44 pages 1 hour read

Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2016

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 5-7Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 5 Summary: “Goldilocks and the Trojan Horse: Creating and Maintaining Coalitions”

Grant discusses the ways “originals form alliances to advance their goals” (110) and strategies for overcoming the barriers that cause coalitions to fail. He cites Lucy Stone, the first American woman to keep her own name after marriage, the first woman in Massachusetts to earn a bachelor’s degree, and the first American woman to preach women’s rights on a full-time basis. Stone created the Woman’s Journal, which was crucial to establishing women’s right to vote. She inspired countless women and men to join the suffragette movement both in America and overseas in England. She formed a coalition with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and together, they led the movement. Unfortunately, Stone disagreed with Anthony and Stanton over many issues and the group disbanded, creating competition. This created doubt in the movement which delayed success. Grant explores the complexity of coalitions and the relationships that compose them, arguing that “building effective coalitions involves striking a delicate balance between venerable virtues and pragmatic policies” (111). This balance is the “Goldilocks theory of coalition formation” (111); an idea or message that is neither too intense nor tempered, nor too ineffectual.

Grant explains that due to “horizontal hostility” (112), common goals often lead group members to exaggerate and vilify minor differences in similar groups. For example, in one study, vegans showed a higher level of prejudice toward vegetarians than the reverse. The stricter a group’s rules, the more likely deviations will cause hostility. Anthony and Stanton were more radical than Stone, partnering with others opposing Black men’s right to vote because women still lacked it. Stone’s support of Black men’s right to vote was seen as a threat to the suffragette movement. Grant states that shared tactics are key to keeping a group together, as common goals are not enough. Stone found allies who shared her approach, as did Anthony and Stanton. While the three did not continue working together, they championed a common cause through different means.

“Tempered radicals” (115) are people with unconventional views who temper their ideas for real-world consumption. American inventor and scientist Meredith Perry was met with extreme skepticism when she proposed a wireless charger that charged devices through the air. It was only when she changed her approach and sold her idea as a specific piece of machinery with specific parameters that she was able to gain investors. Grant explains that “shifting the focus from why to how” (116) allows a person to seem less radical. He calls this method the “Trojan Horse” (a reference to the titular Greek myth) because originals can use it to get an idea through the door with little to no resistance. An inability or refusal to temper one’s radicalism is a major reason why coalitions fall apart—this being the case for Stone, Anthony, and Stanton.

Grant explores the nature of ambivalent relationships—those grounded in help and harm depending on the situation. Stone had this type of relationship with Anthony and Stanton, alternating between wanting to reconcile with them and declining their own attempts to do so. Such relationships are less predictable and cost more emotional energy to maintain. Grant cites a study by psychologist Bert Uchino, who found that ambivalent relationships are actually unhealthier than negative ones due to their instability. Because of this phenomenon, Grant suggests focusing on “convert[ing] our enemies” (122) rather than keeping ambivalent relationships. Those who initially oppose an idea but eventually come around to it often become the most enthusiastic and loyal advocates. They will be the most equipped to convert other skeptics, having been skeptics themselves. Furthermore, people find approval from “enemies” more confirming than that of allies. Lucy Stone engaged with her opponents as much as possible, making allies out of enemies.

Grant explores the origins of original ideas and why they often come from unfamiliar territory—to then “add familiarity” (125) for mere exposure effect. He cites Disney’s The Lion King, an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet which started out as a story about lions in Africa that then built on the latter’s familiar plot. As of 2014, it grossed over $1 billion. Presenting a radical idea followed by a series of moderate suggestions makes an idea more palpable. Furthermore, finding (or creating) common ground and reframing ideas to appeal to a wider audience is useful for gaining allies and traction.

Chapter 6 Summary: “Rebel with a Cause: How Siblings, Parents, and Mentors Nurture Originality”

In Chapter 6, Grant discusses factors that influence creativity and originality. He begins by sharing the story of Jackie Robinson, the first Black Major League Baseball player who not only broke the color barrier but stole more home plates than any other player before or since. Grant cites a study in which Major League Baseball’s top base-stealers found “younger brothers were 10.6 times more likely than their older siblings to attempt to steal a base” (136), and three times more likely to do so safely. He insists this is because of younger siblings’ affinity for risks—a tendency found in other areas such as politics and science. Psychologist Frank Sulloway analyzed scientists’ reactions to radical ideas (at the time of their publication) such as Newton’s theory of gravity and Einstein’s theory of relativity. He found that laterborn children were three times more likely to support original ideas than firstborns—this correlation being even stronger than that between age and openness. Grant notes that any child can be raised to be original, regardless of birth order.

Grant explores the two major theories behind why laterborn children tend to take more risks. The first theory comprises children dealing with sibling rivalry in different ways depending on birth order. Grant cites psychologist Alfred Adler’s theory that firstborn children attempt to exact authority over their younger siblings to emulate their parents and maintain their position in the family. This pushes laterborn children to rebel, the phenomenon being coined as “niche picking” (141). Grant examined the relationship between birth order and choosing to become a comedian and found that comedians were “83% more likely” to be younger siblings (158). On the other hand, older siblings tend to uphold more conventional, high-achieving careers. Once older siblings choose their niche, younger siblings choose a different one. The second theory suggests that the way parents raise their children depends on birth order. Not only do younger siblings learn from their parents and older siblings, but they also experience increased flexibility that often comes with age in parenting. Experienced parents worry less with older children to rely on, so the younger tend to have less responsibilities.

Next, Grant examines the reasons why original children choose harmful or beneficial risks, and “what factors shape whether children use their freedom to become honorable or antisocial, proactive or passive, creative or destructive” (144). He asserts that parents who discipline their children using clear explanations and reasoning are more likely to produce original or rebellious children. Logic informs a child that they are capable of better with the right knowledge and explains why harmful behavior is harmful. Grant notes that 21% of those who rescued Jewish people during the Holocaust had parents who disciplined them in this way. This suggests that giving children the option to develop their own moral code leads them to become more divergent thinkers.

Reminding people that they have a moral obligation to others makes them more likely to abide by rules. Grant insists that parents and mentors praise character, rather than behavior, to encourage desired behavior: “when our character is praised, we internalize it as part of our identities” (148). Another way to nurture originality (and independence in general) is by encouraging children to seek their own role models—real or fictional.

Chapter 7 Summary: “Rethinking Groupthink: The Myths of Strong Cultures, Cults, and Devil’s Advocates”

Grant opens Chapter 7 with an anecdote about Edwin Land, the inventor of Polaroid (a commonly used polarizing light filter) and 533 other patents. Land was ousted from his own company when he tried to push for digital cameras in the early 1990s, the rest of his team being convinced that the product would not sell. Grant blames groupthink—the reinforcement of ideas that leads to extremism—explaining that “people feel pressured to conform to the dominant, default views instead of championing diversity of thought” (156). Groupthink prevents people from considering and suggesting alternatives in favor of unanimity—such as the faulty decision-making behind the Vietnam War. Groups reinforce their own values, which leads to greater attachment to their norms.

Grant shares three styles of hiring templates or “blueprints” (158). The first style, the professional blueprint, hires employees based on their skills; the second style, the star blueprint, hires employees based on their potential; and the third and final style, the commitment blueprint, hires people based on their cultural and emotional fit within a company and its vision. Grant cites the commitment blueprint as the most successful. According to a study by researchers in Silicon Valley, companies which use the commitment blueprint have a 0% failure rate. This is because “skills and stars are fleeting; commitment lasts” (159). Grant cites the Polaroid company, whose core values were “intensity, originality, and quality” (159). Edwin Land’s goal was to hire people who would believe in and contribute to the Polaroid mission.

This perspective does not offer a complete picture: Grant insists that commitment culture is useful in the short term, but it can lead to dwindling performance over time. Companies tend to become “more homogenous over time” (160), which leads to less adaptability. Grant argues that dissenting opinions are not necessarily only useful when they are correct. Even when opinions are wrong, they still “stimulate divergent attention and thought” (162). Groupthink is driven by overconfidence and reputation, rather than social bonds or shared goals. The Polaroid company fell victim to groupthink by embedding itself too deeply in Land’s initial goal and group culture, refusing to acknowledge other perspectives or try new strategies.

Next, Grant discusses Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm founded by Ray Dalio that defies groupthink and the disadvantages of the commitment blueprint. The company employs over 200 principles to evaluate potential employees and has a close-knit culture. Most importantly, every employee is allowed to make suggestions regardless of how dissenting they may be—including criticizing the higher-ups. In fact, employees are “evaluated on whether they speak up—and they can be fired for failing to challenge the status quo” (164). This keeps the company ahead of trends—with diversity being an effective way to prevent groupthink.

Grant discusses another solution to groupthink: appointing a devil’s advocate. This practice began with Pope Sixtus V appointing a “promoter of the faith” (166) to challenge candidates and claims of miracles. Grant asserts that a devil’s advocate should be “unearthed” (166) rather than assigned so as to have one with assertive and genuine dissenting opinions. They must also have the support and trust of their group. Bridgewater Associates is a company that finds, rather than assigns, devil’s advocates. The firm also encourages its employees to call each other out when necessary, to prioritize accountability.

Grant challenges the principle of “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions” (170) that is all too familiar in business, arguing that fixating on solutions may discourage dissent—and by extension, originality. Laszlo Bock, the head of people’s operations at Google, and his team unearthed a group of employees—the “Canaries” (172)—to call out issues in the company; Grant insists that this approach is more effective in the long run. At Bridgewater Associates, everyone checks and rates each other’s performance during review cycles—these statistics being available to view at any time. Due to this process, employees establish credibility in various areas of the business.

Those lacking credibility in a given domain are expected to ask questions rather than voice opinions. But in a healthy work environment, employees can openly disagree and decide on solutions together. The more open a company’s higher-ups, the more comfortable its employees will be engaging in debate. Grant asserts that Bridgewater Associates is not a perfect company, one of its major faults being that it fails to be truly objective. Employees rank each other, with the company itself failing to enrich this data with randomized experiments. Grant notes that when he met founder Ray Dalio and discussed his objection to the Bridgewater approach, the latter upheld his view that his way worked best.

Chapters 5-7 Analysis

After establishing the principles of originality and how to execute original ideas, Grant explores influences that either encourage or hinder originality. As in previous chapters, he makes use of psychological and sociological concepts, anecdotes, and visuals to illustrate his points. Grant encourages readers to think for themselves rather than simply accept his advice, engaging them via rhetorical questioning: “Since the three leaders shared a deep commitment to the same cause, why did they end up in such a heated, destructive conflict?” (110). He also uses interviews he himself conducted or resourced to illustrate difficult ideas—such as the notion that encouraging employees to dissent could be beneficial to a company’s growth.

In Chapter 6, Grant discusses how family and birth order influence originality. He acknowledges the controversial nature of the latter but cites several studies to support his claim that younger siblings are more likely to become originals. He avoids weakening his argument by stating that many exceptions occur, often using this strategy to avoid straying from his main points and seeming outlandish. This is the same humility demonstrated in Chapter 1, in regards to Grant’s failure to invest in Warby Parker.

Grant argues against extreme ideas, citing coalitions like the suffragettes who disbanded when some had more extreme views than others (which impeded their progress for decades). He also explores the psychological concept of groupthink and enlists strategies to combat it. However, true to his original nature, Grant challenges the notion that groupthink is always a negative thing. The influences of groups are powerful, and while original people grouping together can lead to astounding results, it also comes with challenges.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
Unlock IconUnlock all 44 pages of this Study Guide

Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.

Including features:

+ Mobile App
+ Printable PDF
+ Literary AI Tools