Why Ballmer Should Leave Microsoft

An anonymous reader writes "In the wake of the announcement of Bill Gates' departure from the top spot at Microsoft, CNN Money is carrying an article arguing that Steve Ballmer should step down as well." From the article: "Since Gates stepped down as CEO in 2000 in favor of Ballmer, the company has floundered technically and strategically. As the company's chairman, chief software architect and supposed visionary, Gates deserves blame for missing the wave of Web-based software that has propelled Google and Yahoo. But Ballmer has made gaffes of his own in his longtime role as head of the company's business side. They include an undistinguished push into business applications to compete with Oracle, financial maneuvers that have failed to stir the stock - which has slumped 16 percent so far this year - and continuing antitrust problems in the United States and Europe."

Comments

The heir apparent.

[Alien54]

From the article:

Chief Operating Officer Kevin Turner, a recent hire from Wal-Mart Stores where he ran the Sam's Club division and previously served as the retailer's chief information officer, is the most likely replacement for Ballmer.

He has one big strike against him: his short tenure at Microsoft, which translates into a lack of familiarity with the company's culture. He's believed to be behind a recent cost-cutting move to force the company's substantial contractor workforce to take an unpaid week off. Since contractors at Microsoft contribute to important projects and are often hired on as full-time employees, the move hurt morale.

But as Wal-Mart's CIO, he bought a lot of software from Microsoft, giving him a valuable perspective as a customer that most executives who rose through the ranks at Microsoft lack.

Microsoft run by a WalMart Exec. The mind boggles ....

heck, the parodies practically write themselves

Actually, Wall Street would love that

[Moraelin]

Actually, Wall Street would love to do the standard rise-the-stock-value-so-we-can-sell-even-if-it-kil ls-the-company dance:

- bring in a new CEO who promises radical cost-saving changes all over the place (watch stock value invariably rise)

- have him fire half the workforce, accompanied by giving interviews all over the place about trimming the fat and returning to good ol' capitalism values (ditto)

- make it an official policy to only hire re-trained ex-burger-flippers and transfer half the remaining jobs to Elbonia and East Bumfuckistan in the next years (look at all those money we were wasting on paying highly-qualified people. Stock price rises some more.)

- "motivate" the remaining employees with mottos like "your job could be the next one that goes to India", and unrealistic productivity demands. Accompany it with some speeches showing that you see them as a bunch of slackers, just to be sure they have no illusions left that their contribution is appreciated in any form or shape. (Hell, yeah, high productivity here we come. Watch everyone buy MS stock, driving the share value even higher.)

- drop half the products, on account that they weren't directly making that much money. Never mind that they help form the interlocking whole that makes MS almost impossible to displace in the market. (Ditto.)

- sell the relevant IP and know-how to competitors for some quick cash (yeehaw, MS income was above estimates this quarter. Let's all rush to buy their shares.)

- spin off and sell half the acquisitions that MS ever made. Preferrably for less than half the price originally paid for those companies. (Ditto.)

- reshuffle departments and internal policies for no good reason, just to seem like you're doing something new and radical (ok, by this point it only adds a few more cents per share, but it's better than nothing, you know?)

- announce some hare-brained new products, but miss the mark or the market by a mile because of having no fucking clue about the technology involved

- rape the brand recognition, as much as MS does have of it, for some quick buck for the next quarter, at the expense of annoying and losing existing customers

- take some more flashy measures that'll get lots of press like suddenly rebranding to a new name (and losing most of the brand recognition the old name had), moving to another town, "reinventing oneself" by moving completely into a new market, or whatever

At this point the big Wall Street names sell their own stock, making a quick profit. The company starts a long and painful downward spiral, a la SGI, except MS has cash reserves to last much longer. The CEO soon moves to another company, with Wall Street's full backing, to do the same again. A few years down the line, MS is as relevant to the OS market as SGI now is to the computer graphics market, but Wall Street have gotten their quick buck already.

Think I'm exaggerating? Look at what happened to SGI, for example, and then tell me I'm exaggerating. It only took one bright new CEO to do more than half of what I wrote above, and set SGI on a downwards spiral from which it never recovered. Where SGI is now, you already know.