5 ms·

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 g

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.

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.