The Seattle Times reported on Saturday that Steve Ballmer and Microsoft have finally come to their senses and rethought their abandonment of state gay rights legislation. But the key question is why did it take otherwise intelligent and shrewd executives two whole weeks before they realized the PR fiasco they had gotten themselves into by turning away from the bill?
The Times’ article quotes in full Ballmer’s e mail to MS employees about the new policy. If you read it, it’s a model of frowzy, beside the point prose. It takes him five entire paragraphs before he begins talking about the issue at hand and not until the sixth does he say MS will support the state legislation next year. In that fifth paragraph, he says:
After looking at the question from all sides, I’ve concluded that
diversity in the workplace is such an important issue for our business
that it should be included in our legislative agenda. Since our
beginning nearly 30 years ago, Microsoft has had a strong business
interest in recruiting and retaining the best and brightest and most
diverse work force possible. I’m proud of Microsoft’s commitment to
non-discrimination in our internal policies and benefits, but our
policies can’t cover the range of housing, education, financial and
similar services that our people and their partners and families need.
Therefore, it’s appropriate for the company to support legislation that
will promote and protect diversity in the workplace.
Perhaps if I worked at MS, I’d know the secret handshake and get the code he’s speaking here. For example, what does it mean when he says: "…but our
policies can’t cover the range of housing, education, financial and
similar services that our people and their partners and families need?" Does he mean to say that supporting gay rights internally isn’t enough and that we must also support it on a broader statewide level? If so, he sure took a windy road to say it.
Also, the memo is awkwardly phrased and belabored. All he needed to say was: "Gee, we listened hard to everyone who commented after we backed off the bill. We’ve reconsidered our decision & will be strongly supporting this legislation in the next legislative session." Plain and simple. The tortuous prose and inordinate length shows he still is confused about what happened and why it happened. MS’ indecisiveness and cupidity regarding this entire incident is deeply troubling and shows a company that is adrift at least insofar as it’s corporate communications strategy is concerned.
In Ballmer’s memo, he still tries to maintain some of his discredited justifications for the company’s previous position like saying that the entire incident resulted from "miscommunication." What does that mean? Ballmer also makes clear that the company is retreating from some of its progressive stands on broader social issues:
…based on the principles I’ve
just outlined, the company should not and will not take a position on
most other public policy issues, either in the U.S. or internationally.
So in effect, Ballmer’s new support may be a Pyrrhic victory if the company retreats from previous stands it’s taken on other social positions. In the same article, Microsoft’s chief PR flack lays down a marker for gay employees by declaring the company will take no position on the issue of gay marriage. So it’s one step forward and one step back.
Finally, Ballmer learns precisely the wrong lesson from this affair when he says:
I expect everyone at this company — particularly managers — to take a
hard look at their personal commitment to diversity, and redouble that
commitment.
The first person who should be taking that "hard look" at his commitment to diversity is Ballmer himself and his senior executives like Brad Smith who engineered the original foolhardy decision.
