51–60 of 122 posts
Is Microsoft the last big company? They had to grow to that size to handle the marketing and distribution globally - their most obvious successor is Google who operate at a similar reach but something like 1/10 of people It might be an inevitability - or it might be that giant companies are just of their time and giant will now be in the thousands not the hundreds of thousands Anyway it's not news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... and thus causing massive destabilization in whole economies. No thanks! Think about it. If a corporation employs 1 million employees, and that company fails, then the economy will most definitely take a hit. On top of this, that company would hold far too much power and could use the power of the number of people working for it to force governments into doing things that it wouldn't do for the greater good. It ha…
Wal-Mart has over two million employees. What would you propose to do about this? Given that it didn't get to that point overnight, one might suspect that it grew because of its success, rather than it being any kind of threat (it is a threat to its competitors, to be sure).
Probably throws chairs at them... To be serious, this is normal in most corporates. It starts when you let the MBA* with the personality disorder in, you're fucked. I've watched three companies fall at the hands of such people. * This is not true of all MBAs, but I seem to see a trend where there are more borderline psychopaths.
MBA programs attract borderline personalities? That's a new one. In reality, the MBA provides managers with a framework to conduct business in a methodical manner. It gives them a process to use, so that their personalities don't have to be such a large factor. I've never done an MBA but I know many who have; it's mostly case studies and common sense. If you ONLY have an MBA and no other particular expertise, then ye…
Probably throws chairs at them... To be serious, this is normal in most corporates. It starts when you let the MBA* with the personality disorder in, you're fucked. I've watched three companies fall at the hands of such people. * This is not true of all MBAs, but I seem to see a trend where there are more borderline psychopaths.
MBA programs attract borderline personalities? That's a new one. In reality, the MBA provides managers with a framework to conduct business in a methodical manner. It gives them a process to use, so that their personalities don't have to be such a large factor. I've never done an MBA but I know many who have; it's mostly case studies and common sense. If you ONLY have an MBA and no other particular expertise, then ye…
> In reality, the MBA provides managers with a framework to conduct business in a methodical manner
Those two things are not mutually exclusive, of course...
No analyst has clout with the shareholders. Nobody inside does either.
What I see in Sinofsky's departure is a clear signal that the type of politics which this article assumes to be the proper way of creating succession is being deprecated within Microsoft. What I mean is that the argument is premised upon the idea that rivalries at the executive level should be acceptable.
Just because that is the way most public corporations work, doesn't mean it ought to be the way. Gates and Ballmer have been running Microsoft for thirty years. They've got real long term interest in creating a sustainable culture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wal-Mart has over two million employees. What would you propose to do about this? Given that it didn't get to that point overnight, one might suspect that it grew because of its success, rather than it being any kind of threat (it is a threat to its competitors, to be sure).
I'm not sure I particularly consider Walmart to be a particularly positive influence in the U.S. economy...
Is there some kind of intervention that you'd advocate that wouldn't devastate the company?
Every call for Ballmer's ouster ignores two important points. He is the second largest shareholder. His college buddy is the largest. No analyst has clout with the shareholders. Nobody inside does either. What I see in Sinofsky's departure is a clear signal that the type of politics which this article assumes to be the proper way of creating succession is being deprecated within Microsoft. What I mean is that the arg…
This is an important point. These types of articles imply that he's running the company as an ego trip instead of a heavily-invested individual shareholder. Very key to keep in mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I particularly consider Walmart to be a particularly positive influence in the U.S. economy...
I understand that. Retail jobs don't tend to be high-salaried positions, with superior benefits packages. They're not the six-figure jobs we read about here on HN all the time, with catered meals and other embroidery. Nonetheless, the company needs people to fill those jobs, and finds them. Is there some kind of intervention that you'd advocate that wouldn't devastate the company?
On top of this, I'm not really sure I care if Walmart does fail. What I'm saying is that if it does, then that single participant will have suddenly massively increased unemployment simply by no longer being a going concern. Again, that's not healthy for an economy. Many smaller or medium sized players would probably be a healthier thing for the U.S. economy.