But now comes word that Google is contemplating launching an in-house incubator, where some of the company’s smartest smarty pants will get to work on their own inspirations full-time. According to the New York Times, the idea is one of several the company is considering to combat the recent exodus that is seeing some employees leave to either join faster, nimbler startups, like Facebook, or to start their own companies.
Current and former Googlers told the Times that they both felt things didn’t move quickly enough at Google and that the projects they did work on–even those that did see the light of day–got buried in a company as large as Google. “There’s a lot of these cool features that are very hidden,” said one, “and a lot of people worked very hard on them and they were kind of sad that they spent a year of their life on something that gets 0.1% usage.”
All of which begs the question: Can a company get so large that innovative incentives, like 20 percent time, simply aren’t enough to hold on to the kinds of pioneering, entrepreneurial employees who are the key to helping companies remain on the cutting edge?
Google now has 23,000 employees, up from 5,000 just five years ago. It has 70 offices in 38 countries. And though it continues to place a premium on coming up with new features and offerings, it nevertheless has a basketful of products that need continual maintenance and upgrading. If you are young and energetic, chomping at the bit to build cool stuff, would you think a company of 23,000 people would be the place to do it?
Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt has conceded that things don’t move as quickly as they once did. “It’s absolutely harder to get things out the door,” he told the Times. “That’s probably our biggest strategic issue.”
An incubator is “20 percent time” on steroids. The thinking seems to be that giving your in-house entrepreneurs all the space in the world to work on their passions will keep them loyal to Mother Google. But even that might not be enough. Having a wolf at the door, as you do at startups, creates a force that propels you to take risks and get creative in ways that simply don’t emerge when you know your paychecks will keep coming irrespective of whether your project succeeds or fails. And those risks and bursts of creativity are what produce real innovation.
The wolf–the prospect of failure–also produces the adrenaline rush that pioneering souls feed on. You just can’t get that rush when the next paycheck is guaranteed. Even Facebook, to which Google has lost over 100 employees, has reasons to fear the wolf. Predictions that a Facebook IPO will bring in figures as high as $100 billion are all talk. There is no guarantee. And you can be sure that the uncertainty over the actual outcome drives the folks at Facebook to move quickly and take gambles that a larger, more established company would think twice about (or have endless series of meetings to discuss).
That, of course, combined with the fact that Facebook is still a fairly small company. When it launched its Messages features this month, company leaders touted the fact that the project had been produced by the company’s “largest engineering team yet.” What did that mean? Fifteen engineers.
Entrenched companies can only innovate so far, which is why Proctor & Gamble set up the Connect + Develop program to get outside companies to innovate on its behalf (earning it a position on Fast Company‘s Most Innovative Companies list). Similarly, Netflix created its $1 million prize as a means of leveraging outside talent to solve the difficult problem of improving its recommendation engine.
Google will have to get used to seeing its best and brightest–or at least its most entrepreneurial–continue walking out the door, incubator notwithstanding. Its best hope for groundbreaking innovation may lie for the most part in the place from which it has emerged in recent years–in acquisitions.
What do you think? Has Google’s 20 percent time reached its natural limit? Is there a point when, no matter how creative their incentives are, a large company simply won’t be able to keep smart, creative engineers on staff? Or is it in fact possible for large companies to keep entrepreneurs in-house–and keep them innovative?
[Photo by Andrew Hur]