Google’s been hiring PhD’s for a while now.
Today, I read Yahoo is starting to do that same thing too …
My problem with this emergence of PhDs into the corporate gene pool is realted to the fact that most (don’t flame me, I am not saying all) PhD’s have a very core focus on their line of research. It could be user interfaces, super computing concepts or even designing better networks. Not many PhDs have a core focus on business development and marketing and sales strategy.
You could say that getting in MBAs should solve this problem … but that is not entirely true either. Most MBAs come from big-company backgrounds where they have been cogs in the wheel. Very few of them actually come from maverick backgrounds and are willing to break the norm or go places without profit.
This is not an attack on the software guys who are out there going where no other software company has gone before and exploring new worlds and expanding the frontiers. Rather, just the lack of the startup guys. The serial entrepreneurs. The future angel-investor material. What is a good way for these now-big companies to keep their startup roots? How do they best serve their growing customer and investor base without losing potential startup-style ideas. Sure, they can buy out other companies and reinvent themselves with newer processes and ideas. But thats the expensive way.
Is there something they can do in their everyday business that helps them remain a startup? Google’s 20% time to personal project method comes close. Very close. Is it the only way? Is there something that can be done better? Why isn’t Yahoo doing the same. Why isn’t Amazon doing it too?
29 Aug 2006 at 8:52 am
What I feel is important to keep a company attached to its start-up roots is the willingness to be open, to listen to ideas presented by its employees and if the idea is in line with the direction they are taking and good, implement it. Jeremy Zawodny’s post about how Yahoo’s mistakes related to their Finance portal (http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/006524.html) basically allowed Google to steal the limelight shows some of the things not-to-do if you still want to keep the start-up spirit in the company.
29 Aug 2006 at 10:56 am
Few points before the actual reply:
* This post has got “Anomalizer Bait” written all over it
* You have sufficiently digressed, making my task of replying very difficult
* I swear by the mandatory disclaimers I have to make about this being my views and no reflection of my employer etc etc
Now to the business….
Are PhDs needed is a very different question from how versatile are PhDs. The same can be said of MBAs. They have their area of excellence; so long as you let them be where they belong, everything is fine. Trouble starts when PhDs start making sales plans and MBAs start choosing hardware vendors for servers.
Startup attitudes work only at startups. Their core tenet is that there is a whole lot to gain and very little to lose. Large publically traded corporations cannot adopt that stance; that would be plain irresponsible. Their primary goal may seem to maximize profit but in reality, they spend most of their time minimizing risks and taking extra precaution to ensure that they don’t fall apart in a single stroke. So I’d question the rationale for wanting to retain startup ethos beyond a cretain point.
And now, time to take a dig at the infinitely over drooled 20%. The biggest benefit of the 20% rule seems to be to get the entire planet is drooling. If you are suggesting that 80% of the time you do things the not so cool way and you get 20% time to do whatever you want, something is seriously flawed. Why aren’t those people doing things the right way in that 80% of the time? Why do the supposedly smart people require designated time to be revolutionary? Aren’t egalitarian, non-slave driving corporations supposed to be open enough to the point wherein if you have the right ideas and know how to push it, you approach the right people and things happen?
29 Aug 2006 at 6:03 pm
Satchit … u can understand why I would want to reply to you later. Anomalizer is going to take up all the space in this reply list for now ….
Few points in reply to your few points before the actual reply to your reply …
* Not true. I half expected you to reply. Only half. The half that knew I was gonna spring the trap.
* I actually wasn’t going to … but started thinking along the lines of what will Arwind say to this, what will Arwind say to that. Lost quiet a few grey cells that way.
* This is the 2nd Yahoo bloke in as many days uttering this legal diclaimer. C’mon … they make you guys put this up, don’t they?
Now, the reply to your reply …
I agree that the question should have been how versatile are the PhDs or the MBA. But I made the same point by asking where are the non-PhD and non-MBA types. You can argue that they are also being hired, but just not being written about in blogs/papers. Still … you read about M$ hiring Ray Ozzie, and of AOL using Jason Calacanis’s ideas. Heck, even Disney will use Jobs to some good. Who are the equivalent at Yahoo or Google?
Startup attitudes are not all about maximizing risks because there isn’t really anything to loose. In fact, startups can make mistakes and will have to close down. Big corporations can just called it a failed project and reassign the people.
The reason I agree with the 20% rule actually has more to do with your thinking about “Large publically traded corporations cannot adopt that stance; that would be plain irresponsible.”. If they experimented 80% or 100% of the time, that is irresponsible in a large corporation playground.
Also, I just remembered Yahoo’s HackDay (what is it again?) … isn’t this Yahoo’s version of 20%?
Mebbe Yahoo ppl work so few hours that just 1 HackDay a year is actually equal to 20% of their time! Flame on …….. arrrrgh … why did I think that out loud ;-)
29 Aug 2006 at 8:08 pm
You can argue that they are also being hired, but just not being written about in blogs/papers.
This is a fallacy but nonetheless I’ll use it.. the examples you cited were of corps that were clearly going downhill very rapidly and trying to get big names to review things. The Y! and G got their respective CEOs too a few years ago to dramtically change fortunes.
In fact, startups can make mistakes and will have to close down. Big corporations can just called it a failed project and reassign the people.
Which is why most startups tank eventually? “Failed projects” are not risky propositions since it doesn’t mean pulling the shutters down. The very fact that they can get away with it is an indication of why the risk is small in the larger scheme of things.
Now off to troll on logicalreligion’s blog…
30 Aug 2006 at 9:42 am
Actually, of M$, AOL and Disney … I believe only AOL was seriously in trouble. M$ is going to be in trouble only if they do stupid things with Zune. But, if the XBox 360 is an indication, even M$ can sometimes redeem itself.
I think Ozzie is the best amongst the worst at M$ because they HAD to pick someone post-Gates. However, don’t think of Ozzie as the Groove-guy. He is and always be the Lotus Notes guy. Thats a good thing for M$. They need to stop depending on people buying their stuff because of lack of choices and start working towards people buying their stuff inspite of choices.