Rob Enderle

RE: Google and How Bad Hiring Practices Can Kill a Company

edgeuser — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:12:51 GMT

Yeah, it's a pretty big foul up when your interview process hires exactly the opposite kind of people.

Also, I didn't agree with your TGDaily column. I don't think Google is TSATW. They have the right strategy, but way off on the tactics. They should have just bought Firefox and gotten an instant 25% market share and saved themselves $70 million a year in payments to Mozilla. And maybe get Ubuntu which has some kind of user base and manufacturers are already selling PC with it installed. And if Sun isn't too attached to Open Office, might as well get that too. Then Google can give Microsoft a run for its money.

But from what I've seen of Chrome OS, it looks like its going to share the same name and the same non-existent market share of the Chrome browser.

RE: Google and How Bad Hiring Practices Can Kill a Company

RobEnderle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:37:22 GMT

Thanks for the post, I clearly didn't see that link and agree. You need balance in a staff. I'd figure they'd be smarter than this.

RE: Google and How Bad Hiring Practices Can Kill a Company

edgeuser — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:26:17 GMT

--"This suggests at the very least that Google’s hiring process isn’t being audited to make sure it is working optimally."

Not true. They actually went back and did an audit. Guess what they found?

http://gawker.com/5392947/googles-broken-hiring-process

I wonder if it's too late to call back the worst flunking applicants. I think the Google interviews are a result of too many engineers running the company.

RE: Gift Ideas: Two Books Every Executive Should Read Plus One for Marketers

RobEnderle — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:05:44 GMT

His products tend to launch stronger because of him. Look at the Droid vs. the iPhone numbers. Even within Apple the products he launches tend to initially do better. Strong launches create a stronger foundation for growth assuming the product hold up. The point of the book though is to teach others how to pitch products, ideas, and concepts more effectively. That is the part that every executive could learn.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

User1727601 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:48:49 GMT

Right on target and well said!! If only this post was required reading for executives...As I recall, America was built into one of the greatest nations in the world by teams working together to accomplish a clearly stated goal. Many executives like to use the word "team", but most don't really understand what it means, since they're typically too busy playing politics to ensure their own individual agendas. Once upon a time (was it really that long ago?), Management By Walking Around ensured that employees were seen and heard without filters, and managers kept their jobs, in part, because of the quality of the work and the loyalty they inspired. Many execs are afraid to walk the floors now, or consider their time too important to waste by seeing what's happening at the ivory tower's foundation. These days it seems that employees are considered as costs, not the assets they truly are. Reality check -find a successful company, and you're sure to find employees who feel valued, appreciated, and heard. Most people I know would take a lower salary just to have those three things in their career.If a sports team continually fails, the coaches are the focus of change, right? So heads up Senior Execs. I challenge you to start walking around and listening to your assets. You might actually learn how to improve the company, the bottom line, or at least improve your own performance. Otherwise, the next time the Board discusses layoffs, they might (should) be thinking about how many new workers YOUR salary will cover...

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

User1684343 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:39:41 GMT

Excellently written, and pointed out well. The problem is that nobody is droolling over the actual problem to solve it but only escaping the problem without strategically thinking about its after effects.

RE: Gift Ideas: Two Books Every Executive Should Read Plus One for Marketers

edgeuser — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:04:26 GMT

I agree that Jobs is a natural salesman, but how exactly does that translate into more iPhone sales is not so clear to me. When I go to an Apple store, I don't see a Jobs iPhone presentation on a video display. And when someone is shopping for a smartphone, I doubt he comes across any Jobs presentations. I guess Jobs presentations creates a buzz that gets the word out, but in the end it comes down to the device itself, unless I'm missing something.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

RobEnderle — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:54:22 GMT

Agreed this isn't tech only, its a trend I'd like to see stopped. Thanks for the comment!

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

User1753858 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:26:30 GMT

So true. Thanks, Rob, for pointing out what should be obvious. I don't think it's just tech that has fallen victim to this "strategy", but we unfortunately lead the way sometimes. That's not to say there aren't companies with fat to trim, but, typically, that fat is not what is cut.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

RobEnderle — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:19:09 GMT

No you are on topic and I agree. Layoffs destroy teams, if there is a problem with execution that problem typically starts with the leadership and, therefore, the solution should start there as well.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

13apples.com — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:16:47 GMT

Firstly, I am glad you did not use the word "resources" through out your post. Why is it important? I just published my new post called "Agile Lessons #1: Humanize Your Team" http://tinyurl.com/yfadcm3 and my radars are still on that subject.

Your message is very strong and well written. Most of the same reasons you point out apply for "forced resignations" and other forms of attrition as well. My philosophy has been "fire the leader, before you fire the team" coz I do believe that "people leave leaders first before they leave the company". So, if financial benefits may be the justification for layoffs, a management-level layoff may be more strategic and beneficial to consider before getting rid off the easy-to-remove, hard working team members.

Does that make sense? Or am I totally off topic. I hope not. Anyway good post and analogies. Thanks.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

RobEnderle — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:59:26 GMT

Agree, labor is cheap and you can get some really talented and greatful employees as the moment. That, however, would be thinking strategically.

On the engine, took them a long while to get that right. Recall the first time GM tried this it didn't go that well.

RE: Why Layoffs Should be Avoided

edgeuser — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:37:22 GMT

--"If I told you that you could save a third of the gas you use by cutting of one-third of your engine, you’d look at me like I was nuts."

No I wouldn't.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=firing-on-half-cylinders

Actually, it's more like 20% fuel savings on half an engine.

On the subject of layoffs, I think companies should be hiring in downturns. You can find get more qualified people cheaply and be prepared for the uptick in the economy. It's like buying stocks at the bottom.

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

edgeuser — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:19:50 GMT

--"The Sun Oracle deal is and always has been about JAVA"

Where is JAVA used anymore? On the web, I rarely see JAVA. Everything is Flash or Javascript, which has no relationship to JAVA. On Windows, '.Net' has pretty much killed JAVA on the OS. '.Net' even runs on Linux platforms.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:10:03 GMT

Well, anytime you compete with Microsoft, you are competing with the OS by proxy, since majority of Microsoft revenues come from the OS.

23% of Microsoft revenue for the last quarter came from the client market. The client market ties in with the Office market (34% of revenues), and both of them together tie in with the Server Market (26% of revenues)

Microsoft is going to use the revenues from the OS market and ties-ins to compete against you. So Microsoft is attacking you on your own soil, while it has a constant revenue stream from its divisions that it doesn't have to defend that aggressively.

Even if Google had bought Firefox, its still a Windows app, it's still swimming in Microsoft's own pool. If Microsoft gets aggressive with the browser market and releases an open source version of IE that's compatible with all Firefox addons, does away with ActiveX, adopts a faster javascript engine, integrates closely with the client and server Windows and Office apps, Firefox could be in for a rough time.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

RobEnderle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:00:26 GMT

They could get that by just doing the browser, they don't need an OS for that. If they simply took over Firefox (which they fund) they'd have nearly 30% of the desktops on day one. In fact, the actually own Firefox search access now even though the product doesn't have Google's brand on it. The OEMs are more than happy to use them as the browser of choice and all they need is a window to the web. The OS route is nasty because it puts them in competition with other OS providers (like Apple) who then will not use their search tools.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:17:27 GMT

Ideally, you want some kind of synergy in your business units.

If Microsoft really wanted to go after Google, I really don't think Google could do anything to defend itself. If Bing offered higher bribes for using search ( http://www.bing.com/cashback/ ), or paid people to use Bing toolbar, or cut Bing ad rates to almost zero, I don't see what Google can really do about it. I think that is why Google is going into the OS space. As long as Microsoft has a dominant OS, it is untouchable, and Google knows this. The only thing Microsoft has to worry about is keeping under the regulatory radar.

I also think this was Netscape's downfall. There was no way a company can release a Windows app that can beat a similar Microsoft app. So, Microsoft pours money into Internet Explorer, much more than Netscape can, bundles it with the OS, game over.

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

RobEnderle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:49:44 GMT

Perhaps but I'll bet they could buy a part of Sun for far less than they are spending for the whole thing. Sun is bleeding so badly that it doesn't have that much time left. But, agree that their clearly are parts of Sun they really want.

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

user1650847 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:18:12 GMT

The Sun Oracle deal is and always has been about JAVA and the consequences to Oracle if someone else controlled JAVA. The hardware part of Sun was not what drove the deal. Oracle will not abandon the deal without somehow extracting JAVA

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

RobEnderle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:36:30 GMT

Yes but the branches should be close to your core. Google is at the core an advertising company. That's the revenue pool they know and don't yet fully own. They could branch to other internet areas but OS and Smart Grid are far from what they know how to do well. Reminds me too much of Chrysler in the 60s or Netscape.