tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post112822922495207977..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Get Rid of The Curve to Reduce Microsoft's HeadcountWho da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1146381432303507592006-04-30T00:17:00.000-07:002006-04-30T00:17:00.000-07:00I cringe whenever you talk about firing underperfo...<I> I cringe whenever you talk about firing underperformers... in my mind, priority #1 should be to fire some of our "superstars." </I><BR/><BR/>So true.<BR/><BR/>Long-term steady performance is much more valuable than the short-term hype perpetrated by the 4.5s. Our incompetent managers (themselves of the ‘flash in the pan’ variety) cannot tell the difference.<BR/><BR/>Getting rid of the curve will not solve anything either – we will have teams with a bunch of 4.0s but with abysmal market performance. Root cause (again): shoddy management.<BR/><BR/>I say allocate 4.0s to a product group based on how much they helped Microsoft grow earnings. If you did not add to shareholder value, you do not deserve a 4.0.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1145577704258933932006-04-20T17:01:00.000-07:002006-04-20T17:01:00.000-07:00I've been at MS nearly 10 years, and I think the b...I've been at MS nearly 10 years, and I think the bell curve sucks. I've got nearly a 4.0 lifetime average, so although I have benefited from it, I've seen it wreck so many people needlessly that it's just demoralizing. With stock options gone, stock awards paltry, and a "good" raise less than 3%, the incentives are not what they used to be in the 1990s. Consequently, I work way less. I did the math and realized I could work about 15-20 hours more a week and possibly get an extra $2-3K a year, and it just wasn't worth it. I get my work done and do a good job, but it's getting harder to talk me into going the extra mile when the rewards aren't there any more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1136864484308248742006-01-09T19:41:00.000-08:002006-01-09T19:41:00.000-08:00George Orwell said it best - "All animals are equa...George Orwell said it best - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."<BR/><BR/>During the past 10 years I have seen Microsoft's forced bell curve destroy good employees who cared about their customers, job and their work product, who did a good job, but had a crappy manager (insert interchangeable name here) and were forced into a 2.5 or 3.0 because of politics, and not results (and no, I never received either as a review score myself).<BR/><BR/>I am also former MSFT and also worked for Google. <BR/><BR/>Google's engineering culture is very good - but other areas of the company are run as poorly as Microsoft - full of poor performers, yes people, and those who survive only because they do nothing but smile.<BR/><BR/>And, at both companies, it was pretty easy to guess what those folks' review scores were - stellar :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1130568199658109422005-10-28T23:43:00.000-07:002005-10-28T23:43:00.000-07:00The "fire 10%" crowd have obviously never had to f...The "fire 10%" crowd have obviously never had to fire someone. It is difficult and time-consuming to build the proper, LEGAL, ethical case for it. If you're smart, and a decent human being, and trying to do the right thing for the employee by coaching and not giving up on them, it takes a LOT of time and effort. Which is also why the "managers should have at least 7 - 10 people reporting to them" crowd are pretty clueless too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128555907450102332005-10-05T16:45:00.000-07:002005-10-05T16:45:00.000-07:00I do not want to work at any company that does not...<I>I do not want to work at any company that does not have a curve. We need to reward performance, individual performance. If our managers are not using the system correctly, lets improve the management, not get rid of the system. Frankly, we should target 10% good attrition at every level of the company, every year. <BR/><BR/>10% of the VPs get the boot.<BR/>10% of the partners get the boot.<BR/>10% of the rank and file get the boot.</I><BR/><BR/>Aren't you being too extreme?<BR/>True it is good to reward star performers. But it doesn't mean that you need to punish performers who achieve less then stars. What's the point? If the person who is underperforming gets a boot what's all right but what about people who just don't want to bust their bacon 80 hours a week just because they have other things in life besides work? Leave only star performers in the team and watch how little will they achieve. Software industry is not only about genious - there is a good deal of needed but routine work - testing, servicing, non-critical component coding etc. Someone has to do it as well.<BR/><BR/>Tell me that bottom 10% of my group gets a boot at next review and I'll spend the rest of the time before review sending out resumes and interviewing. And I bet that I will not be the only one.<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry but your post seems so childish to me that I have hard time believing that you are a manager. Leader should motivate his/her subordinates to do best they can (however little that may be) (or if the best is not enough - let them go). But I fail to see how strategy that you propose will do anything but demoralize the team...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128549867863074132005-10-05T15:04:00.000-07:002005-10-05T15:04:00.000-07:00I don't know anyone or anything about Microsoft sp...I don't know anyone or anything about Microsoft specifically, but if what I'm reading is accurate, you have a system for measuring individual performance that - by it's design - cannot possibly succeed.<BR/><BR/>Leave it to a company like MSFT to assign grade point averages to it's staff, and mandate what percentage of people will get what grades.<BR/><BR/>If you understand what has made great American companies GREAT, you understand the importance of the princple of meritocracies. Grading on a curve runs precisely contrary to this principle, because it doesn't allow for individuals to be measured against a fixed standard - it measures them *relative* to others.<BR/><BR/>Curve-based measurements are therefore innately unreliable and inaccurate.<BR/><BR/>That said, if you want to spend a whole lot of time developing "factors" that turn an inaccurate system into one that is somewhat closer to reality, go for it - it's like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic.<BR/><BR/>Read "Built to Last" or "Good to Great" - see if you find any instances of great American business institutions that evaluated employees using GPA's and a 'curve'.<BR/><BR/>Garbage in, garbage out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128525754459959232005-10-05T08:22:00.000-07:002005-10-05T08:22:00.000-07:00"For Microsoft, it means we're having a tougher ti..."For Microsoft, it means we're having a tougher time hiring, and as we look at the -- the future, that's just going to get tougher."<BR/><BR/>I think his general comment is realistic at the macro level. But it's also self-serving. MSFT's specific problems with bureaucracy, long ship windows and a flat stock are making it harder to get new US recruits and therefore MSFT increasingly is importing more foreign workers and doing outsourcing/jv's overseas. Pointing to longer term macro educational issues is a convenient excuse for doing that. Note that GOOG doesn't appear to be having any problems finding qualified recruits and most consider their standards to be at least as high if not higher.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128524674412165612005-10-05T08:04:00.000-07:002005-10-05T08:04:00.000-07:00I've been at cocktail parties and out of work even...<I>I've been at cocktail parties and out of work events where senior management has hinted that there was a need to cut headcount at MS, and that some sort of culling was definite in the near future.</I><BR/><BR/>Microsoft can't hire developers fast enough.<BR/><BR/>However, there is a push to automate testing as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2005/04-27MSRTechPanel.asp<BR/><BR/>"And the interest in the science has gone down quite a bit. Some of the research funding, in terms of how it's focused, and -- and in some cases, even going down, there's a big problem there. So, I'd say we're -- we're quite concerned that the U.S. will lose its relative position, here, in something that's very critical to the economy. To allowing this to be a country where, you know, our wealth is 'way ahead of that of other countries. For Microsoft, it means we're having a tougher time hiring, and as we look at the -- the future, that's just going to get tougher. The jobs are there, they're high-paying jobs, but we're just not seeing the pipeline what it needs to be."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128524371351875362005-10-05T07:59:00.000-07:002005-10-05T07:59:00.000-07:00"Bring in visceral subjects... like the ridiculous..."Bring in visceral subjects... like the ridiculous stack ranking. Get people all riled up. Have the value driven from the comments - of real (duped) employees. Build a sense of community, build a sense of connection with MiniMicrosoft. All the while, repeating a mantra that we need fewer people."<BR/><BR/>Culling is coming, you can bet on that one esp if performance doesn't radically pick up. But as regards mgt orchestrating some Oliver Stonesque conspiracy, I'd say you're reaching.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128488226414427932005-10-04T21:57:00.000-07:002005-10-04T21:57:00.000-07:00Outside of the services org, the company has avoid...Outside of the services org, the company has avoided the types of major layoffs that we've seen at competitors like IBM. <BR/><BR/>I've been at cocktail parties and out of work events where senior management has hinted that there was a need to cut headcount at MS, and that some sort of culling was definite in the near future.<BR/><BR/>But how to handle it and when to do it? Realistically, we need to wait until the products RTM. Also, mgmt needs to cushion the blow. The closest thing we've had to layoffs of any scale were in the services org during Saratoga, and atleast those folks were able to 'explore new opportunities' in other orgs.<BR/><BR/>So how to do it? I'm sure it was at that time one of the execs ran across Tom Sawyer on his kids' 'summer reading list' and had a moment of inspiration.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, we're not being tricked into painting a fence, we're being tricked into thinking that not only do we want layoffs - we *need* layoffs. <BR/><BR/>The number of people - not the management, not the integrated innovation cluster fuck - is the problem for all of our ills.<BR/><BR/>But we say we have the smartest people on the planet working for us. How could anyone possibly trick us into thinking that we need a layoff?<BR/><BR/>Bring in visceral subjects... like the ridiculous stack ranking. Get people all riled up. Have the value driven from the comments - of real (duped) employees. Build a sense of community, build a sense of connection with MiniMicrosoft. All the while, repeating a mantra that we need fewer people.<BR/><BR/>But it gets better - when the mainstream media gets duped, it's the coup de grace. That scored some a 4.5 on their review.<BR/><BR/>With this much success for the blog, does it make management a little more cocky? Too cocky? When you have VPs in various orgs talking about how they read MiniMicrosoft and actually advertising the blog to those unaware of it? Am I the only one who sees this for what it is?<BR/><BR/>There's a culling coming folks, and you've been duped into thinking it's good for you.<BR/><BR/>If there was ever any question about whether or not the company hires the brightest people, I think it's been settled.<BR/><BR/>Bravo!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128449253189319882005-10-04T11:07:00.000-07:002005-10-04T11:07:00.000-07:00"Been in the system for 10 years and have worked m..."Been in the system for 10 years and have worked my ass off and got a 3.0 and then there has been one year, where my luck did some work that caught the VP's attentions(spent just 40 hours in writing that harness) and bagged a 4.5 with Gold star. I was surprised at that score as I did nothing good that year."<BR/><BR/>That my friend speaks to exactly why the system is broken. Not suggesting that breakthrough results are always a function of effort expended. But as you yourself seem to admit, this wasn't about the merit of what you did in that year but simply the fact that the right person noticed. I hope that when you say you're using "that knowledge to guide my reports to get some decent scores and promotions" the translation isn't teaching them how to game the system by managing the perception of their contribution vs the actual contribution - but somehow I doubt it. Sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128436344234961102005-10-04T07:32:00.000-07:002005-10-04T07:32:00.000-07:00Interesting facts about review model and how peopl...Interesting facts about review model and how people get managed. I agree MS review is all about your manager's managers perception. I have a manager who makes opinions very fast and uses that opinion during review. I am lucky to be in his good books, and my try is always to make sure my reports are in his good books. I always tell my reports that they need to "manage that managers perception" and you will come out ahead in the review against your peers. <BR/><BR/>I think here in MS we dont foster enough team achievement. We need to have two rewards. One for team achievement and another for Individual contribution. <BR/><BR/>Been in the system for 10 years and have worked my ass off and got a 3.0 and then there has been one year, where my luck did some work that caught the VP's attentions(spent just 40 hours in writing that harness) and bagged a 4.5 with Gold star. I was surprised at that score as I did nothing good that year. <BR/><BR/>So I have been on both sides on the system, and now use that knowledge to guide my reports to get some decent scores and promotions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128406703935595522005-10-03T23:18:00.000-07:002005-10-03T23:18:00.000-07:00"We need to reward performance, individual perform..."We need to reward performance, individual performance."<BR/><BR/>Agree. In my time there (5 yrs, lifetime 4.0), I saw far more pressure placed on high performers to slow down than on poor performers to catch up or get out. And even when you got a 4.0, your rewards rarely came close to the disparity in results achieved or hours expended. As such, self-motivation was a far greater driver for high performance than the formal reward system itself.<BR/><BR/>"We do have weak management at Microsoft by and large."<BR/><BR/>WRT middle mgt, I would agree. Snr mgt at the time I was there (left 01) was generally quite strong and experienced. In fairness to the middle-mgrs, too many were promoted from within while MSFT was just a desktop player and given little/no ongoing training. Hardly a recipe for success.<BR/><BR/>"Steve was very smart when he chose her to lead HR...Give her some time to work on the issues. I can guarantee that she will push very hard on improving how our managers manage. On holding them accountable, and on getting rid of the ones who should not be managing people."<BR/><BR/>My concern (as an ongoing shareholder now) is if Steve seemingly won't hold senior VPs accountable despite some pretty glaring performance problems, how is Lisa going to hold middle-mgrs accountable? Even if she does, isn't that an inconsistent and ultimately less than effective scenario? Accountability imo starts at the top and it's not clear to me that Steve's either taking it personally (Vista isn't delayed? The stock hasn't underperformed? The company is stronger than ever? There's no morale problem?) or handing it out. That's a problem. I also worry about the "give it time" part. How much more time can MSFT really afford to flounder around? Sure, it's still a giant but with 8% growth and competitors such as GOOG/AAPL/OSS hitting on all cylinders, does MSFT really have the luxury of years to get more effective? I really don't think so - not if it wants to continue being a leading player vs just a player.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128353641121217432005-10-03T08:34:00.000-07:002005-10-03T08:34:00.000-07:00Can someone please explain to me how dropping the ...<I>Can someone please explain to me how dropping the lowest 10% actually changes anything? Afterall, you're still going to have a normal distribution in every review period. The true competitive advantage comes from getting the most from your people so that even your lowest performers are high performers.</I><BR/><BR/>You don't actually have a normal distribution if HR and hiring managers are doing their job. <BR/><BR/>That's just an assumption used by management who, I'm guessing, don't believe they are doing their job when it comes to hiring. <BR/><BR/>They're giving themselves a "mulligan" on their hiring decisions.<BR/><BR/>Applying a curve every review period, over time, you end up firing more and more of the competent people in your organization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128344522652099212005-10-03T06:02:00.000-07:002005-10-03T06:02:00.000-07:00"I do not want to work at any company that does no...<I>"I do not want to work at any company that does not have a curve. We need to reward performance, individual performance."</I><BR/><BR/>You don't need a curve to identify top performers. The stack itself will identify who your top performers are. The curve is applied to 'put the stick' to people who are 'too far' away from the ideal set by the top performers. In other words, the curve is used to punish people.<BR/><BR/>The problem with the curve is that it doesn't even matter if the people at the bottom of the curve actually perfomed quite well... a certain number of people just have to get bad reviews. That just doesn't seem right to me.<BR/><BR/><B>Problem #1</B><BR/>In business you want to make the most of all your resources. Using a curve to punish people is a great way to demoralize them and hurt their performance. If you instead just (do what a good manager should) and get to know what motivates your people, then you can undoubtedly squeeze more performance from them. <BR/><BR/>Do you think the curve is a competitive advantage? No it isn't. It's just a simple, dogmatic measuring tool. The true competitive advantage is having managers that can get the most performance from their people.<BR/><BR/>Getting rid of the curve would allow managers to avoid assigning 3.0s to people that actually performed well and shouldn't be punished.<BR/><BR/>(It seems to me that it would be better to formulate an absolute scale from the previous year's data and measure people agaist that. That would at least give people something to continuously measure themselves against during the year to see what score they are tracking at. Although, maybe that's what the Microsoft Competencies are for?)<BR/><BR/><B>Problem #2</B><BR/>If you are going to rate people against their peers, then you should make the ratings/curve public. Everyone should see where they stand in the ratings and where everyone else stands in the ratings. I can't stand the political, subversive competition that the 'invisible curve' creates. Bring the competition out in the public eye so that people can explicitly make it a goal to learn from the people that are rated higher than them.<BR/><BR/><B>Problem #3</B><BR/>Can someone please explain to me how dropping the lowest 10% actually changes anything? Afterall, you're still going to have a normal distribution in every review period. The true competitive advantage comes from getting the most from your people so that even your lowest performers are high performers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128343797762993972005-10-03T05:49:00.000-07:002005-10-03T05:49:00.000-07:00Also, most people probably don't realize what we h...<I>Also, most people probably don't realize what we have with our latest head of HR. Lisa has a long career at Microsoft as the head of product groups. She has relentlessly focused on management and people development within her organization, and is considered one of the top 5 managers in the company. Steve was very smart when he chose her to lead HR...Give her some time to work on the issues. I can guarantee that she will push very hard on improving how our managers manage. On holding them accountable, and on getting rid of the ones who should not be managing people.</I><BR/><BR/>The current system seems to have worked for her.<BR/><BR/>All she is going to do is figure out a way of convincing you that all the bull shit really isn't that bad.<BR/><BR/>You are going to get a lot of *stuff* like this:<BR/><BR/><I>So as a non-developer, non-Redmond female employee (lifetime review score of 4.2) let me offer another viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>No company is perfect.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128343471069943452005-10-03T05:44:00.000-07:002005-10-03T05:44:00.000-07:00Mini sort of gets this with his talk of Microsoft ...<I>Mini sort of gets this with his talk of Microsoft becoming lean and mean. But the question everyone needs to address is what business strategy goes with that.</I><BR/><BR/>You need to develop tools that make software developers more efficient.<BR/><BR/>Microsoft is never going to give up tied-selling and entanglement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128318620250769772005-10-02T22:50:00.000-07:002005-10-02T22:50:00.000-07:00I cringe whenever you talk about firing underperfo...I cringe whenever you talk about firing underperformers... in my mind, priority #1 should be to fire some of our "superstars." We have a bunch of these guys in my division who create new processes/tools/architectures that, at first blush, are good ideas but end up with monumental secondary costs in lost productivity, stability/quality, morale, etc. Meanwhile all management can do is rave about these superhuman 5.0 contributors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128306836232201602005-10-02T19:33:00.000-07:002005-10-02T19:33:00.000-07:00[...]The ever-expanding-number-of interlocking-mon...<I>[...]The ever-expanding-number-of interlocking-monopolies strategy is also at least one reason behind "integrated innovation."<BR/><BR/>I think most of the people here are taking the wrong approach. You can't straighten things out working from the bottem up if things are fouled-up due to a big strategic decision made at the top.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>This is a posting coming from a perceptive individual--I hope you don't mind my saying something like this. Indeed, MSFT desire to get fast to <I>ever-expanding-number-of interlocking-monopolies</I> is part of any conversation in a very top-level analysis. Not being sure about the correctness of such a goal myself, I would like to ask a few (hopefully clarifying) questions:<BR/>Is it wrong to want to build "interlocking-monopolies"? Why?<BR/>Do you get to "interlocking-monopolies" by design or by accident?<BR/>How broad of a scope you'd like to have for an ideal set of "interlocking-monopolies"? In other words, is it a good idea to dream of a (operating) system spanning everything from mobile to games, to SOHO, and to enterprise?<BR/>How tight "interlocking-monopolies" does MSFT have?<BR/><BR/>Additional observation: When IBM was taken over by Gerstner, he proved most everybody wrong by not throwing away the big iron part of IBM's business. What should Ballmer (or his successor for that matter) learn? To play on one's strengths?<BR/><BR/>Cheers, fChfChhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08007305273044171670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128306772205564822005-10-02T19:32:00.000-07:002005-10-02T19:32:00.000-07:00"It doesn't occur to them that management is hard,..."It doesn't occur to them that management is hard, that leadership is harder, and that both are skills that must be developed through both training and experience"<BR/><BR/>Yes, but you know, Microsoft doesn't have good managers, doesn't have a culture of management, doesn't train well, and at Microsoft the "good" manager or leader is a complete anomaly. So don't hoist yourself on your petard, managers at Microsoft basically suck, I have yet to have a good one, and historically their manager feedback would vouch for that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128305163087611872005-10-02T19:06:00.000-07:002005-10-02T19:06:00.000-07:00I do not want to work at any company that does not...I do not want to work at any company that does not have a curve. We need to reward performance, individual performance. If our managers are not using the system correctly, lets improve the management, not get rid of the system. Frankly, we should target 10% good attrition at every level of the company, every year. <BR/><BR/>10% of the VPs get the boot.<BR/>10% of the partners get the boot.<BR/>10% of the rank and file get the boot.<BR/><BR/>Yes, you can come up with this theoretically perfect group where everyone peforms equally well and everyone is better than the people not in the group. Doesn't happen in reality. Our lowest 10% are blockers. They are taking cool jobs from people who could do better. They are causing the rest of the group to work harder, they cause disruption.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, the best of our best should be rewarded commensurately. They should get the lion's share of the bonus dollars, the stock awards, the promos, etc. If anything, I'm frustrated that Microsoft does not more agressively differentiate. As a manager, i've tried hard to exceed my budgets so that there is very clear differentiation across the team. Sometimes, this has worked, othertimes I've been forced into very narrow ranges -- very frustrating. <BR/><BR/>The curve is not the problem -- its a great tool and its part of a solution. Believe me -- all of these companies we like to compare Microsoft to (google, etc.) strongly differentiate in their rewards to employees. This is a good thing. We are all following in the ways of GE here.<BR/><BR/>All of that said, we must demand that our managers take the process seriously, that we are objective, that people know where they stand throughout the year, etc. We do have weak management at Microsoft by and large. I believe the company is trying to do something about it, but it will take time. The key problem is that Microsoft is made up of a bunch of high performers with egos. It doesn't occur to them that management is hard, that leadership is harder, and that both are skills that must be developed through both training and experience. <BR/><BR/>...and, we should focus on managers people ratings and do things about it -- this does happen in at least parts of the company. I can tell you that it is very difficult to get a 3.5 or 4.0 in your people rating, and that the impact that this has on your overall compensation is directly tied to your role as a manager (e.g. lead of 2-3 people less of an issue, manager of managers, 80-90% of your score. <BR/><BR/>Also, most people probably don't realize what we have with our latest head of HR. Lisa has a long career at Microsoft as the head of product groups. She has relentlessly focused on management and people development within her organization, and is considered one of the top 5 managers in the company. Steve was very smart when he chose her to lead HR...Give her some time to work on the issues. I can guarantee that she will push very hard on improving how our managers manage. On holding them accountable, and on getting rid of the ones who should not be managing people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128303945472559762005-10-02T18:45:00.000-07:002005-10-02T18:45:00.000-07:00Looking from the outside, I think the stack rating...Looking from the outside, I think the stack rating system is the wrong place to start. What I have gotten from reading this blog is that the problems started around 2000 or 2001 when Ballmer became CEO, and Microsoft hired a lot of new managers who weren't very good. And that in turn seems to be because Microsoft wanted to get a lot larger.<BR/><BR/>As long as there are a lot of bad managers, evluation is going to be screwed up. One thing that divides good from bad managers is the ability to tell if an employee good or not. In fact, bad managers tend to feel threatened by good employees, as they can see how the bad manager is screwing up.<BR/><BR/>This all implies that the starting place would be for Microsoft to decide to become leaner, and fire a lot of managers and developers. <BR/><BR/>Now the problem with that idea is that Microsoft's basic strategy is to develop an ever-enlarging web of interlocking monopolies. I think it expanded so much in the last half-decade because its existing monopolies had gone about as far as they could, and so it is desperately looking for the next monopoly. That is why there are so many developers working on so many projects, and so many low-quality managers. The hope is that something, anything, will be the next killer application.(The ever-expanding-number-of interlocking-monopolies strategy is also at least one reason behind "integrated innovation") <BR/><BR/>I think most of the people here are taking the wrong approach. You can't straighten things out working from the bottem up if things are fouled-up due to a big strategic decision made at the top. <BR/><BR/>Mini sort of gets this with his talk of Microsoft becoming lean and mean. But the question everyone needs to address is what business strategy goes with that. Lean-and-mean means giving up the ever-expanding-number of-interlinking-monopolies strategy, and so you have to have a new strategy. <BR/><BR/>What is the new business model? What sort of software would Microsoft have to sell? What are the markets? You have to think on that level if you are really going to reform Microsoft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128300620631462822005-10-02T17:50:00.000-07:002005-10-02T17:50:00.000-07:00You have to get rid of your poor performersSo how ...<I>You have to get rid of your poor performers</I><BR/><BR/>So how come my manager stills hang around with those brown spots on his nose while his reports have a curve painted on their faces?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128299174668594622005-10-02T17:26:00.000-07:002005-10-02T17:26:00.000-07:00It would appear that most of the comments in this ...It would appear that most of the comments in this blog come from the Redmond development community and I am inferring because of that are coming from men. <BR/>So as a non-developer, non-Redmond female employee (lifetime review score of 4.2) let me offer another viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>No company is perfect. This one isn't, my last one wasn't and the next one won't be. But it is a company --it's not my entire life and believe me when I say this is a much better place to work that Oracle or SAP. When I read some of these blogs I get the feeling that you are expecting the place you work to fill up every void in your life. Fellows, that is just not going to happen. Pick two or three things where you can make a positive difference and do something about it. The points you are making about the curve and the model are not "new" news.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1128295070271475482005-10-02T16:17:00.000-07:002005-10-02T16:17:00.000-07:00This article is generally positive, but the lead i...This article is generally positive, but the lead in imo says a lot about what's currently wrong:<BR/><BR/>"I was still in my <B>twenties</B> when Microsoft started talking up Yukon, now known as SQL Server 2005. It was, Microsoft said, going to allow huge OLAP cubes on PC architectures and perform other minor BI miracles. Now that I'm solidly in my <B>mid-thirties</B> and have seen many major new versions of BI platforms come and go from the headlines, Yukon's imminent release (set for November 7) feels unreal even though Microsoft released several preview versions of the server for free download in the past year. Parts of it are still coming together: Microsoft recently announced, for example, that the promised data mirroring won't be ready for the first general release; it's now expected in 2006."<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20051002/tc_cmp/171000661" REL="nofollow"> Microsoft Ups The Price/Performance Ante </A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com