usually CXO level people ARE chosen because they have displayed a modicum of brilliance at something... It isn't exactly a lottery system. Plus - you can already look at what he's done with the Azure platform.
That makes another assumption that everything is being done in company's best interests, not individual people's interests. A lot of brilliant people has been let go because they had a conflicting vision. Is being more conservative a sign of brilliance? Also Azure is run by Scott Guthrie, but it could also be attributed to Steve Ballmer since he was the CEO when it started.
yes thats how businesses work - things are meant to be done in a company's best interests - that is also why companies have a board of directors. Furthermore - I cant see how this was in some particular individuals interest. Nor has anything Nadella said or done yet given me the impression that this has anything to do with conservatism. IF you are commenting based on some knowledge that isnt public - thats a different thing. Nadella headed the Cloud and Enterprise division of which Azure is one piece. Azure may have been started when Ballmer was CEO - but he was not running it - a CEO makes larger scale executive decisions.. Nadella was in charge of making it get to where it got in terms of revenues and profitability.
It isn't exactly a lottery system, but it is very heavily influenced by one's network, and "life's lottery" rules apply to that at least as much as a person's own efforts. The Tech world is emphatically not the meritocracy some think it is.
