3 ms·
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 Mig
by 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 agoThe '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 agoThe 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.