Just because a company falls doesn't invalidate what we can learn by studying that company when it was at its historical best.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Lots of companies don't succeed over time. What do they fundamentally do wrong? They usually miss the future.
Personally, I feel that a company which looks at problems of other companies and learns from their mistakes is a successful one.
The world is moving, and a company that contents itself with present accomplishments soon falls behind.
I'm a strong believer that you can build great companies in time of both greed and fear. But you have to be paying attention and operating under the right assumptions. You don't have to believe history repeats itself, but you should accept that history rhymes.
Somehow, the company must stay true to the founding vision while avoiding the pitfalls of rapid growth - and perhaps survive the hiring of a previously successful executive who doesn't work out.
We should not look back unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dearly bought experience.
I think that companies always become complacent, over time. Or most companies, that is.
Corporations today, by their razor sharp focus on the 'bottom line' and quarterly earnings, have lost their ability to innovate.
You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down.
There is at least one point in the history of any company when you have to change dramatically to rise to the next level of performance. Miss that moment - and you start to decline.
No opposing quotes found.