????開始偉大的管理學辯論吧。或者，我應當說是，繼續。

????現如今，你很可能已聽說，上世紀90年代的兩家科技巨頭微軟（Microsoft）和雅虎（Yahoo）正在努力重樹雄風，但它們采取了兩種迥然不同的方式來評定在工作中的優勝者和失敗者。

????繼瑪麗莎?梅耶爾在2012年7月擔任雅虎CEO之后，她建立起一個“員工大排名和末位淘汰制”體系，將員工基于曲線進行評級，處在最低一檔的員工會被勸退。上周，雅虎宣布，該公司基于這一排名系統讓600名員工離職。

????一個類似的達爾文優勝劣汰體系在微軟曾設立多年。但在11月12日，該公司宣布，將放棄這一機制，用更加頻繁和非正式的評估取代。

????哪種方式更好？這是眼下很多企業總部熱議的話題。第一種方式造就了通用電氣（General Electric）之類的成功，這可以追溯到杰克?韋爾奇領軍的日子，以及麥肯錫（McKinsey）等咨詢公司的成功。這也被指責為創造了有害的企業文化：員工相互拆臺，而不是相互協作。

????但對此的討論遠遠超出人力資源范疇。這僅僅是這兩種企業意識形態之間爭奪優勝權最新一輪爭奪。將這想象為“以人為本”與“注重流程”之爭。兩種方式的支持者都有數據支持他們的理論；尚未有一方已證明獲得勝利。

????在“以人為本”陣營里有像谷歌（Google）、The Container Store、Zappos和Intuit這樣的公司，擁有吉姆?柯林斯和彼得?德魯克這樣的思想家。他們認為，公司創造盈利增長的能力是其人員的首要功能。快樂的人工作更努力，對公司更忠誠，這轉變為在市場上更為成功——相應地取得利潤上的成功。這與協作關聯更大，而不是競爭，與開放資源關聯更強，而不是封閉式系統。“當你看這些軟技能時，”咨詢公司thoughtLEADERS董事總經理邁克?費格利羅說，“你要么理解，要么不理解。我的意思是，你來告訴我溫斯頓?丘吉爾的投資收益率。”

????“注重流程”陣營認為，分析、無情的競爭和效率比其他任何東西都更重要。在華爾街，雖然你賺得多，但你的職業生涯很容易終結，這就是一個好榜樣。沃爾瑪（Wal-Mart）、微軟（直到最近）和很多由私募股權持股的公司是其他范例。（舉個例子，請看我最近的一篇文章，寫的是亨氏（Heinz）如何遭受其私募股權所有人的壓榨。）人力資本只是這一體系的一項投入；它是數字，是激烈的競爭，以及降低成本的動力。問問甲骨文（Oracle）的拉里?埃里森，他最喜歡成吉思汗的格言：“我自己成功還不夠，其他人必敗。”

????公平而言，大多數公司處在這兩個極端之間的某個地方，而且最佳的方式很可能處在中間地段。但這些實驗仍在繼續，在現實生活中。你傾向于哪種理念，為什么？（財富中文網）

????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?