5 ms·

Compensation has nothing to do with whether somebody works harder or is smarter than everybody else. Perhaps you would like to step in Satya Nadella's shoes fo

by blahi 10y ago

Compensation has nothing to do with whether somebody works harder or is smarter than everybody else. Perhaps you would like to step in Satya Nadella's shoes for a couple of weeks?

Ensorceled 10y ago
No. But I get the feeling almost anybody could have filled Balmer's ...
- blahi 10y ago
  Do you have any knowledge about what Balmer's initiatives at Microsoft were? What his goals and objectives were?
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    No. But I know their stock was pretty much flat for 14 years.
    - blahi 10y ago
      The growth during those 14 years was factored in the stock... This exact thing was actually discussed on Martin Shkreli's stream a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you shouldn't have such strong opinions about things you perhaps don't understand? And not even attempting to understand according to your own admission.
  - apalmer 10y ago
    It is known he didnt successfully lead microsoft into the mobile computing industry, and its known he didnt successfully lead microsoft into the cloud computing industry... so whatever his initiatives, goals and objectives were, they were wrong.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  I disagree. Under Ballmer, Microsoft more than doubled its revenue, profits, and employee base. By standard measurements of CEOs, he did great. (Although the stock price didn't grow, but that may have had to do with the 2001 crash and timing more than anything) In contrast to all of Microsoft's rivals: IBM left the PC Business. Sun literally died and got bought out. Oracle's products were eaten alive by Open Source. Under Balmer, Windows 7, XBox and XBox 360, Kinect. Do remember that Windows Mobile 6 was a major competitor vs Blackberry through the early 2000s. Ballmer tripped up in his final years with Windows8 and failing to bring the success of Windows Mobile 6 to post-iPhone markets. But I think he did good from 2001 through 2011 overall.
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    Microsoft stock was essentially flat across his entire 14 year tenure, despite being the dominate OS and Office suite that entire time. By standard measurements he was not a success.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      Double the revenue, double the profits, double the employees. The CEO doesn't control the stock price. He controls employees, revenues and profits. Lets not blame Ballmer for having the unfortunate luck to become CEO at the height of the 2001 stock bubble, and instead look at the things he actually could control.
      - Ensorceled 10y ago
        Wait. I was EXCLUDING the stock bubble. If you include that he's DOWN over his tenure.
  - spullara 10y ago
    Ballmer did a terrible job. Basically stalled the company for 15 years and put them far behind Google and Apple. "he did great" and "the stock price didn't grow" are the opposite of one another.
- thesimpsons1022 10y ago
  sounds like a true comment from someone who's only seen some memes about "developers" and assumed he was smarter than Balmer. There's a reason Microsoft was used by every IT department in the world when he left. He may have had some weaknesses on the consumer front but he made MS into a juggernaut on the business side. I still don't see any other company come even close.
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    Not at all. I believe the largest thing Nadella did was get out of the way of the individual organizational units and let them do their job; that's why he had so much success in his first few months as he simply unstoppered a blocked up product flow.
  - WallowC_33 10y ago
    Every IT department in the world is a bit dramatic, since I have direct experience working with a couple +1 million user consumer facing companies that have a couple Windows laptops around for IE testing, but that's it. Ballmer takes over with momentum on his side; XP is still going up, Windows Mobile is shit but other than Blackberry the only other player in town, Xbox launches to huge success. When he leaves their mobile platform is effectively DOA, their cloud services are years behind AWS and Google, their consumer base is being eaten by Apple portables, and the last Xbox product he oversaw is getting its ass handed to it. They just added bash to Windows to keep/attract folks that aren't developing for their platform anymore. I don't think it is all Ballmer's fault. The world got wise to their scams from the past to some extent; no more shifty deals with the governments around the world calling you a monopolist. Google rose to power, and Apple got their shit together. Revenue went up in some spots, though how much of that is real or due to creative accounting (it's well known they shift Xbox losses around to obscure the real numbers), but if not for their huge war chest of cash (thanks to shady business practices), MS would be done.
mpdehaan2 10y ago
Clearly it does not. However, it should. I could probably do a better job - many people here could. However one of the perks of getting out of the corporate game is getting out of the corporate game.
67726e 10y ago
<something about anecdotes and data...> The point is, executive pay is entirely out of whack with the value (most) provide. Orders of magnitude out of whack. Sure I might not fill a good CEO's shoes but you or I can likely do the same job as a lot of lackluster CEOs that get paid insane multiples of our salaries.
- mrep 10y ago
  So how much compensation do you think executives should get?
  - 67726e 10y ago
    I have no idea, but if you run a company into the ground you probably shouldn't be making more in a year than I will in a lifetime.
existencebox 10y ago
A common complaint (At least from my mouth as well) is that I would _love to_ but even achieving the chance to prove yourself is as much luck as it is personal direction. You might not believe the number of times I've asked to be given greater purview, more leadership opportunities, even asking for no "promotion" and offering to put my money where my mouth is re: being punished if I fail, but being told "do your time" or "you're not a high enough rank" to even try. (The insult to the injury is that I've been in industry longer than some of those with "sufficient" rank who have been 1 company tenants.) I would not look as askew at executive comp if I didn't have a nagging doubt that large portions of it are smoke and mirrors, obscured by extremely high and socio/political barriers to entry by which if you're the sort to pass, you're the sort to not "rock the boat"/"call the bluff" so to say.
- drakonandor 10y ago
  If you're such an amazing leader then why not start your own company?
  - jack9 10y ago
    For your own benefit, please understand that suggestion sounds idiotic in context.
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      You don't say? Well perhaps then maybe not every employee is capable of doing the same quality work of their leadership.
  - existencebox 10y ago
    I intend to, and do as much to that end as my current situation allows. The barriers currently are largely wanting to be sure I have enough saved up that my family won't suffer if I end up failing. I market side projects during my personal time, and am constantly looking for opportunities on my own outside of a formal work career progression. Do not take my earlier comment to mean I simply complain and languish; merely why there might be a natural frustration to some of the judgments/environment/deifying surrounding leadership positions (notably for my argument, bigCo leadership) (To add another point I was nervous to say since it sounds arrogant; but I've ostensibly managed at a comparable scale to what some of the positions I'm aiming for would require, but in situations that don't hold the same level of credential-ism/tenure focus. This just adds to the open question in my mind of why those teams were able to find success with less rigid progression while others offer so much resistance. I mention this not to humble-brag but again, to point out mental dissonance.)
walshemj 10y ago
That would be fun and at least I wouldn't shoot my self in the foot when asked an easy softball Q about diversity. MS should have gone with Alan Mulally.
wott 10y ago
Yes, please. In 3 weeks, I can do whatever and still earn enough money to retire before the end of October 2016. And while we're talking about shoes, a good shoe-seller could do the job of about any CEO in those huge companies. Would be harder in a small one, though.
- blahi 10y ago
  How would you feel if somebody who saw what programmers do only on TV tells you "A very highly trained monkey can do what you do - type on a keyboard." Because that's what programmers do, isn't it?
  - kd0amg 10y ago
    One might offer to sit them down at the computer for a while and see what they accomplish. The skeptic can probably even provide his own computer. Most people don't have a large corporation they can just casually make themselves CEO of in order to prove a point.

by blahi 10y ago

Compensation has nothing to do with whether somebody works harder or is smarter than everybody else. Perhaps you would like to step in Satya Nadella's shoes for a couple of weeks?

Ensorceled 10y ago

No. But I get the feeling almost anybody could have filled Balmer's ...

blahi 10y ago
Do you have any knowledge about what Balmer's initiatives at Microsoft were? What his goals and objectives were?
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  No. But I know their stock was pretty much flat for 14 years.
  - blahi 10y ago
    The growth during those 14 years was factored in the stock... This exact thing was actually discussed on Martin Shkreli's stream a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you shouldn't have such strong opinions about things you perhaps don't understand? And not even attempting to understand according to your own admission.
- apalmer 10y ago
  It is known he didnt successfully lead microsoft into the mobile computing industry, and its known he didnt successfully lead microsoft into the cloud computing industry... so whatever his initiatives, goals and objectives were, they were wrong.
dragontamer 10y ago
I disagree. Under Ballmer, Microsoft more than doubled its revenue, profits, and employee base. By standard measurements of CEOs, he did great. (Although the stock price didn't grow, but that may have had to do with the 2001 crash and timing more than anything) In contrast to all of Microsoft's rivals: IBM left the PC Business. Sun literally died and got bought out. Oracle's products were eaten alive by Open Source. Under Balmer, Windows 7, XBox and XBox 360, Kinect. Do remember that Windows Mobile 6 was a major competitor vs Blackberry through the early 2000s. Ballmer tripped up in his final years with Windows8 and failing to bring the success of Windows Mobile 6 to post-iPhone markets. But I think he did good from 2001 through 2011 overall.
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  Microsoft stock was essentially flat across his entire 14 year tenure, despite being the dominate OS and Office suite that entire time. By standard measurements he was not a success.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Double the revenue, double the profits, double the employees. The CEO doesn't control the stock price. He controls employees, revenues and profits. Lets not blame Ballmer for having the unfortunate luck to become CEO at the height of the 2001 stock bubble, and instead look at the things he actually could control.
    - Ensorceled 10y ago
      Wait. I was EXCLUDING the stock bubble. If you include that he's DOWN over his tenure.
- spullara 10y ago
  Ballmer did a terrible job. Basically stalled the company for 15 years and put them far behind Google and Apple. "he did great" and "the stock price didn't grow" are the opposite of one another.
thesimpsons1022 10y ago
sounds like a true comment from someone who's only seen some memes about "developers" and assumed he was smarter than Balmer. There's a reason Microsoft was used by every IT department in the world when he left. He may have had some weaknesses on the consumer front but he made MS into a juggernaut on the business side. I still don't see any other company come even close.
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  Not at all. I believe the largest thing Nadella did was get out of the way of the individual organizational units and let them do their job; that's why he had so much success in his first few months as he simply unstoppered a blocked up product flow.
- WallowC_33 10y ago
  Every IT department in the world is a bit dramatic, since I have direct experience working with a couple +1 million user consumer facing companies that have a couple Windows laptops around for IE testing, but that's it. Ballmer takes over with momentum on his side; XP is still going up, Windows Mobile is shit but other than Blackberry the only other player in town, Xbox launches to huge success. When he leaves their mobile platform is effectively DOA, their cloud services are years behind AWS and Google, their consumer base is being eaten by Apple portables, and the last Xbox product he oversaw is getting its ass handed to it. They just added bash to Windows to keep/attract folks that aren't developing for their platform anymore. I don't think it is all Ballmer's fault. The world got wise to their scams from the past to some extent; no more shifty deals with the governments around the world calling you a monopolist. Google rose to power, and Apple got their shit together. Revenue went up in some spots, though how much of that is real or due to creative accounting (it's well known they shift Xbox losses around to obscure the real numbers), but if not for their huge war chest of cash (thanks to shady business practices), MS would be done.

mpdehaan2 10y ago

Clearly it does not. However, it should. I could probably do a better job - many people here could. However one of the perks of getting out of the corporate game is getting out of the corporate game.

67726e 10y ago

<something about anecdotes and data...> The point is, executive pay is entirely out of whack with the value (most) provide. Orders of magnitude out of whack. Sure I might not fill a good CEO's shoes but you or I can likely do the same job as a lot of lackluster CEOs that get paid insane multiples of our salaries.

mrep 10y ago
So how much compensation do you think executives should get?
- 67726e 10y ago
  I have no idea, but if you run a company into the ground you probably shouldn't be making more in a year than I will in a lifetime.

existencebox 10y ago

A common complaint (At least from my mouth as well) is that I would _love to_ but even achieving the chance to prove yourself is as much luck as it is personal direction. You might not believe the number of times I've asked to be given greater purview, more leadership opportunities, even asking for no "promotion" and offering to put my money where my mouth is re: being punished if I fail, but being told "do your time" or "you're not a high enough rank" to even try. (The insult to the injury is that I've been in industry longer than some of those with "sufficient" rank who have been 1 company tenants.) I would not look as askew at executive comp if I didn't have a nagging doubt that large portions of it are smoke and mirrors, obscured by extremely high and socio/political barriers to entry by which if you're the sort to pass, you're the sort to not "rock the boat"/"call the bluff" so to say.

drakonandor 10y ago
If you're such an amazing leader then why not start your own company?
- jack9 10y ago
  For your own benefit, please understand that suggestion sounds idiotic in context.
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    You don't say? Well perhaps then maybe not every employee is capable of doing the same quality work of their leadership.
- existencebox 10y ago
  I intend to, and do as much to that end as my current situation allows. The barriers currently are largely wanting to be sure I have enough saved up that my family won't suffer if I end up failing. I market side projects during my personal time, and am constantly looking for opportunities on my own outside of a formal work career progression. Do not take my earlier comment to mean I simply complain and languish; merely why there might be a natural frustration to some of the judgments/environment/deifying surrounding leadership positions (notably for my argument, bigCo leadership) (To add another point I was nervous to say since it sounds arrogant; but I've ostensibly managed at a comparable scale to what some of the positions I'm aiming for would require, but in situations that don't hold the same level of credential-ism/tenure focus. This just adds to the open question in my mind of why those teams were able to find success with less rigid progression while others offer so much resistance. I mention this not to humble-brag but again, to point out mental dissonance.)

walshemj 10y ago

That would be fun and at least I wouldn't shoot my self in the foot when asked an easy softball Q about diversity. MS should have gone with Alan Mulally.

wott 10y ago

Yes, please. In 3 weeks, I can do whatever and still earn enough money to retire before the end of October 2016. And while we're talking about shoes, a good shoe-seller could do the job of about any CEO in those huge companies. Would be harder in a small one, though.

blahi 10y ago
How would you feel if somebody who saw what programmers do only on TV tells you "A very highly trained monkey can do what you do - type on a keyboard." Because that's what programmers do, isn't it?
- kd0amg 10y ago
  One might offer to sit them down at the computer for a while and see what they accomplish. The skeptic can probably even provide his own computer. Most people don't have a large corporation they can just casually make themselves CEO of in order to prove a point.