第二十三讲：多元化综合性企业：王者，还是败者？

高德思：我知道你在斯坦福还教企业家精神的课程，我想谈谈这方面。但是，在谈这个之前，我想说当前中国仍有许多多元化综合性企业，我知道你将这种大企业与专业性公司进行了比较研究。我希望你能谈谈综合性大企业的优势和劣势，举一两个例子来谈谈成功的案例和他们是如何成功的。

吉姆·柯林斯：我们刚刚谈到了刺猬理念。刺猬理念就是说我们要专注于自己最擅长的、有热情的和驱动经济引擎的事。

综合性大企业是否注定只能屈于平庸呢？

我认为有擅长做内容的刺猬也有擅长业务流程的刺猬，比如有低成本航空公司，有最好的便利药店连锁，或者世界上最好的折扣零售公司如沃尔玛，或者一些在生物技术方面取得突破的公司。但是，我认为也有公司可以成为业务流程的刺猬。换句话说，无论他们最擅长的是什么，这是一种对很多行业都适用的流程。有时候一个流程也只限于一个行业领域，我认为一般说来这样最好。

让我们来举几个具体的例子吧。在我们研究的公司中有些涉及的领域十分广泛，但是却成为了卓越的公司。比如通用电气（GE）、宝洁（Procter & Gamble）、强生（Johnson & Johnson）和明尼苏达矿务及制造业公司（3M），我们分析其中的几个案例。

以通用电气为例，在公司最鼎盛的时期，你很难看到统一的主题。因为经过很长一段时间的发展，公司已经涉及许多领域。那么，通用最擅长的是什么呢？那就是培养行政管理人才，将优秀的经理变成卓越的高管。从而最终提高单位管理人才利润。你会问，究竟什么是统一的主题？那就是他们的管理体系。那是他们的用人制度，这一制度非常有效。通用电气的人才可以在业务部门之间灵活调动，他们在公司的整个体系中都能获得成功。

Thomas D. Gorman: I know another course that you taught at Stanford was on entrepreneurship; I want to come back to that. But, before we get there, one feature of the Chinese corporate universe, at the moment, there are still a lot of large diversified conglomerates and I know you've researched conglomerates versus more specialized companies. And I'd like for you to talk, if you would, for just a moment on the strengths and weakness on conglomerates and one or two examples of people who got it right and how did they get it right?

Jim Collins: We talked earlier about the idea of a hedgehog concept. So, how would the idea of a hedgehog concept, which is we're going to focus on what we can be best in the world at, what we're passionate about, what drives our economic engine related to the possibilities of the conglomerate.

Would a conglomerate by definition be doomed to average?

I suggest there actually can be a process hedgehog, just like there are content hedgehogs, like the best low cost airlines, or the best convenient drugstore chain, or the best at world discount retailing, like Wal-Mart, or the best at biotechnology breakthroughs, or something like that, or certain drug areas. But, I believe there's also a process that some companies can have a process hedgehog. In other words whatever they're the best in the world at. It's a given process that could apply across multiple businesses. Now, sometimes that can be within a theme and I think that's generally best.

But, let's just take some specific examples. Coming from our research companies that have a more diversified portfolio, but nonetheless became great companies we’ve got, GE, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and 3M. Now, we could go through a number of these.

But if you look at the GE case it's awfully hard to see one unifying theme during their best years, because over a very long period of time they've evolved into a lot of things. But, what is GE the very best in the world at? Developing executive talent, turning good managers into great executives. And deploying them to increase, ultimately, profit per unit of executive talent. So, here you have, you ask -- what's the unifying theme? It's their management system. It's their people system, which is enormously effective, you could take people from one GE business and they'll often move them to another area over here and they can be successful within the whole GE system.

Jim Collins: And I've often thought, well what do you think the purpose of GE is? And this is a joke, they wouldn't say this, is to develop CEOs for the world. But, to some extent that's like their ultimate product, developing great executives. And until... that's an example of a company that's not just a conglomerate. What held it together was the background processes within the operating systems. Think of it as if the GE system is like DOS and all the businesses were applications for it, they all had to be compatible with the operating system and that's how GE worked.

Now, GE's kind of an anomaly in the range of business that it's in.

Let's look at another one, like Johnson & Johnson. They've got a very interesting thing, because, of course across all their businesses, the dynamics of pharmaceuticals is really different than the dynamics of baby powder and Tylenol, which is very different than the dynamics of sutures or artificial knees or anything like these sorts of things -- medical devices for example -- and yet the whole thing works. So, there's a conglomerate around a theme and there's a system. You've got the J&J credo and a whole series of management processes, the entrepreneurial business units, and all those things that come together, but it's all within a healthcare theme.

Procter & Gamble is around a consumer packaged goods theme.

If you take 3M though, 3M was much wider than that, because its theme was the deployment of innovation. They went into businesses that were often seen to be boring -- ,sandpaper, whatever,-- and yet they would bring in an innovation component to it, around such things as adhesives, or a variety of other things. But, their theme was, their unifying theme was innovation. So, you could do it either way.

Was 3M a conglomerate? No, it's an innovation machine. Is GE a conglomerate? No, it's a management development machine. That happens a lot to businesses and now.

If you ask me, which would I prefer, a diversified business around a theme, consumer products like, P&G, J&J Healthcare, or the just discussed ones? You know, they both have worked. I like the idea of the theme, but it's clear that you can do it without it. The problem is, very few have. When really GE is much more of an anomaly, historically.