Dear All,
I am currently reading an interesting book "First, Break All The Rules". I believe we could engage in a very fruitful discussion, share our experiences, delve into the meaning of the book, and further develop the implementation of its message.
Please let me know if you have read or are currently reading this book and are interested in having an in-depth discussion.
Warm Regards,
Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
17I am currently reading an interesting book "First, Break All The Rules". I believe we could engage in a very fruitful discussion, share our experiences, delve into the meaning of the book, and further develop the implementation of its message.
Please let me know if you have read or are currently reading this book and are interested in having an in-depth discussion.
Warm Regards,
Manish
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Manish,
I agree that this book is excellent and a must-read for HR managers and leaders. It's worth practicing. We at our company underwent a Gallup survey and then initiated and implemented a few corrective actions. The results were encouraging.
Regards,
mmbanga
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree that this book is excellent and a must-read for HR managers and leaders. It's worth practicing. We at our company underwent a Gallup survey and then initiated and implemented a few corrective actions. The results were encouraging.
Regards,
mmbanga
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Some time ago, I made a presentation to Yahoo Q&A on the book. Some excerpts:-
Concluded from a survey interviewing the world's top managers, the book "First, Break All the Rules" defines Talent as "a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied to a particular situation or role." After every child is born, the child's mind tries to reach out aggressively, and by the third birthday, makes fifteen thousand synaptic connections (between the cells) for each of its one hundred billion neurons. These mental pathways are the filter that produces unique patterns of behavior, which create her enthusiasms and indifferences and basically define where she will excel and where she will struggle. These pathways are indications of the child's character and, according to neuroscience, beyond a point, there is a limit to how much of her character she can recarve.
The book disproves the conventional wisdom that "Human beings have unlimited potential." Every now and then, self-help books appear on how one can win in life based on having the "right attitude" alone, which can mislead impressionable minds.
The book further says that Talents are of three types - Striving, thinking, and relating talents. Striving talents explain the whys of a person - is he altruistic or competitive or both, is he task-oriented or result-oriented or both? Thinking talents define the hows of a person - is he a linear or a lateral thinker, is he disciplined or carefree, etc. Relating talents define who - with whom he relates, confronts, or ignores. The core activities of a manager and a leader are different. It is entirely possible for a person to be a brilliant manager but a terrible leader or vice versa, but a few exceptional people excel at both. In the Indian context, Sourav Ganguly may pale in comparison to Tendulkar as a batsman but made a much better captain, which is something that nobody could have predicted. Tendulkar, being a great batsman, could have easily led by example, but it was the less gifted batsman, Ganguly, who really excelled as a leader, which is doubly creditable.
This difference between "performers" and "leaders" is very well brought out by the book. Distinguishing between talent and non-talents, it gives examples of waiters, bartenders, housekeepers, nurses, data entry operators, etc., as to how the best were different from the rest even in minor jobs and were compensated highly without necessarily being promoted. The best bartender was someone who remembered the names of 3000 guests and their drinks, and the champion data entry operator was four times faster than the rest. They were given prestige by public recognition and money for being the best performers without necessarily promoting them if they did not have the talent for man management. The real solution is broadbanding, which defines different ranges of salaries for different posts for both performers and man managers. Following this, it is possible for a superb police officer to be paid more than a less efficient sergeant without being promoted, an excellent teacher can similarly earn more than a novice principal, an excellent flight attendant more valuable than an average pilot, etc. This is talent management at its best as the concerned people remain motivated despite not being promoted for roles that do not suit them. If combined with transparency, it can make a dent in problems like corruption in India.
The book further says that intelligence is a boon that great managers label as a talent that cannot be taught, and one has to assess the employee as a whole - "What drives an employee, how they think and build relationships - is more important." Only the presence of talent can explain why, other factors being equal, some people excel in the role and some struggle - one man's meat is another man's poison. The main thrust is to make the person feel that he is in a role that uses his talents while simultaneously challenging him to grow. Great managers recognize that people are motivated differently; each person has his way of thinking and his style of relating to others.
The book further reveals that great managers know that there is a limit to how much remolding they can do to someone. They try to help each person become more and more of what he already is by focusing on his strengths and finding him a role that is aligned with his strengths rather than trying to fix his weakness to be able to do the current job better. There is an example of a boss telling his subordinate, "I love you and therefore I have to fire you," and then taking pains to find a job for that person to suit his talents rather than forcing him into the current role that did not suit him. This is the best example of tough love that a person can expect to find and is at variance with giving too much importance to attitude. If everybody were to practice this brand of socialism, the world would be a much better place to live in.
The book says that Talent primarily depends on certain behavioral traits that are not easy to change. Many companies send their employees to training classes to learn new behaviors - empathy, assertiveness, relationship building, etc. However, great managers believe that people don't change much. "The less articulate fellow shall never excel at debate, and the intense competitor will never learn to be assertive and not aggressive, no matter how much he may understand 'win-win' scenarios."
Competencies are part skill, part talent, and part knowledge. When one refers to them, one should be clear in one's mind which are skills and knowledge and can be taught and which are talents and cannot be taught. "Implementing business or management control systems" is a skill, but "calm under pressure" is a talent that cannot be taught. It can be disastrous to suggest that the only way to become more effective is to change your nature. For example, if a person is persistently pessimistic, rather than telling him continuously to be positive, it is better to fit him into a role where skepticism is a key to success.
While skills and knowledge can be taught, talent cannot. Skills are the how-tos of a role that are transferable from person to person and can be improvised with practice. They are often situation-specific, and faced with an unanticipated scenario, they lose much of their power, unlike talent, which is transferable from situation to situation. If one has the relating talent of assertiveness, one can always present one's case plainly and persuasively. Knowledge is of two types - factual and experiential - while factual knowledge or theory is transferable, experiential knowledge is "your awareness of who you are and how you come across to others."
To conclude, I liked the book because:-
1) Its emphasis on the right aptitude instead of attitude alone
2) Broadbanding as it is based on the right kind of meritocracy
3) Tough love, which is also explained well in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "The World is Flat."
The book is based on an extensive survey of the world's top managers - an overall study involving 105680 employee responses spread over 2528 business units.
One of the highlights of the book is the example of a Hollywood movie in which Paul Newman and Robert Redford are stars. The movie does not make much headway until they switch roles, after which the movie goes on to be a hit. Taking this as a central example, the movie shows how individuals and companies suffer when people are miscast in their roles as bosses, especially. It only goes to show how important talent is.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Concluded from a survey interviewing the world's top managers, the book "First, Break All the Rules" defines Talent as "a recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied to a particular situation or role." After every child is born, the child's mind tries to reach out aggressively, and by the third birthday, makes fifteen thousand synaptic connections (between the cells) for each of its one hundred billion neurons. These mental pathways are the filter that produces unique patterns of behavior, which create her enthusiasms and indifferences and basically define where she will excel and where she will struggle. These pathways are indications of the child's character and, according to neuroscience, beyond a point, there is a limit to how much of her character she can recarve.
The book disproves the conventional wisdom that "Human beings have unlimited potential." Every now and then, self-help books appear on how one can win in life based on having the "right attitude" alone, which can mislead impressionable minds.
The book further says that Talents are of three types - Striving, thinking, and relating talents. Striving talents explain the whys of a person - is he altruistic or competitive or both, is he task-oriented or result-oriented or both? Thinking talents define the hows of a person - is he a linear or a lateral thinker, is he disciplined or carefree, etc. Relating talents define who - with whom he relates, confronts, or ignores. The core activities of a manager and a leader are different. It is entirely possible for a person to be a brilliant manager but a terrible leader or vice versa, but a few exceptional people excel at both. In the Indian context, Sourav Ganguly may pale in comparison to Tendulkar as a batsman but made a much better captain, which is something that nobody could have predicted. Tendulkar, being a great batsman, could have easily led by example, but it was the less gifted batsman, Ganguly, who really excelled as a leader, which is doubly creditable.
This difference between "performers" and "leaders" is very well brought out by the book. Distinguishing between talent and non-talents, it gives examples of waiters, bartenders, housekeepers, nurses, data entry operators, etc., as to how the best were different from the rest even in minor jobs and were compensated highly without necessarily being promoted. The best bartender was someone who remembered the names of 3000 guests and their drinks, and the champion data entry operator was four times faster than the rest. They were given prestige by public recognition and money for being the best performers without necessarily promoting them if they did not have the talent for man management. The real solution is broadbanding, which defines different ranges of salaries for different posts for both performers and man managers. Following this, it is possible for a superb police officer to be paid more than a less efficient sergeant without being promoted, an excellent teacher can similarly earn more than a novice principal, an excellent flight attendant more valuable than an average pilot, etc. This is talent management at its best as the concerned people remain motivated despite not being promoted for roles that do not suit them. If combined with transparency, it can make a dent in problems like corruption in India.
The book further says that intelligence is a boon that great managers label as a talent that cannot be taught, and one has to assess the employee as a whole - "What drives an employee, how they think and build relationships - is more important." Only the presence of talent can explain why, other factors being equal, some people excel in the role and some struggle - one man's meat is another man's poison. The main thrust is to make the person feel that he is in a role that uses his talents while simultaneously challenging him to grow. Great managers recognize that people are motivated differently; each person has his way of thinking and his style of relating to others.
The book further reveals that great managers know that there is a limit to how much remolding they can do to someone. They try to help each person become more and more of what he already is by focusing on his strengths and finding him a role that is aligned with his strengths rather than trying to fix his weakness to be able to do the current job better. There is an example of a boss telling his subordinate, "I love you and therefore I have to fire you," and then taking pains to find a job for that person to suit his talents rather than forcing him into the current role that did not suit him. This is the best example of tough love that a person can expect to find and is at variance with giving too much importance to attitude. If everybody were to practice this brand of socialism, the world would be a much better place to live in.
The book says that Talent primarily depends on certain behavioral traits that are not easy to change. Many companies send their employees to training classes to learn new behaviors - empathy, assertiveness, relationship building, etc. However, great managers believe that people don't change much. "The less articulate fellow shall never excel at debate, and the intense competitor will never learn to be assertive and not aggressive, no matter how much he may understand 'win-win' scenarios."
Competencies are part skill, part talent, and part knowledge. When one refers to them, one should be clear in one's mind which are skills and knowledge and can be taught and which are talents and cannot be taught. "Implementing business or management control systems" is a skill, but "calm under pressure" is a talent that cannot be taught. It can be disastrous to suggest that the only way to become more effective is to change your nature. For example, if a person is persistently pessimistic, rather than telling him continuously to be positive, it is better to fit him into a role where skepticism is a key to success.
While skills and knowledge can be taught, talent cannot. Skills are the how-tos of a role that are transferable from person to person and can be improvised with practice. They are often situation-specific, and faced with an unanticipated scenario, they lose much of their power, unlike talent, which is transferable from situation to situation. If one has the relating talent of assertiveness, one can always present one's case plainly and persuasively. Knowledge is of two types - factual and experiential - while factual knowledge or theory is transferable, experiential knowledge is "your awareness of who you are and how you come across to others."
To conclude, I liked the book because:-
1) Its emphasis on the right aptitude instead of attitude alone
2) Broadbanding as it is based on the right kind of meritocracy
3) Tough love, which is also explained well in the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "The World is Flat."
The book is based on an extensive survey of the world's top managers - an overall study involving 105680 employee responses spread over 2528 business units.
One of the highlights of the book is the example of a Hollywood movie in which Paul Newman and Robert Redford are stars. The movie does not make much headway until they switch roles, after which the movie goes on to be a hit. Taking this as a central example, the movie shows how individuals and companies suffer when people are miscast in their roles as bosses, especially. It only goes to show how important talent is.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
The Development of Management and Leadership.pdf
Employee Development - PPT 9.ppt