mozek.....
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Golly, in my recent issue of Ziff Davis' "Smart" Business For The New Economy, in an article entitled "New Business Ethics: Cheating, Lying, Stealing - they report "most people act unethically for two reasons: to make more money and to beat the competition.
The article goes on to report about a 1999 Walker report on employee loyalty and work practices which found companies viewed as "highly ethical" by their employees were six times more likely to keep their staff members. "On the other hand, 79 percent of employees who questioned their bosses' integrity said they felt trapped at work or uncomitted, or were likely to leave their jobs soon...."
On (p. 99) of the same article a study by Blessing/White found that businesses with a "strong culture of shared values" stand to make a lot more money than do other companies. Companies with a strong sense of values see that...
- revenue grow four times faster
- jobs get created seven times faster
- stock price increase 12 times faster
I've been a keen observer/investor - until I grew disenchanted and sold my holdings last year - of Novell, Inc. Novell has some fantastic technology, but I do not have a high respect or regard for their closed/arrogant culture, intolerance of risk and aversion to failure.
I have been appauled by Microsoft's anticompetitive business practices over these past several years, but do note with respect the way they do embrace the customer and high a much higher tolerance for risk, failure and different ideas. Gates and Balmer set up this competitive culture composed of extremely smart individuals, but I'd have to say it's been glued together with more fear and focus on money than these longer term timeless values which seek to grow the pie while helping and serving others.
It is very interesting to note that with two monopolies - govt. and Microsoft - at loggerheads there IS no logical reason for either to concede defeat, responsibility or blame. Even Posner couldn't bring the two sides together so the outlook is not very bright longer term for a positive outcome anytime soon.
I'm not in favor of the government exercising so much influence in this case for it could set a very dangerous precedent in the form of an further encroachment of power. But if they decide, act and then quickly step aside and let the markeplace work I don't have a problem with this approach.
Let me comment further on your other other thoughts....
>>Frederick,
I agree with some of your ideals, but not your conclusions. I believe that the real change you're describing will be the death of large, conservative organizations that do not offer "employees" the same kind of benefits (in the life sense of the word) they could get on their own. I don't think of Microsoft as one of these corporations, and I think there are many newer or revitalized corporations that will maintain their health going forward.>>
The net turns every INDIVIDUAL into a unique BRAND with a unique NETWORK.
I think there's going to be a massive reorientation of companies and corporations away from control and structure -just look at the potential massive new liabilities they all will suddenly soon face once cyberlawyers start mining the vast public/private repository of email.
At the very least, the companies of the future will serve up vastly more freedom and flexibilty as well as PCs, tools and services just for the chance of having the best and the brightest spend more of their TIME and TRUST with that company, etc. Anything the INDIVIDUAL touches will be THEIRS period - it will be like the Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. I think there will be a massive new recognition that INDIVIDUALS that are trusted simply produce MORE with LESS.
TRUST functions like oil in a car engine. Companies that are distrusting their employees today with things like email, net usage, etc. are shooting themselves in the foot. Idiotic. Period. These companies will lose their wealth as good people simply walk.
>>When I first started at Microsoft, I had done various things for the previous 10 years from working as an employee of small corporations, consultant to large corporations, to running my own traditional businesses. What I found was that I really preferred to leave certain parts of running a business (operations and administrative functions) to others. These functions are necessary to support others' ability to perform specialized tasks and to establish/maintain structured communication, both of which will still be required as long as we have organized efforts of any magnitude.>>
Duh, the net can do this for ALL of us NOW. All you need is to put the pieces together, form your own virtual tribe and start monitizing the REAL currency of this New Service model: personal/human trust/capital. It really makes no sense for individuals to sell themselves short - ie. allowing companies to pay them to monitize "their" personal trust as they use their time. Life is too short. The fusion of RISK, TRUST and ACTION unleashes ENERGY. And this ENERGY will be the new meter of success.
>>I think the fundamental area where we may disagree is the characterization of some corporations, their environments, and the benefits they can provide employees. In fact, I have been with Microsoft for over 7 years. I started as a developer, and I have felt throughout that 7 year period that I have been more a part of a group of people trying to solve problems and get things done than a faceless, manipulated employee of a large corporation.>>
Just the fact that you comment on SI speaks VOLUMES for Microsoft. I've tried to get Novell to embrace the same risk but the trust has just not been there. Keep up the good work.
>>I'm not going to pretend that it's all been positive. I have had some very trying times, but usually, they were caused by the inevitable difficulty of standing alone with unpopular ideas. I was never penalized for maintaining an unpopular position. Over time, people often came around to my good ideas and convinced me that there were better solutions to those that could have been better. All in all, I believe Microsoft continues to be a great environment for individuals to realize their vision and make a difference, while other functions are managed by people with interests in that area.>>
More power to you and others who stand up for the "unpopular position" for that where the future resides.
>>I'm currently considering getting back into the water alone, but not for the reasons you may think. I'm not primarily motivated in either direction financially. Microsoft has put in place a compensation package that I still believe offers incredible potential, but that is not the issue. I've done well over my career, and I have confidence that my family will manage whatever my decision. My real decision revolves around the potential to realize ideas that I believe can improve peoples' quality of life.>>
Why don' you give me a call sometime and I can share this wonderful empowering vision and energy which I've been sharing with a growing number of individuals over the past 1-2+ years. Perhaps these energies could even encourage Gates and Balmer to lay down more of their swords. There's a massive amount of trust, goodwill and good energy which needs to be shared all over the world right now. I really believe that there are massive good/bad transformations happening all over and these will only accelerate in the days and months ahead. I'm serious as a heart attack. We are doing some really exciting things to help people all over the country and I'd welcome your help.
>>I've been weighing the benefits of staying with Microsoft vs pursuing these ideas on my own, and Microsoft is working with me as an individual to structure things in a way that will work for my life and the company as well.>>
Now that's really good to hear. This public dialogue is important to share with the world, especially in light of all the bad press Microsoft is getting. Believe me, I have been a very vocal critic of Microsoft's business practices. But your story is YOURS alone and deserves respect.
>>Whatever I decide, I believe that many people at Microsoft are there not just to make the big bucks or get a big title, but to work closely with others to make things better, generally. I sense a renewed commitment by a lot of people at Microsoft as they pull together in the face of what seems to be a very unjust action by the government and a few competitors. This recent move by Steve Ballmer to double up on last review's option grants was seen by many as a substantial, positive step by the company to support its employees in the face of adversity.>>
Perhaps there's a reason why this is happening - ie. to set an example for others to learn from. I very talented person I've grown to respect recently told me "Fred there is no right vs. wrong....only YOUR perception of what's right or wrong." To that I will have to agree, for we each have the free will to chose, think whatever we want, period. The only thing I will draw the line on is what the results of not what we think or say - ie. the stands/positions I/you/we may take - but out ACTIONS: are we giving energy back into the world or taking energy. Again, all this is subjective depending on one's position and point of view. But it gets so much more personal - for only we know this answer in our gut for our own sake and those we personally impact, help and serve, etc.
>>Overall, I believe that Microsoft has a good shot at a positive, bright future. While Cheryl has outlined some real market issues that must be overcome, I believe that Microsoft has solutions for many of these that will likely become known this year and over the next 2. While it can be argued that the biggest threat is not the government action but industry trends, I think that we are at the precipice of a new kind of regulatory environment where behind the scenes political contributions, power/fame mongers like the Joel Kleins of this world, and people unwilling to take responsibility for their own education before brandishing a torch in the mob can swamp us in a transitionary period where we remain slaves for far too long to much of the technology that was supposed to make our lives better.
Mike>>
"Slaves to technology....?"
Yes, the PC got us all far along the path of personal empowerment as it unleashed INDIVIDUAL power and energy onto an control oriented legacy mainframe culture. But this was suplanted by the rise of LAN/WAN arrogance/control. And now with the Internet we finally are at the stage where the INDIVIDUAL can finally, really and totally shift the technology orientation 180% to where technology can serve us, not the other way around.
Gates and Balmer should reorient their vision to growing the pie, versus trying to control a fixed pie - ie. "their pie." This is ONE thing they can do very easily for I really believe we are at the point where the ONLY competition will be in the area of proving to others that our VALUES, BELIEFS and VISIONS are truly special and extraordinary - ie. that they have the power to "change the world" in positive ways.
Throw out the combative invective and challenges. The world pie can grow massively if we all learn to help and serve and empower others. For the ultimate "technolgy" is between our ears.
Peace.
GO!! |
