76 pages • 2 hours read
Jim CollinsA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Jim Collins, a prominent management scholar and author, shaped the landscape of the business world through his extensive research and insightful writings. His most notable contributions are Built to Last and Good to Great. Born on January 25, 1958, in Boulder, Colorado, Collins earned his Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Sciences from Stanford University in 1980, marking the beginning of his professional journey (“Jim Collins.” Leaders).
His post-collegiate career commenced at McKinsey & Co., where, during an 18-month tenure, Collins encountered a research project initiated by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, which was later transformed into the influential work In Search of Excellence (Lenzner, Robert. “Good to Great.” Forbes, May 2003).
Collins returned to Stanford to pursue his master’s degree in business administration, which he earned in 1983 (“Jim Collins”). Afterward, he assumed the role of a project manager at Hewlett-Packard (Lenzner). However, after 18 months, he resigned, vowing “never to work for a company again” (Lenzner). Subsequently, in 1988, Collins revisited Stanford, this time as an entrepreneurship teacher at the business school (Lenzner).
A collaboration emerged when Jerry Porras, a tenured professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, noticed Collins’s article on enduring company success, which mirrored Porras’s own research (Collins, Jim and Porras, Jerry. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies - New Expanded Recording. Narrated by Jim Collins and Jim Porras, HarperCollins, 2019. Audiobook). The ensuing discussion led to a partnership, culminating in creating Built to Last (Collins and Porras).
Although Collins received a Distinguished Teaching Award in 1992 during his time at Stanford, the fame following the publication of Built to Last strained relations with the faculty, exacerbated by his decision not to pursue a doctorate degree (Lenzner). Consequently, in 1995, Collins left Stanford and established a management laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, where he conducted research, forming the foundation for the subsequent Good to Great series (Lenzner).
Jim Collins’s books have achieved global acclaim, selling millions of copies in over 35 languages (“Jim Collins”). In 2017, Forbes magazine recognized him as one of the “100 Greatest Living Business Minds” (“Jim Collins”). Rising from humble beginnings, Collins became a celebrated management guru, garnering a devoted following.
Jerry Porras is a highly regarded academic and author celebrated for his significant contributions to management and organizational studies. Born in 1938, Porras earned his undergraduate degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he subsequently served in the US Army before transitioning to an engineering role at General Electric (Fabris, Peter. “Dr. Jerry Porras Is Changing the System.” Hispanic Executive, March 2021). Driven by his aspirations for leadership within GE, Porras pursued an MBA at Cornell University (Fabris). This transformative step redirected his focus toward organizational behavior and paved the way for a distinguished career centered on researching and educating planned organizational change (Fabris).
In 1972, Porras joined the faculty at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, ultimately attaining a tenured professorship (“Jerry I. Porras.” Stanford Graduate School of Business). Further enhancing his academic credentials, he earned a doctorate degree at UCLA in 1974 (“Jerry I. Porras”). Notably, Porras developed the stream analysis method, a graphic representation of organizational change that enables companies to effectively monitor, manage, plan, and diagnose organizational development (Porras, Jerry. Stream Analysis: A Powerful Way to Diagnose and Manage Organizational Change. Addison-Wesley, 1987).
During his tenure at Stanford, Porras developed a keen interest in discerning the factors contributing to companies’ enduring success. This interest culminated in a collaboration with Jim Collins, resulting in the groundbreaking book Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies, published in 1994. The book delineated vital principles and practices distinguishing companies capable of sustaining success over the long term. Employing Porras’s stream analysis method, the research team scrutinized data from 18 visionary companies and their counterparts, identifying common behaviors among successful entities.
Beyond his collaboration with Collins, Porras has made substantial contributions to the academic community, concentrating on organizational development, leadership, and strategic management. Engaging in consulting and executive education, he has shared his expertise with a broader audience. In 1991, Porras assumed the role of Associate Dean at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. Continuing as the Lane Professor of Organizational Behavior, Emeritus until his retirement, Porras garnered numerous accolades, including the Brilliante Award from the National Society of Hispanic MBAs, the Silver Apple Award from the Stanford Business School Alumni Association, and the Kanter Medal from the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology (“Jerry I. Porras”).
Porras’s literary contributions include notable works such as Success Built to Last: Creating a Life that Matters and Advancing U.S. Latino Entrepreneurship: A New National Imperative (“Jerry I. Porras”).
Collins and Porras meticulously analyze 3M compared to its counterpart, Norton. Originating in 1902 as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, 3M faced a critical juncture when a failed corundum mine prompted a pivot into sandpaper production for survival. The fortuitous encounter with inventor Francis Okie, who sought sample sizes of grit, led to a transformative acquisition of Okie’s technology (wet-to-dry sandpaper) and his inclusion in 3M. From these humble origins, 3M evolved into an innovative powerhouse with a diverse product portfolio encompassing Scotch Tape, Post-It notes, Bondo, Thinsulate, and various consumer, industrial, and healthcare products.
Collins and Porras distill 3M’s core ideology into “innovation”; “absolute integrity”; “respect for individual initiative and personal growth”; “tolerance for honest mistakes”; and “product quality and reliability” (67). Using 3M as an exemplar, the authors delve into concepts like “preserve the core and stimulate progress,” home-grown management, evolutionary progress, and continual self-improvement (17).
The preservation of core values and stimulation of progress at 3M is underscored by two pivotal strategies: the 15% rule, allowing employees to dedicate 15% of their time to self-selected projects, and the mandate that 25% of sales must originate from products released within the last 4years. Rather than BHAGs, 3M relies heavily on experimentation and evolutionary progress to drive growth. William McKnight, 3M’s standout CEO, is a prime example of Collins and Porras’s “clock builders.”
In stark contrast, Norton, established in 1885 and a leader in bonded abrasives from 1902 to 1914, followed a different trajectory. While initially profitable and stable, Norton’s resistance to experimentation and discouragement of new product pursuits stifled growth. By 1948, only 30% of 3M’s revenue was derived from abrasives compared to Norton’s 100%. In the 1960s, Norton attempted diversification through acquisitions rather than in-house experimentation, ultimately leading to a hostile takeover in the 1990s and losing its status as an independent company.
American Express traces its roots back to 1850 when it emerged as a freight express organization. The company swiftly established a near monopoly in its domain through a strategic merger involving three competitors—Wells & Company, Livingston, Fargo, & Company, and Butterfield, Wasson, & Company. The advent of postal money orders challenged American Express’s lucrative cash-shipping service. In response, the company innovatively introduced its own money order, strategically placing it at train stations and general stores. The popularity of the “Express Money Order” elevated American Express from a shipping enterprise to a financial powerhouse (143).
A pivotal moment in American Express’s evolution came with the invention of the Traveler’s Cheque, prompted by challenges faced by its president in transferring letters of credit into foreign currency. Encountering issues such as delays and lost Traveler’s Cheques, the company strategically utilized the “float” concept, selling more cheques than they immediately cashed out. This innovative approach, coupled with the success of the Traveler’s Cheque, propelled American Express into the realm of travel services.
Collins and Porras distill American Express’s core ideology into “heroic customer service”; “worldwide reliability of services”; and “encouragement of individual initiatives” (67). The company serves as an exemplar for evolutionary progress, though the authors acknowledge that it possesses fewer visionary characteristics than other entities on their list.
For research purposes, American Express is juxtaposed with Wells-Fargo, founded in 1852, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of their respective trajectories and strategic decisions. However, Wells-Fargo’s business practices and history remain undiscussed in Built to Last.
Boeing, founded in 1915 as an aviation manufacturing business, initially faced challenges. Its first plane failed the Navy’s quality control tests, and founder William Boeing struggled to secure an extended Naval contract with the second. By 1920, the company was deeply in debt, prompting a diversification into furniture and boats to ensure financial stability. The pivotal creation of a successful mail plane ultimately kept Boeing solvent. The company briefly transitioned into United Airlines, only to be later spun off, highlighting a strategic effort to separate transportation and manufacturing services. Boeing solidified its reputation as a military aeronautic manufacturer, producing iconic planes such as the B-17, Superfortress, and B-52. Despite several unsuccessful attempts to enter the commercial plane market, Boeing engineers in 1952 proposed the groundbreaking idea of a jet-propelled aircraft for commercial use. The development of the prototype, costing $15 million (equivalent to 1/4 of the company’s net worth), positioned Boeing at the forefront of the commercial jet revolution.
Collins and Porras define Boeing’s core ideology as “being on the leading edge of aeronautics”; “tackling huge challenges and risks”; “product safety and quality”; “integrity and ethical business”; and “to eat, breathe, and sleep the world of aeronautics” (68). Notable leaders include founder William Boeing, recognized for his unwavering persistence in keeping the company afloat, and Chairman William Allen, who insisted on Boeing building the 747 even if it depleted all the company’s resources. Boeing is an exemplar in Collins and Porras’s analysis, showcasing the effective use of BHAGs (Big Hairy Audacious Goals), cult-like cultures, evolutionary progress, home-grown management, and continual self-improvement.
Established in 1920, McDonnell Douglas achieved significant success until the 1960s, when it faced challenges in capitalizing on emerging opportunities. Boeing’s entry into the jet-propelled commercial plane market with the 707 in 1957, compared to Douglas’s delayed DC-8 in 1958, marked a turning point. Douglas consistently took two years to produce competitors for Boeing’s commercial plane innovations. The erosion of market share and a lack of a well-conceived succession plan led to the merger of Douglas Aircraft with McDonnell in 1966.
Citicorp, originally City Bank, commenced its journey as a private bank in 1812. In 1891, James Stillman, envisioning its transformation into “a great national bank,” spearheaded a rapid expansion and modernization drive during his leadership. Under Stillman’s guidance, training programs, and multidivisional structures were implemented, exemplifying Collins and Porras’s “clock building” mentality. When Stillman opted to step down, he dedicated two years to ensuring the company’s resilience in his absence.
Collins and Porras define Citicorp’s ideology as: “expansionism—of size, of services offered, of geographic presence”; “being out front—such as biggest, best, most innovative, most profitable”; “autonomy and entrepreneurship (via decentralization)”; “meritocracy”; and “aggressiveness and self-confidence” (68). Citicorp exemplifies architectural leadership, effective employment of BHAGs, home-grown management, and evolutionary progress.
Chase Manhattan, founded in 1799 as the Bank of Manhattan and in 1877 as Chase Bank, resulted from the merger of two rival banks in 1955. Citicorp and Chase Manhattan were close rivals throughout their history, with Citicorp taking the lead in 1968. Chase Manhattan encountered challenges with leadership gaps, notably struggling after the departure of David Rockefeller. The Rockefeller era at Chase Manhattan illustrates the impediments associated with suppressing evolutionary progress within a company.
Founded in 1903 as a car manufacturer, Ford’s inclusion among visionary companies stems from a remarkable turnaround in the 1980s. Faced with a staggering loss of $3.3 billion over three years, Ford initiated a comprehensive restructuring and revitalization effort. Departing from conventional cost-cutting measures, the company overhauled its core ideology and implemented mechanisms to enforce it, resulting in a profound profit improvement. Collins and Porras articulate Ford’s core ideology as described in the 1980s Ford MVGP document. At different points in Ford’s history, the order of the following goals has varied: “people as the source of our strength”; “products as the ‘end result of our efforts’”; “profits as a necessary means and measure for our success”; and “basic honesty and integrity” (68).
Ford is an illustrative example of how a core purpose extending beyond profits can transform a company. Furthermore, Ford strategically employs BHAGs and alignment strategies to embody the principle of “preserving the core and stimulating progress” (17).
General Motors (GM), established in 1908, ascended to become the leading car manufacturer under the leadership of Alfred Sloan. The authors employ Sloan’s example to underscore that while clock building is crucial, it alone may not suffice. The contrast with Ford’s resurgence in the 1980s highlights the multifaceted nature of sustained corporate success.
Founded in 1892 by Thomas Edison to commercialize his research, General Electric (GE) stands as a beacon of innovation in Collins and Porras’s research. Eventually, GE became a manufacturing, engineering, and development company. The authors identify their core ideology as: “Improving the quality of life through technology and innovation”; “interdependent balance between responsibility to customers, employees, society, and shareholders (no clear hierarchy)”; “individual responsibility and opportunity”; and “honesty and integrity” (68).
GE is spotlighted as a prime example of clock building, with its inaugural president, Charles Coffin, exemplifying a dedicated commitment to preserving the company. His focus on the company’s sustainability took precedence over evangelizing Edison’s direct current electricity, compellingly illustrating effective leadership.
Furthermore, GE’s strategic use of BHAGs, homegrown management, self-improvement strategies, and evolutionary progress solidify its status as a model for organizational success.
Established in 1886, the manufacturing company Westinghouse is compared to General Electric unfavorably. Beset by internal struggles, including the removal of founder George Westinghouse, the company faced challenges. Westinghouse is an instructive example of how unclear vision statements can be ineffective and the potential pitfalls associated with outside leadership. The juxtaposition with GE underscores the importance of a cohesive vision and effective leadership in sustaining corporate success.
Established in 1937 without a clear direction, Hewlett-Packard (HP) is a testament to the notion that great companies do not always originate from groundbreaking ideas. Eventually, HP became known for their technological equipment, including calculators and computers. Collins and Porras outline HP’s core ideology as “Technical contribution to fields in which we participate (‘We exist as a corporation to make a contribution’)”; “respect and opportunity for HP people, including the opportunity to share in the success of the enterprise”; “contribution and responsibility to the communities in which we operate”; “affordable quality for HP customers”; and “profit and growth as a means to make all of the other values and objectives possible” (68). Despite initial struggles, HP eventually achieved profitability.
Founders Bill Hewlett and David Packard played a pivotal role in instilling the idea that the company exists for more than just profit. Their dedication to reinforcing HP’s core purpose became a cornerstone of the company’s ethos. HP is an exemplary case study for home-grown management, evolutionary progress, and continual self-improvement. HP’s commitment to their core ideology was reflected in their decision to cut salaries by 10% and have employees take off every other Friday rather than cutting 10% of their workforce.
Manufacturing company Texas Instruments is contrasted with HP. Founded in 1930, TI began with a notable idea and achieved profitability. However, TI’s singular focus on profit, coupled with dismantling its culture of experimentation and evolutionary progress under autocratic leaders, led to challenges. The company’s emphasis on cost-cutting measures negatively impacted long-term growth opportunities, resulting in a significant decline during the 1970s and 80s. The juxtaposition with HP highlights the importance of a multifaceted core purpose and a culture that nurtures innovation and progress for sustained success.
Established in 1911 through the amalgamation of two smaller companies, International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) initially faced challenges until it found success with the marketing of a tabulation machine. IBM later gained renown for its computer hardware and software systems. According to Collins and Porras, IBM’s core ideology is “give full consideration to the individual employee”; “spend a lot of time making customers happy”; and “go the last mile to do things right; seek superiority in all we undertake” (68).
IBM strategically employs BHAGs, fosters a cult-like culture rife with secrecy and elitism, emphasizes home-grown management with robust training and development systems, and prioritizes continual self-improvement by reinvesting heavily back into the company to embody the concept of “preserving the core and stimulating progress” (17).
In contrast to IBM, Burroughs, established in 1892, experienced initial prosperity and emerged as a leader in the office-machine industry by 1920. However, as IBM ventured into new product lines with computers, Burroughs failed to seize the opportunity. The fundamental difference lies in their core purposes—while IBM operated with a broader purpose beyond profit, Burroughs prioritized profit first. Additionally, Burroughs struggled with management gaps and failures to invest in long-term goals, contributing to its challenges in adapting to the evolving industry landscape. This divergence in strategic approaches and organizational ethos between IBM and Burroughs underscores the critical role of purpose, adaptability, and long-term vision in shaping the trajectories of visionary companies.
Founded in 1886 with a focus on manufacturing medical products, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) holds a distinctive position as one of the early companies to openly articulate and promote a core purpose, manifested in the Johnson & Johnson Credo established in 1943. Collins and Porras define J&J’s core ideology as: “The company exists ‘to alleviate pain and disease’”; “we have a hierarchy of responsibilities: customers first, employees second, society at large third, and shareholders fourth”; "individual opportunity and reward based on merit”; and “Decentralization = Creativity = Productivity” (68).
J&J stands out in Collins & Porras’s framework as an exemplar of alignment, consistently adhering to its core ideology even when faced with unprofitable scenarios. The company leverages evolutionary progress as a catalyst for growth and motivates its workforce with a purpose extending beyond profit.
Bristol-Myers is cited as a counterexample to Johnson & Johnson’s business practices. Unlike J&J, Bristol-Myers did not articulate a written purpose until 1987, and there is no indication that this purpose serves as a guiding force for the company. This juxtaposition underscores the significance of a clearly defined and ingrained core purpose in steering a company’s actions and decisions and the potential impact on organizational success and longevity.
Established in 1927 as a root beer stand that evolved into a restaurant chain and, later, a prominent hotel brand, Marriott is characterized by a core ideology articulated by Collins and Porras: “Friendly service & excellent value (customers are guests)”; “make people away from home feel that they’re among friends and really wanted”; “people are number 1—treat them well, expect a lot, and the rest will follow”; “work hard, yet keep it fun”; “continual self-improvement”; and “overcoming adversity to build character” (69).
Marriott is a compelling example of a company that did not necessarily start with groundbreaking ideas but achieved success through consistent dedication to core values. The company stands out as a paradigm of clock building, implementing various mechanisms and procedures to maintain consistency across numerous locations. Home-grown management and evolutionary progress are pivotal in Marriott’s strategy to “preserve the core and stimulate progress” (17).
Established in 1925, Howard Johnson’s was initially a role model for Marriott. However, despite its initial influence, imprudent cost-cutting measures and failures in long-term planning contributed to its eventual downfall, underscoring the importance of strategic decision-making, effective management, and a focus on long-term sustainability in the competitive landscape of the hospitality industry.
Founded in 1891 as an apothecary business that evolved into a pharmaceutical powerhouse, Merck’s resolute commitment to its core ideology is a standout feature in Built to Last by Collins and Porras. The identified core ideology for Merck is encompassing, emphasizing, “We are in the business of preserving and improving human life. All of our actions must be measured by our success in achieving this goal.”; “honesty and integrity”; “corporate social responsibility, science-based innovation, not imitation”; “unequivocal excellence in all aspects of the company”; and “profit, but profit from work that benefits humanity” (69).
Merck’s steadfast adherence to its ideology is evident even in actions that may be unprofitable but align with its idealistic vision. The company employs cult-like cultures, home-grown management practices, and continual self-improvement strategies to effectively “preserve the core and stimulate progress” (17).
In contrast to Merck, Pfizer, established in 1849, is portrayed as having a more profit-centric focus. The emphasis on profit is reflected in comparatively lesser investments in research and development (R&D) and employee development initiatives. This distinction underscores the varying priorities and strategic approaches of pharmaceutical companies, with Merck’s unwavering commitment to Merck’s societal purpose standing in contrast to Pfizer’s more profit-driven Pfizer’s.
Founded in 1928 as a battery eliminator repair service that expanded into car radios and cellular phones, Motorola’s core ideology, as defined by Collins and Porras, is “to honorably serve the community by providing products and services of superior quality at a fair price”; “continuous self-renewal”; “tapping the ‘latent creative power within us’”; “continual improvement in all that the company does—in ideas, in quality, in customer satisfaction”; “treat each employee with dignity, as an individual”; and “honesty, integrity, and ethics in all aspects of business” (69).
Motorola is an exemplar of continual progress, synergistically leveraging BHAGs and evolutionary progress. Cult-like cultures and home-grown management are integral to Motorola’s strategy to preserve its core values and drive ongoing progress. Collins and Porras laud Motorola for their clearly articulated core purpose, which they support through policies and practices.
The authors use the company Zenith, established in 1920, to highlight the dangers of failing to innovate. Concentrating specifically on radios, Zenith faced challenges due to a reluctance to experiment with new products. Zenith’s recurrent struggles with leadership issues exacerbated the company’s overall challenges, underscoring the importance of adaptive leadership and a willingness to explore new avenues for sustained success.
Founded in 1901 as a shoe store and later evolving into a reputable chain of department stores, Nordstrom exemplifies the strategic use of cult-like cultures to preserve its core values. Described by Collins and Porras, Nordstrom’s core ideology revolves around “Service to the customer above all else”; “hard work and productivity”; “continuous improvement, never being satisfied”; and “excellence in reputation, being part of something special” (69).
Nordstrom strategically incorporates BHAGs across its departments to propel progress, coupled with a commitment to continual self-improvement with competitions for sales per hour. Culturing a cult-like culture with chants, songs, and restrictive policies and emphasizing home-grown management play crucial roles in Nordstrom’s approach to preserving its core values.
The shoe retailer, Melville, was established in 1892 and by the 1930s it was the largest company of its kind in the US. However, it struggled to sustain its progress after CEO, Ward Melville’s, retirement in the 1950s. The company’s struggles to maintain momentum and progress underscore the importance of leadership succession planning and strategic adaptability in the dynamic retail landscape.
Founded in 1847 as a retail store that later transformed into a tobacco shop, Philip Morris underwent a significant evolution when American investors acquired the name in 1919, turning it into a prominent tobacco company. Widely recognized for its Marlboro cigarettes, Philip Morris maintains a robust, albeit controversial, core ideology described by Collins and Porras as “The right to personal freedom of choice (to smoke, to buy whatever one wants) is worth defending”; “winning—being the best and beating others”; “encouraging individual initiative”; “opportunity to achieve based on merit, not gender, race, or class”; and “hard work and continuous self-improvement” (69).
Philip Morris serves as an example cited by Collins and Porras to illustrate that core ideologies cannot be categorically deemed “right” or “wrong.” While many may disagree with smoking as a personal right, Philip Morris’s unwavering commitment to this ideal sets them apart. The company strategically employed BHAGs to ascend from 6th place in tobacco industry market share to 1st, surpassing R. J. Reynolds. Additionally, Philip Morris uses cult-like cultures, evolutionary progress, home-grown management, and a commitment to continual self-improvement to “preserve the core and stimulate progress” (17).
Tobacco company, R. J. Reynolds, was established in 1875, and its iconic Camel brand became America’s best-selling cigarette by 1917. Instead of investing in the business itself, the company allocated profits to executives, evidenced by lavish expenditures such as an expensive fleet of private jets and opulently decorated offices. R. J. Reynolds spent funds on luxuries and celebrity events outlays which slowed the business’s progress. The company also faced challenges adapting to shifting markets, underscoring the potential consequences of a less adaptive and progressive approach in the dynamic business landscape.
Founded in 1837 as a candle and soap maker, Procter & Gamble (P&G) has evolved into a consumer goods giant, representing renowned brands such as Gillette, Downy, Tide, Pantene, and Dawn. As outlined by Collins and Porras, P&G’s core ideology centers around “Product excellence”; “continuous self-improvement”; “honesty and fairness”; and “respect and concern for the individual” (69).
P&G demonstrated early commitment to its core values by initiating a profit-sharing and stock ownership program with employees in 1880.
While P&G occasionally employs Big Hairy Audacious Goals (BHAGs) for progress, the company emphasizes continual self-improvement, fostering healthy competition among its brands to encourage progress. P&G is renowned for its cult-like culture, shrouded in secrecy, and implementing home-grown management practices.
Colgate was founded in 1806 and was quickly recognized as one of the first US companies to manufacture soap for sale. The authors note the company for being more reactive than proactive with Colgate lacking the robust mechanisms required to stimulate progress. It also struggled to maintain leadership continuity. This deficiency in leadership continuity eventually led to a disastrous merger and missed opportunities for the company. The comparison drawn with Procter & Gamble emphasizes the critical role of proactive strategies, effective leadership, and mechanisms for progress in sustaining success in the consumer goods industry.
Established in 1945 as Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo, Sony embarked on its journey with a vague concept of “applying technology to […] consumer products” (240). Despite initial setbacks, the company ultimately succeeded with pocket radios, evolving into a diverse technology conglomerate. Sony stands as another illustration of how formidable companies may not necessarily commence with groundbreaking products or ideas. Even before achieving any product success, founder Masaru Ibuka crafted the company’s enduring “prospectus,” a document that continues to shape Sony’s trajectory today. Ibuka’s role as an exemplary clockmaker is evident, emphasizing a focus on creating a resilient company over individual products.
Collins and Porras articulate Sony’s core ideology as a commitment “‘to experience the sheer joy that comes from the advancement, application, and innovation of technology that benefits the general public,’ aiming to elevate Japanese culture and national status, and positioning themselves as pioneers who do the impossible while respecting and encouraging individual ability and creativity” (69). Sony’s dedication to innovation manifests in its product line, featuring groundbreaking items like the Walkman that initially lacked consumer interest until its creation. The company strategically utilizes BHAGs for progress but relies more on evolutionary progress. Sony is another example of alignment, where all policies and procedures harmonize to “preserve the core and stimulate progress” (17).
Kenwood was founded in 1946 with a narrow focus on audio technology and experienced early success with specialized radio components. However, due to minimal available data, particularly regarding core ideology, comparisons point to a lack of diversification on Kenwood’s part, as inferred from public records. The authors’ comparison of Kenwood with Sony underscores the importance of strategic diversification and the integration of a strong core ideology in the success of technology companies.
Founded as a single retail store in 1945, Wal-Mart has evolved into a global discount retail chain, with founder Sam Walton recognized not only as a visionary and charismatic leader but also as a superb clock builder. The core ideology of Wal-Mart, as articulated by the authors, is, “We exist to provide value to our customers—to make their lives better via lower prices and greater selection; all else is secondary”; “swim upstream, buck conventional wisdom”; “be in partnership with employees”; “work with passion, commitment, and enthusiasm”; “run lean”; and “pursue ever-higher goals” (69).
Wal-Mart serves as an exemplar of cult-like cultures through its store cheers and stringent customer service expectations. The company is also a notable model of evolutionary progress, consistently experimenting and decisively eliminating unprofitable programs. Wal-Mart analyzes daily sales figures from previous years, demonstrating a commitment to continual self-improvement. The prioritization of home-grown management and well-structured succession plans further underscores the company’s emphasis on organizational sustainability.
Ames was established in 1958 as the first large-scale rural discount store. It faced challenges stemming from succession plans that empowered CEOs solely focused on profits. These CEOs directed unprofitable acquisitions, eventually resulting in the company’s downfall. The authors’ comparison of Ames with Wal-Mart highlights the critical role of effective leadership, core ideology, and strategic management in shaping the success and sustainability of retail enterprises.
Founded in 1923 as a film studio dedicated to animation, the Walt Disney Company has transformed into an expansive entertainment and media conglomerate. While Walt Disney was a charismatic and visionary leader, his legacy extends beyond his lifetime, attributed to the enduring clock-building principles he instilled. Collins and Porras outline Disney’s core ideology as “No cynicism allowed”; “fanatical attention to consistency and detail”; “continuous progress via creativity, dreams, and imagination”; and “fanatical control and preservation of Disney’s ‘magic’ image; ‘To bring happiness to millions’ and to celebrate, nurture, and promulgate ‘wholesome American values’” (69).
Disney exemplifies having a purpose beyond profits, with ventures that initially seemed improbable becoming highly profitable. The company employs BHAGs, such as creating the first feature-length animated film, to drive progress. Cult-like cultures are evident in the stringent controls over employee behavior, an element of elitism, and a culture of secrecy. Despite briefly seeking an outside CEO, Michael Eisner’s alignment with Disney’s core ideology exemplifies how companies should approach external leadership when absolutely necessary. Additionally, Disney’s ongoing reinvestments in its employees, technologies, and the company itself underscore a steadfast commitment to continual self-improvement.
In contrast to Disney, Columbia Pictures experienced moderate success that grew with the growing popularity of feature-length films. However, driven solely by profit motives, the company grappled with scandals, embezzlement, and leadership gaps. Columbia Pictures took few risks, achieved only moderate success, and eventually sold after founder Harry Cohn’s demise. The comparison emphasizes the significance of a visionary and purpose-driven approach in fostering sustained success within the entertainment industry.