• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Google’s 20% Time/Time Off "effectively no longer exists"

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Milchjon

Member
Quartz:

When Google went public in 2004, the founders’ letter from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin cited 20% time as instrumental to the company’s ability to innovate, leading to “many of our most significant advances,” including AdSense, which now accounts for about 25% of the company’s $50+ billion in annual revenue. Google engineers also used 20% time to incubate Gmail, Google Transit, Google Talk, and Google News, among other projects.

Here’s how Google has effectively shut down 20% time without actually ending the program, says our source: First, as has been reported previously, Google began to require that engineers get approval from management to take 20% time in order to work on independent projects, a marked departure from the company’s previous policy of making 20% time a right of all Googlers.

Recently, however, Google’s upper management has clamped down even further, by strongly discouraging managers from approving any 20% projects at all. Managers are judged on the productivity of their teams—Google has a highly developed internal analytics team that constantly measures all employees’ productivity—and the level of productivity that teams are expected to deliver assumes that employees are working on their primary responsibilities 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Another sign of how Google's attitudes have changed? I've always thought 20% time was an interesting concept, and the article claims that other companies that copied it still keep it alive.

Another follow up article with a bit more insight.

Some Google engineers insist that the statements given to Quartz and issued elsewhere in public forums are flat-out wrong: “I don’t have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on their 20% projects,” says one anonymous poster claiming to be an engineer at Google.

But other engineers, even those who say they use the free time at Google, painted a more nuanced picture.

"20% time isn’t dead — I have been using it at Google consistently for over 7 years, and it has immensely benefited me. You don’t need any permission, at least in engineering.

However, I would agree that it is “as good as dead”. What killed 20% time? Stack ranking."

Stack ranking is a policy—popularized by former GE CEO Jack Welch—of ranking employees by various metrics and firing the bottom 20%. Google doesn’t enact exactly this policy, and is more focused on helping its bottom 20% improve, but the point is that such policies of measurement don’t exactly lead to intangibles like incubating new initiatives or products.

"Google’s [performance] management is basically an elaborate game where using 20% time is a losing move. In my time there, this has become markedly more the case. I have done many engineering/coding 20% projects and other non-engineering projects, with probably 20-40% producing “real” results (which over 7 years I think has been more than worth it for the company). But these projects are generally not rewarded. Part of the problem is that you actually need 40% time now at Google — 20% to do stuff, then 20% to tell everyone what you did (sell it)."

Apparently, 20% time is jokingly referred to within Google as “120% time” to indicate that, while engineers have the opportunity to pursue their own projects, it’s only on top of their existing (often quite demanding) schedules.
Click to expand...

Does anyone here work at a company that utilizes any similar concepts? What are your experiences with it?
 
Aw, that's too bad. I used to work at a studio that had 20% time and it was great. We made a lot of cool stuff, some of which ended up being profitable for the company.
 
Sounds like Google is morphing into a dinosaur.

The recent maps update disaster, the Moto X megaflop, the forcing of google plus that nobody wants, YouTube going from bad to worse...

Such a shame.
 
I can understand low level googlers to not be given 20% time. Like the people that serve the free food or mow the lawns.

But the developers, scientists and engineers there will no doubt still be given it.
 
Milchjon said:
work at a company that utilizes any similar concepts? What are your experiences with it?
Click to expand...

We have started a program called kickstart that you can watch a video on here. I'm in the video somewhere, but I'm not an interviewee.

It's based off lean startup methodology.

There's some cool stuff that has come out of the program and one of the advantages in general is that it makes employees really aware of customer experience. Anyone can do it, whether in marketing or engineering as the first phase is all about validating the concept. Then you work on prototypes.
 
Milchjon said:
Stack ranking is a policy—popularized by former GE CEO Jack Welch—of ranking employees by various metrics and firing the bottom 20%. Google doesn’t enact exactly this policy, and is more focused on helping its bottom 20% improve, but the point is that such policies of measurement don’t exactly lead to intangibles like incubating new initiatives or products.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of this before; Disgusting. Not to mention, the idea that such soft-skill metrics could tell the difference between a worker ranked 21% who gets to keep their job and the 20% worker who is terminated... ludicrous.
 
Oracle Dragon said:
I've never heard of this before; Disgusting. Not to mention, the idea that such soft-skill metrics could tell the difference between a worker ranked 21% who gets to keep their job and the 20% worker who is terminated... ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Valve does the same thing. They don't outright fire the bottom 20% but it does factor into your raise.
 
Oracle Dragon said:
I've never heard of this before; Disgusting. Not to mention, the idea that such soft-skill metrics could tell the difference between a worker ranked 21% who gets to keep their job and the 20% worker who is terminated... ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Even worse, it makes it so that you have excellent employees who never want to work on the same team because they don't want to have to compete or lose their top rank.
 
Samk said:
Which companies exemplifies the independent creative oppertunity for employees? And are they private?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head possible Valve if you're referring to the software development world. You aren't assigned a project, you have no direct boss and you barely have a job title.
 
Oracle Dragon said:
I've never heard of this before; Disgusting. Not to mention, the idea that such soft-skill metrics could tell the difference between a worker ranked 21% who gets to keep their job and the 20% worker who is terminated... ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Every major corporation practices shit like this, well they don't all fire people but low performers are targeted. Along with the Japanese Lean Management programme(which I actually like, sorta).
 
Do people even still want to work at Google? Most of the top talent I know seem to be less enamored with the company.
 
Man I thought Stack Ranking went out with the 90s.
It's a stupid, stupid idea and anyone who has worked closely with Jack Welch's own GE knows how toxic it's made that organizaiton.
 
Oracle Dragon said:
I've never heard of this before; Disgusting. Not to mention, the idea that such soft-skill metrics could tell the difference between a worker ranked 21% who gets to keep their job and the 20% worker who is terminated... ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Someone didn't read the next sentence...
 
As someone who has experienced the "20% time" system, it is great but a lot of the time you're tasked so hard that its more 120% time. Those who do well at their job and also contribute to a skunkwork/side project do so on their off time. They're usually male bachelors who were recently hired and passionate. The longer you work at the company, older you get, and if you're married/have kids... forget about it.
 
A unique corporate culture often doesn't scale well as a company gets bigger. Going public certainly doesn't help either.
 
jamesinclair said:
Sounds like Google is morphing into a dinosaur.

The recent maps update disaster, the Moto X megaflop, the forcing of google plus that nobody wants, YouTube going from bad to worse...

Such a shame.
Click to expand...

Larry Page sucks.

Bboy AJ said:
Do people even still want to work at Google? Most of the top talent I know seem to be less enamored with the company.
Click to expand...

They've had quite an executive brain drain a few years back.
 
jamesinclair said:
Sounds like Google is morphing into a dinosaur.

The recent maps update disaster, the Moto X megaflop, the forcing of google plus that nobody wants, YouTube going from bad to worse...

Such a shame.
Click to expand...

The new maps is sick, the Moto X is an amazing phone getting amazing reviews, Google+ is growing and my go-to social website, and aside from hiccups youtube works just fine. Where are you coming up with this nonsense?
 
I'd first one to point out that Google is still better than most huge companies.

With that said, what this should teach us is that the Microsoft of the mid 90s onward is not just a fluke, or a consequence of Bill Gates' evil character. It is, in significant part, what happens when a company gets big in a free market system.

Once you have tens of thousands of employees, it becomes harder to track the performance of individual employees outside of straight forward stats and metrics. It becomes harder to continuously hire only the best of the best. It becomes harder to invent new products when you have to spend a great deal of effort defending the products you've already made from competition, and making sure your new products integrate intelligently with your old, more successful ones. And of course, it becomes harder because being a huge company typically means having shareholders and shareholders are typically short sighted.

This doesn't seem to be a trait unique to Microsoft, or to Apple, or to General Motors. It seems to be a systemic problem with companies growing larger.
 
Opiate said:
I'd first one to point out that Google is still better than most huge companies.

With that said, what this should teach us is that the Microsoft of the mid 90s onward is not just a fluke, or a consequence of Bill Gates' evil character. It is, in significant part, what happens when a company gets big in a free market system.

Once you have tens of thousands of employees, it becomes harder to track the performance of individual employees outside of straight forward stats and metrics. It becomes harder to continuously hire only the best of the best. It becomes harder to invent new products when you have to spend a great deal of effort defending the products you've already made from competition, and making sure your new products integrate intelligently with your old, more successful ones. And of course, it becomes harder because being a huge company typically means having shareholders and shareholders are typically short sighted.

This doesn't seem to be a trait unique to Microsoft, or to Apple, or to General Motors. It seems to be a systemic problem with companies growing larger.
Click to expand...
It's very much a real systemic problem. It's like how as a trader you can't keep a high rate of return up as your portfolio grows because eventually people just start copying what you do.
 
Opiate said:
I'd first one to point out that Google is still better than most huge companies.

With that said, what this should teach us is that the Microsoft of the mid 90s onward is not just a fluke, or a consequence of Bill Gates' evil character. It is, in significant part, what happens when a company gets big in a free market system.

Once you have tens of thousands of employees, it becomes harder to track the performance of individual employees outside of straight forward stats and metrics. It becomes harder to continuously hire only the best of the best. It becomes harder to invent new products when you have to spend a great deal of effort defending the products you've already made from competition, and making sure your new products integrate intelligently with your old, more successful ones. And of course, it becomes harder because being a huge company typically means having shareholders and shareholders are typically short sighted.

This doesn't seem to be a trait unique to Microsoft, or to Apple, or to General Motors. It seems to be a systemic problem with companies growing larger.
Click to expand...

I was basically going to say the same thing (though probably not as well as you did above). This is one of the reasons why amalgamating hundreds/thousands of small companies into a handful of mega-conglomerates is not really good for anyone other than a few investors.
 
Opiate said:
I'd first one to point out that Google is still better than most huge companies.

With that said, what this should teach us is that the Microsoft of the mid 90s onward is not just a fluke, or a consequence of Bill Gates' evil character. It is, in significant part, what happens when a company gets big in a free market system.

Once you have tens of thousands of employees, it becomes harder to track the performance of individual employees outside of straight forward stats and metrics. It becomes harder to continuously hire only the best of the best. It becomes harder to invent new products when you have to spend a great deal of effort defending the products you've already made from competition, and making sure your new products integrate intelligently with your old, more successful ones. And of course, it becomes harder because being a huge company typically means having shareholders and shareholders are typically short sighted.

This doesn't seem to be a trait unique to Microsoft, or to Apple, or to General Motors. It seems to be a systemic problem with companies growing larger.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Agree with this 100%. It's incredibly difficult to maintain innovation and stay nimble as a huge (and public) corporation.
 
Opiate said:
I'd first one to point out that Google is still better than most huge companies.

With that said, what this should teach us is that the Microsoft of the mid 90s onward is not just a fluke, or a consequence of Bill Gates' evil character. It is, in significant part, what happens when a company gets big in a free market system.

Once you have tens of thousands of employees, it becomes harder to track the performance of individual employees outside of straight forward stats and metrics. It becomes harder to continuously hire only the best of the best. It becomes harder to invent new products when you have to spend a great deal of effort defending the products you've already made from competition, and making sure your new products integrate intelligently with your old, more successful ones. And of course, it becomes harder because being a huge company typically means having shareholders and shareholders are typically short sighted.

This doesn't seem to be a trait unique to Microsoft, or to Apple, or to General Motors. It seems to be a systemic problem with companies growing larger.
Click to expand...

Essentially, this.

Google hasn't become MSFT quite yet, but Facebook is the new Google for engineers.
 
The biggest problem with Google and tech companies that get big is they can't attract a lot of the more talented engineers fresh out of college. Those guys can work anywhere, and usually work on startups with very small teams using investment money. They want to get rich quick, why join a wage slave corporation (even one that has a ton of incentives like Google?) when you could create Airbnb/Instagram/Facebook/Twitter etc.
 
SlipperySlope said:
If you're in the bottom 20% your pay will probably go down...
Click to expand...

Not exactly. No one can lower your base pay in the contract. But usually bonuses are awarded based on where you are ranked and the higher you are the bigger the bonus. It works the same at Google and Microsoft as well.

But none of these companies just outright fire the bottom 20% usually if you are consistently in the bottom 20% year after year then you might have some talks with managers.
 
There is a second issue in addition to ranking-based compensation: that is that launching short-lived experimental projects has given Google a bad reputation. People don't trust that their services will stay around and don't adopt them. Therefore there has been a push towards devoting resources to making core products very high quality rather than putting out a bunch of experimental stuff.
 
$200 said:
Also why I want Valve to never grow too big or go public.
Click to expand...
Anecdotally, they seem to badly need a "traditional" wing for their CS though. It's one thing to eschew a traditional structure for a creative business. It's another when you're doing service work.
 
This saddens me greatly. I have always loved to see what kind of new ideas Google comes up with. Yes, many of the ventures they go with do fail, but those that succeed are absolutely amazing. It is what makes me such a big fan of google. I use their email client, google drive, android, and recently in the past week ported my main phone number over to Google Voice. Without innovation, Google may just end up as another greedy company trying to maximize the bottom line.
 
Rookje said:
The biggest problem with Google and tech companies that get big is they can't attract a lot of the more talented engineers fresh out of college. Those guys can work anywhere, and usually work on startups with very small teams using investment money. They want to get rich quick, why join a wage slave corporation (even one that has a ton of incentives like Google?) when you could create Airbnb/Instagram/Facebook/Twitter etc.
Click to expand...

I think this is a huge myth. Speaking from experience and experiences of people I know you aren't getting rich off any of these start ups unless you are one of the co founders or like their first couple of engineers and that is if somehow the company goes on to be worth billions. Most of these Silicon Valley start ups really take advantage of these college kids because they move out there and yes they get paid great but they are pretty much working 24/7 and have very little life outside of work. Everything revolves around work but you are just working to make someone else rich. Yes they do get to learn a lot but one of the advantage of a bigger company like Microsoft or Google is they respect employee work life balance which I value a lot more now.

Either way you are a slave for a person but in different ways. I think its what i've learned about capitalism from either you work to make someone else rich or you make people work for you to make you rich.
 
kurbaan said:
Not exactly. No one can lower your base pay in the contract. But usually bonuses are awarded based on where you are ranked and the higher you are the bigger the bonus. It works the same at Google and Microsoft as well.

But none of these companies just outright fire the bottom 20% usually if you are consistently in the bottom 20% year after year then you might have some talks with managers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you don't get to be the bottom 20% forever. You're someone else's problem (i.e you get fired) after a couple of years of not getting bonuses. These are some brutally competitive companies in a generally competitive business field. Keep in mind that a significant part of that bottom 20% are people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They're not dumb or bad engineers, but they got the short straw in some political battle. You don't get into Google/Facebook/MSFT in the first place by being bottom 20% of anything.

kirblar said:
Facebook's public too, though. The change in incentives (and emphasis on short term value and reliable income) are huge when that transition occurs.
Click to expand...

Facebook is still small enough that their revenue isn't impacted by salaries to that extent. When they grow to around 20k engineering staff, you'll see the differences in culture start to emerge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Share with us your "first time"
31
298
Soodanim replied
I feel free for the first time
2 3
107
2K
Diddy X replied
The greatest movie composition of all time is
41
866
Dithadder replied
The greatest nation state composition of all time is
6
291
calico replied
Break Ups Can Be Hard But It Was Time To Leave....
24
319
John Bilbo replied
Top Bottom