"""I can remember going to the first Microsoft Company picnic in 1988. There were only two children. Microsoft had 1,800 employees and there were only a couple of them that were married. You had all these young kids who weren't married and were right out of school. IBM had conventional dress codes; Microsoft - it was very much like a college campus. The only difference in how they lived, the hours they kept and the way they dressed, between a college campus and Microsoft was that Microsoft bought the equipment. They all wore their shorts and half of them wore sandals or no shoes. Microsoft bought a lot of T-shirts and things for them. There weren't set hours - the management system was to let people pick or sign up for what they were going to do, and it was up to them to do it. So there was very little management attention over directing people or telling them what to do - it was a very empowered work force. And my suspicion was that that was the way IBM was in the 1930s and 1940s. They were much more formal, because the time was much more formal in terms of dress. But in terms of the ages and the attitudes and the mission the people were on - I think it would be a lot the same."""
I especially liked the section where he hi lights Microsoft's hiring practice as one of the main differentiators from its competitors
""" So we had a very intensive interview process. The last interviewer was called the
hiring manager, but after every interview, as the candidate left the office, the interviewer sent out an
email and wrote the result of the interview. So by the end of the 6th interview, the hiring manager
had all reviews but the one where the guy was at that time. The first word on the write-up had to be
“hire” or “no-hire”. There wasn't any "maybe" or... "This guy would be good in some other group".
It was ... “I would work with this guy” or not. “I think he would work into my group” or not.
So the hiring manager then had all of these write-ups and all of these decisions or
recommendations. And he would decide whether or not to offer the guy a job. If we offered the guy
or gal a job, then the next day would be spent in trying to talk them into realizing how good it was to
work at Microsoft; that it's a good place to live and all those things…being nice to them for a
change.
Of the 10 we'd bring back, we'd hire one. So we hired about 1 out of every 100
that we initially interviewed. So the total picture is: we've interviewed 10 guys, 8 times each - 80
interviews. We interviewed 100 guys one time, 100 interviews − so we've done about 200
interviews for every person we hired. If you think about hours - that's a lot of hours, and recruiters
aren't going to do that. Recruiters aren't going to test coding ability. We had recruiters who
managed the logistics and managed the reference checks. We also did aggressive reference checks −
we had a whole series of questions we'd ask. Most people doing reference checks are trying to be
kind and nice and so people aren't as accurate as you'd like them to be. So you come up with a
whole set of questions like: “I know this guy is really good, but what is the one thing you'd counsel
him to improve?” Or you'd try to get them to reveal what were some of the deficiencies"""
I am by no means an old-school software guy, but I have distinct memories of when my dad worked in emerging software companies. And more importantly, back when Microsoft was 'cool'. It was like having free soda in the break rooms and awesome company picnics was -the- status symbol of a fun career.
Now, people much more junior expect all of that, plus crazy workplaces, free meals, free babysitting, free carwash, free haircuts, etc. I wonder what the current entry level software engineer ad at Microsoft looks like. Which is weird, at my school UW, they weren't even there at the CS career fair. Meanwhile FB was there with free t-shirts, Google had a giant android costumed guy waddling around, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. They all made it seem like you weren't even applying for jobs, and you weren't even expected to actually have to work.
Microsoft definitely helped define the techie dream workplace, even after they got 'huge'. Why did that have to change?
"Now, people much more junior expect all of that, plus crazy workplaces, free meals, free babysitting, free carwash, free haircuts, etc."
Junior or not, only a tiny percentage of people can get these perks. For example google recieves 1 million CVs a year approximately 5000 of which get a job offer (0.5%). (approximately 35% of those who are allowed to have a phone interview are allowed to the onsite interviews and approximately 25% of the 'onsite-interviewed' people get a job offer.)
That is totally true, but a very large percentage of those 1 million are people who simply have no chance of getting the job. Google is seen as a hot company and place to work for so it attracts a lot of resumes, much more than microsoft ever was...
I realize my comment is redundant because you already said "infographic", but that image is garbage. The salary numbers are incredibly misleading, since they ignore stock or are an arbitrary sample.
It sounds like a fun place to be, and just reinforces that this industry seems to endlessly spin around in circles.
I mean, when you read this and compare it to what you hear of MSFT today (via Mini, for example), it's not far off to compare it with Google who seems to be shifting from this to something more disciplined with Larry as the CEO. Extrapolating to what might happen to Facebook isn't far off either.
Sony had its own approach to this(citing Yoshide Nakamura):
Our company management felt that to prepare the company for the digital network era of the 21 century, it was important to have the most appropriate organizational structure in place. That was the core reason why we created our new structure. Sony is a large company now. Our worldwide consolidated sales are over $56 billion, with 170,000 employees, but in spirit we always try to be small venture company. We want to maintain this, So when Mr.Nabuyuki Idei became president in April 1995, he gave us two slogans: "Regeneration" and "Digital Dream Kids." Thats the spirit of being small and going back to when we started Sony in 1946. So we want to make Sony smaller. Instead of having this huge corporation, he wants to organize Sony into four divisional companies so that a small venture capital spirit can be brought into management
If you read a bit of Brooks, you'll see why this is indeed more or less inevitable - the addition of hierarchy reduces the communication costs in a growing organization.
Wasn't it pg who said that in early-stage startups you attract people who want to build a great company, but in later stage companies you attract people who want to work for a great company?
I think that cyclical is a much more accurate description than 'endlessly spin around in circles'. The latter implies no net progress, which I don't believe is really true.
Back in the 1980s, research showed individual offices for developers resulted in significantly higher productivity. [Peopleware has a good chapter on this, if I recall correctly.] This was a core part of MS culture until the mid-2000s, when overcrowding led to office sharing.
I intereviewed at MS as I was graduating college in 1983. My interview loop included Charles Simonyi and Steve Ballmer, who had just gotten a prerelease of the Tandy Model 100 mentioned in the OP and demoed it to me in the interview. It was definitely a programmer-centric world, in the best way; but people I talked to also had a very strong business focus as well. I turned down the job offer to go to grad school ... by the time I wound up there in 1999 after selling them my startup, it was a very different place.
If I see a job posting with the exact same wording Today, I will apply for the job. So much better than the standard "looking for a (ruby|python|c|javascript) (rockstar|ninja)" than it makes me cry!
I hate the term rockstar, and i dont think ninja's are good communicators...always sneaking about.
Seriously though, think of what a rockstar is like. High maintenance, on drugs, performs for a short period of time then expects a high payout, goes out late and misses gigs...i dont want a rockstar.
I want a WIZARD! I'm pretty sure wizards are reliable and old school...
Every time I've gone for an interview after seeing "rockstar" in the job description, it's gone poorly, and usually because I saw enough in 5 minutes (or less) to know I didn't want to work there.
Half the time the recruiter is so excited about the opportunity to bring "rockstar" candidates to such an awesome company that they seem to forget to actually read my resume, so I'm interviewing for a position that doesn't match my skill set at all.
In hackerspace its so cool to rail against MS and especially against Steve Ballmer.
The truth is that MS has always been a great company, on all accounts I have ever read on the matter it appears to me that MS is a kind of organization that any hacker would love to work for.
But its been a fifteen years from when MS was considered cool. Hip kids don't want to look at it. They don't even want to educate about it. So they go and work and sing praises to Google and FB, who have just now started to show their different, corporate nature.
And geeks have gone and given them the scepter of Power. And I find it ironic that these new hip companies represent a greater danger to computing, freedom and privacy than MS ever has.
They say that he who fails to learn the lessons of the past is doomed to repeat the same mistakes.
I do work for Microsoft, have been for a year and a month; and I very much enjoy working here. My manager is awesome and a programmer as well. In fact, most of the people here are or were programmers. They understand us. In my local team, we are still leniant, hours-wise, compared to the other company I've worked for. The most important thing is that the work needs to be get done.
That said, I share my ceiling-high-walled office with one other person and if we need privacy, we can close a physical door.
In all, from my experience, it's a great company to work for. I would recommend it to any of my friends that are seeking work.
Ballmer was back in the company then. People outside MSFT underestimate the technical know how of SteveB - he ran release management for the first version of Windows. He understands software. He might be doing a terrible job the last decade but that is not due to him being some 'MBA' stereotype.
Also - BillG really trusts Steve. They've worked together for over 25 years.
This is a really good point. Ballmer may not be the greatest CEO ever, but he does understand Microsoft products and what engineering goes on behind them. His interview in which he made fun of IBM wanting metrics like KLOC and judging quality by that shows that he had some clue even back then (~12-13 years ago).
"Your work won't be canceled due to some political/financial upheaval"
Don't think that is true anymore.
Wasn't there a post by a former project manager of Silverlight a while ago? While that may not be representative of Microsoft to that degree, I've worked with enough former Softies to know politics play a big role. Especially in the war between Office and Windows.
Not the software development teams in Redmond, at least as of 2007, though some of the support and administrative services certainly were. The goal was to give all dev team members their own private office. Interns and the more junior people (in terms of number of years at MSFT) are "doubled up" if there are insufficient spaces, but it is generally considered a bad thing and something management tries to minimize.
As of 2010 this is true AFAIK -- and it would be difficult to change seeing as many of the buildings are designed to maximize office space and lack the open spaces needed for cubicle farms.
It depends on what team you're on. Most (all?) of the older buildings in Redmond are private offices (and sometimes people are doubled up depending on space). I've seen cubicles in some of the newer buildings where Xbox/Zune people work.
It's lame to complain about being downvoted, but I'm genuinely curious why this was downvoted - it seems like it's nothing that I'd expect to be divisive, it's just blandly factual.
Yes it is. There might be some devs in cubicles somewhere, but I don't know any of them. Everyone I know at Microsoft has an office (including myself).
I have seen a building with some cubicles, but I don't know who uses those.
Cubes (a.k.a. "Collaberative Work Environments" a.k.a. "Workplace Advantage") are becoming more common.
In one case that I know far too much about they can get 150 people onto a floor that previously held 100 (at which point they are at the code limit for the width of the stairwells, which is in part determined by the number of people expected to use it for emergency egress)
I've been in non-office work environments 3 times in 10 years at MS, thankfully back in my own office now...
I haven't hard anyone talking about that, but with 92K employees, I obviously don't talk to everyone. I wonder what percentage of FTEs are actually in a cube or office sharing situation, though.
I've heard that the original set of MSFT buildings in Redmond (were they there in 1984? I don't know) were designed with maximizing the number of window offices in mind. They are shaped like an "X".
Yup. It's basically a route described as a list of hosts. One of the hosts is actually on the internet proper, and then the message would be transferred to each successive host along the way using whatever local links were available (including dialup modems) using a store and forward protocol.
As dedicated internet access became more common UUCP became obsolete.
decvax was DEC unix engineering groups vax on uucp/usenet. I believe it was the first system to move email in realtime. Microsoft must have been linked through this vax.
Speculation: you could easily get to the #1 spot on HN with a blog entitled "From Wizards to Rockstars: what's wrong with the motivation of the current generation of technologists".
Rockstars are not such a bad model to emulate for hackers. Most rockstars are talented, passionate about their craft, spend at least a decade just honing their abilities through constant practice, spend years grinding on their projects in relative obscurity and poverty until they finally find something that resonates with the public and/or gain enough exposure to attain popularity and success after which they work even harder to capitalize on it making art and experiences that stand the test of time and attain a commensurate level of recognition, appreciation, and financial reward.
The cartoon image of rockstars as the idle rich with some inborn exceptional talent or some luck of fate that allows them to attain a life of fame and fortune with very little effort is, of course, a much less noble behavioral model to want to emulate.
In the software context it has both meanings, which is the source of conflict over the term. An employer advertising they want "rockstar" programmers does not intend to hire prima donna's, even though that's what they may end up getting.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it, given all the startups that exist today i'm very glad people are reading this job posting.
Your cool company today can change significantly, and maybe thats ok...but it is a little sad, i think you'd struggle to get a similar recommendation for MS these days.
They still put their SDEs, SDETs, and PMs in private offices. There are some cubicles on the Redmond campus, but they are the exception, and I've never talked to anyone who who had a cube.
How many of you heard Dire Straits in their head when you read that they had Microwave ovens? I would even go so far as to assume that some rooms had colour TVs.
"""I can remember going to the first Microsoft Company picnic in 1988. There were only two children. Microsoft had 1,800 employees and there were only a couple of them that were married. You had all these young kids who weren't married and were right out of school. IBM had conventional dress codes; Microsoft - it was very much like a college campus. The only difference in how they lived, the hours they kept and the way they dressed, between a college campus and Microsoft was that Microsoft bought the equipment. They all wore their shorts and half of them wore sandals or no shoes. Microsoft bought a lot of T-shirts and things for them. There weren't set hours - the management system was to let people pick or sign up for what they were going to do, and it was up to them to do it. So there was very little management attention over directing people or telling them what to do - it was a very empowered work force. And my suspicion was that that was the way IBM was in the 1930s and 1940s. They were much more formal, because the time was much more formal in terms of dress. But in terms of the ages and the attitudes and the mission the people were on - I think it would be a lot the same."""