Good To Great

Discipline and Leadership

Good To Great by Jim Collins

Leadership matters, but there is more to it than what meets the eye. It is not easy to lead; however, something even more challenging to achieve is discipline. Jim Collins explains exactly why even companies that are merely good have the potential to become great, if culture and discipline are applied vigorously to their practices (Collins, 2001). Collins emphasizes that greatness is not about luck, charisma, or flashy strategies. Rather, it stems from disciplined people, disciplined thinking, and disciplined action (Collins, 2001). If these ideals are practiced and applied to existing systems, companies can benefit from them, outperform themselves, and ultimately go from good to great. 

As the current BL of Averi, this book interested me in many ways. I had briefly looked into it before, but I had never really dived into the depth of its concepts. One of the main reasons it caught my attention was the idea that our team had expressed a lack of discipline, which led me to wonder whether that could be at the core of our trajectory and the stagnation of our momentum. I hoped to uncover useful ideas by diving headfirst into this book and identifying key takeaways that could help influence and rebuild our momentum. 

The book itself was clear and concise, which I appreciated. Since it is based on research rather than theory alone, it felt practical and applicable to organizations of all sizes (Collins, 2001). Initially, I was more accustomed to theoretical approaches in books I had previously read, but I found Collins’ candid, research-driven style refreshing. At first, I was somewhat skeptical about its relevance to our team’s situation, particularly regarding momentum and discipline. However, I was pleasantly surprised by how precise and transparent the book was in addressing these ideas. In the following paragraphs, I will explore the key points I found most relevant and how they can be applied to Averi to develop discipline and foster momentum. 

The concept of Level 5 Leadership, particularly the idea of humility and quiet leadership, is something I would like to examine more closely within the context of Averi (Collins, 2001). Collins expands on the idea of leaders who combine humility with strong will, which sounds ideal in theory. However, it requires a very specific type of person to fully embody this leadership style. While I agree with the kind of environment such leaders can create, I do not necessarily see it as essential for building discipline. 

Humility is important, and I do not dispute that. However, based on my own experiences and observations, people also respond well when a leader is willing to exercise authority and is not afraid to display it when necessary. I may be misunderstanding Collins’ point to some extent, but while humility is a valuable trait, I believe there are situations where assertiveness and even a degree of flair are required. A leader must inspire, and sometimes that requires presence, energy, and strong communication. As Winston Churchill once said, “Of course I’m an egoist. Where do you get if you aren’t?” (Churchill, n.d.). Coming from someone widely regarded as one of the greatest wartime leaders in history, I think that perspective is worth considering. 

I do admire quiet leaders, and I believe they have an important role. However, I also think that quiet leaders can sometimes become overlooked. If they are constantly overshadowed, they risk losing influence and respect. It may be an unfortunate aspect of human nature, but it is a reality nonetheless. I acknowledge that Collins’ conclusions are based on research, and I am not dismissing them. I simply believe that communication plays a critical role in how leadership is perceived and received. 

For example, Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a quiet leader, yet she possessed qualities that made her distinctive and respected without needing to be loud. In contrast, Donald Trump is highly visible and vocal, commanding attention wherever he goes. Both are globally recognized figures, but for very different reasons. Then there is John F. Kennedy, who combined charisma, charm, and exceptional communication skills. He represents a balance between the two extremes. He did not necessarily say more than others, but the way he communicated made a significant difference in his leadership. My point is that quiet leadership may be effective once stability is established, but when trying to generate momentum, charisma and presence can be equally important. 

Collins also emphasizes the importance of getting the right people on “the bus.” The idea of “First Who, Then What” suggests that assembling the right team must come before deciding on direction or strategy (Collins, 2001). This is something I have struggled with in our team, particularly when it comes to assigning roles and responsibilities. It raises questions about who we empower, how that affects the team, and whether it contributes to progress or creates disruption. 

This concept extends beyond business and applies to friendships, group work, and teams in general. The right people will naturally push each other forward, creating momentum and reinforcing discipline. Even one negative individual can influence the entire group dynamic. If one person consistently complains, it can normalize that behavior and affect others. At the same time, diversity in skills is essential. Not everyone should be the same; in fact, that would be counterproductive. A strong team requires a balanced distribution of abilities, where each member contributes something unique. 

As I mentioned earlier, my main reason for reading this book was to find insights that could help build discipline within the team, including myself. One of the most impactful ideas for me was that great companies do not rely on strict control systems. Instead, they rely on disciplined people (Collins, 2001). There is a significant difference between enforced discipline and internal discipline, and that difference has long-term consequences. 

For instance, we introduced a temporary system in Averi based on four pillars: Positivity, Professionalism, Support, and Doing. Its success so far has not come from enforcement, but from the fact that people can relate to it and genuinely apply it. This success cannot be credited solely to leadership, but rather to every individual involved. 

Each pillar connects to the others. Positivity does not mean ignoring reality, but maintaining a constructive mindset even when facing challenges. Professionalism involves supporting opinions with reasoning and evidence rather than reacting emotionally. Support means actively offering help, not just stating willingness. Finally, “Doing” ties everything together. It emphasizes action and accountability. If you commit to something, follow through. If you cannot, communicate clearly. Remaining indecisive or inactive creates more problems than making a clear choice. 

Overall, the book proved helpful in expanding my thinking and opening new perspectives. The idea that had the greatest impact on me was the distinction between forced discipline and internal discipline (Collins, 2001). While it may seem obvious, I had not fully considered the long-term effects this difference can have on teams, groups, or even friendships. 

That said, I did not fully agree with every concept, particularly the emphasis on humble and quiet leadership. While I understand its benefits, it does not fully align with my approach, which has so far produced positive results. This is a topic I would explore further, as I feel my perspective could be developed more clearly. 

Regardless of whether I continue in leadership roles in the future, one lesson I will carry forward is the importance of internal discipline and how to cultivate it within a team. Leadership is not easy, as I have learned repeatedly. If it were, anyone could do it. Different approaches may succeed or fail depending on the situation, but with the right people and a strong mindset, the most important thing is to keep trying and improving.