Can Google’s winning ways be applied to all kinds of businesses? The authors of “How Google Works,” ( http://www.howgoogleworks.net/ ) Eric Schmidt, Google’s former chief executive, and Jonathan Rosenberg, a former senior product manager at Google, firmly believe that they can.
The critical ingredient, they argue in their new book, is to build teams, companies and corporate cultures around people they call “smart creatives.” These are digital-age descendants of yesterday’s “knowledge workers,” a term coined in 1959 by Peter Drucker, the famed management theorist.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/the-google-formula-for-success/
Do people of SN agree that such success can be replicated in diverse environments, diverse cultures? Or, is Google's success one of a kind?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @01:54PM
"diverse environments, diverse cultures":
Note that this doesn't just include Mountain View vs India or Mountain View vs Chicago, but culture is a much bigger issue of "search results and ad delivery network" vs pretty much every other form of economic activity in the world.
Its probably a pretty stupid management / business strategy for a retail supermarket, a commodity industrial plant, a TV studio, or a railroad. It is at least not a failure if you're running an ad delivery / search company. So this might be useful advice for the runners-up like yahoo or bing (is bing still in business? heck is yahoo still in business? might not even be relevant then)
"success" and "winning ways" from the article:
So in an inherent "natural" monopoly in a weird field, they haven't gone out of business, but its inherently impossible to "prove" that if they had IBM's management style they'd be ten times bigger or smaller. How many angels dance on the head of a pin?
Or maybe they're going at some glittering generality like its easier to fund experiments in other fields if you get the seed money from one successful division rather than having to raise VC funds or whatever other financial strategy.
As far as google defining "winning" yeah whenever I think of RSS news feed readers or google answers or igoogle custom landing pages or Urchin or google health or google wave, I always think "winner" LOL. Sure they've had a few experiments that worked, but most of their experiments fail. Aside from tech giants this is probably not a useful business strategy. I think it works for cupcake shoppes and fro yo franchises when picking flavors, thats about it outside of tech, that I can think of.
Combining both weird assumptions from the article, trying lots of new things, most of which fail, is a fine strategy for a tech business absolutely swimming in cash from one idea that worked (sounds like apple and the iphone), but maybe not a bright idea for an oil well drilling platform or a tax accountant.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday September 29 2014, @02:11PM
They are onto something with the idea of trying lots of things knowing that most of them will fail. That's what scientists do all the time.
None of that has anything to do with the culture of Google specifically: Bell Labs and Xerox PARC and quite a few other places had a culture of experimentation as well. All you really need to do:
1. Hire a bunch of really smart people who get things done.
2. Treat them really well, so they'll stick around and like their jobs.
3. Get them whatever they need to do their jobs.
4. As much as possible, get out of the way and let them work.
Compare that to what MBA-types are taught to do, either in business school or by their employers:
1. Hire really exploitable people, like recent graduates and H1B immigrants.
2. Once you have them in, treat them just well enough that they won't leave, while maximizing output via various slave-driving techniques.
3. Skimp on equipment and materials to save more money for management bonuses.
4. Hold regular meetings with your staff to ensure that they're working overtime to meet those all-important quarterly objectives.
I tend to think there's a maximum size of an organization that can do the first set of things, because once there's enough money and people involved the MBA-types move in, take over, and ruin everything by ruthlessly cutting costs.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @03:14PM
I'd agree with and extend your remarks WRT size as that applies in all human groups.
Trying to turn a whole .mil into special forces (good luck)
Church politics
Open source development groups
Gaming clans
Politics / revolutions
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Monday September 29 2014, @07:56PM
I think this is related:
You Should Run Your Startup Like a Cult. Here’s How ...
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-heres/ [wired.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by brocksampson on Tuesday September 30 2014, @03:06PM
I know a lot of people who worked (as scientists) at Bell Labs from various generations spanning the 60's through the 2000's and from the old-timers tell me, your first model is very close to how they actually operated. Basically, if you didn't want the political overhead of the Academy and thought you had really great ideas, you could try your luck at Bell Labs. There was basically no management (of scientists) and your budget was as big as you could justify. You had a finite amount of time to show results, but it wasn't super critical what those results were; they were pursing the "infinite horizon" model of essentially acting as an incubator for motivated scientists to generate discoveries that could be built on. Most of the driving force there was ego and competition with your peers. When they started tightening budgets and bringing in managers to direct research towards predefined problems a lot of their talent jumped ship and became (usually very successful) professors.
I had a very different experience at IBM in the early 2000's. They fostered the illusion of the old Bell Labs model, but in reality all of the scientists had to interface with "corporate" via managers who were trained scientists (usually). But above them it was just suits and MBAs. You could have a very successful project cut because you missed a milestone (a ridiculous concept in scientific research) or because it no longer fit into the "strategic vision." In an environment like that you get the distinct impression that you are viewed as an interchangeable part and a line item on a budget by people who aren't even intellectually curious enough to want to try to understand what it is you do for the company. I would love for there to be more Google-like companies for scientists, but the old Bell Labs model seems to be a casualty of quarterly profit-driven mentalities. The conventional wisdom has become that science is too expensive and is better farmed out to universities.
I guess the take home lesson for me is that smart, creative scientists are pushed out of Industry and into the Academy by MBAs. I'm happy that places like Google exist for engineers and computer scientists. You may still find excitement and freedom at a start up, but you have to commit to a very uncertain future.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dublet on Monday September 29 2014, @02:07PM
No.
Not even Google can replicate it's formula of success. See Google Wave, Google Plus, etc..
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday September 29 2014, @02:46PM
... and Android, and Calendar, and Mail, and Chrome, and ...
Not every product succeeds. Some of these leveraged the success of Google search (brand trust, etc), but most are full-fledged top-notch products that are successful and widely adopted. I assumed you meant products other than Google Search?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dublet on Monday September 29 2014, @03:27PM
My wider point is that there is no magic "Google" fomula for success. If they had it, all of their products would succeed. They just try things and keep working on it until it's either a success or cut their losses.
You are right about leveraging the brand but there is also some luck/timing factor involved. I doubt Android would've been as big of a success if Nokia hadn't abandoned Meamo [wikipedia.org] in favour of the abortion that is Windows Phone. Anyway, that's a bit of crystal ball gazing. Another point with Android is that the only real other alternative is Apple's iPhone (Blackberry are dead in the water, Windows Phone is not worth considering) these days. I wonder how many people would gladly swap their Android phone for something better. I know I would. I still wish that WebOS succeeded but then again, I rather liked BeOS too. Perhaps me liking something is a kiss of death.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 29 2014, @03:44PM
The point I get from it is that a product or service will be well and quickly designed/developed/implemented using their formula. You can design the best product in the world and have it beaten my something inferior because as you say, the timing is wrong, it's ahead of its time, it's badly marketed, etc.
With Android, the other current platforms are all reasonable choices (for most, not me), I think Android is just better. I'd probably prefer Maemo as well, but it's not really an option at this point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:43PM
Their model depends heavily on having a stable cash cow (in this case, search advertising) to subsidize all of this experimentation.
Makes it somewhat hard to bootstrap.
It's also hard to prove that the model is really better than an alternative.
Have they created successful products? Sure. Did they create more than they would have if they used a different methodology? Maybe.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday September 29 2014, @05:44PM
Besides, if altavista and yahoo did not essentially stop, google might have a much rougher ride.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @02:08PM
This is about as useful as asking a centenarian what their secret for longevity is, or asking a billionaire what his secret for getting so rich is. It's called post hoc justification. Guess what, you can do everything they say and chances are you will not live to 100+ or become immensely wealthy. IF IT WAS THAT EASY EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @02:58PM
That reminds me of an old joke:
A reporter asks a centenarian what his secret for old age is.
The man answers: "Well, I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I keep away from the women."
Suddenly there's a loud noise from the next room. The scared reporter asks: "What was that?"
The man answers: "Don't worry, that's just my father. He's drunk, as usual."
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday October 01 2014, @09:37AM
Also known as survivor's bias.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @02:13PM
If you go to the business section of B&N you'll see title after title with formulas like "How to Succeed By Promoting Mediocre, Not-So-Bright Folks Who Can Follow A 10-Year Old Plan".
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Monday September 29 2014, @02:33PM
What exactly is the "formula" for success, other than being first? All things are usually equal with talent and drive, and the successful people are usually ones who are at the right place at the right time. I don't think they're able to predict the future, I think that a whole lot of random people try a lot of random things, and some catch on when societal shifts take place. Most technology successes are from companies at the right place at the right time to be first and establish a new market. Microsoft (provided IBM with a 16-bit OS at the dawn of the commodity PC era), Netscape (the first commercial browser at the dawn of the mass Internet era), Google (early search engine at a time when most web indexes were directories), and others come to mind. (Even Alibaba is a company that came along at a specific point in time when they could be first in their market.) I see very little linkage between what people do and success, and I have never seen a formula that would work for anyone.
Remember that winners write history. A success "formula" from a business person or coach is written by a winner, and never seems to take into account all the people who tried the same thing and failed. Successful people and companies are extreme outliers, and by their very nature there's no way to duplicate their success. Not everyone can be an extreme outlier. People who see Bill Gates or Google, or read books about them, don't put them into perspective as extreme outliers who defied the odds.
PS - Does anyone but me find it bizarre that people from Google would write a ... book? How 19th century of them. If their success is formulaic, then why not use their own Google talks and YouTube to share their message so everyone can succeed? Why do they want to sell a book? They're already rich. Why not let the universe in on their formula so everyone can be successful?
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday September 29 2014, @02:49PM
> What exactly is the "formula" for success, other than being first? All things are usually equal with talent and drive, and the successful people are usually ones who are at the right place at the right time.
This is exactly how I feel about John Coltrane, Marie Curie, Picasso, Issac newton, Shakespeare, and Archimedes.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @03:05PM
That's a good point. One could argue that Yahoo! was actually the first to grasp the business potential of a web portal. And Google wasn't the first with text search either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by forsythe on Monday September 29 2014, @03:10PM
Leibniz would not appreciate your sarcasm.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Monday September 29 2014, @03:13PM
Neither would Dexter Wallman.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 29 2014, @03:24PM
Newton invents calc = original submarine patent
Invents, files, keeps it secret, Leibniz invents it independently and newton's all "plagarizer!" and releases the patent lawyers with their submarine patent and 400 years later, just like SCO, they still won't give it a rest. You snooze you loose, Newton.
Newton was a pretty cool bro-mathematician other than the whole patent trolling Leibniz thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:35PM
I remember hanging our with Newton late at night in his lab. We'd get high on fumes and try to turn lead into gold!
Good times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @03:47PM
Also what works at google does not necessarily work everywhere.
It works at google because they built their culture around it. It would not necessarily translate somewhere else.
Basically fish swim in water it does not translate that they can fly thru the air very well and a bird does not necessarily swim thru water very well. They are a product of their environment. Where making a mistake means someone clicked on the wrong web page. But for someone like GM a mistake means they made 2 million wrong things and costs millions of dollars to fix and maybe a few people died.
Mistakes vs cost drives the type of business you have. As it depends on the kinds of easy mistakes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @05:21PM
Google wasn't first. AltaVista was out in front of them by quite a bit, and I don't think AltaVista was first either.
Yahoo wasn't first. The YA stood for Yet Another, after all.
Netscape was first, and they went bust.
Facebook wasn't first. Whatever happened to Friendster?
Microsoft wasn't first. CP/M was; Microsoft had better license negotiators.
The world is full of successful companies that weren't first.
(Score: 2) by meisterister on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:35AM
1. Start in the '90s. (where there is less corruption and regulation intended to squelch out your startup)
Oops. Can't really make that one.
How about:
1. Start in a country that (at the time) respects net neutrality enough to allow you to gain marketshare.
Oops. Can't do that here either.
Huh. Better luck next time.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.