As a former MS alum, it is quite clear the general public is unaware of the company's doings. While not done before on such a scale, MS does let people go on a regular basis, in fact practically quarterly. Despite the fact that the company's stock price has been stuck at 2001 levels, the company apparently felt the need to do layoffs to satisfy the street even though the company continues to put over $1 billion each month into the bank. Certainly the company could have afforded to weather this storm.

Back in the day, MS would have created a new or competing product with the excess talent. They would have heavily marketed the product and everyone could hardly contain themselves until they got their hot little hands on the product. It seems that the glory days for MS are gone and the entreprenual spirit has left with Bill and his entourage. Where is the marketing? Where is the excitement, the cheerleading. Where is the electricity that used to come with every little announcement or rumor? It's sad to see. MS has become another Novell; a giant with very little vision.

Does anyone get it? Corporate America does not care about you, just it's golden boy "profits"

One might predict, based on the Automative industry, that some foreign companies/govs will enter the USA and do to the IT world what Toyota and Honda have done to the brain dead US auto companies!

Was in MSFT for about 10 years before leaving a few years back to work in a startup. Mark is right about MS attrition; it's not new. Projects get canceled and people are asked to find new jobs on their own within x days or they're out. Has been happening for years.

I partially disagree with Donald's take on the hiring and training bit though. It really varies significantly from one group to another. The days where only the best and brightest are hired is mostly gone. MS today is like any large company with its politics and bureaucracies. Guidelines were once very clear with hiring; if there's any suspicion the candidate won't make the cut, it's a definite no hire. Not the case anymore.

In the last couple of years before I left, I saw candidates that were flatly rejected as "generally incompentent" (meaning, doesn't meet basic entry bar for the company as a whole) by one group (sent home after lunch) get hired by another group without a full interview loop. I see lots of paper holders (a lot of MBAs, a few PhDs) with zero field knowledge/experience get hired into senior positions. Internal reviews are no longer the tough, no-holds-barred, get to the true issue sessions anymore. It's all about middle management working for months presenting a cohesive tale to the executives. Many of the interviewers themselves aren't qualified to interview the candidates. I've spoken to candidates as the 3rd-4th interviewer and found major gaps in the areas noted to be strengths by earlier interviewers.

With the recent shuffle at the SLT/XLT/BLT, things have improved marginally but it'll take a lot more moving before MS gets back to what it was. As for this specific round of announced layoffs, looks like just another fat trimming or empire adjusting exercise. IMHO, quite a few large companies are doing the same.

Hey, what better time to trim some fat than now? Nobody will even raise an eyebrow when Acme Corp announces major layoffs today whereas the same action 2 years ago might have triggered massive lawsuits, inquiries, labor action, etc...

What's missing is the Why. Why were *those* people chosen and not the guys and girls in the office down the hall?

I've heard of only one person let go who was an anchor to progress, not an engine. But all the rest I know were hard-working and bright.

If Corneil has braggable performance reviews, did his junior seniority put him on the street? Is that fair? Sounds too much like working with the city or state.

We'd like more info on the selection process--or in this case, the de-selection process.

Laid-Off Microsoft Employees Profiled?

Where's the rest of the article? Looking for a reason why Microsoft still wants to hire h1b's.

I worked at Microsoft for 15 years and left voluntarily 3 years ago. The H1B thing is, as always, a red herring and not germane to this particular discussion. At Microsoft, it is rare for critical path projects to be outsourced or offshored. There may be projects on the periphery that are done elsewhere, but even then it is largely because Microsoft is a global company with global ambitions. Investing in the Indian market with Indian headcount is a necessity to be taken seriously in the Indian IT market as something other than an American carpetbagger pouring goods into another market. Likewise with their Chinese development organization.

In this case, Microsoft was merely capitulating to Wall Street, who wanted to see Microsoft doing something to alleviate the expense side of the bottom line equation. Microsoft has already slashed marketing budgets and historically opulent travel budgets. The next column to get whacked was R&D.

Never mind that it's their bloated middle management and executive ranks that are largely at fault for not recognizing new trends (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon) or slowing progress once it does recognize an opportunity (Zune vs. iPod, Windows vs. Mac OS, Xbox vs. Wii, etc.)

The company today is nothing more than a political, bureaucratic mess. It has some exceptional talent, to be sure. But across the board, that exceptional talent is watered down by a calcified layer of bureaucrats, sycophants, and incompetents. In that way, it's no different than any other big corporation or government entity.

As a former employee who is very proud of my small contribution to what I regard as one of the great American success stories, I'm even more proud that I'm also a former shareholder.

As a guy who has worked for the last 13 years as a vendor supporting MS, and as a recently laid-off employee, all of the above is true. Sure, there is always the need to trim, and of course there are some bad hires, but the recent round of layoffs exposed a bit of Director level incompetence.
I was aware of 2 people within my workgroup that produced nothing in the last 6 to 10 months of my working there, and as far as I know, they are still there. So there is likely a bit of protectionism going on. I don't care to elaborate any further on this, but it was very obvious.