6 ms·

As a Googler, I can confirm that this article is... completely wrong. I don't have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on thei

As a Googler, I can confirm that this article is... completely wrong. I don't have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on their 20% projects. I can also confirm that many people don't take their 20% time. Whether it's culture change due to new hiring, lack of imagination, pressure to excel on their primary project, I'm not sure, but it is disappointing. Still, in engineering No permission is needed.

kzahel 13y ago
I am not a googler but what you say is more in line with my thinking. You don't ask for, but simply take the 20% time. Ask forgiveness, not permission. Until they send out a memo saying you're only allowed to work or think about tasks assigned by a superior officer, then assume you're an autonomous being :-)
- k3n 13y ago
  Not a Googler either, but I can't believe it'd be anything like the forgiveness/permission dichotomy, since I believe they're all given explicit permission upfront. It's a part of the culture. Rather, I've always imagined that it's not that it'd be closer to the perks like "unlimited vacation time": you can't just decide "well I'm taking the next 5 years off", because that'd be a dereliction of duty. In other words, if you have the premier release of your main project coming up in 2 weeks, it may be in your best interest to not take that 20% time for the time-being, but instead use that time to fully ensure that your project has a successful launch. But, if you don't have any big deadlines coming up soon, and you're reasonably on schedule, then by all means take the 20% time. The 20% time is a perk, and just like many other perks, your use of the perk cannot preclude any tacit duties that you may have, which include delivering on your assigned projects. But, this is just an outsider's view, I could be completely wrong.
- spankalee 13y ago
  The policy is that you don't ask, you tell. If your manager needs you to focus on your primary project, she can ask you to bank your 20% time for up to a quarter, but then you get to use that saved time.
  - falcolas 13y ago
    So, the employees and other sources cited by the author are lying about needing manager permission? Or are you in an unintendedly unique position?
    - jlees 13y ago
      It entirely depends on your manager and team. Some managers might want you to ask permission, and/or if you take the "forgiveness" approach your relationship with that manager might suffer. But that's because people are people. I can't imagine my former TLM ever taking 20% time, but I can thoroughly imagine him encouraging every single one of his direct reports to do so, unless we were on a launch sprint.
      - falcolas 13y ago
        Frankly, I don't think that inconsistant application of rules, and relying on a good Manager is a good thing overall. I don't want to equate this with working at Google, because I don't have enough information, but here's my anecdote about good managers: Twice before I've worked with spectacular managers. They treated their employees well, and acted as great shields against the political infighting inside the company. But both times, the managers were forced out, and the employees that depended on them to get interesting work done ended up quitting as well. If this is indeed, as the TFA posits, a memo from the top being filtered out by a few good managers, in a short amount of time those managers won't matter; they will be forced, or burnt, out. Neither case is good for the company.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Frankly, I don't think that inconsistant application of rules, and relying on a good Manager is a good thing overall. If you need humans instead of robots doing a job, that usually (increasingly, as automation advances) means it requires judgement such that pre-written inflexible rules will be inadequate to handle it sufficiently. Which means you need to rely on the judgement of people applying flexible rules for the best results.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
What would make this a more durable statement is if you could say "I don't have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on their 20% projects. And my calibration scores are the not different than when I don't use my 20% time." There is a reason the article talked to many ex-googlers because they are ones who, perhaps, left when there was a difference of opinion about their contribution to the company. And if that conversation attempted to use some of their 20% projects as a way of contributing to their contribution, and that was the disagreement, well it ends up with them leaving. I left in 2010, which was the start of the lurch toward more managers, and those managers were being scored on what their team accomplished that was assigned to the manager, not on what their team accomplished on their 20% time. Some managers had taken that to mean that 20% time didn't count at all toward calibration, and if you were working only 80% of the time on their projects it counted against calibration. Hence the disconnect. That is why "120%" sort of works, even in the face of a manager trying to make their own number. Except the benefit sounds different if you say "And on Saturday you can work on any project you want." :-)
- spankalee 13y ago
  Look, this is the type of thing that's impossible to settle, because yes, different managers and _peers_ might view things differently. As you know, but people here might not, there's as much weight on peer reviews as your manager's review. So what the article didn't mention (which is why I don't think they talked to that many ex-Googlers) is that if your peers feel like you're slacking your perf score will be lower, so even they could view 20% time negatively, if they wanted to. The policy of course is to not do that, but how would Google enforce that? If you spent 200% of your time on your primary project, you might get excellent reviews. Should you be calibrated 50% lower to normalize everyone? So yes, if you work 100% on your primary and +20% on your 20p, then you might get higher perf scores. Eh, if you have a good idea how to correct for that, go ahead, but it's a people problem and people are hard to deal with in these kinds of thing. This is one reason why I actively encourage as many people to take their 20% time as possible. :) My personal experience though is very positive regarding 20% time. My first project, I started, gathered a few contributors, built a prototype, pitched it and turned it into a full-fledged project. I got great reviews and promoted in large part because of that. In my second PA I work on open source projects. Less glamorous, and maybe less perf-impacting, but that's not my goal right now. In general the people I've seen take 20% time in a focused way tend to be the higher-performers. They're more self-guided, more critical of problems that need to be solved, or use 20% time to teach themselves or move onto harder problems. Maybe as we've grown the percentage of employees like that has shrunk, maybe it takes a while to realize you have 20% time. Not sure, but I'd like to see it be used more, it's good for everyone.
enraged_camel 13y ago
Michael Church (an outspoken ex-Googler) would disagree with you. One thing I remember him saying that was verified by several other Googlers, both current and ex, is that whether you are allowed 20% time depends on your team and your manager. And in fact, most teams in Google do not get 20% time, so you may be one of the lucky ones.
- spankalee 13y ago
  Michael Church is someone who is not worth listening to. He made massively incorrect assertions while at Google, and continues to after he basically talked himself out of his job in a very public way. Engineers get 20% time period. You can be asked to defer it for a quarter. On the other hand, most don't take it.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    Just because he made some massively incorrect assertions while at Google does not mean he is not worth listening to. Everyone says incorrect things sometimes. I mean, can you claim that you are right all the time? Probably not. I don't know him personally but I read the stuff he writes, and while his character can be a bit abrasive he's an extremely intelligent dude who can make astute observations and connections that other people miss. I think you're doing him a lot of disservice by dismissing him the way you did.
    - moultano 13y ago
      He was at Google for 6 months. Whatever you think about his opinions in general, he doesn't know anything about how things at Google work.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        How long do you have to be at a company to understand how things work in it? (That's a trick question, since the answer is going to depend on the person's intelligence and ability to make observations.) Also, a ton of long-time Googlers agree with the stuff he says. It's not like he's some lone dissenting voice.

kzahel 13y ago

I am not a googler but what you say is more in line with my thinking. You don't ask for, but simply take the 20% time. Ask forgiveness, not permission. Until they send out a memo saying you're only allowed to work or think about tasks assigned by a superior officer, then assume you're an autonomous being :-)

k3n 13y ago
Not a Googler either, but I can't believe it'd be anything like the forgiveness/permission dichotomy, since I believe they're all given explicit permission upfront. It's a part of the culture. Rather, I've always imagined that it's not that it'd be closer to the perks like "unlimited vacation time": you can't just decide "well I'm taking the next 5 years off", because that'd be a dereliction of duty. In other words, if you have the premier release of your main project coming up in 2 weeks, it may be in your best interest to not take that 20% time for the time-being, but instead use that time to fully ensure that your project has a successful launch. But, if you don't have any big deadlines coming up soon, and you're reasonably on schedule, then by all means take the 20% time. The 20% time is a perk, and just like many other perks, your use of the perk cannot preclude any tacit duties that you may have, which include delivering on your assigned projects. But, this is just an outsider's view, I could be completely wrong.
spankalee 13y ago
The policy is that you don't ask, you tell. If your manager needs you to focus on your primary project, she can ask you to bank your 20% time for up to a quarter, but then you get to use that saved time.
- falcolas 13y ago
  So, the employees and other sources cited by the author are lying about needing manager permission? Or are you in an unintendedly unique position?
  - jlees 13y ago
    It entirely depends on your manager and team. Some managers might want you to ask permission, and/or if you take the "forgiveness" approach your relationship with that manager might suffer. But that's because people are people. I can't imagine my former TLM ever taking 20% time, but I can thoroughly imagine him encouraging every single one of his direct reports to do so, unless we were on a launch sprint.
    - falcolas 13y ago
      Frankly, I don't think that inconsistant application of rules, and relying on a good Manager is a good thing overall. I don't want to equate this with working at Google, because I don't have enough information, but here's my anecdote about good managers: Twice before I've worked with spectacular managers. They treated their employees well, and acted as great shields against the political infighting inside the company. But both times, the managers were forced out, and the employees that depended on them to get interesting work done ended up quitting as well. If this is indeed, as the TFA posits, a memo from the top being filtered out by a few good managers, in a short amount of time those managers won't matter; they will be forced, or burnt, out. Neither case is good for the company.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Frankly, I don't think that inconsistant application of rules, and relying on a good Manager is a good thing overall. If you need humans instead of robots doing a job, that usually (increasingly, as automation advances) means it requires judgement such that pre-written inflexible rules will be inadequate to handle it sufficiently. Which means you need to rely on the judgement of people applying flexible rules for the best results.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

What would make this a more durable statement is if you could say "I don't have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on their 20% projects. And my calibration scores are the not different than when I don't use my 20% time." There is a reason the article talked to many ex-googlers because they are ones who, perhaps, left when there was a difference of opinion about their contribution to the company. And if that conversation attempted to use some of their 20% projects as a way of contributing to their contribution, and that was the disagreement, well it ends up with them leaving. I left in 2010, which was the start of the lurch toward more managers, and those managers were being scored on what their team accomplished that was assigned to the manager, not on what their team accomplished on their 20% time. Some managers had taken that to mean that 20% time didn't count at all toward calibration, and if you were working only 80% of the time on their projects it counted against calibration. Hence the disconnect. That is why "120%" sort of works, even in the face of a manager trying to make their own number. Except the benefit sounds different if you say "And on Saturday you can work on any project you want." :-)

spankalee 13y ago
Look, this is the type of thing that's impossible to settle, because yes, different managers and _peers_ might view things differently. As you know, but people here might not, there's as much weight on peer reviews as your manager's review. So what the article didn't mention (which is why I don't think they talked to that many ex-Googlers) is that if your peers feel like you're slacking your perf score will be lower, so even they could view 20% time negatively, if they wanted to. The policy of course is to not do that, but how would Google enforce that? If you spent 200% of your time on your primary project, you might get excellent reviews. Should you be calibrated 50% lower to normalize everyone? So yes, if you work 100% on your primary and +20% on your 20p, then you might get higher perf scores. Eh, if you have a good idea how to correct for that, go ahead, but it's a people problem and people are hard to deal with in these kinds of thing. This is one reason why I actively encourage as many people to take their 20% time as possible. :) My personal experience though is very positive regarding 20% time. My first project, I started, gathered a few contributors, built a prototype, pitched it and turned it into a full-fledged project. I got great reviews and promoted in large part because of that. In my second PA I work on open source projects. Less glamorous, and maybe less perf-impacting, but that's not my goal right now. In general the people I've seen take 20% time in a focused way tend to be the higher-performers. They're more self-guided, more critical of problems that need to be solved, or use 20% time to teach themselves or move onto harder problems. Maybe as we've grown the percentage of employees like that has shrunk, maybe it takes a while to realize you have 20% time. Not sure, but I'd like to see it be used more, it's good for everyone.

enraged_camel 13y ago

Michael Church (an outspoken ex-Googler) would disagree with you. One thing I remember him saying that was verified by several other Googlers, both current and ex, is that whether you are allowed 20% time depends on your team and your manager. And in fact, most teams in Google do not get 20% time, so you may be one of the lucky ones.

spankalee 13y ago
Michael Church is someone who is not worth listening to. He made massively incorrect assertions while at Google, and continues to after he basically talked himself out of his job in a very public way. Engineers get 20% time period. You can be asked to defer it for a quarter. On the other hand, most don't take it.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  Just because he made some massively incorrect assertions while at Google does not mean he is not worth listening to. Everyone says incorrect things sometimes. I mean, can you claim that you are right all the time? Probably not. I don't know him personally but I read the stuff he writes, and while his character can be a bit abrasive he's an extremely intelligent dude who can make astute observations and connections that other people miss. I think you're doing him a lot of disservice by dismissing him the way you did.
  - moultano 13y ago
    He was at Google for 6 months. Whatever you think about his opinions in general, he doesn't know anything about how things at Google work.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      How long do you have to be at a company to understand how things work in it? (That's a trick question, since the answer is going to depend on the person's intelligence and ability to make observations.) Also, a ton of long-time Googlers agree with the stuff he says. It's not like he's some lone dissenting voice.