I agree there is profoundly something wrong if Microsoft uses executive recruitment firm. This company has 100,000 employees with significant filtering in hiring and even more filters in climbing up the ladder. If no one from 100,000 people within Microsoft is deemed to be worthy of leading it then its yet another fail from Ballmer's part.
> If no one from 100,000 people within Microsoft is deemed to be worthy of leading it then its yet another fail from Ballmer's part.
Even if there is a capable person inside the company, it still makes sense to also look externally. A fresh take on things. In fact, I'd argue they'd be crazy if they didn't at least look outside the company.
Well, he did more or less push out most of the "worthy successors" since they posed a challenge to him during his reign, at least it appears this way to outside observers.
Back when Microsoft was brought up on charges and convicted of abusing their monopoly power, I was of the opinion that a "baby bell" style break up would be in the best interests of both Microsoft and the public at large. Already back then I suspected that the company was becoming a ship too big to steer.
I haven't changed my opinion in the intervening decade-and-a-half.
It's hard to suggest sensible names, even from a distance. Microsoft is such a diverse company in terms of Enterprise and Consumer focus that there are very few candidates who would make sense.
I'm not very familiar with the MS internal candidates. I'd note that it would be pretty unlikely that the board would appoint an internal candidate who wasn't on the "Senior Leadership Team"[1]. That would mean none of the "Scotts" are candidates, but Satya Nadella[2] is. Nadella has done a pretty good job the MS's enterprise cloud strategy: Azure is a decent platform. However he has no consumer background...
Exceptions to the "must be on the Senior Leadership Team" might be made for people from semi-autonomous divisions. Stephen Elop is one such candidate (who has consumer experience) and Tony Bates is another. Bates has a very well rounded resume: self taught programmer, ex-CISCO (so knows enterprise), ex-Youtube board (so knows media), ex-Skype (so knows consumer).
Outside the company.. hmm. Vic Gundotra or Sundar Pichai from Google? I looked through the Oracle & IBM leadership teams and no one jumped out at me (except for Mark Hurd, but I don't think that will happen..)
The person they really need is a cross between Andy Groves[3], Phil Knight[4] and Jack Welch[5]. We've had a Groves/Welch cross[6] and a Groves/Knight cross[7], but getting all three at once looks hard.
I think this is quite a novel observation. If you patiently read to the end of the article, it is explained that, in fact, potential candidates's fear of Gates and his refusal to leave the board might be causing a stalemate.
So because there were rumors that Alan Mulally was slated for the role - and now there are rumors he will stay at Ford, there is a stalemate?
I read the article hoping for something informed, something from the inside - a leak even. What this is, is rather boring speculation.
I even find the dismissal of Elop as an option curious given that internal structural changes that were made after the acquisition announcement - the akward positioning in the org chart between he and Julie Larson Green seemed to suggest that one of the two of them may be a strong candidate for the position.
Personally as a shareholder and someone whose consulting practice is very much tied to the fortunes of Microsoft - I would love to see Scott Guthrie in charge. Alas this may not be his time up to the plate. Maybe 5-10 years from now the road will be paved for him. He moves from Azure onto something bigger like Office or Windows - continues his success and the reins are handed over.
I think all developers wanting Microsoft to go back to old developer focused ways (the way to win the war of platforms) would prefer Scott Guthrie, Scott Hanselman or even Scott Forstall from Apple of iOS fame (it might also worry Apple a bit -- if their problem is mobile, this guy knows).
As I have said before, it's any Scott's game...
They need someone that holds their ground and has been trying to change Microsoft for the better, into the present, for some time.
If it happens to be a Wall Street favorite you know innovation is dead at Microsoft for good. Even Elop talking that he'd cut XBox just shows they don't need a metrics guy right now, they need an innovator and someone to make Microsoft competitive. And the Ford CEO, while being extremely good, seems similar to bringing in Pepsi CEO John Sculley at Apple back in the day, wrong domain.
Microsoft was started to not be IBM, if they want to be IBM for sure they can bring in a guy like that.
If they want to compete with Google and Apple, they need engineering/product people, or someone that gets it and has done it.
One redeeming quality of Ballmer even though he was a metrics guy was he was there from the beginning and saw the innovation modes, even he couldn't keep it on track and missed.
So yes these guys are good CEO's quarterly, but they might miss the big waves of change simply because they are good metrics guys/quarterly guys.
Nabisco and IBM are quarterly focused companies first. IBM is doing some fun stuff with Watson but I am afraid a CEO like that will turn Microsoft into an IBM or an Oracle. If that is what the shareholders want they might have to, it isn't what developers of the platform want. What does Microsoft need more of now?
Yes. Guthrie reports to Nadella, so that would be an overtake maneuver that seems unlikely.
But, given that Nadella has all these Scotts (Guthrie, Hanselmann) working (seemingly) happily for him, I'm hoping he will become the next Microsoft CEO. I saw Nadella present at the Build Conference, he comes across as a nice and intelligent manager, talking vision and doing demo's. The Azure/Developer division that he runs will be a very important part of future for Microsoft, whatever strategy they decide on regarding Windows, XBox, Bing and Devices. His group seems to understand the broader software development community, much more than any other part of Microsoft.
Still rooting for Forstall. The ultimate revenge, and the once in a lifetime opportunity for Microsoft to change its ways, cut waste, bureaucracy, and ship new product on a regular basis.
If Microsoft wants to operate like Apple does, there's no better person to do it than the man who learned and worked for Jobs! You can't do this kind of thing with a run-of-the-mill CEO. You need someone that's going to micromanage and rebuild the company over the course of a few years, in addition to being somewhat polarizing and making unilateral decisions.
Scott Forstall is this person, and Bill Gates would be foolish to completely discount him.
The problem with Forstall is that he's not mature enough yet. I don't mean that he is childish or impulsive (which he is, but that's not necessarily a bad thing). I mean that he hasn't yet developed that innate sense that one needs to be a great CEO. Much like the ability to appreciate art or fine wine only comes with experience, he needs more time to develop his talents before being given command of a ship as big as Microsoft. I think the whole "maps apology" incident demonstrated that, and this is why he's no longer with Apple.
Remember, even Jobs needed two sizable failures under his belt before he became the Jobs that we all know and remember.
For the most part, employees who are unhappy at Microsoft will leave. From what I've seen, Microsoft employees have no trouble finding jobs at places like Google, Amazon or Facebook -- even those who I don't consider especially desirable as employees.
For the rest of us, we're mostly focused on shipping whatever it is that we're working on.
Thanks for sharing. Having gone back to student life, but with prior experience working for larger companies, I guess you can't really worry about C-level stuff because it's out of your control. Good advice on staying focused on what you're doing until something affects you directly.
How long have you been there, and how would you compare it to other places you've worked at? No need to disclose specifics.
Yeah, why is that one of the biggest tech companies with fingers in many pies, turning billions a quarter in profits, can't find a new CEO in a couple of days? Anyone can run this kind of company, right? Right?
Ballmer is Microsoft's CEO since 2000. Yet, the company is still up and running and profitable. He lacks vision of SJ, but Microsoft's history is full of opportunities they've missed initially.
Look, I'm not trying to say that Ballmer is a great superhero CEO, however, it's silly to assume that anyone can run a company like MS. There's no book or leadership school that deals with the issues of running the company of this size. He ran it for 13 years. And he did it by many - not all of course - accounts successfully. I think, he deserves credit at least for that.
I wish Microsoft would promote someone instead of headhunting externally. I'm sure there are many people who have been there for years who are qualified and care more about MS, its employees, and its customers than some outside person.
The problem with that is that you just get more of the same.
Microsoft really needs some outside influence, someone who hasn't drowned in the kool-aid.
I think the last line of the article is the only relevant one -- that the people they are talking to don't want the old guard looking over their shoulder, and the old guard doesn't want to leave.
They can hire me as CEO. I would welcome Bill on the Board. I think things went downhill when he stopped being CEO.
When I was at Microsoft I got along well with Bill, I did not get along with Steve. Before I was at Microsoft it was the opposite. Steve and I got along well and Bill and I bumped heads.
Afterwards I figured out why. Steve cares about doing things. As long as you are working he is happy. Bill cares about doing the right things. He will sit for 2 hours and think before acting. When I was young this didn't work for me. I couldn't understand, it seemed like doing something was better than doing nothing. But now as I am older I get it.
I think Bill was often ahead of his time because he would do the right thing and hope others would catch up. Steve would do the thing people wanted and always be behind.
I'm so looking forward to someone from his timeframe write a memoir about Windows division of Longhorn/Vista/7/8 period. Something like Barbarians Led By Bill Gates. I bet Sinofsky's period would be as much polarizing.
While I understand that people enjoy playing with the various Elop conspiracy theories, they always seem to ignore inconvenient facts. In particular, Elop has now been a Nokia employee for longer than he was ever a Microsoft employee. Furthermore, he was hired into Microsoft as the head of MBD and that's the position he had when he left less than three years later -- so there was certainly no "racing up the ranks".
I find the most interesting part of this article is the co-author - Jean-Louis Gassee [1] of Apple, Be and Palm fame. Whether you view him as a success or a failure, he brings a very unique perspective to discussions of leadership and succession. It's several levels more insightful than most business blog drivel.
The idea of a stalemate is interesting. On the one hand the authors accuse the board of giving Ballmer too much of a free reign. Then they say the next candidate won't accept the position without it.
Huge difficulty of Microsoft CEO search is explained by a huge diversity of Microsoft business and existing problems (everything is tied to Windows, Windows popularity is declining in post PC world, weak mobile story). All candidates seem to be experienced with only specific aspects of Microsoft business (enterprise - Nadella, mobile/office - Elop, Sinofski is gone). Steve Jobs once gave Larry Page advise to consolidate Google's product offerings because Google was all over the place, which Page is seemingly following. Microsoft needs to do the same, find a single vision (which is not Windows) and aim for that with their "One Microsoft" story. Likewise, they need to have a 'visionary' as their CEO, which is damn hard to find externally, and likely impossible internally.
http://www.nextmicrosoftceo.com/ presents some good candidates. However, I doubt that the first contender, Gabe Newell would leave Valve, and that the second-place contender, RMS, would be a good business decision.
Of those top three, only Newell really has experience running a company, and his company is structured radically differently than Microsoft's (Ignoring the wildly different scales of the two companies, Valve has a vaguely non-hierarchical lattice-like organizational structure. I would not count on those CEO skills being transferable.) Linus can obviously manage a large project, but that in no way makes him a good fit for being the Microsoft CEO.
I don't know much about the non-top three suggestions there, but the ludicious choices for the top three make me inclined to doubt them.
Overrated - particularly in regard to the reqs for Microsoft CEO. Sandberg doesn't have a track record of growing new products. Facebook's new product dev efforts thus far have been either non-existent or woeful.
What about DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman? Four years at the helm of another highly diversified, high tech Fortune 500. Grew their kevlar division from nothing to a multi-billion dollar business.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft would rather set fire to all their buildings and engineers than extend the valley's reach of google-based incestuous "leadership" higher up the left coast.
Using an outside search firm is just due diligence - they have a year, there's no rush. The board certainly has people on their shortlist, but perhaps Sinofsky really was the heir apparent - right up until not offering browser choice in Windows 8 earned a billion dollar fine from the EU.
In the long run, my gut tells me it will be someone from the post IPO generation, with Larson-Green as the leading candidate.
