微软重组隐现“苹果梦”

    据说，在一把锤子看来，一切东西都像是钉子。至少就现在而言，我愿意承认，我往往以苹果公司（Apple）作为棱镜来观察高科技产业新闻。毕竟，我对这家公司的报道远超过其他公司，其中包括一篇由三部分组成，刊发在最新一期《财富》杂志（Fortune）的特稿，以及去年出版的一本书《苹果解密》（Inside Apple）。

    不过，我认为史蒂夫•鲍尔默最新发布的微软（Microsoft）重组计划完全有理由让我感到震撼。他用以向员工解释这项计划的长备忘录简直就是在向史蒂夫•乔布斯在1997年和2011年之间重建的苹果公司表达由衷的敬意。这项重组计划的种种细节给人的感觉是，鲍尔默希望微软能够变得更像苹果公司（我们暂且不考虑另外一种可能性——当前苹果公司因它的“苹果式”行事风格而遭遇的麻烦可能将超过最近记忆中的任何时候）。

    我在过去5年研究苹果公司的过程中有一个很大的心得，这家公司对功能型组织结构的运用已经到了令人惊叹的程度。没有哪家同等规模的公司有勇气放弃典型的事业部型结构，转而采用这种组织方式。这方面最明显的两个例子是通用电气（General Electric）和微软公司。通用电气的飞机和医疗事业部就像是两家独立的公司。微软的Xbox事业部看上去亦是如此。

    史蒂夫•乔布斯讨厌事业部制，憎恶采邑制。他想要的是一个苹果，一个战略，一个品牌，一个讯息。软件开发人员将贡献可应用于所有产品的软件，财务部门将记录所有产品组的账簿，等等。

    现在来听听鲍尔默在备忘录中所使用的令人震惊的语言吧（微软上周四公布了这份备忘录，以供世界评说）：“我们是一家团结在单一战略之后的公司，而不是一个部门战略的集合体。尽管我们将推出多种设备和服务以执行和货币化这种战略，这种单一核心战略将推动我们为我们所做的一切设定一个共同目标。我们的产品线将是一个整体，而不是一组分散的岛屿。”鲍尔默还使用通俗易懂的语言告诉他的员工：“我们公司将实施功能型组织结构。”

    在苹果公司，每一项倡议和任务都被分配给了一个所谓的“直接负责人”（DRI）。鲍尔默在备忘录中表示：“每一个重大倡议”都将有一位“领头人”。这个人将直接向他汇报或他的直接下属汇报工作。他坦率地表示，这样做的目标是改善问责制。

    谈及重组目标时，鲍尔默的备忘录并没有闪烁其词。他称其为“一个微软”。这正是乔布斯当年在外漂泊十多年，重新回到这家他参与创建的公司时设定的目标。当时的苹果正处于机能严重失调的情势，部门林立，议事日程相互排斥。乔布斯扼杀了所有这些条条框框，以及不少失败的产品。他的一个重要决策是，统一公司的所有广告预算。这样做不是为了省钱，而是为了统一对外宣示的讯息，以确保苹果的品牌代表着乔布斯本人期望的意义。在他的备忘录中，鲍尔默提议由两位高管集中管理公司的广告和媒体事务。

    It is said that to a hammer everything looks like a nail, and I'm willing to acknowledge, at least for now, that I tend to view tech industry news through the prism of Apple. After all, it's the company I've covered more than any other, including a three-part feature in the current issue of Fortune and a book last year, Inside Apple.

    Still, I think I'm being completely rational in my shock at Steve Ballmer's latest reorganization of Microsoft. His long memo explaining it to employees is one long homage to the Apple (AAPL) that Steve Jobs re-created between 1997 and 2011. Everything about the reorg sounds like Ballmer wants Microsoft (MSFT) to behave more like Apple. (And let's set aside for the moment that Apple may well be having more trouble behaving like Apple than at any time in recent memory.)

    One of the key learnings of my research on Apple over the past five years has been the extraordinary degree to which Apple is organized by function. No other company its size has the audacity to organize this way as opposed to the typical corporation's divisional structure. The two most obvious examples of this are General Electric (GE) and, yes, Microsoft. GE's aircraft and medical divisions are like companies unto themselves. Ditto Microsoft's Xbox-purveying entertainment division.

    Steve Jobs hated divisionalization. He hated fiefdoms. He wanted one Apple, one strategy, one brand, one message. Software developers would contribute software across products. Finance would keep the books across product groups. And so on.

    And so listen to the shocking language Ballmer uses in his memo, which Microsoft posted Thursday for the world to see: "We are rallying behind a single strategy as one company -- not a collection of divisional strategies. Although we will deliver multiple devices and services to execute and monetize the strategy, the single core strategy will drive us to set shared goals for everything we do. We will see our product line holistically, not as a set of islands." In plain language Ballmer also told his employees: "We will organize the company by function."

    At Apple, every initiative and task has one person assigned to it called the DRI, or "directly responsible individual." In Ballmer's memo, he said "every major initiative" will have a "champion." He said that person will report directly to him or to one of his direct reports. He flat-out says the goal is better accountability.

    Ballmer didn't dance around the goal of his memo. He called it "One Microsoft." It's exactly what Jobs sought for Apple when he returned to the badly dysfunctional company he had co-founded and then left for more than a decade. Apple was rife with divisions and competing agendas, and Jobs killed them all -- along with quite a few failing products. A key move was his decision to unify all advertising budgets for the company. The goal wasn't to save money but rather to unify the message, to ensure that Apple's brand stood for what Jobs wanted it to stand for. Ballmer discusses in his memo the newly centralized advertising and media efforts under two executives.