Comments on: Good to Great: Neither Good nor Great

By: This Blog Is Dead: I’m Starting Over

This Blog Is Dead: I’m Starting Over — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:19:41 +0000

[...] as a bit of a data geek (and someone who prefers fact to myth), I must note that Good to Great has been called out for having a flawed statistical methodology. So I won’t speak to whether or not the Hedgehog Concept produces the stated results for large [...]

By: Is Your Business A Social Media Fox Or Hedgehog? « SM@RT Social Media For Business

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:17:30 +0000

[...] but there is just one BIG problem. Because of flaws in the way his research was designed, Collins never proved anything he claimed, including the Hedgehog Concept. In fact, while the 11 companies Collins focused on were [...]

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:54:49 +0000

I agree that there is no such thing as a true guru book, but as a management consultant i have seen lots of organisations that do not practice any of the methodologies described in good to great and beleive that they suffer because of this. Surely the disciplined people, action plus the leadership thoughts on Level 5 leadership could take most organisations a long way towards creating more shareholder value? Look at GE since Jack Welch left? Or Apple since Steve Jobs illness was communicated to Wall Street? What about choosing one thing to be great at and executing with rigour and discipline? I think good to great may not be the silver bullet but is certainly a step in the right direction for most organisations. …..thoughts?

By: Todd

Todd — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 23:03:54 +0000

Thanks Peter. I don’t know if luck is the word. Maybe randomness in stock performance is better. Collins claims that he chose 15 years as a guage for performance bucase such luck (or maybe randomness) cannot go on in a company for 15 years. I wonder if this claim is really true? That if you increase your time step, you eliminate error from chance?

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:57:29 +0000

Todd, I’m sure regression to the mean plays a role. Pick any time period, and the firms that perform the best (by whatever criteria) during that period are unlikely to be at the top in subsequent periods. So I think you’re quite right!

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:47:27 +0000

Thanks Peter. You know, I don’t know whom exactly to ask but what do you think the role of just mere ‘luck’ is in positive business performance? Because if the sample that Mr. Collins chose for the 11 good to greats just had some amount of luck not only in being chosen by him and his team, but also in the 15 year growth, then you cannot discount an element in the experiment called regression to the mean. Maybe I shouldn’t say luck but we all know that oil prices, the stock market, business decisions etc all involves ups and downs. If Mr. Collins had analyzed the financial performance of these good to greats further into the future, he may have gotten different results, most likely worse than what he started with. I hope you understand where I’m going here. I’m not a statistician but I do remember some things learned in school.

By: Peter Klein

Peter Klein — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 04:53:38 +0000

Todd, the two articles address this question directly. I don’t know how you can get them without being a subscriber (or Academy of Management member) but I’ll keep my eye out for ungated versions.

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:29:24 +0000

Peter,

I just started reading your blog. I came upon this post of yours. The company I work in has asked us to read Good to Great for a team discussion on good management. I’m very interesting in getting hold of these two articles critiquing the book from the Academy of Management Perspectives. Any idea how I can read into that? Also, why do you think Collin’s criteria for sustained greatness in companies is flawed. He claims in the introductory chapter in the book that his research team made conclusions of the “timeless” concepts of company success through empirical deductions directly from data they had, as opposed to beginning with a biased theory. Your views are welcomed, along with any accredited sources of critique against the “principles” mentioned in this book.

By: David Hoopes

David Hoopes — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:24:10 +0000

It’s pretty amazing how many books pick companies with recent success and then create explanations. It reminds me of students who assume that because a company did well they made all of the right decisions. Or, because things did not turn out well they made bad decisions. For students (especially undergrads) I think this is forgivable. For faculty at or other reasonably well educated and experienced people it is not so forgivable (this I cannot forgive).

By: simone

simone — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:17:41 +0000

These books sell because many executives refuse to really think about their business. They want a formula that can be easily applied and communicated. The formula employed by many is a “Collins story” plus “best practices.” This minimizes thought and ensures that Corporate Relations and HR can develop the communications.