This book review examines Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller's Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside (1998), a critical insider account of how Microsoft achieved dominance despite chronic management dysfunction. The review explores the authors' central arguments about poor planning, chaotic internal organization, and leadership failures at Microsoft, while acknowledging the role of luck, market timing, and occasional technological genius in the company's rise. The reviewer also considers the authors' credibility and bias, ultimately drawing broader lessons about corporate creativity, responsive leadership, and the power of ubiquity in shaping business success.
This review demonstrates source credibility evaluation — a core academic skill. The writer does not simply accept the authors' claims but interrogates their motivations (a fired insider and an executive's daughter), then weighs those biases against the validity of specific arguments. This models how readers should approach any primary or secondary source.
The review opens with a statement of the book's central contradiction, then works systematically through the four management functions (planning, organizing, leading, controlling) as an analytical framework. It pivots to author bias before extracting transferable business lessons, and closes with a broader cultural analogy. The structure mirrors a standard evaluative essay: describe, analyze, critique, generalize.
Edstrom, Jennifer & Marlin Eller. (1998). Barbarians led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the inside: How the world's richest corporation wields its power. New York: Holt.
On the surface, Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from the Inside seems to hold within its covers a central contradiction. On one hand, the authors continually lambast the Microsoft Corporation's narrow worldview and greed. On the other hand, they also admit that Microsoft, at least by the standards applied to most capitalist enterprises, is a resounding success — both in terms of its profitability and its technological innovations. The company did learn from its mistakes and capitalize upon many market opportunities that came its way, however serendipitously.
While authors Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller allege that Microsoft often bungled many aspects of the core functions of managing — planning, organizing, leading, and controlling — they also argue that because of luck, and convergent cultural and marketplace circumstances, Microsoft has triumphed, and that success creates more success.
In terms of planning, Edstrom and Eller present evidence that Microsoft has shown more than occasional poor foresight, such as its initial belief that the Internet would only be a passing fad. As they note, "It didn't turn Gates on, it was too mundane" (Edstrom & Eller, 1998, p. 10). The company's quality controls have also been poor, evidenced by its dissemination of bug-ridden and virus-prone applications to the public. Microsoft has generated almost as much public animosity as it has generated sales, even among disgruntled users who have little choice — other than Macs — but to use its products.
Microsoft's organization has often been chaotic, ridden with Balkanized power plays and internal conflicts. Its leadership is frequently more focused on besting the competition — particularly Apple — rather than pursuing true excellence. Gates is portrayed as wanting to "beat" Apple more than learn from Apple's unique strengths.
You’re 36% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.