On Pref, from http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/promotion-systems-redux.htm... :
“In any case, I think it’s very healthy for Google to have an internal discussion about this. But do I expect the system to change? No. The super-star rule I referred to in that previous post would prevent that. I did have a discussion with a VP about this. He told me that when he first joined Google, he tried to change the promotion criteria to better formally recognize leadership, mentoring, and the importance of spreading knowledge (technical or otherwise) throughout the organization. The result? A bunch of very senior engineers (who had all benefited under the current regime, and were understandably worried about their career prospects under a different system) shouted him down.”
How would you suggest solving this problem?
I'm agnostic on whether Page is really responsible in any way for Google's decline. I joined after he stepped in. I don't know anything about Page, but he seems to be a bad judge of character because of some of the things he has allowed and some policies he's supported.
What happened post-Schmidt wasn't directly Page's fault, so much as a lot of the other executives were waiting in the wings with shitty ideas that they now saw a chance to push through. Execs will attempt that any time there's a guard change, and I can't say that Page did a worse job of handling it than I would have done.
I asked a successful business owner what the hardest thing was about being CEO and he said (paraphrased) that "The job is easy, in that you have the power to have work done, but the hard part is that everyone is fucking lying to you." I don't think Page is a good judge of when people are lying to him.
I don't think any of Google's triumvirate (Page, Brin, Schmidt) are bad men. I think they're very good men who built an admirable company and kept it intact for a long time. I think they lack something in the ability to judge character (mea culpa: so do I; I tend to be too trusting of individuals despite my intellectual cynicism) which is why a lot of the middle managers and executives are problematic.
Then again, 90% of the cultural rot occurred before Page. Google's hideous "calibration score" system wasn't built in a day.
Comments
On Pref, from http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/05/promotion-systems-redux.htm... : “In any case, I think it’s very healthy for Google to have an internal discussion about this. But do I expect the system to change? No. The super-star rule I referred to in that previous post would prevent that. I did have a discussion with a VP about this. He told me that when he first joined Google, he tried to change the promotion criteria to better formally recognize leadership, mentoring, and the importance of spreading knowledge (technical or otherwise) throughout the organization. The result? A bunch of very senior engineers (who had all benefited under the current regime, and were understandably worried about their career prospects under a different system) shouted him down.” How would you suggest solving this problem?
How would you suggest solving this problem?
Fire Larry Page. [i.e., it ain't gonna happen]
What is the problem with Larry Page that require him to go?
I'm agnostic on whether Page is really responsible in any way for Google's decline. I joined after he stepped in. I don't know anything about Page, but he seems to be a bad judge of character because of some of the things he has allowed and some policies he's supported.
What happened post-Schmidt wasn't directly Page's fault, so much as a lot of the other executives were waiting in the wings with shitty ideas that they now saw a chance to push through. Execs will attempt that any time there's a guard change, and I can't say that Page did a worse job of handling it than I would have done.
I asked a successful business owner what the hardest thing was about being CEO and he said (paraphrased) that "The job is easy, in that you have the power to have work done, but the hard part is that everyone is fucking lying to you." I don't think Page is a good judge of when people are lying to him.
I don't think any of Google's triumvirate (Page, Brin, Schmidt) are bad men. I think they're very good men who built an admirable company and kept it intact for a long time. I think they lack something in the ability to judge character (mea culpa: so do I; I tend to be too trusting of individuals despite my intellectual cynicism) which is why a lot of the middle managers and executives are problematic.
Then again, 90% of the cultural rot occurred before Page. Google's hideous "calibration score" system wasn't built in a day.
Yea, that is why I ask questions like what would you suggest to the Google founders.
Bring me on as a consultant. I could have saved Google+ Games; the documentation is probably still there.