Dutton, Kevin (2013): The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success

What is it about?

The author discusses (quite in length) about psychopathy and psychopaths, and basically argues that it is a continuum or "scale" phenomenon. In other words, there are different varieties or degrees of psychopathy, and some milder variants can be actually quite beneficial in the modern world.

Moreover, the author discuses about the current state and recent history of Western societies and asks, whether sociopathic characteristics and hehaviors are increasingly in demand (or rewarded) especially in business.

The book is heavily based on interviews of psychologists and other relevant professionals -- a very good feature.

Was it good?

The book is very fascinating. Naturally enough, there are descriptions of "pathological" (or severe) psychopaths and psychopathy, but especially intriguing is the discussion about the benefits of psychopathic traits and behaviours in contemporary professional life. The author does not -- in my interpretation -- take any definite and conclusive position in this regard, but my impression is that he answers this question in the affirmative. This is something to think about, for sure.

The main take-away for me?

Quite clearly, the main take-away for me was the suggestion that "we" apparently are developing our (Western) societies increasingly into a direction where psychopathic behaviors are in demand, encouraged and rewarded.

In this sense there seems to be some kind of a dialectic going on (at least in Finland): children are thought in school quite the opposite attitudes and behaviors, but in the "adult world" mild psychopathic traits (e.g., diminished empathy, risk-avoidance and remorse, increased self-interest, and boldness) seem to be increasingly required.

Who should read the book?

I believe that the book is quite healthy reading for everyone, especially managers, leaders, politicians and other persons of power, because especially they can shape work communities and the society at large. (However, it may be that they themselves possess some of the "mild" traits described in the book, because they have ended up in such positions...)

The book on Amazon.com: The Wisdom of Psychopaths

Elliot, Jay (2012): The Steve Jobs Way: iLeadership for a New Generation

What is it about?

The book basically tells the "story of Steve Jobs" with regard to his professional management career and accomplishments.

The author has worked at Apple and quite close to Jobs himself. Thus, the purported distinguishing feature of the book in comparison to most similar Apple/Jobs books is that the author actually knew and worked with Jobs.

While the book mostly covers Job's career, the author tries to highlight the practices, ways of working, principles etc., which "made Jobs tick" and so successful.

Was it good?

Frankly, the book is quite similar to several other Jobs/Apple histories -- and it pretty much has to, because the story is what it is.

The insider observations are to a degree interesting (e.g. what discussions the author had with Jobs "behind the curtains"), but the above-mentioned distinguishing feature of the book comes across (at least to me) more as a form of Jobs worship than distilled and dispassionate advise.

Moreover, such passages where the author attempts at generalizing worthwhile principles or practices for "the rest of us" adopt a rhetorical style which make me to call for a more critical and reflective treatment.

The main take-away for me?

Quite apparently, both this book and others on the same topic underscore the importance of having and maintaining principles -- in Jobs' case striving for excellence, elegance and simplicity.

However, on a meta level this book, like many other management books, made me think about the role of sheer luck in business performance. I'm very much of the opinion that this is a severely understudied phenomenon especially in management science.

Who should read the book?

If you are interested in Jobs/Apple and haven't read any Jobs/Apple book yet, I would recommend this book with the above-mentioned style-related reservations. However, if you have already read one or more such books, I'd guess that there is very little new in here despite the claims by the author.

The book on Amazon.com: The Steve Jobs Way

Sun Tzu (5th century BCE/2007): The Art of War

What is it about?

This is a very classic book on military strategy -- and some might say, strategic thinking.

Whereas Machiavelli's book is written for a statesman, Sun Tzu's book is written for a general responsible for military campaigns and engagements.

However, the book's claim for fame is its alleged inspiration to modern-day corporate managers in their marketplace battles and rivalry over customers' patronage.

Was it good?

Actually, I would say that the book was not very good.

Of course it must be understood that the book originally was written some 2500 years ago, and therefore one can't judge it by the standards of today. I recognize this, and mainly refer to the alleged relevance for modern-day corporate strategic management, which I see as pretty slim.

Admittedly, the book contains insightful statements with quite universal applicability, but the problem for me is that such statements are so obvious that one most probably learns very little from them. For example:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be put at risk even if you have a hundred battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself." (Chapter 3)

And when the bulk of the 'wisdom' is -- in my opinion -- like this, I really can't see how the book should reside at the bedside of corporate strategists.

The main take-away for me?

I have to grant to Sun Tzu that thinking on competitive strategy has flourished already some 2500 years ago. In this sense, the forefront of strategic management scholarship can be said to be "a series of footnotes to Sun Tzu" (c.f. "The safest generalization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" by Alfred North Whitehead).

Who should read the book?

I think that everyone who has heard or read the book as being recommended as a reader in modern-day strategic management should read the book and see for him-/herself whether there is anything there for him-/herself.

The book on Amazon.com: The Art of War

Machiavelli, Niccolò (1532/1998): The Prince

What is it about?

While an oversimplification, the book is a kind of an instruction book for the rulers (i.e. princes) of 16th century of city states and other such smallish states.

According to Machiavelli, the primary goal of a prince is to obtain state rule, and once ruling, keep ruling. The methods put forth are to be judged only in terms of whether those are effective towards the ultimate goals of obtaining and maintaining state rule.

The book is notable in that it abandons 'ideals' in favor of 'what works', apparently an innovative choice in 16th century political philosophic writing.

Was it good?

Well, I found some sections of the book significantly more rewarding to read than others. In a nutshell, parts 7 and 8 (chapters 14 through 23) are in my opinion whether the most characteristically Machiavellian stuff resides. And some of that stuff is quite straightforwardly applicable even today: for example, Machiavelli underscores that only appearances matter, regardless of what actually would be the case:

"He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, guileless, and devout. And indeed he should be so. But his disposition should be such that, if he needs to be the opposite, he knows how.” (chapter 18).

The main take-away for me?

Again, the main take-away perhaps resides at the meta level. On the one hand, Machiavelli is very realistic in discussing 'what works', but on the other I'm a big believer in 'how things should be' (both descriptively and normatively). Thus, the take-away is some kind of a lingering background thinking about the mutual relationship and respective worth of each of these perspectives.

Who should read the book?

I wouldn't recommend the book as such, because it is quite tiring at places for a modern-day reader. Instead, I would recommend some kind of an introductory text in political philosophy where Machiavelli would be discussed and put into context. For example, Yale University offers an open course Introduction to Political Philosophy, with two lectures devoted on Machiavelli -- and this book in fact.

The book on Amazon.com: The Prince

Plato (380 BCE/2012): The Republic

What is it about?

This is one of the major philosophical works of the ancient Greece. It mostly discusses about the nature of justice and a just society.

In addition, there are some other well-known ancient philosophical concepts or ideas put forth such as the theory of universals (or Platonic ideals) and pleasure or happiness as the absence of pain.

The most characteristic feature of the book is that it is mostly written as a 'Socratic dialogue', i.e. a dialogue between Socrates and his various discussants.

Was it good?

The key ideas put forth certainly resonate (e.g. the theory of universals, or the the notion of a theory or a concept). However, the dialogue format started to become a major distracter after the first third of the book. Namely, the bulk of the book reads something like this:

Socrates: Argument
Discussant: Well, you are entirely correct there
Socrates: Further argument
Discussant: Oh, how could it be otherwise -- now that you have explained it
Socrates: Rhetorical question
Discussant: I don't know, but please do not keep us any longer waiting for the answer
Socrates: Further argument
Discussant: Yes, of course -- your reasoning is beyond our capabilities

Thus, perhaps a better way to really digest what is said in the book would be to read a modern commentary/interpretation of it.

The main take-away for me?

I really don't know why, but the notion of the absence of pain as pleasurable or happiness caught my attention. Even though in my interpretation Plato/Socrates does not advance it as a definition of happiness let alone a life goal, I think that there is something worthwhile in that humble notion: "absence of pain".

Who should read the book?

I think that this book in its 'raw' form is appealing to only those who want to read what Plato actually wrote (admittedly translated, of course). For an average reader, I would suggest a derivative work such as Plato: A Very Short Introduction by Julia Annes, published in Oxford University Press' "Very Short Introductions" series.

The book on Amazon.com: The Republic

Frank, Anne (1947): The Diary of a Young Girl

What is it about?

The book is a compilation of diary entries kept by Anne Frank, a daughter in a Jewish family which was in hiding in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in 1942-1944 during Nazi occupation.

The diary entries end -- understandably a bit abruptly -- when the family was discovered and apprehended by the authorities, and sent to the concentration camps. Only the father of the family ultimately survives the camps.

Was it good?

The book is remarkably good, and well worth all the acclaim around the world for decades.

The book is good at so many levels. First, the author -- 13-15 years old at the time of writing  -- is remarkably mature and fluent writer for a girl of her age. Second, she is especially bold and talented in describing the thoughts and feelings of a teenage girl. Third, the peculiar circumstances of the author and her family -- hiding in a building annex with another family during Nazi occupation -- make the book historically very valuable and of special interest. And fourth, the text -- as read with knowledge of what eventually happened -- is highly resonant at places giving it extra emotional load.

The main take-away for me?

The obvious take-away here would have to do with tolerance, inclusivity, anti-racism etc. But perhaps even a stronger one has to do with the mental life of children. It may be that Anne Frank -- 12 years old at the time of starting the diary -- was quite exceptional, but I'm pretty sure that we adults by and large under-estimate what goes on inside the heads of our children, and we should usually take them more seriously and involve them more in discussions and decision-making.

Who should read the book?

Well, just everyone.

The book on Amazon.com: The Diary of a Young Girl

Durant, Will (2002): The Greatest Minds and Ideas of All Time

What is it about?

In the book, the author lists and briefly describes (in a very peculiar style) what are according to his assessment the peaks of human achievement in terms of thinkers, poets, educational books, human progress and world events.

The book is only a bit over 100 pages long, and therefore the treatment within each of the categories is quite condensed.

Was it good?

To be honest, I must say that based on the title of the book, I expected substantially more. Of the main chapters, in my opinion only the The Ten "Greatest" Thinkers (sic.)  really lived up to the title. All the rest was -- again, in my opinion -- somewhat besides the point. For example, I certainly would not include poetry in this kind of a book, and listing a number of dates of death under Twelve Vital Dates in World History was a bit surprising.

Furthermore, I didn't really appreciate the nearly poetry-like writing style of the author -- its distinctive lyrical tone distracted me from the subject matter under discussion.

The main take-away for me?

It's hard to say what would be a take-away here when both the writing style and some of the content choices distracted me from a coherent train of thought that would run throughout the book. Perhaps there is a lesson for me with regard to "how not to write".

Who should read the book?

Well, I can't really recommend the book. Perhaps if one appreciates poetry and lyrical writing, there might be something to enjoy here.

The book on Amazon.com: The Greatest Minds and Ideas of All Time