In Jim Collins book Good to Great, we explore the notion of being rigorous, not ruthless. “To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration.” (GTG, p. 52) In stark contrast, rigorous companies are no walk in the park, but the difference between the two styles is night and day. Rigorous companies adopt a top down approach when it comes to hiring management. There is an old saying that says a “fish rots from the head down.” This is analogous to a business hiring the wrong leadership and the business failing as a result of the poor hiring decisions in leadership. I think that successful companies, especially moving forward will
Central to the concept of
…show more content…
Under his leadership, companies like Scott Paper and Sunbeam-Oster benefited from massive layoffs designed to give the illusion of profitability. This is in stark contrast to what great leaders do during the inevitable downturn. According to Collins, great leaders are looking for way to find and keep great talent, especially during dips in earnings or productivity. The idea of employee-churn to great organizations is paramount to a failure in leadership. When hiring, great leaders “take the time to make rigorous A+ selections right up front” (GTG, p.75) Good to Great leaders take their time with important hiring decisions. It is more important to have the right people on the bus and in the right seats then to have a bus filled with people who do not belong. Letting people who do not belong on the bus comes down to two simple questions: 1. “If it were a hiring decision (rather than a “should this person be off the bus?” decision) would you hire the person again? 2. If the person came to you to tell you he or she is leaving to pursue an exciting new opportunity, would you feel terribly disappointed or secretly relieved?” (GTG, …show more content…
In retrospect, the decision to place the top people on the best opportunities resulted in several of the companies failing. I think with quarterly or yearly deadlines looming, leaders may be forced to reshuffle the deck, placing their top people on the biggest problems in an effort to finish strong. Whereas this may result in a short term “fix” you are neglecting the future of an organization by having your most valuable resources working on the wrong
...ties and differences of the leadership of Steve Jobs and Fr. Jose Arizmendiarrieta that the leadership required for organisations to succeed is unique to the goals and definition of success portrayed by the leader. Their leadership styles were reflected in the organisations development and it can be seen why leadership in organisations is of such importance. What is also clear is that there is no right or wrong way to lead – Fr Jose achieved a sustainable profitable cooperative, Jobs archived a highly profitable company. The leadership practice used needs to fit the organisations vision, the needs of the stakeholders, and be ingrained into followers. The followers need to buy in to the leader’s vision and goals and play their part in implementing the steps required for success. The leader is ultimately responsible for guiding the followers along the path to success.
the CEO at Home Depot, Robert Nardelli’s tenure was marked with heavy-handedness and inflexibility. Robert Nardelli’s leadership styles was autocratic. He utilized a command, control and conquer approach. He dictated policies and procedures, decided what goals were to be achieved, and directed and controlled all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates. He was in full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group. Before Nardelli came onboard, the managers of Home Depot had enjoyed independence under the laid-back entrepreneurship leadership style of Bernie Marcus. Almost immediately after Home Depot got Nardelli, he embarked on an aggressive plan to centralize control. He neglected the build relationships, inspired and aligned purpose, and create open communication with his team. He also disregarded the care of his shareholders. He was obsesses with goals, objectivity, and accomplishments within the boundaries of the values of the company. He
Leadership directly impacts an organization's bottom line, employee satisfaction, and turnover; it can impact how the organization is viewed by society and in particular its marketing audience. This is particularly significant during a downturn in economic markets. Organizations must meet budgetary controls, and need to communicate...
Sears Holdings is a company in transition. Now, faced with adversity and the threat of bankruptcy looming its leadership has come under scrutiny. “Great leaders not only have drive; they want to lead. Also important is a high need for power, a preference to be in leadership rather than follower positions. A high power need induces people to attempt to influence others, and sustains interest and satisfaction in the process of leadership. When the power need is exercised in moral and socially constructive ways, rather than to the detriment of others, leaders inspire more trust, respect, and commitment to their vision (Bateman, pp 399, 2007).”
Dr. Sutton highlights what it takes to be a good boss. People that work for a good boss are 20 percent less likely to have a heart attack (Sutton, 2010). Dr. Sutton wrote that teams with stronger leaders cost the company less money and achieved their work better (Sutton, 2010). Engagement and performance of employees were based upon their direct boss and not if the company was good or bad (Sutton, 2010). Most bad bosses have employees who have check-out: actively disengaged, and undermine their co-workers accomplishments. Managers have to find the balance between performance and humanity to be successful. Performance is about doing everything possible to help followers do great work; while humanity is about employees experiencing dignity and pride. Treating managerial work as an endurance race instead of a sprint race with small wins will lead one to becoming a good boss called grit by Sutton. Sutton believes that good bosses walk a constructive line between being assertive and not assertive enough with guidance, wisdom, and feedback that he called Lasorda’s law (Sutton, 2010).
Suddenly, some companies become extremely successful, while rest of them unfortunately remains a failure. There can be off-course a lot of reasons for this failure but one of the main reasons is lack of leadership qualities. There are many s...
their own issues instead of the CEO doing all of the talking so to speak. If you haven’t notice in the last few years CEO’s have not done a great job of keeping their companies together such as the Enron scandal. Therefore, companies can pick the best individuals in the workforce and tie them together in certain job styles and let them become as one an lead themselves to success.
Also by using the wrong metrics the ceo’s took huge risks that maximized their pay at the expense of long term stake holders of the company. The failure of setting a tone at the top is not limited to the business world but extends to government and educational leaders as
To know what makes an effective leader, one must know what leadership is. According to our textbook, the definition of leadership is the ability to influence a group towards the achievement of goals. In this case, the group is General Electronic Corporation. For a big business empire like GE, obviously, the final goal is to make as much profit as it can to please its shareholders. Let’s see what the article describes about how Jack influences his team to achieve this goal: “Growing a company that was valued by the market at $13 billion when he took it over in 1981 to a behemoth worth more than $400 billion when he retired last year is what is called wealth creation – big time.” Without Jack, GE couldn’t have today’s accomplishment.
3. Organizations must change in order to meet the needs of the changing workplace, environment, technology, and economy in order to be competitive. Change is good for an organization if it is done in a controlled and structured manner. Change is also risky because it is often met with resistance. For example, people may feel threatened and fear power loses and subsequently, resists the change. Change can also be ineffective if it is narrow and doesn’t concern itself with people and is over determined. In Enron’s case, the organization was constantly changing with no collective rhyme or reason.
In Good to Great, Jim Collins discusses major key points companies have used to go from a good company to a great one. He did this by discussing seven characteristics companies should listen and absorb to transition from being good to becoming great. These characteristics included: level 5 leadership, first who…then what, confront the brutal facts, the hedgehog concept, a culture of discipline and the flywheel. Companies who can approach these successfully are the ones who enable themselves to separate from other competing companies. Furthermore, the statement Jim Collins said, which caught my attention immediately, was not in these seven characteristics, but in the first chapter of the book.
This lead to the questioning of Steve Jobs’ position in the company since he was now seen as a liability. Ultimately, Jobs resigned from Apple and started another company. Jobs was very successful in his 12-year absence from Apple. He learned from his experiences and gained more leadership skills. I believe this is the point when Jobs transitioned from an autocratic leadership style to a democratic leadership style. When Jobs returned to Apple, the company began to thrive and experience great success. Steve Jobs now had a more open-minded style and created an environment of innovation and encouraged his employees to collaborate. An interesting quote by Steve Jobs states, “Great things in business are never done by one person, they’re done by a team of people.” Before leaving Apple, Jobs didn’t care as much for his employees, but after his experiences from being absent from Apple, Jobs truly believed in his people and created a culture of creativity in which employees could share their ideas and innovate their
Nonetheless, his charismatic leadership style didn’t mean he avoided working towards the vision. He didn’t hesitate to cut costs, even if it meant laying off employees, because his ultimate vision was about creating a valuable and respectful business. He wanted to create an organisation that would beat its rivals and in order to do this, he had to weed out mediocrity from his company. While this meant certain people had to go, it also improved the company’s communication, its development and ultimately its bottom
To transform a good company to great company is all manages’ dream, but only few of them make it. To find out the core factors which lead to a good company became a great company is very difficult, because in different era, different industry companies face different opportunities and threats. To begin the research for the Good-to-Great study, Jim Collins and his research team searched for companies that: performed at or below the general stock market for at least fifteen years; then at a transition point began to pull away from the competition, and sustained returns of at least 3 times the general market for the next fifteen years. He started with a list of 1,435 companies and found eleven that met his criteria. These eleven companies produced, on average, a return of 6.9 times the general stock market during the 15 years following the transition points. Collins chose a 15-year span to avoid "one-hit wonders" and lucky breaks. In the book, Collins highlights some important factors which are the result of the research. They are level 5 leadership, fist who … then what, confront the brutal facts, the hedgehog concept, culture of discipline, and technology accelerators, (Collins, 2001, p.12).
According to Quiros (2014), leaders must take a holistic approach when implementing change; this includes transitioning people from the past to allow a new beginning. Quiros statement is true, specifically in British Airways’ wildcat strike. Management has failed to look at the organization holistically, rather focus on implementation because it is a great idea. Taking a step back to look at the organization may have prevented the 40 million pound loss. The organization decreased 1,300 of their employees during the course of two years, leaving a low morale in the organization. Current employees will question the future of their imminent employment termination. Absenteeism will soon follow as the employee morale goes down. Absenteeism caused the delayed flights which should have been known by senior leadership, and may have led to delayed process implementation. Finally, management’s oversight also included timing where the implementation will take place five days from management’s announcement. The busy summer season should have been a factor in their execution