submerge
Submerge - On more than one occasion I’ve heard a Microsoft executive claim “We are always just 18 months away from extinction”. To most here, that is stating the obvious, but sometimes such comments are used to convey a sense of urgency to new recruits. Certain journalists and authors will tell you that this mentality is a paranoid delusion that is not suitable for an established and respectable company. But always remember that they don’t work at Microsoft every day, and they don’t really know. Every day is a matter of survival.
Last January, many of these same journalists were talking about how bright Enron’s future was. George Bush had just taken office, and if any company expected a quid pro quo, it was Enron. Enron’s president is a long-time personal friend of G.W. Enron’s revenues far exceeded Microsoft’s, and Enron had no massive lawsuits tying it down. Enron was based in a fairly stable industry sector, less prone to volatility like the tech sector. Enron was hugely multinational, having a near monopoly in energy trading in certain parts of Europe. And mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector were driving journalists into apoplectic frenzies about the lack of competition. With all of these advantages, Enron was seemingly unassailable in it’s position as 7th largest corporation.
Now fast-forward less than a year. If you had put a million dollars into Enron just six months ago, you would not even be able to buy a good bicycle today. Nobody even wants to do business with Enron, let alone acquire the company. Enron has been dumped from the prestigious S&P 500 and is now a penny stock. All of this in less than a year.
So what happened to all of the quid pros? Why were we misled by the conventional “wisdom” about oil companies and Texas Republicans? You can count on this; when the journalists finally come up with their explanations, they’ll probably be just as wrong as they were when they claimed that Enron had cemented it’s dominance by buying a throne for King George. The sad fact is, most of the commentators don’t know the slightest thing about Enron’s business. They don’t work at Enron, they don’t have to take responsibility for satisfying Enron’s customers, and they don’t have to take responsibility for delivering profits to shareholders. Heck, it looks like the executives at Enron didn’t even have a very tight grip on what it takes for their business to be successful. So how could we expect a poli-sci/english major who writes copy for a living to know better? The main goal of the analysts and journalists right now is going to be defending their own damaged credibility. This won’t be too difficult, considering that they own the conversation; and Enron is constrained by law and professionalism from talking about many of the things that the pundits speculate so freely on.
The answer is, we can’t and we shouldn’t. When career commentators and storytellers explain to you the ramifications of something regarding Microsoft, remind yourself that they don’t work at Microsoft, and they don’t know the impact that such things are already having every day on people’s work. The trade rags are replete with speculation about various legal settlements, usually from commentators who cannot resist framing an agreement in terms of “victory” or “defeat”. These pundits know rhetoric, but don’t mistake that for knowing business or law. And, above all, don’t make the mistake of thinking that they have any firsthand experience of what sort of impact people within Microsoft may or may not be feeling.