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

Lots of the discussion below focusses on the merits of MBAs, upper management, etc. - and while that is good discussion, I just want to add that the killing of this policy - if valid - is yet another example of our flawed practice of capitalism. Capitalism was never meant to destroy creativity nor innovation nor people - but our use of it does lead to those inevitability because of our worst human trait - GREED. Gecko was indeed wrong - GREED is not good - drive is - and they are not the same thing. We need to sharply change how we practice capitalism and develop, into all of our financial models, factors both for total cost impact (i.e. environment, people, etc.) as well as innovation. Current economic models in use do not look at these critical aspect of our existence and until they do, we're all screwed. Innovation and drive are what have brought humanity to this most amazing place in history - not cash (especially fiat cash) and not the hoarding of resources.

I dare the management at Google to reverse course and allow their brilliant stable of top talent to keep the 20% perk - let a few Benjamins go for the sake of building awesome shtuff ("h" intended).

INNOVATION RULES - cash - well, it's just dirty paper...

After initially positing, I found the Quartz update and it seems the reality is that 20%-time has in reality become 120%-time. So it's the issue in reverse - the program is not officially dead, it's just smothered. In essence, Google is saying it's cool if you want to innovate aside from your core duties but do so on your time - the time that is taken away from your life and family. So the loud and clear message to employees is innovate with new ideas only if you are willing to make sacrifices in very important areas of your life - what a hugely bad move. Some might say, "Well - sacrifices need to be made to do great things." True - but shouldn't the main benefactor be the one who makes the main sacrifice??? Of course they should. In addition, 8h per week is likely not nearly enough time to incubate anything worth while so while the 8h is a great starting point, it is more than likely that folks would need to still use additional time to make any degree of progress.

What should be done is to first decide your company's mission statement and if innovation is anywhere within and is at least on par or above profit, then you need to take that seriously and set incentives that move folks toward that goal. I was unable to find an actual Google mission statement but I did fined their philosophy page (i.e. "Ten things we know to be true") and it seems clear to me that innovation is definitely a core principle for the company.

As to all those detractors who say the 20% has become basically screw-off time, maybe-maybe not. But the proof is in the pudding and if amazing things come out of the practice - as is the case with 3M and Google - then the screwing off is clearly at a minimum if there at all.

For those that have an idea and wish to use 20% time to incubate, then restructure all of their core projects using a 32h week and pay them for 40h.

My dare to Mr. Brin and the rest remains - don't just not smother the policy but rather, embrace it with a massive kung-fu grip bear hug. Make it a top priority for those with ideas to use 20%-time and incubate to the N-th degree!!!!!