

Ideas at Google do not burst forth from the Heads of Geniuses - rams
http://friendfeed.com/e/633a838a-de4c-11dc-b679-003048343a40

======
ardit33
I agree, but these ideas come to fruit, mainly b/c there are a lot of smart
people working at google and keep the mediocre factor low.

In any big company, as soon you get few idiots as managers, they will start
hiring even bigger idiots, lowering productivity, increasing political b.s and
chronyism -which tends to kill inovation from below. Most decissions are done
in upper management level, from people with fancy titles as VPs of something,
who often are disascotiated from reality and the user base, or favorise poor
ideas and products b/c it suits better their career. In these companies, where
Top down level approach of management exists, the engnieers take a back seat.

At google, despite its large size, it still manages to have a bottom up
aproach to new products and ideas.

~~~
xirium
The Peter principle ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle> ) can
lead to a bozo explosion (
<http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/02/how_to_prevent_.html> ).

I believe that there are two factors which influence likelihood of a bozo
explosion. The first is the organisation's rate of expansion. The second is
the quality of human resources.

Regarding the rate of expansion, it is widely known that a company which
repeatly grows at 100% per year is consumed by bozos. However, an organisation
which does not expand may also be consumed by bozos. This is because the
superstars don't wish to remain in a company which is mere "treading water"
and therefore the quality of staff declines. It is very likely that the
optimal rate of expansion is small and steady on the basis that it is better
to not hire at all rather than hire badly.

Regarding human resources, if you've got a company with 100 staff then it is
logical to delegate hiring. At this point, hiring takes a life of its own.
After human resources personnel are added or replaced, you'll have people
who've been hired by people who've been hired by people that you hired
personally. If you're not careful then new hires could be of _any_ quality.

Google has been relatively close to 100% expansion in some years. So, I'd
argue that Google's human resources is closely monitored. Indeed, you could
take an educated guess and say that the success of hiring could be monitored
with an algorithm. Maybe this is a ranking algorithm? It is also extremely
probable that job applications are filtered automatically.

------
wallflower
Google seems to have a Darwinian approach to innovation. Perhaps it works.
These success stories are the ones that thrived and made it to the next
generation. It's nice to hear for every Google News there is unmentionable
projects. I wonder if Google has a technical caste system similar to MSFT.

