tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post2180045580160526636..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Microsoft FY08Q1 ResultsWho da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger167125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-72093970280180365742008-05-02T14:35:00.000-07:002008-05-02T14:35:00.000-07:00Thanks...CaltelARTICLESThanks...<BR/><BR/>Caltel<BR/><A HREF="http://article.ezedir.com" REL="nofollow">ARTICLES</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-5482430791937832292008-03-19T13:32:00.000-07:002008-03-19T13:32:00.000-07:00For us new arrivals, could someone please briefly ...For us new arrivals, could someone please briefly define what is meant by "being Kimed"?<BR/><BR/>ThanksEricFowlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682596898595547401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-70982456391368381812007-12-19T12:58:00.000-08:002007-12-19T12:58:00.000-08:00Mini?Minnnnnnieeeeee?I need my fix, Mini!This ex-S...Mini?<BR/><BR/>Minnnnnnieeeeee?<BR/><BR/>I need my fix, Mini!<BR/><BR/>This ex-Softie has had a sad reminder that the poor leadership and management examples this blog is all about are sadly not unique to Microsoft...in fact, MS has fewer bad managers (on a per-employee basis) than the other companies I've worked for before and since. I'm stuck in a company almost defined by weak leadership and poor management right now. I'm looking for the exits and (ironically) feeling a little nostalgic for Microsoft where at least I knew the rules.<BR/><BR/>My employment record includes Micron (back in the day!), IBM, Intel and Symantec, so I think I have some basis for comparison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-40966504688054987622007-12-18T22:41:00.000-08:002007-12-18T22:41:00.000-08:00Mini-- Have you been busted? Where are you?? You...Mini-- Have you been busted? Where are you?? You've been silent too long. RSVP<BR/><BR/>Also noticed MSFTextreme has gone silent.... I'm worried.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-40483131452517118542007-11-26T19:56:00.000-08:002007-11-26T19:56:00.000-08:00If my recent firsthand experience with HR is any i...If my recent firsthand experience with HR is any indication, there is no wonder it takes them so long to catch on to swinging dicks like Martin, Stuart, and Ken. (hey, wasn't that a smarmy song back in the 60's?)<BR/><BR/>I had an HR manager (not gneralist, mind you, a GM-level manager) tell me face to face that their role was to protect the company from the actions of employees. "OK," (you might ask) "why didn't they act to protect the company from the Swinging Dick Brigade sooner?" <BR/><BR/>"Because," she says (paraphrasing here) "the real problem is with the low level managers, not the level 65+ ones."<BR/><BR/>Riiight!*<BR/><BR/>*Bill Cosby, 1963Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-20974879400719301272007-11-16T12:32:00.000-08:002007-11-16T12:32:00.000-08:00The whole purpose of "Kim/Limited" is to chase the...<I>The whole purpose of "Kim/Limited" is to chase the majority of people out after 7 to 10 years (and nearly everyone out after 15). It's pretty clear that Microsoft wants to replace experienced (and expensive) employees with cheap and naive entry-levels.</I><BR/><BR/>I have been a senior manager at Microsoft for a long time, and I have never seen this behavior. Every manager I know would find it abhorent. (I don't know all or even most MS managers, but I have a good sample size.)<BR/><BR/>Sure there are all sorts of reasons folks get labeled as Limited, some better than others. Bad managers perpetuate bad management. People do really horrible things, but there is no conspiracy to make them systematic.<BR/><BR/>People do get screwed on reviews sometimes. It sucks. Maybe the reviewing system is broken, and that's a discussion worth having.<BR/><BR/>But no one is telling us to force out employees because of what they cost. And if you think that <I>is</I> happening, please do see an attorney -- tell LCA (MS Legal) immediately! I'm serious. Send an EMail to your group's attorney today. It's a privileged conversation, and an attorney could lose his or her license for using that EMail improperly, so sending the mail is not a CLM (career-limiting move).<BR/><BR/>Again, I am not defending incompetent management. I am not denying that some managers may be venal. I am not even denying that there could be systemic unintentional bias or local intentional bias. But if it were intentional at a company level, I'm confident I'd know it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-16438904585900059642007-11-09T21:26:00.000-08:002007-11-09T21:26:00.000-08:00Okay time to flip the comment moderation switch ba...<I>Okay time to flip the comment moderation switch back to on a week after experimenting with the opening commenting.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for the ride, Mini! It was fun while it lasted. Enjoyed seeing comments as soon as they were posted instead of in batches. But understand why you need to flip the bit again. Ah, well...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-92120246209077767332007-11-09T19:17:00.000-08:002007-11-09T19:17:00.000-08:00Administrivia: Okay time to flip the comment moder...<I>Administrivia</I>: Okay time to flip the comment moderation switch back to <B>on</B> a week after experimenting with the opening commenting. It wasn't too bad, except for that whole bit besmirching the beauty of Microsoftie-women (<I>I'm not available and all, but smart is sexy, and Microsoft has some of the sexiest smart women in the world. The guys on the other hand... Anyway, end of discussion on that.</I>).Who da'Punkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-36615978614039458472007-11-09T18:42:00.000-08:002007-11-09T18:42:00.000-08:00Stuart was fired for the affair and the hostile wo...<I>Stuart was fired for the affair and the hostile work environment he created for women in his org</I><BR/>Chances are the whistler blower(s) will be managed out next, unless they were good at staying anonymous. HR does not like to hear these type of issues coming up. The whistler blower(s) are now on the "black list" - so better start looking for a job elsewhere....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-78128224230451576042007-11-09T18:30:00.000-08:002007-11-09T18:30:00.000-08:00Hoo, boy. Comments on mini hit a new low with this...<B><BR/>Hoo, boy. Comments on mini hit a new low with this one. <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Why, it's off topic, but an interesting one and somewhat related to MSFT. I'm glad someone brought it up.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Hint 1: you might be better off trying to meet someone OUTSIDE your workplace. <BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Excellent suggestion, anyone looking at Microsoft as a place to potentially find a wife is going to be very disappointed. I have no comments on the whole attractiveness issue, but the original poster's note about the 75/25 ratio is what stacks the odds against us guys.<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Hint 2: you might be better off if your criteria weren't so heavily weighted toward the purely physical attractiveness of a potential partner.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Again, well stated, but let's also not kid ourselves that physical attraction does not matter, it does. Once you get past that initial test, then you can focus on other things. If someone is pretty but otherwise a complete klutz, then forget about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-23930633064987949052007-11-09T18:23:00.000-08:002007-11-09T18:23:00.000-08:00try craigslist or match.com since you can't seem t...<I><BR/>try craigslist or match.com since you can't seem to peruse downtown or eastside to find one of the available women ... :)<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Ugh, have you ever seen the profiles at match.com? No thanks, I like my chances at the local Starbucks a whole lot better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-68552966759320617922007-11-09T18:21:00.000-08:002007-11-09T18:21:00.000-08:00to the lowly dater ..try craigslist or match.com s...<B>to the lowly dater ..<BR/><BR/>try craigslist or match.com since you can't seem to peruse downtown or eastside to find one of the available women ... :)<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Oh, there are lots of available women, nobody is denying that. The question is, where are all the "attractive" available women? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-51713144497996846402007-11-09T14:38:00.001-08:002007-11-09T14:38:00.001-08:00to the lowly dater ..try craigslist or match.com s...to the lowly dater ..<BR/><BR/>try craigslist or match.com since you can't seem to peruse downtown or eastside to find one of the available women ... :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-65163071912861765622007-11-09T14:38:00.000-08:002007-11-09T14:38:00.000-08:00So Microsoft may be structured ideally to maximize...<I>So Microsoft may be structured ideally to maximize productivity, if productivity means individuals working to climb the ladder levels as if their lives literally depended on it. Maybe great for a shoe factory but it may also be the worst system possible if you're trying to get people to collaborate on projects.</I><BR/><BR/>Bingo - teamwork dissapears in a Glengarry Glenn Ross environment. Okay if you're selling real estate, I guess, but not so good if you're building complex products.<BR/><BR/>The other problem, of course, is that smart people who find themselves in such an environment get out, because they realize they are being taken advantage of and can probably get a better deal elsewhere. <BR/><BR/>So, eventually you end up with a bunch of backstabbing third-raters. <BR/><BR/>Good luck with that, SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-67735749418751443932007-11-09T14:04:00.000-08:002007-11-09T14:04:00.000-08:00Man, what they DON'T teach in engineering school.S...Man, what they DON'T teach in engineering school.<BR/><BR/>Silly geeks, you work at Microsoft so you DON'T have to look for mates at Microsoft. <BR/><BR/>Besides, many people (men and women) who work at Microsoft are much more devoted to their jobs than to anyone of the same species. Shopping for mates there is the prescription for emotional disaster. Try and find out the divorce rate for people employed at MSFT. That is not a number they are proud of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-76217896963932471912007-11-09T12:56:00.000-08:002007-11-09T12:56:00.000-08:00I was reading recently about how disparity in stat...I was reading recently about how disparity in status and assets can trigger a low-grade fight-or-flight instinct. By having so many levels and such big pay differences, Microsoft may be leveraging human nature (more than one might think) to make everybody work like crazy. The downside is that people at the bottom of such a society tend to have many more health problems and die much younger.<BR/><BR/>So Microsoft may be structured ideally to maximize productivity, if productivity means individuals working to climb the ladder levels as if their lives literally depended on it. Maybe great for a shoe factory but it may also be the worst system possible if you're trying to get people to collaborate on projects.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-364036573613045102007-11-09T11:12:00.000-08:002007-11-09T11:12:00.000-08:00I wouldn't be surprised if you decide to CRF or de...I wouldn't be surprised if you decide to CRF or delete this altogether, Mini, but I really don't think it's too far of a deviation from what is already a straying from the topic. It is, rather, a dose of reality.<BR/><BR/><I>As long as your opinion of the "attractiveness" of a woman is purely on a visual survey, then IMO, you get what you deserve.</I><BR/><BR/>Welcome to basic human nature. Men tend to go for the hottest woman they can afford. Women tend to go for the richest man they can attract.<BR/><BR/><I>Fortunately, as a woman, I like geeky men of all different "visuals" and don't limit myself to the Harrison Fords (or whatever standard you want to choose that would correspond to your version of a "5" for women).</I><BR/><BR/>As a woman, that's not at all surprising. In fact, it's typical that women consider other attributes like money, power, and fame, before physical attractiveness.<BR/><BR/><I>Attractiveness to me has a whole lot more to do with how fun and interesting someone is and the personal connection I feel with them than whether they measure up on some arbitrary "pretty" scale.</I><BR/><BR/>Men can afford to rate attractiveness in mates so highly because the asset they use as a bargaining chip (their net worth and earning power) is an appreciating asset. Conversely, women (in general) cannot afford to use their own attractiveness to hold out for the "ideal" man because said attractiveness is a depreciating asset.<BR/><BR/>The older a man gets, the "attractive" he becomes, based on the criteria women in general (including yourself) use to determine said attractiveness.<BR/><BR/>The older a woman gets, the less attractive she becomes.<BR/><BR/>But water seeks its own level, which is why all the thiry-year-old single moms in Seattle have no shortage of underachieving Poindexters from which to wrangle and select a mate before the big 4-0 comes a-knockin'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-7061532573192571642007-11-09T10:57:00.000-08:002007-11-09T10:57:00.000-08:00We *had* that. It was called "3.0" and people stil...<I>We *had* that. It was called "3.0" and people still bitched.</I><BR/><BR/>Now you're confusing the review rating with the stock/future performance rating. Don't mix them up in the same conversation, it's confusing enough as it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-24318365343221145532007-11-09T10:02:00.000-08:002007-11-09T10:02:00.000-08:00What WOULD'VE changed the perception of the "Limit...<I>What WOULD'VE changed the perception of the "Limited II" class was taking a chunk out of the 70% bucket and making that the "valuable but not upwardly mobile" designation.</I><BR/><BR/>And even THEN, it's just plain arbitrary. Period. One minute you're hugely upwardly mobile, the next minute a nasty manager decides you deserve to be slapped so you're labeled NOT upwardly mobile. A few months later, new manager plus a lot of brown-nosing (perhaps - or maybe not even that), and - you guessed it - you're upwardly mobile again!<BR/><BR/>You're the SAME PERSON. And yet you're being tossed around between these labels that pretend to predict what your FUTURE performance will be. When the predictions are wrong, the people who labeled you that way should be taken out behind the woodshed and taught a lesson.<BR/><BR/>If they're not willing to take responsibility for jerking you around like that (and trashing your career as much as they could, in the meantime), then where's the accountability? And if there's no accountability, why do we pretend that the system has any merit whatsoever as a "quantifiable" measure of someone's worth to the company, present and future?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-31182371871682864442007-11-09T09:57:00.000-08:002007-11-09T09:57:00.000-08:00I checked out some of the VP-level directs of Stua...<I>I checked out some of the VP-level directs of Stuart, and none of them would rate above a 5 in my honest estimation.</I><BR/><BR/>As long as your opinion of the "attractiveness" of a woman is purely on a visual survey, then IMO, you get what you deserve.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, as a woman, I like geeky men of all different "visuals" and don't limit myself to the Harrison Fords (or whatever standard you want to choose that would correspond to your version of a "5" for women). Attractiveness to me has a whole lot more to do with how fun and interesting someone is and the personal connection I feel with them than whether they measure up on some arbitrary "pretty" scale.<BR/><BR/>Sorry you're having such a hard time finding a soulmate here. But...I'm not the least surprised. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-43558164249351552332007-11-09T09:37:00.000-08:002007-11-09T09:37:00.000-08:00"You know, if you can document that and prove it i...<I>"You know, if you can document that and prove it in court, class-action lawsuits have been known to pay out hundreds of millions."<BR/><BR/>Hmm. Good point. The actually policy of Limited II is that you just don't have much potential for growth. The implemented *practice* is that if you've been in one level "too long," you can be labeled Limited II regardless of your performance. I don't know if that's written down, though. If there's a memo from HR stating that, then seems like fodder for a lawsuit. Because clearly, no one can continue a trajectory forever of being promoted every 2 years. There's an absolute limit, even if you're a superstar, nevermind a human being.</I><BR/><BR/>I never saw it written down, but it was verbally communicated to all managers (or at least all managers with a report 24 months in level in my division). 24+ months at level was an automatic “Limited” and an informal “PIP” (Performance Improvement Plan). The second part of the message was that if the employee didn’t get promoted “soon” (left nebulous, but “next review” was strongly implied) then they would switch to “underperformed” and be managed out. When you consider that promotion budgets typically only allow at most 1/3 of a team to get promotions in any given year, that means the average promotion time (36 months) is longer than the Kim time (24 months). Plus, as you get above L63, promotions every two-three years get harder, as there are fewer and fewer slots for L65-67. And very few for L68. I calculated that the average strong performing college hire would have a reasonably happy review life until the age of 32 or so, then go through five or six years of skirting Kimmhood (Limited II one year, promoted the next, Limited II two years later, etc), and finally be managed out around 38 or 39 years old. 40, BTW, is the magic number for age discrimination.<BR/><BR/>So, I suspect none of it was written down, but enough managers got the verbal communication to piece it back together. Plus, MSFT then went and pissed off a bunch of those managers by Kimming them, so I suspect a sharp shyster could find some willing stool pigeons. <BR/><BR/>This may be the next big legal fiasco for the company. They think they’re smart enough to have protected themselves from it, but it won't look very good if it gets in front of a jury.<BR/><BR/>About Welch, yeah, he fired 10% of the rank and file, and kept the other 90%. He fired 85% of the VPs and kept the other 15%. Even in imitation, MSFT HR can't get it right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-73276494906230756442007-11-09T09:15:00.000-08:002007-11-09T09:15:00.000-08:00RE "stack rankings"The whole notion is broken. It'...RE "stack rankings"<BR/><BR/>The whole notion is broken. It's characterized as a race so you have winners (i.e. the so-called "rock stars"), people who are running but not yet "rock stars" and then, well, losers. If you're not a winner, well, that makes you a loser. Consequently, it's everyone for themselves and the rest of the team/company be damned if necessary. But MSFT can't even do that right in their hopelessly passive-aggressive dysfunction.<BR/><BR/>If you're going to have "losers" then call it that and either fire them or put them on a training plan. But that would require managers to actually do that squishy, touchy-feely, people management that has no apparent value and consequently no reward at MSFT. (by people management I don't just mean the obligatory review and commitment paperwork or collecting the documentation necessary to terminate someone. I mean managing them throughout the time they work for you.)<BR/><BR/>But, instead, the Losers (and, face it there will always be losers, especially in a compay of 80+ thousand employees) are just left as lepers to fend for themselves by finding another job or just coming to MiniMsft and complain about how unfair life is. Remember MSFT only cares about the "winners" and everyone <I>knows</I> that if you're a loser, you can't be a winner. Many of the comments here reflect that very sentiment (as though there were no other way to productively employ these "losers." Nope. We just want winners, and, you know, if you're not a winner, you're a ....<BR/><BR/>If you want to treat people as expendable, then call it for what it is: Churn and burn. Then you'll attract the self-serving, Machiavellian "winners" that you want. The agressive (i.e. "passionate") will rise to the top on the bodies of those who can't keep up. But that's what you want, right? The best of the best and who cares about the rest?<BR/><BR/>Ouch. I hope not. That was one of the keys to Enron's success. Oh wait... One could argue that the only difference between Enron and Microsoft is 45-billion, oh, I mean 35-billion, oh wait, I mean 23-billion in the bank. (hmmmm)<BR/><BR/>Stack ranking isn't necessarily "bad" (however there are studies that demonstrate that it is) it's just lazy. The manager sits down, once a year and says: Let's see. These people I care about, these people I don't. End of management task for the year, now back to coding. Someday, they'll learn that there's more to management than just listing people below you on the org chart. But hey, the stock hit 37 so there's no problem, No, wait, 35... No wait...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-36726906647682277542007-11-09T08:25:00.000-08:002007-11-09T08:25:00.000-08:00>What WOULD'VE changed the perception of the "Limi...>What WOULD'VE changed the perception of the "Limited II" class was taking a chunk out of the 70% bucket and making that the "valuable but not upwardly mobile" designation.<BR/><BR/>We *had* that. It was called "3.0" and people still bitched.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-41889533793429955572007-11-09T08:13:00.000-08:002007-11-09T08:13:00.000-08:00somebody wrote:What WOULD'VE changed the perceptio...somebody wrote:<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>What WOULD'VE changed the perception of the "Limited II" class was taking a chunk out of the 70% bucket and making that the "valuable but not upwardly mobile" designation. Had the buckets changed to something like the following:<BR/><BR/>- 20% "Outstanding"<BR/>- 50% "Strong"<BR/>- 20% "Performing"<BR/>- 10% "Limited"<BR/><BR/>...<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>You can certainly disagree on the specific buckets chosen; I'm not claiming 20/70/10 is ideal, but I don't know what went into the decision. Whatever you choose, you are going to have a bottom bucket and the last person in the bottom bucket is going to feel worse than the first person in the bucket above, even though their performance is not that different.<BR/><BR/>(Although in your example, you still have a bottom 10% bucket labeled "Limited", so the situation would be the same as today for people in that bucket.)<BR/><BR/>- adamAdam Barrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06854306700606938222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-60662427368729210202007-11-09T07:36:00.000-08:002007-11-09T07:36:00.000-08:00"I've been working at MS for 10 years now. I'm 32 ..."I've been working at MS for 10 years now. I'm 32 and still single, and let me tell you, unless you're willing to lower your standards dramatically, or somehow get lucky, there's no way you're going to meet any nice looking women, because there just aren't that many."<BR/><BR/>Hoo, boy. Comments on mini hit a new low with this one. <BR/><BR/>Hint 1: you might be better off trying to meet someone OUTSIDE your workplace. <BR/><BR/>Hint 2: you might be better off if your criteria weren't so heavily weighted toward the purely physical attractiveness of a potential partner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com