ILR Press. Northern Illinois University Press. Three Hills. Southeast Asia Program Publications. Cornell East Asia Series. Cornell Publishing. Cornell Global Perspectives. Leuven University Press. Get 'em while they're HOT! More Journals. Research in Outdoor Education Research in Outdoor Education is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal seeking to support and further outdoor education and its goals, including personal growth and moral development, team building and cooperation, outdoor knowledge Medieval Studies New and recent books published in the field of medieval studies by Cornell University Press and its imprints.
More Catalogs. Military History New and recent books published in the field of military history by Cornell University Press and its imprints.
Urban Studies New and recent books published in the field of urban studies by Cornell University Press and its imprints. International Studies New and recent books published in the field of international studies by Cornell University Press and its imprints.
Asian Studies New and recent books published in the field of Asian studies by Cornell University Press and its imprints. Classics New and recent books published in the field of classics by Cornell University Press and its imprints. Literary Studies New and recent books published in the field of literary studies by Cornell University Press and its imprints. O n the one hand, Level 5 traits enable you to implement the other findings; on the other hand, practicing the other findings helps you to become Level 5.
Think of it this way: This chapter is about what Level 5s are; the rest of the book describes what they do. Leading with the other disciplines can help you move in the right direction.
There is no guarantee that doing so will turn you into a full-fledged Level 5, but it gives you a tangible place to begin. We cannot say for sure what percentage of people have the seed within, or how many of those can nurture it. Even those of us who discovered Level 5 on the research team do not know for ourselves whether we will succeed in fully evolving to Level 5.
And yet, all of us who worked on the finding have been deeply affected and inspired by the idea. Darwin Smith, Colman Mockler, Alan Wurtzel, and all the other Level 5s we learned about have become models for us, something worthy to aspire toward.
Whether or not we make it all the way to Level 5, it is worth the effort. For like all basic truths about what is best in human beings, when we catch a glimpse of that truth, we know that our own lives and all that we touch will be the better for the effort. Now, you're either on the bus or off the bus. We found something quite the opposite. The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there.
No, they first got the right people on the bus and the wrong people off the bus and then figured out where to drive it. They said, in essence, "Look, I don't really know where we should take this bus. But I know this much: If we get the right people on the bus, the right people in the right seats, and the wrong people off the bus, then we'll figure out how to take it someplace great. First, if you begin with "who," rather than "what," you can more easily adapt to a changing world.
If people join the bus primarily because of where it is going, what happens if you get ten miles down the road and you need to change direction? You've got a problem. But if people are on the bus because of who else is on the bus, then it's much easier to change direc- tion: "Hey, I got on this bus because of who else is on it; if we need to change direction to be more successful, fine with me.
The right people don't need to be tightly managed or fired up; they will be self-motivated by the inner drive to produce the best results and to be part of creating something great.
Third, if you have the wrong people, it doesn't matter whether you dis- cover the right direction; you still won't have a great company. Great vision without great people is irrelevant. Consider the case of Wells Fargo. So instead of mapping out a strategy for change, he and chairman Ernie Arbuckle focused on "injecting an endless stream of talent" directly into the veins of the company.
They hired outstanding people whenever and wherever they found them, often without any specific job in mind. And they'll be flexible enough to deal with them. No one could predict all the changes that would be wrought by banking deregulation.
Yet when these changes came, no bank handled those challenges better than Wells Fargo. At a time when its sector of the banking industry fell 59 percent behind the general stock market, Wells Fargo outperformed the market by over three times. Arjay Miller, an active Wells Fargo board member for seventeen years, told us that the Wells Fargo team reminded him of the famed "Whiz Kids" recruited to Ford Motor Company in the late s of which Miller was a member, eventually becoming president of Ford.
While Dick Cooley systematically recruited the best people he could get his hands on, Bank of America, according to the book Breaking the Bank, followed something 7 called the "weak generals, strong lieutenants ' model. But if you pick weak generals-placeholders, rather than highly capable executives- then the strong lieutenants are more likely to stick around. The weak generals model produced a climate very different at Bank of America than the one at Wells Fargo.
Whereas the Wells Fargo crew acted as a strong team of equal partners, ferociously debating eyeball-to-eyeball in search of the best answers, the Bank of America weak generals would wait for directions from above. Sam Armacost, who inherited the weak generals model, described the management climate: "I came away quite distressed from my first couple of management meetings.
Not only couldn't I get conflict, I couldn't even get comment. They were all wait- ing to see which way the wind blew.
And where did it find those strong generals? From right across the street at Wells Fargo. In fact, Bank of America recruited so many Wells Fargo executives during its turnaround that people inside began to refer to themselves as "Wells of America. What's new about that? But what stands out with such distinction in the good-to-great companies are two key points that made them quite different.
When Maxwell became C E O of Fannie Mae during its darkest days, the board desperately wanted to know how he was going to rescue the company.
Despite the immense pressure to act, to do something dramatic, to seize the wheel and start dri- ving, Maxwell focused first on getting the right people on the Fannie Mae management team. His first act was to interview all the officers. He sat them down and said, "Look, this is going to be a very hard challenge. I want you to think about how demanding this is going to be. If you don't think you're going to like it, that's fine.
Nobody's going to hate you. I5 The same standard applied up and down the Fannie Mae ranks as managers at every level increased the caliber of their teams and put immense peer pressure upon each other, creating high turnover at first, when some people just didn't pan out. Dick Cooley and David Maxwell both exemplified a classic Level 5 style when they said, "I don't know where we should take this company, but I do know that if I start with the right people, ask them the right questions, and engage them in vigorous debate, we will find a way to make this company great.
In this model, the company is a platform for the talents of an extraordinary individual. In these cases, the towering genius, the primary driving force in the company's success, is a great asset- as long as the genius sticks around. The geniuses seldom build great man- agement teams, for the simple reason that they don't need one, and often don't want one.
If you're a genius, you don't need a Wells Fargo-caliber management team of people who could run their own shows elsewhere. No, you just need an army of good soldiers who can help implement your great ideas. However, when the genius leaves, the helpers are often lost. Or, worse, they try to mimic their predecessor with bold, visionary moves trying to act like a genius, without being a genius that prove unsuccessful.
Eckerd Corporation suffered the liability of a leader who had an uncanny genius for figuring out "what" to do but little ability to assemble the right "who" on the executive team. Jack Eckerd, blessed with monu- mental personal energy he campaigned for governor of Florida while running his company and a genetic gift for market insight and shrewd deal making, acquired his way from two little stores in Wilmington, Delaware, to a drugstore empire of over a thousand stores spread across the southeastern United States.
By the late s, Eckerd's revenues equaled Walgreens', and it looked like Eckerd might triumph as the great company in the industry. But then Jack Eckerd left to pursue his passion for politics, running for senator and joining the Ford administration in 7 Washington.
Without his guiding genius, Eckerd s company began a long decline, eventually being acquired by J. Whereas Jack Eckerd had a genius for picking the right stores to buy, Cork Walgreen had a genius for picking the right people to hire. Whereas Jack Eckerd failed utterly at the single most impor- tant decision facing any executive-the selection of a successor-Cork Walgreen developed multiple outstanding candidates and selected a superstar successor, who may prove to be even better than Cork him- self.
Set a vision for where to drive Build a superior executive team. Develop a road map for driving the bus. Once you have the right people Enlist a crew of highly capable in place, figure out the best path "helpers" to make the vision to greatness.
The "genius with a thousand helpers" model is particularly prevalent in the unsustained comparison companies. The most classic case comes from a man known as the Sphinx, Henry Singleton of Teledyne. Single- ton grew up on a Texas ranch, with the childhood dream of becoming a great businessman in the model of the rugged individualist.
Armed with a Ph. Through acquisitions, Singleton built the company from a small enter- prise to number on the Fortune list in six years. At one point, he said, "I define my job as having the freedom to do what seems to me to be in the best interest of the company at any time.
After all, why worry about succession when the very point of the whole thing is to serve as a platform to leverage the talents of your remarkable genius? Once Singleton stepped away from day-to-day management in the mids, the far-flung empire began to crumble.
From the end of until its merger with Allegheny in , Teledyne's cumulative stock returns imploded, falling 66 percent behind the general stock market. Singleton achieved his childhood dream of becoming a great businessman, but he failed utterly at the task of build- ing a great company. With all the attention paid to executive compensation- the shift to stock options and the huge packages that have become common- place-surely, we thought, the amount and structure of compensation must play a key role in going from good to great.
How else do you get peo- ple to do the right things that create great results? We were dead wrong in our expectations.
We spent weeks inputting compensation data from proxy statements and performed separate analyses looking for patterns and correla- tions. We examined everything we could quantify for the top five offi- cers-cash versus stock, long-term versus short-term incentives, salary versus bonus, and so forth. Some companies used stock extensively; oth- ers didn't. Some had high salaries; others didn't. Some made significant use of bonus incentives; others didn't.
Most importantly, when we ana- lyzed executive compensation patterns relative to comparison companies, we found no systematic differences on the use of stock or not , high salaries or not , bonus incentives or not , or long-term compensation or not. The only significant difference we found was that the good-to- great executives received slightly less total cash compensation ten years after the transition than their counterparts at the still-mediocre compari- son companies!
You have to be basically rational and reasonable I doubt that Colman Mockler, David Maxwell, or Darwin Smith would have worked for free , and the good-to-great compa- nies did spend time thinking about the issue. But once you've structured something that makes basic sense, executive compensation falls away as a distinguishing variable in moving an organization from good to great. It is simply a manifestation of the "first who" prin- ciple: It's not how you compensate your executives, it's which executives you have to compensate in the first place.
If you have the right executives on the bus, they will do everything within their power to build a great com- pany, not because of what they will "get" for it, but because they simply cannot imagine settling for anything less. Their moral code requires building excellence for its own sake, and you're no more likely to change that with a compensation package than you're likely to affect whether they breathe. The good-to-great companies understood a simple truth: The right people will do the right things and deliver the best results they're capable of, regardless of the incentive system.
We were not able to look as rigorously at nonexecutive compensation; such data is not available in as systematic a format as proxy statements for top officers. Nucor built its entire system on the idea that you can teach farmers how to make steel, but you can't teach a farmer work ethic to people who don't have it in the first place.
So, instead of setting up mills in traditional steel towns like Pittsburgh and Gary, it located its plants in places like Crawfordsville, Indiana; Norfolk, Nebraska; and Plymouth, Utah-places full of real farmers who go to bed early, rise at dawn, and get right to work without fanfare.
In one extreme case, workers chased a lazy teammate right out of the plant with an angle iron. In a good-to-great transformation, people are not your most important asset. Nucor illustrates a key point. In determining "the right people," the good-to-great companies placed greater weight on character attributes than on specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience. Not that specific knowledge or skills are unimportant, but they viewed these traits as more teachable or at least learnable , whereas they believed dimensions like character, work ethic, basic intelligence, dedication to fulfilling commitments, and values are more ingrained.
As Dave Nassef of Pitney Bowes put it: I used to be in the Marines, and the Marines get a lot of credit for build- ing people's values.
But that's not the way it really works. The Marine Corps recruits people who share the corps' values, then provides them with the training required to accomplish the organization's mission. We look at it the same way at Pitney Bowes. We have more people who want to do the right thing than most companies.
We don't just look at experi- ence. We want to know: Who are they? Why are they? We find out who they are by asking them why they made decisions in their life. The answers to these questions give us insight into their core values. If you don't have what it takes, you probably won't last long. But they're not ruthless cultures, they're rigorous cultures. And the dis- tinction is crucial. To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration.
To be rig- orous means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management. To be rigorous, not ruthless, means that the best people need not worry about their positions and can concentrate fully on their work. In , Wells Fargo acquired Crocker Bank and planned to shed gobs of excess cost in the consolidation.
There's nothing unusual about that- every bank merger in the era of deregulation aimed to cut excess cost out of a bloated and protected industry. However, what was unusual about the Wells-Crocker consolidation is the way Wells integrated management or, to be more accurate, the way it didn't even try to integrate most Crocker management into the Wells culture.
The Wells Fargo team concluded right up front that the vast majority of Crocker managers would be the wrong people on the bus. Like a professional sports team, only the best made the annual cut, regardless of position or tenure. But the evidence suggests that the average Crocker manager was just not the same caliber as the average Wells manager and would have failed in the Wells Fargo performance culture.
If they weren't going to make it on the bus in the long term, why let them suffer in the short term? One senior Wells Fargo executive told us: "We all agreed this was an acquisition, not a merger, and there's no sense beating around the bush, not being straightforward with people.
We decided it would be best to simply do it on day one. We planned our efforts so that we could say, right up front, 'Sorry, we don't see a role for you,' or 'Yes, we do see a role; you have a job, so stop worrying about it.
To deal with it right up front and let people get on with their lives- that is rigorous. Not that the Crocker acquisition is easy to swallow.
It's never pleasant to see thousands of people lose their jobs, but the era of bank deregulation saw hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Given that, it's interesting to note two points. To be rigorous in people decisions means first becoming rigorous about top management people decisions. Indeed, I fear that people might use "first who rigor" as an excuse for mindlessly chopping out people to improve performance.
And I cringe. For not only will a lot of hardworking, good people get hurt in the process, but the evidence suggests that such tactics are contrary to producing sustained great results. Even in the Wells Fargo case, the company used lay- offs half as much as Bank of America during the transition era.
Six of the eleven good-to-great companies recorded zero layoffs from ten years before the breakthrough date all the way through , and four others reported only one or two layoffs. In contrast, we found layoffs used five times more frequently in the comparison companies than in the good-to-great companies. Endless restructuring and mind- less hacking were never part of the good-to-great model.
How to Be Rigorous We've extracted three practical disciplines from the research for being rig- orous rather than ruthless. Practical Discipline 1: When in doubt, don't hire-keep looking. One of the immutable laws of management physics is "Packard's Law.
It goes like this: No company can grow revenues consistently faster than its ability to get enough of the right people to implement that growth and still become a great company.
If your growth rate in revenues consistently outpaces your growth rate in people, you simply will not-indeed cannot- build a great company. Driving around Santa Barbara the day after Christmas a few pears ago, I noticed something different about the Circuit City store. But not Circuit City. It had a banner that read: "Always Looking for Great People. When asked to name the top five factors that led to the transition from mediocrity to excellence, Bruckart said, "One would be people.
Two would be people. Three would be peo- ple. Four would be people. And five would be people. A huge part of our transition can be attributed to our discipline in picking the right people. At what point do I compromise? We find another way to get through until we find the right people.
Circuit City put tremendous emphasis on getting the right people all up and down the line, from delivery drivers to vice presidents; Silo developed a reputation for not being able to do the basics, like making home deliveries without damaging the products.
We told them, 'You are the last contact the customer has with Circuit City. We are going to supply you with uniforms. We will require that you shave, that you don't have B. You're going to be professional people. We would get thank-you notes back on how courte- ous the drivers were. Practical Discipline 2: When you know you need to make a people change, act.
The moment you feel the need to tightly manage someone, you've made a hiring mistake. The best people don't need to be managed. Guided, taught, led-yes. But not tightly managed. We've all experienced or observed the following scenario. We have a wrong person on the bus and we know it. Yet we wait, we delay, we try alternatives, we give a third and fourth chance, we hope that the situation will improve, we invest time in trying to properly manage the person, we build little systems to compen- sate for his shortcomings, and so forth.
But the situation doesn't improve. When we go home, we find our energy diverted by thinking or talking to our spouses about that person. Worse, all the time and energy we spend on that one person siphons energy away from developing and working with all the right people. We continue to stumble along until the person leaves on his own to our great sense of relief or we finally act also to our great sense of relief.
Meanwhile, our best people wonder, "What took you so long? Worse, it can drive away the best people. Strong per- formers are intrinsically motivated by performance, and when they see their efforts impeded by carrying extra weight, they eventually become frustrated.
Waiting too long before acting is equall y unfair to the people who need to get off the bus. For every minute you allow a person to continue holding a seat when you know that person will not make it in the end, you're stealing a portion of his life, time that he could spend finding a better place where he could flourish.
Indeed, if we're honest with our- selves, the reason we wait too long often has less to do with concern for that person and more to do with our own convenience. He's doing an okay job and it would be a huge hassle to replace him, so we avoid the issue. O r we find the whole process of dealing with the issue to be stress- ful and distasteful. So, to save ourselves stress and discomfort, we wait. And wait. Meanwhile, all the best people are still wondering, "When are they going to do something about this?
How long is this going to go on? We found no difference in the amount of "churn" turnover within a period of time between the good-to-great and the comparison companies. But we did find differences in the pattern of churn. If we get it right, we'll do everything we can to try to keep them on board for a long time. If we make a mistake, then we'll con- front that fact so that we can get on with our work and they can get on with their lives.
Often, they invested substantial effort in determining whether they had someone in the wrong seat before concluding that they had the wrong person on the bus entirely. When Colman Mockler became C E O of Gillette, he didn't go on a rampage, wantonly throwing people out the win- dows of a moving bus. Instead, he spent fully 55 percent of his time during his first two years in office jiggering around with the management team, changing or moving thirty-eight of the top fifty people.
Said Mockler, "Every minute devoted to putting the proper person in the proper slot is worth weeks of time later. There is one corollary that is also important. I spent a lot of time thinking and talking about who sits where on the bus. I called it "putting square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes.
Instead of firing honest and able people who are not performing well, it is important to try to move them once or even two or three times to other positions where they might blossom.
Two key questions can help. First, if it were a hiring decision rather than a "should this person get off the bus? Second, if the per- son came to tell you that he or she is leaving to pursue an exciting new opportunity, would you feel terribly disappointed or secretly relieved? Practical Discipline 3: Put your best people on your biggest opportunities, not your biggest problems.
In the early s, R. Reynolds and Philip Morris derived the vast major- ity of their revenues from the domestic arena. Reynolds' approach to international business was, "If somebody out there in the world wants a Camel, let them call us. He identified international markets as the single best opportunity for long-term growth, despite the fact that the company derived less than 1 percent of its revenues from overseas. Cullman puzzled over the best "strategy" for developing international operations and eventually came up with a brilliant answer: It was not a "what" answer, but a "who.
At the time, international amounted to almost nothing-a tiny export department, a struggling investment in Venezuela, another in Australia, and a tiny operation in Canada. Urbane and sophisticated, Weissman was the perfect person to develop markets like Europe, and he built international into the largest and fastest-growing part of the company.
The good-to-great companies made a habit of putting their best people on their best opportunities, not their biggest problems. The comparison compa- nies had a penchant for doing just the opposite, failing to grasp the fact that managing your problems can only make you good, whereas building your opportunities is the only way to become great. For instance, when Kimberly-Clark sold the mills, Darwin Smith made it clear: The company might be getting rid of the paper business, but it would keep its best people.
Then, all of a sudden, the crown jewels are being sold off and they're asking, 'What is my future? We keep them. We interviewed Dick Appert, a senior executive who spent the majority of his career in the papermaking division at Kimberly-Clark, the same division sold off to create funds for the company's big move into consumer products. T h e right people want to be part of building something great, and Dick Appert saw that Kimberly-Clark could become great by selling the part of the company where he had spent most of his working life.
Not that every executive on the team became a fully evolved Level 5 leader to the same degree as Darwin Smith or Colman Mockler, but each core member of the team transformed personal ambi- tion into ambition for the company. This suggests that the team members had Level 5 potential-or at least they were capable of operating in a manner consistent with the Level 5 leadership style. You might be wondering, "What's the difference between a Level 5 executive team member and just being a good soldier?
Yet each team member must also have the ability to meld that strength into doing whatever it takes to make the company great. An article on Philip Morris said of the Cullman era, "These guys never agreed on anything and they would argue about everything, and they would kill each other and involve everyone, high and low, talented peo- ple. But when they had to make a decision, the decision would emerge.
In the end, everybody stood behind the decision. World Economic Freedom Index. Global Youth Development Index. Global Gender Gap Index. Ease of Doing Business Index. Good Country Index. World Economic Forum. World Childhood Index. Global Liveability Index. End of Childhood Index. Global Energy Transition Index. Google Google is an American worldwide multinational technology giant company offers services and product in internet-related like online advertising, technologies, search, cloud computing, software and hardware.
Founded: 4 September Founded: 4 February Head Office: California, Menlo Park. Twitter Twitter is one of the famous in social networking services where users can post and interact with messages with tweets, which restricted to characters word length.
Founded: 21 March Subsidiaries: Vine. WhatsApp WhatsApp Messenger is a freeware and cross-platform instant messaging service uses the internet to make chat, voice calls, video calls. Founded: Head Office: California. Owner: Facebook. Wikipedia Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and its a largest and most popular general reference work on the internet. Founded: 15 January Founder: Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger.
Owner: Wikimedia Foundation. Slogan: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yahoo Yahoo is an internet service provider owned by Verizon communications through oaty Inc.
Head Office: Sunnyvale, California. Founded: 28 December CEO: Jeff Weiner. Subsidiaries: SlideShare. Slogan: Relationships Matter. Flipkart: Flipkart Bangalore based e-commerce company in India. Head Office: Bengaluru.
Subsidiaries: Myntra, Jabong. Slogan: Every wish will be fulfilled. CEO: Kalyan Krishnamurthy. Head Office: Bangalore. Owner: FlipKart since Snapdeal Snapdeal is the New Delhi based e-commerce company.
Established: Head Office: New Delhi. Subsidiaries: FreeCharge. Paytm Paytm is one of the famous Indian electronic payment service provider and e-commerce companies. Founded: August Founder: Vijay Shekar Sharma.
Head Office: Noida Uttar Pradesh. Amazon Amazon is a USA based e-commerce and cloud computing company. Established: 5 July Founder: Jeff Bezos. Subsidiaries: A9. Slogan: Work hard, have fun, make history. Chairman: Jeff Bezos. Founder: Jack Ma China. Head Office: Hangzhou, Zhejiang China. Microsoft SharePoint Blog. SharePoint tools are incredibly simple and intuitive, even for novice users. However, the personal blogs are limited to viewers with MSU accounts.
Google Sites has a well-developed set of tools, and its ease of use make it a great option for hosting.
Paid Options:. Migration is essentially a copy-paste function, and LAMP Stack works with genuine domain names such as mysite.
0コメント