I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission, he just lacks the ability to be a bold and decisive leader. This can be a good thing in some cases (he is good at building consensus for example), but can also be harmful.

A quick Google (natch!) suggests that the company mission is: “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”

Does he "care deeply" about this? If we look at the direction they've taken in recent years, and the products they've launched (and/or killed) - how many of them demonstrate a "deep care" about this mission? How many of them are even tangentially related to this mission?

(The projects that Google undertook in the early days --Earth, Maps, Mail, digitising whole libraries, photographing the world for StreetView-- definitely showed a dedication to this mission statement.)

I don’t find the world information on Google when I search.

Gmail works much better. It does, indeed, organize the world’s information, the world’s private and corporate information.

But the only who can really search through it is the CIA. Maybe we’re not the real customers ;)

The notion of organizing private information (VS the public internet) helped me shift my perspective a bit, thank you. It also dramatically amplified my feelings about other Google products, like Drive, which do an absolutely terrible job organizing and making private information accessible. It's almost maliciously bad.

Everything is branded for what it is not.

Google’s mission is to display ads on everything. Organizing information is just an optional side quest when it enables the former.

What argument are you trying to make here? This feels very “I’m going to logic you into my view”. Google is a large, nuanced organisation. The measure of Sundar “caring deeply” doesn’t have to be filtered through a marketing slogan.

The previous poster wrote (of Sundar): "I think he cares deeply about the company and its mission..."

I'm not trying to make an argument; instead, I was:

1) Checking what Google's mission is these days (as I'm not clear if the mission statement I found is indeed still their mission, and/or the one that the previous poster said that he cares deeply about)

2) If that is the correct mission statement, testing the premise that he cares deeply about it, by exploring the direction the company under his leadership has taken.

Sounds like he's more suitable to be 2IC (eg 2nd in charge, not the leader) then?

Why even write 2IC if you then have to explain what it is?

Because it's a term familiar to some, and not to others.

What were you thinking the answer would be?

The better question is why did you use "eg" when you meant "i.e."? :)

Meh, no-one gives a shit. ;)

He’s the Steve Balmer of Google

Steve Ballmer was not a technologist but he had something more than a been counter despite all his flaws.

>He’s the Steve Balmer of Google

No, he isn't. However misguided and ridiculous Balmer was, he at least showed that he was fully alive [1]

Sundar wouldn't be caught dead wearing a sweaty shirt or yelling on a stage. The dude is a fucking wax puppet.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxbJw8PrIkc