5 ms·

Bill was doing a fantastic job here, but it is a bit too sad to see how most of the executives in the mail show much less concern for the company's and customer

Bill was doing a fantastic job here, but it is a bit too sad to see how most of the executives in the mail show much less concern for the company's and customer's goals, and more concerns on who should own the problem. I think this is a bit too common in any corporate environment.

cfors 7y ago
This was my takeaway too. Too much talking about doing at big corporate companies, and not enough actual doing. Drives me up a wall.
- mrgreenfur 7y ago
  But isn't it the exec's job to make sure there are people aligned to problems worth solving? Yelling about problems does nothing without staffing and accountability.
  - pas 7y ago
    Just blindly handing off problems has no added value. No, if the CEO tasks an executive with something that guy/gal should responsibly* think about the task, analyze it, break it down, and hand off "smaller" chunks to underlings. And smaller could even mean a lot more detailed but with better scoping. Fixed budget, concrete goals, etc. * - said exec should/must ask the CEO about the priority of this task, what other tasks will be demoted, is it possible, do they have enough budget, resources, timeframe, etc.
Hamuko 7y ago
Isn't Microsoft the poster child for siloed groups?
gist 7y ago
> Bill was doing a fantastic job here Fantastic job of what? Building a company that has a typical type of organization, employees and incentives that this can happen at? It's like the CEO of Comcast (Brian Roberts) going into a Comcast store (in stealth; or phoning them) and then experiencing the frustration of a normal customer and the idiots they deal with. There is ZERO reason a large company with resources can't make sure that things like this don't happen. They simply choose (and get rewarded) for looking at the big picture and not the small everyday details. I wonder how many times Bill has been aggravated with his own operating system and then had to work hours and hours (with nobody to ask and a normal person's brain and no internet resources) to have to get out something in order to earn a living.
- signal11 7y ago
  > There is ZERO reason a large company with resources can't make sure that things like this don't happen IMHO, large companies don’t always work in perfect, laser-focused speculation. As a result lots of big companies have competing “pulls” — eg fiefdoms. Interference from investors. New CEOs who are still finding their feet. Lame duck CEOs. Regulatory distractions. In theory a company would be laser focused on customer satisfaction and doing the best possible thing for their customers. In practice these gaps in BigCo attention gives nimble newcomers a chance to shine.
  - gist 7y ago
    > As a result lots of big companies have competing “pulls” — eg fiefdoms. Exactly. Why? Because they suck plain and simple. My wife (a highly paid and educated professional) just wasted 3 hours today trying to get a simple new cable box installed from Verizon. Earlier she tried to have Best Buy do a simple TV pickup and ended up having to cut her losses cancel Best Buy and just get 800junk to pick it up (at a higher cost). There is ZERO reason large companies can't get things like that right that they do over and over and over again every day. I say this as someone who has actually operated and run a small company and had employees. Yes it was not a large corporation. But it had way less resources available and very generally not even enough people to get done what needed to get done. Don't let anyone tell you different. It's the same thing people have had shoved down their throats ever since (ironically) 1981 when the IBM PC came out along with that crap that Microsoft put on it. 'It's not us it's you'. People just buy that thinking and that is why companies get away with what they do. (There is also consumers and businesses making poor choices and not wanting to pay for quality for sure).
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Until you cannot remember (and frankly, don’t care about) the names of all your employees any more, I don’t think you can call something a large company. There is theoretically zero reason why a large company should be so inefficient, but practically that’s always what happens.
    - 7y ago
jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
This is not a fantastic job, IMO He’s complaining like he’s a user not trying to fix the dysfunctional communication directly. The CEO should own making sure ownership is clear and minimizing opportunities for such problematic outcomes in the first place. To me this reads like Bill wasn’t paying attention to his company until 2003. Sounds like they were poorly supervised and made a sprawling mess before he seemed interested in wondering what they were all up to.
- belltaco 7y ago
  He wasn't the CEO.
  - jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
    When he sent the email. Who was CEO when the sprawling mess he was complaining about was planned and implemented?
    - waterhouse 7y ago
      Wiki says: "Steve Ballmer replaced Gates as CEO in 2000".
      - jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
        Moviemaker initial release: 2000 Who was CEO during the planning and build out phase when they originally decided to make a mess? It’s not as if MS suddenly turned into a disorganized mess. Windows ME released 2000. The culture he’s complaining about was already deeply embedded in the DNA.
hnlmorg 7y ago
Yup, that stood out to me too. I've seen this all too often too.
comex 7y ago
I actually think it makes sense. There are a lot of issues raised in the email. Some of them are small bugs that could just be fixed on the spot. But many of them are more like design flaws, which could only be fixed by designing and implementing new features. That requires time and planning, so it makes sense that they would be talking about who should be responsible for it.

cfors 7y ago

This was my takeaway too. Too much talking about doing at big corporate companies, and not enough actual doing. Drives me up a wall.

mrgreenfur 7y ago
But isn't it the exec's job to make sure there are people aligned to problems worth solving? Yelling about problems does nothing without staffing and accountability.
- pas 7y ago
  Just blindly handing off problems has no added value. No, if the CEO tasks an executive with something that guy/gal should responsibly* think about the task, analyze it, break it down, and hand off "smaller" chunks to underlings. And smaller could even mean a lot more detailed but with better scoping. Fixed budget, concrete goals, etc. * - said exec should/must ask the CEO about the priority of this task, what other tasks will be demoted, is it possible, do they have enough budget, resources, timeframe, etc.

Hamuko 7y ago

Isn't Microsoft the poster child for siloed groups?

gist 7y ago

> Bill was doing a fantastic job here Fantastic job of what? Building a company that has a typical type of organization, employees and incentives that this can happen at? It's like the CEO of Comcast (Brian Roberts) going into a Comcast store (in stealth; or phoning them) and then experiencing the frustration of a normal customer and the idiots they deal with. There is ZERO reason a large company with resources can't make sure that things like this don't happen. They simply choose (and get rewarded) for looking at the big picture and not the small everyday details. I wonder how many times Bill has been aggravated with his own operating system and then had to work hours and hours (with nobody to ask and a normal person's brain and no internet resources) to have to get out something in order to earn a living.

signal11 7y ago
> There is ZERO reason a large company with resources can't make sure that things like this don't happen IMHO, large companies don’t always work in perfect, laser-focused speculation. As a result lots of big companies have competing “pulls” — eg fiefdoms. Interference from investors. New CEOs who are still finding their feet. Lame duck CEOs. Regulatory distractions. In theory a company would be laser focused on customer satisfaction and doing the best possible thing for their customers. In practice these gaps in BigCo attention gives nimble newcomers a chance to shine.
- gist 7y ago
  > As a result lots of big companies have competing “pulls” — eg fiefdoms. Exactly. Why? Because they suck plain and simple. My wife (a highly paid and educated professional) just wasted 3 hours today trying to get a simple new cable box installed from Verizon. Earlier she tried to have Best Buy do a simple TV pickup and ended up having to cut her losses cancel Best Buy and just get 800junk to pick it up (at a higher cost). There is ZERO reason large companies can't get things like that right that they do over and over and over again every day. I say this as someone who has actually operated and run a small company and had employees. Yes it was not a large corporation. But it had way less resources available and very generally not even enough people to get done what needed to get done. Don't let anyone tell you different. It's the same thing people have had shoved down their throats ever since (ironically) 1981 when the IBM PC came out along with that crap that Microsoft put on it. 'It's not us it's you'. People just buy that thinking and that is why companies get away with what they do. (There is also consumers and businesses making poor choices and not wanting to pay for quality for sure).
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Until you cannot remember (and frankly, don’t care about) the names of all your employees any more, I don’t think you can call something a large company. There is theoretically zero reason why a large company should be so inefficient, but practically that’s always what happens.
  - 7y ago

jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago

This is not a fantastic job, IMO He’s complaining like he’s a user not trying to fix the dysfunctional communication directly. The CEO should own making sure ownership is clear and minimizing opportunities for such problematic outcomes in the first place. To me this reads like Bill wasn’t paying attention to his company until 2003. Sounds like they were poorly supervised and made a sprawling mess before he seemed interested in wondering what they were all up to.

belltaco 7y ago
He wasn't the CEO.
- jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
  When he sent the email. Who was CEO when the sprawling mess he was complaining about was planned and implemented?
  - waterhouse 7y ago
    Wiki says: "Steve Ballmer replaced Gates as CEO in 2000".
    - jeieo9nkfkr 7y ago
      Moviemaker initial release: 2000 Who was CEO during the planning and build out phase when they originally decided to make a mess? It’s not as if MS suddenly turned into a disorganized mess. Windows ME released 2000. The culture he’s complaining about was already deeply embedded in the DNA.

hnlmorg 7y ago

Yup, that stood out to me too. I've seen this all too often too.

comex 7y ago

I actually think it makes sense. There are a lot of issues raised in the email. Some of them are small bugs that could just be fixed on the spot. But many of them are more like design flaws, which could only be fixed by designing and implementing new features. That requires time and planning, so it makes sense that they would be talking about who should be responsible for it.