Did you get the memo about the new cover sheets we are using?

Every time I speak somewhere, people ask me what I think scares Google the most. Is it Microsoft? Abandonment of net neutrality? Some new startup that will out-Google Google? While those are all indeed worth attention, and while I do not speak for Google in this blog, my biggest fear is that Google could become a big company.

I don’t mean big just in terms of headcount. Google has grown at a staggering pace as the company has added amazing talent to offices around the world allowing for even more cool products to get built. Yet, as the company gets bigger, the temptation is to introduce additional layers of management and bureaucracy and these are the enemies of innovation.

I have worked with engineers from a variety of household-name big companies. Like some universal truth that transcends language, national borders, industries, or even market cycles, I hear the same two things from those in organizations that are no longer innovating: 1) They never get to work on teams smaller than 200 people and 2) They haven’t launched anything in years. Why? They are suffocated by myriad processes, hierarchies, templates, forms, and flow charts.

The leaders of Google have realized, from the earliest days, that the company’s own growth would be the biggest challenge and have toiled unflinchingly to build scalable and transparent systems for encouraging the freedom to innovate and collaborate without jumping through some of the unnecessary traditional company hoops.  I deeply respect the team that runs Google for focusing on this from the beginning and emphasizing it as a core company value.

Nevertheless, the potential big company pitfalls are always looming.  As the size grows, I see colleagues, particularly those who join Google from other companies, tempted to carve out fiefdoms and mandate SWOT analyses and extensive Excel spreadsheets littered with three letter acronyms. I have seen a few mid-level bosses evoke the traditions of Japanese management and schedule “pre-meetings” to plan, discuss, and approve what will be planned, discussed and approved at the actual meeting itself. MBA-speak creeps into the parlance and these new managers require the filing of more and more TPS reports.

The good news? Google’s culture of letting engineers and product folks build great stuff that users want is still winning the day. However, the company needs to remain vigilant and never hesitate to clear the way for inspired people to create the products we all love. For those of you from Google who read my blog, thanks in advance for your help in keeping it a place where freedom to innovate is the rule and not the exception.

Comments

[Gabor]

Have you read Shona Brown's book on _Competing on the Edge_? (Recently mentioned in the Fortune Magazine article on chaos at Google and a very interesting read.) In the framework of structured chaos she describes, you do need a few rules to keep everyone going in the same direction, but limit their number to a minimum set to allow creativity.

I don't think rules are bad per se. But you need to keep the focus on end products, not processes.

[Chris Sacca]

I actually have read Shona's book and she is one of the company leaders I refer to above with deep respect. I think Shona has been a pioneer of very successful techniques that allow for rapid growth while maintaining sufficient order to hold it together.

I don't think innovation requires anarchy. Not at all. But, that said, I think there are very material distinctions between bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and a well-devised, light-touch, evolving operational framework that helps everyone succeed.

When I first joined Google years ago, I will admit that I didn't really understand Shona's role. However, as Google has grown, her contributions become clearer and clearer to me and it is increasingly obvious that they really do underpin the culture of innovation we enjoy today.

[Peter]

Sacca, you nailed it. Our company has been hiring and promoting Bill Lumbergs. While I do not mind coming in on Sunday, I am not cool with the new cover sheets on our TPS reports. I did not get the memo and I am keeping this red stapler.

Engineers used to run Google. Much less so now. I hope you can fix it.

[Cowardly Googler]

Thank you for having the balls to not just type this stuff but stir the pot at work. I like knowing you are around there trying to keep things real.

[Alan Green]

Pre-meetings. *shudder*

Standing on the outside looking in, I often wonder how Google keep their culture in the midst of that massive growth. It's interesting to hear how seriously Google are taking the problem.

[LeeTaeChil]

TypeKey/TypePad :
How can I receive it ! ..

[G for Googler]

In my experience there isn't much of a problem yet with Lumbergs. But I've seen the sheer bigness of Google start to corrupt what even smart teams are doing.

I know of one project where the PM -- a longtime Googler -- has become infatuated with his own ideas to generate synergy across Google products. Before his product has even launched!

It's non-Googly. Products which rely on synergy don't focus on kicking ass. People pin their hopes on spillover from Google's other offerings.

The good thing about Google is that if a team loses focus, they will bleed engineering talent and top management will eventually crucify them. I hope that never changes.

[Martin Day]

If you think that Google can continue to grow and keep it's small company ethics you are kidding yourself.

Having experienced working for a company that grew a hundredfold overnight I know that you can't just stick your head in the sand and just wish that you were small again.

Big companies have big responsibilities and someone has to be there to steer the ship away from the iceberg and be prepared to pick up the pieces when it goes wrong and at the same time make sure the electricity bill is paid.

Someones has got to be there to assign the task that no one wants to do but nevertheless has to be done; and be able to tell the genius that their pet project is a waste of time instead of everyone pussy footing around claiming it is not their problem.

That having been said it is not a given that to be a big company you have to sell your soul - but to continue to develop you have to evolve.

Once a company has reached the stage where you have people who don't know and have never met the principals you have already lost that small time advantage.

Already Google has to be careful what it says because there are people just waiting to jump on every off the cuff remark.

History is littered with good engineering companies that failed to evolve.

Like any football team filled with the best players in the world, left to run themselves without good management they would be squabbling and bottom of any league.

In the words of Gil Scott-Heron 'since change is inevitable we should direct the change rather than simply continue to go through the change.'

To do that Google need to realise that it isn't one or the other but the goal is to strive for the perfect blend where good managers have the confidence to act in the background and harness the available talent and keep that talent focused on what is important. I think someone in Google probably already knows that.

Have fun growing!