Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google's Ten Golden Rules 424

Posted by Zonk from the there-needs-to-be-less-evil dept.
selvan writes "Newsweek is running an article entitled Google's Ten Golden Rules. The article, by Eric Schmidt and Hal Varian, going into the philosophy behind the company." From the article: "Don't be evil. Much has been written about Google's slogan, but we really try to live by it, particularly in the ranks of management. As in every organization, people are passionate about their views. But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies. We foster to create an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes men."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Ten Golden Rules More

Google's Ten Golden Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:25AM (#14194010)

    From TFA
    [Eric] Schmidt is CEO of Google. [Hal] Varian is a Berkeley professor and consultant with Google.

    Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.

    While I'm aware that Slashdot is contractually obligated to post any and all stories about Google that possess even the most infinitesimal amount of positive spin, this seems extreme even here.
    Slashdot: self-adulation for fanboys

    Oh, and Newsweek, shame on you.

    • "Pack Them In" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jkauzlar ( 596349 ) * on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:36AM (#14194104) Homepage
      We all like to know what the most successful and innovative companies in recent years is telling its employees (or itself). Also, their list is a proposed manual of how to manage "knowledge workers." This could apply to hundreds of companies.

      Also, I take issue with the "Pack them in" criterium. What I like most about my job right now is the space I get. Email, instant-message, radio, etc, make "packing them in" a reality for any company with these technologies. I'd like to be able to fart at my desk or turn on a stereo and not have anybody make a fuss about it.

      I think they're trying to justify sticking their employees two-per-cubicle for lack of floor space.

      • Re:"Pack Them In" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:47AM (#14194198)
        > Also, I take issue with the "Pack them in" criterium. What I like most about my job right now is the space I get. Email, instant-message, radio, etc, make "packing them in" a reality for any company with these technologies. I'd like to be able to fart at my desk or turn on a stereo and not have anybody make a fuss about it.

        I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a second here.

        I'll bet that most of us posting to this thread are doing so from single cubicles or (if we're lucky) offices. How many of us would do so from a shared cubicle?

        If your cubemate is the kind of guy who'll accept you reading and posting to Slashdot, you're obviously getting along very well -- well enough to be very productive together.

        If you're worried he'll rat you out to management for spending half the day on Slashdot -- or if he's the kind of guy who'll spend half his day downloading goat pr0n -- then sharing cubicles is a net win for you, him, and the company, because you've both got nothing else to do in each other's presence but work. (Or learn how to get along with each other and become as co-productive as the cubemates in the paragraph above this one.)

        Some of the most productive days I've had have been days when teh Intarweb was down. There was nothing to do but work. And when the work was done, there was nothing to do but stuff I'd originally planned to do tomorrow. When tomorrow's work was done, there was nothing to do but think up new things to make my work life easier.

        Combine the self-reinforcing mechanism of always having a peer looking over your shoulder, with Google's policy that 20% of everyone's time is supposed to be spent fiddling around on your own pet projects, and some very interesting things might happen.

        • Re:"Pack Them In" (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jkauzlar ( 596349 ) * on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:03PM (#14194332) Homepage
          Yeah, but not everybody needs somebody looking over their shoulder. The suggestion that I won't do my job well without peer pressure is insulting to my work ethic.

          It's nine o'clock here in Seattle right now. After my coffee sets in and my brain wakes up, I will do the job of three men, if required. While doing this, I will crank up my stereo, sing along if I want to, take a cigarette break whenever I feel like it, and have a dignified sense of independence and self-empowerment. And my job will get done very well.

          • The suggestion that I won't do my job well without peer pressure is insulting to my work ethic.
            It's nine o'clock here in Seattle right now. After my coffee sets in and my brain wakes up, I will

            Go on to slashdot and post about how great your work ethic is.
            I'd tell you to go back to work, but I'll follow my own advice instead, good day.
          • I will do the job of three men, if required

            Groucho, Harpo and Chico?
             

      • Re:"Pack Them In" (Score:3, Informative)

        by drdewm ( 894886 )
        I just came from a place (TrippLite) that treats it's employees this way stacking them and packing them. Except for a select pamperd few TrippLite treats people like disposable napkins and the empoloyees know it and do the minimal amount of work to get by and the product shows it with huge return rates and customer dissatisfaction. Now the place I'm currently at treats people with respect and except for a select few people excel and try to do what's best for the company. The work loads and output from peopl

    • Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <DStaal@usa.net> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:02PM (#14194324)
      This is actually a fairly standard article format: they asked the head of a succesful company to write an article on what he thinks makes that company succesful. It's not meant to be an in-depth analysis, just a highlight of what they think is important/different about their company.

      It gives some idea of how the management thinks of the company, and what they try to work on. Sure, it's a fluff piece, the equivilent of the society column for businesses, but it's a moderately useful fluff peice. And it can help some people, espcially if you want to understand how Google thinks about itself.
    • This article is on the MSNBC website, which--last time I checked--is owned in part by Microsoft.
    • it's not like it was a trick, the article starts off, "At google, we think..."

    • > Wow...an article written by Google about how great Google is...the very definition of conflict-of-interest.

      Your grasp on marketing is outstanding. :) Seriously, no offense meant but that's what every successful company does. "We're great and here is why..." Would you buy from a company that said "We are not great?" Didn't think so.
    • Google, like Apple, happens to do a lot of interesting things and deserves some attention for that. I'll avoid bitching about ./ here.

      In this case all my annoyance is at Newsweek. the state of mainstream journalism in this country is pretty bad, and they don't need to be turing over their pages to corperate PR folks. How about taking the CEOs talking points and then going into the workplace and see them actually being implemented? Ask the average employee about the quality of the food in the cafeteria. Do

    • Really? This is not being presented as news; it is clearly by Google about Google. I see no reason why Newsweek should be ashamed.
      If this had been in Harvard Business Review, no one would have batted an eye.

    • Re:Newsweek and Slashdot: redefining fluff. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by be-fan ( 61476 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @01:49PM (#14195426)
      Congratulations on missing the point. This isn't an article on how great Google is. This is an article by somebody in Google management trying to explain how Google handles its employees, and why it has been sucessful. For somebody managing a small company, emulating some of these things might be interesting. I know gang interviews will be a new concept to at least a few people. We used them where I used to work, and they're a blast. It's easy for a canidate to convince management that he knows the engineering, its less easy for him to convince his potential coworkers.

  • Welcome to 5 years ago... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:25AM (#14194012) Homepage Journal
    Anyway... the only golden rule I aknowledge is "He who has the gold, makes the rules"
    • The "Don't be evil" motto sort of lost the lustre for me when I read about how they fired a new employee that was blogging about his "behind the scenes" Google experiences shortly after being hired.

      Sure, it would be one thing if he was blatantly broadcasting private information (which a new employee probably shouldn't have access to anyway), but as far as I read, he was just kind of enthusiastically gushing about the behind the scenes operation of the great new job he had. Now it's entirely possible that w
      • If I had a company, I wouldn't hire bloggers.
      • > The "Don't be evil" motto sort of lost the lustre for me when
        > I read about how they fired a new employee that was blogging
        > about his "behind the scenes" Google experiences shortly
        > after being hired.

        My personal understanding is that he blogged confidential information.

        Google has nothing against bloggers. They even have links to Googlers' blogs on the Google Blog [blogspot.com].

      • To be fair, if you are referring to the "hundred zeroes" blogger (can't find his blogsite now), he did reveal some sensitive forecasts or something iirc - which he then removed from his blog.

        Though it was still kinda harsh/pathetic that he got fired, seemingly just because a bunch of google employees were pissed off by the "new kid" and what he was writing. Maybe vindictiveness is not evil in googleworld.

  • Which company? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dante Shamest ( 813622 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:27AM (#14194025)
    But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.

    I wonder which company they're talking about?

    Throwing chairs...rings a bell.

    Mi...cro...?

    Nope lost it.

  • Coral Cache! (Score:4, Funny)

    by markild ( 862998 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:27AM (#14194029)
    Coral Cache link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com.nyud.net:8090/id/10296177 /site/newsweek/ [nyud.net]

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bwd ( 936324 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:27AM (#14194030) Homepage
    Does any of this really matter now [yahoo.com]? The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders in any way lawfully possible. The share holders now control board votes, not google's lofty ideals.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jedi Alec ( 258881 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:32AM (#14194074)
      ye gods. Does this have to come up with each and every time? There *are* companies out there that make a nice profit while still maintaining a high quality of both products and customer service. Making a profit does not not necessarily imply screwing over your customers over. Treating your customers with respect and catering to their wishes to create good word-of-mouth advertising(the best there is) is a perfectly viable business strategy.

      • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by KDan ( 90353 )
        I don't disagree with your statement, but I think that Google's support of chinese censorship cannot be construed to not be "evil", no matter which way you argue it. It fits right into the old saying, that capitalists would sell the rope that they'll be hung with.

        Daniel

        • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jedi Alec ( 258881 )
          like it or not, when you're an international business you have to deal with the local laws of the country you do business in. No matter how much you or me may dislike its practices, the chinese government is the chinese government, and if folks want to get rid of it or change its policies that's going to be up to the chinese people, not to Google.
        • Well, I would argue, then, that every piece of "made in China" stuff you own supports chinese censorship as well. Most of those chinese companies are one way or another run by those same evil oppressive Chinese Communist Party bastards.

          Since it is virtually impossible to live in a modern society (like, use a computer) w/o owning *something* that wasn't made or sourced from China these days, your argument is a red herring.

          Would China be changing (China now is different than China in 1972) without it being in
        • How is it evil? Just because you don't believe in a validity of a certain way of governing (attempting to strictly control information) doesn't mean that it's evil. That whole ethnocentric thing is tricky, eh?

          Just because they don't agree with a country's laws, doesn't mean that they can break those laws!

          • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

            by Zak3056 ( 69287 )
            How is it evil? Just because you don't believe in a validity of a certain way of governing (attempting to strictly control information) doesn't mean that it's evil.

            I'll accept that--while I personally may find the entire concept of communism (or at least the way it's actually been implemented thus far) to be "evil," I understand that others may disagree. After all, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" does indeed sound like a wonderful way to live, if impractical.

            However, wh

      • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        " Does this have to come up with each and every time?"

        Until people stop parroting Google's corporate motto like brainless sheep, yes. Until then, it's embarrasing watching a bunch of you with your pants around your ankles and your cheeks spread right in front of Google.

      • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

        by farble1670 ( 803356 )
        Making a profit does not not necessarily imply screwing over your customers over.

        i don't think anyone said that. the point is, for a public company, the goal is to maximize profits, period. if the company's actions happen to match some philosophy, well that's nice, but it's only a side affect. if you have any doubt, read this [businessweek.com] as reported by slashdot some months or so ago.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:40AM (#14194146) Journal
      Yes, it is true that companies must, by law, work in their shareholders' interests. However, this does not mean that the stock price must be maximized from quarter to quarter. There is nothing illegal about taking the long view and realizing that long-term profitability is maximized when the public respects your brand.

      The "shareholder's interest" argument really means that you can't use the company's money to put a new deck on your house. It is not sinister.

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheKubrix ( 585297 )
      did you even look into that financial page that you linked?

      hint: explore who the major holders are........
    • The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders in any way lawfully possible.
      This is incorrect. Their defining philosophy now, as before, is to keep their owners happy. Some owners will, as you imply, be happy only with companies that aggressively pursue profits. Others, including, presumably, most of Google's current owners, have other happiness-criteria.
      It can be conjectured that in due time, Google ownership will have changed around enough tha

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Informative)

      by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:52AM (#14194240) Homepage Journal
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=GOOG [yahoo.com]
      % of Shares Held by All Insider and 5% Owners: 35%
      % of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 38%
      Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 341

      insiders, 5%'s and institutions- none of those categories have any interest but in keeping the status quo..
      unlease there is actual belief of serious mis-management, institutional & mutual fund holders want stability, not strife.
      and they have 73% of the company....
      what I find more interesting, is how unbalanced the major insiders are as to ownership.

      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/81/5092.html [yahoo.com] senior VP with control of 117,075 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/67/3807.html [yahoo.com] president with control of 198,604 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/80/5092.html [yahoo.com] president with control of 231,124 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/20/976.html [yahoo.com] officer with control of 286,566 shares
      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/5444.html [yahoo.com] V-presdnt with control of 315,032 shares

      total 1,148,401 directly held by the top 5 guys in the company.
          but look who has the most.....

    • No, you're wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:53AM (#14194245) Homepage Journal
      The moment they went public, their defining philosophy turned into maximizing profits for their share holders

      That's wrong, or at least, the premise is incorrect. A publicly traded corporation is only required to abide by what their SEC paperwork says. For most companies, that does mean maximizing profits. But that's not an absolute rule.

      In Google's SEC filings, and in most of its public statements, it says they won't be evil. Any investor in the company is assumed to have read those filings and public comments. Caveat emptor.

      An accountant will tell you that "profit" is a somewhat artificial result. A complex set of corporate books allows you to attribute money to expenses, investment in future growth, savings for future tax liability, or whatever. Some companies choose to pay dividends, others choose to buy back their own stock. They have a range of options, as long as they cover themselves in their SEC filings.

      They do have to play by the rules, but maximizing profit isn't necessarily one of them, and it doesn't have to mean maximizing quarterly profit.

    • Bullshit. Just because you like to parrot a so-called 'truth' about capitalism, that doesn't make it true.

  • History Repeats (Score:5, Funny)

    by ehaggis ( 879721 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:30AM (#14194049) Homepage Journal
    I believe somewhere around 1550 B.C., a gentleman by the name of Moses received 10 rules from the CEO of the universe. Unfortunately the were not followed to closely. Time has a way of washing away convictions and ideals. I applaud Google for their intent, but I would wager these lofty goals will settle to reality when the bottom dollar hits the road.

    • Re:History Repeats (Score:5, Funny)

      by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:05PM (#14194348) Homepage
      Yeah, but Commandment 1 was about market share maintenance.

  • Rule number 11 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:30AM (#14194052)
    11) Having fricking huge piles of cash so you can actually afford to do 1-10.

    • Re:Rule number 11 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:42AM (#14194163) Homepage Journal
      What makes you so sure that 1-10 aren't why they have huge piles of cash?
      • 50 Cent and Sug Knight. Real Commandment following fellows.

      • Re:Rule number 11 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by AceJohnny ( 253840 )
        Because Google exists in a capitalist environment.

        Remember, capitalism is the economic system that's based on greed. It is the opposite of socialism, which is based on responsability and generosity. Guess which one worked out best?
        Capitalism is also pretty resistant to other negative human traits, like laziness. A lazy entity in a capitalist environment will soon be left out in the cold...

        Don't kid yourselves, rules 1-10 AREN'T what brought google it's huge piles of cash. And now that they're publicly trade
  • From TFA: For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months.

    Not only do they, as they said in this article, eat they own dog food, but they make us do it.

    Beta 1, Google Inc, Beta 2, The World!!
    • From TFA: For example, one of the reasons for Gmail's success is that it was beta tested within the company for many months.

      Not only do they, as they said in this article, eat they own dog food, but they make us do it.

      Nonsense. You don't have to subscribe to GMail, it's your own decision to eat their dogfood. If you don't like GMail, then don't subscribe.

  • Do no evil... (Score:4, Informative)

    by pmike_bauer ( 763028 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:32AM (#14194076)
    ...unless the Chinese communists need help [zdnet.co.uk].

  • elegance (Score:3)

    by DarkClown ( 7673 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:33AM (#14194083) Homepage
    I wish more desgin folks would take a cue from google's main search page at www.google.com and get the net back to a more simplicity/focus on content approach to delivering information.
    Interesting article - I believe the management really are smoking their own stuff, from what I've experienced from dealing with googles people.
    I just hope they don't get too spread thin and have trouble with upkeeping excellence with their various product.
    what is their slogan, anyway?
    • You mean the one that frequently has a boat load of tool bar advertisement crap spewed across it, trying to cram it down our throats? Who wants the search engine corrupting the desktop? Being used to the clean page, when I see that it is time to go elsewhere. A portal such as Yahoo looks better than that. Did I say it annoys me greatly?

  • Don't Be Evil?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:35AM (#14194096)
    I don't get why Google has to yammer on and on about "don't be evil". That would say to me that they think most companies are evil, and google has to be different and say that all the time.

    The fact is that the vast majority of businesses aren't evil, Microsoft included. They might do some bad things, but no reasonable person could say they are overall evil. Now Enron, and Worldcom could be considered evil, but there are the rare exceptions in American society, not the rule.

    I like google, but sometimes they are a little full of themselves. They are bright and smart people, maybe too smart for their own good. For all people talk about Microsoft and Apple's arrogance, Google has got a pretty big head for a company not even 10 years old.

    • The fact is that the vast majority of businesses aren't evil, Microsoft included. They might do some bad things, but no reasonable person could say they are overall evil. Now Enron, and Worldcom could be considered evil, but there are the rare exceptions in American society, not the rule.

      Hmm... I'll disagree, but their evilness comes out when they think you're trying to suck money out of them, whether it be insisting that their service sucked and you want your money back, that the product they sold to you s
    • yea I'm sure there's a rule somewhere about not gloating.

      I'm not too cozy with google or dislike them either. To me they are just mediocre with lots of good hype and cash. I hope they realize that at some point creating simple IM clients or map won't sustain them. They should be a good investment for a lot of years to come tho.

    • Enron's motto (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kevbo ( 3514 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:53PM (#14194821) Homepage
      Back in the day, Ken Lay, CEO of Enron, used to tout Enron's internal policy of always taking the moral high ground and that all its employees exhibited the highest ethical standards, even going so far as to say that Enron set the bar when it came to business ethics. Shocking to think that we cannot always trust what the heads of corporations tell us.
    • An interesting movie on this subject is The Corporation [thecorporation.com] (trailer [apple.com]). It argues that businesses exhibit many of the characteristics that define a psychopath:
      • Pathological lying
      • Conning/manipulative
      • Lack of remorse or guilt
      • Lack of realistic, long-term plans
      • Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

  • Rule #11 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frankie70 ( 803801 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:35AM (#14194097)
    But nobody throws chairs at Google, unlike management practices used at some other well-known technology companies.

    Thou shalt not be bitchy about competitors.

  • knowledge workers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by altoz ( 653655 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:36AM (#14194110)
    What interested me was how they treat "knowledge workers".

    Their principles can be summed up like this:

    1. Pay them based on what they produce, not how many hours they're in the office.
    2. Get out of their way whenever possible.
    3. Keep them informed
    4. Let teams make decisions, not some arrogant-but-stupid manager

    I say that's the sort of thing that makes me want to work there.
    • Don't forget, put them all in the same room.

      I'm not sure I like that. Assuming each shared office has a minimal number of people squeezed in (say 2 or 3), that the office is actually big enough to comfortablly house up to 3 people, and that all in the room are working on the same project -- then yes, I suppose this could work. Yet, there are still times when individual time with no distractions will yield the most productive and effective results. How does Google address that?
      • Telecommute? Go in at an odd hour? Or, you know, actually communicate with your office coworkers and let them know that you'd like such and such a time or day free? It's not like they are chained to an 8-5 schedule.

    • Re:knowledge workers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kin_korn_karn ( 466864 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:01PM (#14194319) Homepage
      The downside is that employers like Google expect you to love your job. If you do, good for you. But sometimes you will have other things that you need to do, but the nagging feeling that you're supposed to love your job and express that love by working your ass off will always come up, and you will feel like you're not doing enough for the great ideals of the Company.

      It its own way, that's a worse kind of pressure than Dilbert-style companies have, because it's ideological pressure. You can pretty much predict what a PHB wants - he wants you to do your job, make him look good, and, even though you might have to work overtime until you find a better job, it ends when you go home. If you're supposed to drink the kool-aid and live/breathe the company 'values', then the company is not just trying to take over your time, but your mind, and I for one would rather work a few extra hours at crunch time.

      • Re:knowledge workers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by drix ( 4602 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:30PM (#14194619) Homepage
        Wow, someone else finally gets that. I work in the Bay Area, I'm 23, lots of people I know works at Apple, Google, Pixar etc. Yes they are "great" places to work in the sense that my office doesn't have a volleyball court/laundromat/sumo stable/whatever. But everyone loses sight of the fact that the end goal of all these enticements is simply to get you to stay at work. That's it. To me, this melding of your personal and work lives is the most evil thing of all, and Google is king of it. I don't have $10 million in options sitting around, but I'm out the door most days at 5:00:00.00pm and I have lots of shit going on outside of work. Most of my microserf friends do not.

        • Being happy is good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:53PM (#14194831)

          But everyone loses sight of the fact that the end goal of all these enticements is simply to get you to stay at work. That's it.

          But on the other hand, the way they get you to stay at work is by making you genuinely want to stay at work because it's enjoyable. I really don't think that's evil--if it works, you are happy; if it doesn't then you don't have incentive to stay later than your work requires, and you go home.

          I work at one of the companies in your list, and I know people in both camps, and I haven't seen any negative repercussions for the people who don't spend their leisure time at work. They still get their work done, and management recognizes and respects that. Mileage may vary from group to group or company to company of course, but that's certainly the way it is all around me.

        • Note: I work at Google.

          The issue of how many hours you work is up to the person working. I think the point people miss is that places like Google attract work-a-holics. The whole of the Bay Area is like that. Personaly, I'm not that type. I go home at a reasonable hour and don't normaly check my work mail off-hours. Some days are exceptions, but that's normal for what I do at any work place. I don't think providing an atmosphere for work-a-holics to be happy is evil. Google is a good place to work, e

  • Google / ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Soko ( 17987 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:36AM (#14194112) Homepage
    One of our not-so-secret weapons is our ideas mailing list: a companywide suggestion box where people can post ideas ranging from parking procedures to the next killer app. The software allows for everyone to comment on and rate ideas, permitting the best ideas to percolate to the top.

    So, Google uses a Slash like moderation system? Imagine being able to moderate a PHB (-1, Talking out of Your ASS), or a colleague (-1, Clueless Luser). And moderating the CEO (-100, Evil - Fuck Shareholder Value, This is Wrong!) to keep them to thier word.

    That would be cool.

    Soko

  • The chair story - truth or fiction? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheNucleon ( 865817 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:39AM (#14194133)
    As anyone who reads past "Steve Ballmer was quoted as saying..." might recall, Ballmer denies the chair throwing incident. The fact that someone is accused of something doesn't make it true. Yes, Slashdotters, even if it is Steve Ballmer :-)

    If accusations are automatically true, then I accuse all Slashdot readers of being pathetic geeks with no life.

    Hey, wait a minute...

  • The book "Built to Last" is an excellent analysis of how companies that have a very specific and strongly-held set of core values, combined with a few other attributes, tend to last as successful organizations for decades, regardless of what is happening in their business environment. I highly recommend reading this book to anyone who is interested in creating a strong company. The "Do no evil" mantra falls into this type of core values. The article itself doesn't really discuss this, as it is more focus

  • Pack them in (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Billosaur ( 927319 ) * <wgrother AT optonline DOT net> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:42AM (#14194156) Journal
    Almost every project at Google is a team project, and teams have to communicate. The best way to make communication easy is to put team members within a few feet of each other. The result is that virtually everyone at Google shares an office. This way, when a programmer needs to confer with a colleague, there is immediate access: no telephone tag, no e-mail delay, no waiting for a reply. Of course, there are many conference rooms that people can use for detailed discussion so that they don't disturb their office mates. Even the CEO shared an office at Google for several months after he arrived. Sitting next to a knowledgeable employee was an incredibly effective educational experience.

    Someday I would like to find the person who came up with this concept and shoot them in the head. I find nothing enhances my productivity more than having to listen to other people's meaningless personal phone conversations or conference calls that have nothing to do with what I'm working on, the assorted smells and sounds the human body makes that are not pleasant, the incesant pinging and chiming of IMs and email alerts, not to mention having my personal business available to anyone who wishes to stare over my shoulder.

    Oh to have an office! And if I needed a co-worker's help and/or advice and they won't return emails/phone calls, I would simply get my butt out of my chair, go to their cubicle, grab them by the lapels (or goatee if there are no lapels) and tell them we need to have a little chat. There's nothing like the personal approach! And then I could return to my office, close the door, crank the Rush, and get back to doing what I'm supposed to be doing, which is coding.

    • Re:Pack them in (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:56AM (#14194273)
      Preach on, brother Billosaur!

      I have the same "colocation" attitude where I work that I fight endlessly.

      "We're networked!" says I. "You can instantly contact another person with any of five different methods. If they are out of touch for some reason, then they probably wouldn't have been in whatever densely packed cubicle farm into which you want to stuff eneryone. The occasional brainstorm/info sharing meeting is sufficient. We don't sit and hold hands and sing as we design. Grrrrrr!" At that point I usually start frothing and someone calls the company nurse for a sedative.

      I have said, in no uncertain terms, I *will* barricade myself in my office with the South facing windows and lovely view if they try to move me, and I will start tossing out dead laptops until my demands are met.

    • Re:Pack them in (Score:3, Insightful)

      by roman_mir ( 125474 )
      I work on contracts for 5 years already (5 years of perm before that drove me to this life :) so I have worked in 6 places in these 5 years (contracts come and go) and I think generally it is not a bad idea to put people on the same project into the same room.

      Now having said that I think there are certain things that should be considered before doing that. First: if people on the project hate each-other this will not help matters.

      Second: do not cram people into small rooms with no windows. It's horrible

  • "Don't be evil"??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by iion_tichy ( 643234 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:44AM (#14194176)
    Riiight... I know collecting data always only ever works out in favour of the individual that has been monitored. Lovely stuff like advertising tailored to your needs etc.

    How on earth does Google want to be not evil, when every single thing they do is designed to collect as much data about people as possible (and that includes "free WLAN for everybody" - monitor surfing habits at the root has to be Google's wet dream)? I think they would have to make a VERY directed effort to avoid being evil.
  • Reading the rules I was thinking how I'd like to work in a place like that. Then I thought 'wait a minute, I do work in a place like that'. But I'm in a research group at a university. One of the things that scares me from finding a so-called 'real job' in industry or business is the lack of these rules which we kind of take for granted in the ivory tower.

    Except of course for that "cater to their every need" rule. (Insert ramen joke here)
    • Reading between the lines...it's clear that Google isn't much different from any other high-tech company. The reason they want to provide everything to their employees is to keep them there all day and night to toil for Google. Seems much like M$....they provide everything on campus...so why leave?? Oh and by the way, while you're here...might as well put in another few hours coding...

      Bread and Circus....keep them fed and entertained and you can make them do anything!! Hoo ha haaaaaaa!

  • Agile Google (Score:4, Interesting)

    by under_score ( 65824 ) <mishkin@berteig. c o m> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:49AM (#14194219) Homepage

    Lots of what they are doing is in line with the Agile Work Axioms [agileaxioms.com] and agile practices. For example:

    • Cater to their every need -> Eliminate Waste
    • Pack them in, Data drive decisions, Communicate effectively -> Maximize Communication
    • Encourage creativity -> We are Creators, Empower the Team
    • Strive to reach consensus -> Self-Organizing Team, Trust is the Foundation
    • Don't be evil -> Trust is the Foundation
    • Data drive decisions -> Reality is Perceived
  • OK, here's a dump.

    This company is spooky in it's rate of innovation. Even, as the article points out, in it's management strategy as well.

    Google, being the most popular search engine on the planet is privilege to the tiniest emerging trends, harvested by our searches. Our collective secrets. So they know quite a bit about what we want.

    Rumors are that Google is considering Riya [riya.com] another spookily intelligent beta photo service that will probably put Flickr to shame while spark spin-off revolutions imposs

  • I wonder if this is all lies. After all why would they want to tell the competition how to complete with them. Yeah, sure do the laundry for every one. Then when they hear next week that Microsoft has started a laundry service for their employees Google can laugh and laugh.

  • Google is like the Beatles (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ankou ( 261125 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @11:57AM (#14194284)
    Oh ya see now Google has done it, 10 Golden Rules = 10 Commandments, I get it. Next thing you will hear is how Google is more popular than Jesus ... oh wait
  • You know what they say - rules are to be broken.
  • Talking about Google's rules are the "Don't be evil mantra", check out the Google & Kozoru [battellemedia.com] story. Don't be evil, yeah right!

  • serously. come on. This is a front pager? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CDPatten ( 907182 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:01PM (#14194316) Homepage
    Such a line of crap. "don't be evil" "tolerance"? "respect"? Kind of like the respect they have for the authors who have asked them not to scan their work, ya, they aren't evil at all. Ya its not evil just going ahead, ignoring the IP creators, just because "you know what's best for them" or to make some money. Yep, they aren't evil at all.

    Seriously the media loves google and that is the only reason the stock is so inflated. If we didn't know better you'd think they weren't the one with site traffic behind aol, yahoo, and msn, by ten of millions of visitors. Its similar to apple, by all the good press and constant front page articles you'd think they'd have more then a few percentage points of the desktop market, but nope.

    This at the end of the day is why all the predictions that Microsoft is going to fail "the next time around" never come true. Why that crowd is always dumbfounded that MS does so well time and time again. At some point you have to stop believing your won FUD and Fluff pieces and try to get the facts.

    Google's stock is going to cr4ash like the dot.com bubble. The only question is whether or not YOU will get your money out before or after it tanks.

  • 11, 12, 13... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    11. Only hire Ivy League grads.
    12. Make a reference to Stanford in the first five minutes of every conversation.
    13. Require hefty formal academic credentials for positions that are mostly clerical, administrative, or customer service. Because we're cool, like NeXT was.
    14. Use the "W" hotel for conferences; it impresses the kids.
    15. Eric Schmidt can lead us. After all, Sun did so well. And Novell, under his leadership. Plus, he looks like "Jimmy James" from News Radio.
    16. Search! Don't sort! DON'T SORT! Do i
  • That first rule looks like they've basically eliminated the whole HR department!

    Oh, since when did they decide that "Personnel Department" is no longer acceptable and rename it to "Human Resources"???
  • From TFA: What follows are seven key principles we use to make knowledge workers most effective.

    Seven,WTF? Is editing evil?

  • Google is fucking fantastic.. its hilarious hearing so many little tools complain about Google.. cmon.. its quite obvious they are the BEST at what they do.. the best search engine, the best advertisement deals, hell, they'll even give YOU money for putting some ads up on your blog.. let us not forget all the amazing software they have released as well.. Google Earth being one of those things..

    And even the Google Toolbar.. personally, it was the first "good" toolbars that actually worked, and blocked popu

  • Hire by committee.

    Is there a tech company that doesn't do this? And don't bring people in unless you have a position to fill. I once when through 13 hours of interviews, and then another 12 as a followup, only to find out the company didn't actually have any openings for my type of engineer. They just liked to talk to people with good resumes for future reference. I cursed their name thoroughly and darkly on the drive home, and then tech bubble burst the next week (true story), dragging their stock down 98

  • fuck google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @12:36PM (#14194670) Homepage Journal
    i swear, the more i hear about google, the more they sound like the borg from star trek: "resistance is futile" and all that

    of course i'll be modded into obvlivion for saying this, it goes agains the mindless slashot cliques: "google good, microsoft baaad" say the slashdot sheeple

    read the comment again. it's a stupid manifesto of corporate life. the point is, IT'S STILL SOUL SUCKING CORPORATE LIFE

  • I like 'em all except pack 'em in (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wansu ( 846 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @02:01PM (#14195542)


    I particularly like "Hire by Committee". This tends to weed out those individuals with work disrupting character flaws.

    I don't like "Pack 'em in". Individual offices are much better. Phone tag and emails are not that big a problem. The practice of setting up "war rooms" or "pack 'em in" is done to indimidate workers. The way to get out of one of these bullpens is to eat Mexican food, chili or perhaps Indian food and cut rank farts until they beg you to move.
     

  • Mission Statements. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Tuesday December 06, 2005 @03:06PM (#14196271)
    The following are some examples of mission statements from real enterprises. . .

    Mary Kay Cosmetics: "To give unlimited opportunity to women."
    Right. And they do this by adding their weight to the ceaseless hammering of women through the media with the message, "Your natural body state is Ugly. You will be Unloved and Unhappy unless you use our Products." Oooh. Feel the power.

    Merck: "To preserve and improve human life."
    One word: "Vioxx".

    Well, maybe a second word, "Thimerosal" (Mercury) in their various vaccines, including their flu shot.

    Wal-Mart: "To give ordinary folk the chance to buy the same thing as rich people."
    Selling out the West to the Chinese might kill the economy altogether, which will certainly mean that the rich and the poor might share the same bread lines. Sort of a weird way to level the playing field if you ask me, but what do I know. . ?

    Interestingly, another of Wal-Mart's mission statements was, "Become a $125 billion company by the year 2000". Ah. Greed; the very spirit of altruism! No conflict there, boy!

    Walt Disney: "To make people happy."

    Why does that send a chill up my spine? How about, "Offer happiness"? Or at least, offer media which some might find uplifting. In any case, I can't help but recall the episode where Disney security staff held the body of a boy who drowned on one of their rides under water until the park closed so that nobody would have their, "happiness" (or their PR) spoiled by the unpleasant aspect of a dead boy being returned to grieving parents before closing time. How about, "Disney: Where ignorance is bliss, and enforced."

    McDonald's: "McDonald's vision is to be the world's best quick service restaurant experience. Being the best means providing outstanding quality, service, cleanliness, and value, so that we make every customer in every restaurant smile."

    Another nice-sounding mission statement from a company which helps kill Americans with toxic food and destroys millions of acres of rainforest globally to do it. Cool.

    So, is Google evil?

    Spiderman said it best; "With great power. . ." I use Google's search engine all the time. Their potential to reshape the world, as with all of the above corporate giants, is certainly there. And so is the corporate culture which allows amoral activities to rule their actions. So evil or not, I think a healthy amount of skepticism and observation and keeping brushed up on alternatives is very wise. --Because mission statements alone don't keep people honest.


    -FL

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close