GOOD TO GREAT AND THE SOCIAL SECTORS 3 a university president, a nonprofit leader, a hospital CEO, or a school superintendent, would you have been. GOOD TO GREAT. AND THE. SOCIAL SECTORS. A Monograph to Accompany. Good to Great. Why Some Companies. Make the Leap and Others Don't. Jim Collins Answers the Social Sector with a Monograph to Accompany Good to Great. % of those who bought Good to Great work in the Social Sector.
|Language:||English, Arabic, Hindi|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|ePub File Size:||16.32 MB|
|PDF File Size:||18.29 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
The following are short excerpts from the monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors: Why Business Thinking Is Not the Answer, published in by Jim. Business principles cannot be applied to social sector without modification. Both share issues about moving from good to great – but the concept of greatness. Building upon the concepts introduced in Good to Great, Jim Collins answers the most commonly asked questions raised by his readers in the social sectors.
Time and talent can often compensate for lack of money, but money can never compensate for lack of the right people.
And second, we rely upon much more than money to keep this place going. How do we get enough resources of all types--not just money to pay the bills, but also time, emotional commitment, hands, hearts, and minds?
You begin with passion then you refine passion with a rigorous assessment of what you can best contribute to the communities you touch.
You must be able to answer the question, "How does focusing on what we can do best tie directly to our resource engine, and how does our resource engine directly reinforce what we do best?
Success breeds support and commitment, which breeds even greater success, which breeds more support and commitment--round and around the flywheel goes.
Overview of Key Concepts Good to Great and the Social Sectors by Jim Collins.
People like to support winners! Get out of their way, and let then build a clock!
To do the most good requires saying "no" to pressures to stray, and the discipline to stop doing what does not fit. Does not the Holy Spirit have the power to make good out of our bad decisions, poor leadership examples and failures? Economic growth and power are the means, not the definition, of a great nation. Few are great.
When you compare great companies with good ones, many widely practiced business norms turn out to correlate with mediocrity, not greatness. So, then, why would we want to import the practices of mediocrity into the social sectors?
I shared this perspective with a gathering of business CEOs, and offended nearly everyone in the room. A hand shot up from David Weekley, one of the more thoughtful CEOs—a man who built a very successful company and who now spends nearly half his time working with the social sectors. Mediocre companies rarely display the relentless culture of discipline—disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who take disciplined action—that we find in truly great companies.
A culture of discipline is not a principle of business; it is a principle of greatness. Would you have been less likely to practice enlightened leadership, or put less energy into getting the right people on the bus, or been less demanding of results?
The critical distinction is not between business and social, but between great and good. We need to reject the naive imposition of the "language of business" on the social sectors, and instead jointly embrace a language of greatness. The essence of a Hedgehog Concept is to attain piercing clarity about how to produce the best long-term results, and then exercising the relentless discipline to say, "No thank you" to opportunities that fail the hedgehog test.
When we examined the Hedgehog Concepts of the good-to-great companies, we found they reflected deep understanding of three intersecting circles: 1 what you are deeply passionate about, 2 what you can be the best in the world at, and 3 what best drives your economic engine.
See a Problem?
Social sector leaders found the Hedgehog Concept helpful, but many rebelled against the third circle, the economic engine. I found this puzzling. Sure, making money is not the point, but you still need to have an economic engine to fulfill your mission.
First, we face a cultural problem of talking about money in a religious setting, coming from a tradition that says love of money is the root of all evil.
And second, we rely upon much more than money to keep this place going.
Why business thinking is not the answer
How do we get enough resources of all types—not just money to pay the bills, but also time, emotional commitment, hands, hearts, and minds? Morgan put his finger on a fundamental difference between the business and social sectors. The third circle of the Hedgehog Concept shifts from being an economic engine to a resource engine.
The critical question is not "How much money do we make?
I do not mean to discount the systemic factors facing the social sectors. They are significant, and they must be addressed. Still, the fact remains, we can find pockets of greatness in nearly every difficult environment—whether it be the airline industry, education, healthcare, social ventures, or government-funded agencies.
Every institution has its unique set of irrational and difficult constraints, yet some make a leap while others facing the same environmental challenges do not. This is perhaps the single most important point in all of Good to Great. Greatness is not a function of circumstance. Greatness, it turns out, is largely a matter of conscious choice, and discipline.
Business executives can more easily fire people and—equally important—they can use money to download talent. Most social sector leaders, on the other hand, must rely on people underpaid relative to the private sector or, in the case of volunteers, paid not at all. Yet a finding from our research is instructive: The comparison companies in our research—those that failed to become great—placed greater emphasis on using incentives to "motivate" otherwise unmotivated or undisciplined people.
The great companies, in contrast, focused on getting and hanging on to the right people in the first place—those who are productively neurotic, those who are self-motivated and self-disciplined, those who wake up every day, compulsively driven to do the best they can because it is simply part of their DNA.
In the social sectors, when big incentives or compensation at all, in the case of volunteers are simply not possible, the First Who principle becomes even more important. Lack of resources is no excuse for lack of rigor—it makes selectivity all the more vital.The following are short excerpts from the monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors: If the evidence is primarily qualitative, think like a trial lawyer assembling the combined body of evidence.
We need to reject the naive imposition of the "language of business" on the social sectors, and instead jointly embrace a language of greatness. Power is all around you to draw upon, but it is rarely raw, rarely visible".
Follow the author
I do not mean to discount the systemic factors facing the social sectors. Cultivate disciplined people 2. In the social sectors, the critical question in not "How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?
I've come to see that it is simply not good enough to focus solely on having a great business sector. To do the most good requires saying "no" to pressures to stray, and the discipline to stop doing what does not fit.