4 ms·

I'm curious why they keep the super senior people if all they can do is: - Produce no output in a no output division, or - Impede progress elsewhere.

I'm curious why they keep the super senior people if all they can do is: - Produce no output in a no output division, or - Impede progress elsewhere. Obviously I'm missing some part of the argument, can you elaborate?

peterkelly 11y ago
It's so those people who can do research, the goal of which is not necessarily producing "output" in the form of products (what I assume GP was referring to), but to experiment with new ideas and learn lessons that can subsequently be applied to new products. Microsoft's research division is one of the best in the industry: http://research.microsoft.com http://research.microsoft.com
melted 11y ago
Easy: - some of those senior employees are senior for a good reason, and they could do a ton of damage if you piss them off and they go to a competitor - some of the stuff they fool around with may end up being useful elsewhere, which it did, in some cases - and in the unlikely event that a usable product is produced, the company wins as well It's a win-win-win, no matter how you slice it.
- snaky 11y ago
  So they "may end up being useful" to degree "could do a ton of damage if they go to a competitor". That's not very similar to "produce no output" as you said before. And what is the reason why they could only "impede progress" here and "being useful" there?
  - melted 11y ago
    Very senior people are best used sparingly. Put too many of them on a real project and pit them against each other (as the old MSFT performance review process tended to do), and they start beating their chest and trying to backstab the other people they're competing with. OTOH if you put them in research and tell them how super important their project is and how it's advancing the state of the art and stuff, and you might get a few years of reprieve.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
DEC had an explicit "never fire anyone if you can possibly avoid it" culture. There were no significant lay-offs until the last few years. You might think that's insane, but it created a lot of loyalty. And I'm not sure it's any less sane than the current religion of cutting head counts at the first downturn in profitability, losing all the good people (because they'll be the first through the exits), and crushing the morale of the rest - never mind other popular stupidities like off-shoring to countries that don't speak English, or hiring back fired employees for vastly more money as contractors, because they're the only ones who can make stuff work. Meanwhile I keep wondering if MS should reinvent itself as a straight R&D company. The research and blue sky side regularly does supercool stuff. The management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres - maybe not so great, actually.
- snaky 11y ago
  That's not insane at all if the company have thoughtful hiring policy (no HR involved, reasonable trial period) and stable enough line of products.
- sinhpham 11y ago
  They had a net income of $4.62 billion last quarter, how is that "not so great"? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-microsoft-results-idUSKCN0SG2M520151023#oAperPSST3TXZy1t.97 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-microsoft-resul...
  - kagamine 11y ago
    He didn't say they don't make money, he said they don't do supercool stuff. Money is supercool stuff too, but not in the same way.
    - sinhpham 11y ago
      What other cool stuff can "management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres" even do? And if just because "management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres" is not doing "supercool stuff" (whatever it means), the company should focus on R&D, then the vast majority of companies should cease to exist. Like it or not, companies are here to make money. Saying MS should reinvent itself to be a R&D company is like saying Toyota should stop making cars because their normal cars aren't running by water, auto driven, and charged by solar panels yet. Ya, what's the point? Use your money to research on energy, AI and what not. Never mind where that money comes from. When I read these absurd statements I think the author is either trolling, has an agenda, or is living in a bubble.

peterkelly 11y ago

It's so those people who can do research, the goal of which is not necessarily producing "output" in the form of products (what I assume GP was referring to), but to experiment with new ideas and learn lessons that can subsequently be applied to new products. Microsoft's research division is one of the best in the industry: http://research.microsoft.com http://research.microsoft.com

melted 11y ago

Easy: - some of those senior employees are senior for a good reason, and they could do a ton of damage if you piss them off and they go to a competitor - some of the stuff they fool around with may end up being useful elsewhere, which it did, in some cases - and in the unlikely event that a usable product is produced, the company wins as well It's a win-win-win, no matter how you slice it.

snaky 11y ago
So they "may end up being useful" to degree "could do a ton of damage if they go to a competitor". That's not very similar to "produce no output" as you said before. And what is the reason why they could only "impede progress" here and "being useful" there?
- melted 11y ago
  Very senior people are best used sparingly. Put too many of them on a real project and pit them against each other (as the old MSFT performance review process tended to do), and they start beating their chest and trying to backstab the other people they're competing with. OTOH if you put them in research and tell them how super important their project is and how it's advancing the state of the art and stuff, and you might get a few years of reprieve.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

DEC had an explicit "never fire anyone if you can possibly avoid it" culture. There were no significant lay-offs until the last few years. You might think that's insane, but it created a lot of loyalty. And I'm not sure it's any less sane than the current religion of cutting head counts at the first downturn in profitability, losing all the good people (because they'll be the first through the exits), and crushing the morale of the rest - never mind other popular stupidities like off-shoring to countries that don't speak English, or hiring back fired employees for vastly more money as contractors, because they're the only ones who can make stuff work. Meanwhile I keep wondering if MS should reinvent itself as a straight R&D company. The research and blue sky side regularly does supercool stuff. The management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres - maybe not so great, actually.

snaky 11y ago
That's not insane at all if the company have thoughtful hiring policy (no HR involved, reasonable trial period) and stable enough line of products.
sinhpham 11y ago
They had a net income of $4.62 billion last quarter, how is that "not so great"? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-microsoft-results-idUSKCN0SG2M520151023#oAperPSST3TXZy1t.97 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/23/us-microsoft-resul...
- kagamine 11y ago
  He didn't say they don't make money, he said they don't do supercool stuff. Money is supercool stuff too, but not in the same way.
  - sinhpham 11y ago
    What other cool stuff can "management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres" even do? And if just because "management, strategy, and customer satisfaction cadres" is not doing "supercool stuff" (whatever it means), the company should focus on R&D, then the vast majority of companies should cease to exist. Like it or not, companies are here to make money. Saying MS should reinvent itself to be a R&D company is like saying Toyota should stop making cars because their normal cars aren't running by water, auto driven, and charged by solar panels yet. Ya, what's the point? Use your money to research on energy, AI and what not. Never mind where that money comes from. When I read these absurd statements I think the author is either trolling, has an agenda, or is living in a bubble.