Ironically I think Facebook is one example that (at least in the early days) had values that actually had teeth.

"Move fast and break things" isn't just a feel-good truism like most values that companies come up with are. It's something that at least some people are going to disagree with, and it's something that can actually be instructive when making a decision at that company.

I don't personally agree with it, but I respect that at least in the past Facebook was willing to take a stance on how they developed products that wasn't some saccharine feel-good BS that values usually are.

"Break things" like democracy, I guess.

It might actually be that things like election interference came up so quickly that their problem was not moving fast enough to stop it before it was a problem. If their motto was "observe the problem for a year and have at least thirty-three planning meetings before making a decision", would they have addressed the problem better? Probably not. The problem was that they didn't move fast enough and break enough things.

Move fast and say oops, we'll try to do better.

That was their motto, but didn't they also have a mission statement that was about connecting people?

That was just TED talk style marketing fluff.

So every company mission statement ever?

"Move fast and break things" sounds more like humanity's approach to global warming than a wise and sustainable business approach.

That's the point of the parent : at least the motto has a point and mean something that you can debate, a nice change from marketing meaningless bullshit like "Imagination at work" (GE) or "Energy lives here" (Exxon)

That's more of an operating mode than a purpose.

It unofficially changed a couple years ago to: "Move fast and break things. And fix your shit."

(source: my brother, who worked there for a few years following acquisition)

Think of them as the "objective" section on a resume, something you really only tend to have early on in your career... as you get more experienced, you dont have an "objective" section any longer - and you realize that the only true objective-statement on a resume is "to get a paying job"...

Tech is generally worse. Mostly because there's no check on hyperbole.

Most businesses have an official mission statement to the effect of: "Help people do {x} at a competitive price."

Only a 23 year old CEO says things like "Changing the world by connecting people."

Amusingly enough, I’d argue Zuckerberg nailed that mission.

We grew up wondering how we'd change the world but never stopped and thought about whether or not what we had in mind was all that good of an idea...

There's a Jurassic Park quote in here somewhere...

"Hold onto your butts"

"Clever girl"

That's a cynical position, and tends to be correct!

A real one does have a _huge_ effect on the culture of the organisation, above and beyond what is achievable otherwise. I've seen one be transformative at a former workplace. I hope you have the opportunity as part of your career.

That outlier quality is why they are seen as important, even if they get cargo-culted in most instances.

Maybe it's the flip side of the hustle mentality that the mission statement is used to manipulate rather than a genuine expression of shared values and goals?

>My assumption with mission statements was that they were always bullshit made up by a marketing team or some exec

In my experience they are concocted by a dozen people from across the company sitting in a room all day filling white boards with feel good, businessy words that only vaguely relate to their employer.

Agreement on the mission statement has to be unanimous within this group as well as being signed off on by several execs who will not be present during its drafting. The requirement for consensus ensures that only something incredibly tepid can get over the line.

Amazon has "Leadership Principles". Lots of them. And they (we? I work there) do seem to take them seriously.

Hiring? Every interviewer is trying to gain insight into one or two of those specific leadership principles. Promotions? Better have demonstrated them and have documentation to prove it.

It's not perfect, but the company tries really hard to make them not be bullshit.

Not at all, but it's important to know that they're not universally bullshit. The last two companies I've worked for (both <1k people) have genuinely valued their mission statements, and finally incentivise results that exemplify it.

I work in Google and the mission statement seems to be followed.

Show the ads to the most users with the highest bid price ?

What is Google's mission nowadays? I don't see them following a lot of "Organize the world's information and make it open". There's a ton of closed walls, they even acquired companies like freebase and then their stuff went behind closed doors.

If I remember right from when I worked there (years ago), the wording is "Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." I can definitely see interpretations of that which require direct and open access to the raw data and others which just require universal and useful access to an assistive/suggestive product or service that leverages the data.

To be clear, I prefer the first interpretation, but I realize open data geeks (and those who would use the raw data if granted access) are far fewer than ML geeks (and those who enjoy the automagic suggestions) and the gap is only widening.

If I’m interpreting you correctly, both those approaches involve Google housing (owning?) the data.

In the early days of Google, I assumed that to organize and make accessible meant to index and link to information presented by others - and not to ‘own’ the data.

It saddens me that that interpretation is no longer correct - and perhaps never was?

I wouldn't know what the early interpretation was - I was there in 2006 as an intern plus 2011-2015 as a full-timer.

But the wording is certainly neutral on who houses and owns the data.

I'm guessing that you're right as to the early interpretation, since that's what makes sense for web search.

But other interpretations are the logical thing to think of first for some of their more recent ML-powered assist/suggest products, and the wording of the mission statement leaves product managers and architects/designers free to apply whatever interpretation makes natural sense in context.

I'm a very big user of Google Books. They've digitized a large chunk of the world's libraries and made them freely available. Despite the thousand and one ways in which they have betrayed their original principles, I am personally very grateful for this one offering of theirs.

Don't be evil...

...except when helping the Chinese government oppress and spy on its citizens.

That is not the mission statement.

Mostly, but not always. Patagonia seems to genuinely follow their mission statement:

"Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."

https://www.patagonia.com/company-info.html

By making clothes out of plastic?

They make clothes out of plastic in order to recycle. It is a conscious choice they make. (I read the book by the founder.) Patagonia may be the only company I trust.

This was the book, I suspect:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22155.Let_My_People_Go_S...

Powerful read that also happens to be interesting.

Recommended.

They probably also contribute to microplastics pollution when the clothes slowly break down during washing. Intentions don't matter anywhere near as much as results. In the real world, you get rewarded only for achieving results, not for trying.

I'll take intentions over wilful ignorance any day

Ignorant/mistaken good intentions can do great harm. The difference comes when someone is told that they are doing harm. Do they stop or carry on?

Well when they’ve been told then it ceases to be good intentions no?

You must be fun in the real world.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. They acknowledge there are always trade offs and costs. Their goal is to find the option that does the least harm.

Plus they're actively working on the microplastics problem: https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/02/an-update-on-microfib...

In regards to their product, they make high quality clothing that lasts longer (reducing consumption) and sheds less.