Archives for posts with tag: Winston Churchill


Why do some ideas become wildly popular while others languish in obscurity?

Derek Thompson’s riveting, and impeccably researched, book; “Hit Makers,” postulates that there is a formula to making ideas popular. It argues that knowing how manipulate ideas to create successful products has major implications, but that it is also just as important is to understand when successful products are the result of manipulation.

At its core, Hit Makers asked two questions:

  1. What is the secret to making products that people like, whether they are music, movies, TV shows, or Apps in the vast cultural landscape of today?
  2. Why do some products fail, while similar ideas catch on and become massive hits?

Mr. Thompson tells us that people are both neophiliac, a love of the new, while also being neophobic, a fear of the new. People who are hit makers marry old and new ideas. They create familiar surprises. People tend to gravitate to the familiar – the most popular movies in recent times have all be sequels or reimagining of existing properties. People want new things, but they want those new things to seem familiar.

The most popular theory of modern content creation is that if you make great content, it will be recognized, shared, and go viral. However, Mr. Thompson states; “Content might be king, but distribution is the kingdom.” Catchy tunes that do not get air play on the radio will remain unknown. New tunes get on the radio by being new, but being familiar enough to listeners that they do not turn off.

Repetition, repeated exposure which creates familiarity, can actually be used to engineer popularity in groups of people. Politicians have known this for years. Consider this speech by Barack Obama:

“For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we’ve been told we’re not ready or that we shouldn’t try or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can. Yes, we can. Yes, we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.
It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a king who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land: Yes, we can, to justice and equality.
Yes, we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes, we can heal this nation. Yes, we can repair this world. Yes, we can.”

Or this speech by Winston Churchill;


Mr. Thompson makes a convincing case, although not guaranteed, that popularity can, and has been for centuries, been manufactured and manipulated, but that it can also occur spontaneously by specific sets of circumstances.

Hit Makers is a starting point for understanding how and why things become popular and how we can get our ideas to find their audience, and what we can do to create that audience in the first place. It postulates that we misunderstand terms such as “viral” and “influencer” therefore ideas are not spread in the ways that we hope.

Hit Makers is a phenomenal book for anyone who sees to understand ideas and popularity. It draws from history and the present day. It should, for better or worse, change the way you share ideas and see how ideas change the world.

– Uncovering the links between leadership and mental illness.

(Clicking on the image above will take you to Amazon where a tiny percentage goes to help fund my book buying habit.)


What makes a great leader?

Why do some leaders succeed in times of crisis and others in times of relative peace?

In Nassir Ghaemi’s impeccably researched book he puts forward the idea that leaders who have some form of mental illness, such as depression or bi-polar disorder, make excellent crisis leaders. To back up his claims he focuses on eight leaders from the world of politics, business, and war: John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Junior, Mahatma Gandi, Ted Turner, Franklin D. Roosevelt, William tecumseh Sherman, Winston Churchill, and Abraham Lincoln.

All of these leaders, according to Ghaemi, meet the clinical definition of mental illness to some degree and it is this mental illness that allows them to empathize with those they lead and come into conflict with in the case of depression, and gives resilience and creativity to those with bi-polar disorder.

In other words, in times of crisis we are better off being lead by mentally ill leaders than mentally healthy ones. There are different kinds of leadership for different contexts.

Ghaemi also gives examples of leaders who do not meet the clinical definition of mental illness and who did not excel in times of crisis: Neville chamberlain, Richard Nixon, George McClellan, and perhaps controversially George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

However, perhaps the most controversial part of Ghaemi’s book is the rational that he gives to both Adolf Hitler and the Nazi high command. While not making any excuses for Nazis, Ghaemi does make a compelling case that Hilter suffered from bi-polar disorder that was then exacerbated by the mis-prescribing and abuse of drugs by his doctors. It is this insight that underlines the dangers of not understanding the relationship between leadership and mental illness: “Mental illness can produce great leaders but if the illness is too severe, or treated with the wrong drugs. It produces failure or evil.”

As Ghaemi defines it; “mental illness is the susceptibility of entering manic or depressive states not constantly being in those states. And leaders derive benefits from going into and coming out of those states.

The best crisis leaders are either mentally ill or mentally abnormal. The worst crisis leaders are mentally healthy. In times of peace mental health is useful. One meets the expectations of ones community and one is rewarded for doing so. In times of war or crisis it is the misfits who fit the bill.”

This hypothesis has dramatic implications for those who lead people, whether it be through politics or employment. At its most basic the concept is that different circumstances require, not just different leadership styles, but different leaders entirely. The leader that builds a company and struggles to build an ongoing concern, may not be the right leader to joy the fruits of their labor. Conversely, the leader who has provided excellent stewardship for years if not decades, may not be he right leader when a crisis envelopes a business.

Ghaemi is perhaps most insightful when analyzing mentally healthy people and the failings that go along with mental health. “The typical non crisis leader is idealistic, a bit too optimistic about the world and himself is insensitive to suffering having not suffered much himself. Often he comes from a privileged background who has not been tested by adversity. He thinks himself better than others and fails to see what he has in common with them. His past has served him well and he seeks to preserve it. He doesn’t acclimate well to novelty.”

A First Rate Madness is an important book for those who seek to understand leadership and what makes good and bad leaders. It is perhaps symptomatic of the stigma attached to mental illness that this book is not more well regarded and its theories more widespread. One cannot read it and not take some serious insights even if rejecting its central premiss.

In short, it is essential leadership reading.

%d bloggers like this: