I disagree with you (even despite the fact that the author describes himself as a buzzwordy "Enterprise SaaS Executive" -- he writes better than someone with a description like that should be able to).
It's no secret, within Google or without, that Google is not particularly well run. This article cites the sales team (without backing up the talk) but talk to any of the tech folks and most will tell you the same thing. And as the article says, the Street seems to think so too.
What Google _does_ get right are two things. First, they do get the core stuff right: search, search infrastructure, and adsense. That's sine qua non and they aren't bozos! Second, at the other end, the stuff that's flakyest is the stuff that _should_ be flaky: Google X (and as the article says, it's a tiny amount of money).
In between, however, the company isn't great. Not a mess, but mediocre on execution. The article says that the company's killing of products is a sign they are trying to get their house in order. I don't see it, but it could certainly be true.
The good news for Google is that they have a huge cash flow so can actually afford to take their time to fix things. The bad news is that they have a huge cash flow which removes any sense of urgency. Big cash flow covers a multitude of sins.
Big cash flow kills a lot of companies. In such a circumstance hard to do anything new, especially since while it's new it doesn't move the needle on revenue. That's why great, paranoid companies like Intel and Microsoft that had dominant cash flow suddenly struggled when the tide went out. In the case of IBM they had an existential (near death) experience and it forced them to get their act together.
The point of books like these is to be talismanic. The company is successful so others look for the surface gimmicks that made it successful. It almost doesn't matter what is inside them, since the readers generally aren't looking for insight but rather validation (they are the business equivalent of self help books).
I wasn't responding to the entire article. I agree that he got a few things right.
The specific part I quoted, though, stands out to me as a rather old-fashioned management philosophy, one that is unlikely to attract and retain top talent in a competitive hiring market.
It's no secret, within Google or without, that Google is not particularly well run. This article cites the sales team (without backing up the talk) but talk to any of the tech folks and most will tell you the same thing. And as the article says, the Street seems to think so too.
What Google _does_ get right are two things. First, they do get the core stuff right: search, search infrastructure, and adsense. That's sine qua non and they aren't bozos! Second, at the other end, the stuff that's flakyest is the stuff that _should_ be flaky: Google X (and as the article says, it's a tiny amount of money).
In between, however, the company isn't great. Not a mess, but mediocre on execution. The article says that the company's killing of products is a sign they are trying to get their house in order. I don't see it, but it could certainly be true.
The good news for Google is that they have a huge cash flow so can actually afford to take their time to fix things. The bad news is that they have a huge cash flow which removes any sense of urgency. Big cash flow covers a multitude of sins.
Big cash flow kills a lot of companies. In such a circumstance hard to do anything new, especially since while it's new it doesn't move the needle on revenue. That's why great, paranoid companies like Intel and Microsoft that had dominant cash flow suddenly struggled when the tide went out. In the case of IBM they had an existential (near death) experience and it forced them to get their act together.
The point of books like these is to be talismanic. The company is successful so others look for the surface gimmicks that made it successful. It almost doesn't matter what is inside them, since the readers generally aren't looking for insight but rather validation (they are the business equivalent of self help books).