Slashdot Mirror
Who is Winning the Web Talent War
jg21 writes "Ever since Fortune wrote an article about it, mentions have been occurring hither and yon about how Google is having problems retaining employees, and the latest comes in Web 2.0 Journal, where Dare Obasanjo interestingly tracks and interprets a couple of blog entries that he says leads him to hypothesize that "Google's big problem is that the company hasn't realized that it isn't a startup anymore." Of course Obasanjo works for Microsoft; it will be interesting to see if an equally prominent Googler posts a counter-theory."
it will be interesting to see if an equally prominent Googler posts a counter-theory
No it won't. It will just prolong the pointless bickering between the two companies.
This guy's the limit!
There SHOULD be a "glass ceiling" for Marketing and Sales guys. If they want to advance, they should have to learn some technical skills.
Good marketing and sales guys have one skill, and that is "schmoozing" (also know as "people skills"). I don't consider that a skill worthy of big promotions. Raises, surely, but not promotions. It's not a skill that makes one an effective manager. The opposite is probably true, actually. Most marketing/sales people, the good ones anyway, live in their own little magical world where the normal rules of logic don't really apply. They should be kept FAR AWAY from any kind of technical positions, and should NEVER be allowed to manage technical projects.
"Microsoft's big problem is that it doesn't realize its not the only game in town anymore"
I disagree. I think that Microsoft is well aware that it isn't the only game in town. What they don't understand, is how to remedy the situation.
You are right in inferring that MS was the only game in town for a long time, and it is because of this that they seem so dumbstruck now. They know they're being overtaken, but they have no idea what to do about it, because they've never had to compete directly before.
Anybody want my mod points?
Marketing in charge of technical products gets you Vista, Windows ME, MS BOB, Clippy, and a host of other software written by lot's of different vendors.
I wish i had Mod points for you.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I think the reverse is also true, though.
From what I observe as a business-geek is that the best ceos can relate to any position moderately well. A "Jack of All Trades".
When you are high up in the organization and you have to come out of your cube for more than 50% of your day, what you disparage as "people skills" count for the majority of work.
Truth is, you gotta be able to relate to everyone, and if that means having technical or "schmoozing" skills, then you gotta have it.
And don't forget the nunchuck skills, because girls only like guys that have skills.
It's interesting that whenever a MS vs. Google debate shows up on /. about which company is better to work for (or perhaps, more accurately, better run), I usually see posts about how engineers are treated better than marketing people in Google, and that shows up as a point of superiority on Google's part. Not saying that's what you're saying, as you're obviously just putting a link up with those opinions.
I don't think, however, that this "us vs. them" mentality is fair. It represents a very ethnocentric frame of mind. Bureaucracy isn't always a bad thing. It prevents a lot of screw ups that may otherwise occur without that system in place. From a business owner and consultant's point of view, I can appreciate the value of a bureaucracy. It may not be the most efficient system, but efficiency is hardly the goal. Sustainability and stability, in a business philosophy perspective, are the primary goals of a corporation that must be fulfilled before a business can achieve true success. That is, they are necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for a successful business.
When viewed in that light, it's hard to say how successful Google is. Google has rarely (if ever) released a final non-beta product. Their revenue is heavily dependent on online advertising. The one critical service that Google has is its search. If people stop searching with Google, their revenue will drop significantly to the point of possibly being unsustainable. If people stop using Gmail, their revenue will drop further. It seems unthinkable now, but it's happened before (cf. Yahoo).
With all this in mind, Mr. Obasanjo's viewpoint appears to be right (I didn't RTFA because of all the obnoxious ads). If Google wants to avoid Yahoo's fate, they'll have to find some way to make their business stable and sustainable. Android seems to be a step in the right direction.
Microsoft, and its bureaucracy, appears to have the two necessary conditions pinned down pretty well.
I was a salesman *and* first line technical support for a specialized computer-aided-design software company, starting 20 years ago. Did it for seven years. Being sales *and* first line tech support, you get a very clear picture of what customer service or lack of it can do to your sales. I quickly got my technical knowledge up and that just increased my ability to sell. After self-teaching myself programming (two languages) I moved into the division that handles the programming of my company. From my own experience, sales and marketing people in a technical area *need* technical knowledge of what the heck they are selling *and* need to increase that knowledge, just like technical people need to keep up on top of technical issues, techniques, etc. In fact, it is *vital* for the success of a company that this occurs.
This the 6th or 7th post i've read moderated +5 from some ignorant elitistic techie going about how technology people are somewhat superior to Sales and Marketing.
Honestly, i'm ashamed of being on the techie side of the fence.
Open your eyes people and get out of your high-horses:
- A successful company is a gestalt of different people with different skills doing what they do best.
So yeah, people skills are really important if what you're trying to do is selling things to people, while logical skills are really important if what you're trying to do is construct really complex functional structures. That doesn't mean one is better than the other one.
And yes, a successful company needs both people that can sell well and people that can make great products to sell:
- A great product that is not sold is worthless
- A great salesforce with nothing to sell is worthless