Blog title here


Speaking Up: A Guide for Modern Leaders
Speaking Up: A Guide for Modern LeadersLeadership today…
In his previous bestseller, Built to Last, Jim Collins explored what made great companies great and how they sustained that greatness over time. One point kept nagging him, though – great companies have, for the most part, always been great, while a vast majority of good companies remain just that: good, but not great. What could merely good companies do to become great, to turn long-term weakness into long-term supremacy?
Collins and his team of researchers used strict benchmarks to identify a group of eleven elite companies that made the leap from good to great and sustained that greatness for at least fifteen years. The companies that made the list might surprise you as much as those left of (the likes of Intel, GE and Coca Cola are nowhere to be found).
The real surprise of Good to Great isn ‘t so much what good companies do to propel themselves to greatness – it’s why more companies haven ‘t done the same things more often.
The author and his team of researchers established the good-to-great benchmark as follows:
Level 5 Leadership
One of the most surprising results of the research of good-to-great companies was in the discovery of the type of leadership required to turn a good company into a great one. One might think that such companies are led by high-profile leaders with big personalities, those who make headlines and become celebrities.
Yet, those leaders who seek and thrive in the spotlight do not exude what can be termed “Level 5 Leadership” behaviors (the term Level 5 refers to the highest level in a hierarchy of executive capabilities as shown in the chart on the following page). Leaders of this type – those who combine extreme personal humility with intense professional will – shun the attention of celebrity, channeling their ambition toward the goal of building a great company.
Those leaders might run dif¬ferent companies in different markets, but they exemplify the same basic set of qualities:
When George Cain became CEO of Abbott Laboratories, the company occupied a lowly space in the pharmaceutical industry. Cain didn’t have an inspiring personality to galvanize the company, but he did have a steadfast intolerance for mediocrity; good was simply not good enough. He destroyed the company’s most glaring causes of its mediocrity – nepotism – by rebuilding the board and executive teams with the best people available, not just those who had family connections or had been with the company longest.
Want to find out if one of your managers has the potential for Level 5 leadership? Look for situations where extraordinary results exist, but where no individual steps forth to claim excess credit. Want to be a Level 5 leader? Read on; now that you know what a Level 5 leader is, you are ready to discover what a Level 5 leader does.
One of the things most people assume they will find when studying good-to-great companies is a com-pelling, new vision, strategy, or direction, around which management will gain people’s commitment.
The truth is quite the opposite. Executives who ignited transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus, then get the people to take it there. Instead, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off) and then figured out where to drive it. “Who” questions must come before “what” decisions – before vision, before strategy, before organization structure, before tactics.
Good-to-great leaders understand three simple truths:
Good-to-great companies tend to have rigorous cultures – cultures in which leadership consistently applies exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially upper management. To be rigorous means that the best people need not worry about their posi¬tions, leaving them to concentrate fully on doing their best work. It can also mean being up front about the need to let people go, if that is warranted.
To be rigorous in people decisions means first becoming rigorous about top management people decisions, and to following three practical disciplines:
Confront the Brutal Facts
All good-to-great companies began the process of finding a path to greatness by confronting the brutal facts of their current reality. When a company starts with an honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of its situation, the right decisions often become self-evident. Good decisions are impossible without an honest confrontation of the brutal facts.
Why Kroger Beat A&P
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company (also known as A&P) had the perfect business model for the first half of the twentieth century, when two world wars and an economic depression imposed frugality upon Americans: cheap, plentiful groceries sold in utilitarian stores. However, in the more affluent second half of the century, Americans began demanding bigger stores, more choices, fresh baked goods, fresh flowers, banking services and so forth. They wanted superstores that offered almost everything under one roof.
To face the brutal facts about the mismatch between its past model and the changing world, A&P opened a new store called Golden Key, where it could experiment with new methods and models and learn what customers wanted. It sold no A&P-branded products, experimented with new departments, and began to evolve toward the more modern superstore. A&P began to discover the answer to the questions of why it was losing market share and what it could do about it. But A&P executives didn’t like the answers they got, so they closed the store, rather than diverge from their ages-old business ideas.
Meanwhile, the Kroger grocery chain also conducted experiments and, by 1970, discovered the inescapable truth that the old-model grocery store was going to become extinct. Rather than ignore the brutal truth, as A&P did, the company acted on it, eliminating, chang¬ing, or replacing every single store that did not fit the new realities. It went block-by-block, city-by-city, state¬by-state, until it had rebuilt its entire system. By 1999, it was the number one grocery chain in America.
Let the Truth Be Heard
One of the primary tasks in taking a company from good to great is to create a culture wherein people have a tremendous opportunity to be heard and, ultimately, for the truth to be likewise heard.
To accomplish this, you must engage in four basic practices:
The Hedgehog Concept
In his famous essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox,” Isaiah Berlin divided the world into two groups, based on an ancient Greek proverb, which pitted the two natural enemies against each other. Foxes pursue many ends at the same time and see the world in all its complexity; they are scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, never integrating their thinking into one overall concept or unifying vision.
Hedgehogs, on the other hand, simplify a complex world into a single idea or principle that unifies and guides everything. Regardless of the world’s complexity, the hedgehog reduces all challenges and dilemmas to simple ideas – anything that does not somehow relate to the hedgehog idea holds no relevance. When foxes and hedgehogs are pitted against one another, the hedgehog always wins.
Three Key Dimensions
Those who built the good-to-great companies were, to one degree or another, hedgehogs. They used their hedgehog nature to drive toward a Hedgehog Concept, a simple, crystalline concept that flows from deep understanding about the intersection of the three key dimensions:
A Culture of Discipline
Sustained great results depend upon building a culture full of self-disciplined people who take disciplined action fanatically consistent with the three circles of the Hedgehog Concept.
This is in contrast to the typical ways in which many companies (particularly start-ups) conduct themselves when responding to growth and success. As these com¬panies grow, they tend to sacrifice the creativity, energy and vision that made them successful in favor of hierarchical, bureaucratic structures and strictures – thus killing the entrepreneurial spirit as they create order. Exciting companies thus transform themselves into ordinary companies, and mediocrity begins to grow in earnest.
Indeed, bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people on the bus in the first place. Most companies build their bureaucratic rules to man-age a small percentage of the wrong people, which in turn drives away the right people. This self-perpetuating problem can be avoided by cre¬ating a culture of discipline.
Action Steps
To create a culture of discipline, you must:
These disciplined companies could and did thrive even after their leaders had departed the organization; those companies that practiced discipline only by tyrannical rule could not sustain themselves once their leaders departed.
Technology Acceleration
Good-to-great organizations think differently than mediocre organizations about technology and technolog¬ical change. They avoid the fads and bandwagons that typically arise from new technology, instead becoming pioneers in the application of carefully selected tech¬nologies. When used correctly, technology becomes an accelerator of momentum, not a creator of it.
Find the Right Technologies
Good-to-great companies never began their transitions with pioneering technology, for the simple reason that you cannot make good use of technology until you know which technologies are relevant – the ones that link directly to the three intersecting circles of the Hedgehog Concept. Examples of this approach abound in the list of good-to-great companies:
Don’t Overreact to New Technology
How a company reacts to technological change is a good indicator of its inner drive for greatness versus mediocrity. Leaders of good-to-great companies respond with thoughtfulness and creativity, driven by a compulsion to turn unrealized potential into results. They do not take reactionary measures, defining strategy in response to what others are doing. They act in terms of what they want to create, and how to improve their companies, relative to an absolute standard of excellence.
Mediocre companies, on the other hand, react and lurch about, motivated chiefly by the fear of what they don’t understand – a fear of watching others hit it big while they’re left behind. Never was there a better example of this difference than during the technology bubble of the late 1990s, when mediocre companies moved from one technological scheme to the next, always reacting, never pioneering. The great companies acted with calm equanimity, taking quiet, deliberate steps forward, with great discipline.
Those organizations that stay true to their fundamentals and maintain their balance will accumulate the momentum required to break through; those that do not will spiral downward or remain mediocre.
The Flywheel and The Doom Loop
Good-to-great transformations often look like dramatic, revolutionary events to those observing from the out-side, but they feel like organic, cumulative processes to people on the inside. The confusion of end outcomes (dramatic results) with process (organic and cumulative) skews our perception of what really works over the long haul. Those companies had no name for their transfor-mations; there was no launch event, no tag line, no pro¬grammatic feel whatsoever.
There was, in other words, no miracle moment in the transformation of each company from good to great. Each went through a quiet, deliberate process of figur¬ing out what needed to be done to create the best future results, then they simply took those steps, one by one over time, until they hit their breakthrough moments.
The Flywheel Effect
Their successes can be seen in the following illustra¬tion: Imagine an enormous, heavy flywheel – a massive disc mounted horizontally on an axle, measuring 30 feet in diameter, two feet in thickness and 5,000 pounds in weight. In order to get the flywheel moving, you must push it. Its progress is slow; your consistent efforts may only move it a few inches at first. Over time, however, it becomes easier to move the flywheel, and it rotates with increasing ease, carried along by its momentum. The breakthrough comes when the wheel’s own heavy weight does the bulk of the work for you, with an almost unstoppable force.
Each of the good-to-great companies experienced the flywheel effect in their transformations. The first efforts in each transformation were almost imperceptible. Yet, over time, with consistent, disciplined actions propelling it forward, each company was able to build on its momentum and make the transformation – a build-up that led to a breakthrough. The momentum they built was then able to sustain their success over time.
These companies understood a simple truth: Tremendous power exists in the fact of continued improvement and the delivery of results. Point to tangible accomplishments – however incremental at first – and show how those steps fit into the context of an overall concept that will work. When this is done in such a way that people see and feel the buildup of momentum, they will line up with enthusi-asm. This is the real flywheel effect.
When a leader lets the flywheel do the talking, he or she does not need to fervently communicate the organization’s goals – people can just extrapolate from the momentum of the flywheel for themselves. As people decide among themselves to turn the fact of potential into the fact of results, the goal almost sets itself. People want to be part of a winning team, producing visible, tangible results.
The Doom Loop
Other companies exhibited very different patterns. Instead of a quiet, deliberate process of figuring out what needed to be done, then doing it, these companies frequently launched new programs – often loudly, with the aim of “motivating the troops” – only to see those programs fail to produce sustained results. They pushed the flywheel in one direction, stopped, changed course and pushed it in a new direction, a process they repeated continually. After years of lurching back and forth, these companies failed to build sustained momentum and fell into what could be termed the doom loop.
How can you tell if your organization is on the fly-wheel, or in the doom loop? Consider the following: You’re on the flywheel if you-
You’re in the doom loop if you-