Tim Kellis, Author of "Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage"
The most recent example we have of corporate conflict is the case of Microsoft vs The US Government.
Microsoft plays a very important role in the message I am trying to convey. The bottom line is, similar to the software Microsoft sells to the PC industry, I am trying to teach folks that they actually develop software in their minds as they grow and mature, software that can be reprogrammed, contrary to the biology conclusion that provides the foundation for the entire psychology industry.
Microsoft also gives us another excellent example for how two people in a successful relationship handle the inevitable conflicts that can be so damaging if not address effectively.
Example #3: Microsoft
We have an even more complex disagreement today between the government and a company that has significant power in the computer industry with Microsoft’s success in software. The government has been looking into Microsoft’s hold over the operating system in the PC industry for nearly a decade trying to determine if the company is stifling competition and using predatory pricing.
Microsoft is the company it is today because it won the IBM contract which led to its control over the operating system. This success then led to the company dominating the applications software business. After this early success the government discovered the company was behaving in a manner that wasn’t fair to its competitors. In fact, since the beginning of the PC industry competitors have been screaming at the top of their lungs, so to speak, about Microsoft’s predatory behavior, with no response from the government.
The government eventually brought action against the company when it was discovered Microsoft was using business practices that made it impossible for competitors to compete on a level playing field. Reminiscent of Rockefeller’s practice at Standard Oil of charging railroad operators for any oil that was transported, regardless of the refining company, Microsoft began charging PC manufacturers based on the number of PCs the manufacturer sold in a quarter, regardless of whose operating system was on it. This meant computer manufacturers had to pay Microsoft regardless of whose software was installed, which meant there was no reason for PC manufacturers to use competing products, or the manufacturer had to pay twice if a competing product was used.
What also wasn’t helpful to Microsoft was the company would eventually drive most of the other applications software companies out of business. WordPerfect would eventually lose most of the word processor market. Lotus would lose its spreadsheet business but, demonstrating an uncanny ability to innovate, developed an application software program that became a runaway success. Lotus developed the Lotus Notes application product that integrated many of the key functions of the office environment, such as e-mail and client contact management, into one application package. IBM would eventually acquire the company for billions of dollars.
In the early nineties Microsoft, without admitting guilt, which is what companies claim when they settle with the government, declared it would discontinue its predatory business practices. But it was too late for the companies that had once dominated the largest segments of the application software market. For Microsoft, application software revenues would eventually grow as large as the operating system revenues, with the same profit margins.
The next step in this disagreement was Microsoft’s eventual control over the web browser business. The government took notice, again. This time attention was focused not only on Microsoft, but Intel as well. How both companies responded gives a wonderful example not only of the differences in both companies’ culture, but also on the difference between faultfinding and problem solving.
When the government accused Intel of antitrust violation the company immediately agreed with the government and came to terns. Brilliant scientists, who ran the company with an aggressive, but practical fashion, founded Intel. The company was smart enough to admit its mistake and move on. Intel’s practices have long been questioned, as well, but Intel simply realizes when the government has a case and remedies the government complaint.
Microsoft doesn’t have such a culture. As the consummate salesman, Gates had built the company up to win at all costs. In the company’s belief, there is no way Microsoft could be behaving in a predatory way. The company is simply building the best product at the lowest cost to the consumer. This is the company’s tag line and it sticks with it. When the government approached Microsoft company executives simply kept repeating the same mantra. No the company wasn’t competing unfairly; it was simply doing a better job in the marketplace. The government went after Microsoft. Following this story was fun, better than any soap opera I have ever seen.
One of the great elements of our legal system is that if anyone brings legal action against another party, the one who brought action has access to all pertinent information about the case. The government asked Microsoft for pertinent documents, and the company delivered them by the truckload. But the problems for the company didn’t come from the documents that were delivered but from the company’s e-mail. E-mail is never destroyed. A common practice for companies in the digital age is to continually back up critical data, including e-mail, in case it is lost on the original computer.
Microsoft’s e-mail was incredibly incriminating. The government had actual e-mail between corporate executives, which clearly showed the competitive nature of the company. The tone of the banter back and forth, including between Gates and his lieutenants, was the objective in the “browser wars” was to destroy Netscape, and the method Microsoft used was bundling.
The government even questioned Gates himself about his e-mails. The analogies between Gates and Microsoft, and Rockefeller and Standard Oil are many. Oil runs the huge automobile industry. Software runs the huge PC industry. In the oil industry most of the profits go to the oil providers, those who produce and refine. In the PC industry most of the profits go to the software provider(s).
But the most amazing analogy is the behavior of both men when the government questioned them. If you were to hide the faces and voices along with the subject matter of the way both responded to their respective government inquiry you would not be able to tell them apart. Gates responded to the government questions in the same fashion Rockefeller did, some seventy years earlier. Gates simply said he “didn’t know” to any incriminating questions that were asked. This time, though, the government had his e-mail, and he was still actively managing the company. How could that be?
Gates defense was the government should not be involved because the industry will determine the outcome of the debate. Gates would continually comment the technology industry, particularly the Internet, was moving too fast, and the real threat to Microsoft was being left behind by the Internet. The government couldn’t keep up with the speed of innovation. Microsoft also believes it is important for industry growth that the software delivered be standardized. After all, Apple’s market share has been dwindling for years because it operates on a different standard than the rest of the industry.
The government’s decision was to break up the company. Unfortunately for the government’s case, legal action doesn’t work that simply. In this case what is incredibly important was not to disrupt the industry. After the judgment was announced, in a surreal scene, executives who had been foes of Microsoft for decades came out in defense of Microsoft. The company had grown so large it had become an absolutely essential element of the industry, and disrupting its business might disrupt the entire industry itself. Of course, the objective of the relationship is not breaking up the company but keeping it intact.
What will be the outcome of the case? It could take decades to decide. Just look at the AT&T example.
But the lesson for relationships is a simple one. If you think you have difficult disagreements, look at the Microsoft vs. The U.S. Government case. But the discussion between the two parties was always on a logical plane. Microsoft has its side; the government has its side. But we are talking about one of the biggest companies in the world and the most successful government in the world.
To succeed in disagreements requires an understanding of both sides of the disagreement. Both sides of a disagreement have their different independent perspectives. If you don’t listen to the other side then you will never get to a logical point that makes sense for both parties. You must discuss, you must talk, and you must communicate! Keep it logical.
As the old saying goes, “if you want to understand a man, then you must walk in his shoes”. Of course this requires both sides to behave in a fair and objective manner. What is also so important to keep in mind is that it may take a while to truly understand the other side, you partner’s perspective with all of its complexities.
by Tim Kellis
HappyRelationships.com
Tim Kellis, author of \\\"Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage\\\" Renowned Wall Street analyst Tim Kellis takes on what could be considered society’s biggest problem today, divorce. The journey that led to him tackling such a significant issue was both personal and professional. After a successful career that eventually landed him on Wall Street Tim met what he thought was the girl of his dreams, only to see that relationship end with bitterness and anger. The journey included work with a marital therapist, and after he discovered the therapist wasn’t really helping decided to tackle the issue himself.
Ambition and a strong aptitude for math helped lead Kellis to discover how to make relationships work. His math skills led directly to an engineering degree, nine years in the telecommunications industry, an MBA in finance, and finally on to Wall Street, where he became the very first semiconductor analyst to focus on the communications market.
After publishing a 300-page initiation piece entitled Initiating Coverage of the Semiconductor Industry: Riding the Bandwidth Wave, Kellis became a leading semiconductor analyst at one of the biggest firms on Wall Street. The experience he gained as a Wall Street analyst provided an excellent backdrop for becoming an expert on relationships, and resulted in his relationship book entitled “Equality: The Quest for the Happy Marriage”. Read more from this author
Recent Comments