Google’s Project Oxygen

Today slate had an excellent article on Google’s management: The Happiness Machine: How Google became such a great place to work.  One thing they mention is Project Oxygen, a data-analytics based approach to examining the management factors that improve performance.  As part of the project they ranked the factors (behaviors):

image

Lots of good stuff in there.  Must remember to do some more reading up on this project.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

New Year Resolution: One Painful Task Each Day

I’m not usually one for New Year Resolutions – mostly because I’m happy to try out new resolutions (and build new habits) any time of the year. 

But the timing for my lastest resolution happens to be now, so I’m calling this my new years resolution: To accomplish one painful task each day.

What is a painful task?  Any conversation that I’ve been delaying, procrastinating, hiding from, etc.  Dealing with a unpleasant or tedious to-do.  Delivering less-than-good news.  This could be work-related or personal.

Typically for me these tend to build up until I have 5 or 6 items stacked up.  This resolution lets me work through my current pile one day at a time, and then hopefully should prevent me from delaying too long in the future.  And these should be tackled in order of most-pain to least – but we’ll see if I can pull that off.

I’m on day 2 and so-far-so-good.

(photo source: rudecactus.com)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Coursera and Credentialing

Earlier I wrote that the problem with online education is credentialing.  It looks like Coursera is starting to tackle issue:

Coursera recently announced another route to help students earn credit for its courses — and produce revenue. The company has arranged for the American Council on Education, the umbrella group of higher education, to have subject experts assess whether several courses are worthy of transfer credits. If the experts say they are, students who successfully complete those courses could take an identity-verified proctored exam, pay a fee and get an ACE Credit transcript, a certification that 2,000 universities already accept for credit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Achieving Your Way to Mediocrity

image

(Photo: PublicDomainPictures)

I’ve been thinking about goal setting recently.  Bazaarvoice is in the process of rolling out a goal process – a variation of Management By Objectives (MBO) and Objectives and Key Results (OKR).

One dilemma that always seems to come up in these systems is whether the goals should be achievable or not.  SMART goal setting says yes.  BHAG goal setting says no.

Audacious goals can scare employees because of the fear of consequences for failing to meet these goals.  But if you unpack that carefully, you’ll see the problem is really one of culture: a lack of trust or communication about how goal achievement relates to employee evaluation.  Employee evaluation shouldn’t be a simple formula: failed to meet goal = does not meet expectations.  That ignores a ton of context that proper leadership takes into account when evaluating employees.

Here’s why achievable goals point the way to mediocrity:

  1. In software development you should be doing something newish.  Whether it’s a new product, platform, technology or whatever.  Everyone should be working on something new. 
  2. Newish things have unknown unknowns – because it’s new!   
  3. If you want to set achievable goals for something new, you have to be conservative. Because you have to be at least a little bit sensitive to the unknown unknowns.
  4. Achieving conservative goals puts you on a path to mediocrity.  One of your competitors is going to set audacious goals, and some of those goals are going to be met.

Achievable goals are most dangerous when you’re really trying to do something totally-completely-never-done-before new.  All the uncertainty works against the ambitions of the new endeavor.  I would much rather say “We’re not sure how hard it’s going to be, and our goal is 3x current user engagement” than “We’re not sure how hard it’s going to be, so our goal is 1.5x current user engagement” – or somesuch.

So you need to set audacious goals, and you need to build the right culture of open communication and trust so that employees are comfortable setting, achieving, (and also failing to achieve) big goals.

One way to build trust is to have a clearly defined and communicated method of employee assessment – and how the goals fit in with that.  But that’s a topic for another post.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Download / Scrape Salesforce Reports in 4 lines of Python

Python Code:

import requests
l = requests.get("https://login.salesforce.com/?un=USERNAME&pw=PASSWORD")
d = requests.get("https://na3.salesforce.com/REPORT_ID?view=d&snip&export=1&enc=UTF-8&xf=csv",cookies=l.cookies)
print d.content

References:

http://sfdc-heretic.warped-minds.com/2006/04/10/progmatic-access-to-salesforcecom-reports/

http://docs.python-requests.org/en/latest/user/quickstart/#cookies

http://www.techsmog.com/index.php/2011/02/08/parsing-real-time-salesforce-com-reports-via-perlcgi-html-tables/

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

A review of “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees”, by Frederick Herzberg

This is the second article in the volume “On Managing People” in Harvard Business Review’s collection of Must Reads.

Frederick Herzberg

This article was originally published in 1968.  Herzberg begins by examining the classic Kick In The Ass (KITA) as motivator.  Both physical, and psychological KITAs are examined, and of the latter he notes “since the number of psychological pains that a person can feel is almost infinite, the direction and site possibilities of the KITA are increased many times.”  I like him already.

Herzberg then spends several pages sarcastically outlining practices which have failed to increase motivation.  Frankly these are mostly straw-men, such as sensitivity training and employee counseling.  I’m 9 pages into this article when finally something interesting shows up:

The factors involved in producing job satisfction (and motication) are separate and distinct from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction … it follows that these two feelings are not opposites of each other.  The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction; and similarly the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.

Herzberg is articulating a theory here, that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are not opposite ends on a single axis, but rather there are two separate axes.  He identifies the factors involved in each axis (he labels them Hygiene Factors and Motivator Factors).

Dissatisfaction Factors (Hygiene Factors)

  • Company policies and administration
  • Supervision
  • Interpersonal relationships
  • Working conditions
  • Salary
  • Status
  • Security

Satisfaction Factors (Motivator Factors)

  • Achievement
  • Recognition for achievement
  • The work itself
  • Responsibility
  • Growth
  • Advancement

Job Enrichment

Herzberg’s framework for improving motivation he calls job enrichment.  He warns against a horizontal perspective (giving people more work, or more kinds of un-motivating work) and encourages a vertical perspective (more end-to-end ownership of an area).

He identifies 7 principles of vertical job enrichment (and the corresponding motivator factors).

  1. Removing controls while retaining accountability (responsibility and personal achievement)
  2. Increasing the accountability of individuals for own work (responsibility and recognition)
  3. Giving a person a complete natural unit of work (responsibility, achievement, and recognition)
  4. Granting additional authority to employees in their activity / job freedom (responsibility, achievement, and recognition)
  5. Making periodic reports directly available to the workers themselves rather than to supervisors (internal recognition)
  6. Introducing new and more difficult tasks not previously handled (growth and learning)
  7. Assigning individuals specific or specialized tasks, enabling them to become experts (responsibility, growth and advancement)

He gives some specific examples of a large corporation applying these principles to the role of shareholder correspondent, for example:

  • Have the correspondents sign their own name on letters (supervisor had been signing)
  • Have supervisor only example a sample of the letters (previously supervisor checked them all)

Herberg also supplies a step-by-step process to use when applying these principles.  These steps include:

  1. Have the conviction that these jobs can be enriched
  2. Avoid direct participation in this process of the employees themselves.  Their direct involvement contaminates the process with human relations hygiene.  It is the actual changes that will be motivating, not the fact that they got to participate in the process. 
  3. Brainstorm a list of changes that may enrich the job
  4. Screen out suggestions that involve hygiene, rather than motivation.
  5. Screen out suggestions that are too general (e.g. “more responsibility”)
  6. Screen out any horizontal suggestions.
  7. Set up a controlled experiment (if you can).  Measure job attitudes and performance before and after, for the test group and the control group.
  8. Be prepared for a drop in performance in the experimental group the first few weeks – the changes may lead to a temporary reduction in efficiency.
  9. Be prepared for some management anxiety.  Managers may fear lower performance (and they may see it temporarily).

Herzberg concludes by encouraging leaders to recognize these two separate axis (hygiene and motivation), and to focus on motivation by applying the job enrichment process.

After reading this article I did a little googling on Herzberg and discovered that he wrote a book in 1959 called The Motivation To Work, which outlines his motivator-hygiene theory (also popularly known as Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory), and is generally recognized as the seminal work in employee motivation.  I also discovered that this article is one of the most popular Harvard Business Review articles ever, based on re-print requests and sales.

As I was reading this I couldn’t help but compare the ideas in this article with the ideas in Daniel Pink’s Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us. Pink’s motivational factors (Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose) are pretty similar to Herzberg’s.  It’s been a while since I read Pink’s book, perhaps it’s time to pull it from the shelf for a re-read and a comparison review.

Since I was already aware of Pink’s exposition on motivation, Herzberg’s motivational factors are not a big surprise.  But it’s always helpful to return to good ideas after a period of time to reflect upon them again.  And I think a round of the job enrichment process certainly wont hurt.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A review of “Leadership That Gets Results”, by Daniel Goleman

As a sort of poor-man’s MBA I’m planning to work my way through Harvard Business Review’s “HBR’s Must Reads”, a 6-volume collection of curated articles on business.  Since I’m relatively new to management and find myself building and managing a new team, I’m starting with the volume “On Managing People”.

The first article in the book is “Leadership That Gets Results” by Daniel Goleman.  Goleman is an award-winning author, professor and journalist who is probably most famous for writing the book “Emotional Intelligence” and bringing that term into the public conscious.

In this article, originally published in March 2000, Goleman articulates six leadership styles used by managers:

  • Coercive – “Do what I say”.  Specifies the what and how.
  • Authoritative – “Come with me”.  Sets a clear vision, leaves the means open.
  • Affiliative – “People come first”.  Builds team harmony and morale.
  • Democratic – “What shall we do?”.  Gives workers a voice.
  • Pacesetting – “I will set the example”.  Demonstrates high performance.
  • Coaching – “Here’s how we can do it better”.  Focuses on employee development.

Each of the six styles has it’s strengths and weaknesses.  For each style there are situations where it’s warranted.  The challenge, of course, is knowing the pros/cons of each style, and using them appropriately.  

The Coercive Style

The coercive style can be effective at pushing through change, especially when the changes involve removing barriers and old ways of doing things.  The problems with the coercive style are numerous:

  • It reduces motivation because it reduces employee sense of ownership, responsibility and satisfaction of a job well done.
  • It reduces initiative and innovation.

The coercive style should only be used in extreme circumstances, and for a limited time.

The Authoritative Style

The authoritative style requires a clear vision, and the ability to communicate that vision, to be effective.  It aso requires articulating standards for success (aka KPIs), and having confidence in the team to stay away from prescribing the means to carry out the work.  On its own, the authoritative style does not deal well with individual instances of poor performance, but in general this style is the most effective.

The Affiliative Style

The affiliative style is particularly important when building new teams, restoring trust, and managing institutional change.  It requires a leader who is comfortable sharing their own personal experiences, and who can listen actively.  It requires a higher amount of emotional intelligence to be effective with this style.  The danger with this style is that it may lead to avoiding necessary conflict, and ignoring poor performance.  

The Democratic Style

The democratic style is effective when you really need the buy-in of stakeholders.  When you recognize that fiat might get compliance, but the cost of the compliance is high.  The challenge with the democratic style is that it needs to be authentic.  People need an opportunity to speak and really be heard.  This can be time-consuming and may also be frustrating.  It requires a leader with excellent facilitation skill to keep control of the participatory process.  It is mostly effectively used for specific difficult decisions – especially when the leader is uncertain about the course of action.

The Pacesetting Style

The pacesetting style is a natural style for people who were recently promoted up to manager due to their outstanding performance as an individual contributor.  The problem with this situation is that management is more than just being the official pacesetter.  The pacesetter style may work when all members of a team are intrinsically-motivated high-performers who need little direction.  But in practice setting the pace is not nearly sufficient to shape, motivate end energize a team to accomplish great things.

The Coaching Style

The coaching style requires a manager who is capable of giving performance feedback that motivates rather than creates fear.  This requires some skill.   It also requires an employee who is aware of their performance and receptive to improvement.  It’s unfortunate that in many circumstances one or more of these requirements are lacking.  However, when things align, coaching can have a huge impact on the business. 

Climate

Goleman talks a little about the climate in a business or team and how it strongly correlates with performance.  He also mentions survey results that associate each leadership style with its effect on climate:

  • Authoritative  (+.54)
  • Affiliative       (+.46)
  • Democratic    (+.43)
  • Coaching       (+.42)
  • Pacesetting    (-.25)
  • Coercive        (-.26)

I found it interesting to see that pacesetting has such a negative effect on climate, and should be used sparingly. Goleman too was surprised.  But delving a little deeper revealed the issue: the pacesetting style does not provide the motivation or support needed for workers to learn, improve and excel.

Goleman also connects the styles with the necessary emotional intelligence capabilities required to be able to use the style.  He defines four Emotional Intelligence capabilities, each with several traits:

  1. Self-Awareness – with the traits: Emotional Self-Awareness, Accurate Self-Assessment, and Self-Confidence.
  2. Self-Management – with the traits: Self-Control, Trustworthiness, Conscientiousness, Adaptability, Achievement Orientation, and Initiative.
  3. Social Awareness – with the traits: Empathy, Organizational Awareness, and Service Orientation
  4. Social Skill – with the traits: Visionary Leadership, Influence, Developing Others, Communication, Change Catalyst, Conflict Management, Building Bonds and Teamwork/Collaboration.

Since Goleman published the Emotional Intelligence (EI) book four years before this article, I would assume that these come from the EI book, and that this article sprang from examining the traits of EI and how they manifest in leadership style.

With so many books on leadership articulating their taxonomy of leadership styles, I was curious to see how far Goleman’s list had penetrated into the culture.  A quick google of leadership styles and a little reading revealed that Goleman’s list is one of the top lists of leadership styles.  During my readings I discovered that Goleman wrote a book in 2004 called Primal Leadership (summary here) which revisited these styles (and renamed coercive to commanding, and authoritative to visionary).

Overall I think this is a pretty good framework for thinking about the way in which a manager interacts with the rest of the team.  As the article states, “no style should be relied on exclusively, and all have at least short-term uses.”  I look forward to being a little more conscious about the styles I use in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

That’s the word! Credentialing.

I love it when I discover a new term for something that’s floating around in my head.  Today it’s credentialing.

Phase 1 of the online learning revolution is all about self-guided learning.  There are tons of resources out there to help a motivated individual to really learn things.  A few examples:

But learning is only half of the equation.  The other half is the recognition for what you’ve learned.  Many jobs have explicit or implicit educational requirements.  Are these jobs off-limit to independent learners?

Once I started working full time as a software developer I didn’t want to stop pursuing my interests.  So I decided to learn me some philosophy.  But I wanted structure and I wanted some recognition such that if I really loved philosophy I could pursue it further academically or professionally.  That meant I had to get an accredited degree.  Even though I was convinced I could self-study philosophy, I enrolled for a distance Masters degree from University of California.  Five years later I completed the degree (a great experience overall).  But I’m convinced that most of what I paid for was the credentialing.  The learning part I could have done using resources online (and at the library) and participating in online philosophy communities.

The officially accepted verdict was that I had, indeed, grappled deeply enough with the material to have earned a Masters. But I think it’s unfair that I had to pay so much for someone to assess my learning.

This is the big problem / opportunity for online learning.  There needs to be a more cost effective option for accrediting someone’s education.  Today, I came across the Kickstarter campaign for Degreed.  Encouraging, but I’m not sure about the direction they’re taking.  But I learned that the problem I am mulling is the credentialing problem.

What I would love is for an existing university with a good reputation to begin offering credentialing tests, that if passed would be sufficient proof of completing the course.  And with the proper courses completed, would grant an accredited degree.  This would have to be approved by the university’s accrediting board.  

Why is no university doing this?  Because too many students would elect for this route, and opt-out of paying high $ for on-campus learning and classes.  But I really think that this de-coupling of learning, and credentialing is the future of education.  And if an institution with a solid reputation would be brave enough to jump into credentialing they could sieze upon a huge opportunity – and really move education forward.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

I’m Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59 by Douglas Edwards

Hooray!  I can now sync the highlights that I make in books from my Kindle Fire.

I just finished “I’m Feeling Lucky: The Confessions of Google Employee Number 59″ by Douglas Edwards.  Prior to reading this book I didn’t really know much about the history or culture of google.  I enjoyed the narrative.  I noticed some reviewers didn’t feel like it gave a balanced view of Google.  I’m sure it doesn’t.  But it does give a detailed personal account from one close insider.  Here are the things I highlighted.  Mostly I was curious about the engineering culture, and recruiting strategy.  

The technical staff were all tucked into that space because the engineers were literally the core of the company. Great things would come from packing them tightly together so that ideas bounced into one another, colliding and recombining in new, more potent ways.   (location 382)

Urs’s most significant accomplishment, however, was building the team that built Google. “Your greatest impact as an engineer comes through hiring someone who is as exhorted everyone who would listen, “because over the next year, they double your productivity. There’s nothing else you can do to double your productivity. Even if you’re a genius, that’s extremely unlikely to happen.”   (location 776)

Two such hires were Jeff Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. If Urs was Google’s architect, Jeff and Sanjay were the master carpenters who raised the roof beams and pounded the nails that held together the load-bearing walls. Wherever problems needed to be solved, “JeffnSanjay” were there*—from devising the Google file system to developing advertising technology, from accelerating machine translation to building breakthrough tools like MapReduce.   (location 782)

… placing recruiting ads on Google that appeared whenever someone searched for obscure coding-related keywords like “TLB shootdown” or “lock free synchronization.” (After engineer Paul Haahr joined Google, he told Jeff, “Any company that advertises on ‘lock free synchronization’ is good enough for me.”)   (location 798)

Had NewsHound been a disruptive technology that changed its industry, Larry and Sergey would have wanted not just the code but the Google-caliber engineers behind it. That way, Google would own their future breakthrough ideas as well as the ones they’d already developed. Larry and Sergey didn’t like renting intelligence when they could buy it. There are only so many really smart people in the world. Why not collect them all?    (location 870)

…there might be a role for a product-management group if, and only if, it didn’t usurp the divinely ordained primacy of engineering. God forbid that Google become a marketing-driven company. In marketing-driven companies, researchers identified customer needs and then product managers (PMs)* directed engineers to create products to fill those gaps. I had been taught that was a good thing to do.    (location 1052)

Doerr’s corporate growth regimen comprised a system for setting goals and measuring progress that he called Objectives and Key Results or OKRs.  “Objectives,” Doerr instructed Larry and Sergey, “should be significant and communicate action. They state what you want to accomplish, while key results detail how you will accomplish those goals.” Key results, therefore, should be aggressive, measurable, and time-specific. Doerr warned the founders not to overdo it: five objectives with four key results each should be sufficient.    (location 1077)

In a company filled with overachievers, I assumed everyone would accomplish all their OKRs. No. It turned out that that would indicate failure. The ideal success rate was seventy percent, which showed we were stretching ourselves. Larry and Sergey assured us that missing OKRs wouldn’t factor into performance reviews, because if they did we would take too few risks.    (location 1087)

“When Urs put me in charge of UI,” she reminded us, “he said we didn’t need opinions. We need facts and research to base good UI decisions on.”    (location 1141)

At Google, quick mockups ruled, data persuaded, and decisions were made in hours.    (location 1311)

Insecurity was a game all Googlers could play, especially about intellectual inferiority. Everyone but a handful felt they were bringing down the curve. I began to realize how closely self-doubt was linked to ambition and how adeptly Google leveraged the latter to inflate the former—urging us to pull ever harder to advance not just ourselves but the company as a whole.     (location 1501)

“Google hires really bright, insecure people and then applies sufficient pressure that no matter how hard they work, they’re never able to consider themselves successful. Look at all the kids in my group who work absurd hours and still feel they’re not keeping up with everyone else.”     (location 1505)

I had to agree that fear of inadequacy was a useful lever for prying the last erg of productivity out of dedicated employees. Everyone wanted to prove they belonged among the elite club of Google contributors. The manager who articulated that theory, though, considered himself too secure to play that game. Which may be why he lasted less than a year at Google.    (location 1507)

Urs insisted on adopting the best practices he had seen in more industrial settings to things like source control and compiler warnings. “We’d make sure the compiler actually failed if it had a warning, so you couldn’t ignore it,” he told me. He formalized the most important elements into a style guide, which became a mandate enforced by Craig Silverstein.   (location 1517)

“You get to pick one good engineering practice to be your cultural touchstone,” Craig said, “and for us it was code reviews.” To initiate a review, a coder would send out a pointer to an online design document. Anyone could respond with comments, but an official reviewer had to sign off on the actual code.  (location 1533)

“A good team is ultimately what makes or breaks the problem,” Urs explained years later. “If the team isn’t the right one, they make little mistakes that erode the solution and in the end, you don’t know what mistake you made, but it doesn’t work. You need the control every day, every week. A new person will make little tiny judgment calls and not realize the cumulative effect. So after a few months you have actually destroyed the idea while you made no recognizable mistake. It was a sequence of small things.” (location 1562)

Much has been written about Google’s free meal plan (one estimate put the cost at seventy-two million dollars per year),* but the basics of the program were simple: lunch and dinner were free, and we could eat as much as we liked from our first day with the company until our last. Like most Googlers, I spent less than half an hour at lunch and, if on deadline, would just retreat with a plate to my desk. Without the café, I would have lost twenty minutes getting to a restaurant, half an hour eating, and another twenty minutes getting back. I would have stopped thinking about Google as soon as I cleared the front door so I could focus on consuming fatty, salt-saturated foods on my way to increased sick days and a premature death. Looked at that way, the policy made sense to me.  (location 1699)

And when Larry was done, he was done. “I don’t want to talk about this anymore. It’s not worth discussing. Just do it.”  (location 1774)

“Larry and Sergey had an expectation that things would be watered down along the way,” he explained. “Starting with something that’s more ambitious will get you something that’s reasonable. But if you don’t put the goal post way out there, people are already taking fewer risks and are less ambitious about how big the idea should be.” (location 1950)

I rarely heard profanity in the halls of the Googleplex, where raised voices raised eyebrows. People could be infuriating, but the approved response was to bludgeon them with facts until they succumbed to superior logic. Not that Larry and Sergey couldn’t be caustic, even to each other. David Krane, who traveled extensively with the founders, sums up their relationship this way: “Those guys had a communications channel that was very direct, very open. When there was tension, it was when they were fighting over data. They would be downright rude to each other, confidently dismissing ideas as stupid or naive or calling each other bastards. But no one would pout.” (location 1998)

Think big. Stay flexible. Embrace data. Be efficient and economical in the extreme. I was mapping Google’s unique terrain and starting to feel less like a toddler lost in the wilderness and more like an intrepid explorer boldly exploring terra incognita. (location 2106)

All that effort without any inkling of what our overall company priorities or strategy might be. I began to suspect that my new employer’s expectations were always going to exceed my capacity by at least thirty percent. (location 2211)

So I needed to stop saying “Here’s my concern,” and start saying “Here’s what you need to do to make that happen.”  (location 2276)

“Good enough is good enough” was the standard Urs set for engineering. In those five words he encapsulated a philosophy for solving problems, cutting through complexity, and embracing failure. It should be stitched into the fabric of every cubicle at Google. It drove Google’s software development, the heart and soul of the company’s technology.  (location 2356)

“Hire ability over experience.”* Brilliant generalists could reprogram themselves like stem cells within the corporate body: they would solve a problem, then morph and move on to attack the next challenge.  (location 2379)

“The key thing,” Urs said, “was that they be able to independently make progress, because there wasn’t much room for babysitting. They had to have good judgment about whether to coordinate or not.”  (location 2381)

I was to identify key issues, then solve them or learn how to solve them. Saying “I can’t do that, because I don’t know how” revealed a deficiency of initiative, flexibility, and perhaps even IQ. It was a shock to my sense of the way an office operated.  (location 2388)

Matt Cutts, who carved out a niche attacking the porn and spam that degraded search results, summed up our staffing philosophy this way: “It works pretty well if you hire really smart people who are flexible and can get things done. Then just throw them into the deep end of the pool.”  (location 2393)

The tone set by Urs in engineering was the tone for all of Google. The company stacked its payroll with high achievers unaccustomed to going unacknowledged, and despite the stock options and the free food, they often felt underappreciated. At the same time, many felt unsure of their own contributions or where they stood in relation to their peers.  (location 2427)

“You have to say both emotionally and intellectually, ‘I can only work so many hours. The best I can do is make good use of these hours and prioritize the right way so I spend my time on the things that are most important.’ Then if I see something below the line that is broken and I can fix it, it’s important not to try to fix it. Because you’re going to hurt yourself. Either personally—because you add another hour and that’s not sustainable—or you’re going to hurt something that’s above the line that’s not getting the hours that it should.”  (location 2448)

“Screw quality,” Urs instructed one development team, urging them on to an earlier launch date. “Screw anything you can screw.”  (location 2452)

In Google’s culture, when you ran into a wall, you built a ladder. If there was a moat beyond the wall, you made a boat. If there was a crocodile in the moat, you fed it one of your arms and used the other to paddle across. The takeaway was “Take responsibility. Do something.”  (location 2489)

Neither Larry nor Sergey had been to business school or run a large corporation, but Larry had studied more than two hundred business books to prepare for his role running Google as a competitive entity. He trusted his own synthesis of what he had read as much as anything he might have picked up in a classroom.  (location 2573)

…buy-in wasn’t a requirement. If there were holdouts, Urs would call a meeting and announce, “Okay, fine, we’ve argued for a week. There are no new insights being produced. Let’s do the pros and cons and make a decision and move on. Because it’s time to move on.” (location 2672)

Of all the elements of “big-company thinking” I had to unlearn, that was one of the hardest. I constantly sought reassurance that I was empowered to move to the next step, only to be asked, “Why haven’t you finished that already?” The upside of this philosophy is that Google did things quickly, most of which turned out to be positive. The downside is that individual Googlers sometimes misinterpreted exactly how much power they possessed and when it was okay to use it.  (location 2773)

“This wasn’t the burning problem of the day,” Urs told me. “The site wasn’t down because of it; it was just a productivity problem. If you stayed in the old, messy world too long, your effectiveness would continue to go down.” He gave the green light in the fall of 1999 to create a new codebase called Google Two. New systems would run on Google Two, and the original codebase would be phased out. Jeff and Craig started working on it, but writing new infrastructure took time—and time refused to stand still, even for the engineers at Google.  (location 2983)

The day after the deal went live, John Bauer added code that boldfaced the keyword a user had searched for when it appeared in an ad, making it obvious that the ad was relevant. That single improvement increased clickthrough rates by four hundred percent. One engineer. One change. Four hundred percent.  (location 5296)

Paul liked to hack things together. One night, he and Sanjeev went through his inbox one email at a time and tried to manually match each message to an ad already in the system. It wasn’t that hard. Paul decided to put together a simple prototype that would do the matching automatically. He rummaged around his code files and came up with a classifier tool: software that could identify things that were related and group them. He had written it as part of Matt Cutts’s porn filter project. Perfect for what he had in mind now. He reconfigured the porn classifier to match ads to the content of emails, flipped it on for all the users of Caribou at three a.m., and went home.  (location 5606)

For Paul, the experience confirmed the power of prototyping to give definitive answers far more quickly than theoretical discussions. “Experiencing something is much more powerful than just talking about it,” he reflected. “I didn’t think content-targeted ads would work, really, but I thought it would be fun. I spent a few hours working on it. It wasn’t that I believed in it that strongly, it’s just that it was really easy.” Once people saw the prototype in action they realized, whether they liked Paul’s implementation or not, that content targeting could be done.  (location 5637)

“I feel like the concept of twenty-percent time came out of that,” Paul told me. “I don’t think it was ever specifically stated, but it was more officially endorsed after that.”  (location 5646)

We stretched in the skin of our new headquarters and settled in to a new level of hyper-productivity. Everything needed to be done right now and everything was very important. New people were climbing onboard every week and taking control of projects in motion. (location 6265)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

6 Tips for Making the Most of a Tech Conference

At Bazaarvoice it’s policy that we send our developers to at least one major tech conference of their choice each year.  Since we’re based in Austin TX, that usually means flying across the country.  The costs (flights, hotel, transport, food) are substantial, but the opportunity cost is even higher.  I’ve always been thankful for the opportunity to go to great conferences, and thought I’d share a few tips for getting the most out of the experience.

1. Get a good seat.  There’s no point in being at the conference if you can’t hear the speaker and see the content on the slides.  Unfortunately many stages don’t have screens large enough for people at the back to read the words. Or they’ve positioned the screen too low, and you find yourself silently cursing those tall-hair people.

I’m at the Dublin Web Summit right now, and the screen in the room where they’re hosting the Developer Track is both too small and too low.  Fortunately I was here 20 mins early and managed to get a great second row seat.

2. Find out who’s there you’d like to speak with.  I’m not necessarily referring to the headline speakers.  Here at the Dublin Web Summit there are 100+ European startups pitching their businesses.  Last night I took the time to quickly investigate if any of these are interesting to me or Bazaarvoice.  There were a few that I found intriguing (EVRYTHNG, TicTail, Syndicate Plus, Seedrs, etc). In 10 minutes of face-time with one of the founders of these businesses I can investigate what they’re really up to, where they are with the business, and the challenges they’re facing.  I was able to chat with several of these companies.  A couple others weren’t at their booth space when I was free.  Maybe next time I’ll take advantage of those apps that these conferences are touting for making introductions.

3. Bring a small notepad and pen. Supplying 200-1000 tech-savvy people in a room with working Internet and power is impossible.  Every conference it’s the same thing.  “We kindly request that nobody streams video on the conference network”, or “We kindly request that you turn off personal-wireless sharing, all these Wifi hotspots are interfering with the network”

Don’t they get it, there will never be enough bandwidth.  Why?  Because there are way too many tweeters and bloggers that would love to be live-streaming their experience to their fans – or running a live google hangout.  You talk about second-screen while watching TV?  Try second-screen activity at a conference.  I think the way conferences are trying to reduce demand is to reduce the # of available power sockets, hoping that everyone’s battery will run dry.

So what should you do?  Bring a notepad and pen.  Use them.

4. Turn off Email, Twitter, IM.  If you are going to have a computer turned on in front of you (e.g. to type up your notes), turn off Email, Twitter and IM.  There is little to be gained and much to lose by having these turned on.

5. Avoid Everyone You Know.  IMHO the point of a tech conference is to get exposed to new ideas, projects, companies and people.  This is a great and rare opportunity to get face-time with people who are doing things that are new-to-you.   So, although it’s a little less comfortable, don’t have lunch with your colleagues.  Go find a random empty seat, sit down, and introduce yourself.  Whenever you’re in line, or sit down, introduce yourself to the person beside you.  If this kind of thing is difficult for you, I suggest you go Google the term “Assume Rapport”.  I had the chance to meet and chat with all kinds of interesting people working on interesting projects.  This kind of serendipity is super helpful for getting ideas flowing.

6. Record Some Todos.  Our policy at Bazaarvoice is to prepare a trip report that you share with your colleagues so they can get exposed to the interesting new ideas / projects / frameworks / tools / companies that you discovered at the conference.  But aside from your notes you should keep track of things that you want to follow up upon.

My habit is to put a empty square box beside items in my notes where I want to take action.  Then when I return from the conference I go through these TODOs.  Most of them involve researching some topic / book / tool that the presented mentioned.

That’s it!   My advise for getting the most from the conference experience.   What are your tips for getting the most out of a Tech Conference?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment