4 ms·

At a huge company like Microsoft the board isn't really a great place for visionaries. It's much better at things like helping the CEO understand the thoughts o

by lacker 7y ago

At a huge company like Microsoft the board isn't really a great place for visionaries. It's much better at things like helping the CEO understand the thoughts of large institutional investors that provide Microsoft with capital. A visionary is better suited as a "special advisor" to someone... like the role that Bill Gates is keeping.

basch 7y ago
At the same time, if the function of the board is to keep the ship from drifting too far off course, or to handle certain problems the company itself seems incapable of or oblivious to (mass cognitive dissonance) it could be useful to have a Jobsesque pitchman who can get a board to be accepting of radical risk taking. A board might lean conservative and risk averse, and sometimes companies need moments of extreme risk. Usually that jump takes a persuader. Being able to sit in on board meetings, and talk during them would be enough, not necessarily having a vote, maybe thats a special adviser?
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  > Being able to sit in on board meetings, and talk during them would be enough, not necessarily having a vote, maybe thats a special adviser? Big multinationals typically have advisory boards / subcommittees that advise them on certain topics. I assume Microsoft has a technology advisory board (and in their case, likely several) that includes at least some high-level engineering talent. Leadership at the board level involves high level decision-making, but not a lot of actual work. The CFO of PepsiCo has a ton of responsibilities himself; his position on the board of Microsoft is likely only a few hours a month because it's limited to reading reports prepped by the C-suite and its advisors, then voting on decisions. Senior executives and investors are chosen for boards because their day jobs require an understanding of market context and a good bullshit filter to guard against the Jobsesque pitchman scenario.
  - basch 7y ago
    Big strategy shifts, or attempts, like buying Nokia, would go through the board of most companies. If the entire board is conservative investors without vision for pivot and reinvention, your company will slowly stagnate. Ideally you can identify and make those moves before youve become surpassed. IBM purging its hardware divisions, and then buying Red Hat is another example, where a company maybe waited a little too long between moves. Would a more aggressive board pushed the company to do that earlier?
njarboe 7y ago
With cash on hand of around $140 billion, I'm not sure Microsoft really needs to worry about outside capital. I would think the board could help with how to keep those big companies paying for everyone to have the full Microsoft Office suite and how to custom price it.
- maest 7y ago
  They still care about share price, which depends on outside investors willing to buy the shares, which depends on MS having good IR, which some of the board members help with.
sytelus 7y ago
This is not true. Look at Google board. Very few investor suits but many tech visionaries.

by lacker 7y ago

basch 7y ago

At the same time, if the function of the board is to keep the ship from drifting too far off course, or to handle certain problems the company itself seems incapable of or oblivious to (mass cognitive dissonance) it could be useful to have a Jobsesque pitchman who can get a board to be accepting of radical risk taking. A board might lean conservative and risk averse, and sometimes companies need moments of extreme risk. Usually that jump takes a persuader. Being able to sit in on board meetings, and talk during them would be enough, not necessarily having a vote, maybe thats a special adviser?

wayoutthere 7y ago
> Being able to sit in on board meetings, and talk during them would be enough, not necessarily having a vote, maybe thats a special adviser? Big multinationals typically have advisory boards / subcommittees that advise them on certain topics. I assume Microsoft has a technology advisory board (and in their case, likely several) that includes at least some high-level engineering talent. Leadership at the board level involves high level decision-making, but not a lot of actual work. The CFO of PepsiCo has a ton of responsibilities himself; his position on the board of Microsoft is likely only a few hours a month because it's limited to reading reports prepped by the C-suite and its advisors, then voting on decisions. Senior executives and investors are chosen for boards because their day jobs require an understanding of market context and a good bullshit filter to guard against the Jobsesque pitchman scenario.
- basch 7y ago
  Big strategy shifts, or attempts, like buying Nokia, would go through the board of most companies. If the entire board is conservative investors without vision for pivot and reinvention, your company will slowly stagnate. Ideally you can identify and make those moves before youve become surpassed. IBM purging its hardware divisions, and then buying Red Hat is another example, where a company maybe waited a little too long between moves. Would a more aggressive board pushed the company to do that earlier?

njarboe 7y ago

With cash on hand of around $140 billion, I'm not sure Microsoft really needs to worry about outside capital. I would think the board could help with how to keep those big companies paying for everyone to have the full Microsoft Office suite and how to custom price it.

maest 7y ago
They still care about share price, which depends on outside investors willing to buy the shares, which depends on MS having good IR, which some of the board members help with.

sytelus 7y ago

This is not true. Look at Google board. Very few investor suits but many tech visionaries.