The art of giving, rebooted

What is unquestionably true is that here, as in Intel, the corporation’s behaviour reflected the impulses that drove its chief executive. Indeed, Gates’ involvement in all aspects of Microsoft was recently illustrated when he tried to download something from the Microsoft website. Encountering trouble of the sort that causes the rest of us to heap imaginative curses upon his head, Gates sent an angry e-mail to the heads of Windows development. Now leaked, it is full of familiar complaints about confusing names, “weird dialog boxes”, crashes and delays. It ends: “I reboot every night — why should I reboot immediately?” When asked, Gates said he sent such e-mails regularly. As was pointed out, that last comment was particularly revealing. People frequently wonder why, if they leave their computers on for a while, Windows gets sluggish. Now we know why Microsoft never prioritised fixing this: Bill Gates reboots every night, so he never had the problem.

Gates’ control over all aspects of Microsoft’s strategy was a good thing because he understood markets very well. He is, however, getting out at perhaps the right time: that legendary ability has shown signs of wear of late. First, there is Google: although a business model that corners information and then sells targeted advertising is not really that different from one that corners application interfaces and then sells compatible operating systems, Gates was wrong-footed by it. Then there is open-source, which seems to anger Gates as does nothing else, not even Apple’s mockery of Microsoft as made in the uncool likeness of its founder. Recently, he called it “communist”. This is a little entertaining, as Gates believes that capitalism is not creative enough. If Internet Explorer is capitalist and Firefox “communist”, anyone who has used both browsers would agree with him about creativity.

The sector he expanded may have left him behind, but that into which he now moves is one ripe for restructuring from someone who is capable of it. Major changes have already been made to aid and development work in recent years, spearheaded by Bill Clinton, another man doing pretty well in his second innings. Clinton has talked of “public-goods markets that are not only underfinanced but disorganised”, and his foundation has used market-friendly methods to arrange markets for the world’s poor that provide AIDS drugs at affordable prices, among others — all the while marinating that what they do “is not charity”. The Gates Foundation, strengthened by Warren Buffett’s gift of practically his entire fortune — typically, in annual, supervised instalments! — will dominate giving for years to come. Gates will be able to use his deep understanding of how incentives and networks work to reform how non-profits work. (And if Google’s philanthropic division, set up with similar aims, arouses his competitive instincts, so much the better.)

Others have made this move. His fellow-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, did so some time ago. George Soros intends to exhaust his fortune promoting freedom of thought worldwide; Sheldon Adelson, America’s third-richest man, spends millions yearly on a combination of initiatives meant to protect Israel. These are big ideas, enormous projects, being taken on by men willing to give all they have for a lasting legacy. Andrew Carnegie, once the richest man in the world, who had, like Gates, practically built a young industry, gave it all away before he died. Today, when his giant steelworks in Bethlehem and Pittsburgh lie empty, he is remembered by those who study at his universities, work at his libraries, and by descendants of those in small towns preserved from epidemics by his network of dispensaries.

As we celebrate how Indian business has arrived, we should remember our philanthropy is petty in comparison. Where are our giant projects? Aside from the Tatas, always exceptional, our captains of industry prefer small-scale, patronage-based efforts rather than transformational missions. The reason, of course, is that, unlike these others, the wealthy in India believe in dynastic control. Gates will leave enough for his children to keep them comfortable, but they will have to start their own enterprises if they wish to be wealthy. When we start celebrating professional management instead of those who run companies they inherited, when we talk of business leaders rather than business families, then we will have taken a giant step forward towards thinking as big as Bill Gates.

mihir.sharmaexpressindia.com