The book is based on “research” that begins by distilling “successful” public listed American companies by using a set of weak/arbitrary criteria (sans any accounting metrics). Similar weak criteria are used to find “comparison” companies. The rest of the book delves into very verbose qualitative-research explanations of some KSFs that the author believes drove these companies - with rampant generalisations and oversimplification. The book is full of models on leadership, organisational culture that are of relevance only in a 1.5 hour lecture on Business Strategy. In short - “Chicken Soup for Managers”.

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.

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.

Oh my god!

This book makes me FREAK OUT!!!

It’s so DAMN GOOD.

No!

FUCK THAT!!!

It’s FUCKIN GREAT

Những con số biết nói khá thú vị
6000 bài báo
2000 trang phỏng vấn
15.000 giờ làm việc
21 nhà nghiên cứu làm việc suốt 5 năm
1435 công ty được chọn từ danh sách Fortune 500
28 công ty được chắt lọc.
11 công ty nhảy vọt
11 công ty cạnh tranh trực tiếp
6 công ty ngắn ngày

Cuối 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 5
Tính 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 sau
Điều 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 phàng
Nghịch 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 nhím
Khái 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 ty
Kết hợp 3 cái này lại, giữ cho mình SỰ KỶ LUẬT, SỰ HƯỚNG TÂM và tâm chấn của 3 vòng tròn này
Mất 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 lại
và 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 luật
Nhớ 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 nghệ
Nhìn 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!

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 Wells Fargo as a paragon of excellence 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—which 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.

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.

The book simply is talking about how to make a great company. Not only good but great company. He is talking about the factors and the things the great companies do to become great.

Highly recommended

This book is backed by years of research by a dedicated, objective team and it shows in the clarity of thought when it comes to the lessons/findings. All the reference tables and data in the appendix makes it feel like a textbook, although you can skip it if you're only reading it for the ideas. It does make it a good book to have in your shelf for reference or inspiration. Even though the book was published in the early 2000's, the learning still hold true as promised.

The hedgehog concept, and the analogy of having the right people on the bus are very handy during most conflicts in an organization/company. My favorite part was the last chapter where the author entertained one of his researcher's question about why someone should aim for greatness at all, when you can be just successful or good enough. I liked how the author addressed that. Plus, it's something everyone should think about. Get through the book so you can enjoy the ending!

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 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—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.

n  tl;drn

Printed 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

هذا من الكتب الرائعة التي توضح لك بعيداً عن الدجل والوهم والخرافة كيف تنجح الشركات الكبرى وتتحول إلى شركات عظيمة
عبر 9 فصول مميزة يأخذنا الكاتب وفريقه البحثي ومن خلال دراسة معمقة لأكثر من 1453 شركة عالمية مشهورة وغير مشهورة ثم تصفية الرقم إلى 11 شركة عالمية تنطبق عليها المعايير الخاصة التي قررها مع فريقه البحثي ليعرف الأسباب التي حدت بالشركات كي تتحول إلى شركات عظيمة
من خلال 6 قواعد أساسية تتخللها 3 منظومات رئيسية وهي
1- الأشخاص المنضبطون
2- الفكر المنضبط
3- التنفيذ المنضبط
أما القواعد فهي:
1- مستوى القيادة 5
2- من أولاً ثم ماذا
3- واجه الحقائق القاسية
4- مفهوم القنفذ
5- ثقافة الانضباط
6- مسرّعات التكنولوجيا
قد تظنّ أنّ الكتاب موجه للشركات فقط لكن لو أنعمتَ النظر في تفاصيل هذه القواعد لوجدتها تنطبق أيضاً على الأفراد أيضاً.
إذا كنت ملولاً ولا طاقة لك بقراءة الكتاب كلّه فأرجو منك قراءة الفصل الرابع فقط [ مفهوم القنفذ ] فهو من أجمل فصول الكتاب

أعجبني في الكتاب أنّه جهد بحثي مشترك بين المؤلف ومعاونيه وقائم على الأسئلة المباشرة للشركات والحوار معهم وليس مجرّد سرد تاريخي لنجاحهم.
من العبارات التي أثرت بي قوله إنّ الناظر لنجاح الشركاات من الخارج يظنّ أنّ الأمر تم بضربة حظ أو تحوّل لحظي لكن الأمر من الداخل تمّ عبر سلسلة طويلة من التعب والتخطيط والبذل
فلا وجود لشيء اسمه "نجاح مفاجئ "
بل هو أقرب للوهم

يا إتش آرات العالم.. اقرؤوه

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?