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...
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.