http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/technology/microsoft-­‐revamps-­‐structure-­‐and-­‐ management.html?ref=technology&_r=0&pagewanted=print   New  York  Times                   July  11,  2013   Microsoft  Overhauls,  the  Apple  Way   By  NICK  WINGFIELD   SEATTLE  —  A  couple  of  years  ago,  a  satirical  set  of  diagrams  depicting  the  organization  of  Amazon,   Apple,  Facebook  and  other  technology  companies  made  the  rounds  on  the  Internet.  The  chart  for   Microsoft  showed  several  isolated  pyramids  representing  its  divisions,  each  with  a  cartoon  pistol  aimed   at  the  other.     Its  divisions  will  war  no  more,  Microsoft  said  on  Thursday.     The  company  said  it  would  dissolve  its  eight  product  divisions  in  favor  of  four  new  ones  arranged  around   broader  functional  themes,  a  change  meant  to  encourage  a  tighter  marriage  among  technologies  as   competitors  like  Apple  and  Google  outflank  it  in  the  mobile  and  Internet  markets.     “To  execute,  we’ve  got  to  move  from  multiple  Microsofts  to  one  Microsoft,”  Steven  A.  Ballmer,  the   longtime  chief  executive,  said  in  an  interview.     The  notion  of  organizing  the  company  around  the  trinity  of  modern  technology  products  —  software,   hardware  and  services  —  is  most  famously  used  by  Apple.  It  is  yet  another  sign  of  how  deeply  Apple’s   way  of  doing  things  has  seeped  into  every  pore  of  the  technology  industry.     And  in  the  process,  some  of  the  biggest  technology  companies  are  starting  to  look  much  more  alike   organizationally.  The  goal  is  to  get  thousands  of  employees  to  collaborate  more  closely,  to  avoid  some   duplication  and,  as  a  result,  to  build  their  products  to  work  more  harmoniously  together.     “The  current  model  is  obviously  Apple,  given  how  phenomenally  successful  they  have  been,”  said  Kevin   Werbach,  an  associate  professor  of  business  at  the  Wharton  School  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.   “What  Apple  has  been  great  at  is  creating  these  experiences.”     The  changes  at  Microsoft,  a  giant  in  the  tech  industry  for  decades  that  has  stalled  in  the  last  few  years,   echo  similar  moves  at  its  biggest ...

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/technology/microsoft-
­‐revamps-­‐structure-­‐and-­‐
management.html?ref=technology&_r=0&pagewanted=print
New
York
Times
July
11,
2013
Microsoft
Overhauls,
the
Apple
Way
By
NICK
WINGFIELD

2. SEATTLE
—
A
couple
of
years
ago,
a
satirical
set
of
diagrams
depicting
the
organization
of
Amazon,
Apple,
Facebook
and
other
technology
companies
made
the
rounds
on
the
Internet.
The
chart
for
Microsoft

3. showed
several
isolated
pyramids
representing
its
divisions,
each
with
a
cartoon
pistol
aimed
at
the
other.
Its
divisions
will
war
no
more,
Microsoft
said
on
Thursday.
The
company
said

4. it
would
dissolve
its
eight
product
divisions
in
favor
of
four
new
ones
arranged
around
broader
functional
themes,
a
change
meant
to
encourage
a
tighter
marriage
among
technologies
as
competitors
like
Apple
and
Google

5. outflank
it
in
the
mobile
and
Internet
markets.
“To
execute,
we’ve
got
to
move
from
multiple
Microsofts
to
one
Microsoft,”
Steven
A.
Ballmer,
the
longtime
chief
executive,
said
in
an
interview.

6. The
notion
of
organizing
the
company
around
the
trinity
of
modern
technology
products
—
software,
hardware
and
services
—
is
most
famously
used
by
Apple.
It
is
yet
another
sign
of
how
deeply

7. Apple’s
way
of
doing
things
has
seeped
into
every
pore
of
the
technology
industry.
And
in
the
process,
some
of
the
biggest
technology
companies
are
starting
to
look
much
more
alike

8. organizationally.
The
goal
is
to
get
thousands
of
employees
to
collaborate
more
closely,
to
avoid
some
duplication
and,
as
a
result,
to
build
their
products
to
work
more
harmoniously
together.
“The
current

9. model
is
obviously
Apple,
given
how
phenomenally
successful
they
have
been,”
said
Kevin
Werbach,
an
associate
professor
of
business
at
the
Wharton
School
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
“What
Apple
has
been
great
at

10. is
creating
these
experiences.”
The
changes
at
Microsoft,
a
giant
in
the
tech
industry
for
decades
that
has
stalled
in
the
last
few
years,
echo
similar
moves
at
its
biggest
rivals,
including

11. some
tweaking
at
Apple.
Craig
Federighi,
who
led
the
development
of
Apple’s
operating
system
for
computers,
was
also
given
oversight
of
much
of
the
operating
system
for
iPhones
and
iPads.
Jonathan
Ive,
the
industrial

12. designer
behind
the
slick
look
of
Apple
hardware,
took
charge
of
the
interface
of
Apple
software.
At
Google,
the
development
of
operating
systems
for
mobile
devices
and
computers
was
put
into
the
hands
of

13. a
single
executive,
Sundar
Pichai,
rather
than
two.
Microsoft
said
on
Thursday
that
it,
too,
would
consolidate
its
major
operating
systems,
including
Windows,
Windows
Phone
and
the
software
that
powers
the

14. Xbox,
under
Terry
Myerson,
who
handled
engineering
only
for
Windows
Phone
before.
The
underlying
goal
is
to
create
software
with
tighter
linkages
to
power
an
array
of
devices,
making
it
easier
for
people
to

15. use
their
smartphones,
tablets
and
game
consoles
as
adjuncts
to
one
another.
But
Microsoft’s
charges
are
far
more
sweeping
and
involve
many
more
people.
“This
is,
in
my
mind,
the
biggest

16. thing
we’ve
ever
done,”
said
Lisa
Brummel,
a
24-­‐year
Microsoft
veteran
who
leads
its
human
resources
department,
noting
that
the
company
has
nearly
100,000
employees.
It
remains
to
be
seen
whether
more

17. cohesive
teamwork,
if
that
is
what
results
from
all
the
movement,
will
offer
the
spark
that
has
been
missing
recently
from
so
many
of
Microsoft’s
products.
The
company
remains
one
of
the
most
lucrative

18. enterprises
on
the
planet,
with
nearly
$17
billion
in
profit
during
its
last
fiscal
year
on
$73.7
billion
in
revenue.
But
it
has
been
widely
faulted
for
being
late
with
compelling
products
in
two

19. lucrative
categories,
smartphones
and
tablets.
Its
Bing
search
engine
is
a
distant
second
to
Google
and
loses
billions
of
dollars
a
year
for
Microsoft.
Rivalries
among
the
Microsoft
divisions
have
built
up

20. over
time,
sometimes
resulting
in
needless
duplication
of
efforts.
Microsoft
managers
often
grumble
privately
that
one
of
the
most
dreaded
circumstances
at
the
company
is
having
to
“take
a
dependency”
on

21. another
group
for
a
piece
of
software,
placing
them
at
the
mercy
of
someone
else’s
development
schedule.
Product
development
groups
will
sometimes
go
to
great
lengths
to
avoid
this,
creating
software
like

22. e-­‐
mail
programs
that
duplicate
the
functions
of
other
products
at
Microsoft.
While
its
old
divisions
all
had
their
own
finance
and
marketing
organizations,
Microsoft
is
now
centralizing
those
functions.
Bill
Whyman,

23. an
analyst
at
the
ISI
Group,
said
Microsoft’s
promise
to
make
all
of
its
technologies
work
better
together
would
be
challenging
given
the
sheer
breadth
of
its
product
portfolio,
which
covers
corporate
and
consumer

24. products.
“That
sounds
right
but
it’s
really,
really
hard
to
do,”
Mr.
Whyman
said.
“Maybe
Apple
does
it
with
the
iPhone
ecosystem.
Microsoft
is
proposing
to
do
it
over
a
much
broader

25. set
of
customer
applications
and
uses.”
Amazon
has
already
been
trying.
It
has
become
a
major
player
in
devices,
with
its
Kindle
family
of
e-­‐
readers
and
tablets.
Google
tiptoed
into
hardware

26. production
with
products
like
the
Chromebook
Pixel
laptop
and
Google
Glass,
as
well
as
the
failed
Nexus
Q
for
streaming
media.
And
Google’s
boldest
and
riskiest
move
in
hardware
was
spending
$12.5
billion
to

27. buy
Motorola
Mobility.
The
focus
on
the
full
suite
of
offerings
has
led
several
companies
to
rethink
how
they
are
organized.
When
Larry
Page,
Google
co-­‐founder,
took
over
as
chief
executive
in

28. 2011,
he
shook
things
up
at
the
search
company,
whose
structure
had
become
bloated
and
labyrinthine.
To
help
the
company
move
faster,
Mr.
Page
centralized
decision-­‐making
power
with
him,
eliminating
Google’s
former
triumvirate
of

29. equal
decision
makers
at
the
top.
Michael
A.
Cusumano,
a
professor
at
the
Sloan
School
of
Management
at
the
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
said
revamping
an
organization’s
structure
tended
to
provide

30. only
temporary
remedies.
“I
never
take
these
reorganizations
too
seriously,”
said
Mr.
Cusumano.
“Almost
any
reorganization
is
designed
to
solve
current
problems
people
see.
Over
time,
other
problems
come
up.”

31. Perhaps
the
most
pressing
issue
facing
Microsoft
now
is
the
decline
of
personal
computers.
Most
of
the
company’s
revenue
rests
on
the
personal
computer
business,
in
one
form
or
another,
and
that
market
is

32. mired
in
a
brutal
slump
—
one
that
Windows
8,
the
new
tablet-­‐friendly
operating
system
Microsoft
released
last
year,
failed
to
reverse.
This
week,
Gartner,
the
research
firm,
said
second-­‐quarter
PC
shipments
fell

33. 10.9
percent
from
a
year
before.
“This
organization
does
not
answer
the
following
question:
What
happens
to
Microsoft
if
PC
shipments
continue
to
go
down?”
asked
Jean-­‐Louis
Gassée,
a
venture
capitalist
and

34. former
Apple
executive,
referring
to
Microsoft’s
new
structure.
Other
maturing
technology
companies
have
successfully
responded
to
challenges
in
their
businesses.
In
2004,
I.B.M.
made
a
pivotal
decision
to
exit
the
personal

35. computer
business
to
focus
on
corporate
technology
services.
With
its
revamping,
Microsoft
did
not
announce
plans
to
leave
any
businesses.
One
of
Microsoft’s
biggest
changes
is
the
creation
of
the
devices
and

36. studio
group,
headed
by
Julie
Larson-­‐Green,
which
will
oversee
the
development
of
Xbox
hardware,
the
Surface
family
of
tablet
computers,
hardware
accessories
and
games.
Mr.
Ballmer
did
not
say
what
other

37. devices
Microsoft
might
make
in
the
future,
but
he
hinted
in
an
interview
conducted
over
Skype
that
Microsoft
could
play
a
role
in
the
development
of
technologies
that
make
videoconferencing
feel
more
natural,
allowing

38. participants
to
make
eye
contact.
“It
takes
evolution
in
the
physical
form
factors.
It
takes
evolution
in
the
software,
in
the
services,”
Mr.
Ballmer
said.
Qi
Lu,
the
head

39. of
Bing
and
Microsoft’s
other
Internet
initiatives,
will
take
over
a
new
applications
group
and
oversee
the
company’s
lucrative
Office
franchise
and
Skype.
Satya
Nadella,
as
the
head
of
the
new
cloud
and
enterprise

40. group,
will
manage
the
network
of
data
centers
that
power
all
of
Microsoft’s
online
services,
in
addition
to
Windows
Azure,
the
cloud
service
he
has
been
running
for
some
time.

41. “It’s
not
like
our
old
structure
didn’t
allow
us
to
do
some
of
this,”
Mr.
Nadella
said.
“The
question
is
whether
you
can
amplify.”
Claire
Cain
Miller
contributed
reporting
from
San
Francisco.

42. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/business/the-­‐challenge-
­‐of-­‐creating-­‐a-­‐unified-­‐organizational-­‐
strategy.html?src=recg&pagewanted=print
New
York
Times
July
11,
2013
The
Challenge
of
Creating
a
Unified
Organizational
Strategy
By
ADAM
BRYANT

43. IN
announcing
its
reorganization
on
Thursday,
Microsoft
provided
a
stark
reminder
of
a
leadership
challenge
that
all
chief
executives
face:
How
do
you
get
everyone
to
think
in
terms
of
“Us”
—
we’re
all

44. on
the
same
team
—
rather
than
thinking
of
colleagues
in
other
divisions
as
“Them”?
To
be
clear,
it
is
hard
to
do.
The
default
behavior
for
human
beings
is
to
think
in

45. terms
of
tribes.
If
you
work
in
a
small
department
in
a
big
company,
you’re
naturally
going
to
identify
most
closely
with
your
immediate
colleagues.
You’ll
have
lunch
or
coffee
together,
and
maybe
even

46. socialize
with
them
outside
the
office.
Other
colleagues
you
see
in
the
hallway
and
on
the
elevator
can
seem
like
total
strangers,
even
though
you
work
for
the
same
company.
Divisions

47. fighting
for
resources
and
attention
can
exacerbate
the
problem.
It’s
a
theme
that
has
come
up
often
in
my
interviews
with
more
than
200
leaders
for
my
column,
Corner
Office,
and

48. smart
leaders
recognize
that
us-­‐versus-­‐them
behavior
can
ultimately
destroy
companies.
So
what
should
leaders
do?
A
few
tips
have
emerged
from
my
interviews.
Create
a
‘One
Company’
Culture

49. Symbolism
is
important,
in
both
the
language
that
leaders
use
and
the
organizational
chart
they
create.
Here’s
how
Kathleen
L.
Flanagan,
the
chief
executive
of
Abt
Associates,
tackled
the
issue.

50. “We’ve
grown
from
$180
million
in
annual
revenue
a
few
years
ago
to
$425
million
today.
As
the
company
grew,
more
business
units
were
created,
and
so
we
had
more
silos
in
the
organization.

51. My
objective
two
years
ago
in
coming
into
this
job
was
to
take
down
the
silos.
So
I
reorganized
the
company.
It
used
to
be
organized
around
lines
of
business
—
international,
U.S.-­‐based,
data

52. collection
—
and
there
used
to
be
senior
vice
presidents
who
led
each
of
those
big
businesses.
I
took
those
senior
V.P.
positions
away
and
hired
one
executive
vice
president
for
global
business
who

53. shared
my
vision
for
what
I
call
One
Global
Abt.
At
the
heart
of
that
is
taking
down
the
walls
so
people
can
collaborate
more
freely,
so
that
we
can
leverage

54. all
of
Abt.
We
now
ask
people
to
pick
their
heads
up
out
of
their
project
work
or
their
division
focus
and
look
across
the
whole
company.
So
I
now
ask
my
managers
to
wear

55. two
hats.
Everybody’s
got
their
job
in
the
big
picture
of
the
company,
but
they
all
have
to
wear
an
Abt
hat.
It’s
really
easy,
given
the
time
pressures
and
the
pace
of
our

56. work,
to
put
blinders
on
and
be
very
project-­‐focused.
It’s
harder
to
take
a
step
back
and
ask,
“How
does
this
apply
to
the
whole
company?”
Simplify
the
Scoreboard

57. A
big
part
of
a
leader’s
job
is
to
establish
a
simple
set
of
performance
metrics
so
that
everyone
in
the
company
can
feel
as
if
they’re
part
of
a
broader
team,
and
can
understand

58. how
the
work
they
do
contributes
to
the
broader
goals.
Chief
executives
have
to
choose
those
metrics
carefully
because,
as
the
saying
goes,
what
gets
measured
gets
managed.
A
powerful
example

59. of
this
came
from
Shivan
S.
Subramaniam,
the
chief
executive
of
FM
Global,
a
commercial
and
industrial
property
insurer,
who
shared
with
me
how
his
team
worked
hard
to
develop
very
simple
goals.

60. “We
call
them
key
result
areas,
or
K.R.A.’s.
We’re
multinational
—
we’ve
got
5,100
people,
1,800
of
whom
are
engineers.
We’re
very
analytical.
But
we
have
three
K.R.A.’s,
nothing
terribly
fancy.
And

61. everybody
focuses
on
them.
One
is
on
profitability.
One
is
on
retention
of
existing
clients.
And
one
is
on
attracting
new
clients.
That’s
it.
You
can
talk
to
people
in

62. San
Francisco,
Sydney
or
Singapore,
and
they’ll
know
what
the
three
K.R.A.’s
are.
All
of
our
incentive
plans
are
designed
around
our
K.R.A.’s,
and
every
one
of
those
K.R.A.’s
is
very
transparent.
Our
employees

63. know
how
we’re
doing.
And,
most
importantly,
they
understand
them,
whether
they’re
the
most
senior
manager
or
a
file
clerk,
so
they
know
that
‘If
I
do
this,
it
helps
this
K.R.A.
in
this

64. manner.’”
Communicate
Relentlessly
to
the
Entire
Staff
There’s
a
reason
that
so
many
companies
hold
regular
all-­‐hands
meetings
(and
with
technology,
it’s
possible
to
do
them
in
large
and

65. sprawling
companies
now).
Again,
it’s
about
tribal
behavior.
You
have
to
bring
everybody
together
and
speak
to
everyone
as
a
group
for
people
to
identify
themselves
with
the
broadest
group.
Leaders
then
have
to

66. take
their
simple
plan
and
hammer
it
home,
again
and
again,
even
if
they
feel
like
everybody
has
heard
it
before
a
hundred
times.
It’s
a
lesson
that
Christopher
J.
Nassetta,
the

67. Hilton
Worldwide
chief,
told
me
that
he
learned
over
time.
“You
have
to
be
careful
as
a
leader,
particularly
of
a
big
organization.
You
can
find
yourself
communicating
the
same
thing
so

68. many
times
that
you
get
tired
of
hearing
it.
And
so
you
might
alter
how
you
say
it,
or
shorthand
it,
because
you
have
literally
said
it
so
many
times
that
you
think
nobody

69. else
on
earth
could
want
to
hear
this.
But
you
can’t
stop.
In
my
case,
there
are
300,000
people
who
need
to
hear
it,
and
I
can’t
say
it
enough.
So
what
might
sound
mundane

70. and
like
old
news
to
me
isn’t
for
a
lot
of
other
people.
That
is
an
important
lesson
I
learned
as
I
worked
in
bigger
organizations.”
Steve
Ballmer’s
challenge
as
the
chief

71. executive
of
Microsoft
is
not
unlike
the
challenge
that
it
faces
with
technology:
how
to
take
something
very
complicated
—
be
it
a
software
program
or
a
sprawling
organizational
chart
—
and
make
it

72. simple
to
operate.
This
may
be
the
toughest
task
of
his
career.
Adam
Bryant
writes
the
Corner
Office
column,
which
appears
on
Fridays
and
Sundays.