In this post: Debunk what makes someone original, or largely appealing and inventive, from what you might otherwise believe. Be inspired to start something, create new bonds, and make an impact. While I don't agree with every chapter, this book has a lot of practical and actional advice. Read today!
Category: Success
Ramiah Recommended?
Yes! Originals is a seriously great piece. I felt so inspired to start my own company, form coalitions with others, and even start a movement. This book packs so much in its pages. Let me tell you more.
Originals by Adam Grant, as the tagline says, serves to explain 'how nonconformists change the world'.
What does this mean in a more practical sense? Grant breaks down the social backgrounds, thoughts, and behaviors of pioneers; from his own circle (teaching the founders of Warby Parker as a Professor) and beyond it (Martin Luther King, among other icons!).
orig•i•nal, n. A thing of singular or unique character; a person who is different from other people in an appealing or interesting way; a person of fresh initiative or inventive capacity. (pg 3)
Grant does a great job of fleshing out what he means by original through his own definitions, like the one above, real-life anecdotes, and empirical or analytical data.
Grant heavily leans on studies, which you - my dear Reminders - already know I stan. Often in the form of footnotes, and absolutely referenced in the References section in the final pages of the book, there are a lot of studies that substantiate what Grant is saying, which made his writing much more credible to me. I also took a lot of value from the footnotes. I mean, I took a lot of value regardless, as you can see from my book notes below, but the footnotes were especially juicy.
I also liked that the book was generally easy to follow (except for chapter 6, more on that below), implicitly included questions that caused me to reflect throughout the reading experience, and also contained a practical guide at the end of the book to summarize the lessons from each chapter.
What I really loved, however, was how Grant breaks down myths about how can be "original". Originals, whether in business, tech, politics, or otherwise, are usually thought to be huge risk-takers - willing to leave their day jobs to start a company, or push forward an initiative that is expected to disrupt the industry. Originals are also thought to be first-movers in their realm. Essentially, radicals.
Grant explains that, actually, the best originals are those who carefully access the risks and don't propose too out-there an idea of what actually distances customers, audiences, and constituents from supporting that initiative. Also, first movers learn hard and can fail early when they are the first in the market, but later-movers are able to be innovative against what already exists and access gaps that give them an advantage over the first-mover.
Take this quote, for example:
One study of over three thousand startups indicates that roughly three out of every four fail because of premature scaling—making investments that the market isn’t yet ready to support. (pg 105)
For me, this was the strongest value the book provided.
Also, have to point out my favorite chapter: Chapter 7 "Rethinking Groupthink". Surrounding ourselves with yes-men does not invite challenges to our idea, namely, what could go wrong and what may be missing. That may seem like a given to include people who can offer different opinions in the decision--making processes, but Grant carefully outlines several scenarios that have happened in real life where that was not the case.
Now let's get to what I didn't like.
Chapter 6. Not a fan.
This chapter is largely about the difference being the first or last child born in a family makes on our neurological wiring and tendency to conform toward security vs push against the status quo. Through studies, Grant argues the first-born child tends to be more conservative, opting for safer job options of doctor, lawyer, and the like. The last-born child is much more likely to create their own company, propose legislative change, and have similar demonstrations of innovation. In other words, last-born children are much more likely to be original.
Now, and this is me as a last-born child saying this, that sucks.
No one can control what order they're born in, or if there's an order at all (only children are quickly addressed but also in as unsatisfying a way). Grant says there are ways parents can raise their children that can influence more originality, regardless of their birth order, but it felt very unsubstantiated.
For example, "When mothers enforce many rules but offer a clear rationale for why they’re important, teenagers are substantially less likely to break them, because they internalize them,"( pg164). How does explaining a rule directly correlate to a more radical child? It felt very baseless to me. and also very much out of someone's control For readers looking for advice on how to be more original, it felt unhelpful in the least.
All this being said, this is a great book with mostly actionable principles. I see myself already implementing much of the advice already, and as an added bonus, it put a fire in me to ideate new things I can be original in.
I completely recommend.
Ramiah Reflects
My New Favorite Life Quotes:
(the quotes in this book were so great that I need to bifurcate them)
From Adam Grant:
"Originals are people who take the initiative to make their visions a reality."
"Taking on controversy is an act of conscious will."
"Becoming original is not the easiest path in the pursuit of happiness, but it leaves us perfectly poised for the happiness of pursuit."
From others:
“Argue like you’re right and listen like you’re wrong.” - Karl Weick
"Proper revolutions are not cataclysmic explosions. They are long, controlled burns.” - Srdja Popovic
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead
Questions to Ask Yourself (and answer!):
What status quo are you tired of?
What are the right times to raise your voice, and what steps can you take to get heard?
How can you build a strong culture that welcomes dissent?
Food for Thought:
This quote got me thinking - "can creators ever be objective in judging their own ideas?" (pg 32). How does one know when they're onto something special, fashioning a masterpiece? I'd say it stems from a delicate balance of internal confidence and external validation. Of course, groupthink is a risk, and hubris is as well. If someone can have a strong enough idea where even dissenters are at a loss for critical dangers with supporting an idea, that's the sweet spot.
What does it take to foster a sense of right and wrong? I recommend you read chapter 6 especially and give me your thoughts! Do you agree with grant that it can stem from birth order and be curved by parenting?
"Why are some cohesive groups vulnerable to bad decisions while others do just fine? What does it take to maintain a strong culture without spawning a cult?" (pg 179). I recently watched Midsommar, and I walked away wondering these exact questions; why are some people able to resist a strong group when others devote themselves so strongly that it becomes a new lifestyle, and where is the line between passion for a group and its beliefs and a cultish attachment?
Ramiah's Re-read When
Re-read when:
You need to find comfort in a "bad" idea
You're bucking against the system
You need encouragement to procrastinate
You need encouragement to not be completely risk-averse, and when to take risks
You need to fight groupthink and invite dissent
When you need help deciding when to see the glass half full and when to see it half empty (strategic optimist vs defensive pessimist)
When you need a reminder that urgency is key to a movement
See below for my book notes:
Check out my other posts and book notes here.
Until next time!
Montana Houston
Комментарии