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.
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.
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.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
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.
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.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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