Why Companies Succeed or Fail | Book Insights on Good to Great by Jim Collins
发布时间 2022-08-24 14:00:03 来源
You're listening to Book Insights, brought to you by Memode, finding and simplifying the world's most powerful ideas to fit into your lifestyle. Each episode is a deep dive into a non-fiction bestseller that can change your life or make you think. In around 30 minutes, you'll learn all about a book that offers wisdom for your life, career, or business. So get ready to live and work smarter, better, and happier with Book Insights.
你正在收听由Memode提供的《书籍洞见》，他们专注于发掘和简化世界上最有力的思想，以适应你的生活方式。每一集都是对一本可以改变你的生活思考的非虚构畅销书的深度分析。在约30分钟的时间内，你将学习关于这本书为你的生活、职业或业务提供的智慧。所以，准备好与《书籍洞见》一起更聪明、更优秀、更快乐地生活和工作吧。
In a relatively free market economic system, thousands of companies are born each day, and thousands die. Millions, meanwhile, coast along not doing anything remarkable. They're happy to be merely good at what they do and keep making money. A few though grow spectacularly. Are these the internet startups that we've all heard of, the 10Xers that turn their founders into billionaires?
在一个相对自由市场的经济体系中，每天都会有成千上万家公司诞生，也有成千上万家公司消失。与此同时，数百万家公司继续平稳运营，没有做出任何显著成就。他们很满足于自己擅长的领域，持续赚取利润。但是，有些公司则获得了惊人的增长。这些公司就是我们所听说过的互联网初创公司，也是那些能让创始人成为亿万富翁的10X者吗？
Actually, a lot of them are not. They're comparatively normal companies producing everyday things that seem to suddenly move well ahead of their industry peers. For instance, the American drugstore chain Walgreens is an old company, which, for four decades, followed the general market in its performance. Then, in 1975, the company left the average and began its remarkable success. From 1975 to 2000, it outperformed the stock market by 15 times. It also outperformed the tech star Intel by two times, the much-lauded General Electric by five times, and the famed Coca-Cola company by eight times. What accounts for the sudden and sustained rise out of mediocrity?
实际上，他们中的很多并不是像其他公司那样普通，而是制造一些日常用品，突然超过同行业竞争者的公司。例如，美国药店连锁店Walgreens是一家老公司，四十年来一直按照市场表现跟随整体趋势。然后，在1975年，该公司脱颖而出，开始了惊人的成功。从1975年到2000年，它的表现超过了股票市场15倍。它也比科技巨头英特尔多出两倍，比备受赞誉的通用电气公司多出五倍，比著名的可口可乐公司多出八倍。是什么导致了从平庸到突然崛起并持续增长的原因呢？
Business thinker Jim Collins began a five-year research effort to find out. The result was good to great, why some companies make the leap, and others don't. This seminal corporate strategy book was published in 2001. We'll explore what Collins' team found in some detail, focusing on three key areas.
商业思想家吉姆·柯林斯开始了为期五年的研究，他想找出一些公司为什么能够成功跨越，而另一些则不能。这个开创性的企业战略书籍于2001年出版。我们将详细探讨柯林斯团队研究的结果，重点放在三个关键领域。
First, the importance of leadership and having a people-first strategy. Second, the need for brutal honesty simultaneous with high ambition. And third, the role of disciplined action in building a great company. We'll conclude by taking a look at any potential criticisms of Collins and good to great, as well as the wider impact and legacy of his work.
首先，领导和以人为本的策略的重要性。其次，需要同时拥有残酷的诚实和高度的抱负。第三，纪律行动在建立伟大公司中的作用。最后，我们将探讨对柯林斯和好到极致的任何可能的批评，以及他的工作所产生的更广泛的影响和遗产。
One factor emerges above all else that can allow, or prevent, a company from reaching greatness. It's leader. A bad leader can hold an otherwise exceptional company back, while a great leader can put everything in place to jumpstart the movement. But what makes a leader great? Collins established a hierarchy that ranked the personality, characteristics, and capabilities of the leaders his team studied.
有一个因素比其他任何因素都更能让一个公司取得成功或失败。那就是领导者。一个糟糕的领导者会阻碍本来有前途的公司，而一个伟大的领导者能够把一切安排妥当，推动公司的发展。但是，什么才是一个伟大的领导者呢？柯林斯建立了一个层次结构，对他的团队研究过的领导者的个性、特征和能力进行了排名。
At the lowest level, level one, are leaders who are competent, but unlikely to bring any great positive change to the company. Level two and three leaders contribute at a slightly higher level, making incremental changes to help a company towards its goals. But they're not capable of affecting revolutionary improvements. Level four leaders are where things start to get interesting. These executives are often brilliant, dedicated, and ambitious. They tend to bring massive change to the companies they lead, often revolutionizing them in short periods of time. Some of the most celebrated CEOs in history have been level four leaders.
在最低的一级，有一些领导者能力不错，但不太可能给公司带来重大的积极变化。二级和三级领导者在一定程度上做出贡献，通过逐步改变帮助公司朝着其目标前进，但他们不能实现革命性的改进。四级领导者是事情开始变得有趣的地方。这些高管通常非常聪明、敬业和雄心勃勃。他们往往能够给领导的公司带来巨大的变化，常常在短时间内使公司实现革命性的变革。历史上最著名的一些首席执行官都是四级领导者。
An example is Leia Eccocca, who was brought in from Ford and turned Chrysler around from near disaster. But why are well-known leaders like this, not at the pinnacle of Collins' hierarchy? Eccocca, like other level four leaders, was focused primarily on himself, not his company. Though undeniably effective, he formed a cult of personality and failed to set the company up for success after his departure. Once he left, there were no structures in place to allow Chrysler to go from strength to strength.
举个例子，莱阿·艾科卡从福特被引入克莱斯勒并且使它从濒临灭顶之灾中走出来。但为什么像她这样知名的领袖不在柯林斯的层级金字塔最高处呢？像其他四级领袖一样，艾科卡主要关注自己，而非公司。虽然他不可否认的有效性，但他形成了一种个人崇拜，离开后未能为公司的成功做好准备。一旦他离开，没有结构来让克莱斯勒不断发展壮大。
This is where Collins introduces level five leaders. This kind of leader has all of the knowledge of the level four, as well as the high ambition. But their ambition is for the company as a whole, not for themselves. The archetypical level five leader, discussing good to great, is Abraham Lincoln, a modest, empathic, soft-spoken leader who is able to sacrifice himself personally to achieve lasting improvement for the institution he believed in, the union of the United States. In the realm of business, many level five leaders are less well-known than level fours, for the simple reason that they want the limelight to be not on them, but their company. A level five leader is not sufficient on its own to create a great company, but it's a necessary first step. Without a dedicated, selfless, talented person on top, no company can achieve lasting greatness.
这里是Collins介绍五级领导的地方。这种领导者拥有四级知识，而且具有高度雄心壮志。但是，他们的雄心是为了整个公司，而不是为了自己。在好到伟大的讨论中，典型的五级领导人是亚伯拉罕·林肯，他是一位谦虚、共情、口吐温和的领导者，他能够牺牲自己的个人利益，为他所信仰的美国联邦制度实现持久的改进。在商业领域，许多五级领导者比四级领导者不那么知名，因为他们希望聚光灯不在他们身上，而是在他们的公司。五级领导者本身无法创建一个伟大的公司，但这是必要的第一步。没有一位有才华、无私、专注的领袖，任何公司都无法实现持久的伟大。
Collins talks about a company called Rubbermaid. It had several years of greatness, but was unable to sustain it after the departure of its CEO Stanley Galt.
柯林斯谈到了一个名叫 Rubbermaid 的公司。它曾经有过几年的盛世，但在其首席执行官 Stanley Galt 离职后无法维持。
He worked long hours controlling every aspect of the company from the top down. He did the hiring, set the goals, and made the decisions. But when he quit, there was nobody else who could effectively succeed him. Nobody knew how the company worked.
他工作很长时间，掌控公司的各个方面，从上到下进行管理。他招人、设定目标并作出决策。但是当他离开后，没有其他人能够有效地接替他。没有人知道公司是如何运作的。
After years of mediocrity, the company was sold. Level four leaders tend to take situations like this as another example of their excellence.
公司多年来表现平庸，最终被出售。4级领袖通常会将这种情况视为他们卓越的又一例证。
Look, I was so great the company fell apart after I left. In fact, the failure to create a company that can outlast them is the key differentiator between a good leader and a great one.
你们听我说，我太优秀了，我走之后公司就垮了。事实上，能否创造一个能够超越自己而存在的公司，是好领导者和伟大领导者之间的关键差别。
My far the most important thing that a level five leader does is ensure the company is populated by great people.
在我看来，5级领导者最重要的一件事就是确保公司拥有众多优秀人才。
That may seem obvious, but Collins's next point is not. In many of the outstanding companies he looked at, great people actually came before the development of a great plan.
那似乎很明显，但科林斯的下一个观点却不是。在他研究的许多杰出公司中，优秀的人才实际上是在伟大的计划开发之前出现的。
The obvious thing for a company to do would be to first set a target and then find staff willing and able to work towards that target. But this isn't the optimal approach. The right people, aligned with the core values of the company, will be self-motivated and able to adjust to changing circumstances.
一家公司首先应该设定一个目标，然后寻找那些愿意并能够朝着这个目标努力工作的员工，这看起来是显而易见的事情。但这并不是最优的方法。与公司核心价值观相符的合适人才都具有自我激励能力，并且能够适应不断变化的环境。
The wrong people, even if specifically hired to fit a company's circumstances, will be unable or unwilling to adapt to change on the same level. Here is Collins speaking at the Global Leadership Summit.
错误的人，即使专门雇用适合公司背景的人，也将无法或不愿意在同一水平上适应变化。这是柯林斯在全球领导力峰会上的发言。
And focusing on your unit means above all being a first two leader rather than a first what leader and that the number one executive skill for building a pocket of greatness of any size is figuring out who should be in the key seats on the bus.
把你的注意力集中在你的团队上，最重要的是成为一个第一梯队的领导者，而不是一个第一名的领导者。任何规模的伟大团队建设的头号执行技能是找出谁应该坐在车上的关键位置。
This is best explained in the example of Wells Fargo. Starting in the early 1970s, Wells Fargo began to focus on hiring outstanding talent above all else, even above having a position in mind. Rather than creating a job and then filling it, Wells Fargo found intelligent people who agreed with its vision as a company and brought them on board.
这个最好通过威尔斯·法戈的例子来解释。从20世纪70年代初开始，威尔斯·法戈开始注重招聘杰出的人才，甚至超过了职位本身的重要性。威尔斯·法戈不是先创建一个职位然后再填补它，而是找到那些与其公司愿景相符的聪明人才，并将他们纳入团队。
When banking deregulation hit, these brilliant employees were able to adapt. Wells Fargo dealt with the challenges better than almost any other bank and it emerged stronger than ever.
当银行业解除管制时，这些聪明的员工能够适应。威尔斯·法戈银行比几乎任何其他银行更好地应对了挑战，并且变得比以往更强大。
In terms of the economic of America, almost had the opposite approach in hiring. It intentionally staffed the company at some of the highest levels with executives who were merely competent.
就美国经济而言，在雇用方面几乎采取相反的方法。它有意将公司的一些最高级别职位安排给仅仅称职的高管。
The thinking was that these mid-rate executives would be more effective followers and would inspire those below them to work harder. The plan worked well enough while the economy was strong.
人们的想法是，这些中层主管将是更有效的追随者，并激励他们以下的员工更加努力工作。在经济强劲时，这个计划运行良好。
Dick Cooley, the CEO at the time, was a good level four leader. When the economic climate changed, Bank of America floundered. Cooley could not single-handedly keep a struggling company strong and the lack of innovative executives below him made sure that he wouldn't get much help.
迪克·库利曾经是银行美洲CEO，他是一位出色的四级领袖。当经济形势发生变化时，银行美洲陷入了困境。尽管库利努力维持公司的稳定，但他无法独自一人支撑一个步履艰难的公司，而且他下面缺乏创新型的高管，这也导致他得不到太多帮助。
But after a few years of increased deregulation, Bank of America lost over a billion dollars. It was eventually able to save itself from ruin by jettisoning its previous strategy and hiring more dynamic executives.
但是，经过几年的放松管制之后，美国银行(Bank of America)亏损了超过十亿美元。最终它通过摒弃之前的战略和聘请更有活力的高管来拯救自己。
Many of these executives were former employees of Wells Fargo who brought their people first mentality, corporate culture, and success along with them.
很多这些高管曾是富国银行的前雇员，他们带着关注员工的态度、企业文化和成功经验一同到了这里。
When hiring Collins says, nothing should be forced. It may be tempting to push growth by hiring the first available competent employee. But the good to great companies tend to hire slowly and carefully. It's better to wait for the right person than to waste time and money on making the wrong person fit.
当雇佣时，科林斯表示，不能强求。也许会有诱惑去雇佣第一个能胜任的员工来推动公司的增长。但好的到极致的公司往往会慢慢而谨慎地雇佣。等待合适的人才比浪费时间和金钱来让错误的人适应更好。
In this episode, we began our exploration into Good to Great by Jim Collins. We learned that in the ranks of leadership, a level four leader prioritizes their own genius over the company.
在这一集里，我们开始探索吉姆·柯林斯的《从优秀到卓越》。我们了解到，在领导层中，四级领导者将自己的天才看得比公司更为重要。
A level five leader puts the company first, allowing everyone to flourish. A key to this is hiring with a people first mentality. Some innovators who excel fill positions rather than creating positions to be filled with mediocre workers.
一个五级领导把公司放在第一位，让每个人都能繁荣发展。实现这一点的关键是具有以人为本的招聘心态。一些表现出色的创新者填补职位，而不是创造职位供平庸的工人填补。
Next time, we'll continue with a lesson in brutal honesty and high ambition. Enjoying this episode of Book Insights? If so, keep listening and learning. There's a collection of over 100 titles you can read or listen to now at memodeapp.com slash insights.
下一次，我们会继续讲一个既残酷又充满雄心壮志的课。喜欢这一集《读书笔记》吗？如果是的话，继续听和学习吧。在memodeapp.com/insights上，你可以读或听超过100本书的集合。
Business thinker Jim Collins wanted to know what separated the middle of the road companies from those that blasted off into the stratosphere.
商业思想家吉姆·柯林斯想知道什么区分了那些墨守成规的公司和那些冲向高空的公司。
In their management laboratory in Boulder, Colorado, Collins and his team began by identifying companies that had undeniably made a transition from Good to Great. This group was very select and had to meet tight criteria.
在科罗拉多州博尔德的管理实验室中，柯林斯和他的团队首先通过确认企业确实已经从好到极致进行了转变来进行筛选。这个群体非常特别，必须符合严格的标准。
They filtered these companies to weed out ones that were just lucky, riding the overall success of the economy or industry trends. They set criteria that narrowed the group down to 11 companies, less than 1% of their data set.
他们筛选了这些公司，以淘汰那些只是因为经济或行业趋势的全面成功而走运的公司。他们设定了一些标准将这些公司缩减为11个，不到他们数据集的1%。
Some of them that made the grade were Wells Fargo, Kroger, Gillette, Kimberly Clark, Circuit City, New Corps, and perhaps surprisingly Philip Morris.
其中一些获得了评级的公司包括威尔斯·法戈、克鲁格、吉列、金佰利-克拉克、电路城、新媒体公司，令人惊讶的是可能还有菲利普·莫里斯。
Then Collins and his researchers created a contrasting set of comparison companies to serve as a control group. Each of these 11 comparison companies was in the same industry, faced similar circumstances and largely performed the same before the transition. But while the first set of companies changed almost beyond recognition, the second set stayed the same.
Collins和他的研究员创建了一个对照组，用于作为比较公司。这11个比较公司中的每个公司都处于同一行业，面临着类似的情况，并且在过渡前基本上保持了相同的业绩。但是，虽然第一组公司几乎变得面目全非，第二组公司仍旧保持了原状。
Why? Well, it's not only that they're coming up with a preferred explanation prior to doing the research, then finding or forcing data to fit the hypothesis. Collins's team took a more empirical approach. Their focus on data alone uncovered a number of consistent factors that, in every single case studied, played a part in the transition from Good to Great.
为什么？嗯，不仅他们在进行研究之前就提出了偏好解释，然后找到或强制符合假设的数据。Collins的团队采取了更具经验性的方法。他们只关注数据，揭示了在每一个研究案例中都扮演了从好到伟大的过渡中的一部分的一些一致因素。
In this episode, we'll continue our dive into Collins's best-seller Good to Great by learning about the need for brutal honesty, as well as high ambition. Once the right people are in place, Collins found that a company must conduct a two-step evaluation. First, it must determine where it and the industry stand. If things are on the right track and just need a few adjustments, that's fine. But this evaluation needs to be brutally honest.
在这一集中，我们会继续深入学习柯林斯的畅销书《从优秀到卓越》，探讨企业需要残酷的诚实和高度的雄心。柯林斯发现，一旦招募到了正确的人才，公司必须进行两步评估。首先，它必须确定自身和行业的现状。如果一切都在正确的轨道上，只需要进行少量调整，那就很好。但这种评估需要毫不留情的诚实。
In the early 20th century, the grocery store chain A&P seemed unstoppable. It was at one point the largest in its industry and the second largest company of any type in the United States. But by the 1970s, retail tastes had changed, and A&P became stagnant. It specialized in small, bare bones, utilitarian stores, but growing affluence was leading consumers to prefer large, overstocked, big-box stores.
在20世纪初，零售连锁公司A&P似乎无人能敌。它曾经是行业内最大的公司，也是美国第二大的公司之一。但到了20世纪70年代，零售市场的口味发生了变化，而A&P则开始停滞不前。它专门经营小型、简陋、实用的商店，但随着人们财富的增加，消费者开始偏爱大型、备货充足的百货公司。
A&P did what any good company would do. It studied the trends and saw that super stores were the future. It opened one of its own, which turned out to be more successful than an average A&P store. The hypothesis was proven. This new store was the future. So A&P closed it. Its president at the time, Ralph Berger, saw the super store as too different from its core business. A.P. looked at what needed to be done, understood it, and ignored it.
A&P做了任何一家好公司都会做的事情。它研究了趋势并认为超级商场是未来。它开了一家自己的超市，结果比平均水平的A&P店更成功。假设得到了证明。这家新店是未来。因此，A&P关闭了它。当时的总裁拉尔夫·伯格（Ralph Berger）认为超级商场与其核心业务太不同了。A.P.审视了需要做什么，理解了它，然后忽略了它。
When good to great was published, A&P was a middleing company. Though a shell of its former self, it did continue as a moderately successful, though unremarkable company. In 2015, after a continued failure to adapt, it was forced to close, having been ultimately unable to face the facts of reality and adjust to them.
当《从优秀到卓越》一书出版时，A&P是一家中等水平的公司。尽管只剩下了往日的一小部分，但它仍是一家相对成功但不突出的公司。然而随着时间的推移，在经过不断的失败后，它最终被迫关闭。因为它无法面对现实的事实并适应它们。
The supermarket chain Kroger faced similar circumstances. Like A&P, it was founded in the late 19th century and flourished in the early 20th, but growth had slowed by the middle of the 20th century. Kroger saw the same evidence that A&P did. But instead of avoiding it, Kroger put all of its efforts towards closing older, smaller stores and replacing them with the giant ones that it knew to be the wave of the future.
超市连锁店 Kroger 面临着类似的情况。像 A&P 一样，它创建于19世纪晚期，在20世纪初蓬勃发展，但到了20世纪中叶增长放缓。Kroger看到了A&P看到的同样迹象。但却没有回避它，Kroger将所有的努力都放在关闭老旧的小店和用知道将是未来风云的巨型商店来替换它们上。
Though it meant turning back on tradition and making countless tough decisions, Kroger's leadership team knew it had to be done. One of the things that makes a good company great, Colin says, is how it uses data. This flows from having good people. A&P was described as a Hermit Kingdom with top-down rule, while Kroger had level 5 leadership and a strong group of executives.
尽管这意味着要抛弃传统并做出无数艰难的决定，但Kroger的领导团队知道这是必须的。科林表示，使一个好公司变得伟大的其中一个因素是如何运用数据。这源于有优秀的人才。A＆P被描述为一个拥有自上而下规则的隐士王国，而Kroger拥有5级领导力和一批强大的高管。
For this reason, when A&P's leader decided to ignore the truth, there was nobody to stop him. Kroger, on the other hand, was led to the truth by a group examination, not given a pre-ordained conclusion from above. In his interviews with executives at great companies, Colin's identified certain tactics that are used to create productive dialogues that lead to good decisions.
因此，当A＆P的领导决定忽视真相时，没有人能阻止他。另一方面，Kroger通过团体检查被带到真相，而不是由上面下达预定结论。Colin与大公司高管进行的采访中，他确定了某些策略，用于创建有益于做出正确决策的富有成效的对话。
When using these strategies, meetings end with the truth, not with whatever the head of the meeting sought to achieve. The first is to start with questions. If a meeting starts with an answer, or even a goal that is held by the higher ranking leader in the meeting, there is a subconscious pressure for those below to agree with it. Great companies start with a question and follow it with open dialogue and debate.
当使用这些策略时，会议以真相结束，而不是会议主持人所追求的目标。第一种策略是要从问题开始。如果会议从答案或甚至会议中更高层次的领导所持有的目标开始，那么低层次的人就会有潜意识的压力去同意这个目标。优秀的公司会先问问题，然后进行开放式的对话和辩论。
Rather than any person present fighting for their preferred decision, everyone should be fighting for the truth. Essentially, this boils down to creating an environment in which any member of the company no matter their rank can point out problems or errors that the company is making without fear of reprisal.
与其每个在场的人为自己喜欢的决定而战，更好的是，所有人都应该为真相而战。其实，这就是营造这样一个环境，让公司的任何成员，不论他们的级别如何，都能指出公司正在犯的问题或错误，而不用担心被报复。
But once the truth is obtained, the company still needs to be able to stand out and to differentiate itself to become truly great. Colin's here introduces the hedgehog concept. From the parable of the hedgehog and the fox, in this tale, there is a battle between the fast-cunning fox who knows many things and the simple hedgehog who knows one big thing.
但是一旦真相被获得，公司仍需要能够脱颖而出并区别自己，才能真正变得伟大。科林在这里介绍了刺猬概念。从刺猬和狐狸寓言中，故事讲述的是一个快速狡猾且知道很多事情的狐狸与只知道一件大事的简单刺猬之间的战斗。
When the fox attacks, no matter which strategy it uses, the hedgehog curls into a ball of spikes and defeats it every time. A great company must be like the hedgehog. It must have one thing above all else that it can be the best in its market at. A single, clarifying reason for being so that it doesn't become confused, scattered, directionless, and mediocre.
当狐狸攻击时，无论采用哪种策略，刺猬都会卷成一团刺球，并每次都能打败它。一个伟大的公司必须像刺猬一样。它必须在市场上有一件最擅长的事情。一个清晰的存在理由，使其不会变得困惑、分散、无目标和平庸。
In finding what it can be the best in its market at, a company's goal needs to balance realism with ambition. It can't just be some lofty, over-idealized goal to endlessly strive for. A hedgehog concept must be achievable and it also needs to drive the company economically. Ago, no matter how desirable, cannot work if it doesn't make money. Lastly, the concept must ignite passion in the staff. This is not forced, corporate, top-down passion, but true and organic.
当公司寻找市场上最好的产品时，它的目标需要平衡现实和雄心。它不能仅仅是一个高不可攀、过于理想化的目标，不断去努力追求。刺猬理念必须是可以实现的，还需要推动公司经济发展。无论多么令人向往，如果不能赚钱，它是行不通的。最后，这个概念必须点燃员工的激情。这不是强制性的、由公司自上而下传导的激情，而是真实和有机。
Here is Colin's himself speaking at the Global Leadership Summit. But the deep inner essence of level five is the idea of service, of leading in service to a cause. We are talking here about ambition, the channel, outward, into a purpose, into something that is bigger and more important than we are.
这是柯林亲自在全球领袖峰会上演讲。但是，五层次领导力的深层本质是服务理念，为一种事业而服务领导。我们在这里讨论的是雄心壮志，以一个更大更重要的目标为方向，包容它的意义和价值，超越个人的利益与诉求。
Croger's hedgehog concept was to become the best in the world at operating superstores, where customers could choose from a nearly unlimited variety of all of their day-to-day needs. This goal was very ambitious, yet achievable. Croger had the people, resources, and knowledge required to put the plan into practice. In 1973, prior to Croger's transition, the value of Croger and AMP on the stock market were roughly equal. Twenty-five years later, there was a different story. A dollar invested in AMP in 1973 would have returned $2.48 in 1998. A dollar invested in Croger, on the other hand, would have returned almost $200. This is the power of conducting an evaluation, facing the facts, and reacting to them with honesty and ambition.
Croger的刺猬概念是成为运营超级商店的世界最佳，顾客可以在那里选择几乎无限的日常需求。这个目标非常雄心勃勃，但也是可以实现的。Croger拥有必要的人力、资源和知识来将计划付诸实践。在Croger转型之前的1973年，Croger和AMP在股票市场的价值大致相同。25年后，情况有所不同。在1973年投资一美元到AMP，到1998年将获得$2.48的回报。而相反，在Croger投资一美元，将获得近$200的回报。这就是进行评估、面对事实，以诚实和雄心作出反应的力量。
Today, Croger is the second-largest general retailer in the United States, behind Walmart, and the country's third-largest employer, with almost 3,000 supermarkets and department stores. In this episode, we broke down Jim Collins' concepts of brutal honesty and high ambition in companies. A company's leaders must maintain absolute brutal honesty and allowed dissent, ideas, and questions from anyone. A great leader will listen to anyone and adapt accordingly.
今天，Croger是美国第二大的综合零售商，仅次于沃尔玛，也是美国第三大雇主，拥有近3,000家超市和百货商店。在本集中，我们剖析了吉姆·柯林斯的“残酷诚实”和“追求高度野心”的公司概念。公司的领导者必须保持绝对的残酷诚实，并允许来自任何人的不同意见、想法和问题。一位优秀的领导者将倾听不同的声音并作出相应调整。
Collins compares a company to a hedgehog who only knows one thing, but excels at it. A smart organization will pursue that one goal with high ambition. Next time, we'll wrap up our look into Good to Great. Why some companies make the leap and others don't? We'll learn about the role of disciplined acting in building a great company.
Collins 把一家公司比作只知道一件事情但擅长它的刺猬。一个聪明的组织将会追求那一个目标，并具有高度的雄心壮志。下一次，我们将结束对《从优秀到卓越》的探究。为什么有些公司可以跨越而去，而其他的却不能？我们将了解到纪律性行动在建立一家伟大的公司中所扮演的角色。
Enjoying this episode of Book Insights? If so, keep listening and learning. There's a collection of over 100 titles you can read or listen to now at memodeapp.com slash insights. As author and business thinker, Jim Collins speaking at the Global Leaders Summit. After researching the successes and mediocrities of multiple companies, Collins put his findings into the best-selling book Good to Great. Why some companies make the leap and others don't?
你喜欢这一集的《书思》节目吗？如果是的话，就继续聆听和学习吧。在memodeapp.com/insights上，你可以阅读或收听超过100本书的内容。作者和商业思想家Jim Collins在全球领袖峰会上讲话。在研究多家公司的成功和平庸之后，科林斯把他的发现写进了畅销书《从优秀到卓越》中。为什么有些公司能够跨越巨大的成功差距，而其他公司则不能呢？
In this episode, we're concluding the book insight into Good to Great by looking at the role of disciplined action. And we'll look at the legacy of the book. Once the right people are in place and there is a clear strategy, a great company must follow through with disciplined action. This will involve walking a line between freedom and responsibility, a culture of honesty, open concept meetings, and red flag mechanisms will allow self-correction. Better than having to scramble to put out each fire from the top down.
在本集中，我们将通过探讨纪律行动的作用来结束《从优秀到卓越》一书的内容，并将看看这本书的遗产。一旦合适的人员到位，并且有明确的战略，一个伟大的公司必须按照纪律性的行动进行。这将涉及在自由和责任之间寻找平衡，一个诚实文化、开放概念的会议和红旗机制将允许自我纠正。这比从上到下每次都不得不慌忙处理每场危机要好。
Smaller problems are taking care of by lower down teams, leaving higher ups to spend their time and mental energy on larger concerns. But greatness requires that people actually buy into these values of freedom and responsibility. A level 4 leader may feel tempted to take the quick and easy way by imposing authority from above, imposing mass firings, cutbacks, or personal overhalls of the way the company is run.
小问题通常由较低层次的团队处理，这样高层管理者就能将精力和时间放在更大的问题上。但伟大需要人们其实真正信仰这种自由和责任的价值观。一个四级领导者也许会受到诱惑，采用从上而下的权威强制手段，比如大规模裁员、削减、或者彻底整顿公司的运营方式。
But to get on the path to greatness, a firm must solve its problems the way a level 5 leader would, through honest evaluation and discussion that results in organic revisions to plans. Discipline of this kind has a very clear purpose. To enable the company to keep all of its efforts focused on its hedgehog concept, every company will be tempted by a myriad of opportunities that may see a new market to enter or a hot new technology to take advantage of, or a struggling company to acquire.
为了走向卓越之路，一家公司必须像一位五级领导那样解决问题，通过诚实的评估和讨论，从而有机地修订计划。这种纪律性的行为有一个非常明确的目的。为了使公司将所有的努力都集中在刺猬概念上，每个公司都会受到一系列机会的诱惑，可能会看到一个新市场的进入，或者是利用一个热门技术，或者是收购一个艰难挣扎的公司。
But if these ventures do not further the hedgehog concept, they should be avoided. Failing to do so will cause a company to lose focus on what can make it great.
但如果这些企业不符合我们的刺猬概念，就应该避免参与。如果不遵守，公司将会失去集中精力做大的关键。
If absolutely necessary, a hedgehog concept can be revised, but it's important that this occurs organically and as a result of an actual change in circumstances, not at the whims of those in charge. Intentation and danger can be even greater when a company is struggling.
如果绝对必要，刺猬概念可以进行修改，但重要的是这种变化要自然而然地发生，是实际环境变化的结果，而不是由负责人任意决定。特别是在公司面临困境时，意图和危险可能更大。
It will all often fall into the trap of diversifying as a last-ditch effort to salvage things. One of the successful companies in Good to Great, Pitney Bose, fell into this trap for years.
往往会出现这样的情况，最后千方百计想挽救局面，结果却陷入了多元化的陷阱。《从优秀到卓越》中的成功公司之一，皮特尼·波斯(Pitney Bose)公司多年来就陷入了这个陷阱。
After losing a monopoly on its key technology, postage metering, profits began to diminish year after year. It began to panic, ignoring the core strengths that made the company great in the past, and began acquiring other companies like there was no tomorrow. Within just a few years, Pitney Bose had spent over half of its equity on acquisitions, primarily in industries completely unrelated to its core business.
失去了关键技术——邮资计量的垄断地位后，该公司的利润年复一年地减少。它开始惊慌失措，忽视了过去使公司伟大的核心优势，开始像明天没有了一样收购其他公司。仅仅几年内，皮特尼·鲍斯已经耗费了其股权的一半以上用于收购，在与其核心业务完全无关的行业中进行了主要的收购。
Collins tells how its level 5 leader turned things around and regrouped the company under the banner of office technologies. While less single-minded than its initial focus, this revised hedgehog concept was much more specific than the unstructured purchasing frenzy that the company had undertaken before his arrival.
Collins说了他们的5级领导者如何扭转局面，并将公司重新组合在办公技术的旗帜下。虽然其初始重点不如过去那么单一，但这个改良后的刺猬概念比公司在他到来之前进行的无组织采购狂潮更加具体。
If a hedgehog concept is arrived at through honest evaluation, it can only change it and move forward through brutal honesty about what is actually possible. Today, Pitney Bose is worth a fraction of what it once was, but it is still a $3.4 billion company.
如果一个“刺猬理念”是通过诚实评估而达成的，那么它只能通过残酷的诚实来改变并向前发展，了解实际可能性。今天，皮特尼·波塞（Pitney Bose）价值只有它曾经的一小部分，但它仍然是一家价值34亿美元的公司。
The comparison company that Collins profiles, Addresso Graph, no longer exists. Even when all the right pieces are in place, corporate greatness still takes many years and frequently decades.
Collins介绍的公司Addresso Graph已经不存在了。即使所有正确的部分都到位了，公司的伟大还需要许多年甚至几十年的时间。
In interviews with the Good to Great Companies, Collins and his team found that in every single case there was no immediate revolution or defining moment where it was clear that greatness had been achieved. Instead, unusual success came about one day at a time through what Collins calls the flywheel.
在采访“从好到超级”的公司时，柯林斯及其团队发现，在每个案例中，没有立即的革命或明显的时刻表明已经实现了伟大。相反，非凡的成功是通过柯林斯称之为“飞轮”的日复一日来实现的。
First, the necessary preconditions to start the flywheel must exist. Discipline people, discipline thought, and discipline action. Then the company must put these ideals into practice. Slowly but surely, results will start to accumulate. Unless, of course, someone stops the flywheel. No greatness is impervious to interference.
首先，必须存在启动飞轮的必要先决条件。纪律人员、纪律思维和纪律行动。然后公司必须将这些理念付诸实践。结果将会慢慢但肯定地积累。当然，除非有人停止飞轮。没有伟大的事业能抵御干扰。
If discipline disappears at any level, things can come to a grinding halt. When it does, the opposite of the flywheel can emerge, the doom loop. A problem causes a fall in momentum, which in turn leads to poor results. The undisciplined company reacts without a true understanding of the root cause of the problems, which, if not corrected, ultimately leads to failure.
如果纪律在任何层面上消失，事情可能会完全停滞。这种情况下，逆飞轮的反面可能会出现，即末日循环。问题会导致动量下降，从而导致糟糕的结果。缺乏纪律的公司会在没有真正理解问题根源的情况下做出反应，如果不加以纠正，最终会导致失败。
In this book insight, we broke down Jim Collins' Good to Great into three key ideas. First, leadership is about putting the company and people first. A leader who puts their ego first will leave a company and disarray after they're gone.
在这本书中，我们将吉姆·柯林斯的《从优秀到卓越》分解成了三个关键观点。首先，领导力是关于把公司和人放在首位。那些把自我放在首位的领导者离开后，公司就会陷入混乱。
Miring capable thinkers who excel in their field, then allowing them to fill positions and create solutions will create a strong and adaptable foundation. Second, brutal honesty. A company must be absolutely honest with itself about where it is going and be able to accept changing tides and dissenting opinions.
有能力在自己的领域做出卓越成就的思考者，让他们填补职位并创造解决方案，将建立强大和适应力强的基础。其次，就是残酷的诚实。一家公司必须对自身要去向的真实情况保持绝对诚实，并能够接受变化的潮流和不同意见。
This ties into the third idea, discipline action. Great leaders will understand the strengths of their company and maintain ambition in its goals, even in times of turbulence.
这与第三个想法，纪律行动，有关。优秀的领导者将了解他们公司的优势，并在动荡时期保持其目标的雄心。
Good to Great is approaching its 20th anniversary. Despite massive economic and technological changes, you could say its lessons are timeless, evidenced by the fact that the book still sells over 300,000 copies a year.
《从优秀到卓越》即将迎来其20周年纪念。尽管经济和技术发生了巨大变化，但可以说它的教训是永恒的，这一事实表明该书仍然每年销售超过30万册。
Perhaps part of the enduring appeal is that, unlike many other business authors, Collins isn't writing from a personal, one-sided perspective at the helm of a single company. He objectively studied multiple companies in a data-driven way.
也许这本书之所以具有长久的吸引力，是因为，与许多其他商业作者不同的是，柯林斯不是从单一公司的主导位置出发，从个人、片面的视角进行撰写。他以数据驱动的方式客观地研究了多家公司。
Despite this, not every company studied has continued its success. A 2007 article by Stephen D. Levit of Freakonomics fame implied that the subsequent results of some of the featured companies invalidates the concept of the book. But this misses the point.
尽管如此，研究的每个公司并非都继续取得成功。《匪浅经济学》的作者史蒂芬·D·莱维特在2007年的一篇文章中暗示，一些被特别介绍的公司后续的结果否定了本书的概念。但这错过了重点。
Collins' aim with Good to Great was to highlight principles that, if followed, allow greatness to flourish. He never claimed that the companies that follow these principles are suddenly forever great and impervious to change. The fact is that most of the companies studied continued to be successful, even if they no longer outperform.
Collins的《从优秀到卓越》的目的是要强调一些原则，如果遵循这些原则，就能使卓越得以发扬光大。他从未声称遵循这些原则的公司会突然变得永远伟大和不可改变。事实上，其中大多数公司仍然保持了成功，即使它们不再是最优秀的。
Of the 11 great companies Collins looked at, most, including Walgreens, Kroger, Wells Fargo, Gillette, Kimberly Clark, and Philip Morris, have continued to perform well.
Collins研究过的11个优秀公司中，包括Walgreens、Kroger、Wells Fargo、Gillette、Kimberly Clark和Philip Morris在内的大多数公司继续表现良好。
One notable exception is government-backed mortgage loan company, Fannie Mae. When the housing bubble burst in 2007, Fannie Mae lacked the flexibility to mitigate the damages. Since then, Fannie Mae has struggled to be anything close to Good, let alone great. It failed to do its job in providing proper due diligence in the loans it was guaranteeing.
有一家非常明显的例外，那就是由政府支持的抵押贷款公司房利美。在2007年房地产泡沫破裂时，房利美没有足够的灵活性来减轻损害。从那以后，房利美一直在奋斗，但离成为好甚至优秀的公司还有很大差距。它未能在担保贷款时提供适当的尽职调查，未能完成它的工作。
It's also possible that historic events like the housing market collapse couldn't be accounted for in Collins' examination, or that government-sponsored entities operate too distinctly to fit in with his findings.
有可能的是，像住房市场崩盘这样的历史事件可能没有被考虑在科林斯的调查中，或者政府赞助的机构运作方式过于独特，无法符合他的研究发现。
Circuit City is another of Collins' stars that bit the dust. Its story nearly mirrors that of A&P as studied in the book. Just as A&P was left behind when unwilling to abandon its traditional small-scale grocery stores in favor of big box stores, Circuit City struck with its small, outdated suburban outlets. Meanwhile, companies like Best Buy had successfully moved towards large format locations.
Circuit City是Collins的“烂掉的明星”之一。其故事几乎与《好日子》中的A＆P相似。正如A＆P不愿放弃传统的小型杂货店转向大型连锁超市而被落下一样，Circuit City在小型过时的郊区门店上受到了打击。与此同时，像百思买这样的公司已成功向大型门店转移。
Circuit City was aware of the prevailing trends that would lead to its downfall, but was unwilling to take the steps necessary to prevent it from occurring. It folded in 2009. Former Circuit City CEO Alan Wirtzell had been crucial in the company's earlier success. In her book, Mindset, Carol Dweck identifies Wirtzell as a growth mindset leader, displaying the ability to, as a level 5 leader, must, adapt, change, and learn according to circumstances.
赛尔福城知道导致自己失败的流行趋势，但不愿意采取必要的步骤来防止其发生。它在2009年关闭了。前赛尔福城CEO艾伦·维特泽尔在公司早期的成功中起着关键作用。在她的书《心态》中，卡罗尔·杜威克将维特泽尔识别为一个成长心态领袖，展示了作为5级领导者必须根据情况适应、改变和学习的能力。
True to Collins' Good to Great Principles, it was after Wirtzell departed in 1986 and later left the board in 2001 that Circuit City floundered. Wirtzell even wrote a book about it, Good to Great to Gone, the 60-year rise and fall of Circuit City.
按照柯林斯的《从好到超越》的原则，Circuit City在Wirtzell于1986年离开并在2001年离开董事会后开始失去了方向。Wirtzell甚至写了一本书，名叫《从好到超越到消失：Circuit City六十年的兴衰》。
If anything, the company's failure only serves to strengthen Collins' argument that when a company loses direction, decades worth of efforts can be wasted and end in failure. It's not Rocket Science to come up with a product and business model that can sustain a large company, but in the end, success or failure always comes down to one thing. Management.
如果有什么需要的话，公司的失败只会加强柯林斯的论点，当一家公司失去方向时，几十年的努力可能会白费并以失败告终。想出一个能支撑大公司的产品和商业模式并不是什么难事，但最终，成功或失败总是归结于一件事。管理。
Thank you for listening to Book Insights. Check out the rest of our content at memo.com. Please keep in mind that the information provided in or through our book insights episodes is for educational and informational purposes only. It's not intended to be a substitute for advice given by qualified professionals and should not be relied upon to disregard or delay seeking professional advice.
感谢您收听“书籍洞察力”（Book Insights）。请在memo.com上查看我们其他的内容。请注意，我们的书籍洞察力节目中提供的信息仅用于教育和信息目的。它不应被视为取代由合格专业人士提供的建议，并不应依赖它来忽视或延迟寻求专业建议。