The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. ——George Bernard Shaw
Adam Grant", the author of the book "Originals", is the youngest tenured professor at Wharton School of Business and was once listed as "the 25 most influential people in the world". One of the "management thinkers". He has long served as a senior consultant and speaker for Google, Johnson & Johnson, Goldman Sachs, Pixar Animation, etc. His first best-selling book was "Wharton's Most Popular Success Lessons," and "Deviation" was his second.
The English name of this book is "Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World", which we generally translate as "creative, earliest, original, non-copied"; when Original is used as a noun, it also means It is used to refer to "weirdos", so the Chinese version is translated as "deviance" which is quite suitable. People who are deviant are indeed the weirdos we know. In addition, the English subtitle of this book is called How non-conformists move the world. It mentions non-conformists. Although there are also a large number of people in this world who have achieved worldly success because of "sticking to the rules and following the old ways". But the author's point of view is also very clear. In today's era, we need more originalists and more deviant weirdos. They are the opposite of those who follow the old ways and stick to the rules. Although their various performances are very "anti-conventional", But they may be more successful. Indeed, this book gives many cases of counter-intuitive cognition and is worth reading carefully.
Innovators are people who take initiative to make their ideas a reality. The first step is to Reject the default option and choose to explore whether there is a better option. ”
The author shared an interesting survey that showed that employees who use Firefox or Chrome browsers do better work, have higher sales, and have higher customer satisfaction. The main reason for this difference is that they dare to question whether there is a better browser to use, and take the initiative to spend time to find better potential choices, download, install and try them out, and after comparing the experiences, they leave what they think is their work efficiency. Top browser.
I have never thought about observing the index of innovation and creativity from the perspective of the browser, but I carefully reviewed the friends around me, those colleagues who work efficiently and the key influencers on social media, are all first-generation Firefox and Chrome users, including myself. In our hearts, we feel that "it is a shame to use Windows' default IE browser." Later, it even developed to the point that "people who use Mac systems despise those who use Windows systems in terms of efficiency." "People", people who use Google search engine look down upon people who use Baidu search engine, LOL, I don't know how this idea came about, but I really think so. If you don't believe it, ask those around you who use Mac very much. Geeky programmers.
So innovation starts from "rejecting the default option" and starting from "questioning all conventional rules". Whether people choose to "reject convention" depends on the strength of their curiosity. Innovation comes from users’ curiosity and love for something.
This reminds me of a new realization I have recently gained, There are two "Presuppositions" that have promoted the rapid development of the world. One presupposition is "the uncertainty of the world", and the other is human "curiosity". Because the world is always unpredictable and uncertain, and human beings have a strong curiosity about all unknown and unpredictable things, which prompts us to continue to explore and make progress .
Bernard Shaw said:
There are two kinds of depression in life: one is that desires are not satisfied, and the other is that desires are satisfied.So I try to get happiness from a critical state.
This sentence is very interesting. It shows that once people's curiosity is satisfied and they gain a short-term sense of satisfaction, then they will be depressed again. So the best way to solve depression is to continue to generate new curiosity, and then work hard to satisfy this curiosity. The critical state mentioned by Bernard Shaw is the process of pursuing, exploring and striving to satisfy curiosity.
Curious people will always wonder why there are default general options?
I don't know if everyone has experienced this, but sometimes we suddenly stare at a very familiar word, and then always feel that this word is very strange, with a weird structure, and the more we look, the stranger it becomes, strange enough to make us laugh, but we clearly recognize this word and know it's not written incorrectly. This situation, in French, has a slang term, "Vuja de," meaning we face familiar things with a fresh, unfamiliar perspective. "Vuja De" spelled backwards is more famous, with a more elegant French charm, appearing in many movies, known as "Déjà Vu." It refers to the illusion of familiarity we feel in new situations, like when you suddenly experience something and instantly feel as if it has happened before, maybe in a dream, years ago, or perhaps in a past life. This feeling is particularly magical, very transcendent. In movies, a veteran in love might use this technique to invite a strange beauty to dance, and while dancing, look at her affectionately and say, "Déjà Vu," this scene feels familiar. However, "Vuja de" is the opposite, it means we observe familiar things with a completely new perspective, thereby gaining new insights on old problems, which is the source of innovation.
As we become curious about the unsatisfactory realities of our world, we begin to realize that most of them have social roots: after all, people create rules and institutions of. And this awareness gives us the courage to think about how we can change these situations. Before women in the United States gained the right to vote, historian Jean Baker noted that many women "had never before considered a society in which they were devalued Status, but think they should be like this by birth. As the feminist movement gains momentum, “More and more women are beginning to see that customs, religious precepts and laws are actually man-made and can be changed ”.
Many people believe in the idea that "genius changes the world", so when they do not show any talent, they give up the dream of changing the world and achieving great things, and are willing to spend their lives Do nothing. This book disagrees. The author feels that although prodigies often have more talents and greater ambitions, what prevents them from moving the world forward is: They are not trying to be deviant. Geniuses perform at Carnegie Hall, win prizes at the Olympiad, and become chess champions when something tragic happens to them. It is believed that practice makes perfect, but this kind of proficiency cannot give birth to new things. Prodigies learn to play the beautiful melodies of Mozart and the beautiful symphonies of Beethoven, but they do not compose their own original music. They focus their efforts on learning existing scientific knowledge rather than generating new insights. They follow the established rules of the game rather than inventing their own rules or their own games . Throughout the process, they will only strive to win the approval of their parents and the praise of their teachers.
These prodigies often grow up to become experts in their fields and leaders in their organizations. However, “Only a small percentage of gifted children end up becoming revolutionary creators”. That small minority must undergo a painful transformation from a child who adapts quickly and effortlessly in a given field to an adult who ultimately rewrites that field. The emphasis here is on "change" rather than "adaptation. Those children who are the most creative are the least likely to become teachers' pets, and teachers often treat highly creative students differently, viewing them as troublemakers. This reminds me of my childhood.
Next, let’s tell a story mentioned in this book:
A very untraditional financing story.
After Rufus Griscom and Alisa Volkman had their first child, they were shocked by the amount of misleading parenting advertisements and poor advice in society. So, they founded an online magazine and blog called Babble to challenge the mainstream clichés about parenting and address the harsh truths in a humorous way. In 2009, when they pitched the Babble project to venture capitalists, they presented a slide listing five reasons not to invest in it. This approach should have been a fatal blow to their publicity. Investors look for reasons to invest, not reasons against it. Entrepreneurs are supposed to highlight their company's strengths, not its weaknesses. However, their unconventional method worked: that year, Babble received an investment of $3.3 million. Two years later, Griscom used the same strategy for a presentation to Disney to see if they were interested in acquiring Babble. It was unimaginable in logic—he started by introducing the downsides. One slide read: "Here's why you shouldn't acquire Babble." The reasons included: users visiting less than three pages per session, user engagement below expectations; Babble being a parenting site but 40% of the posts were about celebrities; and the website's backend needing further adjustments. Admitting problems in a startup and promising to improve them is one thing, but when selling an established company, there's every reason to emphasize its strengths rather than continually discussing its shortcomings. Yet, strangely, Griscom succeeded again. Disney eventually bought the company for $40 million.
The author analyzed that during road shows, emphasizing your shortcomings first can bring three benefits:
The first benefit is to reassure the audience.The second benefit is that it makes you look smart.The third benefit is that it makes you more trustworthy.
As an investor, I regularly meet a lot of entrepreneurs pitching their ideas and projects to me. The vast majority, really, the vast majority, spend half an hour without getting to the point, speaking in a confusing manner with disorganized logic. At these times, when I ask them about potential risks and their biggest challenges, they often evade the question with very metaphysical answers, such as the impact of wars or national policies. It's rare for entrepreneurs to proactively admit shortcomings like "our technology is not up to par, our code needs rewriting; or our design skills are weak, we need excellent designers; our marketing is a weak point, we need to hire marketing talent." Honestly, whenever someone candidly answers my questions, openly acknowledging their flaws and proposing solutions they're considering, I have great respect for that entrepreneur, as there are so few who do this.
Investors do not believe in projects without risks. It is much better to dare to admit your shortcomings than to be blindly confident and arrogant.
Then, the author proposed a concept that was very conflicting with my original understanding. He said:
Successful innovators are more risk-averse.
The concept of "entrepreneur" was proposed by economist Richard Cantillon, which literally means "risk taker" "(bearer of risk). Therefore, I have always believed that To start a business, one must dare to take risks. One must be all-in, and to run without leaving any way out, risking one's life. In my investment betting method, the fifth rule is to invest in people who are "all-or-nothing". Those who cut off all escape routes and fight against the odds are the entrepreneurs I prefer.
In this book, the author confirms that in every field, whether it is business, politics, science, or art, there are very few people who change the world with innovative ideas. He is a role model full of firm belief and dedication. Because they question tradition and challenge the status quo, they may appear brave and confident on the surface. But they also have fears, indecision, and self-doubt. They are seen as proactive people, but they are often motivated by others and sometimes even forced to do so by outside forces. Although they appear to be risk-hungry, they actually prefer to be risk-averse.
The desire to succeed and the fear of failure have held back some of the greatest creators and change agents in history. They are concerned with maintaining stability and achieving achievement in the traditional sense, so they have been reluctant to pursue risks and deviate from the norm. Rather than making a desperate move with conviction, they were cajoled, persuaded or bullied into moving forward. While they seem to possess the qualities to be a natural leader, figuratively and sometimes literally, they are lifted up by their followers and peers, What they had hoped for was assured success.
Research shows that entrepreneurs who stay employed are 33% less likely to fail than entrepreneurs who quit their jobs. If you're risk-averse and have some doubts about the feasibility of your idea, you're likely to start a business that will last. But if you're a reckless gambler, your startup may be more vulnerable.
The author tells us with rich cases, Excellent people are forced to a dead end! Next, let’s take a look at some of the well-known big entrepreneurs who are “Risk balancers rather than just risk takers ".
Track star and Nike founder Phil Knight began selling running shoes from the trunk of his car in 1964, and until 1969, he was still working as an accountant, balancing this part-time for 5 years. Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, after inventing the first Apple computer in 1976, partnered with Steve Jobs to create Apple. However, he continued his full-time job at Hewlett-Packard until 1977, only joining Apple full-time after Mike Markkula joined Apple and brought in Sequoia Capital's investment. In 1996, Larry Page and Sergey Brin conceived a way to significantly improve internet searches, but they continued their graduate studies at Stanford University until 1998. Page said, "We almost didn't start Google because we were worried about not finishing our PhDs." In 1997, considering that creating a search engine company would distract from their research, they tried to sell Google for less than $2 million. Fortunately, potential buyers declined the deal. Pierre Omidyar founded eBay as a hobby; he continued his job as a programmer for the next 9 months, only quitting when eBay's earnings surpassed his salary. Even 100 years ago, when Henry Ford started building his automobile empire, he was still the chief engineer at Edison Illuminating Company, giving him the time and money to pursue his interest in automobiles. After inventing the carburetor technology and obtaining a patent a year later, he continued working at Edison for two more years. What about Bill Gates, who famously dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft? When Gates sold a new software program in his sophomore year, he didn't drop out but waited a full year before leaving school. It was not dropping out but a formal leave of absence, with his parents providing some funding to balance the risk.
The first story at the beginning of this book is about the author's two business school students, the founders of the famous American unicorn company Warby Parker. From the beginning, they The first priority is to reduce risk. "I didn't want to go all-in and bet everything on Warby Parker." After the company was founded, he was still exploring other business opportunities and doing research on campus to verify whether some of his scientific discoveries had commercial potential. value. With these backup plans in hand, founders are more willing to take risks and build their businesses on an unproven hypothesis,“ Assuming that people will be willing to Buy Eyeglasses Online”. Not only do they acknowledge this uncertainty, they actively take steps to reduce it. Co-founder Neil said: "We are always exploring how to reduce risks. The whole process involves a series of feasible decisions and unfeasible decisions. Every step we take, we have to carefully weigh it.
An important benefit of a balanced risk portfolio is that feeling secure in one area gives us the freedom to be innovators in another. In Chinese proverb, it is to ride a donkey to find a horse.
This is also the biggest inspiration this book has given me. It gives me an additional dimension of observation and thinking when assessing projects, that is:
Entrepreneurship requires managing and balancing risks! Innovation is the result of trial and error, and it is necessary to balance risks until the results are proven. Once it is verified, you can go all out, make a desperate move, and leave no retreat!
It turns out that the best entrepreneurs are not those who pursue the greatest risks, but those who strive to minimize them. Those who become successful entrepreneurs have a history of disobeying their parents as children, staying out at curfew, skipping school, stealing, gambling, drinking, and smoking marijuana. But they are less likely to engage in riskier activities such as drinking and driving, buying drugs or stealing valuables. This result held regardless of their parents' socioeconomic status or family income.
But then again, no matter how you control risks, risks are inevitable in entrepreneurship and innovation, and zero-risk innovation is impossible. At this time, through investigation, the author discovered another cognition that is contrary to our intuition:
Innovators often have strong self-doubt.
Although many innovators appear to be full of conviction and confidence from the outside, if you dig deeper, you will find that they are very much like most of us: They also had contradictory and complex psychology and experienced self-doubt. When prominent U.S. government leaders describe the most difficult decisions they have ever made, they respond by saying, It wasn't the complexity that troubled them; It's the courage to make choices.
Nelson Mandela once said:
"The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."
So, successful innovators are not born with courage, or even born with optimism. But they are independent thinkers, curious, unconventional, and rebellious; the reason why they dare to act in the face of risks is because: Comparing to the fear of failure, they are even more afraid of standing still”.
Speaking of this, the most famous sentence said by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg came to mind: In a rapidly changing world, the biggest risk is not to take any risks.
Swim against the tide. If you don’t advance, you will retreat.
Okay, after talking about risk balancing and overcoming fear, let’s talk about another cognition emphasized by the author:
The Law of Large Numbers by Trial and Error!
The law of large numbers of trial and error can also be equated with the law of large numbers of innovation, because the essence of innovation is trial and error.
The author has found through extensive research that, on average, the works of creative geniuses in their fields are not of better quality than those of their peers; they just have a lot of ideas or works. .
Number matters, the law of large numbers.
The London Philharmonic Orchestra selected the 50 greatest classical music pieces, among which 6 are by Mozart, 5 by Beethoven, and 3 by Bach. To create numerous masterpieces, Mozart composed over 600 works before he died at 35, Beethoven created about 650 in his lifetime, and Bach wrote over 1000. Research on 15,000 classical music pieces showed that the more pieces a composer wrote in any given five-year period, the higher the probability of producing a groundbreaking masterpiece. Pablo Picasso's total works include 1800 paintings, 1200 sculptures, 2800 ceramic pieces, and 12,000 drawings, not to mention numerous prints, tapestries, and rugs. However, only a small portion of these works received unanimous acclaim. Albert Einstein published groundbreaking theories like General Relativity and Special Relativity, but many of his 248 published works had little impact. But for most of us, our initial ideas are often the most conventional, in other words, the closest to the default norm. Only when we exclude the obvious and mediocre ideas and works will we have the greatest freedom to think about more distant possibilities. This process is the process of deliberate practice, the process of practice makes perfect, and innovation is the process of trial and error. However, with so many ideas and a lot of trial and error, how do we, as investors, choose the projects that are most likely to succeed? As an underappreciated young talent, how should you choose a stage and boss worth fighting for? You know, if you dedicate ten years of your youth to Tencent in its entrepreneurial stage or to ICBC in its heyday, there is a huge difference in the recognition and wealth you gain personally.
In the early days of innovation, the boundaries between alternative and alien are blurred. Anyone can achieve success in any incredible way, everything we talk about is probability! Speaking of probability, I also have a "1% law", which means "no matter how many people are qualified for innovation", only 1% will succeed in the end, so , "Absolutely good ideas" may not be the final winner, because "there are mountains outside the mountains and people outside the people. " There is no best, only better. In a blue ocean with no competition, a mediocre product or team may win; in a red ocean with fierce competition, very good products and teams may also be eliminated, because in the end Winners are better.
How can we improve our skills in identifying good and bad ideas so we can avoid betting on bad ideas? ?
Erik Dane, a professor at Rice University, believes that the more expertise and experience people gain, the more certain ways they view the world become. More and more entrenched. As our knowledge of a field increases, we become prisoners of the prototypes in our own minds. Pride comes with success. People who were more successful in the past performed worse in new environments. Even if the new work environment is completely different from the previous one, their overconfidence will make them less likely to listen to criticism from others. This is what psychologists call the “confirmation bias” trap: Everyone tends to focus on the strengths of their ideas and ignore, underestimate, or downplay their limitations. Both innovators and investors like us often struggle with the trap of confirmation bias.
In a rapidly changing world, lessons learned from experience can easily lead us to mistakes direction. Because the rate of change is accelerating, our environment is becoming increasingly unpredictable. This makes our intuition less reliable when judging new ideas, and we increasingly need to pay attention to analysis .
Cheryl Mitteness, a professor of entrepreneurship at Northeastern University, led a study in which more than 60 angel investors evaluated companies. Advocacy made more than 3,500 assessments and decided whether they would be funded. The researchers then asked investors to fill out a questionnaire to see whether their decision-making style was more intuitive or analytical. They then ranked each entrepreneur's passion and motivation and assessed each startup's potential to receive funding.
The results show that The more investors make judgments based on intuition, the more likely they are to be affected by entrepreneurial enthusiasm.
Extroverts tend to be more expressive than introverts, which means extroverts are able to show more passion. However, being extroverted is not inherently related to being a successful entrepreneur. Jack Ma (Founder of Alibaba) is very extroverted, but Pony Ma (Founder of Tencent) and Mark Zuckerberg are very introverted. You can love an idea and be determined to succeed, but still express it in a showy way and make it happen.
Daniel Kahneman describes in the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow": Intuition is acting quickly based on our passionate emotions , and reason is a slower, calmer process. Intuitive investors can easily get caught up in the enthusiasm of entrepreneurs; Analytical investors are more likely to focus on the facts and be dispassionate about the feasibility of the business. judgment.
If we want to improve our ability to select ideas, we should look beyond whether people have been successful in the past. We need to track how they succeed. We should not only look at their passion when expressing ideas, but also their passion for execution, their attention to market feedback and the speed of further feedback! Lei Jun's seven-character motto for Xiaomi is "focus on extreme speed". He emphasizes that the only martial art in the world is fast. The "fast" means rapid iteration based on market feedback.
It seems that evaluating the entrepreneur’s way of doing things and being a person is more important than evaluating the entrepreneur’s passion, diligence and academic qualifications more meaningful.
Another subversive understanding conveyed to us by this book is:
Many successful innovators are procrastinators!
In the case at the beginning of this article, the founding team of Warby Parker glasses e-commerce had procrastination. They had not completed the website until the day before it was launched. Since they were both risk-averse and severely procrastinated, the author declined to invest in them. But Warby Parker finally succeeded, which made the author deeply reflect on the relationship between procrastination and innovation.
Da Vinci spent about 15 years conceiving The Last Supper, while he was also working on many other things. The painting begins with a sketch of the protagonists sitting on a bench. More than ten years later, it developed into the final famous painting of 13 people sitting side by side at a long table. Although he was often annoyed by his own procrastination, Leonardo realized that creativity cannot be rushed. He pointed out: "Sometimes a genius accomplishes the most when he has the least time to work, because he is thinking carefully about inventions and forming the most perfect ideas in his mind.
In 1927, Russian psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik showed that people are more impressed by things that have not yet been processed than by things that have been processed. Once the task is completed, we don't think about it anymore. But when it is interrupted, or left unfinished, it remains active in our minds.
This may be the biggest contribution of procrastination to innovation. Just like a program running in the background of a computer, creativity is always Simmering in the background of the brain.
After being involved in starting more than 100 companies, Bill Gross, founder of Creative Labs, conducted an analysis to explain why Some companies will succeed and some companies will fail. The most important factors are not the unique idea, the talent and execution of the team, the quality of the business model, or the availability of capital. Gross found that "the most important thing is timing. 42% of the time, timing determines the final success or failure."
I strongly agree with Bill Gross's theory on timing. I have personally summarized that "Timing determines the distribution of social resources. The core of competition between enterprises is unfair competition, utilizing your strengths to suppress the weaknesses of your competitors. The ability to establish your advantageous resources is due to having a first-mover advantage in the field. This advantage can be converted into benefits such as talent, system, culture, technology, scale, price, efficiency, licensing, brand, and more. The source of all advantages is the first-mover advantage."
A team with a first-mover advantage is called First Mover in English. However, the author points out in the book that Improver has an advantage, with a failure rate of 8%, while the failure rate of First Mover is 47% , the Improver here is a team with procrastination. They spend time optimizing the product and experience instead of rushing to get an immature product online. I don’t fully agree with this point. The entrepreneurial environment is very complex. From the perspective of innovation and trial and error, only by allowing users to truly experience it after it goes online will they know how to modify and improve it, so as to achieve rapid iteration. This is the model emphasized by Lean startup. Although in most cases, the first person to propose an idea is not the final winner, if you enter the market late, you will miss the time window and miss the dividends of the times. There is a reference coordinate for "early and late" here. This coordinate point is the turning point of this industry. We cannot accurately predict this turning point, so it is definitely beneficial to enter the market early and not miss the opportunity. Procrastination is an innate style of doing things in a team, but severe procrastination still lacks any innovation. Just the right timing and just the right amount of procrastination are the best partners. Those companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars did the right thing at the right time. Whether you can do the “right thing” at the “right time” is largely determined by luck.
China's Internet entrepreneurship has a golden time window, which is around 1998 and 1999. If you miss these two years, you will miss the best opportunity for China's Internet. In this Companies established in the past two years include: Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu, Sina, NetEase, Sohu, Shanda, JD.com, Ctrip, and Dangdang. This is what timing means to the success or failure of a business.
Finally, the author also shared with us a very interesting concept that hinders innovation, which once again refreshed my understanding:
Groupthink
Groupthink can also be called groupthink. The first example the author gives is a story about bacteria and mortality during childbirth:
In the 1940s, the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that asking doctors to wash their hands could greatly reduce the mortality rate during childbirth, but no one Believe him, everyone took it for granted and denied his discovery. Finding himself unrecognized, Ignaz Semmelweis finally died in a sanatorium, depressed. Twenty years later, until Pasteur and Koch laid the foundation of germ theory, humans began to realize the existence of bacteria and began to understand the bacterial community that lives with us in our bodies, which is 10 times the number of cells. It took Ignaz Semmelweis's ideas to gain scientific recognition.
This is group blind thinking. The official explanation of group blind thinking on Baidu says this:
Groupthink refers to the fact that in the decision-making process of a group, members tend to make their views consistent with the group's, thus causing the entire group to lack different thinking perspectives. No objective analysis is possible. As a result, some controversial views, creative ideas or objective opinions will not be raised, or they will be ignored and isolated. Groupthink can lead a group to make irrational or even bad decisions. Even if some members do not agree with the final decision of the group, they will still comply with the group under the influence of groupthink.
This is the first time I have heard of the concept of groupthink. It feels a bit like "The Crowd". I know that social animals behave very differentlyin a community than when alone. But the concept of groupthink makes us realize that this so-called difference represents Mediumization . In order to be recognized and survive comfortably in an organization, a person who is originally deviant must give up those unconventional ideas, because "people with great ideas are always opposed by mediocre people." This sentence is not mine. Yes, this is what Einstein said. If you were born in the era of the Cultural Revolution, if you happen to be a deviant innovator, always have all kinds of fantastic ideas, are unconventional in everything, and always want to express your unique views on everything, oh, then I advise you that it is best to Shut up.
Another irony: Polaroid was one of the companies that pioneered digital cameras, but ended up going bankrupt because of them. As early as 1981, Polaroid was making major advances in electronic imaging, and by the late 1980s, Polaroid's digital sensors were capable of achieving four times the resolution of its competitors. In 1992, Polaroid created a prototype of a high-quality digital camera, but the electronic imaging team was unable to convince their colleagues to release the product until 1996. Later, more than 40 competitors took the lead in releasing their own digital camera products. Polaroid's failure was due to a wrong assumption. Within the company, it was generally assumed that users would always want to print their photos, and key decision-makers never questioned this assumption. This is a classic case of groupthink, which tends to seek consensus rather than foster dissent. Groupthink is the enemy of innovation. People are pressured to conform to what the majority thinks rather than championing diversity of thought.
From the perspective of organizational culture and system, It is difficult for companies with a loyalty culture to attract, retain or Integrate a diverse workforce.
Psychologist Benjamin Schneider found that organizations tend to become more homogeneous over time. As they attract, select, associate with, and retain similar people, they effectively eliminate diversity of thought and values. This is especially likely to happen in established companies with strong loyalty cultures. Because the basis of recruitment in these companies is consistency, employees have to adapt to the company's culture, otherwise they will not be able to survive in it. It is truly "United when we succeed, and united when we fail."
Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and one of the world's leading experts on collective decision-making by leaders, found that Minority views are important not because they are the truth, but because they stimulate different concerns and ideas” , “Even if they were wrong, they still contributed to finding the best solutions and decisions.”
The bottom line is: Even if "dissent" is wrong, they are useful.
This is what I understand to be the essence of the book "Deviant". It is recommended that you buy the original book and read it carefully. There are many interesting and interesting cases in it to prove the above mentioned The arguments and conclusions allow us to re-understand innovation, procrastination, risk, bravery, and the ubiquitous default choices and secular dogma in life.
Turns out, we can choose again.
In April 2016, Adam Gran brought his new book "Originals" to TED and shared a talk titled: The surprising habits of original thinkers | Adam Grant
The End