April 3, 2013 at 08:25Good luck research
In my environment, some time ago it was customary to scold economists, or rather people involved in the economy as a scientific field. I was always offended by people who mostly use mathematical tools in their work. However, it was not possible to find a good argument in their favor. Now I have finished reading the book “ Greats of Their Own Choice ” by Jim Collins and Morten Hansen. And I want to believe that I have such an argument.
It is highly probable that this book is a popular exposition of serious scientific work by both authors. In general, several “twin companies” are very closely considered on the pages of the book, where one of the companies became the undisputed leader, and the second, under similar conditions, is an outsider. In general, I did not like the choice of companies, although I think the authors had their own reasons for choosing and moreover, at the end of the book there is a methodology based on which the choice was made (a very practical description, I must say).
The book has more than 450 pages and here at 275 you see the Epilogue - this is discouraging. All the rest of the book space is occupied by applications and other calculations, including a solid list of references.
As a technical manager, I was interested in reading a number of chapters, I really liked about the discipline:
The authors introduce the beautiful term - “Decadex”, and actively use it throughout the book, for example:
Of course, I liked the work on the study of luck, this is the part of the book that I re-read twice:
Most of all in the book the following thought made me think:
The book " Great by choice " from Jim Collins and Morten Hansen, full of mathematical spirit and economic sentiment, I would recommend reading to those who already work in senior positions in medium and large companies. To me, it seemed a bit dry, although, of course, useful.
P.S. What struck me most was the phrase, which was not confirmed by any data and at the same time had the maximum effect on me: " In strange circumstances, the strangest becomes the leader ."
It is highly probable that this book is a popular exposition of serious scientific work by both authors. In general, several “twin companies” are very closely considered on the pages of the book, where one of the companies became the undisputed leader, and the second, under similar conditions, is an outsider. In general, I did not like the choice of companies, although I think the authors had their own reasons for choosing and moreover, at the end of the book there is a methodology based on which the choice was made (a very practical description, I must say).
The book has more than 450 pages and here at 275 you see the Epilogue - this is discouraging. All the rest of the book space is occupied by applications and other calculations, including a solid list of references.
As a technical manager, I was interested in reading a number of chapters, I really liked about the discipline:
In essence, discipline is consistency, loyalty to values and long-term goals, compliance with work requirements, following a certain method. Do not confuse discipline with regulation, submission within the hierarchy, imposing bureaucratic rules. True discipline means the independence of the mind, which opposes pressure and does not agree to what is contrary to its values, its requirements for work, its long-term plans. The only kind of discipline inherent in tenfold leaders is self-discipline, will and willingness to do anything for the great purpose.
The authors introduce the beautiful term - “Decadex”, and actively use it throughout the book, for example:
Tenfolds embody this responsibility based on three behavioral principles: fanatical discipline, empirical creativity, and productive paranoia.
Social psychologists say that in a situation of uncertainty, most people tend to seek advice from others - from authority figures, friends, and the norms of their social group. The tenfolds, plotting their route in uncertain circumstances, do not look back at traditional ideas and at how others act. They do not even care about the opinions of experts and gurus. They focus entirely on empirical evidence.
Of course, I liked the work on the study of luck, this is the part of the book that I re-read twice:
We call “an event of luck” an event that meets three basic criteria: 1) some element of this event has fully or largely arisen regardless of the actions of key participants; 2) the event potentially entailed significant (good or bad) consequences; 3) there is an element of unpredictability in the event.
There are two gradations of good luck:
Good luck “in its pure form”, when the onset of an event is absolutely independent of the actions of key company figures.
“Partial” luck, when the occurrence of an event is mainly (but not entirely) independent of the actions of key company figures. An event can be attributed to partial luck, if some of its essential aspects could not be changed (caused or prevented) by key figures with all their experience and skill.
Good luck and failure are not symmetrical: even the most wonderful luck will not turn a company into a great company by magic. But misfortune alone may be enough to throw the company on the line of death, and a series of setbacks can lead to disaster.
Most of all in the book the following thought made me think:
The leaders of great and long-lived companies are capable of paradoxes; they simultaneously accept two opposing ideas. They do not obey the "tyranny" or "", which forces people to choose either A or B, but not to take both together. No, the best leaders are exempted from such a choice thanks to the genius of the union of “and” - the ability to connect extremes, to simultaneously take different parameters. In the words of Francis Scott Fitzgerald, "a first-class mind is tested by the ability to hold simultaneously two conflicting ideas and at the same time maintain the ability to function."
The book " Great by choice " from Jim Collins and Morten Hansen, full of mathematical spirit and economic sentiment, I would recommend reading to those who already work in senior positions in medium and large companies. To me, it seemed a bit dry, although, of course, useful.
P.S. What struck me most was the phrase, which was not confirmed by any data and at the same time had the maximum effect on me: " In strange circumstances, the strangest becomes the leader ."