Insight in to how Microsoft treats its employees

[NickStone]

Found an interesting article on how Microsoft operates and treats its employees

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_te...crosoft_s.html

[SteveRiley]

Yep, I lived through several iterations of that, and it's terrible.

Microsoft eliminated stack ranking (and performance ratings) in November. This is a good sign, and might actually draw some very talented people who otherwise have avoided the place.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/12/5...rnal-structure

[woodsmoke]

wellllllll when one has grown up in a culture that everyone is just part of the collective and without a soul, then one applies bell curves to anything and all things... the strict use of the "case system" to making a book about their software.... it is all part of the parcel.

Rather kind of like Gary Gygax. He took the wonderful system of "Castles and Kings" from Britain, and because he had no personality, and was just a "salesman"... he developed a "bell curve" game that engendered mere dice rolling instead of "a sense of the game".

woodsmoke

[Jonas]

I think this would apply to almost any kind of work. I read or heard some lecture some time ago that some scientists on social studies and innovation looked on the Scandinavian model with what in Sweden is called LAS - (Lagen om Anställnings Skydd ~the Law of Employment Protection) where you can't sack people in the way that you can in US/Japan. In fact it's quite hard to fire a employee without a valid reason in Sweden.

What the social studies were pointing towards was that the employees in Sweden/Scandinavia feel that they will keep their job even when they don't agree with the boss/leadership leads to more innovation and make the company advance in the long run, and doesn't produce "Yes-men". And that this fear of loosing your job, hampered US/Japanese corporations/companies.

The article also made me think of this animated lecture... in the context of the article it all makes sense why Microsoft haven't been able to innovate and adapt to the changing technical environment.

b.r

Jonas

[oshunluvr]

I think this would apply to almost any kind of work. I read or heard some lecture some time ago that some scientists on social studies and innovation looked on the Scandinavian model with what in Sweden is called LAS - (Lagen om Anställnings Skydd ~the Law of Employment Protection) where you can't sack people in the way that you can in US/Japan. In fact it's quite hard to fire a employee without a valid reason in Sweden.

What the social studies were pointing towards was that the employees in Sweden/Scandinavia feel that they will keep their job even when they don't agree with the boss/leadership leads to more innovation and make the company advance in the long run, and doesn't produce "Yes-men". And that this fear of loosing your job, hampered US/Japanese corporations/companies.

The article also made me think of this animated lecture... in the context of the article it all makes sense why Microsoft haven't been able to innovate and adapt to the changing technical environment.

Interesting outcome of the study. My assumption would be the opposite. IME, human nature would lead to overwhelming ineptitude in the over-all workforce precisely because one could not be easily fired. You would only have to pass the interview phase of getting the job and then you would be "set for life" as long as you didn't break any major rules.

I can think of one culture with similar setting but totally different results than Sweden: The US Government. The largest single employer in the world and chock-full of inept and useless personnel. Not 100% of course, but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who doesn't do anything useful or productive.

[dibl]

The US Government. The largest single employer in the world and chock-full of inept and useless personnel. Not 100% of course, but you can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who doesn't do anything useful or productive.

I spent the first 12 years of my career working for the U.S. military as a civilian employee. As a student of human nature, I learned all about the personality types who are most attracted to that level of job security, and why. I learned what behaviors are rewarded and what behaviors are punished. I learned that there is punishment waiting for risk-takers, sooner or later. I learned that if you show up on time and stay for your assigned 8 hours, you will not be fired no matter how little you actually accomplish. I learned that the 20% of ambitious, productive individuals will end up executing 80% of the organizational workload (the Pareto rule applies). I learned that demographic/ethnic characteristics are more determinitive of how individuals are treated and assessed in their job performance than objective work accomplishments. I am so glad I took the plunge and resigned my civil service job for a shot at success in private industry. Not that you can't find politics and prejudice in private industry, but in the small, entrepreneurial enterprises such behaviors are rare luxuries, not the daily fulltime fare.

[oshunluvr]

Extremely well said, Don.

[Qqmike]

Freedom and security trade-offs.

If you want more freedom, you must give up some of your security.
(Often phrased, The price of freedom is insecurity.)
If you want more security, you must give up some of your freedom.



generally, usually, more or less

[Snowhog]

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." -- Benjamin Franklin

[woodsmoke]

But it may be that the present, and rising generation precisely WANTS to be able to just show up to get an A grade.

From Rolling Stone this week:

People ....dot, dot, dot. ....can find the following public policy proposals in a piece entitled “Five Economic Reforms Millennials Should Be Fighting For” by Jesse A. Myerson:

1. Guaranteed Work For Everybody: “Unemployment blows. The easiest and most direct solution is for the government to guarantee that everyone who wants to contribute productively to society is able to earn a decent living in the public sector.”

2. Social Security For All: “But let’s think even bigger. Because as much as unemployment blows, so do jobs. What if people didn’t have to work to survive?”

3. Take Back The Land: “Ever noticed [sic] how much landlords blow? They don’t really do anything to earn their money.”

4. Make Everything Owned By Everybody: “Hoarders blow.”

5. A Public Bank In Every State: “You know what else really blows? Wall Street.”

I'm not commenting just posting what was written by a major influence peddler in the U.S.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurapen...those-reforms/

woodsmoke