Google is lower-case agile
Steve Yegge posted an interesting article about good Agile programming versus bad Agile programming. However, it wasn’t his opinions on Agile that caught my attention, but rather the insight he provided as a Google employee. He described why Google is an ideal environment for an agile approach, not an Agile one. Among other key ingredients to their success as a highly sought-after employer is logical incentives.
First, and arguably most importantly, Google drives behavior through incentives. Engineers working on important projects are, on average, rewarded more than those on less-important projects. You can choose to work on a far-fetched research-y kind of project that may never be practical to anyone, but the work will have to be a reward unto itself. If it turns out you were right and everyone else was wrong (the startup’s dream), and your little project turns out to be tremendously impactful, then you’ll be rewarded for it. Guaranteed.
Does that not make sense to anyone? Sounds pretty good to me. He continues with regard to the distinct culture that Google has cultivated from the beginning. It is one of giving praise and recognition where due. It becomes one of the major driving forces for the engineers and creates a feeling of friendly competition that encourages focus and effort to finish a great project.
There are other incentives. One is that Google a peer-review oriented culture, and earning the respect of your peers means a lot there. More than it does at other places, I think. This is in part because it’s just the way the culture works; it’s something that was put in place early on and has managed to become habitual. It’s also true because your peers are so damn smart that earning their respect is a huge deal. And it’s true because your actual performance review is almost entirely based on your peer reviews, so it has an indirect financial impact on you.
Seems to me like a great place to work. Now, if only I were up to snuff…
