10 ms·

I don't buy it. Many companies are able to get the perks, culture, and autonomy right without being a multi-billion dollar company. It does enable Google to do

by muninn_ 10y ago

I don't buy it. Many companies are able to get the perks, culture, and autonomy right without being a multi-billion dollar company. It does enable Google to do certain things (like moonshot projects) that smaller companies can't do, but a lot of the perks I've seen are replicated in other companies. In fact, I think your comment "Google doesn't do what it does to be successful, it does it because it is successful" is completely ignoring how Google came to be successful in the first place, which was doing what you're saying it does because it's successful. Reading something like "How Google Works" goes over this exact thing in detail.

ravitation 10y ago
He's not talking about the perks. He's talking about the design of the organization, beyond the culture. The structures, the roles, the processes. Autonomy is a value, but values only influence design.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  The post I responded to mentioned (and naturally I mentioned this as well) perks, autonomy, structure, etc... and then says that the missing piece is billions of dollars in ad revenue. So I pointed out that many companies are able to get these things right (/imitate Google), without billions of dollars in ad revenue. It's not the ad revenue. That's my contention.
  - ravitation 10y ago
    What I meant is that "perks" are just an outcome of a certain organizational structure designed around a set of values. There are multiple structures that allow for "perks", or are designed for autonomy. And, as you said, others have produced structures with similar results or based in similar values. But, he's talking about the specific structures at Google.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Periodic 10y ago
I tried to clarify the wording. I'm specifically trying to call out the structure of Google's management and the general way they approach problems. For example, even within the profitable Google portion of the business, they often have many competing projects. There will be competing search features, competing chat applications, competing cloud services. Google will make big speculative bets or internally competitive bets because it can afford to just let people build things and see what happens. Google, as a company, doesn't really seem to have any idea of what most individual engineers are doing week to week. Many companies can't do that. If you are a medium-sized company you probably don't have the market position or revenue to afford to be unfocused.
- muninn_ 10y ago
  I don't disagree with your follow up. Thanks for the post.
- fossuser 10y ago
  It may end up that even Google can't afford to be unfocused - if they do end up losing their search engine ad revenue because it and standard websites become less relevant it'll probably be what's pointed at. You can see their disorganization in their software and products - letting ideas like Google Voice that were ahead of their time languish until iMessage comes and takes over, lots of failed software launches etc.
- vkou 10y ago
  Yet, free markets beat out top-down managed economies because they have competing teams seeking to provide the same services. Tech is, to an extent, a winner-takes-all market. If you build out two competing products internally, in the long run, it will cost you less then building one product, and having an outside competitor fight you for market share, by building that second product. Case in point: I'm sure that Facebook would have loved it if one of their teams built Whatsapp. For 20 billion dollars, they could have funded a hundred competing internal products.
  - dispose13432 10y ago
jasode 10y ago
>Many companies are able to get the perks, culture, and autonomy right without being a multi-billion dollar company. You're right but I understood what Periodic intended to explain. Unfortunately, he phrased it as "billions in ad revenue" instead of a less common metric of "profit-per-employee". If the company generates enough profit-per-employee, it can afford to pay for lavish perks. Consider 2 different companies' revenue,income,#employees: Walmart: $482b, $24b, #2300000 -- ~$10k per employee Google: $74b, $19b, # 69952 -- ~$276k per employee Take one example of a perk such as free catered food which is estimated to cost $20-per-employee-per-day.[1] For Walmart to offer this perk multiplied by 2.3 million employees, it would cost ~$11 billion which is almost half the $24b profit. Google's calculation for 69k employees is ~$349 million which is less than 2% of the profit. And the free food is just one perk... there are also massages, haircuts, laundry, daycare, etc. Yes you don't have to have a billion in revenue to offer perks like that. SAS Institute of North Carolina in the 1990s didn't yet reach $1 billion in revenue but they offered lavish Silicon Valley style perks.[2] They could afford it because they sold statistics software with high margins (profits). Although they are a private company, we can safely assume they are generating much more profit per employee than Walmart. So, if we have a hypothetical medium-sized company that has a revenue of $400 million with income of $100m ... to afford lavish perks, we need to generate that $100m with ~360 employees or fewer (Google benchmark). If it requires hiring 9500 employees to generate $100m (Walmart benchmark), it means we will have to pinch pennies and charge the employees for each pen taken from the supply room. Direction of cause-effect: create a great high-margin business so you pay for free gourmet food. Attempting the reverse of subsidizing $20 for each employee doesn't mean you'll end up with a high-margin business. We can generalize the free food case study to other "Google perks/methodologies/culture" to see if we really have the direction of cause & effect correct. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/4/googles-ginormous-food-budget-7530-per-googler http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/4/googles-ginormous-food... [2] 60 Minutes story (2002): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsIcwHavOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsIcwHavOs
- muninn_ 10y ago
  So I understand what you're saying here, and it makes sense. At the same time, I see career section after career section offering the same kind of perks with much smaller companies. Maybe it's not 3 meals of gourmet food, but free catered lunches, great 401k matching, unlimited vacation, great health and dental benefits. I'm not saying the perks are matched tit-for-tat, but I still stand by my statement that you don't have to be a multi-billion dollar company to afford those perks. Likewise, Walmart can offer those types of perks. Just not to people working on the floor or in distribution centers. Thanks for your original reply :)

by muninn_ 10y ago

ravitation 10y ago

He's not talking about the perks. He's talking about the design of the organization, beyond the culture. The structures, the roles, the processes. Autonomy is a value, but values only influence design.

muninn_ 10y ago
The post I responded to mentioned (and naturally I mentioned this as well) perks, autonomy, structure, etc... and then says that the missing piece is billions of dollars in ad revenue. So I pointed out that many companies are able to get these things right (/imitate Google), without billions of dollars in ad revenue. It's not the ad revenue. That's my contention.
- ravitation 10y ago
  What I meant is that "perks" are just an outcome of a certain organizational structure designed around a set of values. There are multiple structures that allow for "perks", or are designed for autonomy. And, as you said, others have produced structures with similar results or based in similar values. But, he's talking about the specific structures at Google.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Periodic 10y ago

I tried to clarify the wording. I'm specifically trying to call out the structure of Google's management and the general way they approach problems. For example, even within the profitable Google portion of the business, they often have many competing projects. There will be competing search features, competing chat applications, competing cloud services. Google will make big speculative bets or internally competitive bets because it can afford to just let people build things and see what happens. Google, as a company, doesn't really seem to have any idea of what most individual engineers are doing week to week. Many companies can't do that. If you are a medium-sized company you probably don't have the market position or revenue to afford to be unfocused.

muninn_ 10y ago
I don't disagree with your follow up. Thanks for the post.
fossuser 10y ago
It may end up that even Google can't afford to be unfocused - if they do end up losing their search engine ad revenue because it and standard websites become less relevant it'll probably be what's pointed at. You can see their disorganization in their software and products - letting ideas like Google Voice that were ahead of their time languish until iMessage comes and takes over, lots of failed software launches etc.
vkou 10y ago
Yet, free markets beat out top-down managed economies because they have competing teams seeking to provide the same services. Tech is, to an extent, a winner-takes-all market. If you build out two competing products internally, in the long run, it will cost you less then building one product, and having an outside competitor fight you for market share, by building that second product. Case in point: I'm sure that Facebook would have loved it if one of their teams built Whatsapp. For 20 billion dollars, they could have funded a hundred competing internal products.
- dispose13432 10y ago

jasode 10y ago

>Many companies are able to get the perks, culture, and autonomy right without being a multi-billion dollar company. You're right but I understood what Periodic intended to explain. Unfortunately, he phrased it as "billions in ad revenue" instead of a less common metric of "profit-per-employee". If the company generates enough profit-per-employee, it can afford to pay for lavish perks. Consider 2 different companies' revenue,income,#employees: Walmart: $482b, $24b, #2300000 -- ~$10k per employee Google: $74b, $19b, # 69952 -- ~$276k per employee Take one example of a perk such as free catered food which is estimated to cost $20-per-employee-per-day.[1] For Walmart to offer this perk multiplied by 2.3 million employees, it would cost ~$11 billion which is almost half the $24b profit. Google's calculation for 69k employees is ~$349 million which is less than 2% of the profit. And the free food is just one perk... there are also massages, haircuts, laundry, daycare, etc. Yes you don't have to have a billion in revenue to offer perks like that. SAS Institute of North Carolina in the 1990s didn't yet reach $1 billion in revenue but they offered lavish Silicon Valley style perks.[2] They could afford it because they sold statistics software with high margins (profits). Although they are a private company, we can safely assume they are generating much more profit per employee than Walmart. So, if we have a hypothetical medium-sized company that has a revenue of $400 million with income of $100m ... to afford lavish perks, we need to generate that $100m with ~360 employees or fewer (Google benchmark). If it requires hiring 9500 employees to generate $100m (Walmart benchmark), it means we will have to pinch pennies and charge the employees for each pen taken from the supply room. Direction of cause-effect: create a great high-margin business so you pay for free gourmet food. Attempting the reverse of subsidizing $20 for each employee doesn't mean you'll end up with a high-margin business. We can generalize the free food case study to other "Google perks/methodologies/culture" to see if we really have the direction of cause & effect correct. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/4/googles-ginormous-food-budget-7530-per-googler http://www.businessinsider.com/2008/4/googles-ginormous-food... [2] 60 Minutes story (2002): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsIcwHavOs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvsIcwHavOs

muninn_ 10y ago
So I understand what you're saying here, and it makes sense. At the same time, I see career section after career section offering the same kind of perks with much smaller companies. Maybe it's not 3 meals of gourmet food, but free catered lunches, great 401k matching, unlimited vacation, great health and dental benefits. I'm not saying the perks are matched tit-for-tat, but I still stand by my statement that you don't have to be a multi-billion dollar company to afford those perks. Likewise, Walmart can offer those types of perks. Just not to people working on the floor or in distribution centers. Thanks for your original reply :)