????不過，人們?cè)谟懻擋U爾默及其團(tuán)隊(duì)意欲成功實(shí)施這項(xiàng)重組計(jì)劃可能遭遇的困難時(shí)，一個(gè)可能未被充分重視的部分在于，采用一個(gè)統(tǒng)一的組織架構(gòu)管理一家大型公司需要無與倫比的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)才能。斯坦福大學(xué)（Stanford University）商學(xué)院教授查爾斯?奧賴?yán)诮邮芪也稍L時(shí)（我當(dāng)時(shí)正在撰寫那本關(guān)于蘋果公司的著作）堅(jiān)稱，喬布斯管理蘋果的獨(dú)特方式只對(duì)他一個(gè)人適用。只有一位像喬布斯那樣專制、令人畏懼、充滿魅力、受人尊敬、具備多種才能的工作狂也有能力直接監(jiān)管這家公司的所有重要方面。這種管理方式也適用于蘋果公司，因?yàn)閱滩妓篃o情地追尋簡潔性。他每次只想專攻幾件事情——就引領(lǐng)蘋果走出深淵和隨后十多年的發(fā)展而言，這是一個(gè)巨大的美德。但當(dāng)蘋果成為一家巨無霸公司，更重要的是，當(dāng)那個(gè)無所不能的天才離開我們之后，這種行為就變得更加艱難。

????我們可以將蘋果最近因電子書價(jià)格問題而陷入的麻煩視為一個(gè)小小的文化例證。當(dāng)?shù)倌?庫克治下的蘋果拒絕就電子書價(jià)格操縱一案與司法部達(dá)成和解時(shí)，它所堅(jiān)持的正是喬布斯式風(fēng)格。蘋果認(rèn)為它是對(duì)的，而蘋果的合作伙伴、聯(lián)邦政府、競爭對(duì)手和批評(píng)家都是傻瓜。它拒絕向任何人道歉，因?yàn)橄嘈抛约河肋h(yuǎn)都不會(huì)錯(cuò)的蘋果是不會(huì)道歉的。所有這一切都非常適用于偉大的史蒂夫?喬布斯。但對(duì)于蒂姆?庫克治下的蘋果而言，這或許就是一個(gè)不同的命題了。

????近些年來，許多人希望微軟公司或多或少地重現(xiàn)昔日輝煌，這種幾乎是出于憐憫的愿望已經(jīng)成為一種時(shí)尚。如今這個(gè)世界已經(jīng)被傲慢無比的蘋果、才華橫溢的谷歌（Google），以及制造、營銷和模仿速度都無與倫比的三星（Samsung）所掌控，恢復(fù)少許霸氣的微軟公司將有助于促進(jìn)競爭，從而給消費(fèi)者帶來好處。

????一種類似蘋果的組織方式能否幫助微軟找回專注，重現(xiàn)神氣活現(xiàn)的風(fēng)采呢？倘如此，蘋果公司是否會(huì)遭遇另一個(gè)小小的挫折？一個(gè)完美整合，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)有力的微軟是否會(huì)減弱谷歌的大膽創(chuàng)意和愿景呢？

????希望“一個(gè)微軟”能夠做到。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：任文科

????The under-appreciated part about how difficult this will be for Ballmer and his team to pull off is that taking a unified structural approach to a massive company requires inordinately good leadership. The Stanford business professor Charles O'Reilly was adamant with me when I was researching my book that the unusual way Jobs ran Apple would only work for him. It works when a dictatorial, feared, charismatic, respected, multi-talented workhorse like Jobs is able to more or less directly oversee every important facet of the company. It also worked for Apple because Jobs ruthlessly insisted on simplicity. He wanted to attack only a few things at a time -- a tremendous virtue for building Apple back from the abyss and for more than a decade after. But the act gets tougher when the company grows gargantuan and, critically, when the all-powerful wizard is gone.

????As a small cultural example, consider the pickle Apple is in over e-books. In refusing to settle its price-fixing case with the Justice Department, Apple under Tim Cook adhered to its Jobsian principles. It believed it was right and that its partners, the government, its competitors and critics were fools. It apologized to no one because, well, Apple doesn't apologize because Apple is never wrong. All this worked marvelously for the great Steve Jobs. For Apple under Tim Cook, it's an understandably different proposition.

????In an almost pitying tone it has become fashionable in recent years to wish that Microsoft would return to some aspect of its former glory. In a world of Apple's arrogance and Google's (GOOG) brilliance and Samsung's shocking dexterity (manufacturing, marketing, emulating), some of Microsoft's old bullying would be great for competition and therefore great for consumers.

????Could an Apple-like organizational approach help Microsoft focus and regain some of its swagger? Would such an occurrence bring Apple down yet another small peg? Could a well-integrated and well-led Microsoft blunt some of Google's hoarding of bold ideas and vision?

????One (Microsoft) can only hope.