Chinese version on Feb 11, 2017
The rational man adapts himself to the world; the irrational one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the irrational man.
—George Bernard Shaw
The author of the book "Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World," Adam Grant, is the youngest tenured professor at Wharton School of Business and was once listed as one of the "25 Most Influential Management Thinkers" globally. He has long served as a senior consultant and speaker for companies like Google, Johnson & Johnson, Goldman Sachs, and Pixar Animation. His first bestseller was "Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success," and "Originals" is his second book.
The English title of the book is "Originals," which we often translate as "original, earliest, creative, non-copying"; as a noun, "Original" can also mean "eccentric," so the Chinese translation "离经叛道" (Off the Beaten Path) is quite fitting, as these offbeat individuals are indeed the eccentrics we perceive. Additionally, the English subtitle of the book, "How Non-Conformists Move the World," includes the term non-conformists, meaning those who do not adhere to conventional norms. Though the world has many who achieve conventional success by adhering to norms and traditions, the author's view is clear: in today's era, we need more original thinkers, more eccentrics who defy norms, even though their behaviors may seem "anti-human nature, unconventional," but they may achieve greater success. Indeed, the book provides many counterintuitive cases that are well worth a thorough read.
Innovators are those who take proactive steps to make their ideas a reality. The first step of action is to "refuse to accept the default options and explore if there is a better choice."
The author shares an interesting survey, which shows that employees using Firefox or Chrome browsers tend to perform better, have higher sales, and greater customer satisfaction. The primary reason for this difference is their willingness to question if there is a better browser available and take the time to find, download, install, and test potential alternatives, ultimately sticking with the browser they find most efficient for their work.
I had never thought about observing the index of innovative and creative abilities from the dimension of browsers. Still, looking back at friends around me, those colleagues and self-media influencers who are efficient at work were early adopters of Firefox and Chrome. Even I feel that "using the default IE browser on Windows is a shame," and this even evolved into "Mac users looking down on Windows users in terms of efficiency," and those who use Google search engines looking down on Baidu users. I don't know how this thought came about, but it indeed exists. Ask those quirky programmers who are proficient in using Mac.
So, innovation starts from "rejecting the default option" and "questioning all established norms." Whether people choose to "reject the routine" depends on the strength of their curiosity. Innovation stems from users' curiosity and passion for something.
This reminds me of a new realization I had recently. The world has two very valuable "presets" that have propelled rapid development: the "uncertainty of the world" and humans' "curiosity." Because the world is forever unpredictable and uncertain, and humans have a strong curiosity about all unknown and unpredictable things, this drives us to constantly explore and make progress.
George Bernard Shaw said, "There are two tragedies in life: one is not getting your heart's desire, the other is getting it. Therefore, I strive for joy in a critical state." This is interesting, as he explains that once a person's curiosity is satisfied, after a brief sense of satisfaction, new misery arises. Therefore, the best way to resolve misery is to continuously generate new curiosity and then strive to satisfy this curiosity. The "critical state" Shaw refers to is the process of pursuing, exploring, and striving to satisfy curiosity.
Those with curiosity always ponder,
Why do default conventional options exist?
Have you ever had an experience where you stare at a very familiar word, then start to find it strangely unfamiliar and weird the more you look at it, to the point of almost laughing, but you clearly recognize the word and know it's not written incorrectly? In French slang, there's a term for this, Vuja de, which means we face something familiar with a fresh, new perspective. Vuja De, pronounced backwards, is more famous and elegantly French, appearing in many movies, known as Déjà Vu. It refers to the illusion of familiarity encountered in new situations, like experiencing a moment that feels like it has happened before, maybe in a dream, years ago, or even in a past life. In movies, a seasoned romantic might invite a stranger to dance, gazing at her while saying, "Déjà Vu, this scene seems familiar." However, Vuja de is the opposite, meaning we observe familiar things with a fresh perspective, leading to new insights on old problems , which is the source of innovation.
When we are filled with curiosity about the dissatisfactions in this world, we start to realize that most of them have their social roots: after all, rules and systems are created by humans. This awareness gives us the courage to think about how to change these conditions. Before women in the United States gained the right to vote, historian Jean Baker pointed out that many women "had never considered their diminished social status before and thought it was their natural place." As the momentum of the women's rights movement grew, "more and more women began to see that customs, religious edicts, and laws were actually man-made and could be changed."
Many believe in the notion that "geniuses change the world," and so when they don't exhibit any particular talent, they give up on dreams of changing the world and resign themselves to mediocrity. However, the book's viewpoint differs. The author believes that while prodigies often have more talent and greater ambition, what prevents them from advancing the world is that they do not attempt to deviate from the norm. Geniuses perform at Carnegie Hall, win Olympic competitions, become chess champions, but sadly, they believe in practice making perfect, which doesn't necessarily lead to new creations. Prodigies learn to play the beautiful melodies of Mozart and Beethoven's symphonies, but they don't compose their original music. They focus their energies on learning existing scientific knowledge rather than discovering new insights. They follow the rules of the game instead of inventing their own rules or games. Throughout this process, they strive for parental approval and teacher praise.
These prodigies often grow up to become experts in their fields and leaders in their organizations. However, "only a small fraction of child geniuses ultimately become revolutionary creators." That small fraction must undergo a painful transformation from a child who effortlessly adapts to established fields to an adult who ultimately rewrites a domain. Here, the emphasis is on "change" rather than "adaptation." The most creative children are least likely to be the teacher's favorite; teachers often treat highly creative students differently, viewing them as troublemakers. This reminds me of my childhood.
Next, let's talk about a very unconventional financing story mentioned in the book:
A highly untraditional funding story.
Rufus Griscom and Alisa Volkman, shocked by the misleading parenting advertisements and bad advice prevalent in society after having their first child, founded an online magazine and blog called Babble to challenge mainstream parenting clichés with humor and address the harsh truths. In 2009, when they pitched Babble to venture capitalists, they presented a slide listing five reasons not to invest in them.
This approach should have been fatal to their promotion. Investors look for reasons to invest, but here they were given reasons not to. Entrepreneurs are supposed to talk up their company's strengths, not weaknesses. However, this counterintuitive approach worked: that year, Babble received an investment of $3.3 million.
Two years later, Griscom used the same approach in a pitch to Disney to see if they were interested in acquiring Babble. Logically, this pitch was unimaginable – he started by discussing the drawbacks. One slide read: "Here's why you shouldn't acquire Babble." These reasons included low user engagement with fewer than three page visits per session, 40% of posts being about celebrities instead of parenting, and the urgent need for backend software adjustments.
Admitting problems in a startup and promising improvements is one thing, but when selling an established company, there are ample reasons to emphasize its strengths rather than dwelling on its shortcomings. Yet, amazingly, Griscom succeeded again. Disney eventually acquired the company for $40 million.
The author analyzed that emphasizing one's shortcomings in a pitch brings three benefits:
1. It alleviates the audience's doubts.
2. It makes you appear intelligent.
3. It makes you more trustworthy.
As an investor, I often encounter many entrepreneurs pitching their ideas and projects. The vast majority, really, the vast majority, still don't get to the point after half an hour of talking, with confusing logic. When I ask them about potential risks and their biggest challenges, they often give me very metaphysical answers, like war or the impact of national policies. Very few entrepreneurs voluntarily admit, "Our technology isn't up to par, our code needs rewriting; or our design capabilities are poor, we need talented designers; our marketing is a weakness, we need a marketing expert." Really, once someone candidly answers my questions, openly acknowledging their shortcomings and proposing their solutions, I respect them greatly, as such people are rare.
Investors don't believe in risk-free projects.
It's much better to be honest about your shortcomings than to be blindly confident and arrogant.
Then, the author introduces a concept that strongly conflicts with my previous understanding:
Successful innovators are more risk-averse.
The term "entrepreneur" was coined by economist Richard Cantillon, meaning "bearer of risk ." Thus, I have always believed that entrepreneurship involves daring to take risks, putting everything on the line, and running forward without looking back. In my investment strategy, I prefer to invest in those who are "all-in," those who have cut off all retreats and are fighting a decisive battle.
However, in "Originals," the author presents a different perspective. In every field, whether it be business, politics, science, or art, those who change the world with innovative ideas are rarely just models of conviction and dedication. Because they question tradition and challenge the status quo, they may seem brave and confident on the surface. But they also harbor fears, hesitations, and self-doubts. They are perceived as proactive, but their motivation is often inspired by others, sometimes even forced by external factors. Although they appear eager for risk, they actually wish to avoid it.
The desire for success and the fear of failure have hindered some of the greatest creators and changemakers in history. They care about maintaining stability and achieving conventional success, thus they are reluctant to pursue adventure and deviate from the norm. Instead of boldly going all-in with conviction, they are cajoled, persuaded, or coerced forward. Although they seem to have the qualities of a born leader, figuratively, and sometimes literally, they are lifted by their followers and peers, originally seeking assured success.
Research shows that entrepreneurs who continue their regular jobs have a 33% lower probability of failure compared to those who quit their jobs to start a business. If you are risk-averse and have doubts about the feasibility of your ideas, your business is likely to thrive in the long run. But if you are a reckless gambler, your startup may be more fragile.
The author uses a wealth of cases to illustrate that exceptional people are driven to a corner! Let's look at some well-known entrepreneurs who are "risk balancers, not just risk takers."
Phil Knight, the star track athlete and founder of Nike, started selling running shoes from the trunk of his car in 1964 and continued his accounting job until 1969, balancing both for five years.
Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, invented the first Apple computer in 1976 and partnered with Steve Jobs to form Apple, but he continued his full-time job at Hewlett-Packard until Mike Markkula joined Apple and brought in investment from Sequoia Capital in 1977.
In 1996, Larry Page and Sergey Brin had ideas about drastically improving internet search, but they continued their graduate studies at Stanford University until 1998. Page said, "We almost didn't start Google because we were so worried about not finishing our PhD projects." In 1997, considering that starting a search engine company would distract them from their research, they tried to sell Google for less than $2 million. Fortunately, the potential buyers refused the deal.
Pierre Omidyar founded eBay as a hobby; he continued his job as a programmer for nine months until eBay's earnings surpassed his salary.
Even Henry Ford, when he started building his automotive empire, was the chief engineer at Edison Illuminating Company, allowing him the time and money to pursue his passion—researching automobiles. After inventing the carburetor technology and obtaining a patent a year later, he continued working at Edison Illuminating Company for two more years.
What about the famous dropout who founded Microsoft, Bill Gates? When Gates sold a new software program in his sophomore year, he didn't drop out but waited a whole year before leaving school. He took a leave of absence with official permission from the university, and his parents provided him with financial support, balancing the risks.
And the founders of Warby Parker, the famous unicorn company mentioned at the beginning of this book, their first priority was to minimize risk. "I didn't want to go all-in and bet everything on Warby Parker," one of the founders said. After the company was founded, they continued exploring other business opportunities and conducting campus surveys to validate their scientific findings for potential commercial value. With these backup plans, the founders were more willing to take risks, building their business on an unproven assumption: "Assuming people are willing to buy glasses online." They not only acknowledged this uncertainty but also actively took steps to reduce it. Co-founder Neil said, "We were always discussing how to reduce risks. The whole process involved a series of feasibility and infeasibility decisions. We carefully weighed each step."
The important benefit of a balanced risk portfolio is that having a sense of security in one area allows us to freely innovate in another. In Chinese parlance, it's like "riding a donkey while looking for a horse."
This is the biggest insight this book gave me, adding a new dimension to my project assessment: balancing and managing risks in entrepreneurship! Innovation is the result of trial and error; balancing risks is essential before results are proven. Once verified, one can go all-in, take the plunge, and leave no way out.
It turns out that the best entrepreneurs are not those who chase the greatest risks, but those who strive to minimize them. Those who become successful entrepreneurs typically have a history of defying their parents, staying out past curfew, skipping school, stealing, gambling, drinking, and smoking marijuana as youngsters. However, they are less likely to engage in higher-risk activities, such as drunk driving, buying drugs, or stealing valuable items. This holds true regardless of their parents' socioeconomic status or family income.
Yet, even with controlled risks, entrepreneurship and innovation inevitably involve risks, and there can be no zero-risk innovation. At this point, the author, through research, discovers a counterintuitive insight:
Innovators often have strong self-doubts.
Although many innovators appear to be full of strong beliefs and confidence, a deeper exploration reveals that they are much like most of us: they have complex and contradictory psychologies, and they experience self-doubt. Prominent American government leaders, when describing their most difficult decisions, said that their struggles were not with the complexity of the issues but with the courage to make a choice.
Nelson Mandela once said: "The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."
Thus, successful innovators are not inherently brimming with courage, nor are they naturally optimistic. But they are independent thinkers, curious, unconventional, and rebellious; they dare to act in the face of risk because "they fear standing still more than they fear failing."
Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, famously said: "In a world that's changing so quickly, the biggest risk is not taking any risk."
Rowing against the current, if you don't advance, you fall back.
Having discussed risk balancing and overcoming fear, let's talk about another concept emphasized by the author:
The law of large numbers in trial and error!
The law of large numbers in trial and error is essentially the law of large numbers in innovation, as innovation's nature is trial and error.
The author finds through extensive research that, on average, creative geniuses do not produce higher quality work in their field than their peers; they just have a larger quantity of ideas or works.
Number matters, the law of large numbers.
Among the 50 greatest classical music pieces chosen by the London Philharmonic Orchestra, 6 are Mozart's, 5 are Beethoven's, and 3 are Bach's. To create numerous masterpieces, Mozart composed over 600 works before his death at 35, Beethoven composed 650 in his lifetime, and Bach wrote over 1000. In a study of 15,000 classical music works, the more pieces composers wrote in any given five-year period, the greater their chances of producing a groundbreaking masterpiece.
Picasso's complete works include 1,800 paintings, 1,200 sculptures, 2,800 ceramics, 12,000 drawings, not to mention numerous prints, rugs, and tapestries. However, only a small portion received unanimous praise.
Einstein published the transformative theories of general and special relativity, but many of his 248 published works had little impact.
For most of us, our initial ideas are usually the most conventional, i.e., closest to the default norm. Only when we have discarded those obvious, mediocre ideas and works do we have the greatest freedom to think about more distant possibilities. This process is deliberate practice, a process of trial and error, and innovation is a process of trial and error.
But with so many ideas and trials, how do we as investors choose the most likely successful projects? As a talented young person, how do you choose the right stage and boss to fight for? After all, dedicating ten years of your youth to a startup like Tencent or a booming Industrial and Commercial Bank of China yields vastly different personal insights and wealth.
In the early stages of innovation, the line between being alternative and being an outcast is blurry. Anyone can succeed in any unexpected way; all we talk about is probability! Speaking of probability, I have my "1% rule," which states that "regardless of how many innovators qualify," only 1% will ultimately succeed. So, "absolutely good ideas" may not be the final winners because there's always someone better. In a blue ocean with no competition, a mediocre product or team might win; in a fiercely competitive red ocean, even excellent products and teams might be eliminated because the final winner is even better.
How can we improve our skills in discerning quality,
to avoid betting on those bad ideas?
Erik Dane, a professor at Rice University, believes that the more professional knowledge and experience people acquire, the more entrenched a certain way of viewing the world becomes. As our knowledge of a field increases, we become prisoners of the prototypes in our minds. Pride comes with past success. The more successful someone has been in the past, the worse they perform in a new environment. Even if the new work environment is completely different, their overconfidence leads to less likelihood of listening to others' criticisms. This is what psychologists call the "confirmation bias" trap: everyone tends to focus on the strengths of their ideas and overlook, underestimate, or downplay the limitations. Both innovators and investors like us often struggle in the trap of confirmation bias.
In a rapidly changing world, lessons learned from experience can easily lead us in the wrong direction. As the pace of change accelerates, our environment becomes increasingly unpredictable. This makes our intuition less reliable when judging new ideas, and we need to give more weight to analysis.
Cheryl Mitteness, a professor of entrepreneurship at Northeastern University, led a study where over 60 angel investors made more than 3,500 assessments of company pitches and decided whether to fund them. Then, the investors filled out a survey to see if their decision-making style was more intuitive or analytical. They ranked each entrepreneur's enthusiasm and optimism and assessed each startup's potential to receive funding.
The results showed that the more intuitive the investor, the more likely they were to be influenced by the entrepreneur's enthusiasm.
Extroverted individuals tend to be more expressive than introverts, meaning they can display more passion. However, extroversion per se is not directly related to becoming a successful entrepreneur. Jack Ma is extroverted, but Pony Ma and Mark Zuckerberg are introverted. You can be passionate about an idea, determined to succeed, but still express and realize it in a reserved manner.
Daniel Kahneman in his book "Thinking, Fast and Slow," describes intuition as acting quickly based on fervent emotions, while reason is a slower, more deliberate process. Intuitive investors easily fall into the trap of the entrepreneur's passion; analytical investors are more likely to focus on facts, making a calm judgment on the business's feasibility.
To improve our ability to choose ideas, we should not only see if people have been successful. We need to track how they achieved success. We should not only focus on their passion in expressing ideas but also their passion in execution, their attention to market feedback, and their speed in responding to further feedback. Lei Jun's approach with Xiaomi is based on the maxim "Focus on extreme speed." He emphasizes that the fastest martial arts are unbeatable, meaning to rapidly iterate based on market feedback.
It seems that evaluating entrepreneurs' methods in work and life is more meaningful than assessing their passion, diligence, and education.
I have deeply felt this in my sharing sessions. Donald Trump's election as President of the United States well illustrates the "chaos and adaptability" that characterizes our world. So we can no longer look for people who execute plans methodically, but instead find those who can adapt and adjust on the fly, the misfits and mavericks.
Another concept that the book conveys, which overturns traditional thinking, is:
Many successful innovators are procrastinators!
The founding team of Warby Parker, the online eyewear retailer, is a case in point. They had not completed their website until the day before its launch. Because they were both risk-averse and severe procrastinators, I initially refused to invest in them. But Warby Parker's eventual success led me to deeply reflect on the relationship between procrastination and innovation.
Leonardo da Vinci took about 15 years to conceptualize "The Last Supper," and he was working on many other projects simultaneously. His initial sketch had the characters sitting on benches. Over a decade later, it evolved into the final masterpiece with 13 people sitting side by side at a long table. Although he often got frustrated with his procrastination, da Vinci realized that creativity cannot be rushed. He noted, "Sometimes, when genius works least, it accomplishes the most, as they think carefully about inventions and form the most perfect ideas in their minds."
In 1927, Russian psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik showed that people remember unfinished tasks better than completed ones. Once a task is completed, we stop thinking about it. But when it's interrupted or incomplete, it remains active in our minds.
This might be the greatest contribution of procrastination to innovation: like a background program running on a computer, ideas continue to ferment in the background of the brain.
Bill Gross, founder of the IdeaLab, after being involved in the founding of over 100 companies, analyzed why some succeed and others fail. The most critical factor was not unique ideas, team talent and execution, quality of business models, or available funding. Gross found that "timing is the most important; 42% of the time, it determines the ultimate success or failure."
I strongly agree with Bill Gross's timing theory. I once summarized, "Timing determines the allocation of social resources. The core of competition between companies is unfair competition, using your strengths to suppress the weaknesses of your competitors. And your advantage in resources is established because you have a first-mover advantage in this field. First-mover advantage can be converted into advantages in talent, systems, culture, technology, scale, price, efficiency, licenses, brand, etc.
The root of all advantages is the first-mover advantage."
Teams with a first-mover advantage, known in English as First Movers, have a significant edge. However, the author in the book argues that Improvers have more advantages, with a failure rate of only 8%, compared to 47% for First Movers. Here, Improvers are teams with procrastination tendencies. They take the time to optimize products and experiences instead of rushing to launch immature products online. While I don't fully agree with this viewpoint, the environment for startups is highly complex. From the perspective of innovation and trial and error, only after launching and letting users experience the product can you know how to modify and improve it, allowing for rapid iteration. This is the model emphasized in lean startup methodology. Although in most cases, the first to propose an idea is not the ultimate winner, entering the market too late can mean missing the window of opportunity and the benefits of the era. There's a balance in "early and late," and this balance point is the inflection point of the industry. We cannot accurately predict this point, so entering the market earlier rather than missing the opportunity is beneficial. Procrastination is an inherent style of a team's operation, but severe procrastination still lacks any innovative power. The right timing, just the right amount of procrastination, is the ideal combination. Those billion-dollar companies were all about doing the right thing at the right time. Whether you can hit the "right time" to do the "right thing" is largely a matter of luck.
The golden window for Internet startups in China was around 1998 and 1999. Missing these two years meant missing the prime time for China's Internet sector. Companies established in these years include Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu, Sina, NetEase, Sohu, Shanda, JD.com, Ctrip, and Dangdang. This demonstrates the significance of timing for a company's success or failure.
Finally, the author shares an interesting concept that hinders innovation, once again refreshing my understanding:
Groupthink
Groupthink is a concept first introduced to explain the phenomenon where a group's desire for harmony and conformity results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. The author gives an example related to bacteria and mortality rates during childbirth:
In the 1840s, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that handwashing significantly reduced mortality rates during childbirth, but no one believed him, and his findings were dismissed. Semmelweis eventually died in an asylum, distressed by the rejection of his discovery. It wasn't until 20 years later, with the foundations of germ theory laid by Pasteur and Koch, that the existence of bacteria was recognized, and Semmelweis's ideas were scientifically validated.
Groupthink is a phenomenon where group members tend to conform to the consensus viewpoint in decision-making, and creative or unorthodox ideas are suppressed. It can lead to irrational and poor decisions. Even if some members disagree with the group's decision, under the influence of groupthink, they tend to conform.
A striking example of groupthink's impact is the story of Polaroid, one of the pioneers of digital cameras, which ultimately went bankrupt due to digital photography. As early as 1981, Polaroid made significant advances in electronic imaging, and by the late 1980s, their digital sensors were four times more advanced than their competitors. In 1992, Polaroid created a high-quality digital camera prototype, but their electronic imaging team couldn't convince their colleagues to release the product until 1996. By then, over 40 competitors had launched their digital cameras.
Polaroid's downfall was due to a flawed assumption that prevailed internally: the belief that customers always wanted to print their photos. This assumption was never questioned, resulting in classic groupthink, where consensus is sought instead of fostering dissent. Groupthink is an enemy of the innovative spirit. People conform to the majority opinion under pressure, rather than advocating for diversity of thought.
From an organizational culture perspective, companies with a strong loyalty culture struggle 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, and retain similar people, they effectively eliminate diversity of thought and values. This is particularly true in established companies with strong loyalty cultures. Because their recruitment is based on conformity, employees must adapt to the company's culture to survive. It's truly a case of "unity in success and failure."
Charlan Nemeth, a psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and a renowned expert in studying group decision-making, found that "the opinion of the minority is important, not because they are correct, but because they stimulate different concerns and ideas." "Even if they are wrong, they still contribute to finding the best solution and decision."
In essence: Even if "dissenting voices" are incorrect, they are still useful.
This is my understanding of the essence of "Originals." It suggests that readers should buy a copy and read it thoroughly, as it contains many interesting and fun cases that demonstrate the points and conclusions mentioned above. The book invites us to reevaluate our understanding of innovation, procrastination, risk, courage, and the ubiquitous default choices and conventional wisdom in life.
It concludes with the realization that we have the power to make new choices.