By now, it seems like everyone has read Life at Google - The Microsoftie Perspective. And now, I too am getting sucked into this discussion...
- The email pretty much states that one of the primary goals of this article is to give pointers for how Microsoft can convince candidates to come to Microsoft. eg, how can we spin Google's perks the other way? Keep that in mind. These are not necessarily things he does or doesn't like about Google.
- People are walking away from this article thinking "oh my god people at Google work really long hours." That's not actually what it says. It actually says that people work 10am - 6pm, but also spend time working from home. 10am - 6pm is an eight hour day - including lunch. Not bad. I work for Google, used to intern at Microsoft, and most of my friends work at Microsoft. I've seen no difference whatsoever in working hours.
- "Nearly everyone is on e-mail 24/7". Microsoft employees tend to have SmartPhones with work mail on it, Google employees don't. Also, Google employees tend to use separate accounts for personal and work emails, whereas Microsoft employees tend to use their work address for both (not sure why). So actually, Google employees can more easily stay away from their work email.
- "Your [20%] project needs to be tacitly approved by your manager." Heh. That's not true.
- "Most managers won't remind you to start a 20% project." That's true. Google has a more hands off management style. They don't babysit you.
- "Google doesn't seem to think that private offices are valuable for technical staff. They're wrong." Ah, yes, the often discussed "open office" vs "private office" issue. There are pros and cons for each. The pros for a private office are pretty obvious, so I won't go into them. I think people overlook the pros for an open office: everyone on your team is right there. Have a question about the system architecture? Just ask. Everyone's right there. You don't have to call a meeting. You don't have to run down the hallway. You don't have to make a phone call. It saves a lot of time - and avoids unnecessary meetings.
I actually had my own office for a few weeks when I first started at Google, and after that I shared an office with just one other person. It seemed cool at the time, but now, I actually prefer an open office plans. If I'm getting distracted I can put on my headphones, but normally, it's just nice to have everyone right there. (I've heard that the Bungie team at Microsoft was encouraged to switch to private offices when they were acquired. They declined. I didn't understand why they wanted cubes when I was at Microsoft either. It makes sense now.) - "My manager had over 100 direct reports and is the common case for managers at Google." A slight exaggeration on the reports, but anyway... The email discussion on management only tells one side of the story. You might think, for example, how can a manager with 100 direct reports review you? Well, they don't, your peers do. That's just one example. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't apply Microsoft's management structure (eg, reviews by managers) to Google's numbers (100 direct reports) - that's mixing and matching, and it doesn't work. The structure is very different between the two companies.
- "Oh and conflict resolution between team members is very complex." Not complex, just different. Instead of some PM or manager coming down and saying "this is my decision - now go implement!", decisions are made more as a result of team discussion. A manager could step in, but usually a group consensus is better than just one person's decision.
- "Of course, if Google handles everything for you, it's hard to think about leaving because of all the "stuff" you'll need to transition and then manage for yourself." Heh. Now you're just being silly!
In my mind, there's one pretty powerful fact in Google's favor: many people have left Microsoft for Google. Microsoft would be more than happy to take them back. If they were happier at Microsoft, don't you think they would return? I don't know anyone who has.
And... I really have to stop getting involved in petty debates :-)
Posts
3 comments:
Isn't it interesting that just the title of the post sparked (yet again) the "Microsoft vs Google" debate. Content wise it was a pretty evenly laid out comparison between the two giving both places credit where credit was due. It was very informative, even though some of the facts about Google were distorted as Geyle pointed out.
At this point doesn't the culture of the two companies really cater towards different "types" of people (where they are in their career)? Gayle you can weigh in better than most since you have been both places - but it seems like the really smart younger people mostly pick Google, while the "old-timers" (equally as smart) seem to go to MS. The "mid-timers" are still a mixed bag.
It's like those old guys that spend hours arguing over who was the best fighter of all time (gotta love Coming to America). How do you compare past to present - it never works. 15 years ago MS had the same culture as Google has now - and people were making the same comparisons between it and the behemoths of the day like IBM. Guess that is what makes it a good debate - no one can ever be right or wrong.
Years ago plenty of us computer dorks couldn't wait to finish a degree and try and "get a job at Microsoft" and have fun and get rich. Then by the time we got the degree (course maybe I shouldn't have been on the "extended" 5 year plan) it wasn't as much fun and you didn't get as rich at MS anymore. I'm just glad there is a Google that still has the opportunities that we were all chasing, encouraging other "newbies" to keep at it. Hopefully should Google ever turn into the next MS, a newer cooler funner (yep thats a word) place will come around and we can have the same debates again.
My two cents - how much change do I owe?
You're right that the email doesn't have a tone of "Google is awful." I'm not sure that I'd call it "a fair comparison" though.
Why do you say that old-timers tend to go to MS? The email doesn't ever actually say that. It suggests, at various points, that even old-timers work "long hours." But then it says that, at Google, old-timers work 10am - 6pm. That's your standard 8 hour work day (actually less, because of lunch). So... why is Microsoft better for old-timers?
I will say that Microsoft's average age is probably older than Google's. That's purely a numbers issue though - because Microsoft's older, it's going to have older people. The correct comparison is average age of the new hires, and I would guess that Google's average new hire age is probably higher than Microsoft.
So who is Microsoft better for (I'm mainly referring to development positions here)? Two types of people:
(1) if you want to work on some very specific technology, like games. Google doesn't have games. Microsoft does.
(2) if you want to be told what to do. At Google, developers make a lot more decisions themselves. The company is fundamentally developer driven. At Microsoft, many of those decision are made by program managers, your manager, etc. If you want to just keep your head down, be told what to do, and do it, then Microsoft is probably the place for you.
Will Google become the next Microsoft? Has Microsoft become the next IBM? I'm not sure. Cultures of Google and Microsoft will change as they get older, but Google can look at Microsoft's mistakes and Microsoft can look to IBM's mistakes. It's not inherent in the evolution of the company that they're born as a Google, grow into a Microsoft, and die as an IBM. Things will change, but that's not necessarily the path that each takes.
Microsoft, IBM and Google do different stuff and it affects their culture. Google is basically a web company, Microsoft is basically a desktop app company, and IBM is (was) hardware, some software, and consulting. The technologies change the culture. I think one of the reasons that 20% works at Google is that the stuff is web based. Because you can roll out web based features/producs quickly (and roll them back if there are problems), you can play around with ideas. You can take chances. Microsoft can't really just roll out some small desktop app.
Re: Oh and conflict resolution between team members is very complex." Not complex, just different. Instead of some PM or manager coming down and saying "this is my decision - now go implement!", decisions are made more as a result of team discussion. A manager could step in, but usually a group consensus is better than just one person's decision."Of course, if Google handles everything for you, it's hard to think about leaving because of all the "stuff" you'll need to transition and then manage for yourself." Heh. Now you're just being silly!
This is not how we operate at Microsoft. A PM is not a dictator but a leader and a facilitator. Only if there is lack of consensus for strange reasons, (s)he will make a call because anyone else is too afraid to do so. I guess I can use the 80-20 rule here. 80% of the time, things get done per group consensus driven by a PM.
Post a Comment