3 ms·
I think the cycle is general, not specific to Google. The people who build a successful business attract others by that success. The 'others' weren't attracted
by gorjusborg 3y ago
I think the cycle is general, not specific to Google.
The people who build a successful business attract others by that success. The 'others' weren't attracted to the company for the same reason as the builders, they are joining because prestige and money are there already. These people change the culture of the company from prioritizing the things that made it sucessful to prioritizing prestige and pay of the 'others'. This distortion then makes things weird. The reputation of the company tarnishes. The builders no longer opt to join due to the weirdness. Now, all that is left are the 'others'.
- ryloric 3y agoVery good point. Especially true when there's no corrective pressure from the market to do something about the accumulation of the prestige-money employees. Search revenue gives them a nearly infinite rope to keep accumulating the 'others' without having to attract 'builders' to open up new revenues. Just use blind for an hour and you'll see how bad it has gotten over the years.
- ska 3y agoThis is misleadingly bimodal. There are a ton of great "builders" out there who just aren't cut out for early stage work - they want to work on a functioning team with a well defined role and clear goals/targets. This is really orthogonal to the problem you are pointing out, which has a kernel of truth: if the money and/or impact gets big enough you start to attract people who are primarily motivated by that. This is true at all levels.
- gorjusborg 3y agoYou are absolutely right that my 'model' is not perfectly accurate. I use it to illustrate the general incentive change and who that attracts.
- ska 3y agoSure, but I think it isn't even the more typical situation, so your presentation suggests it's far more typical than reality imo.