What do you think?
Rate this book
袙褨写 褏芯褉芯褕芯谐芯 写芯 胁械谢懈褔薪芯谐芯
芦袙褨写 褏芯褉芯褕芯谐芯 写芯 胁械谢懈褔薪芯谐芯禄 鈥� 薪邪褋褌褨谢褜薪邪 泻薪懈谐邪 锌褉芯胁褨写薪懈褏 褌芯锌-屑械薪械写卸械褉褨胁 褋胁褨褌褍. 袩褉芯写邪薪芯 锌芯薪邪写 3 000 000 锌褉懈屑褨褉薪懈泻褨胁. 袙懈写邪薪薪褟 锌械褉械泻谢邪写械薪械 斜褨谢褜褕械 薪褨卸 褌褉懈写褑褟褌褜屑邪 屑芯胁邪屑懈.
校 褑褨泄 泻薪懈卸褑褨 袛卸懈屑 袣芯谢谢褨薪蟹 邪薪邪谢褨蟹褍褦 写褨褟谢褜薪褨褋褌褜 褨 褋褌褉褍泻褌褍褉褍 泻芯屑锌邪薪褨泄, 褟泻懈屑 胁写邪谢芯褋褟 蟹写褨泄褋薪懈褌懈 锌褉芯褉懈胁 褍 胁懈褖褍 谢褨谐褍 斜褨蟹薪械褋褍. 袙褨薪 胁褨写褨斜褉邪胁 褎褨褉屑懈, 褟泻褨, 锌芯锌褉懈 胁褋褨 泻褉懈蟹懈, 锌鈥櫻徰傂叫靶囱喲徰傃� 褉芯泻褨胁 锌芯褋锌褨谢褜 锌芯泻邪蟹褍胁邪谢懈 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖褨 褉械蟹褍谢褜褌邪褌懈 褍 褋胁芯褩泄 谐邪谢褍蟹褨. 携泻 Gillette, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris 褌邪 褨薪褕懈屑 胁写邪谢芯褋褟 胁蟹褟褌懈 薪邪褋褌褨谢褜泻懈 胁懈褋芯泻褍 锌谢邪薪泻褍? 袛卸懈屑 袣芯谢谢褨薪蟹 胁懈胁褨胁 褎芯褉屑褍谢褍 鈥� 写械胁鈥櫻徰傃� 泻褉芯泻褨胁, 褟泻褨 写芯蟹胁芯谢褟褌褜 褉芯蟹泻褉褍褌懈褌懈 屑邪褏芯胁懈泻 褍褋锌褨褏褍 写芯 褕胁懈写泻芯褋褌褨, 褟泻邪 锌褉懈薪芯褋懈褌褜 褕邪谢械薪褨 锌褉懈斜褍褌泻懈.
校 褑褨泄 泻薪懈卸褑褨 袛卸懈屑 袣芯谢谢褨薪蟹 邪薪邪谢褨蟹褍褦 写褨褟谢褜薪褨褋褌褜 褨 褋褌褉褍泻褌褍褉褍 泻芯屑锌邪薪褨泄, 褟泻懈屑 胁写邪谢芯褋褟 蟹写褨泄褋薪懈褌懈 锌褉芯褉懈胁 褍 胁懈褖褍 谢褨谐褍 斜褨蟹薪械褋褍. 袙褨薪 胁褨写褨斜褉邪胁 褎褨褉屑懈, 褟泻褨, 锌芯锌褉懈 胁褋褨 泻褉懈蟹懈, 锌鈥櫻徰傂叫靶囱喲徰傃� 褉芯泻褨胁 锌芯褋锌褨谢褜 锌芯泻邪蟹褍胁邪谢懈 薪邪泄泻褉邪褖褨 褉械蟹褍谢褜褌邪褌懈 褍 褋胁芯褩泄 谐邪谢褍蟹褨. 携泻 Gillette, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris 褌邪 褨薪褕懈屑 胁写邪谢芯褋褟 胁蟹褟褌懈 薪邪褋褌褨谢褜泻懈 胁懈褋芯泻褍 锌谢邪薪泻褍? 袛卸懈屑 袣芯谢谢褨薪蟹 胁懈胁褨胁 褎芯褉屑褍谢褍 鈥� 写械胁鈥櫻徰傃� 泻褉芯泻褨胁, 褟泻褨 写芯蟹胁芯谢褟褌褜 褉芯蟹泻褉褍褌懈褌懈 屑邪褏芯胁懈泻 褍褋锌褨褏褍 写芯 褕胁懈写泻芯褋褌褨, 褟泻邪 锌褉懈薪芯褋懈褌褜 褕邪谢械薪褨 锌褉懈斜褍褌泻懈.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 2001
15.3k people are currently reading
386k people want to read
About the author
Jim Collins
115听books2,648听followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
James C. Collins is an American researcher, author, speaker and consultant focused on the subject of business management and company sustainability and growth.
James C. Collins is an American researcher, author, speaker and consultant focused on the subject of business management and company sustainability and growth.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,633 reviews
August 1, 2008
This book by Jim Collins is one of the most successful books to be found in the "Business" section of your local megabookstore, and given how it purports to tell you how to take a merely good company and make it great, it's not difficult to see why that might be so. Collins and his crack team of researchers say they swam through stacks of business literature in search of info on how to pull this feat off, and came up with a list of great companies that illustrate some concepts central to the puzzle. They also present for each great company what they call a "comparison company," which is kind of that company with a goatee and a much less impressive earnings record. The balance of the book is spent expanding on pithy catch phrases that describe the great companies, like "First Who, Then What" or "Be a Hedgehog" or "Grasp the Flywheel, not the Doom Loop." No, no, I'm totally serious.
I've got several problems with this book, the biggest of which stem from fundamentally viewpoints on how to do research. Collin's brand of research is not my kind. It's not systematic, it's not replicable, it's not generalizable, it's not systematic, it's not free of bias, it's not model driven, and it's not collaborative. It's not, in short, scientific in any way. That's not to say that other methods of inquiry are without merit --the Harvard Business Review makes pretty darn good use of case studies, for example-- but way too often Collins's great truths seemed like square pegs crammed into round holes, because a round hole is what he wants. For example, there's no reported search for information that disconfirms his hypotheses. Are there other companies that don't make use of a Culture of Discipline (Chapter 6, natch) but yet are still great according to Collins's definition? Are there great companies that fail to do some of the things he says should make them great? The way that the book focuses strictly on pairs of great/comparison companies smacks of confirmatory information bias, which is a kink in the human mind that drives us to seek out and pay attention to information that confirms our pre-existing suppositions and ignore information that fails to support them.
Relatedly, a lot of the book's themes and platitudes strike me as owing their popularity to the same factors that make the horoscope or certain personality tests like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator so popular: they're so general and loosely defined that almost anyone can look at that and not only say that wow, that make sense, and I've always felt the same way! This guy and me? We're geniuses! The chapter about "getting the right people on the bus" that extols the virtue of hiring really super people is perhaps the most obvious example. Really, did anyone read this part and think "Oh, man. I've been hiring half retarded chimps. THAT'S my problem! I should hire GOOD people!" Probably not, and given that Collins doesn't go into any detail about HOW to do this or any of his other good to great pro tips, I'm not really sure where the value is supposed to be.
It also irked me that Good to Great seems to try and exist in a vacuum, failing to relate its findings to any other body of research except Collins's other book, Built to Last. The most egregious example of this is early on in Chapter 2 where Collins talks about his concept of "Level 5 Leadership," which characterizes those very special folks who perch atop a supposed leadership hierarchy. The author actually goes into some detail describing Level 5 leaders, but toward the end of the chapter he just shrugs his figurative shoulders and says "But we don't know how people get to be better leaders. Some people just are." Wait, what? People in fields like Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Development have been studying, scientifically, what great leaders do and how to do it for decades. We know TONS about how to become a better leader. There are entire industries built around it. You would think that somebody on the Good to Great research team may have done a cursory Google search on this.
So while Good to Great does have some interesting thoughts and a handful of amusing or even fascinating stories to tell about the companies it profiles (I liked, for example, learning about why Walgreens opens so many shops in the same area, even to the point of having stores across the street from each other in some cities), ultimately it strikes me as vague generalities and little to no practical information about how to actually DO anything to make your company great.
I've got several problems with this book, the biggest of which stem from fundamentally viewpoints on how to do research. Collin's brand of research is not my kind. It's not systematic, it's not replicable, it's not generalizable, it's not systematic, it's not free of bias, it's not model driven, and it's not collaborative. It's not, in short, scientific in any way. That's not to say that other methods of inquiry are without merit --the Harvard Business Review makes pretty darn good use of case studies, for example-- but way too often Collins's great truths seemed like square pegs crammed into round holes, because a round hole is what he wants. For example, there's no reported search for information that disconfirms his hypotheses. Are there other companies that don't make use of a Culture of Discipline (Chapter 6, natch) but yet are still great according to Collins's definition? Are there great companies that fail to do some of the things he says should make them great? The way that the book focuses strictly on pairs of great/comparison companies smacks of confirmatory information bias, which is a kink in the human mind that drives us to seek out and pay attention to information that confirms our pre-existing suppositions and ignore information that fails to support them.
Relatedly, a lot of the book's themes and platitudes strike me as owing their popularity to the same factors that make the horoscope or certain personality tests like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator so popular: they're so general and loosely defined that almost anyone can look at that and not only say that wow, that make sense, and I've always felt the same way! This guy and me? We're geniuses! The chapter about "getting the right people on the bus" that extols the virtue of hiring really super people is perhaps the most obvious example. Really, did anyone read this part and think "Oh, man. I've been hiring half retarded chimps. THAT'S my problem! I should hire GOOD people!" Probably not, and given that Collins doesn't go into any detail about HOW to do this or any of his other good to great pro tips, I'm not really sure where the value is supposed to be.
It also irked me that Good to Great seems to try and exist in a vacuum, failing to relate its findings to any other body of research except Collins's other book, Built to Last. The most egregious example of this is early on in Chapter 2 where Collins talks about his concept of "Level 5 Leadership," which characterizes those very special folks who perch atop a supposed leadership hierarchy. The author actually goes into some detail describing Level 5 leaders, but toward the end of the chapter he just shrugs his figurative shoulders and says "But we don't know how people get to be better leaders. Some people just are." Wait, what? People in fields like Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Organizational Development have been studying, scientifically, what great leaders do and how to do it for decades. We know TONS about how to become a better leader. There are entire industries built around it. You would think that somebody on the Good to Great research team may have done a cursory Google search on this.
So while Good to Great does have some interesting thoughts and a handful of amusing or even fascinating stories to tell about the companies it profiles (I liked, for example, learning about why Walgreens opens so many shops in the same area, even to the point of having stores across the street from each other in some cities), ultimately it strikes me as vague generalities and little to no practical information about how to actually DO anything to make your company great.
September 26, 2017
First and foremost, Good to Great has no breakthrough concepts to offer. Collins is good at inventive metaphors and catch phrases to push concepts through but ultimately there is really nothing counter-intuitive or revolutionary about the results of this study.
That said, the concepts in the book might still be valuable for managers, CEOs and other professionals. Here is a brief summary of the book and a short tour on how to take your company from Good to Great:
Think of this as a time-line to be followed:
First step is: To have A 'Level 5 Leader'
- A self-effacing leader. A humble leader with a strong drive and indefatigable will for perfection. Someone who puts the company over personal success and never clamors for the limelight.
Second Step is: To First decide the Who question and then the What Question.
- So have a Level 5 Leader.
- Who then picks a great management team - Collins uses the metaphor of finding the right people for the bus and the right seats for them before deciding where the bus is going to be heading towards.
Third Step is: To understand all the basic facts about the situation and the company
- So we have the ideal top management in place.
- Who in turn now brainstorms to figure out a goal/direction for the company after taking into account all the data available, whether good or bad.
Fourth Step is: To implement the 'Hedgehog Concept'
- So they confront all the realities and decide on a direction
- Which is based on the ability of the company, the passion of the people in it and money making ability of the goal.
- This is called using 'The Hedgehog Concept' and the 'Three Circles Concept'. You have to choose the very intersection of these three circles as your driving direction. You might have a lot of interests/passions, your company might have a lot of money-making options and you might have a lot of competencies - BUT, the point of intersection of all three should be your ONLY core focus.
[It is called Hedgehog Concept by contrasting hedgehogs to foxes - foxes are wily and know a lot of things, hedgehogs are wise and one thing well. It is the equivalent to the old proverb of 'jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none']
THE HEDGEHOG CONCEPT
[image error]
Fifth Step is: To have Complete Faith and Honesty - Called the 'The Stockdale Paradox'
- Once you identify your defining goal using the Hedgehog Concept,
- Have complete and unwavering belief and faith in this audaciously ambitious goal (to be the best in the world in the direction/field chosen.
- At the same time maintain complete transparency and exposure to the brutal facts about the environment.
- Believe you will prevail, no matter what. Keeping faith in the goal even in the face of the direst contrary facts.
Sixth Step is: To instill a Culture of DIscipline in the organization
- Keep working very very hard with complete determination and without bravado towards overcoming those contrary facts and obstacles towards the singe goal/direction arrived at earlier.
Seventh Step and the Overarching Concept is: To Keep turning 'The Flywheel'
- Use the Culture of Discipline and Build Momentum with these little steps and successes and then take all caution to not upset the momentum by misguided side steps. - This is the Fly wheel concept.
Thus with Great Leadership, Great Understanding of Strengths & Weaknesses, Great Confidence, Great Focus, Great Determination and Great Discipline, consistently applied over 15-30 years makes for a great company.
The whole story can be summarized in this phrase: "Build up - Breakthrough - Flywheel!"
THE FLYWHEEL CONCEPT
[image error]
This diagram also gives a visual summary of the entire book and can be used as a ready reference.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, 'Good to Great' by Jim Collins has nothing new to offer but still provides us with a concrete 5-year study and a plausible reason to follow such common sensical things such as finding the right people, understanding what we can best at, believing in ourselves and working hard until success eventually turns up. It is an optimistic and feel-good result that just might be simple enough to be true.
That said, the concepts in the book might still be valuable for managers, CEOs and other professionals. Here is a brief summary of the book and a short tour on how to take your company from Good to Great:
Think of this as a time-line to be followed:
First step is: To have A 'Level 5 Leader'
- A self-effacing leader. A humble leader with a strong drive and indefatigable will for perfection. Someone who puts the company over personal success and never clamors for the limelight.
Second Step is: To First decide the Who question and then the What Question.
- So have a Level 5 Leader.
- Who then picks a great management team - Collins uses the metaphor of finding the right people for the bus and the right seats for them before deciding where the bus is going to be heading towards.
Third Step is: To understand all the basic facts about the situation and the company
- So we have the ideal top management in place.
- Who in turn now brainstorms to figure out a goal/direction for the company after taking into account all the data available, whether good or bad.
Fourth Step is: To implement the 'Hedgehog Concept'
- So they confront all the realities and decide on a direction
- Which is based on the ability of the company, the passion of the people in it and money making ability of the goal.
- This is called using 'The Hedgehog Concept' and the 'Three Circles Concept'. You have to choose the very intersection of these three circles as your driving direction. You might have a lot of interests/passions, your company might have a lot of money-making options and you might have a lot of competencies - BUT, the point of intersection of all three should be your ONLY core focus.
[It is called Hedgehog Concept by contrasting hedgehogs to foxes - foxes are wily and know a lot of things, hedgehogs are wise and one thing well. It is the equivalent to the old proverb of 'jack-of-all-trades and master-of-none']
THE HEDGEHOG CONCEPT
[image error]
Fifth Step is: To have Complete Faith and Honesty - Called the 'The Stockdale Paradox'
- Once you identify your defining goal using the Hedgehog Concept,
- Have complete and unwavering belief and faith in this audaciously ambitious goal (to be the best in the world in the direction/field chosen.
- At the same time maintain complete transparency and exposure to the brutal facts about the environment.
- Believe you will prevail, no matter what. Keeping faith in the goal even in the face of the direst contrary facts.
Sixth Step is: To instill a Culture of DIscipline in the organization
- Keep working very very hard with complete determination and without bravado towards overcoming those contrary facts and obstacles towards the singe goal/direction arrived at earlier.
Seventh Step and the Overarching Concept is: To Keep turning 'The Flywheel'
- Use the Culture of Discipline and Build Momentum with these little steps and successes and then take all caution to not upset the momentum by misguided side steps. - This is the Fly wheel concept.
Thus with Great Leadership, Great Understanding of Strengths & Weaknesses, Great Confidence, Great Focus, Great Determination and Great Discipline, consistently applied over 15-30 years makes for a great company.
The whole story can be summarized in this phrase: "Build up - Breakthrough - Flywheel!"
THE FLYWHEEL CONCEPT
[image error]
This diagram also gives a visual summary of the entire book and can be used as a ready reference.
Conclusion
So, in conclusion, 'Good to Great' by Jim Collins has nothing new to offer but still provides us with a concrete 5-year study and a plausible reason to follow such common sensical things such as finding the right people, understanding what we can best at, believing in ourselves and working hard until success eventually turns up. It is an optimistic and feel-good result that just might be simple enough to be true.
January 5, 2022
Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't, James C. Collins
Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't is a management book by Jim C. Collins that describes how companies transition from being good companies to great companies, and how most companies fail to make the transition.
The book was published on October 16, 2001.
Greatness is defined as financial performance several multiples better than the market average over a sustained period. Using tough benchmarks, Collins and his research team identified a set of elite companies that made the leap to great results and sustained those results for at least fifteen years. How great?
After the leap, the good-to-great companies generated cumulative stock returns that beat the general stock market by an average of seven times in fifteen years, better than twice the results delivered by a composite index of the world's greatest companies, including Coca-Cola, Intel, General Electric, and Merck. Collins finds the main reason certain companies become great is they narrowly focus the company鈥檚 resources on their field of key competence.
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 乇丿 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖禄貨 芦丕夭 毓乇卮 亘賴 賮乇卮禄貨 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇鬲乇蹖禄貨 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 毓丕賱蹖禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓賴丿蹖賴 毓亘丕丿蹖貨 芦亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 亘夭乇诏 卮賵蹖丿禄貨 芦亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 賲賴賲 卮賵蹖丿禄 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲鬲蹖賳 毓乇亘賱賵貨 芦亘賴鬲乇 丕夭 禺賵亘禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賮囟賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賲蹖賳蹖貨 芦鬲毓丕賱蹖 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 氐丨蹖丨禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕 丨爻賳 夭丕乇毓蹖 孬賲蹖賳貙 亘賴夭丕丿 賲丨賲丿蹖丕賳貙 賲賴丿蹖 卮毓賱賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賲丕賴 賮賵乇蹖賴 爻丕賱2006賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 噩賴卮 賲蹖讴賳賳丿...貨 賵 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 賳賲蹖讴賳賳丿貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳丕賴蹖丿 爻倬賴乇倬賵乇貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬蹖讴 丌賵蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1383貨 丿乇301氐貨 噩丿賵賱貙 毓讴爻貙 賳賲賵丿丕乇貙 卮丕亘讴9648148031貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 趩賴丕乇賲 賵 倬賳噩賲 爻丕賱1384貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 賴賮鬲賲 賵 賴卮鬲賲 爻丕賱1386貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 賳賴賲 賵 丿賴賲 爻丕賱1387貨 趩丕倬 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1388貨 卮丕亘讴9789648148039貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌賵蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1386貨 趩丕倬 爻蹖夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1389貨 趩丕倬 賴蹖噩丿賴賲 爻丕賱1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓 乇丕賴亘乇蹖貙 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇蹖夭蹖 乇丕賴亘乇丿蹖貙 鬲丨賵賱 丿乇 爻丕夭賲丕賳貙 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲貙 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 - 爻丿賴21賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘乇禺蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 亘丕夭 賲蹖賲丕賳賳丿貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賱蹖賱丕 乇囟蹖卅蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌乇丕蹖丕賳貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇336氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786007133750貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 噩賴卮 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘毓囟蹖賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賳賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 氐丿蹖賯賴 丕卮鬲乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賵乇賲夭丿貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇350氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006959781貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 毓乇卮 亘賴 賮乇卮: 趩诏賵賳賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 爻賯賵胤 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 賴乇诏夭 鬲爻賱蹖賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賱蹖賱丕 爻丕賱丕乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賵乇賲夭丿貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇270氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006958927貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇鬲乇蹖貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓亘丿丕賱乇囟丕 乇囟丕蹖蹖 賳跇丕丿貙 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賮乇丕貙 爻丕賱1394貙 丿乇202氐貨
賵 ...貨
禺賵亘 丿卮賲賳 毓丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 芦噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭禄 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 讴賵卮卮 丿丕乇丿貙 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 乇丕 賲鬲賵噩賴 丌賳 讴賳丿貨 丌賯丕蹖 芦讴丕賱蹖賳夭禄 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 鬲蹖賲 倬跇賵賴卮蹖 禺賵丿貙 丨乇讴鬲 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥� 丕蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕貙 丿乇 胤賵賱 爻蹖 爻丕賱貙 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴乇丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 賳鬲丕蹖噩蹖 乇爻蹖丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 讴賴 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 芦趩乇丕 鬲毓丿丕丿蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 丕夭 賲乇丨賱賴 蹖 禺賵亘 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 亘賴 爻胤丨 毓丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀回� 賲丕 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 讴賴 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 丿賵乇賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 乇卮丿 賮夭丕蹖賳丿賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丕賮賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕賲丕 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 毓丕賱蹖貙 讴賴 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 賳丕賲卮丕賳貙 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 禺賵亘貙 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 賳亘丕卮丿貙 賴賲丕乇賴 乇卮丿蹖 氐毓賵丿蹖 乇丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 丕乇夭卮 爻賴丕賲 丌賳賴丕貙 趩賳丿蹖賳 亘乇丕亘乇 賳乇禺 爻賴丕賲 亘丕夭丕乇 丕爻鬲貨 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 05/12/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 14/10/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't is a management book by Jim C. Collins that describes how companies transition from being good companies to great companies, and how most companies fail to make the transition.
The book was published on October 16, 2001.
Greatness is defined as financial performance several multiples better than the market average over a sustained period. Using tough benchmarks, Collins and his research team identified a set of elite companies that made the leap to great results and sustained those results for at least fifteen years. How great?
After the leap, the good-to-great companies generated cumulative stock returns that beat the general stock market by an average of seven times in fifteen years, better than twice the results delivered by a composite index of the world's greatest companies, including Coca-Cola, Intel, General Electric, and Merck. Collins finds the main reason certain companies become great is they narrowly focus the company鈥檚 resources on their field of key competence.
毓賳賵丕賳賴丕蹖 趩丕倬 卮丿賴 乇丿 丕蹖乇丕賳: 芦丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖禄貨 芦丕夭 毓乇卮 亘賴 賮乇卮禄貨 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇鬲乇蹖禄貨 芦丕賳鬲禺丕亘 毓丕賱蹖禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓賴丿蹖賴 毓亘丕丿蹖貨 芦亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 亘夭乇诏 卮賵蹖丿禄貨 芦亘丕 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 禺賵丿 賲賴賲 卮賵蹖丿禄 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲鬲蹖賳 毓乇亘賱賵貨 芦亘賴鬲乇 丕夭 禺賵亘禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賮囟賱 丕賱賱賴 丕賲蹖賳蹖貨 芦鬲毓丕賱蹖 賲亘賳蹖 亘乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 氐丨蹖丨禄貙 賲鬲乇噩賲賴丕 丨爻賳 夭丕乇毓蹖 孬賲蹖賳貙 亘賴夭丕丿 賲丨賲丿蹖丕賳貙 賲賴丿蹖 卮毓賱賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 乇賵夭 亘蹖爻鬲賲 賲丕賴 賮賵乇蹖賴 爻丕賱2006賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 噩賴卮 賲蹖讴賳賳丿...貨 賵 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 賳賲蹖讴賳賳丿貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳丕賴蹖丿 爻倬賴乇倬賵乇貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬蹖讴 丌賵蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1383貨 丿乇301氐貨 噩丿賵賱貙 毓讴爻貙 賳賲賵丿丕乇貙 卮丕亘讴9648148031貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 趩賴丕乇賲 賵 倬賳噩賲 爻丕賱1384貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 賴賮鬲賲 賵 賴卮鬲賲 爻丕賱1386貨 趩丕倬賴丕蹖 賳賴賲 賵 丿賴賲 爻丕賱1387貨 趩丕倬 蹖丕夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1388貨 卮丕亘讴9789648148039貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌賵蹖賳貙 爻丕賱1386貨 趩丕倬 爻蹖夭丿賴賲 爻丕賱1389貨 趩丕倬 賴蹖噩丿賴賲 爻丕賱1392貨 賲賵囟賵毓 乇丕賴亘乇蹖貙 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇蹖夭蹖 乇丕賴亘乇丿蹖貙 鬲丨賵賱 丿乇 爻丕夭賲丕賳貙 賲丿蹖乇蹖鬲貙 賳賵丌賵乇蹖 - 爻丿賴21賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘乇禺蹖 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 亘丕夭 賲蹖賲丕賳賳丿貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賱蹖賱丕 乇囟蹖卅蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 丌乇丕蹖丕賳貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇336氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786007133750貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 禺賵亘 亘賴 毓丕賱蹖: 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 卮乇讴鬲賴丕 噩賴卮 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 亘毓囟蹖賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賳賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 氐丿蹖賯賴 丕卮鬲乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賵乇賲夭丿貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇350氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006959781貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕夭 毓乇卮 亘賴 賮乇卮: 趩诏賵賳賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿 爻賯賵胤 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 趩乇丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 賴乇诏夭 鬲爻賱蹖賲 賳賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀熦� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賱蹖賱丕 爻丕賱丕乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賴賵乇賲夭丿貙 爻丕賱1395貨 丿乇270氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006958927貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 亘乇鬲乇蹖貙 賲鬲乇噩賲: 毓亘丿丕賱乇囟丕 乇囟丕蹖蹖 賳跇丕丿貙 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賮乇丕貙 爻丕賱1394貙 丿乇202氐貨
賵 ...貨
禺賵亘 丿卮賲賳 毓丕賱蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 賲賴賲鈥屫臂屬� 賲賮賴賵賲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 芦噩蹖賲 讴丕賱蹖賳夭禄 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 讴賵卮卮 丿丕乇丿貙 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 乇丕 賲鬲賵噩賴 丌賳 讴賳丿貨 丌賯丕蹖 芦讴丕賱蹖賳夭禄 亘賴 賴賲乇丕賴 鬲蹖賲 倬跇賵賴卮蹖 禺賵丿貙 丨乇讴鬲 賲噩賲賵毓賴鈥� 丕蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 乇丕貙 丿乇 胤賵賱 爻蹖 爻丕賱貙 亘乇乇爻蹖 讴乇丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 賳鬲丕蹖噩蹖 乇爻蹖丿賴鈥� 丕賳丿貙 讴賴 賳卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 芦趩乇丕 鬲毓丿丕丿蹖 丕夭 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏� 丕夭 賲乇丨賱賴 蹖 禺賵亘 乇丿 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 亘賴 爻胤丨 毓丕賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀回� 賲丕 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж驰屬呚� 讴賴 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 丿賵乇賴鈥� 丕蹖貙 乇卮丿 賮夭丕蹖賳丿賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 賵 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丕賮賵賱 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕賲丕 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 毓丕賱蹖貙 讴賴 丕鬲賮丕賯丕 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 賳丕賲卮丕賳貙 亘賴 丕賳丿丕夭賴 卮乇讴鬲鈥屬囏й� 禺賵亘貙 卮賳丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 賳亘丕卮丿貙 賴賲丕乇賴 乇卮丿蹖 氐毓賵丿蹖 乇丕 鬲噩乇亘賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 丕乇夭卮 爻賴丕賲 丌賳賴丕貙 趩賳丿蹖賳 亘乇丕亘乇 賳乇禺 爻賴丕賲 亘丕夭丕乇 丕爻鬲貨 ...貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 05/12/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 14/10/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
February 13, 2013
Here are Jim Collins' seven characteristics of companies that went "from good to great"
1. Level 5 Leadership: Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company.
2. First Who, Then What: Get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to go. Finding the right people and trying them out in different positions.
3. Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale paradox - Confront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope.
4. Hedgehog Concept: Three overlapping circles: What makes you money? What could you be best in the world at? and What lights your fire?
5. Culture of Discipline: Rinsing the cottage cheese.
6. Technology Accelerators: Using technology to accelerate growth, within the three circles of the hedgehog concept.
7. The Flywheel: The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest.
I really enjoyed this book and think any business owner or entrepreneur would find the book interesting and benefit from focusing on the seven characteristics above - but I should also point out what I consider to be a few of the flaws with the book:
1. Collins spends a lot of time explaining some pretty common sense stuff. Don't let your ego get in the way of good decisions, don't have the wrong people in the wrong positions in your company, be realistic, etc...
2. Collins implies a causal relationship when there isn't enough data to determine such a thing, saying that they found x followed by y in all the great companies. And maybe x led to y, but maybe it didn't. We don't know. Without comparing other companies that either had x but didn't produce y, or produced y but didn't have x, we simply don't know if Collins' examples demonstrate lessons that can be repeated for the same success by anybody. It seems to me that there is a strong hindsight bias and a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not all 'good' companies would become 'great' by simply following Collins' advice.
3. As psychologists have pointed out in books such as "The Invisible Gorilla" and "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow" - even aiming at "Good to Great" specifically - many business books tend to mistake a personal success story or numerous personal stories as a causal relationship that can be reproduced by anybody when in reality the more likely explanation was that they benefited from a lot of luck and there isn't a simple process of 'do x and you will receive y'.
4. 11 years after the book was published, the success rates of the "great" companies isn't so great. Were those companies not so great after all? What happened? What changed? At least half of the 11 great companies he identified are no longer doing so great. Circuit City is bankrupt, Fannie Mae went bankrupt/nationalized, Wells Fargo needed a bailout, Nucor's stock and revenue crashed, Pitney Bowes went down significantly, and Gillette is no longer independent. It seems strange that 'greatness' was so easily lost.
5. Also, a difficulty with his methodology is that he measured a company's 'greatness' by its sustained stock market value being a certain percentage (150%) above the general market. So how does a private company measure greatness with this sort of standard?
1. Level 5 Leadership: Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company.
2. First Who, Then What: Get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to go. Finding the right people and trying them out in different positions.
3. Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale paradox - Confront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope.
4. Hedgehog Concept: Three overlapping circles: What makes you money? What could you be best in the world at? and What lights your fire?
5. Culture of Discipline: Rinsing the cottage cheese.
6. Technology Accelerators: Using technology to accelerate growth, within the three circles of the hedgehog concept.
7. The Flywheel: The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest.
I really enjoyed this book and think any business owner or entrepreneur would find the book interesting and benefit from focusing on the seven characteristics above - but I should also point out what I consider to be a few of the flaws with the book:
1. Collins spends a lot of time explaining some pretty common sense stuff. Don't let your ego get in the way of good decisions, don't have the wrong people in the wrong positions in your company, be realistic, etc...
2. Collins implies a causal relationship when there isn't enough data to determine such a thing, saying that they found x followed by y in all the great companies. And maybe x led to y, but maybe it didn't. We don't know. Without comparing other companies that either had x but didn't produce y, or produced y but didn't have x, we simply don't know if Collins' examples demonstrate lessons that can be repeated for the same success by anybody. It seems to me that there is a strong hindsight bias and a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not all 'good' companies would become 'great' by simply following Collins' advice.
3. As psychologists have pointed out in books such as "The Invisible Gorilla" and "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow" - even aiming at "Good to Great" specifically - many business books tend to mistake a personal success story or numerous personal stories as a causal relationship that can be reproduced by anybody when in reality the more likely explanation was that they benefited from a lot of luck and there isn't a simple process of 'do x and you will receive y'.
4. 11 years after the book was published, the success rates of the "great" companies isn't so great. Were those companies not so great after all? What happened? What changed? At least half of the 11 great companies he identified are no longer doing so great. Circuit City is bankrupt, Fannie Mae went bankrupt/nationalized, Wells Fargo needed a bailout, Nucor's stock and revenue crashed, Pitney Bowes went down significantly, and Gillette is no longer independent. It seems strange that 'greatness' was so easily lost.
5. Also, a difficulty with his methodology is that he measured a company's 'greatness' by its sustained stock market value being a certain percentage (150%) above the general market. So how does a private company measure greatness with this sort of standard?
February 8, 2019
Okay, let's get this out of the way first: this book is DATED. It studies eleven companies that beat the stock market over a period of fifteen years, irrespective of industry (other comparison companies in the same industries did not produce the same results). Unfortunately, these eleven companies include Fannie Mae, Circuit City, Wells Fargo, and Philip Morris (??!?). The findings are ultimately interesting and I think the writers would argue that the recent performance of the companies don't affect the findings' validity, but boy is it a trip to read about in the year 2019.
James Collins wrote this with a large group of researchers, and the methodology and results are explained in more detail in the extensive appendices at the end of the book. They distill their findings into seven key themes around what helps a company go from mediocre to truly "great," which they define as beating the stock market by a certain margin over a long period of time. I realize that I am reading a business book and by default there needs to be a core metric by which we recognize businesses as "good" or "great," but I had some trouble with the complete disregard for social impact that powers this book. Collins says that looking at employee or social welfare would have introduced biases into the study, but I would also say that there is an inherent bias in defining a business's "greatness" solely by its stock returns and shareholder value鈥攚hich is why you end up with Philip Morris in your group of "great" companies. (Your definition for success is not the same as mine!) It's also interesting that the research group tends to handwave around employee motivation, morale, and fulfillment for all of the "great" companies as a natural outcome of business success, but does not offer any metrics or background on this in the text of the book.
All that aside, I found some of the takeaways truly interesting:
* Charisma is detrimental to leadership: The good-to-great companies all had "Level 5" leaders, which the research group defines as a leader who is incredibly driven but extremely humble. The Level 5 leaders aren't charismatic or larger-than-life figures: they center their companies on one purpose and build strong systems that move the entire company in one direction. The true tell of this type of leader is if the company survives and flourishes after they leave (are you more worried about your CEO, or about the reality of your situation?). Charismatic outside leaders produced consistently worse results and the companies stagnated after their departure. It's also worth noting that executive compensation had absolutely no measurable effect on a company's success.
* Managing morale and motivation is largely a waste of time: If employees instinctively understand the vision of the company and how they contribute to its success, there is no reason to "motivate" or spend time managing change. I don't think this is ever 100% true (and it is precluded by the necessity to have the right people in the right roles), but I found this perspective interesting and the examples rang true to me.
* Stay focused on your central concept: The book refers to this as the "Hedgehog Concept," a term that I refuse to use. It combines the Venn diagram of these three things: (1) what are you truly passionate about? (2) what drives your economic engine? and (3) what can you be best in the world at? If you aren't driving towards an intersection of all three, you will not be able to achieve sustained results. This requires a culture of discipline throughout all levels of the company.
* Understand the brutal reality: The successful companies understood the "brutal facts of reality" when making business decisions and candidly discussed and planned for that reality. That sometimes requires an entire business shift to align yourself with your central concept. (When you see user or customer research that upends your assumptions, do not ignore it.) This also reinforces the need for long-term investment. The writers' point was that you cannot be an optimist ("this will all work out!"), but you must confront reality and simultaneously strongly believe that you will succeed, despite the odds. You also must create an environment where the truth is heard, which requires the leaders to ask questions, hold themselves to high standards, and build red-flag mechanisms to get advance notice of issues.
Anyway, I found the book both interesting and frustrating to read. The research team commits the cardinal sin of all business books, which is comparing every single concept to a famous thinker. Einstein did not model simplistic thinking (has this man ever read a proof of E = mc2? get back to me after you have done it) and Abraham Lincoln is not comparable to a CEO. I wish that these types of comparisons could be completely excised from our discourse. I rolled my eyes through much of this nonsense and it really detracted from my engagement with the book.
I also found it frustrating that diversity of thought and teams never comes up in this book. Every single CEO mentioned is a man, and most of the named executives at these companies are men. You can read into the concept of "getting the right people on the bus" as assembling the correct team, but then the book goes on to say that employee incentives and compensation matter much less than you think they do. That depends on who you are hiring and what their personal priorities are, and that will always differ for individuals. I did like that part of the leadership discussion hinges on whether internal or external leadership is better for a company; most of the Level 5 leaders in the book are internal choices, which intuitively makes sense because they are able to fully grasp the core concept and values of the company.
Finally, it is hilarious to read sentences like "Amazon.com, the reigning champion of e-commerce" and "today, we primarily use portables from companies like Dell and Sony." 2001 was a wild time. 2019 is a wild time!! In the last 18 years, these good-to-great companies have imploded in on themselves!! Hopefully, the lessons from this book endure longer than Fannie Mae's reputation.
James Collins wrote this with a large group of researchers, and the methodology and results are explained in more detail in the extensive appendices at the end of the book. They distill their findings into seven key themes around what helps a company go from mediocre to truly "great," which they define as beating the stock market by a certain margin over a long period of time. I realize that I am reading a business book and by default there needs to be a core metric by which we recognize businesses as "good" or "great," but I had some trouble with the complete disregard for social impact that powers this book. Collins says that looking at employee or social welfare would have introduced biases into the study, but I would also say that there is an inherent bias in defining a business's "greatness" solely by its stock returns and shareholder value鈥攚hich is why you end up with Philip Morris in your group of "great" companies. (Your definition for success is not the same as mine!) It's also interesting that the research group tends to handwave around employee motivation, morale, and fulfillment for all of the "great" companies as a natural outcome of business success, but does not offer any metrics or background on this in the text of the book.
All that aside, I found some of the takeaways truly interesting:
* Charisma is detrimental to leadership: The good-to-great companies all had "Level 5" leaders, which the research group defines as a leader who is incredibly driven but extremely humble. The Level 5 leaders aren't charismatic or larger-than-life figures: they center their companies on one purpose and build strong systems that move the entire company in one direction. The true tell of this type of leader is if the company survives and flourishes after they leave (are you more worried about your CEO, or about the reality of your situation?). Charismatic outside leaders produced consistently worse results and the companies stagnated after their departure. It's also worth noting that executive compensation had absolutely no measurable effect on a company's success.
* Managing morale and motivation is largely a waste of time: If employees instinctively understand the vision of the company and how they contribute to its success, there is no reason to "motivate" or spend time managing change. I don't think this is ever 100% true (and it is precluded by the necessity to have the right people in the right roles), but I found this perspective interesting and the examples rang true to me.
* Stay focused on your central concept: The book refers to this as the "Hedgehog Concept," a term that I refuse to use. It combines the Venn diagram of these three things: (1) what are you truly passionate about? (2) what drives your economic engine? and (3) what can you be best in the world at? If you aren't driving towards an intersection of all three, you will not be able to achieve sustained results. This requires a culture of discipline throughout all levels of the company.
* Understand the brutal reality: The successful companies understood the "brutal facts of reality" when making business decisions and candidly discussed and planned for that reality. That sometimes requires an entire business shift to align yourself with your central concept. (When you see user or customer research that upends your assumptions, do not ignore it.) This also reinforces the need for long-term investment. The writers' point was that you cannot be an optimist ("this will all work out!"), but you must confront reality and simultaneously strongly believe that you will succeed, despite the odds. You also must create an environment where the truth is heard, which requires the leaders to ask questions, hold themselves to high standards, and build red-flag mechanisms to get advance notice of issues.
Anyway, I found the book both interesting and frustrating to read. The research team commits the cardinal sin of all business books, which is comparing every single concept to a famous thinker. Einstein did not model simplistic thinking (has this man ever read a proof of E = mc2? get back to me after you have done it) and Abraham Lincoln is not comparable to a CEO. I wish that these types of comparisons could be completely excised from our discourse. I rolled my eyes through much of this nonsense and it really detracted from my engagement with the book.
I also found it frustrating that diversity of thought and teams never comes up in this book. Every single CEO mentioned is a man, and most of the named executives at these companies are men. You can read into the concept of "getting the right people on the bus" as assembling the correct team, but then the book goes on to say that employee incentives and compensation matter much less than you think they do. That depends on who you are hiring and what their personal priorities are, and that will always differ for individuals. I did like that part of the leadership discussion hinges on whether internal or external leadership is better for a company; most of the Level 5 leaders in the book are internal choices, which intuitively makes sense because they are able to fully grasp the core concept and values of the company.
Finally, it is hilarious to read sentences like "Amazon.com, the reigning champion of e-commerce" and "today, we primarily use portables from companies like Dell and Sony." 2001 was a wild time. 2019 is a wild time!! In the last 18 years, these good-to-great companies have imploded in on themselves!! Hopefully, the lessons from this book endure longer than Fannie Mae's reputation.
December 1, 2020
Why Indie Authors Should Read Business Books
I am finally pursuing my lifelong passion of becoming an author, and writing is a business, so I needed to invest in myself. I figured "the bible" of the business world would have some interesting things to say. After all, a business of one is still a business and who wouldn't enjoy the leap from mediocrity to longevity? The book made it clear that building a great business isn't just about a great leader who exits the company, only to have it fall apart. What makes a great business, and leader of the business, is someone who is able to build something that will last long after their lifetime.
That should resonate with authors. I don't know any authors that want their books to disappear without their presence? We have the benefit of creating products that at the very least will never go out of style. Innovations may change the way we read but they will never eliminate books altogether. What we write will last and it's our responsibility to build something from it so people actually give a damn about our work long after we are gone.
The lessons in this book teach a person how to develop a strategy, how to build a team, the importance of being disciplined, and the importance of managing expectations.
The Hedgehog Concept is something creatives should be able to maneuver to their advantage. It's all about finding what you can be best at, passionate about, and quantifying how to measure your success. For an author maybe that's finding a niche and having the discipline to stick with it rather than chasing the latest genre fad.
For building a team, again think about how many people it takes to make a book. You don't just write a draft and publish it on KDP. If you do, and are successful than I am jealous but most of us can't write perfection the first go around. You need beta readers to give you general feedback on what's working and what's not; you need an editor (or two) to make sure it's readable; you need a top-notch book cover (some authors can make their own, some need to add a graphic designer to their team) and finally you need to build your audience, because they're the most important part of the team.
Though there are a lot of lessons in this book the final thing I'm gonna touch on is the Stockdale Paradox. It's all about managing expectations. You can truly believe you are going to find success, while also managing that expectation. Stockdale was a POW in Vietnam who knew he would return home but kept his sanity because he knew it would be a while, while other soldiers in the camp were overly optimistic, thought they would get home by Christmas, only to be heartbroken when their expectations failed.
Pursuing a creative endeavor is still a business, and today it's never been easier for someone to enter that business It's my educated guess that it's in order for creatives to educate themselves on traditional business practices if they hope to sustain long-term growth and success in their field.
I am finally pursuing my lifelong passion of becoming an author, and writing is a business, so I needed to invest in myself. I figured "the bible" of the business world would have some interesting things to say. After all, a business of one is still a business and who wouldn't enjoy the leap from mediocrity to longevity? The book made it clear that building a great business isn't just about a great leader who exits the company, only to have it fall apart. What makes a great business, and leader of the business, is someone who is able to build something that will last long after their lifetime.
That should resonate with authors. I don't know any authors that want their books to disappear without their presence? We have the benefit of creating products that at the very least will never go out of style. Innovations may change the way we read but they will never eliminate books altogether. What we write will last and it's our responsibility to build something from it so people actually give a damn about our work long after we are gone.
The lessons in this book teach a person how to develop a strategy, how to build a team, the importance of being disciplined, and the importance of managing expectations.
The Hedgehog Concept is something creatives should be able to maneuver to their advantage. It's all about finding what you can be best at, passionate about, and quantifying how to measure your success. For an author maybe that's finding a niche and having the discipline to stick with it rather than chasing the latest genre fad.
For building a team, again think about how many people it takes to make a book. You don't just write a draft and publish it on KDP. If you do, and are successful than I am jealous but most of us can't write perfection the first go around. You need beta readers to give you general feedback on what's working and what's not; you need an editor (or two) to make sure it's readable; you need a top-notch book cover (some authors can make their own, some need to add a graphic designer to their team) and finally you need to build your audience, because they're the most important part of the team.
Though there are a lot of lessons in this book the final thing I'm gonna touch on is the Stockdale Paradox. It's all about managing expectations. You can truly believe you are going to find success, while also managing that expectation. Stockdale was a POW in Vietnam who knew he would return home but kept his sanity because he knew it would be a while, while other soldiers in the camp were overly optimistic, thought they would get home by Christmas, only to be heartbroken when their expectations failed.
Pursuing a creative endeavor is still a business, and today it's never been easier for someone to enter that business It's my educated guess that it's in order for creatives to educate themselves on traditional business practices if they hope to sustain long-term growth and success in their field.
December 11, 2019
"People often ask, "what motivates you to undertake these huge research projects?"
It's a good question. The answer is "curiosity."
There is nothing I find more exciting than picking a question that I don't know the answer to and embarking on a quest for answers. It's deeply satisfying to climb into the boat, like Lewis and Clark, and head west, saying," We don't know what we will find when we get there, but we'll be sure to let you know when we get back."
This undaunted curiosity is the stimulus of this work, proclaims the author, in the beginning, justifying why he got down to such a grueling task. Though this book is exclusively for the management students and for the corporate guys, I still feel, this book is very well researched and can be read by them also, who have the least interests in companies and businesses. This book is a result of the hard toil of a large research team of Jim Collins after 'Built to Last'.If you read it, you will find the reason why millions of copies have been sold of this. Wall Street Journal's CEO council declared it the best management book they have read.
This book is all about why some companies leap from 'good to great' and others don't!
The first thing it tries to preach is that Good is the enemy of great.Few people attain greatness, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life. Next, the book talks about a kind of 'Level 5 leadership',
"leaders of a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will.they are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce sustainable results. they display workmanlike diligence, more plow horse than show horse. they look out of a window to attribute success to factors other than themselves."
In the subsequent chapters, comes the idea of choosing the right guys. It's important first getting the right people on the bus (and wrong people off the bus) and then figure out where to drive it.
Then there is a 'Stockdale Paradox' in this book, which is equally applicable in any field of life.
"Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.....And at the same time ......Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
There are many other concepts outlined in this book, they look technical, so much business involved in them, but they are quite handy even to the simpler minds, quite comprehensible even to those ordinary mortals like me. The research done for this book may have taken a huge amount of resources, time and energy, but as a consequence, the major findings and learnings of this project are rather uncomplicated. The key elements of greatness are deceptively simple and straightforward. I feel this book is a wonderful exhibition of undemanding intelligence encrusted with due diligence.
In the end, Even if you think in contrast. If you think you are already gratified to the goodness around you and think after reading the title of this book.....Why greatness? I don't need that!
Then the book has an answer for you as well. It says it's almost a nonsense question. If you are engaged in a work that you love and care about, for whatever reason, then the question needs no answer.
The question is not why, but how!
It's a good question. The answer is "curiosity."
There is nothing I find more exciting than picking a question that I don't know the answer to and embarking on a quest for answers. It's deeply satisfying to climb into the boat, like Lewis and Clark, and head west, saying," We don't know what we will find when we get there, but we'll be sure to let you know when we get back."
This undaunted curiosity is the stimulus of this work, proclaims the author, in the beginning, justifying why he got down to such a grueling task. Though this book is exclusively for the management students and for the corporate guys, I still feel, this book is very well researched and can be read by them also, who have the least interests in companies and businesses. This book is a result of the hard toil of a large research team of Jim Collins after 'Built to Last'.If you read it, you will find the reason why millions of copies have been sold of this. Wall Street Journal's CEO council declared it the best management book they have read.
This book is all about why some companies leap from 'good to great' and others don't!
The first thing it tries to preach is that Good is the enemy of great.Few people attain greatness, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life. Next, the book talks about a kind of 'Level 5 leadership',
"leaders of a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will.they are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce sustainable results. they display workmanlike diligence, more plow horse than show horse. they look out of a window to attribute success to factors other than themselves."
In the subsequent chapters, comes the idea of choosing the right guys. It's important first getting the right people on the bus (and wrong people off the bus) and then figure out where to drive it.
Then there is a 'Stockdale Paradox' in this book, which is equally applicable in any field of life.
"Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties.....And at the same time ......Confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
There are many other concepts outlined in this book, they look technical, so much business involved in them, but they are quite handy even to the simpler minds, quite comprehensible even to those ordinary mortals like me. The research done for this book may have taken a huge amount of resources, time and energy, but as a consequence, the major findings and learnings of this project are rather uncomplicated. The key elements of greatness are deceptively simple and straightforward. I feel this book is a wonderful exhibition of undemanding intelligence encrusted with due diligence.
In the end, Even if you think in contrast. If you think you are already gratified to the goodness around you and think after reading the title of this book.....Why greatness? I don't need that!
Then the book has an answer for you as well. It says it's almost a nonsense question. If you are engaged in a work that you love and care about, for whatever reason, then the question needs no answer.
The question is not why, but how!
January 27, 2010
I hope I don't get fired for not thinking this was the greatest book ever. Honestly, business books are not exactly my cup of tea. This book started off really interesting. The author talks about habits that great companies use to keep their companies run smoothly. Many of the suggestions the author gives seem very logical -- don't have negative people work for your company, don't try to put your hand in every pot, don't stop doing things that work well and do stop doing things that aren't working, etc.
I had two major concerns with this book. First was simply the manner in which it was written. The author spent hundreds of pages explaining what could have been explained much more succinctly. It's similar to my thesis. My completed thesis was 60+ pages, but the article I wrote to be published in a journal (which consists of the same material, more or less) was only about 15 pages. I would be more interested in this book if it was written in "journal" form, allowing me to cut out the redundancy. To the author's credit, however, I appreciated that he did give examples, as often I was very confused by his explanation of the concept, and wouldn't have understood without his providing an example they found in one of the companies.
My second major concern was the methodology. The author utilizes no scientific method for gathering data, but instead utilizes a "panning for gold" approach: throw everything into the pot and see what comes out. That, combined with overwhelming hindsight bias, makes me extremely suspicious of any and every conclusion drawn in the book. While reading this book, I was reminded of one of my undergraduate teachers explaining the advantage that Freud had as an early psychologist: because of his theories, he could not be proven wrong. How do you prove that someone isn't in denial? How do you prove that someone isn't obsessed with his mother? Likewise, how do you prove that these theories proposed by Jim Collins actually work? Indeed, Collins later predicts, at the end of his book, that any company that STOPS abiding by the principles he outlines will fail. With his "interesting" methodology, I doubt that his principles would have a causal link to either success or failure. I expect that many companies fail, and that many companies are very successful, without regard to his theories. In addition, a problem with his methodology is that he measured "greatness" by a company's sustained stock market value being a certain percentage (150%) above the general market--what about private companies? How can a private company measure greatness if that is the standard?
So, overall, I enjoyed this book at the beginning and became bored with it by the end. I think there are some good principles that can be pulled out of it, but I fear that some companies will take this book too much to heart and let other important factors slip.
Rob, please don't fire me. :)
I had two major concerns with this book. First was simply the manner in which it was written. The author spent hundreds of pages explaining what could have been explained much more succinctly. It's similar to my thesis. My completed thesis was 60+ pages, but the article I wrote to be published in a journal (which consists of the same material, more or less) was only about 15 pages. I would be more interested in this book if it was written in "journal" form, allowing me to cut out the redundancy. To the author's credit, however, I appreciated that he did give examples, as often I was very confused by his explanation of the concept, and wouldn't have understood without his providing an example they found in one of the companies.
My second major concern was the methodology. The author utilizes no scientific method for gathering data, but instead utilizes a "panning for gold" approach: throw everything into the pot and see what comes out. That, combined with overwhelming hindsight bias, makes me extremely suspicious of any and every conclusion drawn in the book. While reading this book, I was reminded of one of my undergraduate teachers explaining the advantage that Freud had as an early psychologist: because of his theories, he could not be proven wrong. How do you prove that someone isn't in denial? How do you prove that someone isn't obsessed with his mother? Likewise, how do you prove that these theories proposed by Jim Collins actually work? Indeed, Collins later predicts, at the end of his book, that any company that STOPS abiding by the principles he outlines will fail. With his "interesting" methodology, I doubt that his principles would have a causal link to either success or failure. I expect that many companies fail, and that many companies are very successful, without regard to his theories. In addition, a problem with his methodology is that he measured "greatness" by a company's sustained stock market value being a certain percentage (150%) above the general market--what about private companies? How can a private company measure greatness if that is the standard?
So, overall, I enjoyed this book at the beginning and became bored with it by the end. I think there are some good principles that can be pulled out of it, but I fear that some companies will take this book too much to heart and let other important factors slip.
Rob, please don't fire me. :)
August 5, 2017
I鈥檝e been reading quite a few books about leadership lately 鈥� I can't really say that I鈥檝e been terribly impressed with them. They read too much like that terribly American genre of books 鈥� the self-help book. Invariably, they seem to have appeared fully formed out of the research of the people behind the book itself. This is particularly amusing here, since people have been concerned with the nature of leadership pretty much forever. The other thing that I find a little odd about these books is that leadership is rarely defined in them. I guess we are supposed to take the attitude that it might well be hard to say what leadership is, but we all know it when we see it 鈥� so, leadership is a bit like pornography in that sense. Given that this form of research sees itself as so 鈥榬evolutionary鈥� in just about all senses, it ought to say things, you would expect, that would be more than just a series of platitudes. I didn鈥檛 really come away thinking that sense, however. Parts of this were okay 鈥� but I really didn鈥檛 come away, as the author clearly thought I ought to have, thinking that they had gone off into the great unknown and returned more or less unharmed to tell the story. If I hadn鈥檛 been reading this book for a reason, I would have stopped when the author compared himself to Lewis and Clark (and he did so without a hint of irony).
This book is concerned with finding the attributes that companies have that start out average only to then move on to being exceptional. They have defined exceptional companies as those that perform at three times the market for 15 years 鈥� this is quite a good definition of exceptional, I guess. But, some of the companies have not done quite so well since this was written (not sure how many people would write a book today about the glories of Freddie Mac today, just saying) 鈥� the GFC clearly wasn鈥檛 all that kind to some companies and whether or not 鈥榣eadership鈥� was the only factor at play here is an interesting question in itself, although, given the success of these firms is tied to leadership in this book, presumably failure is also to be considered a leadership issue 鈥� still, this is all beyond the psycho-babble of this kind of book. Oh, I鈥檓 jumping ahead too quickly 鈥� but that, in a nutshell, is probably one of my main concerns with books like this 鈥� organisations are essentially collections of people engaged in complex interactions, and so psychology (that is, a science focused on the individual) is quite likely to miss the point. The limits of psychology in coming to terms with human interactions beyond the individual - is, again, an interesting question and one that is not addressed here at all. And this is hardly surprising, since a book that focuses our attention on how 'leadership' accounts for a businesses success is hardly going to move too far beyond 'psychology'.
The book finds that these companies all shared seven characteristics. The first of these was perhaps the one I found most interesting 鈥� that is, that their leaders all tended to be 鈥榓nti-Trump鈥� type people. That is, they were all people who were much more interested in the success of the company, rather than in their own personal success and aggrandisement - they tended to be humble, they tended to be focused on their love of whatever it was they were doing, rather than on having people tell them how fantastic they are. As such, these people often remained unsung despite the exceptional achievements they made. This often meant that they had a singleness of purpose that might not be as apparent in people who want success for its own sake. They also remained unsung for their success since they generally did not attribute their success to their own actions as much as other leaders (again, think Trump) might. They understood the luck and contingency involved in success and this fed into their own humility. Having a personal preference for humble people myself 鈥� the Japanese PM鈥檚 wife who sat beside Trump for 2 hours and did not let him know she spoke English is currently one of my heroes 鈥� it is nice that some management types think that such a personality trait is worthwhile. Like I said, this was a finding I was somewhat surprised to find in a book like this.
Perhaps the major benefit of such self-effacing people is that they understand that they are unlikely to be successful purely on their own. Therefore they are much more like to also see that it is essential that they surround themselves with people who are going to be good at what they do and that are, potentially, a bit like them in their dedication to the task at hand. In this book this idea is summed up by the idea of these leaders making sure they have the right people in the right place. There is lots of talk about buses thought out this book - basically, these books seem to be mostly about milking a particular metaphor or series of metaphors to death - getting people onto the bus, off the bus and in the right place on the bus being but one of those metaphors worked to death in this book. The author repeatedly says that getting the right people is more important than necessarily getting people who know what it is they are doing - the right people basically being able to learn whatever it is that is necessary for them to do and anyway, since all leadership is essentially change management, getting people who are able to learn and change is the key. Here is the notion that leadership is a particular set of skills that can be applied anywhere and is always just as effective. This exaggerated version of the story isn鈥檛 entirely the case, even for this author, but the differences that make a difference are never so much around the types of work expected, but rather the 鈥榲alues鈥� of the company and in getting employees who will live up to those. Finding people who share the company鈥檚 values is central to getting the right people.
We need to talk about hindsight bias. When a company is successful it is pretty likely that it is successful because all the bits of the company work well together. If some bits of the company are actively working to undermine other bits of the company it would seem pretty likely that the company as a whole isn鈥檛 going to be successful. So, saying that very successful companies are made up of parts that work well together and that the people leading those parts are team players all seems a bit obvious to me. Perhaps saying 鈥榯hey are the right people in the right jobs鈥� is saying something important - but it isn鈥檛 at all clear to me how you would know beforehand.
Given that everyone is an expert in hindsight, it wasn鈥檛 all that clear to me how you might go about picking the 鈥榬ight people鈥� - and it also seemed pretty obvious that when things stuffed up, inevitably, you could argue that it was because you had inadvertently chosen the 鈥榳rong鈥� people. The other problem I have with this idea is one I also had with Taylorism and scientific management, which also has a long section on getting the 鈥榬ight people鈥� - that is, that too often leaders simply don鈥檛 have the luxury of being able to make those choices and of backing out of choices once it becomes clear the wrong one has been made. To me, a great leader would be one who can succeed with what they have, rather than having to create the perfect environment first. But I鈥檓 not exactly a great world leader, so, what would I know?
This problem of hindsight comes up again in the next attribute - great leaders face the brutal facts of the situation they find themselves in and are unflinching in how they stare into this particular abyss. It isn鈥檛 clear to me how you might navigate a changing environment - something all of these 鈥榞reat leaders鈥� here invariably did - without doing something that could be called 鈥榗oming to terms with the brutal facts of your situation鈥�. Look, I do understand that perhaps my shares in Hansom Cabs are never going to reach the dizzying heights they achieved in the 1870s, but I鈥檓 not sure just what 鈥榖rutally鈥� facing reality means - other than it being something you will inevitably say you have done when any changes you make pay off.
I have another problem with this - and that relates to the basic positivist underlying assumptions of such theories. That is, the idea that there is essentially one 鈥榯ruth鈥� and even though it 鈥榣ikes to hide鈥�, if you pursue it with objectivity and determination you will certainly find it. I feel the world is much more messy than that and that while you can say that if you don鈥檛 pay any attention to the world around you then things are likely to stuff up pretty badly, you are always operating with incomplete data (something they even say at one point) and so being told to face what that data tells you with unflinching determination is either not telling us very much or possibly not even telling us anything at all.
The next metaphor that gets a long run is the fox and the hedgehog. Basically, this comes from some philosopher who said there are two kinds of people (and, unfortunately didn鈥檛 go on to say, those who group people into two camps and those who don鈥檛) - rather he felt the two groups were those who are like foxes: smart, resourceful, cunning and innovative - and those like hedgehogs, with basically one trick - to roll into a ball.
This guy is particularly fond of hedgehogs. He advises companies to figure out their hedgehog concept is - that is, the basic idea they have that might allow them to become best in the world at, the idea that makes them their money, and that drives their passion (you know, just like a hedgehog is passionate about rolling into a ball) and then to make sure everything they do as a company is focused on that hedgehog concept. My problem here is that while the author has problems with foxes, it isn鈥檛 clear to me that the fox has been evolutionarily less successful than the hedgehog. In fact, the author spends quite a bit of time talking about General Electric and, well, fitting this company into the hedgehog idea seemed a bit of 鈥榮quare peg and round hole鈥� problem to me.
That said, it is hard to see how 鈥榝igure out what you are good at and do that鈥� could be bad advice. I can鈥檛 say I came away from this book thinking, 鈥榳ow, who鈥檇 have thought you should do what you are good at if you want to succeed?鈥�
There was a nice bit of this book about technology - that it, on its own, doesn鈥檛 lead to greatness, although it always plays a role. Pretty much the advice here is to work out what you need to do to be great and then figure out how technology might help you achieve that, rather than hope putting wiz-bang technology into your systems will somehow make them good systems. This seems completely obvious to me as well, however.
As you might already know, I generally don鈥檛 read books like this, but I鈥檝e had to as I鈥檓 doing research on Teach for Australia and they stress that teaching is leadership - and use this book to support that claim. So, I was expecting this book to be something quite different to what it turned out to be - I was expecting it to be something much more, to be honest. It is hard to be in your 50鈥檚 and have decades of working with people who have been keen to implement the kinds of ideas discussed in this book upon people in their organisations, without being somewhat cynical about such visions splendid such leadership revolutionaries present. I can鈥檛 recommend this book, but it was important that I read it, I think.
This book is concerned with finding the attributes that companies have that start out average only to then move on to being exceptional. They have defined exceptional companies as those that perform at three times the market for 15 years 鈥� this is quite a good definition of exceptional, I guess. But, some of the companies have not done quite so well since this was written (not sure how many people would write a book today about the glories of Freddie Mac today, just saying) 鈥� the GFC clearly wasn鈥檛 all that kind to some companies and whether or not 鈥榣eadership鈥� was the only factor at play here is an interesting question in itself, although, given the success of these firms is tied to leadership in this book, presumably failure is also to be considered a leadership issue 鈥� still, this is all beyond the psycho-babble of this kind of book. Oh, I鈥檓 jumping ahead too quickly 鈥� but that, in a nutshell, is probably one of my main concerns with books like this 鈥� organisations are essentially collections of people engaged in complex interactions, and so psychology (that is, a science focused on the individual) is quite likely to miss the point. The limits of psychology in coming to terms with human interactions beyond the individual - is, again, an interesting question and one that is not addressed here at all. And this is hardly surprising, since a book that focuses our attention on how 'leadership' accounts for a businesses success is hardly going to move too far beyond 'psychology'.
The book finds that these companies all shared seven characteristics. The first of these was perhaps the one I found most interesting 鈥� that is, that their leaders all tended to be 鈥榓nti-Trump鈥� type people. That is, they were all people who were much more interested in the success of the company, rather than in their own personal success and aggrandisement - they tended to be humble, they tended to be focused on their love of whatever it was they were doing, rather than on having people tell them how fantastic they are. As such, these people often remained unsung despite the exceptional achievements they made. This often meant that they had a singleness of purpose that might not be as apparent in people who want success for its own sake. They also remained unsung for their success since they generally did not attribute their success to their own actions as much as other leaders (again, think Trump) might. They understood the luck and contingency involved in success and this fed into their own humility. Having a personal preference for humble people myself 鈥� the Japanese PM鈥檚 wife who sat beside Trump for 2 hours and did not let him know she spoke English is currently one of my heroes 鈥� it is nice that some management types think that such a personality trait is worthwhile. Like I said, this was a finding I was somewhat surprised to find in a book like this.
Perhaps the major benefit of such self-effacing people is that they understand that they are unlikely to be successful purely on their own. Therefore they are much more like to also see that it is essential that they surround themselves with people who are going to be good at what they do and that are, potentially, a bit like them in their dedication to the task at hand. In this book this idea is summed up by the idea of these leaders making sure they have the right people in the right place. There is lots of talk about buses thought out this book - basically, these books seem to be mostly about milking a particular metaphor or series of metaphors to death - getting people onto the bus, off the bus and in the right place on the bus being but one of those metaphors worked to death in this book. The author repeatedly says that getting the right people is more important than necessarily getting people who know what it is they are doing - the right people basically being able to learn whatever it is that is necessary for them to do and anyway, since all leadership is essentially change management, getting people who are able to learn and change is the key. Here is the notion that leadership is a particular set of skills that can be applied anywhere and is always just as effective. This exaggerated version of the story isn鈥檛 entirely the case, even for this author, but the differences that make a difference are never so much around the types of work expected, but rather the 鈥榲alues鈥� of the company and in getting employees who will live up to those. Finding people who share the company鈥檚 values is central to getting the right people.
We need to talk about hindsight bias. When a company is successful it is pretty likely that it is successful because all the bits of the company work well together. If some bits of the company are actively working to undermine other bits of the company it would seem pretty likely that the company as a whole isn鈥檛 going to be successful. So, saying that very successful companies are made up of parts that work well together and that the people leading those parts are team players all seems a bit obvious to me. Perhaps saying 鈥榯hey are the right people in the right jobs鈥� is saying something important - but it isn鈥檛 at all clear to me how you would know beforehand.
Given that everyone is an expert in hindsight, it wasn鈥檛 all that clear to me how you might go about picking the 鈥榬ight people鈥� - and it also seemed pretty obvious that when things stuffed up, inevitably, you could argue that it was because you had inadvertently chosen the 鈥榳rong鈥� people. The other problem I have with this idea is one I also had with Taylorism and scientific management, which also has a long section on getting the 鈥榬ight people鈥� - that is, that too often leaders simply don鈥檛 have the luxury of being able to make those choices and of backing out of choices once it becomes clear the wrong one has been made. To me, a great leader would be one who can succeed with what they have, rather than having to create the perfect environment first. But I鈥檓 not exactly a great world leader, so, what would I know?
This problem of hindsight comes up again in the next attribute - great leaders face the brutal facts of the situation they find themselves in and are unflinching in how they stare into this particular abyss. It isn鈥檛 clear to me how you might navigate a changing environment - something all of these 鈥榞reat leaders鈥� here invariably did - without doing something that could be called 鈥榗oming to terms with the brutal facts of your situation鈥�. Look, I do understand that perhaps my shares in Hansom Cabs are never going to reach the dizzying heights they achieved in the 1870s, but I鈥檓 not sure just what 鈥榖rutally鈥� facing reality means - other than it being something you will inevitably say you have done when any changes you make pay off.
I have another problem with this - and that relates to the basic positivist underlying assumptions of such theories. That is, the idea that there is essentially one 鈥榯ruth鈥� and even though it 鈥榣ikes to hide鈥�, if you pursue it with objectivity and determination you will certainly find it. I feel the world is much more messy than that and that while you can say that if you don鈥檛 pay any attention to the world around you then things are likely to stuff up pretty badly, you are always operating with incomplete data (something they even say at one point) and so being told to face what that data tells you with unflinching determination is either not telling us very much or possibly not even telling us anything at all.
The next metaphor that gets a long run is the fox and the hedgehog. Basically, this comes from some philosopher who said there are two kinds of people (and, unfortunately didn鈥檛 go on to say, those who group people into two camps and those who don鈥檛) - rather he felt the two groups were those who are like foxes: smart, resourceful, cunning and innovative - and those like hedgehogs, with basically one trick - to roll into a ball.
This guy is particularly fond of hedgehogs. He advises companies to figure out their hedgehog concept is - that is, the basic idea they have that might allow them to become best in the world at, the idea that makes them their money, and that drives their passion (you know, just like a hedgehog is passionate about rolling into a ball) and then to make sure everything they do as a company is focused on that hedgehog concept. My problem here is that while the author has problems with foxes, it isn鈥檛 clear to me that the fox has been evolutionarily less successful than the hedgehog. In fact, the author spends quite a bit of time talking about General Electric and, well, fitting this company into the hedgehog idea seemed a bit of 鈥榮quare peg and round hole鈥� problem to me.
That said, it is hard to see how 鈥榝igure out what you are good at and do that鈥� could be bad advice. I can鈥檛 say I came away from this book thinking, 鈥榳ow, who鈥檇 have thought you should do what you are good at if you want to succeed?鈥�
There was a nice bit of this book about technology - that it, on its own, doesn鈥檛 lead to greatness, although it always plays a role. Pretty much the advice here is to work out what you need to do to be great and then figure out how technology might help you achieve that, rather than hope putting wiz-bang technology into your systems will somehow make them good systems. This seems completely obvious to me as well, however.
As you might already know, I generally don鈥檛 read books like this, but I鈥檝e had to as I鈥檓 doing research on Teach for Australia and they stress that teaching is leadership - and use this book to support that claim. So, I was expecting this book to be something quite different to what it turned out to be - I was expecting it to be something much more, to be honest. It is hard to be in your 50鈥檚 and have decades of working with people who have been keen to implement the kinds of ideas discussed in this book upon people in their organisations, without being somewhat cynical about such visions splendid such leadership revolutionaries present. I can鈥檛 recommend this book, but it was important that I read it, I think.
September 9, 2021
I was hoping this book would give me some guidelines to remember when I start my own business. There were a few good points, but nothing compelling. Reading this book wasn't a very good use of my time.
Tips from the book:
First Who, then What
First, get the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off it), then figure out where to drive. Having the right people in the company is more important than deciding what the company will do, because the right people will help make that decision anyway. Whether a person is "right" or not depends on their character more than their knowledge and skills. Don't waste time dealing with people who aren't contributing; fire them ASAP.
Don't waste effort trying to motivate people; the right people are self-motivated. All you have to do is keep from de-motivating them.
The Hedgehog Concept
To become great, use the Hedgehog Concept: concentrate on the point of intersection between what you are passionate about, what you can be the best in the world at, and what drives your economic engine. The Hedgehog Concept is named for the simple hedgehog that does one thing well (curling up for defense), and is able to defeat the crafty fox which knows many things but acts inconsistently.
A Culture of Discipline
Ignore "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunities unless they fit in the 3 circles of the Hedgehog Concept.
Don't treat budgeting as allocating amounts of money to activities, but choose Hedgehog Concept activities to fully fund, and don't fund others. "Stop doing" lists are more important than "to do" lists.
Technology Accelerators
Does the technology fit directly with your Hedgehog Concept? If yes, then pioneer that technology. If not, settle for parity with your competitors, or ignore it.
Greatness happens as a result of long-term, consistent behavior, not a sudden lucky break or killer app.
Tips from the book:
First Who, then What
First, get the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off it), then figure out where to drive. Having the right people in the company is more important than deciding what the company will do, because the right people will help make that decision anyway. Whether a person is "right" or not depends on their character more than their knowledge and skills. Don't waste time dealing with people who aren't contributing; fire them ASAP.
Don't waste effort trying to motivate people; the right people are self-motivated. All you have to do is keep from de-motivating them.
The Hedgehog Concept
To become great, use the Hedgehog Concept: concentrate on the point of intersection between what you are passionate about, what you can be the best in the world at, and what drives your economic engine. The Hedgehog Concept is named for the simple hedgehog that does one thing well (curling up for defense), and is able to defeat the crafty fox which knows many things but acts inconsistently.
A Culture of Discipline
Ignore "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunities unless they fit in the 3 circles of the Hedgehog Concept.
Don't treat budgeting as allocating amounts of money to activities, but choose Hedgehog Concept activities to fully fund, and don't fund others. "Stop doing" lists are more important than "to do" lists.
Technology Accelerators
Does the technology fit directly with your Hedgehog Concept? If yes, then pioneer that technology. If not, settle for parity with your competitors, or ignore it.
Greatness happens as a result of long-term, consistent behavior, not a sudden lucky break or killer app.
November 21, 2014
A five year research study dedicated to analyzing the results of its own sampling bias without realizing it and puffed up with so much unnecessary fluff that the essence of the book could have been distilled on the front cover in a few bullet points under the title and it would have probably still been considered a waste of time to read.
August 4, 2009
I have no idea how much Jim Collins knows about business / management, but it is clear he鈥檚 mastered the art of writing a popular business / management book. The way I see it, the steps involved are:
* State up front what the themes are, but disguise at least a few of them with cryptic labels that portend greater meaning to those who venture further. Who wouldn鈥檛 read on when enticed by the promise of the lowly hedgehog鈥檚 secret for success or how Admiral Stockdale鈥檚 paradoxical key to survival as a P.O.W. can be applied for corporate gain?
* Supply lots of lists, charts, and visuals. Venn diagrams are especially good, it seems. The confluence of 3 good traits at the virtuous center constitutes a synergized sweet spot for those clever enough to recognize it.
* Make common sense bromides sound less trite. You can鈥檛 just say, 鈥淗ire good people.鈥� It鈥檚 better to say you have to get the right people on the bus, and further, that the right people have to be in the right seats. The bus connotes movement, you see; progress towards a common goal. Choosing the perfect metaphor is part of what separates the business-writing cream from the chaff.
* Common sense is good, but for variety, a few counterintuitive insights should be included, too. These can give the savvy reader an extra edge. Even the cagiest adversaries (among those outside the circle of 3 million purchasers privy to the book鈥檚 ironic findings) would not figure out such things as the importance of humility among top-tier leaders or that 鈥渟top doing鈥� lists are more important than 鈥渢o do鈥� lists.
* Bulletize. Summarize. Rinse. Repeat.
As I get off my weisenheiming horse for a minute, there probably are some useful concepts here. This was assigned reading in the office, and it does seem to have improved management focus. Plus, we鈥檝e now established a common language regarding the basic tenets (even if certain phrases are said with a smirk--hedgehogs on buses entering the flywheel will know what I鈥檓 talking about). I鈥檓 no expert, but it鈥檚 probably good for its type.
What I can鈥檛 decide is whether the book鈥檚 research methodology was effective or not. The basic idea was to construct a sample of consistent outperformers and another sample of peers that at one time looked similar, but ultimately languished. The researchers then asked what traits separated the two samples. I sympathize with how nebulous the differentiating factors would be. There鈥檚 an inherent squishiness to them, and judgment could cloud the data. It鈥檚 a difficult task. At the same time I think it鈥檚 fair to criticize the method for its backward-looking nature. In trying to discern cause and effect, something more along the lines of a lab, where various differences could be tested against a control group before knowing the outcomes, would carry more weight. I鈥檓 always a little suspicious of studies like this. If, for instance, the true driver of success was simply a fortuitous set of circumstances (right place, right time, right regulations, right trend) then it may appear, after the fact, that it was the right people in the right seats on the bus. I鈥檓 told Malcolm Gladwell鈥檚 new book gives luck the prominence it deserves.
* State up front what the themes are, but disguise at least a few of them with cryptic labels that portend greater meaning to those who venture further. Who wouldn鈥檛 read on when enticed by the promise of the lowly hedgehog鈥檚 secret for success or how Admiral Stockdale鈥檚 paradoxical key to survival as a P.O.W. can be applied for corporate gain?
* Supply lots of lists, charts, and visuals. Venn diagrams are especially good, it seems. The confluence of 3 good traits at the virtuous center constitutes a synergized sweet spot for those clever enough to recognize it.
* Make common sense bromides sound less trite. You can鈥檛 just say, 鈥淗ire good people.鈥� It鈥檚 better to say you have to get the right people on the bus, and further, that the right people have to be in the right seats. The bus connotes movement, you see; progress towards a common goal. Choosing the perfect metaphor is part of what separates the business-writing cream from the chaff.
* Common sense is good, but for variety, a few counterintuitive insights should be included, too. These can give the savvy reader an extra edge. Even the cagiest adversaries (among those outside the circle of 3 million purchasers privy to the book鈥檚 ironic findings) would not figure out such things as the importance of humility among top-tier leaders or that 鈥渟top doing鈥� lists are more important than 鈥渢o do鈥� lists.
* Bulletize. Summarize. Rinse. Repeat.
As I get off my weisenheiming horse for a minute, there probably are some useful concepts here. This was assigned reading in the office, and it does seem to have improved management focus. Plus, we鈥檝e now established a common language regarding the basic tenets (even if certain phrases are said with a smirk--hedgehogs on buses entering the flywheel will know what I鈥檓 talking about). I鈥檓 no expert, but it鈥檚 probably good for its type.
What I can鈥檛 decide is whether the book鈥檚 research methodology was effective or not. The basic idea was to construct a sample of consistent outperformers and another sample of peers that at one time looked similar, but ultimately languished. The researchers then asked what traits separated the two samples. I sympathize with how nebulous the differentiating factors would be. There鈥檚 an inherent squishiness to them, and judgment could cloud the data. It鈥檚 a difficult task. At the same time I think it鈥檚 fair to criticize the method for its backward-looking nature. In trying to discern cause and effect, something more along the lines of a lab, where various differences could be tested against a control group before knowing the outcomes, would carry more weight. I鈥檓 always a little suspicious of studies like this. If, for instance, the true driver of success was simply a fortuitous set of circumstances (right place, right time, right regulations, right trend) then it may appear, after the fact, that it was the right people in the right seats on the bus. I鈥檓 told Malcolm Gladwell鈥檚 new book gives luck the prominence it deserves.
July 13, 2020
I love this short lesson from Jim Collin's Good to Great:
"Put your best people on your biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems."
"Put your best people on your biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems."
December 22, 2011
Just (12/21/2011) re-read the book and love the concepts. But I knocked a star off of my rating since during this re-read I felt like the author puffed up the findings and, indirectly, himself. Sure, good-to-great principles seem to be true, insightful, and necessary for a transformation. I even found that re-reading this book helped me to realize I was being quite undisciplined in my use of time (trying to create momentum by doing, doing, doing instead of "unplugging extraneous junk.") But I don't think Collins has found the gospel and he plays it up to that level.
I started reading it and then gave it to my boss. I'm currently listening to the audio book but I would like to own a hardcover copy. (2007)
The concept that has struck me as most applicable (so far), particularly with respect to businesses, is the need to get the right people on the team first and in the right positions, then decide what to do. Managers should not waste time and energy motivating people to excellence. Instead, they should give self-motivating people a vision they can support and work hard to bring to realization. Fewer great people on the team are better than lots of mediocre people. The mediocre people just make extra work for the great people and the net result is "good". It's easier to be great than good.
Another interesting concept I've been told about, but haven't read about yet, is the flywheel. Progress is made by implementing small changes at opportune times. Momentum is gained slowly and steadily by these small, periodic decisions. The image used by Collins is that of a flywheel with lots of inertia. Each little push eases the flywheel ahead. The wheel starts rotating slowly but as little pushes continue to be made, the wheel picks up momentum and is hard to stop. This concept is seen in the growth that companies like Google have experienced. Google started out as just a slightly better search engine. Small changes at opportune times have turned it into the booming multi-service company that it is today
I started reading it and then gave it to my boss. I'm currently listening to the audio book but I would like to own a hardcover copy. (2007)
The concept that has struck me as most applicable (so far), particularly with respect to businesses, is the need to get the right people on the team first and in the right positions, then decide what to do. Managers should not waste time and energy motivating people to excellence. Instead, they should give self-motivating people a vision they can support and work hard to bring to realization. Fewer great people on the team are better than lots of mediocre people. The mediocre people just make extra work for the great people and the net result is "good". It's easier to be great than good.
Another interesting concept I've been told about, but haven't read about yet, is the flywheel. Progress is made by implementing small changes at opportune times. Momentum is gained slowly and steadily by these small, periodic decisions. The image used by Collins is that of a flywheel with lots of inertia. Each little push eases the flywheel ahead. The wheel starts rotating slowly but as little pushes continue to be made, the wheel picks up momentum and is hard to stop. This concept is seen in the growth that companies like Google have experienced. Google started out as just a slightly better search engine. Small changes at opportune times have turned it into the booming multi-service company that it is today
May 4, 2012
There is a valuable lesson in this book:
- Books are printed to make someone else money.
With this singular lesson in mind you can now unlock the secrets of all business and marketing books: the lesson isn't printed on the page, it's between the lines. This book sought, as all 'business' books do, to titillate you with facts, get you revved about the possibilities in your life to acquire great and fabulous riches through the magic of 'excellence' and set you loose into the world with your hair on fire and your eyes ablaze with new possibilities.
But there is no lesson taught. Euphemisms and equations all without constants or definition fill the pages. And that's the magic: You make your own definition for these catch phrases: On the Bus, Build your Council, etc. etc. Like any great allegory, or pop song, or religious verse, you assign your own meaning and off you go.
If there's an upside to all this I think it's in the true power of a 'business' book; It energizes a group of people to do what they already know how to do and want to do. If enough people in the organization read the book and buy into this zeal then change, for better or worse, can happen. But don't expect to actually learn anything more than a bit of business history from this title. The stories are true, but there's no business lesson here that you don't already know.
So, are you ready to buy in?
- Books are printed to make someone else money.
With this singular lesson in mind you can now unlock the secrets of all business and marketing books: the lesson isn't printed on the page, it's between the lines. This book sought, as all 'business' books do, to titillate you with facts, get you revved about the possibilities in your life to acquire great and fabulous riches through the magic of 'excellence' and set you loose into the world with your hair on fire and your eyes ablaze with new possibilities.
But there is no lesson taught. Euphemisms and equations all without constants or definition fill the pages. And that's the magic: You make your own definition for these catch phrases: On the Bus, Build your Council, etc. etc. Like any great allegory, or pop song, or religious verse, you assign your own meaning and off you go.
If there's an upside to all this I think it's in the true power of a 'business' book; It energizes a group of people to do what they already know how to do and want to do. If enough people in the organization read the book and buy into this zeal then change, for better or worse, can happen. But don't expect to actually learn anything more than a bit of business history from this title. The stories are true, but there's no business lesson here that you don't already know.
So, are you ready to buy in?
September 11, 2015
Nh峄痭g con s峄� bi岷縯 n贸i kh谩 th煤 v峄�
6000 b脿i b谩o
2000 trang ph峄弉g v岷
15.000 gi峄� l脿m vi峄嘽
21 nh脿 nghi锚n c峄﹗ l脿m vi峄嘽 su峄憈 5 n膬m
1435 c么ng ty 膽瓢峄 ch峄峮 t峄� danh s谩ch Fortune 500
28 c么ng ty 膽瓢峄 ch岷痶 l峄峜.
11 c么ng ty nh岷 v峄峵
11 c么ng ty c岷h tranh tr峄眂 ti岷縫
6 c么ng ty ng岷痭 ng脿y
Cu峄慽 c霉ng l脿, ra 膽峄漣 1 cu峄憂 s谩ch: T峄� T峄怲 膼岷綨 V抹 膼岷營.
Quy峄僴 s谩ch 膽茫 g煤t ch峄憈 膽瓢峄 6 y岷縰 t峄� chung nh岷 c峄 m峄檛 c么ng ty t峄� t峄憈 膽岷縩 v末 膽岷
(1) Nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 膽峄� 5
T铆nh c谩ch 膽岷穋 tr瓢ng ki峄僽 d岷g nh瓢 th岷 Gi岷g T瓢 Trung, B谩c H峄�. V峄沬 phong th谩i 膽i峄乵 t末nh, khi锚m nh瓢峄漬g song 岷﹏ ch峄゛ b锚n trong l脿 m峄檛 quy岷縯 t芒m m岷h m岷�.
Tr谩i ng瓢峄 v峄沬 l岷 h矛nh 岷h nh峄痭g nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 "l峄沶 ti岷縩g" nh瓢 Hitler, nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 lu么n to m峄搈 v峄� nh峄痭g th峄� m矛nh l脿m.
Nh峄痭g nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 5 c贸 2 膽峄﹏g t铆nh song song: KHI脢N NH漂峄淣G v脿 脻 CH脥. Th峄� hi峄噉 qua 2 h矛nh 岷h l脿 C峄珹 S峄� v脿 G漂茽NG.
Khi h峄� c贸 th脿nh t铆ch d岷玭 d岷痶 c么ng ty l锚n v末 膽岷, h峄� cho m峄峣 th峄� qua c峄璦 s峄�: 峄�, t么i may m岷痭 l脿m vi峄嘽 v峄沬 nh峄痭g 膽峄搉g nghi峄噋 tuy峄噒 v峄漣. Ch煤ng t么i nh峄� c贸 nh峄痭g c啤 h峄檌 t峄憈 n锚n m峄沬 nh瓢 th岷�.... nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 5 d霉ng WE, kh么ng v峄� ng峄眂 x瓢ng I.
Song khi g岷穚 th岷 b岷 锚 ch峄�, h峄� SOI G漂茽NG v脿 nh岷璶 l峄梚 v峄� m矛nh, l煤c n脿y h峄� d霉ng I, ko 膽峄� l峄梚, tr谩ch m贸c, m脿 I'm responsiblity for our mistakes.
(2) Con ng瓢峄漣 膽i tr瓢峄沜 - c么ng vi峄嘽 theo sau
膼i峄乽 quan tr峄峮g l脿 ch峄峮 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 l锚n xe, m峄漣 ng瓢峄漣 ko ph霉 h峄 xu峄憂g xe, 膽岷穞 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 v脿o 膽煤ng v峄� tr铆, r峄搃 ti岷縫 膽贸 m峄沬 膽岷縩 N脌O CH脷NG TA 膼I 膼脗U 膼脗Y. Khi 膽茫 c贸 ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 r峄搃 m峄沬 quy岷縯 膽峄媙h h瓢峄沶g 膽i, chi岷縩 l瓢峄.
(3) 膼峄慽 m岷穞 s峄� th岷璽 ph农 ph脿ng
Ngh峄媍h l媒 Stockdale: tin t瓢峄焠g m茫nh li峄噒 v脿o m峄檛 k岷縯 qu岷� t瓢啤ng lai t瓢啤i s谩ng NH漂NG 膼峄扤G TH峄淚 ph岷 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 th峄眂 t岷 u 谩m. Th岷� m峄沬 gh锚, 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 u 谩m m脿 c貌n d谩m tin v脿o t瓢啤i s谩ng.
L岷 quan m脿 kh么ng d谩m 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 s峄� th岷璽, 膽贸 ch峄� l脿 l岷 quan T岷綰. L岷 quan 岷 t瓢峄焠g, v脿 n贸 s岷� gi岷縯 ch岷縯 l岷 l岷 s峄� hy v峄峮g c峄 ch煤ng ta.
(4) Kh谩i ni峄噈 con nh铆m
Kh谩i ni峄噈 con nh铆m l脿 膽i峄僲 m岷 ch峄憈 膽峄� t峄� t峄憈 l锚n v末 膽岷. N贸 l脿 T芒m ch岷 c峄 3 v貌ng tr貌n
- 膼am m锚 c谩i g矛: b贸ng 膽谩, ca h谩t, di峄卬 xu岷, ch峄痑 b峄噉h, l岷痯 r谩p, x芒y d峄眓g...
- Gi峄廼 c谩i g矛 nh岷: h峄峜 to谩n cao 膽i峄僲 nh岷 kh么ng ch岷痗 s岷� tr峄� th脿nh nh脿 to谩n h峄峜 gi峄廼 nh岷. C贸 th峄� gi峄廼 kinh doanh, gi峄廼 giao ti岷縫, gi峄廼 truy峄乶 th么ng...
- m岷玼 s峄� chung l峄 nhu岷璶: l峄 nhu岷璶 tr锚n x. C谩i n脿y c岷 s峄� am hi峄僽 th岷 膽谩o c么ng ty
K岷縯 h峄 3 c谩i n脿y l岷, gi峄� cho m矛nh S峄� K峄� LU岷琓, S峄� H漂峄歂G T脗M v脿 t芒m ch岷 c峄 3 v貌ng tr貌n n脿y
M岷 th峄漣 gian kh谩 l芒u v脿 c贸 s峄� am hi峄僽 th岷 膽谩o v峄� c么ng ty m峄沬 c贸 th峄� t岷 ra m峄檛 CON NH脥M ph霉 h峄. C贸 c么ng ty m岷 3 n膬m, 5 n膬m, th岷璵 ch铆 l脿 10 n膬m. Einstein m岷 15 n膬m 膽i trong s瓢啤ng m霉 膽峄� t矛m ra thuy岷縯 t瓢啤ng 膽峄慽 m岷穋 d霉 么ng r岷 th么ng minh.
C芒u h峄廼 膽岷穞 ra l脿 l脿m th岷� n脿o t矛m ra "con nh铆m" c峄 m矛nh.
膼贸 l脿 m峄檛 v貌ng l岷穚. Ch峄峮 ra m峄檛 "h峄檌" t峄� 5-12 ch煤, c贸 岷h h瓢峄焠g trong c么ng ty, th瓢峄漬g l脿 nh贸m 膽i峄乽 h脿nh, v脿 b岷痶 膽岷 th峄眂 hi峄噉
(1) 膼岷穞 c芒u h峄廼 膼煤ng d峄盿 tr锚n ba v貌ng tr貌n
(2) Tranh lu岷璶 d峄盿 tr锚n c谩c c芒u h峄廼
(3) Quy岷縯 膽峄媙h c峄 nh脿 膽i峄乽 h脿nh d峄盿 tr锚n 3 v貌ng tr貌n
(4) Ph芒n t铆ch v脿 xem x茅t, h峄峜 h峄廼 l岷
v脿 th峄眂 hi峄噉 l岷 v貌ng l岷穚: l岷穚 膽i l岷穚 l岷 theo th峄漣 gian, v峄� nh峄痭g v岷 膽峄� s峄憂g c貌n v脿 mang t铆nh quy岷縯 膽峄媙h m脿 c么ng ty ph岷 膽峄慽 m岷穞.
(5) V膬n h贸a k峄� lu岷璽
Nh峄� ph岷 n脿y 1 c芒u duy nh岷: 膽峄玭g c峄� g岷痭g truy峄乶 膽峄檔g l峄眂 cho nh芒n vi锚n, c峄� t矛m 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 c贸 tinh th岷 k峄� lu岷璽, r峄搃 sau 膽贸 l脿m sao 膽峄玭g 膽峄� n贸 m岷 膽峄檔g l峄眂. C芒u h峄廼 峄� 膽芒y l脿 l脿m sao 膽峄玭g 膽峄� nh芒n vi锚n m岷 膽峄檔g l峄眂 ch峄� ko ph岷 l脿 l脿m sao 膽峄� truy峄乶 膽峄檔g l峄眂 cho nh芒n vi锚n.
C岷 th岷 v膬n h贸a n脿y c贸 t铆nh t峄� gi谩c, ch峄� 膽峄檔g r岷 cao, n锚n vi峄嘽 ch峄峮 ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 ngay t峄� 膽岷 r岷 quan tr峄峮g.
Cho n锚n, v膬n h贸a k峄� lu岷璽 t峄� nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 膽茫 c贸 tinh th岷 k峄� lu岷璽. K峄� lu岷璽 峄� 膽芒y kh么ng ph岷 l脿 chuy锚n ch岷� n贸i 1 l脿m 1, m脿 l脿 t峄� do trong m峄檛 khu么n kh峄�, t峄� do d谩m ngh末 d谩m n贸i d谩m l脿m, song trong khu么n kh峄� 3 con nh铆m. H峄� k峄� lu岷璽 ch峄� l脿m nh峄痭g vi峄嘽 h瓢峄沶g t芒m v脿o 3 con nh铆m, ch峄� kh么ng ph岷 l脿 膽峄� th峄廰 m茫n c谩i t么i cao sang qu媒 ph谩i c峄 m矛nh.
C谩i kh贸 c峄 s峄� k峄� lu岷璽 峄� 膽芒y l脿 膽峄慽 di峄噉 th峄眂 t岷� 膽峄� th岷 hi峄僽 m矛nh, bi岷縯 m矛nh n锚n "ng峄玭g" vi峄嘽 g矛, ti岷縫 t峄 g矛, v脿 膽岷穋 bi峄噒 l脿 bi岷縯 "t峄� ch峄慽" c啤 h峄檌 n脿o.
(6) B脿n 膽岷 c么ng ngh峄�
Nh矛n nh岷璶 c么ng ngh峄� ho脿n to脿n kh谩c, t么i ti锚n phong v峄� c么ng ngh峄�, nh瓢ng ph岷 h瓢峄沶g t芒m v脿o "chi岷縩 l瓢峄 con nh铆m". C么ng ngh峄� ko 膽i c霉ng con nh铆m l脿 h茅o.
V铆 d峄� b霉ng n峄� Internet, c谩c 么ng b谩n offline r岷 r岷 run s峄� c谩c shop online s岷� c贸 l峄 th岷� v脿 膬n h岷縯 kh谩ch h脿ng m矛nh. 峄� 膽芒y shop online ko ti锚n phong v峄� internet, nh瓢ng h峄� ti锚n phong s峄� d峄g internet 膽峄� 膽岷穞 h脿ng online, ti锚n phong s峄� d峄g internet ch膬m s贸c kh谩ch h脿ng. C么ng ngh峄� d瓢峄沬 g贸c nh矛n c峄 c谩c c么ng ty nh岷 v峄峵 l脿 nh瓢 th岷�.
......v脿 nh岷 v峄峵 ho岷穋 l峄 t脿n......
脻 th峄ヽ r岷眓g "mi峄噒 m脿i quay tay, v岷璶 may s岷� 膽岷縩". Con g脿 con n贸 mi峄噒 m脿i t铆ch l农y c么ng l峄眂 l峄沶 l锚n 膽峄� r峄搃 ph谩 v峄� qu谩 tr峄﹏g v脿 nhoi ra. Kh么ng c贸 s峄� nh岷 v峄峵 s茅t 膽谩nh n脿o c岷�, n贸 l脿 qu谩 tr矛nh "mi峄噒 m脿i quay tay, v岷璶 may s岷� 膽岷縩".
5 sao!
6000 b脿i b谩o
2000 trang ph峄弉g v岷
15.000 gi峄� l脿m vi峄嘽
21 nh脿 nghi锚n c峄﹗ l脿m vi峄嘽 su峄憈 5 n膬m
1435 c么ng ty 膽瓢峄 ch峄峮 t峄� danh s谩ch Fortune 500
28 c么ng ty 膽瓢峄 ch岷痶 l峄峜.
11 c么ng ty nh岷 v峄峵
11 c么ng ty c岷h tranh tr峄眂 ti岷縫
6 c么ng ty ng岷痭 ng脿y
Cu峄慽 c霉ng l脿, ra 膽峄漣 1 cu峄憂 s谩ch: T峄� T峄怲 膼岷綨 V抹 膼岷營.
Quy峄僴 s谩ch 膽茫 g煤t ch峄憈 膽瓢峄 6 y岷縰 t峄� chung nh岷 c峄 m峄檛 c么ng ty t峄� t峄憈 膽岷縩 v末 膽岷
(1) Nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 膽峄� 5
T铆nh c谩ch 膽岷穋 tr瓢ng ki峄僽 d岷g nh瓢 th岷 Gi岷g T瓢 Trung, B谩c H峄�. V峄沬 phong th谩i 膽i峄乵 t末nh, khi锚m nh瓢峄漬g song 岷﹏ ch峄゛ b锚n trong l脿 m峄檛 quy岷縯 t芒m m岷h m岷�.
Tr谩i ng瓢峄 v峄沬 l岷 h矛nh 岷h nh峄痭g nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 "l峄沶 ti岷縩g" nh瓢 Hitler, nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 lu么n to m峄搈 v峄� nh峄痭g th峄� m矛nh l脿m.
Nh峄痭g nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 5 c贸 2 膽峄﹏g t铆nh song song: KHI脢N NH漂峄淣G v脿 脻 CH脥. Th峄� hi峄噉 qua 2 h矛nh 岷h l脿 C峄珹 S峄� v脿 G漂茽NG.
Khi h峄� c贸 th脿nh t铆ch d岷玭 d岷痶 c么ng ty l锚n v末 膽岷, h峄� cho m峄峣 th峄� qua c峄璦 s峄�: 峄�, t么i may m岷痭 l脿m vi峄嘽 v峄沬 nh峄痭g 膽峄搉g nghi峄噋 tuy峄噒 v峄漣. Ch煤ng t么i nh峄� c贸 nh峄痭g c啤 h峄檌 t峄憈 n锚n m峄沬 nh瓢 th岷�.... nh脿 l茫nh 膽岷 c岷 5 d霉ng WE, kh么ng v峄� ng峄眂 x瓢ng I.
Song khi g岷穚 th岷 b岷 锚 ch峄�, h峄� SOI G漂茽NG v脿 nh岷璶 l峄梚 v峄� m矛nh, l煤c n脿y h峄� d霉ng I, ko 膽峄� l峄梚, tr谩ch m贸c, m脿 I'm responsiblity for our mistakes.
(2) Con ng瓢峄漣 膽i tr瓢峄沜 - c么ng vi峄嘽 theo sau
膼i峄乽 quan tr峄峮g l脿 ch峄峮 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 l锚n xe, m峄漣 ng瓢峄漣 ko ph霉 h峄 xu峄憂g xe, 膽岷穞 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 v脿o 膽煤ng v峄� tr铆, r峄搃 ti岷縫 膽贸 m峄沬 膽岷縩 N脌O CH脷NG TA 膼I 膼脗U 膼脗Y. Khi 膽茫 c贸 ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 r峄搃 m峄沬 quy岷縯 膽峄媙h h瓢峄沶g 膽i, chi岷縩 l瓢峄.
(3) 膼峄慽 m岷穞 s峄� th岷璽 ph农 ph脿ng
Ngh峄媍h l媒 Stockdale: tin t瓢峄焠g m茫nh li峄噒 v脿o m峄檛 k岷縯 qu岷� t瓢啤ng lai t瓢啤i s谩ng NH漂NG 膼峄扤G TH峄淚 ph岷 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 th峄眂 t岷 u 谩m. Th岷� m峄沬 gh锚, 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 u 谩m m脿 c貌n d谩m tin v脿o t瓢啤i s谩ng.
L岷 quan m脿 kh么ng d谩m 膽峄慽 di峄噉 v峄沬 s峄� th岷璽, 膽贸 ch峄� l脿 l岷 quan T岷綰. L岷 quan 岷 t瓢峄焠g, v脿 n贸 s岷� gi岷縯 ch岷縯 l岷 l岷 s峄� hy v峄峮g c峄 ch煤ng ta.
(4) Kh谩i ni峄噈 con nh铆m
Kh谩i ni峄噈 con nh铆m l脿 膽i峄僲 m岷 ch峄憈 膽峄� t峄� t峄憈 l锚n v末 膽岷. N贸 l脿 T芒m ch岷 c峄 3 v貌ng tr貌n
- 膼am m锚 c谩i g矛: b贸ng 膽谩, ca h谩t, di峄卬 xu岷, ch峄痑 b峄噉h, l岷痯 r谩p, x芒y d峄眓g...
- Gi峄廼 c谩i g矛 nh岷: h峄峜 to谩n cao 膽i峄僲 nh岷 kh么ng ch岷痗 s岷� tr峄� th脿nh nh脿 to谩n h峄峜 gi峄廼 nh岷. C贸 th峄� gi峄廼 kinh doanh, gi峄廼 giao ti岷縫, gi峄廼 truy峄乶 th么ng...
- m岷玼 s峄� chung l峄 nhu岷璶: l峄 nhu岷璶 tr锚n x. C谩i n脿y c岷 s峄� am hi峄僽 th岷 膽谩o c么ng ty
K岷縯 h峄 3 c谩i n脿y l岷, gi峄� cho m矛nh S峄� K峄� LU岷琓, S峄� H漂峄歂G T脗M v脿 t芒m ch岷 c峄 3 v貌ng tr貌n n脿y
M岷 th峄漣 gian kh谩 l芒u v脿 c贸 s峄� am hi峄僽 th岷 膽谩o v峄� c么ng ty m峄沬 c贸 th峄� t岷 ra m峄檛 CON NH脥M ph霉 h峄. C贸 c么ng ty m岷 3 n膬m, 5 n膬m, th岷璵 ch铆 l脿 10 n膬m. Einstein m岷 15 n膬m 膽i trong s瓢啤ng m霉 膽峄� t矛m ra thuy岷縯 t瓢啤ng 膽峄慽 m岷穋 d霉 么ng r岷 th么ng minh.
C芒u h峄廼 膽岷穞 ra l脿 l脿m th岷� n脿o t矛m ra "con nh铆m" c峄 m矛nh.
膼贸 l脿 m峄檛 v貌ng l岷穚. Ch峄峮 ra m峄檛 "h峄檌" t峄� 5-12 ch煤, c贸 岷h h瓢峄焠g trong c么ng ty, th瓢峄漬g l脿 nh贸m 膽i峄乽 h脿nh, v脿 b岷痶 膽岷 th峄眂 hi峄噉
(1) 膼岷穞 c芒u h峄廼 膼煤ng d峄盿 tr锚n ba v貌ng tr貌n
(2) Tranh lu岷璶 d峄盿 tr锚n c谩c c芒u h峄廼
(3) Quy岷縯 膽峄媙h c峄 nh脿 膽i峄乽 h脿nh d峄盿 tr锚n 3 v貌ng tr貌n
(4) Ph芒n t铆ch v脿 xem x茅t, h峄峜 h峄廼 l岷
v脿 th峄眂 hi峄噉 l岷 v貌ng l岷穚: l岷穚 膽i l岷穚 l岷 theo th峄漣 gian, v峄� nh峄痭g v岷 膽峄� s峄憂g c貌n v脿 mang t铆nh quy岷縯 膽峄媙h m脿 c么ng ty ph岷 膽峄慽 m岷穞.
(5) V膬n h贸a k峄� lu岷璽
Nh峄� ph岷 n脿y 1 c芒u duy nh岷: 膽峄玭g c峄� g岷痭g truy峄乶 膽峄檔g l峄眂 cho nh芒n vi锚n, c峄� t矛m 膽煤ng ng瓢峄漣 c贸 tinh th岷 k峄� lu岷璽, r峄搃 sau 膽贸 l脿m sao 膽峄玭g 膽峄� n贸 m岷 膽峄檔g l峄眂. C芒u h峄廼 峄� 膽芒y l脿 l脿m sao 膽峄玭g 膽峄� nh芒n vi锚n m岷 膽峄檔g l峄眂 ch峄� ko ph岷 l脿 l脿m sao 膽峄� truy峄乶 膽峄檔g l峄眂 cho nh芒n vi锚n.
C岷 th岷 v膬n h贸a n脿y c贸 t铆nh t峄� gi谩c, ch峄� 膽峄檔g r岷 cao, n锚n vi峄嘽 ch峄峮 ng瓢峄漣 ph霉 h峄 ngay t峄� 膽岷 r岷 quan tr峄峮g.
Cho n锚n, v膬n h贸a k峄� lu岷璽 t峄� nh峄痭g ng瓢峄漣 膽茫 c贸 tinh th岷 k峄� lu岷璽. K峄� lu岷璽 峄� 膽芒y kh么ng ph岷 l脿 chuy锚n ch岷� n贸i 1 l脿m 1, m脿 l脿 t峄� do trong m峄檛 khu么n kh峄�, t峄� do d谩m ngh末 d谩m n贸i d谩m l脿m, song trong khu么n kh峄� 3 con nh铆m. H峄� k峄� lu岷璽 ch峄� l脿m nh峄痭g vi峄嘽 h瓢峄沶g t芒m v脿o 3 con nh铆m, ch峄� kh么ng ph岷 l脿 膽峄� th峄廰 m茫n c谩i t么i cao sang qu媒 ph谩i c峄 m矛nh.
C谩i kh贸 c峄 s峄� k峄� lu岷璽 峄� 膽芒y l脿 膽峄慽 di峄噉 th峄眂 t岷� 膽峄� th岷 hi峄僽 m矛nh, bi岷縯 m矛nh n锚n "ng峄玭g" vi峄嘽 g矛, ti岷縫 t峄 g矛, v脿 膽岷穋 bi峄噒 l脿 bi岷縯 "t峄� ch峄慽" c啤 h峄檌 n脿o.
(6) B脿n 膽岷 c么ng ngh峄�
Nh矛n nh岷璶 c么ng ngh峄� ho脿n to脿n kh谩c, t么i ti锚n phong v峄� c么ng ngh峄�, nh瓢ng ph岷 h瓢峄沶g t芒m v脿o "chi岷縩 l瓢峄 con nh铆m". C么ng ngh峄� ko 膽i c霉ng con nh铆m l脿 h茅o.
V铆 d峄� b霉ng n峄� Internet, c谩c 么ng b谩n offline r岷 r岷 run s峄� c谩c shop online s岷� c贸 l峄 th岷� v脿 膬n h岷縯 kh谩ch h脿ng m矛nh. 峄� 膽芒y shop online ko ti锚n phong v峄� internet, nh瓢ng h峄� ti锚n phong s峄� d峄g internet 膽峄� 膽岷穞 h脿ng online, ti锚n phong s峄� d峄g internet ch膬m s贸c kh谩ch h脿ng. C么ng ngh峄� d瓢峄沬 g贸c nh矛n c峄 c谩c c么ng ty nh岷 v峄峵 l脿 nh瓢 th岷�.
......v脿 nh岷 v峄峵 ho岷穋 l峄 t脿n......
脻 th峄ヽ r岷眓g "mi峄噒 m脿i quay tay, v岷璶 may s岷� 膽岷縩". Con g脿 con n贸 mi峄噒 m脿i t铆ch l农y c么ng l峄眂 l峄沶 l锚n 膽峄� r峄搃 ph谩 v峄� qu谩 tr峄﹏g v脿 nhoi ra. Kh么ng c贸 s峄� nh岷 v峄峵 s茅t 膽谩nh n脿o c岷�, n贸 l脿 qu谩 tr矛nh "mi峄噒 m脿i quay tay, v岷璶 may s岷� 膽岷縩".
5 sao!
November 17, 2018
The good: interesting research, useful advice, great writing.
The not so good: the findings are not nearly as scientific, timeless, or widely applicable as the book claims.
The idea behind this book is that Collins and his team researched a large number of public companies, came up with a list of 11 that made a jump from "good performance" to "great performance" (i.e., significantly out-performed the market) over a sustained period of time, compared those 11 companies with 17 similar companies that never made the jump to "great" (or made the jump but couldn't sustain it), and based on this comparison, came up with a list of 7 "timeless principles" that it takes to go from good to great. Those 7 principles are:
1. Level 5 Leadership: Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company. This concept reminded of the type of leader described in the book, "The Captain Class." That is, good leadership is not about charisma, but about "carrying the water."
2. First Who, Then What: Get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to go. Find the right people and try them out in different seats on the bus (different positions in the company). One interesting tidbit I found was that bigger compensation does NOT incentivize better performance (similar to what is argued in the book "Drive"). Instead, compensation is there to get the right people on the bus鈥攖hat is, the key point of compensation is to hire and retain talent.
3. Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale paradox鈥擟onfront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope. I especially liked the idea of turn information into "information you can鈥檛 ignore." For example, don't just do surveys of how customers feel about the product; instead, let a customer decide how much to pay for your product (or not pay at all!) based on how happy they are. That is information you won't be able to ignore!
4. Hedgehog Concept: Three overlapping circles: What lights your fire ("passion")? What could you be best in the world at ("best at")鈥攁nd what can you not be the best in the world at? What makes you money ("driving resource")?
5. Culture of Discipline: Rinsing the cottage cheese. The idea is not to be a strict, harsh ruler, but to offer employees "freedom and responsibility within a framework." That is, you should hire self-disciplined people who don鈥檛 need to be managed and instead, focus all your time on managing the system.
6. Technology Accelerators: Using technology to accelerate growth, within the three circles of the hedgehog concept.
7. The Flywheel: The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest. Alignment and motivation follows from results鈥攏ot the other way around. So don't bother spending time on team building exercises or trying to motivate people; instead, manage the system, get results, and that will get the team to bond and be motivated.
While I agree with many of these principles, I don't find the research convincing that (a) it is precisely these characteristics that are necessary to go from good to great or (b) that even if these are the right characteristics, that they apply to the vast majority of companies.
For one thing, the sample size鈥攋ust 11 companies out of the millions that are out there鈥攊s way too small. Maybe it's because I just finished reading "Fooled by Randomness," but 11 wild successes out of a pool of millions strikes me as far more likely to be due to luck (and path dependence!) than strategy. The book tries to reduce the effect of luck by picking a long time timeline (15+ years), but if we had millions of monkeys picking stocks completely at random for a 15 year period, at the end of that period, it would not surprise me if a small number of those monkeys (say, 11) were wildly successful, simply through dumb luck. If this book had identified principles that were present in thousands of companies that were successful and absent in thousands of companies that failed, the argument might have been more convincing, but as it is, I have to more or less dismiss the book's claims that their results are "scientific" (and that's without even getting into the causation vs correlation debate!).
Lending more evidence to this argument of randomness is that the 11 "great" companies are not all paragons of success nowadays:
- Circuit City: filed for bankruptcy in 2008
- Fannie Mae: the book touts their "creative" mortgage practices which, as it turns out, played a major role in the 2008 mortgage crisis
- Gillette: touted as an example of refusing acquisition, but was then acquired by Procter & Gamble in 2005
- Philip Morris: I have no desire to follow practices from cigarette companies
- Wells Fargo: touted as a shining example of great leadership, but lawsuits have revealed a vast array of illegal practices, including massive account fraud in 2016 that implicated the CEO.
So nearly half of the 11 companies this book is based on are questionable, at best. Collins takes this issue heads on, saying that if some of the 11 companies struggle after the book is published, it just means that they are no longer following the 7 timeless principles. But to me, this is just a tautological "No true Scotsman" argument.
Finally, perhaps what bothers me most is that these 7 timeless principles come from research of gigantic public companies. I understand the book focuses on public companies because there's far more data available on public companies than private, but I'm not convinced that the findings from a handful of gigantic, publicly-traded corporations can be applied to 99.9% of business out there, and even less convinced by the book's argument that these learnings apply to other types of organizations too (e.g., churches, sports teams, etc).
Having said all that, I still think the 7 principles _are_ useful. The team that wrote this book is smart, talked with a lot of successful companies, and did find some useful insights. But the key thing to understand is that what they found are *tools*, not underlying principles. These are not laws of physics that have explanatory or predictive power, but merely observations of a few techniques that can be useful when trying to build a great company. If you think of this book as something to add to your toolbelt, you can get something useful out of it. If you think of it as a bible of how to build a great company, you may be disappointed.
As always, I've saved some of my favorite quotes:
鈥淕ood is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great. We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life.鈥�
鈥淭he purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.鈥�
鈥淵ou can accomplish anything in life, provided that you do not mind who gets the credit. 鈥擧ARRY S. TRUMAN鈥�
鈥淚t is no harder to build something great than to build something good. It might be statistically more rare, it but does not require more suffering than perpetuating mediocrity. It involves less suffering, and perhaps even less work.鈥� <--- I especially like this. Building something great does not require more suffering, but is vastly more satisfying.
The not so good: the findings are not nearly as scientific, timeless, or widely applicable as the book claims.
The idea behind this book is that Collins and his team researched a large number of public companies, came up with a list of 11 that made a jump from "good performance" to "great performance" (i.e., significantly out-performed the market) over a sustained period of time, compared those 11 companies with 17 similar companies that never made the jump to "great" (or made the jump but couldn't sustain it), and based on this comparison, came up with a list of 7 "timeless principles" that it takes to go from good to great. Those 7 principles are:
1. Level 5 Leadership: Leaders who are humble, but driven to do what's best for the company. This concept reminded of the type of leader described in the book, "The Captain Class." That is, good leadership is not about charisma, but about "carrying the water."
2. First Who, Then What: Get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to go. Find the right people and try them out in different seats on the bus (different positions in the company). One interesting tidbit I found was that bigger compensation does NOT incentivize better performance (similar to what is argued in the book "Drive"). Instead, compensation is there to get the right people on the bus鈥攖hat is, the key point of compensation is to hire and retain talent.
3. Confront the Brutal Facts: The Stockdale paradox鈥擟onfront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time, never give up hope. I especially liked the idea of turn information into "information you can鈥檛 ignore." For example, don't just do surveys of how customers feel about the product; instead, let a customer decide how much to pay for your product (or not pay at all!) based on how happy they are. That is information you won't be able to ignore!
4. Hedgehog Concept: Three overlapping circles: What lights your fire ("passion")? What could you be best in the world at ("best at")鈥攁nd what can you not be the best in the world at? What makes you money ("driving resource")?
5. Culture of Discipline: Rinsing the cottage cheese. The idea is not to be a strict, harsh ruler, but to offer employees "freedom and responsibility within a framework." That is, you should hire self-disciplined people who don鈥檛 need to be managed and instead, focus all your time on managing the system.
6. Technology Accelerators: Using technology to accelerate growth, within the three circles of the hedgehog concept.
7. The Flywheel: The additive effect of many small initiatives; they act on each other like compound interest. Alignment and motivation follows from results鈥攏ot the other way around. So don't bother spending time on team building exercises or trying to motivate people; instead, manage the system, get results, and that will get the team to bond and be motivated.
While I agree with many of these principles, I don't find the research convincing that (a) it is precisely these characteristics that are necessary to go from good to great or (b) that even if these are the right characteristics, that they apply to the vast majority of companies.
For one thing, the sample size鈥攋ust 11 companies out of the millions that are out there鈥攊s way too small. Maybe it's because I just finished reading "Fooled by Randomness," but 11 wild successes out of a pool of millions strikes me as far more likely to be due to luck (and path dependence!) than strategy. The book tries to reduce the effect of luck by picking a long time timeline (15+ years), but if we had millions of monkeys picking stocks completely at random for a 15 year period, at the end of that period, it would not surprise me if a small number of those monkeys (say, 11) were wildly successful, simply through dumb luck. If this book had identified principles that were present in thousands of companies that were successful and absent in thousands of companies that failed, the argument might have been more convincing, but as it is, I have to more or less dismiss the book's claims that their results are "scientific" (and that's without even getting into the causation vs correlation debate!).
Lending more evidence to this argument of randomness is that the 11 "great" companies are not all paragons of success nowadays:
- Circuit City: filed for bankruptcy in 2008
- Fannie Mae: the book touts their "creative" mortgage practices which, as it turns out, played a major role in the 2008 mortgage crisis
- Gillette: touted as an example of refusing acquisition, but was then acquired by Procter & Gamble in 2005
- Philip Morris: I have no desire to follow practices from cigarette companies
- Wells Fargo: touted as a shining example of great leadership, but lawsuits have revealed a vast array of illegal practices, including massive account fraud in 2016 that implicated the CEO.
So nearly half of the 11 companies this book is based on are questionable, at best. Collins takes this issue heads on, saying that if some of the 11 companies struggle after the book is published, it just means that they are no longer following the 7 timeless principles. But to me, this is just a tautological "No true Scotsman" argument.
Finally, perhaps what bothers me most is that these 7 timeless principles come from research of gigantic public companies. I understand the book focuses on public companies because there's far more data available on public companies than private, but I'm not convinced that the findings from a handful of gigantic, publicly-traded corporations can be applied to 99.9% of business out there, and even less convinced by the book's argument that these learnings apply to other types of organizations too (e.g., churches, sports teams, etc).
Having said all that, I still think the 7 principles _are_ useful. The team that wrote this book is smart, talked with a lot of successful companies, and did find some useful insights. But the key thing to understand is that what they found are *tools*, not underlying principles. These are not laws of physics that have explanatory or predictive power, but merely observations of a few techniques that can be useful when trying to build a great company. If you think of this book as something to add to your toolbelt, you can get something useful out of it. If you think of it as a bible of how to build a great company, you may be disappointed.
As always, I've saved some of my favorite quotes:
鈥淕ood is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great. We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life.鈥�
鈥淭he purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.鈥�
鈥淵ou can accomplish anything in life, provided that you do not mind who gets the credit. 鈥擧ARRY S. TRUMAN鈥�
鈥淚t is no harder to build something great than to build something good. It might be statistically more rare, it but does not require more suffering than perpetuating mediocrity. It involves less suffering, and perhaps even less work.鈥� <--- I especially like this. Building something great does not require more suffering, but is vastly more satisfying.
January 5, 2019
賴匕丕 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘 丕賱乇丕卅毓丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵囟丨 賱賰 亘毓賷丿丕賸 毓賳 丕賱丿噩賱 賵丕賱賵賴賲 賵丕賱禺乇丕賮丞 賰賷賮 鬲賳噩丨 丕賱卮乇賰丕鬲 丕賱賰亘乇賶 賵鬲鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 卮乇賰丕鬲 毓馗賷賲丞
毓亘乇 9 賮氐賵賱 賲賲賷夭丞 賷兀禺匕賳丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賮乇賷賯賴 丕賱亘丨孬賷 賵賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丿乇丕爻丞 賲毓賲賯丞 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 1453 卮乇賰丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 賲卮賴賵乇丞 賵睾賷乇 賲卮賴賵乇丞 孬賲 鬲氐賮賷丞 丕賱乇賯賲 廿賱賶 11 卮乇賰丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 鬲賳胤亘賯 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賱禺丕氐丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇乇賴丕 賲毓 賮乇賷賯賴 丕賱亘丨孬賷 賱賷毓乇賮 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 丨丿鬲 亘丕賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賰賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 卮乇賰丕鬲 毓馗賷賲丞
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 6 賯賵丕毓丿 兀爻丕爻賷丞 鬲鬲禺賱賱賴丕 3 賲賳馗賵賲丕鬲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 賵賴賷
1- 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤賵賳
2- 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤
3- 丕賱鬲賳賮賷匕 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤
兀賲丕 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賮賴賷:
1- 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 5
2- 賲賳 兀賵賱丕賸 孬賲 賲丕匕丕
3- 賵丕噩賴 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱賯丕爻賷丞
4- 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賯賳賮匕
5- 孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱丕賳囟亘丕胤
6- 賲爻乇賾毓丕鬲 丕賱鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕
賯丿 鬲馗賳賾 兀賳賾 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賴 賱賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賮賯胤 賱賰賳 賱賵 兀賳毓賲鬲賻 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賱賵噩丿鬲賴丕 鬲賳胤亘賯 兀賷囟丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 兀賷囟丕賸.
廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲賱賵賱丕賸 賵賱丕 胤丕賯丞 賱賰 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賱賾賴 賮兀乇噩賵 賲賳賰 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱乇丕亘毓 賮賯胤 [ 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賯賳賮匕 ] 賮賴賵 賲賳 兀噩賲賱 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
兀毓噩亘賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賾賴 噩賴丿 亘丨孬賷 賲卮鬲乇賰 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賲毓丕賵賳賷賴 賵賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賱賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 賲毓賴賲 賵賱賷爻 賲噩乇賾丿 爻乇丿 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賳噩丕丨賴賲.
賲賳 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 亘賷 賯賵賱賴 廿賳賾 丕賱賳丕馗乇 賱賳噩丕丨 丕賱卮乇賰丕丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱禺丕乇噩 賷馗賳賾 兀賳賾 丕賱兀賲乇 鬲賲 亘囟乇亘丞 丨馗 兀賵 鬲丨賵賾賱 賱丨馗賷 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賲賳 丕賱丿丕禺賱 鬲賲賾 毓亘乇 爻賱爻賱丞 胤賵賷賱丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓亘 賵丕賱鬲禺胤賷胤 賵丕賱亘匕賱
賮賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 "賳噩丕丨 賲賮丕噩卅 "
亘賱 賴賵 兀賯乇亘 賱賱賵賴賲
賷丕 廿鬲卮 丌乇丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲.. 丕賯乇丐賵賴
毓亘乇 9 賮氐賵賱 賲賲賷夭丞 賷兀禺匕賳丕 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賵賮乇賷賯賴 丕賱亘丨孬賷 賵賲賳 禺賱丕賱 丿乇丕爻丞 賲毓賲賯丞 賱兀賰孬乇 賲賳 1453 卮乇賰丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 賲卮賴賵乇丞 賵睾賷乇 賲卮賴賵乇丞 孬賲 鬲氐賮賷丞 丕賱乇賯賲 廿賱賶 11 卮乇賰丞 毓丕賱賲賷丞 鬲賳胤亘賯 毓賱賷賴丕 丕賱賲毓丕賷賷乇 丕賱禺丕氐丞 丕賱鬲賷 賯乇乇賴丕 賲毓 賮乇賷賯賴 丕賱亘丨孬賷 賱賷毓乇賮 丕賱兀爻亘丕亘 丕賱鬲賷 丨丿鬲 亘丕賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賰賷 鬲鬲丨賵賱 廿賱賶 卮乇賰丕鬲 毓馗賷賲丞
賲賳 禺賱丕賱 6 賯賵丕毓丿 兀爻丕爻賷丞 鬲鬲禺賱賱賴丕 3 賲賳馗賵賲丕鬲 乇卅賷爻賷丞 賵賴賷
1- 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤賵賳
2- 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤
3- 丕賱鬲賳賮賷匕 丕賱賲賳囟亘胤
兀賲丕 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賮賴賷:
1- 賲爻鬲賵賶 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 5
2- 賲賳 兀賵賱丕賸 孬賲 賲丕匕丕
3- 賵丕噩賴 丕賱丨賯丕卅賯 丕賱賯丕爻賷丞
4- 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賯賳賮匕
5- 孬賯丕賮丞 丕賱丕賳囟亘丕胤
6- 賲爻乇賾毓丕鬲 丕賱鬲賰賳賵賱賵噩賷丕
賯丿 鬲馗賳賾 兀賳賾 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賵噩賴 賱賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賮賯胤 賱賰賳 賱賵 兀賳毓賲鬲賻 丕賱賳馗乇 賮賷 鬲賮丕氐賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯賵丕毓丿 賱賵噩丿鬲賴丕 鬲賳胤亘賯 兀賷囟丕賸 毓賱賶 丕賱兀賮乇丕丿 兀賷囟丕賸.
廿匕丕 賰賳鬲 賲賱賵賱丕賸 賵賱丕 胤丕賯丞 賱賰 亘賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰賱賾賴 賮兀乇噩賵 賲賳賰 賯乇丕亍丞 丕賱賮氐賱 丕賱乇丕亘毓 賮賯胤 [ 賲賮賴賵賲 丕賱賯賳賮匕 ] 賮賴賵 賲賳 兀噩賲賱 賮氐賵賱 丕賱賰鬲丕亘
兀毓噩亘賳賷 賮賷 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳賾賴 噩賴丿 亘丨孬賷 賲卮鬲乇賰 亘賷賳 丕賱賲丐賱賮 賵賲毓丕賵賳賷賴 賵賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲亘丕卮乇丞 賱賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賵丕賱丨賵丕乇 賲毓賴賲 賵賱賷爻 賲噩乇賾丿 爻乇丿 鬲丕乇賷禺賷 賱賳噩丕丨賴賲.
賲賳 丕賱毓亘丕乇丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 兀孬乇鬲 亘賷 賯賵賱賴 廿賳賾 丕賱賳丕馗乇 賱賳噩丕丨 丕賱卮乇賰丕丕鬲 賲賳 丕賱禺丕乇噩 賷馗賳賾 兀賳賾 丕賱兀賲乇 鬲賲 亘囟乇亘丞 丨馗 兀賵 鬲丨賵賾賱 賱丨馗賷 賱賰賳 丕賱兀賲乇 賲賳 丕賱丿丕禺賱 鬲賲賾 毓亘乇 爻賱爻賱丞 胤賵賷賱丞 賲賳 丕賱鬲毓亘 賵丕賱鬲禺胤賷胤 賵丕賱亘匕賱
賮賱丕 賵噩賵丿 賱卮賷亍 丕爻賲賴 "賳噩丕丨 賲賮丕噩卅 "
亘賱 賴賵 兀賯乇亘 賱賱賵賴賲
賷丕 廿鬲卮 丌乇丕鬲 丕賱毓丕賱賲.. 丕賯乇丐賵賴
December 16, 2012
Good is the enemy of the great. That is the first sentence and thesis of this book. In other words, if you're performing adequately, your motivation to improve yourself can easily be stifled. After all, you're getting by. Why put in all that discipline to go from good to great? But if you want to go from good to great, this book promises you the secrets of doing it.
I guess I'm destined to be merely good because I'm returning this book to the library unfinished. I thought the advice was worth applying for the first half, but then I got to the point that said, "Figure out what you can be best in the world at. If you can't be the best in the world, then stop doing it."
Excuse me? Only the best is good enough? C'mon. Only one can be the best. The world is full of many, many second-bests, and we get along just fine.
Perhaps it's incorrect for me to try to apply these principles, which are meant for businesses, to my life as an individual. But I believe what I say for businesses, too. Not everybody can be the best. You can strive to be better, but if "best" is your goal, you're more likely to be disappointed than to succeed. And if not being the best is enough reason to give up, then I give up on this book.
Too bad. I really did want to become great.
I guess I'm destined to be merely good because I'm returning this book to the library unfinished. I thought the advice was worth applying for the first half, but then I got to the point that said, "Figure out what you can be best in the world at. If you can't be the best in the world, then stop doing it."
Excuse me? Only the best is good enough? C'mon. Only one can be the best. The world is full of many, many second-bests, and we get along just fine.
Perhaps it's incorrect for me to try to apply these principles, which are meant for businesses, to my life as an individual. But I believe what I say for businesses, too. Not everybody can be the best. You can strive to be better, but if "best" is your goal, you're more likely to be disappointed than to succeed. And if not being the best is enough reason to give up, then I give up on this book.
Too bad. I really did want to become great.
August 25, 2007
OK, so I'm making my way through this book... painfully, slowly, pyromaniacly.... and, I do have to say it is FANTASTIC if you find yourself surrounded by people without common sense. Of course, I don't have a business degree... oh, wait, I'm not supposed to have common sense.
Anyways, now that I've trailed off into ADD tangents, my boss gave me this book to read and I do like the principles. I have one thing to say: way better than the teaching books I used to have to read. GEESH!
Anyways, now that I've trailed off into ADD tangents, my boss gave me this book to read and I do like the principles. I have one thing to say: way better than the teaching books I used to have to read. GEESH!
January 28, 2018
2 猸愶笍's: Read the chapter list, that may be all you need.
General run-of-the-mill business book full of generic platitudes, and slightly annoying catch phrases (hello Hedgehog, Flywheel, and BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal)). Vague themes seem intended for mass appeal, as opposed to providing any practical advice.
To save you time, here are the chapters:
1) Good is the Enemy of Great
2) Level 5 Leadership
3) First Who, Then What
4) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)
5) The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity Within the Three Circles)
6) A Culture of Discipline
7) Technology Accelerators
8) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop
9) From Good to Great to Built to Last
Maybe if this is one of the first business books you've ever read it will hold more water. If you've read even a handful, you'll find nothing new here. Much of the book deals with common sense and well known facts, put into cutesy sayings. For example:
"The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there.
No, they first got the right people on the bus鈥攁nd the wrong people off the bus鈥攁nd then figured out where to drive it."
The right people will be self motivated? It takes the right people to be great? Thank you for the insight! Facts are better than dreams? I never realized!
Technology can help a business be great, but it is only an accelerant, not a creator of momentum. "Thoughtless reliance on technology is a liability, not an asset." "Good to great companies continually refine the path to greatness with the brutal facts of reality." "There is nothing wrong with pursuing a vision for greatness." Success takes time and discipline, and you should focus on what you can do better than any other company. "Disciplined people, disciplined thought, disciplined action鈥攖hat's it, that's the essence of the breakthrough process."
I'll stop here, you get the idea.
tl;dr
Printed in 2001, you can find plenty of . Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but this book irritated me good ... to a great amount.
~ Epilogue: "Resiliency, not perfection, is the signature of greatness." Collins updated the epilogue a decade later and defended his choice of companies in case studies, some of which went under in the interim. Just because a company becomes great, does not mean it will stay great. ~
Favorite Quotes:
鈥淭he purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.鈥�
鈥淕ood is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great. We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life.鈥�
"It is your work in life that is the ultimate seduction."
鈥� Pablo Picasso
General run-of-the-mill business book full of generic platitudes, and slightly annoying catch phrases (hello Hedgehog, Flywheel, and BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goal)). Vague themes seem intended for mass appeal, as opposed to providing any practical advice.
To save you time, here are the chapters:
1) Good is the Enemy of Great
2) Level 5 Leadership
3) First Who, Then What
4) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)
5) The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity Within the Three Circles)
6) A Culture of Discipline
7) Technology Accelerators
8) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop
9) From Good to Great to Built to Last
Maybe if this is one of the first business books you've ever read it will hold more water. If you've read even a handful, you'll find nothing new here. Much of the book deals with common sense and well known facts, put into cutesy sayings. For example:
"The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there.
No, they first got the right people on the bus鈥攁nd the wrong people off the bus鈥攁nd then figured out where to drive it."
The right people will be self motivated? It takes the right people to be great? Thank you for the insight! Facts are better than dreams? I never realized!
Technology can help a business be great, but it is only an accelerant, not a creator of momentum. "Thoughtless reliance on technology is a liability, not an asset." "Good to great companies continually refine the path to greatness with the brutal facts of reality." "There is nothing wrong with pursuing a vision for greatness." Success takes time and discipline, and you should focus on what you can do better than any other company. "Disciplined people, disciplined thought, disciplined action鈥攖hat's it, that's the essence of the breakthrough process."
I'll stop here, you get the idea.
tl;dr
Printed in 2001, you can find plenty of . Maybe I just wasn't in the mood, but this book irritated me good ... to a great amount.
~ Epilogue: "Resiliency, not perfection, is the signature of greatness." Collins updated the epilogue a decade later and defended his choice of companies in case studies, some of which went under in the interim. Just because a company becomes great, does not mean it will stay great. ~
Favorite Quotes:
鈥淭he purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.鈥�
鈥淕ood is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great. We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life.鈥�
"It is your work in life that is the ultimate seduction."
鈥� Pablo Picasso
March 15, 2024
2024 Review
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s. I wasn't sure if Good to Great fit that descriptor, but I figured the only way I would find out is if I re-read it.
And I'm glad I did.
This is a solid book studying business culture and what it takes to thrive. Now granted, did the list of "great" businesses age well? No. I don't think one of the listed businesses is currently great. But as Collins points out at the end, that doesn't take away from the fact that for a time in the 1990s they were great, and they were great in a way that defeated the odds. Even if they forgot to keep it up, there is something to learn here.
It is an engaging and interesting book and I think deserves the spot on the list of most influential reads of my 20s.
2017 Review
Not a perfect book by any means but one I found thoroughly satisfying. Like many business books, I liked it because I saw aspects of Good Profit in it and I extrapolated my understanding accordingly. This book contained interesting case studies and general principles for building a successful ("great") business. It engaged me intellectually and left me with a desire to learn more. I'm glad I finally read this one!
I challenged myself in 2024 to re-read the books that impacted me most in my 20s. I wasn't sure if Good to Great fit that descriptor, but I figured the only way I would find out is if I re-read it.
And I'm glad I did.
This is a solid book studying business culture and what it takes to thrive. Now granted, did the list of "great" businesses age well? No. I don't think one of the listed businesses is currently great. But as Collins points out at the end, that doesn't take away from the fact that for a time in the 1990s they were great, and they were great in a way that defeated the odds. Even if they forgot to keep it up, there is something to learn here.
It is an engaging and interesting book and I think deserves the spot on the list of most influential reads of my 20s.
2017 Review
Not a perfect book by any means but one I found thoroughly satisfying. Like many business books, I liked it because I saw aspects of Good Profit in it and I extrapolated my understanding accordingly. This book contained interesting case studies and general principles for building a successful ("great") business. It engaged me intellectually and left me with a desire to learn more. I'm glad I finally read this one!
June 9, 2019
-賱賲丕匕丕 賷噩亘 毓賱賷 兀賳 兀賰賵賳 毓馗賷賲賸丕責 兀賱丕 賷賰賮賷 兀賳 兀賰賵賳 賳丕噩丨賸丕 責
賱兀賳 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱毓馗賲丕亍 賱丕 賷亘匕賱賵賳 賲噩賴賵丿 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱丕卮禺丕氐 丕賱噩賷丿賷賳貙 賴賲 賮賯胤 賷亘匕賱賵賳賴 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 .
-賱賲賻 賷噩亘 兀賳 兀噩毓賱 賲賳 毓賲賱賷 匕賱賰 毓馗賷賲賸丕責
賱兀賳賰 廿賳 賰賳鬲 鬲毓賲賱 賮賷 卮卅 鬲卮毓乇 亘丕賱卮睾賮 鬲噩丕賴賴貙 鬲胤賵乇賴 賵鬲賳賲賷賴貙 賵鬲卮毓乇 亘賲睾夭賶 賱賲丕 鬲賮毓賱賴 賮賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 兀賳 鬲乇睾亘 亘噩毓賱賴 毓馗賷賲賸丕. 廿賳 賱賲 鬲賰賳 鬲卮毓乇 亘匕賱賰 鬲噩丕賴 賲丕 鬲賮毓賱賴貙 賮毓賱賶 丕賱兀睾賱亘 兀賳鬲 賱丕 鬲賯賵賲 亘丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱氐丨賷丨貙 賵丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 亘乇賲鬲賴丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 禺胤兀.
.
.
賱爻鬲 賲丿賷乇丞 鬲賳賮賷匕賷丞 兀賵 乇丕卅丿丞 兀毓賲丕賱 兀賵 丨鬲賶 氐丕丨亘丞 賲卮乇賵毓 氐睾賷乇貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱賳爻丞 賱賷 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 賱賴丐賱丕亍 賵賲丐爻爻丕鬲賴賲貙 賴賵 賱賱兀賳爻丕賳貙 賱賱丨賷丕丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 .賴匕丕 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 貙 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賮賯丿 丕賰爻亘賳賷 賲毓乇賮丞 兀賰亘乇 亘毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲貙 賵兀夭丕丿 賲賳 卮睾賮賶 .
賲丕胤賱鬲 毓賳丿賲丕 丕賯鬲乇丨賴 兀亘賷 亘丨噩丞 兀賳賳賷 賱爻鬲 卮睾賵賮丞 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賯爻賲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘貙 賱賰賳賳賷 兀丨亘亘鬲賴貙 賵爻丕毓賵丿 廿賱賷賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賱兀爻鬲賯賷 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱禺亘乇丞 賵丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賲賳氐賴乇丞 亘賷賳 賮氐賵賱賴.
卮賰乇賹 噩夭賷賱 賱賮乇賷賯 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱丿丐亘 貙 賵賱賱賰丕鬲亘.
賱兀賳 丕賱兀卮禺丕氐 丕賱毓馗賲丕亍 賱丕 賷亘匕賱賵賳 賲噩賴賵丿 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱丕卮禺丕氐 丕賱噩賷丿賷賳貙 賴賲 賮賯胤 賷亘匕賱賵賳賴 亘丕賱胤乇賷賯丞 丕賱氐丨賷丨丞 .
-賱賲賻 賷噩亘 兀賳 兀噩毓賱 賲賳 毓賲賱賷 匕賱賰 毓馗賷賲賸丕責
賱兀賳賰 廿賳 賰賳鬲 鬲毓賲賱 賮賷 卮卅 鬲卮毓乇 亘丕賱卮睾賮 鬲噩丕賴賴貙 鬲胤賵乇賴 賵鬲賳賲賷賴貙 賵鬲卮毓乇 亘賲睾夭賶 賱賲丕 鬲賮毓賱賴 賮賲賳 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 兀賳 鬲乇睾亘 亘噩毓賱賴 毓馗賷賲賸丕. 廿賳 賱賲 鬲賰賳 鬲卮毓乇 亘匕賱賰 鬲噩丕賴 賲丕 鬲賮毓賱賴貙 賮毓賱賶 丕賱兀睾賱亘 兀賳鬲 賱丕 鬲賯賵賲 亘丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱氐丨賷丨貙 賵丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 亘乇賲鬲賴丕 鬲丨鬲賵賷 毓賱賷 禺胤兀.
.
.
賱爻鬲 賲丿賷乇丞 鬲賳賮賷匕賷丞 兀賵 乇丕卅丿丞 兀毓賲丕賱 兀賵 丨鬲賶 氐丕丨亘丞 賲卮乇賵毓 氐睾賷乇貙 賱賰賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘丕賱賳爻丞 賱賷 賱賷爻 賮賯胤 賱賴丐賱丕亍 賵賲丐爻爻丕鬲賴賲貙 賴賵 賱賱兀賳爻丕賳貙 賱賱丨賷丕丞 亘卮賰賱 毓丕賲 .賴匕丕 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 貙 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 兀禺乇賶 賮賯丿 丕賰爻亘賳賷 賲毓乇賮丞 兀賰亘乇 亘毓丕賱賲 丕賱兀毓賲丕賱 賵丕賱卮乇賰丕鬲 賵丕賱賲丐爻爻丕鬲貙 賵兀夭丕丿 賲賳 卮睾賮賶 .
賲丕胤賱鬲 毓賳丿賲丕 丕賯鬲乇丨賴 兀亘賷 亘丨噩丞 兀賳賳賷 賱爻鬲 卮睾賵賮丞 亘賴匕丕 丕賱賯爻賲 賲賳 丕賱賰鬲亘貙 賱賰賳賳賷 兀丨亘亘鬲賴貙 賵爻丕毓賵丿 廿賱賷賴 賰孬賷乇賸丕 賮賷 丕賱賲爻鬲賯亘賱 賱兀爻鬲賯賷 丕賱賲夭賷丿 賲賳 丕賱丨賰賲丞 賵丕賱禺亘乇丞 賵丕賱鬲噩乇亘丞 丕賱賲賳氐賴乇丞 亘賷賳 賮氐賵賱賴.
卮賰乇賹 噩夭賷賱 賱賮乇賷賯 丕賱亘丨孬 丕賱丿丐亘 貙 賵賱賱賰丕鬲亘.
Read
February 10, 2018讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賴 賳賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 爻乇賱賵丨賴 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿 丕賲丕 賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳 丕夭 賳讴丕鬲 禺賵亘 賵 丌賲賵夭賳丿賴 丌賳 亘賴 卮乇胤 亘賵賲蹖 爻丕夭蹖 亘賴乇賴 賮乇丕賵丕賳 亘乇丿
April 13, 2020
K眉莽眉mseyerek okumaya ba艧lad谋臒谋m bu kitap biraz utand谋rd谋 beni. Neye dayanarak k眉莽眉msemi艧im bilmem!
Kitap, 莽ok titiz ve 艧effaf bir ara艧t谋rman谋n sonucu yaz谋lm谋艧. Hem kafamdaki bir 莽ok kal谋b谋 k谋rd谋臒谋n谋 - en az谋ndan baz谋lar谋ndan 艧眉phe etmemi sa臒lad谋臒谋n谋 - hem de y枚netim alan谋nda ne kadar geride kald谋臒谋m谋z谋 bir kez daha hat谋rlatt谋臒谋n谋 s枚yleyebilirim.
Mesela her zaman 枚nce pozisyonun belli olmas谋 gerekti臒ini, ondan sonra bu pozisyon i莽in eleman aray谋艧谋na 莽谋k谋laca臒谋n谋 iddia ederdim. Fakat bu kitap nitelikli insan g眉c眉n眉n pozisyondan daha 枚nemli oldu臒unu s枚yl眉yor. Elinizde iyi insan malzemesi olduktan sonra pozisyon bulmak daha verimlidir diyor. Zaman zaman, bir garsonun i艧ini ne kadar iyi yapt谋臒谋n谋 g枚r眉p, biraz fantaziye ka莽arak da olsa, "bu adam谋 tek sat谋r kod yazamasa da yaz谋l谋m uzman谋 olarak almak isterdim, nas谋l olsa k谋sa zamanda onu da ayn谋 枚zen ve dikkatle 枚臒renecek, yapacakt谋r" dedi臒imi hat谋rlad谋m. Ama hi莽 "枚nce insan, sonra pozisyon" diye teorize etmemi艧tim.
Kesinlikle ka莽谋r谋lmamas谋 gereken bir kitap. 陌yi kitaplar sadece kendi alanlar谋yla ilgili de臒il, ki艧isel ya艧amla ilgili de bir 艧eyler s枚yl眉yorlar.
Kitap, 莽ok titiz ve 艧effaf bir ara艧t谋rman谋n sonucu yaz谋lm谋艧. Hem kafamdaki bir 莽ok kal谋b谋 k谋rd谋臒谋n谋 - en az谋ndan baz谋lar谋ndan 艧眉phe etmemi sa臒lad谋臒谋n谋 - hem de y枚netim alan谋nda ne kadar geride kald谋臒谋m谋z谋 bir kez daha hat谋rlatt谋臒谋n谋 s枚yleyebilirim.
Mesela her zaman 枚nce pozisyonun belli olmas谋 gerekti臒ini, ondan sonra bu pozisyon i莽in eleman aray谋艧谋na 莽谋k谋laca臒谋n谋 iddia ederdim. Fakat bu kitap nitelikli insan g眉c眉n眉n pozisyondan daha 枚nemli oldu臒unu s枚yl眉yor. Elinizde iyi insan malzemesi olduktan sonra pozisyon bulmak daha verimlidir diyor. Zaman zaman, bir garsonun i艧ini ne kadar iyi yapt谋臒谋n谋 g枚r眉p, biraz fantaziye ka莽arak da olsa, "bu adam谋 tek sat谋r kod yazamasa da yaz谋l谋m uzman谋 olarak almak isterdim, nas谋l olsa k谋sa zamanda onu da ayn谋 枚zen ve dikkatle 枚臒renecek, yapacakt谋r" dedi臒imi hat谋rlad谋m. Ama hi莽 "枚nce insan, sonra pozisyon" diye teorize etmemi艧tim.
Kesinlikle ka莽谋r谋lmamas谋 gereken bir kitap. 陌yi kitaplar sadece kendi alanlar谋yla ilgili de臒il, ki艧isel ya艧amla ilgili de bir 艧eyler s枚yl眉yorlar.
January 3, 2020
In "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't" Collins tried to explain how a company can reach greatness. for this, his model which he choose after tough benchmarking research process consisted of 11 companies that were able to make the leap.
You won't find a new miracle here but rather some good ideas or principles
You won't find a new miracle here but rather some good ideas or principles
October 25, 2020
Oh my god!
This book makes me FREAK OUT!!!
It鈥檚 so DAMN GOOD.
No!
FUCK THAT!!!
It鈥檚 FUCKIN GREAT 馃槵
There you go folks...
From DAMN GOOD to FUCKIN GREAT.
But seriously...
There are some really useful ideas in this book.
Like:
Three Circles:
1. What are you passionate about?
2. What can you be best in the world at?
3. What is your hedgehog concept?
It sounds dumb when it鈥檚 bulleted like this.
But it鈥檚 not.
You just have to read it.
K?
Just read it.
Another key concept is:
The flywheel.
Yass qween yass.
Push that FUCKIN FLYWHEEL bitch!
Again.
Read it.
Another:
The window and the mirror.
When you want to know how shit got fucked up.
Look in the mirror dude!
When you want to know how shit got so rad.
Look out the window.
Look at all that white privilege (if you have some).
And if you didn鈥檛 read it.
Than look in the mirror at the person who fucked up.
It鈥檚 you.
That鈥檚 level 5!!!! (also in the book)
Now go do.
P.S.
G2G is old.
It鈥檚 pimps companies like:
Circuit City and Hewlett Packard.
Who?
Wait what?
Not exactly cutting edge?
That鈥檚 true.
Don鈥檛 trip.
They used to fucking DOMINATE.
And the principles they used remain fresh AF.
And there in the book.
So.....
Fuckin YES 馃檶
Get and read this great book.
猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍 (x5 stars)
This book makes me FREAK OUT!!!
It鈥檚 so DAMN GOOD.
No!
FUCK THAT!!!
It鈥檚 FUCKIN GREAT 馃槵
There you go folks...
From DAMN GOOD to FUCKIN GREAT.
But seriously...
There are some really useful ideas in this book.
Like:
Three Circles:
1. What are you passionate about?
2. What can you be best in the world at?
3. What is your hedgehog concept?
It sounds dumb when it鈥檚 bulleted like this.
But it鈥檚 not.
You just have to read it.
K?
Just read it.
Another key concept is:
The flywheel.
Yass qween yass.
Push that FUCKIN FLYWHEEL bitch!
Again.
Read it.
Another:
The window and the mirror.
When you want to know how shit got fucked up.
Look in the mirror dude!
When you want to know how shit got so rad.
Look out the window.
Look at all that white privilege (if you have some).
And if you didn鈥檛 read it.
Than look in the mirror at the person who fucked up.
It鈥檚 you.
That鈥檚 level 5!!!! (also in the book)
Now go do.
P.S.
G2G is old.
It鈥檚 pimps companies like:
Circuit City and Hewlett Packard.
Who?
Wait what?
Not exactly cutting edge?
That鈥檚 true.
Don鈥檛 trip.
They used to fucking DOMINATE.
And the principles they used remain fresh AF.
And there in the book.
So.....
Fuckin YES 馃檶
Get and read this great book.
猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍猸愶笍 (x5 stars)
August 27, 2017
In the intro, I recognized one company (out of the 11 "good to great") that no longer exists and two that were implicated in the real estate bubble and 2008 financial crisis. Further, I was very disturbed to learn the author went into the study without any theory of what should make a company great. This would undoubtedly lead to some kind of narrative or hindsight bias after staring at the data hard enough. Last, the arbitrary choice of a 15 year performance horizon sounds fishy. Three red flags in the first 30 minutes and I put it down.
August 25, 2018
Just being good is not enough! Pursue greatness!!
Jim Collins, an expert in the field of leadership, introduced a story from Aesop鈥檚 Fables called 鈥淭he Fox and the Hedgehog鈥� in his own book 鈥淕ood to Great.鈥�
A fox is a cunning and beautiful creature. It is also fast, lean, and a proficient hunter. In contrast, a hedgehog is small, slow, and plump. Therefore, a hedgehog only concerns itself with finding food and caretaking its home. Every day, a fox thinks of strategies to hunt the hedgehog and bides its most opportune chance. However, when the fox attacks the hedgehog, the hedgehog will curl itself into a ball to protect itself. The fox ultimately fails and returns home to think of a new plan. Yet, the same result repeats itself every time. The fox ends up with nothing, and the hedgehog stands victorious.
The fox has much knowledge, but the hedgehog knows one critical piece of information. Great organizations are like the hedgehog. Like the hedgehog, great organizations think of easy, effective,
impactful action plans in the simplest methods. According to Collins, the hedgehog鈥檚 strategy concept of focusing on a single plan is born from understanding one鈥檚 own identity with accuracy and depth.
Jim Collins, an expert in the field of leadership, introduced a story from Aesop鈥檚 Fables called 鈥淭he Fox and the Hedgehog鈥� in his own book 鈥淕ood to Great.鈥�
A fox is a cunning and beautiful creature. It is also fast, lean, and a proficient hunter. In contrast, a hedgehog is small, slow, and plump. Therefore, a hedgehog only concerns itself with finding food and caretaking its home. Every day, a fox thinks of strategies to hunt the hedgehog and bides its most opportune chance. However, when the fox attacks the hedgehog, the hedgehog will curl itself into a ball to protect itself. The fox ultimately fails and returns home to think of a new plan. Yet, the same result repeats itself every time. The fox ends up with nothing, and the hedgehog stands victorious.
The fox has much knowledge, but the hedgehog knows one critical piece of information. Great organizations are like the hedgehog. Like the hedgehog, great organizations think of easy, effective,
impactful action plans in the simplest methods. According to Collins, the hedgehog鈥檚 strategy concept of focusing on a single plan is born from understanding one鈥檚 own identity with accuracy and depth.
March 25, 2018
Simple, yet very striking message that has resonated with me perfectly.
Author (& the well-organised, scientific approach to back up his thesis) confirms what my experience tells me - that transformation of good to great is enabled by simple truths we keep neglecting on the daily basis because we need some stuff "right here & right now", e.g.:
* building up team in a steady way, with PROPER people, not just available people
* strategic goals are important for everyone, you just sometimes need to state them in a different way for different people - but having unique specialty/target/focus(/thing your company excels in) aka hedgehog concept is crucial to distinguish from mediocrity
* iterative, tiny (but consistent) steps - not the quasi-random "leapfrogging" - is what builds up success long-term
* culture of discipline - I couldn't emphasise it too much - some sort of discipline & duty HAS to be within people, not in policies or control mechanisms (which lead only to US vs THEM syndrome)
* high standards (by example) from the top to the ground
17 years have passed since this book has go published, but it didn't get outdated at all - highly recommended classic.
Author (& the well-organised, scientific approach to back up his thesis) confirms what my experience tells me - that transformation of good to great is enabled by simple truths we keep neglecting on the daily basis because we need some stuff "right here & right now", e.g.:
* building up team in a steady way, with PROPER people, not just available people
* strategic goals are important for everyone, you just sometimes need to state them in a different way for different people - but having unique specialty/target/focus(/thing your company excels in) aka hedgehog concept is crucial to distinguish from mediocrity
* iterative, tiny (but consistent) steps - not the quasi-random "leapfrogging" - is what builds up success long-term
* culture of discipline - I couldn't emphasise it too much - some sort of discipline & duty HAS to be within people, not in policies or control mechanisms (which lead only to US vs THEM syndrome)
* high standards (by example) from the top to the ground
17 years have passed since this book has go published, but it didn't get outdated at all - highly recommended classic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 6,633 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.