Collins did not understand the events that led to the reasoning why and actions how Wells Fargo conveyed victories, achievements, and accomplishments. Therefore, Collins was incorrect. Wells Fargo as a company was able to achieve earning because of their successful strategies in profit revenue or turnover for each employee. The Good to Great article brought up that many people were surprised when finding out what made companies successful especially in relation to the leadership (Collins, 2001).

Our text states that it is difficult for companies to find good ethical leaders because they tend to be more expensive (Meese, Ortmeier, 2001). Unethical leadership is sure to bring the downfall of any business; it is impossible to have a successful business if there are unethical practices, the employees are also bound to begin these practices making it difficult for the company to hold their end of their promises to their customers or members.

“He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty” (Proverbs 22:16).

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Mees, E., Ortmeier, P. (2001). Leadership, ethics, and policing:Challenges for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

250-word reply to  classmate threads. The reply requires a minimum of 1 properly formatted citation. Each reply must be completed by you, the individual student. Additionally, each thread and reply must reflect a solid Christian worldview through the use of at least 1 Holy Bible reference.

Responding to a classmate’s post requires both the addition of new ideas and analysis. A particular point made by the classmate must be addressed and built upon by your analysis in order to move the conversation forward. Thus, the response post is a rigorous assignment that requires you to build upon initial posts to develop deeper and more thorough discussion of the ideas introduced in the initial posts. As such, reply posts that merely affirm, restate, or unprofessionally quarrel with the previous post(s) and fail to make a valuable, substantive contribution to the discussion will receive appropriate point deductions.