Hi Adam – tks for the comment on TheEquityKicker and sorry if I’ve hit a nerve here. My primary beef with the 20% rule is that it is held out to the rest of the world to be something that I suspect it isn’t. Your comment made me reflect on what I had heard directly from people at Google, and what I had picked up from elsewhere, and whilst I have had some direct input you are right in your assertion that most of it comes from other ‘observers’.

I say this to you though – please put us out of our misery of misconception and explain how it does work.

best,
Nic

Hi Adam – tks for the comment on TheEquityKicker and sorry if I’ve hit a nerve here. My primary beef with the 20% rule is that it is held out to the rest of the world to be something that I suspect it isn’t. Your comment made me reflect on what I had heard directly from people at Google, and what I had picked up from elsewhere, and whilst I have had some direct input you are right in your assertion that most of it comes from other ‘observers’.

I say this to you though – please put us out of our misery of misconception and explain how it does work.

best,
Nic

From what I’ve heard from the few I know, it sounds like it has always been a lot more practical and intelligent and sensible than common perception would pretend that it is.

Frankly, I’ve generally not bothered to correct anyone who didn’t bother to research it themselves – except in the cases where they were in my own organization, and attempting to make decisions about related matters based on misconceptions of the supposed Google rule.

From what I’ve heard from the few I know, it sounds like it has always been a lot more practical and intelligent and sensible than common perception would pretend that it is.

Frankly, I’ve generally not bothered to correct anyone who didn’t bother to research it themselves – except in the cases where they were in my own organization, and attempting to make decisions about related matters based on misconceptions of the supposed Google rule.

Sean – I agree that the quote I cite only obliquely implies that 20% time is being discouraged – but it does do that much. I’m also with you in that people tinker and it is much better to harness that than be arrogant enough to believe you can stop it.

For me though harnessing means channeling – which means top down decisions about the areas in which tinkering will be encouraged, and discouragement of activities which go too much off piste. If strategy isn’t set at the centre you don’t get enough focus and the result is too many initiatives that don’t fly consuming significant resource. This is something we have seen at Google, and the post I link to above lists a number of high profile initiatives that have been cancelled in favour of focus on Google’s core strategies.

Sean – I agree that the quote I cite only obliquely implies that 20% time is being discouraged – but it does do that much. I’m also with you in that people tinker and it is much better to harness that than be arrogant enough to believe you can stop it.

For me though harnessing means channeling – which means top down decisions about the areas in which tinkering will be encouraged, and discouragement of activities which go too much off piste. If strategy isn’t set at the centre you don’t get enough focus and the result is too many initiatives that don’t fly consuming significant resource. This is something we have seen at Google, and the post I link to above lists a number of high profile initiatives that have been cancelled in favour of focus on Google’s core strategies.

It is, really, hardly a big deal. It’s not a policy or program in any formal sense as much as a statement of culture — it’s OK to spend an afternoon reading a research paper that just might be relevant, or help out another project for a day, or play with some computing resources once in a while.

It’s also a misconception that 20% time is always spent working on some new, speculative project. Frequently, it is used to work on an existing project, as a sort of internal ‘internship’ preceding possible transfer.

Finally, 20% time can’t be cancelled because, honestly, every company on earth has 20% — or more — time. You simply can’t monitor and force people to focus every hour of every day in the office. Google folk actually work harder and longer than other companies I’ve seen on their main work. So, the only brilliance here at Google is one of spin — admit people are going to tinker and do what they like to an extent at the office, embrace it, channel it, trumpet it to the world.

The quote, in the end, makes your point though — Eric is suggesting that speculative *real* projects won’t be given resources and headcount, which is not the same as saying 20% time is out the door.

Is it a bad sign? no more innovation? hardly, I really think that’s a stretch. Believe me, Google has so much going on that it is a good thing that some silliness is going to get cut — will leave room for the legitimately powerful new stuff to thrive.

It is, really, hardly a big deal. It’s not a policy or program in any formal sense as much as a statement of culture — it’s OK to spend an afternoon reading a research paper that just might be relevant, or help out another project for a day, or play with some computing resources once in a while.

It’s also a misconception that 20% time is always spent working on some new, speculative project. Frequently, it is used to work on an existing project, as a sort of internal ‘internship’ preceding possible transfer.

Finally, 20% time can’t be cancelled because, honestly, every company on earth has 20% — or more — time. You simply can’t monitor and force people to focus every hour of every day in the office. Google folk actually work harder and longer than other companies I’ve seen on their main work. So, the only brilliance here at Google is one of spin — admit people are going to tinker and do what they like to an extent at the office, embrace it, channel it, trumpet it to the world.

The quote, in the end, makes your point though — Eric is suggesting that speculative *real* projects won’t be given resources and headcount, which is not the same as saying 20% time is out the door.

Is it a bad sign? no more innovation? hardly, I really think that’s a stretch. Believe me, Google has so much going on that it is a good thing that some silliness is going to get cut — will leave room for the legitimately powerful new stuff to thrive.