Guy Kawasaki for Microsoft's Next CEO
So my first reaction at Terry Semel be booted from Yahoo! after shareholders complained about lackluster results was, "What, you mean you just have to demand accountability?!?!" What a concept! Hopefully any of our Microsoft shareholders who have done even the most shallow technical analysis of MSFT will start clearing their throats and find their voice, too.
But it seems for now most analysts are in the "eh," stage of looking at what Yahoo! decided to do post-Semel, though re-orgs seem to be popping up here and there. I was hoping for something bolder that would cause YHOO to shoot up, just to serve as an example of good decision making. Part of this criticism was choosing Yang to step into the CEO role.
It made me wonder about who would be my choice for our next CEO, when that day comes. Maybe that day will be soon, maybe that day will be far, far from now. Will it be someone from the inside, accustom to our culture and well-connected through-out the company? Or an outsider? Someone with a clear, focused vision not blurred by years of integrated, innovative Kool-Aid splurting out the sun-shine product pipeline? Who do you think it should be?
Who do I think?
Guy Kawasaki. Someone suggested this recently and it stuck in my little head. Crazy to the Mac-head world, I know, but what would Guy Kawasaki do? Like Brian Boitano, I imagine he would kick an ass or two. Built in BS meter, a committed focus on passionate users, a deep desire to break out of any hegemony, and ready rules for firing people. Someone like Guy would serve as a nice sledgehammer and bring a fresh air of start-up fever to Microsoft.
I've very tempted to ask Mr. Kawasaki to be my friend on Facebook - wait... maybe... maybe if a bunch of Microsofties launched a be-my-friend surge on Facebook, we could start a Be My Guy! campaign to warm Mr. Kawasaki over to the idea. You know. Should opportunity come a knockin'.
Speaking of Facebook: I'm still loving it. Come on, be Mini's friend. I'd also invite you to be my enemy, if they had that feature, for you folks - like the orange-scarfed-dementor-brigade - who aren't that cool on me. Actually, an enemies list feature isn't all that bad of an idea. Hold your friends close but your enemies closer, eh? I didn't really (holding my hands up and making air-quotes) get social networking sites until the latest Facebook iteration. The applications layer is brilliant and provides rich interaction between my content and what my friends are doing. My Facebook page is practically my new desktop. I futz with it endlessly. There's so much potential, like if they go and add private groups then - bang - suddenly they have a collaboration space. Roaming synchronization of Facebook application content for off-line access?
Woof! I haven't been this excited since I learned C.
So who knew? Crazy Uncle Mark Canter was right about opening it all up.
Speaking of opening up: while enjoying some nice Redmond Saturday Market food on a recent Saturday, I overhead a lunch conversation with someone from a company's HR department: what's the first thing they do with a promising potential hire nowadays: zip over to Facebook or MySpace looking for them, and quickly drop the applicant if there's anything fishy or disturbing associated with them. You'd better be careful how you end up being tagged (and have real fun tagging your enemies with crazy photos) and ensure what ever you're building in Facebook puts your best forward. If you care.
I'm sure Caustic Phil wouldn't care, and he'd explain in deeply profane and eloquent prose just how much he didn't care about Facebook and if he had a Facebook account. Never read causticTech? Oh, you're in for a treat, because Caustic Phil has a new one up: the interview zoo - a must read for anyone doing technical interviews, covering both sides of the process.
And speaking of interviews, Packet Storm has a link to a must-read story off of Worse Than Failure: Does this remind you of Microsoft - actually, it makes me appreciate that our bureaucracy isn't that bad and that there is actually a fate worse than being stuck in your current sucky job. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't change what we have. People need to be able to find their new spot in Microsoft easier than just deciding to interview outside, as this comment illustrates:
Permission to interview always caused me anxiety, even after the 10+ years I've been at Microsoft. Even considering that I've moved groups several times.
I've been at my new group less than a year and don't like it (micromanagement and bureaucracy are the main issues). Rather than wait the full year to ask permission to interview, I am leaving the company. I now realize that it was easier to ignore all the nonsense when the stock was moving up.
I was nervous, but in the interviews outside the company I blew them away. Microsoft alumni are well respected and valued outside the company, I can tell you that for sure! I was surprised that some companies have better benefits, too.
MSFTExtremeMakeover posted Who us - leadership Nah, we just vest here as a review of the various odd leadership-less decisions Microsoft has made. I'm telling you, Guy would kick some ass here. We at least wouldn't have to deal with Fake Steve Jobs calling us a pussy when we blinked at Google's pulling on our consent-decree nipple ring. And guess what? Looks like Google is ready for another yank or two.
Speaking of vesting: so we know about the urban legend of Microsofties with buttons decorated with FYIFV. I guess nowadays, looking at all the expiring options that die underwater, it'd be more appropriate to have a FMIFV button. Anyway, I was thinking of this for two reasons: (1) Ben Smith popped up here briefly and posted a comment about the Mini-Microsoft site here that was also cross-posted on some internal mailing list. (2) A comment made the observation that when things were good for employees (financially) that they were fearless and not so review and reward focus. It didn't matter. It was a completely different culture than today.
Ben's comment covers a good amount of ground looking at things here over time, including the negative implications of transparency. The culture part is near the end:
...one aspect of Mini that I find very troubling is what I see as a culture of victimization and disempowerment. At Microsoft, this is the beginning of a vicious feedback cycle because we have a culture and comp system that favors creative, ambitious, results driven technical and management leaders. Frankly put, people who are self-disempowering aren’t going to get a lot of helping hands (maybe to a fault). Microsoft is a company of opportunities if you don’t take them, someone else will. As a lawyer here once told me, Microsoft’s internal slogan would aptly be “Who’s eating your lunch today?” To be clear, this does not mean we each need to be sharks looking for the bloody water; rather to excel at Microsoft each of us must find our own way to contribute to the great products and services we build.
Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a manager here (not at Microsoft). He said, essentially, that if you have large compensation changes between levels, it causes politics.
There's two ways this works. First, it makes people badly want to be promoted, and therefore more willing to engage in behavior that is destructive to the organization if it helps them individually. Second, it gives the managers great power - they get to choose the lucky ones. From both sides, this drives toward political behavior.
Now, in the past at Microsoft, this was mitigated by everybody having options and the stock climbing through the roof. This meant that employees didn't have to have the promotion, because the stock was going to take care of them. They were better off just helping the company as a whole do well. But when the stock went flat, it also quit being a counterbalance to the steep compensation curve, and political behavior ran wild.
If this is the correct root cause of the politics, the only way to fix the situation - and save Microsoft from what it is becoming - is to flatten the compensation curve.
I certainly don't see myself as the patron saint of the disempowered victim. I understand some steam gets let loose here, much like when InsideMS went through a meltdown. But there's plenty of productive conversation, too, and I don't understand if you can fix a problem without calling out there's a problem first. I do now recognize, however, that change - like corporate culture change - is irrelevant unless you can identify where your culture is, what problems it has, what change you intend to make, and why that change will be beneficial.
As a small example: it would be good to drive away anything justifying fear within the company. Fear of changing jobs because of your H1B status. Fear of providing frank feedback about your management hierarchy. Fear of sharing constructive criticism regarding why you're leaving Microsoft for another job. Fear leads to silence. And silence leads to fortifying the status quo, stagnation, and competitive disadvantage.
Fear is not a Microsoftie trait. Nor a trait of any corporation that aims to be a success. If we accept there are people being silent due to fear then we can reassure that it's not justified, that their insight and feedback is important and that their input be used to make the company better. And successes here would lead to trust.
Oh, and memo to Microsoft PR: stop worrying about me and pay a little closer attention to any pieces you approve for BusinessWeek, perhaps thinking it's quite the coup. Holy crap. Look at that comment stream. Did we just pants ourselves?
That takes talent.
Really, really bad talent.
166 comments:
Woo hoo, first to comment! It's been fun reading your blog for the past couple of years. After 5 years, I'm leaving MSFT for a startup. Like one of the other commenters, I can't get out of my group for a while, so it was just easier to look outside of the company. Ta!
I like working for MSFT, but the BusinessWeek article, coupled with the erratic behavior of our CEO, illustrates why it sometimes doesn't feel like a job for grown-ups.
"I certainly don't see myself as the patron saint of the disempowered victim. ... But there's plenty of productive conversation, too,..."
Hmm, is there some other Mini-Microsoft blog I wasn't invited to? Over the last year or so, it's been "waah, VPs/partners/whatever earn too much", "waah, I have a God-given right to more money", "waah, PMs/devs/testers aren't as important as me", "waah, Limited II hurts my feelings", "waah, MS doesn't throw money at my brilliant ideas", "waah, dem furriners, dey tuk ar jabs", etc. (And Who 'da is happily letting the posts through. This place should really have been named "St. Punk's Home For The Terminally Disempowered".)
Ben Smith has the right of it: nice^H^H^H^Hpassive guys finish last. Opportunities are found by people willing to get off their duff and work hard to sniff them out[1]. If you aren't able or willing to do so, don't whimper about what you deserve to have because you've already got it.
[1] This is totally orthogonal to working hard at your job. The former gets you where you want to go, the latter helps you succeed where you are.
Facebook has private groups...
Guy Kawasaki? Mini, please say that you're joking. What has he done since leaving Apple that would convince you that he's capable of running Microsoft?
Let's look at his post-Apple (original Apple) career.
ACI US: Apple spin-off #1. Start-up as a database for Macs; Kawasaki left after two years. What impact did this company have on anything?
Fog City Software: Apple spin-off #2. Start-up; created one email application (Claris Emailer) for Macs. Killed by Apple in the late 90s. Microsoft picked up several of their team members to build Entourage (not Guy himself, but another Fog City founder and several others). You can read a history written by an Entourage MVP here:
http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/05/in_the_beginning.html
Back to Apple: Not that he'd ever strayed far from the apple tree, but he went back as an Apple Fellow for a couple of years.
Consulting / venture capital: What companies has he discovered?
Truemors: The only word that I can use to describe this little venture is "lame". Even Valleywag is more useful.
As far as I can tell, Guy Kawasaki is a self-aggrandising guy who is enamored of his own voice. All of his books seem to be about telling us how smart he is, but I haven't seen proof of it yet. He's got passion, but I don't think that he's capable of directing it at anything other than feeding his own ego.
Guy Kawasaki? Mini, please say that you're joking.
Half. More on the side of seriously shaking things up.
Who do you think would make a good match for Microsoft and the direction it needs to go in, post-Ballmer?
Guy Kawasaki for Microsoft's Next CEO
The problems facing Microsoft are not (typically) correctable by any one management approach. As good as Kawasaki is at venture funding (the art of guessing where not to invest), he likely is not qualified to lead Microsoft. Microsoft is a highly unique problem.
Startup managers, growth managers, sustaining managers, turn-around managers - all have different mindsets and personalities - that's what makes them good at what they do. Further, the good ones have been doing it most of their careers, and consequently it is exceedingly rare for any one individual to be good at any two of those scenarios. Turnaround managers typically are terrible startup managers and poor growth managers. Startup managers sometimes can be good growth managers but rarely are sustaining and never turnaround managers, for example.
Microsoft needs both a turnaround manager and a growth manager, but the company's size and problems may preclude any meaningful growth for several years, consequently getting to a state where a growth manager could function will be difficult, i.e, Microsoft will be fortunate to avoid a long painful slide and just tread water, assuming a turnaround from its current slow-poison approach.
A more realistic expectation would be a turnaround management team to pave the way for longer-term transformation management to moderate growth. This requires at least two different phases of executive management turnover; the first being to remove underperforming personnel and products and instill strategic vision and tactical execution; the second being product/services innovation, market penetration, and sustained profit growth. There will be areas that need overlap, e.g. product rearchitecting can't wait or it will never be ready for growth.
Both phases require competancies in managing very large global organizations, software product marketing, development & delivery, retail and B2B sales, and fiscal prudence. The most important skill (and this can not be over emphasized) is recognizing, recruiting and managing key personnel. No single executive can drive these kinds of changes by themselves. They will need to identify and install (replace, promote or retain) competant senior managers who in turn also need to be similarly skilled at building leadership.
Much seems expected of Ray Ozzie, but for the above reasons those expectations ought to be tempered, and sights instead set on a farther, broader horizon.
"waah, Limited II hurts my feelings", "waah, MS doesn't throw money at my brilliant ideas", "waah, dem furriners, dey tuk ar jabs"
New rule: "waah" is now in the same moderation dog-house as "M$".
So I disagree with the broad statement. And Microsoft has fumbled dealing with disenchanted employees. You know, even this comment's response would be a better response than the middling myMicrosoft bread and circuses. Right now, though, leadership is trying to have it both ways, with a top view of everyone is great and has abundant opportunity, and then a lower reality of dog-fight to the top.
If it's a dog-fight, call it a dog-fight and say, hey, that's our culture. It's common corporate culture. Live with it or go elsewhere.
Facebook has private groups...
Yeah, Daniel Tang wrote that on my wall, too. Okay, I'll have to try them. It will be killer if they allow you to have applications specific to that private group...
Who do you think would make a good match for Microsoft and the direction it needs to go in, post-Ballmer?
We should get Carlos Ghosn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Ghosn
He turned around Nissan in a big way. I think it's a fallacy that you need a CEO that grew up in tech to run a tech company. You need someone with great managerial and business instincts. Besides, we've already got the Great Wizard of Oz for the fancy technical mumbo-jumbo......
Mini, thanks for the link. Here are my short-list candidates for the next CEO of Microsoft: http://255255255255.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-if.html - PS
Mini
How about one of Microsoft's 3 presidents?Raikes,Bach or Johnson?
Carlos Ghosn...that's an interesting idea. Someone from an industry where you can't just jam stuff down the customers throats.
However, it will end up being someone like Guy Kawasaki, bloviator supreme . It seems like the Microsoft credo is to live off past (and mostly illusory) achievements, and Guy is that personified.
Instead of picking one of the three presidents, how about 3 Microsofts? Splitting up to form 3 new companies, Windows, BizApps (clients and servers), Entertainment seems painfully obvious, and has been for years. This seems like the only path to getting MS moving again.
"If it's a dog-fight, call it a dog-fight and say, hey, that's our culture. It's common corporate culture. Live with it or go elsewhere."
All well and good, but that won't work at a company the size of Microsoft. Back in the go-go 90s I worked at a place that went massive, from $0 to $1B in about five years. And in a massively cut-throat market competing with huge tech names. No monopoly money-printing machine like Microsoft.
That company was a kennel of mad-dogs. But then, when it peaked out around 1,000 folks, it was still small enough that the CEO could know more than half the joint on a first name basis. If you made a splash, very important people knew it.
Now, at Microsoft, if you're buried down in some smallish org within an org within an org, and you do something special, does Gates know? Does Ballmer? Hah!
Your group VP doesn't even know, because it's all been filtered out by the ten levels between you and them.
So being a nasty dog only impresses the guy one or maybe two steps up from you, while it causes vast ill-will amongst your colleagues. The reward ratio just isn't there.
And really, you can cram about five hundred mad dogs in a room and maybe make a go of it, but no more than that. The company I spoke of (about 50% mad dogs) was well on its way to breaking apart at the seams before it was bought (and subsequently ruined).
A culture of 70,000 mad dogs? You gotta be kidding. That's Hamas, not a corporation.
We've had this discussion over and over. You need Kims, and the bigger you are, the more you need them. But in any event, I don't think Microsoft needs an injection of "aggression" per se, it needs some very smart and decent management. Hard-nosed, yes. Aggressive, no. Save that for sales guys, not the CEO.
The management at Microsoft is neither smart nor decent. And it is also far too detached from reality by its wealth.
My #1 resume item for the next CEO: someone who's net worth is under $10 million.
Mini and some dood say:
"waah, Limited II hurts my feelings", "waah, MS doesn't throw money at my brilliant ideas", "waah, dem furriners, dey tuk ar jabs"
You know, even this comment's response would be a better response than the middling myMicrosoft bread and circuses. Right now, though, leadership is trying to have it both ways, with a top view of everyone is great and has abundant opportunity, and then a lower reality of dog-fight to the top.
I agree that a direction should be chosen and run with. But this dood would have the whole company be populated with back-stabbing ladder climbers who just flock to whatever hotness of the moment will inflate their already overheated "personal stock". In short, a lot of "say-ers" and not a lot of "do-ers"
...oh wait. Think maybe there is a few too many of those already? At *all* levels?
Remember, Frank Lloyd Wright could have drawn all the pretty pictures he liked...but some guy had to get down in the mud and put in the plumbing. Yeah he was showing some buttcrack...but I bet Frank was damned glad to get that crack so he didnt have to get dirty.
And I see an awful lot of architects and blue prints running around. Not so many plumbers. Probably because the folks who dig in and shovel are getting tired of being treated as if they didnt matter.
As for the Dog-fight - dogs are pretty damned dependent on humans. Wolves, not so much. THey have evolved a well functioning team in which everyone does the work and benefits. Dog fights are fun to watch, but they dont accomplish much.
My short-list candidates for CEO.
Jawad Khaky
First religious ceo. Will cut salaries of all partners and increase his own.
Christa Davis or Debra Chrapaty
First qualified woman ceo
J Allard
First visionary leader
something to sooth those nipples after some good google yankin':
http://no2google.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/life-at-google-the-microsoftie-perspective/
Two words, Steve Jobs.
The quest for our next CEO. I've found him!
Go to https://www.microsoft.com/servers/faces/default.aspx
Go to Video Library and Select Watch Video
Go to the Flexibility Tab
Find Scott Dickens
Watch Video
Yep I've found it our next CEO.
Now why do I get the feeling that we've just pants ourselves yet again???
Next CEO? I don't know, but I'd like to know who's next in line for Sinofsky's job..
"Now, at Microsoft, if you're buried down in some smallish org within an org within an org, and you do something special, does Gates know? Does Ballmer? Hah!
Your group VP doesn't even know, because it's all been filtered out by the ten levels between you and them."
I fail to understand why this is important. My PUM/GM has more influence on my review/compensation/life/happiness than the VP or his manager.
Besides, it's not that difficult to "fix" this, either: meet with your manager two times a month, his manager every month, his manager every 2 months, his manager every 4 months, etc. Don't forget to send all of them an easy-to-read summary [one screen email] of your accomplishments (with concrete examples/names) right before the calibration meetings.
If you feel awkward doing this, just remember that the last word of "blatant self-promotion" is "promotion".
"waah, I have a God-given right to more money", "waah, PMs/devs/testers ...."
Simmer down and see a therapist.
"A more realistic expectation would be a turnaround management team"
Spot on, the problems we have today are not going to be solved by any one individual and replacing just the CEO or expecting a guy with the "vision thing" like Ray Ozzie aren't to miraculously fix everything because the problems we have today are not just problems of leadership and vision. We will require large scale changes in management and organization.
The fundamental problem we have though, is focus on the individual as opposed to teams; It manifests itself in various ways as 'rank and yank', clientelist politics, empire building and associated turf wars, cult of personality and the focus on heroics.
The damage from politics is evident from this blog however the damage from heroics at the operational level is the biggest problem as it masks the underlying flaws in process and organization. Yes, we have changes in processes in every release but this is useless without properly functioning teams and groups.
Unfortunately, the damage done to the company over the years will take years to fix because of the amount of distrust that exists here now.
Keep Dreamin'
If you don't like MSFT the way it is, your best hope is to go elsewhere. The energy you put into whining, hoping and dreaming that it'll turn into something else would be better spent in polishing your resume.
MSFT's biggest advantage and disadvantage is that it has too much freakin' money in the bank. Less now than before, to be sure, but as long as it's sitting on $20-something BILLION (that's "20 gigadollars to the tech-heads), there's exactly zero (that's "0" to the tech-heads or "null" in that it points nowhere) motivation to buck anything.
Factor in that the people who stand to lose the most prestige in a re-org (or de-org) are those with the most power (i.e. the infamous "partners" and BOD) and the chances go from none to, well, none.
Bottomline: MSFT: Love it or leave it. It ain't gonna change and you ain't gonna change it.
"As for the Dog-fight - dogs are pretty damned dependent on humans. Wolves, not so much. THey have evolved a well functioning team in which everyone does the work and benefits. Dog fights are fun to watch, but they dont accomplish much."
... especially for the dogs.
For those who think "I'll just do the dogfighting, play the game, climb the ladder", don't you see how destructive this is? Do you realize that, some time before the big payout, you're probably going to run into a bigger/badder/more experienced dog, and you're going to get destroyed?
The problem with the rat race is that, even if you win, you're still a rat (says Lily Tomlin). The problem with the dog fight is that the loser dies, and half the time the loser is you.
MSS
J Allard
First visionary leader
You just made milk come out my nose!
Anonymous said...
Guy Kawasaki? Mini, please say that you're joking. What has he done since leaving Apple that would convince you that he's capable of running Microsoft?
Well the ever-breathless Scobble (sic) always mentions him. So he must be good.
C'mon!? Christa Davies? J Allard?? Blood came out of my nose...J Allard and Robbie Bach championed a $24Bn investment into a business that has lost close to $5bn. And someone thinks that qualifies them to run the whole asylum? Christa Davies would be WAY out of her league. She reports into a guy who has managed to avoid hard decisions...until now. Poor Kevin looks like he's aged ten years in the past two. JeffR has promise so of the three division heads he would get my vote. It's a testament to his passion that he has been willing to stand in the wings this long
That said I cast my vote for an outsider. Someone with the balls to finally split the company up into 2 maybe 3 separate entities.
Depressing thing is that Steve's list probably includes folks like J Allard. Ego, hubris call it what you will, but it will prove MS undoing and will very likely determine the next CEO
RE: Keep Dreamin'
Ya...this post seems a lot more in the spirit of MiniMSFT than the original author's. Mini, it's pretty obvious HR/Lisa had the chance to make a change, and that time has since passed. Does anyone hear anything about changes in the pipeline? Personally, I'm leaning also toward the airing of dirty laundry like the previous poster suggested. From one perspective, it's a guerrilla war from the trenches to the ivory towers, right? (No, no, no, no union stuff, that's NOT what I'm implying. Just a wake up call.)
Collision Domain is spot on. Lafley would be a great CEO. In the new web 2.0 world it is all about shelf space and no one does that like P&G. MSN, Yahoo, Live, TBD... all sharing the same back-end but driving and thriving under different brands.
What has JAG done for anyone lately? I think it's bye-bye time for them...
Jawad Khaky
First religious ceo. Will cut salaries of all partners and increase his own.
J Allard
First visionary leader
I assume you were just trolling. Both would be horrible choices.
They might be great guys, but they are bad leaders.
"If it's a dog-fight, call it a dog-fight and say, hey, that's our culture."
Whoa there, I thought you wanted us to put down the broad brushes. There's a great big continuum between disempowered, passive-aggressive drone and promotion-obsessed sociopath and I am not advocating the latter.
What I *am* saying is that if there are people that can't think of anything to do within or outside the company that will help out their team or MS or the industry[1] and incidentally get them noticed and remembered (inside or outside), there is something seriously wrong with those people[2]. The world is a gigantic place chock full of things to improve and places to contribute and MS isn't all that tiny itself[3].
tl;dr: It's time for tough love, kids. If MS is a dog eat dog company[4], quit being the whipped curs and show some gumption or stop whimpering and enjoy the doggie chow. Canning Ballmer and the rest of the clowns, sending all the H1-Bs home, unionizing, etc. is not going to help any of you, only *you* can help you and, being a Microsoftie, odds are you have all the skill you need to do it.
(And you, Who 'da Punk, you can bandy about phrases like "dog-eat-dog culture" all you want but, even if it's true, it's just enabling people to stay stuck in their feelings of victimhood instead of getting up and doing something about it. You claim you don't want to be the patron saint of the disempowered victim. I'll ask you straight up: do you mean it? Because, honestly, I can't tell.)
[1] And I mean genuinely, not that fake stuff that people manufacture to pad their reviews.
[2] As an example, I was invited to be a reviewer for submissions for an industry conference just by chatting with a few attendees, and believe me, most of your are at least as qualified as I am for that.
[3] That isn't to say a person's current manager is going to recognize them for it; MS has no shortage of worthless managers. It doesn't matter. Get over it, keep doing it, and move on because it absolutely does matter over the long run in your career.
[4] Which it ain't. You guys have no idea what that *really* looks like.
I'm sorry to disappoint all you engineering geeks but the next CEO is not going to be a techie.It will most likely be an MBA.
As for any 3 of MS presidents becoming CEO I don't know.
Robbie Bach seems to be the most talented in terms of being a strategist but he's weak as an operator.
Kevin Johnson seems to be strong as an operator but weak as a strategist.
I don't know what to make of Raikes.
The next CEO should most definitely be an MS insider though.
"If it's a dog-fight, call it a dog-fight and say, hey, that's our culture. It's common corporate culture. Live with it or go elsewhere."
A lot of comments have criticized this but I think what mini is trying to get at is that the we need real transparency in the company i.e. we have all this hr waffle about career path, career compasses etc. that is designed to give the impression that everything is normal at MS but the reality on the ground is a nasty dog-fight.
However to argue that it's common corporate culture doesn't justify it; an aspiration toward the prevailing level of mediocrity doesn't spell success for any corporation.
The great tragedy here is if all the resources that are wasted on fear based infighting were actually focussed on harnessing the talent we have here, this would be the most productive and efficient company in the world. In that kind of environment we wouldn't need to be a mini msft to be lean and mean.
"If it's a dog-fight, call it a dog-fight and say, hey, that's our culture."
If it is a dog-fight then we should also admit that there is absolute failure in management.
I would suggest people look at the points made here:
the 7 worst habits of hamburger management
Then reflect on the state of our management.
Someone has a job title of "Principal Princess" in "Marketplace R&D". What the hell is that?
I remember reading a news article about 10 years ago that talked about how Gates and Ballmer together made the perfect CEO. If you think about it, that statement probably is close to the truth if each one brings his respective strengths to the table, is engaged in his job 100%, and balances out the other’s weaknesses.
However, I think that what has been hurting Microsoft more than anything of late has been that Gates has gradually tuned out to focus on special projects and his charitable activities. If Gates isn’t keeping Ballmer in check, then nobody is keeping Ballmer in check. I have no objections to Gates retiring, but, if he is going to retire, I think that Ballmer needs to go with him.
Now, who I do think should be the next CEO? To answer that question, I had to ask myself what I think is most needed at Microsoft right now. Right now, what I think is most needed at Microsoft is someone who can clean house, instill accountability at the executive level, and make tough decisions based on objective criteria. I would like to see someone kind of like the former CFO Jon Connors but with more technical knowledge. I think we definitely need someone from the outside.
>>Someone has a job title of "Principal Princess" in "Marketplace R&D". What the hell is that?
It's the next rank after Senior Princess, but below Partner Princess. Take a look at the Princess CSPs for more info.
It's the next rank after Senior Princess, but below Partner Princess.
Who's the prince assembling this harem?
If SteveB chooses his successor...
...it will be Kevin Turner.
On that thought, have you ever seen the two of them in the same place at the same time?
Kind of like Michael and Latoya Jackson.
Makes you think.
>>"even if it's true, it's just enabling people to stay stuck in their feelings of victimhood instead of getting up and doing something about it"
People being enabled by a blog ? you're kidding, right?
Leave the inane pop-psychology to Oprah and Dr.Phil.
...it will be Kevin Turner.
My building receptionist has started greeting everyone Walmart style when they arrive to work recently. Maybe he knows something we don't?
Hmm... Guy has the vision thing, but I've never seen any evidence that he's much of a leader. Running Acius and running the Evil Empire are jobs on vastly different scales.
He would be a vast improvement over Ballmer, but that's really not saying much.
meet with your manager two times a month, his manager every month, his manager every 2 months, his manager every 4 months, etc. Don't forget to send all of them an easy-to-read summary [one screen email] of your accomplishments (with concrete examples/names) right before the calibration meetings.
Well since I've said buh-bye to Microsoft I can't do any of this, but looking back (without I hope turning into a pillar of salt)...
Meeting my manager? Easy. His manager? Possible, but he would cancel the meeting at least half the time. HIS manager? Virtually impossible. HER manager? Completely impossible, not even comprehendible that they would deign to meet with me.
Also, how would it make your chain of command feel when you -- little old you -- were meeting with this endless list of higher-ups? Frankly, it would cause tremendous suspicion and ill-will. And really, c'mon,I'm going to schedule a meeting with a guy four levels above me and then sit there and tell him how great I am?
It would be my first meeting with him and my last.
PS - MEET with the guy? In two years I saw him once for about 20 minutes giving a speech.
Well, if the worst came to the worst, you could do a swap with the Federal government - Prez McCain gets Ballmer, and Microsoft gets Dubya. :-)
Facetiously, what are the requirements? Turning a flat Microsoft around in a market that's getting bored with Microsoft? Restoring the heady days of the early nineties, when it seemed nothing could go wrong? Or resetting Microsoft to hang in on a steady but somewhat humdrum and more normal growth rate? Then, who best fulfills them? Mini?
Reducing the headcount would be the only way to handle a shift in priorities as drastic as the resetting option - frankly, getting rid of much of the superstructure's going to be the only way to save Microsoft from itself. Otherwise, Microsoft's going to make itself look silly.
Who's the prince assembling this harem?
Lecherous grin; rubbing of hands That's my job!
Yours eponymously
Epon
With Google increasingly moving into Softie’s territory, why does MSFT not fight back by offering free keywords? This will clearly put Google in check and Microsoft will increase traffic on MSN.
If there are anti-trust issues, offer the first 1000 hits or more for free. Ebay fought back few weeks ago and GOOG learned its lesson. Read this interesting article for more details.
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/stockpickr/10365544.html&cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
MEET with the guy? In two years I saw him once for about 20 minutes giving a speech.
In the case of the Mobile Division we get to see Pieter Knook every once in a blue moon when he schedules a division-wide meeting in a room designed to seat 10% of the total staff. If you don't leave for the meeting early enough to get a seat you get to stand in the hallway or go back to your office and watch a crappy quality webcast of His Highness.
Hello former colleagues. I left you 3 years ago for the big up and coming competitor. I still am friends with many of you on a personal level. My first visit to mini in over a year... glad to see the traffic and debate continues.
But to be honest... reading comments, it's obvious most of you who come here are still smart, but I have one simple request for you. Please accept that the 90's are over. Much of what you communicate just doesn't seem to fit anymore. I have to sort of think back and reflect to understand your posts about software, testing, development cycles, processes, the way long overdue firing of Ballmer... It all just seems so old fashioned.
Sorry to batter my battered and beat up friends and former family but really what decade are you living in?
Mobile Division
That would be the mobile division which hasn't managed to come up with a compelling phone OS despite working on it for about a decade? The same guys who get their lunch eaten by apple right now?
What have you folks been doing with the money my work brings in? Oh, wait, you were in meetings.
"In the case of the Mobile Division we get to see Pieter Knook every once in a blue moon when he schedules a division-wide meeting..."
I heartily endorse this example of naming names. Let them know you mean THEM, not some other person who's not as skilled, talented and good-looking as they are...
Name names!
Apple employees get free 8GB iPhones.
We can't even get a free copy of Vista or Office 2007.
Cheap bastards.
My group gave away free t-shirts and beer today between 4-7pm. This is management's way of responding to Apple giving it's employees free iPhones.
BTW, the t-shirts were extra large. I'm going to use mine as a mop to clean my car.
Tony Blair is my man for CEO position.
Guy is not a bad choice but his appointment will piss off alot of people here.
Guy would be perfect CEO of Apple after Job.
I hope Robbie/KJ don't get the job. Don't get me started with that Wal-mart fellow. We don't need that Wal-mart inept craps around here.
Kawasaki would be better than any of the three.
Apple employees get free 8GB iPhones.
We can't even get a free copy of Vista or Office 2007.
Cheap bastards.
Well, let's be honest. Those of us in Windows did get a free copy of Ultimate. In special cardboard boxing, too!
But the sentiment still stands. The fleece sweatshirt we got as a ship gift probably cost the manufacturer a whopping $2 in COGS and probably cost MS $5 each.
And then there was the craptacular B26 Garage Ship Party. Hold me back!
It's almost insulting enough to ask, "Why bother?" Frankly, I'd rather had an additional 2 days off (making that a full work week and NOT counting the holiday) than lame stuff like that.
Someone proposed custom Zunes with the Vista pearl for the d-pad. That would've been okay. I'd take a free one as a spare for my iPod. And, hey, maybe we get a little marketing out of the fact that the ENTIRE Windows division may actually be carrying a Zune around publicly.
Let's face it, though. Apple's currently flying high. Their hardware pipeline is impressive and all their software needs to do is not suck. Good thing Jobs didn't buy out Nintendo before Wii came out. Add Wii to the Apple cannon and merge it with AppleTV and you've got one helluva living room appliance. Probably in a sexy little case, too.
Apple employees get free 8GB iPhones.
BFD. They still have to pay for the AT&T contract.
Two comments:
1: Guy Kawasaki??? You gotta be kidding. Do we really need more style over substance?
2: Sheesh, lots of whiney entitlement going on here. Look, kids, if you want a free i-phone, go work for that megalomaniac in Cupertino.
>>Apple employees get free 8GB iPhones.
- "Can you hear me now?" "Hello?"
Hopefully they'll have lots of games and stuff on them as with Cing- I mean AT&T, there might not be a lot of telephonic communication going on - second to last or last in every state for coverage.
Still, they'll look cool, and that's the main thing :-)
How come iphone had so much free publicity while we have a whole marketing team for vista and see nothing.
This is frustrating. Someone needs to get fired.
To be honest, I was thinking AAPL won't meet their target for iphone. I changed my mind and start think they hit another jackpot.
For the comment on Free VISTA or Office 2007. Work on those products, you get your throphy box !!!
The current debate on corporate culter and leadership has been fascinating to follow.
One of the good points has been the need for different management styles in different phases of the organizational lifecycle.
But the linked story about "working in Google" set me thinking about changes in organizational culture through that lifecycle.
Google's culture has been likened to '80s Microsoft. The problem may be that Microsoft's culture is in transition to '80s IBM. If a previous employer of mine is anything to go by, it's a hard transition from go-getting ethics-free dog-eat-dog culture to that of a mature "blue chip" organisation that is a trusted leader in its chosen domain.
There was a lot of bitchiness amongst the old dogs, lots of derision for the clueless managers - and unfortunately also for the good ones who were tainted by the organization's mid-life crisis.
Fortunately as for individuals most organisations get through the mid-life crisis without becoming the equivalent of a wife-beater or a drunken bum. The firm I worked at nearly made it to the gutter, but at the last minute was bought by a mature player in the bigger market of which we occupied a niche.
What's the lesson for Microsoft?
Grow old gracefully.
It's too late to try to become a pop star, sports hero, or astronaut. Accept that there are things that you do well, and things that others do better. Why waste your money trowelling on make-up for the disco when you have no hope of competing with the sweet young things?
Now, as a customer, let me explain how you can make a lot more money off your existing business.
Become worthy to be trusted.
Stop playing stuipd lock-in games. I don't want products that are designed to make me buy another product.
One Windows version.
One Office version.
No proprietary file formats & protocols.
And make only a 100% net margin on these products, not 400%.
As a customer we simply ask that the price of products is fair in comparison to what it costs you to make them. Then you would see us ditching a boatload of open source software in favour of your products.
Come on guys, if IBM could grow up you can too.
BFD. They still have to pay for the AT&T contract.
Guy who said the above in response to someone posting that Apple employees get a free IPhone; Stop your freaking nit-picking.
You are just sour that we work for one of the most financially rich companies IN THE WORLD and MS doesn't give us shit. At least Apple threw their employees a bone, a $500 bone. Yes, they still have to pay for the contract but considering most people have cell phones and pay $50-$60 a month anyways, what is another $10-$30. No wonder you guys suck. All some of you people do is nit-pick and drag everyone down with you.
Excerpt from Seattletimes.com article about people waiting in line for the IPhone....
"At Bellevue Square, about 100 people were waiting by midafternoon, with employees from a nearby Starbucks coming by with a coffee cart (compliments of Apple) every hour and a half."
This is one of the reason, one of the many reasons, why Apple is doing so well these days. They go out of their way to please their customers. And yes for a company like Apple spending a $100 or so dollars on coffee is very small in the grand scheme of things but look at what they just accomplished. For those 100 or so people who were given the free coffee, that little thing will stick with them for a while so what do you think will happen when they are ready to buy another computer. They may really consider an Apple instead of a MS based pc. And look at all the people who will be readying this article in the Seattle area and maybe elsewhere. Everyone will think, "WOW, that is pretty cool of Apple to do that for their customers" And yes I used "WOW" on purpose because MS spent hundreds of millions of dollars on our stupid "WOW Vista" crappy marketing campaign.
You can read more about the article at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003769017_iphone30.html
>BFD. They still have to pay for the AT&T contract.
btw, I wouldn't take on a cingular or ATT phone contract even if I was paid to. Worst cell phone company in the world.
>"Don't get me started with that Wal-mart fellow."
Ok, I will then. Just understand that everything you do, everything you know will be outsourced, offshored or cheapened should that happen. Heck, it may happen anyway.
These people would sell their mothers for a buck, which is exactly what sending all labor off shore/south of the border does:
From your MSNBC.com: What to do when everything is ‘Made in China?’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19508453/
Sir Richard Branson for Microsoft CEO. A successful, market innovator, risk taker and savy business guy is what MS needs badly.
"Look, kids, if you want a free i-phone, go work for that megalomaniac in Cupertino."
Did Ballmer move?
Somewhat OT, but I figured this is the best place to ask. I'm a current MSFT employee and I'm trying to see the boilerplate NDA and non-compete agreements I signed. I couldn't find these on hrweb, and I don't want to call attention by emailing hr. Can somebody either post the intranet URL, or email it to anonminimsft@gmail.com?
Well, let's be honest. Those of us in Windows did get a free copy of Ultimate. In special cardboard boxing, too!
Yeah, and we are still waiting for them to get one of the ship-it gifts ready. That's more than 6 months after RTM. Not only can we not do the bare minimum to please our customers, we can't even do it to please the people who worked on the product for several years! Meanwhile, the execs have their million dollar + bonuses and they're off on vacation somewhere.
But the sentiment still stands. The fleece sweatshirt we got as a ship gift probably cost the manufacturer a whopping $2 in COGS and probably cost MS $5 each. I think it was a little more than that, but yeah, it was pretty cheap. Also, several groups had their own fleeces made during this time, that were almost identical. You'd think they'd coordinate stuff like this. How many different jackets does a person need?
And then there was the craptacular B26 Garage Ship Party. Hold me back! Not the first time we've had a craptacular ship party in that garage. Makes me sick (and I mean that literally...the food made me gag).
Ask friends in other groups what they've done to celebrate the shipping of a product. And remember that most of those products bring in a fraction of the $$$ that Windows does. I think you'll be surprised by their responses.
Maybe they should deliver the next OS release be in the summer so that we can have an outdoor party for once :)
It really is a shame that we don't do a better job of getting hardware/software to employees to help promote it. The discounts for hardware in the CS are a joke. The prices for software there are MUCH higher than they need to be. Field employees were supposed to be hooked up with smartphones I think right around the time WM 5.0 came out. I don't believe that ever happened.
I'm not expecting MS to provide me with free hardware and software for EVERYTHING they make. But sell it to us at a larger discount. I'm sure they'll get more bang for that buck than they get from any of the absolutely awful TV commercials we've put out there. Speaking of that, when was the last time anyone has even seen a Vista commercial? Did we give up already?
http://www.management-issues.com/2007/6/7/research/bias-blights-performance-reviews.asp
To all Windows folks whining about lame ship gifts -- it'll get MUCH worse. Sinofsky is notorious for not spending an extra dime on gifts or morale events. Ask anyone from Office.
To all Windows folks whining about lame ship gifts -- it'll get MUCH worse. Sinofsky is notorious for not spending an extra dime on gifts or morale events. Ask anyone from Office.
What are you talking about? I got a nice book from him for the Holidays! Hardback, even! And I'm quite sure it wasn't from the bargain books section.
To all Windows folks whining about lame ship gifts -- it'll get MUCH worse. Sinofsky is notorious for not spending an extra dime on gifts or morale events. Ask anyone from Office.
So what does he do to keep up the morale of the people working under him?
So what does he do to keep up the morale of the people working under him?
Release frequently thereby providing justification for promos?
"Come on guys, if IBM could grow up you can too."
The problem with that is IBM had to go through a near-death experience before it was willing to change its attitudes. They must've had a mini-IBMer on board, because they threw out a whole lot of time-serving people.
One can dream ... ;)
>> Release frequently thereby providing justification for promos
Not really. There's a fixed promo budget. Only a certain percentage of people can be promoted, no matter where you are in the company. So promotion velocity is only a function of how "visible" you are, not how often you ship.
Sinofsky is also known for saying that new hires have to work 2-3 years for their first promo. Imagine a college grad coming in at L59 and having to bust his ass for 3 years to get a promo. That's when Google is about 5 miles away.
So promotion velocity is only a function of how "visible" you are, not how often you ship
So whats a good promotion velocity. Does it vary with level bands? 1 year? 2 year? 3 year certainly cant be good.
Imagine a college grad coming in at L59 and having to bust his ass for 3 years to get a promo.
What's so wrong with that? A delayed promo sets up the grad to succeed in the next level band where he's liable to get steamrollered by 61s and 62s.
So promotion velocity is only a function of how "visible" you are, not how often you ship …
Despite unfortunately this could be true sometimes but if you focus on "visibility" instead of really get something done, you are ruining yourself in long term and contribute to the decay of Microsoft culture. From a long time perspective, it’s more important to improve your skills fundamentally and grow into a really solid engineer and become an expert in several technical areas than focusing your attention on playing visibility and perception games. On the other hand, when you truly grow into such a strong engineer, you may realize MS is not the best place to work for strong people with integrity and honest.
If you're _really_ visible to your management and do the typical "superstar" shit (work 12 hours a day, create and then fix problems, be a loudmouth), you can get promoted once a year for 2-3 years. Usually promotions come at 18 to 24 month intervals, though, and if your management doesn't really like you, for whatever reason, no amount of ass busting will get you promoted faster. OTOH I know a couple of fairly competent folks who spent 3 to 4 years at L60. They did good work, but were hoping that promotions will happen by themselves. Alas, that only happens when you have a good manager who gives a shit, and they did not.
Moral of the story. If you want to get promoted:
1. Maneuver until you end up under a good manager
2. Build a relationship with your manager, let him know WTF you're doing, show him he can rely on you, don't make promises you can't keep.
3. Get to know your manager's manager, too.
4. Don't suck at what you do.
5. Show them that a) you're smart, b) you get shit done, c) you're not afraid to move somewhere else (most effective if you can show a and b and have worked somewhere else inside or outside MS).
Notice that work is #4 on the list. If the only thing you care about is promotion, just doing your work won't get you very far.
RE: Promotion Velocity
If you worked in adcenter then you essentially got promoted every 6-9 months. All other teams 24 to 30 months is median.
This is based on anecdotal evidences ;)
How lame are you bozos? I mean, are you 13? Who cares about ship gifts, just give me a good salary and promotion path. Sinofsky is doing the right thing.
How lame are you bozos? I mean, are you 13? Who cares about ship gifts, just give me a good salary and promotion path.
I see repeated iterations of the same essential misunderstanding, over and over, on this site. It happened with the "feedback during the review process" discussion and here it is, again.
There's a difference between "I want to be treated a certain way, for my own reasons" and "the ways employees are treated reflect my concerns about the company's health/fortunes/direction."
Sometimes people want to provide negative supervisor feedback because they want to fix the system, not because they just want "revenge" or to "feel better" or to be treated better. Similarly, sometimes noticing big employee ship gifts at other companies (like Apple) indicates a revealing contrast in what's important to management, what management feels they can afford, etc.
Sinofsky is also known for saying that new hires have to work 2-3 years for their first promo. Imagine a college grad coming in at L59 and having to bust his ass for 3 years to get a promo.