Creative Reaction

Yesterday we looked at Google’s Our Googley advice to students: Major in learning, where we got a good look at what Google looks for in its employees. Today we look at how Google attracts its talent and we need to look no further than Google’s Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google. (Go read it.)

How many of you have articulated your own company’s vision so well? How many of you are challenged to make your own departments or workplaces just as inspiring? How many of you want to work for Google now? What if they promise never to use the word “googley” again? Well, that’s what they want; they want people to desire to work there. And they get 100,000 job applications each month!

Of course, they are not simply looking for people who want to work there; they are looking for people who deserve to work there. And it’s getting harder and harder as they have doubled in size in each of the last three years.

Google is known for measuring and tweaking pretty much everything, and even its procedures for finding qualified employees are starting to implement statistics, formulas, and automation as detailed in this NYT article. (free subscription required.)

As I’ve said many times, Google’s efforts and money are proportional and make good business sense for Google; likewise, our company’s efforts must make business sense for us.

“Management guru Peter Drucker noted that companies attracting the best knowledge workers will ’secure the single biggest factor for competitive advantage’”.  Drucker’s quote appears on The Official Google Blog; clearly Google recognizes this fact. You don’t have to be Google to appreciate this fact for yourselves; all of us need a competitive advantage.

On The Official Google Blog last week, there was a post entitled Our Googley advice to students: Major in learning, where Google outlined what it looks for in its employees. (The post was written by Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior VP, Product Management.)

I found this line intriguing; “At the highest level, we are looking for non-routine problem-solving skills. We expect applicants to be able to solve routine problems as a matter of course. After all, that’s what most education is concerned with.” (Emphasis mine.) In other words, Rosenberg is saying that Google is looking for problem solving skills beyond what most education provides.

After reading the ChangeThis manifesto Turning Learning Right Side Up I imagine its authors would agree; “traditional education is about teaching, not learning” they say. 

Both Google’s blog post and the Turning Learning manifesto dovetail nicely; Rosenberg’s post is about the lifelong process of learning, and not simply earning a degree; “keep on challenging yourself, because learning doesn’t end with graduation… success is inexorably determined by the lessons you glean from the free market. Learning, it turns out, is a lifelong major.”

(I won’t summarize the manifesto’s content. I’ll only say that after reading it, managers will realize they will need to focus their training on the educational system’s gaps!)

So finally, what is Google looking for aside from problem-solving skills?

1. communication skills
2. a willingness to experiment
3. team players, and
4. passion and leadership.

I would argue that the very same skills should be sought by every creative company; after all, being creative within a business setting is largely about working within numerous constraints.

Why, it was just a few days ago when I mentioned a company which had adopted a four-day workweek, and today I read in eWeek (print) magazine about Google’s version of this.

(Interestingly, eWeek’s own  - always frustrating  - search engine could not find the online version of the article, even though I typed three very specific phrase in quotes; It was the top result using Google. I always feel lucky.)

Google’s version, as you may already know, is “20 per cent time” - Google’s technical employees are encouraged to spend 20% of their time on projects that interest them. (Yes, they measure it. Google measures everything.)

What I did not know was that cash prizes can be involved. Now some of us might be able to imagine a $10,000 bonus for making some sort of amazing increase to a company’s bottom line. Well how about a $350,000 bonus?! For someone low on the totem pole! As Keanu Reeves is fond of saying, “WHOA!”

Of course, Google has a bigger bottom line; everything is proportional. And, as I’ve mentioned before, Google’s “crazy ideas” make good business sense. This is how they came up with Google News, Gmail, and Adsense.

On our scale, at our companies, what are we doing to encourage BIG thinking? Cash prizes as a tool for creativity? Why not? It’s actually not so crazy.

What is the fixation with Google and money?! In this train wreck of an article, which is hard enough to follow without its questionable math and numerous corrections, the author, as well as about half of the readers leaving comments, seem to miss the fact that Google is an innovative business which treats its employees well. Who cares what the cost is?! It’s all proportional! Certainly, Google must be weighing the cost of feeding its numerous employees excellent food, and deciding that the benefits outweigh the expense. Commenter “Dave” jumps all over this and applies the proper perspective, “Seems like a small price to pay to keep your employees well fed and happy. Not to mention there are probably productivity gains to be had by not having the workforce filter out of the building each day for an hour.” I like to compare Google to Thomas Edison’s labs. All the more reason to encourage mealtime collaboration, offering brilliant people the opportunity to interact with other brilliant people. How can you put a price on that?

Fortune Magazine completely misses something here while they are trashing Google in a PRI/Marketplace interview, the transcript of which is here.

(EXCERPT)
INTERVIEWER:
They’ve got this culture where anything goes and you can learn from your mistakes. Do you ever get fired, though, from Google? I mean, I’ve never heard of anybody losing their job there.

FORTUNE MAGAZINE:
In fact, one of Google’s most senior executives Sheryl Sanberg, who’s a vice president and runs all of the automated advertising systems that Google has, told me about a multimillion-dollar mistake that she made. And when she realized her mistake she walked across the street at the Googleplex in Mountain View and she told cofounder Larry Page about it. What was interesting was his reaction. He said, “Yeah, we shouldn’t have done that. We’ll know better next time. But, oh, by the way, it’s good that you made this mistake. I’m glad,” he told her, “because we need to be the kind of company that is willing to make mistakes. Because if we’re not making mistakes, then we’re not taking risks. And if we’re not taking risks, we won’t get to the next level.”

INTERVIEWER:
You think about that for a second. I mean, if you and I made a million-dollar mistake, even a $100,000 mistake, we’d be gone.

FORTUNE MAGAZINE:
Right, but this is a company that makes so much money, first of all, that it can afford it.
(END EXCERPT)

These guys are both oblivious to something really important here. They are fixated on the money. And they’re wrong to do so. This is about allowing - even encouraging - their employees to take risks and possibly make mistakes. This is part of the corporate culture and more importantly, it is supported all the way up the chain to the CxO level, because they know this is the path to success.

Companies must be eager to extend forgiveness to employees who make mistakes, and then take complete responsibility for their mistakes. These are good, honest people. Be assured, such employees will be grateful, loyal, and willing to work hard for you.