Question

WRITTEN CASE ANALYSIS SECTIONS At a minimum, the following sections are to be included in each written case analysis. Full discussions, explanations, reasoning, and support are to be included as to demonstrate to the reader the student’s complete understanding, knowledge, and competencies of all areas of business.

Complete SWOT Analysis

Competitors –direct and indirect

CHRISTOPOHER A. BARTLETT

Microsoft: Competing on Talent (A)

In the summer of 1999, a front-page Wall Street Journal article was attracting attention on the

Redmond campus. Under the headline “As Microsoft Matures, Some Top Talent Chooses to Go Off

Line,” the article reported: “Tired of grueling deadlines, frustrated by the bureaucracy that has

accompanied Microsoft’s explosive growth, or lured away by the boom in high-tech start-ups, dozens

of the company’s most capable leaders, all around 40, have opted out—at least temporarily . . .”i (See

Exhibit 1 for the article’s list of senior level departures.)

Steve Ballmer, the company’s recently appointed president and COO, was quoted as saying that

some of the departures were voluntary and some were not, opening opportunities for fresher,

smarter replacements. “We have a bench that is very deep,” he said. “We have people who are fired

up—driven—to lead the next generation.”ii Yet despite the positive outlook, Ballmer clearly

recognized that Microsoft had to change or adapt some of the human resource practices that had

allowed it to assemble and retain what CEO Bill Gates proudly called “the best team of software

professionals the world has ever seen.” Just six weeks before the WSJ article was published, Ballmer

had announced a package of changes that sweetened salaries, allowed more frequent promotions,

and softened some of the pressures that had long been part of the” hard-core” Microsoft culture.

Still, there were some who wondered if the rumblings in the senior management ranks reported

by the WSJ were not the signs of larger looming problems for Microsoft. It was a question taken very

seriously by Gates and Ballmer who understood very well that the company’s enormous success was

largely due to its ability to recruit, motivate, and retain extraordinary talent.

the company’s growth led to changes in the way such policies were managed in the 1990s—and

sometimes to changes in the policies themselves. (See Exhibit 2 for Microsoft’s growth profile.)

Recruiting: Attracting the Best and Brightest

Gates had long recognized that it took exceptional people to write outstanding software. His

preference for hiring extremely intelligent, not necessarily experienced, new college graduates dated

from Microsoft’s start-up days, when he and co-founder Paul Allen recruited the brightest people

they knew from school—their “smart friends.” In subsequent years, the importance of recruiting well was constantly reinforced by Gates, who considered helping his managers hire the best of all possible

candidates as his greatest accomplishment. “We’re in the intellectual property business,” he told

them. “It’s the effectiveness of our developers that determines our success.” Underlining the

importance of hiring and retaining superior talent, in 1992 Gates acknowledged: “Take our 20 best

people away, and I will tell you that Microsoft will become an unimportant company.”iii

For Gates, acquired knowledge was less important than “smarts”—the ability to think creatively;

and experience was less important than ambition—the drive to get things done. Above all, however,

he wanted to use recruiting to continually raise the bar. “I’d have to say my best business decisions

have had to do with picking people,” he said. “Deciding to go into business with Paul Allen is

probably at the top of the list, and subsequently, hiring a friend—Steve Ballmer—who has been my

primary business partner ever since.” As Fortune magazine once observed, “Microsoft has been led

by a man widely recognized as a genius in his own right, who has had the foresight to recognize the

genius in others.”iv Almost from the day he was hired as assistant to the president in 1980, one of Steve Ballmer’s

primary responsibilities was to act as recruiting coordinator. It was an assignment he particularly

relished. According to one senior manager, “Steve’s mantra was, ‘We want people who are smart,

who work hard, and who get things done.’ That simple mantra is something that people still talk

about today.” And once the smartest, most driven were identified, Ballmer and his team were

relentless in getting them on board. “There’s a standing policy here,” said Ballmer, “whenever you

meet a kick-ass guy, get him. . . . There are some people you meet only once in a lifetime. So why

screw around?” In Fortune’s assessment, “The deliberate way in which [Gates] has fashioned an

organization that prizes smart people is the single most important, and the most consistently

overlooked aspect of Microsoft’s success.”v

Although the need for experienced managers led the company to recruit some key people from

other companies, in the early days Microsoft’s favorite recruiting grounds were elite educational

institutions, particularly Harvard, Yale, MIT, Carnegie-Melon, Stanford, and a few highly targeted

others. As growth increased recruiting needs, the net spread wider, eventually targeting 15

universities in the United States, four in Canada, and six in Japan. Microsoft recruiters made visits to

each of these schools in search of the most brilliant, driven students—“once-in-a-lifetime” people—

paying little attention to prior experience. Indeed the company preferred people who didn’t have to

unlearn different company values, work habits, or technological approaches.

Before being hired, however, every candidate had to survive an intense interview process that

many found quite harrowing. Each candidate was interviewed by at least 3, and sometimes up to 10,

Microsoft employees. During the interview, the candidates were tested more on their thought

processes, problem-solving abilities, and work habits than on specific knowledge or experience. And

because developers played such an important role in Microsoft—writing the lines of code that were

Microsoft products—their recruiting process was particularly rigorous.

Technical interviews typically focused on programming problems that candidates were expected

to answer by writing code. Some managers posed scenarios with key information missing to see if

the candidate would ask for data or just move straight to a solution. Then they might throw in an

oddball question like, “How many times does the average person use the word ‘the’ in a day?” meant

to test the candidate’s deductive reasoning, creative problem solving, and composure. If a candidate

gave such questions 30 seconds of thought and said they didn’t know, the interview was effectively

over. If they were incapable of creative problem solving, they were not an appropriate candidate.

Next, an unfamiliar but practical problem—for example, describe the perfect TV remote control—

might be thrown in to see how the candidates broke down the problem, how simple or complex they

made the solution, and if that solution solved customer needs.

As soon as the interview was over, each interviewer would send e-mail to all other interviewers,

starting with the words “Hire” or “No Hire,” followed by specific feedback and suggestions for

follow-up. There was no “gray area”—a good candidate who just cleared the bar was a “No Hire.”

Based on earlier e-mails, people interviewing later in the afternoon would refine their questions to

drill down in areas where the earlier interviewers thought the candidate was weak. The purpose of

the interviews was to push the candidates until they failed, to get a full understanding of both their

strengths and their limitations. (See Exhibit 3 for an interview feedback email.)

After all the input was in, the hiring decision had to pass two screens. If the reviews were

favorable overall, a final, end-of-the-day interview with the candidate’s prospective manager was

scheduled. Based on his or her own impressions and the comments from other people in the group,

the prospective manager then made the hire/no hire recommendation. But to assure that only top

candidates were hired, a so-called “as appropriate” interviewer was also involved in the interviewing

process. A senior manager explained:

Very often, the “as appropriate” interviewer is a person who is outside the hiring group, a

person really solidly grounded in Microsoft culture and committed to making sure that we hire

only those who are going to be good Microsoft people, not just good people for specific jobs.

That person has veto power, which puts a system of checks and balances in, because the hiring

manager may feel a lot of pressure to fill a job, while the “as appropriate” interviewer doesn’t.

Microsoft’s tight control on headcount further reinforced the pressure to resist settling for the

merely satisfactory candidate. Even in the early days, when the company was growing extremely

rapidly, Gates and Ballmer insisted on hiring fewer employees than were actually required to carry

out the work. The internal code for this philosophy was “n minus 1,” where n was the number of

people really needed. Said one senior HR manager:

[Beyond hiring smart, driven people] the second principle Steve Ballmer was preaching was

that the default decision on a candidate is “no-hire.” In other words, unless you can identify a

clear reason why we should hire this person, we should not hire him or her. . . . That principle

has been really important in keeping the bar high and our selection ratio very low.

The company’s credo was that an adequate but not outstanding new employee was worse than a

disastrous appointment. “If you have somebody who’s mediocre, who just sort of gets by on the

job,” Gates explained to Microsoft managers, “then we’re in big trouble.” The “big trouble” Gates

saw was that, while poor performers were quickly weeded out, a mediocre employee might continue

to occupy a place that could be filled by someone brilliant.

Answer 1

To make an appropriate case analyses, firstly, reader should mark the important problems that are happening in the organization. There may be multiple problems that can be faced by any organization. Secondly, after identifying problems in the company, identify the most concerned and important problem that needed to be focused.

Firstly, the introduction is written. After having a clear idea of what is defined in the case, we deliver it to the reader. It is better to start the introduction from any historical or social context. The challenging diagnosis for Microsoft Competing on Talent A and the management of information is needed to be provided. However, introduction should not be longer than 6-7 lines in a paragraph. As the most important objective is to convey the most important message for to the reader.

After introduction, problem statement is defined. In the problem statement, the company’s most important problem and constraints to solve these problems should be define clearly. However, the problem should be concisely define in no more than a paragraph. After defining the problems and constraints, analysis of the case study is begin.

SWOT Analysis of the Microsoft Competing on Talent A HBR Case Solution:

SWOT analysis helps the business to identify its strengths and weaknesses, as well as understanding of opportunity that can be availed and the threat that the company is facing. SWOT for Microsoft Competing on Talent A is a powerful tool of analysis as it provide a thought to uncover and exploit the opportunities that can be used to increase and enhance company’s operations. In addition, it also identifies the weaknesses of the organization that will help to be eliminated and manage the threats that would catch the attention of the management.

This strategy helps the company to make any strategy that would differentiate the company from competitors, so that the organization can compete successfully in the industry. The strengths and weaknesses are obtained from internal organization. Whereas, the opportunities and threats are generally related from external environment of organization. Moreover, it is also called Internal-External Analysis.

STRENGTHS:

In the strengths, management should identify the following points exists in the organization:

• Advantages of the organization
• Activities of the company better than competitors.
• Unique resources and low cost resources company have.
• Activities and resources market sees as the company’s strength.
• Unique selling proposition of the company.

WEAKNESSES:

• Improvement that could be done.
• Activities that can be avoided for Microsoft Competing on Talent A.
• Activities that can be determined as your weakness in the market.
• Factors that can reduce the sales.
• Competitor’s activities that can be seen as your weakness.

OPPORTUNITIES:

• Good opportunities that can be spotted.
• Interesting trends of industry.
• Opportunities for Microsoft Competing on Talent A can be obtained from things such as:
  • Change in technology and market strategies
  • Government policy changes that is related to the company’s field
  • Changes in social patterns and lifestyles.
  • Local events.

THREATS:

Following points can be identified as a threat to company:

• Company’s facing obstacles.
• Activities of competitors.
• Product and services quality standards
• Threat from changing technologies
• Financial/cash flow problems
• Weakness that threaten the business.

Following points should be considered when applying SWOT to the analysis:

• Precise and verifiable phrases should be sued.
• Prioritize the points under each head, so that management can identify which step has to be taken first.
• Apply the analyses at proposed level. Clear yourself first that on what basis you have to apply SWOT matrix.
• Make sure that points identified should carry itself with strategy formulation process.
• Use particular terms (like USP, Core Competencies Analyses etc.) to get a comprehensive picture of analyses.