Adam Grant, Originals. How Non-Conformists move the World, (2017)
Being an original is seen as a hugely positive label. Not only are originals pioneering and seen to drive human progress but they are often associated with being hugely intellectual geniuses. Adam Grant is one such “Original” but as a leader in management thinking, motivation and teaching he largely shatters some of these preconceived notions of what it means to be “original”.
Being “Original” may be easy to define in principal but in practicality runs into a number of obstacles. The more that time passes the more ideas are generated thus the harder it becomes to truly be original. As such what becomes clear in Grant’s writing is that to be considered a leading “Original” there is much more than just innate qualities or a good idea that facilitates an individual or group being dubbed “Originals”. Some of the best “Original” ideas have come from building on, and improving on previous “Original” ideas.
The prevailing message of Originals is repetitive and Grant surrounds it with notable evidence and cases. What he succeeds in doing is problematizing what it means and what it takes to be “Original”.
The foreward Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook and founder of LeanIn.org) pinpoints the core of this book.
Conventional wisdom holds that some people are innately creative, while most have few original thoughts. Some people are born to be leaders, and the rest are followers. Some people can have real impact, but the majority can’t.
In Originals Adam shatters all of these assumptions.
As suggested, the general message of the book is one of what it means to be an “Original”. If anyone was to suggest which companies or individuals represent innovation and qualities of being “Original” similar answers would likely emerge. Names such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg or companies such as Google, Apple and Microsoft would dominate in the current technological age. What Grant does so well is give cases behind those individuals and companies that highlight where they are indeed “Original” and where they are not. In doing so he also provides studies and cases that highlight other “Originals” who made a significant impact or for some reason or another did not leave as substantial mark as they may otherwise have done. While the chapter structure does clearly signpost which aspects of being “Original” he was next going to unpack, the message does become evident early and sometimes seems to drag.
Namely, being seen as “Original” by others often comes with substantial luck, correct timing, and a period of push-back. It is in the push-back that “Originals” either persevere, overcome or succumb. In the first of these three responses, “Originals” can persevere and over a period of time may sway enough people through effective communication to invest in this new idea. In the second, “Originals” may overcome the obstacles to creating a new idea and have enough sway or authority already to produce their desired outcome. The third is the situation in which many people find themselves. As the full title of the work suggests, How Non-Conformists change the World, these ideas often do not conform with the status-quo. As such they may be perceived as a threat or challenge from those higher up, if the “Original” individual can not persevere or overcome then such ideas are quashed and individuals succumb to the conventional.
These three responses are more complicated in practicality and may overlap in addition to some ideas simply not being successful. Grant provides a number of examples of ideas that were “Original” but did not succeed in the way expected, a fascinating case for me being the segway. What becomes clear in these relatively unsuccessful cases is that there are some serial “Originals” that come up with a large number of original ideas or inventions, in doing so the chance they create a hugely successful “Original” idea also grows. What Grant makes clear is that under different circumstances everyone can be “Original” but it takes certain personas and qualities to make these ideas successful and even then this can rely on timing and other social factors.
This is a book that hinges heavily on behavioral psychology and offers a number of fascinating cases. It does have a message that becomes evident early which meant I sometimes lost interest in some areas of the book but it robustly shows how conventional wisdom on “Originals” can be somewhat misplaced. Most notably that everyone has the potential to create original ideas but is the personal situation and how susceptible to social influence an individual is that can define this potential.
A more revealing aspect of this book that aligns with messages from Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point is the importance of effective communication. It is presented how we are all susceptible to effective communication. Messages presented in one fashion can have a significantly different impact when presented in another fashion. Ultimately, what Grant does successfully show is that while everyone is capable of being an “Original” there are still some select people that are more likely to be successful at it. This leads to a personal conclusion that while originality is celebrated, it is actually the perseverance in the face of, and overcoming of certain obstacles of tradition that sets these individuals apart. In addition, there are many more individuals being “Originals” than are commonly celebrated and in every sphere of life there are those innovating and attempting to realize these original ideas. Communication and the status-quo can stifle originality but it is also true that an original idea may not be a ‘good’ idea. Therefore if an “Original” idea is truly ‘good’ then it requires the non-conformist to be a particular type of person for this idea to become part of human progress.
I would definitely recommend this book if a reader was interested in similar work but also caution that personal conclusions can be drawn from the work on specific elements that may be more relevant.
The Weekly Book Report 