Microsoft reviews

The bell-curve approach to assigning review scores that Microsoft uses is designed to promote competition. In reality though, especially on a team of top-performers, the folks on the left side of the curve end up feeling more dis-couraged than en-couraged to compete. Creating a competitive culture where employees must stand out relative to their peers can negatively impact teamwork & cooperation as well since those seeking a good review will spend extra effort trying to get noticed for *their* contributions. This flies in the face of advice given by renouned leadership gurus Dale Carnegie & Stephen Covey--ironically, training/books that Microsoft provides to its employees. Another downside I've noticed is that the company places a very high value on raw intelligence but a lot less value on leadership, management ability and human relations. Perhaps less so now than in the past, but still Microsoft has many managers who were previously programmers who ended up in management due more to their seniority than their suitability as managers/leaders. If you work for one of these managers, your career can suffer, especially if there are better managers whose employees are getting better career advice/support/internal PR, etc. within the group you're measured against.

* Without a doubt, the most critical work environment I have ever worked. Very few "attaboys". If 95% is working and 5% needs improvement, the focus is on the 5% * Never worked in a place where people are as fungible as here. It's burn em and churn em at it's worst * Very little appreciation for all the hard work that employees put out. In the end, you're just a cog in a wheel *Most email-centric culture I ever worked in. Everyone emails everyone all the time and copies half the world. On many occasions, I would see an email trail that could have been stopped 3 days ago if the two principals to the issue has just bothered to have a 3 minute conversation. People sitting literally next door to each other will email one another rather than talk to each other! * Very self service environment. Very little administrative support except at the highest levels (GM and above). Everyone else is on their own. Be prepared to make your own calendar invites and copies and travel arrangements by yourself......frequently * Career ladder and job family information doesn't mean enough. Too often, promotions and career advancement are based on good old fashioned politics and who do you know. * Work/life balance is a crock. More like work/life blend! And in the end, your family pays. Even when you are home, you're often not available because you're expected to be on email at night. Especially true if your job has any global scope. Then expect doing emails from home until 11 pm and then when you get up at 6 am, there are 30-40 emails from other parts of the world that will need your attention (because of course, once the email has been sent, the monkey is off the senders back and on yours even if you haven't had the time to address the issues. * Too many meeting and not enough time to get work done (except at night and on weekends) * Still too much reliance on stock as part of compensation package without the realization that the stock hasn't performed well for about 10 years. This comes from the top (Steve Ballmer) who hasn't owned up to the fact that incentive targets are out of whack with the market (except at GM level and above at which point, you are golden). Need to up the incentive targets at levels close to Director. *Company made a big mistake having first ever layoffs at time of still huge multi-billion dollar profits per quarter. Sent a clear message that people don't matter and this will come back to haunt them when the hiring market improves.