Don Dodge: fired from Microsoft, hired by Google

http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2009/11/thanks-microsoft-hello-google.html

by dennisgorelik • 17 years ago

114 69 17 years ago

dondodge.typepad.com

lionhearted2• 17 years ago

I remember a lesson I learned the hard way once. I'd put it something like, "Occasionally someone will get power over you or your organization that you didn't mean for them to have. Trying to make decisions as if they didn't have that power - just because you didn't mean for them to have it - will result in pain for you."

Perhaps that could be said more elegantly, but it's oh-so-painfully true. Sometimes someone low in the org chart without a fancy title comes into a lot of respect, or becomes the face of the company, or becomes good friends with a supplier or major client. Like it or not, that makes it time to reward, promote, and retain them, even if they "shouldn't" have that power. Best case scenario you can be enlightened about it and try to bring out the best in them. This, this entry right here - this is the worst case scenario in action.

dennisgorelik4• 17 years ago

Do you mean Microsoft didn't mean to give Don Dodge any power?

I think Microsoft did a good thing by firing Don. It definitely turned out to be good for Don Dodge, Google, and our industry in general. But it might be good for Microsoft too: if organization is not ready for what one of her high-performers is doing -- it might be better to keep such high-performer out in order to keep the organization more consistent and less confused.

lionhearted2• 17 years ago

> Do you mean Microsoft didn't mean to give Don Dodge any power?

I think he became more significant than his official title, and they failed to realize that during their planning and layoffs.

ilamont2• 17 years ago

What surprised me about this:

1) How quickly Google moved to contact him. Dodge is very knowledgeable (I've been reading his blog for years) but I also have to wonder if Google moves a little faster when high-profile Microsoft employees are involved.

2) how long it took him to switch from Internet Explorer and Windows Mobile.

apu• 17 years ago

With regards to (1), I'm sure they do, especially considering the negative PR Microsoft was accruing for this lay-off. With one stroke, you get a good guy working for you and you make your competitor look bad. Win-win.

mrduncan• 17 years ago

I also have to wonder if Google moves a little faster when high-profile Microsoft employees are involved

I would imagine that they move quickly when high-profile employees of any (tech) company are involved, not just Microsoft. Being a big competitor to Google pretty much by-definition means that they will have a few high-profile people who leave regularly. I'm sure the same pattern is true of Google picking up ex-Yahoo employees.

wglb• 17 years ago

The fellow he is going to work for, Vic Gundotra, was a long-term Microsoft guy, and so it would seem that he was aware of Don and worked quickly to snap him up.

onewland• 17 years ago

With regards to (2), I can't believe he wasn't using Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera. I work at a (non-web based) MS shop, and even there you'd be hard-pressed to find a developer or hacker type who touches IE. Those who do use IE are only using it to test IE compatibility.

lowkey• 17 years ago

Don_Dodge, Google = +1,+1 for class. Microsoft = -2

tom_rath2• 17 years ago

Laid off, not fired.

That might sound pedantic, but there's a big difference between the two.

dennisgorelik4• 17 years ago

When high-profile person is "laid off" it's more appropriate to call it "fired". Or would you say that it was simply a matter of cost-cutting?

jacquesm2• 17 years ago

You don't normally 'lay off' people in that bracket.

Either they leave or you fire them.

Lay-offs are for people a lot lower on the totem pole.

It's harsh, but that is how it is.

tom_rath2• 17 years ago

You do lay off at that level if there's a mis-match between what a company is wanting and what the person was hired to deliver.

If Microsoft's "evangelist" roles are changing, it makes sense to dismiss those folks who previously worked towards those old objectives, since those objectives are no longer being targeted.

One is 'fired' due to incompetence. Another is 'laid off' due to a change in company priorities, direction and resource allocation.

icefox2• 17 years ago

They do lay off whole groups in which case you have a bunch of managers and vp pondering what to do.

krschultz• 17 years ago

Thats simply not true. I know a guy who was the president of a division with >80m in revenue a year, and was "laid off" with 5,000 other people after 28 years with the company and never a negative performance review. His boss went to bat with finance people but lost. There is a formula and sometimes it says people at level X can't be paid greater than Y, and if they get paid greater than Y, they are laid off. Often the reason they are paid greater than Y is because they are good at the job. Not a smart way to do layoffs, but becoming more common because it is easier to fire top down than bottom up a lot of times.

byrneseyeview2• 17 years ago

The connotation is still "We cut costs, he was a cost," not "He was not doing his job well enough." Although obviously needing to cut costs can clarify which costs are worth it.

KWD2• 17 years ago

Though I'm sure we all know of situations where "layoffs" are used to get rid of problem employees because it's easier than a termination for reason.

dschobel3• 17 years ago

I find it weird that he's so transparent about "company X pays me now, company X's products are SO much better than anything I've used in the past".

Is this stuff compelling to engineers who care about technical merit rather than who is paying his salary?

icey• 17 years ago

When a girl breaks up with you, you want to be sure she knows that the new one is way, way hotter. And smarter. And frankly has better friends.

davidw3• 17 years ago

Yeah, that actually took a little something away from the article, for me. Glad that he has a job though.

dschobel3• 17 years ago

Yeah, it's a happy ending for sure. It seems like everyone who has ever met the guy likes him.

dennisgorelik4• 17 years ago

For me more surprising thing was that Don didn't even try Gmail while working for Microsoft.

dschobel3• 17 years ago

Good point. How can you argue that Outlook + Exchange is a better alternative to the competition when you don't know what the competition is.

stanleydrew2• 17 years ago

I think he probably did but didn't want to talk about it.

oikujhgfvg• 17 years ago

What do you think got him 'downsized'?

jyothi• 17 years ago

Also Google docs is years away from catching up with Office, particularly excel.

chaosprophet• 17 years ago

Notice that "Evangelist" in his job title??? Yeah he's doing his job.

davidw3• 17 years ago

Ok, but the way it's written up, it's not very effective due to the fact that he's being paid by the company whose products he is now so enthusiastically embracing.

I think it would look a little bit more genuine if there were a thing or two he missed, or something he's ditching for a product that doesn't just happen to be a Google product.

The real news item is not "Google employee uses Google products", but that Google is hiring a guy that seems to be well regarded and that MS, for whatever reason, let go, which most commentators seem to indicate was a smart move for Google and a dumb one for MS; but I guess he can't really say that himself without coming across badly.

ejames• 17 years ago

It's only natural that you use the software of the company for which you work. When at Microsoft, you use Microsoft products. When at Google, you use Google products. Of course, any tech person with a blog who made a switch from one suite to the other would write about how the change felt and whether it was for the better or the worse. I don't find anything sinister about it.

Plus, his points ring very true. I care about technical merit, not who is paying Don's salary - which means that if Don is right about a Google product being better in some way, I don't care if he's drawing a Google salary at the time he says it.

KWD2• 17 years ago

Though I'm sure he feels bitter now, his post makes me think of the phrase 'don't burn bridges'. You never know what the future will hold.

pohl• 17 years ago

It made me think of that phrase too, but because he heaps praise and gratitude upon his former employer. I didn't get any bitterness. But I don't know who this guy is. Maybe I'm missing some context.

smiler• 17 years ago

It also strange that by his own admission, he's only been using the products a week - hardly enough time to start experiencing all of the little annoyances of a product.

He raves about GMail's threaded conversation view - this actually drives me crazy - it tries to do a lot of clever things, but sometimes you get client e-mails which are then forwarded / discussed internally and then everything gets out of step. The only way to have a non-threaded view is to use their super-cut down version. I much prefer the flexibility with Outlook. Outlook also has the preview pane - unless I'm mistaken, GMail doesn't have this option (if it does, it's not very discoverable) and this is also a major plus, much easier to scan and deal with e-mail quickly.

Personally I prefer the folder based approach of Outlook as well compared to the tags / labels of Gmail.

(And lastly, why use Chrome or Internet Explorer, Firefox with AdBlockPlus all the way...)

stdan272• 17 years ago

Chrome and AdBlock Plus are running nicely at the moment. :)

icefox2• 17 years ago

All I could wonder is how he never really gave all of the Google apps a try before further making it a they [MS or Google I don't really care] paid me so I am using their stuff and will tell everyone how awesome it is.

awa• 17 years ago

Some comparisons seemed odd to me. Outlook 2010 has conversation view, and MS has office web apps now, as an employee he must have had access to the above.

He has my wishes for the future. Hopefully, he would continue doing great work at Google

joshu• 17 years ago

As a Microsoft employee, he'd probably never used Gmail/Gdocs very much.

I've been at Google a year now, and I'm still amazed how much more productive Gmail makes me (vs Outlook) -- I'd never used it in a corporate setting.

neurotech12• 17 years ago

I thought as a Microsoft employee.. they'd be forbidden from publicly endorsing GMail or Google Docs.

codexon2• 17 years ago

All marketers are liars. This includes evangelists which is just another fancy name for marketers without sales quotas.

I think people are being too hard on him because they are pro-Microsoft or pro-Google instead of pro-Me, pro-You, or pro-Don.

If you consider Don as a corporation himself, what makes this so different than if Dell switched to Linux because MS stopped subsidizing Windows, and Dell started extolling the virtues of Linux over Windows? None.

It is only because we are so ingrained into thinking that employees should be the thralls of their companies even after being fired while the company themselves have no qualms about treating their employees as a cost/benefit commodity. This is a double standard.

ddodge2• 17 years ago

Developers choose their dev tools and platforms based on technical merit, experience, cost, and a variety of other factors. I don't believe that any "evangelist" including me, could convince a developer to use a technology just because we say nice things about it.

Xobni, a Y Combinator company, is a good example. They chose to build on Microsoft long before I came along. But, once we connected I was able to help them get access to software, technical support, consulting, and lots of PR and exposure to MSFT, the press, VCs, etc.

I am not a "marketing" or PR guy. I help startups and developers get things done, get them help when they ask, etc.

In my post I highlighted some of the things I noticed about the Google alternatives. I don't think I went al the way to say Google is better in every case and those Microsoft products are bad. If I left that impression I am sorry.

There are lots of choices. No one tool or product will be the best in all possible use cases. Work loads and requirements are different, and the choice of tool or platform can vary. My job as an evangelist is to make people aware or what exists, and make it easy for them to get access to the help they need.

Thanks,

Don Dodge

jacquesm2• 17 years ago

This is on the homepage twice now: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=943919

char• 17 years ago

What I find incredible is that this guy is just now discovering Gmail and Google Docs. Wow.

Oompa• 17 years ago

And a browser other than Internet Explorer!

bestes• 17 years ago

I just don't believe him. If someone in tech says they have never used Gmail, they had better spend some time explaining _why_.

byrneseyeview2• 17 years ago

I bet this is the last time Microsoft tries to have someone do what Don Dodge does -- it must suck for him to enumerate all the Microsoft products he only used (touted?) because they paid him to do it.

If I worked at Google, I would really reconsider this -- how will it look if Zoho makes him an offer next?

dennisgorelik4• 17 years ago

Well, if Google fires Don then may be Zoho will make him offer next week?

diptanu• 17 years ago

Is he in the marketing team at Google??? Seriously, his blog post beats the hard-core Google Fanboys!

chris100• 17 years ago

Yes, he lost quite a bit of credibility today. He can't find any flaw to google docs as a replacement to Office? I sure can.

I'm not able to use Google Docs as a replacement for Word and Powerpoint yet when I'm doing precise positioning of elements. I'd like to use Google Docs, but it's just too limited for my needs.

ilamont2• 17 years ago

I like Google Docs, but wait til Dodge wants to track changes in a shared word processing document. Fine-toothed footer/header tweaks are also far better in Word.

neurotech12• 17 years ago

I thought his comments were more directed at the advantages of web based Google Documents over Office 2007.

I use both Google Docs and Office 2007 on my PC, depending on my needs for a particular document, eg. if I want to access it from multiple computers - Google Docs is great.

growt• 17 years ago

First Vint Cerf, now Don Dodge. Am I the only one who thinks google hires people 'by name'. At least for the evangelist positions (what ever that means).

pchristensen• 17 years ago

Wouldn't evangelist be the position where you most want to hire a 'name'?

jlees• 17 years ago

Aye, though it only works when people have actually heard of the name. I had no idea who Don Dodge was.

mark_l_watson• 17 years ago

I don't know Don Dodge, but he seems to be a very cool guy, and the tone of his microsoft-fu (get the joke :-) seemed just right.

willwagner• 17 years ago

From the article: "That fast decisive action was refreshing, and such a contrast to the slow, secretive, bureaucracy at Microsoft. That speed and decisiveness also reflects different approaches to hiring great people, building great products and serving customers well."

I am really not trying to be disparaging to Google, but is this really true in Google's hiring practices in general? I know they can snap up big names in a hurry, which Microsoft has also done in the past, but from the outside looking in, it seems like their hiring process is slow and consensus based, and from what I hear, you don't even know what group you'll be working in until late in the process. For some people, that can look "slow, secretive, and bureaucratic". I'm not saying it's the wrong approach for Google, but it is what it is.

khangtoh• 17 years ago

He wasn't fired but let go. It's a world of difference between the two.

gfodor• 17 years ago

Don's going to regret writing this. This post drops a nuclear weapon on any bridge, no matter how fragile, that led from Mountain View back to Redmond.

Edit: removed the last part, it was a bit uncalled for. My bad.

Don Dodge: fired from Microsoft, hired by Google

Related Stories