ublo
bogdan's (micro)blog

bogdan » self-help books and manangement

09:31 am on Dec 31, 2024 | read the article | tags: ideas

some time ago, i stumbled upon «atomic habits» by james clear. it’s one of those self-help bestsellers that promises to show you how small changes can lead to big results. at first glance, the framework sounds appealing: cue, craving, response, reward. do this consistently, and voilà!, new habits form. but it got me thinking about how often we forget the subtle details (culture, social context, and individual differences) that can derail any universal formula.

when psychologists test habit-formation ideas, they usually work with very specific groups: often western college students who might not represent the entire globe (or even their own country). this raises questions about how well the findings apply to different environments, from eastern europe to a small village in peru (sources [1], [2], [3]). real life is messy, and a single study often struggles to capture that messiness. add to that the replication crisis in psychology—where too many famous studies fail to replicate—and you see why we should be cautious about applying “the latest research” without a second thought.

it gets trickier in a corporate context. imagine a bottom-level manager picking up a habit book and trying to force the entire team into a new regimen of stand-up meetings and productivity rituals. been there, done that. this top-down approach rarely works because it ignores each person’s motivations and the team’s unique culture. one person thrives on structure; another feels stifled by it. environment, interpersonal dynamics, and broader organizational support matter just as much as any habit loop. (sources [1], [2], [3])

that doesn’t mean one should dismiss habit advice entirely. frameworks like «make it easy, make it attractive, make it obvious, make it satisfying» can push to experiment with tiny changes—like placing a synth in your living room if you want to practice more. these ideas can help individually test what fits one’s style and context. but they’re hardly a magic bullet.

managers can still use these concepts if they proceed with empathy: talking to the team first, finding their challenges, and co-creating small experiments. instead of announcing «hey, we’re doing a new productivity hack!» try piloting a program with one department. gather feedback, iterate, and adjust. that’s far more likely to foster real change than imposing a top-down «atomic» solution.

in the end, i’m not arguing to toss every self-help book in the bin – just most of them =). but because an approach is labeled «scientific» and has nice charts doesn’t mean it’s universally valid. and even if the core principles have some merit, one has to factor in cultural nuances, the diversity of human personalities, and the reality that sometimes, simplifying too much does more harm than good (check out this idea).