4 ms·

Characteristics of Great Companies

29 points by dmytton 17y ago

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
nico 17y ago
It is the ten traits that came to me on a 15 minute subway ride Are you serious? Sounds like that post is a lot of BS to get attention. Better go read a good book based on actual _research_ like "Good to Great" or "Built to Last", both by Jim Collins.
- mildweed 17y ago
  http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/from-good-to-great-to-below-average/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/from-good-t... Good to great isn't that great.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Here's another one taking it apart: http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/ http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-go... > ... For instance, Collins says good-to-great companies practice "First Who, Then What," which basically means "hire good people." I'm willing to bet no one read the book and said "Eureka! I've been hiring slimy weasels when I should have been hiring top performers. That is why we aren't a great company." ... It's really one of the business books I liked least when I did a bunch of summaries for Squeezed Books. The "research" is a very small sample that, as the other posts point out, is not a very good sample at that. The only quantitative research seems to be picking the companies. The rest of the "research" is interviews and subjective stuff like that.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      > I'm willing to bet no one read the book and said "Eureka! I've been hiring slimy weasels when I should have been hiring top performers. That is why we aren't a great company." ... Not like that. But I once talked to a guy who's the CEO of a 2-100 employees in 8 years firm, and he would privately admit to being bothered by hiring sub-par people to keep up with the growth.
    - nico 17y ago
      There's an incredible amount of books which are nothing more than a collection of known stuff. Still, the time it takes to gather all the stuff, research it and put it together in a meaningful way, is what gives the book value. Take the "marketing bible" for instance: "Principles of Marketing" by Philip Kotler. When you read it, everything in the books seems obvious, but that doesn't stop it form being true, and being one of the best regarded marketing books.
- jack7890 17y ago
  Jim Collins' books are based on pseudo-research. Phil Rosenzweig does a beautiful job of showing this in The Halo Effect: http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Managers/dp/0743291263/ref=pd_sim_b_10 http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Manager...
- revorad 17y ago
  That's cheating, you took it out of context. The preceding sentence is key: This is not meant to be a comprehensive list. It is the ten traits that came to me on a 15 minute subway ride.
  - nico 17y ago
    Well, if you want to get technical, even those two sentences are out of context posted here. Nevertheless, my point still stands, which is: it doesn't seem like that list has a lot of substance, given it took the author merely 15 minutes to think about it and then write it down.
- fredwilson 17y ago
  it isn't BS to get attention. it may be BS in your opinion and that's fine to say that. but i put the list together as talking points for a talk with the entire Etsy team yesterday at lunch. it was a serious effort even though it only took me 15 minutes. some things that you learn over 25 years in the business can be codified in less than 15 minutes
  - nico 17y ago
    I don't think that getting attention or trying to get it is BS, marketing is all about getting attention, and that is very important. I just think 15 minutes is not what would be regarded as substantive in preparing for a talk. Probably it took you about the same time to post the list in your blog, hence it looks as if promoting yourself is a lot more important than even the content you use to do so.
- nico 17y ago
  I guess Jim Collins wasn't a good example.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- revorad 17y ago
  Even he admits that most great companies don't exhibit most of them. The article says: And it is also true that great companies don't hit every single one of these traits. But they hit most of them. And some do hit all of them. What's with the misquoting followed by bashing on this thread?
tptacek 17y ago
6) Great companies are led by entrepreneurs who own a meaningful piece of the business. As such, they make decisions based on long term business needs and objectives not short term goals. The second sentence in this argument does not follow from the first. Founders often have the exact opposite incentive.
akkartik 17y ago
"Great companies make lots of money but leave even more money on the table for their users and partners." Alternative phrasing: Great companies ride waves so great they can generate unprecedented revenues without being too much of an asshole. At least at the start. (I'm thinking of Adsense.)

29 points by dmytton 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

nico 17y ago

It is the ten traits that came to me on a 15 minute subway ride Are you serious? Sounds like that post is a lot of BS to get attention. Better go read a good book based on actual _research_ like "Good to Great" or "Built to Last", both by Jim Collins.

mildweed 17y ago
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/from-good-to-great-to-below-average/ http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/28/from-good-t... Good to great isn't that great.
- davidw 17y ago
  Here's another one taking it apart: http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-good/ http://www.businesspundit.com/why-good-to-great-isnt-very-go... > ... For instance, Collins says good-to-great companies practice "First Who, Then What," which basically means "hire good people." I'm willing to bet no one read the book and said "Eureka! I've been hiring slimy weasels when I should have been hiring top performers. That is why we aren't a great company." ... It's really one of the business books I liked least when I did a bunch of summaries for Squeezed Books. The "research" is a very small sample that, as the other posts point out, is not a very good sample at that. The only quantitative research seems to be picking the companies. The rest of the "research" is interviews and subjective stuff like that.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > I'm willing to bet no one read the book and said "Eureka! I've been hiring slimy weasels when I should have been hiring top performers. That is why we aren't a great company." ... Not like that. But I once talked to a guy who's the CEO of a 2-100 employees in 8 years firm, and he would privately admit to being bothered by hiring sub-par people to keep up with the growth.
  - nico 17y ago
    There's an incredible amount of books which are nothing more than a collection of known stuff. Still, the time it takes to gather all the stuff, research it and put it together in a meaningful way, is what gives the book value. Take the "marketing bible" for instance: "Principles of Marketing" by Philip Kotler. When you read it, everything in the books seems obvious, but that doesn't stop it form being true, and being one of the best regarded marketing books.
jack7890 17y ago
Jim Collins' books are based on pseudo-research. Phil Rosenzweig does a beautiful job of showing this in The Halo Effect: http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Managers/dp/0743291263/ref=pd_sim_b_10 http://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Manager...
revorad 17y ago
That's cheating, you took it out of context. The preceding sentence is key: This is not meant to be a comprehensive list. It is the ten traits that came to me on a 15 minute subway ride.
- nico 17y ago
  Well, if you want to get technical, even those two sentences are out of context posted here. Nevertheless, my point still stands, which is: it doesn't seem like that list has a lot of substance, given it took the author merely 15 minutes to think about it and then write it down.
fredwilson 17y ago
it isn't BS to get attention. it may be BS in your opinion and that's fine to say that. but i put the list together as talking points for a talk with the entire Etsy team yesterday at lunch. it was a serious effort even though it only took me 15 minutes. some things that you learn over 25 years in the business can be codified in less than 15 minutes
- nico 17y ago
  I don't think that getting attention or trying to get it is BS, marketing is all about getting attention, and that is very important. I just think 15 minutes is not what would be regarded as substantive in preparing for a talk. Probably it took you about the same time to post the list in your blog, hence it looks as if promoting yourself is a lot more important than even the content you use to do so.
nico 17y ago
I guess Jim Collins wasn't a good example.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

revorad 17y ago
Even he admits that most great companies don't exhibit most of them. The article says: And it is also true that great companies don't hit every single one of these traits. But they hit most of them. And some do hit all of them. What's with the misquoting followed by bashing on this thread?

tptacek 17y ago

6) Great companies are led by entrepreneurs who own a meaningful piece of the business. As such, they make decisions based on long term business needs and objectives not short term goals. The second sentence in this argument does not follow from the first. Founders often have the exact opposite incentive.

akkartik 17y ago

"Great companies make lots of money but leave even more money on the table for their users and partners." Alternative phrasing: Great companies ride waves so great they can generate unprecedented revenues without being too much of an asshole. At least at the start. (I'm thinking of Adsense.)