←back to thread

Google’s “20% time,” which brought you Gmail and AdSense, is now as good as dead

(qz.com)
581 points antr | 4 comments | 16 Aug 13 12:09 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
spankalee ◴[16 Aug 13 14:27 UTC] No.6224168[source]▶
As a Googler, I can confirm that this article is... completely wrong.

I don't have to get approval to take 20% time, and I work with a number of people on their 20% projects.

I can also confirm that many people don't take their 20% time. Whether it's culture change due to new hiring, lack of imagination, pressure to excel on their primary project, I'm not sure, but it is disappointing. Still, in engineering No permission is needed.

replies(3): >>6224347 #>>6224491 #>>6224563 #
enraged_camel ◴[16 Aug 13 15:28 UTC] No.6224563[source]▶
Michael Church (an outspoken ex-Googler) would disagree with you. One thing I remember him saying that was verified by several other Googlers, both current and ex, is that whether you are allowed 20% time depends on your team and your manager. And in fact, most teams in Google do not get 20% time, so you may be one of the lucky ones.
replies(3): >>6224917 #>>6226601 #>>6226959 #
spankalee ◴[16 Aug 13 16:13 UTC] No.6224917[source]▶
Michael Church is someone who is not worth listening to. He made massively incorrect assertions while at Google, and continues to after he basically talked himself out of his job in a very public way.

Engineers get 20% time period. You can be asked to defer it for a quarter. On the other hand, most don't take it.

replies(2): >>6225323 #>>6227414 #
enraged_camel ◴[16 Aug 13 17:12 UTC] No.6225323[source]▶
Just because he made some massively incorrect assertions while at Google does not mean he is not worth listening to. Everyone says incorrect things sometimes. I mean, can you claim that you are right all the time? Probably not.

I don't know him personally but I read the stuff he writes, and while his character can be a bit abrasive he's an extremely intelligent dude who can make astute observations and connections that other people miss. I think you're doing him a lot of disservice by dismissing him the way you did.

replies(1): >>6225747 #
moultano ◴[16 Aug 13 18:12 UTC] No.6225747[source]▶
He was at Google for 6 months. Whatever you think about his opinions in general, he doesn't know anything about how things at Google work.
replies(2): >>6225940 #>>6225964 #
1. Philadelphia ◴[16 Aug 13 18:46 UTC] No.6225964[source]▶
Not reflecting on this case specifically, but if six months isn't long enough for a new employee to generally understand how a company works, it would seem to suggest something's wrong with the company's culture, or at least with how people are brought on board. Six months is a long time in an industry where people change jobs every two years.
replies(2): >>6226375 #>>6226757 #
2. benched ◴[16 Aug 13 19:54 UTC] No.6226375[source]▶
I consider myself to be consciously observant of organizational issues. I would say it took me about 4 years to develop a reasonably rounded picture of "how things work" at Microsoft, and then only from the point of view of a low-ranking employee. Big companies are vast, layered, intensely game-oriented social universes.
3. minwcnt5 ◴[16 Aug 13 21:11 UTC] No.6226757[source]▶
Part of the problem with mchurch was willful ignorance. A few colleagues, including some fairly senior people, reached out to him and volunteered to try and help him resolve his concerns. To my knowledge he never took them up on it.
replies(1): >>6234126 #
4. yuhong ◴[18 Aug 13 20:37 UTC] No.6234126[source]▶
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5518156