Does Steve Ballmer want Microsoft to be more like Ford was when his dad worked there?

Above: Microsoft’s Entertainment and Devices Division after one of Steve Ballmer’s “angry” days.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Microsoft management is cracking down on the use of iPhones amongst company employees. In a recent meeting executives Andy Lees (who is in charge of mobile-phone software development) and Robbie Bach (President of Entertainment and Devices Division, responsible for a.o. the Xbox) were chastised by CEO Steve Ballmer when arguing that their employees should be encouraged to use competitor products so as to learn from them and aid innovation. According to WSJ, “he told executives that [when] his father worked for Ford, …his family always drove Fords.” Moreover, it appears the boss’ distaste for otherness has not gone unnoticed throughout the organization:

Some Microsoft workers take pains to hide their iPhones. While rank-and-file workers tend to use the iPhone openly around peers, some conceal them within sight of more senior executives. One Microsoft worker said he knows several colleagues who try to disguise their iPhones with cases that make them look more like generic handsets.”Maybe once a year I’m in a meeting with Steve Ballmer,” said this employee. “It doesn’t matter who’s calling, I’m not answering my phone.”

 

In a more overt move to discourage iPhone use amongst its employees,  Microsoft announced last year that it would only reimburse work-related cell phone bills made from phones running on Windows software. The company denied that this had anything to do with too with discouraging the use of iPhones, claiming that “it made the change as part of a broader cost-cutting plan.” Of course, if simple logic is applied, one quickly realizes that the only way Microsoft can save money by only reimbursing calls made from phones running Windows is if a significant number of employees thinks that the iPhone is so much better than their own products that they would rather pay the bill for work-related calls out of their own pocket than use Microsoft’s phone software.

Above: Polish cavalry, more nimble than Microsoft?

For us here at Evolution-Revolution, humble students of Technology Governance (which translates into Economics of Technology and Innovation, for those of you who are not familiar with term), Ballmer’s attitude to iPhone usage amongst his employees and the approach to technology-business management it is symptomatic of appears tantamount to Polish cavalry in 1939 charging German tanks head on with lances lowered. This particular Polish cavalry charge is, of course, a myth – the Polish cavalry commanders were perhaps more apt than Ballmer. In fact, the 18th Pomeranian Uhlans Regiment under Colonel Kazimierz Mastalerz were, in spite of their technological disadvantage, able to successfully delay the German advance at the battle of Krojanty by means of nimbleness and suprise – hardly common features of Microsoftian management during the last decade or so.

And Big Three auto companies as they were during the 1960’s – the time during which Steve’s father, Fritz Hans Ballmer, was working as a manager at Ford – are hardly good role models for Microsoft. Even if one is to disregard the recent troubles of the U.S. Auto Industry, the rigidly hierarchical management structures that were avant-guarde pre World War II hardly gave the American Auto industry an edge when faced with Japanese competitors, in particular Toyota, from the 1970 and on. The latter’s flat, flexible, and lean organization; which heavily emphasized participatory innovation and “continuous improvement”;  was far better at improving efficiency and product quality than the rigid structures of Ballmer Senior’s Ford. And the American Auto industry’s lack of organizational innovativeness was not a result of lacking opportunities. In 1946, after conducting a comprehensive two year in-depth research project at General Motors, the (later) highly distinguished Peter Drucker advised management to move away from the current “command and control” structure, and allow for more flexibility and divisional autonomy. GM did not take kindly to criticism, though, and the recommendations Drucker made in his famous book Concept of The Corporation caused him to be considered a traitor to the corporation. In a Soviet manner, then CEO Alfred Sloan forbade people from mentioning the book in his presence, preferring to act as if it did not exist. The Japanese, however, eagerly took on Drucker’s work, which became instrumental in the development of what today is known as the Toyota Production System.

Above: The Soviets, more adept at photo-modification than Alfred Sloan, have removed the traitorous Leon Trotsky and  Lev Kamenev from the lowermost picture.

In the current techno-economic ICT-paradigm – especially for tech-firms, whose real product essentially is innovation -  organizations need to be run like open and flexible networks, not like command and control hierarchies. IBM, for one, has understood this, and have made open innovation a key part of their development strategy.

Now, it is unfair to say that Microsoft is completely lost. It too has made steps to become make use of collaborative and open innovation, and the new strategy announced in February 2008 was a huge improvement on their previous fortress-approach. The  evil sorcerer Sauron’s tower of Barad-dûr is not a good model for a modern, innovation-intensive ICT-business.

Culture matters, though, and Ballmer & Co’s insistence on punishing their employees for using iPhones appears more symptomatic of a Barad-dûrian culture than one centered around openness and flexibility. Essentially encouraging his company to be more like Ford was when his dad worked there in the 60’s is exactly the wrong thing to do.