The same is true of corporations: if you want to predict where a company is going to move, you have to pay attention to the one thing that never changes—the guts of the company. And in most cases, the guts of the company are at the top of the org chart. (Okay, that’s an oversimplification. Organizational culture is fairly complex. However, in Microsoft’s case, where two founders of the company still occupy primary leadership roles, it’s absolutely true that they will ultimately determine the character of the company.) #

So, I’m fascinated by the fact that Hugh MacLeod has picked up Microsoft as a client, and by the discussion taking place in the comments section of his announcement post. I think Hugh’s a brilliant marketer and keen observer of the flow of ideas, and if he manages to actually help Microsoft turn their culture around, I think the world will only benefit from that. But I have to say, I don’t think he can do it. #

Steve Clayton’s point here is essential: “Hugh got hired by some risk takers at Corp, not by Bill and Co.” Except in those remarkable companies that are structured to encourage and absorb input from all levels of the organization, corporate culture change comes from the top of the company and flows down. Large companies can have wildly varying cultures within their ranks, but it’s the top tier of managers that ultimately make the decisions that represent the largest share of the company’s public actions, and thus drive public perception. #

This is what always interested me about the blogosphere’s reaction to Robert Scoble when he was a blogger at Microsoft. Scoble was rightly praised for his intelligence and transparency, but it mystified me that he was also supposed to be the harbinger of a new openness at the company. Of course he wasn’t. He was a Microsoft employee with a megaphone, but that’s it. He was the bullfighter’s cape, a captivating presence to pay attention to, but inconsequential in terms of the direction of the company’s energies. In the comment thread at Gaping Void, Scoble himself admits as much. He was listening to the outside conversation about the company, but “it just was frustrating to me that I couldn’t get the leadership to really listen, too.” #

So, this is part of what’s fascinating to me: who has the right to tell the Microsoft story? Is it the Steve Claytons and the Robert Scobles? Is it Gates and Ballmer? Is it we, the users? Is it all of the above? And what happens when the story diverges? It seems to me that Gates and Ballmer tell one story—that of Microsoft domination at all costs. Clayton and Scoble tell another story—that of an emerging openness and a thirst for innovation. And the users tell a range of other stories, from “Microsoft is still #1” to “Microsoft is dead.” #

To me, the answer is that everyone tells the story, but at the end of the day it’s the story told by the top leadership that will matter, because they have direct influence over the top tier of managers. And that group sets the tone for which ideas take hold internally, which messages go out through official channels, and which projects get resources and which ones don’t. #

Personally, I prefer using the Macintosh platform, but I also live in Seattle and care about the tech community here. So I want Microsoft to be successful because I want my friends to be employed and happy, and because big innovative companies bring human and technical resources to the area that wouldn’t otherwise be here. So, go for it, Hugh. But if you want to be successful, you have to convince more than just the employees at Microsoft. You have to take every opportunity to talk directly to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, because those are the guys that will ultimately make the change happen. #

Of course, I could be wrong. I’d love to hear of any examples of companies where change has been effected from the middle or from the bottom without the buy-in of the company leadership. Anyone? #

Update: Thanks for the link, Hugh. #

On a related note, here’s a good perspective on Microsoft from Dave Winer. #

Update 2: I’m hardly surprised at this. This is what I’m talking about. Microsoft’s domination tendencies are deeply ingrained. They do not have a culture of community and cooperation. #

More Big Things

• Twits