Slashdot Mirror
Forbes Names Microsoft's Steve Ballmer Worst CEO
New submitter _0x783czar writes "Microsoft haters gleefully have latched on to the latest scoop that a Forbes columnist has named Steve Ballmer the worst CEO. It seems that the article has leveled some strong accusations of irresponsible and ineffective business practices; claiming that Microsoft has not progressed over the last 12 years of Ballmer's leadership. (Full disclosure: I'm not a Microsoft fan myself and tend to agree with this piece.)"
Yeah, why are we ignoring the many companies that have failed either because they failed to adapt or underwent gross negligence. I have a feeling that the CEOs of the major banks in the US have actively harmed every human on Earth. Ballmer has merely failed to maintain a near-monopoly status in a highly transient industry.
Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today. Not only has he singlehandedly steered Microsoft out of some of the fastest growing and most lucrative tech markets (mobile music, handsets and tablets) but in the process he has sacrificed the growth and profits of not only his company but âoeecosystemâ companies such as Dell, Hewlett Packard and even Nokia. The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value â" and jobs.
And that is bad how? What I mean by that is that I sympathize with Microsoft share holders but I also regularly thank a long list of deities that Microsoft does not dominate the mobile music, handset, and tablet markets as well as desktop computing.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I've always felt that they've wasted a lot of money trying to expand into new lines of businesses. Money that would have been well spent either giving it back to stockholders as dividends. But even new lines of business that are doing well (not considering the massive investment in them so the ROI may still stink) like Bing and XBox would probably benefit the stockholders as a spinoff.
If it was up to me, I would break the company apart into 3 or 4 companies and allow the non-Windows companies to develop for all sorts of platforms. But what do I know?
That said, who's going to remove him? Bill Gates? Does Paul Allen still hold a significant stake in the company? Who owns what share of the voting stock? And who makes up the board?
I don't see Ballmer leaving anytime soon unless the investors start getting upset. And if 30% of the company (and I'm pulling that number out of thin air) is held by Gates and Ballmer, that doesn't seem likely.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Personally, I hope Ballmer has a very long tenure at Microsoft and that the past twelve years or so are only the beginning of his impact on that company.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
I can't believe Stephen Elop of Nokia is not on that list. During his stint as the CEO of the former world leader in mobile phones, the company has lost 70% of its market valuation – mostly down to Elop's borderline insane strategic choices. Maybe the list is only for US companies?
What a load of garbage. Forbes is all about share price. That's a moronic litmus test of a CEO. Share price has no direct connection, and often not even an indirect connection to a CEO's abilities.
I don't respond to AC's.
I agree. I am baffled by a lot of the MS hate today. I think a lot of it must be residual, because the MS I know today is not that bad. Nobody is in love with them, but there is not a whole lot to complain about either. As a developer, I could not be more pleased dealing with the Windows platforms. From MS, you really do get the sense that they care about developers, as opposed to Apple where they seem to actively thwart developers more often that not.
Microsoft's share price hasn't remained constant. The article points out he's lost 2/3rd of its value with MS rarely in the $30s.
It's sort of a slow motion train wreck, IMHO Metro will fail, Ballmer will present desktop licenses of Windows 8 as Metro sales and pretend its a success. It appears to me he's a saleman, and the biggest sales job he's doing, is himself to Microsoft shareholders so they don't fire him.
GM would have gone bust. During this time they'd have had to shut down a significant number of operations, possibly all significant operations.
Their creditors would have been paid off pennies on the pound. Those creditors include major manufacturing concerns. Concerns that also supply Ford and Chrysler. Chrysler would also have defaulted on their debts as they were suffering the same problem.
Ford, who were completely blameless in this affair, would suddenly find their costs skyrocketing, as suppliers go back to them and say "With only your business coming in, and with our now massive debts thanks to 2/3 of our customers defaulting, we need to put up prices or shut down." Realistically, Ford isn't able to make progress and starts shutting down significant parts of its Detroit based operation.
Result:
- Millions laid off
- GM and Chrysler unable to reorganize because even if they come back in some form, the Detroit infrastructure now has massive holes in it.
Leaving...
OK. "So what?" you argue (yes, you did!) Honda and Toyota can pick up the slack. They'll just make more cars, while hiring lots of people to do the making of cars thing.
No.
You see, that's not how it works. For that to happen, it would have to take a few months and no money at all to:
- Build new factories, and expand the capacity of existing ones
- Have suppliers also build new factories, or expand the capacity of existing factories.
- Recruit new dealerships across the nation to cover the expected increase in sales volume.
So here's what actually happens:
1. Honda, Toyota, Kia, et al, have a temporary spike in demand. They increase prices to dampen demand.
2. The millions of unemployed workers in Detroit don't gain jobs because no industry moves to Detroit, and it's not easy for a million people to suddenly move hundreds of miles south.
3. As people do attempt to move, property prices around auto-plants in the south increase, exacerbating the expansion cost problem of Honda, Toyota, et al.
4. Demand slows, as the effects of the massive increase in unemployment take hold. This includes the effect on the remains of the automotive industry.
5. The remaining manufacturers find themselves finding it harder to sell more vehicles. It's quite possible that the increases in unemployment might kill some of those that remain if their target market included the income levels disproportionately hit by the types of jobs lost.
Basically, there's no way the unmanaged bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM would have been anything other than disastrous for everyone concerned. Which is a major reason why Ford was fully in favor of the government stepping in to provide the bridging loans necessary to make a managed restructuring work.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you are looking for the worst managed company, Kodak must surely get a mention. They are being driven out of business by a new technology, digital cameras, that they actually invented.
But I'd argue that I believe it's not really accurate. It sounds like exactly what the pro-bailout folks want you to believe....
For starters, when you speak of Ford as the "uninvolved party" and the good guy? That's not quite reality. Ford's CEO petitioned Congress in 2008 to authorize a credit line of up to $9 billion for Ford in case the economy got worse and the company needed it. Ford also received $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program. Ford was also entwined in the situation because almost 25 percent of Ford’s top dealers also owned GM and Chrysler franchises.
All of the "Big 3" were to blame for mismanagement and a "we're too big to fail" attitude. Ford was just lucky to be in a little bit better place, financially, at the time everything really came apart at the seams.
Meanwhile? We're in a situation today where an "American car" is often American in name-plate only. "Foreign cars" are often assembled 100% right here in the U.S.A. as well. Hyundai's plant in Alabama is one of the only non-union auto plants in the nation, and is doing incredibly well. They hire a lot of people who only had low-paying jobs in the restaurant industry and the like, before starting there. They receive training for an actual career job and pay that's at least 80% or so of what their unionized counterparts receive ... and Hyundai claims they get employees with more positive attitudes and more willingness to do the job well. Sounds like win-win to me.
Meanwhile, what has GM done with those bailout funds lately? I see Cadillac is going to build their new hybrid electric vehicle and their flagship XTS over in new assembly plants in China. Is that what you were hoping those tax dollars would be spent on?