cmp0
Is that objectively true? I think you could also make the argument the other way that things compound when you innovate at the root.
I think it's your opinion that that's the case, and it generally makes sense to me as well, but I'm still saying it's a judgement call.
There are a lot of things / decisions at a company that don't strictly matter for the customer immediately but they still eventually matter for the customer - because they have a downstream impact. In this case, maybe you save that money and spend it somewhere else.
Microsoft (and anyone's) success is probably a function of strategy + execution + luck.
So I think it's hard to solely judge this philosophy by Microsoft's success or not.
He's basically saying: "You must take calculated, strategic risks. But don't be wrong too much."
What's a better strategy?
"The real estate team should not be a risk center." - Why not? Sure, I agree with you it doesn't make a ton of sense _to me_ to fire 90% of the janitors.
Satya said he wants his team to be "Intellectually honest".
I'd argue that a plan to fire 90% of the janitors today is not that realistic, but if some real estate exec thinks they honestly have a plan that could be successful, are tracking data, and change their plan if they're wrong - what's the problem?
Maybe they're crazy enough to have figured something out we don't know....or not in which case Satya says you'll be gone if you make it a habit.