4 ms·

Sure. As long as you understand that the example was one data point in time. I think of it as: "in 1983, John had problem X and found creative solution Y, which

Sure. As long as you understand that the example was one data point in time. I think of it as: "in 1983, John had problem X and found creative solution Y, which worked". It doesn't mean that John's company will be immune forever of business failures. I just try to learn from people's creative ways to approach problems and find smart solutions. It helps that the same happened in my previous startup. When we were very small, I think we did a couple of great things. Some of those could be used in a business book as examples a smart company. But a few years later, and 5X more employees, we were quite messed up. Whatever wisdom we had as a small team didn't carry over to the larger organization (I guess you could use this example in reverse in another business book :-)

teej 17y ago
The core issue at hand is that the authors don't have any real insight into these companies. The article addresses this issue - the authors are taking successful companies and overgeneralizing the specifics to fit the theme of their book.
- loganfrederick 17y ago
  Not true. While they may be broad, the authors still found common traits of the most historically successful companies. Collins wrote the follow-up "How the Mighty Fall" to then explain why/how they were unable to remain "Built to Last". The failure of companies mentioned in Good to Great does not necessarily mean Good to Great was wrong; it's possible those companies were no longer following what made them great in the past.
  - davidw 17y ago
    The 'common traits' tend to be awfully vague, and have little predictive value. This is what's important: anyone can write a book in hindsight and extol the virtues of the latest fads, but if they were able to take their traits and make predictions based on them, that would be a little bit more serious than writing another 'management guru' book after the firms have failed.
    - loganfrederick 17y ago
      The point of Built to Last is to be predictive. I.E. If you follow this formula, along with some luck, you will succeed. Firms listed in the books that have failed could be countered with the argument that they stopped following the formula for success. Of course, at the end of one of the books Collins' notes that there are likely to be other predictors of sustainable success they did not recognize.

teej 17y ago

The core issue at hand is that the authors don't have any real insight into these companies. The article addresses this issue - the authors are taking successful companies and overgeneralizing the specifics to fit the theme of their book.

loganfrederick 17y ago
Not true. While they may be broad, the authors still found common traits of the most historically successful companies. Collins wrote the follow-up "How the Mighty Fall" to then explain why/how they were unable to remain "Built to Last". The failure of companies mentioned in Good to Great does not necessarily mean Good to Great was wrong; it's possible those companies were no longer following what made them great in the past.
- davidw 17y ago
  The 'common traits' tend to be awfully vague, and have little predictive value. This is what's important: anyone can write a book in hindsight and extol the virtues of the latest fads, but if they were able to take their traits and make predictions based on them, that would be a little bit more serious than writing another 'management guru' book after the firms have failed.
  - loganfrederick 17y ago
    The point of Built to Last is to be predictive. I.E. If you follow this formula, along with some luck, you will succeed. Firms listed in the books that have failed could be countered with the argument that they stopped following the formula for success. Of course, at the end of one of the books Collins' notes that there are likely to be other predictors of sustainable success they did not recognize.