Good to Great is good, but not quite great.

It’s quite possible that I’m the last person to read Jim Collins’ Good to Great but for anyone out there who hasn't, it's something I think is worth reading. The book focuses on 11 mediocre companies that achieved greatness — where greatness is calculated by a set of empirical criteria set by Jim Collins' and his research team.

The biggest problem I had with the book is the way Collins' defines greatness. Seemingly a subjective quality, Collins' sets his criteria and definition without any kind of formal statistical analysis and then goes on to use them for the basis of the entire book. The standards at which greatness is achieved feels more like a hypothesis than anything else because Collins never really proves how his data, though empirical, is valid as a way to define greatness. And sure, many variables in business don’t exactly lend themselves well to scientific research so some of Collins’ sweeping generalizations and extrapolations aren't shocking - but had he not sounded so authoritative, like some sort of manual on “How to Run a Business,” then I think I would feel like his work was less flawed.

First Who, Then What.

That said, one point Collins makes that I’ve experienced first hand in my startup experience at FreeCause is that you need to have the right people AND THEN you can decide where to lead your company AFTER finding those people. There are plenty of great ideas but it requires more than an innovative idea to hit the ground running. It's the incredible people behind those ground-breaking ideas, executing, that make all the difference.

All circumstances, variables, etc within a company are unique – but every leader should be able to take away at least one or two principles from Collins' research and adapt them to fit their unique situation. Even if those principles are not purely scientific.