I dunno, but I think I'd make a great CEO at Microsoft. Lots of things they do could be great products if someone would actually pay attention to the details and implement a forced eating their own dog food policy.
Actually I think the eating your own dog food policy is actually holding Microsoft back as internal products no longer need to compete with external ones which increases developer and project manager myopia around what is and isn't important to end users.
A good example is how similar TFS is to internal product like source depot and has failed to provide many of the features of other version control systems or project management systems.
There's more to life than feature parity but really TFS lacks some basic should haves and almost no one realizes this at Microsoft because they've never used any of the alternatives.
For a fun time try suggesting the team use Git or an Atlassian product and see how far things get. *this might almost actually work on the entertainment division. Most other divisions probably not.
>great products if someone would actually pay attention to the details and implement a forced eating their own dog food policy.
When it comes to consumer tech, I don't think Microsoft's products are bad. The Xbox is amazing, the Zune HD was amazing, Windows Phone is a great product, and I'm sure Windows 8 has its strengths (I've never used it).
I'm not in the position to say so, but I believe Microsoft's problem is either one of leadership or culture. Microsoft doesn't innovate, its a "me too" company in the consumer space. Zune, Windows Phone, and to a lesser extent, Xbox are all "me too" products. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be any incentive to switch. What does WP have that the iPhone doesn't? Now What does Android have that the iPhone doesn't? You can argue that Android copied iPhone, but Google didn't just copy it, they made a conscious effort to take risks and go one step above. I haven't seen that with Microsoft.
It seems to me any consumer decision that doesn't either 1.) Make more money for an existing product or 2.) Attempts to step into a well known, fast rising space gets killed. The biggest example in my mind for this was the Courier. The Courier was first hinted at in 2008, 2 years before the iPad. Someone at Microsoft had a hunch (because Microsoft has a ton of smart people), that this wave was coming and created a brand new experience. It wasn't me too, and it wasn't a proven market. It was innovation and vision. And we all know how it turned out, it was killed because it couldn't sell more copies of office[1], and instead we got the HP Slate, which was lackluster, and then the Surface, 4 years later which ended up being written down.
At the end of the day, I don't see Microsoft taking any real risks in the consumer space (aside from Xbox).
Call me pessimistic but I am not actually sure a CEO can do anything. The face is that taking on a corporate culture in a place like Microsoft is a big and long-term task. It takes not only vision and talent but a light touch with the whip and a heavy hand with the spade.
In warfare, they say that the same army can behave radically differently under different types of leadership. The philosophy tends to percolate down the hierarchy pretty fast. I'm reminded of how Orson Scott Card said that part of Ender's Game was inspired by the struggle to find a general who could lead the Union army during the civil war (not sure why I mentioned that -- it felt relevant).
I am not sure that armies and corporations are that similar in this regard. I was working at Microsoft as a blue badge when Gates retired from the position of CEO and there was effectively no change in corporate culture.
To the extent they are similar, I think there is something to be said about faith in leadership. If the workers don't trust the leaders and vice versa, that has an immediate impact in this sort of thing, but beyond that, it is the interpersonal connections that have developed that define corporate culture.
I too was a blue badge during that time, but I think there were three changes that happened when Gates slowly faded out of the company. The company lost focus on Windows desktop applications, the culture pivoted towards business strategy instead of engineering strategy, and quality of both the people and the products declined.
As to losing focus, part of this is because the re-orgs and company policy changes accelerated. At least every two years in the last decade there has been a major shift in branding or focus. This is something decided by the management team, and Ballmer was directly responsible for these constant shifts in direction.
Second, the role of SDE and senior SDE was even more marginalized. I am sure this had been going on, but for a data point note that BillG reviews were run by PMs. The engineering culture was gone and replaced by a business culture. PMs and MBAs ruled every org; they talked about their resources and looked at the SDE-L and SDE-M as line managers whose were there to make their designs reality. This served to push out the more motivated engineers.
And speaking of BillG reviews, these were real and helpful. After a review, we would talk about it for days. Products would be re-aligned, schedules would change, and we would be focused on shipping a great product. When these were gone, Ballmer's business strategy approach failed to motivate or align the teams and that had a drastic affect on quality.
Microsoft has the good stuff, just needs to be more popular/cool/get adoption/etc. A new CEO will have a chance at the start while he/she's still in the news, to make huge waves with radical actions that turns the perception of MS on its head. The new CEO could also do internal things like kill the performance rating shit.
MS might not need much of an employee culture turnaround. It's the company's image that needs fixing.
I think that is almost exactly the wrong way to approach the problem. Here is why.
Microsoft has never lacked an astute understanding of the market. They have rarely been behind the curve in their domains. They had purchased hotmail before Gmail was even on the drawing board. They had been trying to market tablets for a long time before the iPad. But what they lack is a fresh perspective. The corporate culture is relatively ingrown and I think that's the big problem. Long story short that means their executions of plans tends to be... somewhat... problematic.
Microsoft has what it needs, namely a lot of very talented people (some of which I still am in contact with). What it lacks is an ability to get those people in charge of getting all the little problems solved so that people will find the solutions useful. They have largely coasted through on momentum, using spare cash to purchase promising companies.
To turn this around you have to turn the entire corporate culture around. You have to start encouraging cross training. Get the developers working front line tech support a week a year or something. Have the main developers do stints at Critical Problem Resolution or similar groups. Get folks in touch with the problems of the customers and what they are solving.
More importantly, encourage Microsoft employees to use and study competing products.
When I was at Microsoft the problem was an island mentality and this killed their early tablet efforts. That has to be turned around and it won't be easy.
I've been told the big thing a CEO does is bring in the right people, starting with the other three-letter titles and possible also a level below that. You can see how the CEO's influence would then spread from there.
My point is that it takes time, patience, and effort to cultivate a different corporate culture. It isn't something which is just planned and controlled.
"... the consumer space and enterprise space are connected and become more so. Microsoft needs to be strong in the consumer space to remain strong in the enterprise."
Not at all true. Cisco, Juniper, Oracle, EMC, Netapp are strong in the enterprise with virtually zero consumer presence. Or am I missing something?
Close. Not exactly irrelevant, but the profit margins will suffer as the failure of overlapping lockin schemes force Microsoft to actually invest and innovate in the area they don't abandon.
When Jason Calacanis interviewed him at Launch Fest in March, Jason suggested David could & should be Ballmer's successor, ASAP. David politely dismissed the idea, but it seemed to me that the notion wasn't completely foreign to him or that he wouldn't be interested in such a thing.
There is one CEO that has extensive experience and a proven history of effectiveness in Microsoft's type of business. He is called Bill Gates. MS only has to find the right enticement that will bring him back; one always exists. I am sure a returning Bill G. would do for MS what a returning Steve J. did for Apple.
Bill Gates is loving his half-retired half-philanthropist life and has all the money he would ever need. I don't believe there is a single thing that would entice him to return to Microsoft. And I'm not even sure he would be the right guy for the job.
I agree with the article that Ballmer probably loved Microsoft too much. That extreme enthusiasm is likely behind famously awkward moments like screaming on stage, or laughing at the iPhone.
To manage for innovation, one has to be willing to say "wow, compared to that new thing, our stuff sucks." It just never seemed like Ballmer thought that way. He seems like the type of guy who perceive a thought like that as disloyalty or something.
The thing is, most of their stuff don't actually suck.
Take Windows Phone. It's a great OS. The only problem is that it came too late and had poor marketing (and was associated with the uncool Windows brand). Technically, it's awesome and in the same league as Android and iOS.
The same is true for Xbox, Windows 8, C#, SQL Server, ASP.NET MVC/API, Azure, etc.
Google or Apple would build the exact same products, and people would probably love them.
So no, I don't believe that Ballmer's love for Microsoft (especially recently) was unjustified. He simply failed to account for the negative popular perception of Microsoft and its brands.
While the OS may be good, it's lack of software and accessories ecosystem require Microsoft to make it more compelling than either iOS or Android - which it isn't (it's about par).
The same inertia that keeps Windows popular is preventing Windows Phone from gaining significant marketshare.
You would think that, of all companies, Microsoft, the abuser of platform lockin, would grok this.
I'd like to imagine Scott Forstall in this role. Wicked smart. Architect of an os that completely revolutionized the mobile market, a space that microsoft hasn't even made a dent in, despite having a massive head start in (Windows CE anyone?)
If Mayer could be plucked from Google to engineer a revolution at Yahoo, and Forstall was in the running to be Apple CEO ... I think its worth a thought, the question is ... would he accept?
That person exists and he works for Microsoft, he is Qi Lu. He took on Google in many fronts in a short amount of time: technology, product, infrastructure, and people. Was it the right thing for Microsoft to do? Who knows, but he successfully executed on a project that most reasonable people (myself included) considered almost completely impossible -- which happens to be exactly what people expect out of companies like Microsoft.
43 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 49.7 ms ] threadThere's more to life than feature parity but really TFS lacks some basic should haves and almost no one realizes this at Microsoft because they've never used any of the alternatives.
For a fun time try suggesting the team use Git or an Atlassian product and see how far things get. *this might almost actually work on the entertainment division. Most other divisions probably not.
When it comes to consumer tech, I don't think Microsoft's products are bad. The Xbox is amazing, the Zune HD was amazing, Windows Phone is a great product, and I'm sure Windows 8 has its strengths (I've never used it).
I'm not in the position to say so, but I believe Microsoft's problem is either one of leadership or culture. Microsoft doesn't innovate, its a "me too" company in the consumer space. Zune, Windows Phone, and to a lesser extent, Xbox are all "me too" products. Even worse, there doesn't seem to be any incentive to switch. What does WP have that the iPhone doesn't? Now What does Android have that the iPhone doesn't? You can argue that Android copied iPhone, but Google didn't just copy it, they made a conscious effort to take risks and go one step above. I haven't seen that with Microsoft.
It seems to me any consumer decision that doesn't either 1.) Make more money for an existing product or 2.) Attempts to step into a well known, fast rising space gets killed. The biggest example in my mind for this was the Courier. The Courier was first hinted at in 2008, 2 years before the iPad. Someone at Microsoft had a hunch (because Microsoft has a ton of smart people), that this wave was coming and created a brand new experience. It wasn't me too, and it wasn't a proven market. It was innovation and vision. And we all know how it turned out, it was killed because it couldn't sell more copies of office[1], and instead we got the HP Slate, which was lackluster, and then the Surface, 4 years later which ended up being written down.
At the end of the day, I don't see Microsoft taking any real risks in the consumer space (aside from Xbox).
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-20128013-75/the-inside-sto...
To the extent they are similar, I think there is something to be said about faith in leadership. If the workers don't trust the leaders and vice versa, that has an immediate impact in this sort of thing, but beyond that, it is the interpersonal connections that have developed that define corporate culture.
As to losing focus, part of this is because the re-orgs and company policy changes accelerated. At least every two years in the last decade there has been a major shift in branding or focus. This is something decided by the management team, and Ballmer was directly responsible for these constant shifts in direction.
Second, the role of SDE and senior SDE was even more marginalized. I am sure this had been going on, but for a data point note that BillG reviews were run by PMs. The engineering culture was gone and replaced by a business culture. PMs and MBAs ruled every org; they talked about their resources and looked at the SDE-L and SDE-M as line managers whose were there to make their designs reality. This served to push out the more motivated engineers.
And speaking of BillG reviews, these were real and helpful. After a review, we would talk about it for days. Products would be re-aligned, schedules would change, and we would be focused on shipping a great product. When these were gone, Ballmer's business strategy approach failed to motivate or align the teams and that had a drastic affect on quality.
MS might not need much of an employee culture turnaround. It's the company's image that needs fixing.
Microsoft has never lacked an astute understanding of the market. They have rarely been behind the curve in their domains. They had purchased hotmail before Gmail was even on the drawing board. They had been trying to market tablets for a long time before the iPad. But what they lack is a fresh perspective. The corporate culture is relatively ingrown and I think that's the big problem. Long story short that means their executions of plans tends to be... somewhat... problematic.
Microsoft has what it needs, namely a lot of very talented people (some of which I still am in contact with). What it lacks is an ability to get those people in charge of getting all the little problems solved so that people will find the solutions useful. They have largely coasted through on momentum, using spare cash to purchase promising companies.
To turn this around you have to turn the entire corporate culture around. You have to start encouraging cross training. Get the developers working front line tech support a week a year or something. Have the main developers do stints at Critical Problem Resolution or similar groups. Get folks in touch with the problems of the customers and what they are solving.
More importantly, encourage Microsoft employees to use and study competing products.
When I was at Microsoft the problem was an island mentality and this killed their early tablet efforts. That has to be turned around and it won't be easy.
Not at all true. Cisco, Juniper, Oracle, EMC, Netapp are strong in the enterprise with virtually zero consumer presence. Or am I missing something?
http://www.fastcompany.com/3007336/creative-conversations/wh...
Interesting. Where is he now? His MSR page hasn't been updated - http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/people/simonpj/
I thought only Simon Marlow left recently.
To manage for innovation, one has to be willing to say "wow, compared to that new thing, our stuff sucks." It just never seemed like Ballmer thought that way. He seems like the type of guy who perceive a thought like that as disloyalty or something.
Take Windows Phone. It's a great OS. The only problem is that it came too late and had poor marketing (and was associated with the uncool Windows brand). Technically, it's awesome and in the same league as Android and iOS.
The same is true for Xbox, Windows 8, C#, SQL Server, ASP.NET MVC/API, Azure, etc.
Google or Apple would build the exact same products, and people would probably love them.
So no, I don't believe that Ballmer's love for Microsoft (especially recently) was unjustified. He simply failed to account for the negative popular perception of Microsoft and its brands.
The same inertia that keeps Windows popular is preventing Windows Phone from gaining significant marketshare.
You would think that, of all companies, Microsoft, the abuser of platform lockin, would grok this.
The co-CEO idea is great in theory, but obviously lacks real-world backing, for obvious reasons.
This reminds me when I mentioned on HN that "I wonder what would be good professional management that is as close to general purpose as the old MBAs."
If Mayer could be plucked from Google to engineer a revolution at Yahoo, and Forstall was in the running to be Apple CEO ... I think its worth a thought, the question is ... would he accept?