4 ms·
He says incentives and recognition began to shift by 2010, which is good to hear. But that leaves me wondering how the linked situation occurs. It's a cliché t
by jacques_chester 6y ago
He says incentives and recognition began to shift by 2010, which is good to hear.
But that leaves me wondering how the linked situation occurs. It's a cliché that Google shutters projects or loses interest. I don't know whether that's particular to google or if it's due to an availability heuristic (Google is well-known, so its wanderings-off are widely publicised).
But if there are such dynamics and incentives, they are worthy of attention. Google exerts enormous gravity on the fabric of the technology industry, it would be helpful to avoid hurtful externalities arising from internal incentives.
- acdha 6y agoMy theory is that Google is notably worse at this because their core advertising business is so profitable. Most companies would have been forced to become good at managing projects by necessity but until ad revenues substantially decline Google can subsidize a ton of inefficiency and still report good numbers to Wall Street, just like Microsoft's various write-offs in the 90s and 2000s.
- jacques_chester 6y agoIt certainly doesn't help. I refer to this as the "Mississippi of Money" problem. If a river is deep, wide and fast-flowing, you can do pretty much anything and still get somewhere. The rest of us have to make do with leaky canoes, going up a certain creek, often sans a paddle.
- gowld 6y agoNot sure a former Googler's estimation of what may have started to happen after he left is much of a signal.
- Johnie 6y agoWhen I left in 2015, this promotion incentives was also a problem.