When Progress Becomes Water Dripping on Stone (Part 1 of Indefinite Parts)

Whenever I finish reading a book - in this case Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinek - I like to write at least one blog about it. I do this partly to help retain and learn the information myself, but also to share it with others, and hopefully surprise myself along the way. Challenge myself.

However, this book covers a vast and complicated territory. Topics range from human biology and psychology, the baby boomers, millennials, the structure of the modern workplace, leadership, anecdotal evidence, research, etc. I think the difficulty I'm encountering is trying to address it all in a single blog. Here I am going to vent and maybe clear my thoughts a little bit for my own sake. This will probably be REALLY incoherent.

I think right now I'm in the middle of figuring out exactly what I'm trying to accomplish here. "What's your angle?" as my high-school journalism teacher would often ask us. Related to this, I am trying to determine if this is suitable for a single blog or if it should be broken up into more than one.

I'm torn because I have some significant disagreements with Sinek's philosophy, or criticisms of his arguments and presentation in Leaders Eat Last. There's also a lot I really agree with. That's why I thought a general review of the book would be the best plan of attack. It would allow me to summarize his main argument, some of the closely related sub-arguments, addressing the good and the bad along the way, and tying it together at the end with a rating.

I've got to think about what the point of a good and relatively comprehensive review is. It's to make sure potential readers know what the book and author are about, for basic understanding as well as to create interest (or disinterest). A good review also acknowledges points of agreement *and* disagreement, which besides demonstrating you actually read the book in the first place, also contributes to the public discourse on the subject matter.

I think right now I'm spending way too much time on the summarizing. It isn't necessary to cover every aspect in depth. Sinek has already done that. I really need to think about what the main points are in Leaders Eat Last, hit those fast and hard, move onto points of agreement/praise and disagreement/criticism. The tough part is that it isn't necessarily obvious how some of the things relate without going off onto long tangents.

In other words, while reading the book I was quick to criticize the fact that Sinek sometimes seemed to be meandering and long-winded. It wasn't until I neared the end that it became apparent just how complex and interconnected all these factors were as they pertain to the condition of the modern workplace. Everything had been relevant. The fact that he actually did as good of a job as he did addressing it all is worth praising. I had wondered why so few people were trying to tackle this issue in such a big-picture fashion, and I assume it must come down to the fact that it is by no means simple or easy.

As a consequence, it's making it quite difficult for me to write a review. Easy to get distracted and veer off.

One thing that might be helpful is to outline the book (essentially already done in its table of contents). The journey starts at our biological and psychological need to feel safe; what that means, how it manifests in the workplace, why it's important, and so on. Then we transition into talking about specific chemicals and their relationship to the workplace: endorphins, dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. Then how cortisol and stress are results of imbalances in that 4-chemical equation, and what the consequences of cortisol and stress are on our well-being.

But then we "flash-back", starting with the section called How We Got Here. This is when we get into talking about baby boomers, problems with abundance and abstraction, how this manifests in the workplace, and how it ties back to what was already discussed regarding our biology. And then we make an abrupt jump into leadership which is justified on the grounds that bad leadership or lack thereof largely led to the rampant and serious workplace issues we face today ("so goes the leader, so goes the culture"). Suddenly though, we find ourselves talking about the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step-program, how people are addicted to their phones... the sense of disjointedness that pops up now and again throughout the book is most prevalent here, in my opinion.

The last thing is basically a tacked-on appendix specifically about how to "handle" millennials.

Really, there is a serious feeling that the book does try to address and be too many things at once. The first half of the book feels like it was intended for the common employee, while the last half feels like it's meant to be passed out at business conferences and meetings between leaders. This is not only because of *what* information is being presented, but *how*.

Part of me feels like a 4/5 is being generous. A 3.5 might be more accurate... but I don't think I could've done a better job, given the approach he decided to take by trying to pack all of this into a ~300 page book. And actually I think he left out a crucial part, something he doesn't mention once except perhaps in implication-- the same something that his other books are exclusively about.

A 3.5/5.0 is a 70%, true, but I'd still be quick to recommend the book. Make no mistake. I enjoyed reading it. Much of it was inspiring, or provided me with satisfying answers. More or less everything made sense as I read along, with a few exceptions I'd consider to be minor. He's got a strong voice overall, with just some awkward phrasing or places that could've been greatly shortened. I repeat yet again that the topic is broad and difficult to unravel without being messy. I thought he could've done a much better job with his use of the research. I think he's optimistic to a fault, funnily enough for a guy with the last name of Sinek. At times I had to wonder if his optimism was making him a little too liberal with interpreting the research he cites (which he NEVER directly quotes from, strangely), in addition to being too liberal with some of his claims and assertions.

He'll go from factual data to his corresponding *personal* claim in the blink of an eye. I quite literally mean in back-to-back sentences, if not within the same sentence. I can't help but think that Sinek may have benefited if he'd challenged his own positions a bit more, and strengthened his transitions and relationships between ideas.