3 ms·
Great insight, Ian joined a year before I did and left 13 years after I left :-). This stuck out for me though ... Then Google had layoffs. The layoffs were an
by ChuckMcM 3y ago
Great insight, Ian joined a year before I did and left 13 years after I left :-). This stuck out for me though ...
Then Google had layoffs. The layoffs were an unforced error driven by a short-sighted drive to ensure the stock price would keep growing quarter-to-quarter, instead of following Google's erstwhile strategy of prioritising long-term success even if that led to short-term losses (the very essence of "don't be evil"). The effects of layoffs are insidious.
I think calling it an unforced error is generous. When I left in 2010 I pointed out to Google that their falling CPC rates meant that the profit margin on search advertising was eroding faster than they were developing new income and faster than they were reducing costs[1] and as a result they were going to find themselves compromising their principles to appease wall street. Before they laid off people they compromised every other principle they had, they added advertising to places they earlier boasted about not advertising, they started selling more and more demographic information about their users to sketchier people. All so they could show that revenue number going up and to the right.
I predicted they would lay off people a lot sooner than they eventually did but I blame my misprediction on my misunderstanding of just how much money they could develop when they stopped worrying about whether or not it was good for their users. I completely concur though with how a layoff really changes people. I was at Intel when they did their first layoff in 1984 and suddenly everyone's attitude changed to "how do I stay off the layoff list?" That doesn't foster a creative, risk taking culture.
Someday the story of Google will make a good read, kind of like 'Bad Blood' but where the enemy isn't a sociopathic leader but a bunch of regular people who got addicted to being massively wealthy and threw out all of their principles when that wealth was threatened. Altruism of the rich is a function of their excess wealth.
[1] The primary reason I left was because the project I delivered which saved them $10M/yr year-after-year was considered "not significant" (read unpromotable).
- InCityDreams 3y agoWould like more info on [1]. I work in the area of cutting costs (also privately - gave up coffee as it was a waste of money, for me): with money being finite, what you can save is often worth more than what you can earn.
- ChuckMcM 3y agoIt wasn't particularly transferable outside of Google's scale. They have continual failures in their fleet of machines which cycle through a repair queue. It's fairly automated, dispatching bulk repair requests to people in the data centers. I managed to get some process changes and code changes through that allowed machines with alleged disk errors to be processed while still in production and have the resources returned after the disk was verified good and reformatted. When you calculated depreciation costs for the equipment that had been waiting for repairs before, and now never left production, it was well over $10M/year of depreciation cost. (there were other cost savings as well like the over provisioning needs of a cluster were lower , etc etc) They weren't wrong in that it wasn't particularly technically challenging, but getting a change like that through the organization had been tried and failed several times before I was given that task and succeeded. That skill, being an effective change agent in a large organization, was not even on their radar of useful skills at that time.