"People are fundamentally lazy and we need to do X to make them work"

vs.

"People are fundamentally awesome and will work hard if we can remove obstacles and demotivators."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_Theory_Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Microsoft

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-dow...

"“Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees,” [Kurt] Eichenwald writes."

http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2012/08/microsoft-lost-mo...

I don't believe I've read the second one, but it expands on the corporate culture that required someone's official failure for you to survive:

"In those years [when it failed] Microsoft had stepped up its efforts to cripple competitors, but—because of a series of astonishingly foolish management decisions—the competitors being crippled were often co-workers at Microsoft, instead of other companies. Staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed. As a result, the company was consumed by an endless series of internal knife fights. Potential market-busting businesses—such as e-book and smartphone technology—were killed, derailed, or delayed amid bickering and power plays.

The blog appeared 8 years before those articles.

I think any management practice that would have ensured something like the original Macintosh team couldn't be assembled is bad.