Uncertainty at Microsoft sparks concern about retaining current employees

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TogetherWeStand View Post


    Slightly off topic I know, but his eyes in this picture. I cannot but help thinking back to Stargate SG1, & think there is something about the Goa'uld in those the eyes. image



    Reminds me of CEO of the Damned except his brick wall is a Zune wall.image

  • Reply 22 of 41


    drblank


    "Where are they going to go if they work up in Redmond? Nintendo? They are separated from the rest of the world if they work in Washington. It's not like there's a ton of other high tech companies that can slip into."


     


    More than a few options.


     


     


     


    A few computer jobs at that little Airplane plant too. 


     

  • Reply 23 of 41
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,998member
    More than a few options.

    Sorry, not sure what you were replying / commenting on ...?
  • Reply 24 of 41


    Ballmer was just the hatchet, for the Wizard/Puppet Master behind the curtain, Billy Boy. He never left, and he's picking the new CEO. Watch.....

  • Reply 25 of 41


    drblank


    "Where are they going to go if they work up in Redmond? Nintendo? They are separated from the rest of the world if they work in Washington. It's not like there's a ton of other high tech companies that can slip into."

  • Reply 26 of 41
    virtuavirtua Posts: 207member
    MS really are dossed at the moment.
  • Reply 27 of 41
    dreyfus2 wrote: »
    Wait a minute... Why would somebody voluntarily stay under Ballmer and leave on the good news? Something wrong with the water in Redmond?

    Yeah, I thought I read a recent rumor that Xbox VP J Allard might come back because Don Mattrick has departed.
  • Reply 28 of 41
    Spoiler:
    dontuwish wrote: »
    Ballmer was just the hatchet, for the Wizard/Puppet Master behind the curtain, Billy Boy. He never left, and he's picking the new CEO. Watch.....
    I hope I am not wrong, but I think Mr. Ballsillie is still looking for a new opportunity to mess around...

    I think he's the man!
  • Reply 29 of 41
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,647member
    Will the media describe Microsoft as "beleaguered? "
  • Reply 30 of 41
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    gooneryoda wrote: »
    They should hire Scott Forstall so he can skeuomorph Windows.

    Screwmorph, you mean.
  • Reply 31 of 41
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    With Chief Executive Steve Ballmer set to retire and Microsoft undergoing major structural changes, employees at the software giant are said to be spooked, sparking concern that retaining current workers could be a challenge..

    Nah. They have it under control.

    http://scoopertino.com/that-was-fast-microsoft-announces-ceo-short-list/
  • Reply 32 of 41
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,069member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 4machiavelli View Post


    More than a few options.


     



    • ... quite a few ...



     


    Yeah, "Intellectual Vultures" sounds about right image

  • Reply 33 of 41
    @drblank what are you talking about?

    Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Zillow, Tableau, DocuSign, Expedia, probably a few dozen more big name companies, and a crap ton of consultancies all in the great Puget Sound.
  • Reply 34 of 41
    @drblank what are you talking about?

    Facebook, Google, Amazon, Ebay, Zillow, Tableau, DocuSign, Expedia, probably a few dozen more big name companies, and a crap ton of consultancies all in the great Puget Sound.

    Stay away from Boeing. I don't want the blue screen of death to become the blue screen of OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE.
  • Reply 35 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    Yeah it doesn't sound like a very good system:



    http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/microsoft_ceo_steve_ballmer_retires_a_firsthand_account_of_the_company_s.html



    Imagine what would happen if the company actually just folded over the next few years and left 1 billion or so PC users out on a limb. PC manufacturers would have to start resorting to using another OS. A lot of people would migrate to the Mac if that happened but it would be entertaining to see what replaced Windows as the OS of choice.


     


    If MS folded, Bill and Steve could go back to producing vaporware like they were doing in the late '80s. Microsoft was the king of vaporware!!! 

  • Reply 36 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by HawkBlade View Post


     

    Either way... never believe a "reassurance" e-mail. The company only has their interest at heart, not you as an employee. Period.


     



     


    Remember, you are not a person within a large company. To make it easy to cut you lose and duck walk you to the side door, you are a "Human Resource" in their eyes. You are "overhead" made to be controlled, if needed, a liability on the books that reduces profit, something to be outsourced if needed. 


     


    Merely a mushroom to be kept in the dark, fed reassuring horse shit, and canned when you're ripe. 

  • Reply 37 of 41

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post



    If I understand Microsofts performance evaluations it probably goes something like this, employees are graded as follows and during a reorg the employees who may become concerned are the ones at the 2- and 3 levels because those are the ones that get let go first, all things being equal Level 1 Consistently exceeds results/metrics and expectations. Creates or takes advantage of important opportunities. Level 2+ Regularly exceeds most results/metrics and expectations. Job scope is greater relative to Category 2 or 2- performers. Level 2 This employee is fully qualified with sufficient depth of knowledge and breadth of experience to perform the job. Level 2- Meets results/metrics and expectations, however, may not be able handle some aspects of the job compared to the "benchmark." Level 3 Falls short meeting most results/metrics, and expectations. Generally about 10% of the employees fall into the level 1. 80% at level 2, and another 10% at level 3 so its easy to cut 10% deadwood out pretty quickly without very much loss.


     


    This is relatively correct, but totally overlooks the review process at the conclusion of a project. One person needs to be ranked outstanding and one needs to be ranked at the bottom. The one at the bottom is likely to be let go. So, each day you go to work knowing that you are really competing with everyone on your team. So, instead of working together each person is trying to look good at your expense as well as everyone else's expense. The project results is less important then your own political life, so the project inches forward, each day you are employed another day, each day you gain or lose along with your team mates. At some point you realize you have been relegated to the "goat" of the group... You're the guy in the red shirt that is beamed down with Kirk and Scotty... you're toast... you've been written out of the script... friendzoned...

  • Reply 38 of 41
    Slightly off topic I know, but his eyes in this picture. I cannot but help thinking back to Stargate SG1, & think there is something about the Goa'uld in those the eyes. :lol:
    I can see that, but to me he has those crazy eyes like that run away bride Jennifer Wilbamks.
  • Reply 39 of 41
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,453member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Paul94544 View Post



    If I understand Microsofts performance evaluations it probably goes something like this, employees are graded as follows and during a reorg the employees who may become concerned are the ones at the 2- and 3 levels because those are the ones that get let go first, all things being equal Level 1 Consistently exceeds results/metrics and expectations. Creates or takes advantage of important opportunities. Level 2+ Regularly exceeds most results/metrics and expectations. Job scope is greater relative to Category 2 or 2- performers. Level 2 This employee is fully qualified with sufficient depth of knowledge and breadth of experience to perform the job. Level 2- Meets results/metrics and expectations, however, may not be able handle some aspects of the job compared to the "benchmark." Level 3 Falls short meeting most results/metrics, and expectations. Generally about 10% of the employees fall into the level 1. 80% at level 2, and another 10% at level 3 so its easy to cut 10% deadwood out pretty quickly without very much loss.


    Yeah companies and HR are screw up on this whole topic. I worked for a start up back in the 90's (very successful one) and the company purposely went out an hire the best people and paid them very well. It grew to the level of about 1500 people in 5 yrs and they went out and hire a VP of HR since we were a "big company" now. The first thing this idiot did was make the management rank all the employees. Everyone was rank at the top of the scale as you would expect base on the hiring practice. The HR VP said that was not allow since some people had to be rank in bottom 10% to 20% which in turned meant they would not be eligible for raises, bonuses and stock options. Needless to say this did not fly too well especially when the founders found out, and considering they had a hand in hiring most of the employees. The founders put an end to it really quick and fired the VP of HR shortly afterwards.


     


    Today I work at another big company and they use the same forces ranking system and it turns in to who can maligned the other manager's employee the most. The idea is to knock everyone else down so you do not have to go back and tell your team they are not getting raises or bonus because their peers ranked them lower than everyone else. Also companies use these ranking systems when layoffs happen. If it is an across the board layoff then the lower 10% get hit. But, what I have seen especially in company which are struggling like RIM or Motorola who were loaded with top talent at one time after they get rid of the bottom 10% the first time they begin to cut into the bone and brain matter since the keep cutting into the lower 10% as the move up the scale. Even if they meant to keep the top 10% to 20% they begin leaving on their own since they do not want to be around a place like that.


     


    My personal belief is, once a competitive high tech company begins using these ranking systems and then half to lay people off it the beginning of the end. It happen to Apple back in the 90's and it was just luck steve came back and stop it all and turned it around. Steve recognized talent over someone's ability to fit into the normal of these employee ranking systems, Steve would get rid of the brown nosers who was only doing the right things to get ranked higher over the person who could care less what other thought but did great work.

  • Reply 40 of 41
    dreyfus2 wrote: »
    Wait a minute... Why would somebody voluntarily stay under Ballmer and leave on the good news? Something wrong with the water in Redmond?

    How true. Like it can get any worse.
Sign In or Register to comment.