Title: Good to Great
Author: Jim Collins
Reviewed Format: Hardcover
Pages: 260
Rating: 5 Stars
Review: This is a great book. I went in a little skeptical... When everyone talks about how great a book is (and when the executive office of your employer is said to carry it around in their uh... knapsacks?) it always makes me question the hype and take a closer look than I maybe otherwise would. Great expectations, and all that. Well, this is a great book, but I'm not sure how many people actually get the message when they read the thing based on my own conversations with and observations of people who tout its message.
Jim Collins and a team of 20 other researchers affiliated with the University of Colorado Graduate School with the stated mission of studying companies which had established a baseline of merely good results (market average) but suddenly underwent some kind of seemingly major transformation and became great companies that sustained results for at least 15 years after the transformation event. The team made a very conscious decision to ignore their own biases and preconceptions and try to analyze their data and findings objectively-- what they found shocked them (and me).
I think the collective "we" (Jim Collins, et al., included) imagined that they'd find companies helmed by rockstar CEOs, radical transition plans, excellent management of said transition, and drastic transformations. What they found instead-- and in EVERY ONE of their eleven subjects (the only found eleven companies that met their good-to-great criteria)-- was that the transformation was actually a very starting one that gained more and more momentum as the becoming-great company pushed on their figurative flywheel (one of the books central concept). The book has seven chapters each about a specific concept, but several of them really cover a lot of the same ground and I would say there's really three central lessons to be had from this book. They are:
1. Level 5 Leadership - humble leaders who direct all of their sizable ambition towards building a great company... And hire people like them with a focus on values instead of on skills. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined thought.")
2. Hedgehog Concept - understand what your company can be great at and focus only on those things. Do not tolerate people who don't understand this or what it implies. (The book categorizes these as "disciplined action.")
3. A Culture of Discipline - When you've worked on the above to concepts the next part should be easy, but is essentially a business culture that becomes determined or even fanatic about hiring the right kind of people for the job and adhering to the Hedgehog Concept.
What it all really boils down to, is getting the right people on the bus AND the wrong people off the bus and the rest of it will tend to fall in place. Of course the book itself has numerous examples and data to support the findings of the research teams' findings and is well enough written to be a clear and easy read. The attribute I found most compelling was the fact that the research turned up the same factors and steps for every one of their subject companies so as far as data goes it was extremely clear to me that they are really on to something. As I consider the actions and performance of the company I work for, it has become impossible to view them without constantly evaluating them against the findings of this book. I very highly recommend this book for anyone interested in what makes some companies great. (5 stars)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Kevin Costner... apparently comes through on oil spill techonology???
CNN Article
We all had a good-natured laugh when news broke that Kevin Costner, of all people, was going to be presenting his company's oil spill clean up technology to congress. Turns out we should've taken the man seriously... BP has decided to order 32 of these machines and apparently they will allow cleanup crews to get oil out of the water much more quickly and efficiently. It's a surprise, to be sure, but evidently Costner's brother is a scientist and they've been working on this since the 1990s. So, in any case, well done, Kevin Costner... And, uh, keep doing your part to stave off Waterworld.
We all had a good-natured laugh when news broke that Kevin Costner, of all people, was going to be presenting his company's oil spill clean up technology to congress. Turns out we should've taken the man seriously... BP has decided to order 32 of these machines and apparently they will allow cleanup crews to get oil out of the water much more quickly and efficiently. It's a surprise, to be sure, but evidently Costner's brother is a scientist and they've been working on this since the 1990s. So, in any case, well done, Kevin Costner... And, uh, keep doing your part to stave off Waterworld.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Japan's PM Hatoyama Resigns & Thoughts on US Military Presence on Okinawa
It was announced today that Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama is resigning his post most likely due to his failure to uphold is promise to remove the US military presence from Okinawa. He did try to address the issue but ultimately decided that the base would stay. It's a reasonable question to consider if he made the decision due to pressure from the US, Japanese security concerns, or concerns specific to conditions on Okinawa itself.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
The US Military Presence on Okinawa is very extensive. According to wikipedia there are 14 seperate installations covering 233 sq. km, which is about 18% of the main island. Of the 40,000 US personnel stationed in Japan, around 2/3 are on Okinawa. The overwhelming majority of Okinawans are opposed to the military presence due to environmental and noise concerns, occasional crime by US servicemen, and other such factors. I can hardly blame them... From the numbers above it would seem like you'd be hard pressed to look anywhere without seeing the US military.
Does it make sense to move the military assets? Probably does. The US has interest in military presence in Japan for geographic reasons... Japan commands a lot of the access to the Pacific from the Asian side. Japanese interest lies in the US military presence reducing their own expenditure on defense to an extremely low level. Okinawa also has some interest in the presence, I think, as I'd imagine the troops contribute a fair amount to their economy (though I don't really know that for sure). Finally, all parties should be keenly interested in maintaining one of the world's most important military alliances, so some solution should be found. It seems to me like the military assets should be redistributed to other parts of Japan (or throughout the Pacific Theatre). Based on Okinawa's location, it's probably important maintain an airbase there, but it seems to me like the rest of the bases could go.
Lunar Solar Powerplant
Courtesy of this gizmodo post I've learned of a Japanese firm, Shimizu, that would like to use robots to fabricate a solar power plant they call Luna Ring. The Luna Ring would be built by robots using mostly material from the moon itself and cover the equator of the moon with solar panels to collect the power of sunlight without concerns about weather conditions or the atmosphere that reduces solar panel efficiency here on earth. Luna Ring would then beam the power to earth via lasers or microwaves.
The idea is a little similar to one of my favorite pet energy concepts: space-based solar power, which I think offers one of the better chances for reasonably clean and renewable power on earth. It may even be easier or cheaper to accomplish when you consider the fact that you won't have to lift materials into orbit. In any case, it's merely concept now, and we'll have to keep working towards this and other forms of power (fuel cells or fusion power or something else) until one becomes practical enough that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction.
The idea is a little similar to one of my favorite pet energy concepts: space-based solar power, which I think offers one of the better chances for reasonably clean and renewable power on earth. It may even be easier or cheaper to accomplish when you consider the fact that you won't have to lift materials into orbit. In any case, it's merely concept now, and we'll have to keep working towards this and other forms of power (fuel cells or fusion power or something else) until one becomes practical enough that we can ween ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Clarification on Korea and China
I had an opportunity to talk to Dusty a bit last night regarding the escalating tensions between North and South Korea, and it became clear that I'd been unclear on what I meant by referring to China as the wildcard in the situation... I will try to clear up what I think about China's role in Korea here.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea is something of a vassal state to China. Without China's support, North Korea would almost surely collapse. I believe most of North Korea's energy and food come from across the Yalu River. What, then, is North Korea to China? Well, historically it was a military and ideological ally. When the Korean War went against the North Koreans, China invaded Korea to push back UN mandated forces resulting in setbacks and a stalemate that would eventually define the DMZ as it is today. North Korea, ideologically speaking, in the old days anyway, was another Communist country. On paper, I suppose, both are still Communist, though I think neither really has much to do with practical Communism anymore. In China, Communism started its decline when Deng Xiaoping declared that "to get rich is glorious." You can't actually be rich if you're living in a Communist state. I'm less clear when North Korea transitioned from a Communist state to it's current status as a cult-of-personality dictator built entirely around an almost religious fanaticism for Kim Jong Il (Or his father, Kim Il Sung, before him).
So, what's in it for China today? That's what I keep asking myself. The modern post-Cold War geopolitical landscape sees a single superpower (the US) with maybe three in development (EU, Russia, China). China is no longer a Communist country, by ideology, and it seems to me they've adopted a statist, state capitalist, dictatorship-- something not entirely unlike the facist regimes before World War II. It remains to be seen whether state capitalism is a sustainable system, or if the Chinese government can maintain its stranglehold on liberty as their populace develops wealth... But the overriding theme in Chinese decision-making seems pointed at economic and technological development. Given that, I can't really understand why they remain committed to the continued existence of North Korea. I understand that North Korea creates a buffer between China and South Korea, a state with a sizable American military presence and a powerful military of its own. I understand that there are still some ideological and historical reasons for China's continued support of North Korea (not least of which should be their characterization of the Korean War as a war to repel American aggression in China)...
But on the other hand, I have to think there's a lot of upside in it for China if the Koreas were to be unified under "southern" rule. North Korea would quickly become a growth market opportunity for any investor interested in exploting what should be rapid development of North Koreans (see East German example). It should create positive economic growth right on China's doorstep, and one that China could participate in if they played their cards right. I think at some point, that calculation should outweigh the geopolitical benefits of a troublesome ally (who very notably has a negative economic impact on the region) standing between you an American influence. I hope some portions of the Chinese government are beginning to think so, as I think that's the only long-term peaceful resolution to the divide on the Korean Peninsula.
Belated Memorial Day Observance
I'm a day late on this, apologies. I celebrated Memorial Day by doing nothing related to our servicemen, as I suspect most other Americans did. I went camping with my brothers and their families and we had a nice time. I came home on Sunday to hear Andy Rooney giving his own opinion on how best to honor our veterans and he suggested that we should do it every day rather than on a day contrived to give us a long weekend. I almost never like what Andy Rooney has to say, but I think he's right about this. Now, having said that, I'm going to pay homage (even if belated) to the contrived day in question and offer thanks to the many sacrifices that our servicemen (and servicewomen) have made and continue to make to ensure that the American dream of liberty can continue.
Book Review: Guns, Germs, and Steel
Title: Guns, Germs,and Steel
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Author: Jared Diamond
Reviewed Format: Trade Paperback
Pages: 471
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: I came into reading this book with very high expectations and finished just a little bit underwhelmed. I'd seen the impressive PBS miniseries of the same name narrated by Jared Diamond himself, so I was familiar with the premise, and had several enthusiastic recommendations from people whose opinions I trust. Perhaps the bar I set was a little too high, but either way, while I liked the book it didn't quite satisfy me. Guns, Germs, and Steel also won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, for whatever that's worth.
The book is an impressive collection of information supporting Jared Diamond's theories on why it came to pass that Eurasian civilization dominated the modern world in terms of power, wealth, and technology. His theory is pretty strongly deterministic, meaning that on the very large scale environmental/geographical factors allowed people to get a leg up on their neighbors because of where they were as opposed to who they are. I, personally, think (and have thought for most of my adult life) that this makes a great deal of sense. In my own travels I've never come to the conclusion that people are physically or mentally different in any significant way. In terms of proving his point in the very broadest terms, particularly during pre-historical times, Diamond does a great job of making his point.
The book itself is laid out as a series of thought experiments where Diamond posits something and then thinks his way through them given known historical, archaeological, and linguistic factors. He begins (and often returns) to Polynesia and New Guinea as interesting test cases-- situations where racially/ethnically identical people end up in different environments and alternatively regress, stay the same, or prosper significantly. The historical details themselves are fascinating and make the book worth reading, no matter what you think of his conclusions. For all of his though experiments, save one (his theory on the development of government and complex social systems), Diamond was convincing enough to sway my thinking his way.
Stylistically, Diamond is a decent writer. I didn't have to re-read sentences or paragraphs too often, and I thought the level of granularity in his historical examples were sufficient to make his point without overburdening the reader. Diamond also had the integrity to point out the weaknesses in his theories or findings throughout the book and detailing the opposing points of view so that the reader could decide which point of view they preferred.
So that was all pretty positive, right? Why didn't I give this book five stars? I guess it's because I really didn't get anything out of it. I agreed with his point of view concerning the rise of civilizations in antiquity before I read the book, but was curious to see how he would determine why European powers rather than China came to dominate the modern world... And he mostly shied away from it. I'm not sure it's entirely fair to criticize because I'm not sure the mechanisms Diamond is describing (very broad strokes of the evolution of civilizations) can be realistically applied to specific countries over relatively short periods of time. In any case, if the topic interests you even a little, I must recommend this book. (4 stars)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)