Slashdot Mirror
How Google's Novel Management System Aids Growth
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Gary Hamel, visiting professor at London Business School, argues in a Wall Street Journal commentary that Google's 'novel management system seems to have been designed to guard against the risk factors that so often erode an organization's evolutionary potential.' Among Google's advantages: The 20% rule, an 'expansive sense of purpose' and the credo, 'keep the bozos out and reward people who make a difference.' Hamel also traces the company's evolution from Google 1.0, 'a search engine that crawled the Web but generated little revenue,' to Google 5.0, 'an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base. More than likely, 6.0 is around the corner.'"
...Google Beta 5.0, 'an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base. More than likely, Beta 6.0 is around the corner.
Fixed.
As the artical points out, Google is pretty much going right where all have gone wrong in the past with traditional business models before. This is what makes them so innovative. The tremendous openess in the company, along with their creedo to do no wrong has also given them a squeky clean public image. The world loves Google and wants to see the friendly Giant smash the mean people eating one.
All that said, how long can Google really maintain it's unorthadox business methods while allowing VERY orthadox investors to buy stocks in the company. I'd say it's only a matter of time, and the price for become a truly large corporation. I can only hope that I am wrong.
Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
of 'The Seven Day Weekend' from Ricardo Semmler. The CEO of SemCo with revolutionary ideas about business. A lot of his ideas are mentioned in TFA.
Really great book if you're interested in the ideas behind firms like Google.
I completely agree with you. Those big companies are in trouble. IBM after all showed only a 25% growth in profit for Q1 2006. And, just a few minutes before I posted this, Microsoft announced a small jump of 16% growth in profit AND a 13% growth in revenue. Leaving the tech industry, Exxon Mobile had a horrible quarter with only $89 Billion in Revenue.
Yeah, those large companies, they are just falling apart....Oh, wait...
"It is driven by an open-ended mission to organize the world's knowledge..."
and:
"Google seems to have grasped the new century's most important business lesson: The capacity to evolve is the most important advantage of all."
My bet is on Google to solce the problems of a working A.I., maybe by accident, maybe by design.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Elitism may be out of fashion, but Google is famously elitist when it comes to hiring. It understands that companies begin to slide into mediocrity when they start to hire mediocre people. A-level people want to work with A-level people.
The only problem is that a company cannot thrive longterm with only A-level people. As a software company grows and matures so the average age of the company code base increases, and there's a gradually increasing requirement for maintenance of the older products. A-level people rarely consider their primary task in life is settling in as a maintenance coder on products that are no longer considered to have a substantial "wow" factor.
Having said that, code maintenance can be some of the most demanding work around, as programmers are asked to come up to speed on outdated code they didn't write and make it do things it was never designed to do. But, speaking generally, this isn't considered something that will make you stand out in your company and it's not where A-level people want to be.
Equally well, having everyone take a turn at maintenance doesn't work either. I would imagine that there's few programming tasks worse than taking over code that's been maintained by half a dozen people who only wanted to move on to other things. You probably aren't going to get any of the awards mentioned in the article by burying yourself in old code, regardless how valuable that might be.
Google 1.0 was a search engine that crawled the Web but generated little revenue; which led to Google 2.0, a company that sold its search capacity to AOL/Netscape, Yahoo and other major portals; which gave way to Google 3.0, an Internet contrarian that rejected banner ads and instead sold simple text ads linked to search results; which spawned Google 4.0, an increasingly global entity that found a way to insert relevant ads into any and all Web content, dramatically enlarging the online ad business; which mutated into Google 5.0, an innovation factory that produces a torrent of new Web-based services, including Gmail, Google Desktop, and Google Base. More than likely, 6.0 is around the corner.
It should be:
Google 1.0: A nobody search engine
Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine
Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches
Google 4.0: Adsense network
Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
My version 4.1 highlights Google's recent overt interest in aggregating data on its users through services like the personalized homepage, Gmail, Gcal, Gchat, and the Google Desktop. Why is it not 5.0? Because these enhance the previously established revenue streams without changing the way they make money. It is not an evolution in Google's financial model, just new ways to better target their contextual ads (3.0 and 4.0).
In order for a 5.0 to happen, Google has to redefine its primary revenue stream or add a new one that pulls in revenue from a seperate audience. My point is made most clear by highlighting the benefiting party of each evolutionary step:
Google 1.0: A nobody search engine - You and me
Google 2.0: Outsourcing search engine - Yahoo/AOL/portals
Google 3.0: Contextual ads in searches - Web advertisers
Google 4.0: Adsense network - Web masters
Google 4.1: Information hoarding of users
Likely candidates for a 5.0 would be:
Television or radio advertisement domination
Online music store, or other type of goods for cash type of business
Online payment system (clone paypal)
A novel online service as a subscription service (seems least likely with Google's history)
Those would be Google 5.0.
A-level people want to do what is best for everybody (for themselves and the company). If Google keeps rewarding people who make the most contributions, then code maintainers will be rewarded. Maintenance is considered a low-tier job at hierarchical companies where only people working on the 'wow' products are rewarded.
The whole point of googles flat structure makes it possible to have maintenance be a sexy task within the organization by allowing rewards to go where they should go too. I would say that 'most companies' create the hierarchy because they don't have the guts to manage the way that google does.
I've worked at far too many companies where the disconnect between espoused values and actual values create the kind of situation you describe (ie maintenance coding is a loser job, best avoided or gotten promoted out of).
Who, exactly, would you like to manage large projects (or large companies)? People who don't know anything about management or business, because they are educated in tech? Yes, occasionally companies run from the top down by techies work, but that's not the reason why they work. Believe it or not, the ability to lead, to allocate resources, to plan ahead, to determine whether something is marketable, to deal with supply chains and distribution, and to keep people happy are skills. Good MBA programs teach those skills. The second /. heresy in this post is the following: the best piece of software doesn't always make the best product! Look, I've been programming since I was 5 years old and so I have the same feelings as the most of you about great software. At the same time, I realize the business world isn't a perfect world. Sometimes your clients don't want it perfect-- they need it now. Sometimes you _could_ spend a few more weeks adding really great functionality to your project-- but marketing research says that it won't change sales numbers a bit.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I don't know if it means anything, but one of my former coworkers left a (very good) NASA engineering position to get his MBA from Columbia. He'd been with NASA for about 10 years, and was looking to shift out of engineering for a change. He certainly came from a background that was a lot different and much more technically oriented than almost all of his classmates.
Google just hired him to do business development. Unlike the stories I hear about how difficult it is to get hired there, he did very little work to get the position except submit a resume - in fact, it was more like they were actively looking for someone like him.
Anyways, perhaps that's some sort of indicator of the MBA types Google is recruiting.
Worst...sig...ever!
Its not MBAs that are the problem. Its MBAs that don't know anything about the industry that their company is in. Even worse if they think they know a lot more than they do (ie. PHB). An MBA that is also very technically proficient is worth his/her weight in gold.
Google's apparent indifference to the use of Google Groups by anonymous posters to wreck Usenet with SPAM, off-topic posts, and overall abuse has led some to call for a Usenet Death Penalty (configuring news servers to drop all articles originating from a given site). See:
Call for UDP against Google Groups
Well, everybody does that, don't they? Even the Bush administration does that. The key is in your perception of who the bozos are, and who makes a difference...
Hiring above the mean makes sense for jobs where a better employee means a potentially higher return for the company - it does not make sense for positions where a better employee means higher costs and no higher return and higher turnover.
In fact, for a large number of positions, it makes sense to look for the weakest candidate that can do the job satisfactorily within reasonable margins, assuming you get a chance to hire them at a matching salary, because such candidates are more likely to have a possible career ladder (and so be more likely to stay) and/or are more likely to stay because it's harder for them to move elsewhere, and are likely to be cheaper than the alternatives.
Even if you're looking purely at developer jobs, if you keep hiring above the mean, it means eventually you'll have people with PhD's and umpteen years experience doing routine maintenance programming for trivial, non-critical systems that you could have safely handed to some intern.
Another company that hired only A-level talent, robustly avoided B-level talent, ran strong internal competitions to try and attract other employees onto your star project, and talked a lot about "darwinian" processes running between internal projects was: Enron
Like Google now, Enron back in the day had management consultants writing magazine articles about the wonders of their "fluid" structure, the way petty beaurocrats were kept out of people's way, and their hiring practices. It was The Way Of The Future. Enron was the best, was going to take over and Rule Supreme. Like Google, Enron was proud that it didn't just keep to one boring idea of what they did, the company could perpetually reinvented itself.
Those standard management structures exist for a reason. If google finds a way to work without them long-term, then good for them. But it's harder than it might seem.