The two statements don't really work together: > It's small groups of people or singular people who make these decisions and those visionaries can easily chang

The two statements don't really work together: > It's small groups of people or singular people who make these decisions and those visionaries can easily change their focus or be offered a more compelling role True! All companies face this problem. Smart, capable people have options and frequently will decide to leave and do something else/go somewhere else. > but lets not pretend Google is making these decisions to focus on something or not This is where the disconnect is. As a company you decide what things are priorities, and you build teams to pursue those priorities in a way that is resilient to people leaving - even extremely senior leadership individuals. If a project withers and dies because a key player leaves, then it never had the company's focus. Part of effectively managing a company is to ensure your most important things don't have a low bus factor (or in Google's case, a bug factor of exactly one). MS, FB, Apple, etc, all have a record of being able to relentlessly pursue a particular goal despite being subject to the same workforce attrition forces that affect Google.