3 ms·

This seems to be another example of where Microsoft has lost its way and simply become a battleground for management turf wars. I've read numerous stories of ho

by cletus 15y ago

This seems to be another example of where Microsoft has lost its way and simply become a battleground for management turf wars. I've read numerous stories of how the Windows and Office divisions (in particular) have thrown their weight around. Frankly I blame Steve Ballmer. The buck stops at the top. He's not a technology guy. He's just a middle-manager who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Compare this to Google, where I work. I'm just a software engineer with no reportees but there are precisely four people between me and Larry. Take any software engineer at MSFT and find out how many people are between them and Steve. Frankly, I think that'll be a telling (damning) statistic. I refer you to the (excellent) My first BillG review [1]: > In those days, Microsoft was a lot less bureaucratic. Instead of the 11 or 12 layers of management they have today, I reported to Mike Conte who reported to Chris Graham who reported to Pete Higgins, who reported to Mike Maples, who reported to Bill. About 6 layers from top to bottom. We made fun of companies like General Motors with their eight layers of management or whatever it was. [1]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html

larsberg 15y ago
To be fair, this is a story from the product management/marketing side. I always felt sorry for those poor folks, as (at least back when I was there) they were consulted early in the planning process for some market segment/user investigations and then basically ignored until the product was either finished or killed. I was always impressed with the quality of work that they were capable of, but it was never clear to me how to involve them in the actual business of building products. To wit, I can't remember a single member of product marketing present at any product review up through the senior-VP level (which, after Bill checked out, was effectively the top of the management chain, unless you wanted to do something cross-company such as include Office for free in MSDNAA).
amcintyre 15y ago
Take any software engineer at MSFT and find out how many people are between them and Steve. Frankly, I think that'll be a telling (damning) statistic. I'm a software engineer with no reports at MSFT; there are 5 people between me and Steve. YMMV.
- ejames 15y ago
  I was a software engineer with no reports at MSFT, and at the time had 5 people between myself and Steve. Since leaving, I've heard from former coworkers that the team was reorganized... to make it flatter. The problem with Microsoft's org chart is its width, not its height. The best metaphor is "warring city-states", with a large helping of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing". Each Microsoft product team or department has the ambition and manpower to believe that they can build a world-changing product - after all, this is Microsoft! We can make a new, better standard for web content if we want to do that! Go big! At the same time, no individual product team has the official authority to quash other projects that might duplicate, negate, interfere with, render obsolete, or drain resources from its own project. The key word is "official". When a decision has to be made about a troubled or behind-schedule project, the more-important divisions will typically get their way. Software development being what it is, there will always be several troubled or behind-schedule projects in a company the size of Microsoft. Then you have to sit down, compare future plans and bug lists to schedules/budgets/available developers, and decide what to do about it. It's in those meetings that Microsofties discover some product teams are more equal than others. This is what the original article sounds like. There's an ambitious product, yet it suffers for lack of attention and resources. Some developers are overworked (their project is too large) while others are bored by inaction (their project is too small). It suddenly comes to the attention of Team Foo that Team Bar has built a system which does not use Foo, even though Foo is supposed to be Microsoft's all-purpose framework for your Bar needs (Team Bar did not know about Team Foo and vice-versa). The problem is recognized, yet nobody actually seems to be in charge of deciding what to do. Finally there is a come-to-Jesus moment in a "corporate realignment". Foo: Yes or no? Microsoft retroactively discovers that actually, it's OK with Foo not taking over the world. The project ends, often with the notable developer/evangelist/whatever in charge saying that they were very excited about the Foo technology but it seems Microsoft didn't agree. Some level of bitterness is expressed at the fact that Microsoft never said so up front.
nikcub 15y ago
Layers are a function of size. Google doesn't have some magic managerial bullet. You either over-work middle managers with 1000+ reports and they have no idea what is going on (Google), or you have a structure. Google are next, I thought you would see that when you link to an old post where Microsoft talk about being lean from your own post that talks about Google being lean
- LearnYouALisp 15y ago
  Yes, once you start to consider how many people one person can reasonably manage, then you realize the number of levels increases with workforce size. Start with one person in charge of the company. Suppose he has ten assistants, and each of those assistants has ten managers they coordinate. Suppose the managers have ten employees each that they interact with, guide, and coordinate. So for a thousand-person workforce, the company has three layers of management in this model.

by cletus 15y ago

larsberg 15y ago

To be fair, this is a story from the product management/marketing side. I always felt sorry for those poor folks, as (at least back when I was there) they were consulted early in the planning process for some market segment/user investigations and then basically ignored until the product was either finished or killed. I was always impressed with the quality of work that they were capable of, but it was never clear to me how to involve them in the actual business of building products. To wit, I can't remember a single member of product marketing present at any product review up through the senior-VP level (which, after Bill checked out, was effectively the top of the management chain, unless you wanted to do something cross-company such as include Office for free in MSDNAA).

amcintyre 15y ago

Take any software engineer at MSFT and find out how many people are between them and Steve. Frankly, I think that'll be a telling (damning) statistic. I'm a software engineer with no reports at MSFT; there are 5 people between me and Steve. YMMV.

ejames 15y ago
I was a software engineer with no reports at MSFT, and at the time had 5 people between myself and Steve. Since leaving, I've heard from former coworkers that the team was reorganized... to make it flatter. The problem with Microsoft's org chart is its width, not its height. The best metaphor is "warring city-states", with a large helping of "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing". Each Microsoft product team or department has the ambition and manpower to believe that they can build a world-changing product - after all, this is Microsoft! We can make a new, better standard for web content if we want to do that! Go big! At the same time, no individual product team has the official authority to quash other projects that might duplicate, negate, interfere with, render obsolete, or drain resources from its own project. The key word is "official". When a decision has to be made about a troubled or behind-schedule project, the more-important divisions will typically get their way. Software development being what it is, there will always be several troubled or behind-schedule projects in a company the size of Microsoft. Then you have to sit down, compare future plans and bug lists to schedules/budgets/available developers, and decide what to do about it. It's in those meetings that Microsofties discover some product teams are more equal than others. This is what the original article sounds like. There's an ambitious product, yet it suffers for lack of attention and resources. Some developers are overworked (their project is too large) while others are bored by inaction (their project is too small). It suddenly comes to the attention of Team Foo that Team Bar has built a system which does not use Foo, even though Foo is supposed to be Microsoft's all-purpose framework for your Bar needs (Team Bar did not know about Team Foo and vice-versa). The problem is recognized, yet nobody actually seems to be in charge of deciding what to do. Finally there is a come-to-Jesus moment in a "corporate realignment". Foo: Yes or no? Microsoft retroactively discovers that actually, it's OK with Foo not taking over the world. The project ends, often with the notable developer/evangelist/whatever in charge saying that they were very excited about the Foo technology but it seems Microsoft didn't agree. Some level of bitterness is expressed at the fact that Microsoft never said so up front.

nikcub 15y ago

Layers are a function of size. Google doesn't have some magic managerial bullet. You either over-work middle managers with 1000+ reports and they have no idea what is going on (Google), or you have a structure. Google are next, I thought you would see that when you link to an old post where Microsoft talk about being lean from your own post that talks about Google being lean

LearnYouALisp 15y ago
Yes, once you start to consider how many people one person can reasonably manage, then you realize the number of levels increases with workforce size. Start with one person in charge of the company. Suppose he has ten assistants, and each of those assistants has ten managers they coordinate. Suppose the managers have ten employees each that they interact with, guide, and coordinate. So for a thousand-person workforce, the company has three layers of management in this model.