????據說，在一把錘子看來，一切東西都像是釘子。至少就現在而言，我愿意承認，我往往以蘋果公司（Apple）作為棱鏡來觀察高科技產業新聞。畢竟，我對這家公司的報道遠超過其他公司，其中包括一篇由三部分組成，刊發在最新一期《財富》雜志（Fortune）的特稿，以及去年出版的一本書《蘋果解密》（Inside Apple）。

????不過，我認為史蒂夫?鮑爾默最新發布的微軟（Microsoft）重組計劃完全有理由讓我感到震撼。他用以向員工解釋這項計劃的長備忘錄簡直就是在向史蒂夫?喬布斯在1997年和2011年之間重建的蘋果公司表達由衷的敬意。這項重組計劃的種種細節給人的感覺是，鮑爾默希望微軟能夠變得更像蘋果公司（我們暫且不考慮另外一種可能性——當前蘋果公司因它的“蘋果式”行事風格而遭遇的麻煩可能將超過最近記憶中的任何時候）。

????我在過去5年研究蘋果公司的過程中有一個很大的心得，這家公司對功能型組織結構的運用已經到了令人驚嘆的程度。沒有哪家同等規模的公司有勇氣放棄典型的事業部型結構，轉而采用這種組織方式。這方面最明顯的兩個例子是通用電氣（General Electric）和微軟公司。通用電氣的飛機和醫療事業部就像是兩家獨立的公司。微軟的Xbox事業部看上去亦是如此。

????史蒂夫?喬布斯討厭事業部制，憎惡采邑制。他想要的是一個蘋果，一個戰略，一個品牌，一個訊息。軟件開發人員將貢獻可應用于所有產品的軟件，財務部門將記錄所有產品組的賬簿，等等。

????現在來聽聽鮑爾默在備忘錄中所使用的令人震驚的語言吧（微軟上周四公布了這份備忘錄，以供世界評說）：“我們是一家團結在單一戰略之后的公司，而不是一個部門戰略的集合體。盡管我們將推出多種設備和服務以執行和貨幣化這種戰略，這種單一核心戰略將推動我們為我們所做的一切設定一個共同目標。我們的產品線將是一個整體，而不是一組分散的島嶼。”鮑爾默還使用通俗易懂的語言告訴他的員工：“我們公司將實施功能型組織結構。”

????在蘋果公司，每一項倡議和任務都被分配給了一個所謂的“直接負責人”（DRI）。鮑爾默在備忘錄中表示：“每一個重大倡議”都將有一位“領頭人”。這個人將直接向他匯報或他的直接下屬匯報工作。他坦率地表示，這樣做的目標是改善問責制。

????談及重組目標時，鮑爾默的備忘錄并沒有閃爍其詞。他稱其為“一個微軟”。這正是喬布斯當年在外漂泊十多年，重新回到這家他參與創建的公司時設定的目標。當時的蘋果正處于機能嚴重失調的情勢，部門林立，議事日程相互排斥。喬布斯扼殺了所有這些條條框框，以及不少失敗的產品。他的一個重要決策是，統一公司的所有廣告預算。這樣做不是為了省錢，而是為了統一對外宣示的訊息，以確保蘋果的品牌代表著喬布斯本人期望的意義。在他的備忘錄中，鮑爾默提議由兩位高管集中管理公司的廣告和媒體事務。

????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.