When the country's government was formed, its founders were careful to not give too much power to one person or one branch. Instead, they created an organization that was balanced across its divisions, and thus strong as a whole. What they created, therefore, has thrived through many generations. Also, these companies and many similar tech companies have ridden one large wave of growth, namely computers, and Built to Last found that most great, lasting companies had not started on such a wave. If a company is too focused on a single wave of growth, when that wave finally subsides, the company's relevance declines.
Booms always slow down, though, and time always moves forward.
Technology leaders that were founded in the 1970s, 1980s, or later have not yet had the chance to prove that they can remain highly relevant over many generations of both management and product waves. Based on my interpretation of Built to Last , most of these technology companies, even the giants, will have difficulty accomplishing sustained relevance. Jeff Fischer believes that Microsoft spends too much time focused on the competition and not enough time bettering its own services, an argument that Built to Last would support. View his profile to see his other holdings. The Fool is investors writing for investors .