Read both the Ron Heifetz article shown in "Modules" and "Good to be Great", page 594. These articles portray alternative frameworks to adapt to change, particularly in a crisis. Select one of these articles and answer EITHER how the "good to great" leader" OR the transformational leader (Heifetz article) might respond in a crisis. Be specific in responding. Your analysis should be comprehensive and be at least two to three paragraphs. No additional readings other than those shown above are required. No post to another student is required. Whether you chose the Heifetz article or not, read it - it's important and you'll see it on an exam Good to Great: An Alternative l'ramework to the Rational and Limotional Approaches to Organizational Change HIGHLIGHT 14.8 An altemative conceptualization of organizational business, and identified one or two key financial change comes from the book Good to Great. Collins or operational metrics to guide thelr decision and his research team reviewed the financlal performaking and day-to-day activites. mance of 1,435 compantes that appeared on the 5. A culture of discipline: Compantes that had disclFortune 500 list from 1965 to 1995 . From this list, plined people did not need hierarchles, bureau11 companles made the leap from being a good to cacles, or excessive controls because the people a truly great company-a company that ylelded ft - In the fleld knew what they needed to do and nancial returns much higher than those for the made sure it happened. overall stock market or industry compettors for at least 15 consecutive years. For example, a dollar in- 6. Technology accelerators: All these companies sevested in these 11 companies in 1965 would have lectively used technology as a means for enylelded $471 in lanuary 2000, whereas the same hancing business operations, but they were not dollar invested in the stock market would have re- necessarlly leaders in technical innovation. turned \$56. Collins's research Indicates that these There were several other surprising findings in 11 companles all followed the same six rules: Collins's research. First, none of these top-performing 1. Level 5 leadership: The Good to Great companies companies was led by transformational or chariswere led not by high-profile celebrity leaders were constantly undergoing small but noticeable but rather by humble, self-effacing, and re- changes, they did not need to launch major change served individuals who also possessed an incred- Intiatives or organizational restructuring programs. Ibly strong ditive to succeed. Third, companies need to abide by all six of these 2. Airst who, theri what: Before developing a future rules to go from good to great; three or four of the vislon or goals, these leaders first made sure six rules were not enough for companles to make they had the right people with the right skills in the leap to becoming top performers. the ingt jobs. Leadership talent management How do you think a Cood to Great leader would was a key focus of these top companies. - perform in a crisis? What would he or she do differ- 3. Confront the brutal facts (yet never lose forth): ently than a charlsmatic leader? What role does tal These leaders met reality head-on-they did not ent play in Good to Great companles versus those. sugarcoat organizational challenges or difficul- led by charismatic leaders? tles. But they also had an unshakable fatth in their organizations' ability to meet these challenges. Source:). Collins, Good to Grot (New York: HarperCollins 4. The hedgehog concept: These compantes all fo- 2001): I. Collins, "Level 5 Lesdership. The Trumph of cused on being the best in the world at what Humility and Fiere Resolve," HBR on Point (Boston, MA