Review: "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't"

Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't by Jim Collins is an excellent book that does a great job of describing how the author and his university team scientifically studied companies that went from "good" to "great" (hence the title) and stayed great for at least 15 years. These great companies managed to do so without being dependent upon any single charismatic leader (e.g., Lee Iacoca, Bill Gates) nor on any particular product or service that, for most vendors, everyone did great (e.g., computers) over a sustained 15-year period.

Collins uses such criteria as consistently extraordinary stock returns over the years (at least 4.3 times the average market returns) as the yardstick for gauging a company's greatness. Over the 30-year period studied, only 11 companies "made the grade." This team of researchers studies what the company management did to go from good or average stock performance to become great, including by interviewing the leaders and many others involved in each company, and many other factors, and came up with a short list of clear, and clearly defined, principals, that every one of these best of the best performers all did.

As someone fascinated by this topic, this book has impressed me more than any other I've read, and taught me more than any other, to the significant benefit of both me and my company. Of note also are the excellent comparisons in the book, and detailed analyses, of "control group" parallel companies - basically "on par" - average performance-wise - with each of the other companies that turned that proverbial corner, but that themselves failed to become great.

I've read (and listened to on audio book) Good to Great several times, so I can and do highly recommend it to anyone, especially business owners.

[Check out Good to Great by Jim Collins on Amazon.com]

Why we're not having the right conversation about poverty

Last week in this space, we quoted a column by syndicated columnists Cokie and Steve Roberts.  The Robertses have a brilliant way of cutting through the noise of political chatter to get to the heart of the issues we face, and they've done so again in a column published Sunday about America's rising poverty levels.

When it comes to immigration, let's just stick to the Facts

I read a column earlier today by syndicated columnists Cokie and Steve Roberts that I think completely crystallizes the logical argument against the anti-immigration furor that has swept certain segments of our country.

Long overdue honor: Congress to honor the first black Marines

In what can only be described as overdue, Congress voted yesterday to commemorate America's first black Marines.  Lawmakers from both parties agreed that the Montford Point Marines will receive the Congressional Gold Medal, the most prestigious honor awarded by Congress.

Posting pictures online from a smartphone poses a privacy threat

A newscast from NBC Action News in Kansas City currently has almost 6 million views on YouTube, and it's no wonder why - the report explains how easily internet users can obtain information from pictures online that were taken by a smartphone.

The Financial Crisis: Threat, or Opportunity?

In a column for The New York Times published October 11th, 2011, Thomas L. Friedman has a very interesting take on what the Occupy Wall Street movement might indicate about our economic future:


"There are two unified theories out there that intrigue me," Freidman says.  "One says this is the start of 'The Great Disruption.'  The other says that this is all part of 'The Big Shift.'  You decide."


Real, sweeping change historically accompanies crisis; people change when they are forced to.  Friedman looks at the financial crisis via two perspectives.  The first Friedman describes as "The Great Disruption", which he's derived from a book of the same name by Paul Gilding, and it paints a very pessimistic view of our global economic future.  He quotes Gilding:

I see our economic growth, of ineffective democracy, of overloading planet earth - our system - is eating itself alive.  Occupy Wall Street is like the kid in the fairy story saying what everyone knows but is afraid to say: the emperor has no clothes.  The system is broken.  Think about the promises of global market capitalism.  If we let the system work, if we let the rich get richer, if we let the rich get richer, if we let corporations focus on profit, if we let pollution go unpriced and unchecked, then we will all be better off.  It may not be equally distributed, but the poor will get less poor, those who work hard will get jobs, those who study hard will get better jobs and we'll have enough wealth to fix the environment.

This contrasts with another perspective, which Friedman deems "The Big Shift", and he's influenced here by a book called The Power of Pull, by John Hagel III and John Seely Brown. This is a considerably more optimistic viewpoint:


In the early stages, we experience this Big Shift as mounting pressure, deteriorating performance and growing stress because we continue to operate with institutions and practices that are increasingly dysfunctional... Yet, the Big Shift also unleashes a huge global flow of ideas, innovations, new collaborative possibilities and new market opportunities.  This flow is constantly getting richer and faster.  Today, they argue, tapping the global flow becomes the key to productivity, growth, and prosperity.  But to tap this flow effectively, every country, company and individual needs to be constantly growing their talents.


This Big Shift would force the smartest people and businesses, the thinkers who are best adapted to the current climate, will be forced to adapt as normal people begin to have access to the same tools and information as the elite.  And in a free market, the ideas that will rise to the top will have to be even more innovative and even more useful and profitable than ever before.


So, two drastically different takes on our global economic situation.  Which do you prefer?

"Offset" and Homeowners vs. Flood Insurance: Issues with the Recent Louisiana Supreme Court Decision

In response to a story that ran in The Times-Picayune on Sunday, October 2nd (you can read that story HERE), here is an expanded version of a letter I wrote to the editor of the Picayune: