What Character Traits Do Successful Companies Share In 'Good To Great'?

I’ve been obsessed with business books for years, and 'Good to Great' is one of those gems that sticks with you. Jim Collins and his team didn’t just pick random companies—they dug deep into decades of data to find firms that leaped from mediocre to extraordinary and stayed there. The eleven companies they analyzed are like a masterclass in sustained excellence. Abbott Laboratories, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Gillette, Kimberly-Clark, Kroger, Nucor, Philip Morris, Pitney Bowes, Walgreens, and Wells Fargo made the cut. What’s fascinating is how different these industries are—pharmaceuticals, retail, banking, steel manufacturing—yet they all shared common traits. Collins called them the 'Hedgehog Concept,' the 'Flywheel Effect,' and getting the right people 'on the bus.' Take Nucor, for example. A steel company that outperformed giants by focusing relentlessly on efficiency and employee motivation. Or Walgreens, which shifted from being a decent pharmacy chain to dominating its market by obsessing over convenience and store locations. What’s wild is that some of these companies later faltered (Circuit City went bankrupt, Fannie Mae crashed during the 2008 crisis), but Collins’s research focused on their *transition* period—when they defied expectations. The book isn’t about eternal perfection; it’s about how ordinary companies tapped into something extraordinary for a defining era. I still reread the case studies for inspiration, especially how Kimberly-Clark pivoted from paper mills to beating Procter & Gamble in the tissue war. It’s proof that greatness isn’t about luck—it’s about discipline, culture, and a refusal to settle.

In 'Good to Great', the critical differences between good and great companies are fascinating. Great companies have Level 5 Leadership, where leaders are humble yet driven, focusing on the company's success rather than personal glory. They also follow the Hedgehog Concept, which is about understanding what they can be the best at, what drives their economic engine, and what they are deeply passionate about. Another key difference is the Culture of Discipline, where disciplined people engage in disciplined thought and take disciplined action. Great companies also focus on getting the right people on the bus and the wrong people off the bus before figuring out where to drive it. They use technology as an accelerator, not a creator, of momentum. These principles collectively transform good companies into great ones, making them stand out in their industries.

I’ve always been fascinated by the ideas in 'Good to Great' because it digs into why some companies soar while others stall. One big reason companies fail to make the leap is ignoring the Hedgehog Concept—the sweet spot where passion, talent, and economic drivers intersect. Too many leaders chase trends or spread themselves thin trying to do everything, instead of focusing on what they can be the best at. The book’s case studies show how great companies relentlessly simplify their focus. But failing firms? They get distracted by shiny opportunities or ego-driven projects that don’t align with their core strengths. It’s like watching a chef try to bake, grill, and fry at the same time—they end up burning half the dishes. Another pitfall is weak leadership, especially the lack of Level 5 Leaders. These are the humble, driven CEOs who prioritize the company over personal glory. Struggling companies often have charismatic leaders who love the spotlight but can’t build enduring teams. They might rack up short-term wins, but without a culture of discipline—another key theme in the book—the organization crumbles under pressure. I’ve seen this in tech startups where the founder’s vision overshadows operational grit. The book contrasts this with companies like Kroger, where disciplined action trumped flashy moves. Failing firms also skip the 'flywheel effect,' expecting overnight success instead of compounding small wins. Impatience kills momentum; greatness isn’t a sprint, it’s a thousand tiny pushes in the same direction.

The protagonist in 'Good Dirt' is Jake McCall, a weathered farmer with a heart as tough as the land he works. He’s not your typical hero—no flashy skills or tragic backstory, just grit and quiet determination. Jake’s key trait is his resilience; he’s survived droughts, failed crops, and personal losses without ever giving up on his farm or his family. His hands are calloused from decades of labor, and his mind is sharp with practical wisdom. What makes him stand out is his deep connection to the soil—he treats it like a living thing, understanding its moods and needs better than most people understand their own families. Jake’s stubborn loyalty extends to his community too; he’ll help a neighbor rebuild a barn or share his last harvest without expecting anything in return. He’s the kind of man who speaks less but acts more, and his actions always carry weight.

In 'The Innovator’s Dilemma,' the essential character traits revolve around adaptability, foresight, and resilience. The book emphasizes the importance of being able to pivot when faced with disruptive technologies. Leaders must possess the foresight to recognize emerging trends before they become mainstream. This requires a keen understanding of market dynamics and the ability to anticipate shifts in consumer behavior. Resilience is equally crucial, as the path of innovation is fraught with challenges and setbacks. Leaders must be able to weather these storms and maintain their focus on long-term goals. Another critical trait is humility. The book highlights the dangers of complacency and the need for leaders to remain open to new ideas, even when they challenge established norms. This humility allows them to embrace change rather than resist it. Additionally, strategic thinking is vital. Leaders must be able to balance the demands of their current business with the need to invest in future opportunities. This often involves making difficult decisions about resource allocation and prioritizing initiatives that may not yield immediate returns. Finally, the ability to foster a culture of innovation within an organization is essential. Leaders must encourage experimentation and risk-taking, creating an environment where employees feel empowered to explore new ideas. This requires strong communication skills and the ability to inspire and motivate teams. By cultivating these traits, leaders can navigate the complexities of disruptive innovation and position their organizations for long-term success.

The Knight in 'Canterbury Tales' is the epitome of chivalry and honor. He embodies the ideal medieval warrior, with a strong sense of duty, loyalty, and courage. His character is marked by humility despite his high status; he wears a stained tunic, showing he prioritizes service over vanity. He’s well-traveled, having fought in numerous battles, which reflects his bravery and commitment to his cause. His speech is courteous and refined, aligning with his noble upbringing. Unlike many of Chaucer’s satirical portraits, the Knight is presented without irony—a genuine paragon of virtue. His son, the Squire, contrasts him sharply, highlighting the Knight’s maturity and seriousness. The Knight’s traits—bravery, humility, and piety—make him a rare, almost idealized figure in the Tales, standing out among the more flawed pilgrims.

Hercule Poirot, the iconic Belgian detective created by Agatha Christie, is a character that shines through clever intricacies and personal quirks. His meticulous nature is one of his standout traits; there's almost a certain joy in how he organizes everything around him, from his neat little mustache to his carefully arranged thoughts. Poirot is not merely a detective; he's an artist of deduction. His intense attention to detail often leads him to notice the tiniest of clues that others overlook, unfolding mysteries like blossoms in a garden. Another fascinating aspect is his psychological insight. Poirot has an uncanny ability to read people, often stating that detectives should understand 'the little grey cells'—a nod to the mental processes that guide human behavior. This feeds directly into his strategies; not only does he gather evidence, but he also embraces the emotional undercurrents, making his conclusions resonate on a deeper level. In a way, he’s a bridge between the facts and the human experience behind the crime. Finally, his charm and confidence are absolutely magnetic. Poirot does possess an air of arrogance, but it’s endearing in a way. He’s often underestimated because of his peculiarities, yet he always unveils the truth in a manner that leaves both allies and opponents speechless. Truly, reading about Poirot feels like joining him on a glorious intellectual adventure, more than just solving a whodunit.

I still get a little giddy when I browse the credits of socially-minded films—there’s a whole ecosystem of companies and foundations that make those stories possible. At the center of it for a long time has been Participant Media; they’re basically built around producing and financing films with social impact, often pairing up with distribution partners to reach wider audiences. Then there are specialized documentary financiers like Impact Partners, which helps fund and co-produce issue-driven documentaries, and Doc Society (formerly BritDoc) that supports mission-focused storytelling. Foundations also play a huge role: the Ford Foundation’s 'JustFilms' initiative, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations regularly fund films and impact campaigns. For filmmakers I follow, organizations like Chicken & Egg Pictures, the Fledgling Fund, and the Sundance Institute Documentary Fund are lifelines—grants, labs, and mentorships that move projects forward. Beyond those, public broadcasters and specialty labels matter: ITVS and PBS/POV help fund and distribute social-issue docs in the U.S., while HBO Documentary Films and National Geographic Documentary Films often bankroll big-impact projects. Netflix and other streamers have also stepped in with commissions for social documentaries. If you’re making something about charity or good works, I’d also keep an eye on place-based and thematic funders—the Knight Foundation for civic-focused work, the Skoll Foundation for social entrepreneurship stories, and regional film funds that sometimes favor community-centered pieces. I love how collaborative this field is; halfway through a Q&A after a screening of 'The Cove' I scribbled three new grant leads in the margins of my program—good films get made by networks, not just solitary inspiration.