It's human nature to stop "screwing around" in order to get "real" work done and make your boss happy. The only way to keep 20% time is to force everyone to take it. If others on your team stop doing it, then the competitive balance isn't fair anymore. If your boss can get away with unofficially taking it from you, then she will. Something like 20% time must be in the company policies with punishment for those that d…
Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
201–210 of 498 posts
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#20220% time isn't dead -- I have been using it at Google consistently for over 7 years, and it has immensely benefited me. You don't need any permission, at least in engineering. However, I would agree that it is "as good as dead". What killed 20% time? Stack ranking. Google's perf management is basically an elaborate game where using 20% time is a losing move. In my time there, this has become markedly more the case. I…
First of all, I haven't seen any evidence of the "fire the lowest X% of the stack rank" attitude which I saw at IBM and which has been reported to happen at Microsoft. Because Google is so selective during the hiring process, I don't think it's as necessary at companies where dead wood accumulates and so the Jack Walsh/GE philosophy of there's always deadwood to be eliminated isn't as applicable. (Sure, there will be PIP plans for problem employees, but that's on a case by case basis, and not driven by statistics.)
Secondly, the stack ranking is just one of the inputs in your perf score, which in turn drives salary increases, bonuses, and equity refreshes. It is also just _one_ component in the promotion process, which is handled outside of the management chain, by committees of engineers that are typically level N+1 and N+2 of the people being considered for promotion. Speaking personally, as far as compensation is concerned, for which the perf score is the primary driver, of course money is important, but it's not my primary motivator, and I'm paid generously enough that whether I get an extra X% isn't going to force me to try to get that extra bump in my perf score. It certainly wouldn't cause me to try to sabotage my colleagues --- and by the way, the stack ranking is also done by your team members and merged into the results (it's not just a stack ranking done by the managers), so trying to get a higher perf score by not being helpful to your colleagues is not a winning strategy.
Finally, I've touched a bit about the promotion process, and certainly at the higher levels, promotion is done by your potential future peers, and is more about recognizing the fact that you are already performing at the level of a Staff Engineer, or a Senior Staff Engineer. Your manager will write a recommendation letter, but certainly at the higher levels, it will be your future peers across the entire company that will be judging whether the work you are doing has the impact and a wider scope which is the hallmark of the higher ranks of the engineering ladder. And of course, if your 20% project happens to have a high impact or affects teams across the company in a positive way, that is something that you can write up in your promotion package, and they will consider it at promotion time.
Also, once you get to Senior Software Engineer, there is no expectation that everyone has to keep on climbing the promotion ladder. There is no "up or out". If you want to do really great engineering work, but it's work that isn't something that fundamentally affects the company's bottom line, or isn't of broad scope, that's OK. You won't get promoted, but at the end of the day, how important is that? You can only buy so many toys, after all, and if you are doing work which is fulfilling and you have other things in your life which is giving you great satisfaction, who cares if you never make Distinguished Engineer or become a Fellow? And that's yet another reason why stack ranking may not be as important.
The bottom line is that "stack ranking" as done by Google is pretty different form what you might think of as "stack ranking" as practiced by other companies, so it's important to keep that in mind.
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
At my last job, I had to wait two weeks to get a VM created and assigned to me. At my current job, I can't get a port opened to make an OUTBOUND connection to Amazon Web Services. Yeah, working at Google, it's definitely easier to use big tools to try new things, huh?
We have a lot of perks, including great food, but ultimately it comes down to: 1) awesome coworkers I learn from daily 2) access to infrastructure and few barriers 3) a competent IT team for corporate IT The combination of the three is rare in industry.
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#204Honestly, this completely makes sense given how Google has been killing off non-profitable products lately. Why pay engineers to work on projects that will never meet a business case? This isn't the olden days of Google, where they would shovel anything out there and see if it stuck.
Isn't that begging the question in regards to whether or not you can know, ahead of time, which projects will or won't become viable and have a supporting business case?
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#205Honestly, this completely makes sense given how Google has been killing off non-profitable products lately. Why pay engineers to work on projects that will never meet a business case? This isn't the olden days of Google, where they would shovel anything out there and see if it stuck.
"Why pay engineers to work on projects that will never meet a business case?" You need your engineers to put up with mundane, boring work. Paying them to spend a minority of their time on an interesting project helps.
See also the "people simply empty out" article posted on HN. Google seems to be falling for the PHB fallacy that people are just machines that crank out code. Perhaps that is what google is becoming, but I certainly wouldn't want to work there.
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll even go a step further. I have a reputation as one of those people who has an ability to get things done at an incredible pace, but there's definitely days where I'm flat-out procrastinating and being lazy. For me, personally, and I suspect other people like me, it comes down to an ability to perform remarkably well under pressure, along with a lack of ability to perform well when the pressure is off. If there's…
It's funny, I made a comment on reddit a couple of weeks ago describing myself in almost the exact same way in a discussion about dealing with ADHD as an adult: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1j0ml8/psychopaths_...
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#207I'd point out that Page and Brin predicted the course of their own search engine, and perhaps their own company, in 1998: “The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to providing quality search to users.” “We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.” “Advertising income often provides an incentiv…
Also, Baidu was accused by many to have intentionally removed or weighed down the links to sites, admins of which have refused to bid advertisement or increase their advertisement bidding. I cannot explain such strategy except to hypothesize that Baidu has sustained de facto monopoly.
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#208Few people remember it, but the same thing happened at HP. It used to be that HP engineers were expressly given Friday afternoons and full access to company resources to just play with new ideas. Among other things, this led to HP owning the printer market. Then "professional" management came in and killed the proverbial goose. They had to focus more on the "bottom line". To do what was easy to measure and track, rat…
It boggles my mind, given the big money involved, why so many people continue to bet huge sums of cash on the proven short-term penny-wise/pound-foolish idiocy of MBA-think. I mean sure-- if your company is under cash flow pressure you have to pinch pennies. You have no choice. Spreadsheet says so, and spreadsheet's the boss. But if you're not, you should be investing and thinking long term cause the other guys proba…
A lot of this "idiocy" is in fact rational (if unethical) behavior. At many large companies, upper management is rewarded for short-term gains. In response, these managers adopt strategies that produce short-term gains. If these gains can be boosted by risking the company's future, that too is a rational trade-off: The managers will be long gone when the company falls into decline, but in the meantime they will have collected a lot of pumped-up bonuses.
When people are paid today to burn tomorrow, why are we surprised that they reach for the matches?
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who says this has anything to do with money? I thing the decision is more about a new strategy - focus instead of experimentation. Personally I think this makes sense. 20% time was great when you're a small company trying to see what works. When you're a big company, you usually get disrupted because you lost focus.
To my mind, it's exactly the other way around. When you're small, you need a source of revenue quickly, or you'll die. You don't have a luxury to experiment too much, you have to build one thing that works. When you're a huge company and have untold millions in cash, you can afford experimentation. In fact, you have to, because your revenue source is probably finite and you have to find another before the current sou…
When you're huge and cash-flush, you have the luxury of really innovating in truly hard areas.
This luxury is damn hard to obtain in a short-term gerbil-wheel economy like ours. Once you have it, throwing it away is like setting fire to a house as soon as you've paid off the mortgage or crashing your new luxury car as soon as you drive it off the lot. It is abysmally stupid and short-sighted. Investors should call for the heads of people who do this, literally. As in on a pike.
People think innovation comes from startups, but in reality it doesn't. Not because startups aren't smart and agile, but because they don't have the resources.
When I say innovation, I mean innovation. I don't mean application of existing innovations to new market areas or problem spaces. Startups excel at that.
But you'll never see a scrappy basement startup whip out a self-driving car, an artificial lung printed from a 3d printer, an orbit-capable reusable rocket, augmented reality goggles with a complete software stack, etc. Not unless the parts for those things already exist and can simply be combined in a novel way to yield a result in less than a year.
If you're big and cash flush, you can do what nobody else can do (except other monsters like you). You can do this.
http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/
That dent gets you a Ph.D, but if you do it for something of high economic value it gets you early entry into a market nobody else can enter because they don't know how.
If you do it, you've now created a piece of value that you can do one of many things with. You can feed it into your more short-term product-dev branches and do things nobody else can compete with, you can license it, or you can use it to pump up the prestige of your company in ways no advertising can.
"Holy crap! A self-driving car! And it really works. I mean, there it is, on the road, and it's driving better than I am and getting around faster than I am! I'm going to move all my business's hosting to Google Apps, cause they obviously have the smartest people on the planet..."
I do have the sense though -- and keep in mind I am an outsider -- that there might have been some "ADD" issues with Google's 20% policy as it was implemented. But I don't think the solution is to ditch it. The solution is to focus it, to try to get people to spend their 20% time pushing harder into deeper and more difficult areas instead of whipping out hacks. Maybe incentivize more people to work together more formally on 20% projects over longer spans of time, and incentivize them to tackle things that are very difficult... things only a big elephant can do instead of things a scrappy startup could do.
Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead
#210Few people remember it, but the same thing happened at HP. It used to be that HP engineers were expressly given Friday afternoons and full access to company resources to just play with new ideas. Among other things, this led to HP owning the printer market. Then "professional" management came in and killed the proverbial goose. They had to focus more on the "bottom line". To do what was easy to measure and track, rat…
Apple would be a good counter-example to your: This should make a lot of entrepreneurs happy, as there will continue to be a lot of top-down management-driven products that, if history shows, will continue to be market failures. There's no rule to success.
Amen. I think as HN readers we suck up so much info on a daily basis (I would guess so much more than the everyday public) and get confused so many ways on what is 'The right way' to do thing, 'The wrong ways to do things' and the '5n lessons you should learn to do things right'. But really, all that will change and become irrelevant when company x does things in way y. Then all the armchair experts and runaway copiers will wax philosophical, and no-one will know any better until the daring party actually does it, or completely bucks it.