I never read books that fall under “self-help”, “motivational”, and certainly not “how to become rich, quick! The last one is pretty obvious, at least for the author: if you’re fortunate enough to reach a point in your career where much of the population either knows or your success, or at the very least, your achievements can be easily verified and will earn you enough respect to be seen as an “expert” on this subject.
Not everyone is going to become rich. Let’s be honest. And that’s not including the need to keep inequality gaps higher if the wealthiest citizens expect to hold onto all their cash. Which always brings you to the point: why would anyone with a seriously hefty bank account want to make all citizens rich? Furthermore, there isn’t really a one-size-fits-all formula for that sort of thing. But if there was, the last thing anyone would want is to spill all of their secrets to millions of strangers.
They get rich by a combination of knowing the right people, hard work, and a bit of luck. They become even richer by selling off copies of a (hopefully) bestselling book for $30 a pop or so. There’s the secret.
As for Dale Carnegie’s classic, How to Win Friends and Influence People… I decided to make an exception to my “no self-help books” rule for this one. For the same reasons, of course, everyone else decided to - books that sell this well and stay influential over such a long period of time generally do well for a reason.
Unpopular opinion here… but what that reason is - for this book doing so well for so long - I really cannot tell you. I know people make the argument that while so much of this advice seems like common sense, “common sense isn’t common.” Okay, but even though I agree with that statement, doesn’t that mean this could be whittled down to just a few pages reminding one of the most important lessons in communication and in getting others to find common ground with you?
It just seemed like while it’s useful to remind people of these principles, a list would suffice. Dozens upon dozens of personal stories were told in accordance to the principle under discussion, where students of his course would complain about their boss, colleague, a client - then set to work “making one last-ditch effort” to win over someone who was impossible to impress. Naturally, every time they implemented the advice, they couldn’t wait to share their story of disbelief and gratitude! 🙏🏼
I mean, pretty sure he’s not going to include the stories where nothing changed, or worse, the person trying out the new tactic was perceived by the other individual as having an angle, and hence, the individual became even more dismissive and angry toward the person trying to implement these strategies.
But the main issue I had with this book is one that I only saw one other reviewer mention. There may be more reviews that mention this, but after looking through quite a few, it didn’t appear to be a common complaint. That issue isn’t that the principles put forth here in the book are nearly 90 years old, making them outdated.
The problem, rather, with the original text being published in 1936, should be quite obvious to at least ~50% of the population. In 1936, how many women were employed? Seriously. Pretty sure when he’s mentioning employee-boss or employee-employee relationships, he’s talking specifically and solely to men. Women back then were quite limited in career choice - if they even worked outside the home at all, it was something along the line of teacher, secretary, nurse, seamstress. Something where negotiating skills wouldn’t even be of much use.
I’m not saying the book isn’t helpful to women because it’s misogynistic or anything of that nature. But it’s hard to apply it to women when the intended audience is all men (even if there were updated stories about women using these techniques). Why? Because unlike men, who have generally been raised by their parents and society to “stand up for what they believe in”, as well as “go after what they want”, women have been raised in an entirely different way.
Here’s a few principles that supposedly will work for both genders:
”Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain.”
“Give honest and sincere appreciation.”
“Become genuinely interested in other people.”
“Smile!”
“Be a good listener; talk in terms of the other person’s interests.”
“Avoid arguments.” (“The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.”)
“Show respect for the other person’s opinion - don’t say they’re wrong or correct them.”
“If YOU’RE wrong, however, admit it quickly and emphatically!”
“Begin in a gentle and friendly way - you get more flies with honey.”
“Let the other person feel that the idea is his” (come on, no way do I believe the first version said, “his or hers”).
“Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.”
This is incredibly problematic as a tool for women. Unlike men, who don’t usually have much of a problem with calling out others when something is unfair, and have been raised to believe that they matter as individuals… women aren’t really raised to act in ways seen as individualistic. We already have completely different values ingrained in us from a young age.
It may work in some cases, but it’s going to be more powerful coming from men who aren’t usually seen as putting the other person first and complimenting them instead of criticizing them. For women, it will be the same criteria they’ve always followed at the workplace. I’m not ever suggesting that anyone should start off with a heavily confrontational approach. However, since women have been conditioned to be the “peacemakers” in a group, encouraged to place the harmony of the collective over disunity from an individual demand, it’s simply a continuation of the way they’ve always been taught to act.
This advice is likely more appropriate in personal relationships, and relationships with other women. But more often than not, women get passed over for promotions and raises not because their boss sees them as less qualified, or because he’s a sexist jerk (although sadly, this does still happen, of course).
Nope, so many times it happens that a woman and man are in the same position, with the same educational background, same work ethic, yet the woman has been at the company far longer and is known to be a bit more efficient. Yet when someone gets promoted, it’s her male coworker and not her.
And why is this? Because men are always told to go for what they want. That they deserve more, and not to settle for less than they know they’re worth. So when the male employee has already taken the boss aside several times over the past month to talk up all his strong points and reasons why he deserves the promotion, and the woman has said absolutely nothing at all (just told herself “she’d be next, since she’d been there longest”) - of course the man is going to get the promotion over the woman. It’s the person willing to honestly confront their boss about the need for better pay that will always get the better pay… not the person that remains silent but complains later to fellow colleagues.
In a nutshell, I see why it’s important to listen to others and to give their opinions full consideration. But I just don’t see any further value for women in employing the same pleasant, agreeable, people-pleaser approaches that have done nothing for them so far. It’s more about learning to walk a very narrow tightrope, when it comes to women (and especially women in positions of high power). They have to be firm enough so all employees, including the men, listen to them and respect them, yet not so harsh that they risk getting slapped with the “she’s such a bitch on a power trip” label.
So while I do believe it has its uses, I don’t think such simple phrases needed to be reiterated over and over, in the course of 250+ pages. I also don’t see much value in telling women to be even more agreeable, even more conflict-adverse, than they already are. I’m sure I would have seen it as a lot more useful in the 1930s, or as I said already, it may be of use to men who aren’t so conditioned to take these approaches to begin with. It just wasn’t for me - except to perhaps remind me to listen better during conversations, to not talk over or interrupt the other participant in your conversation if you want them to like you and maintain a friendship with you.