Microsoft ties executive pay to security after multiple failures and breaches
Microsoft’s move to tie senior executives’ compensation to security goals, following a series of high‑profile breaches, is seen as a long‑overdue attempt to change incentives at the top. Commenters question whether these targets will genuinely improve security or simply encourage metrics gaming, reduced transparency, and more “checklist” compliance rather than substantive risk reduction. Others note broader structural issues—like weak customer incentives, cloud shared‑responsibility gaps, and competing corporate priorities such as rapid feature delivery and AI—that may limit how much impact the pay change can really have.
Incentives, Metrics, and Goodhart’s Law
- Many welcome tying executive pay to security but worry the metrics will be gamed.
- Concerns that teams may under-report or avoid tracking issues to “look secure.”
- Several cite the dynamic where once metrics affect pay, they stop being good measures (Goodhart’s Law).
- Some think clawback provisions are needed because security failures surface years later, possibly after executives move on.
Security Theater, Checklists, and Audits
- Multiple comments describe security as checkbox-driven: long vendor questionnaires, generic SaaS checklists applied regardless of fit.
- On the buyer side, people acknowledge this is often about process and documentation rather than deep technical review.
- Audits are seen as superficial; they catch obvious gaps but not sophisticated attack paths.
Customer Demand and Cloud Providers
- One view: historically many Azure customers didn’t truly prioritize security because incentives were weak and reputational damage small.
- Another view: security is “table stakes” — you don’t win deals for it, but you lose them if you’re bad. For hyperscalers, most customers can only rely on reputation and compliance reports.
Will This Actually Improve Security?
- Some see it as a positive, visible signal that security is being prioritized at the top.
- Others predict more cover‑ups, wordsmithing, and internal blame-shifting rather than substantive change.
- Suggestions include making security a condition of keeping executive roles, not just a bonus lever.
Organizational and Cultural Factors
- Microsoft is described as huge and fragmented; security posture varies widely by team. The weakest link problem is emphasized.
- Some expect slower feature velocity if security is taken seriously, and question whether leadership will tolerate that trade-off.
- There’s cynicism that other corporate priorities (AI, telemetry, ads, DEI, shareholder value) may conflict with or dilute the security push.
Sentiment Toward Microsoft and Security UX
- Long-standing distrust of Microsoft’s security record is voiced.
- Some expect more intrusive controls, telemetry, and mandatory trainings framed as “security by default,” possibly at the expense of usability and transparency.