公司管理应学微软，还是雅虎？

    开始伟大的管理学辩论吧。或者，我应当说是，继续。

    现如今，你很可能已听说，上世纪90年代的两家科技巨头微软（Microsoft）和雅虎（Yahoo）正在努力重树雄风，但它们采取了两种迥然不同的方式来评定在工作中的优胜者和失败者。

    继玛丽莎•梅耶尔在2012年7月担任雅虎CEO之后，她建立起一个“员工大排名和末位淘汰制”体系，将员工基于曲线进行评级，处在最低一档的员工会被劝退。上周，雅虎宣布，该公司基于这一排名系统让600名员工离职。

    一个类似的达尔文优胜劣汰体系在微软曾设立多年。但在11月12日，该公司宣布，将放弃这一机制，用更加频繁和非正式的评估取代。

    哪种方式更好？这是眼下很多企业总部热议的话题。第一种方式造就了通用电气（General Electric）之类的成功，这可以追溯到杰克•韦尔奇领军的日子，以及麦肯锡（McKinsey）等咨询公司的成功。这也被指责为创造了有害的企业文化：员工相互拆台，而不是相互协作。

    但对此的讨论远远超出人力资源范畴。这仅仅是这两种企业意识形态之间争夺优胜权最新一轮争夺。将这想象为“以人为本”与“注重流程”之争。两种方式的支持者都有数据支持他们的理论；尚未有一方已证明获得胜利。

    在“以人为本”阵营里有像谷歌（Google）、The Container Store、Zappos和Intuit这样的公司，拥有吉姆•柯林斯和彼得•德鲁克这样的思想家。他们认为，公司创造盈利增长的能力是其人员的首要功能。快乐的人工作更努力，对公司更忠诚，这转变为在市场上更为成功——相应地取得利润上的成功。这与协作关联更大，而不是竞争，与开放资源关联更强，而不是封闭式系统。“当你看这些软技能时，”咨询公司thoughtLEADERS董事总经理迈克•费格利罗说，“你要么理解，要么不理解。我的意思是，你来告诉我温斯顿•丘吉尔的投资收益率。”

    “注重流程”阵营认为，分析、无情的竞争和效率比其他任何东西都更重要。在华尔街，虽然你赚得多，但你的职业生涯很容易终结，这就是一个好榜样。沃尔玛（Wal-Mart）、微软（直到最近）和很多由私募股权持股的公司是其他范例。（举个例子，请看我最近的一篇文章，写的是亨氏（Heinz）如何遭受其私募股权所有人的压榨。）人力资本只是这一体系的一项投入；它是数字，是激烈的竞争，以及降低成本的动力。问问甲骨文（Oracle）的拉里•埃里森，他最喜欢成吉思汗的格言：“我自己成功还不够，其他人必败。”

    公平而言，大多数公司处在这两个极端之间的某个地方，而且最佳的方式很可能处在中间地段。但这些实验仍在继续，在现实生活中。你倾向于哪种理念，为什么？（财富中文网）

    Let the great management debate commence. Or should I say, continue.

    By now, you've probably read that Microsoft (MSFT) and Yahoo (YHOO) -- two tech giants of the '90s now trying to regain their mojo -- are taking two very different approaches in how they determine winners and losers in the workplace.

    After Marissa Mayer came in as Yahoo's CEO in July 2012, she instituted a "rank and yank" -- or "stacked ranking" -- system by which employees are graded on a curve, with those in the bottom category being asked to leave. Last week, Yahoo announced that it was laying off 600 workers based on the rankings.

    A similarly Darwinian system had been in place at Microsoft for many years. But on Nov. 12, the company announced it would abandon it in favor of more frequent and informal types of reviews.

    Which approach is better? That is a live-wire argument inside many a corporate headquarters these days. The first approach has been credited for success at the likes of General Electric (GE), back in the Jack Welch days, and consulting firms such as McKinsey. It has also been blamed for creating toxic cultures where employees sabotage each other rather than work together.

    But the discussion goes far beyond the realm of human resources. It's just the latest version of the struggle for supremacy between two business ideologies. Think of it as people vs. process. Supporters of both approaches have data to support their theories; neither has proven victorious yet.

    In the "people" camp are companies like Google (GOOG), The Container Store (TCS), Zappos, and Intuit (INTU), and thinkers like Jim Collins and Peter Drucker. They believe that a company's ability to create profitable growth is first and foremost a function of its people. Happy people work harder, are more loyal, and are more innovative, which translates to greater success in the marketplaces and -- ultimately -- the bottom line. It's more about collaboration than competition and more open source than closed systems. "When you look at soft skills," says Mike Figliulo, managing director of consulting firm thoughtLEADERS, "you either understand or you don't. I mean, tell me the ROI of Winston Churchill."

    The "process" group argues that analytics, ruthless competition, and efficiency is more critical to success than anything else. Wall Street, where you are paid well but easily terminated, is one example. Wal-Mart (WMT), Microsoft (until recently), and many companies owned by private equity firms are others. (As an example, see my recent story on how Heinz is getting squeezed by its PE owners.) Human capital is just one input to the system; it's the numbers, the intense competition, and the drive to cut costs at, well, any cost that leads to success. Just ask Larry Ellison of Oracle (ORCL), whose favorite quote comes from Genghis Khan: "It's not sufficient I succeed. Everyone else must fail."

    It's fair to say that most companies sit somewhere on the spectrum between the two extremes, and that the best approach probably lies somewhere in the middle. But the experiments continue, in real time. Which philosophy do you prefer, and why?