Technology News and IT Business Intelligence

Like many nighthawks across the continent, I found myself glued to more than one screen…all right, three. Plus my BlackBerry…as I watched this morning’s launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour. I observed the spectacle with a curious mixture of excitement and sadness because after the current STS-130 mission, the shuttle program has only four more scheduled flights before it’s grounded for good.

It’s not the retirement that gets me. Every technology has its day, and it’s fair to conclude that a system largely designed in the early 1970s has now served its purpose and should logically be replaced. It’s also fair to conclude that this same system was and is too complex to ever be fiscally feasible. Despite the orbiters’ reusability, which was supposed to drive down the cost of spaceflight, extensive maintenance in-between missions made the program even more expensive to fly than conventional expendable rockets. The shuttle’s inherent design flaws (you’ll never see humans riding below any other part of a space vehicle again) pretty much sealed its fate.

The absent successor

What irks me about the whole thing is the fact that when the shuttle program is over and done, there won’t be another program waiting in the wings to take over. President Obama’s 2010 budget announcement last week virtually killed funding for the Constellation program, which would have resulted in new hardware to take humans more safely into orbit, to the moon and beyond.

We’ve been down this road before. After the Apollo program ended with the Apollo/Soyuz Test Project in 1975, nearly six years passed before the US once again launched its own astronauts into space. Then as now, NASA lacked the funds because the US lacked the national will to prioritize spending on sending humans into space. Then as now, NASA found itself going up against a wartime government dealing with frightfully uncertain economic conditions. Then as now, NASA lost the battle and spent years twiddling its thumbs waiting for its new ride to be ready.

With Constellation now virtually dead, NASA doesn’t even have that comfort anymore. Had the key components for the regularly scheduled program already in progress — the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule — survived the axe, NASA would have had at least a five-year gap before its next launch. Now, it could be buying seats on Russian Soyuz rockets indefinitely while it waits for commercial space interests to fill the giant void. While thousands of NASA employees wonder what tomorrow might bring (hint: it won’t be pretty) I can’t resist the urge to draw a personal connection.

Liftoff of Space Shuttle STS-130, perhaps the final nighttime liftoff in the shuttle program’s history. [Courtesy: NASA]

Of cars and spaceships
My wife and I cart our kids around in a vehicle we affectionately call the “wondervan.” Despite our guilt over contributing to global warming, our car is an essential pillar of life for us and our kids. Like all vehicles, it has a finite lifespan, and we’re already planning for its replacement over the next couple of years. The plan will be relatively simple: Save up a lot of money, do a lot of research and preparation, drive to the dealer in the old car, and return home (somewhat poorer) in the new one.

The same process applies in the real world. Planning for any technology platform’s end-of-life is a fundamental requirement of any business in any sector. The laptops that your employees use and the servers they connect to can only last for so long. When they reach the inevitable point of no return — where the costs and risks of keeping them in service outweigh an investment in followon technology — it’s time to take the plunge. Your business can’t afford to be without laptops and servers until you decide you’ve got enough money saved up. The time to get off your duff and do something about it is not just before the thing dies an inglorious death or the vendor pulls its support. If you fail to bake lifecycle planning into your operations, your fate may be even more bleak than NASA’s. The agency, despite countless layoffs, will exist in some form by the time this is all over. Your business? Don’t hold your breath.

For a variety of self-inflicted and externally influenced reasons, NASA’s new business model will see it walking the proverbial five miles to school for a whole lot of years before a new vehicle, likely developed by commercial partners, is ready. The agency failed to anticipate upcoming change, and now thousands of its employees will pay the ultimate price. I’m going to guess the former Can-Do organization will have a tough time convincing us to stay engaged while its human spaceflight capability remains grounded.

Who do you trust?

Despite their obvious differences, businesses and government agencies are equally dependent on trust. Once stakeholders lose trust, it’s over. Would you willingly do business with an organization that failed to anticipate end-of-life for its core competency?

As you scope out potential partners, supply chain members and, yes, even customers, you’re making one judgment call after another, typically revolving around whether you think this outfit has the brains and the moxie to stick with you for mutual benefit. If its leadership is so blind that it can’t anticipate normal technology turnover, do you really want to be aligning yourself with it in the first place? Would you have any trust in its ability to balance near-term and long-term goals? I’m going to guess letting something like this happen would erode your confidence a bit.

In a year or two, my wife and I will take that infrequent trip to the dealer and return home with something newer, nicer, and safer than the vehicle it replaces. By then, NASA will be well into its human spaceflight stand down, waiting for the figurative bus while nations with bigger budgets and different priorities pass them by. I do hope businesses are studying this monumental gaffe and revisiting their technology investment roadmaps to ensure they, too, don’t get caught without the basic ability to keep themselves relevant.

In a world where Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski’s six principles for net neutrality are enforced, everyone who makes a living on the Internet could conceivably be “unburdened by the unnecessary intervention of network operators or government regulators.” The exception would be when a pipeline provider such as Comcast merges with a content provider such as NBC Universal, to make certain classes of content viewable online only when it designates. That’s the opinion of attorneys for video rental service Netflix, in a filing last month with the FCC and recently made public.

“Netflix believes that the codification of the existing network neutrality principles, together with the addition of nondiscrimination and transparency, create an effective framework for preserving an open Internet,” begins Netflix’ filing, written last January 14 (PDF available here). “These rules will allow all parts of the industry — network operators, consumer electronics manufacturers, and edge providers of content, applications, and services — to continue to innovate at a rapid pace, unburdened by the unnecessary intervention of network operators or government regulators.”

The exception is when a dominant network operator like Comcast puts together a service like TV Everywhere, its lucrative on-demand platform for Internet streaming of content to subscribers. In a strangely familiar sounding refrain, Netflix warns that a bundling of the operating system, so to speak, with content makes it difficult for other distributors of content to compete at the same level.

“By bundling the traditional cable TV offering with Internet delivery of content, vertically integrated MVPDs and network operators are potentially extending and expanding their dominant market position at the expense of competitive online offerings,” Netflix’ attorneys write. “Moreover, the recent announcement of the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC Universal serves to exacerbate the growing concern that MVPDs will use their control over programming networks to stifle competition, including the growing competition from online video providers like Netflix.”

The company’s attorneys particularly point to a clause in the FCC’s notice of proposed rulemaking last October. There, the commission acknowledged that certain classes of service that use the Internet as their backbone, probably shouldn’t be managed the same way as the Web (based on HTTP, just one of the Internet’s many applications). So the FCC proposed the creation of a service class called either managed services or specialized services, that it describes as industries unto themselves, and as such, deserving of special recognition and treatment. VoIP service such as what Vonage provides, and multi-channel video offered by AT&T U-verse and Verizon FiOS, are obvious examples.

As the Commission wrote at the time (PDF available here), it was interested in public comment regarding how such services could remain managed while the Internet stays open: “We recognize that these managed or specialized services may differ from broadband Internet access services in ways that recommend a different policy approach, and it may be inappropriate to apply the rules proposed here to managed or specialized services. However, we are sensitive to any risk that the growth of managed or specialized services might supplant or otherwise negatively affect the open Internet. In this section, we seek comment on whether and, if so, how the Commission should address managed or specialized IP-based services in order to allow providers to develop new and innovative technologies and business models and to otherwise further the goals of innovation, investment, competition, and consumer choice, while safeguarding the open Internet.”

That’s precisely the section to which Netflix’ attorneys responded: “Netflix is concerned that network operators will use so-called managed services in a way that harms unaffiliated content or service providers that compete directly with services provided by the network operator, owing either to their vertical integration…or resulting from competitive threats to their legacy ‘managed services’ business. This concern is heightened in light of the fact that such ‘managed services’ are offered over the same physical network as broadband Internet access.”

The danger, Netflix believes, is that by even creating the exception class in the first place, the FCC could inadvertently create the very “fast lane” for the Internet that lawmakers in 2005, coining the phrase “net neutrality” for the first time, sought to avoid.

As legislative momentum for passing Pres. Obama’s ambitious public agenda has slowed, public support for the President’s policies as a whole, has waned. As a result, even net neutrality — something seemingly unrelated to health care, jobs, and the fiscal deficit — appears to have become yet another can to be kicked down the avenue, as yet another topic tied to Mr. Obama. Last week, as House members discussed the Comcast + NBCU consolidation proposal, even net neutrality’s principal backers appeared unwilling to take their own side, enabling Republican opponents to resume their counterattack.

House Telecommunications and the Internet ranking member Cliff Stearns (R – Florida) began last Thursday’s hearings by suggesting the entire net neutrality issue was being raised in the context of Comcast and NBCU just to be anti-competitive. Rep. Stearns cited the DC Court of Appeals, which last month indicated the FCC may not have enforcement rights with respect to how Comcast may deploy its Internet services.

“The Court, in fact, seemed skeptical that the FCC even had legal authority to impose these mandates. One of the judges asked the FCC counsel ‘whether he wanted to lose on process or jurisdiction.’ Unless a condition is narrowly tailored to a transaction’s specific harm to competition, it does not belong in this negotiation,” stated Stearns. “Since this deal will not materially increase concentration in either the distribution or programming markets, demonstrating such harm would be difficult, especially in light of the robust competition in the video sector…If Comcast and NBCU are right that this deal creates a stronger entity that can better serve viewers, I think it can succeed. If they’re wrong, it will fail.”

The ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Joe Barton (R – Texas, a former chair of the Committee), didn’t have much to add besides a smile and a wink: “It’s good to see NBC and Comcast sitting side by side. That doesn’t break my heart.”

For the most part, last week’s over-the-air software update to Google Nexus One phones, which was intended to address the 3G connectivity issues with certain versions of the phone’s firmware (with a gift of added multitouch), appears unsuccessful for many commenters to Google’s support forums. Very few customers reported improvement, and some who did in the early going are now saying their flip-flop problems between 3G and EDGE have returned.

Meanwhile, although Nexus One manufacturer HTC has typically referred phone issues to Google — the self-proclaimed “vendor of record” when the device premiered — as of now, it has declared the issue resolved, suggesting that customers still experiencing problems “restart their Nexus One device to restore their T-Mobile data connection.”

The entry of new customers into the Google support forum who report having purchased their phones in the last week, only to be confronted with the issues some others have faced since last month, suggests that Google may continue to be selling phones containing the firmware suspected of having the connectivity defect.

“I just recently purchased the Nexus One and discovered that I am unable to make calls and access the internet at the same time,” reports new entrant Mayo1 on Saturday. “Once I make a voice call, I am unable to browse the Internet or use any apps that require Internet connectivity. I am mostly in a 3G area. Initially, I’m browsing or using my apps just fine then I decide to make a voice call and all of a sudden Internet connectivity is gone. The minute I hang up the voice call, I can go right back to browsing.”

Besides this and the flip-flop problem, the other prominent symptom users are reporting is that connectivity seems high until someone touches the phone, then it drops to zero — which suggests a problem with the phone’s antenna. Although the common thread among customers with these symptoms appears to be the same firmware version, customers are beginning to suspect that these issues are actually unrelated — that they are separate problems that afflicted a certain strain of the phone, but may not be caused by the firmware in that strain.

Last Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl, Google employee Ry Guy posted a perplexing message. Citing the fact that “there’s still a lot of interest here,” he began by reminding customers of the existence of the OTA software fix “that will improve 3G connectivity for many Nexus One users.” No one continuing to report negative symptoms had claimed to have refrained from installing the fix.

“However,” Ry Guy continued, “there are a variety of factors which feed into the quality of 3G connectivity on mobile phones, a number of which are dependent on the environment rather than the phone itself. For instance, a software update can’t address the experience of users on the edge or outside of 3G coverage areas. We’re going to continue to track 3G performance closely with HTC and T-Mobile and will post any updates we’ve got.”

Customers responded as though Google had just fumbled in the fourth quarter. “Just face facts: There is something significantly wrong with the software or hardware,” wrote andrewrchick. “If you just tell us you will fix it but you need time, most of us will hang on in there. But don’t insult us and blame it on T-Mobile as too many people here have enough experience to say otherwise.”

And customer olypdd noted the trend of some technology news services following the forums lately: “Please remember…many, many entities, some who research and report on these technologies, are following these blogs. I would be careful to not blow smoke. It doesn’t do anything to save Google (and HTC) from what is already an embarrassing Superphone release, and anything that looks patronizing will be reported as such elsewhere.”

Over on the T-Mobile forums, customers who had not reported 3G connectivity problems appreciated the “pinch-to-zoom” multitouch addition in the latest OTA fix. For them, it certainly didn’t hurt. For others who did report troubles, not only were their connectivity symptoms unchanged, but multitouch seemed to be crashing their browsers.

Writes T-Mobile customer polobear this morning, “Overall, I’m happy with the phone. Specifically however, I’m not happy with the 3G. As luck would have it, I live in an area with fantastic T-Mobile coverage. I get 5 bars (EDGE) in my basement no matter what phone is used. But on the N1, I can’t pick up 3G anywhere around here (not in the house, not outside). I’ve never actually seen a 3G connection on the phone, ever.”

Judging from T-Mobile’s support forum, there did not appear to be any similar 3G connectivity issues affecting its other Android brands, including the MyTouch 3G, which is co-branded with Google.

A new study from subscriber management company Allot Communications today says that worldwide mobile broadband consumption increased approximately 72% in just the second half of 2009.

Though the Federal Communications Commission is worried that there won’t be enough bandwidth in the United States to support the growth in mobile broadband use, the Americas are actually being outpaced by both the Asia Pacific region (APAC) and the Europe/Middle East/Africa region (EMEA) in terms of growth rate. APAC experienced an 86% growth in mobile broadband consumption, and EMEA experienced 70% growth, while use in the Americas grew by 59%.

Allot’s study says that streaming video is “the single most influential factor driving the need for increased mobile network capacity,” and that consumption of streaming video grew by 99% in the second half of ‘09. YouTube alone accounted for 10% of the world’s mobile bandwidth consumption in the third and fourth quarters of last year.

“Mobile broadband networks are still facing the same challenges as fixed networks — growing bandwidth demands, congestion, as well as finding ways to enhance the user experience and to lessen the negative impact of a few [P2P users] on the network,” a statement from the company said today.

For the most part, last week’s over-the-air software update to Google Nexus One phones, which was intended to address the 3G connectivity issues with certain versions of the phone’s firmware (with a gift of added multitouch), appears unsuccessful for many commenters to Google’s support forums. Very few customers reported improvement, and some who did in the early going are now saying their flip-flop problems between 3G and EDGE have returned.

Meanwhile, although Nexus One manufacturer HTC has typically referred phone issues to Google — the self-proclaimed “vendor of record” when the device premiered — as of now, it has declared the issue resolved, suggesting that customers still experiencing problems “restart their Nexus One device to restore their T-Mobile data connection.”

The entry of new customers into the Google support forum who report having purchased their phones in the last week, only to be confronted with the issues some others have faced since last month, suggests that Google may continue to be selling phones containing the firmware suspected of having the connectivity defect.

“I just recently purchased the Nexus One and discovered that I am unable to make calls and access the internet at the same time,” reports new entrant Mayo1 on Saturday. “Once I make a voice call, I am unable to browse the Internet or use any apps that require Internet connectivity. I am mostly in a 3G area. Initially, I’m browsing or using my apps just fine then I decide to make a voice call and all of a sudden Internet connectivity is gone. The minute I hang up the voice call, I can go right back to browsing.”

Besides this and the flip-flop problem, the other prominent symptom users are reporting is that connectivity seems high until someone touches the phone, then it drops to zero — which suggests a problem with the phone’s antenna. Although the common thread among customers with these symptoms appears to be the same firmware version, customers are beginning to suspect that these issues are actually unrelated — that they are separate problems that afflicted a certain strain of the phone, but may not be caused by the firmware in that strain.

Last Sunday afternoon before the Super Bowl, Google employee Ry Guy posted a perplexing message. Citing the fact that “there’s still a lot of interest here,” he began by reminding customers of the existence of the OTA software fix “that will improve 3G connectivity for many Nexus One users.” No one continuing to report negative symptoms had claimed to have refrained from installing the fix.

“However,” Ry Guy continued, “there are a variety of factors which feed into the quality of 3G connectivity on mobile phones, a number of which are dependent on the environment rather than the phone itself. For instance, a software update can’t address the experience of users on the edge or outside of 3G coverage areas. We’re going to continue to track 3G performance closely with HTC and T-Mobile and will post any updates we’ve got.”

Customers responded as though Google had just fumbled in the fourth quarter. “Just face facts: There is something significantly wrong with the software or hardware,” wrote andrewrchick. “If you just tell us you will fix it but you need time, most of us will hang on in there. But don’t insult us and blame it on T-Mobile as too many people here have enough experience to say otherwise.”

And customer olypdd noted the trend of some technology news services following the forums lately: “Please remember…many, many entities, some who research and report on these technologies, are following these blogs. I would be careful to not blow smoke. It doesn’t do anything to save Google (and HTC) from what is already an embarrassing Superphone release, and anything that looks patronizing will be reported as such elsewhere.”

Over on the T-Mobile forums, customers who had not reported 3G connectivity problems appreciated the “pinch-to-zoom” multitouch addition in the latest OTA fix. For them, it certainly didn’t hurt. For others who did report troubles, not only were their connectivity symptoms unchanged, but multitouch seemed to be crashing their browsers.

Writes T-Mobile customer polobear this morning, “Overall, I’m happy with the phone. Specifically however, I’m not happy with the 3G. As luck would have it, I live in an area with fantastic T-Mobile coverage. I get 5 bars (EDGE) in my basement no matter what phone is used. But on the N1, I can’t pick up 3G anywhere around here (not in the house, not outside). I’ve never actually seen a 3G connection on the phone, ever.”

Judging from T-Mobile’s support forum, there did not appear to be any similar 3G connectivity issues affecting its other Android brands, including the MyTouch 3G, which is co-branded with Google.

Do middling, middle managers run Microsoft? That’s the consensus among the former Microsofties who shared their work stories with me over the last couple months. The new work week starts with another Microsoft Confessional — the fourth in four days — from 13-year company veteran Boris, which isn’t his real name, of course. Boris was smart enough to see the end coming, and he made preparations in the days before his May 2009 layoff. He learned to read middle managers the way a genuine fortune teller might read tea leaves.

People being asked to leave are one view of Microsoft. But those leaving voluntarily are another perspective. In looking at Microsoft, I’m hugely concerned about the departures of two important and long-time Microsoft executives: Mike Nash and Bill Veghte, revealed on February 4 and January 14, respectively. Both men are 19-plus years veterans working for the Windows and Windows Live groups. Nash is headed to Amazon, and Veghte departs following last year’s executive shuffle that put Steven Sinfosky in charge of the group (as one of five Microsoft presidents).

Historically, successful shipment of a new Windows version ends with big promotions. Windows Vista was the exception, leading to demotions, sideways transfers and departures (Microsoft wouldn’t call them firings). But Windows 7 is a huge success, so what gives with Nash and Veghte leaving Microsoft?

The departures of Nash, Veghte and also Chris Liddell, Microsoft’s former chief financial officer, are canaries in the coal mine. They signal something fundamentally wrong. Boris’ story and the three before it — “Killed over politics,” “Deeply dysfunctional family” and “Poor worker bees” — offer some insight into what is part of the problem.

Boris’ story is the longest of the quartet of confessionals; as such, I’ve added subheads to make it easier reading. With that introduction, Boris’ story:

My career out of college started with working as a technical writer for a few now-defunct engineering software firms. I recall my first day on the job, being assigned a massive Compaq ‘portable’ as my workstation, and teaching myself MS-DOS and batch file programming via the Compaq’s user manual. We had a cool array of hardware around the office for porting: IBM AS/400, Silicon Graphics Iris and Indigo, some of the early Sun SPARCstations, and my favorite, a NeXT Cube.

During the next five years I moved up from a junior writing position to managing an entire department of writers and illustrators. I was largely self-taught as a manager. We made some good hires, got the work done on time, wrote what I still think were some actually helpful manuals, and introduced a bit of publishing innovation with on-demand printing, electronic distribution of documentation on the Web (in 1995!) and CDs, highly modular content, and so on.

In the mid-90’s, on a goof, I applied for a job with Microsoft. I was convinced a friend was pulling a fast one when they called for an interview. A month later I was a full-time, blue-badge Microsoft employee.

Through most of my career at Microsoft I worked as an editor of one sort or another, working on both developer and end-user content. In the early years, I was aligned with the Developer Evangelism team and got to work with a really amazing cross-section of smart, influential people in the software industry. Jeff Richter, Don Box, Aaron Skonnard, Charles Petzold, Mark Russinovich — the list goes on and on.

For a few years I was part of the user assistance team for one of the big orgs, working on UI, help, SDKs, articles, books — whatever they threw at us. We shipped some very good products and got a lot of recognition in the form of industry awards. I worked on launching a few companywide internal tools and standards projects that made important contributions to the way we build products and communicate with customers. One is still in active use today, almost 7 years after we started. That’s a long time in MSFT years. I’m very proud of that since I was a key contributor from the very beginning.

Hamstrung by Ineffective Management

My career trajectory slowed a bit at Microsoft, in part because I mostly worked on small teams and there simply wasn’t room for advancement. Also in part because, during the first few years, I didn’t understand how the MSFT review and promotion system worked. The reality is quite a bit different from many people’s expectations.

It was clear to me at a certain point that Microsoft had turned the corner. There were still a lot of smart people beavering away on various projects, but they were largely hamstrung by multiple levels of largely ineffective management. Who you knew, or how well you could influence those above you, counted more than results.

There were a ton of bozos. Arrogant bozos. Not to suggest that I’m some sort of genius. Far from it. But the intellectual rigor demonstrated by much of the management — and strategy — was sadly lacking. In some ways it was funny, but mostly depressing.

The end of the road came in early 2009. Half of my team was let go in the January layoffs. We scrambled forward with vendors for a few months until the remaining editors were canned in May (me included). Out of a starting staff of nearly 20, four remained, all managers. I’m not sure what they manage.

The End — a Relief

Some of us saw the end coming. I was working on a post-Microsoft business plan, but had envisioned another 12 months of employment for planning and scraping together a bankroll. In the event, on a Thursday afternoon, a friend and I intuited — partly from sudden, unnanounced travel status of certain managers — that the end was much closer. Friday we brought in suitcases and took home our personal items. I used my StayFit allowance to buy a gym membership. Monday we printed out any important personal papers. Tuesday we sat down with our GM and got the news.

In my case it was a relief. I wanted to leave many times over the years — and in fact did once — but the salary, the benefits and to be honest the good people, too, kept me there. Devil you know. But I walked out the door that day knowing it was for the best and, though it might take a while, I’d come out of the experience OK.

I spent the summer with my family, relaxing, and taking a wider look around the industry. It was much needed, much appreciated time away from the Microsoft hot house. Thanks to the severance package, unemployment and some careful budgeting, we haven’t yet needed to dip into our savings. In the longer term we may need to move somewhere less expensive to reduce our housing costs.

Of my former colleagues, only two of us are now employed fulltime in the industry, though at significantly lower compensation. Another seems to have steady consulting work. Clearly the tech publishing industry (including tech writing/editing) has changed significantly, and probably permanently. I don’t think the need for communication experts has vanished, but it remains to be seen how we fit into the changing landscape of the industry.

From six to 13 Management Layers

It’s a bit hard to equate the different [Microsoft compensation] level systems over the years, but I basically started at what today would be a level 59 and finished a level 61. That’s not much of a bump in a dozen or so years. Assume what you will. I know what went down. I know the value of what my team accomplished (we measured it, with business-relevant, industry-relevant metrics). I know what my contribution was to the team. I am more than satisfied that I pulled my weight and more.

When I started at MSFT in 1996, there were six people between me and Bill Gates. In 2009, there were 13 people between me and Steve Ballmer. My inability to climb the corporate ladder cannot alone explain that away. When layoffs hit my team, only the bottom two layers of the org were affected — the entire bottom layer of individual contributors (ICs) and two first-level managers. Who’s working here?

Ironically, I once wanted to climb up that ladder. But I’m glad it never happened. Through friends, I saw the costs: Huge amounts of additional hassle, not a lot of additional pay, effectively no training or support, unbelievable politics, etc.

On the other hand, MSFT philosophy is up or out. Review depends more on managing perception up the chain of command than actual results. (I tested this theory and it’s true. I managed a single set of metrics up the management chain, just spinning the results differently depending on who I talked to and what they cared about. The metrics were useless as the tools they came from were broken. Result = promotion.)

There’s little or no interest in sustainability. No recognition for doing a job consistently well over time. No incentive for effective cross-team work (unless you can get another team to do work you can take credit for).

Swimming Against Reward-Driven Culture

Interestingly, [internal] MS Poll results show that the ability to work effectively across teams has been consistently one of the lowest-scoring poll items for over a decade. (Yes, I looked it up.) I’ve seen managers bend over backward to bring a poll score from 75 percent to 80 percent. I’ve never seen anyone try to address the cross-team problem.

There are good managers at MSFT. I’ve seen them. There just aren’t very many, and they’re swimming against an internally focused, reward-driven culture that puts the highest value on visibility.

It can also be very, very difficult to work in a non-engineering role or organization within an engineering-dominated company. Management focus was just on completely different things than what my teams were doing. Successful or not, it was seen as a distraction. Arguably, good management should be able to multitask, look at the world through different lenses, make situation-specific decisions, strategize in a diverse and complicated world. Realistically, that’s a rare set of skills.

Long story short, there were many good and bad experiences over the years. The bad stuff made me stronger and more confident in my abilities. The good stuff is work, friendships, and experience I’m still proud of. I know, for a fact, that we helped people. So that’s my story. I remain proud of what I did and [I am] hopeful for the future.

Today’s Microsoft Confession comes from a woman let go during the first round of layoffs, in January 2009. I’ll call her Amanda, which, of course, isn’t her real name. Amanda shared key elements of her story on deep background, but she also provided a reflective portion that she hopes will give deeper insight to anyone looking to work for Microsoft or to HR departments looking to hire former employees.

By telling this story, Amanda wants to give some meaning to her layoff, or so I detected from what she shared for private and public consumption. Amanda’s story is consistent with every other I received. She sharply criticizes Microsoft’s culture of reorganization, but also emphasizes the heavy workload. I detect deep frustration in her story about Microsoft management problems that won’t easily be fixed.

Amanda’s story follows two other confessionals — “Killed over politics” and “Deeply dysfunctional family.” As explained on Friday, after the last round of Microsoft layoffs, I asked former employees to tell their stories, which are presented anonymously to diminish risk of repercussions — either to work elsewhere in the tech industry or to any Microsoft severance arrangement.

I challenge current or former Microsoft employees to either confirm or contradict two key points from Amanda’s story: That some Microsoft divisions demand overlong work weeks and that employees who can’t keep pace are penalized. From my experience, long hours are standard among many software companies. Does Microsoft demand too much? Current or former employees, please answer the question in comments. With that introduction, Amanda’s story:

A lesson and caution to the masses is found in how quickly I went from rising star with a bright future to yesterday’s dishwater that couldn’t be tossed out quickly enough, without changing how I approached my work! In summary, it was all due to the arrival on the scene — all praise the holy reorg, which is an approximately annual religious festival in certain sects, I mean divisions, of Microsoft — of a particular manager…The organizational culture in many parts of MS is such that one manager, even one with a history of their own performance problems, can spell doom for even the most diligent, accomplished, well-intentioned and politically-savvy employee.

The opportunities? [They] can be among the most amazing for your career that you’ll ever encounter. This is balanced, however, by the reality that merit isn’t always the primary criteria by which opportunities are given out, and that opportunities that are given in the blink of an eye can be — and sometimes are — taken away in the blink of an eye for no apparent reason at all.

The culture of the work environment? Let’s talk about that, because while people need to know that the culture of working like a dog for 5 years to retire a millionaire is long gone, they also need to know that the culture of working like a dog for 5 years for your regular wages isn’t, in some departments.

My former team required 60-90+ hours a week of its employees for several years straight. The average across many weeks was 80-90 [hours], for months on end. If you were unwilling to do the hours any more, you became persona non grata. This meant the least desirable assignments, poor reviews and so on. While the conventional answer to a bad team situation in a big company is to transfer teams, it didn’t work for people on that team.

Multiple people on the team wanted to transfer off the team and away from its overtime commitment but management exercised their prerogative to retain them on the team out of urgent business need so that they could not leave. This justification was used to delay their departures 3-6 months, with the effect of causing them to miss the opportunity they’d wanted to pursue [elsewhere in Microsoft] and requring them to continue to do the excessive hours.

Meanwhile, the rest of us poor worker bees had to listen to them complain about the situation until they were allowed to leave. It’s not good for morale to be reminded every day that when you get tired of the excessive commitment required by the team, you’re likely to be just as trapped, and just as unhappy about it, as your peers are.

In some cases, overassignment of work was used to cause competent employees to appear to be failing at completing their required responsibiltiies. In other cases, people who had not been with the company long enough to be eligible to transfer to another team had to just quit to get out of the unpaid overtime without a permanent black mark in the form of a bad review on their Microsoft record.

Pregnant women ended up on early bedrest from the stress. People slept at the office in order to use the commute time for more work. For some, there were weekly all-nighters in the schedule. A capable contributor on my former team, whose name I know, experienced the indignity of a second-level manager suggesting that they go out on disability if they couldn’t handle the stress of the workload, as the manager insisted they should be able to get that workload done in a 40-hour week. Given my background as the longest-term member of the team, including management, I’d call the assertion that that was a 40-hour load shamefully ludicrous to the point of professional negligence.

Anyone in the industry knows about crunch times right before ship. But this was three years of crunch times. After a year had elapsed, the “we don’t have the luxury of time to train additional staff to help us get this done” justification for it started to smell kind of bad.

Few teams are like this, but it only takes ending up on one to end your career as a blue badge. It’s good for people who are considering Microsoft employment to know. It’s also good for people who are considering ex-Microsoft employees for roles in other organizations to know, because among those cut loose are some smart, dedicated, hard workers who were simply asked to do too much, for too long to be able to succeed at it forever in the eyes of the organization — and who’d be an asset to just about any company in the industry. I know that if I ever, in the future, receive a résumé from someone who left Microsoft during one of the layoff timeframes in 2009, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.