Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t

5 Responses to “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap… and Others Don’t”

1. MichAnnAr, on November 29th, 2009 at 9:04 am Said:

   This book has a lot of conservative religious bigotry and cult-like zeal in it. Not to mention, it is full of drama, evangelized stories : “16 years of struggle, Mockler crumpled to the floor, struck dead by a massive heart attack”. Maybe the author should have put yet more drama and said: a tsunami came and Mockler was carried through it in the shadow of holy spirit.

   We must build a society of tolerance and respect for all, not preach such masked hate ideologies as delivered discreetly in the book all over.
   Rating: 1 / 5

2. Chase Darrah, on November 29th, 2009 at 11:28 am Said:

   SINCE READING THIS BOOK, I’VE WANTED TO SEND A COPY TO 3 CEO’S OF COMPANIES I RECENTLY HAD BAD EXPERIENCES. THE PROBLEM IS I (THE CUSTOMER) WOULDN’T BE ABLE TO GET THIS BOOK TO THEM! THREE BAD EXPERIENCES WITH BIG COMPANIES AND IT IS NOW SO PLAIN TO ME THAT THE LEADER OF THESE COMPANIES NEED TO READ THIS BOOK. I THINK ABOUT THIS BOOK OFTEN WHILE RUNNING MY OWN COMPANY. IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS LEADER OR BUSINESS OWNER, I STRONGLY SUGGEST THIS BOOK!
   Rating: 1 / 5

3. Stephen Wells, on November 29th, 2009 at 12:49 pm Said:

   This book would embarrass the average first grader! Its so superficial its depth has to be measured in microns. It proves that lots of idiots went to great schools.
   Rating: 1 / 5

4. A Reviewer, on November 29th, 2009 at 1:47 pm Said:

   Its very simple why MOST companies don’t become great. They dont want to !! Its alot cheaper to just edge out your competition (if you even have to), than to start a price war, or any other kind of war. Also, most companies are clueless, since they cant tell the difference between an investment, and a cost. They would rather not invest in their people because, they either might take the jobs of the one who taught them, or go somewhere else, and get paid a higher salary, from a company that didnt have to invest in them, so then that other company can then steal what they didnt have to invest in. Lets face it, the company with the lowest cost wins. That one statement explains everything else. There will never be greatness as long as this is true. The race to the botton, trumps the race to the top.
   Rating: 2 / 5

5. Alex P., on November 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm Said:

   Let me explain…

   Consulting firms have their place in the business world. These organizations abound with brainpower armed with advanced academic degrees. That’s wonderful. Most of the time, these firms do a great job of providing insightful answers to problems that bedevil management. When management is too close to the trees to be able to objectively evaluate the challenges confronting them, consultants can be a big help.

   What’s the connection? This book and its companion follow-up best-seller, “Built to Last,” were written by consultants. Mr. Jim Collins, a former McKinsey consultant, authored this singlehandedly and, for the second, co-authored it with Mr. Porras.

   “The Halo Effect” was written by a business professor named Rosenzweig.

   The Halo Effect: … and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers

   Professor Rosenzweig held “Good to Great” and “Built to Last” as the primary subjects of his argument about the “halo effect.”

   The good professor points out that both tomes used hindsight to unearth the success factors that made the companies in their respective lists such standouts. The problem with that approach, Rosenzweig points out, is that hindsight–as the saying goes–is 20/20.

   Take two boys who grow up in the same village. One becomes the company president while the other never rises beyond the rank of a junior manager. From the vantage point of the villagers, could they have foreseen who was going to become what? Maybe but probably not. On the other hand, if that question was tackled by starting from the present and then having their careers retraced back to their youth, the factors that made them into what they are can be easily discovered.

   That’s the fallacy inherent in basing one’s analysis on hindsight. You’ll always come up with the answers.

   Are they the correct answers? Not necessarily. Assume, for example, that the president rose through the financial ranks of the company. Does the fact that he graduated with an accounting degree constitute a valid success factor? Of course not. If that accounting degree was present in the biographies of 99 other company presidents, does that now make it a valid success factor? I still think not. And yet that’s how the authors of both books presented their case. They used an expanded sample population and retraced the path of each company that made it to each book’s list. They then isolated the factors that appeared in every company’s path. Aha!, they said. These are the common factors that propelled these companies into our list. Now, they stated, we know what works. From that, the authors proceeded to make broad extrapolations about how the reader might use these factors to make their own companies successful.

   I did what the professor did. I checked the standing of most of the companies in this first book. I came up with a review of mixed results. Using the same measure that the book used, some companies were doing well, most had become average, and a few were lagging.

   An even easier way to check the validity of these so-called success factors is to compare the list in both books. Surely a company that had transitioned from good to great would stay great enough to ensure that it was built to last. Right?

   Wrong.

   I have to agree with the professor. There is no success formula embodied in the advice proffered by the book. Those nuggets of advice are misleading. The advice is misleading because their source–the research results–are flawed. The research results are flawed because the research assumption is flawed. What is that assumption? It differs slightly for these two books but it could be roughly stated as such: “Isolate the common factors behind the success of these companies–the ones that made it to our list. Extrapolate the lessons from those few common factors and write a best-seller.” Or two.

   And that’s exactly what he/they did!

   I’ve read both books and I’m certain the reader will learn new things from each one. However, after reading “The Halo Effect” (and agreeing with it), I know now that neither “Good to Great” nor “Built to Last” reveal any good, great, or everlasting secrets of business success.

   Addendum:

   Jim Collins is an alumnus of the prestigious consulting firm, McKinsey & Co. The firm publishes The McKinsey Quarterly, a newsletter akin to the Harvard Business Review. The first issue of the 2007 newsletter (2007 number 1) contains an adaptation of the book, “The Halo Effect.” The article (mercifully) omits mentioning either of these two books, maybe because its author was one of their own.
   Rating: 2 / 5

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.