Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.99 shipping
+ $4.74 shipping
+ Free Shipping
How to Win Friends & Influence People Paperback – October 1, 1998
|New from||Used from|
$3.23 extra savings coupon applied at checkout.
Sorry. You are not eligible for this coupon.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
"If You Want to Gather Honey, Don't Kick Over the Beehive"
On May 7, 1931, the most sensational manhunt New York City had ever known had come to its climax. After weeks of search, "Two Gun" Crowley -- the killer, the gunman who didn't smoke or drink -- was at bay, trapped in his sweetheart's apartment on West End Avenue.
One hundred and fifty policemen and detectives laid siege to his top-floor hideaway. They chopped holes in the roof; they tried to smoke out Crowley, the "cop killer," with tear gas. Then they mounted their machine guns on surrounding buildings, and for more than an hour one of New York's fine residential areas reverberated with the crack of pistol fire and the rat-tat-tat of machine guns. Crowley, crouching behind an overstuffed chair, fired incessantly at the police. Ten thousand excited people watched the battle. Nothing like it had ever been seen before on the sidewalks of New York.
When Crowley was captured, Police Commissioner E. P. Mulrooney declared that the two-gun desperado was one of the most dangerous criminals ever encountered in the history of New York. "He will kill," said the Commissioner, "at the drop of a feather."
But how did "Two Gun" Crowley regard himself? We know, because while the police were firing into his apartment, he wrote a letter addressed "To whom it may concern." And, as he wrote, the blood flowing from his wounds left a crimson trail on the paper. In his letter Crowley said: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm."
A short time before this, Crowley had been having a necking party with his girl friend on a country road out on Long Island. Suddenly a policeman walked up to the car and said: "Let me see your license."
Without saying a word, Crowley drew his gun and cut the policeman down with a shower of lead. As the dying officer fell, Crowley leaped out of the car, grabbed the officer's revolver, and fired another bullet into the prostrate body. And that was the killer who said: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one -- one that would do nobody any harm."
Crowley was sentenced to the electric chair. When he arrived at the death house in Sing Sing, did he say, "This is what I get for killing people"? No, he said: "This is what I get for defending myself."
The point of the story is this: "Two Gun" Crowley didn't blame himself for anything.
Is that an unusual attitude among criminals? If you think so, listen to this:
"I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man."
That's Al Capone speaking. Yes, America's most notorious Public Enemy -- the most sinister gang leader who ever shot up Chicago. Capone didn't condemn himself. He actually regarded himself as a public benefactor -- an unappreciated and misunderstood public benefactor.
And so did Dutch Schultz before he crumpled up under gangster bullets in Newark. Dutch Schultz, one of New York's most notorious rats, said in a newspaper interview that he was a public benefactor. And he believed it.
I have had some interesting correspondence with Lewis Lawes, who was warden of New York's infamous Sing Sing prison for many years, on this subject, and he declared that "few of the criminals in Sing Sing regard themselves as bad men. They are just as human as you and I. So they rationalize, they explain. They can tell you why they had to crack a safe or be quick on the trigger finger. Most of them attempt by a form of reasoning, fallacious or logical, to justify their antisocial acts even to themselves, consequently stoutly maintaining that they should never have been imprisoned at all."
If Al Capone, "Two Gun" Crowley, Dutch Schultz, and the desperate men and women behind prison walls don't blame themselves for anything -- what about the people with whom you and I come in contact?
John Wanamaker, founder of the stores that bear his name, once confessed: "I learned thirty years ago that it is foolish to scold. I have enough trouble overcoming my own limitations without fretting over the fact that God has not seen fit to distribute evenly the gift of intelligence."
Wanamaker learned this lesson early, but I personally had to blunder through this old world for a third of a century before it even began to dawn upon me that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, people don't criticize themselves for anything, no matter how wrong it may be.
Criticism is futile because it puts a person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous, because it wounds a person's precious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment.
B. F. Skinner, the world-famous psychologist, proved through his experiments that an animal rewarded for good behavior will learn much more rapidly and retain what it learns far more effectively than an animal punished for bad behavior. Later studies have shown that the same applies to humans. By criticizing, we do not make lasting changes and often incur resentment.
Hans Selye, another great psychologist, said, "As much as we thirst for approval, we dread condemnation."
The resentment that criticism engenders can demoralize employees, family members and friends, and still not correct the situation that has been condemned.
George B. Johnston of Enid, Oklahoma, is the safety coordinator for an engineering company. One of his responsibilities is to see that employees wear their hard hats whenever they are on the job in the field. He reported that whenever he came across workers who were not wearing hard hats, he would tell them with a lot of authority of the regulation and that they must comply. As a result he would get sullen acceptance, and often after he left, the workers would remove the hats.
He decided to try a different approach. The next time he found some of the workers not wearing their hard hat, he asked if the hats were uncomfortable or did not fit properly. Then he reminded the men in a pleasant tone of voice that the hat was designed to protect them from injury and suggested that it always be worn on the job. The result was increased compliance with the regulation with no resentment or emotional upset.
You will find examples of the futility of criticism bristling on a thousand pages of history. Take, for example, the famous quarrel between Theodore Roosevelt and President Taft -- a quarrel that split the Republican party, put Woodrow Wilson in the White House, and wrote bold, luminous lines across the First World War and altered the flow of history. Let's review the facts quickly. When Theodore Roosevelt stepped out of the White House in 1908, he supported Taft, who was elected President. Then Theodore Roosevelt went off to Africa to shoot lions. When he returned, he exploded. He denounced Taft for his conservatism, tried to secure the nomination for a third term himself, formed the Bull Moose party, and all but demolished the G.O.P. In the election that followed, William Howard Taft and the Republican party carried only two states -- Vermont and Utah. The most disastrous defeat the party had ever known.
Theodore Roosevelt blamed Taft, but did President Taft blame himself? Of course not. With tears in his eyes, Taft said: "I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have."
Who was to blame? Roosevelt or Taft? Frankly, I don't know, and I don't care. The point I am trying to make is that all of Theodore Roosevelt's criticism didn't persuade Taft that he was wrong. It merely made Taft strive to justify himself and to reiterate with tears in his eyes: "I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have."
Or, take the Teapot Dome oil scandal. It kept the newspapers ringing with indignation in the early 1920s. It rocked the nation! Within the memory of living men, nothing like it had ever happened before in American public life. Here are the bare facts of the scandal: Albert B. Fall, secretary of the interior in Harding's cabinet, was entrusted with the leasing of government oil reserves at Elk Hill and Teapot Dome -- oil reserves that had been set aside for the future use of the Navy. Did Secretary Fall permit competitive bidding? No sir, He handed the fat, juicy contract outright to his friend Edward L. Doheny. And what did Doheny do? He gave Secretary Fall what he was pleased to call a "loan" of one hundred thousand dollars. Then, in a high-handed manner, Secretary Fall ordered United States Marines into the district to drive off competitors whose adjacent wells were sapping oil out of the Elk Hill reserves. These competitors, driven off their ground at the ends of guns and bayonets, rushed into court -- and blew the lid off the Teapot Dome scandal. A stench arose so vile that it ruined the Harding Administration, nauseated an entire nation, threatened to wreck the Republican party, and put Albert B. Fall behind prison bars.
Fall was condemned viciously -- condemned as few men in public life have ever been. Did he repent? Never! Years later Herbert Hoover intimated in a public speech that President Harding's death had been due to mental anxiety and worry because a friend had betrayed him. When Mrs. Fall heard that, she sprang from her chair, she wept, she shook her fists at fate and screamed: "What! Harding betrayed by Fall? No! My husband never betrayed anyone. This whole house full of gold would not tempt my husband to do wrong. He is the one who has been betrayed and led to the slaughter and crucified."
There you are; human nature in action, wrongdoers, blaming everybody but themselves. We are all like that. So when you and I are tempted to criticize someone tomorrow, let's remember Al Capone, "Two Gun" Crowley and Albert Fall. Let's realize that criticisms are like homing pigeons. They always return home. Let's realize that the person we are going to correct and condemn will probably justify himself or herself, and condemn us in return; or, like the gentle Taft, will say: "I don't see how I could have done any differently from what I have."
On the morning of April 15, 1865, Abraham Lincoln lay dying in a hall bedroom of a cheap lodging house directly across the street from Ford's Theater, where John Wilkes Booth had shot him. Lincoln's long body lay stretched diagonally across a sagging bed that was too short for him. A cheap reproduction of Rosa Bonheur's famous painting The Horse Fair hung above the bed, and a dismal gas jet flickered yellow light.
As Lincoln lay dying, Secretary of War Stanton said, "There lies the most perfect ruler of men that the world has ever seen."
What was the secret of Lincoln's success in dealing with people? I studied the life of Abraham Lincoln for ten years and devoted all of three years to writing and rewriting a book entitled Lincoln the Unknown. I believe I have made as detailed and exhaustive a study of Lincoln's personality and home life as it is possible for any being to make. I made a special study of Lincoln's method of dealing with people. Did he indulge in criticism? Oh, yes. As a young man in the Pigeon Creek Valley of Indiana, he not only criticized but he wrote letters and poems ridiculing people and dropped these letters on the country roads where they were sure to be found. One of these letters aroused resentments that burned for a lifetime.
Even after Lincoln had become a practicing lawyer in Springfield, Illinois, he attacked his opponents openly in letters published in the newspapers. But he did this just once too often.
In the autumn of 1842 he ridiculed a vain, pugnacious politician by the name of James Shields. Lincoln lampooned him through an anonymous letter published in the Springfield Journal. The town roared with laughter. Shields, sensitive and proud, boiled with indignation. He found out who wrote the letter, leaped on his horse, started after Lincoln, and challenged him to fight a duel. Lincoln didn't want to fight. He was opposed to dueling, but he couldn't get out of it and save his honor. He was given the choice of weapons. Since he had very long arms, he chose cavalry broadswords and took lessons in sword fighting from a West Point graduate; and, on the appointed day, he and Shields met on a sandbar in the Mississippi River, prepared to fight to the death; but, at the last minute, their seconds interrupted and stopped the duel.
That was the most lurid personal incident in Lincoln's life. It taught him an invaluable lesson in the art of dealing with people. Never again did he write an insulting letter. Never again did he ridicule anyone. And from that time on, he almost never criticized anybody for anything.
Time after time, during the Civil War, Lincoln put a new general at the head of the Army of the Potomac, and each one in turn -- McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade -- blundered tragically and drove Lincoln to pacing the floor in despair. Half the nation savagely condemned these incompetent generals, but Lincoln, "with malice toward none, with charity for all," held his peace. One of his favorite quotations was "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
And when Mrs. Lincoln and others spoke harshly of the southern people, Lincoln replied: "Don't criticize them; they are just what we would be under similar circumstances."
Yet if any man ever had occasion to criticize, surely it was Lincoln. Let's take just one illustration:
The Battle of Gettysburg was fought during the first three days of July 1863. During the night of July 4, Lee began to retreat southward while storm clouds deluged the country with rain. When Lee reached the Potomac with his defeated army, he found a swollen, impassable river in front of him, and a victorious Union Army behind him. Lee was in a trap. He couldn't escape. Lincoln saw that. Here was a golden, heaven-sent opportunity -- the opportunity to capture Lee's army and end the war immediately. So, with a surge of high hope, Lincoln ordered Meade not to call a council of war but to attack Lee immediately. Lincoln telegraphed his orders and then sent a special messenger to Meade demanding immediate action.
And what did General Meade do? He did the very opposite of what he was told to do. He called a council of war in direct violation of Lincoln's orders. He hesitated. He procrastinated. He telegraphed all manner of excuses. He refused point-blank to attack Lee. Finally the waters receded and Lee escaped over the Potomac with his forces.
Lincoln was furious. "What does this mean?" Lincoln cried to his son Robert. "Great God! What does this mean? We had them within our grasp, and had only to stretch forth our hands and they were ours; yet nothing that I could say or do could make the army move. Under the circumstances, almost any general could have defeated Lee. If I had gone up there, I could have whipped him myself."
In bitter disappointment, Lincoln sat down and wrote Meade this letter. And remember, at this period of his life Lincoln was extremely conservative and restrained in his phraseology. So this letter coming from Lincoln in 1863 was tantamount to the severest rebuke.
My dear General,
I do not believe you appreciate the magnitude of the misfortune involved in Lee's escape. He was within our easy grasp, and to have closed upon him would, in connection with our other late successes, have ended the war. As it is, the war will be prolonged indefinitely. If you could not safely attack Lee last Monday, how can you possibly do so south of the river, when you can take with you very few -- no more than two-thirds of the force you then had in hand? It would be unreasonable to expect and I do not expect that you can now effect much. Your golden opportunity is gone, and I am distressed immeasurably because of it.
What do you suppose Meade did when he read the letter?
Meade never saw that letter. Lincoln never mailed it. It was found among his papers after his death.
My guess is -- and this is only a guess -- that after writing that letter, Lincoln looked out of the window and said to himself, "Just a minute. Maybe I ought not to be so hasty. It is easy enough for me to sit here in the quiet of the White House and order Meade to attack; but if I had been up at Gettysburg, and if I had seen as much blood as Meade has seen during the last week, and if my ears had been pierced with the screams and shrieks of the wounded and dying, maybe I wouldn't be so anxious to attack either. If I had Meade's timid temperament, perhaps I would have done just what he had done. Anyhow, it is water under the bridge now. If I send this letter, it will relieve my feelings, but it will make Meade try to justify himself. It will make him condemn me. It will arouse hard feelings, impair all his further usefulness as a commander, and perhaps force him to resign from the army."
So, as I have already said, Lincoln put the letter aside, for he had learned by bitter experience that sharp criticisms and rebukes almost invariably end in futility.
Theodore Roosevelt said that when he, as President, was confronted with a perplexing problem, he used to lean back and look up at a large painting of Lincoln which hung above his desk in the White House and ask himself, "What would Lincoln do if he were in my shoes? How would he solve this problem?"
The next time we are tempted to admonish somebody, let's pull a five-dollar bill out of our pocket, look at Lincoln's picture on the bill, and ask, "How would Lincoln handle this problem if he had it?"
Mark Twain lost his temper occasionally and wrote letters that turned the paper brown. For example, he once wrote to a man who had aroused his ire: "The thing for you is a burial permit. You have only to speak and I will see that you get it." On another occasion he wrote to an editor about a proofreader's attempts to "improve my spelling and punctuation." He ordered: "Set the matter according to my copy hereafter and see that the proofreader retains his suggestions in the mush of his decayed brain."
The writing of these stinging letters made Mark Twain feel better. They allowed him to blow off steam, and the letters didn't do any real harm, because Mark Twain's wife secretly lifted them out of the mail. They were never sent.
Do you know someone you would like to change and regulate and improve? Good! That is fine. I am all in favor of it. But why not begin on yourself? From a purely selfish standpoint, that is a lot more profitable than trying to improve others -- yes, and a lot less dangerous. "Don't complain about the snow on your neighbor's roof," said Confucius, "when your own doorstep is unclean."
When I was still young and trying hard to impress people, I wrote a foolish letter to Richard Harding Davis, an author who once loomed large on the literary horizon of America. I was preparing a magazine article about authors, and I asked Davis to tell me about his method of work. A few weeks earlier, I had received a letter from someone with this notation at the bottom: "Dictated but not read." I was quite impressed. I felt that the writer must be very big and busy and important. I wasn't the slightest bit busy, but I was eager to make an impression on Richard Harding Davis, so I ended my short note with the words: "Dictated but not read."
He never troubled to answer the letter. He simply returned it to me with this scribbled across the bottom: "Your bad manners are exceeded only by your bad manners." True, I had blundered, and perhaps I deserved this rebuke. But, being human, I resented it. I resented it so sharply that when I read of the death of Richard Harding Davis ten years later, the one thought that still persisted in my mind -- I am ashamed to admit -- was the hurt he had given me.
If you and I want to stir up a resentment tomorrow that may rankle across the decades and endure until death, just let us indulge in a little stinging criticism -- no matter how certain we are that it is justified.
When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity.
Bitter criticism caused the sensitive Thomas Hardy, one of the finest novelists ever to enrich English literature, to give up forever the writing of fiction. Criticism drove Thomas Chatterton, the English poet, to suicide.
Benjamin Franklin, tactless in his youth, became so diplomatic, so adroit at handling people, that he was made American Ambassador to France. The secret of his success? "I will speak ill of no man," he said, "...and speak all the good I know of everybody."
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain -- and most fools do.
But it takes character and self-control to be understanding and forgiving.
"A great man shows his greatness," said Carlyle, "by the way he treats little men."
Bob Hoover, a famous test pilot and frequent performer at air shows, was returning to his home in Los Angeles from an air show in San Diego. As described in the magazine Flight Operations, at three hundred feet in the air, both engines suddenly stopped. By deft maneuvering he managed to land the plane, but it was badly damaged although nobody was hurt.
Hoover's first act after the emergency landing was to inspect the airplane's fuel. Just as he suspected, the World War II propeller plane he had been flying had been fueled with jet fuel rather than gasoline.
Upon returning to the airport, he asked to see the mechanic who had serviced his airplane. The young man was sick with the agony of his mistake. Tears streamed down his face as Hoover approached. He had just caused the loss of a very expensive plane and could have caused the loss of three lives as well.
You can imagine Hoover's anger. One could anticipate the tongue-lashing that this proud and precise pilot would unleash for that carelessness. But Hoover didn't scold the mechanic; he didn't even criticize him. Instead, he put his big arm around the man's shoulder and said, "To show you I'm sure that you'll never do this again, I want you to service my F-51 tomorrow."
Often parents are tempted to criticize their children. You would expect me to say "don't." But I will not. I am merely going to say, "Before you criticize them, read one of the classics of American journalism, 'Father Forgets.'" It originally appeared as an editorial in the People's Home Journal. We are reprinting it here with the author's permission, as condensed in the Reader's Digest:
"Father Forgets" is one of those little pieces which -- dashed off in a moment of sincere feeling -- strikes an echoing chord in so many readers as to become a perennial reprint favorite. Since its first appearance, "Father Forgets" has been reproduced, writes the author, W. Livingston Larned, "in hundreds of magazines and house organs, and in newspapers the country over. It has been reprinted almost as extensively in many foreign languages. I have given personal permission to thousands who wished to read it from school, church, and lecture platforms. It has been 'on the air' on countless occasions and programs. Oddly enough, college periodicals have used it, and high-school magazines. Sometimes a little piece seems mysteriously to 'click.' This one certainly did."
W. Livingston Larned
Listen, son: I am saying this as you lie asleep, one little paw crumpled under your cheek and the blond curls stickily wet on your damp forehead. I have stolen into your room alone. Just a few minutes ago, as I sat reading my paper in the library, a stifling wave of remorse swept over me. Guiltily I came to your bedside.
There are the things I was thinking, son: I had been cross to you. I scolded you as you were dressing for school because you gave your face merely a dab with a towel. I took you to task for not cleaning your shoes. I called out angrily when you threw some of your things on the floor.
At breakfast I found fault, too. You spilled things. You gulped down your food. You put your elbows on the table. You spread butter too thick on your bread. And as you started off to play and I made for my train, you turned and waved a hand and called, "Goodbye, Daddy!" and I frowned, and said in reply, "Hold your shoulders back!"
Then it began all over again in the late afternoon. As I came up the road I spied you, down on your knees, playing marbles. There were holes in your stockings. I humiliated you before your boyfriends by marching you ahead of me to the house. Stockings were expensive -- and if you had to buy them you would be more careful! Imagine that, son, from a father!
Do you remember, later, when I was reading in the library, how you came in timidly, with a sort of hurt look in your eyes? When I glanced up over my paper, impatient at the interruption, you hesitated at the door. "What is it you want?" I snapped.
You said nothing, but ran across in one tempestuous plunge, and threw your arms around my neck and kissed me, and your small arms tightened with an affection that God had set blooming in your heart and which even neglect could not wither. And then you were gone, pattering up the stairs.
Well, son, it was shortly afterwards that my paper slipped from my hands and a terrible sickening fear came over me. What has habit been doing to me? The habit of finding fault, of reprimanding -- this was my reward to you for being a boy. It was not that I did not love you; it was that I expected too much of youth. I was measuring you by the yardstick of my own years.
And there was so much that was good and fine and true in your character. The little heart of you was as big as the dawn itself over the wide hills. This was shown by your spontaneous impulse to rush in and kiss me good night. Nothing else matters tonight, son. I have come to your bedside in the darkness, and I have knelt there, ashamed!
It is a feeble atonement; I know you would not understand these things if I told them to you during your waking hours. But tomorrow I will be a real daddy! I will chum with you, and suffer when you suffer, and laugh when you laugh. I will bite my tongue when impatient words come. I will keep saying as if it were a ritual: "He is nothing but a boy -- a little boy!"
I am afraid I have visualized you as a man. Yet as I see you now, son, crumpled and weary in your cot, I see that you are still a baby. Yesterday you were in your mother's arms, your head on her shoulder. I have asked too much, too much.
Instead of condemning people, let's try to understand them. Let's try to figure out why they do what they do. That's a lot more profitable and intriguing than criticism; and it breeds sympathy, tolerance and kindness. "To know all is to forgive all."
As Dr. Johnson said: "God himself, sir, does not propose to judge man until the end of his days.."
Why should you and I?
Don't criticize, condemn or complain.
Copyright © 1936 by Dale Carnegie
- Paperback : 288 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0671027034
- ISBN-13 : 978-0671027032
- Dimensions : 8.25 x 5 x 0.8 inches
- Publisher : Pocket Books (October 1, 1998)
- Lexile measure : 1020L
- Language: : English
- Item Weight : 10.4 ounces
Best Sellers Rank:
#556 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- Customer Reviews:
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Dale Carnegie's advice has remained constant and applicable across the years for a reason. It's simple and his techniques make perfect sense. If you're anything like me, you'll be kicking yourself when you see how you could have handled situations differently. I'm being transformed from a socially awkward, timid and defensive person, to someone that seems collected and confident.
If you're having troubles in life and simply can't figure out what you're doing wrong, this is a fantastic place to start. Good luck on your journey!
- I got a few quotes to live by out of this book
- There's a lot of dated material that history buffs may like
- The overall THEME of the book is to be considerate of other people's feelings and the rest of the book is "the best case scenario" of how this strategy went well throughout history.
- 75% of the way through I just wanted it to be over,but, this book is a classic and I hate leaving a book partially read.
- Three stars.
My father handed this book to me when I was a young adult and I was about to make the leap into the working world. He told me that it held the keys to effective leadership. I bucked against reading it for a while before finally relenting (I was a precocious teenager and obviously already knew everything the world had to offer), and again, the title of the book seriously repelled me. Since initially relenting, I have now read this book multiple times throughout the years, and it never fails to pull me back into reality.
From time to time I even find myself subconsciously summarizing Carnegie while hosting leadership training or while mentoring my workers. This almost always prompts me to pick the book back up again. (I really enjoy reading through all of the notes I've scribbled in the margins over the years. It's always an interesting dive into your own subconscious through the ability to see such a time capsule: what is basically a time-stamped example of opinions and the ever-changing priorities of your own ideals. That is neither here nor there though; my love for actual physical books as well as my preference for writing my responses and opinions all over the pages is not really relevant to this review. Just a tangent.)
What I find so intriguing about Carnegie's concepts are that they are so obviously all just common sense. There are absolutely *zero* revelations here. You will learn nothing new about interpersonal relationships, leadership, or mentorship; every new chapter that you embark on is so 'in-your-face' obvious that you almost want to smack your own forehead like an over-dramatic soap opera star; stating "OF COURSE".
Despite this fact; (I personally feel) it really is important to read all of these *truths* of life... ironically enough, exactly because they are such common sense statements:
** The "well, duh" aspect of Carnegie's "rules" is the very same trait that allows us to breeze right on past them in our daily life. **
Because every single one of these "rules" is a statement that we all assume to be an innate and universally understood fact of human life, they are never actually in the forefront of our minds. This means that they become almost immediately forgettable because we already understand them to be true - and therefore we assume that they already inform our behavior; but in reality, we have simply acknowledged them as truth and stuffed them into a tiny little corner of our memory.
Reading Carnegie's book shines a spotlight onto that corner, blows the mounds of dust off these ideas, and prompts us to compare our recent behaviors against these "known" truths.
This is the reason why I have read Carnegie's book so many times. For me, it almost feels like re-orienting your personal compass. No matter how many times I pull these rules to the forefront of my consciousness, because of their nature as such obvious truths, they always subtly begin to slip back into the recesses of my mind. I like to pull out this book every so often and give my brain a nice jolt. There is no need to even sit down and read the entire book at once, it is organized as a list that is already categorized into sections relative to specific sub-tasks involved in interpersonal communication.
“How to Win Friends and Influence People” is one of Warren Buffett’s favorite books, so if you’re a working professional that’s probably enough to pique your interest. It was originally written in 1937 and draws key wisdom from the lives of Abraham Lincoln and contemporary psychology of the time, namely the works of Sigmund Freud. Despite this, the information remains relevant - which I find to be quite a feat. Many of the statements Carnegie makes are actually reminiscent of Skinner’s operant conditioning, although I don’t believe he ever outright states this.
To give a brief summary, the book is broken into segments titled: “techniques in handling people”, “ways to make people like you”, “win people to your way of thinking”, and “be a leader: how to change people without giving offense or arousing resentment”. Each of these segments includes chapters that explain the subsequent “rules” and provide interesting examples. Again, I would like to point out that this is not a book for people looking to make friends; despite one of some of the segment titles, such as: “ways to make people like you”, it does not preach methods of fostering friendships - instead this particular segment is pertinent to leadership because of Carnegie’s statement earlier on that: people will never do anything unless they actually *want* to do so. This is a truth of life; you can use your position of power to compel (force) a person into completing a task, but unless you create an actual want or desire within that person, they will cease their actions as soon as that power is removed (or you turn your back). Thus, the segment about making people like you provides rules that are geared toward earning your worker’s trust and respect so that they actually want to work for you, vice using your position of power to essentially strong-arm them into doing your bidding.
Here are the segments and rules:
Techniques in Handling People:
Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain.
Give honest and sincere appreciation.
Arouse in the other person an eager want.
Six Ways to Make People Like You:
Become genuinely interested in other people.
Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
Talk in terms of the other person’s interests.
Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely.
Win People to Your Way of Thinking:
The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, “you’re wrong”.
If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately.
Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge.
Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment:
Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly.
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.
Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
Let the other person save face.
Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”
Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest.
Again, this all seems like common sense when you read it, but in practice it does become much more difficult to stick to - especially when you personally are put-off (or simply just dislike) one or some of the people that you work with on a daily basis. It’s also difficult to remember that you are not always the person in the position of power; often you are on the other end of these situations and must give up the controlling position in the conversation - let them lead.
It’s key to keep in mind (and Carnegie reiterates this) that no matter what situation you walk into, whether you are the person who is leading the change, or whether you are the person who needs to undergo change, the person with whom you are conversing ALWAYS believes that they are superior to you in some way. It does not matter how exceptional or horrible their work performance may be, they truly and sincerely believe that they are the superior person even if they do not state this, and even if they pander to you as if you are someone they look up to.
Carnegie also emphasizes how important it is to avoid arguments. He states that even if you “win” an argument you are still the loser. The results are all negative. You never want to humiliate a person, you will loose the trust and respect that you’ve worked to build. He quotes and old saying “A man convinced against his will/Is of the same opinion still”; meaning they may relent in the moment, but in actuality you may have solidified their original opinion by putting them in a position to defend it. Its quite difficult to avoid arguments because it’s human nature to meet aggression with aggression - we have to consciously make the choice to sit back and let a person release their ill-will without meeting them there. Take that verbal beating!
The biggest point I always get from reading this book is how paramount and fragile the human ego is. It’s the driving factor behind the opinions and actions of every human on earth. At the end of the way, everyone is concerned with themselves. There are no truly selfless acts, someone is always “getting something” (fulfilling some need) from their actions, even if it is simply a feeling of importance or happiness. Every single person on earth is starved for attention and/or recognition in some way. They want to be seen, no matter if they are willing to admit this to others (or even to themselves). If you can fulfill that need for them, you’ve got them. It is so key to simply make it known that “I see you”.
Anyway, I know this is a long and winding review, but my points are thus: if you are looking for a self-help book that will provide teachings on how to make friends, this is not for you. If you are a working professional who is, or may be placed into, a position of leadership - this book is definitely for you. Even if you do not think you need any advice (because you’ve obviously already the best!), this book is priceless. It not only provides you insight into your own actions, but gives you a window into the actions and choices of those you work with/for. As stated, we are not always the main player in a situation, sometimes we are the person that this book talks about dealing with. Sitting back and letting the other person take charge (while understanding where they are coming from) also makes us better workers. Everyone is both a subordinate and a leader; everyone has someone else they answer to. A full birds-eye view of the situation can only provide us with more tools for our toolbox!
I couldn't find the copy that my dad gave me so I ordered a new one and chapter 1 alone is changing the way I look at EVERYTHING. I've been plagued with mild depression/anxiety for 20 years and I'm realizing that I've developed some unhealthy defense mechanisms to cope with these issues. I never turned to drugs or alcohol, but the fortress-like walls I've constructed to deal with criticism (real or perceived) aren't much better for me. I've re-read and taken notes on the first section of the book several times now and my wife is noticing and she seems quite relieved, i had no idea I could impact another persons life so strongly.
Like I said, I am only getting started with the book and it has already helped me enough to warrant a 5-star rating. This book has stood the test of time for a reason and I can see why now. The strategies are applicable to and helpful in all aspects of my life so far, from my marriage to my job, and even to the way I interact with clerks in gas stations. I've read numerous self help books in the past, seen a therapist for 3 years, been through the gauntlet of antidepressants, etc, and until now I thought I was wasting my time. I've been learning things all along, but I never learned how to actually apply the things I had learned until now. This book speaks my language and if your background sounds even remotely similar I have a feeling that you'll agree.
Top reviews from other countries
- The book was first publishes in 1936. So, it’s definitely old! Most of the examples of famous men, you won’t be able to relate at all, because you won’t know who they are. However, you will get point the author is trying to convey.
- The book basically tells you to be agreeable to all, find something to honestly like about them and praise them on it, talk about their interests only and, practically, act like a people pleaser all the time. The book gives practical advice, but somehow I feel if you really put this into practice, you might end up becoming a people-pleaser. You would come across as patronizing, trying to flatter people (I know the book tells you to do it by heart) all the time. You might just lose your respect among your peers.
- I’m not sure how much of this advice would help you in dealing with adults and people at workplace. It may work with kids. For example, it tells you not to condemn or criticize anyone. Now, this is difficult to implement in fast paced work environment, and especially in sales domain where you’re dealing with sales executives on a daily basis. People might just take advantage of you, if you’re too nice to everyone.
- I think the advice in this book would work great if everyone around you would implement the same in their life. However, if you’re surrounded by self-centered people, you’ll end up becoming a doormat if you follow this book.
- At some point, you might feel that the book is giving you pointers on how to exploit other’s emotions in order to gain an advantage for your own self.
- I think best way is to figure out which principles work for you, and which don’t, and accordingly act on it. Don’t blindly go out and try to implement every word written in this book.
Below is the summary of what this book teaches:
FUNDAMENTAL TECHNIQUES IN HANDLING PEOPLE
Principle 1 : Don't criticize, condemn or complain
Principle 2 : Give honest and sincere appreciation
Principle 3 : Arouse in the other person an eager want
SIX WAYS TO MAKE PEOPLE LIKE YOU
1. Become genuinely interested in other people
3. Remember that a person's name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language
4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves
5. Talk in terms of the other person's interest
6. Make the other person feel important - and do it sincerely
HOW TO WIN PEOPLE TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING
1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
2. Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never say, 'You're wrong.'
3. If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
4. Begin in a friendly way.
5. Get the other person saying 'yes, yes' immediately.
6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
7. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
8. Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view.
9. Be sympathetic with the other person's ideas and desires.
10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
11. Dramatise your ideas.
12. Throw down a challenge.
BE A LEADER: HOW TO CHANGE PEOPLE WITHOUT GIVING OFFENCE OR AROUSING RESENTMENT
1. Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
2. Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly.
3. Talk about your own mistakes before criticising the other person.
4. Ask questions instead of giving orders.
5. Let the other person save face.
6. Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be 'hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.'
7. Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
8. Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
9. Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest.