Book Review: The One Minute Manager

The books we find most insightful are usually the ones that remind us of things we’ve simply forgotten. They don’t teach us something new, they simply remind us in a unique and powerful way of something we already knew.

That is exactly how I’d describe “The One Minute Manager.” The authors wrote a simple book full of common sense – and thus the book makes total sense.

This book sold 13 million copies! It’s only 106 pages, with about 200 words per page. Why would we pay 12 dollars for such a short book?

Because it speaks to us – it reminds us to be people – and that we can succeed and make money and make friends better if we do.

Great Lessons:
1.“People who feel good about themselves produce good results.”
2.If you don’t like the way things are, but you don’t know what you want changed – then you don’t have a problem, you’re just complaining. Once you know what you want changed – then you have a problem and can work toward a solution.
3.People are motivated by praise more than scolding.
4.When there are problems, attack the behavior, not the person doing it.
5.“I’ve never seen an unmotivated person after work.” (People get excited and motivated when they are looking forward to something – like what they get to do after work. So figure out how to get them excited about work)
6.Take a minute – see if your behavior matches your goals.
7.“The key to training someone to do a new task is, in the beginning, to catch them doing something approximately right until they can eventually learn to do it exactly right.”
8.Most employees aren’t trying to produce or accomplish anything anymore other than they’re trying to get paid without getting in trouble.
9.Manipulation is getting people to do something they are either unaware of or don’t agree to.
10.“Goals begin behaviors. Consequences maintain behaviors.”

Book Review: Multipliers

 
meh.

60 pages worth of book that took up 250 pages instead.

This book is the quintessential example of researchers trying to find the X factor for success- and just finding common sense.

It's a worthwhile project - to figure out how to make OTHERS better.  How to get the most out of people how to multiply your own work and effort exponentially.

This book does make some great points:

1. You know that "genius" or indispensable person that has the smarts, but drives everyone else nuts and makes everyone else feel like an idiot?  He should likely be fired.  The benefit of his extraordinary brain is not worth the loss is production and creativity he causes in everyone around him.

2. Leaders fall somewhere on the "Multiplier-Diminisher" spectrum.
Multipliers make everyone want to do better.  They make you want to work harder, inspire you and make you excited to go to work.  They make you think, listen to your input, and help you really succeed. Then there are the diminishing dictators whom everyone despises, and who never encourage meaningful feedback or criticism or want to hear your ideas for improvement.  They know what to do and now they just need you to do A,B, and C.  Stop thinking and get back to menial labor.

This book basically teaches you, as a leader, how to identify other's strengths, motives, and drive - and then use it to their fullest potential.  To seek meaningful discussion, and not give answers, but seek answers.  It teaches you to be such a great leader that when you are gone, others will do just fine without you because they've been trained, allowed to grow, and can think for themselves and succeed.

Like I said - the ideas are worthwhile, but 40 examples of the same principle just seems ridiculously redundant and annoying.  So while this book may be good, it bogs itself down and is not really worth finishing.

GRADE: C-

Book Review - Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Is there anyway to disagree with any part of this book and not sound sexist?

It's a hot button topic - Feminism: Women leading in the workplace.  It was written by a highly successful woman who is COO of Facebook and former Vice President of global sales at Google.  She has been featured on TEDtalks and is now a successful author.  Her book is being reviewed by me: a male conservative who is a physician and whose wife put her career on hold to stay home and raise four children.

My wife and I are demographically "the traditional marriage."  We met in college, married young (23 and 25) and then immediately had kids.  I continued my career and she transitioned to being a homemaker.

She made that choice - and being a mother has been the hardest endeavor she ever undertook.

The author,  Sheryl Sandberg, repeatedly acknowledges that choice, and the difficulties of parenting:
"Parenting may be the most rewarding experience, but it is also the hardest and most humbling."
"Not all women want careers.  Not all women want children.  Not all women want both.  I would never advocate that we should all have the same objectives."

She quotes Judith Rodin who told women: "My generation fought so hard to give you all choices.  We believe in choices.  But choosing to leave the workforce was not the choice we thought so many of you would make."

This book is full of sage advice, points out horrific and deplorable biases and injustices, and I enjoyed it immensely.  

In chapter after chapter she shows how society (men and women alike), have a negative view of women and their abilities.  When the same resume is presented with a female's name instead of a male's - she is judged to be less competent, harder to work with, and not as qualified.
Society and government both assume that men should not raise kids, that's a woman's job.
According to the US Census Bureau: When mothers care for children it's "parenting" but when fathers care for their children its "a child care arrangement."

She pleads with men to be equal partners in parenting and household chores.  Women who stay at home with kids are working all day, just like their husbands at work.  When the husband gets home, they are equally tired and stressed.  So why do men get to relax or read the paper while his wife is supposed to make dinner, do the dishes, and get the kids in bed?

I agree.  Men and women are equals.  They should share responsibility equally.  Our responsibilities may be different some of the day, but when I get home, every chore should be fair game for equal distribution.  Some days my wife may need to go relax and I'll do dinner, dishes, and get the kids in bed all by myself.  That's how it's supposed to work.  My wife and I are equals.

Like the author says: "The best way for a man to make a pass at his wife might be to do the dishes."
My wife told me that years ago.  They're both right.

Mrs. Sandberg gives great advice on how women can change the perception of women.  How to make them equals in the workplace:
"Opportunities are rarely offered, they're seized."
"It is hard to visualize someone as a leader if she is always waiting to be told what to do."
"Leaders should strive for authenticity over perfection."

Mrs. Sandberg is an amazing woman and leader - but there are points on which we disagree.  We both have our backgrounds and as she accurately points out:

"All of us, myself included, are biased, whether we admit it or not. And thinking we are objective can actually make this even worse."

I am not objective.  I was raised in the LDS church.  I believe and follow my God and my religion.  I know it, I live it, I love it.

This seems to make our perspectives quite different as to the whole purpose of life - what is worth striving for, and what makes us happy.

The author says repeatedly that her goal is an equal world:

"A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes.  I believe that this would be a better world."

She does not believe that women should be so focused on marriage when they are young.  Her perception seems to be more: Focus on career and success, and if a family happens, then decide which is first priority.

"For all the progress, there is still societal pressure for women to keep an eye on marriage from a young age."
She is saddened that some women leave the work force because they spend as much as they make on child care:
"One miscalculation that some women make is to drop out early in their careers because their salary barely covers the cost of child care... but professional women need to measure the cost of child care against their future salary, not their current salary."

I disagree.  I think marriage and family are the most important things in life.  My family is the only thing that will outlast this world.  No project I start, thing I build, or money I make will go with me when I die. 
My number one focus in life is my family.  It is the reason I didn't choose either the cheapest nor the most prestigious Medical school.  It's the main reason I picked my specific residency program.

I wanted a family.  I wanted breakfast and dinner with my kids most every day.  If my family isn't happy, nothing else really matters.  I have amazing opportunities - I could direct the residency, publish in medical journals and write numerous books.  I could move to a bigger and better University.
Those things might happen, but not at the expense of my family life.  If they can happen as well - that would be ideal, but my family comes first.

I don't think women should be told otherwise.

The author also states that one major problem is gender roles.
"Women feel that they bear the primary responsibility for caring for their children, many men feel that they bear the primary responsibility of supporting their families financially."

In response I'll quote part of my church's Proclamation to the World on the Family:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. 

I have never assumed that any woman could not succeed outside the home.  The very book group I am in (which chose this book) is lead by two brilliant and successful female physicians.  My wife has chosen to be a substitute teacher, a massage therapist, a personal trainer, a seller of children's books.  She could do anything.  
We have found each other and been blessed that we could have children (not everyone has that chance).  We are both doing the most important thing.  We are equal partners.  I have my roles, she has hers, and we assist each other in everything to make it all work.  We are focused on eternity, on a family that last long after this life.  That's worth giving up a lot of "success" and "prestige."  We give up what is good for that which is better.  We hope to get that which is best.

Like the author said:

"The single most important career decision that a woman makes is whether she will have a life partner and who that partner is. I don't know of one woman in a leadership position whose life partner is not fully - and I mean fully - supportive of her career. No exceptions."

I completely agree.  No decision is more important. 

The question in the end is about your values, your priorities.  What do you value more: A successful career with power, influence and financial well-being - or a successful family with love, caring, and eternal well-being?

Which has a higher value: Spiritual or Temporal Wealth?  Yes you can have both.  But which are you willing to sacrifice for the other?  Which takes priority?

Yes women can succeed in any endeavor as well as men.  They have genius ideas, could lead any corporation, and country, any organization and do it amazingly well.  Is that really the goal?

That appears to be Sheryl Sandberg's goal, and she is attaining it.  I wish her the best for both her family and her career.  I hope she succeeds in reversing the course of hate, bias, and prejudice against women.  I hope she helps women everywhere realize their immense capacity and ability.  I hope she makes men and women everywhere see that they are equals.

In the end, No success outside the home can compensate for failure inside the home.  If you cannot do both, I hope you choose your family's success over your career's.

Book Review: Good to Great

 
This book was not great, in fact I'm not even sure it was good.  At least as far as writing is concerned.  My friends in business have told me this book is amazing, genius, and has ideas that have helped many businesses succeed.  I believe all that to be true.  nevertheless, in all of the authors research it seems he failed to do one thing - "get the right person on the bus."  The problem is Jim Collins himself.

That may sound harsh to use his own words against him, but I think his writing, style, personality, and interpretation of data are what held this book back.  Granted, the book has sold over 3 million copies, and the only thing I've published is a journal article that less than 100 people will ever read. (Here it is in all its esoteric glory)

But let's start with the positive!  This book was a great idea.  Look at all the publicly traded companies and find ones that were good for many years and then at some point made a transition and did 3 times better than the market average for 15 years.

The researchers weren't looking at new start-ups or terrible companies that turned it around.  They wanted to see if companies that were already good could become and remain great.

I think that is a noble and worthwhile endeavor.

They found companies 11 companies that fit that criteria:

1. Abbott Laboratories
2. Circuit City
3. Fannie Mae
4. Gillette
5. Kimberly-Clark
6. Kroger
7. Nucor
8. Philip Morris (now Altria)
9. Pitney Bowes
10. Walgreens
11. Wells Fargo

The author tried to find what those companies did differently.  What made their transition?  He compared each company to a competitor.  Both companies had to be at about the same level in the same business, but the other company never made the transition.
Jim Collins had a good idea: To try to find the difference between good companies and great companies.

He came up with seven common traits of those 11 companies:
1. Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company.
2. They "got the right people on the bus," then figured out where to go. Finding the right people and trying them out in different positions.
3. They confront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope.
4. They focus on Three overlapping circles: What lights your fire ("passion")? What could you be best in the world at ("best at") What makes you money ("driving resource")?
5. They keep a Culture of Discipline
6. Using technology to accelerate growth
7. The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest.

These ideas seem just fine.  Until we get to what the author did wrong.
First - that's not what he called those 7 traits.  He tried really REALLY hard to come up with catchy names or stories to go along with each one.  He tried to use parables or easy to understand examples.  A few times he succeeded, but most time he failed.

Here are the seven names for those traits:
1. Level 5 Leadership (I still don't know how this name is supposed to be catchy or mean anything)
2. First Who, Then What. (this works)
3. Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale Paradox. (Meh)
4. Hedgehog Concept. (What?  I mean what?  The idea was great, the name was moronic)
5. Rinsing the Cottage Cheese (silly example - it didn't show discipline, it showed OCD)
6. Technology Accelerators (yeah, it works)
7. The Flywheel (this example was pretty good, the visual was easy and applicable)

There are also inconsistencies within the book.  In the first chapter he makes a big point of saying you shouldn't bring in new leaders.  They need to be home grown.  You need a person who came up through the ranks, not some outside big-shot personality.
Then in the second chapter he says the most important thing is to have the right people.  Get rid of those who aren't driven, responsible, moving your company in the right direction.

So which is it?  The best people come from within - or change them out and get the right people?

The end of his book talks about companies that kept changing their direction - they repeatedly stopped the momentum of "the flywheel."  He says the constant changing was bad because they didn't have a "hedgehog concept."  The good companies made a change to one ideal concept and stuck with it.

I wanted to say - "OF COURSE THEY STUCK WITH IT - IT WORKED!"  The ideas that didn't work, had to be switched. It seems like a "no duh" observation. The successful companies found an idea that worked and stuck with it and became great.  The other companies tried and idea that failed, had to try a new idea, and never developed momentum because none of their new plans worked.

There are two other obvious problems with the book: Circuit City and Fannie Mae.

The book was published in 2001.  Those two companies later completely failed, and the other nine didn't fare much better.  If you invested in all 11 companies in 2001 when the book was published, you would have fared worse than S&P 500. 
So these companies had a great moment, a great idea, a great leader, a great change.  But it was unsustained, at least beyond 15 years.  I'll admit that 15 years is a long time, and great for the company, investors, and even customers.  But let's not kid ourselves.  Hindsight is 20/20.  It's easy to see the great company when their great.  Like his "Egg" example (see below) - the author looked back and thought he found what made the egg into a chicken.  Turns out he was just as wrong as all those other folks he mocked in the book.

So - The book had a great idea, but it lacked a "Level 5 Leader" to make it work.

I give the book a C.  There are things wroth learning - but the book as a whole was only average.

Here are some of my Favorite Quotes from the book:

 - Greatness is not a function of circumstance.  Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice. - p. 11
One ought not to reject the data merely because one does not like what the data implies. - p. 16
 - The number one factor was luck. - p. 33
If you begin with "who " rather than "what" you can more easily adapt to a changing world. - p. 42
 - Great vision without great people is irrelevant. - p. 42
If you have the right executives on the bus, they will do everything within their power to build a great company, not because of what they will "get" for it, but because they simply cannot imagine settling for anything less. - p. 50
 - The only way to deliver to the people who are achieving is to not burden them with the people who are not achieving. - p. 53
When in doubt, don't hire - keep looking. - p. 54
 - The moment you feel the needs to tightly manage someone, you've made a hiring mistake. - p. 56
No matter what we achieve, if we don't spend the vast majority of our time with people we love and respect, we cannot possibly have a great life. - p. 62
 - Charisma can be as much a liability as an asset. - p. 73
There's a huge difference between the opportunity to 'have your say' and the opportunity to be heard. - p. 74
 - The key then lies not in better information, but in turning information into information that cannot be ignored. - p. 79
Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties... AND at the same time, confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - p. 86
 - Hedgehog Concept: - p. 95
     1.What can you be the best in the world at?
     2.What drives your economic engine?
     3.What are you deeply passionate about?
The only way to remain great is to keep applying the fundamental principles that made you great. - p. 108
 - The purpose of bureacracy is to compensate for incompetence. - p. 121
Picture an egg just sitting there.  No one pays it much attention until, one day, the egg cracks open and out jumps a chicken!  All the major magazines and newspapers jump on the event, writing feature stories - "The Transformation of Egg to Chicken!" "The Remarkable Revolution of the Egg!" "Stunning Turnaround at Egg!" - as if the egg had undergone some overnight metamorphosis, radically altering itself into a chicken. - p. 168
 - What do the right people want more than almost anything else?  They want to be part of a winning team. - p. 177
When the right people see a simple plan born of confronting the brutal facts - a plan developed from understanding, not bravado - they are likely to say, "That'll work. Count me in." - p. 177
 - The drive for mergers and acquisitions comes less from sound reasoning and more from the fact that doing deals is a much more exciting way to spend your day than doing actual work. - p. 180