Out of options like "Google are not actually losing", "Google are losing but not because they chose work life balance", "Google are, indeed, but so be it", etc.
Google is now a behemoth that seems to just chuck money and promo packets at problems (Stadia, Google Cloud, Nest, etc) with no clear vision for them. It kind of reminds me of the examples in this blog: https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611
There's also self selection going on - people joining startups generally have more vested interest in solving a problem and will work longer and harder, too. So I think there's some kernel of truth what Eric Schmidt was saying. How much enthusiasm can a person have about increasing the bottom line of a mega public company?
You’re right, startup people have a drive to build great things and they burn the midnight oil and they get divorced during the development of the original iPhone, etc.
But the people who keep the lights on at most companies especially big ones like Google are a sea of average, steady, stable employees who do their tasks and not much else, go home at 5 or maybe earlier and have no interest in burning themselves out so that the CEO can have a second private jet.
And you don’t want to run your company on all A-players and 10x developers because once the thing is built they’ll get bored and move on to the next thing, or they’ll hit a mental breakdown and rage quit because they’re the bulb burning brightest.
Those C-players will just keep clocking in, they won’t be poached by more attractive places to work, they won’t be difficult to cover for when they go on leave, and they won’t write code that goes over the head of other C-players.
Technically, a developer at a public company should work harder to boost the stock price because they’re getting shares as compensation. But at the same time, making 5% more in stock value isn’t worth working 50% harder.
I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with the culture at Google. People who wish Google would be exciting again like Schmidt are just grasping at nostalgia. Boring business may be boring but boring business is excellent business.
This was my moment of clarity during the pandemic. I was working insane hours and it just occurred to me then - why am I working so hard and sacrificing my health? So what if I don't work another 10 hours on top of the 90 I was already working? Is my CEO working this hard (numbers-wise)?
For me - I knew then I was content with being a C-level (probably even a D) player.
If you want a "diverse" team, having both kinds of above stated people on the team is crucial. The above mentioned A players can't do the steady boring work the so called C players can do & likewise that the C players can't do what the A players can. Also C players can be great at questioning all the bleeding edge new tech A players want to implement. For reasons like this, I think it's important that more senior positions are made up of both kinds of people.
Good managers will help everyone identify which kind of person they are & help them have work that fits them best. They'll keep the C players motivated & the A players feeling challenged.
So it’s odd for them to blame work life balance, when they have always pushed their work place as more fun, colorful and relaxing than other work places.
Kinda like Goodheart's law but for promotion criterion.
The number of fairly senior people I've encountered who spend their whole career presenting things that have never been built as if they exist is exhausting.
