Narrator: In 1911, two teams set out on a brutal, 1400-mile journey to be the first in history to reach the South Pole. One team, led by the Norwegian Roald Amundsen, was methodical and obsessively prepared. The other, led by the British naval officer Robert Falcon Scott, was courageous but relied on unproven technology and ultimately blamed his failure on terrible luck. Amundsen’s team reached the pole and returned safely. Scott’s team arrived a month later, only to find the Norwegian flag already there. Defeated, they perished on the return journey. Was this a simple case of good luck versus bad luck? Or was something else at play?

This very question lies at the heart of Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck—Why Some Thrive Despite Them All by Jim Collins and Morten T. Hansen. The book presents the findings of a nine-year study that sought to understand why some companies achieve spectacular success in turbulent, unpredictable environments while others in the exact same circumstances fail. By comparing these high-performing "10X" companies to their less successful peers, the authors uncovered a set of principles that challenge our most common beliefs about what it takes to win. They found that greatness is not a matter of circumstance, but a matter of choice.

Narrator: The study found that the leaders of 10X companies, the so-called "10Xers," are not the risk-seeking, visionary daredevils we often imagine. Instead, they embody a paradoxical mix of traits. Like Roald Amundsen, they exhibit three core behaviors: fanatic discipline, empirical creativity, and productive paranoia.

Fanatic discipline is the unwavering commitment to a set of principles and long-term goals, regardless of external pressures or temptations. It’s about consistency of action. Empirical creativity means relying on direct observation and tangible evidence to make decisions, rather than on conventional wisdom or unproven theories. It’s about grounding bold moves in reality. Finally, productive paranoia is a state of hypervigilance, where leaders constantly anticipate threats and prepare for worst-case scenarios, channeling that fear into productive preparation.

The story of Amundsen and Scott is the perfect metaphor. Amundsen displayed all three traits. He was fanatically disciplined, marching a consistent number of miles each day, good weather or bad. He was empirically creative, learning from the survival techniques of Eskimos and testing his equipment rigorously. And he was productively paranoid, placing huge caches of supplies with multiple markers so they would be impossible to miss. Scott, in contrast, was undisciplined, marching long distances on good days and resting on bad ones. He relied on unproven motor sledges that quickly failed, and he blamed his misfortune on bad weather. The difference wasn't luck; it was the mindset that prepared one leader for the inevitable chaos of the Antarctic and left the other vulnerable to it.

Narrator: One of the most powerful ways 10Xers apply fanatic discipline is through what the authors call the "20 Mile March." This is a tangible performance marker that an organization commits to hitting with relentless consistency over a long period. It has two sides: a lower bound that pushes the company to perform in tough times, and an upper bound that instills the discipline to hold back in good times.

A prime example is the medical technology company Stryker. In 1977, its new CEO, John Brown, set a 20 Mile March: Stryker would achieve 20 percent net income growth every single year. This wasn't just a goal; it was what Brown called "the law." In difficult years, the company had to push hard to hit the mark. But in boom years, when they could have grown much faster, they deliberately held back, ensuring they didn't overextend themselves. Over 21 years, Stryker hit its target an astonishing 20 times.

Its comparison company, USSC, took the opposite approach. It grew at a blistering, erratic pace, sometimes over 300 percent a year, only to crash and burn when market conditions changed. By the end of the study period, an investment in Stryker had multiplied over 350 times, while an investment in USSC had fallen behind the market and disappeared. The 20 Mile March gave Stryker a tangible, relentless rhythm that built confidence and protected it from the catastrophes that often follow undisciplined spurts of growth.

Narrator: Collins and Hansen found that 10X companies are not necessarily the most innovative. Instead, they are smarter about how they innovate. They follow a simple, powerful principle: first fire bullets, then fire cannonballs. A "bullet" is a low-cost, low-risk, low-distraction experiment to see what will actually work. It’s a way to gain empirical validation for an idea. Only after a bullet hits its target and shows promise does a 10X company concentrate its resources and fire a "cannonball"—a large, decisive bet.

The biotech company Amgen provides a classic case. In its early days, Amgen fired bullets at numerous potential products. It explored developing indigo dye in vats and creating a special chemical for chicken farmers. Most of these bullets missed. But one, a potential drug called erythropoietin (EPO), showed immense promise. Once Amgen had empirical proof that EPO worked, it fired a cannonball. The company went all-in, building a testing facility, securing patents, and assembling a launch team. EPO became one of the best-selling bioengineered products in history.

In contrast, comparison companies often fire uncalibrated cannonballs—making huge bets without empirical proof. This is what PSA, the airline Southwest copied, did when it launched its "Fly-Drive-Sleep" venture, buying hotels and a rental car company without testing the concept. The venture was a disaster that crippled the company. Firing bullets first allows 10Xers to manage uncertainty and make big moves with a much higher probability of success.

Narrator: Productive paranoia is not just a feeling; it’s a set of concrete actions designed to prepare for the unpredictable. 10X leaders are obsessed with staying "above the Death Line," meaning they avoid any risk that could kill or severely damage the company. They do this in three primary ways: building cash reserves, bounding risk, and zooming out to sense changing conditions.

First, 10X companies carry significant cash reserves—three to ten times the ratio of cash to assets compared to their peers. This cash acts like an oxygen canister, allowing them to survive unexpected storms and seize opportunities when others are struggling. Second, they are disciplined about the types of risks they take, specifically avoiding Death Line risks, asymmetric risks (where the potential downside is far greater than the upside), and uncontrollable risks.

The 1996 Mount Everest disaster serves as a chilling real-world example. Guide Rob Hall ignored his own pre-set turnaround time—a critical risk-bounding rule—to help a client reach the summit. A sudden storm hit, and Hall and his client, along with others, died on the mountain. At the same time, another expedition leader, David Breashears, had turned his team back earlier due to his paranoid sense that conditions were deteriorating. His team survived. 10X leaders, like Breashears, understand that the single most important thing is to stay in the game, and they prepare accordingly.

Narrator: 10X companies develop and adhere to what the authors call a SMaC recipe. SMaC stands for Specific, Methodical, and Consistent. It is a set of durable, clear, and concrete operating practices that create a replicable and consistent success formula. A SMaC recipe is the operating code that translates a company's vision into reality.

Southwest Airlines is the quintessential example. In the face of airline deregulation, a chaotic event that bankrupted many rivals, CEO Howard Putnam laid out a 10-point SMaC recipe. It included items like: "Utilize 737s as our primary aircraft," "Remain a short-haul airline," and "Maintain high aircraft utilization and quick turnarounds." This recipe was not a suggestion; it was a "cookie-cutter" to be used over and over again. This unwavering consistency allowed Southwest to thrive while its competitors, who constantly changed their strategies, flailed.

The research shows that 10X companies rarely change their SMaC recipes. When they do, it is a careful, empirically-driven process. Their less successful comparisons, however, changed their core recipes four times more often, lurching from one strategy to another in a desperate search for a silver bullet that never existed.

Narrator: The study's most profound finding may be about the role of luck. Collins and Hansen meticulously cataloged every significant luck event—good and bad—that happened to both the 10X companies and their comparisons. The stunning conclusion was that the 10X winners were not luckier than the comparison companies. They didn't get more good luck or less bad luck. The critical difference was their Return on Luck (ROL).

When a 10X company gets a lucky break, they recognize it and exploit it to the fullest. When Microsoft was a tiny startup, IBM came looking for an operating system for its new PC. IBM first approached a company called Digital Research, but its leader, Gary Kildall, fumbled the meeting. Frustrated, IBM turned to Bill Gates. Gates seized the moment, and that single event of good luck, executed upon brilliantly, changed history.

Even more telling is how 10Xers respond to bad luck. They use it as a catalyst to become stronger. When a voter proposition in California savaged the car insurance industry, Progressive Insurance CEO Peter Lewis used the crisis to reinvent the company, creating a 24/7 claims service that revolutionized the industry. He later called the disastrous event "the best thing that ever happened to this company." 10Xers don't blame bad luck for their failures; they take responsibility and turn adversity into advantage.

Narrator: The powerful and ultimately optimistic message of Great by Choice is that success in a chaotic world is not pre-ordained by circumstance. It is not about the hand you are dealt, but how you play your cards. The leaders who build enduringly great enterprises don't have better predictive powers, they aren't bolder visionaries, and they certainly aren't luckier. Instead, they are more disciplined, more empirical, and more paranoid.

The book challenges us to look inward. In a world that constantly tells us to be more innovative, more agile, and to move faster, its most radical idea is that the path to greatness may lie in being more consistent, more methodical, and more prepared. It leaves us with a critical question: Are we making the conscious choices and exercising the discipline required to build our own success, or are we simply waiting for the world to do it for us?