111–120 of 338 posts
"Following the Nokia acquisition, completed in April, Microsoft had roughly 127,104 employees[...]" I don't have knowledge about managing a company, but is it at all possible to efficiently lead 127000+ employees? Has MSFT become a non-manageable behemoth?
[deleted]
So MS Bought Nokia and ~30k employees for ~$7.2 billion last April. 3 months later, MS may now be firing ~half of the Nokia group. The executives who drove that catastrophic deal stay. What a testament to how disastrous big M&A really is. Is there any large acquisition that succeeded in the last 10 years? I'd feel sorry if I was a Nokia guy there, they pulled out the best non-Apple phone hardware in the last years. P…
Is there any large acquisition that succeeded in the last 10 years? You might have the wrong criteria for acquisition success. I'm sure both Nokia and MS knew these layoffs would come before they agreed to the purchase.
It may be successful on a tax/accounting perspective since the purchase was made in € with cash that couldn't be brought to the US.
Yet this does look like a gigantic waste of assets. Warren Buffett says that a successful business is all about mindfully allocating its resources. This looks like the oppsite - no wonder that Nadella has a hard time explaining what happens in simple words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not. A lot of people have been saying for a long time that Microsoft's biggest problem is that its various divisions work at cross-purposes, even competing and fighting with each other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's plausible, but also plausible is that the drawn-out process causes the better performers to leave while they can. It's easy to say from the outside that the layoffs will hit underperformers and people who are just coasting, but the fact is that layoffs of this scale inevitably involve politics. We're talking about an organization that had so much trouble getting the Office people on the same page as the Mobile…
> That's plausible, but if I were at Microsoft I'd be sending out my resume right now. No -- most people who work at a big company know _exactly_ whether they're in danger or not. We're speaking about 5% of the original (pre-Nokia acquisition) workforce. You must know whether you're in the bottom 5%, or if your product is in the least critical 5%. Of course there are surprises and some good/productive guys will be la…
Generally a company making big layoffs is a sign of a sinking ship. If you are a hot programmer you aren't going to want to hang around waiting for doom. Much better to move to an expanding and thriving company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of writing "Christ", you should consider posting an email as if you were the one newly responsible for a $364B company and a reduction in 18,000 jobs. I'd be curious to see other people's management style from their armchair.
I would spontaneously combust if I were responsible for a $364B company on a good day, never mind deciding how layoffs should be done. It's just surprising that parody-level corporate-speak still gets used despite having being derided for years in mainstream press and conversation.
Heck, Cheney all but quoted Reagan's "I don't recall"-defense as a 20th anniversary tribute and that had been lampooned specifically.
And now, every day for a year, everyone gets to wake up and wonder if this is the day that they will get laid off. Why can't they wait and make the announcement once they know who they will eliminate and do it in one swift action? Why put people in limbo for a year?
Personally I'd much rather hear about a potential layoff far in advance. It would give me a chance to prepare financially and start looking at new jobs.
I often hear 1-3 months of employment and or pay over the time, giving hopefully adequate time to prepare.
So MS Bought Nokia and ~30k employees for ~$7.2 billion last April. 3 months later, MS may now be firing ~half of the Nokia group. The executives who drove that catastrophic deal stay. What a testament to how disastrous big M&A really is. Is there any large acquisition that succeeded in the last 10 years? I'd feel sorry if I was a Nokia guy there, they pulled out the best non-Apple phone hardware in the last years. P…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should write a post on this, I'd be interested to hear the MBA's perspective. Like the OP, I'm jaded towards MBAs due to my personal experience, but I recognize that's limited experience. I'm genuinely interested in the benefits a company gets from hiring an MBA, especially an early to mid-stage start-up company.
I don't have an MBA. I've just worked with people who were both gifted and in possession of an MBA. The presumption that people won't 'get it' because they have an MBA is laughable.
I know an MBA right now who is pursuing a business wherein he offers wifi hotspots to small businesses. His literature claims that renting one of his hotspots will make the business "PCI compliant". I've personally advised him on multiple occasions (gently at first, growing more stern over time) that this claim is patently ridiculous and only displays his incompetence to anyone knowledgeable in IT, but he refuses to amend his materials or statements. Just the tip of the iceberg with him.
Granted these are anecdotes, but I think they embody the anti-MBA ethos. Qualified persons strongly dislike MBAs because MBAs often feel their MBA grants them immunity from doing things incorrectly, and that they are instantly authorities on everything without requiring any experience or research.
I swear they have to explicitly teach that in business school, like: "Now, this degree grants you the magic power of never needing advice, information, or training, and you will always be right, and normal people won't understand that because they didn't go to business school... but remember, business school is the only school that matters. No one would have money without us! Just tell the nerds to shove it if they try to tell you anything else." It's far too universal a feeling among MBAs to be coincidental.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any large acquisition that succeeded in the last 10 years? You might have the wrong criteria for acquisition success. I'm sure both Nokia and MS knew these layoffs would come before they agreed to the purchase.
Did MS? Including the cost of the lay off ($1.6b says Recode), Nokia price was actually $8.8b. What was their business case that was so easily scrapped just months into the purchase? It may be successful on a tax/accounting perspective since the purchase was made in € with cash that couldn't be brought to the US. Yet this does look like a gigantic waste of assets. Warren Buffett says that a successful business is all…