A Quote by Adam Grant

If you don't hire originals, you run the risk of people disagreeing but not voicing their dissent. — © Adam Grant
If you don't hire originals, you run the risk of people disagreeing but not voicing their dissent.
In the end it is worse to suppress dissent than to run the risk of heresy.
Originals are nonconformists, people who not only have new ideas but take action to champion them. They are people who stand out and speak up. Originals drive creativity and change in the world. They're the people you want to bet on.
We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust. We must dissent from a nation that has buried its head in the sand, waiting in vain for the needs of its poor, its elderly, and its sick to disappear and just blow away. We must dissent from a government that has left its young without jobs, education or hope. We must dissent from the poverty of vision and the absence of moral leadership. We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.
The fact that there are singer-songwriters dealing with substantive issues is encouraging. It's important for young people to perceive that there are acceptable avenues of dissent, because we live in a world where dissent is hard-pressed; treated as if it were unpatriotic. I've always liked the concept of the loyal opposition. It allows for dissent to be a respectable part of the whole.
Politics is always antagonistic and tribalistic. But social media puts us in isolated information bubbles. We're not just disagreeing on politics. We're disagreeing on reality in very fundamental ways.
It's illegal to hire or fire anybody because of their race, appearance, or sexual orientation, but in Hollywood, ironically, it's the reason people will hire or not hire you.
I think great bosses hire great people. 'A' people hire 'A' people, but 'B' people hire 'C' people; they're worried they might be shown up... they're concerned that that person might make them look bad.
Once you start choking the space for dissent in a democracy, people feel pushed to the wall and then it leads to further dissent and alienation.
Good people hire people better than themselves. So A players hire A+ players. But others hire below their skills to make themselves look good. So B players hire C players. C players hire D players, etc.
Dissent and dissenters have no monopoly on freedom. They must tolerate opposition. They must accept dissent from their dissent.
Increase your company's average talent with each hire - founders tend to be pretty smart but willing to take on risk. Employees should be a lot smarter and less risk averse.
I wish I could say that racism and prejudice were only distant memories... We must dissent from the indifference. We must dissent from the apathy. We must dissent from the fear, the hatred and the mistrust... We must dissent because America can do better, because America has no choice but to do better.
Disagreement produces debate but dissent produces dissension. Dissent (which come from the Latin, dis and sentire) means originally to feel apart from others. People who disagree have an argument, but people who dissent have a quarrel. People may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority. But a person who dissents is by definition in a minority. A liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension. Disagreement is the life blood of democracy, dissension is its cancer.
In America, religious dissent is as vital as it is elusive. Like the secretions of the pituitary, the juices of dissent are essential to ongoing life even if we do not always know precisely how, when or where they perform their tasks, and the not knowing - the flimsy, filmy elusiveness - is supremely characteristic of America's expressions of religious dissent. For in the United States no stalwart orthodoxy stands ever ready to parry the sharp thrust or clever feints of dissent.
If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there's something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment.
Usually people who are in my position, they run a company and they hire people and then they take the credit for it.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!