throwawayms4

6 เดือนที่ผ่านมาdiscuss

I suspect there's some truth in that, but I suspect it's very banal. Current leadership does not have the "political leeway" nor technical conviction or strategic insight to buck trends on instinct as past leadership did, and thus will err hard on trend following, especially given the foaming at the mouth the investing and thought leader population was doing around AI over the last few years.

throwawayms4

6 เดือนที่ผ่านมาdiscuss

This is a hard question since there are a few patterns I've seen. Often they're long-term microsoft, more often PM than engineering, sometimes external. But I suspect that's not the dominating consistency, with a similar statement to technical skill. People who get to a high level here get there for the same incentives I mentioned above. They are risk averse, political, cowtow to their leadership, and know how to play the game.

throwawayms4

6 เดือนที่ผ่านมาdiscuss

My reason for saying that was not to say the employees are not well-paid in an absolute sense. It's that the reality is that caliber of employee has options, and Microsoft does not work to retain them, which results in undesirable (from the company's perspective) attrition.

throwawayms4

6 เดือนที่ผ่านมาdiscuss

Broken incentives, clueless trend-following leaders.

For the last year or so all orders from leadership have been "build more AI, show AI usage" even above things like stability and reliability.

There was no recognition from leadership over what use cases worked or not, and they appeared to believe their own hype.

To complement this, there is near to no long-term accountability for upper leadership for failure, so even as features underperform and strategy turns out to be a flop, they will continue to make millions a year, having layoffs every 6 months, and then acting surprised pikachu when morale is down and top engineers are looking to the door, since salary is barely competitive even if you are a top performer getting special stock awards.

comments