4 ms·

An interesting article, which I think accurately describes my brief time at Microsoft during the Ballmer era (our startup was acquired after the bubble burst).

An interesting article, which I think accurately describes my brief time at Microsoft during the Ballmer era (our startup was acquired after the bubble burst). But his definition of "made men" seems very vague and very convenient. The people who Nadella appointed to higher positions were almost entirely people who had been at Microsoft for many years. Why are some "made men" and some are not? The definition seems primarily about whether or not the author liked them personally.

repolfx 7y ago
Worse, it seems more about whether they're men at all. I got to the end and stopped reading. I thought this article was going to get into specifics of what these so called "made men" did wrong, it turned out to be a ra-ra feminist piece. I've learned the hard way these sorts of people often have very wrong and warped ideas of what makes people successful or unsuccessful so that was a disappointment. Not worth reading really.
- hiei 7y ago
  He's not going to name names. Those lifers in MS probably know who he's talking about, he did name products as well. Those folks can infer. Ra-ra feminist piece? Think we're reading different things. What he said regarding women rings true.
- damq 7y ago
  +1. I gave up reading halfway through after he complained about sexism for the tenth time without giving a single example. It seems like the author just wants to complain and doesn't really know anything about what makes a company successful. Not worth reading at all.
com2kid 7y ago
There used to be a program at Microsoft where employees who were "destined to do great things" would be pulled out, given special training, and then have their careers accelerated. On one hand, it is sort of a good idea if you can truly pick the "winners" (and some of the people who went through the program did amazing things!) but, well, in hindsight I think everyone reading this can see how internal biases would be reflected in who got picked for the program. I don't know too much about the program, and I don't even remember now what is was called, but engineers who'd been there longer would talk about it sometimes.
- ephermata 7y ago
  There were at least two programs when I was there. I heard a lot more about them under Ballmer than under Satya. HiPo -- for junior to mid level -- special training, networking, and seminars. MiniMSFT comments section mentions this from time to time. Bench -- for mid to later career, usually on the way to "partner" or above level -- same as HiPo, but may be asked to work on a project with others in Bench, may see attention from VPs mentoring the group. Neither one had any official impact on ratings, rewards, or career velocity. What they did do, however, was establish an elite and help that elite network across the company.
  - com2kid 7y ago
    Ah thanks for jogging memory in regards to the names. :) > Neither one had any official impact on ratings, rewards, or career velocity. Ah interesting, my understanding was that people who can gone through HiPo were sorta blessed. Then again I guess in theory the people who get selected for HiPo should already be doing the work to make their career velocity look good. I saw all sorts of interesting stuff while I was at MS. It was a crazy place to work. It was sort of like working at a company that does everything 5-8 years too early, and then tries again 2-3 years too late. * Tablets * eBooks * MP3 players * Smartphones * Smart TVs (Micorosft bought Web TV in 1997!! That is what, 15-20 years too early?) * Tablets again * Cloud based document syncing (See: What Sharepoint tried to be) They also made some sort of automation creation tool for business users that, IIRC, got cancelled after one release and replaced with something else. I only know about it because I signed up to do internal user testing for it. This is on top of all sorts of crazy one off projects. (In 2011 I was on a team attempting to make an autonomous household robot! How long before those become a viable thing outside of Roombas?)
    - taurath 7y ago
      It was only because they weren’t good enough that they didn’t succeed, not that they were “too early”. Right idea, wrong execution, or frequently the hardware not being there yet, and not pouncing when it was.
- 7y ago

repolfx 7y ago

Worse, it seems more about whether they're men at all. I got to the end and stopped reading. I thought this article was going to get into specifics of what these so called "made men" did wrong, it turned out to be a ra-ra feminist piece. I've learned the hard way these sorts of people often have very wrong and warped ideas of what makes people successful or unsuccessful so that was a disappointment. Not worth reading really.

hiei 7y ago
He's not going to name names. Those lifers in MS probably know who he's talking about, he did name products as well. Those folks can infer. Ra-ra feminist piece? Think we're reading different things. What he said regarding women rings true.
damq 7y ago
+1. I gave up reading halfway through after he complained about sexism for the tenth time without giving a single example. It seems like the author just wants to complain and doesn't really know anything about what makes a company successful. Not worth reading at all.

com2kid 7y ago

There used to be a program at Microsoft where employees who were "destined to do great things" would be pulled out, given special training, and then have their careers accelerated. On one hand, it is sort of a good idea if you can truly pick the "winners" (and some of the people who went through the program did amazing things!) but, well, in hindsight I think everyone reading this can see how internal biases would be reflected in who got picked for the program. I don't know too much about the program, and I don't even remember now what is was called, but engineers who'd been there longer would talk about it sometimes.

ephermata 7y ago
There were at least two programs when I was there. I heard a lot more about them under Ballmer than under Satya. HiPo -- for junior to mid level -- special training, networking, and seminars. MiniMSFT comments section mentions this from time to time. Bench -- for mid to later career, usually on the way to "partner" or above level -- same as HiPo, but may be asked to work on a project with others in Bench, may see attention from VPs mentoring the group. Neither one had any official impact on ratings, rewards, or career velocity. What they did do, however, was establish an elite and help that elite network across the company.
- com2kid 7y ago
  Ah thanks for jogging memory in regards to the names. :) > Neither one had any official impact on ratings, rewards, or career velocity. Ah interesting, my understanding was that people who can gone through HiPo were sorta blessed. Then again I guess in theory the people who get selected for HiPo should already be doing the work to make their career velocity look good. I saw all sorts of interesting stuff while I was at MS. It was a crazy place to work. It was sort of like working at a company that does everything 5-8 years too early, and then tries again 2-3 years too late. * Tablets * eBooks * MP3 players * Smartphones * Smart TVs (Micorosft bought Web TV in 1997!! That is what, 15-20 years too early?) * Tablets again * Cloud based document syncing (See: What Sharepoint tried to be) They also made some sort of automation creation tool for business users that, IIRC, got cancelled after one release and replaced with something else. I only know about it because I signed up to do internal user testing for it. This is on top of all sorts of crazy one off projects. (In 2011 I was on a team attempting to make an autonomous household robot! How long before those become a viable thing outside of Roombas?)
  - taurath 7y ago
    It was only because they weren’t good enough that they didn’t succeed, not that they were “too early”. Right idea, wrong execution, or frequently the hardware not being there yet, and not pouncing when it was.
7y ago