拉里?佩奇應該拆分谷歌嗎？

????谷歌究竟要怎樣才能重新恢復魔力呢？2011年之初的谷歌與早些年處于創業階段的谷歌已經截然不同了?，F在谷歌面臨著來自Facebook等新銳公司的壓力，谷歌現在正在花更多的錢雇傭人才，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市場上的交易價格下跌了5%。

????谷歌新任首席執行官拉里?佩奇的面前橫亙著一個重大的任務，到目前為止，他都忙得不可開交。他宣布了重組公司的計劃——給予工程師更多的控制權，推出新的獎金方案，并力圖讓谷歌在社交網絡領域占據一席之地。到現在為止，人們對“佩奇新政”的評論有褒有貶。

????不過最為重要的是，佩奇新政忽略了一個殘酷的事實：如果谷歌想在網絡建設方面保持創新，就必須把步子邁得更大，而不僅僅是重新規劃一張組織結構圖，或是只用獎金作為激勵。谷歌是可以培養出真正的企業家文化和創新概念的，但這意味著谷歌必須對整個公司進行徹底重組。

????而這意味著要對谷歌進行拆分。

????這并不是什么新奇之論。幾年以前，丹尼?蘇利文曾經在他的博客“搜索引擎天地”（Search Engine Land）上撰寫過一篇博文，虛構了谷歌拆分的情景。這篇文章發表時，適逢谷歌收購了DoubleClick公司，有些人擔心這起收購會導致谷歌在搜索引擎業占據壟斷地位。去年，一個名叫消費者看守者（Consumer Watchdog）的組織就曾以反壟斷為由，要求谷歌進行拆分。

????盡管在在線廣告領域，谷歌顯然面臨著新的競爭，但同時谷歌也正面臨著來自聯邦貿易委員會（Federal Trade Commission）和美國司法部（Department of Justice）的雙重反壟斷調查。如公司自行拆分，則可以避免陷入反壟斷訴訟。不過谷歌應該按自己的實際情況進行拆分——讓各個部門專注于自身愿景；使有前景的一些小項目不被寬泛的企業文化所吞噬；給員工更多的自主權，同時提供堅實的激勵。

????企業重組可能以許多種方式發生，其中一些方式要更加激進些。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表決權。谷歌公開交易股的股東仍然可以繼續擁有搜索和顯示廣告業務的股份，這二者占據了谷歌的大部分營業收入。

????谷歌控股公司也可擁有私營下屬企業的多數股權，這些下屬企業各自代表一項谷歌的業務，如谷歌文檔、YouTube和Gmail都可以拆分成單獨的子公司，此外還可以分離出一家負責Android軟件和移動廣告等移動業務的子公司。員工可以獲得所在子公司的期權，如果這些子公司變得足夠盈利，也可以推動這些公司上市。如果IPO市場在未來的幾年里仍然保持景氣，那么將這些重要業務拆分出去，可能會成為一種強勢激勵，促使這些業務更加盈利。

????另一個子公司可將重點放在現在的“谷歌實驗室”（Google Labs）上，它是由谷歌早期贊助的一個創新項目孵化器。一旦員工培養出來的項目創意在實驗室中孵化成了可行的、可獨立發展的公司，這些員工就可以獲得這個初創公司的創始人股份。

????總而言之，拆分后的谷歌控股公司可能成為一個企業集團，一個由一系列具有連鎖的利益、基礎架構和股權的獨立公司構成的網絡。其中許多的獨立公司嚴格說來算不上是初創公司，但與現在的谷歌相比，屆時這些公司所提供的服務要更創新、更像初創公司。

????從本質上講，軟件工程是一個創造性的行業。衡量這個行業的公司成功與否，并不看一個軟件銷售了多少份，而是在于人們對你的工作成果作何反應，他們是怎樣把你的軟件融入他們的日常生活的。當然，這種無形資產是很難量化的。因此，在硅谷這樣一個遍地風投的文化環境里，成績往往是通過財務指標來衡量的，例如收入增長、利潤率以及市值等。

????不過，這并不意味著所有的工程師都是在錢財的驅使下才去努力工作的。硅谷人的貪欲只是在中等水平上下，和其他地方的人沒什么區別。不過財務業績的確是衡量成功的無可爭辯的標尺。在2010年，Facebook的估值達到500億美元，這個數字雄辯地讓所有批評人士都閉上了嘴。而在過去五年里，谷歌的市值都是在1300億到1800億美元之間浮動。

????除了薪酬問題之外，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的企業文化問題。在谷歌曾出現有前景的創意從公司中流失的情況，例如在收購社交網站Dodgeball時所發生的那樣（在Dodgeball被谷歌收購后，因不受重視，Dodgeball的兩位創始人負氣離開谷歌——譯注）。但在谷歌拆分之后，這種情況將不大可能再度發生。此外，谷歌甚至可以通過投資某個初創公司的一部分股權、而不是整個收購的方式，將外部的一些初創公司拉入自己的陣營中。

????如果這些原因還不夠讓谷歌進行拆分的話，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人浮于事、墨守成規的科技巨頭。它會變成另一個微軟，試圖用自己已經過時的觀點來塑造互聯網，而不是靈活地適應網絡自行演化出的各種驚人的發展方向。而后者才是谷歌最擅長的。

????或者說，這正是谷歌在還是一家初創公司時所最擅長的事。

????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.