<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How we explain success may be different from what really causes it.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.steverrobbins.com/bizblog/how-we-explain-success-may-be-different-from-what-really-causes-it-187/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.steverrobbins.com/bizblog/how-we-explain-success-may-be-different-from-what-really-causes-it-187</link>
	<description>Exploring business and its impact on life with Stever Robbins</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom Webster</title>
		<link>http://blog.steverrobbins.com/bizblog/how-we-explain-success-may-be-different-from-what-really-causes-it-187/comment-page-1#comment-1266</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Webster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:51:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">2013081619#comment-1266</guid>
		<description>Also built into this effect is the "survivor bias" inherent in looking at the leading companies vs. the moribund. Michael Raynor analyzes this expertly in "The Strategy Paradox." Most business case studies look at how companies with long-term vision (like, say Wal-Mart) outperform those who adopt safer strategies (Sears, or K-Mart). What all of those companies have in common, though, is that they are all still around. It is easy to build a case around the iPod, for example, by comparing it to its struggling peers who have largely adopted 'me-too' strategies, but these case studies rarely also look at the non-survivors, products like Sony's MiniDisc that were equally visionary, long-term and technically superior. For some companies, being "non-visionary" is a business choice to mitigate risk, which is why Sears is still around and Montgomery Ward is not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also built into this effect is the &#8220;survivor bias&#8221; inherent in looking at the leading companies vs. the moribund. Michael Raynor analyzes this expertly in &#8220;The Strategy Paradox.&#8221; Most business case studies look at how companies with long-term vision (like, say Wal-Mart) outperform those who adopt safer strategies (Sears, or K-Mart). What all of those companies have in common, though, is that they are all still around. It is easy to build a case around the iPod, for example, by comparing it to its struggling peers who have largely adopted &#8216;me-too&#8217; strategies, but these case studies rarely also look at the non-survivors, products like Sony&#8217;s MiniDisc that were equally visionary, long-term and technically superior. For some companies, being &#8220;non-visionary&#8221; is a business choice to mitigate risk, which is why Sears is still around and Montgomery Ward is not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.507 seconds -->
