←back to thread

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

(qz.com)
581 points antr | 1 comments | 16 Aug 13 12:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
graeme ◴[16 Aug 13 16:27 UTC] No.6224993[source]▶
This is the opposite of Black Swan farming.

With any project like 20% time, you should expect that almost everything produced will be worthless. So what? All you need are 1-2 big hits to justify the entire program.

Letting employees work on what they think will be valuable is a bottom up approach that can reveal knowledge that's inaccessible to managers.

Some comments on here say that the program 'only' created Gmail. That's been a massive success for Google. That + the smaller successes it has led to likely justify all the projects that didn't pan out.

replies(1): >>6229343 #
1. chii ◴[17 Aug 13 15:32 UTC] No.6229343[source]▶
but the problem is that the incentivization scheme for a middle manager doesn't align with what 20% time gives to the org.

Lets suppose you are a middle manager, and your performance is based on the completion of projects assigned to you by upper management, and perhaps a little bit of weight is given to the innovation your team cranks out in 20% time.

If the projects you are given is either slipping, or is not achieving the type of success that makes you look good (for the purposes of your own promotion/bonus), do you allow your "resources" to work on 20% time, which may bring very little benefit to you directly even if it is successful (it brings benefit to the engineer, not you), or do you divert that 20% time resource to projects that _do_ give you personal benefit?