Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$9.80+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
VINE VOICEon April 27, 2014
Anyone tasked with the daunting responsibility of running an organization is faced with the challenge of culture. In the event that you are the "lucky" successor to a founder or a turn-around situation (my professional scenarios all have been in this realm), the task of what to do, where to go, and how to get there are huge - the culture is either well established, failing, and needs to change, or the culture may have been one of personality, facing a vacuum, and needs to be institutionalized. Collins and Porras look at a series of companies that have transcended this challenge and have developed a visionary culture that withstands the test of time.
Summarizing the basic themes:
* Be an architect and clock builder and design and develop a vision that stand the test of time
* Embrace the "Genius of AND." - do not accept difficult trade-offs and strive for the near impossible
* Preserve the core/stimulate progress - Develop, hone and ruthlessly protect core values, and innovate around that core
* Seek consistent alignment - Align all stakeholders to the vision of the organization and continue to insure alignment
Unlike some of the challenges faced by the companies chosen by Tom Peters in "In Search of Excellence", a 25 year run on Collins book finds many of his study subjects still in the forefront of their industries. Collins is definitely onto something, and is one of the more engaging writers of the genre. Definitely worth the read.
Summarizing the basic themes:
* Be an architect and clock builder and design and develop a vision that stand the test of time
* Embrace the "Genius of AND." - do not accept difficult trade-offs and strive for the near impossible
* Preserve the core/stimulate progress - Develop, hone and ruthlessly protect core values, and innovate around that core
* Seek consistent alignment - Align all stakeholders to the vision of the organization and continue to insure alignment
Unlike some of the challenges faced by the companies chosen by Tom Peters in "In Search of Excellence", a 25 year run on Collins book finds many of his study subjects still in the forefront of their industries. Collins is definitely onto something, and is one of the more engaging writers of the genre. Definitely worth the read.
on January 5, 2016
Bought this book used after hearing a motivational speaker reference this book. The seller shipped this in record time and the book itself is a great read. This book is not just for people in the business world, but can be applicable to anyone in any field who is looking for lasting success within its organization. Highly recommend this book to anyone!
TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE VOICEon April 26, 2015
Thoroughly researched and filled with great points. Knocked it one star because, after the first few chapters, it becomes incredibly redundant and it really drags. I could only read about Ford and 3M's same success stories so many times before I became saturated with it and couldn't take another dose. For the last few chapters, I read the first few pages and then went back to the chapter's "Take Away" section and still got everything I wanted out of the book. If an abridged version comes out, look into getting that one instead.
on January 16, 2017
The book is great, but I get lost sometimes in all of the data that they are presenting to make their points. I love the stories of how the companies rose to great heights and how those in comparison lost their way. It would be an easier read if more of the data was left to the appendix in the back of the book for those who are interested in the hard numbers.
on May 1, 2017
Glad this book was written, gives me some insight that I wouldn't have had about the inner workings of a business without it.
on December 8, 2005
This is an inspiring book, and informative. It answers the "what" question convincingly. I missed answers to the "why" questions. Why, for example, are successful visionary companies characterized by their emphasis on ethical standards? There are many possible explanations: the staff of the company are inspired by the ideals and give more to their employer; the companies reap payoffs in the long term from grateful recipients of their honorable deeds; the companies acquire a good reputation which increases sales and hence profits. More interesting, is the question of the logic of ethics in the business game - not even touched by these authors.
According to Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, it does not matter what the company ideology is, as long as it is passionately believed by the management and employees. I find this a dubious claim, and not supported by the data. The ideological frameworks of the companies that were studied are not interchangeable, not for the trivial reason that the ideology of another company happens not to be the one believed by each of them. Boeing is unlikely to spend money on a program to cure river blindness in Africa. Why does Merck do this? Clearly, a pharmaceutical firm does well to invest in a reputation for medical generosity that flows from a passion for making people well? Merck is purchasing precisely the trust that pays-off in the medical market place. Trust reduces transaction costs, and in some cases is almost as good as a monopoly. Boeing, on the other hand, must buy a brand name attached to their dedication to engineering excellence. It does matter what companies are passionate about.
My company operates on the Internet. Our pledge includes the words: "The tragedy of the commons is the propensity of users to take more from the commons than they give. We undertake to contribute more to the commons than we take. Our presence shall make the Internet safer, more useful and greater fun." Why is this a suitable ideology for our company? The answer is not that this is one we happen to believe in, and feel passionate about - although we do. Rather, this ideology is strategically fitting. We enhance to our brand name, and therefore the value of our software, by adding our reputation to the web applications we write.
In one of our daughter businesses we are a broker of information from merchants to consumer (information about products that are available) and from consumer to merchant (we generate real time demand curves for a large range of commodities). We have pledged not to become a trader. Why? In ethical terms, we should not be a trader because our insider information would give rise to conflict of interest. The trust that we gain by not being a trader, and hence remaining a disinterested supplier of market information, enables us to broker Coasian agreements with reduced transaction costs between the parties on the Internet. The advantage is large. It is on the Internet commons that trust is scarce. We are able to purchase this by foregoing some potentially profitable trades, and that pays us more in the long term in our role as an information service provider.
Our ideology was designed to give us the greatest possible strategic advantage in our markets. That is not to say we do not believe in our ideals, but that the nature of our ideology is important. It does matter what we believe. It matters what you believe, and it matters that you understand that it matters.
I strongly recommend "The Modern Firm" by Roberts. Read this alongside "Built to Last". Roberts is a harder read, but he gets under the logic of corporate dynamics better than Collins and Porras. Because "Built to Last" is characterized by an ubiquitous analytical paucity, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras' interpretations of their data are not always correct. That is a pity. Their findings are exciting, inspiring even, and the book despite its limitations is a good read.
According to Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, it does not matter what the company ideology is, as long as it is passionately believed by the management and employees. I find this a dubious claim, and not supported by the data. The ideological frameworks of the companies that were studied are not interchangeable, not for the trivial reason that the ideology of another company happens not to be the one believed by each of them. Boeing is unlikely to spend money on a program to cure river blindness in Africa. Why does Merck do this? Clearly, a pharmaceutical firm does well to invest in a reputation for medical generosity that flows from a passion for making people well? Merck is purchasing precisely the trust that pays-off in the medical market place. Trust reduces transaction costs, and in some cases is almost as good as a monopoly. Boeing, on the other hand, must buy a brand name attached to their dedication to engineering excellence. It does matter what companies are passionate about.
My company operates on the Internet. Our pledge includes the words: "The tragedy of the commons is the propensity of users to take more from the commons than they give. We undertake to contribute more to the commons than we take. Our presence shall make the Internet safer, more useful and greater fun." Why is this a suitable ideology for our company? The answer is not that this is one we happen to believe in, and feel passionate about - although we do. Rather, this ideology is strategically fitting. We enhance to our brand name, and therefore the value of our software, by adding our reputation to the web applications we write.
In one of our daughter businesses we are a broker of information from merchants to consumer (information about products that are available) and from consumer to merchant (we generate real time demand curves for a large range of commodities). We have pledged not to become a trader. Why? In ethical terms, we should not be a trader because our insider information would give rise to conflict of interest. The trust that we gain by not being a trader, and hence remaining a disinterested supplier of market information, enables us to broker Coasian agreements with reduced transaction costs between the parties on the Internet. The advantage is large. It is on the Internet commons that trust is scarce. We are able to purchase this by foregoing some potentially profitable trades, and that pays us more in the long term in our role as an information service provider.
Our ideology was designed to give us the greatest possible strategic advantage in our markets. That is not to say we do not believe in our ideals, but that the nature of our ideology is important. It does matter what we believe. It matters what you believe, and it matters that you understand that it matters.
I strongly recommend "The Modern Firm" by Roberts. Read this alongside "Built to Last". Roberts is a harder read, but he gets under the logic of corporate dynamics better than Collins and Porras. Because "Built to Last" is characterized by an ubiquitous analytical paucity, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras' interpretations of their data are not always correct. That is a pity. Their findings are exciting, inspiring even, and the book despite its limitations is a good read.
on October 25, 2015
My wife and I each own small businesses and I am growing 2HIRE.US to hopefully out live me by another 100 years. I started with reading Tim's book "Good to Great". I was so inspired that I bought "Build to Last" and having finished it I just bought his other two books. Great books and timeless advice.
