Resignation letter from Microsoft Employee

Post by pvg » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 8:30 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #55

pvg wrote: post #19

Two things struck me, one kind of minor - a Pentium 66? In 1997 my desktop machine at my new startup job was a Pentium Pro 200. It replaced the SGI Indy R4400 200 from my previous startup job. No offices with doors, though, of course. The other thing was, and I don't mean these questions in a derogatory way, how do you start working for Microsoft in 1997, of all years. And how do you stay there for 12 years running?…

"What kind of startup employee will you be when the only professional environment you have known is Microsoft?" What do you think they do at MS and what do you think they do at startup companies? Ex-MS people have done places like Zillow, Valve, Fog Creek. And thousands have joined relatively large companies in their early phases, such as Google and Facebook. Do you honestly believe that devs at Microsoft sit around…

Post by talvisota » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 8:35 PM UTC

markbnine wrote: post #59

Once, at a Pizza Hut counter, I noticed that all the pens meant for signing credit card receipts had little flowers attached to their tops. Stuck together in a cup, the bunch of pens looked like a bouquet. I asked the cashier whether this was a new Pizza Hut policy. She said no – she had done it on her own. What would you pay to have her in your company? Maybe he missed the point? People typically attach things to th…

Post by dminor » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 8:46 PM UTC

codexon wrote: post #37

pvg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook, behemoth that it is, is still a startup. We get a little carried away calling every little personal website project a startup and perhaps that's just right for the forum. But don't get tunnel vision. Facebook is a startup.

Then how do we categorize a startup if not by age (Facebook is already 5 years old) and size (hundreds of employees, billions in stock)?

Post by btilly » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 9:01 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #41

btilly wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting data point for you. First, Break All The Rules found that average managers put most of their time into their worst performers. Great ones put most of their time into their star performers. The reason? Both groups can improve, and a 10% improvement in a star is worth a lot more than a 10% improvement in a dud.

I'd be interested in the study data. The data I've seen suggest that great managers put most of their time into manageable employees, the ones I called swing performers above. It could be that some stars swing between good and great, while some median employees swing between poor and good. If there are stars who have a 10% swing based on management investment, then yes there's a better ROI working with them. I agree…

Post by euroclydon » Fri, Oct 15, 2010, 9:05 PM UTC