Google's Ten Golden Rules

selvan writes "Newsweek is running an article entitled Google's Ten Golden Rules. The article, by Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian, going into the philosophy behind the company." From the article: "Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men."

Comments

Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA

[Eric] Schmidt is CEO of Google. [Hal] Varian is a Berkeley professor and consultant with Google.

Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.

While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.

Slashdot: self-adulation for fanboys

Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.

What?

[bwd]

Does any of this really matter now? The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders in any way lawfully possible. The share holders now control board votes, not google's lofty ideals.

Re:What?

[Jedi Alec]

ye gods. Does this have to come up with each and every time? There *are* companies out there that make a nice profit while still maintaining a high quality of both products and customer service. Making a profit does not not necessarily imply screwing over your customers over. Treating your customers with respect and catering to their wishes to create good word-of-mouth advertising(the best there is) is a perfectly viable business strategy.

Re:What?

[s20451]

Yes, it is true that companies must, by law, work in their shareholders' interests. However, this does not mean that the stock price must be maximized from quarter to quarter. There is nothing illegal about taking the long view and realizing that long-term profitability is maximized when the public respects your brand.

The "shareholder's interest" argument really means that you can't use the company's money to put a new deck on your house. It is not sinister.

Rule number 11

[pubjames]

11) Having fricking huge piles of cash so you can actually afford to do 1-10.

Re:Rule number 11

[lukewarmfusion]

What makes you so sure that 1-10 aren't why they have huge piles of cash?

Don't Be Evil??

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get why Google has to yammer on and on about "don't be evil". That would say to me that they think most companies are evil, and google has to be different and say that all the time.

The fact is that the vast majority of businesses aren't evil, Microsoft included. They might do some bad things, but no reasonable person could say they are overall evil. Now Enron, and Worldcom could be considered evil, but there are the rare exceptions in American society, not the rule.

I like google, but sometimes they are a little full of themselves. They are bright and smart people, maybe too smart for their own good. For all people talk about Microsoft and Apple's arrogance, Google has got a pretty big head for a company not even 10 years old.

Rule #11

[Frankie70]

But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.

Thou shalt not be bitchy about competitors.

"Pack Them In"

[jkauzlar]

We all like to know what the most successful and innovative companies in recent years is telling its employees (or itself). Also, their list is a proposed manual of how to manage "knowledge workers." This could apply to hundreds of companies.

Also, I take issue with the "Pack them in" criterium. What I like most about my job right now is the space I get. Email, instant-message, radio, etc, make "packing them in" a reality for any company with these technologies. I'd like to be able to fart at my desk or turn on a stereo and not have anybody make a fuss about it.

I think they're trying to justify sticking their employees two-per-cubicle for lack of floor space.

Re:"Pack Them In"

[jkauzlar]

Yeah, but not everybody needs somebody looking over their shoulder. The suggestion that I won't do my job well without peer pressure is insulting to my work ethic.

It's nine o'clock here in Seattle right now. After my coffee sets in and my brain wakes up, I will do the job of three men, if required. While doing this, I will crank up my stereo, sing along if I want to, take a cigarette break whenever I feel like it, and have a dignified sense of independence and self-empowerment. And my job will get done very well.

Re:"Pack Them In"

[susano_otter]

I think Google avoids this problem to a great extent by applying some of Joel's other principles: Namely, that "Class A" people hire other "Class A" people; and Google actively involves the workers themselves in the decision to hire their teammates.

I'd imagine there's a very low incidence "being interrupted by stupid questions" and a very high incidence "of greatness feeding greatness in a positive feedback loop".

Where most companies end up hiring a bunch of mediocre programmers and giving each of them enough personal space to make it as far as they can on their own, Google seems to be incredibly strict about hiring only the best, and making sure that they'll be a good fit for their team before signing them on.

"Don't be evil"???

[iion_tichy]

Riiight... I know collecting data always only ever works out in favour of the individual that has been monitored. Lovely stuff like advertising tailored to your needs etc.

How on earth does Google want to be not evil, when every single thing they do is designed to collect as much data about people as possible (and that includes "free WLAN for everybody" - monitor surfing habits at the root has to be Google's wet dream)? I think they would have to make a VERY directed effort to avoid being evil.

Re:knowledge workers

[kin_korn_karn]

The downside is that employers like Google expect you to love your job. If you do, good for you. But sometimes you will have other things that you need to do, but the nagging feeling that you're supposed to love your job and express that love by working your ass off will always come up, and you will feel like you're not doing enough for the great ideals of the Company.

It its own way, that's a worse kind of pressure than Dilbert-style companies have, because it's ideological pressure. You can pretty much predict what a PHB wants - he wants you to do your job, make him look good, and, even though you might have to work overtime until you find a better job, it ends when you go home. If you're supposed to drink the kool-aid and live/breathe the company 'values', then the company is not just trying to take over your time, but your mind, and I for one would rather work a few extra hours at crunch time.

Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff.

[Daniel_Staal]

This is actually a fairly standard article format: they asked the head of a succesful company to write an article on what he thinks makes that company succesful. It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis, just a highlight of what they think is important/different about their company.

It gives some idea of how the management thinks of the company, and what they try to work on. Sure, it's a fluff piece, the equivilent of the society column for businesses, but it's a moderately useful fluff peice. And it can help some people, espcially if you want to understand how Google thinks about itself.

get over yourself plz

[tehwebguy]

it's not like it was a trick, the article starts off, "At google, we think..."

Enron's motto

[Kevbo]

Back in the day, Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, used to tout Enron's internal policy of always taking the moral high ground and that all its employees exhibited the highest ethical standards, even going so far as to say that Enron set the bar when it came to business ethics. Shocking to think that we cannot always trust what the heads of corporations tell us.

Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff.

[be-fan]

Congratulations on missing the point. This isn't an article on how great Google is. This is an article by somebody in Google management trying to explain how Google handles its employees, and why it has been sucessful. For somebody managing a small company, emulating some of these things might be interesting. I know gang interviews will be a new concept to at least a few people. We used them where I used to work, and they're a blast. It's easy for a canidate to convince management that he knows the engineering, its less easy for him to convince his potential coworkers.

Mission Statements. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

The following are some examples of mission statements from real enterprises. . .

Mary Kay Cosmetics: "To give unlimited opportunity to women."

Right. And they do this by adding their weight to the ceaseless hammering of women through the media with the message, "Your natural body state is Ugly. You will be Unloved and Unhappy unless you use our Products." Oooh. Feel the power.

Merck: "To preserve and improve human life."

One word: "Vioxx".

Well, maybe a second word, "Thimerosal" (Mercury) in their various vaccines, including their flu shot.

Wal-Mart: "To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same thing as rich people."

Selling out the West to the Chinese might kill the economy altogether, which will certainly mean that the rich and the poor might share the same bread lines. Sort of a weird way to level the playing field if you ask me, but what do I know. . ?

Interestingly, another of Wal-Mart's mission statements was, "Become a $125 billion company by the year 2000". Ah. Greed; the very spirit of altruism! No conflict there, boy!

Walt Disney: "To make people happy."

Why does that send a chill up my spine? How about, "Offer happiness"? Or at least, offer media which some might find uplifting. In any case, I can't help but recall the episode where Disney security staff held the body of a boy who drowned on one of their rides under water until the park closed so that nobody would have their, "happiness" (or their PR) spoiled by the unpleasant aspect of a dead boy being returned to grieving parents before closing time. How about, "Disney: Where ignorance is bliss, and enforced."

McDonald's: "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile."

Another nice-sounding mission statement from a company which helps kill Americans with toxic food and destroys millions of acres of rainforest globally to do it. Cool.

So, is Google evil?

Spiderman said it best; "With great power. . ." I use Google's search engine all the time. Their potential to reshape the world, as with all of the above corporate giants, is certainly there. And so is the corporate culture which allows amoral activities to rule their actions. So evil or not, I think a healthy amount of skepticism and observation and keeping brushed up on alternatives is very wise. --Because mission statements alone don't keep people honest.

-FL