Ryan Block thinks Bill Gates should replace Ballmer at Microsoft:
How long can Ballmer’s bluster substitute for real leadership, and how much dumb money can Microsoft throw at its “strategy?” Former GM at Microsoft (and now SVP at Google) Vic Gundotra recently said of Microsoft’s partnership with Nokia, “Two turkeys don’t make an eagle.” And he’s absolutely right, no amount of Dangers and Skypes and Nokias and RIMs and any other outsized, bloated multi-billion dollar acquisitions can make up for vision at the helm. Bill doesn’t have a spotless track record either, but he’s a master at making calculated gambles on people and projects that break new ground and define the future.
They’d be a hell of a lot better off. Microsoft’s problem is Ballmer isn’t a technology guy, he’s a business guy (and I’m a business student). He isn’t fundamentally interested in what Microsoft’s making; he gets excited by selling. That might work in other lines of business, but for technology companies (particularly consumer technology companies), that’s a brilliant way to lead a company into a ditch. Ballmer doesn’t sit up at night thinking about where computers are going and how they can make the world a better place. He’s thinking about how he can sell more Windows licenses and copies of Microsoft Office.
Microsoft doesn’t have a talent problem. They have a leadership problem. Because Ballmer doesn’t get excited by the technology and what it means, he has no vision for where computers are going and thus where Microsoft should be going. He doesn’t see opportunities for Microsoft to innovate and fundamentally change things; he just sees business opportunities. That’s why Microsoft seems so directionless: they are.
They need someone with vision, who’s willing to take risks and bet the company on things. Someone who will say, this is how it is going to be and this is what we’re going to do, even if it upends the company as it is. Microsoft might fail doing that, but that’s the only way they’re going to be relevant in a decade.