Read Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't by James C. Collins Online


To find the keys to greatness, Collins's 21-person research team read and coded 6,000 articles, generated more than 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and created 384 megabytes of computer data in a five-year project. The findings will surprise many readers and, quite frankly, upset others.The ChallengeBuilt to Last, the defining management study of the nineties, showedTo find the keys to greatness, Collins's 21-person research team read and coded 6,000 articles, generated more than 2,000 pages of interview transcripts and created 384 megabytes of computer data in a five-year project. The findings will surprise many readers and, quite frankly, upset others.The ChallengeBuilt to Last, the defining management study of the nineties, showed how great companies triumph over time and how long-term sustained performance can be engineered into the DNA of an enterprise from the very beginning. But what about the company that is not born with great DNA? How can good companies, mediocre companies, even bad companies achieve enduring greatness? The StudyFor years, this question preyed on the mind of Jim Collins. Are there companies that defy gravity and convert long-term mediocrity or worse into long-term superiority? And if so, what are the universal distinguishing characteristics that cause a company to go from good to great?The StandardsUsing 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. The ComparisonsThe research team contrasted the good-to-great companies with a carefully selected set of comparison companies that failed to make the leap from good to great. What was different? Why did one set of companies become truly great performers while the other set remained only good? The FindingsThe findings of the Good to Great study will surprise many readers and shed light on virtually every area of management strategy and practice. The findings include:Level 5 Leaders: The research team was shocked to discover the type of leadership required to achieve greatness.The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles): To go from good to great requires transcending the curse of competence.A Culture of Discipline: When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great results. Technology Accelerators: Good-to-great companies think differently about the role of technology.The Flywheel and the Doom Loop: Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap....

Title : Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9780066620992
Format Type : Hardcover
Number of Pages : 320 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't Reviews

  • Riku Sayuj
    2018-11-18 21:38

    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.ConclusionSo, 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.

  • Jamie
    2018-11-22 22:38

    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.

  • Chad Kettner
    2018-11-22 23:32

    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?

  • Saleh MoonWalker
    2018-11-26 23:17

    Onvan : Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't - Nevisande : James C. Collins - ISBN : 66620996 - ISBN13 : 9780066620992 - Dar 320 Safhe - Saal e Chap : 2001

  • Praveen
    2018-12-12 02:38

    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."Though this book is exclusively for the management students and for the corporate guys, I still feel, this book is really very well researched and can be read by them also, who have least interests in companies and businesses.This book is a result of 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 is all about why some companies leap from 'good to great' and others don't !Book talks about a kind of 'Level 5 leadership', "leaders of paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will.they are fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce sustainable results.they display a workman like diligence, more plow horse than show horse.they look out of window to attribute success to factors other than themselves."It's important first getting right people on the bus (and wrong people off the bus) and then figure out where to drive it.....then there is 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."The research done for this book may have taken huge amount of resources and time and people energy, but the key elements of greatness are deceptively simple and straightforward.If you are thinking after reading the title of this book.....Why greatness?Then the book 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 !

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2018-12-06 20:26

    Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't, James C. Collinsعنوانها: از خوب به عالی؛ از عرش به فرش؛ انتخاب برتری ؛ انتخاب عالی مترجم عهدیه عبادی؛ با انتخاب خود بزرگ شوید؛ با انتخاب خود مهم شوید مترجم: متین عربلو؛ بهتر از خوب مترجم فضل الله امینی؛ تعالی مبنی بر انتخاب صحیح مترجمین: حسن زارعی ثمین، بهزاد محمدیان، مهدی شعله؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: بیستم فوریه سال 2006 میلادیعنوان: از خوب به عالی : چرا برخی از شرکتها جهش میکنند... و سایرین نمیکنند؛ نویسنده: جیم کالینز؛ مترجم: ناهید سپهرپور؛ تهران، پیک آوین، 1383؛ در 301 ص؛ جدول، عکس، نمودار، شابک: 9648148031؛ چاپ چهارم و پنجم 1384؛ چاپ هفتم و هشتم 1386؛ نهم و دهم 1387؛ یازدهم 1388؛ شابک: 9789648148039؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، آوین، 1386؛ چاپ سیزدهم 1389؛ هیجدهم 1392؛ موضوع: راهبری، برنامه ریزی راهبردی، تحول در سازمان، مدیریت، نوآوری - قرن 21 معنوان: از خوب به عالی : چرا برخی شرکتها پیشرفت میکنند و برخی دیگر از پیشرفت باز میمانند؛ نویسنده: جیم کالینز؛ مترجم: لیلا رضیئی؛ تهران، آرایان، 1395؛ در 336 ص؛شابک: 9786007133750؛عنوان: از خوب به عالی : چرا برخی شرکتها جهش میکنند و بعضیهای دیگر نه؛ نویسنده: جیم کالینز؛ مترجم: صدیقه اشتری؛ تهران، هورمزد، 1395؛ در 350 ص؛ شابک: 9786006959781؛عنوان: از عرش به فرش : چگونه شرکت‌های قدرتمند سقوط می‌کنند؟ و چرا برخی از شرکت‌ها هرگز تسلیم نمی‌شوند؟؛ نویسنده: جیم کالینز؛ مترجم: لیلا سالاری؛ تهران، هورمزد، 1395؛ در 270 ص؛ شابک: 9786006958927؛عنوان: انتخاب برتری مترجم عبدالرضا رضایی نژاد، تهران، فرا، 1394، در 202 ص؛و ...خوب دشمن عالی است. این مهم‌ترین مفهومی است که جیم کالینز نویسنده این کتاب سعی دارد خواننده را متوجه آن کند. آقای کالینز به همراه تیم تحقیقاتی خود حرکت مجموعه‌ ای از شرکت‌ها را در طول سی سال بررسی کرده‌اند و به نتایجی رسیده‌ اند که نشان می‌دهد: چرا تعدادی از شرکت‌ها از مرحله خوب رد می‌شوند و به سطح عالی می‌رسند. ما شرکت‌هایی رو می‌شناسیم که خوب هستند. شرکت‌هایی در دوره‌ ای رشد فزاینده‌ ای دارند و دوباره افول می‌کنند. اما شرکت‌های عالی که اتفاقا ممکن است نامشان به اندازه شرکت‌های خوب شناخته شده نباشد، هماره رشدی صعودی را تجربه می‌کنند و ارزش سهام آنها چندین برابر نرخ سهام بازار است. ... ا. شربیانی

  • R.K. Gold
    2018-12-08 02:31

    Why Indie Authors Should Read Business BooksI 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.

  • Allen
    2018-12-04 18:39

    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

  • Sandy
    2018-11-19 19:15

    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. :)

  • Steve
    2018-11-14 19:19

    I have no idea how much Jim Collins knows about business / management, but it is clear he’s 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’t read on when enticed by the promise of the lowly hedgehog’s secret for success or how Admiral Stockdale’s 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’t just say, “Hire good people.” It’s 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’s ironic findings) would not figure out such things as the importance of humility among top-tier leaders or that “stop doing” lists are more important than “to do” 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’ve 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’m talking about). I’m no expert, but it’s probably good for its type.What I can’t decide is whether the book’s 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’s an inherent squishiness to them, and judgment could cloud the data. It’s a difficult task. At the same time I think it’s 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’m 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’m told Malcolm Gladwell’s new book gives luck the prominence it deserves.

  • Chad Warner
    2018-12-07 23:33

    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 WhatFirst, 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 ConceptTo 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 DisciplineIgnore "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 AcceleratorsDoes 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.

  • Trevor
    2018-11-25 21:22

    I’ve been reading quite a few books about leadership lately – I can't really say that I’ve been terribly impressed with them. They read too much like that terribly American genre of books – 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 – so, leadership is a bit like pornography in that sense. Given that this form of research sees itself as so ‘revolutionary’ 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’t really come away thinking that sense, however. Parts of this were okay – but I really didn’t 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’t 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 – 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) – the GFC clearly wasn’t all that kind to some companies and whether or not ‘leadership’ 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 – still, this is all beyond the psycho-babble of this kind of book. Oh, I’m jumping ahead too quickly – but that, in a nutshell, is probably one of my main concerns with books like this – 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 – that is, that their leaders all tended to be ‘anti-Trump’ 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 – the Japanese PM’s wife who sat beside Trump for 2 hours and did not let him know she spoke English is currently one of my heroes – 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’t 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 ‘values’ of the company and in getting employees who will live up to those. Finding people who share the company’s 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’t 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 ‘they are the right people in the right jobs’ is saying something important - but it isn’t at all clear to me how you would know beforehand. Given that everyone is an expert in hindsight, it wasn’t all that clear to me how you might go about picking the ‘right people’ - and it also seemed pretty obvious that when things stuffed up, inevitably, you could argue that it was because you had inadvertently chosen the ‘wrong’ 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 ‘right people’ - that is, that too often leaders simply don’t 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’m 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’t clear to me how you might navigate a changing environment - something all of these ‘great leaders’ here invariably did - without doing something that could be called ‘coming to terms with the brutal facts of your situation’. 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’m not sure just what ‘brutally’ 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 ‘truth’ and even though it ‘likes to hide’, 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’t 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’t go on to say, those who group people into two camps and those who don’t) - 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’t 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 ‘square peg and round hole’ problem to me.That said, it is hard to see how ‘figure out what you are good at and do that’ could be bad advice. I can’t say I came away from this book thinking, ‘wow, who’d have thought you should do what you are good at if you want to succeed?’There was a nice bit of this book about technology - that it, on its own, doesn’t 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’t read books like this, but I’ve had to as I’m 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’s 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’t recommend this book, but it was important that I read it, I think.

  • Angela
    2018-11-25 21:39

    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.

  • Dan W
    2018-12-13 01:35

    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 tobuyin?

  • Deli
    2018-12-08 22:17

    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!

  • Laura Noggle
    2018-11-19 00:26

    2 ⭐️'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 Great2) Level 5 Leadership3) First Who, Then What4) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith)5) The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity Within the Three Circles)6) A Culture of Discipline 7) Technology Accelerators8) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop9) From Good to Great to Built to LastMaybe 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—and the wrong people off the bus—and 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—that's it, that's the essence of the breakthrough process." I'll stop here, you get the idea. tl;drPrinted in 2001, you can find plenty of succinct summaries online, often with graphs. 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:“The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline.”“Good 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.”"It is your work in life that is the ultimate seduction." — Pablo Picasso

  • Giuliana
    2018-11-24 18:39

    If you watched the corresponding documentary on PBS, you probably won't need to read this book. If you haven't, then maybe you might be interested in how certain companies manage to turn from good to great (i.e., from reasonable profit to outstanding performances that outshine established market leaders). You aren't? Well, you should, because the golden rules presented in this book can be applied to almost all aspects of life.Alec, who is responsible for buying this book*, commented on the second rule of good-to-great companies: first find the right people, THEN figure out what you want to do. He commented that good marriages follow this principle. It seems self-evident, but too many people choose their spouses because they think it's time for them to get married or because they think their spouse would be a good parent/house-cleaner/event-organizer.The author also reveals that all good-to-great companies are led by humble and inquisitive CEOs that seldom use the pronoun "I" (and related pronouns and adjectives) to describe the success of their companies. These leaders are selfless and hard-working, willing to listen, act on problems, and encourage discussion. It made me think how these characteristics are now forgotten in the political world. (Once again, I think our embarrassingly self-inflated Silvio Berlusconi.)*Alec didn't buy Good to Great to test our home finances. He was comparing his ideas of smart economics with those of Jim Collins. He might still open his dream restaurant, after all.

  • Nguyên ngộ ngộ
    2018-11-16 23:15

    Những con số biết nói khá thú vị6000 bài báo2000 trang phỏng vấn15.000 giờ làm việc21 nhà nghiên cứu làm việc suốt 5 năm1435 công ty được chọn từ danh sách Fortune 50028 công ty được chắt lọc.11 công ty nhảy vọt11 công ty cạnh tranh trực tiếp6 công ty ngắn ngàyCuối cùng là, ra đời 1 cuốn sách: TỪ TỐT ĐẾN VĨ ĐẠI. Quyển sách đã gút chốt được 6 yếu tố chung nhất của một công ty từ tốt đến vĩ đại(1) Nhà lãnh đạo cấp độ 5Tính cách đặc trưng kiểu dạng như thầy Giảng Tư Trung, Bác Hồ. Với phong thái điềm tĩnh, khiêm nhường song ẩn chứa bên trong là một quyết tâm mạnh mẽ.Trái ngược với lại hình ảnh những nhà lãnh đạo "lớn tiếng" như Hitler, những người luôn to mồm về những thứ mình làm.Những nhà lãnh đạo cấp 5 có 2 đứng tính song song: KHIÊN NHƯỜNG và Ý CHÍ. Thể hiện qua 2 hình ảnh là CỬA SỔ và GƯƠNG.Khi họ có thành tích dẫn dắt công ty lên vĩ đại, họ cho mọi thứ qua cửa sổ: ồ, tôi may mắn làm việc với những đồng nghiệp tuyệt vời. Chúng tôi nhờ có những cơ hội tốt nên mới như thế.... nhà lãnh đạo cấp 5 dùng WE, không vỗ ngực xưng I.Song khi gặp thất bại ê chề, họ SOI GƯƠNG và nhận lỗi về mình, lúc này họ dùng I, ko đỗ lỗi, trách móc, mà I'm responsiblity for our mistakes.(2) Con người đi trước - công việc theo sauĐiều quan trọng là chọn đúng người lên xe, mời người ko phù hợp xuống xe, đặt đúng người phù hợp vào đúng vị trí, rồi tiếp đó mới đến NÀO CHÚNG TA ĐI ĐÂU ĐÂY. Khi đã có người phù hợp rồi mới quyết định hướng đi, chiến lược.(3) Đối mặt sự thật phũ phàngNghịch lý Stockdale: tin tưởng mãnh liệt vào một kết quả tương lai tươi sáng NHƯNG ĐỒNG THỜI phải đối diện với thực tại u ám. Thế mới ghê, đối diện với u ám mà còn dám tin vào tươi sáng. Lạc quan mà không dám đối diện với sự thật, đó chỉ là lạc quan TẾU. Lạc quan ảo tưởng, và nó sẽ giết chết lần lần sự hy vọng của chúng ta.(4) Khái niệm con nhímKhái niệm con nhím là điểm mấu chốt để từ tốt lên vĩ đại. Nó là Tâm chấn của 3 vòng tròn- Đam mê cái gì: bóng đá, ca hát, diễn xuất, chữa bệnh, lắp ráp, xây dựng...- Giỏi cái gì nhất: học toán cao điểm nhất không chắc sẽ trở thành nhà toán học giỏi nhất. Có thể giỏi kinh doanh, giỏi giao tiếp, giỏi truyền thông...- mẫu số chung lợi nhuận: lợi nhuận trên x. Cái này cầu sự am hiểu thấu đáo công tyKết hợp 3 cái này lại, giữ cho mình SỰ KỶ LUẬT, SỰ HƯỚNG TÂM và tâm chấn của 3 vòng tròn nàyMất thời gian khá lâu và có sự am hiểu thấu đáo về công ty mới có thể tạo ra một CON NHÍM phù hợp. Có công ty mất 3 năm, 5 năm, thậm chí là 10 năm. Einstein mất 15 năm đi trong sương mù để tìm ra thuyết tương đối mặc dù ông rất thông minh.Câu hỏi đặt ra là làm thế nào tìm ra "con nhím" của mình.Đó là một vòng lặp. Chọn ra một "hội" từ 5-12 chú, có ảnh hưởng trong công ty, thường là nhóm điều hành, và bắt đầu thực hiện(1) Đặt câu hỏi Đúng dựa trên ba vòng tròn(2) Tranh luận dựa trên các câu hỏi(3) Quyết định của nhà điều hành dựa trên 3 vòng tròn(4) Phân tích và xem xét, học hỏi lạivà thực hiện lại vòng lặp: lặp đi lặp lại theo thời gian, về những vấn đề sống còn và mang tính quyết định mà công ty phải đối mặt.(5) Văn hóa kỷ luậtNhớ phần này 1 câu duy nhất: đừng cố gắng truyền động lực cho nhân viên, cứ tìm đúng người có tinh thần kỷ luật, rồi sau đó làm sao đừng để nó mất động lực. Câu hỏi ở đây là làm sao đừng để nhân viên mất động lực chứ ko phải là làm sao để truyền động lực cho nhân viên.Cảm thấy văn hóa này có tính tự giác, chủ động rất cao, nên việc chọn người phù hợp ngay từ đầu rất quan trọng.Cho nên, văn hóa kỷ luật từ những người đã có tinh thần kỷ luật. Kỷ luật ở đây không phải là chuyên chế nói 1 làm 1, mà là tự do trong một khuôn khổ, tự do dám nghĩ dám nói dám làm, song trong khuôn khổ 3 con nhím. Họ kỷ luật chỉ làm những việc hướng tâm vào 3 con nhím, chứ không phải là để thỏa mãn cái tôi cao sang quý phái của mình. Cái khó của sự kỷ luật ở đây là đối diện thực tế để thấu hiểu mình, biết mình nên "ngừng" việc gì, tiếp tục gì, và đặc biệt là biết "từ chối" cơ hội nào.(6) Bàn đạp công nghệNhìn nhận công nghệ hoàn toàn khác, tôi tiên phong về công nghệ, nhưng phải hướng tâm vào "chiến lược con nhím". Công nghệ ko đi cùng con nhím là héo.Ví dụ bùng nổ Internet, các ông bán offline rần rần run sợ các shop online sẽ có lợi thế và ăn hết khách hàng mình. Ở đây shop online ko tiên phong về internet, nhưng họ tiên phong sử dụng internet để đặt hàng online, tiên phong sử dụng internet chăm sóc khách hàng. Công nghệ dưới góc nhìn của các công ty nhảy vọt là như thế. ......và nhảy vọt hoặc lụi tàn......Ý thức rằng "miệt mài quay tay, vận may sẽ đến". Con gà con nó miệt mài tích lũy công lực lớn lên để rồi phá vỡ quá trứng và nhoi ra. Không có sự nhảy vọt sét đánh nào cả, nó là quá trình "miệt mài quay tay, vận may sẽ đến".5 sao!

  • Mohammad
    2018-12-13 01:40

    کتابی که نمی توان آن را به عنوان سرلوحه پیشرفت قرار داد اما می توان از نکات خوب و آموزنده آن به شرط بومی سازی بهره فراوان برد

  • Giovanni Romano
    2018-12-07 20:38

    Too much chart and graph to be reader friendly, but overall great book for anyone who wants to become a good leader within an organization

  • Q.T. Pi
    2018-12-11 02:33

    Well I read Good to Great and ya know what? I liked it. It had a lot to say on how to build a business from scratch and turn it into a thriving success. It was an easily digestible piece full of useful tidbits I hope to apply to my every day life as an author. I need to surround myself with the right team, focus on my goal, remain disciplined/not chase fads, and manage my expectations. Sounds easy enough right?

  • Kressel Housman
    2018-12-09 01:37

    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.

  • Len Vlahos
    2018-12-04 21:24

    I finally got around to reading Good to Great. It more or less lived up to the hype as being both inspirational and instructional. I just have three quick comments:1. Like many business books, this would be better as a long magazine article instead of a book. The author, while deft, belabors point after point. While it was less true here than in some other business books, it's still longer than it needs to be. 2. A few of the ideas put forth -- e.g., the hedgehog concept, the three circles -- are brilliant observations, but, to my way of thinking, still require a certain kind of magic or special sauce that cannot be found by adhering to a set of principles. It's just too easy to identify and believe in the wrong Hedgehog concept and not know it until it's too late. I guess what I'm saying is that while the ideas are great, they can only go so far in helping put your business on the right track. Ingenuity, creativity, and a certain amount of luck will be needed too. 3. Don't read this on an iPhone. The charts and graphs are too small, and the software (in this case Nook, but I think all of the apps) didn't allow for enlarging the images. But all in all, I'd still give this a very strong recommendation for anyone in a leadership role, or anyone who aspires to be in a leadership role

  • Kathleen Tallent
    2018-11-14 00:37

    I read this in a leadership class and it was very appropriate. I will never be the CEO of a major company, but I will help run a household, participate in a church family, help lead a therapy team, and will have many more opportunities to lead. This book gave a lot of insight into why companies are able to climb in growth and industry, but that same insight can be applied in most of life circumstances where people are grouped together. I recommended this book to multiple people working in large companies, but also to my pastor at the time. It's relevant!

  • Ahmad hosseini
    2018-12-04 23:40

    سوال اصلی کتاب: آیا یک شرکت خوب می تواند به شرکتی عالی تبدیل شود؟ چگونه؟کتاب نتیجه یک تحقیق کاملا مدون و علمی است که بر روی یازده شرکت آمریکایی و همتایان آنها انجام شده است. این شرکت ها بر اساس معیارهای مشخصی انتخاب شده اند که سابقه فعالیت سی ساله، عملکرد پایدار و ثابت در طول پانزده سال و ارزش سهام سه برابر بازار بورس از جمله آنها است. کتاب بر اساس بررسی نقاط مشترک این شرکت ها راهکاری مرحله به مرحله ارائه کرده است که می تواند توسط دیگر شرکت های نیز استفاده شود. مهم ترین مواردی که در این راهکار وجود دارد عبارت است از: 1- برخورداری از فردی با قدرت رهبری عالی 2- انتخاب افراد منظم و شایسته وهماهنگ با اهداف سازمان و یا گروه شما 3- روبرو شدن با واقعیت های ناخوشایند 4- پیدا کردن زمینه کاری که در آن عالی هستید و کسب درآمد از طریق آن 5- ایجاد فرهنگی مبتنی بر نظم کاری و فکریخواندن کتاب کمی خسته کننده است زیرا در آن نام شرکت ها و افراد زیادی وجود دارد که هیچ یک معروف نیستند و نویسنده با ذکر حقایقی که درباره این شرکت ها یافته است سعی می کند راهکار خود را تشریح کند. می توان کتاب را اینگونه خلاصه کرد که برای رسیدن به سطح عالی به تمرکز در یک زمینه کاری و صبر نیاز است. بسیاری از این شرکت ها در مرز ورشکستگی بوده اند اما با رهبری یک فرد مناسب و با تمرکز بر روی یک فعالیت خاص و کمی خلاقیت و طی کردن زمانی نسبتا طولانی مثلا ده یا بیست سال توانسته اند به سطح عالی برسند.

  • Ostap Andrusiv
    2018-11-25 22:30

    Джеймс Коллінс і команда зробили дуже цікаве дослідження (і написали/озвучили доступну книжку!) про розвиток, успіх, злети і падіння компаній. Як і інші адекватні книжки про організації та менеджмент ( High Output Management,The One Minute Manager), Джеймс пише про очевидні речі, але розказує про приклади того, як, насправді, складно дотримуватись таких базових практик.Спочатку хотів просто написати кілька речень про книжку і все, та подумав, що буде краще написати головні ідеї так, як вони запам'ятались мені. Ключові принципи, про які пишуть в Good to Great:- level 5 leadership: умілий менеджмент, який приймає, в першу чергу, рішення в інтересах компанії, а не в своїх особистих. Часто цих людей описували як скромних, спокійних, тихих, таких, що керуються фактами, а не емоціями.- first who, then what: get right people on the bus, wrong people off the bus and then decide where to go. Тут нічого додати, окрім посилання наWork Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead.- brutal facts first: говорити чітко і про головне, just facts & no bshit, і не втрачати надію, якими б ці факти не були. - hedgehog concept: фокусуватись на тому (1) що любиш, (2) можеш бути найкращим у світі, (3) де можеш заробляти. - culture of discipline: тут мені найбільше спадає в голову аналогія з deliberate practice. - technology accelerators: технологія є лише частиною успіху, його акселератором, але майже ніколи не є вихначальним критерієм. Тобто, багато компаній може мати одну й ту ж технологію, але не кожна зможе її успішно використати для свого росту.- flywheel: "проривний успіх" -- це часто момент, коли публіка про нього чує. Ніхто не хоче чути про роки поступових дій та покращень, які за ним стоять. Зсередини компанії "проривний успіх" часто виглядає як просто ще одна сходинка на сходах.Висновок: 5+. Автори переварили велику кількість статей, інтерв'ю та фінансових даних. Результатом є цікава книжка, частини якої можна перечитувати по кілька разів і використовувати на практиці при прийнятті рішень.

  • Bonnie
    2018-11-19 21:30

    Worth reading, because all your colleagues have read it or paid someone to give them the jist of it. :) If you read this, don't bother with "Built to Last" since much of the content is the reiterated. Ok, so Built to Last is about companies that have lasted over many eras and are still going strong. That's nice - I still feel like that's luck and adaptability, but sometimes, pure diversifation that saved some companies from themselves over the years.As for Good to Great, it's a bit more of a kick in the pants for corporate big-wigs. The big revelations: Companies that have gone from Good to Great often have a leader at the helm who has a few certain qualities: Humility, Adaptability, Honesty, Ability to face the Brutal Facts of any situation, Ability to make tough choices, and Ability to keep his/her ego in check enough to realize that company will and should continue without them, and they should train a respectable successor for the long-term good of the company. Charisma, interestingly, is not one of those qualities, but is replaced by approchability and integrity.Anecdotes abound, but with only a handfull of people deemed worthly of interviews, there is nothing particularly scientific. Most have had some sort of "wake-up call" in their lives, but I wonder if most normal people really do anyway.

  • Ms. Rose
    2018-11-28 23:35

    I love that this book is steeped in some serious longitudinal and painstaking research and essentially was written by a team that debated and pushed ideas much further than a single person could have. The book is so accessible, I think, directly as a result of this dynamic. All of the examples are phenomenal and it just makes so much sense. I would have liked it even more had their been more mention of the social/nonprofit sector. For though many ideas apply easily across fields, some ideas were hard for me to conceptualize in the realm of public education - for example the economic denominator.

  • Tanja Berg
    2018-11-26 21:31

    This book was collecting dust on my shelf for at least a year before I finally got around to it. I thought it would be a hopelessly overwhelming book to read. I could not have been more wrong. This is a very clear, concise and easily understood book. The author and his team spent years understanding why some companies beat the market and others did not. This was done after first having carefully made a selection and the conducted indepth interviews. Then they drew the conclusions into lucid and enlightening chapters. Definitely recommended!

  • Nick
    2018-12-04 19:19

    I found this book interesting on two levels. One was the useful data that Collins and his team provide for what makes some companies truly great. These findings need not apply only to businesses--they can also apply to individuals, churches, etc. The second level that interested me was all of the history of companies, such as Walgreens, Gillette, and Kroger. It was really neat to see how they got where they are today. Very useful!