Re:Nest’s time at Alphabet
by stcredzero on Sunday June 05, 2016 @06:17PM
(#11843440)
But proposing incremental improvements at Google when I was there was death, you were accused of "not thinking big enough" and everything had to be a "moonshot".
Sounds like this was used as a bludgeon for attacking competitors.
Bottom line is that competition within a structure is good, its something that lots of organizations have applied successfully. Google's style, when I was there, was never structured enough to head toward anything. It always went all directions at once, leaving the organization with a net zero momentum in any direction.
My experience with such competition, is that groups actually tend to undermine each other instead of pulling together with cohesive effort. Here, the lowered cost of transactions within a company can allow other groups within a company to act as gatekeepers -- otherwise "enemy" in-company groups can be penalized with higher (outside company) transaction costs for getting things done. This is especially true when project budgets are made with in-company costs in mind.
Sounds like this was used as a bludgeon for attacking competitors.
Bottom line is that competition within a structure is good, its something that lots of organizations have applied successfully. Google's style, when I was there, was never structured enough to head toward anything. It always went all directions at once, leaving the organization with a net zero momentum in any direction.
My experience with such competition, is that groups actually tend to undermine each other instead of pulling together with cohesive effort. Here, the lowered cost of transactions within a company can allow other groups within a company to act as gatekeepers -- otherwise "enemy" in-company groups can be penalized with higher (outside company) transaction costs for getting things done. This is especially true when project budgets are made with in-company costs in mind.