Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

digitaldaily.allthingsd.com

41–50 of 163 posts

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You point to recent Google failures, but isn't their culture of allowing (even high profile) failures not only to get implemented, but then to get shut down part of why Google's successful? Which (the culture of allowing failure) seems like an engineering approach, and not a managerial (which to me has always struck me as fear-of-failure/CYA) one.

The question is whether those flops should have ever happened. I admire Google that they will kill unsuccessful products, but I question how well they understand the market when they have so many products to kill.

Seriously? What company doesn't have major failures? Not ones doing anything interesting.

Should we have never had the Space Shuttle program because a couple of them crashed?

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#42
If Google wants to put engineers completely in charge, more power to them, but they need to change the interview process. Fewer questions about Red/Black and Splay Trees, and more questions along the lines of "How do you make a web store that your mother would want to use?"

The search business makes money through purely engineering talent, but Google's next big opportunity may not. When we achieve a degree of success, we tend to think our path to success is the one that works the best in the general case.

It will be interesting to see how the less bureaucratic and more autonomous engineering units will function. I hope some great products and businesses are made, but it could just end up fostering lots of technical masturbation like Google Wave.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#43
post #6

It's awesome to see a fundamentally engineer-driven company like Google and a fundamentally designer-driven company like Apple become so successful. It has always seemed to me that management is an important but overemphasized skill (as a fundamental trait of the way large organizations work) and it's really refreshing to see this happening.

Apple focuses on design/usability but its not designer driven. It is more of "product" driven sort.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#44

Can someone who works at Google chime in with what the organizational temperature is like at Google? Does this whole 'party time's over for the managers' thing we're hearing about have any real weight to it?

I'd like to ditto this; the linked article is very speculative, and without a G-employee response, it seems rather foolhardy to extend said speculation.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You point to recent Google failures, but isn't their culture of allowing (even high profile) failures not only to get implemented, but then to get shut down part of why Google's successful? Which (the culture of allowing failure) seems like an engineering approach, and not a managerial (which to me has always struck me as fear-of-failure/CYA) one.

The question is whether those flops should have ever happened. I admire Google that they will kill unsuccessful products, but I question how well they understand the market when they have so many products to kill.

Lots of failures is "working as intended". The only way to understand the market is to try out lots of things and see how the market reacts. Remember, the point of innovation is to solve unmet consumer needs - if people understood them, they wouldn't be unmet.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#46
post #16

This got me thinking about role of managers in a modern org (to simplify things let's say it's a Tech company). It certainly needs a CEO/Visionary, it most likely needs HR and front/back office folks, it certainly needs PR and marketing people. But in a world where people communicate rarely in person, have their own management and economics 101 abilities, are smart enough to not work against their own interests (and…

The goal of management is essentially the same as the goal for any kind of political structure: remove issues which couldn't have been dealt with in a cheaper way.

And self-preservation of the management political class. How often does a corporate reorg reduce the number of managers?

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#47
post #13

This got me thinking about role of managers in a modern org (to simplify things let's say it's a Tech company). It certainly needs a CEO/Visionary, it most likely needs HR and front/back office folks, it certainly needs PR and marketing people. But in a world where people communicate rarely in person, have their own management and economics 101 abilities, are smart enough to not work against their own interests (and…

One of my ex managers said that his role was to attend the meetings,shield the developers from the politics of getting projects approved and other institutional overhead so that we could focus on delivering product.

"You can either be a shit funnel or a shit umbrella" - Tood Jackson, Product Manager, Gmail http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/14/key-to-gmail/

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#48
post #6

It's awesome to see a fundamentally engineer-driven company like Google and a fundamentally designer-driven company like Apple become so successful. It has always seemed to me that management is an important but overemphasized skill (as a fundamental trait of the way large organizations work) and it's really refreshing to see this happening.

"It's awesome to see a fundamentally engineer-driven company like Google and a fundamentally designer-driven company like Apple become so successful."

Out of curiosity, what do you think Amazon is driven by, fundamentally? I'd put them right up there with Apple on the product innovation front.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#49

This got me thinking about role of managers in a modern org (to simplify things let's say it's a Tech company). It certainly needs a CEO/Visionary, it most likely needs HR and front/back office folks, it certainly needs PR and marketing people. But in a world where people communicate rarely in person, have their own management and economics 101 abilities, are smart enough to not work against their own interests (and…

> "what's the role of the future manager?"

Personally I've always seen the organizational structure of film and TV units as being a natural model for software development [1]. They've been doing the somewhat-controlled production of fundamentally creative product by small, focused and often-times transient teams for quite some time.

And in that model, the current manager type is less like the director [2] and more like a producer.

That is: a person who primarily manages logistics and external requirements.

e.g. arranging the times to get the necessary people together to review builds and such. keeping statuses up-to-date. keeping an eye on tasks and deadlines. keeping their finger on consultants. etc.

[1] Far more natural than the manufacturing model that corporate America is trying to fit things into.

[2] I'm sure managers would like to imagine themselves as directors. But they're typically ill-suited due their not understanding the creative nor technical sides.

Re: Larry Page Begins Major Google Reorg: Engineers, Not Managers, In Charge

#50
This is such a good move! It gives Google the nimbleness, hunger, and guerilla mentality of a start-up in new areas it wants to explore through these small mostly-autonomous teams, while simultaneously allowing it to defend the already captured beachheads (search, gmail etc.) - all funded by the deep, deep, Google pockets.

In any innovation-oriented org, curious engineers and inventors need to be able to play and push the boundaries, but even large organizations with strong financial backs are so defensive when it comes to innovation, so afraid to fail, or waste resources on experimenting. Google has always been okay with this "waste". If you go back before year 2k and try pitching to a goliath sw company to let 20% of dev time be spent on employees’ projects of choice you'd get assaulted by the CFO. Google was okay with this "waste", because they knew if you let the right players roll the dice, every now and then you’d hit jackpot. And they did! Many of their most successful products came out of the 20% project.

Organizations today have split the vision and execution aspects of building something. The vision comes from management and the execution from engineers – this is straight from the defensive playbook - ‘engineers can execute with minimum risk, and managers are close to the customer therefore know what will sell for sure’. This kind of thinking will work when you want to improve marginally (like Henry Ford said something along the lines of 'If I asked my customers what they wanted they’d say a faster horse'), or if you are the market leader, but it will never cause disruption or let you make headway in uncharted territory. It is very important to know when to play offence and when to play defense.

Post reply on HN