It’s old news now but Ian Hickson’s post on leaving Google after 18 years introduced a really a really fascinating idea. It’s a great read throughout – and in places surprisingly direct and acerbic about senior Google managers – but the bit that particularly stood out to me was this:
‘Google’s culture eroded. Decisions went from being made for the benefit of users, to the benefit of Google, to the benefit of whoever was making the decision.’
And Ian goes further, showing how rounds of layoffs – done purely to support the stock price – helped bake in this individual-centric ethic:
The effects of layoffs are insidious. Whereas before people might focus on the user, or at least their company, trusting that doing the right thing will eventually be rewarded even if it’s not strictly part of their assigned duties, after a layoff people can no longer trust that their company has their back, and they dramatically dial back any risk-taking. Responsibilities are guarded jealously. Knowledge is hoarded, because making oneself irreplaceable is the only lever one has to protect oneself from future layoffs.
Of course, anyone who’s worked in a firm can understand what is being said here. And perhaps what is really remarkable is that Google could maintain a genuine future- and user- orientated culture for so long. But I think Ian has brought a new clarity to this discussion. Often we’re left feeling a bit bemused when HR, leadership or consultants talk of ‘culture’ but can there be a clearer explanation than looking at who benefits – and who is intended to benefit – from decisions.
I’ve worked on teams where the user (or at least the product) is what is driving decisions and action. But I’ve seen the often short term prioritisation of staff interests way too often too. And I’m not just talking about big cheeses and their bonuses. Even individual designers or developers can act this way. Constructing a workplace where this doesn’t happen is no small feat, it does require psychological safety, it does require a clear vision (else, how can we align with it), it does require ‘failure’ to be a shared thing, and – most importantly perhaps – it requires the absence of individual goals.
I don’t mean people should be unsupervised of course. But the kind of brutalistic ‘management by results’ which we often see preached, as if we were all training for an individual Olympic event like the 100m, simply has no place.
Again, in the cold light of day, this is little more than advanced common sense. It’s so obvious, I can’t imagine anyone even questioning it, but how long before we’re in a 1:1 meeting setting our FY24 objectives? All of this while the HR director will say with a straight face that it’s all about team work.
The sort of dysfunction Ian Hickson describes from Google’s later days is a much more advanced rot. Again many of us will have seen bits of it: managers fighting for resource, more focussed on beating each other than beating the competition or helping a customer. But – by act or omission – you have to conclude that it is of our own making.
Leading product 