 |
 |
 |
|
Some thoughts on Microsoft
Yesterday a blogger who works for Microsoft put up a post that expressed his regret at working for a company that, while generous on the inside, was brutal on the outside. A number of comments were posted. Mine was close to the last that went up before the author took it down. He kindly sent the text to me, and I'm putting it up here. Context: earlier comments claimed that large companies like Microsoft were only in business to make money. I believe there are other reason, including very complex psychological ones, and talk about it a bit here. — DS I make my living in the Linux business — as an editor for Linux Journal (coincidentally also in Seattle, though I live in California). But I've never felt that large companies, including Microsoft, are in business just to make money. Or that making money is at odds with any other positive value you can name. My take on Microsoft is that it has two personality traits (note that I don't say 'flaws') that account in large measure for its success. The first is a high self-regard for its own intelligence. Note how often people who work at the company describe their colleagues, or the company itself, as "smart." One former high level Microsoft guy once described the company to me as "more school" for the kind of folks who spent their first twelve, sixteen or more grades in the narrow region at the right edge of the bell curve. For better or worse, school is a caste system, and Microsoft's founders came from its top. It shows in their attitudes as well as their achievements. The second is related, I think. It's that the company is not merely competitive, but rather combative. The difference is subtle, because there is a lot of overlap in the language used to describe both. But the outcomes are much different. Business for Microsoft is more like war than like sports. That's why they don't just want to beat other companies, but to kill them outright. (I wrote about this here — where I also predicted that Microsoft would prevail in the antitrust case.) The second trait is related to the first because there is a consistent moral system involved. In this system, which George Lakoff details a bit here, strength and success are morally good. A strong company is a good company. Conversely, a weak company is a bad company. Destroying it therefore is not a bad thing. In fact, it's a good thing. This is the morality of conservatism. It seeks, Lakoff says, to punish weakness and reward strength. (This was behind what Dan Quayle meant a few years back when he said, in regard to progressive taxation, "Why should the best people be punished?") While many academics are politically liberal, their business (grading students, advancing the best and washing out the worst) is very much of a conservative sort. Same goes for business people. Bill Gates is a philantropic guy. And he's probably sincere about it, since it has long been an important value to the whole Gates family. I've met him a couple times in years past and he seemed to be a nice guy. I know people who know him well, and they report the same thing. But in his business conservatism he is, to borrow one of his old favorite expressions, hard core. In other words, heartless. Without mercy for weak enemies. So we should not be surprised that the Bush Administration found it hard to punish a successful company — one whose success proved its moral strength. In Microsoft the Administration sees a kindred spirit, even an example of what makes America great. It is clear that Microsoft's top management deeply believes they are doing good in the world. In terms of just selling stuff that a lot of people buy and like, that's so. But it goes deeper. They believe they are doing good by becoming strong, by staying strong, and by fighting their enemies with every ounce of that same strength. Even if their enemies are anything but.
|
