Book review: First, break all the rules¶
I recently read the book First, break all the rules, based on seeing it referred to in another source. It is one of these things about management, and I hoped to learn something that would help me in my job. It seemed to be a bit more practical and useful than some management books, and it was roughly true.
The idea behind it is that the Gallup organization (known for polls, but apparently they do more) had investigated many companies and these authors had ideas based on what they learned. Most relevant to me was twelve questions they found had the most correlation to high-performing workplaces. These sure seem reasonable to me, even as someone who isn’t an expert in this:
Do I know what is expected of me at work?
Do I have all the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?
Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
At work, do my opinions seem to count?
Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?
Are my co-workers committed to doing quality work?
Do I have a best friend at work?
In the last six months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?
This last year, have I had the opportunities at work to learn and grow?
They are divided into groups, and for most workplaces the bottom needs to be in place before the higher levels can be achieved. There is a good metaphor of mountain climbing and altitude sickness if you go to high too fast with acclimating:
They define questions 1-2 as “base camp” (basic fundamentals of a job).
Questions 3-6 are focused on one’s individual contribution (“camp 1”)
Questions 7-10 are focused on belonging in the workplace (“camp 2)
Questions 11-12 are focused on growth
It then makes a point that a lot of management consulting and teambuilding things try to fix the higher levels without making sure that the bases are in place.
The other major point that stood out to me was “talent” vs skills and knowledge. The book defines talent as something intrinsic about a person, basically their personality or interests. Skills and knowledge can be learned. The book goes through extensive arguments why you should accept someone’s talent as they are and not try to change them, rather than try to force people to doing what they don’t want. Basically, treat everyone as an individual and find a way for all individuals to do they best they can do while meeting your goals, even if it gets creative. Don’t try to change people, understand and adapt to them. (To think of types of talents, it says there are striving, thinking, and relating.)
This seems pretty obvious to me, especially since at one point I decided “I’m not doing academics, let me adjust to what I’m good at”. Perhaps when the book was written more than 25 years ago, it was more novel?
For selecting employees, it says:
When selecting someone, they select for talent… not simply experience, intelligence, or determination.
When setting expectations, they define the right outcomes. Not the right steps.
When motivating someone, they focus on strengths… not on weaknesses.
When developing someone, they help [them] find the right fit… not simply the next rung on the ladder.
There is some info on making customers happy, which is also relevant for my team. It says on four levels, in hierarchical order:
Customers expect accuracy.
Customers expect availability.
Customers expect partnership.
Customers expect advice.
Overall, I’m glad I read the book and think these questions are a good guide for our team, however, I’m not saying others should read it. It was entertaining enough and wasn’t that hard to read, though, and gave me stuff to think about. The things above are enough of a reminder for my future use, even if there isn’t that much different from what I try anyway.
