Slashdot Mirror
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."
From TFA
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.
Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Anyway... the only golden rule I aknowledge is "He who has the gold, makes the rules"
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
I wonder which company they're talking about?
Throwing chairs...rings a bell.
Mi...cro...?
Nope lost it.
Coral Cache link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com.nyud.net:8090/id/10296177 /site/newsweek/
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
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.
I believe somewhere around 1550 B.C., a gentleman by the name of Moses received 10 rules from the CEO of the universe. Unfortunately the were not followed to closely. Time has a way of washing away convictions and ideals. I applaud Google for their intent, but I would wager these lofty goals will settle to reality when the bottom dollar hits the road.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
11) Having fricking huge piles of cash so you can actually afford to do 1-10.
From TFA: For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months.
Not only do they, as they said in this article, eat they own dog food, but they make us do it.
Beta 1, Google Inc, Beta 2, The World!!
Scully: Should we arrest David Copperfield?
Mulder: Yes we should, but not for this.
...unless the Chinese communists need help.
I read
I wish more desgin folks would take a cue from google's main search page at www.google.com and get the net back to a more simplicity/focus on content approach to delivering information.
Interesting article - I believe the management really are smoking their own stuff, from what I've experienced from dealing with googles people.
I just hope they don't get too spread thin and have trouble with upkeeping excellence with their various product.
what is their slogan, anyway?
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.
But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.
Thou shalt not be bitchy about competitors.
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.
What interested me was how they treat "knowledge workers".
Their principles can be summed up like this:
1. Pay them based on what they produce, not how many hours they're in the office.
2. Get out of their way whenever possible.
3. Keep them informed
4. Let teams make decisions, not some arrogant-but-stupid manager
I say that's the sort of thing that makes me want to work there.
One of our not-so-secret weapons is our ideas mailing list: a companywide suggestion box where people can post ideas ranging from parking procedures to the next killer app. The software allows for everyone to comment on and rate ideas, permitting the best ideas to percolate to the top.
So, Google uses a Slash like moderation system? Imagine being able to moderate a PHB (-1, Talking out of Your ASS), or a colleague (-1, Clueless Luser). And moderating the CEO (-100, Evil - Fuck Shareholder Value, This is Wrong!) to keep them to thier word.
That would be cool.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
If accusations are automatically true, then I accuse all Slashdot readers of being pathetic geeks with no life.
Hey, wait a minute...
My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
The book "Built to Last" is an excellent analysis of how companies that have a very specific and strongly-held set of core values, combined with a few other attributes, tend to last as successful organizations for decades, regardless of what is happening in their business environment. I highly recommend reading this book to anyone who is interested in creating a strong company. The "Do no evil" mantra falls into this type of core values. The article itself doesn't really discuss this, as it is more focused on making their employees more effective.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
It talks about testing gmail inside google for a few months inside the company, to get it "tuned to satisfy the needs of some of our most demanding customers--our knowledge workers."
Google may have to be considering it's shareholders, but it's doing this in a way which is beneficial to all.
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Someday I would like to find the person who came up with this concept and shoot them in the head. I find nothing enhances my productivity more than having to listen to other people's meaningless personal phone conversations or conference calls that have nothing to do with what I'm working on, the assorted smells and sounds the human body makes that are not pleasant, the incesant pinging and chiming of IMs and email alerts, not to mention having my personal business available to anyone who wishes to stare over my shoulder.
Oh to have an office! And if I needed a co-worker's help and/or advice and they won't return emails/phone calls, I would simply get my butt out of my chair, go to their cubicle, grab them by the lapels (or goatee if there are no lapels) and tell them we need to have a little chat. There's nothing like the personal approach! And then I could return to my office, close the door, crank the Rush, and get back to doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is coding.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
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.
As an aspiring Evil Overlord I must now renounce Google. If I'm ever going to destroy the earth I'm afraid I cannot continue to support them.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
You mean the one that frequently has a boat load of tool bar advertisement crap spewed across it, trying to cram it down our throats? Who wants the search engine corrupting the desktop? Being used to the clean page, when I see that it is time to go elsewhere. A portal such as Yahoo looks better than that. Did I say it annoys me greatly?
Reading the rules I was thinking how I'd like to work in a place like that. Then I thought 'wait a minute, I do work in a place like that'. But I'm in a research group at a university. One of the things that scares me from finding a so-called 'real job' in industry or business is the lack of these rules which we kind of take for granted in the ivory tower.
Except of course for that "cater to their every need" rule. (Insert ramen joke here)
Lots of what they are doing is in line with the Agile Work Axioms and agile practices. For example:
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
This company is spooky in it's rate of innovation. Even, as the article points out, in it's management strategy as well.
Google, being the most popular search engine on the planet is privilege to the tiniest emerging trends, harvested by our searches. Our collective secrets. So they know quite a bit about what we want.
Rumors are that Google is considering Riya another spookily intelligent beta photo service that will probably put Flickr to shame while spark spin-off revolutions impossible to predict.
Oh, yeah, and aren't they supposed to come out with Google Calendar today?
Technology commoditizes everything and Google leverages IT extremely well.
Starting with the commoditization of information, Google's stated mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
Perhaps next we will see the commoditization of the world's knowledge, followed by our collective intelligence.
I don't know if Google will be the entity to do that, but the trajectory seems clear to me with Google setting the pace.
I recently finished an article called: Technology, Computers and Innovation: Why Everything is Speeding Up exploring what's behind the accelerating rate of innovation in technology. Even though the rate of worldwide technological acceleration is astounding, it seems Google is still strides ahead. ~ted
Thoughts on the Emergence of Computing Intelligence
That's wrong, or at least, the premise is incorrect. A publicly traded corporation is only required to abide by what their SEC paperwork says. For most companies, that does mean maximizing profits. But that's not an absolute rule.
In Google's SEC filings, and in most of its public statements, it says they won't be evil. Any investor in the company is assumed to have read those filings and public comments. Caveat emptor.
An accountant will tell you that "profit" is a somewhat artificial result. A complex set of corporate books allows you to attribute money to expenses, investment in future growth, savings for future tax liability, or whatever. Some companies choose to pay dividends, others choose to buy back their own stock. They have a range of options, as long as they cover themselves in their SEC filings.
They do have to play by the rules, but maximizing profit isn't necessarily one of them, and it doesn't have to mean maximizing quarterly profit.
sigs, as if you care.
Before the Slashdot community turns on Google with the same sputtering hatred they now reserve for Microsoft? It's great that Google seems to be implementing a strategy that maximizes the effectiveness of their workers. What sort of stunt will they pull that sends its rabid supports into the arms of the red-headed stepchild Yahoo?
I wonder if this is all lies. After all why would they want to tell the competition how to complete with them. Yeah, sure do the laundry for every one. Then when they hear next week that Microsoft has started a laundry service for their employees Google can laugh and laugh.
Oh ya see now Google has done it, 10 Golden Rules = 10 Commandments, I get it. Next thing you will hear is how Google is more popular than Jesus ... oh wait
You know what they say - rules are to be broken.
Simpy
AC grandparent: they fired a guy for blogging
... take your pick.
You're either a troll or newsworthy
Can't it be both? This is from January with Mark Jen, now of Plaxo.
It's the next generation of AdSense: Google Subliminal.
Dark Reflection
Talking about Google's rules are the "Don't be evil mantra", check out the Google & Kozoru story. Don't be evil, yeah right!
Simpy
Such a line of crap. "don't be evil" "tolerance"? "respect"? Kind of like the respect they have for the authors who have asked them not to scan their work, ya, they aren't evil at all. Ya its not evil just going ahead, ignoring the IP creators, just because "you know what's best for them" or to make some money. Yep, they aren't evil at all.
Seriously the media loves google and that is the only reason the stock is so inflated. If we didn't know better you'd think they weren't the one with site traffic behind aol, yahoo, and msn, by ten of millions of visitors. Its similar to apple, by all the good press and constant front page articles you'd think they'd have more then a few percentage points of the desktop market, but nope.
This at the end of the day is why all the predictions that Microsoft is going to fail "the next time around" never come true. Why that crowd is always dumbfounded that MS does so well time and time again. At some point you have to stop believing your won FUD and Fluff pieces and try to get the facts.
Google's stock is going to cr4ash like the dot.com bubble. The only question is whether or not YOU will get your money out before or after it tanks.
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.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
11. Only hire Ivy League grads.
12. Make a reference to Stanford in the first five minutes of every conversation.
13. Require hefty formal academic credentials for positions that are mostly clerical, administrative, or customer service. Because we're cool, like NeXT was.
14. Use the "W" hotel for conferences; it impresses the kids.
15. Eric Schmidt can lead us. After all, Sun did so well. And Novell, under his leadership. Plus, he looks like "Jimmy James" from News Radio.
16. Search! Don't sort! DON'T SORT! Do it OUR WAY! We are SMARTER THAN YOU! In fact, you can't even sign up for this.
link plz?
-- lol pwned
Is that you cant browse porn all day?
"Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
That first rule looks like they've basically eliminated the whole HR department!
Oh, since when did they decide that "Personnel Department" is no longer acceptable and rename it to "Human Resources"???
Live forever, or die trying.
Wow nicely done, and here I thought it was:
- The open steppe
- fleet horse
- falcon on your wrist
- wind in your hair!
you made my day with that Conan reference thanks.
But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.
<cough>Microsoft<cough>
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
This article is on the MSNBC website, which--last time I checked--is owned in part by Microsoft.
--- What
it's not like it was a trick, the article starts off, "At google, we think..."
-- lol pwned
I just got a fortune cookie, it said, "Google's stock will raise ever higher".
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Seven,WTF? Is editing evil?
Say hello to my little sig.
> Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.
:) Seriously, no offense meant but that's what every successful company does. "We're great and here is why..." Would you buy from a company that said "We are not great?" Didn't think so.
Your grasp on marketing is outstanding.
In this case all my annoyance is at Newsweek. the state of mainstream journalism in this country is pretty bad, and they don't need to be turing over their pages to corperate PR folks. How about taking the CEOs talking points and then going into the workplace and see them actually being implemented? Ask the average employee about the quality of the food in the cafeteria. Do a little work.
This isn't wuite as bad as the news orginizations who did nothing but repeat the Bush administration's lies in the lead up to war, but its the exact same concept.
sorry 'bout the mess...
And even the Google Toolbar.. personally, it was the first "good" toolbars that actually worked, and blocked popups.. granted, ya don't even need it nowadays, but still, it was a major help 2 years ago.. if you're critical about Google, you obviously must know something that we don't.. you probably read too much in to Google vs MS politics.. screw it man.. the most important thing is, that their products kick ass.. if Google runs their entire world one day, I'll gladly let them.. because I know they'll do a great job.. and the best job..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Is there a tech company that doesn't do this? And don't bring people in unless you have a position to fill. I once when through 13 hours of interviews, and then another 12 as a followup, only to find out the company didn't actually have any openings for my type of engineer. They just liked to talk to people with good resumes for future reference. I cursed their name thoroughly and darkly on the drive home, and then tech bubble burst the next week (true story), dragging their stock down 98%. Ha! Don't fuck with the Desperation clan! We have fricken' powers.
Cater to their every need Let's face it: programmers want to program, they don't want to do their laundry. So we make it easy for them to do both.
Treat them like OCD babies who cannot function and accomplish normal chores. Great. I find this creepy for some reason. I can do my own chores, thank you. Bought a house all by my lonesome. Signed my own name and everything. I'm a *big* boy now. :-\
Pack them in. Almost every project at Google is a team project, and teams have to communicate. The best way to make communication easy is to put team members within a few feet of each other.
Piffle. "Colocation" is pointy-haired boss-think. We're engineering. Occasional info transfers between team members, and a the odd brainstorm session is more than enough. We don't sit around in prayer circles and chant out code or schematics. "Pack them in" is code for "pay for less floor space".
Even the CEO shared an office at Google for several months after he arrived. Sitting next to a knowledgeable employee was an incredibly effective educational experience.
The CEO learned how annoying it can be to share an office. :-D
Eat your own dog food.
Man, how little are they paying people? Ha! I tease. :)
Strive to reach consensus. Modern corporate mythology has the unique decision maker as hero. We adhere to the view that the "many are smarter than the few," and solicit a broad base of views before reaching any decision.
There other slogan is "History? Nothing to learn there."
Ah, I'm just picking on them. If I were a software weenie instead of a hardware weenie I'd send them a resume.
I always preferred "Henchman Resources" myself.
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...
Is this true? That is great... ha! My next submission to Slashdot will be, "Great List of Porn Sites Found on Google"!
Free Viagra in the cafeteria?
Geeze, can't you get off your Bush hate mongering long enough to post ON TOPIC?
That reminds me... what ever did happen to Gerald Ratner?
Really? This is not being presented as news; it is clearly by Google about Google. I see no reason why Newsweek should be ashamed.
If this had been in Harvard Business Review, no one would have batted an eye.
We had a small contest years ago where employees could create a company poster. I found a great closeup of Conan's angry face (from Savage Sword Of Conan- the cool black and white comic), and put that quote underneath in bloody flaming letters.
I didn't win, of course, but MY poster was the one that started appearing on cubicle and office walls. :-)
Google more popular than jesus.
i swear, the more i hear about google, the more they sound like the borg from star trek: "resistance is futile" and all that
of course i'll be modded into obvlivion for saying this, it goes agains the mindless slashot cliques: "google good, microsoft baaad" say the slashdot sheeple
read the comment again. it's a stupid manifesto of corporate life. the point is, IT'S STILL SOUL SUCKING CORPORATE LIFE
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Evidently, making fun of the competitor based on rumors is not a part of the "don't be evil" philosophy.
What's particularly weak are these 'guest author' articles, which I imagine is this one from Google's brass. The article is near the beginning of the mag, if memory serves me correct, and is written by some different guest author each month and can be about anything, really. It's pretty lame, usually some post-menopausal woman bemoaning her children leaving home, or some high school person talking about preparing for college, or some disaffected 29 year old explaining the challenges his generation fails between sips of a double-tall.
(I'm not much into the printed magazines, but the only ones I'm subscribed to now is Discover and Make. I used to subscribe to Newsweek several years back, but was continually disappointed by the fluff and eventually canceled.)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Google's top rule "Don't Be Evil" only applies if its not in their best interest to be evil.
Look at the whole searching printed material fiasco they have gotten themselves into. They just went ahead and started making pages of printed material available online, without regard for the authors and publishers of those works. If Google truely WASN'T EVIL, then they would have sat down with the publishing industry, conveyed what they were trying to do, and work with the industry to create a solution that all would be happy with.
Communicate effectively? Only if you make them millions. My website was suddenly blocked from using Google's Ads. I was simply experimenting with them, figuring out how to get them into my webpage before it went live. Google claims that I was creating invalid click counts and barred my website from their program. When I tried to contact them to ask them to verify their decision and to explain how they felt I was violating their policy, they simply responded by sending me a link to their policy. When I felt I did not violate their policy, I was basically ignored from that point forward.\
Hire by committee. I know exactly how this works. First step, write a test to see if you know your stuff. While this may sound like a great concept in hiring practices, in truth their are many brilliant programmers out their that may not know exactly how to write a template C++ class or other trivial menial programming concepts. But, in reality, they have created astounding and well conceived application solutions from an almost intrinsic and intuitive knowledge of programming. Score badly on that test and you won't be talking to anyone else at Google, period. On the flip side, hiring people that score well on those tests mean they studied just before the test, or have enough book smarts to remember countless meaningless trivial tidbits, and then wonder why they can't program themselves out of a box or have one ounce of creativity.
Strive to reach consensus. The "many are smarter then the individual" myth. I don't know, its been my experience that the collective IQ of all society is 0. The larger the group of people involved in making the decision, the dumber the outcome. Look at US politics. George Bush elected a second time? Look at Candian Politics. Jean Cretien Liberal's lasted 13 years? This is because humans can't communicate effectively in a group and any important decision making gets lots in endless meetings, debates and discussions which starts to cloud the obvious decision. If this is how Google is doing business, then it explains why projects like GMail have been in a perpetual beta for over 2 years and they are falling behind other more innovative web mail solutions.
I don't like Google, period. They are quickly becoming a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none company creating knee jerk reactionary services and spreading themselves out too thin. The bubble will burst once Google can no longer higher enough staff to work in each of the many many projects they have on the go. Eventually, as I said with Gmail falling behind Yahoo and other more innovative web email server solutions, Google will start to see the quality of those services suffer as users strive to find other more focused solutions by companies not interested in dominating the entire web experience.
Google is out to ensure that you have to pass through them to get anything done on the web. Anybody not realizing how monopolistic and dominating their goals are probably thinks Microsoft is a nice benevolent company creating good products. The only people that believe this tripe are Wall Street investors throwing billions at a company that really isn't doing anything other then organizing data other people have created.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
My post seriously doesn't deserve a +5 Funny. Was expecting a -1 Troll to be honest. =|
His point was that mainstream news doesn't do their fucking jobs. He used the lead up to the war in Iraq as an example. Thus, he's on topic.
Can't you function after someone mentions the Bush administration in less-than-stellar light? Does your mind immediately shut down, and you start running around flinging poo at people and pissing in your food trough? Pretty fucking pathetic, actually.
In my experience there are big dividends for colocation. In our last move our corporate brightlights decided to let people choose seating based on rank/seniority. So all the old timers/managers get the windows and everyone else is more or less randomly distributed. Talk about useless. Now you listen to conversations from people you don't actually work with.
Previously I shared a space with 3 other guys I worked with. There was constant communication asking about changes others had made. The rationale for x, When y would be checked in. No email, phone calls when no one was there. A much higher level of efficiency and everyone in the group had a handle on what everyone was doing. You need quiet, put on the headphones. But really this was the best work environment I had. Good teamates with a developing camaraderie. I would choose over a personal hardwall office.
Now I sit next to a bunch of people who don't share work with me. I have to track down teamates for discussion. Even worse now, is people in other countries. Telecommuting, yeah right. Sometimes you need to get to someones desk and talk F2F to get the results you need. Between countries they have a much easier time letting your requests slide. Management pays zero concern to colocation. This environment sucks. I would now prefer a private office.
Microsoft, Haliburton, Walmart, McDonalds, KFC, Exxon, Enron, Shell, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Proctor and Gamble, Unilever, Glaxo Smithkline, Bacardi, Exxon/Esso, Shell, Balfour Beatty, GE, Sprint, AT&T, Bell.
They are evil by NECESSITY as they serve money before they serve the common good of the people, and use that money to control the government through lobbying.
We, the people, do not have the power you think we do. We might feel all important about the lie that we get to choose the president we vote for, but look at the choices. To become president you have to be in bed with corporations as without their money it is too expensive to run. John Kerry is literally in bed with Heinz, his wifes company. Bush & Cheney love Haliburton. You wonder why our rights are being trampled, it is because we do not actually hold any power against them and it is only going to get worse as we approach 2008.
I found this rule very interesting. I interviewed at Google this year, and went all the way through their long interview process which lasted almost two months. And for the record I turned down a job with the GMail team. I actually interviewed at several large software shops this year, and on one hand Google is not all that different. They take things to a bit of an extreme though and I actually think this will hurt them in the long run.
All companies have programmers interview with lots of people, both from the team they will be working on and usually manager/director types from other teams. Google really goes overboard on this. You will probably interview with every engineer on the team you will work on, and quite possibly an entire other team as well. I'm sure I met with 30+ people there. Early on everybody tries to test your knowledge and skills. After the first two rounds, they pretty much stop that and it becomes much more about culture. That's where the problems start. You see, when you have 30+ people all concentrate on your personality/cultural-fit, and everyone of those 30 have a veto, you wind up with a lot of uniformity. I would say that Google had the least diversity in terms of personality types of any company I've seen, and I saw more people at Google than anywhere else. They definitely have their own monoculture. Now that monoculture has a set of values that are decidedly different than typical corporate or even typical big software company values, hence the golden rules. I think it will be their downfall though.
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.
In Vino Veritas
But everyone loses sight of the fact that the end goal of all these enticements is simply to get you to stay at work. That's it.
But on the other hand, the way they get you to stay at work is by making you genuinely want to stay at work because it's enjoyable. I really don't think that's evil--if it works, you are happy; if it doesn't then you don't have incentive to stay later than your work requires, and you go home.
I work at one of the companies in your list, and I know people in both camps, and I haven't seen any negative repercussions for the people who don't spend their leisure time at work. They still get their work done, and management recognizes and respects that. Mileage may vary from group to group or company to company of course, but that's certainly the way it is all around me.
"Cater to their every need" "Encourage creativity" and, in particular, "Don't be evil" are not standard business practices and will be the first to go if profit growth slips.
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
... 11. ??? 12. Profit!
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
> Those 10 things applied at every job I've ever had, except for the laundry.
Well either you've been very fortunate, or you're completely blind. So either congratulations, or I'm sorry.
Almost every company believes they follow the Google 10 Commandments, but in practice, you'll find most companies fail at it. Something happens -- whether under the guise of "extenuating circumstances", "deadlines", or another excuse -- and gets in the way of these best practices. It's rather remarkable that given Google's explosive growth, they seem to have maintained the kind of culture that creates a positive work environment. At least from all accounts I've read, the employee satisfaction is very high, something you will not find in most Fortune 500 companies.
I'm very interested in seeing how long they can maintain that track record. "Stuff" happens... and a real sign of maturity in a company is how they manage that to ensure that their most important asset (the employees) stays happy.
I think what makes the slogan useful is it's soemthing to consider in whatever they do.
I also do not think people at other companies are evil (no, not even Enron). But often it's appealing to take a somewhat easier path without regards to others, weither that be your co-workers, your customers, or the public. Evil is the result you get when people stop caring so much about what they are doing is good or bad. It's like playing at the casino, you can get some good results but in the end the Hosue of Evil always wins.
Having the slogan "Do no Evil" sounds silly but anything that increases the freqency of people at work considering ethics can really do a lot of good for everyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Looks like that also means: don't eat any other dog food. ONLY ours. Otherwise groups.google would have correct quoting and would have have raped the DejaNews interface.
It has come that almost every post with google, people have to be pointed towards this site and looking for stuff on groups used to be nice with DejaNews.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
As I recall the story originated from the guy Google hired to work China. As part of the legal proceedings the guy was forced to give statemnets, and one of the things that came up was Balmer throwing the chair.
Now I ask you, why would the guy make this up. He has a lot more to loose by saying this during a legal proceeding than Balmer has by dismissing the story as nonsense. Furthermore we have seen Balme can be pretty "passonate" and from expereince with other high ranking executives chair throwing does not strike me as unlikley.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Lots of what they are doing is in line with the Agile Work Axioms and agile practices.
I find your astroturfing... disturbing.
Da Blog
And which one is Ringo?
The funny thing is that it's on MSNBC.
No shit.
/always/ bad.
It's not presented as an impartial article. In fact, if you actually *read* the article, it is made very clear that the article comes from inside Google.
Writing about yourself isn't
what else//
slam microsoft, whaddya get?
post reality-- watch what this post gets.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
1. Pay them based on what they produce, not how many hours they're in the office.
Careful here; in the hands of your typical IT manager, this can easily lead to disaster.
To many managers, a programmer's output is measured in lines of code. This is often the worst thing you can do. It naturally leads to bloated code, because the above wording explicitly rewards bloat.
I've worked on several projects where I spent a lot of time removing code, usually replacing big chunks with something smaller and simpler. Often this resulted in a more general routine, so they got some new capability with the smaller, faster code.
But by the above rule, my productivity was negative, so I should be punished for what I did.
This isn't a joke; this has happened to me several times. I found a new job, of course.
And yes, many managers really are that stupid. So you need to find a way to phrase the rule so that it can't be misinterpreted this way.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Look, Mike: we've covered this subject countless times on Slashdot. To summarize for you: there is nothing in the US Constitution that allows intangible items from being treated as physical property. Copyright law is allowed based on an amendment that says
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Authors and Inventors can have exclusive *rights* for *limited times*. Read that again. Now again. That's not property, and companies are not allowed to own anything. The author or inventor can have exclusive rights for a limited time. Read it again.
You cannot own the contents of a book. And by putting a book out into the world, you have intruded into my space -- so I naturally have some claim over it. You really need to think about this one, too.
Google Print threatens you? It probably does. This isn't Google's fault; your business model is slowly failing. Find another one.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
I interviewed for a position where i was required to know perl.
The guy who interviewed me immidiatly admitted not to knowing any perl, but only ruby and python. Appearantly the guy told the committe I didn't know perl because that's the feedback I got.
All the committe get is appearantly a piece of paper with scribbled down notes of which they try to base their decisions.
Luckily the recruiter realized that with 7 years of perl experience, it didn't seem likely, and arranged for more interviews.
After 8 hours of interviews, my referalls having been called, and having positive feedback, I was told that they were closing the position indefinatly, because they were confused about the requirements for the position.
I was NOT impressed.
"But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies"
Bigbowser.
We now see what Schmidt thinks - I'm curious as to what Google employees actually think, however, because I hear a lot of the same rhetoric spewing from the mouth of our CEO here, and although what he says might be ideal and true in his little arrogant fantasy world, it's far from the truth. So, what's Google actually like to work for?
Is it Newsweek - or Time - that's owned by Microsoft??????
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.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You'll occasionally see some good stuff in there. Yes, "My Turn" is usually some bratty teenager, but I think a week or two ago it was a girl from Jamaica telling her story about how he took care of her father, who had aids, from age 12 until he died several years later. I don't know about you, but such stories might be good reading for the aforementioned bratty teenagers!
:)
Elsewhere in the magazine, Fareed Zakaraia's stuff is pretty good, as is Alan Sloan's and George F. Will's. I actually don't mind the fluff pieces, I subscribe to read the political stuff, and if I incidentally learn why Nick Lache and Jessica Simpson are breaking up, well, I look like less of a loser at parties
If you're not a fan of fluff, you might like the Economist. I'm not a subscriber, but I picked up a copy at the airport the other day, and there was some good stuff in there.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I particularly like "Hire by Committee". This tends to weed out those individuals with work disrupting character flaws.
I don't like "Pack 'em in". Individual offices are much better. Phone tag and emails are not that big a problem. The practice of setting up "war rooms" or "pack 'em in" is done to indimidate workers. The way to get out of one of these bullpens is to eat Mexican food, chili or perhaps Indian food and cut rank farts until they beg you to move.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
I will preface this with the fact that I have worked about 20 years now in the IT industry and worked for two of the "biggest evil empires" the industry has known as well as couple ideological startups. Right now Google is the golden child, and if you look back.. at one point in time so was IBM.. and so was Microsoft..
One lesson I have picked up in this industry and in the world in general is that we love building up heros only because we love tearing them down and watching them fall. It's a sad side of human existance but the inevitable fall of Google from the adulation and shameless love of the IT community will serve mostly to make people in the IT community feel better about themselves.
They wrote an article tooting their own horn and philosophy and this is breaking news in the IT world? Wasn't there something in Clerks about a guy.. who broke his neck... doing something???
Strive to reach consensus. Modern corporate mythology has the unique decision maker as hero. We adhere to the view that the "many are smarter than the few," and solicit a broad base of views before reaching any decision.
Might I direct you to... http://www.despair.com/idiocy.html
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
who Jesus chided for praying outdoors so that everyone could see how "righteous" they were. If Google's so benevolent, why do they have to proclaim their righteousness every chance they get? Have you ever heard the saying, "The clearest sign that someone is a racist is for that someone to say, 'I'm not a racist.'"?
Rule of thumb: The likelihood of one's being evil is inverely proportional to the tendency of one to declare himself not to be evil.
BTW, the slashdotters (and their ilk), and sadly, Google, have diluted the word "evil" to the point that the term is nigh-meaningless.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
If you hadn't lied in the interview and pretended that your values were identical to the employers, you wouldn't be in that situation. Honesty and respect are two-way streets.
As I write this, the above is rated (Score:2, Funny). Because of this rating, the post is amusing, but would not be otherwise.
I 3 self-fulfilling prophecies!
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
No comment.
Exactly! Newsweek should be ashamed for not running actual news instead!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The problem with Google's "Don't Be Evil" philosophy is this:
Maybe they currently intend not to be evil. I don't really doubt it. But if they ever have a change of heart - and keep in mind that they are a public company that may have a change of heart due to a change of ownership - they can switch into "evil" mode on a knife switch.
And they are currently accumulating, indexing, and analyzing vast amounts of data, and integrating themselves further and deeper into more and more low-level aspects of people's everyday lives.
If they ever do switch into "evil" mode, they can be seriously evil.
Believe what? Do you want me to believe the guy is lying about what he believes employees should be treated like? If so, you might want to, you know, offer proof that its all just a front?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Maybe most /. readers are tech-types that take for granted the idea that employees' inherent capabilities will be recognized, or even valued, by their bosses, or that enthusiastic communication with your coworkers should be encouraged because it might be productive, but not everyone works in such a progressive atmosphere. Conversation, let alone IMing and emails to coworkers, are still actively discouraged in many workplaces, regardless of their work-relatedness or potential to facilitate innovation. Many, many companies would do well to emulate such tactics as were fluffily decscibed here, and maybe some students and younger, or simply less worldly, workers would benefit from learning that there may be another way.
No, it's not going to win a Pulitzer, but perhaps useful nonetheless.
This is kind of like the MS "studies", no? Except that Google is being up front about who is writing it and why.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
they are making a company where all the women say yes... I like it!
Mary Kay Cosmetics: "To give unlimited opportunity to women."
Merck: "To preserve and improve human life."
Wal-Mart: "To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same thing as rich people."
Walt Disney: "To make people happy."
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."
So, is Google evil?
Spiderman said it best; "With great power. .
-FL
Think about it. Engineers/Developers/whatever in most companies are not treated very well, despite being the people delivering the product. The Google-envy we're seeing now is very good for skilled workers in any business - it means that they'll start treating us better (and cramming us into cubicles like sardines - I disagree with that one policy; it was clearly written by a very extroverted manager with little understanding about how intorverts (and good engineers are very likely to be introverted, statistically) like to work).
Yeah, they're just the same -- except that apparently, the guys who run Google still speak English, while you probably have a side job working for this site, and they are driven by running a business effectively, while you appear to be driven by trying to attract more traffic to your web site.
Please take your meaningless buzzwords and corporate doublespeak elsewhere, and leave those of us who want to talk about the real world using real words with actual meanings alone.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I did. I think it was one of those totally uncalled for comments too, like most color commentary that reaches the front page of slashdot. They could have posted a summary that didn't have such trollish undertones. It doesn't matter that it's article text, they chose that specific exerpt because it contained an anti-microsoft sentiment. Not that it's any surprise, I'm pretty sure articles get selected on that criteria as often as possible.
This should be a place where we get technology articles about interesting things, it shouldn't be used like some kid who has a grudge.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I too am interested in what tool they use. It's not slashcode of course, probably something homemade closer to the Why Not system...
:-)
Would be great if Google was to make available -their- idea sorting and moderation system to the world
Animoog.org
Ahem. You might want to read the subject line.
Reply to sig
And the sig:
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Make sense now?
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
Perhaps I should have quoted your sig that I was replying to.
I'll try again.
"A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something..."
Do you really believe that?
How can I convince you that it's not true?
(Now do you get it?)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
One of my teachers runs a consulting company. He was telling us last night that he had occasion to go over to Google, and saw all these people walking around with towels as if they'd just come out of a pool.
Turns out they supposedly have Jacuzzis for the staff, and they can even do work sitting in a pool, with PCs next to the pool to keyboard on...
He said he's been to many Silicon Valley relaxed corporate environments, but this was VERY relaxed.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
It's funny that you guys rip on Microsoft so, but at least Bill Gates is doing a buttload of good in the poorest area's of the world. (Notice that Brin and Page used "doing good" as an excuse to buy a Boeing 737)
Furthermore, none of those investors created the company out of thin air and so don't have a proprietary sense of ownership like the founder will. If Google sells a great enough percentage of its shares off, then that group looking for money only will begin to have more influence and will start to affect company policy.
In other words, it is only a matter of time.
I'll tolerate anything except intolerance.
Who better to advocate Google than Google? Who better to describe the intent of Google's business practices than Google? Consider, this isn't about the business practices about Google only, it's the business practices of a well-known and successful company.
Whether it's fluff depends on your perspective. I'm curious about this, and about how they intend to face the related real-world problems, so to me it's not fluff. For instance, they touch on the problems of maintaining a high degree of communication between team members, and how this is impacted by company growth - how to balance the effort to coddle the employee against the need to keep egos in check and foster the right level of interaction ("packing them in" comes to mind.)
Of course, they could have gone into some kind of depth about "Don't be evil" apart from simply taking the chance to knock Microsoft... The article could have used more depth.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Yep. They're also making it as inconvenient as possible to use.
A publisher who wants to opt-out their books must opt-out all of them, by title. A simple "We refuse you permission to scan any of the books published by our company" won't do. This shifts the cost of paperwork from Google to the publishers whose rights are arguably being violated.
If they want to "not be evil", they can do like Amazon.com and make Google Print an opt-in system. They might also return to the short list of medium to large sized companies I respect.
Gang interviews, huh? That sounds interesting, and I wonder how that would go in my field (education). I've heard of the opposite (one applicant and 150 interviewers). Here's a question, though: How do you make sure that you don't pick the guy who's the most outgoing? Maybe the one you really need is the quiet guy in the back who is just slower in raising his hand.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
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.
I think the point of the article is more to correlate Google's stated business practices with Peter Drucker's seminal work on the shifting information economy and the management of knowledge workers. Google is the first large scale corporation to closely follow Drucker's advice, and it seems to be working well. See "Managing in The Next Society" by Drucker for an excellent and comprehensive rethinking of the management of knowledge workers (among which are us geeks).
That is, if the article were about self-congratulation by Google, I would agree with you. But based on the opening mention of Drucker and the fact that Drucker came up with the management ideas Google uses, I think it is more about Google telling the world that Drucker is right.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
That article made me think. I've worked at companies that had many of those conditions.
Eventhough I worked my buttocks off at those jobs those jobs were some of the happiest I have had and have made the best friendships at.
They were multiple interviewers, one interviewee. The article states at least a half dozen people interview the potential hire: supervisors, potential coworkers, etc etc etc. I think it would work much better than having HR doing all the interviews, especially in technical areas. As an added bonus, it could help gauge how well the potential hire will get along with coworkers (Or "Fit Into the Corporate Environment" if you need an MBA term for it.) The interesting thing about this is Google claims that this interview process will lead to a positive feedback loop in employee quality, where having good employees means that future hires will also be good (whether or not this actually is true, I don't know. But coworkers probably know the best exactly what skillset is needed to get the job done.)
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
`Packem in`, but not too tight. No mention of google`s corporate niceness is complete without mentioning googlewatch.org [1]. I wouldn`t necessarily be so cynical but look at the *cough* authors.
This alone should send out a warning sign to readers of the article. The `Data drive decisions` line is a crock. No amount of data will allow accurate future decision making and is illustrated clearly by Clayton Christiansen`s talk on ITConversation, Capturing the Upside [2].
One of the things that has always puzzled me is why google has to communicate the `dont be evil line` everytime they get a chance. My interpretation of this is spin. Google has to enforce the perception they are not some intelligence gathering tool for the state. [3] The data they collect from you (if you allow them) wont be sold as a backoffice feed for advertisers. This is conjecture. But this is fact. The golden rule for PR is repeat a short message, loud and often. Repeat it so often, perception becomes reality.
By the way Googles current market cap is US$118. [4]
Reference
[1] google-watch.org, `Who watches the watchers?`:
http://www.google-watch.org
[2] delicious, `Clayton Christainsen, Capturing the Upside talk on ITConversations, 2004MAR17, Runtime: 1Hr 48m, 37.3Mb`:
http://del.icio.us/goon/clayton.christiansen
[3] google-watch.org, `Spooks on board, article about Google hiring exNSA staff.`:
http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html
[4] www.scroogle.org, ` self-updating, market-cap watcher`:
http://www.scroogle.org/bubble.html
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I find it very interesting that this is not how its always done. I've had 3 major job searches in my life and in each of them, (all small companies) I eventually interviewed with my future immediate superior and co-workers before being hired. And in any job search any company I work for has had, co-workers and supervisor did the interviews. Personally, I found it gratifying on both ends. As an interviewee, it gave me the chance to meet with the people I'd be working with and back out if they were assholes. On the interviewer side, I found I was as least as good as my bosses and way better than any HR person at determining whether person A would fit into slot B.
As an example, my current company hired a DBA a few months ago. We ended up having two interviews with potential candidates at the office. I recommended that we hire one guy, but we ended up hiring the other guy (availability and money were the reasons I was given). He was fired for not being able to perform his job to the level required. But hey, what do I know about HR, I'm only a programmer.....
Ira
Full marks for citing the authors but this is not Journalism and should not be paraded as such.
This article is spin. Avoid the hard questions. Tell your story, repeat the lines you want the market to hear. Repeat it often.
The way it works in real journalism is balance. Test the assertions made by Schmidt with critical questions. Get them to answer the hard questions like cookie privacy and copyright. Where is the Journalist asking the hard questions to the CEO & paid consultant?
You wont get this with the self serving fluff you are reading. I wouldn`t bat an eyelid if this article was on the google blog page.
Appearing on Newsweek requires a different set of standards.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Do not hire anyone from the Midwest or from any non-exclusive university for any meaningful position if at all.
Sounds like this would be one of the ones they go by a lot - since it seems to be 1) International/Exclusive educated, 2)If you have to hire Midwestern, give them some valueless and obscure position, or 3) Hire them only when the company is guaranteed to run into the ground, blaming them for the bankruptcy while moving to another company.
However that happens, that seems to be mutually exclusive from "Do no evil". Given Google's origins from a very exclusive school that has helped run the other part of Palo Alto into the ground along with their (informal) policies against Midwestern/US students, I'd have to say that they were doing evil *before* they incorporated.
They just now have the legitimacy to be evil if they want to, and it shows quite well of their not-so-good intentions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It gives some idea of how the management thinks of the company,
Make that "how the management wants you to think of the company".
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.
They lost all capacity for such shame decades ago.
If you've ever read an issue, you would know that the more appropriate name for the publication is Newsweak .
Even USAToday does a better job.
You're not the first to recommend that. Others have suggested US News & World Report. Personally I enjoy the scientific articles in Discover, and am probably going to renew when my subscription ends next month.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
The irony here. An article that makes fun of MS in MSNBC!! Lol!
-ItsME
Also, if you don't mind the liberal slant (that's putting it lightly, but even so the editor Lewis Lapham is a hell of a writer), then Harpers, IMO, just nudges out the Atlantic for some of the most interesting and entertaining topical writing you'll find in a print magazine.
As someone who was a temp at google for a few months, I can tell you from first hand knowledge that there is plenty of evil going on at GOOG. The first thing that jumps out at you is the company's age-ism: Google doesn't trust anyone over 30. They famously got sued for it. I was told to my face that one of the reasons I wasn't hired on as a regular employee was that I was too old. I was 32 at the time. Everyone else being hired for Google's then-fledgling Adwords department was 21 and right out of school.
The second type of bias that I saw there was what I call look-ism: everyone that worked in the Adwords department was gorgeous. And I'm not saying that anyone was unqualified. They were all bright kids who had just gotten out of good schools. But when you get hundreds of resumes for each available position, I guess you can afford to choose people who are both intelligent and attractive. So is that evil? You tell me.
It's probably easy to dismiss my comments because they come from someone who is bitter that he didn't get hired by them just a few months before the IPO. And you'd be correct. But I felt that my experience (I had several years at various high tech companies under my belt, including 2.5 years at Yahoo) made me MORE qualified than someone who had a degree from Stanford and no experience. GOOG did not agree.
I can't say enough about the food though. That guy Charlie who used to cook for the Dead is a culinary genius. So is it evil to pamper your sexy employees with swordfish steaks while 25 percent of America's children live below the poverty line? Again... you tell me.
I'm so bored of reading Slash-google material on slashdot. Have our nerdy friends been brainwashed that easily? Boring, move over!
11. The Golden Rules are a marketing ploy. Haha, you mean you actually believed that hippy bullsh*t? Lets profit, boys!
Thanks for highlighting the Important Parts. What's the problem here? How is it a conflict-of-interest to find out how a company does something from the people who are involved with it? FTA "Here's how we do it at google." Perhaps Ballmer should have written the piece?
Some research has shown that if HR interviews and selects the candidate you are LESS likely to get someone that works out than if you randomly drew a name out of a hat.
(Sorry, no link. I think I read this in What Color is Your Parachute)
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.