Microsoft recently announced the end of the product known as Encarata. Way back in the day Encarta was cool. It was one of the few things made in the CD-ROM era that, looking backwards, made sense (Yes, I owned a copy of both Art Gallery and Microsoft Dogs, and as idiotic as it seems now, the later actually got good reviews) - and was actually designed quite well.

It’ was also a curiously successful work of innovation by Microsoft on several counts. Few people remember, but Microsoft bet big on CD-ROMs and consumer software, and of those efforts, many of which flopped, Encarta was a gem.  In 1994 it demonstrated many of the things people had been promising PCs would be good for (multimedia, education, instant access to information, etc.). There were other encyclopedias, but (I don’t think) anyone else invested as much in the design and technology as Microsoft did.

Many forget, or were still in diapers, but in 1994, years before web design would be something you could say at a bar without people thinking you were into spiders, Encarta demonstrated much of what we call information architecture, interaction design and consumer aesthetics, all in one high profile consumer product. Many, many companies and software teams used Encarta as a reference for not only what was possible, but for what a good experience should be like. Microsoft didn’t invent many of the technologies involved, but the encapsulation of so many into a well designed experience is similar in some ways to the success of the i-pod.  Both are examples of innovation through superior user experience and integration of various technologies made mostly by other folks.

And most importantly, when Netscape and Internet Explorer began the browser wars, many of us looked at Encarta as an approximation of what a great web experience should feel like, with rich media, consumer appliance simplicity, and great search and navigation. In the hallways on the Internet Explorer team we had screenshots of some of the Encarta team’s work, among various other bits of software inspiration, up on the wall. It was definitely a reference used in designing features like Explorer bars,  Favorites & History.

Kudos to Bill Flora, Adrienne Odonnell, and Sheila Carter (who are listed here as the design team) and other folks who worked on this thing over the years.

Encarta also was one of the best product names Microsoft has ever had. Sure, that’s not saying much given how notorious MSFT is for lousy names, but like Excel (also a good name, at least it was in 1985, compared to Lotus 1-2-3) it somehow fit the vibe of the kind of thing the product was.

Can’t say I miss loading CDs into my PC (I can’t remember the last time I did that), but Encarta definitely deserves a notable place in the history of software design. They helped raise a bar many people still use today.

Posted in Design, Innovation, Microsoft, history | 2 Comments »

I remember the day I started working as a program manager on the Internet explorer team. On my second day, Joe Belfiore, my boss, came to my office, closed the door, and told me two things:

1. Your relationship with programmers is everything
2. There are only two teams at Microsoft to care about, Windows and Office.

Forget for a moment these specific points. Joe did the most important thing in the world as a boss. He gave me clear priorities. Even if they were wrong, from day one (ok, it was day two) he imparted his private view of how to succeed and how to make sense of things. It was amazingly empowering. I could slice through all of the work being thrown at me from across the team and the company, and divide into two neat piles: a) things to care about, b) things not to care about. Joe was a great boss and provided this kind of clarity all the time.

It turns out both bits of advice were right.

Your relationship with programmers is everything

As a program manager (glorified title for project manager), all of my power actually came from the programmers. I only had a job because of the programmers. No programmers means no code, no product, no revenue. End of story.  My power was an extension of theirs. I had to treat them with respect and go out of my way to earn their trust over time.

This meant first and foremost I had to earn their respect. Help them make decisions. Bulldoze organizational road blocks out of their way. Prove I was smart, that I could help them make tough decisions, and could make the product much better even though I couldn’t write code as well as they could. And only after establishing that value could I be a team leader and be of true use to the project. With programmers as allies, working with marketers, testers, executives, or leaders of other teams, became easier, and my role as a team leader became possible.

When I visit companies or talk to people, and they tell me they rarely talk to the programmers, a red flashing light goes off in my head. How on earth do you have any power? I wonder. You don’t know the people who actually make the thing you are managing! You have no idea if they believe in what they are doing or not, or if they have better ideas than yours.  Something critical is broken if project managers don’t have collaborative and trusting relationships with programmers.  If there is a problem between PMs and programmers, it’s the PMs job to fix it. Odds are they’re better at communication, conflict resolution and have more perspective, all of the key skills for resolving differences and building relationships.  Put another way: if you’re a PM and your team hates you, what else do you have? Your relationship with your team is everything.

There are only two teams at Microsoft to care about, Windows and Office.

Back in 1995 when Joe gave me this advice, it was true. There were only two groups at Microsoft that were successful and brining in sizable revenue.  The problem was working on Internet Explorer during the browser wars, every one of the 100 teams in the company wanted something from me, and every other PM on the team. They wanted us to add features to help promote their work, code changes to fix bugs that bothered them, etc. There was a huge pile of people who wanted to influence the work I managed. My phone rang all the time and my inbox was always full. If I treated everyone equally I’d be doomed. Couldn’t be done. I had to ignore, or say no to, most of the people who wanted something from me. With Joe’s advice I had a rough guide for sorting it out. Tons of exceptions of course, but the baseline advice was right and useful.

Good managers give these little bits of power insight all the time. Dividing up the complex, stressful working world of projects into two piles.  A project manager derives his power from this kind of clarity, especially if he can articuate it to others like Joe did to me.

Posted in Management, Microsoft | 3 Comments »

Recently Joel on Software posted about how to be a program manager and he lists UI design as one of the skills program managers should be responsible for. It’s no surprise that people who call themselves UI designers, such as the folks on on the interaction design mailing list, have taken notice and are mostly unhappy.

(Back story: The idea of program managers, roughly a sergeant level generalist who drives projects, is an idea I like.  It’s a job role Microsoft started in the late 1980s . It’s a job I had in the 90s).

Which gets to the question of should PMs do design.

The easy answer is yes, if they are good at it. Most are not. Most do not know this because they’ve never met an interaction designer, someone who does it professionally for a living. Simply because Fred is better at it than his peers, he assumes he is good. It’s not his fault exactly. Most computer science programs and business schools never talk to design schools. Certainly not about how much they need to learn from the other. And most program managers in the world are hired from computer science and business schools.

Anyway, the better teams at Microsoft figured this out over a decade ago. They did one of:

• Hired full time UI designers and usability engineers.  (In 2003, when I left, there were over 400 of these people employed at Microsoft).
• Created a special role called a UI PM, who was the PM good at design who led the UI work.
• Or both.

VPs that cared about ease of use invested in these assets, and just as important, built a culture around ease of use taking priority over other considerations.

However, in most cases the above investments had moderate impact on product quality because these people never receive sufficient power to overcome the other 20 PMs running around. Sometimes all the PMs are ignored anyway by the programmers but they are in denial about it, so it’s moot until that fight for power gets sorted out.

The program manager model is just one idea for diving up work. It’s a good model, but does have it’s problems. On larger teams it’s too easy for PMs to get lost in their egos and self-interests, each one fighting to make a great feature, inside of what becomes a mediocre product.  It’s also a role that depends on culture, you can’t just graft it on and expect it to work as it impacts everyone.

Program management works best on smaller teams, or in organizations where the PM can have significant power. Once you have 15 or 20 of them running around it gets hard to sort things out. Imagine 15 or 20 film directors trying to work on a film together. If you give them enough power, you don’t need many film directors. And if you don’t need many, it’s easier to find ones with all of the talents you want, including the ability to design user interfaces.

The bottom line: program managers are generalists

At the end of the day it doesn’t matter who makes the UI design decisions provided they are good and they ship.  If you’re a PM, your primary obligation is the quality of what goes out the door. If you have someone other than you available who is good at design, your top priority should be to get out of their way, just as you would for someone good at programming, testing, or any other role. Find other things to do to keep busy - I’m sure they exist. The value of the PM, or any manager, is their ability to fight for the best use of everyone’s time, including their own.

If ease of use is truly important in what you’re making, odds are it deserves the attention of a specialist or two who can dedicate their energy to it. If nothing else, they can teach you some of the stuff you don’t know you need to know. PMs can rarely dedicate their attention to anything, as their value is their ability to co-ordinate and lead.

The bestselling book I wrote about program management, Making Things happen, has several nice chapters about how to lead design and customer research, and advocates the above advice.

Posted in Design, Making things happen, Management, Microsoft | 5 Comments »

The big news in this corner of the world are the layoff announcement at Microsoft. Steve Ballmer’s email drops this midway through an email this morning:

As part of the process of adjustments, we will eliminate up to 5,000 positions in R&D, marketing, sales, finance, LCA, HR, and IT over the next 18 months, of which 1,400 will occur today. We’ll also open new positions to support key investment areas during this same period of time. Our net headcount in these functions will decline by 2,000 to 3,000 over the next 18 months. In addition, our workforce in support, consulting, operations, billing, manufacturing, and data center operations will continue to change in direct response to customer needs.

It’s the biggest cutback in company history and my thoughts go out to anyone who is impacted today.

My take:

• This is small potatoes in business history. It’s 5000 jobs over 18 months, a long spread, with an impact that many parts of the company won’t even notice. The normal attrition rate at a tech company has to be around 10% and 5000 jobs from a company of 90,000+ is about 5%.
• The company will open new positions at the same time. The sky is not falling here. Eliminating jobs but creating new ones too (although it doesn’t specify a hiring target). There was an 11% drop in profits from last year, but other than Apple this doesn’t seem far off the mark for the sector, or the business world at large.
• Drawn out firings. More notable is the choice to leave this open ended and draw it out over 18 months. What a morale hit. Bad news is best all at once. It frees people to move on and doing it early gives them an advantage. But now, without guidance to the contrary (e.g. cuts will focus on divisions X,y and Z) everyone is led to believe their jobs will depend on their review performance, making people look out for themselves at work more than is healthy for any team over the next year.
• No Merit increases in FY ‘10. We’ve seen the stick, where is the carrot? Recessions should mean smaller carrots, or maybe a less expensive vegetable, but something. I’d drop an entire product, or close down the least strategic group in my company, before I took away performance rewards.

The best summary of news so far and juiciest insider comments can be found at mini-microsoft.

Posted in Management, Microsoft | 3 Comments »

In response to my post on the lost cult of PM at Microsoft, Charlie Owen’s was kind enough to post his notes from a conversation with Joe Belfiore, my first boss as a PM, and now a VP at Microsoft, where he outlines what it takes to be a great program manager.

1) Maniacally focus on building a product your customers will love.

- Pound, pound, pound on the features while they are being developed all the way through the process.
- Constantly ask ‘How do we know this is good?’
- Perceive the reaction of others to your features.
- Know others will want to have an opinion.
- Recognize constraints make it hard to develop products customers will love.
- This takes energy, persistence and creativity.

Highly recommended. It’s short, memorable and hard to achieve. Read the full post: Success factors for program managers

An interesting follow up question is if great PMs focus on making products customers will love, why does it seem Microsoft generally fails at this.

Posted in Management, Microsoft | 3 Comments »

Some of you know I worked at Microsoft years ago (’94-’03) as what they call a program manager. In any other company the job would be known as team lead or project manager, and it was an awesome job.

When I was hired 1994 there was a cult around the role. Program Managers had a reputation for being people worthy of being afraid of for one reason: they knew how to get things done. If you got in their way, they would smile. And then eat you. They drove, led, ran, persuaded, hunted, fought and stuck their necks out for their teams with an intensity most people couldn’t match. The sort of people who eliminated all bullshit within a 10 foot radius of their presence. How to be this way, and do it without being an asshole, was one of the things I tried to capture in my book, Making things happen. All teams need at least one leader who has this kind of passion and talent regardless of where you work or what you’re working on.

But that cult has faded. I have many friends and a few clients at Microsoft, and talk with more through email and on the pmclinic discussion list, and I’m convinced true PMs are a dying breed. I suspect they were a dying breed before I started at the company and I was just lucky to be hired into a pocket still running strong. Group managers like Joe Belfiore, Hadi Partovi, Hillel Cooperman, and Chris Jones all created a landscape for PMs like me to drive and lead their teams, and made it possible for us to do a lot of good for our teams that no other role could do.

One change is the enormous growth of Microsoft since I was hired. I started in ‘94 as employee #14,000 something, and now there are nearly 90,000. Bureaucracy, overhead and dead weight collect in big successful companies and Microsoft is no different. This makes it much harder to consolidate the kind of power a PM needs to behave the way I described above. The PM role has been stretched so thin there are PMs for everything, and if ever a position needs to be created that isn’t quite a marketing, programmer or tester position, but isn’t a leadership or management role, the PM label gets used anyway. Somehow it’s a crime for there to be more than 10 job titles at a company. I’m not sure why.

In many cases teams have so many PMs, and authority is so loosely distributed, than would should be simple decisions require a meeting of 8 or 10 or 15 people. Cycles of meetings on the theme of “are you ok with this? How about you? And you?” As if everyone deserves a vote on every decision. This kills momentum and wastes the value of what PMs can do. And as this goes on for years, with larger and larger staffs, no one knows what it’s like to have a clear, fast process for making basic decisions. Few remember what it feels like to be on team that has synergy, clarity, trust and focus, eliminating the need for hand-holding, triple level reconfirmations, and spending hours every week un-reversing decisions that should never have been reversed in the first place.

I hear from PMs who I suspect no longer recognize 3 hour meetings that are 100% guaranteed to be a complete waste of time, because many of their meetings are complete wastes of time. By the same token, I know PMs who work on teams that are entirely out of control, and failing in the marketplace, who think it’s normal for a team to be entirely out of control and failing in the marketplace. They’ve never seen anything else. And sadly in some cases, neither have their bosses, or (gulp) their VPs. They believe a PM is supposed to feel, much of the time, useless, ignored, and in the way. Instead of realizing that those feelings come from their failure, and the group managers failure to enable them, to do what the role was designed for.

I gave a lecture at Microsoft before I left in ‘03 titled The problem with program managers that outlined many of these problems and what can be done to avoid them. All management roles run the risk of being wastes of space, and project management roles are no different. And if there’s interest I’ll pull some of those nuggets out into future blog posts.

But are there still surviving pockets of old school PMs? If so, I’d love to hear from you, at Microsoft or elsewhere.

Posted in Management, Microsoft, rant | 22 Comments »

Per Richard’s complaint, I’ve finally answered the questions mentioned back in September (hanging head in shame), when I spoke at Microsoft Research’s speaker series.

These were some of the questions I was asked during Q&A, with fresh and extended answers:

Q: How do you rationalize your statement that there is no single method for innovation, with your advice for managers (delegate) at the end of your talk?

The advice I gave (delegate, take risks, reward initiative) is the best basic advice for the most common problems I see in my travels. The three most common failings in managers that say “I want my team to innovate” are failing to trust their teams (delegate), failing to make big bets (take risks), and penalizing people for following their ideas into controversial territory.

This isn’t a magic recipe that works 100% of the time, but if I’m talking to a crowd of 200 people and know nothing about their individual circumstances, this is the first advice I offer. Its’ simple stuff, but still rare even when the I-word is thrown down as a goal.

Q: In your Luddite example you pointed out how hard it is to make change happen. Any advice for innovators on working around this challenge?

1. Pick your manager carefully. Your direct boss has more influence on your ability to take risks than anyone else in the company. I’d rather work on a boring, v12 product with a great aggressive manager who wants change to happen, than be on super-duper cutting edge big budget team, with a scared, conservative, Paxil addicted manager who says No to everything.

2. Don’t call what you’re doing change. Call it satisfying customers. Call it making money. Find some other attribute that your idea will provide the company and focus on talking about that instead. Don’t say “This is a huge revolution in blah blah blah.” Instead pitch something like “This plan will eliminate our top 5 customer complaints and improve sales by 10%”. Make a non-change centric argument. It’s not hard. Fish through the project and division goals for a good angle to pitch your ideas.

3. Find allies. Study any revolution and you’ll find cabals, coalitions, and partnerships. Who are your partners for change? You have to weigh the size of your ideas against the size of your political power. Have big ideas? Get more power. Can’t get more power? Pitch smaller ideas until you have proven yourself and earned more power or credibility (which is a kind of power). Look for who else is pitching ideas and what results they get. Pay attention to what arguments work in your culture.

Q: Is Microsoft an imitator? Given your experience here and elsewhere, how do you view the perception of MSFT and other companies as innovators or imitators?

Study the history of any idea and the notion of originators and imitators gets fuzzy fast. Neither Microsoft nor Apple invented any of: GUIs, Mice, Web browsers, Digital music players, cell phones, touch-screens, video games, icons, ethernet, Wireless networking, windows/menus, multi-tasking OSes, and on it goes. An entire chapter of the Myths of innovation explains how futile it is to worry so much about being first. How about being good? Making the best thing or the best manifestation of an idea? It’s a more potent criticism of Microsoft to say their products are bad or hard to use. Or boring. Or unreliable. Those are criticisms of design attributes that might lead to productive conversations.

Regarding being first, consider the i-pod and i-phone. The i-pod is a fantastic design for a portable music player but it’s far from the first implementation of the idea (The Sony walkman doesn’t get mentioned nearly enough in that conversation). The i-phone is far from the first cell-phone, and probably the 500th design of a telephone. Who cares who was first? Most of the time I don’t. History favors people who do things well, more than who does them first. Edison and Ford weren’t technically first with the idea for light bulbs or cars. Do you care? Probably not.

For this reason critiques like Microsoft The Innovator? that try to prove Microsoft is not innovative are just silly. Apple doesn’t show up well either as the first originator of big ideas in technology. Few major corporations ever do. By the time it’s in productizable form, an idea has been touched by many many people and often many different companies. And the skills required to manage a mass market product are very different than those required to invent a new kind of mass market product.

What I think people mean to say about Microsoft, really, is that their products are never inspiring to consumers. They do not generate excitement in the way people think innovations are supposed to. Instead they have earned a reputation for being generic, bland and corporate, with lots of blue and gray and little personality. This is hard to refute (There are exceptions, like XBOX, Encarta, Citysearch, Expedia, and Zune, but Microsoft has never used PR and branding to promote them as more than that). Stereotypically when Microsoft enters a market behind other companies they do little to differentiate themselves in consumer visible ways. They match features, offer generic branding, and chase. Microsoft has always been great at the chase. Part of the reason is that Microsoft has always been mostly a mediocre products company, but a strong platforms company. The big bets are not on the products, but on the strategies behind the products, which explains the occasions they’ve been successful in markets with superior competing products: the superior business model won against a superior product.

Anyway, this is a fun question but it doesn’t lead anywhere practical unless you are a CEO. For the rest of us the best thing to focus on is making something great. Make a great thing. Fuck, make a good thing: half the companies out there can’t even do that. Don’t worry about being new, or who you are imitating (unless you’re breaking the law), just make something that solves a real problem for people and you’ll be way ahead of the curve. If you make a superior product it’s guaranteed some of your ideas with be seen as creative or original, but they’re most often found as a by-product of trying to solve a problem really well. Innovation as a concept is a red herring. It’s slippery, misleading and distracting. I use the word as little as possible and recommend you do too.

Q: What is the role of culture in making innovation happens? Are there really as many recluses and lone geniuses as we think?

Easy one first: true recluses are rare. Most famous genius types had friends and collaborators whose role is often ignored in our hero worship. They had parents, friends, and sometimes even collaborators. Isaac Newton, one of the most reclusive of the recluses, had allies in the Royal Academy of Science that helped publish his papers and advocate his interests.

Thinking as a manager, culture is everything. If you think of ideas as a kind of wildlife, only certain types of environments are habitable by ideas. The job of any manager or leader is to create an environment for ideas to thrive. In chapter 7 of the Myths of Innovation I break creative culture into the following elements: Life of ideas, environment, protection, execution, and persuasion. Many of the famous centers of innovation in history scored well on these factors and the book explores some of those stories. If you’re culture is idea-averse, or loves to shoot down ideas quickly, you could have DaVinci and Einstein on your squad and invent nothing. The corporate world should be hiring more anthropologists to help us see the cultures we’re unintentionally making.

Have more questions on Microsoft, Innovation or culture? Fire away in the comments.

Posted in Innovation, Microsoft | No Comments »

When Making things happen came out in March, I did a few talks here and there to help promote the new edition, including a stop at a little place called Microsoft, in Redmond, WA. They videotaped the talk and it’s now available online.

You need to be running IE, or using the IE plugin for firefox, for the video to play. Sadly it appears to run on Windows only (I know, I know - its not my choice):

Title: How to make things happen

Description: What are the secret tactics used by successful project managers? How can people in any role, from development to management to design, benefit from their playbook?This fun, fast-paced, and interactive talk, loosely based on the bestseller Making Things Happen (formerly known as The Art of Project Management), explains how to make good things happen, and how to triumph over powerful people who are annoying and frustrating. Bring your toughest questions and situations for the Q and A, where Scott gives away signed copies of the brand-new, updated edition of Making Things Happen.

Watch the video for How to make things happen

Posted in Design, Making things happen, Management, Microsoft | 3 Comments »

Had a nice crowd of about 150, plus another 300 online at Microsoft today. The talk will be posted soon on the Microsoft research site, but in the meantime here are some of the good questions I was asked.

If you were there and recall others, or have some to add based on the Myths of Innovation talk (youtube version here for non-microsofties), fire away:

• How do you rationalize your statement that there is no single method, with your advice for managers (delegate) at the end of your talk?
• In your Luddite example you pointed out how hard it is to make change happen. Any advice for innovators on working around this challenge?
• Is Microsoft an immitiator? Given your experience here and elsewhere, how do you view the perception of MSFT and other companies as innovators or immitators?
• What is the role of culture in making innovation happens? Are there really as many recluses and lone geniuses as we think?

I’ll update this with my answers shortly.

Posted in Management, Microsoft, On Tour | 1 Comment »

I’ll be swinging by Microsoft next week to speak at the Microsoft Research lecture series. I’ll be talking about Innovation, and telling stories that didn’t make it into the Myths of Innovation book with lots of Q&A.

WHO: Scott Berkun
TITLE: The Myths of Innovation
WHEN: September 9, 2008
WHERE: 99/1919 (Redmond, WA, USA)
TIME: 1:30-3pm
HOST: Kim Ricketts and Kirsten Wiley

Posted in Microsoft, On Tour | 1 Comment »

Recently Steve Ballmer’s FY ‘09 Strategy email was leaked. Out of curiosity I read the thing - and it makes an excellent case study in goal setting (covered in Chp4 of Making things happen).

Is it any wonder things are slowing at Microsoft with goals like these?

Ballmer writes:

Therefore, my priorities are consistent with last year. In FY09 we must continue to:

1. Invest in the right opportunities;
2. Expand our presence with Windows, Office, and developers;
3. Drive end user excitement for our products;
4. Embrace software plus services; and
5. Focus on employee excellence.

These are the same goals Microsoft has had FOR A DECADE. It’d be impossible to know this was written in 2008 if the lead in sentence were removed. Consistency of leadership can be great, but be consistent in vision, not at the goal level.

Worse, #1 and #5 are wastes of goal space. A good goal makes decisions easier to make. How does it help any of Microsoft’s 80,000 employees for the CEO to say “Invest in the right opportunities”? As if there are hordes of managers running around trying to invest in the wrong ones? The #1 slot is the big gun, the first shot, the lead idea, and in this list it’s fired into the ground.

Here’s my take on the other 4 goals:

2. Expand our presence with Windows, Office, and developers;

Windows and Office have been market leaders for years. The big goal for ‘09 is to expand presence? That’s the secret to the future of Microsoft? Getting the last .005 of market share left? First off, I don’t believe Microsoft executives truly believe this is the future, but they really don’t know what else to say. It is still a two horse company unwilling to confess, even inside the company, that all its attempts for a third horse have been qualified failures (MSN, Interactive TV, Mobile, XBOX, etc.) If they’d do a postmortem on these efforts and educate the company and what executives have learned from these efforts, the company would get 20% smarter (yes it’s a made up number), instantly. Microsoft has a ridiculous amount of untapped experience since they hide their failures internally and never share their big, expensive lessons (Bob, MSN, Search, etc.). If every VP and middle manager were forced to write a postmortem and publish it internally, Microsoft would instantly become a dramatically smarter company.

3. Drive end user excitement for our products

This is weird. It doesn’t say make great products. Nor does it say have amazing levels of customer satisfaction. It says drive excitement. If ever there were grounds for calling Microsoft products over-marketed and under-designed on purpose, this is it. Excitement for a thing can be generated in different ways, and only some of those are beneficial in the long term. How about “Make great products that drive end use excitement” or “Earn customer love through making people’s lives better” or some statement that connects a good cause with a good effect? That would clarify the valuable kinds of excitement from the fluffy kinds.

4. Embrace software plus services

Microsoft started talking about software as a service back in 2005, and years earlier internally. It was a big campaign back then and it led to the launch of Windows Update and similar services across the company. So what does it mean in 2008 to embrace software plus services? I don’t know. Haven’t they mostly been embraced already? And besides, an embrace isn’t the best verb to use in a goal. What effect do we want the embracing to have? That’d be a better goal. Any idiot can embrace something (a light post, a stuffed animal, etc.) but that’s not as impressive as doing something meaningful with it.

5. Focus on employee excellence.

Like Goal #1, this is a waste of goal space. Is there anyone actively focusing on employee incompetence? This goal, as written, suggests there is. And the verb, to focus, is not progressive. What if I’m already focused, should I be focusing more? A goal should be a horizon to chase. Words like improve, increase, grow, and develop are all stronger verbs.

If I were Ballmer’s editor, here’s the revision I’d offer of what I think is his message:

1. Make smart investments and evangelize the lessons we learn
2. Create great products that naturally generate end user excitement
3. Combine software and services to provide great customer experiences

Three goals. No fluff. Strong verbs. Clearer direction.

Caveats

• I’m not sure the above would be my leadership message if I were CEO. But it is an improved version of what i think he was trying to communicate in the goals.
• $60 billion in revenue in FY08 is a ridiculous level of success by any metric. Hard to say how long this will last since it’s largely driven by the two horses (Office, Windows), but while it does you can’t pick too hard on Microsoft as a business.
• Writing goals as a CEO for 80,000 company is quite different than writing goals for a 50 person software development project.

Posted in Making things happen, Management, Microsoft, Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

In these recessionary times it might seem cruel to bring this up, but if the goal is to be more creative, or to up the odds new ideas become products, the easiest move is is to get people out of the room. Either take away their power, or get them off the team, but reduce the number of people in rooms where decisions are being made.

The most common bottleneck by far to progress in the middle ranks of corporate America is too many people in the room. Especially too many people with the power to veto - lower the number of people with veto power and more change will happen all on its own, especially if you pick risk takers and mavericks as the ones to leave alone. Ever feel your meetings are too slow? Arguments go on for too long? Rethink your invite list. Why do so many have to have a say on so many things if their feedback is often so uninspired? So hard to get? Pick the least useful people and make their power over creative decisions match their usefulness.

Often referred to as Too many cooks, no matter how smart the people are, if they all think they are the main creative force for the project and insist on fighting for their own vision, there is no alternative to throwing some of them out of the kitchen. Start-ups thrive in part because there are way more decisions to be made than people, granting individuals tons of autonomy. When there are 10 decisions to be made, but only 2 people, there’s little motivation to fight over decision making power. But when a company grows and the ratio of people to decisions runs the other way (2 decisions to be made by 10 people), the thriving ends and the bureaucratic misery begins.

When I was at Microsoft (’94-’03) the biggest inhibitor to innovation was too much democracy. Hard to believe, but it’s true. There is a long history of internal projects with great ideas that never made it out of Redmond - they were killed by the culture of rough consensus. If a handful of middle managers couldn’t achieve rough consensus on your idea, your project got thrown into the closet. Grand ideas are often divisive, and a rough consensus decision making system will kill them. Many companies I’ve visited over the last five years suffer from the same pattern of behavior. They mistakenly believe the problem is the quality of ideas, when in fact the problem is the conservative psychology inherent in democracy. Pure democracy is not the political system that will create the most change - it’s a system geared for stability, not for innovation.

I’ve seen many great designers, engineers, and even managers hired in to well known companies, who prototype great things, and propose grand ideas, but watch in slow despair as the corporate culture’s insistence on letting everyone have their say watered their ideas down into mediocre, barely recognizable, intellectual sludge. You could throw a Johnathan Ives, a Rem Koolhaas, or a Will Wright, into most of corporate America and the output of those companies would barely change.

Some would argue this is by design - consistently mediocre is better than what many companies produce, and it can be enough to be a market leader (Look around: the best selling music, food, or software is unlikely to be considered the best by anyone in that field). And that’s fine: success and creativity are two related but different things. However if you ask for more innovation without changing the authority structure, I’ll call you crazy. Consensus is prone to slamming on the brakes - Autocracy is prone to putting the pedal to the metal.

The secret for Microsoft and many companies is to shift the pendulum of authority two notches away from democracy and towards autocracy. I’m not saying create a tyrany - don’t go all the way - but do identify the creative leaders and give them leadership power based on those talents. To be a VP, or a General manager depends on political acumen, not creative insights, despite how the hubris of power muddles the distinction. If instead a VP or GM grants the best creative mind on the team license to lead, and rallies the majority of the team to accept the role of followers, the rate of positive change will always rise. Look to the autocratic models of building architecture, film making, and pop music - one or two creative minds are granted huge amounts of authority, disproportionate to the corporate hierarchy.

So when in doubt - look around the room. If your team is flailing or struggling to resolve a creative decision, create more autocracy. Either get the dead weight out of the room, or pick the person in the you as the leader believe has the best perspective and grant them your authority - let them make the call. If you can’t change the balance of power by any other means, thin the herd. If you have no other alternative, pink slips might be the best thing for everyone involved: the talent you fire may find, or create, the autonomy they deserve elsewhere. But either way, do what you can to give the creative minds in your world the autonomy they need to thrive.

Posted in Innovation, Management, Microsoft, creative thinking | 9 Comments »