Bill Gates has stepped down from Microsoft's board

Yes, very much this. As a VP my responsibilities largely revolve around budgeting, org structure and corporate politics. I take the advice of my directors on pretty much everything (and they mostly listen to their managers & engineers), because they and their direct reports are better informed than my responsibilities allow me to be. My involvement in technical decisions is largely limited to testing their decision-making process and the political issues that impact that decision.

I do know how the stuff works in general, but my technical skills are probably a decade out of date because I've spent that time working up the management ladder and learning those skills instead. But management is more about being able to organize a group of people to do a task, not doing the task yourself.

That's a interesting perspective. Can you give examples of regulatory decisions that make a difference to the bottom line on that sort of scale?

With cash on hand of around $140 billion, I'm not sure Microsoft really needs to worry about outside capital. I would think the board could help with how to keep those big companies paying for everyone to have the full Microsoft Office suite and how to custom price it.

At the same time, if the function of the board is to keep the ship from drifting too far off course, or to handle certain problems the company itself seems incapable of or oblivious to (mass cognitive dissonance) it could be useful to have a Jobsesque pitchman who can get a board to be accepting of radical risk taking. A board might lean conservative and risk averse, and sometimes companies need moments of extreme risk. Usually that jump takes a persuader.

Being able to sit in on board meetings, and talk during them would be enough, not necessarily having a vote, maybe thats a special adviser?

This is not true. Look at Google board. Very few investor suits but many tech visionaries.

No. Governance squarely lies with CEO and fiduciary responsibility with CFO. Board is supposed to look at these but they are not responsible for it (i.e. Enron board members don't go to jail for fraud but CEO and CFO may). The board does not exist just for administrative purposes. At all time, senior leadership need to behave so that they have confidence of board members. In return, board members are supposed to advice on investments company is making or not making, competative landscape, internal struggles, big problems, earnings expectations etc.

The board is meant to represent the investors and act as a check on the power of top executives so they don't go rogue and act contrary to the investors interests. Their job is certainly easier when the CEO is strong and things are going well, but it's still an important role.

Often the CFO (and sometimes other C-level officers) will also report directly to the board, or at least have a direct line of communication that the CEO isn't allowed to interfere with.

That's not how it works. When CEO wants to take on big bet, he will typically need board approval. You can imagine Steve Jobs standing in board room and presenting costs and promise of iPhone. If your board is all classic investor suits then they might not see through things. They can move to prevent CEO from spending big money because that would reflect in reduced earnings because of higher capex. I think this is one reason Google gets away with far larger R&D capex than Microsoft because their board has real tech folks and ex-founders.

If Satya got hit by a bus this weekend that "pointless" board would become very important very quickly.

Not really. The CEO of Microsoft is Satya Nadella. Satyella Nadalla doesn't seem to exist.

I think what they meant was that the board does not usually interact a lot with employees, or in a directly employee-facing way. Usually directors will interact with the board, both in terms of informing them and soliciting advice, and that turns into company direction, which funnels down through multiple layers before getting to ICs.

Few people can have more impact on the company than a board, but it's very typically abstracted away.

Chat, meet and get a ton of money. E.g. stop crazy managers to buy a Finnish mobile phone company if they are good ;)

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-does-a-corporate-board-of...

Boards don't run companies. They represent the shareholders.

Boards are required, and there are different kinds of board members, some of them are are appointed and/or voted in by shareholders. So it's not exactly a question of being "deserving". While Microsoft is probably going to have some sway, this process is not necessarily about Microsoft picking people to guide their development strategy, or picking people who are in their best interests. This is sometimes shareholders putting in people who can (among other things) - 1) oversee the corporate governance, make sure the company is playing fair with their stock, 2) put in people who are successful and can guide the company toward business success, 3) create a network for hiring & replacing executives when they leave for any reason. That said, having diverse input from other large businesses seems like it's always going to be an advantage.

They can also represent the enterprise software needs for those industries.

As a software giant Microsoft's products intersect most parts of most economies. A hotel chain has its own technology needs and has views of the technology needs of its customers.

Whether a high-placed member of Marriott has specific insights to Microsoft I don't know, but I don't think it takes much imagination to fill in hypothetical reasons the person could be helpful.

> He's just pouring a ton of money into a lot of very hard problems.

To expand on this, those problems take a lot of money to deal with, more than his foundation has, so in a lot of cases, the foundation effectively acts as force multiplier to get even more money on the problems.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/11/21133298/bill-g...

He has ten years of experience. Not many others can point to that.

> But he came into that position because he's rich, not because of any particular expertise

Except Gates is rich precisely because of expertise and talent. Without a doubt he's one of the best managers alive. Doubly so when those organizations are operating in complex, technically challenging, domains like software or epidemology.

To be completely serious, no it doesn't. I do not see an appointment of someone who is clearly both richer and smarter to be the frontman of the largest crisis to hit the country in recent history.

Yeah, definitely one of the group that was elected.

I’d be asking if they bounced.

Why? Being an MD isn't a huge deal in these cases. Not to say that having knowledge of the fundamentals of biology or healthcare isn't useful, but managing thousands of people, complex human systems, mass organizations, and building a plan to eliminate a disease is not something they teach in medical school.

Gates has done more to battle malaria and other diseases than anyone currently alive. His track record is second to none, in terms of building a huge strategy, managing complex systems, and executing a pragmatic plan. And I suspect he has many MDs in his close circle of advisers who he relies on. A leader doesn't need to be a specialist -- they need to be a leader, a generalist, and rely on a team for specialist knowledge.

MDs are good at treating patients, but they're not necessarily good at leading people.

Good leaders know how to draw on the expertise of others to organize a coordinated response... which the Gates Foundation has proved themselves very capable of doing, particularly with public health issues. The Gates Foundation employs lots of healthcare professionals.

I'd highly suggest looking up some of the talks Gates has done about his work with his foundation. He definitely has his shit together.

Doctors are people who are trained and have experience diagnosing and treating individual patients. I'm not sure why those skills are necessary for fighting an epidemic?

The person in charge of the epidemic will not be doing patient diagnosis and care. The person will be doing some aspects of: Logistics, managing a ton of people, political wrangling, PR/media relations, setting and achieving organizational goals.

Of course some disease and medical knowledge will be required, but not being an MD doesn't seem relevant.

It's always mostly about business/decision making, once you surround yourself with competent people who you can trust - you don't need to be a world-class expert.

He'd obviously consult top doctors. Why would a doctor be better at organizing a large response than a proven business leader who pivoted to disease control?