tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post114765673557842439..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Microsoft Investors, Partners, and Big Upcoming ChangesWho da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148768003941502692006-05-27T15:13:00.000-07:002006-05-27T15:13:00.000-07:00>>because I had been promoted.>>In fact they told ...>>because I had been promoted.<BR/>>>In fact they told me HR would <BR/>>>not have allowed higher than a <BR/>>>3.0 for me.<BR/><BR/>bulshit, I myself have gotten a promo mid year followed by a 4.5 in the following yearly review.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148119531646915492006-05-20T03:05:00.000-07:002006-05-20T03:05:00.000-07:00While it's 3am now and I'm bound to ramble, I'll s...While it's 3am now and I'm bound to ramble, I'll start by agreeing with the last commenter...compared to the 5 other companies I worked at, including smaller supposedly more "nimble" dot-coms, MS is actually pretty darn good place to work. <BR/><BR/>Ultimately, it's a structural problem, which I don't believe is MS specific - it's the law of large #'s. Not $-wise but with # of people. Human organizations, by nature of us being mortal and the foibles social creatures possess, generally atrophy into a more chaotic state(think Survivor, and that's only a handful of peeps). <BR/><BR/>Heck, even Google's Schmidt has been publicly worrying about Google needing more "structure" in its developement processes vs. having a bunch of unstructured betas that have mostly amounted to cool science projects. <BR/><BR/>End of day, I simply can't think of any company 65k large that is any better than MS. Wrt stock price languishing, it will be exponentially harder for MS to outperform. Look at Google, they're golden right now on adverting profits, but what have <I>they</I> done about their v-next pipeline? Would they be any different then MS when they reach our market cap.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I'm a bit burnt but don't blame it on the company. It not the first nor will it be my last - it's just the nature of life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148061709663985762006-05-19T11:01:00.000-07:002006-05-19T11:01:00.000-07:00I've been in the corporate world for almost 20 yea...I've been in the corporate world for almost 20 years and been @ 3 other large corporations in this area. I am not an executive, have no real interest in being one as I'd rather spend my time doing something else. And I have no direct reports. In sum, I have no agenda. Not one of the companies where I've been employed can compare in overall compensation and work life balance. There is NO comparison. One could argue that maybe the other companies were crap – but they are very successful and well considered. It doesn't matter how great a company may seem from the outside, unless you've actually been employed outside Microsoft, you have no idea what it is really like. We have a wonderful complete package. Compensation is only a small piece of the pie. You have to look @ the entire picture to fully appreciate how good we have it. This comes from experience, not naiveté.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148006345633371402006-05-18T19:39:00.000-07:002006-05-18T19:39:00.000-07:00You know. I could deal with the partner payouts an...You know. I could deal with the partner payouts and overpaying new hire grads.. I could put up with my less than competitive salary, if the exec management team could agree to do two things.<BR/><BR/>Listen to our fucking customers.<BR/>Based on what we hear, innovate and build something they want to buy.<BR/>Your building them we are testing them (beta), just don't market them well. Dinosaur add's anyone?<BR/><BR/>Seriously, if you ever talk with customers, you'll see recurring themes on what they think we could do better, what products they want to buy, etc. But we don't listen.<BR/>Agree totally!<BR/><BR/>Instead, we tell them they need Live. We tell them they need gadgets.<BR/><BR/>Newsflash - <BR/><BR/>They.Don't.Need.Live<BR/>We need live since our Office products can't be accessed without spending major $ to access out of my OFFICE our store LOCATION!!!!!<BR/><BR/>We need Live to keep them away from Google. If customers want "other stuff", let's build it for them.<BR/>You need "Live" so your cash (retail) customers can keep your "cash cows" from being slaughtered!!!<BR/>Dymanics is great for enterprise but you guy's are forgetting that there are many more small businesses who pay cash at our favorite retail or internet establishment or now your "live" (Office Live) to support your freaking cash cows!!! Jeezuss, all the bitchin and moanin about stock price and and upper management is reminds me of when we began our own startup. Successful now because of your products and how WE USE THEM!!!<BR/><BR/>And speaking of Google, they do the search thing well. Why not find a way to work together instead of going into an arms race?<BR/>Sleep with your enemy??? Why in hells bells would you do this?<BR/>Passed my competitor on the hiway today. I had twice the load and twice the truck and trailer to pull it with just like you guys do.<BR/>Problem with you is that you don't have the confidence to pull it off and WE DO!!!<BR/><BR/>Do we really need to own everything?<BR/>No just all the things you do well, and there are very many that you do. Confidence level in what you do and all people working as a team to make the company work. Mini is correct. As an employer I weed out ANYONE who has a negative attitude toward MY COMPANY.<BR/><BR/>In an arms race, someone goes broke or gets blown up at the climax. Why not find a way we can work together, share some revenue and all make money?<BR/>Do you not realize that it this is business??? Every company for it's self??? How in hell are you as a shareholder going to increase your companies stock value by sharing with your competitor unless your products are better and more valued by YOUR CUSTOMERS???<BR/><BR/>You guy's can't see the forest in all it's natural beauty because of the freakin trees!!!<BR/><BR/>CustomerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1148000801921152542006-05-18T18:06:00.000-07:002006-05-18T18:06:00.000-07:00>As some who does not work at Microsoft, but inste...>As some who does not work at Microsoft, but instead works in the open source world; all I can say is "keep shooting each other". What ever you do don't act like a team. Make sure you rank and berate everyone, make every nervous and hyper competitive.<BR/><BR/>Apropos of nothing, how many Linux distros are there now?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147989322815510442006-05-18T14:55:00.000-07:002006-05-18T14:55:00.000-07:00Well i hope we have created the steam engine. They...Well i hope we have created the steam engine. They are still around, they are called steam tubines now but still work on the same basic principles (expanding steam)... These turbines are the most common type of energy producers in the world....<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147981440132648132006-05-18T12:44:00.000-07:002006-05-18T12:44:00.000-07:00>>Listen to our fucking customers.>>Based on what ...>>Listen to our fucking customers.<BR/>>>Based on what we hear, innovate and build something they want to buy.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, that's actually a terrible way to innovate. Customers just want the stuff that's on the market, cheaper and faster. Especially enterprise customers - they just want bug fixes and discounts.<BR/><BR/>Just ask Steve Jobs. Was anyone asking Apple to come up with a hard drive based MP3 player back in 2001? Did customers even like it then? (No, the reviews were really mediocre.) Actually, I'm pretty sure he said something to this effect.<BR/><BR/>Nintendo said something like that recently too with the introduction of the Wii.<BR/><BR/>Delighting the customers is very different than listening to the customer. Just go to a focus group and you'll see what I mean.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147970970540408372006-05-18T09:49:00.000-07:002006-05-18T09:49:00.000-07:00Perhaps if we didn't have so many married employee...<I>Perhaps if we didn't have so many married employees, or employees with kids - we could be more agile like google and work until 3am everyday.</I><BR/><BR/>Speaking as someone who is single and a workaholic, I have to say this is quite possibly the most ludicrous statement I've heard on this blog (and there have been many ludicrous statements made here).<BR/><BR/>This comment is a sign of immaturity and stupidity. While I consider the "work/life balance" concept to be total batshit, I feel compelled to point out that someone's marital (or other) status has no bearing on their effectiveness as an employee. Typically, their effectiveness is a function of their talent and motivation. While talent is another story altogether, motivation is comprised of working on something meaningful, working in a team and management structure that nurtures and believes in your skills, and driving to a single, well-focused objective and purpose.<BR/><BR/>All three categories, it should be noted, which are sorely lacking at the modern Microsoft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147970653102972932006-05-18T09:44:00.000-07:002006-05-18T09:44:00.000-07:00Some poor dude said, "In fact they told me HR woul...Some poor dude said, "<I>In fact they told me HR would not have allowed higher than a 3.0 for me. My mentor later told me I should have refused the mid-year promotion, held on and gotten a high review score + promo + big bonus at review time..." and<BR/><BR/>"Review scores have little if anything to do with performance and everything to do with politics."<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>"You are either in or out, and if you are out you are <B>screwed</B> no matter how great the results"</I><BR/><BR/>1. They may not have lied about you needing a 3.0 after your promotion (because you may have been performing at a 3.0, or your org policy may have required it), but there is no HR requirement to give you a 3.0 after a promotion. So one way or another your group lied to you.<BR/><BR/>2. Review scores have everything to do with performance, there was just a layer of budget & curve over it until today at 2:30pm.<BR/><BR/>3. In your case, screwed it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147970301937339292006-05-18T09:38:00.000-07:002006-05-18T09:38:00.000-07:00And speaking of Google, they do the search thing w...<I>And speaking of Google, they do the search thing well. Why not find a way to work together instead of going into an arms race?</I><BR/><BR/>I've thought about that, and I think the answer is: because they (Google) won't work with us. They want an arms race. They provoked us by: (1) broadening onto the desktop and (2) aggressively competing for and poaching our talent.<BR/><BR/>Our strategy, therefore, consists of two points:<BR/><BR/>-- The best defense is a good offense. Invade their space. "Keep them honest".<BR/><BR/>-- Star Wars (SDI). Allocate billions for datacenters and staff. Threaten to outspend and outresource them until they blink. Then we can continue to set the pace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147964474277923142006-05-18T08:01:00.000-07:002006-05-18T08:01:00.000-07:00"At the very minimum, we've never had a shareholde..."At the very minimum, we've never had a shareholder revolt over exec pay:"<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned. Once shareholders fully realize that most of that buyback money since 00 really went to insiders and among that group, mostly to executives, things could change quickly - especially given the abysmal performance of the stock including the recent freefall carnage. MSFT executives are among the highest paid in the industry, period. Arguing that this isn't the case, is simply foolish. Unfortunately, that outsized pay doesn't equal outsized performance. For example, despite overseeing the worst delay of an operating system in MS history, Allchin vested over ~$40M in stock comp during the past 12 mths alone. For overseing MSN's expensive march into also-ran status, David Cole vested ~$30M over that same period. For overseeing MBS's still unprofitable and ridiculously low growth vs segments leaders CRM, RNOW, etc., Douglas Burgum's take was ~$20M on the year. And how much more do you think Allchin and Burgum stand to gain when the SPSA gets handed out? A shareholder revolt at MS is definitely coming if the company keeps on its current trajectory. As Ballmer is fond of saying, "bet on it" - only in this case, it'll really happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147958704099319862006-05-18T06:25:00.000-07:002006-05-18T06:25:00.000-07:00>Perhaps if we didn't have so many married employe...>Perhaps if we didn't have so many married employees, or employees with kids - we could be more agile like google and work until 3am everyday. Then we could ship great products incredibly rapidly, get the buzz, and get the stock price up.<BR/><BR/>You must be new to the software industry. Death marches only lead to unhappiness not 'great products' or happy customers. <BR/><BR/>-- DareAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147950436921320072006-05-18T04:07:00.000-07:002006-05-18T04:07:00.000-07:00Mini --I'm curious. Can you share how many of you...Mini --<BR/><BR/>I'm curious. Can you share how many of your posters are campus vs. field? Men vs. women? My (field based female)colleagues and I are guessing 90%+ Redmond-based guys beating their chests. <BR/><BR/>Sign me -- happy and proud to work at MicrosoftAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147944637603272392006-05-18T02:30:00.000-07:002006-05-18T02:30:00.000-07:00"Do not let anyone at Microsoft convinve you other..."Do not let anyone at Microsoft convinve you otherwise, the 3.0 is a very punitive score."<BR/><BR/>Bullshit. After a mid-year promotion on the back of multiple awards and recognition I received a 3.0. I was staggered. My manager and my manager's manager told me, direct to my face, that this was because I had been promoted. In fact they told me HR would not have allowed higher than a 3.0 for me. My mentor later told me I should have refused the mid-year promotion, held on and gotten a high review score + promo + big bonus at review time...but that the mid-year bump was used to sort out a big gap between my level and role while assuring the high scores could still be given to those already chosen to receive them. It was convenient and let them give the high scores to their chosen few.<BR/><BR/>Review scores have little if anything to do with performance and everything to do with politics. My best score? When I was a direct report of a good manager who liked me. My worst? When I did an even better job on an important project but had a new to MS manager who was being played by others for their own benefit.<BR/><BR/>You are either in or out, and if you are out you are screwed no matter how great the results you deliver may be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147936550420068072006-05-18T00:15:00.000-07:002006-05-18T00:15:00.000-07:00It always makes me uneasy when people talk about r...It always makes me uneasy when people talk about rewarding review superstars more and firing people who get 3.0s.<BR/><BR/>I know two people who were asked to leave their respective groups after "underperforming" and receiving repeat 3.0s. They both found positions in different groups and are now superstars, receiving 4.0s, promotions, and in one case, a 4.5. It's not that they're working harder or got smarter--their new groups are just relatively weak.<BR/><BR/>As much as people want to think that review scores are reasonably objective, that's just not the case.<BR/><BR/>Firing the repeat 3.0s across the company might sound like a great idea but that would probably eliminate a ton of great talent. And if you reward the "superstars" in weak groups disproportionately, it's unfair to the "average" employees doing better work in stronger groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147934768238698472006-05-17T23:46:00.000-07:002006-05-17T23:46:00.000-07:00There is some noise from the big stockholders and ...There is some noise from the big stockholders and fund managers regarding the prolonged under performance of MSFT and disregard for share holder value. I was surprised to see the $60b proposal to buy back shares to add share holder value. Is there still a hidden value still in asking Microsoft to buyback more? <BR/><BR/>I'm amazed how we are keeping a Carl Icahn from entering our stock and start demanding some radical changes. May be it will be a good thing - a kick in the butt to get our acts straight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147932940297167162006-05-17T23:15:00.000-07:002006-05-17T23:15:00.000-07:00The CEO summit is a good place for Bill to (in his...The CEO summit is a good place for Bill to (in his ponderous, throughful, visionary way) tell other CEOs that he thinks there are great opportunities moving forward in the area of advertising supported sites and services. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147932122243242072006-05-17T23:02:00.000-07:002006-05-17T23:02:00.000-07:00You know. I could deal with the partner payouts an...You know. I could deal with the partner payouts and overpaying new hire grads.. I could put up with my less than competitive salary, if the exec management team could agree to do two things.<BR/><BR/>Listen to our fucking customers.<BR/>Based on what we hear, innovate and build something they want to buy.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, if you ever talk with customers, you'll see recurring themes on what they think we could do better, what products they want to buy, etc. But we don't listen.<BR/><BR/>Instead, we tell them they need Live. We tell them they need gadgets.<BR/><BR/>Newsflash - <BR/><BR/>They.Don't.Need.Live<BR/><BR/>We need Live to keep them away from Google. If customers want "other stuff", let's build it for them.<BR/><BR/>And speaking of Google, they do the search thing well. Why not find a way to work together instead of going into an arms race?<BR/><BR/>Do we really need to own everything?<BR/><BR/>In an arms race, someone goes broke or gets blown up at the climax. Why not find a way we can work together, share some revenue and all make money?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147930050117642112006-05-17T22:27:00.000-07:002006-05-17T22:27:00.000-07:00While this will shore up the true laggards and tho...<I>While this will shore up the true laggards and those that may have been mistakenly labelled as laggards, there is no doubt that the true superstars may see their rewards compromised with this attempt to socialize MS.</I><BR/><BR/>You are easily confused. HR just changed labels.<BR/><BR/>excellent 4.0-5.0<BR/>satisfactory 3.0-3.5<BR/>unsatisfactory 2.5<BR/><BR/>Microsoft is moving to just reward the people with the "excellent" rating. Hardly socialism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147929667158900622006-05-17T22:21:00.000-07:002006-05-17T22:21:00.000-07:00But I will not hire anyone with 4 3.0s in the past...<I>But I will not hire anyone with 4 3.0s in the past 5 years into my group, no matter the reasons for the 3.0s. Chances are that they will come into my group and start amassing 3.0s again.</I><BR/><BR/>The guy is working with managers leveled below him. What do you think is happening?<BR/><BR/>Does your brain just shut off when you see someone got a 3.0?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147929465870499882006-05-17T22:17:00.000-07:002006-05-17T22:17:00.000-07:00Yes we sometimes need lesser levels of good talent...<I>Yes we sometimes need lesser levels of good talent to complement the superstars but by golly, we don't need to equalize everything. We risk reduced production from our superstars.</I><BR/><BR/>Do you know the difference between a relative and absolute ranking?<BR/><BR/>Let's say Microsoft hires the top 20% of the most talented people in the workforce measured on an absolute scale.<BR/><BR/>Within that 20%, Microsoft's management decides to manage out 6.5% of its workforce every year measured on a relative scale.<BR/><BR/>The next year it is choosing from the bottom 80% that it did not hire last time.<BR/><BR/>Do the most talented people in the workforce want to work at Microsoft? Probably not.<BR/><BR/>So, Microsoft isn't hiring the top 20%. It is hiring from a pool who, using its own ranking method, would be considered average.<BR/><BR/>Chances are you're just average.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147924662937378482006-05-17T20:57:00.001-07:002006-05-17T20:57:00.001-07:00As some who does not work at Microsoft, but instea...As some who does not work at Microsoft, but instead works in the open source world; all I can say is "keep shooting each other". What ever you do don't act like a team. Make sure you rank and berate everyone, make every nervous and hyper competitive.<BR/><BR/>The whole corporate mentality of rank and stack makes Microsoft a brittle organization that is easier to compete with.<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147924646699706572006-05-17T20:57:00.000-07:002006-05-17T20:57:00.000-07:00"Still want to compare MSFT to HP?"Are you actuall..."Still want to compare MSFT to HP?"<BR/><BR/>Are you actually serious? Forget salaries, that's the chump change at MSFT. Look at options comp:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=msft" REL="nofollow">MSFT Insider Selling</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=HPQ" REL="nofollow">HPQ Insider Selling</A><BR/><BR/>I gurantee you that the total amount of money that has flowed to the top 1000 people at both companies over the past 5 years is an order of magnitude higher at MSFT.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147923993342068982006-05-17T20:46:00.000-07:002006-05-17T20:46:00.000-07:00Carly got a $21 million severance package. $21 mil...<I>Carly got a $21 million severance package. $21 million for screwing over two companies: HP and Compaq. For laying off tens of thousands of employees. For quitting.<BR/><BR/>Still want to compare MSFT to HP?</I><BR/><BR/>Belluzo? 15 million loan forgiven after he left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1147923491385773032006-05-17T20:38:00.000-07:002006-05-17T20:38:00.000-07:00Back in 1993 Alfie Kohn wrote an article titled "F...Back in 1993 Alfie Kohn wrote an article titled "For Best Results, Forget the Bonus", and rereading it today I think things like "options", "SPSA", and "expected yearly bonuses".<BR/><BR/>Choice quotes:<BR/><BR/><I><B>Rewards ignore reasons.</B> To solve productivity problems, executives must understand the causes. Are workers unable to collaborate effectively? Is long-term growth being sacrificed for short-term gain? Each situation calls for a different response. But incentive plans offer a one-size-fits-all answer that ignores what lies behind the questions.</I><BR/><BR/><I><B>Rewards deter risk-taking.</B> When people are offered incentives they are less inclined to take risks, explore possibilities, play hunches or attend to anything whose relevance to the problem at hand is not immediately evident. In a word, the No. 1 casualty of rewards is creativity.</I><BR/><BR/><I>Do rewards motivate people? Absolutely. They motivate people to get rewards.</I><BR/><BR/>The entire article can be found at <A HREF="http://www.alfiekohn.org/managing/fbrftb.htm" REL="nofollow">http://www.alfiekohn.org/managing/fbrftb.htm</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com