Discipline is hard and success in the past gives you a false feeling of security. Interestingly enough, this is covered in the book, but a dismissive blogosphere article isn't going to admit that.
There is no simplistic maxim, but the concepts and success described in the book are backed up with far more research than either blogosphere article cited.
In my opinion Jim Collins has made a career on identifying success in hindsight, plunging headlong into a classic case of survivorship bias in order to divine the root causes of these successes, and then publishing his analysis. Can you point me to anything he has written that is predictive instead of simply retrospective? Can you actually claim that there aren't likely to be hundreds of businesses that exhibit all the traits that make businesses 'great' and yet failed?
Nothing in the article actually shows that the Hedgehog concept is bad or wasn't a factor in these companies' past success. It's little more than a glib, cocktail party-sized nugget of contrarianism with no real substance. That's why I dismissed it as FUD.
In my opinion Jim Collins has made a career on identifying success in hindsight, plunging headlong into a classic case of survivorship bias in order to divine the root causes of these successes, and then publishing his analysis. Can you point me to anything he has written that is predictive instead of simply retrospective?
That's the whole point: it's not predictive, it's retrospective.
I said the article you linked to is FUD not because I'm a Jim Collins or business book industry apologist, but because the article attacks a strawman, namely that the book claimed that companies' past success implies that they will always be successful. It'd be great if one could prove business success by induction, but it doesn't work that way. This article doesn't even attempt to address whether or not the failed companies it mentioned continued to use the concept described in the book.
And nothing in Jim Collin's book shows it was a factor in their success, he just claims it is because all the companies he analyzed allegedly fit into his rubric. Does he research if failed companies did not fit into it equally well? Or perhaps other competitors in the same industry? If all you are doing is retrospectively identifying success, well great, but that isn't terribly hard to do. If all you are doing is cherry picking examples or worse, simply grouping already successful companies and then deciding that their success must be due to some common trait(s) they all share, then you also aren't providing any real insight in my opinion.
As others have pointed out his theories are vague to the point of uselessness. Do only what you can you be 'best in the world' at? Really? Best in the world? Well by that metric there really only should be one company in every single industry, since clearly we can't have multiple 'best in the worlds'.
All he is engaging in is book length common sense "Do what you are good at, don't do what you aren't good at, don't waste money on ill-conceived ideas". Trite sayings that are not really anything anyone would argue against but also don't give a lot of amazing insight.
Maybe I am just too dense to get his brilliance, but I have never seen anything amazing from his writing, which was why I originally responded to someone that appeared to be implying that he was apparently the diviner of the one true path to success.
This is a very common criticism of business books, self-help books, and, hell, advice in general. And yet there are lots of companies and people who neglect to heed these trite sayings and fail because of it. Most people would probably be 10x better at life if they could internalize all of the "obvious" advice they've ever heard.
Maybe I am just too dense to get his brilliance, but I have never seen anything amazing from his writing, which was why I originally responded to someone that appeared to be implying that he was apparently the diviner of the one true path to success.
Fair enough. I viewed the person you responded to as claiming that (1) this bit of Suster's and Collins' advice is useful and (2) this post, like many other startup blog posts, recapitulates concepts covered in traditional business books. The article you linked to does nothing to support or refute either point, which is why I was dismissive of it.
"Much of the entrepreneur blogosphere would go up in a puff of smoke if people would simply read the business books that stand the test of time."
I think it does and is appropriate. I've been around long enough to have read "In search of Excellence" which Levitt refers to this way "These business books are mostly backward-looking".
What the books that are backward looking don't reveal is the companies that follow the same practices that have failed. There is never any data on that.
I think it does and is appropriate.
I don't think it does.
The problem of business books being mostly backward-looking is interesting, but completely orthogonal to the question of whether many lessons written about in blog posts have already been covered by classic business books.