Adam Grant, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World. (aff) New York: Penguin Books, 2016. 321 pages.
One of the pleasures I currently enjoy is being part of a book club in which participants read the same book and then meet for lunch to discuss it. Reading books and eating lunch are two of my favorite things, so combining those activities bodes well from the outset. But what makes my book club even more enjoyable is that the participants are all relatives. My two sons, Mike and Daniel, along with my daughter, Carrie, and son-in-law, Sam, have had a reading club for several years now. The group has a total of five bachelor’s degrees, seven master’s degrees, and three Ph.Ds, so we have had experience in reading and reporting. Typically, one of the “kids” picks the book, usually Mike. The one constant is that I buy lunch. Originals was the most recent book we discussed.
Adam Grant has written a fascinating book examining how people create something new that becomes successful. He has uncovered several counter-intuitive principles. He begins by confessing that he missed an opportunity to invest in a highly successful startup because it did not appear to have the features he assumed were necessary for a lucrative new company (2). Looking back, he learned that it did, indeed, have the right ingredients. Grant simply hadn’t known what those ingredients were.
Grant describes originality as “. . . taking the road less travelled, championing a set of novel ideas that go against the grain but ultimately make things better” (3). He acknowledges that, ultimately, nothing is completely original. He claims we are constantly borrowing thoughts, something he describes as “kleptomnesia” (3).
Grant cites a number of interesting studies to support his findings. One study discovered that customer service agents who used Firefox or Chrome as their primary search engine were 19% less likely to miss work and kept their customers far happier than those who used Safari or Internet Explorer (4). It was discovered that people who did not merely accept default search engines but instead checked out other options were far more likely to be creative in solving problems as well. The key was not teachability, but initiative (5). Grant suggests, “People who suffer the most from a given state of affairs are paradoxically the least likely to question, challenge, or reject, or change it” (6). He adds, “The hallmark of originality is rejecting the default and exploring whether a better option exists . . . The starting point is curiosity” (7).
Interestingly, he notes that child prodigies rarely go on to change the world. He explains that “practice may make perfect, but it doesn’t make something new” (9). Prodigies have been praised for perfecting what exists, not for creating something that does not yet exist. Ironically, he notes, “Research demonstrates that it’s the most creative children who are least likely to become the teacher’s pet” (9).
Grant suggests that the more people value achievement, the more they come to dread risk (10). He cites Joseph Schumpeter who suggests that originality is an “act of creative destruction” (13). The very word “entrepreneur” means “bearer of risk” (14).
Grant pushes back against some stereotypes. He suggests that the most successful entrepreneurs are not necessarily the greatest risk takers. Rather, they alleviate the risks they are taking in one area by being more conservative in others (19). There were many famous discoverers who kept their day job even while building a new company or invention. Often, the most successful inventors were very conservative in how they managed other areas of their business and finances. Grant also highlights the value of co-CEOs (20). Again, this idea goes against our sense that successful entrepreneurs are larger-than-life risk takers who control the entire process. Having two CEOs helps the company see more possibilities and potential dangers and brings more skills to the table, making the likelihood of success more probable.
Grant states, “But in reality, the biggest barriers to originality is not in idea generation—it’s idea selection” (31). He notes that thousands of products are invented each year. The key is finding the ones that can be successful. He suggests that many of the most famous inventors were successful because of the volume of their inventions. Many of their creations were duds, but their successes made up for their failures. People like Thomas Edison are known for their successes, but they had many failures as well. He concludes, “Quantity is the most predictable path to quality” (37). He also notes that “. . . we tend to be overconfident when we evaluate ourselves” (33). This self-confidence leads us to overestimate our creations and fail to recognize their shortcomings.
Grant also purports that our first ideas are typically the closest to the default that already exists (38). For that reason, inventors need to keep experimenting so they move farther afield into fresher ideas.
Grant notes that the best people to evaluate new ideas are our peers who work in the same field (42). He states that just because we are successful in one field does not guarantee we will be good at recognizing good ideas in another field. He notes that “Our intuitions are only accurate in domains where we have a lot of experience” (51). In a study of Nobel Prize winners between 1901-2005, those who won were much more likely to be involved in the arts (46). Time working abroad was also a key to significant creativity (49). Grant suggests that “It’s rare that originality comes from insiders” (58). Grant inserts some great quotes along the way as well, including this one from Einstein: “Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds” (62).
Grant offers some interesting commentary on counter-intuitive principles such as telling people the negatives of your idea first (69). As a result, people are less intimidated by the downside, since they have encountered it at the outset.
Grant also suggests that sometimes it is better not to rush a new idea to production. More thought might still need to go into it. Competitors may get their product out first, but at times we can learn from our mistakes and ultimately produce a superior product. He notes, “. . . the advantages of acting quickly and being first are often outweighed by the disadvantages. It’s true that the early bird gets the worm, but we can’t forget that the early worm gets caught” (93). He adds, “. . . when you put off a task, you buy yourself time to engage in divergent thinking rather than foreclosing on one particular idea” (94). “Procrastination may be the enemy of productivity, but it can be a resource for creativity” (95). Grant mentions the Zeigarnik Effect, which is that people tend to remember unfinished tasks better than finished ones (99). Thus, when we leave tasks unfinished, our mind continues to mull them over, and at times, make them better.
Grant notes that “Timing accounted for forty-two percent of the difference between success and failure” (103). He observes that often people’s greatest contributions come later in their life, after they have had many experiences and attempted many different things (109).
He claims that there are two types of innovation: Conceptual Innovation and Experimental Innovation (109). Conceptual innovation can occur earlier in life, because it does not need to be tested or experimented with first. Albert Einstein was the poster child of such innovation. He did his greatest work when he was young. Experimental Innovation typically occurs later in life.
Throughout the book, Grant cites various interesting studies, many of which run counter to what we might expect. He includes a chapter on “Creating and Maintaining Coalitions” (114). He cites Lucy Stone, one of the early promoters of women’s suffrage, as an example. I felt in some ways this chapter dragged a little. But it was interesting from a historical perspective.
He also states, “The goal is to push the envelope, not tear the envelope” (141). He cites an interesting study on the role birth order plays in innovation. He notes that, when it comes to stealing bases in baseball (a risky endeavor), younger brothers were 10.6 times more likely to take that gamble (150). On the other hand, high academic achievers were 2.3 times more likely to be first- borns as last-borns (155). This imbalance exists because first-borns tend to identify with the adults, strive to master the traditional, and succeed in the world as it is. Younger children are more likely to push the limits and try something new.
Grant also notes that people who grew up in homes with few rules tend to be more creative than those whose families had many rules (164). He also notes that children who were praised for their character tended to take more risks later in life than those who were praised for their actions (168). For example, Europeans who were commended for being kind and thoughtful people as children were far more likely to risk their lives saving Jews from the Nazis than were people who grew up being complimented for doing nice things.
Grant notes that decisions made in close-knit groups are often better than those made in more diverse groups (178). This tendency is especially evident if the group has a culture in which people are free to express their views, particularly their disagreements. Grant acknowledges that emotion can be good when channeled effectively (216). Yet, emotion can also lead to disaster when out of control.
When trying to sell an innovative idea to others, Grant suggests it is better to highlight the advantages versus the risks (233). He adds, however, that “Taking a risk is more appealing when they’re faced with a guaranteed loss if they don’t” (233). He adds, “If you want people to take risks, you need to first show what’s wrong with the present” (234). In examining Martin Luther King Junior’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Grant observes, “The audience was only prepared to be moved by his dream of tomorrow after he had exposed the nightmare of today” (235).
Finally, Grant makes an interesting observation on venting our anger. He claims, “Venting doesn’t extinguish the flame of anger; it feeds it. When we vent our anger, we put a lead foot on the gas pedal of the go system” (242).
This book is interesting for several reasons. For one, it addresses an important issue, why some people and organizations are better at innovation than others. Certainly, this information has enormous implications for organizations of all types. Second, he draws upon all manner of interesting studies and historical examples. Third, Grant pushes against commonly held opinions and makes readers think. Finally, Grant is an entertaining and interesting writer. His references to various people in history encouraged me to order biographies to read about them myself.
I like books like this one and encourage people to read them. There are some limits to how far you can take some of his ideas, and, of course, there are exceptions to every rule. A few of the discussions seemed a little long, but there are plenty of nuggets in here that make the book worth the read.
Rating: 4
