Question 48 of 50

According to Chapter 1, what is identified as the primary reason why so little becomes great?

What pivotal question, posed by Bill Meehan of McKinsey & Company, planted the seed for the entire 'Good to Great' research project?

The good-to-great companies in the study averaged cumulative stock returns how many times greater than the general market in the fifteen years following their transition?

To put the performance of the good-to-great companies in perspective, the book notes that General Electric outperformed the market by how many times over the fifteen years from 1985 to 2000?

If you invested one dollar in a mutual fund of the good-to-great companies in 1965, how many times greater would your return have been by January 1, 2000, compared to a one dollar investment in the general market?

What was a key characteristic of the good-to-great companies *before* they made their leap to greatness?

What was the purpose of using 'comparison companies' in the research methodology?

What was the total number of companies in the final study set, including good-to-great, direct comparison, and unsustained comparison companies?

Why was a period of fifteen years chosen to measure a company's sustained great performance after its transition point?

What performance multiplier was used as the minimum threshold for a company's stock returns over the fifteen-year post-transition period to be considered 'great'?

Among the 'dogs that did not bark' findings, what did the research conclude about larger-than-life, celebrity leaders from the outside?

What did the 'Good to Great' research find regarding the link between specific forms of executive compensation and the transition to greatness?

According to the surprising findings in Chapter 1, how did strategy per se separate the good-to-great companies from the comparison companies?

What role did the research find that technology plays in igniting a transformation from good to great?

What did the 'Good to Great' study conclude about the role of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in igniting a transformation?

How did the good-to-great companies typically signify their transformations to the public and employees?

What did the research conclude about the role of industry circumstances in the good-to-great transformations?

The book's framework for transformation is broken into three broad stages. What are they?

In the overview of the framework, what is the name of the concept that wraps around the entire framework and captures the 'gestalt of the entire process'?

How does the author, in an 'ironic twist,' come to see the relationship between 'Good to Great' and his previous book, 'Built to Last'?

What analogy does the author use to describe the search for timeless principles in a changing world?

In the research methodology section 'Inside the Black Box', what does the 'black box' represent?

As part of the research project, approximately how many articles were read and systematically coded?

How many pages of interview transcripts were generated during the 'Good to Great' research project?

What was the total duration of the research project in terms of people-years of effort?

From December 31, 1975, to January 1, 2000, Walgreens outperformed the general stock market by over how many times?

What does Chapter 1 identify as the fundamental question the book is about?

According to the first page of Chapter 1, what is the 'main problem' for the vast majority of companies?

The research method involved contrasting good-to-great companies with comparison companies. The author compares this to identifying what systematically distinguishes Olympic gold medal winners from whom?

What rigorous standard did each primary concept in the final framework have to meet to be included in the book?

Which of the following was NOT listed as one of the eleven good-to-great companies in the table on page 18?

Which company was selected as the direct comparison for Walgreens?

What was the purpose of the second set of comparison companies, the 'unsustained comparisons'?

What was the initial universe of companies from which the research team began its search?

What was the author's primary personal motivation for undertaking huge research projects like 'Good to Great'?

What key lesson did the research team learn 'right up front' from the surprising, 'dowdier' list of good-to-great companies?

The author argues that the book is dedicated to teaching what they've learned and begins with one of the most provocative findings of the whole study. What is that finding?

The author argues that 'greatness is not a function of circumstance' but is largely a matter of what?

What was the final number of good-to-great examples found after the systematic search and sifting process?

The author states that he doesn't primarily think of his work as being about the study of business, but rather about discovering what?

Which company, discussed as a key example in Chapter 1, had 'bumped along as a very average company' for over forty years before beginning its remarkable climb in 1975?

What was the first phase of the 'odyssey of curiosity' that the research team undertook?

In the chart 'Cumulative Stock Returns of $1 Invested, 1965-2000' on page 15, what was the final value of the $1 invested in the good-to-great companies?

What was the author's response to the argument that we are in a 'new economy' and need to throw out all the old ideas?

Why did the research team decide to start the 'Good to Great' study from scratch, as if 'Built to Last' didn't exist?

What does the author state is the one giant conclusion that stands above all the other insights from the five-year quest?

During Phase 1 of the research, what was the six-month process of finding companies that showed the good-to-great pattern called?

What was the final phase of the research process, which involved developing the framework from all the data, called?

Why did the research team choose to use the Fortune 500 list as a base set for their analysis?