How does Google stay so relentlessly innovative? From its earliest and most valuable breakthrough – putting order on the vast amounts of information online with its ingenious page-ranking algorithm – through to developing self-driving cars, the technology giant has been one of the most reliably pioneering, and unpredictable, companies in the world.
Part of that creative energy came from the unconventional corporate attitude that was built into its DNA by founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. The most oft-quoted, of course, was the unofficial company motto: "Don't Be Evil." That aspiration has as often as not been used as a stick to beat the company with in the years since, particularly in light of its complex business dealings in China, and more recently after revelations of some degree of complicity in widespread surveillance by the US National Security Agency. In any case, the phrase captured a certain admirable idealism in the two founders, and an awareness of the awesome power they would soon wield. But the other major plank of Google's corporate philosophy that was often cited as being vital to its relentless innovation was the famous 20 per cent time initiative – the latitude given to employees to spend a fifth of their working time on company-related projects that interest them. As a statement of corporate philosophy, it's no exaggeration to say that 20 per cent time was almost as integral to the company's identity as the notorious directive against evil-doing.
It hinged on the not exactly radical insight that if you hire lots of really smart people and give them a degree of freedom to pursue their own interests, you will end up with lots of potentially interesting ideas. Judicious recruitment and a healthy amount of employee autonomy could be a lucrative scenario. In their 2004 Founders’ IPO letter to prospective investors, they explained that “We encourage our employees, in addition to their regular projects, to spend 20 per cent of their time working on what they think will most benefit Google. This empowers them to be more creative and innovative. Many of our significant advances have happened in this manner.”
Google most certainly benefitted from that innovative atmosphere – a whole raft of products, such as AdSense, Gmail, Google Transit, Google Talk and Google News, resulted from 20 per cent time. And of course the beloved Google Reader, the RSS client that dominated feed reading until it was mercilessly killed a few months ago. Back in 2006, Marissa Mayer revealed that 20 per cent time gave rise to half of the products Google launched in the second half of 2005.
The 20 per cent time concept was successful because it managed to partially circumvent the innovation-bottleneck that hierarchical management structures impose on companies, and perhaps as importantly because it acted as a beacon to attract the best engineering talent. The sort of brilliant minds required to keep something like Google moving forward are easily bored – to attract enough of them, it's important to let them know they won't be too stifled. If you're simultaneously able to find a way to profit from that latitude, then all the better.
Popular concept
This approach to empowering knowledge workers wasn't exactly invented by Google – but Brin and Page popularised the concept to such a degree that 20 per cent time was quickly introduced at forward-thinking corporations all over the world.
Given this widespread adoption, it was a surprise when the current status of 20 per cent time became the subject of much speculation in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Christopher Mims, technology reporter at Quartz, sparked the discussion in an article declaring that "Google has effectively shut down 20 per cent time without actually ending the programme by strongly discouraging managers from approving any 20 per cent projects at all".
The end of such latitude for employees would be a significant moment in Google’s development, an inflection point in its progress from plucky start-up to conventional corporate behemoth.
It is in keeping with what Larry Page said on assuming his role as chief executive in 2011, that the company would put “more wood behind fewer arrows”. This was seen as a reaction to a widely perceived flaw at Google – a lack of focus. It’s certainly true that for much of the past decade Google appeared to be firing off more shots than the eye could keep track of.
However, Google fired off more misses than hits, and at a certain point it pays to be more discerning in what you choose to shoot at. And it's probably true that a scheme such as 20 per cent time doesn't facilitate that sort of discernment – focus is hard at the best of times, and one doesn't need an MBA to realise that it must be a lot harder when you're encouraging your staff to spend one day every week dreaming up new things to work on.
Significant shift
Thus, the rumoured end of 20 per cent time hints at a significant shift in corporate ethos at Mountain View – and a practical shift in how it innovates. Bold new ideas are increasingly seen as the preserve of the supposedly secretive but actually quite attention-hungry Google X Lab, under the control of Sergey Brin, which is responsible for developing Google Glass and the self-driving automobile project. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Google's nearly 45,000 employees are expected to serve the larger corporate goal of selling ads.
However, an insightful rejoinder to Mims' story came from technology writer Ryan Tate, who recently wrote a book called The 20% Doctrine about Google's initiative and similar programmes designed to maximise the value of knowledge workers. The concept, he explained in an article at Wired, has never been a rigidly observed part of the employment contract, but rather an informal right of employees to pursue it. "Because 20 per cent time is less of a formal programme than an idea or operating spirit available to bullheaded employees, availing oneself of 20 per cent time has long entailed sacrifices," he wrote.
But Tate acknowledged that attitudes at Google appear to be changing. “Google says through a spokesperson that employees are still encouraged to pursue what are often called 20 per cent projects that involve Google-related interests outside their main line of work. It also says the idea of Googlers running with their own ideas is core to the company’s culture. But it won’t, when pressed repeatedly, state simply and clearly that 20 per cent time lives on.”
Indeed, a lengthy thread on Hacker News reinforced this notion. In a follow-up piece, Mims wrote that “Apparently, 20 per cent time is jokingly referred to within Google as ‘120 per cent time’.” Essentially, for the vast majority of Googlers, there is simply too much work to do in regular hours to devote time to extracurricular projects that might not earn any reward or recognition.
Google, as is their wont, will do things their way – that’s what makes them such a fascinating company, capable of so much audacious ingenuity. And there’s not many who would bet against them applying that ingenuity to their own structures, ensuring sustainable innovation into the future. Whether that comes in the form of 20 per cent time or some other way of maximising the engineering talent available to them, their long run of unpredictable innovation is unlikely to dry up any time soon. But if programmes such as 20 per cent time really are a sure-fire way of fostering innovation in corporate environments, then it will certainly live on in other companies, of that we can be sure.
