Comments

Tom,

I'm not sure what risk has to do with the "Built to Last" concept. Ratings come and go and change, frequently. Where one is rated today has little to do with where it may be rated tomorrow. Of even more dubious distinction, ratings, whether Standard & Poors or analysts ratings are notoriously wrong in their predictive behaviour.
Let it go, Tom. Collins research and hypotheses are as good as any, including yours. We are all better off with a variety of solid thinking than with a monologue of one.

Business models are good and bad based not on someone's opinion nor on research but on how they work within a particular business.

I have to say, your obsession with "Built to Last" seems a bit too much for anything other than your own ego-satisfaction. Most of us do not rely on any one philosophy or model to grow. We use the best of what works and discard the rest. The fact that you want to discuss Collins repeatedly says more about you than about his book.

Posted by Lewis Green at September 26, 2006 2:39 PM

Tom,
You indeed post regularly on “Built to Last” book. Your skepticism of the idea is well known. The irony is that Porras himself, I think, shares your skepticism. In fact, he has just came out with a follow up book titled “Success Built to Last.” The new book is a 180 degree turn from the original “Built to Last” concept. Porras went far enough that even Herb Kelleher said about the book “If you’re crazy enough to do what you love for a living, then you’re bound to create a life that matters. Success Built to Last wisely counsels you to go nuts about something meaningful. That’s what you’re here to do, for heaven’s sake.” Said in truly "Tom Peters" style.
RS

Posted by RS at September 26, 2006 3:16 PM

"Except many of those urban areas don't want 'em."

Who exactly are these many? Political elites or common man, not the later based on the number of applicants at a Chicago area Walmart.

From Reason's Hit and Run Blog
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/07/windy_city_cont.shtml
"This ordinance is just the latest in an ongoing battle between WalMart and the City. In January, WalMart built a supercenter on the southside...three blocks from the city limits. They got 25,000 applications for 500 jobs.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walmart26.html

The local politics are simple: The aldermen with high unemployment want the jobs. Those from the other areas want to support their union/activist political base."

I am not saying Walmart is best employer, but alot of this anti-urban Walmart sentiment seems to be pushed by the media or those with a political agenda.

Posted by Thomas at September 26, 2006 3:17 PM

My obsession, Lewis, is to shake my head in amazement as merger after big company merger still goes down. Statistically, big companies do not last. Period. If I were king (God help us all), my main concern would be to keep producing an "unfair share" of Googles and Amgens ... to replace the bloated built-to-last-companies-that don't. (Despite the VERY similar, in fact, advice that these giants were given by Bob Waterman and I and Jim Collins and Peter Drucker and Gary Hamel and ...) (Not that I expect Google to stay ahead of the pack for very many years--super-cool as they clearly are.

Posted by tom peters at September 26, 2006 3:40 PM

As an alum of Fortune 100 companies, I have got to agree with the fallacy of big is good. Richard Beckhard said a long time ago that major change in an organization over 500 is darn near impossible. People get entrenched and fiefdoms get protected. I mean think about even trying to change to a flat tax or vat tax here in the states....So many would fight it, the idea seems doomed. Having said that, you can still think small while being big. I loved that we were organized as separate corporations by state at UPS. And I loved that the managers owned the company. We were a huge company, but small enough to appreciate shutting off the lights when you left a room. GM missed the boat by going to shared platforms across their brands. Manufacturing efficiencies for sure, but it really diluted the brands. It is hard to commit to a huge company when you feel just one small pawn lost in a world of similar pawns. There was much more commitment when Pontiac was performance, Buick was electronics and innovation, Chevrolet was every family's car, and Cadillac meant you made it. Once the company gets so big that the target is out of sight for the average contributor, well, I think you are screwed. My friends and colleagues look at me funny, but I even think Starbucks could become the GM of coffee if they are not careful.

Posted by Mike Neiss at September 26, 2006 4:12 PM

Dear Tom:

Facts are hard for all Business.

And a lot of people don't like to see the real problems.

Companies can't be built to last for one simple reason: they are in hands of people.

Every manager thinks different than the other, their actions, but most important of all their results.

In our days there is a lack of creativity. Because managers are so confused with so many theories about management and their short time to act that they have one easy path to follow: to copy others.

When companies tend to copy they destroy the principles from where the company was made.

The only thing that a company can build to last are the basic principles they will follow: the people (customers) they want to serve and how (strategy) they will serve them in a unique way.

And those principles can change because the people (customers) change with time.

If Managers follow that principles the company will last, but only in good managers hands.

With best regards

Juan Miguel Robles Vargas
General Manager
Deisa
Guadalajara, Mexico

Posted by Juan Miguel Robles Vargas at September 26, 2006 4:42 PM

Seems to me that many of the problems from the Built to last companies you cited can be at least loosely attributed to them straying from the characteristics of being Built to Last and instead focusing almost exclusively on growth or cost cutting. When those become obsessive means to success instead of a hard-earned byproduct of vision and innovation, the handwriting starts on the wall. Where's their compelling BHAGs? Where's the focus on clock building and not time telling? How are they stimulating progress while still preserving the core? Etcetera. A more complete execution on the Built to Last attributes might not offer them a complete turnaround, but it certainly couldn't be any worse than their current misguided strategic directions.

Posted by Jeffrey at September 27, 2006 7:09 AM

The equation is quite simple actually. Large, medium and small corporations and companies that loose touch with their customers/consumers and ignore industry and marketplace change eventually fall to the side.

How often have you found companies that are so close to their own businesses that they soley believe their own b__ls__t as the marketplace leaves them in the dust. Companies and the executives running them tend to believe the anti-data (false truths based on the way things were not as they are) and typically find their excuses for lackluster performance in the past. Housing is up or down, gas prices are up or down etc. etc., yet some companies with winning experiences, products and services excel irregardless of the standard market pressures.

Physics 101 tells us that "everything is always in a state of change".

Posted by Tom at Proteus at September 27, 2006 8:43 AM

As soon as anything is published and labelled as The Last Word it really becomes The Latest Me-Too Strategy That Smart Businesses Need To Bypass, Make Irrelevant Or Trump!

Posted by Mark JF at September 27, 2006 10:43 AM

Tom,

I have heard from my contacts at Stanford that Jerry Porras, co-author of Built-to-Last has been hospitalized. Do you know what his situation is? Jerry Porras is one of my favorite authors and I am very concerned about his health.

Manny

Posted by Manny at September 27, 2006 11:12 AM

Tom,

I wonder if this is why many of the B-schools miss the boat in teaching their students? I know that my school taught a very structured "this is the way to manage" curriculum. It was confortable to know do it this way and you will be a success. Then along came In Search of Excellance. What a mess that made. "You mean there may be more than one way to manage successfully?"

Perhaps the B-schools should concentrate more on diverse ways of managing, structuring the business model, approaching the market, and developing the product or service rather than trying to teach a "built to last" formula.

Posted by Al at September 27, 2006 1:29 PM

"Seems to me that many of the problems from the Built to last companies you cited can be at least loosely attributed to them straying from the characteristics of being Built to Last and instead focusing almost exclusively on growth or cost cutting."

Jeffrey, that may be true but it is also The Mother of All Cop outs. I play that game with myself all the time and it doesn't pass muster. If people CONSISTENTLY don't follow my (Jim's, etc) advice then it is in part because the advice was not actionable in their context. "Good advice" is not "trruisms"--it's stuff that gets done. David Ogilvy said, more or less, "If it improves sales it was a good ad."

(I underscore that I'm not talking about Jim C here--but about myself (!!!) and also the likes of Jim.

????: We should quit pretending that the Giant Cos can indeed implement our advice.

Posted by tom peters at September 27, 2006 1:45 PM

Tom

Good advice is always good advice! Problem is that some decision makers choose to ignore it. Ask President George W Bush or Clinton, Bill Ford, Martha Stewart, etc.

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at September 27, 2006 5:03 PM

Hello Tom,

I met you in the lobby of the Inglaterra Hotel in Copenhagen last year while traveling on business with a great friend / biz associate and another Tom from Mass., Tom Hayes. Have great photo of the 3 of us.

The converstion with you sparked a big change and I wanted to thank you. Earlier this year, as I approached the 21 year mark of working in the advertising industry I began to think about what business I am really in today. My conclusion, it's not advertising. I began a 6 month "re-imagining" exercise to meet the challenges of tomorrow / take adantage of the "matchless opportunity" that I beleive is ahead. I decided to disrupt my cosy and dependent existence as the CEO and shareholder of an advertising agency and start-a-fresh.

On Monday I will "officially" launch Whitty Worldwide. The skills that I have developed over the years will be at the core of my business, but, unshackled and fired up with a renewed passion for my work I'll be focusing on real marketing solutions for my clients versus simply developing and then executing a traditional ad campaign.

While I already have 3 great founding clients that I am busy working with, I have chosen to make my first public appearance as a guest on what is fast becoming one of the most read blogs in Silicon Valley, TomBomb.com. I am delighted that my very first "blog" was published today and I was hoping you may take a look (you have listed Tom Hayes on your blog). My very own weblog is in the works. I hope it'll be a place for some lively debate and fruitful networking.

Hopefully this note finds you well. When we met I was surprised to find you battling with a bout of depession. My transiion in business life is taking place while my wife and I are dealing with her fathers battle with cancer. Life is short and your inspiration has been a big help to me. So, I close by saying a big thank you.

Mark

Posted by Mark Whitty at September 27, 2006 7:08 PM

What?

Tom said, "If people CONSISTENTLY don't follow my (Jim's, etc) advice then it is in part because the advice was not actionable in their context."

You're kidding, right?

The advice could easily be actionable but they lacked the willpower to stay the course or make the appropriate choices. Otherwise I think it is your belief that gives them the copout.

Posted by Jeffrey at September 27, 2006 7:56 PM

Ever heard of “Built to Flip”…If not, you must read this FAST COMPANY Feb’00 article (http://www.fastcompany.com/online/32/builttoflip.html) written by Jim Collins (of Built to Last fame)...I love it when he says “Built to Flip. An intriguing idea: No need to build a company, much less one with enduring value. Today, it's enough to pull together a good story, to implement the rough draft of an idea, and -- presto! -- instant wealth.”

Posted by K.Sriram at September 27, 2006 11:07 PM

There's an interesting Theodore Levitt retrospective in this month's HBR, a lot of which is still relevant. All those years ago [1960!], he pointed out: "The railroads are in trouble today not because that need was filled by others (cars, trucks, airplanes, and even telephones) but because it was not filled by the railroads themselves. They let others take customers away from them because they assumed themselves to be in the railroad business rather than in the transportation business."

I don't subscribe to the argument that you can - or should - just keep growing. But most products and services have a natural life cycle and it's a brave, outward looking CEO who will take his company in a completely different direction. Especially when his remuneration package is more rewarding if he delivers another set of good results this quarter.

Posted by Mark JF at September 28, 2006 2:46 AM

Failed Mergers May Appear Smaller in our Rear View Mirror.

We talk about the failure of big as if it were a law of nature, but I wonder if it is not simply a perspective. Suppose for a moment that Tom Peters co-author’s a book with…, let’s say RTodd. They work feverishly to get the book out that will have an impact on every information worker out there. The book is published and promoted and after 12 months, sales top 65,000. Amazon gives it 3.5 Stars and ranks it 8,568. The media responds with lead articles:

“Peters has lost touch with business reality”
“Peters should have stuck with Waterman”
“Tom Peters misses the mark and needs to Re-Imagine”

However, tuning our perspective over to Georgia, we see different story.

“RTodd is a hit, local author ranks 3.5 stars on Amazon”
“RTodd scores a win, Enterprise Metadata Blog is now top 1%”
“RTodd’s Book moves out of the Long Tail, ranking in the top 10%”

Was the book a failure or a success?

The difference is clear; perspective. Funny if I were to ask my associates what the worst movie they have seen they will respond with movies like “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” or “King Kong”. We are all critics and look to our own experiences to address the question. On the other hand, if I ask them for their favorite you will get “Casablanca” or “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”. The interesting point is that they haven’t ever really seen these movies but have only been exposed to people telling them what was great. If Tom Peters started saying that all mergers were great like some of us are praying (BellSouth / AT&T) then the band wagon would be carrying a different load.

The point is that the gentleman that said that he could not think of any when asked to name successful mergers will never find one. For every person that says HP and Compaq was doomed and that Carly Fiorina was failure, you can find others that praise a woman CEO and her strategy.

Posted by RTodd at September 29, 2006 5:42 AM