The big stick at Microsoft!

Ever wondered what it would be like to make a presentation to Bill Gates? What motivational techniques did one of the most successful CEO’s in the world use to get the best out of his employees and propel Microsoft to global domination?

Tom Evslin was there in the early 90’s, and has some amazing stories:

“Even in conversation… people at Microsoft were known by their email names”

 

“Billg rarely used positive feedback as a motivational tool; he found the stick more effective than the carrot although options, which were then skyrocketing, WERE a very effective carrot.”

 

“At some point in your presentation billg will say ‘that’s the dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard since I’ve been at Microsoft.’  He looks like he means it.  However, since you knew he was going to say this, you can’t really let it faze you.  Moreover, you can’t afford to look fazed; remember: he’s a bully.”

 

Read the rest of this cracking article here and ponder…

Is it what you expected? How did this shape Microsoft culture and how it treats it’s friends and enemies? What is the effect of this kind of sustained fear on an organization??

 

I just loved the article!.. Thanks Tom!

 

—Jason Bates

 

Tags: Microsoft, Bill+Gates, stick+carrot, motivation, Evslin

Comments

[Philip Greenwood]

So many people see Microsoft as a well-led organisation it's hard to avoid the group-think. I agree that it's impressive, and I can see it's successful, but I have doubts about the leadership.

My perspective is that they got lucky: At the right moment they supplied the IBM PC operating system. Even IBM - then a giant, dominant force - didn't think it was going to be the big deal it was. This luck led to a technology lock-in they have been capitalising-on ever since. The tech lock-in funded the ability to buy - and raid - talent, which got them to "escape velocity", and since they have been able to operate without the gravity affecting smaller, less rich organisations.

In my opinion, if it wasn't Microsoft, there would have been another equivalent organisation that rode the same wave. There were so were many contenders trying to find that niche at the time that the evolutionary principle would suffice to explain Microsoft's success.

So was it leadership or was it luck? It's impossible to tell, because no other firm got such a head start, what do we have to compare it to?

I concede that Microsoft has made some impressive business moves. I think that their options policy was clever, but it was not unique. The way they "turned the ship" to adopt the Internet was impressive, but the need to do that so fast was due to their earlier error of judgement, believing they could dominate the internetworking space with MSN. I do respect and honour Bill and Belinda Gates for their work through their foundation.

Right now, and in the context of that article, I just want to point out that it might not be the best model to emulate, or a good case study from which to learn leadership. I can say, without any real fear of being incorrect, you'll never get that lucky!

Google, on the other hand...