[vicnov]

Yesbut… is it true? MSFT is very successful long-term.

You’re making an assumption that teams having control over their work will lead to better quality of product (which i agree) and then (I assume you predict), in return, will result in better financial performance.

But is that true? I am not so sure. I worked in some banks and it is very easy to come up with better products for consumers… that will make less revenue to the banks. I also worked in big tech, and so how prioritizing UX over paying customer requests is virtually impossible.

Oh… i also observed teams ACTIVELY not wanting to take steps to improve products because it would lead to taking risks, and most corporations incentivize you to he risk-averse.

This is a very interesting topic, with few clear answers beyond “culture has to be very good to build good products”

[yesbut]

maybe MS is a bad example, MS is also a monopoly in many respects. Most companies aren't these giants. We've all been in a situation where the C team/upper management make terrible decisions like this without concerning themselves with what the employees doing the work have to say. There are more of those types of situations than being an employee for a market sector monopoly. a company can thrive without its board of directors and handful of owners, but now without its employees.