

When G.M. Was Google: The art of the corporate devotional - digisth
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/01/g-m-google

======
simula67
Very interesting article, if you ignore the unnecessary jabs at Google,
youngsters and the uncorroborated praise for GM.

But there is an interesting point to note here : GM is not fundamentally the
same as Google or other software companies of today. Companies which make
physical goods, make more money through making more and more of the same
thing. If they have done it many times, the process is well-understood and can
be managed by a specialized person ( who specialises in management ) in a
central way and that is probably more efficient.

Software companies make money from making new and different things. To make a
new copy of a software once it is written, all it takes is Ctrl + C and Ctrl +
V, or make a new web request. These type of companies are probably more
efficient if you simplify the communication structures enabling more
collaboration. The well-understood parts ( such as Amazon warehouses, Apple's
supply chain etc ) can still be managed using the old management style. The
creative organizations can still use the new management style.

You can see this style variation when the founders are ousted from the company
and management is handed off to MBA folks ( Apple with John Sculley etc. ).
Maybe by the time the founders from the new age tech companies have to pass
the baton, the management schools of thought will catch up to this ( they
already seems to be doing so ) and things won't be so bad as the author
predicts.

~~~
Spooky23
Google's output isn't code. Its monetized services -- search + tiny classified
ads.

The management people direct the output and make the deals. Engineers and
programmers write the code that makes the machine work. At GM, engineers
design the car and assembly people build the machines.

There are more similarities than differences. GM (or any car company) uses
robots to automate repetitive and error-prone human processes, just like a
tech company does.

------
hackuser
Summary: A very interesting essay providing context for Silicon Valley's
management style. Google is not as different from GM as we might think, and is
trying to solve many of the same organizational problems. GM was the great
innovator in management at one time and there is a long history of celebrating
the current management fad as freeing employees, and as being generalizable.

~~~
Zigurd
There are some interesting similarities. And that could have been the extent
of the article.

Unlike Google, GM was born in corporate intrigue and the kind of inward-
looking backstabbing that hasn't taken hold at Google. It isn't as if there
ever was a golden age of GM management culture.

Back in Sloan's day it was a huge achievement to make a large, people-powered
management hierarchy work at all. Google was born after those large
hierarchies became a liability.

It would be better to compare Google to a lightwieght management structure
like that of the East India Company. It would be interesting to compare the
square footage devoted to management at the East India Company (East India
House, one of the first buildings purpose-built as a corporate office
building), Google, and GM.

~~~
chollida1
> Unlike Google, GM was born in corporate intrigue and the kind of inward-
> looking backstabbing that hasn't taken hold at Google

This is just completely false. Google has just as much backstabing and
infighting at the exec level as an company out there.

Well at least according the Larry Page:

> Finally, Page laid down the law: "If you keep fighting, we'll be very happy
> to send you to the competition."

> During the speech, one of the executives who was in the room turned to a
> friend and whispered:

> "Did he just say, 'zero tolerance for fighting? I've been here for years.
> All we do is fight."

[http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-and-politics-at-google-
it...](http://www.businessinsider.com/sex-and-politics-at-google-its-a-game-
of-thrones-in-mountain-view-2013-9)

~~~
presootto
>This is just completely false. Google has just as much backstabing and
infighting at the exec level as an company out there.

Of course it does. And much more then people outside of the company think. As
long as people like Eric Schmidt are on board there will be no shortage of
hypocrisy and backstabbing.

Disclaimer: I work for TAGA (The Arrogant Google Assholes)

------
spinchange
I wonder if it would have made a difference for GM to have pursued more
moonshots in automobiles and transportation in general over the last 50-60
years instead of just operational & profit/cost efficiencies and incremental
product improvements.

~~~
delucain
I too often find myself wondering this same thing. Anyone have any insight?

~~~
csours
I work at GM and have read several books on the subject.

GM DID pursue some moonshots - see below.

In my opinion GM's great downfall was not pursuing continuous improvement. Top
management had the belief that GM was the market leader and thus people would
buy cars from the market leader. This led to all sorts of bad decisions in the
service of running high-volume low quality vehicles.

V-8-6-4 L62 Engine (variable cylinder usage): It ran rough and didn't work
very well - Later efforts worked much better and go under the name Active Fuel
Management

EV1: some people loved it; it may have been before it's time

Quadrasteer: All 4 wheels can turn. People who bought this option loved it;
not enough people bought it.

------
clifmo
Stopped reading at the word ninja

~~~
jfoutz
That's a good heuristic for job offers and most marketing materials. In the
context of the new yorker, you might want to reevaluate that model.

Writers there are first and foremost writers, they're attracted to the context
of words and how they're used. For better or worse, ninja is the parlance of
our time.

I think these kinds of 6k articles written by a non professional are intended
to give an outsider the feel of what it would be like to be there. Seemed
pretty effective to me.

~~~
clifmo
Fair enough. I first heard the term used outside of normal context used to
describe Juggalos and fans of ICP. I think that explains my strong aversion.

