Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 498 posts

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#481

Post by freshhawk »

dekhn wrote: post #477
freshhawk wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing any "generosity" on Google's part, at least from the examples you provided. You certainly seem like a smart guy, working on some cool stuff, so I'm not surprised people are a bit confused (hence the term "brainwashed") by your (pretending to?) not understand the business model of the company you work for. You are giving your time away, for free, to a for profit corporation. That's so irrational it's pa…

I worked in Ads for a year when I started here. I understand the business model of my company quite well :-) And I still consider what Google provides (search, gmail) "free". Free as in free beer- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre I'm certainly not "giving my time away for free": to be clear, I'm a salaried worker, and I choose to work the hours I do. Further, to be clear: Google gives me immense resou…

> And I still consider what Google provides (search, gmail) "free"

And you would join a large number of people who have recently started using that word to mean "can cost any amount in anything of value as long as it's not currency". So sure, it's "free" in that way and still not free in the definition of the term that's actually useful to people. Boring semantic argument, let's drop it.

As to the rest, this is a much better way of phrasing it than in terms of Google's "generosity", which is what I was pointing out as flawed.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#482

Post by cyberzeus »

Lots of the discussion below focusses on the merits of MBAs, upper management, etc. - and while that is good discussion, I just want to add that the killing of this policy - if valid - is yet another example of our flawed practice of capitalism. Capitalism was never meant to destroy creativity nor innovation nor people - but our use of it does lead to those inevitability because of our worst human trait - GREED. Gecko was indeed wrong - GREED is not good - drive is - and they are not the same thing. We need to sharply change how we practice capitalism and develop, into all of our financial models, factors both for total cost impact (i.e. environment, people, etc.) as well as innovation. Current economic models in use do not look at these critical aspect of our existence and until they do, we're all screwed. Innovation and drive are what have brought humanity to this most amazing place in history - not cash (especially fiat cash) and not the hoarding of resources.

I dare the management at Google to reverse course and allow their brilliant stable of top talent to keep the 20% perk - let a few Benjamins go for the sake of building awesome shtuff ("h" intended).

INNOVATION RULES - cash - well, it's just dirty paper...

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#483

Post by cyberzeus »

cyberzeus wrote: post #482

Lots of the discussion below focusses on the merits of MBAs, upper management, etc. - and while that is good discussion, I just want to add that the killing of this policy - if valid - is yet another example of our flawed practice of capitalism. Capitalism was never meant to destroy creativity nor innovation nor people - but our use of it does lead to those inevitability because of our worst human trait - GREED. Geck…

After initially positing, I found the Quartz update and it seems the reality is that 20%-time has in reality become 120%-time. So it's the issue in reverse - the program is not officially dead, it's just smothered. In essence, Google is saying it's cool if you want to innovate aside from your core duties but do so on your time - the time that is taken away from your life and family. So the loud and clear message to employees is innovate with new ideas only if you are willing to make sacrifices in very important areas of your life - what a hugely bad move. Some might say, "Well - sacrifices need to be made to do great things." True - but shouldn't the main benefactor be the one who makes the main sacrifice??? Of course they should. In addition, 8h per week is likely not nearly enough time to incubate anything worth while so while the 8h is a great starting point, it is more than likely that folks would need to still use additional time to make any degree of progress.

What should be done is to first decide your company's mission statement and if innovation is anywhere within and is at least on par or above profit, then you need to take that seriously and set incentives that move folks toward that goal. I was unable to find an actual Google mission statement but I did fined their philosophy page (i.e. "Ten things we know to be true") and it seems clear to me that innovation is definitely a core principle for the company.

As to all those detractors who say the 20% has become basically screw-off time, maybe-maybe not. But the proof is in the pudding and if amazing things come out of the practice - as is the case with 3M and Google - then the screwing off is clearly at a minimum if there at all.

For those that have an idea and wish to use 20% time to incubate, then restructure all of their core projects using a 32h week and pay them for 40h.

My dare to Mr. Brin and the rest remains - don't just not smother the policy but rather, embrace it with a massive kung-fu grip bear hug. Make it a top priority for those with ideas to use 20%-time and incubate to the N-th degree!!!!!

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#484

Post by rossjudson »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #163
varelse wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1,000x yes! My productivity comes in intense bursts of effort, with quiescent periods of research and reflection between them (or what looks like goofing off to rigidly process-oriented sorts). Combine that variability with mandatory daily scrum meetings and it makes me want to figuratively slit my wrists.

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…

I will tell you the secret to exhibiting consistent productivity, taught to me long ago by a master who shall remain nameless.

Hold back some of the extra work on your killer productivity days and keep it in reserve. On those off days, reach into the "bank" and push some of those changes.

And now you are consistent.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#485

Post by Bjorkbat »

dekhn wrote: post #122

I am a Googler. I will only speak to my personal experience, and the experience of people around me: 20% time still exists, and is encouraged as a mechanism to explore exciting new ideas without the complexity and cost of a real product. My last three years were spent turning my 20% project into a product, and my job now is spent turning another 20% project into a product. There was never any management pressure from…

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time understanding how calling 20% time dead vs insisting that it became 120% time are two different things.

I feel that the reason 20% time captured the attention of those wishing to become future Google employees is because it implies that you are literally granted the ability to take 20% of your work schedule and spend it on side-projects. Put another way, Google is granting you permission to pursue what interests you on their time.

What I appear to be hearing is that work obligations require 100% of one's work schedule as opposed to 80%, and that a 20% project is typically pursued with time that would otherwise be considered personal time.

If one were to use 20% of their work schedule to build something, and then invest some of their personal time into it, then I would say that 20% time is alive and well. If Google merely grants you access to resources, not time, then I would argue that 20% time is dead. It would be more appropriate to rename the perk.

Sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational, I'm genuinely interested in getting a clearer view of the situation.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#486

Post by MitziMoto »

pigscantfly wrote: post #348
jknightco wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Google's hiring standards have decreased, they've just shifted their focus away from inaccurate signals such as where you went to University and what your GPA was there. One could argue that Google's hiring standards have actually increased, as they're now hiring people who can demonstrate an ability to perform instead of people who were able to get a pretty piece of paper from Stanford.

Full disclosure: I'm a rising senior at Stanford, so maybe your comment is just irritating to me on a personal level. That said, the Stanford CS department is objectively very good; further, judging by the number of people I know who have abandoned or failed out of CS here, plenty of people wouldn't be able to complete the coursework for the undergrad degree even if they were all enrolled. I agree that hiring people…

Your "pretty piece of paper" is essentially like getting your drivers license. It allows you get behind the wheel, but it makes no guarantees you'll be any good at driving. In the end it really doesn't matter much which DMV you go to.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#487

Post by yuhong »

minwcnt5 wrote: post #405
Philadelphia wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not reflecting on this case specifically, but if six months isn't long enough for a new employee to generally understand how a company works, it would seem to suggest something's wrong with the company's culture, or at least with how people are brought on board. Six months is a long time in an industry where people change jobs every two years.

Part of the problem with mchurch was willful ignorance. A few colleagues, including some fairly senior people, reached out to him and volunteered to try and help him resolve his concerns. To my knowledge he never took them up on it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5518156

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#488

Post by thedufer »

VikingCoder wrote: post #468
thedufer wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't eaten there, have you? Their "cafeteria" is a bunch of kitchens worked by chefs. Good ones. Their food is the only reason I would consider working there.

Their food is the only reason I would consider working there. This is bald hyperbole. There are a lot of reasons you would consider working there.

The only advantage over my current gig, I meant.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#489

Post by yuhong »

bane wrote: post #298
anonymous wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the guys at the top ever lose any money?

What usually happens is that they've locked in some preferential options or stock grants + bonuses etc. If the company hits it big despite them, the stock is awesome. If the company does poorly they might miss a bonus but they'll still get their inflated salary. If the company ends up on the rocks, they'll get their salary cut "till company performance improves" as their pay is usually tied to the performance of the…

I'd also ask them if they know when to use and when not to use these concepts.

Re: Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

#490

Post by alooPotato »

nine_k wrote: post #102
alooPotato wrote: post #73

Earlier 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…

Agreed. I think you're right.
Post reply on HN