“The Google I was passionate about was a technology company that empowered its employees to innovate. The Google I left was an advertising company with a single corporate-mandated focus,” James Whittaker wrote in Why I Left Google. “The days of old Google hiring smart people and empowering them to invent the future was gone. The new Google knew beyond doubt what the future should look like. Employees had gotten it wrong and corporate intervention would set it right again.”
Google And The New Science
When I read Whittaker’s post this morning, I couldn’t help but think about my favorite author, Margaret Wheatley. I wondered what she would have to say about his description of the recent “transformation” at Google. Google has always seemed, from an outsider’s perspective, to be the embodiment of the new science principles Wheatley outlines in her book, Leadership And The New Science.
Her book is, without question, the most important business book I’ve ever read. In it she looks at how chaos theory, quantum physics, and self-organizing systems challenge old ways of thinking about how organizations can and should be run. Wheatley describes the standard ways of thinking in companies to be tied to “old science,” to old concepts, Newton’s concepts, where the “command and control” organizational foundations drew their energy.
The new science, quantum theory, began to chip away at the underpinnings of Newtonian physics in the early 1900’s. A century later, we are still just beginning to understand the implications of what our new, more accurate understanding of nature and science means to how we interact with it. And we’ve certainly only scratched the surface of how it can play a significant role in teaching us how to better interact with each other in organizations.
“Each of us lives and works in organizations designed from Newtonian images of the universe,” Wheatley wrote. “We manage by separating things into parts, we believe that influence occurs as a direct result of a force exerted from one person to another, we engage in complex planning for a world that we keep expecting to be predictable, and we search continually for better methods of objectively measuring and perceiving the world.”
A Lapse Into Newtonian Thinking?
And this is what struck me this morning when reading Whittaker’s descriptions of the changes made inside Google. “Larry Page himself assumed command to right this wrong.” It appears Google, the company that has been a model of innovation through self-organization, has slipped back a century into a model based on outdated science.
In an interview with Scott London, Wheatley said, “If you’re interested in creating sustainable growth, sustainable productivity, sustainable morale, you can’t do that through autocracy.” There may be notable exceptions, but when a company culture is built on one set of values, shifting to a whole new set of values can be a catastrophe. Especially when thats not the intended goal. Values are the dark matter of human relationships, and inside an organization they are the “unseen but real forces that influence people’s behavior.”
If Whittaker’s description of what has changed at Google is accurate and not merely the rant of a disgruntled employee, then there has been a disruption in that force. And if Margaret Wheatley is correct about how this energy inside an organization works, and I believe she is, that disruption could mean rough times ahead. Google has proven what can happen when a company embraces chaos and empowers people to act as self-organizing co-creators.
I, for one, hope their lapse into Newtonian thinking is temporary.
– – – –
Photo By paul mccoubrie via Flickr.
Definitely makes me think of our brief discussion on the decision that Google is making to prohibit 3rd party apps from adding to the Google+ ecosystem. They’re taking a position that seems contrary to their corporate ethos of an open, transparent, and merit-based Internet. This “we know what’s best for our users” mentality seems forged in the wrong steel – and I think is emblematic of a company treating their customers in a post-IPO, quarterly-focused, monopolistic way.
At the end of it all, Google appears surprisingly stagnant. It seems like a company reeling from a loss and trying to protect their turf than a company on the cutting edge of the web.
Only time will tell whether or not their managed approach is the right one – and their cash war chest and significant market share will make the slow burn out that much harder to predict.
Dave, you’re right. They have a luxury that smaller companies don’t have, a large bank account. It may take a while to truly feel the full force of the impact these kinds of changes in ethos bring about.
You’ve touched on a concept that I’ve been chewing on for a while…agendas and egos. I’ve been witnessing changes in people around me (I think it translates to organizations as well) on the rise to fame; pursuit of glory/success/or however you want to define it. It seems to me that as we grow into our purpose and begin to experience success, our egos have a sneaky way of taking over.
How do we define ‘better’ or ‘success’. Is it always about ‘winning’ and ‘money’ or do you win when you stick to your values and principles? I tend to think its the latter but man o man the pressure is on isn’t it? 🙂
Success and failure often have the same impact, they can both expose what is really valued. Often that’s in conflict with stated values. When it happens at the corporate level, the awakening often comes after the departure of people who are not very fond of the newly exposed values. When it happens at the personal level, it strains relationships. It can, however, simply be a part of growth, a temporary lapse that leads to a greater understanding of purpose. I’ve seen this be true in both organizations and individuals.
Good point. Growth is not always comfortable. (remembering my divorce 😉
I find the comparisons to science very intriguing here and agree completely on the parallels happening in modern business.
However, it’s this comment I’d like to address –
I am currently on an ego high. I’ve done some amazing things lately, personally and professionally. If this were my blog, I’d go and on more about myself. Suffice to say I’m living outside some of my stated values.
What I’m noticing is that it actually makes me want to Do More. More creative, more learning, more deep thinking, more better things. I think it’s possible that this current swell of pride may actually propel me forward. It may not be lapse at all, but a boost to my life and businesses.
or I may be wrong and straining relationships unbeknownst to me. how will I know?
I’ll be sure to let you know when your healthy pride crosses over into self-indulgent ego. 🙂
🙂 I just may be so proud of myself that I don’t care what anyone thinks.
🙂
I’m wondering if the ‘dark matter’ of the type of change that Margaret Wheatley describes in her book also includes the ebb and flow of progress and creativity and an acceptance/understanding that this type of life force cannot be sustained indefinitely in a larger environment which does not understand it fully or even recognize the shift taking place.
I think that some of what may be viewed as steps ‘backward’ sometimes serve to highlight various levels of dysfunction. “When we know better, we do better.” (#quote Oprah)
At one time, Newtonian thinking was the only ‘right way’ to think. That sort of certainty never gives up it’s stake in determining the way forward easily…
Google in my opinion is part of this process. If it fails to continue to innovate, it will still have served an important purpose, but will be replaced by whatever is next.
I know you’re a fan of Wheatley as well, Lola, and I think there’s a lot of truth in what you’re describing. If Google ends up stumbling badly as they make these moves, perhaps lessons will be learned quickly and a shift will occur in the other direction. Either way, important lessons will be learned by watching what happens and how they handle the changes.
I think many companies which have grown rapidly go through similar stages. The original core values are that of teamwork and everyone doing what they can where they can. It’s about inventing a new product or even a. Industry. Think Apple. Think Disney. Think Federal Express. Think Ford ( back in the model T days). When things are fresh everyone has a purpose from the CEO to the janitor. Eventually though the leadership changes. Everyone who was there remembers the good ol’ days and when they were fresh and new. It’s not as exciting. People need to be told what needs to be done while at the same time new businesses are being started at kitchen tables and garages yet again where the passion of self organizing systems are alive and well.
Bottom line: Everything Changes and yet Everything Stays the same. Let’s all work in the world That Everything Changes.
The collision between the wants of Wall Street and the relentless continuum of complex adaptive systems can, at times, be an ugly train wreck.
Dave Cole talked about Google as an organization operating within the constraints and demands of a post IPO company thinking and working in 90-day bubbles. He’s right. There’s nothing in that model remotely compatible with the kind of complex adaptive culture envisioned by Margaret Wheatley. In it’s formative period of development Google had the wisdom – and the luxury – of living and thriving in a more Wheatley-like world. It was a good place to be, a healthy place, free of the toxicity of demanded increasing quarterly earnings, sustainably growing at double digit rates, oblivious to real world realities. When I was the CEO of a publicly traded company, the one question I was ALWAYS asked by every fund manager, analyst and investment banker I ever met or talked to was, “What are you doing to increase shareholder wealth?”
We can only hope that Google’s creative spark still lives within the company in the form of “skunk works” cells, humming along below the radar, periodically surfacing to bring life to another breakthrough that survived its gestation period, in part, because it wasn’t forced to generate immediate financial results in the next quarter.
Lola Audu quoted Oprah – “(When we know better, we do better.)” I wish that were true. The mortgage meltdown proved that it isn’t. Large numbers of intelligent, educated, enlightened people – in positions of power and trust – who knew better did unspeakable things. And some of them are still doing those things – or are trying to.
And Lola made another point, that I think represents the bottom line in all of the discussion. And that is that Google is but one participant in a much larger, ever advancing complex adaptive system. If they continue to swim against the tide, they will eventually be replaced by a more relevant, vibrant, responsive set of solutions embodied in a new organization. And maybe, just maybe the investment community will, by that time, rid itself of its ridiculous expectation that the laws of quantum physics can be rewritten to fit nicely into 90 day modules. I hope so.
Bill:
This is one of the best blog comments I’ve ever read.
I believe that we are at the beginning of the change you wish for in your closing sentence. I see more companies being built for reasons beyond 90 day modules than ever before. Customer-centric, cause based, purpose motivated, and social throughout are the common business models of the new startups. Plus consider how Facebook’s IPO will shift expectations of shareholder control: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/02/facebook_s_ipo_how_mark_zuckerberg_plans_to_retain_dictatorial_control_his_company_.html
Also consider Kickstarter as a disruptive funding tool and we can easily see a future where expectations of shareholder return are shifted for the betterment/enablement of quantum physics thinking for business.
I hope these are real steps forward for our country and world.
Brad, one day you should meet Bill. He has been my friend/mentor for over 20 years.
I met Bill in the lobby of Inman Connect back in 2009 for about 3 minutes. We talked about RETSO or something. It was brief. I hope to have a deeper conversation sooner than later in life.
I remember that now… yeah, that’s not the kind of “meet” I was referring to. 🙂