Should Steve Ballmer Go?

A very prominent hedge fund manager has called on Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, to step down. Is this the fix that Microsoft needs?

Hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who owns a whole bunch of Microsoft stock, has suggested it's time for Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft to go. Einhorn is undoubtedly under pressure to get some ROI here, and Ballmer leaving would likely boost the stock assuming a reasonable replacement, anyway. But is this they way for the shareholders to go?

I think it is. There's been too much inbreeding at Microsoft over the years, and fresh thinking is required. This is a company that, from my perspective, should have owned the mobile platform, but their inability to execute will now relegate them to being an asterisk at best (OK, Nokia might move some phones. But, really, what does Windows Phone offer than one can't get much cheaper or more elegantly elsewhere?).

In fact, I would suggest that big companies in trouble are best served by management shakeups, but most corporate boards refuse to do their basic and fundamental jobs in this domain. Instead of looking after the needs of shareholders, their primary responsibility, they cower before the CEO, who, all too often, is also the Chairman of the Board, a serious conflict if there ever was one. Boards should acknowledge the contributions of the CEO, and then, when required, further acknowledge that times have changed and a fresh perspective really is what's needed. It's my opinion that term limits should be applied to essentially all jobs; do the job, gain some experience, and then tackle a new challenge. This really builds the talent pool and keeps everyone fresh and engaged.

But, look, no matter, Ballmer's not gotten the job done. He owns a ton of stock, sure, but he needs to remember the immortal words of Dirty Harry - a man's got to know his limitations. Steve, it's time to rotate into another position. Thanks for all you've done. And I can think of a few other CEOs who also need to update their resume, but you get the idea. Success in the marketplace and success for the shareholders are both way more important than any single individual's position within the firm.

OK, I must acknowledge once again here, so there's no question about my own personal biases, that I simply dislike all things Microsoft. They've just rubbed me the wrong way over the years, what with complex, unreliable, expensive, buggy software, a predatory attitude towards the market, and, well, I just plain don't like them. I personally still use Microsoft Office on the Mac, as MS Office is the corporate standard in basic productivity tools, and that's what everyone else uses. I have a few legacy XP machines here, and recently built two new W7 machines for testing purposes. But I limit production use of MS software at Farpoint Group to Office on the Mac. I don't like giving Microsoft money. It just encourages them.

And I used to be a big Windows Mobile user, everything from the first release of CE on a Casio Cassiopeia A-10 palmtop to 6.1 on a Samsung Omnia, and was never, ever happy with the experience. The Cassiopeia would lose the contents of memory when the battery went dead, which was frequently, and 6.1 was absolutely unusable with its bizarre wireless capabilities and poor excuse for a browser (to say nothing of its lack of upgradeability to 6.5 and beyond).

And I'm sure I'm not the only one. An effective management team wouldn't have let this happen. Fresh thinking is required at the top at Microsoft. Steve, thanks. But it really is time. And will the MS Board execute? Very unlikely indeed.

• Wireless / Mobile
• Restructuring
• Casio Cassiopeia
• corporate boards
• corporate management
• David Einhorn
• Macintosh
• Microsoft
• Microsoft Office
• Steve Ballmer
• Windows 7
• windows mobile
• windows phone
• Windows XP