4 ms·
Not saying i agree, but we consider history for every decision made. Want to loan someone money? consider their credit rating. Want to hire someone? consider th
by jfoutz 11y ago
Not saying i agree, but we consider history for every decision made. Want to loan someone money? consider their credit rating. Want to hire someone? consider their employment record.
Microsoft has a long history of not being so nice when they have an advantage. How much of that is leadership driven, and how much is built into the corporate culture and structure? It's knee-jerk, but it's not crazy to think about.
- smt88 11y ago> Want to loan someone money? consider their credit rating. Want to hire someone? consider their employment record. That's a single person. Microsoft is many thousands of people, and the most important decision makers have changed. In your analogy, you're considering whether to loan money to an almost completely different person.
- sqeaky 11y agoThose same decision frequently had hiring and promotion authority. How different are these new people? Are they someone the old decision makers promoted minutes before leaving or are they fresh new hires? Chances are there is a complex mix and at least some of microsoft's behavior has changed and some will remain the same.
- smt88 11y ago> some of microsoft's behavior has changed and some will remain the same That's the exact argument I was making. The analogy doesn't work because this is, literally, a new Microsoft. It has new leadership. You can't use the past as a benchmark for how this company will behave because no one really knows what parts of the company's behavior and culture have changed and what parts haven't.