An example source I have is http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/07/microsoft-downfall-emails-steve-ballmer I have seen some other URLs with a similar message - reflecting managing 'resources'. Er no folks, these are real humans. While this aspect may be a much more interesting, one to which most of us can relate immediately and instinctively, there just might be a deeper issue at play in that corporation.
That issue is, likely, not unique to Microsoft, or even non-governmental organizations. The issue, IMO, is that how do you you maintain a semblance of singularity (unitarian - using this not as a 'proper' noun or a collection of intents that converge) of purpose in a large and complex organization, where the broader objectives may result in conflicting goals.
In the past, I had the privilege of having a fairly senior person at Microsoft open up, and tell me that the fundamental issue at MS was that it was not 'one' company. I interpreted this with the qualification "... others see MS as one company....". This was many years ago, and I still think that qualifier is valid. My guess is that many of the little few who read this blog will agree with this interpretation -- perhaps after a bit of reflection and a word replacing re-search aka googling.
It may be interesting to posit this with the problem faced by many national governments - since the economic climate is bleak, many are easy targets for blame, especially the incumbent majors, or those deemed to soon become.
While we may easily get into pedagogical arguments of private vs public vs governmental orgs being unable to fix things, it is possible that something fundamental has changed / is changing in expectations at the individual level (or a small 'filial' group) that larger models of organization - governmental or otherwise - are unable to handle.
--
mgh
That issue is, likely, not unique to Microsoft, or even non-governmental organizations. The issue, IMO, is that how do you you maintain a semblance of singularity (unitarian - using this not as a 'proper' noun or a collection of intents that converge) of purpose in a large and complex organization, where the broader objectives may result in conflicting goals.
In the past, I had the privilege of having a fairly senior person at Microsoft open up, and tell me that the fundamental issue at MS was that it was not 'one' company. I interpreted this with the qualification "... others see MS as one company....". This was many years ago, and I still think that qualifier is valid. My guess is that many of the little few who read this blog will agree with this interpretation -- perhaps after a bit of reflection and a word replacing re-search aka googling.
It may be interesting to posit this with the problem faced by many national governments - since the economic climate is bleak, many are easy targets for blame, especially the incumbent majors, or those deemed to soon become.
While we may easily get into pedagogical arguments of private vs public vs governmental orgs being unable to fix things, it is possible that something fundamental has changed / is changing in expectations at the individual level (or a small 'filial' group) that larger models of organization - governmental or otherwise - are unable to handle.
--
mgh
It does not surprise me that an insider believes that MS is not one company. There are many other non IT companies that fit into that model like GE who keep upping the sigmoid curve frequently and changing themselves into different organisations.
ReplyDelete