It's just the money. The stakes are simply too high. You are dealing collectively with millions of dollars in total compensation between just a few people in a room having a meeting. Every single gesture or slight or brilliant idea or suggestion made can have a direct consequential impact measured in hundreds of thousands of dollars. It becomes completely impossible to be truly open and honest and collaborative when that's the case. Everything becomes a life and death struggle of competition. People with $800,000 mortgages and $70,000 car payments to make are thinking about very little else. It's pure game theory at this point, where any productive work is a side effect.
Ultimately it is so much simpler. Google is a growth stock. It's value isn't in revenue. It isn't even in the YoY growth. The value is in the second derivative of revenue. It's value is predicated on the company staying on the "fun and super linear growth" part of the sigmoid growth curve.
The growth is changing inflection and they have to do everything they can to keep the illusion that it isn't alive because once Google stops accelerating the stock will crash and it will "fail".
So the c-suite could manage the transition from a growth stock to a dividend stock, or they could keep chopping off bits to keep the old dream alive for one more quarter.
I don’t see it agreeing fully with the title of this post. It says:
“Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. A symptom of this is the spreading contingent of inept middle management.”
So, it claims “inept middle management” is a symptom, not a cause.
It makes sense to manage the search and ad business quarter to quarter, but if that's all they do then they will soon get disrupted by the next big thing like AI. They also need to keep thousands of internal startups running in "change the world" mode so they can disrupt themselves and stay in the game long term. I thought thats what they were doing with letting everyone do their Friday projects.
23 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 53.0 ms ] threadWhat are the incentives for doing this?
I've never made a Medium account, so I really don't know.
<checks search engine market share>
<looks at Alphabet's latest P&L>
Uh... they're sure showing a lot of life for having been killed...
Ultimately it is so much simpler. Google is a growth stock. It's value isn't in revenue. It isn't even in the YoY growth. The value is in the second derivative of revenue. It's value is predicated on the company staying on the "fun and super linear growth" part of the sigmoid growth curve.
The growth is changing inflection and they have to do everything they can to keep the illusion that it isn't alive because once Google stops accelerating the stock will crash and it will "fail".
So the c-suite could manage the transition from a growth stock to a dividend stock, or they could keep chopping off bits to keep the old dream alive for one more quarter.
Their P/E ratio is about 28. That's in comparison to e.g. MS at 38, Amazon at 81, Nvidia at 72.
I don’t see it agreeing fully with the title of this post. It says:
“Much of these problems with Google today stem from a lack of visionary leadership from Sundar Pichai, and his clear lack of interest in maintaining the cultural norms of early Google. A symptom of this is the spreading contingent of inept middle management.”
So, it claims “inept middle management” is a symptom, not a cause.
Bye