.And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, and if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things.To entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick.We need a whole new approach.And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach.It's an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation.Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important.And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose.Autonomy, the urge to direct our own lives.Mastery, the desire to get better and better at something that matters.Purpose, the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves.These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.I want to talk today only about autonomy.In the 20th century, we came up with this idea of management.Management did not emanate from nature.Management is like--it's not a tree.It's a television set.Okay? Somebody invented it.And it doesn't mean it's going to work forever.Management is great.Traditional notions of management are great if you want compliance.But if you want engagement, self-direction works better.Let me give you some examples of some kind of radical notions of self direction.What this means--you don't see a lot of it, but you see the first stirrings of something really interesting going on.Because what it means is paying people adequately and fairly, absolutely.Getting the issue of money off the table.And then giving people lots of autonomy.Let me give you some examples.How many of you have heard of the company Atlassian? It looks like less than half.(Laughter)Atlassian is an Australian software company.And they do something incredibly cool.A few times a year they tell their engineers, “Go for the next 24 hours and work on anything you want, as long as it's not part of your regular job.Work on anything you want.” So that engineers use this time to come up with a cool patch for code, come up with an elegant hack.Then they present all of the stuff that they've developed to their teammates, to the rest of the company, in this wild and wooly all hands meeting at the end of the day.And then, being Australians, everybody has a beer.They call them FedEx Days.Why? Because you have to deliver something overnight.It's pretty.It's not bad.It's a huge trademark violation.But it's pretty clever.(Laughter)That one day of intense autonomy has produced a whole array of software fixes that might never have existed.And it's worked so well that Atlassian has taken it to the next level with 20 Percent Time.Done, famously, at Google.Where engineers can work, spend 20 percent of their time working on anything they want.They have autonomy over their time, their task, their team, their technique.Okay? Radical amounts of autonomy, And at Google, as many of you know, about half of the new products in a typical year are birthed during that 20 Percent Time.Things like Gmail, Orkut, Google News.Let me give you an even more radical example of it.Something called the Results Only Work Environment.The ROWE.Created by two American consultants, in place in place at about a dozen companies around North America.In a ROWE people don't have schedules.They show up when they want.They don't have to be in the office at a certain time, or any time.They just have to get their work done.How they do it, when they do it, where they do it, is totally up to them.Meetings in these kinds of environments are optional.What happens? Almost across the board, productivity goes up, worker engagement goes up, worker satisfaction goes up, turnover goes down.Autonomy, mastery and purpose, These are the building blocks of a new way of doing things.Now some of you might look at this and say, “Hmm, that sounds nice.But it's Utopian.” And I say, “Nope.I have proof.”

The mid 1990s, Microsoft started an encyclopedia called Encarta.They had deployed all the right incentives.All the right incentives.They paid professionals to write and edit thousands of articles.Well compensated managers oversaw the whole thing to make sure it came in on budget and on time.A few years later another encyclopedia got started.Different model, right? Do it for fun.No one gets paid a cent, or a Euro or a Yen.Do it because you like to do it.Now if you had, just 10 years ago, if you had gone to an economist, anywhere, And said, “Hey, I've got these two different models for creating an encyclopedia.If they went head to head, who would win?” 10 years ago you could not have found a single sober economist anywhere on planet Earth, who would have predicted the Wikipedia model.This is the titanic battle between these two approaches.This is the Ali-Frazier of motivation.Right? This is the Thrilla' in Manila.Alright? Intrinsic motivators versus extrinsic motivators.Autonomy, mastery and purpose, versus carrot and sticks.And who wins? Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, mastery and purpose, in a knockout.Let me wrap up.There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.And here is what science knows.One: Those 20th century rewards, those motivators we think are a natural part of business, do work, but only in a surprisingly narrow band of circumstances.Two: Those if-then rewards often destroy creativity.Three: The secret to high performance isn't rewards and punishments, but that unseen intrinsic drive.The drive to do things for their own sake.The drive to do things cause they matter.And here's the best part.Here's the best part.We already know this.The science confirms what we know in our hearts.So, if we repair this mismatch between what science knows and what business does, If we bring our motivation, notions of motivation into the 21st century, if we get past this lazy, dangerous, ideology of carrots and sticks, we can strengthen our businesses, we can solve a lot of those candle problems, and maybe, maybe, maybe we can change the world.I rest my case.