Slashdot Mirror
The Google Caste System
managedcode writes "Google doesn't like to do things traditionally. Right from their IPO, when they dumped Goldman Sachs for secretly trying to deal with their big investor, Kleiner Perkins. Business Week covers the Google Caste System, 'in which business types are second-class citizens to Google's valued code jockeys [..] They deem the corporate development team as underpowered in the company, with engineers and product managers tending to carry more clout than salesmen and dealmakers.' At last a company is shouting at the top of it's voice, engineers make the world."
Importance doesn't equal control in much respect. The executives and managers are still in control of the company's future, regardless of what the programmers, DB admins, and the like want to believe. Don't get me wrong, this is great for the company, and is theorhetically the best way to work it. If your workforce is happy, they are more productive and do better quality work. Quality work and productivity really make or break a company. Thus, if you motivate them and reward them to make them happy, the company will do well.
" At last a company is shouting at the top of it's voice, engineers make the world."
this reminds me of when steve balmer made his famous developers speech... "developers developers developers developers..."
will start to realise it's the employees that make their company work, not just the sales people!
http://www.gibby.net.au
Well, Google is still young. I'm fairly sure it will eventually enter middle age and the engineers will be replaced by marketing. Then when it gets old, the marketeers will be replaced by lawyers. It is just a question of time, years, or even decades.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Google is still young. Eventually the business types, who have spent their lives studying how to manipulate people, will slowly take control from the folks who have spent their lives studying how to manipulate computers.
I hadn't heard that Goldy refused to play by the rules from the Google founders. The rules were typical Google: no backroom deals that favor big institutional investors over smaller investors.
But Goldy wanted to get some easy money, they got caught and shut out of the deal. That makes my night. If you've dealt with bankers (esp. "New York" bankers), you'll know why.
Here's a nice article on this.
Perhaps this also explains the "Google will fail" articles that appeared before the IPO; the powers-that-be were peeved that Google did the IPO their way, and wanted it to fail.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Engineering driven companies are nothing new, they're just normally not sustainable.
Semiconductor and Passives components manufacturing are normally:
a. small and founded by a geek with a good idea, who either...
1. sells out early OR
2. tries to make a go of it, spends too much time on pet projects and runs the company down.
b. large companies driven by suits who:
1. understand non-R&D business, ie. Sales and Operations, and remain competitive AND
2. acquire small companies run into the ground by geeks.
Why does Google do so well run by geeks? Dunno. It's astonishing they stay so focused. Guessing, maybe it's fear -- seems like they want to win so badly.
But right now every 'free' thing they do, from maps to mail, pumps the very serious ad business with eyeballs and press.
Think of a newspaper. The people who sell ad space and work in Classifieds are secondary to the reporters and editors who manage what stories go into the paper and the general political tone and direction. In fact, those sales people are generally looked down-upon as a necessary evil.
Think about TV. Who runs things, the people selling air time for commercials or the station manager who chooses what shows appear and what the format is when the network isn't forcing its agenda? Or even at network level, what directs them - people who sell ads or creative people who think their program could be a hit?
Radio is the same. Google's business model is: Sell non-obtrusive ads associated with information services. To do this, they need compelling services to make people get ads on the same web page. These services are like shows on TV or juicy news articles - they drive eyeballs, which allows for ad revenue.
Really, there is no other way to run it and make money.
...and she doesn't own a computer, let alone have the faintest idea of how to use one. Google is this millennium's Ford Motor Company. Ford started the assembly line and all the other automakers followed suit. Google values what they consider their most valuable assets and reward them well for their efforts.
Another example; I was explaining Picasa to someone who was looking for a way to easily email photos who wasn't the most computer savvy of all people. She was leery about trying a new piece of software until she found out it's a Google product. She was all for it after that. In a lot of people's minds, Google == Quality. I am not saying it's right, but perception rules the world.
Google; get laid. All the other google functions seem to work pretty well. C'mon Google, please?
This is probably true. After all, if everybody who read this article decided to actually have a pair and start a business, it would suddenly make it much harder to actually start a business at all. Right now is a great time to do a lean and mean startup, you can literally start an internet application company with very little capital, just enough to run and connect servers.
However, what if everyone who ends up chaining themselves to their desk tomorrow instead stayed home and started dedicating themselves to some internet application that they cooked up over the weekend? Well, so many of them would fail, because many of them would be overlapping ideas, that the conventional wisdom would quickly swing the other way, and no one would want to start a business anymore.
The moral of the story? Because right now is a great time to start a business, right now is a bad time to start a business. Wait until it is a bad (in peoples' perceptions) time to start a business, and then you'll be golden.
-decatur
The US always had a caste system, as had India, the difference is in the situation with Google, it seems to actually be a meritocracy. I never thought I'd see a merit based corporate environment but Google may be one of the first.
Usually its always a caste based environment where elite well connected white males have meetings with their friends to decide the fate of your business or your job, while at the same time giving themselves a raise and reducing your salary.
Google on the other hand is going about this in a completely different way, the idea is good, lets see how far Google can take it. On the other hand, we should not let Google be the last corporation like this, we should use the Google model in future businesses. The model seems to work, its profitable, and its not based on abusing workers. As much as Americans complain about Chinese sweatshops, lately it seems child labor and sweatshops are a good idea for the US economy, its better to have the sweatshops than the prisons.
As a programmer, obviously I think its cool that engineers & techies who work on the product are valued at the same level (or above) the corporate company structure. I just don't see how this is so different from what has been going on at other tech companies, for instance Microsoft, where people have always been able to choose between moving up the management ladder or move up the food chain as an Independant Contributor. A lot of the Distinguished Engineers and Technical Fellows at Microsoft and specifically in MSR (and I'm sure the same is true of a lot of other companies) are really just engineers with no direct reports, and they are clearly esteemed and thought of as highly as anyone in the company.
I agree its cool, I'm just not so sold that its a new idea that applies only to Google.
Well, he convinced me that it was a two way street. That there is no shortage of good ideas and products out there, and the ONLY reason some succeed over others is becuase people like him and Sales people make it happen. They sell products that they know aren't quite ready yet (vaporware) because the company needs the revenue. They sell products that they know are inferior to the competition because their Scientists and Engineers made a stupid mistake early on in the product development lifecycle that didn't get caught until too late and the company can't afford to start over.
Basically he convinced me (a seasoned Engineer) that we need them as much as they need us.
So, be careful in your thinking about this issue.
This article is far from flattering towards Google. In some ways it is so feline that it's hard to work out where Business Week is coming from. It quotes bankers who suggest that "Googlers" are arrogant brats who are more likely to complain about the quality of the Google canteen's omelettes than they are do do hard work and hard deals.
I guess what one senses here is anger. The business establishment doesn't understand Google, hence this dismissal of anyone who isn't a numbers man as a mere "engineer". And, perhaps, there are a lot of investment houses out there playing a double game. They know what Google is currently where the money is, but they also have a burning desire to get revenge for the way Google humiliated them in its Dutch-auction style of IPO.
Google is going to have to be very, very careful with this lot. Nothing would please some of these bankers more than to make a few billion out of Google in some crock-of-shit deal before delivering them to the trashcan with "Don't ever cross Wall Street" stencilled on their brow.
Interestingly, the article doesn't mention Apple which has been a poster child in several eras now. Apple is run by, arguably, one of the world's greatest salesmen, and yet Apple also displays engineering and design excellence that's taken them to the top of the tree. I guess such marriages of engineering and business are possible, though very rare. Google has quite a challenge ahead of it.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
If you've never heard the phrase "software engineer", you've just admitted that you've no industrial experience.
As a software engineer in safety-related software for the last 10 years (first job was power station controls, current job is car engine controllers), I can assure you that we are *very* serious about responsibility for mistakes. You screw up, people die. As a result, only about 10% of our time is spent actually coding; around 30% of the rest is spent on requirements capture and design; and the other 60% is spent testing the living shit out of it until we're sure what we're putting out is safe.
On projects that don't have safety implications, there isn't anything like as much testing. But this is an engineering judgement based on the impact of bugs on the customer - if your car radio bugs out for example, it's annoying but it doesn't kill you. Same in any other engineering discipline - you don't think that the mechanical engineers who design plastic toys use the same level of testing that engine designers would, do you?
Grab.
A group of engineers and managers attended a conference, travelling by train. The engineers queued up to buy their travel tickets at the station but only one manager joined them. No questions were asked, but the engineers watched studiously as the manager bought just one ticket.
In the train, the engineers took their seats as did all of the managers bar two, who took up sentry positions at each end of the coach. After a while, one of the managers on sentry duty made a sign and he all the other managers headed immediately for one of the toilet cubicles. Two minutes later the ticket inspector arrived, saw the toilet door closed, knocked on the door and said "ticket please", upon which one ticket was duly slid under the door.
The engineers of course understood the ploy immediately and congratulated the managers on their guile and coordination.
Come the return journey, the engineers sent one of their crew to buy just one ticket. Puzzlingly, the managers didn't buy any tickets at all this time. Again the engineers refrained from asking questions and observed events studiously. Everyone climbed aboard the train and once again the managers immediately posted sentries. Sure enough, in due course, one of the managers on sentry duty made a sign upon which the watching engineers immediately crowded into a toilet. Strangely the managers didn't move. But as soon as the door had closed on the engineers, a passenger sitting nearby observed a manager leaving his seat, walking to the toilet, knocking on the door, and asking "ticket please".
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
I am sure you are right, because I have seen it happen. Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) was founded in 1959 by a couple of engineers. When I became aware of the company in 1963 it still had an engineering culture: the engineers ran the show, and the sales people were secondary. Somewhere around 1968, they renamed the programmers "software engineers" to give them more prestige.
As the company matured the culture changed. Even though I worked for DEC from 1975 to 1992, I cannot point to a specific event that was the watershed. The first symptom that I noticed was that the KS10 was said to be developed in secret to prevent it from being cancelled. Even if that wasn't true, the fact that engineers believed it indicates that the engineers no longer felt that they were making the decisions.
I wonder if paying commissions to the sales people was a symptom or a cause.
I don't blame the demise of Digital entirely on the shift from an engineering focus to a sales focus. There were some bad decisions made by engineering in the last few years. But I can't help wondering if those decisions might have been corrected more quickly by a younger company.
Strangely, IBM appears to be a counter-example. They are by far the oldest computer company, but they seem to have achieved some sort of dynamic equilibrium, where they are able to change direction as technology and markets change quickly enough to survive. I am sure some of that has to do with their size, but as General Motors reminds us, size is no guarantee of survival. I suppose they have internal institutions that keep them nimble.
There are some good books on Digital Equipment Corporation. See The Ultimate Entrepreneur for the story of DEC at its height, and DEC is Dead Long, Live DEC for a look back after its death.
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Both extremes are short sighted.
Microsoft has ossified because engineers, creativity, and innovation don't carry enough clout.
On the side, Apple is a second rate power in the I.T. world. They could be dominating the I.T. world like Microsoft now does, if not for the poor business decision they made when they got started of pricing their computers above IBM's crappy PCs. Giving more clout to smart business men at that time could have changed things.
A successful tech company needs to both the businessmen and the engineers sufficently empowered.
It seems Google has learned its lessons from Microsoft. Lets see if they also learn Apple's. More importantly, lets see if they remember both lessons as they expand and get big.
I do and so should everyone else. If the company want you to work 50-60-70 or more hours a week, the company is mismanaged and it's time to get out!. I have never had a job that requires me to work more than 40 hours.
To quote an old movie, Auntie Mame from 1958: "Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death!" If you work 50-60-70 hours a week, you are starving to death! Do you really want to look back on your life and say "Geeez.... What happened? I was at work!" Not me, no thank you very much!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Consider my former employer, the largest heavy civil construction firm in the U.S. Warren Buffet called them "the greatest meritocracy in American business," and with good reason - the company made something like $5+ billion in revenue the last year I was with them, but there were only 1,300 or so stockholders, all current employees.
Here's how it worked: If you were in a position with profit-and-loss responsibility and were doing a good job, you'd be invited (after a few years with the company) to purchase stock. No options, no gifts - you were invited to make a purchase at the current share price and told exactly what the maximum was you could buy. Couldn't afford it? Then they'd hook you up with a bank in town that would happily loan you the money, since the stock (which had earned double-digit returns for decades) was great collateral.
What happens when everyone on the team is an actual owner, and the only way you could become an actual owner is through doing a good job? Several things:
It sounds like I'm just reminiscing, but it was a great place to work and (if you stuck around) a great place to get rich - it's a shame other companies don't follow that model.
"It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
Absolutely 100% agreed. Of course, this becomes easier as you get more experience, and thus more bargaining power - I worked a lot more when I was just starting out. And there's also that whole "work smarter, not harder" thing that comes into play with age and experience.
The only exception to the eight hours max a day rule is when you're with a small startup or some other venture in which you have a direct stake. Then working like a madman, at least temporarily, may be worth it (full disclosure: I'm in a startup).
But on the whole, yeah, the thought of looking back at my life and thinking, "Hmm, I just spent my entire youth working" is a horrifying one.
Which brings me back on topic: I wonder how many Google developers have totally thrown themselves into their work, going at it 60+ hours a week? It doesn't matter how cool your job is - at that rate, if you're a salaried employee, then your life is slipping away.