Windfall

I've been working on a post about the Lazy M, but summer weather, family obligations and my recent review have all conspired to slow down my production on that piece. (It's not like I'm be measured on my performance anyway, which leads me to...)

There's been a lot of heat and precious little light in the MSFT blogosphere about the recent reviews. In my own case, the merit and bonus I received will allow me to turn the heat up a little bit more this winter but not fly to warmer clines where I might be able to actually see the sun.

Oh well. There's always next year.

I don't begrudge the merit and bonus I received. On the contrary, I'm happy to be employed after the dark days after the dot-com implosion, so it's all upside to me. What I did find grating was the messaging my manager had to wrap my review and compensation in.

It was belittling and demeaning, and while both my manager and I knew that the party line had to be towed, presenting what I did receive as something that I should be happy about stuck in my throat. (A raise lower than the rate of inflation is not something that makes me all grins.) After noises about there being no curve this year for performance scores, I listened to a song and dance about how there's only a fixed pool for merit and bonus.

Microsoft makes a lot of internal noise about how it only hires smart people and this smart person analyzed the data presented to me, and by gum, I spotted a curve. Are the dumb ones the ones who are happy about the new situation?

Here's a thought: to weed out the deadwood and cap the avarice, leadership announces a two-year wage and bonus freeze from the CEO on down, but ties a bonus at the end of that period to the share price. Above $30/share, 5% bonus. Above $40/share, 10% bonus. Above $50/share, 20% bonus. All the way up to $80/share, 50% bonus. Those joining Microsoft during the period are pro-rated all the way up to six months before the end of the period. (Instead of spending the last six months on hiring and other HR process bullshit, we can all focus on execution.)

The two-year time line is long enough to turn the battleship to get results and shake loose those who aren't in it for the long haul. The bonus could be paid for by a combination of decreasing or eliminating the dividend along with spending some of the gigantic pot of cash we're sitting on.

How about it? Any leaders willing to throw down the gauntlet to demand better performance from everyone along with incenting us to make it happen?

Or will we still see the same leaders lining their pockets for sub-par performance while forcing the rank-and-file into a budget-dictated instead of performance-based bell curve for compensation?

Like Mike Doonsebury's summer daydream, I guess I better get back to that Lazy M post.

Math is Hard

Update

I'm no financial analyst, and it shows. I didn't know when I made my post why there were so few shares purchased and what Microsoft was going to do with the extra dough they had left over after purchasing what shares they could.

MSFTextrememaker has some good follow-up, analysis and links to the recent share repurchase event. In short, people holding Microsoft stock didn't want to sell at $24.75 because they think the stock is going to go higher in the future and the $16.2 billion that wasn't spent on share repurchases has been added to future share buybacks.

For those of us holding Microsoft stock, let's hope that the next share repurchase also happens before the shares go long instead of short.

****************************

Today, Microsoft announced that they were repurchasing only $3.8 billion of the $20 billion worth of shares in the buyback program they announced earlier this month, and that the balance would be added to future buybacks authorized by the board. The corporate spin is a "just the facts" attitude.

This begs the question of: why so few shares?

Chris Liddell, Microsoft CFO, has been quoted as saying, "We create value by buying at prices that we think are very good."

Absent of leadership's explanation, we're left to speculate as to why so few shares were purchased. I'm no financial analyst, but it seems that either leadership thinks the stock is overpriced or they're banking on the shares falling again. If $24.75 isn't very good to repurchase at, what is? $22.00? $20.00? $15.00?

Or has that $16.2 billion that wasn't spent on shares been committed to some other projects?

It appears that I can only dream of a day why my leaders do what they say they are going to do and have the wisdom to pull the plug on foolish endeavors.

(And dare I even say it?)

Leaders like they have at Boeing.

The Lazy B has finally been eclipsed by the Lazy M. (More on this thread next week.)

Committed

Updated: (Fixed embarrassing title typo.)

I don't know about your group of leaders, but mine is still struggling to get their commitments posted. With the waterfall commitment setting process this year, there's a darn good chance that my review will happen before I get to finalize my commitments.

The irony here is that my leaders committed to having their commitments finished three weeks ago so my group could work on theirs.

Good leaders do what they say they are going to do. It's not so much to ask, is it?

I like the new commitment tool. The transparency is a good thing. What seems to be happening though is that it has become deeply politicized, and is being used as a platform for the, "Look at all the stuff I'm going to do this year!" management crowd whose unwritten last commitment is always "Manage up."

The tool does have its plusses. You can see the boundary layer between the strategic and tactical leadership in your org. It makes it easy to spot the self-promoting managers.

But most importantly, we'll all finally get to see what SteveB's commitments are.

If he ever posts them.

Culture Wars

History's first draft, if we bother to go back and examine it, tends to be couched in the terminology of the times, and that terminology also is folded back into the pop culture of its era. Microsoft has not escaped this lensing in the current era.

From the outside, Microsoft might appear to be a corporation with multiple-personality disorder. Those of us on the inside know the truth.

It's just batshit crazy at times.

Organizational cultures reflect their founders first, previous leaders second and current leaders third. Future leaders are either encouraged to incubate culture changes or they struggle to create their own culture because the existing culture is virulently resistant to change.

At Microsoft we are currently amid wrenching cultural change, but like all major changes its manifestations are varied and effects on population groups scattered.

Obvious public skirmishes in these culture wars show up as Dev vs Test vs PM and Old School vs New School over at Mini-Microsoft. Less obviously, it shows up as towels and valet parking.

The real action is on the inside though.

It happens in meetings when questions are asked, and there are no good answers.

"How does software as a service affect what our team should be doing day-to-day?"

It happens when new hires mix with old hires.

"Things used to be easier without all this process." (Old) "All of the old guard fuck up the process by ignoring it." (New)

It happens when past cultural momentum crashes into current reality.

Open warfare in meetings between people who are trying to get work done and those who think that they are by bullying and shouting at people.

In fits and starts, things are changing, yet the next outcome is still unknown. We're trapped inside a Magic 8 Ball being shaken about by leaders looking for a better prognostication. The irony is that the answers exist in the skirmish lines of this war. Every clash, every idea mismatch, every unanswered question is an opportunity for a leader to step forward. Looking up and down the line from this grunt's perspective, there is no Honeycutt in sight yet, and the bodies continue to pile up.

With Bill moving on, we do have a golden opportunity to re-cast the culture. Will our leaders lead us from distraction to distraction and keep us divided or to a unified corporate culture that works together to just get stuff done?

Until the current rough draft of history starts talking about Microsoft as a leader again instead of as a follower, (insert your own Apple/Google/MySpace/Yahoo! news links here,) the battles will rage on.

Financial Analyst Meeting Leadership Insight

The most important thing I learned from the Microsoft Fiancial Analyst (FAM) meeting was that Steve Ballmer has learned some things recently.

In the second paragraph of his FAM keynote, Mr. Ballmer admitted that he met some shareholders and had his eyes opened.

This is a good thing for Microsoft.

Why? Good leadership, once finally exposed to negative or bad news or views, is able to discern griping from real issues. And Lordy, does Microsoft have some shareholder issues. (Raise your hand if you'd own more shares if your options weren't hanging about with Davy Jones.)

But great leaders identify real issues and address them before they become gripes and blossom into large, hairy issues that require a special trip to Wall Street in order to have their eyes opened.