Business ecology report
Bill Gates - should charity begin at home?
I wonder did any of you read John Gapper's article on the 20th September entitled 'Microsoft's problem is close to home.'
It brought home to me something that has niggled for some time. There appears to be a complete inconsistency between Bill Gates the man, and Bill Gates the father of Microsoft,
As a man Bill Gates seems intent on using his wealth to good effect. He lives relatively modestly and has put half of his fortune towards charitable causes.
Bill Gates also appears to be very conscious of setting a standard in his family - apparently he has put a cap on the amount his children will inherit - seeming to understand how wealth can corrupt.
He does not appear to feel the same need to be a role model to his other, 32 year old child - Microsoft. Instead of encouraging the organisation to create an open ethos of learning and development, it has taken a defensive, protectionist stance.
As John Gapper explains, 'Microsoft is adept at treating competitors as 'frenemies'....it is friendly as long as they help to reinforce its software franchise, but shuts them out when they start to be a threat.'
Microsoft currently has more than 90% of the market share and if allowed to, would do everything it could to protect it - the primary motivation is to serve the interests of the shareholders, rather than it appears, the greater good of the community.
I agree with John Gapper when he says he believes that Microsoft is not inherently evil - but of course the processes and procedures that it has built up over the last 20 years are there to serve a highly competitive organisation in an exceedingly competitive marketplace. It has sought to ensure that most individuals and businesses are dependent upon its continuation for their own survival - an unhealthy dependence based upon fear rather than opportunity.
In short, the Microsoft system has become an enemy of itself, and could become an enemy of society if it continues to be led by its growing bureaucracy. Once an organisation is led by its processes rather than its vision, the values which may have created it in the first place will be lost. Bureaucracy is the stealthy killer of values.
The more Microsoft relies on their old, defensive, business model, the more it will let down the customers it serves. If Bill Gates really wants to use his influence to change the world - he should invest his money in throwing away the old Microsoft model and start a new one - one where open source prevails and barriers to learning are removed. The impact of this would probably have a far more positive effect on society than the money he currently invests in charities.
Annika Ratcliffe
It brought home to me something that has niggled for some time. There appears to be a complete inconsistency between Bill Gates the man, and Bill Gates the father of Microsoft,
As a man Bill Gates seems intent on using his wealth to good effect. He lives relatively modestly and has put half of his fortune towards charitable causes.
Bill Gates also appears to be very conscious of setting a standard in his family - apparently he has put a cap on the amount his children will inherit - seeming to understand how wealth can corrupt.
He does not appear to feel the same need to be a role model to his other, 32 year old child - Microsoft. Instead of encouraging the organisation to create an open ethos of learning and development, it has taken a defensive, protectionist stance.
As John Gapper explains, 'Microsoft is adept at treating competitors as 'frenemies'....it is friendly as long as they help to reinforce its software franchise, but shuts them out when they start to be a threat.'
Microsoft currently has more than 90% of the market share and if allowed to, would do everything it could to protect it - the primary motivation is to serve the interests of the shareholders, rather than it appears, the greater good of the community.
I agree with John Gapper when he says he believes that Microsoft is not inherently evil - but of course the processes and procedures that it has built up over the last 20 years are there to serve a highly competitive organisation in an exceedingly competitive marketplace. It has sought to ensure that most individuals and businesses are dependent upon its continuation for their own survival - an unhealthy dependence based upon fear rather than opportunity.
In short, the Microsoft system has become an enemy of itself, and could become an enemy of society if it continues to be led by its growing bureaucracy. Once an organisation is led by its processes rather than its vision, the values which may have created it in the first place will be lost. Bureaucracy is the stealthy killer of values.
The more Microsoft relies on their old, defensive, business model, the more it will let down the customers it serves. If Bill Gates really wants to use his influence to change the world - he should invest his money in throwing away the old Microsoft model and start a new one - one where open source prevails and barriers to learning are removed. The impact of this would probably have a far more positive effect on society than the money he currently invests in charities.
Annika Ratcliffe