BNET Insight

The Corner Office

Taking on the big questions facing CEOs, boards, and shareholders.

Circuit City and the "Good to Great" Business Book Conundrum

November 22nd, 2008 @ 11:46 am

10 Comments

Categories: Best Practices, Books, CEO Succession, Corporate Governance, Executive Ethics, Executive Focus, Innovation, Management, Mergers, Opinion, Shareholder Activism, Strategy, Technology, Tips and Tools, Wisdom

Tags: Circuit City Stores Inc., Sales Strategy, Sales Force Management, Real Estate, Sales, Business Operations, Peter Galuszka

Having just  finished writing a lengthy story about almost-bust, electronics mass retailer Circuit City for a weekly newspaper, I keep wondering about the value of business books.

The one I have in mind is the 2001 work “Good to Great” by business author Jim Collins who studied hundreds of companies before settling on 11 that were able to make the difficult step from “good” to “great.” Besides Circuit City, the list included Abbott Laboratories, Altria Group, Kimberly Clark, Pitney-Bowes, Gillette, Fannie Mae, Nucor, Kroger, Wells Fargo and Wal-Green.

Circuit City went into Chapter 11 earlier this month after years of trying to make a comeback. After talking with the son of the founder of Circuit City and  long-time CEO, plus a number of others (current management wouldn’t talk), I came up with a series of stumbles, some of which dated well into the 1990s before Collins published his book.

These include entering into expensive real estate deals, putting stores in the wrong places and forgetting core values of being the low price seller. The firm laid off its experienced sales staff and then laid off a good chunk of its higher-paid but less experienced sales staff, leaving Circuit City with its lowest paid , least experienced sales staff, not to mention a raft of frustrated customers.

Perhaps the biggest single failing was that in the early 1990s Circuit City came up with a brilliant idea to sell used cars — CarMax. But the CEO at the time paid too much attention to sexy CarMax. When it was spun off in 2002, he left with it, taking with him some of the most talented Circuit City managers.

Looking backwards, Collins included Circuit City in his gushy book. To him, the firm was a stunning example of remarkable returns that allowed it to make the jump from being merely “good” to “great.”  Collins wrote: ‘From 1982 to 1999, Circuit City generated cumulative stock returns 22 times better than the market, handily beating Itel, Wal-Mart, GE (General Electric), Hewlett-Packard and Coca-Cola.”

Indeed, of the list of 11, not many are still “great.”  Fannie Mae is in such deep doo-doo that it is being rescued by the federal government. Some of the rest like Gillette have been picked off by consistent monster players such as Procter & Gamble (not on Collins’ list) and some have simply languished.

I realize that Collins’ work, like many business writers, examines historical performance. Criticizing him for what happens seven years after his work comes out may not be fair.

Or is it? Even before his work when to the publishers there were clear signs that Circuit City was heading for the waterfalls. Too bad, he couldn’t flag them.

But then, what sells in the business book business are “success” stories told in simple, masculine, sports-writing terms. Or, they are “cult of personality” propaganda tomes not unlike the many written about the eternally wonderful Jack Welch. Serious, nuanced business books need not apply.

Have a tidbit of executive wisdom you would care to share with fellow BNET readers?

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    Nickdg

    11/23/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the "Good to Great" Business Book Conundrum

    The problem with this genre of book - "learn how to be an X by studying successful X's" is selection bias.

    As many people have already noted (http://crookedtimber.org/2003/07/13/selection-bias/ ), Collin's primary flaw was to select a sample of companies, study their characteristics, and then causually associate those characteristics with their success. He does this in "Built to Last" as well as "Good to Great".

    As an example, imagine studying some successful startups, finding out that risk-taking was a common characteristic, and then claiming that risk-taking was the cause of their success. This would be incorrect (both conclusion and methodology), as many failed startups would also be risk-takers. So risk-taking would be a common characteristic of all startups, failed and successful.

    To give Collins credit, at least he used a methodology, flawed though it was. Most business books are nothing but a collection of success stories, as you note.

  •  
    2

    Nickdg

    11/23/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    I should add that "Blink" and "Tipping Point" author Malcolm Gladwell is doing exactly the same thing in his new book "Outliers" - and taking well-deserved heat from thoughtful quarters.

  •  
    3

    sportmgtdoc

    11/24/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    Interesting indeed.

    But Galuszka, who can't even spell "Walgreens" correctly, doesn't realize/acknowledge that Collins didn't just randomly choose these or just look at stock returns alone. It was done through a pretty thorough, vigorous, 4-step research process that involved a TON of quantitative AND qualitative analyses. He also explicitly states that if the companies ever strayed from their hedgehog concepts that they'd become also-rans, which is what Circuit City did (in part) and what Fannie Mae obviously did.

    In fairness, I'm not aware of what Pitney-Bowes has or hasn't done lately.

    But look at the rest: Walgreens opens up an average of 2+ new stores a day in the U.S. Wells-Fargo now has more of a national banking presence than ever. Nucor is still going strong. Gillette sold itself for a TON of money to one of the world's most admired companies annually (according to Fortune Magazine).

    I'm not aware that Abbott, Kroger, and Kimberly-Clark are exactly in trouble, which is good news these days.

    Even Altria, whose main business (I'm pretty sure) is tobacco, has managed to hang in there, even though their stock is not high.

    Galuszka needs to look at the big-picture concepts of G2G and not at the list of the companies in hindsight with a jaded revisionist historian's eye to try to make himself look good. Come on, Peter; I don't care how many decades of journalism experience you've had, will you ever write a book that sells like G2G? Doubt it.

    And for all you G2G haters, let's review the methodology for the book.

    To start, 1435 companies were selected from the Fortune 500 listings from 1965-1995.

    Second, 126 companies were selected from the initial pool based on data from the University of Chicago's Center for Research in Security Prices, as well as Fortune's rates-of-return data; these companies were subjected to four different tests, of which they had to pass at least one before they made this second cut.

    Third, CRSP data were again used with 11 CUT criteria, which meant that meeting ANY ONE of these 11 criteria would exclude the company from further consideration.

    Fourth, sets of complex industry cumulative returns indexes were used, with some companies being subjected to more than one, to get to the final 11 G2G companies.

    Peter, as a journalism minor in college with an extensive sportswriting background and now a business professor, to me, this sounds like a bit more than just sportswriting.

    And let's not forget: Egypt, Rome, Britain, and a host of others once ruled the world at various times. But like Fannie Mae and Circuit City, they quit doing the things that their Hedgehog Concept allowed them to do, and they fell by the wayside.

  •  
    4

    pgaluszka

    11/24/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    sportmgtdoc

    No need to get personal. No, I haven't written
    a best seller. Have you? But then, lots of
    people write best-sellers and many of them
    aren't so good.

    Next time, you might want to concentrate on
    talking about ideas and not about personal put-
    downs.

    Peter Galuszka

  •  
    5

    ingoodcompany

    11/24/08 | Report as spam

    Redefining "Great"

    My copy of Good to Great is casting its red glare over my shoulder from the book case even as I'm writing this. My sense is that the definition of "Great" has changed, for one thing, dropping longevity from the requisite qualification for those so dubbed. The prevalence of the short-term earnings focus of today's MBAs (rather than stock price compared to competitors) may be at the heart of it.

    In fairness to Jim Collins and to Circuit City, we see 100 year old giant General Motors (founded 1908) standing in the Congressional bread line ("bread" as in Moo-Lah) hat in hand. Lehman Brothers, founded in 1850, is gone. AIG, founded in 1919...well, you know the story. We are seeing CEOs barely having warmed their chairs for little more than the blink of an eye getting obscene salaries, severances and parachutes, and in some cases, being quickly hired by other corporations seemingly eager to duplicate their "success."

    And in fact, the life-span of companies overall might be something to consider for comparison to yesteryear. The next book might well be titled, "From Great to Gone."

  •  
    6

    sportmgtdoc

    11/24/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    Peter:

    If you're an experienced journalist, you should be able to spell "Walgreens" correctly, or at least look it up in the AP stylebook or online. That's taught in Journalism 101, and pointing it out is not personal, because that's something that you should know to check to add credibility to your own arguments, period.

    Further, I think it???s a fair comment to critique your article???s idea. I would say ???ideas,??? but you only came up with one, and that was to point out G2G companies that have failed since the book???s writing, and you only offer deep insight into one of them. You never even offered any propositions as to WHY they failed, much less to critique the theory or methodology of Collins??? work.

    Like most of the muckrakers I work with in higher education, you point out a flaw or problem, but you provide no solution or correction whatsoever. You lay the lumber on somebody else???s work and critique it as ???gushy,??? ??????success??? stories told in simple, masculine, sports-writing terms,??? and ??????cult of personality??? propaganda tomes,??? but you don???t like it when it???s laid back on your work.

    Also, I think I do a pretty fine job of talking about ideas, which comprise about 90% or better of my post. Reread it; I discussed Collins??? methodology, which you, the experienced journalist, failed to do. In just a few lines on his post, ingoodcompany offers more theoretical discussions of ideas than you do in your whole article. If there???s a flaw in G2G, tell us what you think it is. And I say this in all seriousness: you???ve obviously covered much in your career, and you might be right on the money, but don???t just rip it years after it was written, dismiss it as something not far removed from a Hemingway short story, and let it go with that.

    Finally, since you mentioned it, I am beginning a book soon; it will be my first. When it???s published, I???ll be sure to send you a copy. In all sincerity, I???d love to have your feedback when it comes out, which might be a while, so be patient. We???ll see in time whether or not it becomes a best-seller, just like we all will see in time what happens to great people, organizations, nations, and civilizations that stop doing what made them great.

  •  
    7

    tata1809

    11/25/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    peter, im waiting for your response on that. i think ingood company has a point and you do as well. dont keep it personal though. we have all seen blue chip companies which bask in glory one minute and the next thing you realise is they are down the drain. i cannot give you many examples in your circuit but in the african market,successful companies have been brought down to knees through corporate crimes. now if you are covering one such company during its glory...you cannot definately,take a hit...years later when it takes the dip. Jim collins did his bit.

  •  
    8

    upshift

    11/25/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Circuit City and the

    In my opinion there is a lot of good stuff in
    Good to Great and Built to Last.

    However I suggest that you may want to read:

    The Strategy Paradox by Michael Raynor for
    another perspective on long term success.

  •  
    9

    djensensss

    11/25/08 | Report as spam

    G2G and practical science

    Some very interesting responses to G2G. Some thoughtFULL, others thoughtLESS. I agree with one of Peter's major points: Many, if not most business books, including best sellers are flawed. They are often collections of stories meant to justify the author's opinion instead of seeking the truth.

    The tragedy most authors don't seem to appreciate is that leaders go off and actually try to impliment what is prescribed, affecting many lives.

    The essence of science is prediction. If you don't have solid science behind what you say, it's best for most if you don't say it. To me G2G at least attempted to have a decent basis of its conclusion. Even if somewhat flawed, it doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the trash that passes for business books these days.

    What we, business writers and educatiors, really need to do is to teach people the practical use of science. Then, we wouldn't have all this garbage at the top of the book sales chart.

    Happy Thanksgiving,
    Dave
    http://davejensenonleadership.blogspot.com/

  •  
    10

    Brendonovic

    11/25/08 | Report as spam

    Peter Vs SportMgtDoc

    Well isn't this article causing a bit of a rucus! (c:

    Peter seriously having a go at Sportmgtdoc for "Personal put downs" when your article is a personal put down of Jim Collins, is pretty hypocritical.

    "criticizing him... may not be fair.. OR is it? ... Too bad he couldn't flag them"

    fair enough you're not openly going after him, but in your "journalistic" approach, that's what you're pointing to

    This ***-for-tat conversation has strayed from the main point though -

    I agree that the fact that Fannie Mae and Circuit city shed new light on the book but it doesn't change the essence of the book - they did go from standard companies - to great! Maybe it's built to last that should be put under the spot light??

    All business books are flawed! All theories are flawed because at some stage something happens and they change and evolve -

    Questions is, who's going to get a research team together and make millions out of using the economic disaster to come up with new theories before Jim does it himself?

    I want in!

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement