3% of all business owners make 84% of all private biz income. Why? They’re not covering for unknown weaknesseses.
Microsoft is rotting from the inside out.
Conquest destroys the conqueror.
Info
This article was published on May 13, 2011. So far, 6 people have left their thoughts. Share your own thoughts.
The first of Microsoft’s “12 Secrets of Microsoft Management” is possibly the worst management principle in history. It reveals an Industrial Age scarcity view of the world that none of us should emulate.
Number one in Microsoft’s list of management secrets:
Total World Domination – Microsoft is going after 100% of every market that it is in. Every employee at Microsoft has the same aim: to give Microsoft 100% market share in every market that it is involved in – Total World Domination."
A couple other of their 12 “secrets”:
- Hire type A people who are driven by conquest…
- Go after a market with the view to dominate it because owning a strategic market gives you a cash cow.
You either live in a world of abundance or a world of scarcity, and whichever one you choose affects every decision you make.
Scarcity companies like Microsoft believe “There’s only so much to go around, and I better get mine before the next guy gets it.”
Abundance companies believe "If I help enough others be successful, I’ll get to my goals, too.
Scarcity companies focus on creating cash cows. Abundance companies focus on adding meaning and significance to the world around them.
Scarcity companies don’t focus on getting better; they focus on crushing others. In 1997 Microsoft’s plan to grow their education division was focused on crushing Novell, not getting better (I saw the plan and received a copy.)
Abundance companies figure out how to make their entire industry better because they realize how much it will help them, too.
Scarcity companies like Microsoft only dominate in the short term, but never win in the long term. They are doomed to the ash heap of misguided and mis-managed companies. Conquest eventually destroys the conqueror.
How do you approach business – from a world of abundance or a world of scarcity? Choose one – it will affect every decision you make.
Add Your Own
Thoughts
Thom Corrigan
05/13/11
MS Secret #13: Put out half baked crapware and use your devoted client base to beta test your products. Then make them so complex you can blame the ignorant public for your stuff not working.
An abundance mindset says I have a duty to bring my best to market everytime!
David
05/14/11
I think your point about Microsoft and their narrow focus on marketshare is dead on. Seems like we find more joy in life by providing outstanding products and services that promote the well-being of others.
Chuck
05/18/11
David/Thom,
Great points.
Capitalism should be about getting paid for adding value, not for focusing on crushing all other options.
The companies (and individuals) who do best are those are FOR something, not against something. Let’s be for companies who are for something.
Bob Bluhm
05/18/11
Hey Chuck: Glad I found you on a Google search. Your old buddy from BGSU and CIM. Send me an e-mail and stay in touch. Bob Bluhm
John
05/19/11
You could make the case that in spite of the cut-throat actions that Microsoft has taken in the past (against competition), they have had some positive effects on the world. You could also ask, if Microsoft will be successful only in the short term, is being fairly dominant for more than 25 years a short term in the life of tech companies? I would say that statement is more wishful thinking than fact. Is Microsoft threatened by newer companies? Yes. Including one (Google) that purports to “Do No Evil”. Is Google not a cut-throat competitor? Or take Apple, the company we all love. Is not Steve Jobs a domineering dictator? We over-simplify the character of companies. Viewing the world as either a glass half-full or a glass hafl-empty is an attitude that affects how we, as perceivers, act. It does not change the reality of what the world really is…which is neither. Even good souls must compete to win.
Jack Penland
05/19/11
Your note on education reminds me of what I heard at a lunch table of university executives who were lamenting that they no longer had a monopoly on higher education. I distinctly remember them complaining that what they had to offer was no longer scarce.
John
05/19/11
You could make the case that in spite of the cut-throat actions that Microsoft has taken in the past (against competition), they have had some positive effects on the world. You could also ask, if Microsoft will be successful only in the short term, is being fairly dominant for more than 25 years a short term in the life of tech companies? I would say that statement is more wishful thinking than fact. Is Microsoft threatened by newer companies? Yes. Including one (Google) that purports to “Do No Evil”. Is Google not a cut-throat competitor? Or take Apple, the company we all love. Is not Steve Jobs a domineering dictator? We over-simplify the character of companies. Viewing the world as either a glass half-full or a glass hafl-empty is an attitude that affects how we, as perceivers, act. It does not change the reality of what the world really is…which is neither. Even benevolent souls must compete to win. But your main point still holds: viewing the world from a perspective of abundance allows you to behave in a more giving, less paranoid way, which is the best place to be.
Chuck
05/21/11
John,
Great thoughts, but I would contend that we should not grade the success of a company by their dollar value, dominance, or any other external factor. That amounts to nothing less than cultural relativism – any process is acceptable as long as the outcome is one I like.
If you believe that we should add moral value to the world around us with our productivity, then Microsoft has already failed because their motivation is to kill vs. to add value.
I start with this assumption. There are some things that are true for all of us. I believe we are made to do and be something significant, and that in that context, we should approach the world with an attitude of abundance – “How do I help others get to their goals”? vs. an attitude of scarcity – “How do I get it all for myself”?
But others might start with another basic assumption about life. if someone believes the result justifies the process and the end justifies the means, then I guess we have to like 7 yr olds in Asia making tennis shoes for highly profitable companies. And my argument will fall on deaf ears with them. We have different base values.
The biggest problem? We define success in terms of world dominance and revenue. I say Microsoft lost cataclysmically and permanently the day they accepted Management Principle #1, and no amount of world dominance will demonstrate that they won. I also believe it will eventually be their downfall – the good guy does always, if only eventually, win.
Chuck
05/21/11
Jack,
GREAT follow up on the education industry. They should indeed run scared that they no longer can convince people that formal education mills are necessary for success. See my recent blog on that here