Summarizing Example

If you learn best by looking at summarizing examples, you’ve come to the right place. We’ve managed to compile hundreds of examples of summarizing for all kinds of material. Occasionally, you’ll come across a website that will tout a real example of summarizing but you get no understanding from that material. That is the single thing we try to avoid at our website. We don’t just want to produce a successful summary, we want to teach you how to do it for yourself.

How great leaders inspire action

This study seeks to portray how great leaders inspire action by referring to a conference speech by Simon Sineks, on his discovery and perception of fundamental secret of booming messages from remarkable individuals and great products. This talk is meant for everyone, but precisely to those who always wonder why some people or brands tend to move us, encourage us in immense ways and have always queried on the likelihood of having some kind of spell associated with inspiring or moving people through actions or services. The content discussed in this conference if highly significant to anyone seeking to work for organization success rather than self-gain, or through putting company interests ahead of personal interests. This summary has been organized into five paragraphs: Simon’s communication classification, the qualities of excellent leaders, the case of Apple Inc., the case of Wright brothers and eventually my personal opinions. The subsequent paragraph discusses the three classifications of communication.

In this forum, Simon breaks down his content into three classes: Why, How and What. He further explains how communication is considerably accomplished from outside to inside (what to why, and representing 95% of communications), while the other 5% representing why to what form of communication. This 5% is composed of products, individuals or institutions that amaze the population globally, as well as motivate people and result in various transformations globally. Simon gives a superb illustration of this theory by considering various examples like Wright Brothers, Apple and Martin Luther King Jr., as the most important cases. This is simply more of marketing or communication. This discussion is, for all intents and purposes, a confirmation that individuals who are motivated by goal/dream often succeed very much in comparison to those who are simply motivated by the outcome associated with same (financial wellbeing or other benefits). The paragraph below discusses some of the qualities defining excellent leaders.

So, one may seek to inquire on how great leaders obtain their edge, and why did Steve Jobs, the Wright Brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. accomplish so much compared to others who sought same professions and with equal conditions and resources? To answer this, and based on this discussion, the common qualities characterizing the above leaders may be summarized in the “Golden Circle” as follows:

  1. What – the need for all firms to become familiar with this
  2. How – a significant number seems to be familiar with this – their varying values, or intellectual capacity
  3. Why – this is only known to the best – why their companies thrive beyond a profit

The section below offers an example of the Apple Inc. by focusing on the company’s technique of sales statements

The best organizations are able to explain and sell the ‘why’ first, and make use of it in motivating others. People have shown not being interested in what is done, but in why it is done. Considering the case of Apple Inc., the company has adopted a tradition of their sales statements to commence with “why”- by designing in a different way so as to push the boundary. Upon accepting Apple’s way, one is able to gain confidence in them to build anything- an MP3 player, a computer, phones etc. while there exists several other companies building identical products like those of Apple Inc., such companies have really struggled while selling their products since they are simply known for their products, instead of being highly known based on ‘why’ they make such products. When people give answers to ‘why’, they seem to be responding to most of the brain control behavior’s central parts. Responding to ‘what’ specifically concerns verity, figures, although still may get a wrong perception on intuitions. The paragraph below discusses the speaker’s opinion of the Wright brothers’ illustration.

Simon also considers another illustration of the Wright brothers aligned with Samuel Langley case. On his side, Samuel had the advantage of having all the requirements to succeed in business- market share, financial stability as well as a competent and highly learned team. Contrary to Samuel who was compelled by power and affluence, the team by Wright Brothers was inspired by the aspiration of transforming the history course through powered flight. Whenever the Wright brothers always went out for practice, they always carried up to 5 sets of spares, since that is the number of times they would likely crash prior getting back home. With the Wright brothers being the first group to realize this dream, Samuel was forced to quite what was once his sought after goal. The process involved in the implementation of a given new technology has been described in the subsequent paragraph.

Various individuals are at ease to implement a novel technology at different times. The very first adopters represent about 15% to 18%, while the mainstream group represents about 68%. The mainstream group considers waiting and seeing the outcome of the early adopters, on gut instinct. As a result, it is imperative to have a 20% market share attained- achieving the tipping peak where mainstream commences to pick up swiftly. The early adopters buy everything based on the ‘why’ concept- thereby taking on a meager quality brand upon liking the concept behind it.

In conclusion, my personal viewpoints based on this presentation may be as follows. To begin with, trust and loyalty is evident where the consumer sees the vendor as someone driven by industry success rather than self-gain. It is not advisable to force employees or project members to arrive at various decisions by simply engaging their brain’s rational part, since they may always end up as victims of too much thinking.