new | show | ask | jobs Github

bluegatty 4 hours ago

I have struggle to understand how someone could come to that conclusion, maybe I missed something?

The email is a 'rant'.

It's a 'list of broken stuff'.

It's not:

1) identifying underlying first principles of design or UX that have been broken

2) not identifying which parts of the system may have resulted in the negative outcome

3) not reference for either operational or cultural that were braoched or need to be address

4) not at all cognizant of systemic concern at all.

5) didn't allocate responsibility, hint at how to organized a response, what structural issues need to be in place.

It's actually a really bad an embarrassing lack of leadership.

It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.

He 'made a list of complaints and threw them onto the org.' - who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.

'Dear Leader, doesn't like how the picture frames are set in the office! Fire the picture framers, everyone get out your rulers and fix the picture frames'.

This is really common and it happens because people have this magical belief that the 'founder' or 'ceo' has 'special powers and insight' and then issues roll down hill among sycophants and yes men, trying to appease.

A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this', hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught, an attempt for accountability in certain areas (divide the concern), a requirement to convene on this issues and make sure everyone understands what's important. Especially and including the fact that anyone responsible for a product actually has to 'use it' aka dogfooding or else etc etc..

▲

thinkling 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In 2003, Gates was no longer CEO; I think he was President of the Board and something like "Special Advisor"? None of the people involved reported to him, so he may actually correctly have felt he could not tell them what to do?--so he stuck to venting his frustration.

	▲	bahmboo 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Exactly. bluegatty has great points for a CEO role but Bill stopped being CEO in 2000 three years earlier. The board and advisors cannot direct the company internally - this is by law. Separation of oversight and management. They can tell the CEO what to do but the CEO decides. Then they can fire the ceo if they don’t like it.
	▲	Gagarin1917 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If the President of the board has an issue with how the company is fundamentally operating, they go to the CEO. If the CEO doesn’t understand or doesn’t prioritize the concerns of the board, then they get replaced. He’s may not have been the CEO… but he was the boss of the CEO and represented all the individual owners of the company.

▲

dpark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.

It is absolutely a user rant, but it's entirely appropriate for a leader to call out "this is not okay; this is a garbage experience".

> who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.

That was the intent. "Fix this." This was an email to a bunch of execs who are capable of driving the actual fixes. If Gates needs to hand hold them through this then they need to be replaced.

> A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this'

This is vacuous corporate speak, the kind of message you send to shareholders to soothe them. This is not leadership.

> hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught...

Again, if Gates needs to do this then everyone on the To line is dead weight.

▲

bluegatty 2 hours ago | parent [-]

completely disagree

1) sending the org into a reactive frenzy on the minor issue when the structural issue is the problem - is bad. He's also pointing them at the symptom and not the cause.

2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.

Gates failed to institute 'design and usability' as a fundamental aspect of the product and operational culture.

The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.

3) "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job.

	▲	dpark 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> sending the org into a reactive frenzy I don’t see an actual “reactive frenzy” here. I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess. And again, these are execs being paid millions. They do not need to be coddled. You are acting as if Gates sent this to a bunch of junior engineers. > ‘taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome. It’s absolutely vacuous to say 'I take responsibility for this' when you are telling a group of people they need to fix their shit. Any CVP/EVP who fails at a job and then hears someone above them take responsibility for the failure knows they are about to be out of a job. > The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing. If by underling you mean “highly paid executives” then sure. At some point people have to take responsibility for their jobs. This wasn’t a failure of some individual engineers. It was a collective failure of a group of executives to deliver a good experience. > "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job It’s literally not. That’s not what CEOs of large corporations do and Gates wasn’t even CEO at this time. He was in an advisory role. His job was literally to give feedback.
	▲	robotpepi 34 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> 2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome. Tbh it seems like you're autistic and simply don't understand how such a "o take responsibility" message really looks like and what effect it'd have.

▲

russelldjimmy 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Thanks for this reply. I learned something today!

▲

windowshopping 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really good reply, well put

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]