44 pages • 1 hour read
Adam GrantA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Index of Terms
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
In Chapter 3, Grant shares strategies for speaking to authority figures without jeopardizing one’s career or credibility. There are ways to make an unconventional opinion heard without repelling others: Grant cites the story of Carmen Medina, who spent a decade trying to convince her workplace, the CIA, to switch from paper to digital means to store and share information. She insisted the internet would make their process easier and faster. Her idea was rejected for years because she became angry and forceful, repeating herself and never changing her strategy. Eventually, Medina learned to communicate in a way that convinced those in power to change their minds. Grant explains that employee feedback is often rejected and may harm one’s career even if approached correctly. However, there are still ways to do so successfully.
Grant argues that there are two “major dimensions of social hierarchy” (71) which often get confused with one another: power and status. Power comprises exerting control over another, whereas status is about “being respected and admired” (71). In Medina’s case, she lacked status with her colleagues and superiors, and since they did not take her suggestions seriously, she slowly became belligerent and resentful. Grant cites an experiment in which people placed in power were told that their fellow group members lacked respect for them; these people were almost twice as likely to use their assigned power to degrade the rest of the group. When Medina succeeded in her later attempts at change, it was because she earned status among her peers and improved the system from within. Grant explains that the more respected a person is, the easier it is for them to deviate and still be accepted or even admired for their ideas. Psychologist Edwin Hollander calls this phenomenon “idiosyncrasy credits” (72), or the “points” people accumulate as they earn admiration—which then allow them to be more original.
Next, Grant explains the “Sarick Effect” (73), a phenomenon in which the selling of an original idea benefits from “accentuating the flaws” (74). There are four reasons as to why this is—the first being that the right amount of confidence, not overconfidence, comes across as more honest and eases doubt. Grant notes that Medina initially neglected to state the limitations of her new idea, which led to skepticism. Over time, she learned that she, too, was more convinced when people were open about their ideas’ flaws.
The second reason why this approach is beneficial is because it changes the way an audience evaluates the person with the idea. This is because “people think an amateur can appreciate art, but it takes a professional to critique it” (77). In other words, when a person critiques their own idea, they appear more knowledgeable and credible.
The third reason is that this approach makes a person seem trustworthy, willing to be upfront about problems rather than trying to hide them. This creates trust between the parties involved, an audience being more likely to buy into the positive aspects of an idea.
The fourth reason is that this approach “leaves audiences with a more favorable assessment of the idea itself” (78) because they are less likely to come up with flaws when some have already been established.
Next, Grant examines setbacks that people may encounter when proposing an original idea. One of these setbacks is the fact that people are less likely to like unfamiliar things. One’s own ideas are often so familiar that it becomes difficult to imagine what they sound like to those considering them for the first time. Being repeatedly exposed to things generally causes people to like them more—which is otherwise known as the mere exposure effect. The Sarick Effect (revealed to be a fictional concept that Grant created to prove a point) and mere exposure effect tread similar ground, with the latter proving that repetition makes unfamiliar terms (like the Sarick Effect) more digestible. Processing becomes easier the more a person is exposed to something. Grant suggests that for this reason, it is helpful to impose a delay between proposing an idea and evaluation so people have time to become familiar with the idea—rather than finding it threatening.
Grant explains economist Albert Hirschman’s “four options for handling a dissatisfying situation” (82)—such as Medina’s idea not being accepted by the CIA. These options are “exit, voice, persistence, and neglect” (82); execution of any of these options depends on one’s commitment to change and level of control. The more agreeable someone is, the less likely they are to attempt change, while less agreeable audiences and “people with a history of originality” (84) are more likely to support an idea that challenges norms. Grant notes that being of middle status—rather than high or low—makes a person less receptive to risky ideas, as they have a ways to fall without the security of the top. People at the bottom have little to nothing to lose, so they are more willing to take a risk. This is known as “middle-status conformity” (85).
Finally, Grant examines the challenges faced by women and minorities who try to “speak truth to power” (69). Being a woman (faulty approach aside), Medina was taken less seriously by her superiors. Women are not expected to be assertive, so when they are, it often reads as them being aggressive. Going off his own data, Grant suggests that men are more likely to be promoted for making suggestions, while women are devalued for doing the same. Medina also happened to be a Puerto Rican woman, making her a double minority. She found that “double minority group members faced double jeopardy” (86) and were thus evaluated more harshly. Grant relates how minorities need to produce “output and impact” (89) to be taken seriously, but that working hard can lead to overcoming barriers and stereotypes.
Grant concludes that “exit and voice are the only viable options” (89) when dealing with a dissatisfying situation. Exit, however, does not allow for improvement—it only allows an individual to leave a problematic situation behind. Without an exit, people are often forced to use their voice. Grant reminds readers that people are more likely to regret the things they never tried than their failures.
Grant recounts the story of Martin Luther King Jr. writing his closing speech the night before the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Under immense pressure, King knew it was essential to make his speech “inspiring and wise” (King 92). Grant argues that procrastination may have been the very reason King’s speech was so powerful.
In Chapter 4, Grant examines the benefits of procrastinating and exposing the world to original ideas. He shares an observation made by doctoral student Jihae Shin, who found that procrastination allows for more time to consider many ideas rather than settle on one. In Shin’s experiment, procrastinators proved “28 percent more creative” (93) than those asked to complete the set task immediately; her observational study at a Korean furniture company produced the same result. However, she noted that procrastinators only used divergent thinking more than their counterparts when motivated to complete a task. Grant insists there is a difference between laziness and waiting for the right moment to execute an idea. He cites Leonardo da Vinci, who famously procrastinated but produced numerous original ideas. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. spent weeks planning his speech and consulting with others before finally writing it. The Zeigarnik effect, coined by Russian psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik, proves that tasks remain in the mind until they are complete. After this, they are thought of less and less.
There are other benefits to procrastination as well: “it keeps us open to improvisation” (98). The “I have a dream” segment of Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech was completely improvised and ended up being the most memorable. Procrastination also leads people to be more open to new approaches. People who procrastinate are often forced to change their strategy to account for lack of time; furthermore, lack of time lends itself to embracing new opportunities. Grant asserts that procrastination can only be successful when planning is involved; simply leaving a task until the last minute, without thinking about it or gathering feedback, is not useful to originality.
Next, Grant explores timing as a factor of success. He cites a classic study by market researchers Peter Golder and Gerard Tellis: There are failure rates of “47 percent for pioneer [companies], compared with just 8 percent for settlers” (100). Pioneer companies are those who spearhead markets, the first to introduce new ideas and products. Settlers are those who enter a new market later, waiting for it to develop before introducing their own ideas and products. While there are benefits to being first in a new market, there are far more downsides. Pioneer companies tend to have a lower chance of long-term survival and garner lower profits. A company that bides its time often produces products and services of higher quality and originality. The disadvantages of pioneering include the risk of premature scaling, making impulsive decisions, being the first to produce technology that is then improved by settlers, and settler companies having the advantage of observing market trends and consumer responses before launching. Grant ends his discussion on timing by clarifying that not every pioneer fails; rather, he wishes to challenge the notion that being first is always best.
Grant discusses timing in terms of lifespan and the question of whether it is ever too late to produce an original idea. While many do lose their innovative talents as they age, this does not have to be the case. Many “old masters” (105) exist who defy this trend and produce their best work later in life—including Alfred Hitchcock, who filmed Psycho in his 60s, and Robert Frost, who wrote most of his poems in his 40s and beyond. Grant explains that a person’s flux in creativity depends on their type of innovation. There are two types of innovation: conceptual and experimental. Conceptual innovators produce an idea and then attempt to execute it; experimental innovators use trial and error to learn and strategize as they go. The former tend to peak early in their creativity, and the latter tend to peak later. Furthermore, conceptual innovators tend to stick to their own conventions once they achieve success, whereas experimental innovators are more likely to continue trying new approaches. As a result, the latter tend to produce more original ideas overall, with “92 percent [of Nobel Prize winners] […] [doing] experimental work” (105).
In Chapters 1 and 2, Grant highlighted the power of originality and how original ideas can change the world. In Chapters 3 and 4, he shares strategies and setbacks endemic to executing original ideas. Using two anecdotes, those of Carmen Medina and Martin Luther King Jr., Grant attempts to correct false assumptions about this execution. He notes that procrastination can be useful, King’s “I have a dream” speech being a prime example. Another assumption he challenges is that only young people produce original ideas. Grant cites many famous people who achieved their greatest success later in life, such as Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Frost—proving that originality is not bound by time.
Grant uses strong language and hyperbole (“[Medina’s] shift in strategy shares something with the most bizarre startup pitch you might ever encounter” (73)) to get his messages across as bearing important truths—a psychological strategy to convince his readers. He employs other psychological techniques, such as tricking readers into believing the fictional Sarick Effect, to show that familiarity breeds likeability. While he does directly address familiarity, it becomes truly believable when readers buy into the Sarick Effect. Grant makes use of visuals, inviting readers to complete mental exercises and challenge their own perceptions. In addressing how strategies and setbacks affect minorities, he cites the story of Carmen Medina, who rose to the top of the CIA despite not being taken seriously as a new hire—let alone a double minority. Grant also cites the stories of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. He considers readers from historically and systematically disadvantaged backgrounds to illustrate that anyone can become an original. Above all, Grant wants to inspire. He argues that “we’ve all considered voicing a minority opinion, protesting a policy that doesn’t make sense, championing a novel way of doing things, or standing up for a disadvantaged group of people” (70), and that originals are often the ones to take action.
By Adam Grant