5 ms·

My personal opinion is that for Microsoft this is a much better solution than to hire an external CEO with an MBA and no background in software/technology. If t

My personal opinion is that for Microsoft this is a much better solution than to hire an external CEO with an MBA and no background in software/technology. If the news are true then I wish all the luck to Mr. Nadella.

zdw 13y ago
Why? My experience has been that handing the reins tech companies over to accountants or "business people" has been fair to disastrous more frequently than handing them over to tech people with some business training.
- adam12 13y ago
  I believe you are echoing what jed said.
- leoc 13y ago
  Lou Gerstner is probably the most obvious counterexample.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Touche 13y ago
Were those the only choices?
dm8 13y ago
I don't think BillG would have allowed hiring someone with an MBA and no background in software/technology. He is still the majority shareholder (from what I've read) and sits on the board.
- alienfluid 13y ago
  Would it have been better to hire someone from the outside with no experience in software/technology AND no MBA? Just trying to see if you (parent and g-parent) consider an MBA an overall negative signal, regardless of someone's background.
  - dm8 13y ago
    Satya has an MBA too. I was just commenting on my previous comment. I guess author meant that someone just with MBA as a qualification and no relevant tech background would have been bad deal since MBAs get hired in leadership role even if they may or may not possess relevant domain knowledge.
    - alienfluid 13y ago
      That's fair. I was just wondering why the MBA was specifically mentioned in the comments.
      - adestefan 13y ago
        I think it was just shorthand for someone that is nothing more than a "business guy."
    - exelius 13y ago
      Nobody is going to get hired as CEO of an $80 billion a year company with just an MBA. It would be an MBA plus 20-30 years of business experience, and these days it's almost impossible to avoid technology completely. I'm not even sure domain knowledge is important for a CEO of a company that size: once you become a $50 billion plus company, you don't have time to get involved with the details of the business.
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        >I'm not even sure domain knowledge is important for a CEO of a company that size: once you become a $50 billion plus company, you don't have time to get involved with the details of the business. Steve Jobs and CEOs in-between kind of make a counter-example.
        deletes 13y ago
        Read the biographies of Steve and Steve; Jobs was not an expert, but was familiar with technology of that era. His father taught him electronics, and Jobs was working at Atari as an technician.
- me_again 13y ago
  You might want to read a bit more. Gates owns approximately 4% of Microsoft stock. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders
  - runarb 13y ago
    True, but that still makes him the second largest shareholder. Looks to me that only The Vanguard Group holds more.
- gkoberger 13y ago
  Rumor has it that he's out as Chairman, now, too. [1] [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/microsoft-said-to-be-preparing-to-make-satya-nadella-ceo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/microsoft-said-to-b...
exelius 13y ago
I disagree. Technology people tend to focus on the shiny, which really isn't what Microsoft needs at this point. They're just too big and they play in too many fields where they end up competing with themselves in half of the markets they play in. After ten years of Ballmer, what Microsoft needs now is a professional manager to sort out the mess he left. They have no shortage of great technology people; what they need is someone to bring the organization to heel behind a universal vision. Microsoft is not on the verge of great growth or in the position anymore to build "the next big thing." That ship has sailed for them, as all the people capable of building the next big thing have been run off by the ineffective management (or never hired in the first place) and work at Google or Facebook now. Microsoft is, however, at risk of losing a significant portion of their revenue should the PC industry continue its slide and start being displaced in the enterprise. Nadella is the best choice that is available. I still hold that the best candidate out there for the job is Mark Hurd, but he apparently wasn't interested for the same reason a lot of other outside candidates weren't interested: Microsoft has an infamously poisonous corporate culture, and everyone who worked for an outside CEO would be trying to undermine him and take his job.
- bluthru 13y ago
  >what they need is someone to bring the organization to heel behind a universal vision. Unless that vision is just next quarter's earnings, they can't afford a MBA type who doesn't have a deep understanding of technology.
  - exelius 13y ago
    A CEO doesn't work in a vacuum, nor does he need to be the most knowledgeable person in the room. He can pay other people to think for him and ask the right questions. It's not an easy job, but it necessitates taking a 10,000 foot view of everything. Knowing how to navigate a corporate alliance or a merger is much more important than anything technology-specific.
- lmg643 13y ago
  I totally disagree on the "professional manager" - that's what ballmer was. and this is coming from someone who thinks ballmer is unfairly criticized. (eg - what google and apple unleashed on the world in the past 10 years was a major historical shift - coming from product/technical people at their core. arguably, this shift was one that only a newbie or outsider could pull off. 20/20 hindsight to say "microsoft could have dominated those arenas" when they had so many other verticals of strength to tend to. (and 20/20 hindsight for me to say this as well...)) IMHO microsoft needs to keep focusing on hacker-friendliness - they have a great lock on the corporate world, but the corporate world is starting to look to the hacker community for direction. what do i mean by this? big companies can't be trusted to just get brand loyalty and keep buying your stuff until they go out of business. look at RIM - Blackberries were mandatory company accessories, now it is BYOD. Look at the server market - the biggest consumers of servers (FB, GOOG) are using designs they made themselves. Tougher for Dell and HP to keep selling ready-made servers. How long before other major corporations are doing the same? the enterprise market is more tech savvy than times past, and only getting more so. high-level technical creativity and intuitive understanding of product potential is vital.
kamaal 13y ago
One thing I can tell you is even the best MBA out there will probably run a software company in the best way a factory can be run.

zdw 13y ago

Why? My experience has been that handing the reins tech companies over to accountants or "business people" has been fair to disastrous more frequently than handing them over to tech people with some business training.

adam12 13y ago
I believe you are echoing what jed said.
leoc 13y ago
Lou Gerstner is probably the most obvious counterexample.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Touche 13y ago

Were those the only choices?

dm8 13y ago

I don't think BillG would have allowed hiring someone with an MBA and no background in software/technology. He is still the majority shareholder (from what I've read) and sits on the board.

alienfluid 13y ago
Would it have been better to hire someone from the outside with no experience in software/technology AND no MBA? Just trying to see if you (parent and g-parent) consider an MBA an overall negative signal, regardless of someone's background.
- dm8 13y ago
  Satya has an MBA too. I was just commenting on my previous comment. I guess author meant that someone just with MBA as a qualification and no relevant tech background would have been bad deal since MBAs get hired in leadership role even if they may or may not possess relevant domain knowledge.
  - alienfluid 13y ago
    That's fair. I was just wondering why the MBA was specifically mentioned in the comments.
    - adestefan 13y ago
      I think it was just shorthand for someone that is nothing more than a "business guy."
  - exelius 13y ago
    Nobody is going to get hired as CEO of an $80 billion a year company with just an MBA. It would be an MBA plus 20-30 years of business experience, and these days it's almost impossible to avoid technology completely. I'm not even sure domain knowledge is important for a CEO of a company that size: once you become a $50 billion plus company, you don't have time to get involved with the details of the business.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      >I'm not even sure domain knowledge is important for a CEO of a company that size: once you become a $50 billion plus company, you don't have time to get involved with the details of the business. Steve Jobs and CEOs in-between kind of make a counter-example.
      - deletes 13y ago
        Read the biographies of Steve and Steve; Jobs was not an expert, but was familiar with technology of that era. His father taught him electronics, and Jobs was working at Atari as an technician.
me_again 13y ago
You might want to read a bit more. Gates owns approximately 4% of Microsoft stock. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders
- runarb 13y ago
  True, but that still makes him the second largest shareholder. Looks to me that only The Vanguard Group holds more.
gkoberger 13y ago
Rumor has it that he's out as Chairman, now, too. [1] [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/microsoft-said-to-be-preparing-to-make-satya-nadella-ceo.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-30/microsoft-said-to-b...

exelius 13y ago

I disagree. Technology people tend to focus on the shiny, which really isn't what Microsoft needs at this point. They're just too big and they play in too many fields where they end up competing with themselves in half of the markets they play in. After ten years of Ballmer, what Microsoft needs now is a professional manager to sort out the mess he left. They have no shortage of great technology people; what they need is someone to bring the organization to heel behind a universal vision. Microsoft is not on the verge of great growth or in the position anymore to build "the next big thing." That ship has sailed for them, as all the people capable of building the next big thing have been run off by the ineffective management (or never hired in the first place) and work at Google or Facebook now. Microsoft is, however, at risk of losing a significant portion of their revenue should the PC industry continue its slide and start being displaced in the enterprise. Nadella is the best choice that is available. I still hold that the best candidate out there for the job is Mark Hurd, but he apparently wasn't interested for the same reason a lot of other outside candidates weren't interested: Microsoft has an infamously poisonous corporate culture, and everyone who worked for an outside CEO would be trying to undermine him and take his job.

bluthru 13y ago
>what they need is someone to bring the organization to heel behind a universal vision. Unless that vision is just next quarter's earnings, they can't afford a MBA type who doesn't have a deep understanding of technology.
- exelius 13y ago
  A CEO doesn't work in a vacuum, nor does he need to be the most knowledgeable person in the room. He can pay other people to think for him and ask the right questions. It's not an easy job, but it necessitates taking a 10,000 foot view of everything. Knowing how to navigate a corporate alliance or a merger is much more important than anything technology-specific.
lmg643 13y ago
I totally disagree on the "professional manager" - that's what ballmer was. and this is coming from someone who thinks ballmer is unfairly criticized. (eg - what google and apple unleashed on the world in the past 10 years was a major historical shift - coming from product/technical people at their core. arguably, this shift was one that only a newbie or outsider could pull off. 20/20 hindsight to say "microsoft could have dominated those arenas" when they had so many other verticals of strength to tend to. (and 20/20 hindsight for me to say this as well...)) IMHO microsoft needs to keep focusing on hacker-friendliness - they have a great lock on the corporate world, but the corporate world is starting to look to the hacker community for direction. what do i mean by this? big companies can't be trusted to just get brand loyalty and keep buying your stuff until they go out of business. look at RIM - Blackberries were mandatory company accessories, now it is BYOD. Look at the server market - the biggest consumers of servers (FB, GOOG) are using designs they made themselves. Tougher for Dell and HP to keep selling ready-made servers. How long before other major corporations are doing the same? the enterprise market is more tech savvy than times past, and only getting more so. high-level technical creativity and intuitive understanding of product potential is vital.

kamaal 13y ago

One thing I can tell you is even the best MBA out there will probably run a software company in the best way a factory can be run.