????谷歌究竟要怎樣才能重新恢復(fù)魔力呢？2011年之初的谷歌與早些年處于創(chuàng)業(yè)階段的谷歌已經(jīng)截然不同了。現(xiàn)在谷歌面臨著來(lái)自Facebook等新銳公司的壓力，谷歌現(xiàn)在正在花更多的錢(qián)雇傭人才，這也扯了公司第一季度賬面收益的后腿，使上周四谷歌股票在二級(jí)市場(chǎng)上的交易價(jià)格下跌了5%。

????谷歌新任首席執(zhí)行官拉里?佩奇的面前橫亙著一個(gè)重大的任務(wù)，到目前為止，他都忙得不可開(kāi)交。他宣布了重組公司的計(jì)劃——給予工程師更多的控制權(quán)，推出新的獎(jiǎng)金方案，并力圖讓谷歌在社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)領(lǐng)域占據(jù)一席之地。到現(xiàn)在為止，人們對(duì)“佩奇新政”的評(píng)論有褒有貶。

????不過(guò)最為重要的是，佩奇新政忽略了一個(gè)殘酷的事實(shí)：如果谷歌想在網(wǎng)絡(luò)建設(shè)方面保持創(chuàng)新，就必須把步子邁得更大，而不僅僅是重新規(guī)劃一張組織結(jié)構(gòu)圖，或是只用獎(jiǎng)金作為激勵(lì)。谷歌是可以培養(yǎng)出真正的企業(yè)家文化和創(chuàng)新概念的，但這意味著谷歌必須對(duì)整個(gè)公司進(jìn)行徹底重組。

????而這意味著要對(duì)谷歌進(jìn)行拆分。

????這并不是什么新奇之論。幾年以前，丹尼?蘇利文曾經(jīng)在他的博客“搜索引擎天地”（Search Engine Land）上撰寫(xiě)過(guò)一篇博文，虛構(gòu)了谷歌拆分的情景。這篇文章發(fā)表時(shí)，適逢谷歌收購(gòu)了DoubleClick公司，有些人擔(dān)心這起收購(gòu)會(huì)導(dǎo)致谷歌在搜索引擎業(yè)占據(jù)壟斷地位。去年，一個(gè)名叫消費(fèi)者看守者（Consumer Watchdog）的組織就曾以反壟斷為由，要求谷歌進(jìn)行拆分。

????盡管在在線廣告領(lǐng)域，谷歌顯然面臨著新的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，但同時(shí)谷歌也正面臨著來(lái)自聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（Federal Trade Commission）和美國(guó)司法部（Department of Justice）的雙重反壟斷調(diào)查。如公司自行拆分，則可以避免陷入反壟斷訴訟。不過(guò)谷歌應(yīng)該按自己的實(shí)際情況進(jìn)行拆分——讓各個(gè)部門(mén)專注于自身愿景；使有前景的一些小項(xiàng)目不被寬泛的企業(yè)文化所吞噬；給員工更多的自主權(quán)，同時(shí)提供堅(jiān)實(shí)的激勵(lì)。

????企業(yè)重組可能以許多種方式發(fā)生，其中一些方式要更加激進(jìn)些。例如谷歌可以變成一家控股公司，它可以控制若干子公司的大多數(shù)表決權(quán)。谷歌公開(kāi)交易股的股東仍然可以繼續(xù)擁有搜索和顯示廣告業(yè)務(wù)的股份，這二者占據(jù)了谷歌的大部分營(yíng)業(yè)收入。

????谷歌控股公司也可擁有私營(yíng)下屬企業(yè)的多數(shù)股權(quán)，這些下屬企業(yè)各自代表一項(xiàng)谷歌的業(yè)務(wù)，如谷歌文檔、YouTube和Gmail都可以拆分成單獨(dú)的子公司，此外還可以分離出一家負(fù)責(zé)Android軟件和移動(dòng)廣告等移動(dòng)業(yè)務(wù)的子公司。員工可以獲得所在子公司的期權(quán)，如果這些子公司變得足夠盈利，也可以推動(dòng)這些公司上市。如果IPO市場(chǎng)在未來(lái)的幾年里仍然保持景氣，那么將這些重要業(yè)務(wù)拆分出去，可能會(huì)成為一種強(qiáng)勢(shì)激勵(lì)，促使這些業(yè)務(wù)更加盈利。

????另一個(gè)子公司可將重點(diǎn)放在現(xiàn)在的“谷歌實(shí)驗(yàn)室”（Google Labs）上，它是由谷歌早期贊助的一個(gè)創(chuàng)新項(xiàng)目孵化器。一旦員工培養(yǎng)出來(lái)的項(xiàng)目創(chuàng)意在實(shí)驗(yàn)室中孵化成了可行的、可獨(dú)立發(fā)展的公司，這些員工就可以獲得這個(gè)初創(chuàng)公司的創(chuàng)始人股份。

????總而言之，拆分后的谷歌控股公司可能成為一個(gè)企業(yè)集團(tuán)，一個(gè)由一系列具有連鎖的利益、基礎(chǔ)架構(gòu)和股權(quán)的獨(dú)立公司構(gòu)成的網(wǎng)絡(luò)。其中許多的獨(dú)立公司嚴(yán)格說(shuō)來(lái)算不上是初創(chuàng)公司，但與現(xiàn)在的谷歌相比，屆時(shí)這些公司所提供的服務(wù)要更創(chuàng)新、更像初創(chuàng)公司。

????從本質(zhì)上講，軟件工程是一個(gè)創(chuàng)造性的行業(yè)。衡量這個(gè)行業(yè)的公司成功與否，并不看一個(gè)軟件銷售了多少份，而是在于人們對(duì)你的工作成果作何反應(yīng)，他們是怎樣把你的軟件融入他們的日常生活的。當(dāng)然，這種無(wú)形資產(chǎn)是很難量化的。因此，在硅谷這樣一個(gè)遍地風(fēng)投的文化環(huán)境里，成績(jī)往往是通過(guò)財(cái)務(wù)指標(biāo)來(lái)衡量的，例如收入增長(zhǎng)、利潤(rùn)率以及市值等。

????不過(guò)，這并不意味著所有的工程師都是在錢(qián)財(cái)?shù)尿?qū)使下才去努力工作的。硅谷人的貪欲只是在中等水平上下，和其他地方的人沒(méi)什么區(qū)別。不過(guò)財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的確是衡量成功的無(wú)可爭(zhēng)辯的標(biāo)尺。在2010年，F(xiàn)acebook的估值達(dá)到500億美元，這個(gè)數(shù)字雄辯地讓所有批評(píng)人士都閉上了嘴。而在過(guò)去五年里，谷歌的市值都是在1300億到1800億美元之間浮動(dòng)。

????除了薪酬問(wèn)題之外，谷歌的拆分還可以解決一些前任高管和工程師都曾抱怨過(guò)的企業(yè)文化問(wèn)題。在谷歌曾出現(xiàn)有前景的創(chuàng)意從公司中流失的情況，例如在收購(gòu)社交網(wǎng)站Dodgeball時(shí)所發(fā)生的那樣（在Dodgeball被谷歌收購(gòu)后，因不受重視，Dodgeball的兩位創(chuàng)始人負(fù)氣離開(kāi)谷歌——譯注）。但在谷歌拆分之后，這種情況將不大可能再度發(fā)生。此外，谷歌甚至可以通過(guò)投資某個(gè)初創(chuàng)公司的一部分股權(quán)、而不是整個(gè)收購(gòu)的方式，將外部的一些初創(chuàng)公司拉入自己的陣營(yíng)中。

????如果這些原因還不夠讓谷歌進(jìn)行拆分的話，這里還有另一條理由。如果谷歌不采取某種徹底的措施，它可能難免演變成一個(gè)人浮于事、墨守成規(guī)的科技巨頭。它會(huì)變成另一個(gè)微軟，試圖用自己已經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí)的觀點(diǎn)來(lái)塑造互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，而不是靈活地適應(yīng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)自行演化出的各種驚人的發(fā)展方向。而后者才是谷歌最擅長(zhǎng)的。

????或者說(shuō)，這正是谷歌在還是一家初創(chuàng)公司時(shí)所最擅長(zhǎng)的事。

????譯者：樸成奎

????What is it going to take for Google to get its mojo back? Google in the spring of 2011 is a far cry from Google in its startup days. Facing competition from younger companies like Facebook, Google is spending more to hire new talent, and the resulting weight on first-quarter earnings pulled its stock down 5% in aftermarket trading Thursday.

????Google's (GOOG) new CEO Larry Page has a big task before him. And so far he's been busy. Page announced plans to reorganize the company -- giving engineers more control, rolling out a new bonus program and finding a place for itself in the social web. So far, those changes have drawn mixed reviews.

????Most importantly, the changes overlook the hard truth that, if Google is to stay innovative in shaping the web, it needs to take much more dramatic steps than redrawing org charts or using bonuses as cudgels. Google can return a genuinely entrepreneurial culture and nurture innovative ideas, but it would mean radically restructuring the entire company.

????It would mean splitting Google up.

????This is hardly a new idea. A few years back, Danny Sullivan penned a fictional scenario of a Google breakup for his blog, Search Engine Land. That came in the wake of Google's purchase of DoubleClick, which left some worrying the combined company would create a search monopoly. Last year, a group named Consumer Watchdog called for a Google breakup on antitrust grounds.

????Google is facing antitrust investigations from both the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. A breakup could head off any antitrust suits, even though Google is clearly facing new competition for online ads. But Google should consider a breakup on its own merits -- to keep units focused on their visions, to keep small but promising projects from being swallowed by the broader corporate culture, and to give employees more independence as well as strong incentives to deliver.

????A corporate restructuring could happen in any number of ways, some more aggressive than others. For example, Google could become a holding company controlling the majority of voting rights in a number of subsidiaries. Shareholders of Google's publicly traded stock would continue to own shares in the search and display businesses, which accounts for the majority of its revenue.

????The Google holding company would also own majority shares in private subsidiaries, each representing an initiative like Google Docs, YouTube, Gmail, a mobile subsidiary composed of Android software and mobile ads, and so on. Employees would receive options in their subsidiary, with an eye to IPOs when they become profitable enough. Provided the IPO markets remain friendly in coming years, this could be a strong incentive for these initiatives to deliver profits.

????Another subsidiary could be focused on what is now Google Labs, an incubator of innovative projects funded by Google early on. Once employees nurture ideas into projects in Labs that grow into viable, standalone companies, they receive founders shares in that new startup.

????In short, Google the holding company would oversee a keiretsu -- a network of independent companies with interlocking interests, infrastructure and shareholdings. Many of the independent companies may not be, strictly speaking, startups but they would be a lot closer to startups than what Google offers now.

????Software engineering is at heart a creative profession. Success isn't measured through box-office sales or the number of books in print, but in how people respond to your work, how they incorporate it into their daily lives. Of course, such intangibles are hard to quantify, so in Silicon Valley's venture capital-steeped culture, achievement is often measured through financial metrics: revenue growth, profit margins, market value.

????This isn't to say that all engineers are driven purely by avarice. Garden-variety greed may be as common in Silicon Valley as it is elsewhere, but financial success is also an indisputable yardstick for achievement. In 2010, nothing silenced Facebook's critics quite as effectively as reports of a $50 billion valuation. Google's market cap has vacillated between $130 billion and $180 billion for the past five years.

????Beyond compensation, a Google breakup could also address some of the cultural issues that former executives and engineers have complained about. Promising ideas are less likely to get lost in the company's conglomerate morass, as happened with acquisitions like Dodgeball. Google could even bring outside startups into its fold without buying the entire company, but simply by investing in a stake big enough to incorporate the startup into its keiretsu.

????If these aren't enough reasons for a breakup, here's one more. If Google doesn't do something dramatic, it risks an inevitable evolution toward the bloated, sedentary life of a tech conglomerate. It will become another Microsoft (MSFT), trying to shape the Internet into an outdated vision of its own imagining, rather than lithely adapting to all the surprising ways the web evolves on its own. Which is what Google is best at.

????Or was best at, back when it acted like a startup.