null

•  
  Joe.enlight08/04/08 Report as spam
  1

  RE: "Good To Great" a Big Mistake?

  How is underperforming the remaining 490 companies in the S&P 500 a good thing?
  
  "We get a little stuck on the empirical side"
  
  It reminds of the tale of the turkey being fed for 300 straight days, then on day 301...

•  
  Michael Fitzgerald08/04/08 Report as spam
  2

  Numbers aren't the whole story

  First, he's not saying these are the worst stocks in the S&P 500 (he isn't even saying they're in the S&P 500). Levitt hasn't done the math, in fact. He's guess-timating that as a whole, these 11 stocks taken together would not have outperformed the S&P 500 since 2001.
  
  Let's say he's right (he probably is). Let's remember that the book looked at them after a sustained period in which they did significantly outperform the stock market.
  
  So what we need to know to dismiss the principles of "Good to Great" out of hand is whether the companies shifted away from what had made them successful, or if they faltered for other reasons. The numbers do not always tell the whole story. neither does Levitt, in implying that "Good to Great" is bunkum.
  
  Maybe being featured in a management book is like the Sports Illustrated curse of business. That in itself would be a useful reason to pay attention to management books.
  
  Michael

•  
  mmello08/15/08 Report as spam
  3

  Nonsense

  It is positively amazing, the ammount of rubish that 'Good to Great' is capable of exacting from even brilliant minds. Is it the book's karma, or the subtlety of statistics, that shoud be blamed?
  
  I guess Jim Collins bigest mistake was linking his 'Good to Great' study, to his previous 'Built to Last' one. This connection seems to imply that the highlighted companies would continue to have a spectacular performance, if not for centuries, at least for a few decades after the period of study.
  
  In strictly logical and methodological terms, however, there is absolutely no reason why the those companies would be expected to continue to perform well, after the period of study. There are numerous reasons for expecting exactly the oppose: the company might have lost its level-5 leader; its "hedgehog concept" might have become obsolete, due to changes in its environment, and so forth.
  
  Criticizing "Good to Great", on the grounds that its objects of study showed a different performance, AFTER the period of study, is simply un-sound analysis.

•  
  Michael Fitzgerald08/18/08 Report as spam
  4

  re:nonsense

  Changes in environment certainly happened to some of the companies in "Good to Great."
  
  It makes me think a little of "Profiles in Courage."
  
  Certainly all of the politicians profiled had moments of great courage. But were they always courageous? Of course not. Even great companies stumble, sometimes badly. As Clay Christensen argues in "The Innovator's Dilemma," sometimes they stumble exactly becuase they're great.
  
  Michael