Good to Great by Jim CollinsJoin now to read essay Good to Great by Jim CollinsGood to Great by Jim Collins is by far the best business-oriented book that Ive read that can be applied to any career situation. I can see why it has gained the notoriety and respect from top level executives around the world. I have read other business type books which were more of a motivational lecture than actual years of research going into the making of one text. Before reading this book, my preconceived notion was that I would be lost in trying to understand executive jargon. That was not the case at all. Jim Collins did a great job of portraying his ideas and findings in an easy to understand manner that anyone can comprehend. Also, the graphs and illustrations were a useful tool in grasping the ideas he was trying to get across. After reading the book, I was impressed to learn of the concepts and characteristics that may aid me in the pursuit of personal greatness.
Overall, there were many ideas in the book that I found interesting and educational. But, the insights that I feel have made the biggest impression are the following: Level 5 leadership, getting the right people on the bus (First Who, Then What), and the Hedgehog Concept.
When trying to figure out what path to take in life, I have to confront the facts of my current state and what it is that I am after. The fox always tries to out smart the hedgehog with his attacks, but fails each time because the hedgehog knows all he has to do to succeed is roll in a ball and wait for the fox to retreat. Collins points out the only significant difference we found was that good to great executives received slightly less total cash compensation ten years after the transition than their counterparts at the still mediocre comparison companies. Collins did a great job of presenting his findings in a manner that anyone can understand. They don’t mind working a little harder or putting in longer hours because theyre doing it for the love
In summary, the analysis that I present in this post argues that the high levels of financial literacy and managerial skills available on a given day can and do change an individual’s course in life, even when working in a corporate space where there is no corporate CEO. This is a point made repeatedly by other economists. I believe that the main difference is that it is more time consuming and may lead to people failing instead of succeeding and that a number of factors are important in determining a person’s performance at a career track. To me, it is clear that the ability to identify and communicate a successful work environment with colleagues and the general level of management skills required are different for different circumstances. Also, there is a significant gap between what an employer might require of a group of people working in a certain career and what an average work environment will tolerate. With these things in mind, a number of factors contribute to a person achieving their career goals.
3. How can we assess leadership?
One of the most frequent criticisms the research team has leveled against the financial literacy of their work is that it makes it difficult to evaluate current or future leadership styles. A review by Rolfes of a 2007 paper of more than 2,000 researchers suggested this:
3.1 Leadership styles need to represent the kind of work expected of each employee. Most studies have found that if an employee performs more, he can increase the number of opportunities that could be created to meet his needs. However, if a particular organizational style represents a more high standard of work, the chances for success drop as a result. An individual of average or high academic ability would have no such problem. The problem is that organizations are likely more inclined to make the right decisions for particular needs and responsibilities than they are to build a specific set of skills. More effective management style is only as good as the team members who develop or maintain it. In the absence of clear and sustained consensus around a set of working preferences and goals, most organizations will ultimately end up relying on the “best” people instead of other people, rather than on others.
I agree with Rolfes (although I disagree greatly with his general sense of leadership.) I see the problem with some of the work that goes on as a result of a leader’s ability to get things done. The first issue is that many of the individuals who take this line are inexperienced. It took some time for Rolfes to get to that point, and some people take that to be a factor when it comes to leaders. One of the first steps after leaving the business career was to learn to identify and assess leadership. Rolfes pointed to multiple studies on leadership in leadership centers that found that people who participated in these centers learned to identify and evaluate the behavior they were getting out of their leaders. Although they usually had difficulty identifying that behavior (though it was very similar to some participants in the center’s leadership courses), all participants were highly motivated to participate. That was in large part because more people