RIM is now a textbook case of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html) in action. Group one, the goal seekers, have been or are being forced out or converted to members of group two, the organization supporters. Those anonymous letters coming from the current and former employees? Just desperate attempts from group one employees to be heard over the crushing silence of the group two management structure.
Don't expect RIM's fortunes to turn around any time soon. Only a catastrophic business failure is going to shake up the management structure. With RIM's financials and market position, it could be years before that event comes to pass. Even then, there's no guarantee that RIM would really make a recovery. Most likely RIM will be absorbed by a larger competitor (and the current RIM top brass removed) before anything like real business failure can occur.
It's so painful to watch this. RIM has really made some great products and services.
"Most likely RIM will be absorbed by a larger competitor (and the current RIM top brass removed) before anything like real business failure can occur."
I think the most likely outcome is RIM stockholders will force some big changes after a few more quarters of getting drilled by Android and Apple's holiday lineup. Then 6-8 months later we'll see RIM starting to ship consumer Android devices with a Blackberry security/messaging ui layer alongside their other products. It will stabilize their fortunes and they could go on to be the leading Android vendor with their strong brand and messaging focus.
edit: you could even argue that they can't really do that now and couldn't do it last year. Everyone would say they're crazy to kill the golden egg and go make lower margin phones. They needed to have disaster quarters, failed products and tanking market share in order to make these decisions.
Let's hope that what you're describing will, in fact, unfold! A shareholder-induced leadership/direction change would be preferable to an embarrassing acquisition, especially given RIM's prestigious history.
For my money, I'll take the opposite side and say that RIM's too far gone down the entrenchment hole to recover with much dignity.
> Then 6-8 months later we'll see RIM starting to ship consumer Android devices with a Blackberry security/messaging ui layer alongside their other products. It will stabilize their fortunes and they could go on to be the leading Android vendor with their strong brand and messaging focus.
I have a feeling that even if they go down that route, they won't be the leading Android vendor.
If RIM is unable to innovate for a few more quarters, then their brand will be worth less. The longer they hold out, the less their brand is worth. If they switch to Android after their brand has taken hits, they will not do so well. Samsung and HTC are firmly entrenched in the Android market, and I doubt a weakened RIM would be able to overtake them.
Right, the Gervais Principle is based on what employees know, think and expect, whereas the Iron Law of Bureaucracy is based on how employees act. Just two different ways of looking at the same fundamental principle: entitlement, while desirable, ultimately destroys groups.
I know a RIM exec personally (and leave it at that) and he mocked my iPhone for several years, calling it "fragile" and a "toy for children".
It's been only in the past month or so that he muttered something about the competition getting tough lately.
It just seems RIM leadership is extremely arrogant and proud. They see the train coming right at them, but are too afraid to make the radical blue ocean product that's required to save them.
The thing is, in many ways, the iPhone is a toy compared to Blackberries. Which is exactly why people want iPhones - same facts, entirely opposite conclusion.
Stuff like this makes me think of the dolphins in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."
An executive of one company isn't likely going to complement another company. They're going to do everything in their power to downgrade products of their competition. I really don't think it makes a difference whether your friend worked for RIM, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, or HP because all of Apple's competitors followed this exact train of thought for several years.
With the notable exception being Google who immediately changed the direction android was going to account for the innovations Apple had developed. RIM and Microsoft laughed the iPhone off and now wonder why Google and Apple are so far ahead.
I think it's more that Google was hovering around from the start with the G1. So the improvements they made were incremental on that brand new platform but Microsoft and RIM would need a revolution to be able to catch up to the iPhone and G1 at that point in the game.
The problem is that all the old players were left in the dust because they had too much momentum on their old platforms. It's like hitting the breaks when you are going 100 mph. For Google and Apple, they were going 0-60 pretty quickly and then just slowly came up and surpassed the incumbents.
IIRC Android was in development at a company Google bought even before the iPhone launched. Early prototypes looked like a Blackberry, not like an Android: they adjusted dramatically.
You could say Google was just smarter and they probably were but I think their main advantage here was having no established product bringing in billions. This freed executives to look at the market objectively and pick the future winners.
There's a Steve Jobs quote about what happens when the sales guy starts running the show at tech companies that's relevant here. Even if it's not the CEO, too much of a company's top brass can get wedded to yesterday's products.
One thing that struck me as interesting is in the second letter, section 6:
There is so much secrecy in the company, no one knows anything about new things until we see it on the news. That means we’re not able to tell our friends and family anything about new things, and that reflects badly on RIM.
Is the reason it works for Apple so well and not for RIM because people anticipate Apple products more (i.e. the products are better), or because Apple are better at showbusiness, or both of the above, or something else?
I for one, despite being a huge Blackberry fan, never even realised there was any secrecy ahead of launches, I've never anticipated new product announcements or put much thought into what they would be.
Secrecy requires trust. If your employees trust your vision and direction -- they can be left in the dark and still work hard everyday. If your employees think you have no direction or make bad decisions, secrecy is perceived as a way to cover your ass.
The interesting part is that nobody really is interested in buying the upcoming things they're talking about either. If their goal is to feel the market out by revealing upcoming projects, then it's not really working for them.
Right. For the amount that RIM leaks and shows ahead of time, they should be delivering more complete products. Anything really new from them in the past 3-4 years have been really half-baked. I was a 9530 user (storm1). Woof that was rough in the begining.
Side thought: I've watched a lot of companies become horrible places to work because of process strangulation. The problem is a small, vocal group saying how much better life would be with one more piece of information...
The way I combat that is by documenting what is working right and determining what I don't want to change. Your process requirements then become "Learn/Enable/Etc this" and "Leave that unaffected".
It becomes surprisingly good at checking rampant process growth because you have an anchor.
What I have observed is that process is created in response to break-down or mistakes that people made. The typical management response after a crisis is that "we will put process in place to prevent this from ever happens again." While processes reduce the effect of human errors and make human replaceable, it also stifles creativity and risk-taking behavior. Unchecked, the processed accumulated overtime will sap the energy of the organization and kill it.
What is needed to energize an organization is the willingness to make mistake and accept failure as part of life. There should be a "mistake-fund." Allocate 10% or 20% of downside in revenue for mistake/failure people make. It's ok to make mistake in trying and growing. This lessens the need to overreact in every crisis to create new rules and processes, and encourage risk taking.
The "mistake-fund" shouldn't be just lip-service and part of the company culture. "Have you tried something this week to use up the mistake-fund?" should be a regular theme.
The thing I love to see is how badly 'process' is implemented. In theory you should be able to get everyone who's approval you need in one room at one time, take 10 minutes to explain your requirements and answer questions, then have them all rubber stamp whatever it is you need and get going with doing your work. In practice people do exactly the opposite, trying to add distance to slow down the process. I'm wondering if what we all need is a more human communication method to speed up resolution of problems and process.
Here's what's wrong, RIM: you're not presenting your products right. Your business audience doesn't care that the PlayBook has true multitasking, nor do they care that there's Flash on-board. They want a device to manage their emails and make running their business easier.
And the BlackBerry is really sad to see in my eyes. You buy this nice software company and their HTML5 browser, and then put it in a crappy phone that has half the specs of the competition? You have so much potential, I can see it and feel it... but you're not utilising your resources properly. Study the iPhone and Android and see why they're popular.
BGR's original leaked letter mentioned that RIM was advertising its products wrong. I agree completely. Whenever I see a RIM ad, I just shake my head. They really aren't advertising the right things. They're putting good things like BBM aside.
I don't have a RIM device, but almost all of my co-workers do. I like my iPhone, and I'm not trying to sound like an idiotic fanboy, but RIM: I used to respect you a lot. You ran your business very well, and your devices could have been considered revolutionary. Get your shit together.
These are the only things I've ever heard from people who swear by their BB's:
1. Keyboard
2. BBM
3. E-mail
I'm surprised RIM hasn't figured this out by now and put on their advertisements "BlackBerry XXXX whatever - types easier, instantly communicate better, and e-mail faster" (btw - whether or not these are really true is up to debate, but IMO they are the only selling points)
I see ads all of the time for BB's that talk about Facebook/Twitter. I haven't heard a single good thing about the facebook/twitter apps for BB or any BB app for that matter.
Unfortunately I don't think they're poised to move very quickly within the next 2 years. Everyone knows that their QNX-based Blackberries are coming up for next year. But having friends inside the company working on QNX, they don't think the platform looks any different from the current BB OS. So I don't think the fruits of any management restructuring will pay off until a couple years from now. And that's the saddest part. The stuff they have in the pipeline right now isn't even good enough if it were launched today. Then you realize it will launch next year and the story just gets more depressing. I want them to succeed, but I don't think they'll be getting their shit together for a VERY long time.
The fact employees and even senior management have to resort to posting their thoughts about the company anonymously to another website rather than being able to talk freely within the company speaks volumes about the serious problems they have.
In my opinion, a company can only function well if there's open and honest communication.
The funny (and sad) thing is, RIM is currently limited in its options. If it responds again to these new letters, they'll just have more letters flying out. It was a huge mistake to respond to the first letter, no matter what they could have said.
Interestingly, I would hope the RIM employees who've written this letter (and the guy who wrote the first letter) would've started shorting stock. If RIM responds again, I'm sure as hell doing it.
I bet there are a lot of people out there that see parallels between RIM and the companies they work for. Sadly, I don't think RIM is in any way unique and is more the norm than the exception.
RIM makes excellent business phones. My BB is tougher than most and the keyboard is excellent. Exchange integration works. As a private iPhone user I want apps. As a corporate BB user I just want something that is tough and works.
They should not try to be a better Apple than Apple.
(a) Be awesome at email (and therefore have keyboards.)
(b) Take phone calls.
(c) Integrate with your calendar.
(d) Have awesome instant messaging (BBM?).
(e) Be able to survive a 20 foot drop.
(f) Have excellent battery life.
(g) Be much cheaper than the iPhone/Android.
If you're a business, you want to be able to give everyone this type of device on their first day of work, all set up with everything. There should be no expectation of personal use and there should be every expectation that everyone in the company has and uses one.
Does Angry Birds run on the Playbook? I bought a Gtablet (display sucks, but otherwise a powerful device). First thing anyone does when they try it out is to look for Angry Birds.
I'm getting the feeling the Playbook's selling point is "We don't need a youtube app, you can just browse YouTube inline!"
I don't watch YouTube much, but that feature of inline YouTube is surprisingly valuable. I switched to a different browser on my iPad (iCab Mobile) that supports it and the experience is markedly better.
However, listening to a singer repeat "Flash" over and over does absolutely nothing to make me want a Playbook. I run into flash problems one a week at most; I'll glady trade it for battery life, performance, and stability.
That's the subtly bad part about the music. The commercial is so ineffective and off-target that RIM is managing to drag down one of the legends of rock with another kind of rock: the Playbook.
The comments to this can almost be titled "Strategies for Effective Leadership". Whether I agree with all of them or not the discussion is quite thought-provoking and makes me wonder what lessons can be learned to apply at my current company.
A more democratic company structure would probably help with these issues. It seems that a dictatorial structure allows the top execs to ignore all the underlings, to ignore the little people who actually do much of the work.
Agreed. Generally speaking companies should be meritocracies, allowing the good leaders to rise up. The people at the bottom may do all the work, but probably can't make overall strategic decisions nearly as well.
People at the top only need to make a few big strategic decisions a year. Some of them, purely through dumb luck, will make the rights one and continue to rise. This is not meritocracy, it's a crap shoot.
People at the bottom make lots of little decisions every day. They may get lucky now and then, but over a year, the occasional bad luck will cancel that out. So you have more meritocracy at the bottom, and less the higher up you go.
In a large organization like RIM, the principle talent of senior management is not strategic decision making, or management, but rent seeking: appropriating the product of the lower ranks for their own glory. Other principle qualities: fine grooming and dress, a firm hand shake, politics, public speaking, and punctuality. These qualities are practiced daily. You can't fake it. Strategic decision making? A few times a year.
Add a little random luck in strategic decisions, and you have the CEO. There are enough contenders for his position that someone, somewhere will have a string of good enough fortune to land them there, regardless of merit.
[hat tip to Taleb re: executives and strategic decision making]
a public company is a democracy of that requires you buy a vote(s).
Good leaders realize that they must to some degree listen to their underlings, they shouldnt be beholden to underlings, but they should always listen and know when act on what they hear and when not to.
A good leader is more valuable than an good underling, but just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless.
What is necessary isnt 'democracy' per se, but some means of a good body rejecting a bad brain, because bad leadership more than any other single thing is what kills companies, and typically there is nothing structurally in place to eliminate bad leaders.
> just as a body without a brain is useless, so a brain without a body is useless
RIM's problem isn't a lack of a body or a brain, but rather a broken nervous system. RIM's fingers are slowly being burned in the fire and the brain is just happily looking on, since it's not feeling the danger from any nerve impulses.
Don't expect RIM's fortunes to turn around any time soon. Only a catastrophic business failure is going to shake up the management structure. With RIM's financials and market position, it could be years before that event comes to pass. Even then, there's no guarantee that RIM would really make a recovery. Most likely RIM will be absorbed by a larger competitor (and the current RIM top brass removed) before anything like real business failure can occur.
It's so painful to watch this. RIM has really made some great products and services.