I’m currently reading Good To Great for the first time and while I agree that some points of his are valid, especially the hedgehog concept, it’s a bit much to generalize that it’s applicable for everyone. As a hi-tech entrepreneur, I NEED to be a visionary leader, which probably disqualifies me from level 5 leadership. Also, if I can’t pivot and change direction on a dime, my company will probably fail.

Well written and ballsy, nicely done. 

Andrew Cross
http://andrewcross.ca

I am a great fan of the Hedgehog Concept, in that there are always at least three elements that work together to provide a framework for a particular outcome.  More recently, Simon Sinek penned a significant contribution to the literature titled “Start With Why,” which says we’ve been looking at things all wrong when we start with mission statements that describe “What” we are, and focuses on the three stage of “Why,” “How,” then “What” for organizational success.

I hold to a philosophy that 3 leads to 4 leads to 5, in that there are at least 5 elements that complete “the system,” and recently received validation of that theory by being introduced to Peter Senge’s “The Fifth Discipline.”  The task is finding what that fourth and fifth element are.  Once they are found, there is an emergent principle that is the result of the successful interaction of the five elements.

If I ever publish something that provides concrete examples of such systems (such as earth, wind, and fire + water + gravity), I fully expect someone who reads it to say, “Yes, but there is still something missing.”  Of course there’s something missing.  Everything in this life is imperfect.  Our challenge is to keep trying to bring whatever we’re working with or working on as close to perfect as possible.

When it comes to
research, it’s important that we take into consideration the fact
that research is not free from politics or personal agendas. Indeed,
it’s fairly common for researchers to focus on developing studies that serve more to reinforce their own bias/perceptions of the material in question, if not to also ensure a
steady stream of grants and other forms of funding. Just look at how
much contradictory information we get about what we should eat and
what we should avoid.

In this light, it’s not surprising to see
Collins’ relying on data that serves to reinforce his model for
successful leadership. That’s why I agree with you that it’s
important that we examine any research with a critical eye and place
it within a proper context to appreciate its real-world applications.

As for the reason why
Collins’ work remains such a sacred cow for many, one thought that
came to mind is how it provides its own form of ‘safety in numbers’.
That is, trying to take uncertainty out of the equation in order to
make processes and the act of leading people more predictable and
safe.

Aside from the obvious
problems this creates, the other concern this should draw is how it
encourages leaders to lose their sense of curiosity, of questioning
whether yesterday’s solutions still hold true for today’s challenges.
Perhaps in its own way, it’s this form of circular logic which is
helping to build and reinforce people’s perception of Collins’ work.

Thanks for your comment and your insights. I think you’ll find that many successful leaders don’t fall so neatly into the Level 5 box. Both Jobs and Gates have displayed a bit of hubris over the years, and I would say that particularly in the case of Jobs, he is a classic definition of a charismatic leader, who by the way, has also used radical change to his advantage. Thanks for stopping by Matthew.

Whilst I agree with you that many CEO’s can be effective at a certain level, my belief is that there really needs to be a very special kind of CEO to make the organisation great.

I’ve not applied the tests in Collins’ book to Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, but I’d be interested to know how they compare. Because on the face of it both leaders have been phenomenally successful, but only one of them is widely heralded as “God”.

The critiques of the research are valid. I was much more
comfortable with the approach of Tom Peters and Bob Waterman who presented
their book as, “here’s what we’ve observed and here’s how we’ve made sense
of it” than I am with Collins’ “this is what research shows.”

I also had problems with Collins’ tendency to present
individual situations as universal truths. He presents Jim Stockdale’s opinion
as if it represented the practice of all POWs for example.

To expand Rod’s point, I think the main value in books like
this is often their inspirational quality. Good to Great has energized a lot of
people who’ve then used the book as a starting point for trying things in their
own organization.

I have to add an observation about the “Level 5
Leader.” My take is that it was a concept bolted on to the book to sell
consulting services and other products.