In addition to the eleven good-to-great companies, the study also included eleven direct comparison companies. These companies were drawn from the same industries as each of the good-to-great companies and each one was paired with a specific good-to-great company. However, the direct comparison companies did not transition to showing high returns, despite starting from similar circumstances as the good-to-great companies did. Collins includes these comparison companies in order to examine why some companies become great and others don’t, even when they have similar resources and opportunities.
Direct Comparison Term Timeline in Good to Great
The timeline below shows where the term Direct Comparison appears in Good to Great. The colored dots and icons indicate which themes are associated with that appearance.
Then, the team selected a group of comparison companies. One group, the “ direct comparison companies,” includes companies that were in the same industry as the good-to-great companies but did... (full context)
...and instead focused on being the best at making cost-effective health-care products. In contrast, Abbott’s direct comparison company, Upjohn, tried against the odds to be the best overall pharmaceutical company and never... (full context)
...made, from sharing profits with workers to eliminating unnecessary luxuries for executives. In contrast, Nucor’s direct comparison company, Bethlehem, used a management model focused on maintaining and even strengthening class distinctions. (full context)