Final Tipping Point Review

Consider AOL, MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. We live in a society of trends. As proven by the above list, some of these have already faded into the last decade. Inevitably, a new trend will come along that pushes the older one out of the public eye. How do these trends begin? Why do some ideas catch on and become trends, while other ideas fail to spread? In attempting to design effective change, many of us have likely experienced the latter with our own ideas. We hope the ideas we have are good and that as a consequence they spread on their own accord. But is that sufficient? Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we not taking the necessary steps to spread our message through the population?

“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently echo in our minds. We hope that perseverance is enough to ensure diffusion of our message. I heard this phrase from my high school tennis coach my freshman year. The moment I heard this message was the unarguable “dramatic moment” that changed my tennis career. Moving from the bottom seed of the varsity team my freshman year to a state qualifier and team captain my sophomore year, I took the message to heart. My game became about perseverance, not only as a big idea, but perseverance within every single point. I won matches by not giving up on points, eventually demoralizing higher ranked opponents.

Perhaps the reason this message is so memorable for me is that I received it on the tennis court---the place I felt most comfortable. Both the environment and the person I received it from mattered. My coach was someone I trusted, someone who motivated and inspired me. We had developed a relationship from summer practice sessions, where we worked on a one-on-one basis. The fact that she took time out to work with me showed that she cared; this is how she gained my trust. Although I trusted my coach, the surroundings still mattered. The “Broken Window Theory” speculates that criminals commit more crime when windows are already broken because of the conducive environment. Even though I trusted my coach for tennis advice, I would not have been as motivated to act on the message had I been sitting in front of a television or sitting on a couch. Being on a tennis court gave the message an environment conducive for action. Thus, the message impacted me the way it did because of a combination of the person and environment in which I received it.

Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Law of the Few, the Law of Context, and the Stickiness factor. Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice one child who is the loudest, the most popular, and the one that convinces all the other kids to play his game. This is the little boy who can start talking to all of the girls and make it look “cool” while everyone else claims “cooties”. And then a day later, because of this popular child, it is “playground proven” that no cooties exist. I have always admired this personality who is able to take an idea and spread it. Even now, it seems as if some people have “it” and some people don’t. What is “it”? Apparently, there is not only one “it”, but three. Gladwell describes three different types of personalities as those who are able to spread change, to create the tipping point that produces an epidemic.

When we think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, most of us think of the dominant, outgoing, personality who is the most popular or knows everyone. This is what Gladwell describes as a “connector”. Connectors are the type of people that have 1500 Facebook friends; connectors are those who easily meet friends and acquaintances, retaining a solid social network. Roger Horchow, a successful business man from Dallas, is depicted in the book as a social-network fiend. He “collects people the way others collect stamps” (45). Horchow keeps track of acquaintances’ birthdays, essentially keeping in touch with everyone that he meets. Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me. In my opinion, it is the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers”, but not in the way that Horchow is described. He writes down everyone’s name and is completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting them only once.

Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without feeling the discomfort of talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people who have connections, such as a dean who is able to put us in touch with whomever to answer questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters because we know they have connections to a full-time job or internship. Building this network is not necessarily part of our personality nor may it come as easy as it does to the experienced “connector”, but we learn to do it. It is a fact that building relationships with other people has a direct correlation with job placement, as 56 percent of people find their job through a personal connection (54). It should not come as a surprise, then, that connectors are responsible for the “word of mouth” epidemics. It only makes sense---the more people you know, the more people you tell, the more people who believe in an idea.

One of the reasons that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many people was because he kept a personal book of their contact information. The emergence of social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) and technology (Blackberry, IPhone) has allowed us to be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. The results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. With its emergence, the need for that experienced connector fades a bit. People are able to spread their ideas to millions by creating an event on Facebook or sending out a “message”. They don’t need to tap into their individual book of numbers. So, for many of us, Facebook—the site of connections, the site that helps us become better connected, is a news source as well. It’s the source college students use to learn about library events, concerts, and parties. However, the need for the experienced connector like Horchow still emerges with the question of credibility. On a networking site, we can “add” many connections and have the ability to mass-contact them. However, if we do not continually build the relationship with our ties, we lose the credibility to spread ideas. Networking sites help facilitate a connector; they are not a replacement. People listen if they feel a bond to the idea, if they are touched by that idea. The only way for a connector to touch a person is to understand them beyond “just a name”. They must know a person’s feelings and emotions, and this is why it’s necessary to for connectors to form a relationship beyond just a connection on a networking site. Although Facebook is beneficial because it allows for mass-inviting to be possible, in some ways, it is also the downfall. People are overwhelmed by mass invites, indifferent to the cause. A connector who properly uses Facebook would also send a personal message, making the cause more credible and touching.

Connectors are those who connect us to the right people. Mavens are those who connect us to their opinions based on their large amount of knowledge on a subject matter. When mavens speak their opinion, it matters because they are experts in their field. Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for connectors and mavens. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector. He helped discover the message that the British were coming (maven), and then used it to pass along (connector).

Similarly, Muhammad Yunus is both a maven and a connector. He came up the project of micro-crediting based on his opinions of economics. He was also the one to diffuse the project. By using his connections to the banks and the network he attained in college, he was a connector. Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge. Without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.

Muhammad Yunus, a professor of economics, was able to pull from his knowledge to affect the entire country of Bangladesh. Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest the money. Yunus had developed his strong opinion on micro crediting as a result of his knowledge in economics. In small integrals, micro lenders receive a return on income, and move above the poverty line. This idea of “micro-crediting” seems to contradict the idea of profit and economic growth, but in fact succeeds in “stickiness”. The financing grows from Yunus’ own pocket to an actual banking institution. The 20 dollars that Yunus used at the beginning of his project was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brought millions of people out of poverty. Just as a “small” investment for the poor helps them change their lives around greatly, a small push from Yunus to apply his opinion on financing gave micro-financing the push it needed.

Mavens are not all-powerful or omniscient. They do not have the power to convince everyone of their expertise, which Yunus discovered when the banks initially refused to make micro loans. In my opinion, Gladwell seems to imply that mavens have the personality that engages others to listen. However, maybe mavens just know the right people to engage. They know who will be engaged, how to get them to be engaged, and most importantly, the right people to engage. The right people need to listen for an idea to spread. The right people are those that will continue to spread the idea: the salesmen.

I don’t believe that Yunus was a “salesman” the way that Gladwell describes the word. His exterior personality did not help his ability to sell the idea. All of his “selling” was done by his desire to spread his opinion on economics, which makes him more of a maven. Nonetheless, when Yunus opened Grameen Bank, he found professional salesmen in the bank’s workers.

“Salesmen”, as we think of the word, are those outgoing personality types that we consider persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. Think of salesmen as the representatives of an idea. Salesmen have an ability to win over the trust of the consumer. They are the ones we typically notice on the exterior looking in. Salesmen don’t create an idea, nor do they have a personal connection to that idea as mavens do, they simply sell an idea that is already in existence.
Atul Gawande in Better, writes about the World Health Organization(WHO), which had the goal of eradicating polio from the world (Gawande 31). The WHO, however, had no jurisdiction or authority to mandate vaccines, so it had to depend on its human resources to spread the idea. Pankaj Bhatnagar was the physician that became the salesman for the polio vaccines.

Pankaj proves that salesmen do not need to be loud. Salesmen understand the product, as well as their customers. Pankaj knew what the “consumers” had to lose, and so when he was selling the vaccine, he did so in a caring manner. Salesmen are able to bend their “sell” and personality to whatever and whomever they are selling to. They understand that not everyone is going to buy their product, and understand the cost benefit ratio of losing a consumer. Pankaj knew that it was better to pass up one family than try to “force drops on people”, which could cost him more families (Gawande 45).

If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter and the book, it is subtlety. Selling does not necessarily equal the loud, conniving, or annoying sales person. A salesman may be the person who knows when to stop talking, or the person who smiles at the right point of the conversation. The common theme throughout the Tipping Point is that small things do matter and make a big difference. For salesmen, the subtleties in what they do are what make them persuasive. What made Pankaj persuasive had nothing to do with talking or convincing. It was the subtle and often missing idea of listening. He listened to those that he was trying to sell to, and that’s what allowed him to gain trust.

The other day I listened to a presentation by a company's Vice President of Marketing. He spoke about how his company was different. Its number one priority was its employees, its social responsibility, etc. The VP had excellent presentation skills, great ideas, and was very poised. However, for whatever reason, I did not feel that I trusted him. Everything he talked about related to the company. I could tell that he was trying to sell me his company, and that’s all he wanted.

On the other hand, a different company began its presentation with an alum of the University of Illinois. The alum began joking around about his days at the university and asked us what social areas were still popular; he related to the audience. He invoked audience participation. His presentation skills were not as developed as the older VP, but he was able to gain our trust. We felt that he was genuine and real. We related to him as he told stories of himself as a college student. He talked about his decision making in a career path, as well as challenges in college and the work place. It’s necessary for salesmen to understand their audience. In this case, college students related more to a younger, humorous, and genuine professional and that lead to the “sell”. Students were more engaged in the presentation. This alum was more successful in gaining our trust and “selling” the company, without seeming too obvious.

I think there are other personality traits among the salespeople, mavens, and connectors other than ability to gain trust. Each of them have a sense of diligence. They care about what they do. The three different types of people may not necessarily be attached to the particular idea they are selling. But salesmen are personally attached to selling the idea, mavens are attached to learning about an idea, and connectors are attached to meeting the people that could use that idea. In my mind, they all exhibit the idea of diligence and perseverance---that same idea of “never giving up”. This is one aspect that Gladwell does not explore in the book. If we are missing his three factors, but apply diligence, is that enough? Or would the inability to find these three factors be his definition of insanity?

Although Gladwell’s factors seem to encompass a large amount, we are in a world of change---improving technology, changing types of people in power. I wonder how these will affect his ideas. The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. Various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. Facebook becomes a facilitator. It saves time for an experienced connector like Horhow, and makes it possible for a non-experienced connector to learn to become one. The ideas presented in The Law of the Few are very ideal, but very general. Gladwell seems to decipher each person as an innate-born of that type, which makes that perfect connector impossible to find. However, a high percentage of Generation Y likely feels as if they are connectors. Even so, if people only have “light connections” on a networking site and don’t continue to build the relationship, they are not connectors. With the ease of technology, I believe the need for a stronger connection is pushed up another notch. Even acquaintance-relationships need to become stronger. Although this relationship development is the responsibility of a connector, it can be helped along by our surroundings. This is what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.

The “Law of Context” insists that our surrounding environment is what allows us to succeed in diffusion of an idea. The “Power of 150” is what I believe to be his most interesting idea. Gladwell writes that only in smaller groups less than 150 can change be spread. In these smaller groups, we are held accountable for our own actions. People know each other well enough that we feel the need to spread the change, and be productive contributors to an idea. Peer pressure can be extremely important to innovation and making ideas better. We saw this in Atul Gawande’s Better. Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that hand washing is such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict. Having the responsibility put on a person makes a big difference.

Interestingly enough, the University of Illinois utilizes the Power of 150 in its Registered Student Organizations (RSOs). The most successful organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. This is not by accident. The organizations that are able to gain the most from their members’ connections, members’ ideas, and members’ knowledge, are those that have an application process. The application process ensures that the number will be retained to under 150. In a group less than 150, members have the opportunity to get to know each other better, which is necessary to gain the trust that salesmen have. Members are more likely to share their connections with each other, and diffusion of ideas becomes possible. With one of the biggest Greek Systems in the nation, each sorority or fraternity has about 150 people. Each RSO has a mission statement, and the organization essentially fights for that cause. My business fraternity is currently co-sponsoring the Illini Summer Opportunity Organization (ISOO), a philanthropy that helps children in the area attend summer camps. Each member of the business fraternity is given a mandatory 5 tickets to sell, and we are held accountable through our mandatory philanthropy hours. The group is small enough so that we must take responsibility. We are behaving as salespeople by selling the tickets, but also as mavens by selling a charity that we believe in. Another reason the number 150 is so powerful, is that it is small enough for us to be close, and big enough for us to connect to a large amount of people. As we sell our tickets, we are being connectors. Each 100 or so members of the fraternity are members of other organizations, clubs, or even just academic classes. When we sell our tickets to a person in a different organization, we are essentially connecting that new 150 group to our idea. This causes a chain reaction and epidemic, until eventually; we reach every organization on campus. That is the ideal.

The ideal doesn’t always happen. While Tipping Point does a good job at pointing out characteristics that every trend includes, readers should be careful to look at this as an exhaustive list. Gladwell simplifies effective change into 279 pages, when in reality, change isn’t only about the input and process behind the cause, but also the outlying factors of the status quo and the competitors of change. Other factors matter too: among them is the stickiness factor that Gladwell mentions.

The final factor that Gladwell discusses is the Stickiness Factor, which I will not go into depth on because I believe it is the most obvious of the three factors. The message matters. The way in which the message is presented and how is essential to whether the message is spread and successful. The message “Never give up” was memorable to me; it stuck to me. I learned to lead and spread perseverance by example. Were there other ways that this message could have been spread? Most definitely. But Gladwell’s book is about finding the fit for the environment. For 15 high school girls, hearing a coach screaming three words is not the way to make a message “sticky”. It worked for me due to the relationship I had build with the coach. But for most high schools girls, only by witnessing that the application of perseverance could make them successful, were they buying the message. Three years after I have left the team, I still go back to matches. The player winning the most matches isn’t the one that has the most talent, but the one that makes the biggest hustles, gets to the most balls. It is the one that “never gives up”. I smile because I know that the message of perseverance is continuing to spread. Girls that have never met my old tennis coach still live by her words. Messages that have achieved a tipping point continue to live on.

In the end, Gladwell’s inspiring story of how “small changes can make a big difference” displayed the truths of his very own ideas. The Tipping Point became a New York Times best seller, a book read by business classes, companies, and inspiring entrepreneurs all over the world. Gladwell, himself, has been able to create a “tipping point” for the book by the very same name.

Bibliography

Gawande, Atul. The Essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2001. Print.

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point. New York, NY: Time Warner Book Group, 2000.
Print.

"Q & A with Muhammad Yunus." PBS n. pag. Web. 1 Oct 2009.
.