Google’s 10 rules compared to Microsoft

Microsoft and GoogleMSNBC posted Google: Ten golden rules by Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, on how Google manages their knowledge worker staff.

I know many people that work at both Google and Microsoft, and I’m sure this will be upsetting to all of them: the spirit of nearly all these rules are shared by both companies.

Having spent time at Google, I know it’s a special place. There are many things about their environment that are very different from Microsoft.

However Schmidt’s MSNBC piece has little to do with what those things are. Here’s a critique on how similiar this list of Google’s CEO’s rules are to my recollections of Microsoft’s approach.

  • Hire by committee. The article suggests (and I’ve been told) Google requires unanimous approval. Everyone you talk to must say yes. Microsoft’s bar is set by the team maanger. They expect a majority, but rarely require 100% consensus. But the basic format, you have intense real-problem focused interviews with 5-7 of your potential peers, each of whom gets to vote hire/no-hire, is the same.
  • Cater to their every need. In the early 1990s Microsoft formalized many of the fringe benefits some software companies gave their employees. Private offices with windows. Free soda. Good and cheap food. Showers in the parking lots. Massages during crunch time. Health club membership. Discounts at museums. Mega-flex time (just get your stuff done, we don’t care when you’re here, or for how long). Today there’s no comparison: Google is still small enough to do things MSFT never did, and currently can’t afford. But the attitude is the same: it’s the level of execution that’s different. It will be harder for Google to maintain those costs as the company grows and the rate of growth slows (It may take awhile, but it will happen): a challenge Microsoft is still dealing with.
  • Pack them in. Gates always believed that co-location was critical to getting work done with others, which matches Schmidt’s beliefs. Unlike Intel, a company that distributes it’s offices across the world, most of Microsoft’s core development teams are within walking distance of each other. Microsoft stops at the office level: Gates always believed that programmers need private spaces to be productive, whereas Google believes in shared spaces. But the core philosophy of easy access is shared. Microsoft does have some shared space teams, but it’s not the standard.
  • Eat your own dogfood . I doubt Microsoft invented the term, but they certainly popularized it in the 90s. This has always been a core value at Microsoft, and it’s been documented in various books about MSFT development practices. Everyone, from VPs to programmers are asked, begged, bribed, and cajoled into using early and experimental builds of new software. The problem eventually becomes this: how many things can you dogfood successfully at the same time?
  • Encourage creativity. Is there a CEO that would say they discourage creativity? Google wins here easily, as the 20% side project rule is a formalized and their campus is built for creative stimulation (unlike Microsoft’s relentless architectural repitition and squareness). But in my time at Microsoft (94-2003) side projects always happened – the difference was that it was up to my manager and I to negotiate what they’d be: I couldn’t argue for them on the basis of a promise the CEO made about encouraging creativity.
  • Strive to reach consensus. Microsoft is the poster child of consensus. For anyone that’s been a manager there, it’s well known that rough consensus is a necessary condition for many senior level decisions. This has become a bottleneck for many groups, as their size makes consensus management a painful and often self-defeating process (A fact that makes many of mini-Microsoft ‘s comments valid. I’m waiting for the mini-google to arrive). But the point is: both Microsoft and Google have management philosophies based on the value of consensus.
  • Don’t be evil. Definitely differences here. First, I never got a “Be evil” memo at Microsoft. The message I did get was this: WIN. There is a difference. While trying to WIN won’t get you sainthood, it’s philosophically indifferent: it’s about a result. Many things Microsoft was criticized for came from someone trying to WIN in the short term, without recognizing the long term consequences of how they won. Call it stupid, selfish or immature, but evil often (but not always) seemed a stretch. Google’s choice to make a public philosophical stance is noble, and puts the rest of the business world in cowardly relief (Although, where is the company that says “We actually do GOOD?”) But the stance is rife with problems. Any time you in are in a zero-sum competition, and WIN, even if you do so graciously, there will often be someone who feels they lost who will point a finger at you and say “You did evil to me”. Watching a major corporation manage a philosophical, moral position is fascinating, and definitely something Microsoft has never done.
  • Data driven decisions. Is there anywhere in the tech-sector that isn’t data driven at the management level? I happen to think we’ve gone too far, and abuse data left and right. But it’s well documented that compaines including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Google are all intensely data driven.
  • Communicate effectively. All hands meetings and beer Fridays are industry and bay area staples, as is the occurance of executives saying “we should communicate effectively with each other”. Is there anyone out there that advocates bad communication? Holds miscommunication rallies? I think the problem with this entry, and the list, is it’s a platitude. The notion of good communication is universal: but the sucessful practice of it is rare. Closing that gap is where the magic is at.

In Summary: there’s little motivation for the CEO of a leading company to reveal what he thinks the true secrets or powerful rules are. There’s more to lose than to gain. But this piece, as fluffy as it is, doesn’t say much about management than anyone paying attention didn’t already know.

7 Responses to “Google’s 10 rules compared to Microsoft”

  1. Kim Greenlee

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for this post. I really enjoyed it. Because my software career has focused on small companies and startups I’ve worked for a lot of different companies and managers and I can say that, in my experience anyway, Google isn’t doing anything that other people aren’t doing. It’s just common sense. If you want to win the game, then you have to take care of business. Taking care of business means getting and keeping good people, making the best decisions you can (we rarely have all the information we would like to have), and trying to out perform and out think the competition. You need to win because winning pays the bills.

    I also agree that private offices are important. Especially if your position requires meetings and phone conversations. I really hate the cubicle world because of the sound distractions. (And because tall people often walk around and look over the walls. Maybe I’m just a little jealous on that one.)

    Thanks,

    Kim

    Reply
  2. Jordan

    I agree with you on all except the “don’t be evil” point:

    > Many things Microsoft was criticized for came from someone trying to WIN in the short term, without recognizing the long term consequences of how they won. Call it stupid, selfish or immature, but evil often (but not always) seemed a stretch.

    I call it monopolistic; and the company would have been split by the DOJ were it not for the downturn in the economy and fear of further upsetting the markets.

    > But the stance is rife with problems. Any time you in a zero-sum competition, and WIN, even if you do so graciously, there will often be someone who feels they lost who will point a finger at you and say “You did evil to me”.

    See: The Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

    > Watching a major corporation manage a philosophical, moral position is fascinating, and definitely something Microsoft has never done.

    Right, and I think this ties into deficiencies in other areas such as creativity, innovation, and communication. Perhaps they’re too busy trying to “win”.

    Jordan

    Reply
  3. Scott (admin)

    Uh oh – you threw down the M word. Not sure why you did that, as I’m not sure it has anything to do with The Google golden rules, or my comments on it. If you want to tell me Microsoft is a monopoly and should be split, that’s fine but I don’t understand what it has to do with “Don’t be evil” or the comparative philosophy Microsoft has.

    And on Friedman: it’s a good link. Although i think he needs to read about the death of the commons (which surprisingly is hard to find a link or good reference to). Selfish behavior, even self-defeating, is human: and as soon as they gave corporations the same protections as individuals (1865) the door was opened for corporations to take on all the same failings that people have, only worse as leaders can hide behind the legal protections corporations give them.

    But this is so far off topic it makes my head hurt.

    Back on topic: I think the special sauce that Eric didn’t write about was people, leadership and freedom. It’s always about the basics: A) hire good people. B) Have strong leaders who create understandable goals. C) Give A lots of freedom to figure out how best to satisfy B. End of story. A,B & C isn’t fancy or PhD worthy, but for a long time it’s been the most obvious formula for making good things happen.

    Reply
  4. Marc Bernard

    > But this piece, as fluffy as it is, doesn’t say much about management
    > than anyone paying attention didn’t already know

    Exactly. And yet the world is rife with companies that can’t even get these basics right.

    As far as eating your own dogfood, I can’t believe many developers were using VS.NET 2003 (and 2005, from what I hear) before it was released.

    Reply
  5. George Baker

    I wanted to respond to Kim’s point: ‘Google isn’t doing anything that other people aren’t doing’.

    Let me offer you something that they are doing that many other companies are not doing in the technology arena in particular and in the business world in general and that is: innovating. I can’t say that I know exactly why this is, but if you look over our American business landscape you will see a terrible fear of innovation and risk and failure. American businesses on the whole are being told that they are successful by Wall Street and profit number standards while not realizing that if they continue at their same pace of innovation they soon will be looking in the mirror and they will be Ford, or GM.

    Reply

Pingbacks

Leave a Reply

* Required