microsoft corporation case study analysis

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

Microsoft: A Case Study in Strategy Transformation

If you’re leading your team through big changes, this episode is for you.

• Apple Podcasts

In early 2015, Microsoft’s senior leaders were facing a set of difficult decisions. The firm had been struggling to innovate and grow as fast as its competitors. Now they were considering new opportunities that would yield higher growth but lower margins — like shifting away from perpetual licensing to focus on subscription sales.

Harvard Business School professor Fritz Foley studied this period of transformative change at Microsoft for a business case study he wrote. In this episode, he shares how Microsoft’s leaders analyzed different options and worked to get both investors and employees on board with new ideas about growth. He also explains how the company’s risk-averse culture evolved in order to execute such a huge transformation.

Key episode topics include: strategy, growth strategy, business models, corporate governance.  

HBR On Strategy curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock new ways of doing business. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the original Cold Call episode: The Transformation of Microsoft (2018)
• Find more episodes of Cold Call
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR On Strategy , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand selected to help you unlock new ways of doing business.

In early 2015, Microsoft’s senior leadership team was facing a set of difficult decisions. The firm had been struggling to innovate and grow as fast as its competitors. Now, they were considering new opportunities that would yield higher growth, but lower margins like shifting away from perpetual licensing to focus on subscription sales.

Today, we bring you a conversation with Harvard Business School professor Fritz Foley, who studied this period of transformative change at Microsoft for a business case study he wrote. In this episode, you’ll get a window into how Microsoft’s leaders analyzed different options and got both investors and employees on board with a different idea of growth. You’ll also learn how the company’s risk-averse culture had to evolve in order to execute such a huge transformation.

This episode originally aired on Cold Call in July 2018. Here it is.

BRIAN KENNY: Electronics enthusiasts in the 1970s looked forward to it every year: the January issue of Popular Electronics . That is because that issue was known for featuring the coolest up-and-coming products in the world of electronics. And when the January 1975 issue hit newsstands, it did not disappoint. The cover was adorned with the first available image of the Altair 8,800, the world’s first mini-computer kit. It may not have been the shot heard around the world, but many say that it was the spark that ignited the home computer revolution. That very magazine inspired a young Paul Allen and Bill Gates to turn their passion for computers into a business that subsequently became an empire.

Today, Microsoft Corporation is the third most valuable company in the world and the world’s largest software company. But after four decades of buffeting the headwinds of the very industry it helped to create, Microsoft is at a turning point and the way forward is not entirely clear. Today we’ll hear from Professor Fritz Foley about his case entitled “The Transformation of Microsoft.” I’m your host, Brian Kenny, and you’re listening to Cold Call .

SPEAKER 1: So, we’re all sitting there in the classroom.

SPEAKER 2: Professor walks in.

SPEAKER 3: And they look up and you know it’s coming. The dreaded cold call.

BRIAN KENNY: Professor Fritz Foley’s Research focuses on corporate finance. He’s an expert on investment capital structure, working capital management, and a range of related topics, all of which probably factor into the case today. Fritz, thanks for joining us.

FRITZ FOLEY: Thanks so much for having me.

BRIAN KENNY: So, everybody pretty much knows who Microsoft is, and I think people will be really interested in getting a glimpse into where they were at this turning point in the company’s history. Still a very, very important company in the landscape of the technology industry and beyond. So, I think people will relate right away to this, but let me ask you, if you could start just by setting the stage for us. How does the case begin? Who’s the protagonist and what’s on her mind?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah, so the protagonist is Amy Hood, who is Microsoft’s CFO. She also was a student here at HBS at the time that I was in the PhD program. So, I’ve known her for some time and she’s facing a set of choices that really revolve around whether or not Microsoft should try to pursue increased margin or increased growth.

BRIAN KENNY: Okay. What prompted you to write the case? Your connection with Amy obviously is part of that, but why Microsoft and why now?

FRITZ FOLEY: I think I have been struck by the transformation that they are in the midst of. This is a company that… I mean, it’s hard to remember this. In the early two thousands, the stock price was stuck in the 20 to $30 a share range. And there was a group of people who were calling for the firm to be managed essentially for cash distributions and for increased margins. And then there were some growth opportunities that the company faced simultaneously. So, there was a real choice as to what direction to head. And I think this is a compelling choice that many other companies face. So, it’s a powerful example for me to highlight in course I teach about chief financial officers.

BRIAN KENNY: Microsoft was the first player on this stage really, but then Apple came along and I think many people look at these two as fierce competitors. But can you just talk about the difference between these two companies in terms of how they manage their financial strategy?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah, I can say a bit about that. So, at one level, they certainly are similar. They’re in tech space and in fact, many things that Microsoft was attracted to phones in particular, is something that Apple has excelled at. And I think that at the time of the case, they were quite different in the eyes of investors, I would say. I would say that investors still viewed Apple as having a lot of a growth emphasis of a commitment to innovating new products and solving problems that people weren’t even sure they had. Whereas Microsoft was the older, more established tech firm that I think, in the eyes of some, had become not a relic of the past, but less relevant when thinking about future innovations. And in some sense, the cases about how Microsoft tried to shed that view and become a relevant growth-oriented entity again.

BRIAN KENNY: And they’d certainly been criticized over the decades for not moving quickly enough to innovate and getting caught up in their own. And you think about IBM maybe as a company that faced similar criticisms getting caught up in just their size and the bureaucracy of the place. What did Microsoft’s business look like in 2012? Because that seemed to be the beginning of the turning point?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. I mean, it was one where there was varying performance across divisions. There was interest by value activist investors given the large cash holdings that the firm had. Obviously, their market share when it came to the office suite of products and windows, those were quite high. And they were obviously very successful in continuing to provide versions of that to a whole variety of users. They had emerging cloud business, but it wasn’t clear that they would win in that space and had really struggled in other spaces.

In search, Bing never got traction relative to Google. In phones, they were really struggling in 2012 right before they tried to make more headway in phones by buying Nokia, which also subsequently didn’t work out as well as they had hoped. So, I think along a series of dimensions, they were really trying to get some traction, trying to get footing in new spaces. And there were a group of investors that actually felt like that wasn’t what they should do. That they should just focus on Office, focus on Windows, enjoy the high margins that came with their on-premises server and tool business offerings. So, they faced some really hard choices.

BRIAN KENNY: And they were also, in terms of just the organization itself up against some issues, what were some of the things they were encountering culturally at the time?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. I mean, it’s a fascinating story from a cultural standpoint. It was an environment where there were high returns to showing that you were the smartest person in the room. Some of the stories that I have heard are a little jarring. I am not sure I would’ve survived in this environment. There were these very long mid-year reviews that took place and were incredibly demanding. It was an environment that was beginning to really emphasize the desire to be efficient, to be right, and in fairness to them, and Microsoft was coming from a culture or their culture came from a place where they were selling a product that couldn’t really fail. People had very high expectations for the performance of everything Microsoft provided them. And unlike today where there’s more room to update things through online updates, a lot of the software, it shipped and it had to be close to perfect when it shipped.

BRIAN KENNY: Actually, I can remember a time when the launch of a new Windows system was similar to the launch of a new iPhone. People were really excited to get the new system, but inevitably there were bugs and those were highly publicized, and so they fell under a lot of criticism. They were really operating under a microscope for a long time.

FRITZ FOLEY: For sure. And we’re keenly aware that time to fail in their products, which is a measure of how long it took for some product or process to break down, had to be very long. Otherwise, they would meet with a lot of customer dissatisfaction.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Okay. So, let’s move into the transformation phase for them. What was the fundamental shift they made in terms of changing or restructuring the organization?

FRITZ FOLEY: In my view, I think that they did a variety of things to adopt more of a growth orientation. And some of this dealt with their metrics. Some of it dealt with very explicit changes to the culture, and I think some of it also dealt with a realization that pursuing growth would enhance value much more than trying to increase margins and have large dividend payouts or larger dividend payouts to shareholders. So this was, I would say in the 2012, 2013 timeframe, we began to see pieces of this. And they also faced significant managerial changes at that time. That’s when Steve Ballmer retired and they needed to pick a new CEO and could have gone a variety of directions there. And by picking Satya Nadella, effectively we’re committing to more of a growth path.

BRIAN KENNY: Can you think of an example of a company that chose the margins path? And I mean, these are both potentially successful choices, but I would guess.

FRITZ FOLEY: For sure. And it’s a very hard trade-off to make. In teaching my MBA students and executive education students I’m always struck, when I ask them, “Would you sacrifice some margin for growth,” how hard that question can be and how many people don’t have much intuition for it. So, other companies did go the margin route.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Is it a situation where the margin choice is one that’s probably more comfortable and the returns are going to come sooner and the growth choice is a little riskier, and for a risk-averse culture probably harder to implement and you’re betting on the future? Is that fundamentally what the choice is?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. I think that’s a really good way of putting it. Many people find it easier to see the benefits that come with cutting costs and looking for efficiencies and worry that what may come with growth could be elusive. And in some regards, I have heard senior finance managers say that they had to earn the permission to go after growth. They have to get the buy-in from a group of investors who feel as if the senior leadership team has credibility in pursuing growth.

BRIAN KENNY: So, here we have Microsoft, an enormous company, 130,000 or so employees, something like that, large by any measure about to pursue an option that is in many ways counter to the culture of the organization. How do you do that? How do you cascade this kind of a change through an organization of that size?

FRITZ FOLEY: On the cultural side, one thing that they did was very explicitly dropped a growth mindset culture. And Satya Nadella writes about this in his recent book, Refresh. The story is, for me, very compelling. It’s incredibly hard to get any organization to change its culture. Whenever I’ve been a part of an organization that tried to engage in a cultural shift, whatever the tagline was, quickly became the punchline for a set of office jokes.

BRIAN KENNY: I’ve been on the other side of that. I’m the guy who writes the punchlines most often.

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. So, you know how hard this is. And I think that they were very wise in picking Kathleen Hogan who had led one of the divisions of Microsoft to head up the charge to describe and roll out this cultural change. They brought senior leaders on board, and ultimately, I think there was a lot of demand for it that many people who were working at Microsoft were innovative engineers and a very creative set of employees who wanted to pursue growth. And when given the choice to move away from review processes and given the opportunity to go to meetings where they didn’t feel like they had to be exactly right in making a point, but could stimulate the beginning of a discussion set of ideas that could lead to something that was new, people embraced that.

BRIAN KENNY: And here we are in the age of the millennial worker. Millennials don’t want to work for the old Microsoft for sure. And Microsoft is competing with the likes of Google and Apple and other firms that are definitely perceived as open and innovative, and they want people with energy and ideas. So, they have to adopt that same personality, I guess.

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah, I agree with that. I think there’s a new buzz about Microsoft, at least among my students, they’re much more intrigued by what it would mean to work there and what opportunities exist to do some things that would be truly novel and have a big impact on how people get work done.

BRIAN KENNY: So, let’s go back to our protagonists. Amy Hood in the case actually delves into her mindset a little bit. She’s getting ready to communicate these changes to the financial community. What are the kinds of things a CFO would have to think about? Because I can imagine the financial probably is more comfortable with the margin choice than the growth choice

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah, for sure. It’s fun for me to imagine her faced with this choice really of, okay, I can go this path of growth, but if I do this, I am going to have to go to my investors and say, our margins are going to go down for some period of time, and you’re not going to like that. But there’s going to be some upside and it will take some time for that upside to show up. So, I think she needed to find ways to communicate or signal what that upside would be and how big it might be to the investors so that she wouldn’t lose credibility with them and would have the permission essentially to pursue growth.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Now we hear it all the time about the emphasis on the short-term, short-termism in the financial community, and people want returns and they want them right away. In your experience, are you seeing a shift in the financial community, or are the analysts getting a little more comfortable with this notion of you can’t always go for the margins, you’ve got to find some sustainable growth in the long term?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. It’s a great question. It’s one that troubles me or is something I think about our financial system generally. I happen to be probably more optimistic relative to many when it comes to how short-term-oriented, or really how financial markets aren’t as, as some might worry, or that concern about short-termism doesn’t resonate as much with me. I do think there is a big burden on senior finance teams to explain how value is created by thinking long-term and embracing growth opportunities. And in some sense, when I look at what Amy has been doing at Microsoft, I applaud her and her team for taking on that challenge. They quite explicitly set a target of a $20 billion run rate for their commercial cloud business, and once analysts had that number, they could begin to build off of it and get a feel for how much value could be created if Microsoft succeeded at pulling this off.

So, by having the courage to commit to that path and help analysts understand what the path meant, I think that they have been effective in pursuing it. More generally, I do worry that there are some analysts that simply take an earnings-per-share number and apply some current multiple and don’t think much about what the future will look like. I am hopeful that finance teams and organizations will play a role in educating analysts as to how they should think about the future, when growth opportunities do exist and are attractive.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. You mentioned earlier that you’ve talked about this in class, and I’m just curious, do the MBA students come at this differently than the executive education students who have been in fiduciary roles and organizations already?

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah. That’s an interesting question. Let me reflect on that for a moment. I think the approach is fairly similar. I would say that some MBA students are probably less aware of the constraints that capital markets may put on senior management teams to pursue growth. They’re less aware of what an activist who wants cash now might push management to do, whereas executive education students tend to be keenly aware of those pressures. If anything, I find that MBA students, it’s a little bit harder for them to articulate what is the case for pursuing margin for Microsoft in 2012, 2013. Many executive education students are quick to come up with lists of things that could be done strategically financially in picking leadership.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah, it’s interesting. And anybody who’s worked in an organization for any period of time, going back to that whole notion of how hard it is to change a culture, it’s pretty easy to think of reasons why not to pursue that path. So, I thought maybe some of the exec ed students might come at with those constraints already wrapped around themselves.

FRITZ FOLEY: Yeah, I agree.

BRIAN KENNY: Yeah. Fritz, thanks for joining us today.

FRITZ FOLEY: Thanks very much for having me.

HANNAH BATES: That was Harvard Business School Professor Fritz Foley in conversation with Brian Kenny on Cold Call . We’ll be back next Wednesday with another handpicked conversation about business strategy from Harvard Business Review.

If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review. And when you’re ready for more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos with the world’s top business and management experts, find it all at HBR.org.

This episode was produced by Ann Saini and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Special thanks to Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Erica Truxler, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you, our listener. See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about growth strategy.

• Corporate governance
• Business models

Partner Center

• INSIDER REVIEWS
• TECH BUYING GUIDES

CASE STUDY: How Satya Nadella overhauled Microsoft's cutthroat culture and turned it into a trillion-dollar 'growth mindset' company

Ashley stewart,shana lebowitz   .

Lehtikuva, Markku Ulander/AP Photo; Yuri Gripas/Reuters; Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters; Ruobing Su/Business Insider

Satya Nadella is the CEO of Microsoft. Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are the former CEOs.

• Microsoft is a trillion-dollar company thanks largely to a culture shift led by Satya Nadella.
• Since Nadella became CEO in 2014, he's encouraged the entire company to adopt a growth mindset, or the belief that skills are developed through hard work and challenges are opportunities to learn.
• Before Nadella took over, Microsoft was characterized by competition between teams and between individual employees.
• Now, in keeping with a growth mindset, Microsoft evaluates employees' performance based partly on how much they helped their colleagues succeed. The company also looks to learn from its former rivals in the tech industry.
• Business Insider spoke with a range of company insiders and organizational researchers to get the inside story on how to change the culture of a 150,000+ employee software giant.
• Microsoft is a case study in how a growth-mindset culture can help companies succeed in the future economy.
• Click here for more BI Prime content.

Sign up here to receive updates on all things Innovation Inc.

A cartoonist once drew an illustration depicting Microsoft's organizational chart as warring factions.

Take a look and you'll see three separate gangs: one blue, one green, one yellow. The gangs are assembled in pyramid-shaped hierarchies, with one leader at the top, two or three deputies at the next level, and so on.

A hand sticks out from each pyramid, pointing a gun directly at one of the others. It's clear. This is war.

And then Satya Nadella became CEO.

Nadella described the era of warring gangs in his 2017 memoir-manifesto, " Hit Refresh :" "Innovation was being replaced by bureaucracy. Teamwork was being replaced by internal politics. We were falling behind."

That particular cartoon - drawn in 2011 by a Google employee named Manu Cornet , no less - made changing Microsoft's culture Nadella's No. 1 goal as CEO.

"As a 24-year veteran of Microsoft, a consummate insider, the caricature really bothered me. But what upset me more was that our own people just accepted it," Nadella wrote. "When I was named Microsoft's third CEO in February 2014, I told employees that renewing our company's culture would be my highest priority."

Since becoming CEO, Nadella has been credited with a grand reinvention of Microsoft, exemplified by its market value exceeding $1 trillion, one of just a handful in history to hit that mark. When Nadella first took over, its market value was around $300 billion. The company has shifted from a has-been to a cloud powerhouse.

One of the keys to this transformation is a psychological concept that's become a mantra at Nadella's Microsoft: growth mindset .

Microsoft has traded a fixed mindset for a growth mindset

Growth mindset describes the belief that skills are developed through hard work and that challenges are opportunities to learn. Fixed mindset, on the other hand, refers to the belief that talent is innate and that struggling is a sign of failure. Research on the difference between growth and fixed mindset - and how they predict success - was pioneered by Stanford's Carol Dweck.

Early on in her career as a developmental psychologist, Dweck visited children at school and presented them with a series of increasingly difficult puzzles. Her goal was to better understand how people cope with failure. Some students, she found, weren't fazed by it.

In her 2006 book, " Mindset ," she recalls one 10-year-old boy who "pulled up his chair, rubbed his hands together, smacked his lips, and cried out, 'I love a challenge!'"

Dweck would spend the next five decades trying to figure out the difference between people who relish a good challenge and those who fear failure. Scores of studies published under her name suggest that people who see intelligence and abilities as learnable are more successful, personally and professionally, than people who think they're static.

Recently, Dweck coauthored a study that drew a link between growth mindset and organizational success . Employees who think their companies have a fixed mindset, the study found, interpret the company's culture as less collaborative, less ethical, and less willing to take risks than employees who think their companies have a growth mindset.

Given the rapid pace of technological change , these research findings are hyper-relevant. Across industries, adopting a growth mindset may be the only way to survive, and certainly the only way to thrive. When neither executives nor rank-and-file employees can predict what their jobs will look like next week, they need to embrace the resulting vulnerability, and get excited about learning.

Plenty of companies, in industries from telecommunications to early education, talk about cultivating a growth mindset , and about looking for job candidates who have it . But Microsoft is perhaps the most powerful example of an organization that has used growth mindset, and the psychology behind it, to rebuild its culture.

In many ways, fixed mindset and growth mindset can describe Microsoft before and after Nadella.

Nadella has encouraged Microsoft employees to be 'learn-it-alls' instead of 'know-it-alls'

Bill Gates is the founder and former CEO of Microsoft. He was famous for his meltdowns.

Gates was famous for meltdowns and browbeating - so much so that Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen once described working with Gates as "being in hell." Gates would only back down if you could convince him you knew what you were talking about, Allen said.

Gates' successor, Steve Ballmer, also known for an explosive temper, later presided over the atmosphere depicted in that cartoon Nadella was determined to address. Ballmer was known for cultivating a culture in which Microsoft teams warred with each other, as previously reported by Business Insider .

Nadella, who joined Microsoft as an engineer in 1992, came up in this culture, before becoming CEO in early 2014.

By that point, the company's bid to compete in the smartphone market through the purchase of Nokia was proving to be a burden and would lead it to write off nearly the entire $7.6 billion acquisition price. The personal computer market was shrinking, leading to declines in Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system business, and the Xbox One console's poorly received launch made it a punchline.

Microsoft's history as a tech-industry pioneer wouldn't help the company compete, Nadella wrote in an email to employees on his first day as CEO. The company needed a change in mindset.

"Our industry does not respect tradition - it only respects innovation," Nadella wrote on Feb. 4, 2014, in a memo to employees days after taking on the CEO role. "Every one of us needs to do our best work, lead and help drive cultural change. We sometimes underestimate what we each can do to make things happen and overestimate what others need to do to move us forward. We must change this."

Nadella's leadership philosophy evolved into the adoption of a growth mindset. He asked employees to be "learn-it-alls," not "know-it-alls," and promoted collaboration inside and outside the organization. Employees are now evaluated partly on how much they've helped others on their team.

Microsoft introduced a new performance-management framework based on growth mindset

With any company culture shift, executives run the risk of promoting jargon more than action, and of HR representatives being the only ones who know there's a culture change underway.

Microsoft has tried to avoid that fate, not only by training its employees on the psychology of growth mindset, but also by embedding the concept into its daily work flow.

Prompts to adopt a growth mindset appear on posters throughout Microsoft's campuses ( something at which employees sometimes poke fun ). At the start of a meeting, a manager might remind colleagues to approach an issue with a growth mindset.

And in one of the most significant manifestations of growth mindset, Microsoft has eliminated stack ranking .

Stack ranking was famously used by Jack Welch when he was CEO of General Electric. Ballmer used the system at Microsoft to evaluate employees, although he did start phasing it out prior to his departure. Microsoft managers had to rank their employees from one to five in equal measure. Which meant that, no matter how good the employees were, some of them had to get the lowest ranking of a five.

Performance was defined in stack ranking as the quality of individual work, and that emphasis on individual performance was linked to fierce competition among Microsoft employees. It was also a barrier to Microsoft's innovation, since it facilitated a culture that rewarded a few standout team members and even gave employees incentive to hope their colleagues failed.

As Microsoft's chief human resources officer, Kathleen Hogan has overseen the adoption of a growth mindset.

Dweck's research helps explain this trend, too. Her studies suggest that stack ranking's emphasis on "star" employees can leave everyone else afraid to try anything new, for fear of failing. In turn, that means companies are less innovative.

Microsoft leadership says its new system for evaluating employees instead rewards collaboration. Managers and employees meet often to discuss performance , in keeping with the general trend of companies nixing annual reviews and having managers regularly speak with employees about their work.

"What we really value is three dimensions," said Hogan , Microsoft's chief people officer. "One is your own individual impact, the second is how you contributed to others and others' success, and the third is how you leveraged the work of others."

To use Hogan's examples, maybe a more seasoned employee helped someone new to the team, or a software engineer built on another engineer's work instead of reinventing it.

Microsoft recently applied growth mindset to a new framework for managers : model, coach, care. That's a combination of setting a positive example for employees, helping the team adapt and learn, and investing in people's professional growth.

To measure the impact of these initiatives in real time, Microsoft emails employees with a different question every day asking how they're feeling about the company and its culture.

The shift from competition to collaboration might seem like it would be a breath of fresh air. And on the whole, it has been. But employees say it's presented its own challenges, too.

Nadella pushes Microsoft executives to take on stretch assignments

Peter Lee said becoming corporate vice president of Microsoft healthcare was a huge challenge.

It was 2017 and Lee - now corporate vice president of Microsoft healthcare - had long worked on broader technology problems as a key leader in Microsoft Research, the company's research division.

Nadella wanted him to take on a new challenge and lead the company's emerging health care business, using his background in artificial intelligence and cloud computing to find new ways to tune the products to the needs of healthcare companies.

"Taking on healthcare was something that really perplexed me at first," he said. "I joked Satya sent me out into the Pacific Ocean and said, 'Go find land.'"

Adopting a growth mindset can be uncomfortable, he said.

"Growth mindset is a euphemism because it can feel pretty painful, like a jump into the abyss," he said. "You need to be able and willing to confront your own fixed mindset - the things that make you believe something can't work. It's painful to go through personally, but when you get past it, it's tremendously rewarding."

The transition has been edifying, both in terms of his personal growth - Lee was recently named to the National Academy of Medicine - and Microsoft's growth in the industry, as it establishes itself as a meaningful player in healthcare tech.

Microsoft now sees the business case for letting go of its rivalries with other tech giants

Under Ballmer, Microsoft was notorious for prioritizing its Windows operating system and Office productivity applications businesses over the rest of the company - at one point, it even canceled the Courier tablet, which would have been an early, future-looking competitor to Apple's iPad, because it may have undermined Windows.

Likewise, Microsoft once shunned Linux, a free open-source operating system once considered the biggest threat to Windows. Ballmer once called it a "cancer." But early on in Nadella's time as CEO, Microsoft changed tack and proclaimed, " Microsoft loves Linux ."

It wasn't just Microsoft being friendly. There was a strong business case for blurring boundaries. At the time, Microsoft said it realized its customers used both Windows and Linux, and saw providing support to both as a business opportunity on-premise and in the cloud. That would have been unthinkable in the Ballmer years, but it's proven to be a savvy business move: Microsoft recently hinted that Linux is more popular on its Azure cloud platform than Windows itself.

Microsoft's relationship with Salesforce has followed a similar trajectory. Whereas Ballmer had frequent and public bouts with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff , Microsoft under Nadella put aside its rivalry with Salesforce - which competes directly with Microsoft's customer-relationship-management Dynamics 365 product - in order to ink a big cloud deal that was good for the company overall.

Nadella even invites leaders from companies across industries to Microsoft's CEO Summit so the executives can learn from each other. Ballmer, meanwhile, famously snatched an employee's iPhone at a company meeting and pretended to stomp on it.

Which is not to say Microsoft always plays nice in the Nadella era. The company last summer changed licensing agreements to raise prices - often significantly - when customers choose to run certain Microsoft software on rival clouds including Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud. And it's been trading public barbs with AWS over the still contested $10 billion Pentagon cloud contract.

The Trump administration awarded the contract to Microsoft over AWS, but Amazon is challenging the decision in court, alleging political interference. In February, a judge ruled that Microsoft must stop working on the contract.

The culture shift at Microsoft is an ongoing process

The beginning of Microsoft's culture shift was rocky.

In "Hit Refresh," Nadella recalls a Microsoft manager who announced in the early days, "Hey, Satya, I know these five people who don't have a growth mindset." Nadella writes, "The guy was just using growth mindset to find a new way to complain about others. That is not what we had in mind."

Even today, Microsoft leaders acknowledge that the culture change isn't over . Things have improved under Nadella, but the company culture is still far from perfect.

Diversity is an opportunity for improvement at Microsoft. Much like the larger technology industry , Microsoft still employs relatively few women and people of color in leadership and technical roles.

One of Nadella's biggest gaffes as CEO happened early on in his tenure, when he suggested women should not ask for raises, but rely on "faith" and "karma." After these comments, Nadella sent out an internal memo admitting to his mistake, explaining how he planned to learn from it, and stating his belief in "equal pay for equal work."

Nadella writes in "Hit Refresh" that in some ways he's glad to have belly-flopped in public. "It helped me confront an unconscious bias I didn't know I had," Nadella writes, "and it helped me find a new sense of empathy for the great women in my life and at my company."

Kevin Oakes, who runs a human-resources research company that helped Microsoft with its shift toward growth mindset, sees Nadella as an exemplar of a leader during a transition. That's largely because Nadella practices the growth mindset he preaches. In a presentation at Talent Connect, an annual conference organized by LinkedIn (which is owned by Microsoft), Oakes said Nadella has been Microsoft's "culture champion." Nadella understands that organizational culture is critical to the company's performance, Oakes said.

But today's Microsoft is still far from perfect. The positive contributions of growth mindset have not yet matched up with diversity and equity for Microsoft's workforce, according to some employees. Microsoft is the subject of a gender discrimination lawsuit still pending , which was denied class-action status by a federal judge. Employees have also openly alleged sexual harassment and discrimination.

The company released its first diversity and inclusion report in 2019 to track its progress in hiring - and retaining - a more diverse workforce. Results from that report showed that minorities in Microsoft's US offices earned $1.006 for every $1 white employees earned. A closer look reveals that white men still held more high-paying leadership positions than women or underrepresented minorities.

Meanwhile, Microsoft leadership still has some philosophical differences with employees as it relates to employee activism. Employee groups have protested Microsoft and Microsoft-owned GitHub's relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and more recently, some employees have said Microsoft's relationship with oil and gas companies is at odds with the company's goal to become "carbon negative" by 2030.

The Xbox Adaptive Controller is designed to be used by people with limited mobility. It was advertised during the 2019 Super Bowl.

At that point, Neal recalled, a third meeting participant addressed the male colleague to ask whether perhaps he hadn't understood the female colleague's point. And Neal said it wasn't a passive-aggressive attack. Senior leaders are encouraged to "be curious and ask questions, versus making statements," as a way of modeling growth mindset, he added.

Microsoft has been equally vocal about diversity and inclusion within its customer base, building products that are accessible to as many users as possible. Ben Tamblyn, a 15-year company veteran and Microsoft's director of inclusive design, mentioned Xbox as a prime example. In 2018, Tamblyn helped oversee the release of the Xbox Adaptive Controller , which makes it easier for gamers who have limited mobility or physical impairments to play. (Interviews with Neal and Tamblyn were arranged by Microsoft's public-relations firm.)

Microsoft is a case study in growth mindset

Microsoft's culture shift, and its accompanying business turnaround, is already a case study in business schools and in reports from management consultancies and research centers . That makes sense to Mary Murphy, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Indiana University and Dweck's co-author on the paper about growth mindsets within organizations.

Growth mindset is essential for innovation in the technology industry, Murphy said, where change rarely happens incrementally. Instead, there are big inflection points from which there's no return. Microsoft, Murphy added, needs to be on the "cutting edge" of growth mindset in order to stay relevant.

Nadella, for his part, has modeled a growth mindset from the top of the organization, not least in his response to his tone-deaf comments about gender and compensation. "I learned, and we will together use this learning to galvanize the company for positive change," Nadella wrote in the memo he sent apologizing for the comments. "We will make Microsoft an even better place to work and do great things."

Got a tip? Contact reporters Shana Lebowitz via email at [email protected] and Ashley Stewart via email at [email protected] , message her on Twitter @ashannstew, or send her a secure message through Signal at 425-344-8242 .

NOW WATCH: How networks treat the Democratic debates like reality TV

Popular right now.

Advertisement

Microsoft: A Case Study in Strategy Transformation

In early 2015, Microsoft’s senior leaders were facing a set of difficult decisions. The firm had been struggling to innovate and grow as fast as its competitors. Now they were considering new opportunities that would yield higher growth but lower margins — like shifting away from perpetual licensing to focus on subscription sales.

Harvard Business School professor Fritz Foley studied this period of transformative change at Microsoft for a business case study he wrote. In this episode, he shares how Microsoft’s leaders analyzed different options and worked to get both investors and employees on board with new ideas about growth. He also explains how the company’s risk-averse culture evolved in order to execute such a huge transformation.

Key episode topics include: strategy, growth strategy, business models, corporate governance.

HBR On Strategy curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock new ways of doing business. New episodes every week.

· Listen to the original Cold Call episode: The Transformation of Microsoft (2018)

· Find more episodes of Cold Call

· Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org

Information

• Show HBR On Strategy
• Channel Harvard Business Review
• Frequency Updated Weekly
• Published July 3, 2024 at 10:10 AM UTC
• Length 20 min
• Rating Clean

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.

Africa, Middle East, and India

• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Congo, The Democratic Republic Of The
• Guinea-Bissau
• Niger (English)
• Congo, Republic of
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• Tanzania, United Republic Of
• Turkmenistan
• United Arab Emirates

Asia Pacific

• Indonesia (English)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Malaysia (English)
• Micronesia, Federated States of
• New Zealand
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Solomon Islands
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• France (Français)
• Deutschland
• Luxembourg (English)
• Moldova, Republic Of
• North Macedonia
• Portugal (Português)
• Türkiye (English)
• United Kingdom

Latin America and the Caribbean

• Antigua and Barbuda
• Argentina (Español)
• Bolivia (Español)
• Virgin Islands, British
• Cayman Islands
• Chile (Español)
• Colombia (Español)
• Costa Rica (Español)
• República Dominicana
• Ecuador (Español)
• El Salvador (Español)
• Guatemala (Español)
• Honduras (Español)
• Nicaragua (Español)
• Paraguay (Español)
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• St. Vincent and The Grenadines
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turks and Caicos
• Uruguay (English)
• Venezuela (Español)

The United States and Canada

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Estados Unidos (Español México)
• الولايات المتحدة
• États-Unis (Français France)
• Estados Unidos (Português Brasil)
• 美國 (繁體中文台灣)

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• October 2017
• HBS Case Collection

The Transformation of Microsoft

• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 15

About The Authors

C. Fritz Foley

E. Scott Mayfield

Related work.

• Faculty Research
• The Transformation of Microsoft  By: C. Fritz Foley and F. Katelynn Boland

Embracing Environmental Sustainability: The Case of Microsoft Corporation

8 Pages Posted: 3 Aug 2021

Ksheeraja Satish

Stella Maris College

Date Written: April 10, 2021

With the expansion of the scope of business responsibility of corporations to include the concept of ‘Environment, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG)’, there is a need for strong sustainable business strategies that causes minimal environmental damage. Microsoft Corporation having launched its first annual Environmentally Sustainability Report, ‘A Year of Action’, this is a case study of the corporation's business strategies that seek to take the growing environmental concerns into account. Their environmental impact reports covering aspects about sustainable actions and solutions, is a way towards mitigating climate change.

Keywords: Microsoft, Environment, Corporate Governance

JEL Classification: M14, K32, Q01, Q54, Q56

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Ksheeraja Satish (Contact Author)

Stella maris college ( email ), do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on ssrn, paper statistics, related ejournals, corporate governance & economics ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Corporate Governance: Social Responsibility & Social Impact eJournal

Corporate social responsibility (csr) ejournal, csr & management practice ejournal, economics of innovation ejournal, management of innovation ejournal, information systems & economics ejournal, information systems ejournal, civil engineering ejournal.

About Stanford GSB

• The Leadership
• Dean’s Updates
• School News & History
• Commencement
• Business, Government & Society
• Centers & Institutes
• Center for Entrepreneurial Studies
• Center for Social Innovation
• Stanford Seed

About the Experience

• Learning at Stanford GSB
• Experiential Learning
• Guest Speakers
• Entrepreneurship
• Social Innovation
• Communication
• Life at Stanford GSB
• Collaborative Environment
• Activities & Organizations
• Student Services
• Housing Options
• International Students

Full-Time Degree Programs

• Why Stanford MBA
• Academic Experience
• Financial Aid
• Why Stanford MSx
• Research Fellows Program
• See All Programs

Non-Degree & Certificate Programs

• Executive Education
• Stanford Executive Program
• Programs for Organizations
• The Difference
• Online Programs
• Stanford LEAD
• Seed Transformation Program
• Aspire Program
• Seed Spark Program
• Faculty Profiles
• Academic Areas
• Awards & Honors
• Conferences

Faculty Research

• Publications
• Working Papers
• Case Studies

Research Hub

• Research Labs & Initiatives
• Business Library
• Data, Analytics & Research Computing
• Behavioral Lab

Research Labs

• Cities, Housing & Society Lab
• Golub Capital Social Impact Lab

Research Initiatives

• Corporate Governance Research Initiative
• Corporations and Society Initiative
• Policy and Innovation Initiative
• Rapid Decarbonization Initiative
• Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative
• Value Chain Innovation Initiative
• Venture Capital Initiative
• Career & Success
• Climate & Sustainability
• Corporate Governance
• Culture & Society
• Finance & Investing
• Government & Politics
• Leadership & Management
• Markets and Trade
• Operations & Logistics
• Opportunity & Access
• Technology & AI
• Opinion & Analysis
• Email Newsletter

Welcome, Alumni

• Communities
• Digital Communities & Tools
• Regional Chapters
• Women’s Programs
• Identity Chapters
• Find Your Reunion
• Career Resources
• Job Search Resources
• Career & Life Transitions
• Programs & Webinars
• Career Video Library
• Alumni Education
• Research Resources
• Volunteering
• Alumni News
• Class Notes
• Alumni Voices
• Contact Alumni Relations
• Upcoming Events

Admission Events & Information Sessions

• MBA Program
• MSx Program
• PhD Program
• Alumni Events
• All Other Events
• Operations, Information & Technology
• Organizational Behavior
• Political Economy
• Classical Liberalism
• The Eddie Lunch
• Accounting Summer Camp
• California Econometrics Conference
• California Quantitative Marketing PhD Conference
• California School Conference
• China India Insights Conference
• Homo economicus, Evolving
• Political Economics (2023–24)
• Scaling Geologic Storage of CO2 (2023–24)
• A Resilient Pacific: Building Connections, Envisioning Solutions
• Adaptation and Innovation
• Changing Climate
• Civil Society
• Climate Impact Summit
• Climate Science
• Corporate Carbon Disclosures
• Earth’s Seafloor
• Environmental Justice
• Operations and Information Technology
• Organizations
• Sustainability Reporting and Control
• Taking the Pulse of the Planet
• Urban Infrastructure
• Watershed Restoration
• Junior Faculty Workshop on Financial Regulation and Banking
• Ken Singleton Celebration
• Marketing Camp
• Quantitative Marketing PhD Alumni Conference
• Presentations
• Theory and Inference in Accounting Research
• Stanford Closer Look Series
• Quick Guides
• Core Concepts
• Journal Articles
• Glossary of Terms
• Faculty & Staff
• Researchers & Students
• Research Approach
• Charitable Giving
• Financial Health
• Government Services
• Workers & Careers
• Short Course
• Adaptive & Iterative Experimentation
• Incentive Design
• Social Sciences & Behavioral Nudges
• Bandit Experiment Application
• Conferences & Events
• Get Involved
• Reading Materials
• Teaching & Curriculum
• Energy Entrepreneurship
• Faculty & Affiliates
• SOLE Report
• Responsible Supply Chains
• Current Study Usage
• Pre-Registration Information
• Participate in a Study

Microsoft Corporation

• See the Current DEI Report
• Supporting Data
• Research & Insights
• Share Your Thoughts
• Search Fund Primer
• Affiliated Faculty
• Faculty Advisors
• Louis W. Foster Resource Center
• Defining Social Innovation
• Impact Compass
• Global Health Innovation Insights
• Faculty Affiliates
• Student Awards & Certificates
• Changemakers
• Dean Jonathan Levin
• Dean Garth Saloner
• Dean Robert Joss
• Dean Michael Spence
• Dean Robert Jaedicke
• Dean Rene McPherson
• Dean Arjay Miller
• Dean Ernest Arbuckle
• Dean Jacob Hugh Jackson
• Dean Willard Hotchkiss
• Faculty in Memoriam
• Stanford GSB Firsts
• Class of 2024 Candidates
• Certificate & Award Recipients
• Dean’s Remarks
• Keynote Address
• Teaching Approach
• Analysis and Measurement of Impact
• The Corporate Entrepreneur: Startup in a Grown-Up Enterprise
• Data-Driven Impact
• Designing Experiments for Impact
• Digital Marketing
• The Founder’s Right Hand
• Marketing for Measurable Change
• Product Management
• Public Policy Lab: Financial Challenges Facing US Cities
• Public Policy Lab: Homelessness in California
• Lab Features
• Curricular Integration
• View From The Top
• Formation of New Ventures
• Managing Growing Enterprises
• Startup Garage
• Explore Beyond the Classroom
• Stanford Venture Studio
• Summer Program
• Workshops & Events
• The Five Lenses of Entrepreneurship
• Leadership Labs
• Executive Challenge
• Arbuckle Leadership Fellows Program
• Selection Process
• Training Schedule
• Time Commitment
• Learning Expectations
• Post-Training Opportunities
• Who Should Apply
• Introductory T-Groups
• Leadership for Society Program
• Certificate
• 2024 Awardees
• 2023 Awardees
• 2022 Awardees
• 2021 Awardees
• 2020 Awardees
• 2019 Awardees
• 2018 Awardees
• Social Management Immersion Fund
• Stanford Impact Founder Fellowships
• Stanford Impact Leader Prizes
• Social Entrepreneurship
• Stanford GSB Impact Fund
• Economic Development
• Energy & Environment
• Stanford GSB Residences
• Environmental Leadership
• Stanford GSB Artwork
• A Closer Look
• California & the Bay Area
• Voices of Stanford GSB
• Business & Beneficial Technology
• Business & Sustainability
• Business & Free Markets
• Business, Government, and Society Forum
• Second Year
• Global Experiences
• JD/MBA Joint Degree
• MA Education/MBA Joint Degree
• MD/MBA Dual Degree
• MPP/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Computer Science/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Electrical Engineering/MBA Joint Degree
• MS Environment and Resources (E-IPER)/MBA Joint Degree
• Academic Calendar
• Clubs & Activities
• LGBTQ+ Students
• Military Veterans
• Minorities & People of Color
• Partners & Families
• Students with Disabilities
• Student Support
• Residential Life
• Student Voices
• MBA Alumni Voices
• A Week in the Life
• Career Support
• Employment Outcomes
• Cost of Attendance
• Knight-Hennessy Scholars Program
• Yellow Ribbon Program
• BOLD Fellows Fund
• Application Process
• Loan Forgiveness
• Contact the Financial Aid Office
• Evaluation Criteria
• GMAT & GRE
• English Language Proficiency
• Personal Information, Activities & Awards
• Professional Experience
• Letters of Recommendation
• Optional Short Answer Questions
• Application Fee
• Reapplication
• Deferred Enrollment
• Joint & Dual Degrees
• Entering Class Profile
• Event Schedule
• Ambassadors
• New & Noteworthy
• Ask a Question
• See Why Stanford MSx
• Is MSx Right for You?
• MSx Stories
• Leadership Development
• How You Will Learn
• Admission Events
• Personal Information
• GMAT, GRE & EA
• English Proficiency Tests
• Career Change
• Career Advancement
• Daycare, Schools & Camps
• U.S. Citizens and Permanent Residents
• Requirements
• Requirements: Behavioral
• Requirements: Quantitative
• Requirements: Macro
• Requirements: Micro
• Annual Evaluations
• Field Examination
• Research Activities
• Research Papers
• Dissertation
• Oral Examination
• Current Students
• Education & CV
• International Applicants
• Statement of Purpose
• Reapplicants
• Application Fee Waiver
• Deadline & Decisions
• Job Market Candidates
• Academic Placements
• Stay in Touch
• Faculty Mentors
• Current Fellows
• Standard Track
• Fellowship & Benefits
• Group Enrollment
• Program Formats
• Developing a Program
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Strategic Transformation
• Program Experience
• Contact Client Services
• Campus Experience
• Live Online Experience
• Silicon Valley & Bay Area
• Digital Credentials
• Faculty Spotlights
• Participant Spotlights
• Eligibility
• International Participants
• Stanford Ignite
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Founding Donors
• Location Information
• Participant Profile
• Network Membership
• Program Impact
• Collaborators
• Entrepreneur Profiles
• Company Spotlights
• Seed Transformation Network
• Responsibilities
• Current Coaches
• How to Apply
• Meet the Consultants
• Meet the Interns
• Intern Profiles
• Collaborate
• Research Library
• News & Insights
• Program Contacts
• Databases & Datasets
• Research Guides
• Consultations
• Research Workshops
• Career Research
• Research Data Services
• Course Reserves
• Course Research Guides
• Material Loan Periods
• Fines & Other Charges
• Document Delivery
• Interlibrary Loan
• Equipment Checkout
• Print & Scan
• MBA & MSx Students
• PhD Students
• Other Stanford Students
• Faculty Assistants
• Research Assistants
• Stanford GSB Alumni
• Telling Our Story
• Staff Directory
• Site Registration
• Alumni Directory
• Alumni Email
• Privacy Settings & My Profile
• Success Stories
• The Story of Circles
• Support Women’s Circles
• Stanford Women on Boards Initiative
• Alumnae Spotlights
• Insights & Research
• Industry & Professional
• Entrepreneurial Commitment Group
• Recent Alumni
• Half-Century Club
• Fall Reunions
• Spring Reunions
• MBA 25th Reunion
• Half-Century Club Reunion
• Faculty Lectures
• Ernest C. Arbuckle Award
• Alison Elliott Exceptional Achievement Award
• ENCORE Award
• Excellence in Leadership Award
• John W. Gardner Volunteer Leadership Award
• Robert K. Jaedicke Faculty Award
• Jack McDonald Military Service Appreciation Award
• Jerry I. Porras Latino Leadership Award
• Tapestry Award
• Student & Alumni Events
• Executive Recruiters
• Interviewing
• Land the Perfect Job with LinkedIn
• Negotiating
• Elevator Pitch
• Email Best Practices
• Resumes & Cover Letters
• Self-Assessment
• Whitney Birdwell Ball
• Margaret Brooks
• Bryn Panee Burkhart
• Margaret Chan
• Ricki Frankel
• Peter Gandolfo
• Cindy W. Greig
• Natalie Guillen
• Carly Janson
• Sloan Klein
• Sherri Appel Lassila
• Stuart Meyer
• Tanisha Parrish
• Virginia Roberson
• Philippe Taieb
• Michael Takagawa
• Terra Winston
• Johanna Wise
• Debbie Wolter
• Rebecca Zucker
• Complimentary Coaching
• Changing Careers
• Work-Life Integration
• Career Breaks
• Flexible Work
• Encore Careers
• Join a Board
• D&B Hoovers
• Data Axle (ReferenceUSA)
• EBSCO Business Source
• Global Newsstream
• Market Share Reporter
• ProQuest One Business
• RKMA Market Research Handbook Series
• Student Clubs
• Entrepreneurial Students
• Stanford GSB Trust
• Alumni Community
• How to Volunteer
• Springboard Sessions
• Consulting Projects
• 2020 – 2029
• 2010 – 2019
• 2000 – 2009
• 1990 – 1999
• 1980 – 1989
• 1970 – 1979
• 1960 – 1969
• 1950 – 1959
• 1940 – 1949
• Service Areas
• ACT History
• ACT Awards Celebration
• ACT Governance Structure
• Building Leadership for ACT
• Individual Leadership Positions
• Leadership Role Overview
• Purpose of the ACT Management Board
• Contact ACT
• Business & Nonprofit Communities
• Reunion Volunteers
• Ways to Give
• Fiscal Year Report
• Business School Fund Leadership Council
• Planned Giving Options
• Planned Giving Benefits
• Planned Gifts and Reunions
• Legacy Partners
• Giving News & Stories
• Giving Deadlines
• Development Staff
• Submit Class Notes
• Class Secretaries
• Board of Directors
• Health Care
• Sustainability
• Class Takeaways
• All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions
• If/Then: Business, Leadership, Society
• Grit & Growth
• Think Fast, Talk Smart
• Spring 2022
• Spring 2021
• Autumn 2020
• Summer 2020
• Winter 2020
• In the Media
• For Journalists
• DCI Fellows
• Other Auditors
• Academic Calendar & Deadlines
• Course Materials
• Entrepreneurial Resources
• Campus Drive Grove
• Campus Drive Lawn
• CEMEX Auditorium
• King Community Court
• Seawell Family Boardroom
• Stanford GSB Bowl
• Stanford Investors Common
• Town Square
• Vidalakis Courtyard
• Vidalakis Dining Hall
• Catering Services
• Policies & Guidelines
• Reservations
• Contact Faculty Recruiting
• Lecturer Positions
• Postdoctoral Positions
• Accommodations
• CMC-Managed Interviews
• Recruiter-Managed Interviews
• Virtual Interviews
• Campus & Virtual
• Search for Candidates
• Think Globally
• Recruiting Calendar
• Recruiting Policies
• Full-Time Employment
• Summer Employment
• Entrepreneurial Summer Program
• Global Management Immersion Experience
• Social-Purpose Summer Internships
• Process Overview
• Project Types
• Client Eligibility Criteria
• Client Screening
• ACT Leadership
• Social Innovation & Nonprofit Management Resources
• Develop Your Organization’s Talent
• Centers & Initiatives
• Student Fellowships

Helping Microsoft raise the bar on corporate sustainability

How WE told the story of Microsoft’s carbon reduction moonshot

In January 2020, Microsoft was the first major corporation to set a bold goal to be carbon negative — moving beyond carbon neutral — by 2030, and by 2050 to remove all the carbon it has emitted into the atmosphere since its founding in 1975. Microsoft also created the Climate Innovation Fund, committing $1 billion to fund new innovations and climate solutions, including carbon removal. And, the company committed to a high level of transparency so others could learn from what worked and what didn’t.

This initiative was much more ambitious than similar plans at other companies, but in an environment where companies in many industries are making promises about sustainability, sorting through what’s real and what isn’t can be difficult. As such, we knew convincing media, partners and customers to pay attention and view Microsoft’s plan differently would be a challenge. The campaign’s goals were to:

• Help audiences understand the science, math and meaning behind how companies account for carbon and a common understanding of the terms they use.
• Help Microsoft elevate and shift the global carbon conversation to focus on more rigorous and verifiable approaches to tackling carbon emissions.

Climate change continues to be a charged topic, and we knew Microsoft’s plan would spark interest across multiple audience segments. To reach them, the team engaged with a wide array of media outlets, including consumer, business, finance, science, technology and public policy. We needed to educate and provide context for Microsoft’s carbon accounting and science-based plan without losing sight of the initiative as a whole. Centering the message on Microsoft’s “moonshot” helped drive home the magnitude of the commitment.

Timing was critical. The announcement was scheduled for the week before the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, where CEOs, government agencies and politicians gather to discuss global issues, with the environment topping the list of this year’s meeting. With the tragic wildfires in Australia continuing to burn and the rise of climate activist influencers, we had the opportunity to position Microsoft’s sweeping initiative as the gold standard for tech companies stepping up to change the world.

Microsoft’s commitment resonated with governments, industry leaders, media and influencers alike. The level of detail, specificity around its plan to go carbon negative, transparency on the inherent challenges and the magnitude of the company’s investment resulted in:

• Global leaders at the WEF in Davos cited Microsoft as the prime example of a large company committed to sustainability
• 2,110 earned media placements globally, including 465 original articles. Highlights include Bloomberg , the BBC , Wall Street Journal , Fast Company and CNN
• 1,834 broadcast hits, reaching more than 9.3M TV viewers and 43.1M weekly radio listeners. Highlights include NPR’s Morning Tech
• 25,000+ Twitter mentions and 100,000 engagements
• Microsoft’s approach is becoming part of the master narrative media use when covering the commitments and plans of other companies, further entrenching it in the broader conversation about addressing critical climate change challenges

Learn more about our Corporate Reputation & Brand Purpose services »

Technology Communications

Capabilities

Corporate Reputation & Brand Purpose

Want to talk? Drop us an email.

Cookies Settings

This site uses cookies to enhance your experience.  If you continue browsing, you agree to our use of cookies.  More details can be found in our privacy policy .  Click OK to dismiss.  

• The Microsoft Corporation’s Analysis Words: 3081
• Microsoft Corporation Strategies Words: 628
• Microsoft Corporation: PEST and SWOT Analysis Words: 1699
• U.S. v. Microsoft Corporation: An Ethical Analysis Words: 1309
• Microsoft Corporation: Anti-trust Claims Words: 639
• Microsoft Corporation: The Future Development Strategy Words: 1125
• Microsoft Corporation: Lack of Innovation Words: 2027
• Microsoft Company’s Monopolistic Pricing Words: 1688
• Microsoft Corporation’s Structure, Culture, Power Distribution Words: 1737
• Microsoft and Apple: Companies Comparing Words: 606

Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis

Is ms’s market share so massive that it can behave like a monopoly.

According to the case study, Microsoft’s world market share is so massive that the company behaves like a monopoly firm. The article indicates that Microsoft manages 90 % of all operating systems installed on computers. Similarly, the company has expanded its market share in word processor, computing services, and programming tools. Over the last few years, the company has dominated over the computer market.

Through its dominance, the company has exhibited anti-competitive behaviors in the past and in the present. For instance, Microsoft has influenced some organizations to use its programs and operating systems with the aim of gaining a strategic position in the world market. Through this, Microsoft has suppressed the growth of potential and veteran rival firms. In general, the company has not only endangered the existence of its rival firms, but also manipulated its business operations to suit its selfish interests at the expense of the consumers’ interests.

Is MS a good example of dead weight loss to its economy?

From the case study, it can be concluded that Microsoft has become a dead weight loss to its economy. Its operations and anti-competitive behaviors have created artificial scarcities in the computer market. During the early 1980s, there were few computer programmers. Currently, numerous computer specialists and programmers develop computer programs and applications similar to the Microsoft’s programs. These specialists’ innovations cannot be economically viable owing to the current monopoly acts exercised by Microsoft Corporation. By suppressing these innovations, Microsoft has undermined the equilibrium between the demand and the supply of computer programs to maximize on its returns. In this regard, the company has acted as a deadweight loss to its economy.

Do you agree with Jackson or not?

According to the case study, Jackson argues that Microsoft actions have harmed the consumers, and acknowledges that the company is enjoying excessive monopoly powers. In my opinion, Jackson arguments are true. In the last decade, Microsoft dominance in the computer market threatened and forced some of the rival firms out of the market. Owing to this, consumers have been denied access to other potential computer services and programs.

It is widely believed that Microsoft abuses its monopoly powers to ensure that companies coming up with services and products better than its do not survive in the market. Equally, Jacobs’s arguments confirm that Microsoft’s dominance in the market has restricted other innovators’ technologies from entering the market. Through this, consumers may never get the chance to access viable innovations from other entrepreneurs.

Study the recent industry trends and build your own logic on the probable monopoly power of MS at present.

In the recent past, Microsoft has expanded its innovations leading to the creation of more competitive services and products in the computer market. Currently, the company has spent massive resources towards the creation of its web browser. Microsoft’s web browser, Windows Explorer, is integrated into its latest windows versions. This implies that its users are no longer required to purchase other web browsers. By doing so, the company has forced its customers to use its web browser. Therefore, the company initiative threatens the existence of other web browser companies who offer their services at a fee.

Recently, Mozilla accused Microsoft for restricting its customers to choose the browsers of their choice. Mozilla argues that Microsoft’s initiatives in the web browser have reduced its market sales, decreased competition, and reduced innovations. In my opinion, the company should be held responsible for abusing its monopoly rights to allow entrance of other valuable innovations in the computer market. Similarly, the government should enact appropriate laws to ensure that emerging firms are protected from unfair competitions.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, January 13). Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis. https://studycorgi.com/microsoft-corporations-case-analysis/

"Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis." StudyCorgi , 13 Jan. 2021, studycorgi.com/microsoft-corporations-case-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) 'Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis'. 13 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis." January 13, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/microsoft-corporations-case-analysis/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis." January 13, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/microsoft-corporations-case-analysis/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis." January 13, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/microsoft-corporations-case-analysis/.

This paper, “Microsoft Corporation’s Case Analysis”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: January 13, 2021 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

Microsoft Case Study

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Symptoms of the problems, problem statements, problem analysis, alternatives for the problems and their evaluation, course of action (recommendations).

The rapidly growing world of industrialization and globalization has witnessed a sharp growth of industries, which are substantial in economic and social growth. Technological advancement is probably one of the major characteristics of the industrial revolution in the postmodern world with virtually every important aspect of a technical profession, largely relying on technological support to operate efficiently.

Notwithstanding their aptitude to integrate business ideas that support them through the rapid diffusion globalized economy, corporate organizations are facing unrelenting challenges in their operations. Since its advent into the corporate world, Microsoft Corporation has been arguably one of the prevalent corporate names in the technology industry, with its performance positioning it among the fortune 500 organizations.

Analogous to other organizations, Microsoft has also been facing challenges that have marred its corporate growth. Fundamental to this notion, the purpose of this study is to analyze problems that Microsoft faces and provide possible alternatives and recommendation.

Notwithstanding its long outstanding performance within the technological business paradigm with unbroken performance track record, Microsoft is experiencing something different in the contemporary days. Several critical symptoms to its downfall in the technological consumer market are becoming more eminent in the current days.

Dropping in Microsoft’s market value is one of the first symptoms that significantly demonstrate possible problems confronting Microsoft Corporation; hence, its fall in market prominence and dominance in the last two years before the advent of Apple, which has proved to be one of the world’s most honored technological companies.

Another significant symptom to the problems marring corporate growth is the gradual loss of human capital that has been forming potential strengths to the initial success of Microsoft Corporation.

As postulated from the case study, Microsoft is gradually losing a majority of its innovative human resources to the prevailing competition with many of its top executives withdrawing from the organization either through formal work retirement process or attracted by competitors.

Microsoft third most possible symptoms to its current problems is technological eschew or stagnancy with the case study report indicating that Microsoft is steadily losing value and lagging behind its competitors as the company has failed to continue producing modern technologies including gaming devices, tablets, mobile phones, and other media.

From its initial growth in productivity that made almost all its employees virtually millionaires, one of Microsoft’s significant symptoms of downfall is its low revenue generation as compared to its operating income. This performance trend started stagnating and fluctuating from the beginning of 2008 towards 2010.

From the case report, employee rapport with Microsoft Corporation started dwindling following the company’s inability to handle integral employees concerns including low pays of wages and reduction of benefits despite the company’s ability to record high profits. Indicative of these symptoms, Microsoft is now struggling to deal with numerous problems within its operations.

Microsoft Corporation is facing a continuum of challenges in the recent days. One of the major problems that form a great challenge in the progress of Microsoft within the technology realm is low productivity, underproduction, or simply poor organizational performance. Microsoft is gradually falling short of market performance, which is characterized by low performance as opposed to its initial phenomenal success.

Also, as a software giant, flagship products are becoming rare. From the case report produced by the Wall Street, Microsoft was lagging behind its competitors in almost all aspects of business including technological advancement, marketing techniques, and relatively low financial capacity following the invasion of other technical companies.

Management is one of the critical success factors that determine the initiation and resilience of the organizations in its operations. Organizational management is normally responsible for administering leadership techniques that determine organizational performance as it controls both human and financial capital.

According to the case, as provided by Wall Street, poor management is one of the potential problems affecting Microsoft in the contemporary days within evidence of bureaucratic management that has significantly affected creativity and stock performance.

The case study indicated that innovative workforce is withdrawing with members claiming that Microsoft was responding too slowly to technological changes and other employees cited that Microsoft failed to address their concerns.

Any modern company aims at organizational success that is currently achievable by addressing significant production factors including actively focusing on quality of products that meet customers’ demands and preference. Research on this case study unveiled that Microsoft is currently facing stiff market competition from potential competitors in the technology industry, including the rapidly growing Apple, Mac, and Linux.

With demand for advanced technologies cutting across different devices and services, Microsoft is facing technological competition from the PC market to its services, including the Windows division that provides computer-enabled operating systems. This competition is stiffening from software production to hardware systems, which were Microsoft’s main tools for competitive advantage.

Low and deprived productivity

Organizational productivity is determined by numerous factors that entail financial comportment and market performance. From the case study provided about Microsoft, market performance and financial status clearly indicate that Microsoft is currently surviving under deprived productivity.

Discussing on financial performance that signifies performance or productivity in organization, Exhibit 3 provided in the study can significantly demonstrate this concern. A closer analysis of annual financial statements of revenue and operating income of Microsoft from 2008-2010, the company’s financial stability is dwindling.

The financial statement indicates that Microsoft has been recording profits, but in quite unstable performance characterized by hikes and drops between the years. In 2008, the company recorded $ 60, 420 million values of revenue and $22,217 operating income (loss).

In 2009, the company recorded annual revenues worth $58,437 and reported annual operating income worth $20, 363. This financial performance trend proves that the company is recording unsteady performances.

Management forms an integral part in organizational performance as policies and objectives articulated by management and their competence normally influence organizational success. One of the useful indicators that point to management failure in Microsoft is the continued employee-management wrangles that have posed serious issues in the company.

As indicated by the report, despite its uninterrupted track record in attracting and retaining significant human capital, the company has in the recent past witnessed a substantial loss in its key creative human resource. Top executives attached to business long term endeavors have resigned and others sought employment from other potential employers.

The current management has failed considerably in handling essential employees’ concerns including complaints regarding wages and benefits reductions, characterized by a widening compensation gap between executives and employees.

The management’s laxity in adopting new technologies that are integral for intensifying competition in the technology industry is keeping the company at stake, thus forcing it to struggle in the market performance.

Technological market competition

The response to the market demands and customers’ preference for certain products is currently one of the paramount business factors that entrepreneurs have recognized to have a potential impact on a firm’s stability. A key problem facing management in Microsoft is the constantly rising technological market competition that in most occasions has found the company unwary.

The fast pace at which other technologies are rising and their capability to respond to the rapid technological changes has created enormous problems to Microsoft. The company has lagged behind in realizing innovations involved in new technologies, including supporting the development of gaming services, tablets, mobile technologies, and other sources of media.

Microsoft has failed to recognize the rising demand for Smartphone technologies and continued to perform in dwarf of PCs. The company is performing dismally in server and tools and in providing online services while at the same time, the entertainment and devices section are dwindling in its performance in the technology market.

Problems normally occur in businesses, but they only become detrimental when alternatives and approaches to handle them never emerge. The main problem in the case of Microsoft that has a significant influence in the existence and continuation of others is the issue of management itself. The management is arguably part of barrier to implementation of important strategies in Microsoft.

In a bid to reclaim its aptitude and performance in the rapidly changing technological industry, reshuffling and changing the management style is paramount for positive results in Microsoft Corp. Bureaucratic management stifles performance and each significant change will begin by streamlining the management.

As stated from the case, the current management is autocratic and tyrannical, with little expertise as top executives, including the current C.E.O Steve Ballmer have not received any credible welcome from directors and employees.

Attracting and retaining innovative workforce to help in innovating new technologies would help in reshaping Microsoft Corp. as talented human resource is imperative in analyzing problems, making critical decisions, and supporting management with progressive ideas.

One of the essential factors to consider in the technology industry is the trendiness in the products as integrating services and products with significantly advanced technologies would greatly aid in improving the market demand for its products.

After identifying innovative workforce that would produce competitive products and brands, it would be significant for Microsoft Corp. to consider expanding its market through strategic marketing techniques and enhancing the prevailing partner relationships. The restructured managed is capable of building more powerful partners.

Step 1: The entire action plan would require one year for effective implementation. Each step would require three months. The first would be a three-month strategic action plan development, which denotes the beginning of changes. The first step would involve revamping the management to allow integration of significant changes in Microsoft Corp. Designing implementation committee is integral in this phase.

Step 2: The second phase of change that would create significant change to Microsoft is attracting new and innovative workforce that would help in generating ideas on developing new technologies. The new management can practice this aspect throughout the company’s operations, though for the start, three months are adequate to identify the desired workforce competent enough for improving Microsoft.

Step 3: In three months, the new talented workforce will work with the management team in critical decision making to improve the company’s operations including changing and designing new and advanced products that follow the market trend. This move would help restore the company’s reputation on the quality of products and subsequently improve its market rapport with clients.

Step 4: The last step that would significantly place Microsoft Corp. in the best market position would involve developing a global marketing team and designing strategic marketing plans that will aid in expanding the market share for products of Microsoft. For instance, a huge marketing team to market the new windows 7 and Windows 8 is paramount.

• Analysis of Swiss Reinsurance Company
• Netflix Internal & External Challenges
• Microsoft Essay
• Microsoft Corporation’s Ethical Perspectives
• Microsoft Is the Giant in Software Industry
• ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict
• Samsung Supply Chain Case Study – Six Sigma Analysis
• How Corporate & Private Business Can Use Social Media?
• Five-Forces Model in Google
• Idaho Wildfires: Health and Economic Challenges
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, July 5). Microsoft. https://ivypanda.com/essays/microsoft-case-study-2/

"Microsoft." IvyPanda , 5 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/microsoft-case-study-2/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Microsoft'. 5 July.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Microsoft." July 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/microsoft-case-study-2/.

1. IvyPanda . "Microsoft." July 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/microsoft-case-study-2/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Microsoft." July 5, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/microsoft-case-study-2/.

• Business User
• IT Professional
• New Outlook for Windows
• Microsoft 365
• Microsoft Adoption Score
• Microsoft Copilot
• Microsoft Copilot for Microsoft 365
• Microsoft Copilot for Sales (old)
• Microsoft Copilot for Service
• Microsoft Dynamics 365
• Microsoft Graph
• Microsoft Lists
• Microsoft Loop
• Microsoft Mesh
• New Microsoft Planner
• Microsoft Power Platform
• Microsoft Search
• Classic Microsoft Teams
• New Microsoft Teams
• Microsoft Teams Premium
• Microsoft Teams Phone
• Microsoft Security
• Microsoft Syntex
• Microsoft Viva
• Outlook mobile
• SharePoint Premium
• Champion Management Platform
• Extensibility Look Book Gallery
• Microsoft 365 Archive
• Microsoft 365 Backup
• Microsoft 365 Learning Pathways
• Microsoft Intelligent Document Processing
• Microsoft Teams App Templates
• New Employee Onboarding Solution Accelerator
• Partner Solution Gallery
• Sample Solution Gallery
• SharePoint eSignature
• SharePoint look book
• Accessibility
• Adoption guides
• Azure Adoption Framework

Case Studies

• Employee experience
• FastTrack for Microsoft 365
• Guidance for virtual events
• How Microsoft does IT
• Leading in the era of AI
• Microsoft 365 Roadmap
• Meetings, webinars, and town halls in Microsoft Teams
• Microsoft Copilot Scenario Library
• Modern Collaboration Architecture (MOCA)
• Podcasts & Shows
• Remote learning in education
• Skype for Business to Microsoft Teams upgrade
• Streamline end user training
• AI learning hub
• Become a Service Adoption Specialist
• Coffee in the Cloud tutorials
• Developer training
• End user training
• IT Pro training
• Microsoft 365 Champion Program
• Microsoft Community Learning
• Microsoft Learn
• Modern Work Customer Hub (Microsoft Copilot customer training) DEPRECATED
• Office Quick Start guides
• Microsoft Community
• Microsoft Community Tenant
• Microsoft Global Community Initiative
• Release notes
• Microsoft Copilot resources for education
• Copilot for Microsoft 365 for Small and Medium Business
• Microsoft Teams for Frontline workers
• Microsoft Teams for Small and Medium Business

Learn how customers around the world build an intelligent workplace with Microsoft 365.

Filter case studies

Share this page

•  Share on Microsoft Teams
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Microsoft Stakeholders & Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy

Microsoft Corporation’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy is founded on a number of international concerns regarding the information technology, software, and online service business. Archie Carroll developed the corporate social responsibility model to highlight the mutual influence among stakeholders and businesses. In Microsoft’s case, stakeholders include persons and groups with significant interest in how the company performs and interest in the impact of its computing products. As a major player in the global market, the firm must maintain an evolving corporate responsibility strategy to ensure that corresponding programs satisfy stakeholders’ interests and enhance corporate and brand image, which is a strength identified in the SWOT analysis of Microsoft . Corporate citizenship and corporate social responsibility programs strengthen the IT company’s competitiveness.

Using a continuously improving corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy, Microsoft Corporation addresses stakeholders’ interests that significantly impact the business. The company satisfies such interests through appropriate corporate citizenship programs based on international standards and guidelines. Microsoft’s mission statement and vision statement determine the design of these CSR programs for sustainability, green technology, and business ethics.

Microsoft’s Stakeholder Groups & CSR Initiatives

A variety of stakeholders and their interests impose a wide scope of issues on Microsoft Corporation. However, the company focuses on the most significant interests through its corporate social responsibility initiatives, which emphasize human rights, environmental sustainability, and business transparency. The following are the major stakeholder groups significant in Microsoft’s business, arranged according to the company’s prioritization in its CSR strategy:

• Customers (highest priority)
• Communities
• Governments

Customers (Top-Priority Stakeholders) . Considering Microsoft’s business growth needs, customers are the top-priority stakeholder group in the company’s corporate social responsibility strategy. These stakeholders are mainly interested in reasonably priced effective products, along with high quality customer service. These interests significantly influence the company in terms of customer retention and related sales revenues. Microsoft’s corporate responsibility approach satisfies these interests through innovation to provide advanced computer hardware and software products to customers. In addition, feedback systems enable the company to address customers’ complaints and issues encountered in using the products. To further satisfy the interests of this stakeholder group, Microsoft offers discounts to some customers. For example, students and veterans can purchase the company’s computing products at discounted prices. These discounts are also implemented as a part of Microsoft’s marketing mix (4P) . Thus, Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility strategy effectively satisfies the concerns and interests of customers as the most significant stakeholder group.

Employees . Human rights are among the main thrusts in Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility programs. As such, employees are the second-priority stakeholder group in the company’s CSR approach. The interests of employees are competitive compensation, as well as fair labor and employment practices. These stakeholders are significant because of their direct effect on Microsoft Corporation’s organizational performance through human resource competence and productivity. To satisfy employees’ interests, the company’s corporate responsibility strategy involves highly competitive compensation along with continuous improvement in employment practices to protect workers’ rights. For example, Microsoft offers high salaries for qualified workers, in order to compete with technology firms, like Apple , Google (Alphabet) , and Amazon . Also, Microsoft maintains training and leadership development programs to address workers’ interests in the computer technology business. These CSR programs support human resource improvement while increasing morale and competence among employees. Based on these initiatives, Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility strategy satisfies the interests of employees as a major stakeholder group.

Communities . Communities are among the major stakeholder groups in Microsoft’s corporate responsibility strategy, considering that the company includes environmental sustainability as one of its CSR thrusts. Communities are interested in corporate support for development, such as through livelihood programs and environmental protection. These stakeholders are significant because they affect Microsoft’s corporate and brand image. For example, customers use community impact as a criterion in evaluating brands. In its corporate social responsibility strategy, Microsoft uses a number of programs, including discounts for students, military personnel and veterans, as well as donations and assistance through Microsoft grants and charity programs. Such discounts increase the accessibility of the company’s products for students, military personnel and veterans. On the other hand, Microsoft Philanthropies provides grants and donations for deserving nonprofit organizations with programs that support community development, such as education and youth support programs. Moreover, the emphasis on environmental sustainability in its corporate social responsibility strategy represents Microsoft’s commitment to minimize the environmental impact of its business. For example, the company maintains its carbon neutral status through the use of smart packaging and renewable energy, as well as renewable materials for its computer technology products. Thus, Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility strategy satisfies this stakeholder group’s interests and fulfills the company’s aims as a corporate citizen.

Investors . Microsoft identifies transparency as one of its main thrusts in its corporate social responsibility strategy. In this regard, investors are among the main stakeholder groups in the computer hardware and software business. Investors affect Microsoft through the availability of capital. The interests of these stakeholders are business growth and accurate financial reporting. Microsoft’s corporate responsibility efforts satisfy these interests through a variety of disclosures about the business, which benefit investors. For example, these CSR initiatives enable investors to make better decisions about the company. The firm’s business stability also addresses investors’ interest regarding business growth. These initiatives show that Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility strategy satisfies the interests of investors as a significant stakeholder group.

Governments . Microsoft’s corporate social responsibility approach considers governments as stakeholders in the business. This stakeholder group is significant because they directly influence the company’s limits in doing business. Governments are interested in Microsoft’s legal and regulatory compliance, as well as contributions to economic growth. The company satisfies these interests through stringent measures in the organization. For example, Microsoft’s corporate guidelines require human resource managers to comply with labor regulations. These guidelines also require compliance with regulations on environmental impact, product safety, and consumer security. These corporate social responsibility efforts indicate that Microsoft satisfies the interests of governments as stakeholders in the business.

Microsoft’s Corporate Social Responsibility Performance in Addressing Stakeholders’ Interests

As a global computer technology business, Microsoft Corporation has taken the necessary steps for a corporate social responsibility strategy that satisfies the interests of its major stakeholders. The company has high performance in addressing its stakeholders. Microsoft’s emphasis on human rights, environmental sustainability and transparency ensure that this corporate responsibility strategy remains relevant to current market conditions. However, an issue typical in large global organizations like Microsoft is the lack of immediate responses to individual customer complaints and inquiries. In this regard, a recommendation is that the company must invest in a larger support community to harness knowledge sharing that can enhance the corporate social responsibility strategy.

• Homer, S. T., Yee, K. V., & Khor, K. S. (2023). Developing a measurement instrument for perceived corporate citizenship using multi-stakeholder, multi-industry and cross-country validations. Quality & Quantity, 57 (1), 277-300.
• Microsoft Corporation – Form 10-K .
• Microsoft Corporation – Our Sustainability Journey .
• Microsoft Education Store – Student Discount & Deals .
• Microsoft Military Discount .
• Paruzel, A., Schmidt, L., & Maier, G. W. (2023). Corporate social responsibility and employee innovative behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production , 136189.
• U.S. Department of Commerce – International Trade Administration – Software and Information Technology Industry .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.