Published by: Pearson Prentice Hall
Price: INR 1356
Over the course of my career, I have read many business books, especially in my role as editor of two leading management journals. I was also privileged to get the opportunity to interact with several global business leaders. But after reading Winners Never Cheat, I can say with confidence that Jon Hunstman is like no other. The founder of the 11-billion-dollar Huntsman Corporation simply blows you away by the strength of his character.
Huntsman built a multi-billion dollar conglomerate on sheer honesty, integrity, grit and hard work—“the good old-fashioned way” as he calls it. In doing this he takes the myth—successful business requires playing foul—by its horns and destroys it. Every nugget of the no-nonsense, sensible advice that he sprinkles through the book is more than just counsel. It is based on values that he has lived and breathed himself.
The personal examples give us glimpses of his spotless persona, showing that it is possible to dodge the temptation of cheating even in this day and age.
The more you read the book the more you believe that business [and a successful one at that] can be done ethically—it exposes the hollowness of the adage “Everything is fair in love, war and business” as an excuse to bend rules and take the short-cut to success.
That he emerged a winner more than once from bankruptcy is inspiring enough—doing it with integrity and honesty is worth all the admiration he commands. No wonder stalwarts like Larry King [CNN], Neil Cavuto [Fox Business Network], Wayne Reaud [top trial attorney] pay glowing tributes to his ethical superiority in an arena that is dominated by the unscrupulous I-want-to-succeed-at-any-cost type of business leaders.
By the time I finished this book, I knew that Hunstman is a man of immense courage—he stands by his values, even in the worst of circumstances. His words made a lasting impression on me, giving me more than a glimmer of hope in the seemingly hopeless and ruthless world of business.
Spot an error in this article? A typo maybe? Or an incorrect source? Let us know!