Sign in with FacebookRiku Sayuj's Reviews > Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't
Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't
by Jim Collins
by Jim Collins
Riku Sayuj's review
Aug 31, 12
Recommended to Riku by:
Prof. Neerja Pande
Recommended for:
Nishant Singh
Read from February 14 to 16, 2012
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
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
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
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
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.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Good to Great.
sign in »
Reading Progress
| 02/15/2012 | page 58 |
|
18.0% | "But what we found when we stepped inside the black box, that the "Stop-Doing" List, the things they decided to get rid of, to stop doing, counted more than the "To-Do" list." |
Comments (showing 1-28 of 28) (28 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Megha
(new)
Feb 16, 2012 04:35pm
Ah, the MBA in you!
reply
|
flag
*
I read this around 2003 or 2004 and found its simplicity was a great way to get past the usual business-school jargoneering and get people to pay attention to the message.
Richard wrote: "I read this around 2003 or 2004 and found its simplicity was a great way to get past the usual business-school jargoneering and get people to pay attention to the message."Ya sometimes that is all that is needed. i know that a lot of people were dissatisfied with the book but for me I liked the fact that for a change a business book focussed on keeping things so simple.
This is the best use of fonts, layout, charts and PowerPoint I have seen on GR.I still haven't worked out whether there's something tricky going on.
I'm going to escalate this to my Level 5 Leader, BirdBrian.
Ian wrote: "This is the best use of fonts, layout, charts and PowerPoint I have seen on GR.I still haven't worked out whether there's something tricky going on.
I'm going to escalate this to my Level 5 Lead..."
Thanks Ian! You have a way with compliments. :)
Hope you find it useful.
Riku wrote: "mp wrote: "Ah, the MBA in you!"have to read business books sometimes too :) Just for show"
Ha. Yeah, we all do. Nice summary.
I'm not sure about the self-effacing thing in the leader though. I know what the author means there but sometimes that dynamic ego-centric leader can do great things as well.
Elizabeth wrote: "Riku wrote: "mp wrote: "Ah, the MBA in you!"have to read business books sometimes too :) Just for show"
Ha. Yeah, we all do. Nice summary.
I'm not sure about the self-effacing thing in the lea..."
wait up for a much more in-depth take on this soon in another review :)
let me see if i can convince you there. I am already sold on the idea.
Oh, I think it's probably better to have that kind of leader but I'm not convinced that it's completely necessary. But I haven't read the book; I'm only going off the summary and anecdotal experience.
Elizabeth wrote: "Oh, I think it's probably better to have that kind of leader but I'm not convinced that it's completely necessary. But I haven't read the book; I'm only going off the summary and anecdotal experience."Both have their uses of course. Agreed on that. It is just that as 'leaders' both might have different effects on the people.
Definitely. I'm sure the study on the effects of different types is interesting. Did he go into anything about the influence of direct managers? There was a recent Harvard study about how important they were to retaining people, so I think there would be impact there as well.
Elizabeth wrote: "Definitely. I'm sure the study on the effects of different types is interesting. Did he go into anything about the influence of direct managers? There was a recent Harvard study about how important..."No he does not really go into that. His study is limited to a set of 11...
Elizabeth wrote: "Well, can't cover everything in one book."I was talking about a related concept I found in some of my readings... i'll try to put them together soon.
I have been managing people for 27 years now and what this book did for me was confirm some things for me that I've learned through trial and error. One that I remember in particular is making rules for ONE PERSON all the time. There seems to always be that person that does not understand the self-evident things. Most of managing is, like you pointed out, finding and keeping the right people. Great review.
Jeffrey wrote: "One that I remember in particular is making rules for ONE PERSON all the time."Hi, Jeffrey, I'm not sure that I understand your comment. Are you suggesting that we need to get rid of the spanner or [not] mould the works around the spanner, or something altogether different?
Ian wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "One that I remember in particular is making rules for ONE PERSON all the time."Hi, Jeffrey, I'm not sure that I understand your comment. Are you suggesting that we need to get rid..."
I have had employees, I wouldn't necessarily call them spanners, who spend more time trying to think about how to circumvent the system than learning how to exist within the system. I was using up as much time managing them as I was all the rest of the staff put together. The book suggests if you have employee like that you are better off replacing that person than trying to change them. We are on a weekly deadline and have developed systems that get us from point A to point B the most efficiently. In the past I have spent too much time trying to make a person fit a situation that they are incapable or unwilling to perform. In some positions,in particular sales positions, I oversee, I have more flexibility and do let the position mold to the person and that is always the most desirable.
My business is analogous to distribution, in that I am dependent on the sales efforts of people I don't employ or control.You can only spend so much time trying to help people understand and embrace the logic or appeal of your product.
Unfortunately, I can't replace them, although I can get more. Usually, just the same.
Ian wrote: "My business is analogous to distribution, in that I am dependent on the sales efforts of people I don't employ or control.You can only spend so much time trying to help people understand and embr..."
Your sales force is all independent contractors? Our advertising sales force are all employees, most existing outside of the company and are controlled with sales goals. On the circulation side I have all independent contractors and the only control I have over them is the amount of territory I will let them have and how much lucrative show schedule I will let them attend. I have to show much more tolerance there than I do with the production side of our company.
In a metaphorical sense, I sell an engine that needs fuel. The fuel is useless without the engine, and the engine is useless without the fuel (because it gives the fuel a job).I depend on people who want to sell fuel (either on behalf of themselves or their employers), to sell my engine.
Bird Brian wrote: "Feb 23?? Why didn't I get any notifications about this thread?"Sorry, boss, I thought I'd bcc'ed you in on my post.
Bird Brian wrote: "I may simply have forgotten, but if the circumstances allow, I prefer to blame technology. It is a victimless strategy."Not true! Ever been on the receiving end of support requests because people decided to blame the technology? It hurts.
@Jeffrey, Elizabeth and Ian, my understanding now is that the 'level 5 leader' concept will work only when your employees are proactive people. WHen you have passive employees is when the authoritative leader will work better - on average. of course.I will try and elaborate on this soon as this has some personal interest too...
@ Bird, the blue arrow is bent to indicate a rapid take off trajectory...
and the arrows on the flywheel is meant to indicate that you have to keep rotating the flywheel... when the blue arrow takes off, you have momentum to help with the rotation but you still have to keep rotating...
Think of it as a dynamic diagram - It really is not half as odd as that outlandish thing you posted above :)
Riku wrote: "@Jeffrey, Elizabeth and Ian, my understanding now is that the 'level 5 leader' concept will work only when your employees are proactive people. When you have passive employees is when the authoritative leader will work better"Wait until my salespeople discover the new authoritarian, I mean authoritative, me.
Riku wrote: "André wrote: "this pretty much sums it all up. great review."Thanks Andre!"
You're welcome.
This is also worth reading:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/2...
André wrote: "Riku wrote: "André wrote: "this pretty much sums it all up. great review."Thanks Andre!"
You're welcome.
This is also worth reading:
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/2......"
Yes, I am aware of these studies... the second last para of the article sums it up:
These business books are mostly backward-looking: what have companies done that has made them successful? The future is always hard to predict, and understanding the past is valuable; on the other hand, the implicit message of these business books is that the principles that these companies use not only have made them good in the past, but position them for continued success.
