When I moved to the PNW, it was for Amazon, and during my interview loop, I asked everyone, "How long have you been at the company?" They all had pretty much the same answer: three months, five months, eight months, and some that had been there for a few years.

But I decided to get out of Dodge and interviewed at Microsoft, and I asked everyone the same question. The responses were shocking to me: five years, ten years, 12 years, 22 years. One person even told me that he hadn't been with the company very long: only 18 years. And he wasn't being coy.

I've been at Microsoft for more than ten years, and I still feel like the new guy. I started at the tail end of the Ballmer days, and I'm sure it was a real grind back then, but I'm glad to see a company that -- in my experience -- treats people well enough that they'll stick around.

In complex technical environments, it often doesn’t make sense to have an in-depth expert assigned to every system. You get a consultant in to set it all up and get the gears moving, but you can often get less experienced, or more versatile, people in to keep it running.

Also, the demand for skills has been silly for the past 20-odd years, so there’s less incentive stick around, other than money. Loyalty rarely pays off, unless you’re talking shares.

Microsoft is one of the few companies that seems to do a good job allowing employees to rise through the ranks from top to bottom. Most of the Partners I have met were cultivated internally. Facebook is also like this, with the added bonus of allowing much faster progression for high performers than most other companies (I know someone who became an E6 Engineering Manager/Tech Lead 3 years out of college. I don’t think it was necessarily for “bullshit” either, his work was very fundamental and important to the company).

But this is rather rare and most companies have a soft ceiling for growth internally. At Google for example, for years they have been filling most Director positions externally, and so most employees find it very hard to get there and progress past that. Progression is also often subject to norms that make the sheer number of promotions required to make it high up in the company impossible.

> but then conversely, it also feels like companies are set up in a way that makes most people replaceable

How else would you set up a business that's robust to people moving on to new things?

Also the best strategy for the last 10+ years was to move around frequently. Change jobs every year (or two if you can change projects inside one job). As the result you have much more salary and experience.

But everyone will bullshit you to stay as long as possible with little salary rise.

But with current market it is better to stay for longer if you have "okay" project.

I dunno exactly what a "technical marketing manager" is, but Nadella had a master's in computer science at that point, so I doubt he was just a sales guy.

That's what struck me, too. Here's a guy who looks and talks like some rando young really smart technical dude, like the hundreds I've met over my career. He doesn't appear to have those Ivy Leaguer mannerisms, not some tweed blazer-wearing, popped collar, McKinsey BankingConsultant, who you always expect to end up as all your C-level execs. This guy doing the demo could have been you or I. Yet here I still am in my late 40s still an IC worker bee at the bottom of the org chart, and here he is running the most valuable company in the world. How can you not believe in randomness?

Is it? It really depends on the organization. I've seen leadership being hired from the outside many times and it's devastating for morale.

He seems pretty polished at even 26 and he's CEO now so I doubt they were an issue at any point.

Personally I find it depressing. He could have retired years ago to work on a passion project. Why is he still dealing with the soul-sucking internal politics of a mega-corp? Unless he somehow enjoys walking on egg shells all day, it doesn't make sense to me.