Reading: Chapter 1: Good is the Enemy of Great
Questions:
What idea,
concept or contention most impressed you in this chapter? How might it be
applied to your current work or club/group/committee/organization position?
Assignment - Deadline: Friday, June
13
A. Post two paragraphs inspired by
the study guide questions/thoughts for the week.
B. Post two separate comments
to one or more of your colleagues reacting to their paragraphs.
The concept which most resonated with me is the identification of a “Culture of Discipline” as one of the traits of companies which transformed from “Good to Great.” According to the author, when an organization has disciplined employees, it eliminates the need for micromanaging. Under optimum conditions, staff feels more empowered, which translates into improved performance.
ReplyDeleteI am a definite believer in this principle and have attempted to encourage a “Culture of Discipline” within our staff. To do so, staff must have a clear perception of their duties and responsibilities. They should focus on not only carrying out these tasks, but be open to learning ways one can improve performance via feedback and reflection. Once one believes one cannot improve, one is doomed to complacency and mediocrity.
Collins pulls no punches in leading off this chapter and his book with the following statements, "Good is the enemy of great. And that is one of the key reasons why we have so little that becomes great" (1). These are most likely lines that were intended to provoke, and chapter one goes to great lengths to discuss why we should care about them: good companies make money, great companies make more money. Investing in good-to-great companies would allow all of us to earn greater returns on investments, enrich our retirement nest eggs, and otherwise angle for the good life. Nevertheless, Collins does not fully acknowledge the implications of his argument that good organizations can achieve greatness through the application of certain techniques (Level 5 leadership, the hedgehog concept, culture of discipline, et cetera). Such concepts are referred to as the "timeless 'physics' of good to great" (14), and frankly I'm unconvinced. Not only are good, great, leadership, and discipline malleable concepts that vary depending on time and place, not all organizational outcomes can be measured in the neatly demarcated categories of profit and loss around which Collins frames his analysis. Though Good to Great is positioned as a work that can translate to "enduring organizations of any type," it is unwaveringly a book about business, investment, and finance.
ReplyDeleteWe might think here about the differences between the corporate good-to-great successes that Collins highlights (among them Circuit City and Fannie Mae...) and universities like UM, UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, and UVa, which constitute this country's great public universities. Certainly, these organizations require state funding, tuition dollars, endowments, and fundraising schemes, but their greatness cannot be reduced to a simple profit/loss algorithm, it emerges through the cross-pollination of innovative academic research, teaching, outreach, alumni achievements, and more. Nevertheless, we cannot cleanly extricate 'greatness' in higher education from notions of profit, as the University of Phoenix and other for-profit entities pull in millions of dollars in profits compared to zero across conventional non-profit universities, be they public or private. In 2013 Phoenix alone generated a profit of three hundred million dollars, and even though the organization may be the epitome of graft and dysfunction its 'greatness' is extolled by investors (see here here and here).
This brings me to a set of questions that I think about as a researcher, student, and teacher. Namely, who decides the qualities of greatness, especially in higher education? Is greatness as Collins frames it around profit always a good thing? For instance, should University of Phoenix and other for-profit institutions be praised for enriching their bottom lines even if their students receive a low quality education?
I can see that have you and Brandon participate in this is going to be fun. I can understand why you would be unconvinced that the concepts in this book will be "timeless physics". We have only read the first chapter. I believe that the author is attempting to setup his concepts in such as way that they can be applicable in almost any organization. The fact that profits are the primary means of determining greatness is somewhat off-putting. It would be interesting to know how the author would determine the value of other factors in a companies greatness.
DeleteNick - The University of Phoenix would not be profitable if it were not for a government-backed student loan system that saddles many ill-equipped students with debt when they have neither the academic skill set or familial/social support necessary to earn this high priced degree. With marketing professionals masquerading as counselors, I find myself unable to use the term "great" in the same sentence as this so-called higher education institution - even if I were playing devil's advocate.
DeleteI was surprised by the ambitious goal of the author to embark on a research project of such a large scope. While I do not have much experience with research around economics or the business, it is obvious from the first chapter that the project is huge. In general, I thought that the goal of the author, to find the timeless principles of “Great” companies, is a little unrealistic. From my perspective it seems that there are too many variables to consider and that finding a set list of principles that work for every business in any context is an unreachable goal.
ReplyDeleteKeeping that in mind, I did like the idea of studying organizations that have made significant transformations and the impacts of those transformations. As far as I could understand the factor which the author uses to determine if a business has made the change to becoming a great business is based on their market share or return. While I can concede that for profit and stockholders these measures are useful and beneficial, I wonder what other ways of measuring greatness could have been considered.
An historical lens -- or a few Mad Men episodes -- might be helpful in thinking about standards for corporate 'greatness' aside from profit. Bethlehem Steel, GM, and Pan Am are all companies that have been praised for their greatness, not necessarily because of their stock prices but due to their sheer presence in a sort of national zeitgeist. This doesn't always translate into profit but shows how good pr and advertising are important in constructing an image of greatness.
DeleteUltimately, greatness tends to be in eye of the beholder. Some people's versions of greatness are simplistic, while others, are at unobtainable levels.
DeleteFrom a business standpoint, greatness tends to be measured by three aspects: humanitarian efforts, profits and/or long-term impact.
There were two things in the first chapter that had the strongest impact on me from the reading. The first was the idea that "good is the enemy of great". This notion is powerful to me because I see it as one of those universal truths that I had never specifically had broken down for me before. Too often we do settle for "good". The work, effort, and stress related to achieving "greatness" can be daunting. It is much easier to good. The second idea that stood out for me was the discovery that for the companies that made the transition, no one came in from the outside and make the changes in companies. The impetus for change came from within. This is powerful to me because it means that one can take a hard look at his/her current environment and truly see the potential that is there. You do not need to bring in an outsider to do things in a new way. Change can come from within.
ReplyDeleteI think that this book will provide a lot of good discussion for us. Although we are not in a "business" environment I believe many of the principles we read about will be applicable to our work. I like how the author efforts to paint this work as more than a business book. I am still reserving final judgement on that, but I do believe that we will be able to distill enough knowledge from the text to be beneficial.
I definitely agree with the contention that "good is the enemy of great." Whenever I feel I have mastered something, I begin to experience a sense of anxiousness when I no longer feel challenged. For me, it is important to have people in my life who can honestly tell me when I appear to be in that situation. I would know then it is time to find creative ways to "step up my game" or move on to another position.
DeleteI agree. I have often heard "good is the enemy of great" referenced in some form or another, but never really had it defined. I'm interested to see how they describe this phenomenon and what advice they have for avoiding becoming trapped in "good". I'm also interested to see how the lessons from this book can impact my own personal work and career aspirations. Hopefully they get into deeper topics beyond profit margins and market shares. I think there could be some valuable lessons in studying how organizations come along the decision and plan to change.
ReplyDeleteThe concept that stood out to me was the initial: "good is the enemy of great." I've never really thought about it in that context, but Collins made a good point that the reason we don't have great schools, government, etc. is due to the fact that good schools, government, etc. are "good enough" in the minds of many.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the Detroit Center falls on the side of striving for greatness, rather than good. Although "good" in the sense of the word is a positive concept, for our staff, good is our lowest acceptable achievement level. It seems that in every role for our staff, we want to provide a great collective experience to those who visit the Detroit Center, as well a being great in our individual roles as well.
Sighs and moans may be few, from the staff, for this professional development project. This book is fast paced with logic every person can apply to their personal and professional lives. In the first chapter, the underlying tone that LEAPS from the pages for me is, 'you're basic, at best, and you're settling, now what?' From there, it starts to lay the foundation of how to go from good to great. How do you define great? What approach (analytical overview) are you applying to your business model to go from good to great? How will that be implemented? How will that be measured?
ReplyDeleteA company's capability to recognize there potential to be great, while operating in the midst of good, can be staggering due to operational, social and human factors. A corporation's scope is vast and the wherewithal to view itself on a granular level can place a business at a pivotal point in the road (the GM malfunctioning car part debacle currently comes to mind). When you know there's a problem, that gives way to the benchmark of your organization, do you fix what's wrong to improve business practices or keep moving forward because it works?
So far I am liking this book. It is a very interesting ready which I feel I can use to better not only my performance here at work but my professional life as well. In chapter one, Collins discussed the issues in settling for good. This being a common practice usually leads to just adequate conditions.
ReplyDelete'Good is the enemy of great' made a lot of sense to me. This is a concept which could be applied to just about everything. In Collin's dissection of a great company he talked about leaders as well as the workers. Leaders of great companies made the company their priority, were modest and took risk disregarding opinion. Collins also brought to light the workers which make up a great company. Disciplined individuals who are so adept at their duties they need little to no managing by superiors also known as the "Culture of Discipline". Definitely a enlightening chapter.