Google has too many peacetime generals

I am all-in on Google.

From using a Chromebook exclusively to hosting chats on Google Meet.

I even use YouTube Music.

I know, wild.

You see, I am rooting for Google.

Even though they rejected me.

I interviewed there once back in the day.

Somehow I got through the HR algorithm and was picked for an opening phone interview.

I was thrilled, prepped, and ready.

And just like that, with one 20-minute call, my move from Google user to Google employee was over.

A Googler told me I was lucky to have just gotten a phone interview.

He wasn't totally wrong.

Word on the street is that Google receives two million applications yearly.

Whole keynotes have been hatched by telling audiences that it is ten times harder to get a job at Google than it is to get into Harvard.

After reading an insightful post from Praveen Seshadri on what is happening in Google today, I understand why I wasn't made a Googler.

Google looks for peacetime generals.

But when a company has too many peacetime generals, well, the company becomes too peaceful.

When a company becomes too peaceful, everyone works only for their colleagues and what managers think of their work.

Not what the outside, messy, complex, and warring consumers think of your work.

I am no peacetime general.

Seshadri's post is worth a read. You can access it here.

Here are insights I found compelling:

+ Google has 175,000+ capable and well-compensated employees who get very little done quarter over quarter, year over year. Like mice, they are trapped in a maze of approvals, launch processes, legal reviews, performance reviews, exec reviews, documents, meetings, bug reports, triage, OKRs, H1 plans followed by H2 plans, all-hands summits, and inevitable reorgs.

+ Google has four core cultural problems: (1) no mission, (2) no urgency, (3) delusions of exceptionalism, (4) mismanagement.

+ Does anyone at Google come into work actually thinking about “organizing the world’s information”? They have lost track of who they serve and why.

+ Overall, it is a soft peacetime culture where nothing is worth fighting for.

+ Within Google, there is a collective delusion that the company is exceptional.

+ Google can no longer seek success by avoiding risk. The path forward has to start with culture change, and that has to start at the very top.

+ Google’s executives should look at what Satya Nadella did at Microsoft: (1) lead with a commitment to a mission, (2) set aside the peacetime generals who underpromise and underdeliver, (3) winnow the layers of middle management that have accumulated over time, many promoted gradually beyond their capability, and now incapable of change.

I am still rooting for Google.

I trust they can bring on some wartime generals.

If you feel it's too peaceful at your company, Caracal is here to help.

Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.

-Marc

---

ITK Daily is geopolitical business intelligence for senior executives with global ambition.

ITK Daily curates news @ the intersection of globalization, disruption, politics, culture, + sport and provides actionable insights and sharp commentary.

TWIN framework

The best communicators embrace the TWIN framework:

TWIN = Targets to Win, Influence, and Neutralize.

In a complex communications effort, you will likely have 5, 7, 9, 11, and 25 targets (audiences) that you need to win, influence, and neutralize.

This ability to identify targets rests on classic stakeholder management, engagement, and situation awareness.

To succeed in a complex communications effort, ask yourself which targets (audiences) you need to win, influence, and neutralize.

Of the 5, 7, 9, 11, and possibly 25 targets, identify them and place them into one of three columns - win, influence, or neutralize.

Which targets (audiences) do you need 100 percent on your side to win?

Which targets (audiences) do you need to influence?

Which targets (audiences) do you need to neutralize?

Pro-tip, mathematically the win and influence audiences should be bigger.

Podcast Notes | Marc Ross on Communications Strategy

A few weeks back, I joined the Human Risk Podcast hosted by Christian Hunt.

The Human Risk Podcast focuses on "the risk of people doing things they shouldn't or not doing things they should" and examines how behavioral science can help us mitigate it.

In this discussion with Christian, we focused on communications strategy.

We discussed which politicians on the campaign trail are good at communicating and those who need help. 

We explored how people who aren't natural-born communicators can communicate their message to differences between political and corporate communications. 

And finally, how communications have shaped the war in Ukraine to the expertise of a communications strategist to keep things out of the news.

Here are some highlights:

The benefits of high-low communications: It is equally important to attend Davos and speak with CNBC, the Financial Times, and BBC News as it is to speak before a local chamber of commerce event in St. Louis and be interviewed by a business journalist the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Humans want to connect: We are hardwired to hear stories, share data, and accept information. One's ability to share information in an engaging, compelling, and educational way is super important.

The ability to be a chameleon: From speaking to the board members of Goldman Sachs to entrepreneurial founders at Startup San Diego, you could share the same information, but how you connect to those two audiences needs to be different.

Communications is a superpower: You could have the best idea in the world, but if you can't tell that story and convince enough people, you won't be able to make your idea work.

Learn communications skills from comedians: Spend an afternoon binge-watch a slew of different comics on Netflix. Watch how they move, speak, connect, and control a room. Take improv classes and get comfortable with the spoken word, being on stage, and connecting with an audience.

Here are two frameworks discussed:

The best communicators embrace the E-STOCK framework: E-STOCK = Event, Strategy, Tactics, Organization, Consistency, and Know-how. 

What is the event - the context of the communications effort?

What is the strategy - what are you trying to achieve?

What tactics or tools will you use to best communicate to your audience?

What are the organizational requirements, staff, and systems needed to best communicate to your audience?

What is the cadence and pace of your communications - what will you do daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annually?

What expertise and know-how can you share that no one else can - what makes your communications unique?

The best communicators embrace the TWIN framework: TWIN = Targets, Win, Influence, and Neutralize.

In a complex communications effort, you will likely have 5, 7, 9, 11, and 25 targets (audiences) that you need to win, influence, and neutralize.

This ability to identify targets is classic stakeholder management, engagement, and situation awareness.

To succeed in a complex communications effort, ask yourself which targets (audiences) do you need to win, influence, and neutralize.

Of the 5, 7, 9, 11, and possibly 25 targets, identify them and place them into one of three columns - win, influence, or neutralize.

Which targets (audiences) do you need 100 percent on your side to win?

Which targets (audiences) do you need to influence?

Which targets (audiences) do you need to neutralize?

Pro-tip, mathematically the win and influence audiences should be bigger.

You can listen to the complete episode here.

If you need help with your communications strategy, Caracal is here to help.

Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.

---

ITK Daily is geopolitical business intelligence for senior executives with global ambition.

ITK Daily curates news @ the intersection of globalization, disruption, politics, culture, + sport and provides actionable insights and sharp commentary.