Originals: How non-conformists change the world
DEEP READS: Our pick of reading material that’s worth your time
Like birds in a flock or deer in a herd, humans follow the crowd. It satisfies our innate need to belong and feel accepted. In the early ‘70’s Dr. Philip Zimbardo demonstrated this powerful phenomena in the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, in which subjects willingly conformed to the expectations of different social roles, no matter how dire the consequences.
But what happens to those that want to challenge conventional wisdom? Sometimes, it can lead to big wins — its how brands like Uber and Airbnb have shaken up — and practically monopolised — their respective industries. In Originals: How non-conformists change the world, author and psychology professor Adam Grant argues that we should battle the notion of conformity.
He addresses the challenge of improving the world with non-conformity, using case studies from politics, business, sport and entertainment to make his case. Whether the woman at Apple who challenged Steve jobs from three levels below or an analyst who challenged secrecy at the CIA, Grant uses real people to demonstrate how originality can challenge the status quo without risking it all.
Although many originals come across as beacons of conviction and confidence on the outside, their inner experiences are peppered with ambivalence and self-doubt. When outstanding US government leaders described their most difficult decisions, they reported struggling not with complex problems, but with choices that required courage. And new research led by Rice professor Scott Sonenshein indicates that even the most dedicated environmentalists wrestle with constant uncertainty about whether they can succeed in their mission.
Choosing to challenge the status quo is an uphill battle, and there are bound to be failures, barriers, and setbacks along the way. Psychologist Julie Norem studies two different strategies for handling these challenges: strategic optimism and defensive pessimism. Strategic optimists anticipate the best, staying calm and setting high expectations. Defensive pessimists expect the worst, feeling anxious and imagining all the things that can go wrong. If you’re a defensive pessimist, about a week before a big speech you convince yourself that you’re doomed to fail. And it won’t be just ordinary failure: You’ll trip on stage and then forget all your lines.
Most people assume it’s better to be a strategic optimist than a defensive pessimist. Yet Norem finds that although defensive pessimists are more anxious and less confident in analytical, verbal, and creative tasks, they perform just as well as strategic optimists. “At first, I asked how these people were able to do so well despite their pessimism,” Norem writes. “Before long, I began to realize that they were doing so well because of their pessimism.
Get a hold of a copy here
Read more from experts like this at Canvas8.com
Written by Hannah Elderfield, behavioural analyst at Canvas8