高德思：我知道你在斯坦福還教企業(yè)家精神的課程,，我想談?wù)勥@方面,。但是，在談這個(gè)之前,，我想說當(dāng)前中國(guó)仍有許多多元化綜合性企業(yè),，我知道你將這種大企業(yè)與專業(yè)性公司進(jìn)行了比較研究。我希望你能談?wù)劸C合性大企業(yè)的優(yōu)勢(shì)和劣勢(shì),，舉一兩個(gè)例子來談?wù)劤晒Φ陌咐退麄兪侨绾纬晒Φ摹?/span>

吉姆·柯林斯：我們剛剛談到了刺猬理念,。刺猬理念就是說我們要專注于自己最擅長(zhǎng)的、有熱情的和驅(qū)動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)引擎的事,。

綜合性大企業(yè)是否注定只能屈于平庸呢,？

我認(rèn)為有擅長(zhǎng)做內(nèi)容的刺猬也有擅長(zhǎng)業(yè)務(wù)流程的刺猬，比如有低成本航空公司,，有最好的便利藥店連鎖,，或者世界上最好的折扣零售公司如沃爾瑪，或者一些在生物技術(shù)方面取得突破的公司,。但是,，我認(rèn)為也有公司可以成為業(yè)務(wù)流程的刺猬。換句話說,，無論他們最擅長(zhǎng)的是什么,，這是一種對(duì)很多行業(yè)都適用的流程。有時(shí)候一個(gè)流程也只限于一個(gè)行業(yè)領(lǐng)域,，我認(rèn)為一般說來這樣最好,。

讓我們來舉幾個(gè)具體的例子吧。在我們研究的公司中有些涉及的領(lǐng)域十分廣泛,，但是卻成為了卓越的公司,。比如通用電氣（GE）、寶潔（Procter & Gamble）,、強(qiáng)生（Johnson & Johnson）和明尼蘇達(dá)礦務(wù)及制造業(yè)公司（3M）,，我們分析其中的幾個(gè)案例。

以通用電氣為例,，在公司最鼎盛的時(shí)期,，你很難看到統(tǒng)一的主題。因?yàn)榻?jīng)過很長(zhǎng)一段時(shí)間的發(fā)展,，公司已經(jīng)涉及許多領(lǐng)域,。那么,，通用最擅長(zhǎng)的是什么呢？那就是培養(yǎng)行政管理人才,，將優(yōu)秀的經(jīng)理變成卓越的高管,。從而最終提高單位管理人才利潤(rùn)。你會(huì)問,，究竟什么是統(tǒng)一的主題,？那就是他們的管理體系。那是他們的用人制度,，這一制度非常有效,。通用電氣的人才可以在業(yè)務(wù)部門之間靈活調(diào)動(dòng)，他們?cè)诠镜恼麄€(gè)體系中都能獲得成功,。

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.