What if Steve Ballmer Left Microsoft Today?
Is Ballmer critical to Microsoft's future?
A few days ago, we posted an article exploring Steve Jobs’ role within Apple and how critical he is for Apple’s current and future success. With Bill Gates out of the picture and his apprentice leading the show, Microsoft is one generation ahead of Apple, but one generation behind Intel. Conceivably, Ballmer has maintained stability and profitability, but I wonder if we expect tech companies to have celebrities and legacy at the very top to thrive? Would we miss Steve Ballmer if he dropped out of Microsoft today?
Steve Ballmer has a resume that qualifies him to run the business side of virtually any company on the globe and puts him into the desirable position to gain the power to change our lives in many aspects. In some way, he has been doing this for the past 30 years already, since June 11, 1980, when he joined Microsoft. He has been CEO for more than 10 years now and it is fair to say that everything you like and hate about Microsoft products you may use is very much tied to a decision Steve Ballmer made in the past.
Still, there is this inherent feeling that Steve Ballmer cannot be identified with Microsoft. Microsoft is still identified with co-founder Bill Gates and despite the fact that Gates is rumored to have lost interest in Microsoft’s everyday business, that situation may never change. Gates is still the face of Microsoft’s core product line. Ballmer is not.
So, who is Steve Ballmer?
If Ballmer dropped out of Microsoft tomorrow, for what would he be remembered? Personally, my first thought would be he is famous monkey dance, after which he so enthusiastically and breathlessly said “I love this company.” I remember the way how he dissed Linux as “cancer.” I can also recall moments of more than dozen speeches I had the privilege to listen to, speeches that were more business than product and more strategy than vision. Personally, I miss listening to Gates, as far-fetched his visions sometimes were. But Gates always commanded a stage presence in keynotes as well as personal meetings that was filled with an almost spooky type of respect and had everyone listening. The kind of respect you experience when Steve Jobs is present.
If you compare Ballmer to other personalities in the industry, we notice that he is one generation ahead of Apple, but he is one generation behind the leadership changes at Intel, for example – where Otellini has followed Craig Barrett and co-founder Andy Grove. Grove, Gates and Jobs were very similar – people with unique visions who built astounding businesses on top of great ideas at a gold rush time. They built a left a legacy behind for which they are remembered. Barrett had a tough time following in Grove’s footsteps and Grove’s way to lead, and it’s even more challenging for Otellini. I remember Pat Gelsinger, one of Intel’s key people behind the 486 and Pentium processor and President of EMC today, once telling me that Grove’s mentor ship was like a treatment at the dentist without Novocain, and that meetings with him required the best game face as you knew that you began every discussion with a ”deficit of intelligence.”
Ballmer and Otellini also command respect, no question about it. However, when you visit Intel today, Otellini feels much more approachable than his predecessors. You may meet him running around the offices and watch people greeting him with a casual “hi, Paul.” The closest you ever came to Grove was visiting his spotless cubicle. I personally was only able to meet and talk to Grove once, but it was a memorable experience, even if Grove did not hesitate to tell me that he did not like half of my questions shot them down with a brief “next?”
Where Grove is generally remembered as the origin of the x86 processor as we use it today, where Jobs is remembered for the Mac, iPod, iPhone and possibly the iPad, and were Gates is remembered for Windows and Office, it is tough for their successors to build their own legacy. Paul Otellini has done a great job turning around Intel in 2005/2006, even if the company laid off or moved 20,000 people, and Steve Ballmer just recently saved Microsoft from the Windows Vista disaster and maintained a stable course, as well as a product line and profitability that is the envy of an entire industry. For the company, Otellini and Ballmer have done what was expected of them, even if there are persistent complaints about sluggish stock performance. But I wonder, if Ballmer as well as Otellini are caught in a trap of being just apprentices of the great minds that have shaped their companies forever?
It may sound arrogant from my perspective to say so, but the current time in the industry, more than any other before, suggests that we do look for celebrity executives to represent the products we are using. Do we need faces for companies that shape our personal life? I believe so. Even if you may point to Google, where Eric Schmidt is now CEO. But there are still Larry Page and Sergey Brin, which very much represent the innovation and culture Google was built on.
What is particularly amazing about Steve Ballmer is the fact that he could have become the face of Microsoft as there have been plenty of new products in the past 10 years, yet he chose to let other people take over ownership of those products. Think about the Xbox 360. People like Robbie Bach are much more identified with this device than Ballmer. Windows 7 or Bing have no ties to Ballmer. Even if he did not take credit for those products and left it to others, I am convinced that it would have been for the good of the company to take ownership of those products on a public level – not just on a business level in executive meetings.
It may be too late for Ballmer to become the face for Microsoft and it may actually be time for Microsoft to change leadership soon – in a time where products are more and more personal to more and more people and require familiar faces to identify them with.
So, who would be best to take Ballmer’s spot? I’ll invite you to join the conversation below, but here is my bet. I personally believe that it is easier to teach and support enthusiastic engineers with business decisions than teach business people what’s truly exciting about tech. I would always choose an engineer at the top. For Microsoft my first choice would probably be chief software architect (and Bill Gates successor in this role) Ray Ozzie, who has a certain legacy and the charisma that is necessary to lead a company like Microsoft. On Intel’s side, my vote would be chief technology officer Justin Rattner.
What are your thoughts?
- Microsoft Confirms Zero-Day ''Shortcut'' Exploit
- How Much Did Blizzard Spend On StarCraft II?
- Alleged Russian Spy Worked at Microsoft
- Intel Will Fully Update Celeron, Pentium to 32nm
- AMD Selling More CPUs, Posts Record Quarter Too
- Who Offers the Best Tech Support for Laptops?
- Microsoft Co-founder Giving Half His Money Away
- The Final StarCraft II System Requirements Are...
- Would You Switch to Bing for $3 to a Good Cause?
- Seagate External Network HDD Sends RSS Feeds
- Deals for July 19: Deals on Samsung Phone, LCD
- HP Files ''PalmPad'' Trademark for WebOS Tablet?
- Nokia Siemens Buys Motorola's Networking Arm
- Intel Slips Out New 3.2GHz Core i7-970 Gulftown
- Dell Introduces Precision Laptop With 32GB RAM
- Activision: We're NOT Charging for Online Play
- Crytek: Crysis 2 Will Have Best Game AI Ever
- Be A Hero: Sign Up to DC Universe Online Beta
It would be a better place.
Our hats are not thoughts.
I do think that Ricky from The Trailer Park Boys is the only sensible successor to Steve Ballmer.
"Still, there is this inherent feeling that Steve Ballmer cannot be identified with Microsoft. Microsoft is still identified with co-founder Bill Gates and despite the fact that Gates is rumored to have lost interest in Microsoft’s everyday business"
Hmm, I thought Steve Ballmer was co-founder while Gates was the founder...Anyone have clarification? Is co-founder being used as an ambiguous term?
I'd have to agree with you Wolfgang.
"Still, there is this inherent feeling that Steve Ballmer cannot be identified with Microsoft. Microsoft is still identified with co-founder Bill Gates and despite the fact that Gates is rumored to have lost interest in Microsoft’s everyday business"Hmm, I thought Steve Ballmer was co-founder while Gates was the founder...Anyone have clarification? Is co-founder being used as an ambiguous term?
I think you're think Paul Allen as the co-founder of Microsoft. Steve Ballmer joined MS after the founding.
I vote Joe Pesci to replace Steve Ballmer. As George Carlin used to say about his friend, "He seems to be a guy who gets things done."
He would probably be remembered for dropping out before doing anything truly memorable.
As long as Gates came back, I don't think he would be missed at all.
I do think that Ricky from The Trailer Park Boys is the only sensible successor to Steve Ballmer.
Ricky would say this:
I would be the perfect processor to Ballmer!
Thumbs up to Ricky and his grd 10!
We would not have to look at his bald monkey face anymore.
tl;dr
I'm gonna remember Ballmer as the CEO who stood behind Vista as Microsoft's flagship OS. Steve Ballmer definitely drinks his own cool-aid. I don't see him as a problem for Microsoft (they seem to be quite profitable). I also don't think a company needs a big, visual CEO.
Quick, name the CEO of the following companies:
Wal-Mart
Exxon Mobil
Toyota
GE
Can't? Funny, those are some of the biggest companies in the entire world. If success is so closely tied to the popularity of the CEO, the CEOs of those companies should be touring the world as some sort of soft-rocking super-group solving mysteries and hanging 10 at the beach.
If Steve left today, they'd put someone else in his place, and that's pretty much it. With Bill still a major share holder (and Steve himself a major share holder), I really don't think the company would change direction at all.
I'm gonna remember Ballmer as the CEO who stood behind Vista as Microsoft's flagship OS. Steve Ballmer definitely drinks his own cool-aid. I don't see him as a problem for Microsoft (they seem to be quite profitable). I also don't think a company needs a big, visual CEO.Quick, name the CEO of the following companies:Wal-MartExxon MobilToyotaGECan't? Funny, those are some of the buggest companies in the entire world. If success is so closely tied to the popularity of the CEO, the CEOs of those companies should be touring the world as some sort of soft-rocking super-group solving mysteries and hanging 10 at the beach.If Steve left today, they'd put someone else in his place, and that's pretty much it. With Bill still a major share holder (and Steve himself a major share holder), I really don't think the company would change direction at all.
Indeed, maybe it is time for MS to become the faceless megacorporation it truly is.
Companies have Brand Identity. Telus has those animals, Apple has Jobs and white computers. Google has their logo page. MS has Windows. Not many people know a person behind the brands.
The people behind the brands only matter to other enterprises, not to the public. Jobs is only popular on IT sites cause we like to make fun of them, same with Balmer.
Ballmer looks like someone who sells cars. His image is all wrong. To me the most sensible replacement is John Carmack.
He looks the part, kind of like a young Bill Gates. What he lacks in carisma, he makes up for in respect and understanding of the industry and programming.
IMO Microsoft needs Carmack's credibility and genius, and I think Apple would suddenly look very trade-show like in comparison, like Jobs is selling Sham-Wows or Oxyclean ...
[citation]hat are your thoughts?[/citation]
Our hats are not thoughts.
Well, it's better than "Cat ate your thoughts?", which would certainly have passed the spell checker too...
MS would be left with one overpayed, screaming monkey less!
(They might finally sell Windows UNDER $200!)
I'd like to make a clever fail joke about the kin ...
but that'd be not only ficitous on my feelings of how he's operated the company , but it'd also be such an obvious joke i'd feel like a failure for makign it.
i feel he's done a good job, the company has seen growth and been profitable, there have been some risks taken that have panned out like bing, and some that have failed like the kin, however overall he's done a good job and is who i identify with microsoft for now. now when i think of microsoft as a whole yea its gates because thats where the drive that made microsoft the buisness it is today came from. but balmer has helmed the ship well in his time as well
as for the next person to run the company... where do i send my application
MS would be left with one overpayed, screaming monkey less!
(They might finally sell Windows UNDER $200!)
I would be concerned if a corporation relied solely on one individual.
Ballmer > Jobs
But I like Woz, he is a stand up guy.
What if Steve Ballmer Left Microsoft Today?
He would change his name back to Al Bundy and start selling shoes again.
Ballmer looks like someone who sells cars. His image is all wrong. To me the most sensible replacement is John Carmack.He looks the part, kind of like a young Bill Gates. What he lacks in carisma, he makes up for in respect and understanding of the industry and programming. IMO Microsoft needs Carmack's credibility and genius, and I think Apple would suddenly look very trade-show like in comparison, like Jobs is selling Sham-Wows or Oxyclean ...
Too bad Carmack is an Apple fan, or at the very least an OS X/iPhone fan. Either way, it's a big leap from game programmer/designer to CEO of a giant corporation.
If Steve Ballmer left Microsoft today.... I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft would still churn out crappy half-assed products, same as always.
To choose an engineer for the top job is a very tricky thing. The great CEO's who were engineers had good business savvy first and foremost - their engineering talents just complement that. You can't tell me that Jobs is a great engineer - his entire life has been about bringing technical geniuses within his fold to build his visions. Jobs is one of those CEO rock stars - but it's not because he's an engineer.
An engineer at Microsoft could produce another Vista - technically competent but from a user perspective and perception an recipe for disaster. An engineer would have thought that the User Access Control in Vista was technically important, but the user just sees it as annoying. And the market hates user upheavel - you just have to look at Apple's recent stock woes over the iPhone. An engineer would insert 500 different menu items in Office because the software is technically capable of doing so - but kill the ease of use experience.
For MS (and other companies) the trick is to have the Eric Schmidt as CEO who keeps the engineering kids in line. The market wants reassurance from the company that their business is in good shape and there are future earnings. Of course, having Larry and Sergy as the face of the company helps build the mystique - but the CEO office with the regulatory and financial obligations of running a listed public company is no playroom for engineers. But the CEO should also be flexible enough to know how to use their engineers to meet their visions - this is why Apple and Jobs are where they are now.
Ballmer looks like someone who sells cars. His image is all wrong. To me the most sensible replacement is John Carmack.He looks the part, kind of like a young Bill Gates. What he lacks in carisma, he makes up for in respect and understanding of the industry and programming
He doesn't just lach charisma, he has charisn'tma.
How about giving Steve Jobs incentives to replace Ballmer for a few years?
I can't resist imaging he will note that "No, our Windows product has absolutely no issue, it's perfect, you users just handled it wrong way..."
it's a joke not likely to happen, but what if... hmm...
There are different managerial styles and work environments that tend to work in some companies better than others. Steve Jobs' authoritarian style works well for Apple (if you can ignore the iPhone 4 issues) and has brought Apple to a point where they have bested Microsoft economically. Google's "open" standard or better yet part open and part authoritarian standard works well for Google. In general I feel Google is much more open as opposed to Apple or Microsoft.
From what I've seen of Microsoft in the last few years, I don't think Steve Ballmer will be missed. They haven't really set the standard much so to speak and are losing market share across the board to companies like Google, RIM, Apple, Firefox, etc. Perhaps, they need to take a step back and rethink their goals and how they want to get where they want to go. Cooperation and openness within the company is critical if they want to work well together and issues that led to the departure of two of Microsoft's directors (partly because of Courier) should not happen. Sure you can't make every director in the company happy but when people start leaving because they are unhappy about the direction of the company then that is an issue worth analyzing.
I think Bill Gates should be brought back just to provide insight on who can be the next leader and mentor/train him or her before they take the leadership role. After being gone for a while Bill's approach to the issue will be better than someone who has been around while bad decisions have been made.
Tech companies really need an Iconic figure to scape goat problems. When you lose that figure, the company turns into something like IBM. IBM is making things that are truly ahead of their time, but they fail to get their products to the consumer.
No Steve Balmer is not a Steve Jobs. Yes, he may provoke positive thoughts at Microsoft. But as for the consumer he is no salesman. Microsoft needs a consumer salesman. Someone who can instill a interest in new products just as the other Steve does at Apple. In other words I buy Microsoft products because I need them but people including myself buy Apple products because Apple and Steve make you want them.