I agree with your superman theory for the most part, but I don't think Jobs or Gates would have necessarily accomplished what they did, if they were born 30 years earlier.

My hunch, is there are many other talented (non-actualized “supermen”); who could have developed into one with slightly different circumstances or environments.

If I remember correctly, basically the latter two were binary “good-enough” type rankings and the market opportunity was what drove his investment decisions.

Could be remembering that wrong, but his blog has been taken down so I can't check it.

I agree that to show the “super-ness” you're describing takes multiple remarkable acts. I guess my question is – does the degree or quantity of “super-ness” relate proportionally to the company's growth + ability? Do the two metrics scale together?

Can't think of any company that has had successes after successes with different leaders at the helm. Maybe GE comes closest.

But maybe the lessons can be learnt from religion. The successful religions were started by 1 superman – but they built inherent momentum which makes them grow bigger and bigger – no matter who becomes the chief of the entire religion in the future. In fact, they grow despite the leaders. The Pope is no longer influential in growing Christianity. Who knows who is the chief of Buddhism? (except Tibetan Buddhism who has the Dalai Lamas.) Same for Islam? Hinduism? But these religions keep on growing…

So… just thinking out loud here…
1. The product has to become way bigger than the superman.
2. There has to be inherent momentum.
3. The solution has to be unchanging more-or-less over long periods of time.

I think point 3 is where companies suffer and religions don't – in having longevity after the superman. 10 commandments will never change… People will always have this curiousness about what purpose we serve – and no scientific answer seems to be forthcoming – so religions fulfill a psychological purpose and don't really need to change much to keep on fulfilling this purpose.

But the environment the company is in is bound to change drastically as technological innovation becomes faster and faster. Companies have to adapt constantly to keep on fulfilling their purpose. So how can you find evergreen solutions in ever growing fields?

Even at HP, the mention of Bill&Dave and the time that they came back out of retirement to fix the company carries with it a level of respect (and frankly latitude) that no one else has gotten since.

That said, I completely agree that most of us are too uncomfortable to admit that there are leaders and visionaries who are just that much better than the rest of us mortals.

Very cool to see you here – I've been an avid reader of SEOMoz for years.

Companies that stood for a single vision got somewhere and the ones that took decisions democratically based on multiple visions more often got nowhere. I strongly believe in the roles such leaders have in building great companies.

I am not sure whether Gates or any others can do it again, but the second coming of Steve Jobs does make him extra special.

I thought collins' analysis was very interesting. The companies he calls “great” are those that show sustained success compared to the market median over a long period of time (25 years), outliving short periods of any specific genius leader. Only time will tell if Apple can become great over such a long period, or will it descend back to mediocrity after Jobs steps down.

The article you linked to, about Collins' “portfolio”, is not talking about *Built to Last*, but actually about *Good to Great*. Those companies all did outperform the market for a sustained period, but I don't think Collins ever claimed that they had all put in place the “Built to Last” measures that would keep that performance going for generations.

How do you think about this principle as it applies to the many small and mid-size “successful” businesses in the technology and startup world. Did Mint.com/Farecast/SurveyMonkey/Flickr have semi-Supermen? Is the concept that all businesses need this superman at the top to achieve success or that the ratio of “super-ness” is in proportion to the business' achievements? Or is this principle only ascribed to the very top of the top – where billion dollar companies are changing the world?

Anyone who has the capability of datamining, pattern matching, or following a gutt instinct to these ladies and gents is likely to find themselves with a large pile of cash. Good hunting as an Angel investor and entrepreneur!