这是谷奥上的一篇译文，写的很不错，转过来和大家分享。英文原文附在最后。

本文为《True North: Discover Your Authentic Leadership》一书作者 之一Peter Sims所 写。

在4月底，JP摩根邀请我参加一个“思想领导者聚餐”来讨论最近硅谷和数字媒体的事情。在旧金山Kokkari饭馆的私人包间里坐了有20来人，有 来自著名VP公司、成功企业家和JP摩根的一帮人，JP摩根的副总裁Jimmy Lee坐在龙头老大位置。

在干了几杯之后，Jimmy开始了他想说的话题：“我想知道你们都是怎么想的，你们会长期持有哪个公司的股票，而哪家公司是短期的？”于是我们开始 写下自己的答案，很多人在长期票名单上都写了Yahoo!和Amazon，而15位思想领导者里的12位则将短命票都投给了Google。Jimmy惊呼 到：“我的佛祖，上帝，以及老天爷呀！你们这是谷黑大聚会吗？”

我当然也被震惊了。Google毕竟是一家在最近非常成功的公司（不管是成长率还是收入），他们有一个受人尊敬的CEO Eric Schmidt，还有很多人写书（这本和这本）说为什么每个人都应该变得更Google。我个人也佩服Google和他们的人，他们已经完成了很多壮 举，但这间屋子里的人们的想法并不是基于一个公司过去成绩的，而是Google的未来前景。下面就是人们看衰Google的一些原因：

1.Google已经经历了过去几年严重的人才流失，丧失最初的创业者和一些创新人才。

尽管Google的人才保留率很高，但人才的挑战不是看数量的，而是离职人们的类型和他们离开的原因。屋子里的VC们都同意Facebook和 Zynga是目前硅谷最炙手可热的，最近不少从Google出去的人基本都去了Facebook，包括Android高级产品经理Erick Tseng。

知情人士说，Google公司的早期创新文化已经被慢慢取代了，创业型和思想领导者都在挪窝，人们甚至说Google让其想到了2004-2005 年间的Yahoo，已经不是他们加入时那种任人唯贤的公司了。

2.Google已经失去了简单的发展机遇，现在必须找到新的大块收入源。

对于核心搜索业务，Google有必要豪赌一把，尽管移动搜索的增速很快，但它的份额依然很小。Google现在跟个疯狗似的寻找各种增长点，因为 他们知道移动并不是个出路。最近花7亿美元收购ITA就是个挥动魔法棒寻找大赌注的例子。Google必须找到越来越大的收入源来保证增 长率，创新研究专家Clayton Christensen在《The Innovators Solution》已经指出了这个问题，你还可以参考Jim Collins的《How the Mighty Fall》。

3.Google缺乏连贯性的策略，特别在移动方面。

CEO Schmidt和其他Google高管一直强调移动是未来增长的核心，而当晚到场的很多人对Google在移动方面的努力则有自己的一套观点。他们争辩说 还需要很久才能看到新的一直在增长的移动收入，特别是在AdMob被收购后市场上就没有可观的收购对象的时候，不过最近对ITA的收购表现出Google开始押注一些中型收购。

4.人！人！人！

Google以工程师为主导的文化大家都很熟悉了，但是Peter Drucker在《Innovation and Entrepreneurship》一书里指出，成功的创新者看全貌，而他们只看人。Google一直都只招聘符合他们特定要求的一群 人。

比如说产品经理的候选人被告知他们必须具备顶尖大学的计算机科学学位。但尽管Google的核心算法出自冰雪聪明的工程师创新，但能否拧成一股绳才 是公司持续发展的关键。这种类似饼干模子似的招聘规矩使他们拒绝了多样性，并为非工程师制造了升职限制，导致创新的缺失。文化上的傲慢是Jim Collins最关注的问题。人们还总是说，在Google的工程师主导了工程和产品，甚至是市场上的决定。比如Google Radio和Google Wave这类失败的东西，批评者通常会质疑Google公司是否真正了解人们的需求。

总结：

对于以上这些问题，也许熟悉硅谷的观察家会问：Google会成为下一个微软吗？没错，微软的先驱者有主导市场的操作系统和Office软件，跟 Google革命性的搜索类似。但除了XBOX，微软很难做出新的创新，其实这就是高度成功下所隐藏的深度文化问题。

有一件事可以肯定：现在是Google的关键时刻。如果他们不想将这些问题摆到桌面上解决，衰歌合唱团人数将增加。但手里堆成山的现金、得到出色人 才并解决以上提到的问题，还是有机会。

Google 是否有成为下一个微软的风险？

Via TechCrunch

英文原文;

Is Google at Risk of Becoming the Next Microsoft?

In late April, JP Morgan invited me to a “thought leaders dinner” to discuss the latest goings on in Silicon Valley and digital media. In a private room at the swanky San Francisco restaurant Kokkari, there were about 20 of us seated around a long rectangular table, including venture capitalists from prominent firms, highly successful entrepreneurs, and a handful of people from J.P. Morgan, including Jimmy Lee, the firm’s well-known Vice Chairman, who sat at the head of the table. (I was, like Kevin Costner’s character in Bull Durham Crash Davis, “the player to be named later.”)

Anyhow, after about an hour and a few glasses wine, Jimmy raised the main question he was curious about: “I want to know from each of you: which company would you go long on and which would you short?” We could pick any timeframe. And, as it turned out, while the long picks varied widely from Amazon to Yahoo!, 12 of the 15 ‘thought leaders’ shorted Google. Jimmy was surprised, virtually astounded: “Wow!” he exclaimed, “You guys are really negative on Google, huh?”

I, too, was surprised. Google has been, after all, the most successful company in recent history (in terms of churning out growth and profits), led by Eric Schmidt, a well-respected CEO. And, we’ve seen book after book about why everyone should be more like Google. I admire Google, its people, and what they have been able to accomplish enormously. It’s astonishing. But the opinions in that room were not based on the company’s past performance. They were based on insights about Google’s future. Below are the reasons people cited for shorting the company (which, interestingly, were fairly diverse):

• Google has experienced a severe talent drain over the past several years, losing some of its most entrepreneurial and innovative people. Although Google’s has high retention rates, Google’s talent challenge is not in terms of numbers, it’s the type of people who are leaving and why they are leaving. The talent drain from Google has been well documented. Venture capitalists in the room (without a vested interest in the companies) argued that Facebook and Zynga are currently considered hot places to work in Silicon Valley. Google has, for example, seen a stream of people leave for Facebook including, more recently, the likes of Erick Tseng, the senior product manager of Android, Google’s critically important mobile initiative.

  People close go Google say upward management is slowly replacing the company’s early culture of innovation. Entrepreneurial types and thought leaders who feel confined or unmotivated are moving. People will even say that it reminds them of Yahoo back in 2004-2005, not the meritocracy they once joined.

• The company has run out of easy growth opportunities and must now find big chunks of new revenue. With the core search business maturing, Google increasingly seems to increasingly feel the need to make some “big bets.” That is a problem that maturing companies face that CEOs call “the tyranny of large numbers.” Even mobile search, which is seeing impressive growth numbers of a small base, is still too small to make a material difference for the company. The company is obviously trying like crazy to find growth pockets, knowing that mobile is a ways off. The recent $700 million ITA acquisition is a great case in point of how it is going to spread out some medium-sized to big-bets to see what sticks. That is, companies must find bigger and bigger chunks of revenue to maintain growth rates. This problem is documented well by innovation researchers Professor Clayton Christensen in The Innovators Solution, and Jim Collins in How the Mighty Fall.
• The company lacks a coherent strategy, especially in mobile. As Schmidt and other Google execs have stated, mobile is core to future growth. A number of people around the table that night had unique insight into Google’s mobile efforts. They argued that growing nascent mobile revenues will take significant time, especially since there aren’t many sizable acquisition targets available in mobile after Google’s purchase of AdMob. Instead, the recent purchase of ITA Software was an indicator of how the company might make some medium to big bets to see what sticks.
• It’s about people, people, people. Google’s engineering-dominated culture isn’t news to anyone. But As Peter Drucker opined in his landmark book Innovation and Entrepreneurship, “Successful innovators…look at figures, and they look at people.” The company has long recruited people who fit a very specific profile.

Product manager candidates, for example, are told they must have computer science degrees from top universities. But while Google’s core algorithm was a brilliant feat of engineering innovation, a growing chorus of voices question whether it can be sustained. That cookie-cutter approach to people misses important opportunities for diversity and creates glass ceilings for non-engineers, both of which stifle innovation. Cultural hubris, another pattern Jim Collins in particular raises, is of foremost concern. It is often said that at Google the engineers lead engineering, product, and even marketing decisions. But when the company has failed, such as with Google Wave or Google Radio, critics have questioned whether the company really understands people.

For these reasons and more, perhaps the question that “in the know” Silicon Valley observers are now increasingly asking is: Could Google be the next Microsoft? That is, much like Google revolutionized search, Microsoft was a pioneer with its market-dominating operating systems and Microsoft Office. But outside the Xbox, Microsoft has struggled severely to produce new innovations. Deeper cultural problems were hidden by amazing performance and success.

One thing is for certain: it’s a pivotal time in Google’s history. If the company does not put these types of issues on the table, the chorus of short sellers will increase. But with mountains of cash, access to great people and big problems, I see the moment as an opportunity. It’s a chance to reflect, ask some tough questions, openly discuss the challenges, and incorporate some fresh thinking and people, so that this great symbol of global innovation can evolve and grow.

What do you think—are you long or short? Is Google at risk of becoming the next Microsoft or on the verge of a creative explosion?