In my book review, I wrote about how the social networking technology helps facilitate a connector's ability to communicate with its large network. The technology also helps those who are not natural connectors learn to build that network. But the very benefits of a social site such as Facebook and LinkedIn are very similar to its downfalls. Being able to post our writing to a blog for the world to read allows us to be heard, to voice our opinions, and to develop our skills in front of the broadband. On the downside, everyone has the capability to read these blogs, to know our opinions, and to criticize our faults. I think these are all risks that make it difficult for me to be completely transparent in my writing.
In business, financial statements are said to be representative of how the company is doing. Transparency is "great". It helps investors learn which companies are doing well, which ones aren't, which ones to buy stock in. But is transparency good for the company? On one end, transparency allows companies to interact with consumers. If the consumers know what is actually going on, they can give feedback (one possible way of feedback being through the blogosphere). Consumers are more trusting of transparent companies, and that is a major benefit. However, companies are hesitant to be completely transparent in their disclosures because there is risk of others in the industry knowing too much, and this is similar to risk that we face.
Any kind of transparency or allowance of the public to see your work makes you liable. Having our blogs for the world to see makes us liable to criticism and labeling among other risks. First of all, as students, we need to consider who may be viewing our blogs and other public websites we may have, such as Facebook.
Employers may do a search on our name to see what comes up. I have my Facebook on extreme-privacy settings, and am even paranoid about anyone reading this blog and finding anything that could be misconstrued. It is risky to have your thoughts viewable to the public. When I was in high school, I kept a livejournal. I would vent, express concerns over classes, and discuss any challenges that I had day to day. One day, I wrote a long entry discussing my anger with my mom and how I thought she was being *completely unreasonable* with her punishment, etc. After having it up for 2 hours and having about 10 comments on it from my friends saying they agreed with me and my mom was being completely unreasonable, I realized that this was not the type of thing I should have on a public site. I think it reflected poorly on my temper and maturity. It also really displayed my mom in a negative manner that obviously was just due to the heat of the moment. It was not fair to her.
Another risk with blogs is that the repercussions do not only affect the writer, but can change other people's lives as well. One girl at my high school made a list of "people she hates" and listed about 30 people on her LiveJournal. This girl was suspended from school (for an amount of time that I can't remember right now), but even worse, one of the girls on her "hate list" developed an eating disorder. This was after being called overweight (among other less politically correct terms) on the hate list and who knows, the hate list could have contributed to her eating disorder. Having freedom of speech and the ability to easily spread our ideas to other people is a benefit of America and technology, but in this case, the consequence was a bigger cost.
President Obama took major advantage of the transparency of our current world. He used social media, blogs, networking sites--all which equate to free advertising. It worked for him, and it can work for us. On the other hand, being consistently in the lime light proves risks. For example, he is more vulnerable to people criticizing his policies. Putting your thoughts out for the world to see makes you accountable for them. If I put a subtle thought about how I don't like Kanye West, it could bring backlash and I would have to defend my opinion, even though I may not feel so strongly about it. This is a benefit because it promotes accountability, but at the same time, it is an automatic filter for the type of things that people may post. People know that others are reading their blog, so it is possible that some of the things they write could be catered to what they think the public wants to read. This parallels earnings management in companies ---when management manipulates financials to what the public (investors) wants to see.
Public companies get in trouble for earnings management because it gives off the wrong idea of how the company is doing. Public companies are regulated so that a certain level of transparency must be attained. Typically, the more transparent a company is, the more trust the investors have and the company earns a good reputation. What does our desire to be transparent or hesitations about our blog entries and say about our personalities?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
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.
.
“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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Book Review Draft 2
AOL. MySpace. Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. We live in a society of trends. Some of these trends last, but most don’t. 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 even begin? Why do some trends catch on, while others fail? In attempting to design effective change, many of us have likely experienced the latter. We hope to provide innovation or invention for what we have in our minds as a great idea. Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we missing certain aspects that keeps our message from spreading through the population?
“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds. We hope that perseverance is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. I heard the phrase from my high school tennis coach my freshman year. She made it the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life. She was someone I trusted, someone who motivated and inspired me. The moment I heard this message was the unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that I was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable. Both the environment and the person I received it from mattered for me.
It was a combination of these two factors, the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to impact me the way it did. Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these 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 that one child who is the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to play his game. To play tag when everyone else wants to play hide and go seek. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just 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 most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that 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, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain 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, and essentially keeps 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 him once.
Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our 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. It’s not necessarily part of our personality nor may it come as easy as it does to the natural “connector”, but we learn to do it. It’s 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 shouldn’t 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 ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various 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 basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are a part of facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.
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. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens have a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a “data bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.
Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Similarly, Yunus can be seen as both a maven and a connector. He was both the “designer” of his project of micro-crediting, and the one to diffuse the project. By designing and discovering what just a few cents could do, Yunus was a maven. 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, and 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 exhibits the qualities of a maven and proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” 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 was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings 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 knowledge in economics gave microfinancing the push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.
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 seem to help his ability to sell the idea. All of his “selling” was done by his desire to spread his expertise and information, 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 type 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 and see 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 need not 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 it is they may need to sell it to. They understand that not everyone is going to buy their product, and understand the cost benefit ratio. 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, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. Selling does not necessarily equal the loud, conniving, annoying sales person. Selling may just be the person who knows how 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. The biggest characteristic of Pankaj’s personality that made him persuasive had nothing to do with talking or convincing. It was the subtle, 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.
I think there are some other personality traits among the salespeople, mavens, and connectors. 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, and 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. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. 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 feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---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. What Gladwell describes as the “Power of 150” is what I believe to be his most interesting idea. He writes that only in smaller groups, 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 a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. 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). Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. 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 for it 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 mavens by selling charitable idea of summer camps for children. But another reason the number 150 is so powerful, is that it is small enough for us to be close, but big enough for us to connect to the outside. 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 of people 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. MAYBE ADD IN SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT I THINK MATTER HERE or would that be too much? 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 it is presented is essential to whether the message is spread and successful. The message “Never give up” was memorable to me; it stuck to me. Moving from the bottom seed of the varsity team my freshman year to a state qualifier and team captain my sophomore year, 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. Although it worked for me, for 15 high school girls, hearing a coach screaming three words is not the way to make a message “sticky”. Only by witnessing that application of perseverance could make them successful, were the 15 girls on my tennis team buying into the example. 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, 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.
“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds. We hope that perseverance is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. I heard the phrase from my high school tennis coach my freshman year. She made it the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life. She was someone I trusted, someone who motivated and inspired me. The moment I heard this message was the unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that I was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable. Both the environment and the person I received it from mattered for me.
It was a combination of these two factors, the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to impact me the way it did. Similarly, Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these 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 that one child who is the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to play his game. To play tag when everyone else wants to play hide and go seek. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just 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 most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that 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, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain 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, and essentially keeps 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 him once.
Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our 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. It’s not necessarily part of our personality nor may it come as easy as it does to the natural “connector”, but we learn to do it. It’s 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 shouldn’t 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 ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various 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 basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are a part of facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.
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. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens have a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a “data bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.
Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Similarly, Yunus can be seen as both a maven and a connector. He was both the “designer” of his project of micro-crediting, and the one to diffuse the project. By designing and discovering what just a few cents could do, Yunus was a maven. 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, and 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 exhibits the qualities of a maven and proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” 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 was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings 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 knowledge in economics gave microfinancing the push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.
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 seem to help his ability to sell the idea. All of his “selling” was done by his desire to spread his expertise and information, 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 type 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 and see 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 need not 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 it is they may need to sell it to. They understand that not everyone is going to buy their product, and understand the cost benefit ratio. 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, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. Selling does not necessarily equal the loud, conniving, annoying sales person. Selling may just be the person who knows how 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. The biggest characteristic of Pankaj’s personality that made him persuasive had nothing to do with talking or convincing. It was the subtle, 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.
I think there are some other personality traits among the salespeople, mavens, and connectors. 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, and 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. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. 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 feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---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. What Gladwell describes as the “Power of 150” is what I believe to be his most interesting idea. He writes that only in smaller groups, 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 a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. 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). Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. 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 for it 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 mavens by selling charitable idea of summer camps for children. But another reason the number 150 is so powerful, is that it is small enough for us to be close, but big enough for us to connect to the outside. 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 of people 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. MAYBE ADD IN SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT I THINK MATTER HERE or would that be too much? 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 it is presented is essential to whether the message is spread and successful. The message “Never give up” was memorable to me; it stuck to me. Moving from the bottom seed of the varsity team my freshman year to a state qualifier and team captain my sophomore year, 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. Although it worked for me, for 15 high school girls, hearing a coach screaming three words is not the way to make a message “sticky”. Only by witnessing that application of perseverance could make them successful, were the 15 girls on my tennis team buying into the example. 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, 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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Profiting from Non-Profit Work
"What motivates you?" When asked this question in class, many of us may answer: a good grade, successful career, or the idea of achievement. These exhibit different types of motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic. The idea of volunteering is so good natured and service-oriented, but I wonder how often volunteers/donors are doing it out of external motivations. For example, recognition and personal advancements are typical awards to be received. Or maybe some people volunteer and give simply because they are guilt-tripped and feel obligated. With companies, there is the idea of "social responsibility" that is necessary for long term success. Corporations may donate to causes, or have their employees be a part of service events. Are companies only socially responsible because they have to be? for profits? to follow the precedence set by others in their industry?
Recognition is clearly given to those that benefit the society. Those that donate to the Ronald McDonald fund have their name put up on a wall. Donors of the university get a room--or if they're ambitious, a building named after them. On the lower end (the 1 or 2 dollar donation to Ronald McDonald) I really do not think people give for recognition reasons, unless it is a mom humoring her child. The primary motivation in small donations is the fact that people feel obligated, guilty. IE: Drive through window: "Would you like to add one dollar to benefit the research for heart disease?"
Who can really say no when you just spent probably more than 5 times that giving towards heart disease.
Businesses are recognized for their work as well. On the other end, those larger donations, such as a university room or even a sponsor of Relay for Life, obviously receive incentive for their donations. I think having these incentives proves that extrinsic motivation is pretty important, or else the incentives would not be necessary at all.
Businesses receive good rankings(Most responsible companies), which often lead to good recruitment, resources, productivity, and profit. As a business student, I really enjoyed the companies that showcased their philanthropy side. I know that the place I interned for last summer had a great service program. The company actually took a low income Chicago area school and not only gave money, but also mentored and had some internships for those students. When it came down to picking between two similar companies, little things make the difference. Something like professional/social responsibility of the company really helps, companies know it. So would these companies be using their time to fund outside projects if it didn't provide any benefit for them? Personally, I think there would be a fewer amount of companies doing it. The industry leaders would still be giving, but there are some that may not be as devoted.
On a personal level for the students, I'm sure many of us feel a strong passion for philanthropy and have likely reaped the benefits as well. During interviews, I often give answers based off of experiences that I receive from my volunteering. I can see where external motivation would come in. There are many non-paid internships at the hospital that can be used as "job shadows" for students, but are also volunteering opportunities that help the patients. Some other examples would be volunteering at the nursing home or the actual planning of philanthropy events that would be beneficial for the resume.
Although I do believe that some people/organizations may volunteer for the recognition, or personal advancements, I still have hope. I am not cynical enough to believe that it is the primary motivation. Along the way, there may be that volunteer who is doing it just for a college application or for that job shadow experience, but hopefully it is not most of us. I do believe in human kind enough to believe that the people or companies that are displayed in those top ranking lists are legitimately devoted to benefiting society. And honestly, even if people are extrinsically motivated when it comes to non profits, at least its getting done. Lives are getting saved, kids are getting positive role models, and society as a whole is benefiting from the chain reaction of "social responsibility".
Recognition is clearly given to those that benefit the society. Those that donate to the Ronald McDonald fund have their name put up on a wall. Donors of the university get a room--or if they're ambitious, a building named after them. On the lower end (the 1 or 2 dollar donation to Ronald McDonald) I really do not think people give for recognition reasons, unless it is a mom humoring her child. The primary motivation in small donations is the fact that people feel obligated, guilty. IE: Drive through window: "Would you like to add one dollar to benefit the research for heart disease?"
Who can really say no when you just spent probably more than 5 times that giving towards heart disease.
Businesses are recognized for their work as well. On the other end, those larger donations, such as a university room or even a sponsor of Relay for Life, obviously receive incentive for their donations. I think having these incentives proves that extrinsic motivation is pretty important, or else the incentives would not be necessary at all.
Businesses receive good rankings(Most responsible companies), which often lead to good recruitment, resources, productivity, and profit. As a business student, I really enjoyed the companies that showcased their philanthropy side. I know that the place I interned for last summer had a great service program. The company actually took a low income Chicago area school and not only gave money, but also mentored and had some internships for those students. When it came down to picking between two similar companies, little things make the difference. Something like professional/social responsibility of the company really helps, companies know it. So would these companies be using their time to fund outside projects if it didn't provide any benefit for them? Personally, I think there would be a fewer amount of companies doing it. The industry leaders would still be giving, but there are some that may not be as devoted.
On a personal level for the students, I'm sure many of us feel a strong passion for philanthropy and have likely reaped the benefits as well. During interviews, I often give answers based off of experiences that I receive from my volunteering. I can see where external motivation would come in. There are many non-paid internships at the hospital that can be used as "job shadows" for students, but are also volunteering opportunities that help the patients. Some other examples would be volunteering at the nursing home or the actual planning of philanthropy events that would be beneficial for the resume.
Although I do believe that some people/organizations may volunteer for the recognition, or personal advancements, I still have hope. I am not cynical enough to believe that it is the primary motivation. Along the way, there may be that volunteer who is doing it just for a college application or for that job shadow experience, but hopefully it is not most of us. I do believe in human kind enough to believe that the people or companies that are displayed in those top ranking lists are legitimately devoted to benefiting society. And honestly, even if people are extrinsically motivated when it comes to non profits, at least its getting done. Lives are getting saved, kids are getting positive role models, and society as a whole is benefiting from the chain reaction of "social responsibility".
Friday, October 2, 2009
All for One, One for All
When discussing goal alignment, the first thing I think of is the sport of basketball. The typical goal incongruence with team sports occurs when players work to “show off” and get more points individually rather than playing with the team’s best interest in mind. In recent years, Kobe Bryant’s development from the individual-goal oriented player to the team-player has made headlines. The player that once had an extreme lack of goal alignment grew into a team-driven player that lead the Lakers to a championship.
Kobe began his career with another NBA star, Shaquille O’neal. Shaq, the veteran, was getting all of the attention and winning the MVP awards when the Lakers were on their tear through NBA championships. Eventually, Shaq left the Lakers for a different team, leaving Kobe to be the only star. This is something Kobe wanted, finally getting the attention and credit for his team's success. Kobe went on to score the 2nd most points ever in a single game, win the NBA scoring championship, but his team didn’t even get past the first round of the playoffs. People argue that Kobe wasn’t playing for his team, he was playing for himself. Finally, in the last couple years, the Lakers have made it to the NBA Finals, winning it in 2009. In these two years, Kobe’s point statistics were down, but the rest of his teammates’ statistics were up.
Sometimes it’s necessary to make individual sacrifices for the team. Making these sacrifices is a more long-term way of thinking. As we can see with Kobe’s example, in the long term, he had bigger individual successes. Drucker stated that management success can be measured by 1) economic/profitable developments 2) productivity of employees and 3) social responsibility. The guests on Wednesday taught us that in an organization, these ideas operate together. Businesses cannot exist without profit, but long term profit will not occur without high productivity and social responsibility. Let’s take a look at the Lakers as an organization, and Kobe as a “manager” of that organization. Afterall, he is the team leader and captain. As a manager, Kobe did what he could do produce economic profit, but along the way he was unable to get the rest of the members of his team to be productive. He was not socially responsible to the Laker organization when he put his own goals ahead.
Not so coincidentally, when Kobe began playing for the team, he earned even more individual success. He won his first NBA MVP title and NBA Finals MVP title in the last two years. In the long term, the three ideas of management discussed by Drucker operate together. The more social responsibility, the more profit. This is true for a business, RSO, sports team. The three aspects must operate together just as a team needs to work together. Kobe is only one person, but success occurred only when he thought for everyone and not just himself.
Kobe began his career with another NBA star, Shaquille O’neal. Shaq, the veteran, was getting all of the attention and winning the MVP awards when the Lakers were on their tear through NBA championships. Eventually, Shaq left the Lakers for a different team, leaving Kobe to be the only star. This is something Kobe wanted, finally getting the attention and credit for his team's success. Kobe went on to score the 2nd most points ever in a single game, win the NBA scoring championship, but his team didn’t even get past the first round of the playoffs. People argue that Kobe wasn’t playing for his team, he was playing for himself. Finally, in the last couple years, the Lakers have made it to the NBA Finals, winning it in 2009. In these two years, Kobe’s point statistics were down, but the rest of his teammates’ statistics were up.
Sometimes it’s necessary to make individual sacrifices for the team. Making these sacrifices is a more long-term way of thinking. As we can see with Kobe’s example, in the long term, he had bigger individual successes. Drucker stated that management success can be measured by 1) economic/profitable developments 2) productivity of employees and 3) social responsibility. The guests on Wednesday taught us that in an organization, these ideas operate together. Businesses cannot exist without profit, but long term profit will not occur without high productivity and social responsibility. Let’s take a look at the Lakers as an organization, and Kobe as a “manager” of that organization. Afterall, he is the team leader and captain. As a manager, Kobe did what he could do produce economic profit, but along the way he was unable to get the rest of the members of his team to be productive. He was not socially responsible to the Laker organization when he put his own goals ahead.
Not so coincidentally, when Kobe began playing for the team, he earned even more individual success. He won his first NBA MVP title and NBA Finals MVP title in the last two years. In the long term, the three ideas of management discussed by Drucker operate together. The more social responsibility, the more profit. This is true for a business, RSO, sports team. The three aspects must operate together just as a team needs to work together. Kobe is only one person, but success occurred only when he thought for everyone and not just himself.
Draft 1
AOL. MySpace. Facebook. YouTube. Twitter. We live in a society of trends. Some of these trends last, but most don’t. 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 even begin? Why do some trends catch on and blow through the population like a wind storm, while others are stuck in a stage as if struck by lightning? Most of us have likely had the experience of the latter, hoping to provide innovation or invention for what we have in our minds as a great idea, but seemingly never able to do it. Is it really enough to simply believe in our message and “never give up” or are we missing certain aspects to our innovation that keeps our message from spreading through the population?
“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds and hope is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. For me, the phrase itself, screamed by my high school tennis coach, is the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life---an unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that the environment or context that I received it in was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable in when I was in high school.
Not only did this message touch on my tennis career, but I also apply the idea to my academic, professional, and extracurricular activities. The message spread through me like wildfire. Although diffusion of a message throughout one person’s life may not be as difficult as attempting to innovate or begin a trend for an entire world, the ideas behind it remain the same. The three words, “never give up” have stuck with me so strongly in the last 7 years not only because it’s a powerful message, or because the person who relayed the message to me was someone that I trusted. It was a combination of these two factors, along with the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to spread throughout my mind and life the way that it did. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Stickiness Factor, The Law of the Few, and the Law of Context.
Ironically, an ingredient of stickiness is that it is often opposing to the typical ideas of society. For example, television was a product that parents disliked, labeling it an education-killer. By making children’s primary form of entertainment, television, educational, the makers of Sesame Street spread the virus of literacy through the agent of infection, television. This educational Tipping Point would give children a head start, and then these children would continue to spread the show onto their parents and other children (Gladwell 89.) After running several experiments, a decision was made to combine the fantasy and real elements together, keeping the children’s interest in the show. By changing just a small critical area of the show, the producers of Sesame Street created not only a cultural phenomenon, but the beginning of the educational television that graces any household with a child and Nickelodeon today.
The interesting aspect of “stickiness” is that in order to make a message sticky, you don’t need to change the substance. The writers of Sesame Street simply mixed the fantasy character with real adult figures. Essentially, the stickiness in a message comes in the way its packaged. The results of the small critical change are felt 40 years later due to the small critical modification that caused the tipping point. Sticky messages are able to transcend popular beliefs; for example, Sesame Street was able to turn television into an educational phenomenon.
Although this message of “stickiness” is clearly important, I feel Gladwell spends a bit too much time discussing this factor, primarily because it is the most obvious one of each of the factors. Partially, because most of the time when we have challenges designing effective change, the problem lies in the “effectiveness” not in the “design. In other words, the problem is in the ability to apply our design, which is more relative to the Law of the Few and Law of Concept theories outlined. How can we apply the message that we create? According to Gladwell, much of the answer lies in who we choose to spread the word.
Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice that one child who seems to be the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to do what he or she wants. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just 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 most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that 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, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain 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, and essentially keeps in touch with everyone that he meets.
Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me; in my opinion, the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers” in the world, but not in the way that Horchow is described---writing down everyone’s name and so completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting him once. Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters as we know that they have connections to that full-time job or internship. This is because it’s 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 shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that connectors, people with all of these relationships are those that 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 ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various 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 basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are apart of really facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.
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. Sure to be a shocker for the 21st century, there are people to do this too. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens are a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal or find that best restaurant. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a data “bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.
A bank, in the sense of the word, is defined as a location of many of the same type of resource; we usually think of this as a location with the resource of money. Banking institutions don’t believe in giving loans to those without credit, because the risk that the lenders will default on their loans is not worth the little interest that the banking institution may possibly receive on the small loan. However, Muhammad Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” 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 was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings 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 knowledge in economics is what gave microfinancing that push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.
Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge, and without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.
The third group of people that Gladwell describes are the Salesmen. This group includes that outgoing “salesman” personality type that many of us think of when we think of words such as: persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. 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. Dan Rather’s slight bias and smiling during particular portions of news reporting caused favorability towards that subject matter to spike up. Any sort of bias shown by a newscaster may not seem obvious to the audience, but in fact does change the way they view news stories.
The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. 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 feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.
On a campus with 40,000 students, I am under the impression that everywhere I go, I will know someone. As narcissistic as that sounds, it’s probably not that far off from what most students on this campus think. The close-knit environment where we all live within a 2-mile radius of each other may be one reason for this, but our connections on campus come primarily from our student organizations: one of the 1100 Registered Student Organizations on campus. I am personally a member of a business fraternity of approximately 100 members. We initiate approximately 20 members each semester. What has always stricken me about my business fraternity is the way in which we are able to transform a young pledge class with little knowledge about the professional world into one that takes these ideals of professionalism, brotherhood, and responsibility and molds it onto future pledge classes. In additional to teaching our principles onto others, we also share a responsibility. As a business fraternity, we often work with the Business Career Services and help advertise or spread the news about any events they may have coming up.
Our ability to make an impact on first, each other, and then on the rest of the community (in our case, the College of Business) is what Gladwell calls “The Power of 150”. Only in smaller groups, under 150, can change be spread. Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. The biggest Greek System on campus has around 150 people in each sorority or fraternity group. 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 a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. Having the responsibility put on you makes a big difference.
Other characteristics make a big difference too, though. 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.
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.
“Never give up!”---the memorable phrase we consistently engrave into our minds and hope is enough motivation for us to make a move in the specific message that we are trying to spread. For me, the phrase itself, screamed by my high school tennis coach, is the most memorable message that I have ever received in my life---an unarguable “dramatic moment” that became the tipping point for my tennis career. Perhaps the reason it is so memorable for me is that the environment or context that I received it in was on the tennis court---the place that I felt most comfortable in when I was in high school.
Not only did this message touch on my tennis career, but I also apply the idea to my academic, professional, and extracurricular activities. The message spread through me like wildfire. Although diffusion of a message throughout one person’s life may not be as difficult as attempting to innovate or begin a trend for an entire world, the ideas behind it remain the same. The three words, “never give up” have stuck with me so strongly in the last 7 years not only because it’s a powerful message, or because the person who relayed the message to me was someone that I trusted. It was a combination of these two factors, along with the context and environment which I received it in that allowed the message to spread throughout my mind and life the way that it did. Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, describes these three rules that cause the Tipping Point to be: The Stickiness Factor, The Law of the Few, and the Law of Context.
Ironically, an ingredient of stickiness is that it is often opposing to the typical ideas of society. For example, television was a product that parents disliked, labeling it an education-killer. By making children’s primary form of entertainment, television, educational, the makers of Sesame Street spread the virus of literacy through the agent of infection, television. This educational Tipping Point would give children a head start, and then these children would continue to spread the show onto their parents and other children (Gladwell 89.) After running several experiments, a decision was made to combine the fantasy and real elements together, keeping the children’s interest in the show. By changing just a small critical area of the show, the producers of Sesame Street created not only a cultural phenomenon, but the beginning of the educational television that graces any household with a child and Nickelodeon today.
The interesting aspect of “stickiness” is that in order to make a message sticky, you don’t need to change the substance. The writers of Sesame Street simply mixed the fantasy character with real adult figures. Essentially, the stickiness in a message comes in the way its packaged. The results of the small critical change are felt 40 years later due to the small critical modification that caused the tipping point. Sticky messages are able to transcend popular beliefs; for example, Sesame Street was able to turn television into an educational phenomenon.
Although this message of “stickiness” is clearly important, I feel Gladwell spends a bit too much time discussing this factor, primarily because it is the most obvious one of each of the factors. Partially, because most of the time when we have challenges designing effective change, the problem lies in the “effectiveness” not in the “design. In other words, the problem is in the ability to apply our design, which is more relative to the Law of the Few and Law of Concept theories outlined. How can we apply the message that we create? According to Gladwell, much of the answer lies in who we choose to spread the word.
Growing up, even on the playground, we always notice that one child who seems to be the loudest. The bossiest. The one that convinces all the other kids on the block to do what he or she wants. I know I always admired this personality who was able to take an idea and spread it around to all of the other kids. Even now, it seems as if some people just 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 most of us think of someone who is able to spread an epidemic, we think of that 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, the type of people who easily meet friends and acquaintances and retain 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, and essentially keeps in touch with everyone that he meets.
Doing what Horchow does is unimaginable to me; in my opinion, the most elaborate and exaggerated example in the book. I think there are many excellent connectors, or what we would call “networkers” in the world, but not in the way that Horchow is described---writing down everyone’s name and so completely happy with calling someone a friend after meeting him once. Connectors have a way of staying in touch with people without having the discomfort that most of us have when talking to a “weak tie” or “not-so-good-friend”. In a student world, we are often put in touch with various people that have various connections, such as a dean that could put us in touch with whoever we need to answer our questions. We try to build connections with a diverse group of recruiters as we know that they have connections to that full-time job or internship. This is because it’s 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 shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that connectors, people with all of these relationships are those that 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 ways that Roger Horchow was able to be acquainted with so many various 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 basically be reachable at any given point in time. The current environment and technology that we are apart of really facilitates and makes it easier for us to become these “connectors”—to a point where it almost seems like we are cheating. But the results of Facebook and its ability to spread an idea prove that connections are essential. Even the school library has a Facebook page to spread the word about any events coming up.
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. Sure to be a shocker for the 21st century, there are people to do this too. While connectors are those who connect us to the right people, mavens are those who connect us to proper information. Mavens are a remarkable amount of expert knowledge in certain areas, and use that information to help others to get the best deal or find that best restaurant. Mavens are convincing, without being conniving. We consistently take their advice because they want to help, not “twist our arm”. A maven, essentially, is a data “bank” and uses that knowledge to help others.
A bank, in the sense of the word, is defined as a location of many of the same type of resource; we usually think of this as a location with the resource of money. Banking institutions don’t believe in giving loans to those without credit, because the risk that the lenders will default on their loans is not worth the little interest that the banking institution may possibly receive on the small loan. However, Muhammad Yunus proves that by giving small, “micro”, loans to the poor, they are able to invest it. Yunus, a learned man of economics, was simply looking for a way to apply the degree that he was lucky enough to earn. In small integrals, their return on income grows, and they move above the poverty line. This idea of “microcrediting” 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 was an investment that turned into a project that ultimately brings 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 knowledge in economics is what gave microfinancing that push it needed. Yunus is the ideal example of a maven, a person who uses his obsession with subject matter (ie: economics) to help get others the best deal.
Gladwell uses Paul Revere’s reign of information spread in 1775 to portray the need for a connector and a maven. In Paul Revere’s night ride, he was both a maven and a connector because he helped discover the message that the British were coming(maven), and then used it to pass along (connector). Without a connector, a maven has no source to spread its knowledge, and without a maven, a connector has no data to spread.
The third group of people that Gladwell describes are the Salesmen. This group includes that outgoing “salesman” personality type that many of us think of when we think of words such as: persuasive, ruthless, and maybe even annoying. Gladwell, however, says that the traits of a salesman are energy, enthusiasm, charm, and likeability. If there is one concept that Gladwell describes greatly in this chapter, or even in the book, it’s subtlety. 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. Dan Rather’s slight bias and smiling during particular portions of news reporting caused favorability towards that subject matter to spike up. Any sort of bias shown by a newscaster may not seem obvious to the audience, but in fact does change the way they view news stories.
The dynamics of “The Law of the Few” are constantly changing in the technology-filled world that we are a part of. As described with Facebook, various programs make it easier for technology to do what once only people could do. 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 feel as if they are connectors. This trait is pushed along by our surrounding environment and technology---what Gladwell describes to be the “Law of Context”.
On a campus with 40,000 students, I am under the impression that everywhere I go, I will know someone. As narcissistic as that sounds, it’s probably not that far off from what most students on this campus think. The close-knit environment where we all live within a 2-mile radius of each other may be one reason for this, but our connections on campus come primarily from our student organizations: one of the 1100 Registered Student Organizations on campus. I am personally a member of a business fraternity of approximately 100 members. We initiate approximately 20 members each semester. What has always stricken me about my business fraternity is the way in which we are able to transform a young pledge class with little knowledge about the professional world into one that takes these ideals of professionalism, brotherhood, and responsibility and molds it onto future pledge classes. In additional to teaching our principles onto others, we also share a responsibility. As a business fraternity, we often work with the Business Career Services and help advertise or spread the news about any events they may have coming up.
Our ability to make an impact on first, each other, and then on the rest of the community (in our case, the College of Business) is what Gladwell calls “The Power of 150”. Only in smaller groups, under 150, can change be spread. Most of the organizations on campus are less than 150, or right around that number. The biggest Greek System on campus has around 150 people in each sorority or fraternity group. 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 a such a threat to hospitals is because it is so difficult to trace back to the convict that cause a virus to a particular patient. Having the responsibility put on you makes a big difference.
Other characteristics make a big difference too, though. 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.
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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Personal Motivations
On Monday, we briefly discussed that those from lower income and education families are often proven to be exposed to less in their childhoods, possibly making it more difficult for them to be motivated or molded into experts. When I was born, I was part of a lower education and income home, so this struck close to home(though probably not quite as low as we are discussing). Although most of the years that my family spent in a cramped apartment were years that I don't remember as a baby, I know that it happened. And even when things got better, my parents consistently engraved in me that I would have to make up for the lack of exposure to the museums, books, or sight-seeing vacations that other children had. What I did have going for me, was motivation. Later in my life I realize that yes, these experiences are what caused me to be more intrinsically motivated. Seeing that it's possible to move up the ladder in America and watching my parents go through college as a middle school-er was definitely motivating in knowing that anything is possible. However, in this post, I am going to somewhat defend the external motivation position because I think it's what we all start off with Kohlberg's Developmental Stages
Being brought up in a household without as many perks, is where one would think I was more likely to be intrinsically motivated because I wasn't rewarded with dollar bills for my A's. Maybe my standards were just lower, because I was perfectly happy with the "external" reward of the grade A. Growing up, there was never a subject that I felt innately good at. There was never a subject that I felt like I didn't have to study for. Things didn't come easy for me, and I did have to study. luckily, I did, because I wanted the A. What motivated me was that shining gold star, the bright red A. These external motivations may not have been the best for my learning, but for me, they were necessary to start off with. After being the first one to count to 1000 in kindergarten, I took things as a race to be the first one to count to 10,000. I would take recess and write in my numbers-chart to achieve my status as the quickest counter (oops...is this cheating?).
SO, this whole study-work-and get good grades thing worked out great for me...until *gasp* I was at risk for getting a B! I think internal motivation occurs when we fail at achieving. Because when we fail at achieving the rewards we desire, the only thing that we have left to motivate is ourselves. The need for change occurs with failure--this is shown in our examples of Micro Financing, Better, "Double Loop Learning", etc. No one is going to change if they are receiving positive feedback, and it's the same with motivation. When I was going to receive my first B, I realized that even a 100% on the final wouldn't cut it for me to get an A. I could have slacked and still gotten a B, or study hard for the final and...still get a B. I guess this is when I realized that there was more to school than grades, and I did want to do well for me--for my reputation, for my relationships with teachers, and for my development as a student and individual.
It seems we have dissected the quote, “experts are made, not born”. Should we instead be dissecting whether motivation is made (external) or born (intrinsic)? Are there people that cannot be conditioned to be intrinsically motivated? Personally, I think it is completely possible to go through life without intrinsic motivation. In fact, I don't even think external motivations are bad at all, if you're able to succeed with just that. Many of us need intrinsic motivation to succeed because at some point, we will fail. My experiences have shown that the external helped me to develop the internal. However, I think that it is even possible for experts to be more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated. Grades may be the primary external motivation tactic for us now, but as we enter out professional lives, it's money. There are definitely executives that become very engrossed in the money and rewards and motivated by that. Weren't they still successful, though? Enron. (at least until their downfall...)
Being brought up in a household without as many perks, is where one would think I was more likely to be intrinsically motivated because I wasn't rewarded with dollar bills for my A's. Maybe my standards were just lower, because I was perfectly happy with the "external" reward of the grade A. Growing up, there was never a subject that I felt innately good at. There was never a subject that I felt like I didn't have to study for. Things didn't come easy for me, and I did have to study. luckily, I did, because I wanted the A. What motivated me was that shining gold star, the bright red A. These external motivations may not have been the best for my learning, but for me, they were necessary to start off with. After being the first one to count to 1000 in kindergarten, I took things as a race to be the first one to count to 10,000. I would take recess and write in my numbers-chart to achieve my status as the quickest counter (oops...is this cheating?).
SO, this whole study-work-and get good grades thing worked out great for me...until *gasp* I was at risk for getting a B! I think internal motivation occurs when we fail at achieving. Because when we fail at achieving the rewards we desire, the only thing that we have left to motivate is ourselves. The need for change occurs with failure--this is shown in our examples of Micro Financing, Better, "Double Loop Learning", etc. No one is going to change if they are receiving positive feedback, and it's the same with motivation. When I was going to receive my first B, I realized that even a 100% on the final wouldn't cut it for me to get an A. I could have slacked and still gotten a B, or study hard for the final and...still get a B. I guess this is when I realized that there was more to school than grades, and I did want to do well for me--for my reputation, for my relationships with teachers, and for my development as a student and individual.
It seems we have dissected the quote, “experts are made, not born”. Should we instead be dissecting whether motivation is made (external) or born (intrinsic)? Are there people that cannot be conditioned to be intrinsically motivated? Personally, I think it is completely possible to go through life without intrinsic motivation. In fact, I don't even think external motivations are bad at all, if you're able to succeed with just that. Many of us need intrinsic motivation to succeed because at some point, we will fail. My experiences have shown that the external helped me to develop the internal. However, I think that it is even possible for experts to be more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated. Grades may be the primary external motivation tactic for us now, but as we enter out professional lives, it's money. There are definitely executives that become very engrossed in the money and rewards and motivated by that. Weren't they still successful, though? Enron. (at least until their downfall...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)