80295NACUBO_005 064 4/29/04 12:17 PM Page 13
Getting from Good to Great in Higher Education
hat is it that transforms consistently good compa-
W nies into great ones? What distinguishes those
companies that make the transition from good to great from those that,
despite the same opportunities and similar resources, undergo no such
leap in performance? Jim Collins and his colleagues undertook a mas-
sive five-year research project to empirically discover answers to these
questions. They began by identifying matched comparison pairs of
companies, where one in the pair achieved greatness and the other did
not. Their findings shed light on the good-to-great process and offer a
road map for others willing to undertake the journey. Collins recognizes
that leading a college or university is, in most cases, significantly more
complex than leading a corporation, and he is keenly interested in
applying his research methods to the social sector to help build a great
societyone that would include great universities.
Summary of Jim Collinss Presentation at the Forums Aspen Symposium
Research Methodology
Collinss good-to-great research project did
not begin with a theory to test or prove;
rather, it sought to build a theory from the
ground up by making empirical deductions
directly from the data. In a nutshell, the
project began by identifying companies that
made the leap from good resultsas
defined by stock returnsto great results
and sustained those results for at least 15
years. Next, a carefully selected control
group of comparison companies that failed
to make the leap or, if they did, failed to
sustain it, was identified. Then the good-to-
great companies and the comparison com-
panies were compared to discover the
essential and distinguishing factors at work.
13
80295NACUBO_005 064 4/29/04 12:17 PM Page 14

The good-to-great companies were identified by sys- Results

tematically analyzing the nearly 1,500 companies that
Collinss analyses led to a framework of concepts that
had appeared on the FORTUNE 500 in the years 1965 to
shows the transformation from good to great as a process
1995. Months of searching and sifting yielded just 11
of extensive buildup followed by breakthrough, broken
companies that met the established standards. It is
into three broad stages: disciplined people, disciplined
important to note that these 11 companies are not a rep-
thought, and disciplined action. Wrapping around the
resentative sample, but instead are the entire universe of
entire framework is a concept called the flywheel, which
companies that met all the criteria for inclusion in the
captures the gestalt of the entire process of going from
study. Another key point is that the companies had to
good to great. Several key concepts are summarized
demonstrate the good-to-great pattern independent of
briefly in the following sections.
their industries; if the whole industry showed the same
pattern, the company was dropped.
Disciplined People: Level 5 Leadership
wo sets of comparison companies were selected. The A Level 5 leader is an individual who blends extreme
T first set consisted of direct comparisonscompa-
nies that were in the same industry as the good-to-great
personal humility with intense professional will.
Executives who possess this paradoxical combination of
companies, with the same opportunities and similar traits are catalysts for the statistically rare event of trans-
resources at the time of transition, but that showed no leap forming a good company into a great one. Level 5 refers
from good to great. The second set consisted of unsus- to the highest level in a hierarchy of executive capabili-
tained comparisonscompanies that made a short-term ties. Leaders at the other four levelshighly capable
shift from good to great but failed to maintain the trajecto- individual, contributing team member, competent man-
ry. A complete list of the entire study set is in Table 1. ager, and effective leadercan produce high degrees of
success but not enough to elevate companies from medi-
Table 1. ocrity to sustained excellence.
Level 5 leaders are a study in duality: modest and will-
Good to Great: The Entire Study Set
ful, shy and fearless. Throughout their interviews, Level 5
Good-to-Great Companies Direct Comparisons leaders frequently invoked luck as an important factor
Abbott Laboratories Upjohn in their success; on the other hand, leaders of more than
Circuit City Silo two-thirds of the comparison companies had gargantuan
Fannie Mae Great Western egos that contributed to the demise or continued medioc-
Gillette Warner-Lambert rity of their companies. Indeed, larger-than-life celebrity
Kimberly-Clark Scott Paper leaders who ride in from the outside are negatively corre-
Kroger A&P lated with taking a company from good to great. Ten of 11
Nucor Bethlehem Steel good-to-great chief executive officers (CEOs) came from
Philip Morris R.J. Reynolds inside the company, whereas the comparison companies
Pitney Bowes Addressograph tried outside CEOs six times more often.
Walgreens Eckerd Level 5 leadership is not the only requirement for
Wells Fargo Bank of America transforming a good company into a great oneother
Unsustained Comparisons
factors are discussed belowbut it is essential. Good-to-
Burroughs
great transformations just dont happen without Level 5
Chrysler
leaders at the helm. It may be possible, though, given the
Harris
complexity of higher education, that a Level 5 provost, or
Hasbro
perhaps a Level 5 dean, can overcome the lack of a Level
Rubbermaid
5 president.
Teledyne
Disciplined People: First Who, Then What
Good-to-great leaders think first about who, then
Finally, through a systematic analysis of virtually all
about what: they get the right people on the bus, the
materials published by or about the companies, detailed
wrong people off the bus, the right people in the right
financial analyses, and dozens of executive interviews,
seats, and then think about where to drive it. The key
the good-to-great examples were contrasted with the
here is not just in assembling the right team, rather, its
comparisons, always asking, What is different?

14
80295NACUBO_005 064 4/29/04 12:17 PM Page 15
that the who questions come before the what deci-
sionsbefore vision, strategy, tactics, and so forth. Its
important to note that the good-to-great leaders were rig-
orous, but not ruthless, in people decisions. They did not
rely on layoffs or restructuring as a primary strategy for
improving performance.
Colleges and universities fates are inextricably tied to
peopletheir faculty and students as well as their admin-
istration and staff. As such, the who first concept may be
an even more important variable in higher education than
in the corporate sector. And yet in academic institutions it
can be very difficult to get the wrong people off the bus.
A university may not be able to fire tenured professors,
but it can hire the right people for every opening and
gradually create an environment where the wrong people
feel increasingly uncomfortable and eventually retire or
choose to go elsewhere. The same basic idea applies, but
it takes more time to accomplish.
Disciplined Thought: The Hedgehog Concept
An ancient Greek parable distinguishes between
foxes, which know many small things, and hedgehogs,
which know one big thing. It turns out that all good-to-
great leaders are hedgehogs. They know how to simplify
a complex world into a single, organizing ideathe kind
of basic principle that unifies, organizes, and guides all
decisions. Thats not to say that hedgehogs are simplistic.
Like great thinkers, who take complexities and boil them
down into simple yet profound ideas (e.g., Adam Smith
and the invisible hand, Charles Darwin and evolution),
leaders of good-to-great companies develop a hedgehog
concept that is simple but reflects penetrating insight and
deep understanding.
t can take years to develop a hedgehog concept that
I works. Youll know youre getting closer to it when
you align three intersecting circles that represent three
pivotal questions: (1) What can we be best in the world
at? (And equally important, what can we not be the best
at?) (2) What are our core people deeply passionate
about? and (3) What is the economic denominator that
best drives our economic engine? (See Figure 1.)
In the corporate sector, an economic denominator
might be profit per employee, which was Wells Fargos
focus, or profit per customer visit, which underlaid
Walgreenss decision making. But these purely financial
measures are just one part of a hedgehog concept.
Indeed, one of the key findings in Built to Last (1994),
which Collins coauthored with Jerry Porras, is that true
built-to-last companies (those with great financial results
that become enduring great companies of iconic stature)
are more like social-sector organizations than their com-
parison companies with regard to the complexity of vari-
ables they use to define success.
Collins has begun to apply the good-to-great methodol-
ogy to the social sector in an effort to unravel how our good
institutions can become great. The matched pairs being
studied are public K12 education systems, cities, and
orchestras. Clearly, cumulative stock returns relative to the
Figure 1.
The Three Circles of the Hedgehog Concept
Passionate
About
Can Be Best Economic
In the World Denominator
Copyright Jim Collins. All rights reserved.
market are of no use in assessing performance of these
institutions, nor are they relevant to higher education.
At this early stage, four basic output variables for great
institutions have been identified. One is performance by
some measures other than economic. Graduation rates
are a performance measure and, while their use may be
debatable, test scores also offer quantitative measure-
ments. The second output variable is impactto what
extent can an institution marshal evidence that it has had
a unique impact on the world it touches? That is, if the
institution didnt exist, how would the world it touches
be different? The third variable is resiliencean institu-
tion hasnt proven excellence until it goes through a dif-
ficult time and emerges stronger than before. That is bet-
ter evidence of strength than avoiding hard times alto-
gether. The final variable is longevity, defined as evidenc-
ing high performance, unique impact, and resilience over
a long period of time. In considering outputs, the key is
to not allow that which is easily quantifiable to become
the performance criteria.
Once institutions have developed their hedgehog
concept, their core values are readily identifiable. Core
values dont change over time; they remain fixed and
15
80295NACUBO_005 064 4/29/04 12:17 PM Page 16
provide a sense of purpose that goes beyond just making
money. Core values are the ideological framework on
which everything is built. They are not open for negotia-
tion. Academic freedom is a core value in higher educa-
tion; the practice that flows from that core value is
tenure. Institutions must not confuse their values and
their practices: one is fixed, the other is open to change
to allow for progress. Institutions steeped in deeply held
traditions can change and not lose their souls if they
understand the differences between values and practices.
Disciplined Action: Technology Accelerators
Finally, a quick note about technology. When used
correctly, technology becomes an accelerator of momen-
tum, not a creator of it. None of the good-to-great com-
panies began their transitions to greatness by pioneering
technology, for the simple reason that you cannot make
good use of technology until you know which technolo-
gies are relevant. Relevant technologies are only those
that link directly to the three intersecting circles of the
hedgehog concept. Yet once the good-to-great companies
grasped how technology fit with their three circlesand
after they had begun their riseall became pioneers in
the application of technology.
The key point about technology is that, by itself, it is
never a primary cause of either greatness or decline: fully
80 percent of good-to-great executives interviewed didnt
even mention technology as one of the top five factors in
their companies transformations.
Conclusion
Building sustained great results is a cumulative process.
It is never an event, never a single, momentary revolu-
tion. Although media coverage of the good-to-great com-
panies makes it seem as if they achieved their success
suddenly (when the press began to notice them), the fact
is that an enormous amount of work had been going on
16
all along. This disconnect is captured in what Collinss
research team began to call the flywheel effect: imagine a
huge, heavy flywheela massive metal disk mounted on
an axle. The flywheel is your company or organization
and you need to get it moving as fast as possible. Right
now its at a standstill. You make a tremendous effort to
move it an inch or two. Days of hard work later, youve
managed one complete turn. You keep pushing, and the
flywheel moves a bit faster. It takes a lot of work, but at
last the flywheel makes a second rotation. You keep
pushing, it turns again and again. It starts to move faster
and at some pointyou cant say exactly whenyou
break through. The momentum of the heavy wheel kicks
in to your advantage. It spins faster and faster. Youre not
pushing any harder, but the flywheel is accelerating and
momentum is building.
That is what it feels like when youre inside a compa-
ny making the transition from good to greata cumula-
tive process. One of Collinss most striking findings is the
absence of any magic moment of transformation. The
real path to greatness, it turns out, requires simplicity
and diligence. It requires clarity, not instant illumination.
It demands that each of us focus on what is vitaland
eliminate what is extraneous.
Collins is convinced that these good-to-great findings
apply broadly and not just to CEOs, but to all of us and
whatever work were engaged inincluding leading col-
leges and universities toward becoming key building
blocks of a great society.
Jim Collins is founder and director of a management lab-
oratory in Boulder, Colorado, where he conducts research
and teaches executives from the corporate and social
sectors. Jim is co-author of Built to Last (1994) with
Jerry Porras, a Business Week bestseller for more than
six years, and author of Good to Great: Why Some
Companies Make the LeapAnd Others Dont (2001), a
New York Times bestseller.