6 ms·

Found this a while back and thought it was an interesting perspective vis a vis some of the collective (mine included) perceptions of Microsoft based on their p

Found this a while back and thought it was an interesting perspective vis a vis some of the collective (mine included) perceptions of Microsoft based on their past behavior, illegal and unethical business practices and such. Not to necessarily excuse or erase that, but Nadella-era MSFT is very different than Gates- or Ballmer-era https://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx https://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx

Analemma_ 7y ago
(disclaimer: I used to work at Microsoft) There's an important lesson here: while reasonable skepticism is always good, it's important to remember that a policy of "never forgive, never forget" actually creates moral hazard. If people/companies think they will never be forgiven for current misdeeds even if they get better, then there's no incentive to get better and they might as well keep being horrible. Allowing people (or companies) to turn over a new leaf incentivizes good behavior.
- zarkov99 7y ago
  One could also argue a policy of always forget/always forgive creates its own set of moral hazards by reducing the deterrence against bad behaviours.
  - GhettoMaestro 7y ago
    It’s not one or the other.
    - zarkov99 7y ago
      Exactly.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  I don't think it is reasonable to expect people completely disconnected from the negative effects of their actions to "turn over a new leaf", especially when they stand to make hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. From all the examples I can see, "ask for forgiveness, not permission" is how many of the largest companies have become economically successful.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- ekianjo 7y ago
  At least you would like to see such companies publicly admit they did wrong in the past if they expect any kind of forgiveness.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
    The point is, managers don't think in moral terms. They think in terms like risk vs. market opportunity. I've never heard a phrase like "But wouldn't it be immoral?" during a board meeting. So, if they feel no wrong was ever done, what should they ask forgiveness for?
- oska 7y ago
  This is flawed reasoning when you understand that some people and some companies are sociopathic. They will never 'turn over a new leaf' because they are incapable of doing so.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
giomasce 7y ago
Nadella-era MSFT is different from Gates- or Ballmer-era, and this is very good, but, as a Linux user and free software contributor, I wouldn't say I feel "loved". I'd say I feel MSFT is trying to somehow get advantage of my work (which is fine, given that it is free software) while holding back what I would like to have from them (specifications for MSFT interfaces and file systems, if not code, so that better interoperability can be implemented). Which is also fine, of course, they do not owe me anything, but still I do not feel "loved". (BTW, I already have more editors and code hosting platforms than I need, so they are not good points for me)

Analemma_ 7y ago

(disclaimer: I used to work at Microsoft) There's an important lesson here: while reasonable skepticism is always good, it's important to remember that a policy of "never forgive, never forget" actually creates moral hazard. If people/companies think they will never be forgiven for current misdeeds even if they get better, then there's no incentive to get better and they might as well keep being horrible. Allowing people (or companies) to turn over a new leaf incentivizes good behavior.

zarkov99 7y ago
One could also argue a policy of always forget/always forgive creates its own set of moral hazards by reducing the deterrence against bad behaviours.
- GhettoMaestro 7y ago
  It’s not one or the other.
  - zarkov99 7y ago
    Exactly.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
I don't think it is reasonable to expect people completely disconnected from the negative effects of their actions to "turn over a new leaf", especially when they stand to make hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. From all the examples I can see, "ask for forgiveness, not permission" is how many of the largest companies have become economically successful.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ekianjo 7y ago
At least you would like to see such companies publicly admit they did wrong in the past if they expect any kind of forgiveness.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  The point is, managers don't think in moral terms. They think in terms like risk vs. market opportunity. I've never heard a phrase like "But wouldn't it be immoral?" during a board meeting. So, if they feel no wrong was ever done, what should they ask forgiveness for?
oska 7y ago
This is flawed reasoning when you understand that some people and some companies are sociopathic. They will never 'turn over a new leaf' because they are incapable of doing so.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

giomasce 7y ago

Nadella-era MSFT is different from Gates- or Ballmer-era, and this is very good, but, as a Linux user and free software contributor, I wouldn't say I feel "loved". I'd say I feel MSFT is trying to somehow get advantage of my work (which is fine, given that it is free software) while holding back what I would like to have from them (specifications for MSFT interfaces and file systems, if not code, so that better interoperability can be implemented). Which is also fine, of course, they do not owe me anything, but still I do not feel "loved". (BTW, I already have more editors and code hosting platforms than I need, so they are not good points for me)