The realization of success in any company lies in the levels of accountability that its leaders have set forward towards achieving as well as realizing its set goals and objectives. These are only made when good leadership strategies accompanied with styles, skills, and knowledge are put in place; actualize, with a series of collaboration among the leaders, towards achieving the set goals. In this two-page paper essay paper on leadership studies, I am going to provide leadership responses from the reading on page 159 of the article, “One Question, Five Years, 11 Companies”. The responses that I am going to provide are pertaining the research method that Collins discusses in the study.
The research question in the text, undertaken by Collins was done in the year 1996. Together with the other members of the research team, they formulated a research question that would provide the answer to whether a great company has any possibility as well as the likelihood of emerging as a great company. Apart from finding out or rather determining if a good company could later develop as a good company, the research question entailed providing the answer to the question how. In other words, the study wanted to find out the process or methodology through which a company considered to be good, could later transform and be great. The research question sought to provide the solution concerning the vast majority of organizations in the industry, that once realize their position with about others; that they are good but not great.
The first criteria that were used to determine whether a company was included in the good-to-great companies entail considering or finding out if the company had shifted from good performance to great performance. For those companies who had been found to have undergone this particular dynamism of performance, critical investigation and analysis on whether they had sustained the momentum were affected on the same. As a result of this, the research came up with a list of comparisons for those who had been reported to have failed towards making the sustained shift.
The research later conducts a study of the contrast and comparison between the two identified groups. This particular study was meant to discover as well as coming up with a standard variable for those organizations who failed and for those who succeed. The two strata included a single variable that led to other companies managing and sustaining the shift and others who could have succeeded but due to the lack of the variable, they failed.
As a matter of being specific, the research was determined to get a particular pattern. The design included the cumulative stock return within the level general stock market for 15 years. The 15-year period was characterized by a point of transition as well as a minimum of three cumulative years times the market for a period ranging from 15 years. The research project made use of the data collected from the University of Chicago, as well as making adjustments for splits, and the entire dividends reinvested.
There was a discovery that was surprising to the researchers but occurred in all 11 good-great-companies. Under these categories of companies, there are those which were successful to realize a cumulative stock on an average of 6.9 times with relation to the general stock market for a span of 15 years from the transition point. There are others who outperformed those who were better than them by 2:8:1 with relation to the stock market from 1986 to 2000. It was surprising that o unit of a dollar invested in the good-to-great companies yielded a higher return, $470 as compared to the $56 that was recorded in the stock market.