Since there's discussion on management, I guess I can share a bit of insight - having followed Sony's side for a while and having some friends working there...
There's really no way to know which companies are 'best managed' - at a macro-level, the fact that we don't hear management nightmare stories and that all companies have generally been solid performers at their core markets in good times and bad, means that there's no major problems at a high-level. Individually, how different parts of the business compare to each other? We won't know. Hell, even they would struggle to know how much better/worse their immediate competition is because not everything is run similarly. Different businesses have different practices, level of focus, etc - literally dependant on business strategies and scope. For example, I'm aware that Sony internally has resources dedicated to support of backward compatability, but unlike Xbox's BC team which is focused on a B2C ( business-to-consumer ) approach, thus needing a big team of testers to do a lot of internal testing on their own because they support the service as a front-end aspect of Xbox, for Sony - BC on PS4 right now is via a B2B-approach, where they work with publishers to offer/support BC as a back-end approach so that devs and pubs can 're-release' those games on PS4, not as a 'BC' game but literally as a new release that employs the feature within the PS4. That is literally a difference of B2B and B2C function within 2 separate organisations.
Each company has their own approaches to management, some better and some worse than each other.
For example, from a retail-global network side, Sony is easily the best managed by far. They have the broadest outreach, the widest distribution network that is not just outsourced to a regional distributor, and in the past few years, have built the strongest presence in markets in India, Middle East, East Asia, etc. If there was any reason Jim Ryan was promoted to head of Sony, it's because of his efforts to build up Playstation in the Middle East there. And that effort comes from a lot of things we don't see. Strong distributor/partner building, localisation for languages like Arabic/Korean/Chinese/etc, dedicated and local level PSN infrastructure for these countries. ( Xbox Live and Nintendo Online are not available at many smaller countries )
A long-time strength of Sony's has been how they were able to focus their business at a region-by-region level and cater their strengths unique to the individual market, both at the marketing side and even third-party relations. Things like China Hero Project, where Sony actively supports Chinese games to be released locally and globally are a SIEC-focused initiative, and not some sort of major global programme from Sony. Sony Taiwan and Korea have an in-house localisation team that supports localisation for not just first-party games, but outreached for games like Cold Steel 2, MGSV and some other projects I can't recall off the top of my head. And Asia has only grown to become a huge part of the Japanese games market where so many games are now day-and-date with Chinese and Korean language support, especially SEGA.
A lot of these stuff, you don't really see it, especially if you're outside of the Asian and Middle Eastern gaming scene.
On the negative side, it does mean Sony isn't as globally synergised, or have like very distinct global planning deployment across everything. It's why PSN Store is so disjointed, why there's mixed messaging across different Sony divisions, etc etc.
