How to Lose Friends & Infuriate People: Leadership in the Networked World

Rating:
Summary: An inspirationational writer with a difference!
Review: I probably bought this book for the same reason many others did: its catchy iconoclastic title. What lies between its covers is a treatise on leadership, management, and personal achivement seemingly totally unlike the few inspirational gurus whose books I have skimmed or heard about. In three parts, this books covers: 1) the challenges we all face at home, at work, and within society, and issues of motivation, inspiration, belief and conviction, self control, brain power, creativity, and one's perception of the world; 2) how to work in teams, and 3) how to survive in the modern world. However, these synoptic titles will not provide clues until you actually read the book, especially if you are expecting this to be another addition to a bookshelf full of other motivational titles.

If you take anything from this book, be prepared to stick up for your convictions because it is unlikely that anything from this book will be supported by conventional organizational development experts and inspirtaional gurus. Some of Nader's unconventional style may seem over the top, but I recommend you approach this book sceptically and yet with an open mind which might also surprise you, in the spirit of the quote from Budha which I have provided you in my profile on this website.

Rating:
Summary: What a book
Review: I think the author is trying to promote himself how indifferent and special he is than the rest of the people. There are a few good points and basically crap. I really don't understand how can people rate it as a good book. In his biograpgy at the website, it states that he have been to a few big company, here and there. Probably he got fired and try to tell them that he's special and indifferent and it's their loss.
This is a self promoting book. That's all I can say.

Rating:
Summary: A controversial book for thinkers
Review: is the sub (sub) title of this insightful work. Mr. Nader's thoughts are clear and well explained predominately. Perhaps because of my own lack of intellectual development however I found some of his ideas a bit vague. As such there were certain parts of the book that I will need to read over to gain a more thorough understanding of the concepts Mr. Nader expresses.

I particularly found the distinction between leaders and leadership very enlightening and clarifying. Not too mention his recommendations for streamlining organizations thereby making them much more effective. His approach to what democracy means in a 'networked' world is identical to my own and holds what could be the prescription for a more knowledgeable and less apathetic electorate.

The only chapter with which I must take issue with is the chapter on his concept of fluid shares in which he prescribes, if my understanding is correct, a flat salary structure for all the members of a company from the floor sweeper to the vice president. This salary would be derived (essentially) from computing the average of all salaries within the organization. As greater profitability is achieved then all workers will receive bonuses. Consequently he states that (traditionally) more elevated workers in the hierachy would still receive the same level of compensation yet the (traditionally) lesser compensated employees would be more motivated to contribute thereby leading towards better, more cooperative, and productive employees. Perhaps this is an over simplification. If I am incorrect I would welcome clarification from any source.

My dissension with his opinion is that there is much greater incentive for the lower levels than the higher ones who would initially have to take a substantial pay cut. Obviously great for the lower levels and I agree a contributing factor to many positive influences being released. However it seems to me that the upper levels suffer unfairly in the process and consequently this could lead to more apathy and less excellence from the upper echelons. Although I definitely agree with the basic premise that all members of an organization regardless of position perform essential functions there are degrees of knowledge, skill, and work levels that (in my mind) naturally lend themselves to a clear delineation (compensation wise) between differing job functions.

I could go on at length but suffice it to say that I will read this fine text again to challenge my own assumptions and endeavor to see the wisdom that is contained within.

Rating:
Summary: Clever Title, shame about the content
Review: Mr Nader certainly is opinionated. He can succintly mock management fads, criticize spineless leaders and spot organisation problems with great success. However I think many of his solutions are just as bad as the original problems.

He has lots of "I told you so" examples where he has been in an organisation, said something was crap and sure enough it turned out to be that way. However there are no examples of people who have implemented his ideas with great success.

Perhaps that is because most of his ideas are completely unworkable: Get every citizen to vote on every issue, pay everyone in the company the same, allow managers complete control and just be a leader.

He had an example of how during a presentation of a bad idea he just burst out laughing for a couple of minutes. It just makes this guy sound arrogant and immature, not a revolutionary thinker.

There was a lot of hype throughout the book. Of course if you don't agree with him you're obviously not a thinker. Well its hard to agree when many of his examples didn't really back up his arguments.

There are a couple of good points, reduce the amount of time you waste, get rid of beauracracy, leadership is important, but these are hardly revolutionary.