37signals brush it off as criticism that should just be ignored because their website includes the word "management", but a lot of what they say is pretty near the mark IMHO.
For example:
The authors' advice is so sweeping and deliberately
confrontational that it misses all the subtleties that
actually make businesses succeed. We are told: 'Meetings
are toxic.' In reality, good meetings are good and bad
meetings are not good, but don't try and make a name for
your software company by issuing such over-heated
generalisations.
The other thing they may not have realized is management today is a UK publication, and we're pretty averse to 'motivational' things over here. It's just not really our culture.
"37signals brush it off as criticism that should just be ignored because their website includes the word "management""
Where did I brush it off and suggest it should be ignored? It's valid criticism coming from this fellow's perspective. Everyone brings their own perspective and attitude to their critique. I would encourage everyone to read all reviews from all perspectives. And then read the book and make up your own mind.
a publication called Management Today
(which brags about being home to “one of the most senior
readerships of any business title”) disapproves?
That sounds about right.
Didn't sound like you took it that seriously :)
I'm not trying to start a fight though, and I'd agree - everyone should read a few reviews, and if they like this sort of book, buy it.
1. I didn't write that and I hadn't noticed it, but I agree the tone is off on that line. I'll talk to Matt about it and get it updated.
2. I don't agree with his review, but that doesn't mean I think it should be ignored. It should be studied and considered just like any review. Please read his review, please read this review (http://bit.ly/auQL0Q), and please write your own review.
UPDATE: The entry on SvN has been updated to read "Not everyone loves REWORK though. One critic called it "not just bad but dangerous."
> a publication called Management Today
(which brags about being home to “one of the most senior
readerships of any business title”) disapproves?
That sounds about right.
For the record, I loved that point from Matt, and I like 37S' style - it suits you guys well. Most sensible people understand that "Meetings are toxic" doesn't mean "Never ever communicate" or anything silly - if anything, I'd say don't tone it down. People who like 37S like it because you turn the volume up and say it like it is and are not afraid of being casually outrageous at times. So please don't go excessively mainstream-friendly! Cheers and thanks for all the good work and free value you guys have distributed into the world, I'll be picking up a copy of Rework once I thin my reading list out a little.
I thought the meetings example was a weak one for the author to criticize. When I read "meetings are toxic," I interpret that as, "most meetings are a bad idea," which is basically what 37signals argues: http://gettingreal.37signals.com/ch07_Meetings_Are_Toxic.php
On the other hand, "Good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good" doesn't tell me anything.
It's interesting in light of the recent discussions about advertising.
Since this is pretty similar.
"Meetings are toxic" is a sweeping generalization, which is obviously false. But it gets a high clickthrough/buy book/etc so it's what they use.
>> On the other hand, "Good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good" doesn't tell me anything.
What is there to tell though? Make sure meetings are productive, and if they're not, have less of them or make them more productive :/ hardly rocket science is it?
I read as you do, and as the provided linked page explains, but how is it described in the book?
If the general tone of the "Meetings are toxic" chapter (passage?) is such as "you're dumb for even trying to attend, let alone organize, a meeting", then recognizing that some meetings can be good, as a footnote to a stronger idea of toxicity to most meetings, shows a lack of understanding of importance of good meetings from the author. While if the opposite is true, and the book tries to show how good meetings are good and bad meetings are not good, than the reviewer did not read (or understood) what he's criticizing.
The author of the review touches on pretty much everything that I think is wrong with the "37s philosophy". There are some spots in the review where it feels like the author got a little carried away. But a bigger problem is that if you are going to be critical about somebody else's work for not providing enough evidence, then you should make sure you do your homework. "Yet a quick search on 37signals reveals that it took money from Bezos Expeditions, the VC company that invests on behalf of the Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos, in 2006." - doesn't cut it.
Then again given the content of this book (and the style of writing) I doubt it warrants a rigorous review. Don't get me wrong; I think 37s makes great software and I love their design, the rest of it however...
Read it over a long lunch- it feels like an overedited SvN greatest hits.
That's both a good thing and a bad thing- it's like reading their best posts in a few hours. Awesome! But, as a book, it's pretty terrible- there aren't really any anecdotes, any stories, any discussions of turning points or moments of realization.
What would have been more interesting is each of these essays (Outside Money is Plan Z!) written around an actual story from their company history. A time they considered outside money, a month where they fucked up cashflow, the moment they had a Series A in corporate savings, a story of how they managed their finances versus competitors who took investment, their first full-time hire and the company's numbers at that time, anything to really dig into why they have come to these conclusions.
I agree with most of those conclusions, in fact, as a book the format sucks. Felix Dennis' How to Get Rich is a great example of succint, important points intertwined with stories that build up the background of each of those point. That makes them more memorable, and makes for a MUCH more enjoyable read. That's a book. This is a greatest hits of a blog. It's good for what it is, but it could have been a whole lot better.
I have read nearly half of it on my kindle. It's quite short, to the point, and what you probably would expect from them.
They talk about how they run a business, and how you can start one by giving practical principles. For example in one chapter they say don't take external funding if possible, and that you have to treat it like a business, not a startup.
So far I think it's a great book. Many principles are not new (they talked about most of them in the past), but I still think it's worth it, regardless you having a company or not.
I had one waiting for me bright and early this morning thanks for Amazon. It's going to be hard deciding between Final Fantasy 13 (long time fan... I can't help myself!) and reading this cover-to-cover tonight.
I hope that this book doesn't turn out to be a "repackaging" of the same old 37Signals content I can get anywhere else. Thanks to Amazon, I got my copy at 9am this morning, but I haven't had a chance to pick through it yet. We'll see.
If you're familiar with everything we've ever said, and all our posts and talks, then this book may not be for you. There are definitely some new ideas in here, but if you already know it all then there's probably not much more for you to learn in REWORK.
But you are amongst the 0.000...% of the world who's ever heard of us.
At a Y Combinator meetup in Seattle, someone asked me, "So where does Y Combinator get money to invest in startups?" My response was "Well, Paul and the other partners made money from previous startups..."
according to comments made on 37signals podcast about the book, it actually is a sort of repackaging (in a broad sense) of all the posts, comments etc. expressed by them during last 10 years.
Which I think is fine. Certainly more digestible to someone who has not been exposed to 37signals and doesn't want to read thousands of blog posts. There's a value-add to editing and distilling.
Yeah, I think it's a nice way to go for blogs that have built up some amount of story/philosophy/content that might be interesting to an audience that wasn't following from the beginning. If you've never heard of some blog that's well-known in a niche area, and someone points you to it in its 8th year as representative of a particular philosophy, it's nearly impossible to catch up--- you're stuck digging through thousands of blog posts, some of which are important and others of which were just the usual one-off bloggy things (e.g. links to a YouTube video).
There's actually an academic philosopher whose blog I follow who tends to get exasperated that commenters misinterpreted some point he made 300 blog posts ago, or clearly must be unfamiliar with his work because he already discussed this question 250 posts ago. I always end up thinking, well if you would just write that stuff up into book....
I've also seen books that are literally the blog entries put onto dead trees, though, in original, unedited sequential order, which is definitely not the way to go.
In the spirit of "doing less", Squeezed Books aims to take the actual useful material from books like this, and summarize it on our web site.
I'll buy you the business book of your choosing if you're the first person to post a good summary of this book to Squeezed Books. (I reserve the right to choose what's 'good', and also the right to veto any absurdly expensive business books you find).
37signals brush it off as criticism that should just be ignored because their website includes the word "management", but a lot of what they say is pretty near the mark IMHO.
For example:
The other thing they may not have realized is management today is a UK publication, and we're pretty averse to 'motivational' things over here. It's just not really our culture.