Good to Great
I'm reading the book "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. He and a team researched companies that went from performing good to outperforming other similar companies and the overall stock market. What they found, and didn't find surprised them.
The first thing they consistently found among good to great companies was what they called Level 5 leadership - people who had a bent to be the best but also a great deal of humility. These were not the celebrity CEOs with big egos. The CEOs behind good to great companies are often not very well known because they don't take a lot of credit, they give the credit to others.
I'm not sure if I've ever worked for a Level 5 leader. I don't see that absolute need - the need to be the best you can be and for your organization to be the best it can be - in a lot of people. "Good enough" is the general rule. In fact, Collins writes that good is the enemy of great. We don't have great companies because we have good companies. We don't have great governments because we have good governments. We don't have great churches because we have good churches. Not everyone has that drive to be the best one can be.
The second thing they consistently found was that the companies concentrated on getting the right people before they developed a vision or strategy. Again, I rarely see this. It seems like most companies and organizations invest a lot of time and effort into figuring out how to motivate people instead of hiring people who are intrinsically motivated. They found absolutely no relationship between compensation and perks and the performance of a company. Anyone remember when Chretien popped up all the salaries of MPs and/or ministers in order to attract the best people? Not a strategy that will work, according to this book. And that only makes sense - think of people you know in the non-profit and ministry sectors who absolutely rock but are paid peanuts compared to what they would be making if their skills were utilized by business (e.g. Harry Lehotsky, David Northcott). Money is not a good motivator. Find the people who are internally motivated, and pay them well (but not outrageously) and the rest will follow.
Another point that was quite important to me - I kept wondering how much time these strive for perfection people spent at the office. Another surprise: many of them didn't work evenings and weekends, they spent time with family and friends, served other causes and even puttered around with other things they enjoyed. In one interview the person said that if you assemble the right people around you, you don't have to spend a lot of time managing them.
Does this sound refreshing to anyone besides me? I am tired of reading job ads where they talk so much about what a person must have done but very little about who the person should be. I'm also tired of the 60-hour a week standard to really "succeed" at something. I long to be a part of something where I can shine because they value people who always want to do a little better, and they value people enough to let them have a life outside of work.
The first thing they consistently found among good to great companies was what they called Level 5 leadership - people who had a bent to be the best but also a great deal of humility. These were not the celebrity CEOs with big egos. The CEOs behind good to great companies are often not very well known because they don't take a lot of credit, they give the credit to others.
I'm not sure if I've ever worked for a Level 5 leader. I don't see that absolute need - the need to be the best you can be and for your organization to be the best it can be - in a lot of people. "Good enough" is the general rule. In fact, Collins writes that good is the enemy of great. We don't have great companies because we have good companies. We don't have great governments because we have good governments. We don't have great churches because we have good churches. Not everyone has that drive to be the best one can be.
The second thing they consistently found was that the companies concentrated on getting the right people before they developed a vision or strategy. Again, I rarely see this. It seems like most companies and organizations invest a lot of time and effort into figuring out how to motivate people instead of hiring people who are intrinsically motivated. They found absolutely no relationship between compensation and perks and the performance of a company. Anyone remember when Chretien popped up all the salaries of MPs and/or ministers in order to attract the best people? Not a strategy that will work, according to this book. And that only makes sense - think of people you know in the non-profit and ministry sectors who absolutely rock but are paid peanuts compared to what they would be making if their skills were utilized by business (e.g. Harry Lehotsky, David Northcott). Money is not a good motivator. Find the people who are internally motivated, and pay them well (but not outrageously) and the rest will follow.
Another point that was quite important to me - I kept wondering how much time these strive for perfection people spent at the office. Another surprise: many of them didn't work evenings and weekends, they spent time with family and friends, served other causes and even puttered around with other things they enjoyed. In one interview the person said that if you assemble the right people around you, you don't have to spend a lot of time managing them.
Does this sound refreshing to anyone besides me? I am tired of reading job ads where they talk so much about what a person must have done but very little about who the person should be. I'm also tired of the 60-hour a week standard to really "succeed" at something. I long to be a part of something where I can shine because they value people who always want to do a little better, and they value people enough to let them have a life outside of work.
posted by Jude | 3:09 PM
1 Comments:
I think it exists.
I'm an optomist, so sue me!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home