Microsoft – Motivations, Ethics, and Conflict Management

Microsoft – Motivations, Ethics, and Conflict Management
Like a snowflake, no two people are alike; human beings may be the most complex organisms on the planet earth. Successful organizations such as Microsoft are filled with hundreds and sometimes thousands of these unique beings, each with his or her own unique personalities and behavior. How does an organization like Microsoft find the delicate balance between enforcing, guiding, and motivating their people while achieving phenomenal results? The authors of this paper will discussion the motivation policies, ethics program, and conflict management approaches of the Microsoft organization and analyze how its standards in these areas make it a high performance organization.
Motivational Principals
Growth
Microsoft finds potential growth through the eyes of the employees and the eyes of the customers. Innovative ideas to keep Microsoft’s reputation afloat will forecast areas of growth. “At Microsoft, we’re motivated and inspired everyday by how our customers use our software to find creative solutions to business problems, develop breakthrough ideas, and stay connected to what’s important to them.” (Microsoft.com, 2008).
Employees at Microsoft operate on serving the world. Microsoft’s mission is to “enable people and businesses throughout the world to realize their full potential” and typically takes the form of developing technology to make peoples’ lives and lifestyles easier from the beginners to the advanced computer users. Applying technology where needed, Microsoft programs organize, store, and present information to better assist individuals.
Achievement
From the floppy disk to upgraded computer systems and from businesses to schools and homes, Microsoft technology is used and valued by a variety of consumers across the world. Programs such as Microsoft Windows, Word, Excel, and Outlook help people with writing forms, homework, resumes, and calendars. These technologies are continually updated, improved, and constantly in high demand. The achievements over the past 30 years include: the Universal Design Award in Recognition of 12 years of Accessible Products and Technologies in 2000, 100 Best Corporate Citizens – Business Ethics in 2003, Working Mothers Magazines- Top 100 Companies for working Mother’s in 2006, Number 1 in the Great Place to Work survey, Microsoft Japan, the Great Place to Work Institute and Nikkei Business in 2008, and many more. Achieving 30 years of accomplishments and growth, Microsoft will continue to be known for excellence in technology (Microsoft.com, 2008).
Equity/Satisfaction
“Just as we constantly update and improve our products, we want to continually evolve our company to be in the best position to accelerate new technologies as they emerge and to better serve our customers” (Microsoft.com, 2008). When satisfaction is earned, then the reward is greatly appreciated by the employees who have changed another customer’s life. Motivational principles are applied to the self-managed employee who agrees with the mission and strategy outline of the company.
Ethics Program
Code of Ethics At Microsoft, the code of ethics is woven throughout each individual’s work and job role at the company. Once hired, the employees are expected to fulfill their job role and uphold all ethical standards of the company. The company has commitments to the public, laws and regulations, the workers, the shareholders, and all other stakeholders. This role is understood by the company and expected from all employees and partners of Microsoft. That code of ethics can be summarized within the following quote: “as a company, and as individuals, we value integrity, honesty, openness, personal excellence, constructive self-criticism, continual self-improvement, and mutual respect. We are committed to our customers and partners and have a passion for technology. We take on big challenges, and pride ourselves on seeing them through. We hold ourselves accountable to our customers, shareholders, partners, and employees by honoring our commitments, providing results, and striving for the highest quality” (Microsoft.com, 2008).
Training
Most of the ethical training at Microsoft is done online. The company has designed and implemented interactive, self-guided, and technologically advanced programs where any individual, even those who are not computer savvy can complete his or her training and have that completion recorded by the company.
Monitoring
In addition to the standard practice of providing the ability of any employee to report a violation of ethics privately, Microsoft also leverages technology to ensure any electric actions are traceable to a definitive identity. While the system is designed primarily for security to prevent unauthorized access, Microsoft’s use of a smart card system to validate the identity of employees also ensures that employees are accountable for their actions. The smart card system uses a two factor authentication the card “something you have” and a password “something you know” so the employee cannot deny any involvement with work done.
Enforcement
The enforcement of ethical practices, while in many ways similar to other corporations, has a particular importance at Microsoft. Microsoft was the subject of a very public antitrust trial where a great many internal details and ethically relevant behaviors were discussed in detail public. In May of 1998, 20 states filed charges alleging “Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales” (Wikipedia, 2008) The issue at the heart of the case was that Microsoft bundled their Internet Explorer web browser software with the Windows operating system. By doing this, Microsoft used a monopoly in one market to unfairly dominate another market. Microsoft enforces a strict code of business ethics on a daily level.
Conflict Management Approaches
The software industry is a rapidly evolving and competitive marketplace; Microsoft people tend to be very smart, very motivated, and very confident in themselves and their work. Microsoft employs many passionate people that bring many good ideas to the table and all of them cannot see the light of day. The ability to resolve numerous conflicts is critical and keeping them all working in the same direction is critical to the company’s current and future success. While the individual conflict management style can vary by situation, the common thread woven through them all is the “Open and Respectful” company value.
“People who are respectful of others understand that how work is done is as important as the work itself. They understand that getting the best from co-workers is often accomplished by being approachable, constructive, and considerate. There may be times when voices are raised to make a point. But, it is the exception, not the rule. And in addition, if it happens, it should never be personal. Treat others with respect and they will help you carry any load.
What does it mean to be open? Listening to another 's point of view, even if it is contrary to your own. Openness is the willingness to hear bad news. Openness is being approachable and easy to talk to, no matter your level” (Microsoft, n.d.).
The preferred conflict management strategy varies depending on a number of factors including the type of conflict, importance, time constraints, and the individuals or groups involved. Collaboration and problem solving are the most dominant forms of conflict resolution at Microsoft and are always used. Other strategies are applied when collaboration and problem solving are not possible, and if cost for those two exceeds the benefit of going through the rigor.
Schermerhorn et al list reduced interdependence, appeals to common goals, and hierarchical referral as indirect conflict management approaches (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2005, 345). Reduced interdependence strategies of decoupling and buffering are not used at Microsoft, while linking pin roles are generally only used at Microsoft when the liaison role already exists and is providing additional value to the company as an information conduit or proactive advocate. Appeals to common goals are generally ineffective unless also accompanied by a concrete business case based on why the change is in the best interest of the company. A form of hierarchical referral is used at Microsoft when individuals higher in the management chain are asked for their perspective on a conflict or other matter, but managers are rarely asked to mediate or determine the winner in an internal conflict. While rarely used, all employees have can communicate directly with executives up to and including the CEO if the situation warrants it. This is similar in philosophy to the Toyota practice of providing a cord that any employee can pull to stop the assembly line and correct a quality issue. (Toyota, n.d.)
Direct conflict management includes a range of strategies that result in lose-lose, win-lose, and win-win situations (Schermerhorn et al., 2005, 346). The lose-lose strategies of avoidance, accommodation, and smoothing are almost never used at Microsoft while compromise is used occasionally when the need to resolve a conflict is more important than the result or any potential relationship damage. The win-lose strategies of competition and authoritative command are rarely used for conflict management, though the approaches are used for performance review rating criteria and policy setting respectively. The win-win approach of collaboration and problem solving are by far the preferred conflict management strategies at Microsoft and these principles are found in numerous other areas of the corporate culture.
Conflict Resolution Processes
Routine minor internal conflicts happen frequently at Microsoft and are generally a healthy part of the day-to-day business and company culture. Developing software is an imperfect process where the interests of product quality, feature inclusion, and release deadlines are constantly competing for a finite set of resources. This leads to a set of predictable conflicts around features to be cut or added, which software bugs are important enough to be fixed, and whether to extend the release date of the product to accommodate a feature or quality measurement. For most of these predictable conflicts, processes have been established to resolve the conflicts in keeping with the goals of the overall business.
Like any large and mature corporation, a number of policies and procedures have been formed to proactively address conflicts, though each process has some form of exception process. One of the main internal processes for resolving routine conflicts for large complex projects like Windows is a set “war meetings.” Everything for a software project at Microsoft is tracked with a “bug,” an entry in a tracking database for a software flaw, proposed feature or change that has detailed information on the bug. The war team process is supported by a number of processes including a standard that defines which bugs will be considered and which ones will not, a standard called the “bug bar.” This bug bar acts as a kind of automatic conflict resolution where the criteria for a proposed change or fix is easy to achieve and gets progressively more difficult until the product is completed. Throughout this process, the overall product criteria is top requirement, the release date and other milestones are almost immovable, and the features start as high priority and drop until they have almost no effect as the product is almost complete and ready to ship.
Conflict Resolution Processes
Microsoft provides guidance to employees on the skill competencies valued by the company and how to improve and rate them. Microsoft values conflict management highly and has published its guidance online for the benefit of other organizations in the education section of its website (Microsoft, n.d.). This is an excerpt of that guidance that defines the proficiency levels of conflict management as well as the boundaries where the effect of conflict management behavior can become negative:

Proficiency Level
Level 1: Basic Level 2: Intermediate Level 3: Advanced Level 4: Expert
Identifies situations needing attention and steps in as mediator Successfully mediates conflict between individuals and groups Steps up to conflicts; seeing them as opportunities Masterfully defuses volatile situations
Is objective Is objective in situations that involve personal conflicts of interest Is unbiased and trustworthy in situations that involve personal conflicts of interest Is well respected as a fair and wise leader
Can promote calm dialogue and cooperation Finds common ground and gets cooperation with minimum noise Hammers out tough agreements and settles disputes equitably Engineers plans to equitably and calmly resolve disputes Reads situations quickly Moves quickly to resolve issues to prevent bitterness Exhibits foresight to identify and defuse conflicts before they occur Top of page
Overdoing Conflict Management
• May be seen as overly aggressive and assertive
• May get in the middle of everyone else’s problems
• May drive for a solution before others are ready
• May have a chilling effect on open debate
• May spend too much time with obstinate people and on unsolvable problems

Performance Management
High-Performance Organizations Developments over the past few years have forced transformations of organizations and in the ways in which people work. Our society had become familiar with the difficulties of a struggling economy, the anxieties of downsizing organizations, and both the prospects and threats of the global marketplace. In the face of difficulties mentioned, one of the strengths of our society, its people, and its organizations is the ability to gain knowledge and move towards positive change. Progressive organizations, such as Microsoft, are viewed as high performance organizations (HPOs) because they overcome the challenges of the transforming marketplace with motivational policies, ethics programs, and distinctive approaches to conflict management. As a high performance organization, Microsoft constantly changes the nature of the way things are done, the work environment of its people, and the quality it delivers to its customers, clients, and stakeholders. One definition of a high performance organization is an organization that functions in a way that accentuates the strengths of its people and generates high performance results while promoting a quality work atmosphere (Schermerhorn, J.R., Hunt, J.G., and Osborn, R.N., 2006, p.25).
Becoming a high performance organization is becoming the goal for an increasing number of companies. As a result, a variety of research regarding training, leadership, and management has been reviewed by the consulting companies such as Resource Development Systems. The study of successful organizations revealed seven important elements to establishing a high performance organization: people, personal responsibility, vision, leadership, strengths, and innovation (Resource Development Systems, 2008).
Elements of High Performance Organization People. Microsoft and other HPOs put customers, employees, and stakeholders at the core of everything they do. People are values as assets and diversity is respected. HPOs also focus on total quality management to deliver customer and client satisfaction. Trust. Trust is the foundation on which everything is built on within HPOs. If trust does not exist between the people of an organization, each person is less likely to take personal responsibility for their actions, commit to the vision of the organization, or have confidence in those in leadership positions.
Personal Responsibility. Equally, if each individual in an organization does not take personal responsibility for his or her own actions, then trust will not exist between them. Vision. The vision or mission statement defines the organization purpose, values and goals. The shared vision at Microsoft is to continually evolve to better serve its customers. Leadership. Those in leadership positions in HPOs “manage the human side of their business” (Resource Development Systems, 2008) because the connections employees have with their managers and their customers are the key to total quality management. Strengths. HPOs empower people to fully use their strengths in order to exercise initiative and maximize organizational and personal performance contributions. Innovation. HPOs such as Microsoft have the belief that good enough is not enough and work to achieve success by bringing people, the latest information, and latest technology together.

The seven elements of high performance organizations are not elements an organization can develop one-by-one. Some elements must be established prior to the development of others. For example, people are center of the diagram above (Resource Development Systems.com, 2008) just as they are the core of any organization. Organizations work for people (customers and stakeholders) and people are needed to make an organization work (employees and management). The four arrows and four elements (vision, strengths, leadership, and innovation) coming from the center the diagram illustrate the idea that these elements must develop concurrently in order for an organization to remained balanced. The objective is to grow equally in all four directions and continue to grow.
Conclusion
When measured by the seven critical elements, Microsoft has clearly achieved and maintained the status and rewards of a high performance organization. Microsoft has successfully implemented motivational policies for growth, achievement, and equity; an ethics program that establishes, teaches, monitors, and enforces their ethical values; and cultivates a culture that rewards effective conflict management. The policies and standards Microsoft has adopted demonstrate how successful organizations can use experiences from extreme challenges such as a public anti-trust lawsuit to drive positive and continuous growth. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a balance with by having a consistent code of business ethics, training program, motivational tools, and dealing with conflict in its ever-changing technological world. This type of stability is extremely important to every employee as employee has a consistent and similar structure in dealing with any stress related agents at work.

References
Microsoft (n.d.). Conflict management. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/education/competencies/comp_conflictmanagement.mspx
Microsoft (n.d.). Open and respectful. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/latvija/karjera/values/respectful.mspx
Resource Development Systems. (2008). High performance organizations. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from web website http://www.rds-net.com
Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2006). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Thurrott, P. (2003, January 30). Windows server 2003: the road to gold part two: developing windows. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold2.asp
Toyota (n.d.). Toyota quality. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/qualdex.as
Wikipedia (n.d.). United States Microsoft antitrust case. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.wikipedia.com

References: Microsoft (n.d.). Conflict management. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/education/competencies/comp_conflictmanagement.mspx Microsoft (n.d.). Open and respectful. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/latvija/karjera/values/respectful.mspx Resource Development Systems. (2008). High performance organizations. Retrieved May 19, 2008, from web website http://www.rds-net.com Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2006). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Thurrott, P. (2003, January 30). Windows server 2003: the road to gold part two: developing windows. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold2.asp Toyota (n.d.). Toyota quality. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.toyotageorgetown.com/qualdex.as Wikipedia (n.d.). United States Microsoft antitrust case. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.wikipedia.com