The Good Manager, etc, etc, ...
More Constructive, Less Destructive: Happy 2007. As a direct result of me wading too much through in the negative comments on InsideMS, I have been feeling the need to start the year focused on positive changes:
- How do you call out the people (especially good managers) doing a great job to ensure they are successful?
- How do you succeed at Microsoft by navigating the culture and systems to get the best job done for our customers & shareholders?
- What waste do we have that we can eliminate to be more effective?
- What new initiatives are succeeding and which ones should we pull the plug on sooner than later, where later usually means we're out a billion or more dollars?
Now, sure, if something bad happens I'll put my jesters hat on and snark away, musing accountability and such. But I want to at least start the year focusing on win-win, especially given that we finally have Vista behind us and the company is in the middle of change.
The Good Manager: as most Microsofties will tell you, Microsoft has bad managers. Usually poor schleps who were great individual contributors and found themselves, either through organizational need or career-advancement want, in a management position that just isn't a good fit for them. While the front-line folks aren't exactly grabbing the torches and pitchforks to mob the hallways looking for violators of work-place dignity and work-life-balance, there does seem to be a general consensus that we're overburden with a significant number of bad managers. And right now, I am worried that becoming a manager is going to become a dumber and dumber decision if it becomes the monster all the villagers want to kill. Usually, this killing is by ever increasing inane process and mandatory training.
So let's say you either fire the bad managers or get them back on the team-member individual-contributor track (or sprinkle them with pixie dust to make them good managers). What good have you done to prevent future bad managers? Is the next generation of managers going to be any better?
If you've got a good manager, you've got to shout it to the world. You've got to do your best to promote this manager and ensure this is the model of success you want to see spreading. When your manager does something great or important to your team, do you tell them? Most likely, no one else is going to. You appreciate knowing when you do something great, eh? Now, I know, you can wallow in the cynical mindset and say this is just kissing up and brown-nosing, but brief, effective feedback of what is working is good to hear. Positive feedback for positive change.
When I've let my managers (or up the chain) know in the past that they've done something well or positive for the team / product (or have done something to me that was really revelatory about how to execute exceptionally well), they really want to hear more and know why I feel that way and how it could be even more effective.
I think about the manager feedback coming up for the mid-year discussion. This is important stuff. If you have a good manager and want them to be successful and a model, don't just fill out the feedback clicking all the high-marks, but also fill in the text feedback as to why the manager has done such a good job, especially relating this to the competencies. This is how I do my best to ensure my great managers are on the leadership track. When good managers succeed, they provide an example of what it takes.
Be sure to include the alias of your manager in your written feedback versus pronouns lost in the roll-ups (because the roll-ups are read by the people who really count).
And while folks balk at providing tough, critical feedback for their bad manager out of fear of retribution, take time to replace the outright negative with giving constructive feedback on the key competencies that you see the manager needing to grow in. Again, with the manager's alias. This might make it clear that the manager is underperforming if there's a gap in performance over expectation and doesn't cloud your feedback with any sour-grapes. Keep the zingers for here or InsideMS.
Other ideas for growing and supporting the good managers and squeezing out - for good, as much as possible - the bad?
Other random going ons...
Five Things I Hate About You: Oh, Ms. Foley, no you didn't. One of the cool kids tagged me and my startled mental reaction was akin to spurting milk out mid-sip. OMG, P0N1ES! Sorry, though, I'm going to have to go with Mr. Macleod here. Dit and 'to. But I swear to you this promise: if Steven Sinofsky follows up with his five in public, so will I. In the meantime, I'm left pondering how it is that one of my five candidates to share overlaps with Frank Shaw so perfectly... in the other direction.
Zune: man, people went crazy and pressed the pause-button on civility when ripping into that poor Zune player. For some reason, it reminds me of the frenzy the press went over Howard Dean and that little scream. Anti-zune-yness even made Engadget and Gizmodo into overly biased Microsoft haters. I didn't buy a Zune, as much as I had intended. I got a little Sansa that does the job for me. When Zune adds sync over Wi-Fi and brings out a flash-based unit, I'll give it a hard look again. In the meantime, I think a positive-because-it's-so-negative result of Zune is that it added fire to the DRM debate, and whether we should start regretting how much of a DRM darling we've become. It's a complex situation, which I think we are unfortunately making more entangled than less.
Office Live: in the last post, a couple of commenters really ripped into Office Live for just plain not working well at all. I haven't used Office Live, and I realize the success of Office Live is pretty important to our future and for gaining share among small businesses. Joe Wilcox splashed some additional cold water Office Live's way: Why I Killed Office Live. Et tu, Joe? A comment from Richard on that page:
My experience has been very much the same. Advertised functionality missing. Programs to integrate that dont work. Customer Service people who send you to other customer service people.
The concept is fantastic. I had high hopes. I WANT it to work. To have a pivate and pulic network and share information across them is a great asset.
Perhaps Microsoft should give it to someone else to develop then buy it back later.
Sounds like the parts that aren't working are really sabotaging an otherwise great initiative. Hopefully those parts can be fixed quickly and Office Live will be praised rather than buried.
133 comments:
That "Office Live stuff":
Last fall while I was still a Microsoft employee, I foolishly accepted an invitation to one of those "getting to know you" lunches with an Office VP. After going around the table talking about ourselves, he went into a list of tasks that are next on our plates after we shipped. It was an impressive list, but it just didn't seem to match the trends I've been noticing outside in the real world. I already knew that I was not a good fit in Microsoft because after 10 years of hard work, I still didn't under stand that in Microsoft, it's not what the customer wants, it's what your manager wants (after all. he should have a better picture of what should be done, right?). I've been looking around and already had a feel of directions and skills other employers were looking for. Finally after a short pause, the VP said "Oh yeah, we have that Office Live stuff to think about." I realized at that point that Microsoft is not focused on the people who use the software, it's the people who hire the people who use the software (the controllers). I guess that makes sense but that is not where I want to focus my life on.
I really hope you can flush out the good managers and give them the credit they deserve. I left Microsoft the day after I discovered that every manager from my lead up through my GM was watching each others back and it is very impressive how they have their own goals turned into a science. My ex-manager knew that after reaching RTM there would be an exodous of good people. He cleverly turned it around to look like a program of cross-pollinating talent between departments which Microsoft supports (while at the same time promoting his 'shadows' so that they will stay around and support him). He will probably get a bonus for this from the GM that is watching his back. How do you beat this? I left to start my own business. I'm finally happy (poor, but very happy). My managers are probably thrilled I'm gone, so everyone is now happy. Unfortunately there are a lot of good people still there getting ready to leave because they want to be engineers, not players. Good luck Microsoft.
Mini, your spiel on managers reminded me of a naive Glenda the good witch talking about the wicked witch of the west as if she was a victim of bad spinich.
From my thirty year vantage point of dealing with tech managers (outside MS) I would say you asked the wrong question in your quest for better management at Microsoft. It is not a question of management, but a question of wisdom behind the vision that created the framework in which they work and the vision that decided which products to build and the vision which put Microsoft where it is today. Those are the ones who need to be walked out the door with no severance. Get the vision right and the rest will follow.
Meanwhile the next ten years are going be be spent cleaning up the mess the last visionaries at Microsoft left.
The Zune got a lot of bad reviews? The original iPod was torn apart by a lot of people in the early days, but survived because it had fundamental strengths - all the marketing in the world wouldn't have made it so big if it wasn't actually a great product.
If the Zune has strengths of its own, it'll last. If not, it never deserved to.
It's not looking so hot right now though.
Here's my constructive suggestion for 2007.
Be on time!
This is something that's always bothered me since day one (for me, a long time ago). There's a constant sense of urgency, but never a sense of punctuality.
I think I can count the number of meetings that have started on time on one amputated stump. People just don't care about:
a) being on time for a meeting (or other scheduled obligation)
b) delivering what they said when they said they would
In fact, the presumption is that if you DO deliver on time or show up to a meeting on time, you obviously don't have enough to do or you would be late (like all the other busy people).
Ummmm and Vista was late because why, everyone was too busy? What's wrong with this picture?
Seriously, the sense of punctuality that is demonstrated at the micro (e.g. the meeting) level is reflected at the macro level. Maybe if we all showed up to meetings on time, software could be delivered on time? (what a novel idea). This wouldn't happen because of some sudden attraction to anal-retentive behavior, but from the clear and present message that the company wants to deliver on time whether it's your notes at a meeting or a major OS release.
Anyway, enough with the throwing of stones. From now on, my new-year's resolution is to be on time and start the meeting when it's scheduled. When I hear "Let's just wait a few more minutes before we get started..." I'm going to ask, "Why we should hold everything up for someone who can't plan their schedule better?"
I know that I would not be a good lead/manager at MSFT. I just can't drink that much Kool-Aid. Knowing this, I would never accept an offer for a role change to a lead, and this will probably limit my career.
I do feel I can be a good lead/manger. Just not at this company. Too much political BS. I have been a lead at other places I have worked, and enjoyed it. I like being able to help less experienced individuals reach their potential.
"What is a good manager?" the pervasive question that lately seems to rank up there with "What is the meaning of life?" at MSFT. Is it BillG? SteveB? Sinofsky (SP)? KJ? KT? Jack Welch? Steve Jobs? How about those Google folks? Answer - none of the above. A good manager is a unique definition at any company. Granted there's a solid foundation that applies across the board, but to move a company into greatness requires a certain something that is unique to each company.
Our problem is we reward individual uniqueness, the hero effect, hail Mary in overdrive - all those things that are rarely repeatable by any individual let along a trait you can seek out in a larger population and train others to emmulate. Because of this manager capability is the most varied skill set in the company.
So how do we reward "good managers"? First we need to come to a common framework for what is a good manager at MSFT and drive commitments around this. And these commitments must be held by SteveB on down - every single manager, no exceptions, no buddy-buddy wink wink go around the rules, no excuses, no kidding. For some reason we lack the guts to do this probably because most of our execs are really awful managers and they'd actually have to work hard and improve a skill to keep their job. But in reality it's that simple.
But since that is unlikely to happen, what is plan B or the grass roots approach? Yes, tell not just your manager when they do something good, tell their skip level manager. The skip level is the one you want to know about what worked that way your manager's manager can't brush off your comments. Also remember in manager feedback at MYR to be balanced. We get so overly focused on what needs improvement or is bad - these things are important and should be called out - but few people are truly awful at everything so make sure to include what you like in your manager. That way you know that behavior is likely to continue.
Also the new review model, changing roles guidelines, interview guidlines and other myMSFT things are key resources to improve manager effectiveness and shine a glaring spotlight on the bad managers. If your manager doesn't play by these new rules; doesn't adhere to these guidlines; doesn't pay attention to the team then you have an obligation to say something. Don't settle. Don't cower in the corner, hide under your desk, or shake in your shoes. Stand up, be counted and be heard. What's the worse that can happen? They can't fire you for providing feedback that aligns to company policy no matter how much they don't like what you're saying.
I could ramble on about this all day. My reality is I'm in an org that doesn't give a crap about its people. My VP flat out told me to forget about WHI and drive the numbers no matter what the collateral damage. But I just can't let it go. Yes, I'm paying a price for this short term, but long term it will pay off. And if not at MSFT then somewhere else. If anyone has ideas on how to thrive in furthering people management skills in an evironment that completely ingores and penalizes people who focus on it, then I'm all ears. I've provided lots of feedback, but with no movement.
Where are the comments on Inside MS?
I've been begging for someone to post the URL of the internal site for a while now... can someone please oblige or clear my misunderstanding that there is an internal site?
Thanks much!
Let me say this about "Office Live": it was a dumb idea when SimDesk poured 150 million bucks down that rathole, and it's even dumber for Microsoft to try to copy a would-be competitor that FAILED.
Read all about it: http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Virtudyne_0x3a__The_Founding.aspx
Okay, I'm curious. Overlpaps in the opposite direction? :)
"So let's say you either fire the bad managers or get them back on the team-member individual-contributor track (or sprinkle them with pixie dust to make them good managers). What good have you done to prevent future bad managers? Is the next generation of managers going to be any better?"
The very first thing to do is study the hiring and promotion process and find out why it is putting so many people into managerial positions who don't have the abilities to manage well. And then fix that process.
Alas, I think you would find a whole ball of worms here. One key one would be that Microsoft has expanded so rapidly that it didn't have enough good people to put in management positions so it puts lots of bad ones.
Another problem is that the bad managment goes all the way up the hierarchy, and higher level bad managers promote bad people below them, partly out of an inability to judge good management talent, partly because they know that good people would see how bad they are and fight them, partly because they are looking for people below them who are more interested in helping them play political games than in doing a good job.
Replacing bad management with good management in a corporation that has gone bad is a ten year project, and then only if the people at the very top make a real committment. Alas, that doesn't seem to have happened at MS yet, so I think the present plague of bad management is simply going to continue.
Regarding managers, less is more in my opinion, and I'm happy to say that I'm seeing some managers fall by the wayside in my org. I'd like to see more managers do some internal examination of whether they're really needed and voluntarily move on to other non-managerial opportunities, or resign.
Regarding Office Live, I have a site with them, and I can honestly say that it was an awful experience 8 months ago, and has improved quite a bit since then. If they continue to show improvement like this, I think it'll become a hit with small businesses. It ain't there yet, though.
Where are the comments on Inside MS?
Go to the MSW home page and search for InsideMS or InsideMS blog. I do believe it's one of the more popular searches, too. Each individual post has a wealth of comments.
Okay, I'm curious. Overlpaps in the opposite direction? :)
Let's just say it has to do with measurement of accuracy using the same implement... but no right to brag. B-)
Microsoft simply has too many (incapable) managers and too deep bureaucratic hierarchies. The company now runs on top-down political hierarchy instead of bottom-up engineering innovation.
The cure is to cut management layer in half (from 10~12 to 5~6 layers), restore 70% managers (those weak ones) to IC role, and truly recognize and reward the IC career path.
Mini, I applaud your positive spirit, but the rank and file can't fix the bad management problem because the rank and file don't
decide how payroll money is spend.
You get what you pay for, and Microsoft has bad managers because it isn't willing to pay for good ones. It is willing to pay for (as someone else put it) individual heroics. It's willing to pay for developers who can write a ton of complex code. And it's (sadly) willing to pay for butt-kissing weasels who maintain high-visibility of some sort.
We are up to our eyeballs in the things we're willing to pay for. We don't have much of the things we aren't willing to pay for.
Good management takes time. That's time the good manager doesn't get to spend writing code, or writing specs, or doing any other IC work. But at review time, IC work is what gets rewarded. The only thing that gets rewarded. That old saying that mangement is volunteer work at Microsoft - that's true. Couple that with the curve (which as you've noticed, hasn't gone away) and now Limited II, and attempting to be a good manager at Microsoft is insane. It's not just volunteer work, it a punishable offense.
Until that changes, I don't know what good saying "Kim's a great manager" will do...
Sorry if this starts off a little off-topic. I promise I'll get back around to it . . .
Disclosure: I'm a Microsoft alum. That means that a while ago I resigned and I'm at a startup now. No - I'm not going to name the startup 'cause I'm trying to be anonymous here (we've had *wonderful* response to our Craigslist ads here in Seattle in case anyone is looking, though).
At the startup I spend a lot of time intereviewing folks. The ones who impress me most are the ones who understand what career path they want and how my company can help them achieve that goal. Most people seem fairly clueless. Some have a vague idea. Others tell me that eventually they'd like to "get into management". Those people don't impress me at all. Sorry - this was the mostly off-topic rant.
I look for the ones who can not only perform their jobs (as described very vaguely for us - we're a startup), but also go beyond that and help grow our infrastructure, our culture, and everyone around them. That includes a willingness to grow their management. I don't mean "fiefdom building" I mean actually building the skills that managers need to overcome conflicts, help define goals, and be sure that their employees get a "fair shake", while still communicating to everyone a sense of the "bottom line".
I've also spent a little time helping write up our HR docs for ladder levels, our review system, and how feedback is treated.
Ah - now to how this might relate to Microsoft . . .
Make decent manager feedback a review goal. In the same way that an interview should be not just about *me* interviewing some candidate but also about the candidate figuring out whether or not I and my company are a good fit, review time also shouldn't be a one way street. At Microsoft, unfortunately for both me and for the company as a whole, I felt it was. Open things up a little. Make regular 1-1s about the manager as much as it is about the managed. Give regular, *frequent* feedback in both directions. Help build both people involved in that relationship.
IMHO, the manager-managed relationship is a little too one-way at Microsoft. This is seen in the way that manager feedback happens vs the way that employee reviews happen. You 'softies know what I mean. 'Nuff said.
Make everyone more accountable. Not just on an ongoing weekly basis but also at review time. You're not willing to blow that whistle? Limited. You can blow the whistle on your boss but don't want to help solve the problem? Limited 2 (whatever that means). You can work with your manager to help find and solve team (or 1-1) problems? Ok, so maybe "achieved". You get the idea . . .
One of my goals in my current capacity is to have everyone involved in not only managing their own careers and those of their direct employees, but also to have ICs helping their leads lead better. I can only hope it works.
I could only have wished that Microsoft had been so brave when I was there. Making the *whole* team strong becomes a non-zero sum game, IMHO.
See a problem? Step up and solve it.
Overwhelmed by heirarchy and HR constraints? Figure out how to change the system to help the company. LisaB is going to listen if you can propose a way to make Microsoft a leaner, meaner (less in-fighting?) machine. Especially if instead of mere bitching she hears how to change *process* to make measurable commitments for y'all. Just like nothing exists until it happens in email, no change can be real until it is measurable. (Again - IMHO.)
Good luck , everyone! And keep in mind that my company advertises on Craigslist here in Seattle if you want to be in a place that wants an environment like I've proposed.
Sorry for the anonymity. That's not really my bag. I just wanted any flame war over my comment to be about its content and not about me or my current employer.
Comment. Too. Long. Must. Stop . . .
Mini Said: “In the meantime, I think a positive-because-it's-so-negative result of Zune is that it added fire to the DRM debate, and whether we should start regretting how much of a DRM darling we've become.”
Thanks Mini for at least mentioning that. Oh, gee, there might be a problem with DRM. Ya think?
Putting DRM aside for a moment, what I am responding to here is more about how Zune has become the poster boy of the Softie of Microsoft Low Expectations. Here is why:
1. Branding. If Microsoft has not yet figured it out, its brand value does not extend beyond the OS and even there it is so frayed that it would be a good idea to re brand the company altogether. (Note, I am however not a brand consultant).
2. Me Too. It is clear Zune was a me-too-real-quick-before-Apple-gets-more-market-share response to the famous failed Play for Sure Initiative. Instead of careful and deliberate innovative improvement to the market, through its partner music player manufacturers, Microsoft chose to create two negatives hoping it would be a positive (carryover from high school Algebra?), i.e., its own low quality hardware entry and increased restriction on built in DRM.
3. The Design (ouch). As a designed entry into the player business, it is a big negative in every way: color, form, weight, performance, detail, overall `gotta have it’ factor, copy of a copy, and functional features, and did I say color? Apple has raised the bar of the design factor very high. Don’t jump in if you can’t swim.
4. A virtual squirt gun? The now famous Balmer `squirt manifesto’ where he describes the three day use of songs squirted to your friends was such a poorly conceived concept that it is absolutely astonishing that it even got past the brainstorm white board list of possible features. Just ask any kid if having a song squirted to him or her has any value at all if they can't keep the song. As a company, Microsoft has to consider that this kind of poor decision making is out of control.
5. Blind leading the Blind. From other products I have purchased with the Microsoft brand it is clear that Microsoft tends to market products rather than design them. My guess is Zune was not designed by MS but purchased as a proposal from a third party, but that is just a guess.
6. Softie of low expectations. All this adds up to a perception from the outside of a company that is a disaster in process. Like I said, Zune is a symbolic representation of the company at large, even though I am sure there are a lot of talented people at Microsoft.
Keeperplanet: bravo, well done.
In a sane world (or a properly-functioning corporation), Zune would mean an immediate pink slip for J Allard (at the very least).
A poster said: "The very first thing to do is study the hiring and promotion process and find out why it is putting so many people into managerial positions who don't have the abilities to manage well. And then fix that process."
Here's the latest example from our group. A young SDET with impressive academic credentials, on his first non-co-op job out of school, talked a good game. He was given control of a half dozen UI test monkey CSG, because he happened to be there when the manager decided someone should be responsible for them, and he was looking for any opportunities to advance. Unit test grew to be a couple dozen CSG, and he laid claim to all of them as the group grew. It was a power hungry newbie's dream come true.
He didn't really do anything with them beyond point out to everyone that if they required a CSG resource, they needed to come to him so that he could balance the workload. The CSGs rarely saw him, he didn't answer their emails, he referred to them insultingly when talking to other FTEs, the CSGs laughed about him behind his back. However, since they were CSGs, and he was FTE, and he was popular with the rest of the team who didn't want to cross him, his word is what management heard.
Management became sure that this kid was a Star Manager waiting to be annointed, because they never checked with the managed to see if he was really doing anything other than talking big about having responsibility, and offered him a lead role. He left, and last we heard was chasing his fortunes at some mobile startup now. Therefore he turned it down, but if it was not for someone elses' willingness to hire him, we'd have one more bad manager.
Interesting that the lack of feedback from those managed is once again a contributing factor. Words of wisdom from this: Please, managers-of-managers, before assuming that someone you've let handle a few resources would make a good manager, and this is true particularly if they have almost no experience in the work world, chat with some of those resources for a reality check to verify your conclusions before forging ahead with a promo.
The above is valid advice only if you're looking for a manager with real people skills and managerial ability. If you're looking for a game player, disregard, and hire people just like him to run your teams. The ICs will hate their love of game playing and lack of competence, and you're going to risk ship dates and quality bars, but they'll watch your back just fine, I'd bet on it.
RE:
By Anonymous, at Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:19:25 PM
Erm... here you go.
http://insidems
Microsoft has some of the worst first line managers I've ever seen in my career.
Giving these folks the power to guide someone else's career is a tragedy.
The term Microsoft Manager is an oxymoron ... these folks should be taken to the door, in droves. Yes, it's too bad that there is not an effective management review tool.
OT: I have come to the conclusion that Microsoft is genetically incapable of creating legible web content.
I was delighted to come upon the new corporate home page. I carefully read the letter about how earnestly they all worked to fix it. "Good," I thought, "because for at least ten years it's been the most confounding, baffling, infuriating corporate site I've ever visited."
It's mildly better. I'll concede that...except, it's not.
It's still incomprehensible, because (like all Microsoft corporate communications) it never talks in straight lines; you can FEEL the site's navigation feinting and fencing, trying desperately to figure out in advance what you're looking for, get it slightly wrong, and then get you there by means of the vaguest possible language and in the greatest number of steps while providing the least accesible basic roadmap money can buy.
Why can't this company make a good website? In 2007? It can't be that hard. I see lots of them, every day.
I have been wondering about something regarding management career track at Microsoft. These are the two things I commonly hear:
1) Management path allows one to get ahead (i.e. climb the ladder levels) faster. This encourages ICs to choose management path even though they have no passion to manage.
2) Management work is considered voluntary at Microsoft. Managers are rated based on their individual contributions during review.
#1 and #2 appear contradictory. If managers are rated on their individual contributions, as opposed to their management aptitude, why is it difficult for ICs to climb the ladder level as fast as managers?
I still don't understand will you people will get it.
Microsoft is no different from any other company. It is a company made of people who have families, houses, cars etc.
Once the millioniare money dried up for the non partners people started playing the game that happens at every company in the world.
Yes we make software but how can you possibly think people are not going to watch their back or the backs of people they like.
Stop bitching. Either get with the program or start your own company.
I'm 100% sure that any fortune 100 company you go to will be exactly the same.
The problem is you won't be able to identify the problem as easily.
I worked in a large company in 98 as a developer and made about $110k total compensation. My direct manager made $200k. My managers manager made about $300k. I know these numbers because I had friends on payroll who told me.
The point is the relationship between the have and have nots is the proportionaly the same at most companies. Also I later moved to another large company. This time I was the first level manager. After about 2 years my manager fell out of grace with the powers that be and he and I and 5 of my peers were all fired.
So be careful who you get to watch your back. It is not all it is cracked up to be.
I'm quite content being an individual contributor at MS. A little more money would be good but i'm happy.
Did you see the iPhone, what was Robbie Bach smoking when he commented about Apple not being capable?
All said and done, Microsoft's creative potential stinks, and that's why I quit last year after many years. Bach needs to be fired for just not seeing the truth.
Keeperplanet: nice summary. And while Microsoft tries to just barely catch up to the iPod with the Zune Apple announces the iPhone and jumps a couple of years past Microsoft. Given Microsoft's obsession with catching up to Apple (i.e the Garageband clone that wouldn't exist if Apple hadn't done it) I'm sure we'll see a poor iPhone clone by the end of 2008.
Whoa! I scanned thru the comments so far and I'm amazed at the general negativity of them all.
A few thoughts:
1) A number of the comments come from former employees. As a current employee of 10 years, I'm thinking that MSFT is doing better, and I like the positive spin that Mini is displaying.
2) I may be insulated since I'm coming off working as a Dev on the highly successful Office 2007, but I'm wondering if many of the complaints are coming from outside of the Office org (which seems to be doing well).
3) I think the Zune should be given a chance. My wife likes it better than her iPod. Sure, she isn't a gadget expert, and the lack of wi-fi capabilities suck, but the music service is very nice.
4) Microsoft still can still fix a lot (like the Windows org seems broken -- I'm disappointed with Vista). But at least there's work being done there.
C'mon folks, try saying the glass is half-full sometimes!
Anonymous at 1/9/2007 5:21:16 PM said: "My wife likes it better than her iPod" and "the music service is nice." That's the problem with Zune. You don't tell us it's awesome or even that you like it. It's just another music player. Considering the money and brain power at Microsoft's disposal it's pretty sad that Apple has nothing to worry about.
Now look at the iPhone, which was just announced. Apple obviously put a lot of effort into making it a very unique and innovative product. I want one after seeing the demo online and after seeing Apple's stock jump a bit today I'd say a lot of people are interested. Wouldn't it be nice if that buzz existed when Microsft released a product? Apple is just as "old" as Microsoft but they find a way to innovate in a way that gets people excited. I think we can all agree that the blame has to fall on management since there seems to be no vision. And when a company that should be the market leader seems to be faltering and becomes a follower, but management gets huge financial awards (i.e. almost $1 billion in 2006) the employees should get angry.
And before someone replies, "Just leave", I'd like to comment that some people don't have the flexibility to leave a job and take a position at a startup or start over at another company that might have the same issues. Some of us have families and other responsibilities that are far more important. Some of us also want Microsoft to succeed because we've invested a lot in the company and we know the potential is there. That's why we're posting on this blog.
Ahh, the iPhone. Just spent some time looking at that baby. Dang, Apple has just made the Zune more laughable than ever, and they've put years and years of Windows Mobile work into the dust bin of history.
This is innovation folks, innovation. Thinking of genuinely new ways of designing things, of getting things done, not just cramming ten pounds of Windows crap into a five pound mobile bag. Windows is like the parasite on innovation. It sucks the blood out of everything around Microsoft, because everything must adhere to it.
Office Live? Oy. I tried setting up a site for a friend the other day. Long story short: it didn't work. Longer story: the types of failures involved are grimmace inducing. Really, it's a catastrophe. A grand idea: give the small business a free web site!! Except that, ummmmm, it doesn't really work. Go to Office Live and read the forums, read about how people signed up months before and still don't have a site that works. Sad.
Anyway, it was startling to look at the iPhone, how Apple innovated on so many levels, how they put out something that just stops you in your tracks to say "Yes, they did it, they moved the ball down the field." Impressive as hell.
Now I gotta go pay a contractor to do some work that any half-wit at another company would do on their own.
1) Management path allows one to get ahead (i.e. climb the ladder levels) faster. This encourages ICs to choose management path even though they have no passion to manage.
2) Management work is considered voluntary at Microsoft. Managers are rated based on their individual contributions during review.
#1 and #2 appear contradictory. If managers are rated on their individual contributions, as opposed to their management aptitude, why is it difficult for ICs to climb the ladder level as fast as managers?
Being a manager is a feather in your cap and helps in getting a promotion. You have more visibility, more access to people, and more opportunities to impress the people that matter when review time comes along.
Doing actual people management work (developing people, coordinating schedules, removing obstacles, keeping a team focused and productive) is useless to your career however. It is not recognized as a valuable contribution, at least not one that is as valuable as writting a ton of code or writign vision docs or position papers and so forth.
So we have three typical MSFT managers.
Type 1 is The Incompetent Manager who, by being a good IC, got promoted to manager and tries to manage but simply has no talent for it. They mean well, but they really belong on an IC track. They occasionally make it to a 2nd level manager's job, but rarely go beyond that.
Type 2 is The Selfish Jerk who completely ignores their managerial responsibilities in order to focus on the IC work that will lead to their next promotion. These are the Empire Builders who consider the people reporting to them as status symbols. None of their team members have any idea what this person does all day, and may only see the person once or twice a week. They may or may not have any managerial skills, but no one can tell because they never try to use them. There is no limit to how high they might climb.
Type 3 is, to borrow Mini's title, The Good Manager, a.k.a. Limted II Kim. Kim was a good IC but, upon promotion to manager discovered the passion and skill for doing real management work. Kim puts effort into being a good manager, and typically has reports that are very happy and productive. At review time, Kim used to get a 3.5, maybe an occasional 4.0, but not very many promotions because, well, one of the ICs or one of the Type 2 Jerks did more of the work that MSFT rewards. Last year, The Good Manager probably got a LimitedII and next year will be gone, either left the company, left management, or sold out and became a Type 2 Jerk.
The good news: there is a group people inside MS who realize this is a problem that needs to be fixed.
The bad news: very few Partner's are in that group.
#1 and #2 appear contradictory. If managers are rated on their individual contributions, as opposed to their management aptitude, why is it difficult for ICs to climb the ladder level as fast as managers?
Two words come to mind: visibility and accountability.
Visibility: many ICs end up doing great work, but (unfortunately) don't get recognized outside of their group or other groups that have a dependency on that IC's output. Managers, by nature of their position, have output (collectively from their team, and their own) which "reverberates louder".
Accountability: An IC can cause a feature to be late or dropped. An manager can screw up a product or people's careers.
So Mini gets another step closer to his wish. I just gave my notice after 5 years here in MS. I have been a GPM< switched to IC and went back. As GPM I had a very hard time looking straight to the eyes of my guys and tell them “Do good job, the company will be better off and you will get paid better.” Too many times I have seen people getting up and more who shouldn’t. And even when I told myself I will not allow this, they were smart and got around me.
The changes are good, they are just too slow and life is too short.
In addition it was close to impossible to continue raising in the ranks beyond my level (64) without completely giving up on my family and friends – even now the travel was brutal and the hours were in the high 50s each week.
When MSFT get’s smaller, agile, aggressive etc. I may be back. I am somewhat confident that with my lifetime review score of 3.8 I can get back. For now it’s a startup world (I love working hard but want to lay hard as well and that’s what is missing in MS these days.) but I will miss the amazing people that make the core of MS.
Good luck guys
FACT: I have set up two (2) companies on Office Live.
FACT: With the exception of HotMail too slow and what I would call a "modest" learning curve, I have had zero (0) problems!
FACT: I changed and modified Premium databases.
FICTION: Microsofties, get your heads on straight. Criticize where critcism is due and provide FACTS where they are needed. If you have a problem with Office Live, give specifics and breadth of problem and let us be the judge of its inadequacies.
You're hurting the credibility of boondoggles such as Vista and Office.
Sometimes a picture can say a thousand words... I left 3 months ago and it's amazing how little people talk about MSFT in the tech industry... it makes you really realize how most MSFTees still think we are living in 1997.
http://gigaom.com/2007/01/09/apple-microsoft/#more-7822
"Anyway, it was startling to look at the iPhone, how Apple innovated on so many levels, how they put out something that just stops you in your tracks to say "Yes, they did it, they moved the ball down the field." Impressive as hell."
BTW, I have not directly seen the new Apple cell phone, music player and web browser in one except I have read most of the press and seen the pics. To me that is not innovation, just a logical extension of Apple's iPod momentum.
A couple of things about the `innovation'. Touch screens have been around forever. I implemented one for a Fluke 32 bit 5 1/4 in bubble memory instrument controller way back in 1978. Also, glass touch pads that activate with skin contact have also been around a very long time on microwave ovens. The technology was abandoned for cheaper crappier membrane touch panels you see today. Time will tell how the Apple technology holds up and to be honest, I am not sure which they used.
The idea of the screen as total I/O interface is also not new, nor is the concept of turning the screen into the device--that has been a long time coming and has been tried a few times over the years. Trust me when I say there is very little innovation, just excellent product definition and implementation of the interface, software, etc. The Apple buzz will do the rest.
Building such a device is not the lesson here. The lesson is in a combination of product vision, significant attention to detail and a robust concinnous relationship of all the intellectual and physical parts to work together, to make it happen. For example, there is almost zero negative for me when I put cd library on my iPod. No visible DRM layer even though it is there, and I will never download a locked format song. And when I use my Motorola RAZR it is a very pleasant experience, from web to calls to bluetooth to extended features like using it as a modem. Excellence in developing customer driven products, listening carefully to your customers and make it happen for them.
Microsoft has a different product development structure that makes it impossible to create a customer driven product because of the strategic organization that tends to leverage a marketing plan instead of just giving the customers what they want.
When I try to play a movie on my XP home wide screen HP notebook however, it is a nightmare. I have to assume that MS does not want me to play my movies on my HP notebook but instead it seems they want me to perhaps play my movie on a video player or maybe buy an XBOX (which I don't want) and so on. Not my plan but theirs. Because the problem has been apparent for many years now since the implementation of MS DRM. Something else for another post is going on. Hint: think of it as a Longhorn cattle drive at least thats what it feels like as a customer.
The problem for Microsoft is that those customers have long pointy horns.
all MSFT cares about is internal MSFT. there is no sense of the real world or how the compnay is percieved by consumers. thats not going to change. its become a company about culture, not about marketplace reality. a shame, because most front liners really do care.
Wow, it's been sevral months since I've actively viewed this blog and it seems like the same problems still exist.
I woul dguess that there would be some movement because of the internal "complaint" blog you guys have now.
I guess MS managers give a new meaning to "entrenched."
"All this adds up to a perception from the outside of a company that is a disaster in process. Like I said, Zune is a symbolic representation of the company at large, even though I am sure there are a lot of talented people at Microsoft."
Agree, and think the iPhone put the crowning touch on this.
Maybe I'm just dense, but I don't get the excitement over the iPhone.
I definitely give Apple credit that the UI is slick. Very slick. The larger screen size is also nice, but it's also physically larger in your pocket.
However, there is nothing that iPhone does that Windows Mobile doesn't do. I hated my first PocketPC phone with just a soft keyboard - so did everyone else I know. I love my Palm Treo 700W with QWERTY keyboard.
I listen to music and watch video on my Palm all of the time. It's a good phone and a great PDA with auto synch with my e-mail, contacts, and calendar.
I surf the web every day with my Palm and am mostly happy. I will admit that the Apple demo looked better than my current experience, but I'm not sure how much of that is from comparing demo to daily use.
The Palm doesn't have wifi, but many other Windows Mobile devices do. The new HP also has built-in GPS including Pocket Streets integration. If I weren't on Verizon, I would get the new HP and have pretty much every function I want in one device.
You also have the Black Jack and Q that are very compelling in a very compact package.
I think Apple scored a major marketing coup. Short of UI candy, I don't really see a lot of innovation. Am I missing something?
nff
"The idea of the screen as total I/O interface is also not new, nor is the concept of turning the screen into the device--that has been a long time coming and has been tried a few times over the years. Trust me when I say there is very little innovation, just excellent product definition and implementation of the interface, software, etc. The Apple buzz will do the rest."
This seems to me (quoting Colonel Mandrake from Dr. Strangelove) to be "rather an odd way of looking at it."
In other words, the industry trend points a certain direction, towards a certain tacit goal state, so, when someone arrives at that finish line, they have not triumphed or achieved anything (or, have not "innovated") since the outcome was forseen.
When a sports car manufacturer finally manages to make a car that can go 0-60 in ten seconds, would you simply say, "Well, that was the next record waiting to be broken; no surprises here"?
Maybe that's a bad example, because it's not a qualitative evolution. But does the original 1996 Palm Pilot "not count" because "handheld devices with handwriting recognition were inevitable; where the industry was going, etc."?
Can you say the same thing about innovations in the fine arts, or in government, or anywhere that progress is measured by means of significant milestones? To "innovate" is to do something new, something that nobody has done -- not something that nobody has discussed.
Say what you want about how "inevitable" the iPhone platform is, but the fact is, nobody actually made one of those until now.
Administrivia: note to Microsoft vs. Apple commenters:
Given the comments in the iPhone, I'm worried of yet another quick entropy in comments due to Apple vs. Microsoft comments.
If you're adding anything deep to the discussion not found within the usual fan-boy noise, please submit your comment. But if it's not unique or slips into old worn out themes, I'm going to CRF-it.
Mini.
mini,
I'm the 6:55:34 PM anonymous commenter.
Rest assured I had not the slightest intention of forcing the thread's devolution into any X vs. Y territory. My apologies for veering dangerously in that direction.
I'm really just focusing on the semantics: I think that the specific meaning of innovation is very important to the topic (considered independently from any specific product or any one company except Microsoft, since discussing Microsoft is kind of the point).
Again, sorry for veering towards flame-war territory.
We need another blog post for iPhone.
Its pretty serious and the only way Microsoft is going to "get it" is when they see a majority of their employees carrying one. I'm getting one and so are most of us...
Same thing happened witht the iPod when it came out. Wasn't there a rumour that some VP's were getting sick at the number of ipods going around at campus and that our employees should be running stuff that plays media files.
"My guess is Zune was not designed by MS but purchased as a proposal from a third party, but that is just a guess."
The Zune HW was not designed by MS. It is a "re-skin" of the Toshiba Gigabeat which was already released using the MS Portable Media Center (PMC) bits - another lame product. All MS did was tweak the UI, enlarge the screen, and add WiFi which, unfortunatel, made the battery bigger and added weight.
Mice and Xbox360 are the only examples of great HW IDs I have ever seen this company produce.
Mini,
I think Zune looks great, I'm just reeling from the shock of discovering I can't take all that music I bought on MSN Music with me onto a Zune. I feel punished for being an early-adopter, which is especially painful as I function as a Microsoft apologist in so many circles.
"I think Apple scored a major marketing coup. Short of UI candy, I don't really see a lot of innovation. Am I missing something?"
Don't understate the value of UI candy - it's a main selling point for Vista as well. It's also the main interaction point for users and therefore a big determinant in their perception of the device's utility and (perhaps more importantly) desirability. WRT the innovation generally, certainly many of the features are not new (including the touchscreen/keyboardless nature), but then the same could be said for the Ipod - and we know what happened there. As you suggest, it was a major marketing coup. I would argue that it was that because they delivered a product that handily surpassed expectations. Whether the product will actually succeed is TBD (the price point seems too high to be a general threat, but they have a shot at making their 10M unit goal). However, the important point for MSFT (I'm a shareholder not a MAC fanboy) isn't what Apple did, but why MSFT consistently has so much problem doing likewise?
Have you seen the recent Fortune Magazine list of the 100 Best Places to Work? I don't have to tell you who is #1. What's telling is that Microsoft, a perennial frontrunner on the list, has dropped to a more reasonable 50. The ironic thing is that when Microsoft was a horrible abyssmal place to work it still ranked in the top 10. Thanks to the efforts of Mini MS, LisaB, etc, the work ecosystem at Microsoft is improving (healing?) and it has become, in my opinion, a much nicer place. The Fortune list doesn't indicate that, but something tells me they don't spend much time talking to the rank and file before making their list.
CEO accountability is coming?
Investors Sue to Block Former Home Depot CEO's $210 Million Severance Package
From the article:
News of the severance further enraged shareholders who had long argued that Nardelli was overpaid during his six years at the helm of Home Depot, whose stock underperformed smaller rival Lowe's Cos. (LOW) and the Standard & Poor's 500.
It would be interesting to know how much MSFT spent in R&D on Zune in contrast with what Apple spent on R&D on iPhone. It would be sort of a meassure of how efficient management handles R&D. Its probably hard to get it right 100% since both Apple and MSFT has colaborated with other parties in the development, but it could be a loose indication.
Logically Apple would have spent at least twise or more on R&D on iPhone than MSFT on Zune. Otherwise something is really wrong the way MSFT spend resources around various projects.
By the way, anyone know why music bought on MSN Music doesn't work with Zune? Is it legal reasons, technical reasons, lock our customers up and don't share the cake reasons or just stupid management?
The iPhone right now, for all intents and purposes, is a triumph of marketing and hype more than innovation, just like Windows now is a triumph of distribution channel domination.
People are worshipping the phone....for what? Full screen input has been around (see http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/iphone-and-lg-ke850-separated-at-birth/ for just one example). It's just another example of "all things apple are cool and hip" clouding rational judgment. There are a ton of cool phones out there (check out the ones in Europe/Asia), and a ton of lifestyle phones (note Helo and Boost mobile) with similar features. The difference: It's Apple. Hence, this is the Jesus phone, as some have put it.
Is it a typically well-designed Apple product? Of course. Does it directly compete with our mobile offerings? Not really. We compete mostly with Palm and Blackberry.
The phone market is very different from the MP3 one. The phone maker is very beholden to the service provider, and some very large and successful players in place already. We'll see how well Apple will do in a year.
I think Zune looks great, I'm just reeling from the shock of discovering I can't take all that music I bought on MSN Music with me onto a Zune. I feel punished for being an early-adopter, which is especially painful as I function as a Microsoft apologist in so many circles.
My feelings exactly. Not only is it money down the drain, but I hate the whole "Microsoft points" thing anyway, particularly given the unnecessary except for the purpose of being misleading "exchange rate" between MS points and real money.
Things like this put the lie to the ongoing claims of being "customer focused."
Agree with the earlier commenter that the iphone is not all that innovative beyond the eye-candy ui they showed in the demo. They were able to package many existing features together in a way that gave it WOW factor.
Notice, however, the day-after hangover in the blogsphere over the thing. Everyone went ga-ga over the damn thing until they took the time to realize that it, too has serious limitations.
I was impressed by it myself. It has WOW factor, no doubt, but I think most people who went head-over-heels for it also don't realize what the current generation smartphones are capable of. I've been watching recorded tv (yes, from my MCE) on my smartphones for nearly 2 years now! I'm neither gadget-head nor a complete geek, but I am impressed by leading edge technology. It didn't take any work at all to make it work, either.
The question is: why the hell aren't we aggressively marketing our stuff????
Hey, let's give the iPhone hoopla a rest until people are living and playing with these things daily. It wouldn't be the first device to get hyped to the stars in beta only to find a lukewarm market in the real world. $600 + Cingular lock-in? Already I see post-hangover reality checks in the blogosphere.
BTW, notice how Jobs sneered at Zune's 2% market share grab and then projected iPhone at 1% in TWO YEARS.
Do check that you are not operating within the reality distortion field. And IMO this product has little to no bearing on Microsoft strategy. Even if it is a huge success YOU DO NOT NEED TO BEAT JOBS AT EVERY TURN. Revenue for Apple is not revenue taken from your pocket. That mentality results in inane rivalries that tend to produce more chaos than consumer satisfaction.
And look at the upside: the AppleTV garnered a collective shrug. The living room is where the real $$$ is.
Short of UI candy, I don't really
see a lot of innovation.
Yeah, I get what you mean...the UI is only the place where every single user interaction with the device occurs. The fact that it manages to control a half-dozen wildly disparate functions in a way that seems well-integrated and easy to understand...seriously, other that that, what's the big deal?
The question is: why the hell aren't we aggressively marketing our stuff????
WM phones aren't "our stuff." They're our OEMs' stuff.
I think that's one reason we've got the Zune: a corporate evaluation that our hardware partners didn't get marketing/branding/positioning "right" and that we have to do it ourselves if we want a chance to beat Apple at the game.
Now that Apple is in the phone world, hmmm, I wonder what we'll do? Probably wait at least a while to see how the Apple-Cingular thing goes, but if they start really gaining on market share, I could see us creating a WM phone in-house (or, as in Zune, pseudo-in-house) and marketing it ourselves.
Folks who talk about innovation don't realize one thing. The objective of this release is three fold:
1. Release a smartphone that your grandparents can use
2. Design it such that it makes all other smartphones look old and retarded
3. Make it sexy
They've achieved all three. A year from now they'll release lower end models and up the ante on the high end, thus slaughtering Symbian, Palm and WinCE, as well as the entire PDA market.
BTW, notice how Jobs sneered at Zune's 2% market share grab and then projected iPhone at 1% in TWO YEARS.
Yeah, so?
He was talking about iPhone having 1% of the mobile phone market, not 1% of the much smaller portable media player market.
People use the term "eye candy" or similar to put down good UI design, like it's extraneous and unnecessary. Yet, they'll go home to their manicured lawns in their polished BMW or Land Rover. They'll expect their neighborhoods to be kept up to specifications, as well as their kids' schools. No "just good enough" there.
Good enough is not good enough. It's low-balling, average, beneath what could be. Good enough is your "low" salary.
Isn't it funny how Apple always comes into the discussion. Whether anyone likes it or not, they make the rest of us evaluate why things aren't as smooth-running as they "should" be at the world's biggest company. Innovation isn't invention necessarily. It's taking what exists and making it new.
On a daily basis-- who here does that?
I move the question: returning to the original upbeat tone of the top line post, what initiatives do you see that are going well, or need just a little nudge to really take off? We're all so good at recognizing and communicating the crap, can we still recognize quality?
David Lynch didn't invent surrealism; Ernest Hemingway didn't invent minimalism. You can look at Thomas Edison or the Wright Brothers and point out how it's all existing components; ideas that everyone saw coming; merely the "popularization" or consolidation of existing components.
But they're all innovators, all inventors. It takes guts and vision to take the "idea in the back of everyone's heads" and turn it into a working, functioning product -- and then commit 100% of your resources to it without a back door or an escape hatch. You think it's easy to be the first company to sell a portable tape player without any speakers (Sony Walkman) or a handheld computer that you can't operate without a plastic stylus (Palm) or a consumer-level computer with no 51/4" drive (Apple, 1984) or with no disk drive at all (Apple, 1996), simply because minor feints were made in that direction by other, smaller companies without installed user bases, or (even worse) because your big ideas was covered already in somebody's written speculation about which way the indutry was moving?
I don't understand why so many posters are taking such illogical positions. It's nearly impossible to avoid the flame war, despite mini's admonitions that we do so. How can defenders of the Zune or of the practices of the company that made the Zune and Windows and Internet Explorer and Windows Media and the "Microsoft Mouse" and a thousand other products that are embellished retreads of other companies' ideas denegrate the iPhone as being "insufficiently innovative"?
I've never seen a PSP-style, movie-playing screen on a smartphone. I've never seen a buttonless interface on anything except third-tier universal remotes (certainly not on any performance-based $600 business product). I've never seen anything (except maybe a Radius monitor) that re-orients from portrait to landscape once you physically turn it sideways. So what if these ideas have been mentioned or tried elsewhere? It's making your flagship products dependent on these ideas that's innovative -- actually committing your products' basic functionality to them -- not merely the act of naming the ideas in the pages of BusinessWeek.
The few times I've posted here, I've done so by quoting someone else's post and responding.
I don't have that to do today.
Part of the problem I perceive is one of limited perspective. If your entire job experience is Microsoft, you haven't seen how other companies work, how things are does elsewhere, and how Microsoft differs so vastly from most of its competitors.
Microsoft's culture has a strange component where a sort of personal aggressiveness has been constantly rewarded. The facet of personality that causes some to develop an 'in your face attitude' has often been a ticket up the corporate ladder.
My guess is that someone has a misguided notion that someone this aggressive will be a real "go-getter". In fact, all it generates are managers that are interested only in their own well being (and personal advancement) and have irrational, confrontational styles.
Being a jerk won't make someone a good leader, or worse, a good manager.
I'd argue that those people promoted for this component of their personality make horrible managers, incapable of relating to their reports, and focusing on no more than how they appear to their superiors.
And there are a LOT of these in the managerial ranks.
Apple keeps coming up because comparing the two companies highlights some of the issues this blog routinely touches.
Apple has always been exceptional at Design and UI. But fifteen years ago, they were mostly incompetent at everything else. Their quality sucked, their marketing was myopic, their prices were terrible and their business model was archaic.
Meanwhile, Microsoft wasn't really exceptional at anything, but was good enough, for the times, at everything.
Over the last fifteen years, Apple has remained great at design, but steadily figured out how to do the other things well too. At Microsoft, we still do things pretty much the way we always have and the world is starting to pass us by.
Why?
"I think that's one reason we've got the Zune: a corporate evaluation that our hardware partners didn't get marketing/branding/positioning "right" and that we have to do it ourselves if we want a chance to beat Apple at the game."
MSFT's strategy of many partners, while good for customers and MSFT, has been increasingly bad for the partners themselves (i.e. lower and lower margins). Unfortunately, MSFT was happy to ignore that until it impacted MSFT's fortunes. The challenge now, is to find ways for partners to get innovation which *they* can capture in some exclusive way (w/o impacting stadardization too adversely) in order to get some increased differentiation and margin. Otherwise, they're not going to put in the extra R&D required and will sell "me-too" products at commodity prices. MSFT can't do it alone, and recent efforts between MSFT and Toshiba (on the PC side more so that the ZUNE/Gigabeat effort) look promising in this regard. Dell also seems to be waking up to the need to do real R&D rather than simply assemble components.
"I've never seen a buttonless interface on anything except third-tier universal remotes"
here ya go (dated Feb 2003 and presented as a public image for all to see and use:
http://www.headstuf.com/headstuf/democellb.jpg
and here is an animation of the same thing (link bottom of page):
http://www.headstuf.com/downloads.htm
Who's your daddy baby?
It's not about innovation or whatever. It is about an organization and corporate culture that knows it when they see it, embraces it and pays a lot of $ for it from guys like me. Judging by looking at Zune, Microsoft is having difficulty, structurally speaking, understanding how to innovate, or even what it is for that matter.
What I look for in a "good manager":
Minimal ego: Someone who cares more about winning customers than winning points; cares more about taking market share than taking credit; cares more about team success than personal success... none of which is possible however if upper management is ego centric.
Jack of all trades (albeit master of at least one): Someone who can understand a wide range of technical, business, and personnel issues. Managers have to arbitrate disputes, they have to pick among competing recommendations, and it is critical to be able to uncover the merits of all recommendations, prioritize them against project goals, and choose the approach that achieves the greatest benefit with the least expense.
Leadership, not followership: They lead from in front rather than pushing from behind. Team success is most often keyed to the ability of the manager to facilitate their team, to run interference for them, to keep them focused on critical issues and to handle the nits themselves, to pick up the slack when someone stumbles, and earn respect and cooperation rather than simply expect it.
Delegation: Every team member should have the occasional and routine experience of standing-in for the manager, both to acquire management skills and perspective as well as offload the manager. This can be running meetings, preparing draft reports, plans, budgets, etc, and decision-making in the manager's absence. A good manager prepares their team for this, even to the point of having a designate who can step-in in the event of the manager's promotion, transfer or absence.
Mentor: Every employee has different strengths and weaknesses, and they need to be assigned the task for which they are best suited and yet nurtured to expand the scope of tasks for which they can become suited. Their successes need to be rewarded and their failures acknowledged honestly but accurately and with guidance to improve.
Multi-dimensional business sense: A desire to understand customers, budgets, costs, revenues, schedules, constraints and requirements and to understand that other orgs (sales, marketing, finance, legal, personnel, development and support) all have their job to do and depend on the manager "fitting in". A good manager can comprehend and even anticipate the business agenda of other orgs, and integrate into it.
Hiring: Translating the group's goals into experience, describing that experience, and then recognizing that experience when it walks through the door. Hiring people who are immediately productive to the current project, adaptable to other projects, and have a track record of delivering results, not excuses.
Organized: Every manager's style is different but every managers job is the same - acquire and direct resources onto assigned targets delivering results sufficent to gain customer acceptance at a profit, and do the co-requisite paperwork, planning, negotiating and herding. They may have messy desks and bad hair, but their communication is clear, concise, correct and current; their plans, budgets and status reports invariably have flaws, but the flaws are known, highlighted and accompanied with corrective action plans.
Track record: Experience that demonstrates progressive advancement in all the above.
Good managers tend to be like "Kims"; the invisible glue that holds everything together, focused and pulling the company along behind them. That's not to say good managers don't get the limelight, they do, they just aren't looking for it and tend to be a bit surprised when it finds them.
Who has a bigger impact on the company and employee morale? Managers [of ICs] or the executives who control company strategy and keep coming up with overly-synergized me-too product ideas (Zune, MSN Search, XBox, etc.)?
Only when the problem with the latter is corrected should we focus on the problem with the former. Who knows, once Microsoft starts making polished products that consumers get excited about, whatever problems there are with mid- to low-level managers may correct themselves.