Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Forbes Names Microsoft's Steve Ballmer Worst CEO

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the best-aim-though dept.

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.)"

26 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Worse? by jimmerz28 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really? Even worse than RIM?

    1. Re:Worse? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      TFA is about CEOs currently holding that position today. The RIM CEOs are gone already.

    3. Re:Worse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the mayor point isn't that he's failed to keep a monopolitic position, but rather that he has failed at all to capitalise on it. Like it or not, the CEO's of the banks who bankrupted the world made bundles of money in the rise, and are now making bundles of money in the fall. They managed to capitalise on a crisis, where Balmer has failed to capitalize on the position of Microsoft. Look at Apple, all it took was a small investment in R&D and suddenly they turned their computer buisness into one of the most sucessful MP3 companies, and then Phone companies. Microsoft tried to throw it's weight after these areas but failed. They even failed to win large in the console market after spending quite a bit of money in an attempt to kill Play-station (But Nintendo won that one).

      Really Microsoft has been one huge investment in one field after the other, always waiting for others to be the first movers, and this has left them failing again and again.

    4. Re:Worse? by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Funny

      As much as my comment history shows a clear anti-MS stance, I agree. Possibly Ballmer wasn't evil enough.

      And definitely, his chairs missed too many targets.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    5. Re:Worse? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's exactly what I get from this, too. Microsoft's stock price - while fairly high - has remained constant for ten years, while many of its competitors have seen enormous growth (even excluding Apple). Ten years ago, Apple was struggling, and Microsoft had the cash reserves and market share to sell any quality product they wanted. That would have been an ideal time to dump money into meaningful R&D (more meaningful than a fancy coffee table) and produce the next product that would end up in every home - but Microsoft, under Ballmer's guidance, didn't. Microsoft hasn't really moved forward at all, releasing only newer versions of the same old products, and only making half-hearted attempts to establish new markets.

      That risk is important. Apple risked everything on the iPod, and risked a major stake on the iPhone. As the entire company's future was on the line, the entire company was committed to making the risk work. The software team made good software, and the hardware team made good hardware. At Microsoft, there is so much internal conflict that only minimal progress can get the support of the whole company. As I've heard, project managers will actively attack other projects, so they all look equally bad. That's not the kind of environment that fosters innovation, and when you're already at the top, innovation is the only way to grow.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    6. Re:Worse? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      GM would be gone if not for the bail out

      Strictly speaking, it wouldn't be gone, it would have gone through bankruptcy and been reorganized.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Worse? by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft's stock price - while fairly high - has remained constant for ten years, while many of its competitors have seen enormous growth

      It has dropped, in real terms. You forgot about inflation. 100$ was worth more 10 years ago than today.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    8. Re:Worse? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    9. Re:Worse? by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. But I like MIcrosoft more now by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can now stand the thought of using Windows and Internet Explorer. Not that I do use IE, mind you... just that I wouldn't Hulk up and fling my captor through 3 or 4 cement brick walls to create an escape route.

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  3. No need to say, "full disclosure". by justin12345 · · Score: 5, Informative

    You don't need to say full disclosure just because you hold an opinion. That phrase is used if you have a vested interest in something. For instance "Full disclosure: I own Microsoft's competitor's stock" or "Full disclosure: I have an ongoing lawsuit with Steve Ballmer, because he allegedly once threw a chair at me".

    --
    Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  4. Bad? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Bad? by IRWolfie- · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While no fan of Microsoft or their products, in recent years Microsoft has enjoyed record profits and I don't think "Windows 7 and Office 2010 did nothing to excite tech user" from the article is exactly true either.

  5. Who's Going to Remove Him? by geoffrobinson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. More! by AntEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....
  7. I disagree... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think he is the best thing ever for the company, and they need to keep him on for the next 50 years. Windows Phone is flying off the shelves and outselling iPhone and Android phones combined!

    As a FOSS guy, I think Microsoft is doing a stellar job and needs to continue under this mans direction.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Where's Elop? by hydrofix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. Re:Frist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Forbes Names Slashdot's Anonymous Coward Worst First Poster.

  10. blah blah profit blah share price blah by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  11. Article is delusional by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, I don't like Steve Ballmer, but to say that he is an incompetent CEO is absurd. Under his watch, company revenues and profits have increased VERY significantly and that's what the CEO is responcible for. I can sympathize with the shareholder gripes that MSFT stock price hasn't really gone anywhere over the past decade, but that's because the starting point (10-12 years ago) was a completely ridiculous overvaluation of the tech boom. I can easily name several other major companies whose stock has gone nowhere for a long time despite company earnings growing consistently and their future looking as bright as ever.

  12. Ballmer has a monopoly mentality by 23940823908235908 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ballmer's concept of business is stuck in the Windows XP days, when competitors feared Microsoft's entry into a market. Back in those days, Microsoft could get away with releasing half-baked products, and competitors would run off, knowing that MS's resources would demolish them. Microsoft's mindset was to prevent competitors from entering markets.

    The problem now is that it's not 2001 and Microsoft is no longer in a monopoly position. Instead of leveraging their Office and OS market share, they have to enter new markets and win new customers. And they're really struggling at doing this. To win from the ground up Microsoft products would need to have compelling advantage over their competitors, whether it be price, features, or relationship with customers.

    How Microsoft went about Windows Phone 7 is an example of their old, "monopoly" playbook failing to work in a new market. Microsoft saw that a market existed, and went to enter the market using the old approach: build a 'good enough' product and hope that competitors give up in fear. The results (which Microsoft refuse to publish out of embarrassment) speak for themselves. Microsoft didn't compete on price - their phones were at mid-level prices, their features were lacking compared to the competition, and any relationship with customers (e.g. enterprise customers using Exchange and Active Directory, etc) failed to materialise because MS didn't implement critical security 'lock down' features on the phone. Microsoft technical staff have the know-how to do these things - but they just don't seem to happen. Is it the management structures? the reward mechanisms? or the corporate strategy? internal politics? .. certainly it's a combination of factors. Thigns are systemically wrong with the whole organisation.

    In short, Microsoft is failing at a strategic level. No-one is excited about Microsoft products anymore. No-one thinks their products will be better value or cheaper than the competitors. No-one feels that Microsoft is listening especially closely to anyone except themselves. Microsoft's actions are decidedly tactical, rather than strategic: a new user interface here, some more features there. But without a strategic - CEO - level change, I can't see their situation improving. Having diversified so much, Microsoft will not collapse overnight, but it will continue to slide into irrelevance.

  13. It's gotten hard to hate on Microsoft. by Apuleius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    16 years ago, the mere mention of Gates or Ballmer would be enough to get me foaming at the mouth.

    Today?

    Gates is on track to wipe out polio. And Ballmer? What's to hate? Anti-competitive practices? Apple's a far bigger concern.

    What else?

    Pollution? Political corruption? Financial malfeasance? Mistreatment of employees? Microsoft does none of this.

    And to boot, their product line continues to improve. Can't get the hate going anymore.

    1. Re:It's gotten hard to hate on Microsoft. by hackula · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  14. $60 to $20-30 is constant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. That's ONE possible scenario .... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?