I'm sure the pay is great, but it's not a place for smart people who are interested in doing something. I've followed Francois (and had the chance to correspond with him a bit) for many years now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the desire to create something became more important than the comfort of Google.
I've been in tech since the 90s. The only reason I'd go is to network and build a team to do a mass exodus with and that's literally it.
I don't actually care about working on a product I have exactly zero executive control over.
If I went to Google what I'd really want to do is gather up a bunch of people, rent out an away-from-Google office space and build say "search-next" - the response to the onslaught of entries currently successfully storming Google's castle.
Do this completely detached and unmoored from Google's existing product suite so that nobody can even tell it's a Google product. They've been responding shockingly poorly and it's time to make a discontinuous step.
And frankly I'd be more likely to waltz upon a winning lottery ticket than convincing Google execs this is necessary (and it absolutely is).
Now, if you want to ship a product to millions of people _and_ have full control over it, then a large org is indeed not the right place.
A system to consider honest input without regard for job titles or hierarchy? yes!
For instance, I am not a UX designer but I do keep abreast of consumer perception and preference in whatever field I'm working in - almost like a stalker.
If a designer designs an interface and the feedback is clearly and unanimously negative, I should be able to present this and affect actual change in the product - not have my concerns heard, not considered, but to force actual remedial action taken to fundamentally address the issue.
If a competitor rolls out a new feature that is leading to a mass exodus of our customers, I should be able to demonstrate this without the managers whiffing about some vision that nobody gives a shit about or sprint planning responding to it in 6-months or having days of endlessly yapping. If the ship's got a leak my brother, it should be quickly and swiftly addressed.
It'd be like driving to lunch and your car catches on fire, you ignore it, and think about what you're going to be getting for dessert.
People realize these urgencies in IT/devops but teams that don't want to rock the boat as you gently glide over a waterfall are a complete waste of time.
So control? No. But if someone waves their hands and shout danger, they shouldn't be patronizingly patted on the head and told everything's under control.
In conventional large companies, that's exactly what happens. You're on a team, get assigned tickets, attend meetings, everyone calmly plays their roles and if you notice something in someone else's lane, you're supposed to politely stay quiet and watch everybody crash.
I’ve seen both : bad managers who let the boat crash and wouldn’t listen, and very good ones ( leading thousands of people ) understanding there was a problem, owning it and fixing it.
There are large orgs which are like what you want ( I work in one of them and that’s why I’m not leaving). I suspect there are not many of them though !