My book commentary continues this week. You may be wondering what is going on with this… Well, after years of not living close to a public library I discovered one right next to my veterinarian. It’s not that convenient, but its not that far either. I picked up 5 books that I thought I could finish before their due date. It seems that I bit off a little more than I can chew, but never being one to give up – and refusing to succumb to “online renewal” I am plowing through. I am finally reading some classic business books (and some new ones too) that I just haven’t had the time for. This installment features “Good to Great” by Jim Collins. 
This book gets my dander up for a lot of different reasons. Some are logical and some are a little irrational. My first issue with the book is that the world has changed so much since it was published. (2001) I like the concepts and all, but when I am reading about Fannie Mae, Nucor, and Wells Fargo as great companies there’s this little voice in the back of my mind saying “these guys all *screwed* up – does this research make ANY sense anymore???” Funny thing is that in the Epilogue the author addresses questions about his research. This was one of the questions – what about the companies that aren’t so great anymore? He acknowledges that it never is easy for companies to stay great and sometimes leaders let their egos get involved to cause this. I wish he would have put this in an introduction instead. That would have made reading this book a lot more pleasurable for me.
This book is also going to make me revisit my “Are you a hedgehog or a fox” post at some time. Clearly I need to do more research in this area because when it comes to leading a great company, being a hedgehog (albeit in a slightly different context than my previous post) is a GOOD thing. Companies who are singlemindedly driven toward a goal they are passionate about and that they can be the best at in the world are successful. None of that namby pamby running from idea to idea trying to jump start success happens in great companies. This hit home for me and it made me really angry. I’ve worked for those companies (more than one!) that tried to buy success in this way. What they ended up doing was frittering away millions of dollars of money that could have been used to build what they were really strong at and had people that were passionate about(and actually could be very successful selling). Instead, their leadership went on a huge ego trip and there was a flavor of the week idea that had to be implemented “now”! Talk about crazy.
The final thing that I appreciated is the concept of a Level 5 leader. We surely could use more of them running our companies in this country. Humble, modest, “we” focused, not “I” focused, has a goal of being the best, driven to succeed. This leader is not your charismatic leader. They don’t have to be. Their job isn’t to motivate their staff, but to make sure that they have the right people in the company who are willing to confront the circumstances – “the brutal facts” – and work to be successful despite of them.
“Now, you might be wondering, “How do you motivate people with brutal facts? Doesn’t motivation flow chiefly from a compelling vision?” The answer, surprisingly, is, “No.” Not because vision is unimportant, but because expending energy trying to motivate people is largely a waste of time. One of the dominant themes that runs throughout this book is that if you successfully implement its findings, you will not need to spend time and energy “motivating” people. If you have the right people on the bus, they will be self-motivated. The real question then becomes: How do you manage in such a way as not to de-motivate people? And one of the single most de-motivating actions you can take is to hold out false hopes, soon to be swept away by events.” Amen brother.
3 responses so far ↓
themadpeacock // October 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm |
This is/was a very good book and I think you picked up on an interesting cultural point. In 2009 leadership has become synonymous with moral boosting and disseminating the “all is well” message. Do you think the rise of social media has driven this?
In 1995 managers could sit down with employees and say, “look; we are in a tough spot and its not looking good. I need your help to turn this around” and be relatively comfortable it was a private conversation. Now with half the staff updating their facebook, linkedIn or twitter status twice during the meeting are managers “controlling the message”?
Are they subconsciously treating employees like press reporters?
winethinker // October 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm |
I definitely think that there is a matter of trust involved. I don’t even think that some leaders are doing it subconsciously. I’ve been explicitly told at times not to share information with my staff because of the fear of leaks. This always put me into an uncomfortable position. I am not a fan of the “need to know” school of management. I would rather share more than less. For instance, I think financial difficulties are important to convey to all members of the staff. There may be some people who just cannot have that level of risk in their personal lives. It is unconscionable for leaders to make those decisions on behalf of their employees. I have found that the more transparent the leadership is, the less employees will talk and the less they speculate in public forums. Granted, it is important for some of that information to be presented as strictly confidential. There also has to be a healthy respect between the leadership team and the line employees – and that respect has to flow in both directions for this to work.
themadpeacock // November 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
the Economist (October) has a great piece entitled “the three habits.. of highly irritating management gurus” and in it he points to what you have found here. So many of these management books champion companies that fail catastrophically 2-5 years after the book comes out.
there is no spoon..