It all makes a certain amount of sense I guess, but the idea of writing a big long blog post defending the honor of a retired CEO just seems a little odd to me. Tech bros in general seem a little...
It all makes a certain amount of sense I guess, but the idea of writing a big long blog post defending the honor of a retired CEO just seems a little odd to me. Tech bros in general seem a little hung-up on the Great Man theory of history, don't they?
Some people will argue on who was the best Roman emperor, or who was the most competent director of the KGB. That usually does not mean that they believe Roman emperors and KGB directors are...
Some people will argue on who was the best Roman emperor, or who was the most competent director of the KGB. That usually does not mean that they believe Roman emperors and KGB directors are morally virtuous. Some just like the record to represent reality. Accurate records are useful for many endeavors. In any case, I would venture that "evil Microsoft CEO" is likely more morally virtuous than KGB directors and Roman emperors.
to be clear, the Great Man theory of history does not entail thinking the eponymous Great Men are good or virtuous. The "Great" is referring not to their moral virtue, but to the scale of their...
to be clear, the Great Man theory of history does not entail thinking the eponymous Great Men are good or virtuous. The "Great" is referring not to their moral virtue, but to the scale of their (at least perceived) effect on history. Focusing on uniquely special horrible people is just as much playing into the Great Man theory of history as focusing on uniquely special good people.
I'm aware (and I'm not sure why you even need to specify "Western" cultures), but that's not the part of the discussion I was addressing. My point is that those who are arguing over the best...
I'm aware (and I'm not sure why you even need to specify "Western" cultures), but that's not the part of the discussion I was addressing. My point is that those who are arguing over the best dictators are also subscribing, to at least some extent, to the Great Man theory of history.
I'm mostly just pointing out that the Great Man theory of history applies regardless of the moral value of the individuals you frame as being highly influential or unique figures. While it's often...
I'm mostly just pointing out that the Great Man theory of history applies regardless of the moral value of the individuals you frame as being highly influential or unique figures. While it's often described in terms of great heroes, the treatment of great villains is clearly the same -- and indeed, the difference between the two is very dependent on your point of view. The classic quote describing this framework for thinking about history is Thomas Carlyle's "The History of the world is but the Biography of great men."
In my comments prior to this, I haven't been arguing against this theory (though I definitely prefer historical materialism as a framework for analyzing history). The arguments against the Great Man theory of history are pretty well-known, as they've been a thing since the 19th century just like the theory itself, but none of them are that there is no difference between different people in positions of leadership.
That's okay. I think I got a little confused because I was never discussing "Grand man theory" before so in trying to understand why it was relevant to my comment I gave you a bad response. Sorry...
That's okay. I think I got a little confused because I was never discussing "Grand man theory" before so in trying to understand why it was relevant to my comment I gave you a bad response. Sorry about that.
No worries, it can be hard to glean context online. It seemed to me like you were at least partially responding to Promonk's point about the Great Man theory of history, which is why I mentioned...
No worries, it can be hard to glean context online. It seemed to me like you were at least partially responding to Promonk's point about the Great Man theory of history, which is why I mentioned it at all.
Ha! I get your point, but I'm looking at it this way: I like Dan Luu's writing, and he seems like the kind of influential tech nerd (maybe bro territory too) who wants to correct the record when...
Ha! I get your point, but I'm looking at it this way: I like Dan Luu's writing, and he seems like the kind of influential tech nerd (maybe bro territory too) who wants to correct the record when he changes his opinion. It really is funny though, like you said, from the perspective of "rehabilitating" Ballmer of all people.
I didn't know Ballmer was a particularly contentious figure. I knew that people questioned some of things MS floated under his tenure, but as Luu points out, technological advancement entails a...
I didn't know Ballmer was a particularly contentious figure. I knew that people questioned some of things MS floated under his tenure, but as Luu points out, technological advancement entails a certain amount of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. I figured most people who follow tech judged Ballmer's performance in that light, but perhaps I'm out of the loop that way.
Amongst other things, Ballmer really pushed stack ranking employees at Microsoft. It creates serious problems when someone on every team must be fired every year. The collaboration incentives...
Amongst other things, Ballmer really pushed stack ranking employees at Microsoft. It creates serious problems when someone on every team must be fired every year. The collaboration incentives disappear and people get toxic because that's how employees guarantee they're on the upper half of that stack.
I'd forgotten about that. Yeah, that's pretty boneheaded. It explains quite a bit about how MS's various product categories interacted in those days, too. Alright, you've convinced me. Ballmer's...
I'd forgotten about that. Yeah, that's pretty boneheaded. It explains quite a bit about how MS's various product categories interacted in those days, too.
Alright, you've convinced me. Ballmer's off my fantasy CEO roster.
I must be out of the loop as well. He definitely fits the eccentric multi-billionaire mold, but he has seemed overall nontoxic enough that I've assumed he's benign.
I must be out of the loop as well. He definitely fits the eccentric multi-billionaire mold, but he has seemed overall nontoxic enough that I've assumed he's benign.
I don’t think anyone is accusing Balmer of being a bad guy, but whether or not he was benign to Microsoft’s prospects as a company is another question.
I don’t think anyone is accusing Balmer of being a bad guy, but whether or not he was benign to Microsoft’s prospects as a company is another question.
I think the author is right that Ballmer was an effective CEO. He took over when MS was dealing with anti-trust enforcement and seemed to navigate it well. He then went on to grow profits by quite...
I think the author is right that Ballmer was an effective CEO. He took over when MS was dealing with anti-trust enforcement and seemed to navigate it well. He then went on to grow profits by quite a lot. He's undoubtedly a capitalist success story.
I want to add though... I don't have the kind of inside knowledge to say what kind of guy Ballmer was, but he famously hated open source (calling it a cancer and the community communist). The tech community didn't love that, or the MS lawsuits against open source companies.
In addition you have MS' history of anti-competitive practices, much of which they were never punished for, and the ones they did get slapped over were all brought back in slightly different forms after they waited for regulators and the public to move on. MS was also a pioneer of the now famous "embrace, extend, extinguish" corporate strategy.
That's not all on Ballmer of course, Gates was ruthless and built the culture, but Ballmer didn't really change course, he was just careful to avoid scrutiny for a while.
It's easy to forget that MS was the OG big evil tech company, they were abusing their monopoly before anyone else in tech had a monopoly to abuse. Windows telemetry has been dystopian since before being concerned about tech surveillance was even on the public's radar. Ballmer presided over a lot of it.
Not necessarily relevant, but he always seemed obnoxious to me, he's famous for screaming and freaking out. He reportedly once yelled so loudly at a sales meeting that he ripped his vocal chords and needed surgery. Not on a stage, mind you, where he did a lot of screaming too, but at a sales meeting with other humans with eardrums.
None of this is an argument against the OP blog's claim that Ballmer was a good CEO. Just wanted to add some context since the relatively benign reputation present day MS has compared to other tech companies is not representative of the Ballmer years.
Holy cow. This really happened. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/books/the-life-of-monkeyboy.html
He reportedly once yelled so loudly at a sales meeting that he ripped his vocal chords and needed surgery.
Holy cow. This really happened.
Ballmer's monkeyboy act seemed freakish to the uninitiated, but those who knew him were not surprised. Ballmer had, after all, once shouted ''Windows! Windows!'' so furiously at a sales meeting in Japan that he ripped his vocal cords, requiring surgery. And industry rivals who have negotiated with, or competed against, the linebacker-size Ballmer trade tales of his chilling intensity. One C.E.O., treated to a good-cop, bad-cop routine from Bill Gates and Ballmer, called the pair ''the Pearly Gates and the Em-balmer: one sets you up for heaven and the other prepares you for death.''
It all makes a certain amount of sense I guess, but the idea of writing a big long blog post defending the honor of a retired CEO just seems a little odd to me. Tech bros in general seem a little hung-up on the Great Man theory of history, don't they?
Some people will argue on who was the best Roman emperor, or who was the most competent director of the KGB. That usually does not mean that they believe Roman emperors and KGB directors are morally virtuous. Some just like the record to represent reality. Accurate records are useful for many endeavors. In any case, I would venture that "evil Microsoft CEO" is likely more morally virtuous than KGB directors and Roman emperors.
to be clear, the Great Man theory of history does not entail thinking the eponymous Great Men are good or virtuous. The "Great" is referring not to their moral virtue, but to the scale of their (at least perceived) effect on history. Focusing on uniquely special horrible people is just as much playing into the Great Man theory of history as focusing on uniquely special good people.
The concept of honor entails moral virtue in western cultures.
I'm aware (and I'm not sure why you even need to specify "Western" cultures), but that's not the part of the discussion I was addressing. My point is that those who are arguing over the best dictators are also subscribing, to at least some extent, to the Great Man theory of history.
I think you're exaggerating an idea of what you think I've said to a point of absurdity rather than engaging with what I've said.
I'm mostly just pointing out that the Great Man theory of history applies regardless of the moral value of the individuals you frame as being highly influential or unique figures. While it's often described in terms of great heroes, the treatment of great villains is clearly the same -- and indeed, the difference between the two is very dependent on your point of view. The classic quote describing this framework for thinking about history is Thomas Carlyle's "The History of the world is but the Biography of great men."
In my comments prior to this, I haven't been arguing against this theory (though I definitely prefer historical materialism as a framework for analyzing history). The arguments against the Great Man theory of history are pretty well-known, as they've been a thing since the 19th century just like the theory itself, but none of them are that there is no difference between different people in positions of leadership.
That's okay. I think I got a little confused because I was never discussing "Grand man theory" before so in trying to understand why it was relevant to my comment I gave you a bad response. Sorry about that.
No worries, it can be hard to glean context online. It seemed to me like you were at least partially responding to Promonk's point about the Great Man theory of history, which is why I mentioned it at all.
Ha! I get your point, but I'm looking at it this way: I like Dan Luu's writing, and he seems like the kind of influential tech nerd (maybe bro territory too) who wants to correct the record when he changes his opinion. It really is funny though, like you said, from the perspective of "rehabilitating" Ballmer of all people.
I didn't know Ballmer was a particularly contentious figure. I knew that people questioned some of things MS floated under his tenure, but as Luu points out, technological advancement entails a certain amount of throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. I figured most people who follow tech judged Ballmer's performance in that light, but perhaps I'm out of the loop that way.
Amongst other things, Ballmer really pushed stack ranking employees at Microsoft. It creates serious problems when someone on every team must be fired every year. The collaboration incentives disappear and people get toxic because that's how employees guarantee they're on the upper half of that stack.
This is part of where the famous "developers developers developers" comes from: https://youtu.be/hMLcKtVwF-A?si=A8ySPzX4zxOipKqz
I'd forgotten about that. Yeah, that's pretty boneheaded. It explains quite a bit about how MS's various product categories interacted in those days, too.
Alright, you've convinced me. Ballmer's off my fantasy CEO roster.
I must be out of the loop as well. He definitely fits the eccentric multi-billionaire mold, but he has seemed overall nontoxic enough that I've assumed he's benign.
I don’t think anyone is accusing Balmer of being a bad guy, but whether or not he was benign to Microsoft’s prospects as a company is another question.
Yeah, that was my read as well.
I think the author is right that Ballmer was an effective CEO. He took over when MS was dealing with anti-trust enforcement and seemed to navigate it well. He then went on to grow profits by quite a lot. He's undoubtedly a capitalist success story.
I want to add though... I don't have the kind of inside knowledge to say what kind of guy Ballmer was, but he famously hated open source (calling it a cancer and the community communist). The tech community didn't love that, or the MS lawsuits against open source companies.
In addition you have MS' history of anti-competitive practices, much of which they were never punished for, and the ones they did get slapped over were all brought back in slightly different forms after they waited for regulators and the public to move on. MS was also a pioneer of the now famous "embrace, extend, extinguish" corporate strategy.
That's not all on Ballmer of course, Gates was ruthless and built the culture, but Ballmer didn't really change course, he was just careful to avoid scrutiny for a while.
It's easy to forget that MS was the OG big evil tech company, they were abusing their monopoly before anyone else in tech had a monopoly to abuse. Windows telemetry has been dystopian since before being concerned about tech surveillance was even on the public's radar. Ballmer presided over a lot of it.
Not necessarily relevant, but he always seemed obnoxious to me, he's famous for screaming and freaking out. He reportedly once yelled so loudly at a sales meeting that he ripped his vocal chords and needed surgery. Not on a stage, mind you, where he did a lot of screaming too, but at a sales meeting with other humans with eardrums.
None of this is an argument against the OP blog's claim that Ballmer was a good CEO. Just wanted to add some context since the relatively benign reputation present day MS has compared to other tech companies is not representative of the Ballmer years.
Holy cow. This really happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/books/the-life-of-monkeyboy.html