Good to Great by Jim Collins - Book Report/Review Example

 Good to Great by Jim Collins Jim Collins starts his book “Good to Great, Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Other Don’t” with a statement that “Good is the enemy of great”. He uses this statement to imply that the rivalry between good and great is the reason why so little in our eventually becomes great (Collins, 2001). Jim tactfully presents several philosophical assumptions in his text to drive his point home. Chapter 1, for instance, reveals several assumptions that the research behind the text depended on to arrive at the findings presented. The text is indeed a challenge presented to entrepreneurs, CEOs, and other leaders that they should have discipline considered necessary for a company to shift from good to great. This paper presents a philosophical analysis if Jim’s text with particular interest in chapter 1. This is achieved through the identification of various philosophical assumptions underlying Jim’s research and methodology. Jim Collins and his team of 21 researchers compared and contrasted companies that they considered to have made the leap to greatness against those that did not. The team relied on a wide scope of evidence and large quantities of data to reveal and demonstrate how the good to great corporations consistently achieved great results. They showed that these companies, among them Wells Fargo, Pitney Bowes, Circuit City, Gillette, and Kimberly-Clark achieved enduring greatness hence, evolved to companies best described as “Built to Last” (Charles & Collins, 2006). Remarkably, the researchers clinched to a different perception from what we have always though, that people are the most crucial assets”. Instead, Jim emphasized that the right people are a better assets necessary for the shift. It is recommended that it is important to get the right people on the bus and send out the wrong people before deciding the destination of the bus (Collins, 2001). Collins and his research team based the study on the assumption that most people never attain greatness whether in private capacities or as leaders of companies. This is because majority tends to settle for the good in their lives, governments, companies, and even schools among other institutions. Once the good is attained, most people no longer bother with greatness hence, “good is a main enemy to greatness” (Oliver, 2012). Collins seems to have derived great inspiration from Bill Meehan’s comment about an earlier book titled “Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies”. Meehan, then the MD of McKinsey & Company in San Francisco, commented that the book was useless. This was because it was short of relevance because it represented information about companies with history of greatness since their establishment (Collins, 2001). The above comment triggered Collins’ desire to present meaningful research findings. He achieved this through a five-year period research. Researchers were organized in teams of four or six. That helped to ensure that the findings could be compared for purposes of accuracy. A long period of research was desirable because it would ensure that intended purpose and goals of the research were achieved. The team assumed that progress would be followed precisely over a long duration. It was easy to explore intricacies that made initially average companies to attain greatness in various industries and markets (Charles & Collins, 2006). Collin’s team sampled several companies perceived to have made the transition from good to great. They further considered whether the companies sustained greatness for 15 or more years. The team assumed that greatness depended on whether a given company achieved over three times, cumulative returns compared to the operational market (Collins, 2001). The criterion used was evaluated for the period after the company in question transitioned to greatness. The good to greatness corporations mentioned earlier were shown to have recorded average cumulative returns of 6.9% above the market. This was a reliable assumption considering that the companies had to have recorded high returns for a minimum of 15 years. Inconsistencies were reliably avoided leading to reliable findings just as Collins puts it. Sampled companies were categorized into two. They fell into two categories either “Direct Comparisons” or “un-sustained Comparisons” (Collins, 2001). The researchers felt and assumed that that the research would only achieve the research objectives with a concise comparison of the sampled companies. Direct comparison was conducted on companies that operated in the same industry and failed to demonstrate substantial improvements during their transition from good to great. The comparison in this case was based on common circumstances. Un-sustained comparisons were on companies whose results showed a short-term transition to greatness but failed to achieve sustainability afterwards (May, 2006). These two grounds of comparison had practical significance on research findings. The researchers were also able to account for companies that made the transition into greatness, but failed to record any improvements. They were also able to account for companies that transitioned into greatness and continued to improve afterwards. With that, it was easy to evaluate what companies needed to initiate and record further improvements even after the transition. (Kourdi, 2010) Factors that hinder developments and progress after the transition could be identified with these two forms of comparison. Remarkably, companies that fail to make further developments are vulnerable. They can easily fall back to good performance. Collins has documented that his research team coded more than 6,000 articles dating over 50 years ago, conducted intense quantitative and qualitative research, analyses, and generated over 2,000 pages of interview scripts. The team ended up with over 384 million bytes of data (Collins, 2001). To complement the research, the teams engaged in weekly debates that helped to guide the conclusions through delving into probable implications and interpretations of collected data. All this was done with the assumption that careful data collection would help to avoid inconsistencies and deceitful conclusions. Collins provides timeless principles that he considers influential over the transformation process from good to great in three stages. The three are disciplined people followed by discipline, thought then disciplined actions. The author compares the process to relentlessly pushing a large flywheel in a given direction; turn after turn to build momentum until it reaches breakpoint and beyond (Charles & Collins, 2006). Collins assumes that disciplined people also described as the right people will lead to greatness if they exhibit disciplined thought. This is from the perception that disciplined people with disciplined thoughts are likely to be disciplined in their actions. According to Collins, great company performance depends on individual performance of employees (Collins, 2001). The text largely reflects the assumption that companies or other organizations may never achieve greatness if they appreciate and settle for their status. All stakeholders must strive for higher goals and cease settling for what is already achieved. Repeatedly, Collins emphasizes that a culture of discipline in workers, thought, and action is a common characteristic of companies that attain greatness (Munro, 2005). The author bases his claims on the assumption that a culture of discipline encompasses the desirable concept of “Level 5 Leadership” as the “First Who… Then What” concept. Level five leaders are considered as being humble and exhibiting high level of professionalism. They have the capacity to evaluate employees and assemble them according to their capabilities. Such leaders often place workers in the best strategic positions before moving ahead. Although Collins does not state it, he seems to conform to the HR management principle that skill matching is crucial for maximum employee performances and productivity (Oliver, 2012). With a disciplined thought environment, researchers showed that the transition from good to great depends on the company’s capability to confront brutal facts without despairing. This implies that soft systems, in this case, employee organization is an important factor for the transition to occur. In any case, discipline ensures that programs are gradual and procedural, thus void of flaws caused by recklessness (Kourdi, 2010). Poststructuralist adherents would be fast to comment that Collins has tended to structuralism. This is because he interprets systems used in various companies and organizations to show why they never attained greatness (Collins, 2001). Adherents would not fail to note that Collins is keen to spot and criticize the points of weaknesses as well as strongholds in various systems, in this case companies. His assumptions comply with some aspects of structuralism as much as he derives some from post-structuralism. He bases his assumptions on these contradictory theories to drive his point home. Remarkably, the author uses post-structuralism to analyze company systems. He later turns to structuralism in his argument about how discipline helps corporations to transition from good to great. The same discipline is considerably necessary for the company to uphold the status “great”. A summary of Collins’ text review can be presented with reference to postmodernism perspective. Collins seems to be a strong adherent of postmodernism. He advocates for further changes in the operations of corporations. For instance, his text emphasizes that people should cease settling for the good or rather whatever they already achieved. He argues that settling for the good denies one the opportunity to achieve greatness. Like adherents of postmodernism, Collins criticizes the ordinary ways of thinking among people especially leaders. He advocates for a different way of thinking. In any case, it is unrealistic to expect different results while using the same approach repeatedly (May, 2006). A diversified approach of doing things is all that postmodernism adherents would comment on Collins and his research team. This is from the view that Collins seems to refute the ordinary thinking and approaches of doing things. References Charles, C. J., & Collins, J. (2006). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't. New York, NY: Random House Publishers. Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...And Others Don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers. Kourdi, J. (2010). Business Strategy: A Guide to Effective Decision-making. Chicago: Profile Books Publishers. May, R. (2006, January 2006). Why "Good to Great" Isn’t Very Good. Retrieved March 3, 2014, from Business Pundit: http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/ Munro, A. (2005). Practical Succession Management: How to Future-proof Your Organisation. New Jersey: Gower Publishing, Ltd. Oliver, G. R. (2012). Foundations of the Assumed Business Operations and Strategy Body of Knowledge. Califorina: Darlington Press. Read More