W h y s o m e c o m p a n I e s m a k e t h e

250
Appendix
2.A Direct Comparison Number of Number of Percent of Companies Outsiders Outsiders Upjohn Silo
67%
3 0 Great Western
0%
Warner-Lambert
5 1
20% Scott Paper
5 1
20%
7 2
29% Bethlehem Steel
6 0
0% R. J. Reynolds
9 3
33%
Addressograph
10 7
70%
Eckerd
3 0
0% Bank of America
5 0
0% Total
6 5
20 30.77%
Unsustained Comparison Companies Burroughs Chrysler Harris Hasbro Rubbermaid
Teledyne Number of
CEOs Total
2 5 Total Comparison Set
90 Number of Outsiders
2 3
0 0
1 0 Percent of Outsiders
33%
75%
0%
0%
25%
0
%

Appendix Ab b
S UM MARY ANALYSIS
Ratio of Total Number Total Number Percent of Comparison to of of Outsiders Outsiders
Good-to-Great
Good-to-Great
42 2
4.76% Companies Direct
6 5 20 30.77%
6.46 Comparison Companies
Unsustained
2 5
6 24.00%
5.04 Comparison Companies Total
90 26 28.89%
6.07 Comparison Set Number of Companies
Good-to-Great
11 Companies Direct
11 Comparison Companies
Unsustained
6 Comparison Companies Total
17 Comparison Set Number of Percent of Companies Companies Ratio of That Hired an That Hired Comparison to Outside CEO Outside CEO Good-to-Great
1 9.09%

I ND US TRY ANALYSIS
We compared each good-to-great company's industry relative to all other industries that appeared in the Standard
6
Poor's Analyst's Handbook fora period from the transition year to 1995. We used the following procedure
1. For each good-to-great company, determine all industries that are listed in the Handbook from the year of transition to 1995.
2. For each of these industries, use the total returns from the transition year of the corresponding company to 1995, to determine the percentage change in total returns fora period from the transition year to 1995.
3.
Rank the industries according to their percentage returns over this period. The following table shows that a company does not need to be in a performing industry to produce a transition to great results.

Download 3.69 Mb.

Share with your friends: