Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Cannibalistic Culture That Felled a Tech Giant(vanityfair.com)
vanityfair.com
Microsoft’s Downfall: Inside the Cannibalistic Culture That Felled a Tech Giant
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall-emails-steve-ballmer
355 comments
"Eichenwald’s conversations reveal that a management system known as “stack ranking”—a program that forces every unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, good performers, average, and poor—effectively crippled Microsoft’s ability to innovate."
This is the most important sentence in the article. Because many companies over the years - a lot of them start ups - would point to this practice by Microsoft and try to follow their lead. Microsoft has been stack ranking almost since conception. It was always a horrible way to run a company. But it took decades for it to actually bring the company down.
This is the most important sentence in the article. Because many companies over the years - a lot of them start ups - would point to this practice by Microsoft and try to follow their lead. Microsoft has been stack ranking almost since conception. It was always a horrible way to run a company. But it took decades for it to actually bring the company down.
“I see Microsoft as technology’s answer to Sears,” said Kurt Massey, a former senior marketing manager. “In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.”
Probably the best line from the article.
The point about stack ranking - good observation. I've heard about it for years from MS people as well as mini-MS and such. It struck me as problematic even back then. In one way it's "just another internal policy", but it's pretty obvious it's going to create internal competition, which is the last thing a company needs.
I remember around 2000 or so - when the DOJ trial was going on - the stuff coming out of MS was "we're the underdog - we see everyone as competition or potential competition" (paraphrasing, obviously). I don't know where that mindset went, but the last decade, they've not really acted like it.
Gosh, I'm not saying this well. They have acted like it, but haven't chosen their battles well, perhaps. Trying to compete in dozens and dozens of competitive landscapes at the same time has led to little focus. Yes, "Office and Windows" are cash cows, but the respect (and fear) for MS is largely gone - they've squandered their image playing "me too" catchup in too many fields, and they've got a long way to go to be the leader in any field that they once were.
At least one tech generation, probably more, never experienced MS as the big leader to be feared - back in the mid 90's, any conceptual startup had to consider "what if MS gets in to this market?". You had to be able to answer that question. I doubt that's a question anyone has asked themselves in at least 10 years, if not more. Replace MS with "Google" or "Apple" and that would instantly make sense to today's crop of startups. But if you said MS, no one would even take you seriously.
Probably the best line from the article.
The point about stack ranking - good observation. I've heard about it for years from MS people as well as mini-MS and such. It struck me as problematic even back then. In one way it's "just another internal policy", but it's pretty obvious it's going to create internal competition, which is the last thing a company needs.
I remember around 2000 or so - when the DOJ trial was going on - the stuff coming out of MS was "we're the underdog - we see everyone as competition or potential competition" (paraphrasing, obviously). I don't know where that mindset went, but the last decade, they've not really acted like it.
Gosh, I'm not saying this well. They have acted like it, but haven't chosen their battles well, perhaps. Trying to compete in dozens and dozens of competitive landscapes at the same time has led to little focus. Yes, "Office and Windows" are cash cows, but the respect (and fear) for MS is largely gone - they've squandered their image playing "me too" catchup in too many fields, and they've got a long way to go to be the leader in any field that they once were.
At least one tech generation, probably more, never experienced MS as the big leader to be feared - back in the mid 90's, any conceptual startup had to consider "what if MS gets in to this market?". You had to be able to answer that question. I doubt that's a question anyone has asked themselves in at least 10 years, if not more. Replace MS with "Google" or "Apple" and that would instantly make sense to today's crop of startups. But if you said MS, no one would even take you seriously.
>"Today, a single Apple product—the iPhone—generates more revenue than all of Microsoft’s wares combined."
revenue != profit
And thus the article follows the canonical narrative: a dividend paying company's stock price looks different from that of one which is focused on accumulating cash; a B2B company oriented company doesn't inspire the same loyalty among consumers as a consumer electronics company; and a CEO who is the second largest shareholder (first is Gates) doesn't knee jerk from quarter to quarter to the delight of Wall Street analysts like a typical hired gun.
Of course the biggest cliche is that Microsoft has failed to innovate. This despite creating two new UX paradigms - the ribbon and Metro - not just implementing a PARC based UI on a touch screen;* or developing the .NET framework and the development of its associated tool chain; or things which few people in the tech press ever think about like Windows Server HPC.
*If capacitive touch screen development is seen as a great leap forward by Microsoft's competitors, where does that put Kinect?
revenue != profit
And thus the article follows the canonical narrative: a dividend paying company's stock price looks different from that of one which is focused on accumulating cash; a B2B company oriented company doesn't inspire the same loyalty among consumers as a consumer electronics company; and a CEO who is the second largest shareholder (first is Gates) doesn't knee jerk from quarter to quarter to the delight of Wall Street analysts like a typical hired gun.
Of course the biggest cliche is that Microsoft has failed to innovate. This despite creating two new UX paradigms - the ribbon and Metro - not just implementing a PARC based UI on a touch screen;* or developing the .NET framework and the development of its associated tool chain; or things which few people in the tech press ever think about like Windows Server HPC.
*If capacitive touch screen development is seen as a great leap forward by Microsoft's competitors, where does that put Kinect?
"Eichenwald’s conversations reveal that a management system known as “stack ranking”—a program that forces every unit to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, good performers, average, and poor—effectively crippled Microsoft’s ability to innovate. “Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees,” Eichenwald writes. “If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, 2 people were going to get a great review, 7 were going to get mediocre reviews, and 1 was going to get a terrible review,” says a former software developer. “It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies.”
HOLY SHIT that sounds like a bad idea! Who in the world would think that's a good idea. That's crazy.
HOLY SHIT that sounds like a bad idea! Who in the world would think that's a good idea. That's crazy.
This is pretty spot on. The process of reviews is one of the most corrosive elements of working at Microsoft. However, there's more to the story. MS fumbled a huge opportunity in the way they reacted to the financial crisis and recession. They put the vast majority of promotions and bonuses on hold. Keep in mind that this is a company that has tens of billions of dollars in cash on hand. More so, this is a company with an "up or out" philosophy baked into it (and that's a big reason for the review system). Due to fear and lack of leadership the company saved spending who knows how many millions of dollars and in the process drove away a lot of their best talent and lost out on hiring a lot of new talent as well. The way they went about layoffs didn't help either, with lots of little layoffs instead of one big purge and done (so that the remaining folks didn't have to question their job security every day). Instead of projecting strength they projected weakness, and they paid dearly for it.
But beyond all that it's the increasing culture of bureaucracy that's eaten away at MS. All the reorgs treating developers as nothing more than assembly line workers. All the incompetent middle managers and PMs that are 10x harder to get rid of than incompetent devs. All the silly out of order budget and management priorities. There's only so many times that an individual can pour their heart into a job and see nothing of substance come of it before they decide to move on to greener pastures.
The worst part of the whole thing is that few people realize the significant amount of lag between when a company starts falling down before it hits bottom. Losing a ton of talented devs probably won't stop you from shipping the current version of whatever is in the pipeline, or even the next version. It'll just mean a lot of projects that would have been conceived won't be, and it'll be harder to execute on a lot of projects that should have been a slam dunk. More so, being able to work with more talented devs is a big perk for other devs, which will tend to accelerate the exodus at all levels. And typically people will make up their mind to leave months or even years before they actually do. By the time it's actually supremely obvious that all the good talent has left it's far too late to do anything about it.
But beyond all that it's the increasing culture of bureaucracy that's eaten away at MS. All the reorgs treating developers as nothing more than assembly line workers. All the incompetent middle managers and PMs that are 10x harder to get rid of than incompetent devs. All the silly out of order budget and management priorities. There's only so many times that an individual can pour their heart into a job and see nothing of substance come of it before they decide to move on to greener pastures.
The worst part of the whole thing is that few people realize the significant amount of lag between when a company starts falling down before it hits bottom. Losing a ton of talented devs probably won't stop you from shipping the current version of whatever is in the pipeline, or even the next version. It'll just mean a lot of projects that would have been conceived won't be, and it'll be harder to execute on a lot of projects that should have been a slam dunk. More so, being able to work with more talented devs is a big perk for other devs, which will tend to accelerate the exodus at all levels. And typically people will make up their mind to leave months or even years before they actually do. By the time it's actually supremely obvious that all the good talent has left it's far too late to do anything about it.
Plain and simple this article seems like it was written 3-5 years ago. With the recent things Microsoft has been coming out with (Kinect, WP7, WP8, Win8, Surface, New xbox, etc.) that has generated genuine interest...are we really saying that this company is dead?
Some good points are made in this article, but it gives off a strong vibe of bitter employees who got bad reviews.
Also:
>"Today, a single Apple product—the iPhone—generates more revenue than all of Microsoft’s wares combined."
uh, maybe but revenue != profit. I like the closing on this post: http://dcurt.is/steve-ballmers-microsoft
"we should not forget this very consistently true fact: Microsoft makes around $5.5 billion every three months. In pure profit."
Some good points are made in this article, but it gives off a strong vibe of bitter employees who got bad reviews.
Also:
>"Today, a single Apple product—the iPhone—generates more revenue than all of Microsoft’s wares combined."
uh, maybe but revenue != profit. I like the closing on this post: http://dcurt.is/steve-ballmers-microsoft
"we should not forget this very consistently true fact: Microsoft makes around $5.5 billion every three months. In pure profit."
Until now most of the Microsoft reporting I've read has been "they need to move" and "they're feeling the heat from (Apple, Google etc.)". This is the first time they're past-tense, over and done with.
I'm not sure, though. They're surfing a wave of Windows/Office and XBOX cash and still very relevant for business with a huge ecosystem of developers, schools and universities educating future Microsoft users and sysadmins.
I'm not sure, though. They're surfing a wave of Windows/Office and XBOX cash and still very relevant for business with a huge ecosystem of developers, schools and universities educating future Microsoft users and sysadmins.
The way they describe stack ranking is fundamentally wrong. Currently Windows is in calibration, where we stack rank and reward behaviors that are positive for the company. This is not done on a per team basis, but on a whole organization basis. Everyone at a given level is ranked against everyone at the same level, with the goal that those who do well will be rewarded-- not only monetarily but also in terms of their position within the company. This starts at the team level, where managers push for their reports and ICs to be recognized for their successes, and it follows all the way up the chain and across the company.
Stack ranking is not simply based on what you accomplished, but also how you did it. There are three main pillars: what you did, how you did it and how you showed growth during the timeframe/milestone.
There is no perfect system, but to be frank, the calibration and review system is pretty damn fair and consistent.
Stack ranking is not simply based on what you accomplished, but also how you did it. There are three main pillars: what you did, how you did it and how you showed growth during the timeframe/milestone.
There is no perfect system, but to be frank, the calibration and review system is pretty damn fair and consistent.
The problem I have with stack ranking, and one that I would think engineering companies like MSFT and AMZN would share, is that it is just bad science.
I can get on board with the idea that it is good to drop the bottom 10% of the company on a regular basis. But they're essentially taking very small sample sizes (individual teams), and assuming their distribution matches that of the entire company.
Or to put it another way, let's say you ranked every employee in the company 1-40,000 or whatever. You are trying to drop employees 36,001-40,000. An absolutely awful way to make that happen would be to create 4000 small groups of 10 people and then drop the bottom person from each group. Anybody who's even somewhat proficient in stats can tell you that this setup will yield results WAY off the mark. You could even quantify it with some simple analysis, and though I don't have time to do so, I'm sure the results would be horrifying.
And that's assuming a totally random distribution of people, which isn't true, and totally ignoring psychological effects of such a system. But at the very least, stack ranking is just bad science, and that should matter to these companies.
I can get on board with the idea that it is good to drop the bottom 10% of the company on a regular basis. But they're essentially taking very small sample sizes (individual teams), and assuming their distribution matches that of the entire company.
Or to put it another way, let's say you ranked every employee in the company 1-40,000 or whatever. You are trying to drop employees 36,001-40,000. An absolutely awful way to make that happen would be to create 4000 small groups of 10 people and then drop the bottom person from each group. Anybody who's even somewhat proficient in stats can tell you that this setup will yield results WAY off the mark. You could even quantify it with some simple analysis, and though I don't have time to do so, I'm sure the results would be horrifying.
And that's assuming a totally random distribution of people, which isn't true, and totally ignoring psychological effects of such a system. But at the very least, stack ranking is just bad science, and that should matter to these companies.
Microsoft's downfall? Downfall?
They initially missed the "Internet" and watched Netscape become huge and threatening. They initially missed gaming. Enter Xbox (which now actually also seems like the best VendorTV offering on the market vs lightweight and talk by the other guys)
They initially missed mobile and tablets. Hmmmmm. Now Windows 8 is right around the corner and CIO's are going to be enticed to have support just one OS across all devices.
The Miami Heat were down a couple of games in each series during the playoffs and had their end predicted more than once. I guess if you reject the premise what do you do with the details of the article?
They initially missed the "Internet" and watched Netscape become huge and threatening. They initially missed gaming. Enter Xbox (which now actually also seems like the best VendorTV offering on the market vs lightweight and talk by the other guys)
They initially missed mobile and tablets. Hmmmmm. Now Windows 8 is right around the corner and CIO's are going to be enticed to have support just one OS across all devices.
The Miami Heat were down a couple of games in each series during the playoffs and had their end predicted more than once. I guess if you reject the premise what do you do with the details of the article?
While he's not right about everything he writes, and if you can separate fact from opinion, younger readers should acquaint themsleves with Cringley's book Accidental [MB]illionaires. It will tell you all you need to know about Gate and Ballmer's management style.
Anyone who thinks Gates is both a genius (as in programming genius) and that this genius was responsible for the success of the company is wrong. One of those is not a true statement.
Gates and Ballmer were very aggressive and sociopathic, like Steve Jobs. This helped the company succeed. But success is really the result of the young talented programmers who signed on with them, and worshipped these characters.
In MS's case it was Simonyi, the man who gave us Excel. And before him, it was Allen who helped Gates get into business. Gates could not write the compiler tools himself. He needed Allen.
Some people might not appreciate the way these guys treat employees. Many simply would not tolerate being belittled by a guy who is not as smart as they are. (Gates' famous line "I don't know how technical your are." was supposedly his way of dealing with the many, many others who knew more than he did.) But... many programmers are happy to be treated this way. And this is management formula that works very well. Belittling the young and easily influenced, especially software programmers, works. Perhaps that is Gates' and Jobs' genius.
Read Cringley. I think you will come away realizing guys like Simonyi were the true geniuses.
Hollywood ending to this comment i.e., the moral question leaft to the viewer/reader: Not all geniuses are good leaders, but is it necessary to be an a-hole to be an effective leader (of geniuses)?
Anyone who thinks Gates is both a genius (as in programming genius) and that this genius was responsible for the success of the company is wrong. One of those is not a true statement.
Gates and Ballmer were very aggressive and sociopathic, like Steve Jobs. This helped the company succeed. But success is really the result of the young talented programmers who signed on with them, and worshipped these characters.
In MS's case it was Simonyi, the man who gave us Excel. And before him, it was Allen who helped Gates get into business. Gates could not write the compiler tools himself. He needed Allen.
Some people might not appreciate the way these guys treat employees. Many simply would not tolerate being belittled by a guy who is not as smart as they are. (Gates' famous line "I don't know how technical your are." was supposedly his way of dealing with the many, many others who knew more than he did.) But... many programmers are happy to be treated this way. And this is management formula that works very well. Belittling the young and easily influenced, especially software programmers, works. Perhaps that is Gates' and Jobs' genius.
Read Cringley. I think you will come away realizing guys like Simonyi were the true geniuses.
Hollywood ending to this comment i.e., the moral question leaft to the viewer/reader: Not all geniuses are good leaders, but is it necessary to be an a-hole to be an effective leader (of geniuses)?
This is absurd. I worked at Microsoft and blaming everything on Stack Ranking is very shortsighted.
This is the kind of things reporters do. There are many bigger issues with Microsoft than stack ranking.
How about the company focused on Desktop computing for far too long and missed the web, cloud and mobile? This has nothing to do with reviews or HR, and everything to do with lack of vision and innovation. They thought Windows would remain relevant forever.
This is the kind of things reporters do. There are many bigger issues with Microsoft than stack ranking.
How about the company focused on Desktop computing for far too long and missed the web, cloud and mobile? This has nothing to do with reviews or HR, and everything to do with lack of vision and innovation. They thought Windows would remain relevant forever.
Downfall is a bit strong. Call me when Windows 8 is out of the door and it turns out to be an enormous flop. Until then, Windows 7 is a very solid os (the best iteration of windows MS has ever released imho); xbox rules the console gaming roost; exchange, active directory and c# dominate in the enterprise space; Office is still the best at what it does. The only parts they really suck at are web and phones.
To me that means they have some serious weaknesses (given the ever increasing importance of phone and web) but it doesn't mean they're in a death spiral. RIM... that's what real downfall looks like!
To me that means they have some serious weaknesses (given the ever increasing importance of phone and web) but it doesn't mean they're in a death spiral. RIM... that's what real downfall looks like!
Post rationalised nonsense. Microsoft's problem has always been, and always will be, that's it never had an original idea, it's never understood why it's doing the things it does. It got lucky with Windows which has always been a shoddy product. Microsoft is no different now to what it was when Windows launched.
Put simply, Microsoft isn't a very good company. It's a blip on what is at present a very short timeline.
Put simply, Microsoft isn't a very good company. It's a blip on what is at present a very short timeline.
Quote from Steve Stone, founder of the tech group at Microsoft:
"“We couldn’t be focused anymore on developing technology that was effective for consumers. Instead, all of a sudden we had to look at this and say, ‘How are we going to use this to make money?’”
The duality here strikes me because the winners in consumer technology are able to do both at the same time. They make money by shipping technology that is effective for consumers.
"“We couldn’t be focused anymore on developing technology that was effective for consumers. Instead, all of a sudden we had to look at this and say, ‘How are we going to use this to make money?’”
The duality here strikes me because the winners in consumer technology are able to do both at the same time. They make money by shipping technology that is effective for consumers.
'In the 40s, 50s, and 60s, Sears had it nailed. It was top-notch, but now it’s just a barren wasteland. And that’s Microsoft. The company just isn’t cool anymore.'
Microsoft once was cool. It might be difficult to imagine, but from the time PC's came out with DOS through to MS Windows, you really could do interesting things on commodity hardware with their great tools and large user market.
It was obvious to me that MS lost it's cool as the Internet gathered steam at the time the Web was born. Doing Post-grad I couldn't help but laugh, to connect to the Internet using Microsoft operating systems you needed a vital component [0] from a lone programmer from Tasmania. How did that happen? How did MS miss the tidal wave we now call the Web?
[0] Winsock built by Peter Tattam owner of Tattam Software a small Tasmanian software company. Used Trumpet & didn't pay? You can here ~ http://trumpet.com.au/index.php/news/3-latest-news/17-mar-20...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Network#MSN_Classic
Microsoft once was cool. It might be difficult to imagine, but from the time PC's came out with DOS through to MS Windows, you really could do interesting things on commodity hardware with their great tools and large user market.
It was obvious to me that MS lost it's cool as the Internet gathered steam at the time the Web was born. Doing Post-grad I couldn't help but laugh, to connect to the Internet using Microsoft operating systems you needed a vital component [0] from a lone programmer from Tasmania. How did that happen? How did MS miss the tidal wave we now call the Web?
"Open access to the World Wide Web was
not originally included in the classic
MSN service at the time of its initial
launch"
[0] Winsock built by Peter Tattam owner of Tattam Software a small Tasmanian software company. Used Trumpet & didn't pay? You can here ~ http://trumpet.com.au/index.php/news/3-latest-news/17-mar-20...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Network#MSN_Classic
Microsoft’s strategy has, for a long time now, seemed to me to be one of pure reactivity. Look for what others are being successful with, then try to emulate it just well enough to turn a buck. A vision for the future? Someone else will take on the big risks and figure that out.
Stack ranking is equivalent to having a finite bonus pool, or having Gold, Silver and Bronze in the Olympics. Yeah the 4th place finisher is an amazing athlete, but there are only three medals.
Suppose you are a manager who manages 5 employees. If you have $100K to give out as bonuses, you could just divide it up equally. Over time employees would come to expect to get their bonus and it would cease to be a motivator.
While stack ranking imposes a bit of an assumption about the distribution of effort/merit on a team, it's also intended to foster spirited competition for the top spots, much like the medal system used in the olympics.
If you are managing a meritocracy and the rules of the game are known, nobody will begrudge someone else getting a bigger bonus. Many workers idealize working on a team where they are not the strongest, so that they can learn from others.
The point is that it's not just about rewarding people, its about rewarding people for the kind of significant contributions to the team that make a business difference. If managers are letting it get political and it turns into a BS metric, then that's evidence of a larger management problem than a problem with the particular distribution of bonuses entailed by the program.
One could argue that any bonus that is uncertain has the potential to alienate the employee if it is not earned. The converse would be to give all employees motivational bonuses, or, in other words, not to give bonuses but to rename some of the guaranteed compensation "bonus" when it's actually just salary.
If a corporate culture is so backward that the genius in the next cube getting a bonus is viewed as a bad thing, then it's probably time to think about how/why bonuses (or the equivalent) are given in a smaller business where the bonus comes in the form of options being worth something, etc.
Suppose you are a manager who manages 5 employees. If you have $100K to give out as bonuses, you could just divide it up equally. Over time employees would come to expect to get their bonus and it would cease to be a motivator.
While stack ranking imposes a bit of an assumption about the distribution of effort/merit on a team, it's also intended to foster spirited competition for the top spots, much like the medal system used in the olympics.
If you are managing a meritocracy and the rules of the game are known, nobody will begrudge someone else getting a bigger bonus. Many workers idealize working on a team where they are not the strongest, so that they can learn from others.
The point is that it's not just about rewarding people, its about rewarding people for the kind of significant contributions to the team that make a business difference. If managers are letting it get political and it turns into a BS metric, then that's evidence of a larger management problem than a problem with the particular distribution of bonuses entailed by the program.
One could argue that any bonus that is uncertain has the potential to alienate the employee if it is not earned. The converse would be to give all employees motivational bonuses, or, in other words, not to give bonuses but to rename some of the guaranteed compensation "bonus" when it's actually just salary.
If a corporate culture is so backward that the genius in the next cube getting a bonus is viewed as a bad thing, then it's probably time to think about how/why bonuses (or the equivalent) are given in a smaller business where the bonus comes in the form of options being worth something, etc.
This article has got it wrong; Sinofsky is remaking Microsoft. He is, of course, remaking it into an even more competitive, Apple-ish kind of place. But the market will reward him for doing that, and we as consumers will, too.
I think I'd rather have two Apples in the world, (although MS has a long way to go to do that) than two IBMs.
I think I'd rather have two Apples in the world, (although MS has a long way to go to do that) than two IBMs.
> “They used to point their finger at IBM and laugh,” said Bill Hill, a former Microsoft manager. “Now they’ve become the thing they despised.”
I was under the impression that Bill really admired IBM, and wanted to emulate them.
I was under the impression that Bill really admired IBM, and wanted to emulate them.
I am really hopeful for the future of Microsoft. They have the potential to do something really awesome with Windows 8/Windows Phone 8/Xbox.
We've been promised ubiquitous computing for years and Microsoft has finally developed a common platform that might make that possible. It's all going to be about execution. The things they've announced so far seem promising, but we'll have to wait and see if it actually works.
We've been promised ubiquitous computing for years and Microsoft has finally developed a common platform that might make that possible. It's all going to be about execution. The things they've announced so far seem promising, but we'll have to wait and see if it actually works.
The reason Microsoft has gone down the tubes, to paraphrase Steve Jobs, is they have no taste.
While I can agree that stack ranking is corrosive in many respects removing under performers is essential. I was at a company (rather large internet company) that did not get rid of under performers. When I arrived what had collected was mostly senior engineers that in all frankness should not be let near a source control system much less be allowed to commit changes. There was so little engineering talent but thousands of engineers. And this is an impossible problem to fix without wholesale firing entire orgs since competent engineers don't want to work in a team of people with equal or higher level than them who don't know the difference between a compiler and an interpreter.
While there we did do stack ranking. Its just another game to play inside a company, just like all the other games that go on. It was easy to play that system as opposed to doing something like aligning with other teams retarded ideas. We did real awesome stuff and made sure we got recognized for that. I think the hard part for many people is the recognition that 80% of people (including maybe you) don't deserve a big bonus and promotion.
There will always be politics and politics will always drive these decisions, even in small companies. I don't have an effective way of objectively measuring a software engineer. The most important thing you can do is to pick a great manager (or startup CEO) and align yourself with him. While they will do different things to help you in big companies vs little companies, a good manager will hire good people and ensure that his team is working on big, company impacting problems. Startup CEOs will be doing the same thing.
Now a couple of notes to make sure your stack rank goes awesome:
1. If senior leadership does not see your team as directly impacting profit move to a new team. 2. Make sure that now that you are working on something with great business value make sure everyone knows about it. 3. Send out reports to everyone who is interested every week telling them what your team accomplished that week (especially for you budding managers out there). 4. Compile all the congratulatory emails from executives as well as other teams (Directors and managers). Your manager will use these at the stack rank meeting since all the other terrible managers who you no longer work for will not be this prepared. 5. Remember to deliver. When you deliver real value you will be recognized.
I know this is hard but I used this strategy very successfully. I can not emphasize enough that you must be working on big, impacting features. Adding a widget to a form, or making some little feature is a butts in seats problem. If you are just a butt in a seat expect to be treated like one.
While there we did do stack ranking. Its just another game to play inside a company, just like all the other games that go on. It was easy to play that system as opposed to doing something like aligning with other teams retarded ideas. We did real awesome stuff and made sure we got recognized for that. I think the hard part for many people is the recognition that 80% of people (including maybe you) don't deserve a big bonus and promotion.
There will always be politics and politics will always drive these decisions, even in small companies. I don't have an effective way of objectively measuring a software engineer. The most important thing you can do is to pick a great manager (or startup CEO) and align yourself with him. While they will do different things to help you in big companies vs little companies, a good manager will hire good people and ensure that his team is working on big, company impacting problems. Startup CEOs will be doing the same thing.
Now a couple of notes to make sure your stack rank goes awesome:
1. If senior leadership does not see your team as directly impacting profit move to a new team. 2. Make sure that now that you are working on something with great business value make sure everyone knows about it. 3. Send out reports to everyone who is interested every week telling them what your team accomplished that week (especially for you budding managers out there). 4. Compile all the congratulatory emails from executives as well as other teams (Directors and managers). Your manager will use these at the stack rank meeting since all the other terrible managers who you no longer work for will not be this prepared. 5. Remember to deliver. When you deliver real value you will be recognized.
I know this is hard but I used this strategy very successfully. I can not emphasize enough that you must be working on big, impacting features. Adding a widget to a form, or making some little feature is a butts in seats problem. If you are just a butt in a seat expect to be treated like one.
Reminds me of the article a short while ago about the startup culture of the Bing team that lost its momentum because Microsoft tossed a bunch of managers and PM's at it. Or rather, Microsoft crippled Bing with bureaucracy.
Balmer and the other managers aren't the only ones at fault for bad bureaucracy --- the employees that live with the system against their better judgement, rather than leave or fight, are also responsible.
The major point the came out for me from the article is how destructing ranking people "against a curve" is.
"Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees"
This was originally popularized by GE and borrowed by dozens of companies as a HR best practice. Now every major corporation tries to rank their employees along a bell curve as 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's and inevitably, they lose the 1's who quit in disgust rather than put up with this.
My hope is at least a few HR decision makers read this article, look at what is happening in their own companies and come up with a better way to motivate and get the best of employees. Quickly before this cancerous policy eats up the best talent in in the organization.
"Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees"
This was originally popularized by GE and borrowed by dozens of companies as a HR best practice. Now every major corporation tries to rank their employees along a bell curve as 1's, 2's, 3's and 4's and inevitably, they lose the 1's who quit in disgust rather than put up with this.
My hope is at least a few HR decision makers read this article, look at what is happening in their own companies and come up with a better way to motivate and get the best of employees. Quickly before this cancerous policy eats up the best talent in in the organization.
I find it fascinating that most people forget Enron famously adopted the stack ranking principles. Look how that worked out for them.
Stack ranking where you fire the bottom 10% (even though they were supposedly A players when you fired them; what did you do to ruin them?), is just a manifestation of managers that have a hard-on for a brain.
It's a bit voyeuristic, so not a lot new in this article for those familiar with the culture.
If the article has value, it will serve as a warning to others (cough Google cough Facebook cough) that hubris and bureaucracy and koolaid and everything negatively associated with group-think can happen to you.
It's like exercise -- muscle confusion is your friend. Keep it fresh, mix things up. Try to avoid becoming exactly what Microsoft first attacked, then became.
If the article has value, it will serve as a warning to others (cough Google cough Facebook cough) that hubris and bureaucracy and koolaid and everything negatively associated with group-think can happen to you.
It's like exercise -- muscle confusion is your friend. Keep it fresh, mix things up. Try to avoid becoming exactly what Microsoft first attacked, then became.
Three things happened to Microsoft (IMHO):
1. The DoJ suit in 1997 was a serious blow to Microsoft inertia. Speaking as nothing more than an observer, it seemed that Gates lost his way. He simply didn't know what to do. From this I get the distinct impression he really believed Microsoft wasn't doing anything wrong and things like bundling a browser with the OS were just "innovations";
2. Microsoft became too hierarchical combined with more B and C managers. Once you don't have A managers in a software (or any tech) business it seems like it's all over. Nothing rots from within so deeply and completely as poor management; and
3. Ballmer had and has no business being CEO of a software business. This isn't simply due to him being a manager rather than an engineer but that certainly doesn't help. Gates was a programmer and actively participated in tech reviews in his heyday. Ballmer is the Carol Bartz of Microsoft. It's simply taking longer to kill Microsoft from within than it took Yahoo.
As far as stack ranking and these other things go: on the face of it I consider them symptoms rather than the root problem. The root problems are:
1. Microsoft, as an organization, is deathly afraid something will kill the Windows/Office golden goose;
2. Everything Microsoft does is done from the perspective of furthering the Windows/Office cash cow. It's why you hear Ballmer describe tablets as "just another PC form factor". He sees them as simply a means to an end and that end is selling licenses;
3. Microsoft is at the mercy of hardware OEMs that are shortsighted enough to run themselves into the ground taking Microsoft with them;
4. There doesn't seem to be any central strategy (beyond sell more Windows/Office licenses) or innovation; and
5. The "backwards compatibility" crowd lost out to the "breaking changes" crowd, which hastened the switch to Web-based applications.