Besides the two most important reminders that this book brought along, the concept of 'level 5 leadership' and the importance of selecting the right people for the job and despite half of the book describing the methodology of their study, the books has a higher ration of trite, if common sense, ideas than strong arguments that can predict success.

The first thing to remember is that excellent leadership is not only about being a servant leader—it's also mandatory that you are a rigorous, ambitious person that relentlessly follows a vision of excellence. Even so, this seems to me easier to do than being a truly humble leader as you accumulate success and power. And here the book is thin on explanations. I wish it had touched more on how humility is neither about being weak, meek, or indecisive, nor even about shunning publicity. Humility is about a true lack of narcissism—knowing what you don't know (the overwhelming amount of dark matter out there), not underestimating your competition, listening to weird ideas, being passionately curious, and valuing substance to fluff.

Secondly, it is paramount to have the right people on the bus even before knowing the direction. This sounds very common sense, again, but in a world obsessed with fast growth it might also be the first thing to cut on. I'm a strong believer in the hiring principles of continuing to look when in doubt (but making sure you've looked thoroughly) and in being swift in making people changes when a certain formation goes against the vision and the strategy you've all agreed to pursue. Lastly, James Collins makes an interesting point about giving best people the best opportunities rather than the best problems to solve. I've seen many very talented people being crushed because they were given the responsibility of steering a sinking boat.

Overall, James Collins is not the first one to explain that grit, passion, huge amounts of work and discipline, focus, and putting understanding in front of bravado are what builds great performers, both in the individual and in the corporate spheres. In particular, the Hedgehog Concept, for which the book is usually referenced, is argued incredibly weakly but it should give managers the guideline that it's not really worth giving your best performers mandates they aren't passionate about, and this is me turning the concept onto its head towards individual performance, for the book looks at it in a corporate, macro sense.

I also share the sentiment that it is mostly backwards looking (after all, most of the "great" companies are not great companies anymore) and therefore it doesn't really make predictions and it is more about correlation than causation.

As well, while researching the criticism about this book, I've stumbled upon a nice piece in HBR which was proposing that some of these great companies should look at becoming good after all—that is to say coming back from great, which solely means exceptionally profitable, like Pepsi, who are not in the book, or Philips Morris, who are in the book, to working for the greater good.

The author insisted that the book is based on cold, objective, ruthless research. But it consists of nothing but a set of hindsight biased / cherrypicked inspirational stories. It offers the same advice you find fucking everywhere: put soul in your work, work a lot, be kind, focus on people, do one thing and do it well, etc. Well, many comparison companies did these as well... but they were less lucky with their hires and their strategic bets.

Giving 2 stars because his advice is actually useful. But good luck getting from good to great... because I believe, contrary to what the book suggests, that you do need luck

Read this years ago and recall it as quite worthwhile.

If you are looking for sweeping generalizations and a unifying theory of everything, well hey, this offer has all of that and a bridge in Brooklyn that he wants to offer you.

Although this book does have some interesting information, it is also full of relationships that are declared by the author as causal, but may indeed just be coincidental or correlative.

very sound advice.

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. :)

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!

I was reluctant to buy in to a management/business book because mostly, I think they're just cash cows for publishers. But this book was different, smart in a way I didn't expect. I felt like I actually gained valuable insight into not only the organizations profiled in the book, but also into my own.

Collins matches an easy, flowing style with raw data and visuals that further clarify his points. Although I think some of his classifications of concepts are gimmicky (The Hedgehog Concept, the Doom Loop, etc), they are memorable and easy to understand.

Collins isn't reinventing the wheel, but probably he's doing something even harder here--revealing ideas so obvious we never even consider them anymore.

I think this book is an effective tool for managers and employees alike; anyone invested in taking their organization to a new level, transcending the power politics that plague so many industries and leaving behind the personality conflicts of people closed into small spaces...

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.

من جيد إلى عظيم

قادة الشركات من جيد إلى عظيم أولاً أدخلوا الأشخاص المناسبين إلى الحافلة، وأنزلوا غير المناسبين منها، ثم منحوا لكل شخص المقعد الذي يناسبه، وبعد ذلك قرروا إلى أين يقودونها.

الأشخاص ليسوا الثروة الأهم لديك ، بل هم الأشخاص المناسبون
الأشخاص ليسوا هم أهم الأصول بل الأشخاص المناسبون هم أهم الأصول.

يجب أن تبقى على ثقة راسخة لا تتزعزع بامكانية الانتصار

عشرة رؤساء تنفيذيين من أصل ١١ في الشركات التى قفزت من جيد إلى عظيم أتوا من داخل الشركة وثلاثة منهم أتوا عن طريق الوراثة.

نادرًا ما يؤسس العباقرة فرقاًإدارية عظيمة وذلك لأنهم ببساطة لا يحتاجونها

الأشخاص المناسبون سيقومون بالأشياء الصحيحة وسيحققونه أفضل النتائج التي في وسعهم أن يحققوها بغض النظر عن نظام الحوافز

التعويضات والحوافز لها أهمية، لكن لا ينبغي أن يكون الهدف من نظام التعويضات هو الحصول على السلوكيات المناسبة من الأشخاص غير المناسبين.

احد التنفيذين في شركة نيوكور يوجد لدينا أكثر عاملي مجتهدين في العالم، نحن نعين خمسة أشخاص ونجعلهم يعملون كأنهم عشرة أشخاص ويتلقون أجرهم كأنهم ثمانية أشخاص.

أفضل قرارات التعيين كانت تأتي غالبا من أشخاص ليست لديهم خبرات في مجال الأعمال أو الصناعة. ففي إحدى الحالات عين مديرا تم أسره مرتين أثناء الحرب العالمية الثانية واستطاع أن يهرب في كلتا المرتين قال (( اعتقد أن اي شخص تمكن من القيام بذلك لن يواجه صعوبة في التعامل مع قطاع الأعمال ))

طبق ثقافة العمل الصارمة وليست القاسية
أن تكون صارماً يعني أن تطبق باستمرار معايير صارمة في كل الأوقات وعلى كافة المستويات خاصة في مستويات الإدارة العليا. ايضا لن يحتاج أفضل الموظفين الي الشعور بالقلق على مناصبهم ويمكنهم أن يركزوا بالكامل على عملهم.

السبيل الوحيد لمكافأة الأشخاص المنجزين هو ألا تثقل كاهلهم بأشخاص غير منجزين.

هناك ست شركات من أصل إحدى عشرة شركة قفزت من جيد الى عظيم لم تقم بأي عملية من عمليات تسريح للموظفين بينما الشركات الآخرى استخدمت تسريح الموظفين بشكل أكبر بخمس مرات بل بعض الشركات لديها تقريبا إدمان مزمن لحالات التسريح وإعادة الهيكلة.

ثلاث ضوابط لكي تصبح صارمًا وليس قاسيًا

١- عندما تكون في حالة شك لا تعين استمر في البحث

المتحكم النهائي في النمو بالنسبة لأي شركة عظيمة ليس هو الأسواق أو المنافسة او التكنولوجيا أو المنتجات، بل القدرة على الحصول على عدد كاٍف من الأشخاص المناسبين والمحافظة عليهم.

بدل من لوحات الإعلانات التقليدية كانت متاجر سيركت سيتي تضع لافتة مكتوبا عليها
" نحن نبحث دائماً عن الأشخاص الرائعين "

رئيس التنفيذي لشركة سيلو كان يقضي جل وقته في أعوامه الأولى في الشركة يركز على ضم الأشخاص المناسبين لمتن الحافلة. بينما قضى كورب ٨٠٪‏ من وقته يركز على المتاجر المناسبة ليشتريها بينما ركز سيركت سيتي بشدة على وضع الأشخاص المناسبين في كافة مستويات الشركة من العليا والدنيا، من سائقي التوصيل وحتى نائب المديرين

٢- عندما تعرف أنك بحاجة إلى إحداث تغيير في الموظفين تصرف في اللحظة التي تشعر فيها بأنك تحتاج إلى أن تدير شخصا ما بإحكام، فإنك تكون قد ارتكبت خطأ عندما عينته. الأشخاص الأكفاء لا يحتاجون إلى أن تتم إدارتهم

ترك الأشخاص غير المناسبين يضيعون الوقت دون فائدة هو أمر ظالم لجميع الأشخاص المناسبين.

٣- ضع افضل موظفيك في اكير فرصك وليس في أكبر مشكلاتك

إدارة المشكلات من الممكن فقط أن تجعلها شركة جيدة، في حين أن بناء الفرص هو السبيل الوحيد للوصول للعظمة.

عندما تقرر أن تتخلص من مشاكلك لا تتخلص من أفضل موظفيك

أنت تحتاج إلى تنفيذيه يقومون من ناحية بالجدال والنقاش بعنف أحياناً سعياً وراء افضل الإجابات ومن ناحية الأخرى يتحدون بالكامل وراء القرار الذي يتخذونه بغض النظر عن المصالح المحدودة.

عندما تحلل دون توجيه اللوم تقطع شوطاً بعيداً في توفير مناخ تسمع فيه الحقيقة

(يجب أن تبقى على ثقتك بأنك ستنتصر في النهاية ويجب عليك أيضا مواجهة الحقائق القاسية لواقعك الحالي)

واجه الحقائق القاسية لكن لا تفقد ثقتك أبداً

بذل الوقت والجهد في محاولة تحفيز الناس هو ضياع للمجهود السؤال الحقيقي ليس كيف تحفز الناس ؟ إذا كان لديك الأشخاص المناسبون فسوف يكونون متحفزين ذاتياً. السر هو في عدم تثبيط هممهم. إحدى الطرق الأساسية في تثبيط همم الناس هي تجاهل الحقائق القاسية للواقع.

إذا عرفت ما يمكنك وما لا يمكنك أن تكون الأفضل فيه

مفهوم القنفذ ليس هدفاً لأن تكون الأفضل بل استراتيجية لأن تكون الأفضل ، نية لأن تكون الأفضل ، خطة لأن تكون الأفضل

الشركة لا تحتاج لأن تكون في صناعة عظيمة لتصبح شركة عظيمة كل الشركات العظيمة بنت محركا اقتصادي رائع بصرف النظر عن الصناعة

التحول من الربح لكل أصل ثابت ( المصانع ) إلى الربح لكل ماركة استهلاكية سيكون أقل تكرارا وأكثر ربحية في الشدة والرخاء

Finally read Good to Great, by Jim Collins (yes, I know that I'm a bit behind in my reading, but just never seemed to get around to this one). I thought it was good (not great) in that it didn't really tell me anything that wasn't pretty obvious. Furthermore, there is a lot of peril in identifying "great" companies that then go on to stumble (Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Pitney Bowes). I know that Collins would say that these companies stopped following those things that made them great, but that brings up an interesting point in my eyes. Is a company ever truly "great" or is it all relative? Relative to competitive comparisons, relative to timeframe, etc.

Companies can only be measured as great at the moment you are looking at them and that greatness is rarely projectable to the future?

Why? Lets look at some of Collins' key points - those elements that allow a company to go from Good to Great:

Level 5 Leadership - This is a big one. I don't think you can have any of the rest of the items on this list if your leadership can't or won't make it happen.
The "right" employees.
A management team that is comfortable and seeks out the truth
A simple focus - knowing what you are good at - "Hedgehog Concept" - and making sure everyone knows what this concept is.
Discipline to stick to the concept - don't go off buying ancillary businesses.
Uses technology to support the hedgehog concept, don't make technology the hedgehog concept (I guess unless it is your hedgehog concept).
Doesn't expect to break through to success with a magical short-term strategy - believe in continuous improvement.
Greatness isn't projectable because so much of the list above is dependent upon people, and in reality they are dependent on the whims of very few people at the top. Change your CEO from one at Level 5 to one at Level 4 and look out below!

I firmly believe that success starts and ends with leadership - and the best companies I've worked with and for have actually had many of the above factors, because they had great management. Most, if not all, couldn't maintain the greatness and those that did often stumbled for a time and regained it (usually after a management change or after managment got "religion").

Corporations are like people (in fact, isn't that how the tax code sees them?). They have good days and bad days...they get moody sometimes...they go through difficult patches...they sometimes succeed and even surprise...but in the end, they all die. During their lives, they often get caught up in their own personal dramas, which gets them off course.

The value in books like Good to Great, and almost any business book I've read, is to remind companies of what they already know, but forgot. These are the self-help books that we all read when we're in a personal down cycle. They can be inspiring and can get us back on track...but soon enough, we need to read a new one.

For now, I'm inspired to become Great.

Good to Great, which is sort of a prequel to Collins's bestselling Built to Last, is a study of 11 established companies that suddenly broke out and outperformed the market in an unbelievable fashion. 11 comparison companies that remained stable in the same industry and environment are used in the study.

Each good-to-great company displayed a certain style of leadership that Collins calls "Level 5 Leadership." Each focused on getting the right employees onboard before figuring out what to do with them. And there are 5 other concepts that were common between them which each get a chapter in the book. These concepts have to do with psychology, core philosophies, management strategies, organizational behavior concepts, and more.

Each of the 7 concepts in this book could be applied to starting and running your own small business, to finding good businesses to invest in, to managing in any business or organization, to teaching and coaching, to your own personal creative endeavors, and so much more. Using these businesses and their leaders as an example, Collins and his team provide a research-based model for becoming the best in the world at something.