Rebel Talent

Francesca Gino

• Publisher: Dey Street Books
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780062694645
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Cultura aziendale
• Index: Business

"In this groundbreakingbook, Francesca Gino shows us how to spark creativity, excel at work, and become happier: By learning to rebel."
—Charles Duhigg, New York Times bestselling author of The Power of Habit and Smarter Faster Better

Do you want to follow a script — or write your own story?

Award-winning Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino shows us why the most successful among us break the rules, and how rebellion brings joy and meaning into our lives.

Rebels have a bad reputation. We think of them as troublemakers, outcasts, contrarians: those colleagues, friends, and family members who complicate seemingly straightforward decisions, create chaos, and disagree when everyone else is in agreement. But in truth, rebels are also those among us who change the world for the better with their unconventional outlooks. Instead of clinging to what is safe and familiar, and falling back on routines and tradition, rebels defy the status quo. They are masters of innovation and reinvention, and they have a lot to teach us.

Francesca Gino, a behavioral scientist and professor at Harvard Business School, has spent more than a decade studying rebels at organizations around the world, from high-end boutiques in Italy's fashion capital, to the World's Best Restaurant, to a thriving fast food chain, to an award-winning computer animation studio. In her work, she has identified leaders and employees who exemplify "rebel talent, " and whose examples we can all learn to embrace.

Gino argues that the future belongs to the rebel — and that there's a rebel in each of us. We live in turbulent times, when competition is fierce, reputations are easily tarnished on social media, and the world is more divided than ever before. In this cutthroat environment, cultivating rebel talent is what allows businesses to evolve and to prosper. And rebellion has an added benefit beyond the workplace: it leads to a more vital, engaged, and fulfilling life.

Whether you want to inspire others to action, build a business, or build more meaningful relationships, Rebel Talent will show you how to succeed — by breaking all the rules.

1

Napoleon and the Hoodie

The Paradox of Rebel Status

It’s not rebels that make trouble, but trouble that makes rebels.

—RUTH MESSINGER

“Forward! Remember that from those monuments yonder, 40 centuries look down upon you.” The French soldiers, despite being tired, thirsty, and hungry after marching for twelve hours under the hot Egyptian sun, felt energized by these words from their leader. The Great Pyramids were faintly visible on the horizon, some ten miles away. More clearly visible was the enemy army, waiting for them on the left bank of the Nile.

It was July 21, 1798. Under General Napoleon Bonaparte, the French army was approaching the fortified village of Embabeh, eighteen miles northwest of Cairo. Earlier that year, Bonaparte had proposed invading Egypt, knowing it would provide a new source of income for France and deal a blow to his nation’s main European opponent, Britain: Controlling Egypt meant blocking the Red Sea, a major British access route to India. A French invasion might even benefit the Egyptians themselves. The country was ruled by the Mamelukes, descendants of Muslim slave soldiers. The Egyptians had endured the Mamelukes’ oppressive rules for centuries and believed the French could save them. Having already secured Alexandria, Bonaparte hoped to next capture Cairo, which would decisively claim the prize of Egypt.

On the enemy side, an estimated six thousand mounted Mameluke soldiers, supported by forty cannons and a small Turkish contingent, were ready for battle. The soldiers’ horses pranced and snorted in the heat of the day. Riders were armed with muskets and pistols; javelins made of sharpened palm branches; whatever battle-axes, maces, and daggers they could attach to themselves or their saddles; and short, curved swords made of black Damascus steel. Soldiers had dressed in turbans and caftans for the glory of battle and carried precious jewels and coins. Closer to the Nile and the Embabeh village, some fifteen thousand fellaheen-peasant levies stood, armed mostly with clubs and spears or long-barreled muskets. On the Nile’s east bank was a force led by Ibrahim Bey, who, along with Murad Bey, was one of the two Mameluke chieftains. (Bey translates as “chieftain.”) Under Ibrahim Bey’s command were thousands more Mamelukes and about eighteen thousand fellaheen-peasant infantry. On the Nile itself waited a small Mameluke flotilla manned by Greek mercenary sailors. All told, the enemy had over forty thousand troops.

The Mameluke forces clearly outnumbered the French, who had deployed about twenty-five thousand men in five divisions, supported by artillery and a few cavalry troopers. But because of the Mamelukes’ position, Bonaparte believed he had an advantage. By placing his troops on the left bank of the Nile, Murad had made a strategic mistake: He saved the French from having to cross the river under fire to attack him. Ibrahim Bey would have to cross the Nile to help Murad Bey if something went wrong. Given this advantage, Bonaparte decided to engage in a decisive battle. After allowing his troops just an hour to rest, he sent orders for each of his divisions to advance on Murad’s army.

This wasn’t the only advantage Bonaparte saw. He had witnessed the Mamelukes’ primary tactic, a cavalry charge, in other battles. After trying to intimidate the enemy with parade maneuvers, the Mameluke cavalry would rush the enemy en masse, often repeatedly, attacking from the flanks or from the rear. The horsemen in these mass cavalry charges, known to be highly skilled in close fighting, approached very close to one another, like a moving wall.

Bonaparte had created what he thought would be an effective countermeasure: the massive divisional square. The square was actually a rectangle—the front and rear faces of it consisted of the division’s first and second demi-brigades, while the two sides consisted of the third demi-brigade. The French soldiers lined up in a hollow formation with the artillery and supplies in the center. The army could rotate as the Mamelukes attacked, picking off enemy fighters. An hour into the battle, the French emerged victorious. The Mamelukes had lost about six thousand men; the French, only thirty.

The victory had many legacies: the eviction of the Mamelukes, the liberation of the Egyptians, further expansion of the French empire into the East, and increased French domination of mainland Europe. And thanks to the 150-plus scientists, engineers, and artists that Bonaparte brought on the journey, the victory spurred an exploration of Egypt’s past and present. The birth of Egyptology revealed the secrets of the pyramids and the society that built them. In addition, Egypt was influenced by its new relationship with France and its culture, as seen in its later adoption of the Napoleonic Code.

Bonaparte’s brilliant strategies have formed the basis of military education throughout the Western world. When planning a campaign, determined to be thoroughly prepared and to avoid the errors of previous generals, he would read books about his opponent’s history, geography, and culture. Always, he strived for surprise. Sometimes that meant striking a decisive blow when the enemy was off guard. In an era when armies tended to march against each other in an orderly, gentlemanly formation, Bonaparte led his troops into position at a very fast speed, surrounding the enemy before they even realized he was there.

Bonaparte revolutionized warfare by introducing the corps system, which rendered the tactics of other countries virtually obsolete. The corps system organized troops into mini-armies, allowing them to separate when marching, but always to come together when it was time to fight. The corps would move within a day’s march of each other; each changed into the rearguard, vanguard, or reserve quickly, depending on what the situation demanded and on the enemy’s movement. Since France’s defeat in the Seven Years’ War in 1763, military strategists and theorists had been struggling with how the country could improve, and Napoleon was France’s new savior. The military expedition to Egypt that he led in 1798 cemented the growing belief in his abilities and would serve as a springboard to power for him. Thanks to a coup he engineered in 1799, at just thirty years of age, he became First Consul of the Republic. Even as his political career advanced, Bonaparte continued to carefully study the works of successful generals, tacticians, and officers and put their ideas to practical use on the battlefield. For instance, the core idea behind Bonaparte’s strategy of the central position came from Pierre de Bourcet, a chief of staff who was part of the royal armies in various wars, including the Seven Years’ War. The strategy involved splitting numerically superior enemy armies into parts so that each could be attacked separately. Another tactic Bonaparte often used was the ordre mixte formation: He mixed line and column formations so that a battalion in line was supported on each wing by an infantry battalion column. Though Bonaparte did not invent these concepts, he perfected them, and his radical, strategic mind heralded the birth of modern warfare.

Bonaparte also fought in the trenches alongside the troops, which was highly unusual. Historians believe that his men nicknamed him “the little corporal” during the Battle of Lodi in May 1796, after he took over the sighting of one of the cannons himself, a job typically performed by a corporal. When his army faced direct fire, he was usually in the thick of it. At a critical moment on the first day of the Battle of Arcole in November 1796, for instance, Bonaparte rallied his troops by seizing the colors of one of his battalions and exposing himself to intense Austrian fire until one of his officers dragged him away. When the fighting was over and the enemy’s guns fell silent, Bonaparte would generally rise up sweaty, dirty, and covered in gunpowder. He also made an effort to remember his soldiers’ names and visited their campfires before battle, chatting with them about home and expressing confidence that they would triumph over the enemy. In Bonaparte’s army, soldiers from humble backgrounds could rise through the ranks to become officers, as Bonaparte himself had done.

This same spirit guided his political reforms. At the time of the French Revolution, laws were often not applied equally to all people, and they were not even codified. By introducing the Napoleonic Code, Bonaparte created a legal system based on the idea that everyone was equal before the law. The code forbade birthright privilege, granted freedom of religion, and indicated that government jobs should be awarded based on merit, not rank. Dozens of nations around the world later adopted the code. Bonaparte ensured that the tax system applied equally to everyone. And, recognizing the importance of education, he introduced reforms that served as the foundation of the educational system in France and much of Europe today. He also implemented various liberal reforms to civil affairs, from abolishing feudalism and establishing legal equality to codifying religious tolerance and legalizing divorce. Bonaparte’s contributions to the institutions of France and to Europe were large and long lasting.

Historians have often portrayed Bonaparte as power hungry and driven by hubris. But British historian Andrew Roberts in the biography Napoleon: A Life makes a compelling case for why this interpretation of Bonaparte’s story is misguided, arguing that his downfall was caused not by a big ego, but by a few mistakes that led to significant defeats. Others disagree with this interpretation. There is no doubt, though, that when it came to battle strategy, Bonaparte was an outlier. Europe’s other monarchs adhered to a strict military hierarchy in which recruitment and promotion were based on wealth and noble titles rather than qualifications and skills. Many of Bonaparte’s contemporaries kept their distance from the troops, sending their generals out to lead while they spared themselves the fight. Bonaparte did things differently: He threw himself into the fray.

ON A COLD FEBRUARY MORNING IN BOSTON, I STRUGGLED THROUGH A HEAVY SNOWSTORM on my walk to work. In my classroom at Harvard Business School, 110 eager executives, all with quite remarkable résumés, were unbundling themselves and taking their seats, ready for a session on “Managing Talent.” I’d be teaching them about Morning Star, the largest tomato-processing company in the world and the subject of a case study—a ten- to fifteen-page article based on intensive research and interviews—I had written. The case focused on the company’s unorthodox operations. There are no bosses or job titles at Morning Star. The company’s employees decide for themselves how their skills can best help the company and then develop their own mission statements, which they discuss with colleagues before making them final.

Morning Star employees do not need to run upgrades by managers. Instead they go to the experts: the employees who would be working with the new equipment. Though the company has no R&D department, strong incentives exist to encourage innovation. Employees who successfully innovate earn the respect of coworkers, in addition to financial compensation. One of the dilemmas presented in the case was the decision to introduce a new compensation system, and whether it was consistent with the core philosophy the company was founded on.

Class began, and though case discussions generally open with a question about the challenge a protagonist is facing, I instead led the executives in a short free-association exercise. What comes to mind, I asked, when you hear the phrase “rule breaking”?

“Chaos,” said the CEO of a global restaurant chain. “Disorder,” shouted another student. I wrote these words on the blackboard. Some of the students’ answers were positive: innovation, creativity, flexibility. Most, however, were negative: crime, rebellion, rejection, loss of reputation, misconduct, illegality, dissonance, penalty, punishment, fights, and deviance.

Terms like rule breaker, nonconformity, and deviance make us think of subversive, even dangerous, individuals. One student brought up Wells Fargo, where employees had created millions of fake savings and checking accounts in the names of real customers. After clients discovered they’d been charged unanticipated fees and issued credit and debit cards and lines of credit they hadn’t asked for, regulatory bodies had fined the bank $185 million and the bank had fired more than 5,300 employees.

Another student mentioned Bernie Madoff, the financier who had persuaded thousands of investors to trust him with their savings. With his creative rule breaking, Madoff had made more than $20 billion disappear in a Ponzi scheme that presented itself as a hedge fund. He’s now serving a 150-year prison sentence for running one of the biggest frauds in U.S. history.

Most of our decisions are governed by well-defined institutional arrangements with pre-specified obligations and rights. Some of these arrangements are relatively straightforward, like signing an apartment lease or hiring a babysitter. Others are more complex, like our relationships with government and corporations, which come with explicit rules. For instance, organizations use company handbooks to establish policies ranging from vacation time to codes of conduct. We generally expect people to obey these rules and codes of conduct. But this was not the case at Wells Fargo, where employees had betrayed their duty to act in the best interest of customers, or with Madoff, who had filed false regulatory reports and lied to his clients.

We also adhere to social norms—unwritten rules about how to behave in a particular culture, society, or social group, ranging from a friendship to a work team to a nation. For example, we expect students to arrive to class on time and complete their work. We expect people to be silent in libraries, to not interrupt us when we are talking, and (at least in most groups) to wear clothes in public. Social norms provide order and predictability in society and have played a critical role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation and culture over centuries. Children as young as two or three years old understand the rules governing many social interactions. Usually, we internalize social norms so effectively that we don’t even consider the possibility of violating them. To do so would be embarrassing or distasteful. Violators tend to be punished with gossip, derision, and rumors—all of which are powerful corrective measures that influence how we behave. In colonial America, a person caught breaking social norms, such as stealing or committing adultery, was confined to the stocks or pillory in the center of town. These long confinements were uncomfortable, but even worse was the realization that everyone you cared about would know what you did.

Shared rules make society run smoothly. In the military, recruits are taught from day one to follow orders, immediately and without question. In fact, those who enlist in the U.S. military, active duty or reserve, solemnly swear to obey the orders of their officers. For thousands of years, military leaders across the globe have maintained a strict hierarchy to keep order under the stress of battle.

Bonaparte ran things a little differently. In 1793, as a twenty-four-year-old captain, he was given the opportunity to take control of the artillery during the Battle of Toulon. The city was a key port, occupied at the time by antirevolutionary British forces. If the French revolutionaries did not triumph, they would not be able to build a navy to defy Britain’s dominance of the sea. Suffocation of the French Revolution would follow.

One battery in particular was critical to the bombardment due to its elevated terrain. But it was also the most vulnerable to counterattack, thus making it the most dangerous to operate. Bonaparte’s superiors informed him that no soldier would volunteer to man the battery. Walking through camp in contemplation, he spotted a printing machine, which gave him an idea. He created a sign to hang near the battery: “The battery of the men without fear.” When the other soldiers saw it the next morning, they clamored to earn the honor of operating that cannon. Bonaparte himself wielded a ramrod alongside his gunners. The cannon was manned day and night. The French won the battle; Bonaparte won acclaim.

To break the rules is not necessarily to become an outcast. Madoff, of course, deserves to be in jail. Wells Fargo deserves its fines. But Bonaparte broke the rules and, rightly, earned status and respect. He is a prime example of how a rebel can be a hero.

BACK IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, THE WEALTHY POPULATIONS OF EUROPE AND the United States typically adorned themselves in diamond-studded jewelry and overindulged in rich foods and potent drinks. In the United States at the time, middle-class extravagance often went even further, including things like bathtubs cut from solid marble, waterfalls installed in dining rooms, and garden trees decorated with artificial fruit made of fourteen-karat gold. From an economic perspective, this behavior made little sense. People in the middle class were spending as if they were rich.

The behavior caught the attention of the Norwegian-American sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen, who is known for challenging many of the economic theories of the era. Veblen concluded that this kind of spending demonstrated that the buyer was able to “waste” money and that the real point of it was to enhance status. The lavish spending of the rich “redounded to their glory, and now the middle class was using its newfound wealth to purchase elite status.” Veblen famously dubbed this phenomenon “conspicuous consumption”: choosing and displaying obviously expensive products—such as sports cars, expensive watches, and luxury clothes—rather than their cheaper, functional equivalents. Conspicuous consumption signals to the world our financial success, even if the success is mostly on loan.

As it turns out, we engage in this kind of costly signaling all the time. Many of the personal qualities that we want to convey to others are not directly observable, such as commi...