Happy Belated Birthday Microsoft (who turned 37 last week)…
Having worked at Microsoft for nearly half of Microsoft’s existence as well as more than half of my career it has provided one of my broadest pools of experiences including the areas I explore here. I was struck by Ray Ozzie’s (heir to Bill Gates as technical visionary of the company) memo (going on a little while ago now) that echoed so many of perspectives about ‘Black Box Complexity’ I have been investigating…
- “But as the PC client and PC-based server have grown from their simple roots over the past 25 years, the PC-centric / server-centric model has accreted simply immense complexity…. Complexity sucks the life out of users, developers and IT. Complexity makes products difficult to plan, build, test and use. Complexity introduces security challenges. Complexity causes administrator frustration. And as time goes on and as software products mature – even with the best of intent – complexity is inescapable…Complex interdependencies and any product’s inherent ‘quirks’ will virtually guarantee that broadly adopted systems won’t simply vanish overnight….But so long as customer or competitive requirements drive teams to build layers of new function on top of a complex core, ultimately a limit will be reached.”
It’s not just technical complexity that threatens to forge an inscrutable black box around the code base. But also organisational complexity can make the equally large and intricate matrix of decision making as inscrutable and opaque.
While the Microsoft legacy is rich and entrenched, its road ahead has never been more in question with Steve Ballmer’s resignation. The questions that face it about the company’s role in the online and device driven world are not new issues. Ironically, Microsoft was on the forefront of thought leadership in these areas as far back as 1995 with his publication of the book “The Road Ahead” (yes, it neglected to comprehend the “how” of “the Internet”, but it thoroughly presaged the “what” of the “online” world). The book itself was an extension of strategy papers by Bill and Nathan Myhrvold that had been circulating years before.
I always remember Myhrvold’s audacious proposition asking what if everything was free? “What if compute resources were free? What if bandwidth was free?” What would you build and sell in that world. The proposition was not a flippant whim, but rather a logical extrapolation of Moore’s Law (computing) and Gilder’s Law (bandwidth).
In short, it changed everything. The architecture, the business models, the design points. Everything. The only thing that would stay the same is meeting people’s known and unknown needs. But how they were met would be radically different.
Seth Godin dubs these mental propositions a “Paracosm…an ornate, richly detailed imaginary world.” He describes them in his post “Paracosms, loyalty and reality in the pursuit of creative problem solving” underscoring how they depend as much on the embrace of failure as the suspension of disbelief…
- “Ten or fifteen years ago, I’d sit with publishing chiefs and say, ‘let’s imagine how the world looks when there are no mass market books published on paper…’ Before we could get any further, they’d stop the exercise. ‘It’s impossible to imagine that. Paper is magical. Are you saying you don’t believe in books?’ (I heard variations on this from people as recently as a year ago). The emotional response is easy to understand. If one of the core principles of your business needs to be abandoned in order to act out the paracosm, it feels disloyal to even utter it. Sort of like asking your spouse if he’s going to remarry after you die…And yet. The most effective, powerful way to envision the future is to envision it, all of it, including a future that doesn’t include your sacred cows. Only then can you try it on for size, imagine what the forces at work might be and then work to either prevent (or even better, improve on) that future and your role in it. It’s not disloyal to imagine a future that doesn’t include your founding precepts. It’s disloyal not to.”
If there has been one thing that has held Microsoft back in the past decade it has been its Sacred Cows. Its insanely lucrative sacred cows. The Profit dimension of the Magic Quadrant has been off the scale for these Cash Cows, but the impacts on Growth dimension have been equally ruminant. Not only have they fenced a massive chunk of the business to a steadily maturing and saturating market, but the businesses have sucked so much of the best talent, energy and resources of the company into these relatively secure and stable businesses and away from the burgeoning opportunities of online and devices.
A Seth-urday call for a return to more paracosms for Microsoft.
With the big business news of the week being Steve Ballmer’s stepping down from the Microsoft executive suite, aside from the rampant piling on of critique, the other big angle to the story is who could possibly fill his shoes (especially as no successor was announced). When you scrutinise a short list (or long list) of potential candidates, one sees many of the same shortcomings for which Ballmer is being so mercilessly pilloried. It made me think, who are the real all-star CEOs in big corporate?
At the top of anyone’s Fantasy Executive Team would have to be today’s birthday boy Warren Buffet. A nearly unrivalled track record and a legacy of brilliant business insight. Including the advocacy to embrace failure…
- “If everything they do is successful, they’re a failure,” Buffett says of his children, all three philanthropists. Because it means they’re taking on things that are too easy. They should be taking on things that are tougher. If you look at the history of Rockefeller or Carnegie, not everything they did worked. But they did some very, very important things that worked, that wouldn’t have happened otherwise.” – “Buffett Tells Philanthropists to Fail More”
Despite his close friendship with Billg, methinks Warren won’t be stepping into the Microsoft executive suite any time soon especially with his self-confessed apprehension about the whole sector.
The big news this week, cluttering my Facebook and Twitter feeds from Microsoft former colleagues, has been the latest Microsoft reboot. The chief exec, Steve Ballmer announced its latest reorganisation with the objectives of being “Nimble, Communicative, Collaborative, Decisive, and Motivated”. I guess you couldn’t ask for a more explicit catalogue of self-confessed weaknesses Microsoft is grappling with (as well as an obvious collection of a buzzword output from a flip-chart laden executive offsite).
The one that stuck me was “Decisive”. The side effect of megalithic growth for most companies is an ossifying of the decision making processes. Decisions are hamstrung by committees, complex arrays of stakeholders, matrix management and a host of other corporate disfunctions. The very essence of this blog underscores the notion that the most important thing that an executive (or anyone exercising a degree of leadership and management) does is make decisions. Good decisions. When you can’t do that, when you can’t weigh the upside opportunity against the downside risk, then you have a leadership/management crisis.
A major problem in decision making is confusion types of decision making (just the way people confuse types of “failure”). A common confusion is mistaking ‘decisive action’ (good) with ‘decisive analysis’ (bad). Weak executives just think that the ‘decisive’ thing is the key. It goes along with confidence, swagger, machismo, etc. that predominates many corporations (certainly did at Microsoft).
Decisive Action is good. Even when you know that your Analysis might be wrong. You still have to plot a course, move ahead, and take the risk. ‘Action’ is a controllable. But, Analysis of any suitably complex situation is always going to be inconclusive or imperfect. To feign otherwise is either deception or bravado. Getting the understanding 100% right is not controllable. Yes, one can be 100% right in toting up how many widgets have been sold (though with complex product lines and convoluted systems, even that can be a challenge). But, understanding the market (which is the most important thing to analyse) is far too complex for any definitive conclusion. But such pressure to be as decisive in strategic analysis as strategic execution leads to a debilitating executive fundamentalism that is often more dangerous than no analysis at all.
Leaders act decisively; Managers analyse open-mindedly.
I agree that it is difficult to have both Leadership and Management, but balancing both is the mark of a true executive master. Seth Godin tends to fear this balance and when pushed sides clearly for the Leadership side of the equation. His recent post “Urgency and accountability are two sides of the innovation coin” provides an example of this preference of the urgency/leadership side over the accountable/manager side…
- “As organizations and individuals succeed, it gets more difficult to innovate. There are issues of coordination, sure, but mostly it’s about fear. The fear of failing is greater, because it seems as though you’ve got more to lose. So urgency disappears first. Why ship it today if you can ship it next week instead? There are a myriad of excuses, but ultimately it comes down to this: if every innovation is likely to fail, or at the very least, be criticized, why be in such a hurry? Go to some more meetings, socialize it, polish it and then, one day, you can ship it. Part of the loss of urgency comes from a desire to avoid accountability.”
But there is clearly a balance of set things right and getting things shipped (ask Microsoft about Vista).
The Fathermom blog has a good post on Leadership and Management which talks about a phrase he picked up in Memphis – “I’m going to be in a slow hurry about that.”
Executives who balance Leadership and Management need to be in a slow hurry.