Work Rules!: Insights from Inside Google That Will Transform How You Live and Lead

by Laszlo Bock

We humans live through narrative, viewing history through a lens of stories that we tell ourselves.

What I love about his story is that Kelly acted like a founder. Like an owner. He didn’t care only about the output of Bell Labs; he cared about the kind of place it was. He wanted brilliance to work free from the scrutinizing eye of management, while being constantly jostled by the elbows of the geniuses down the hall.

Building an exceptional team or institution starts with a founder. But being a founder doesn’t mean starting a new company. It is within anyone’s grasp to be the founder and culture-creator of their own team, whether you are the first employee or joining a company that has existed for decades.

The fundamental lesson from Google’s experience is that you must first choose whether you want to be a founder or an employee. It’s not a question of literal ownership. It’s a question of attitude.

a group’s culture can be studied in three ways: by looking at its “artifacts,” such as physical space and behaviors; by surveying the beliefs and values espoused by group members; or by digging deeper into the underlying assumptions behind those values.

A mission that is about being “the market leader,” once accomplished, offers little more inspiration.

We all want our work to matter. Nothing is a more powerful motivator than to know that you are making a difference in the world.

How many of our companies make a practice of giving everyone, especially those most remote from the front office, access to your customers so employees can witness the human effect of their labors? Would it be hard to start?

Transparency is the second cornerstone of our culture.

“Assume that all information can be shared with the team, instead of assuming that no information can be shared. Restricting information should be a conscious effort, and you’d better have a good reason for doing so. In open source, it’s countercultural to hide information.”

Fundamentally, if you’re an organization that says “Our people are our greatest asset” (as most do), and you mean it, you must default to open. Otherwise, you’re lying to your people and to yourself. You’re saying people matter but treating them like they don’t. Openness demonstrates to your employees that you believe they are trustworthy and have good judgment.

Voice is the third cornerstone of Google’s culture.

“Getting employees to voice ideas has long been recognized as a key driver of high-quality decisions and organizational effectiveness.

“culture eats strategy for breakfast”

The case for finding a compelling mission, being transparent, and giving your people voice is in part a pragmatic one.

In addition to thinking we’re superior interviewers, we convince ourselves that the candidate we select is also above average.

What matters is what you bring to the company and how you’ve distinguished yourself.

The idea was that since references the candidate provides are almost always glowing, these “backdoor” references, we thought, would be more honest. And this approach would screen out people who “kiss up and kick down.”xiv

Bad performers and political people have a toxic effect on an entire team and require substantial management time to coach or exit.

extrinsic motivator, meaning that it is motivation that comes from outside yourself.

These small moments of observation that are then used to make bigger decisions are called “thin slices.”

The best predictor of how someone will perform in a job is a work sample test (29 percent). This entails giving candidates a sample piece of work, similar to that which they would do in the job, and assessing their performance at it.

The second-best predictors of performance are tests of general cognitive ability (26 percent). In contrast to case interviews and brainteasers, these are actual tests with defined right and wrong answers, similar to what you might find on an IQ test.

There are two kinds of structured interviews: behavioral and situational. Behavioral interviews ask candidates to describe prior achievements and match those to what is required in the current job

we realized that there were four distinct attributes that predicted whether someone would be successful at Google:

General Cognitive Ability.

Leadership. Also not surprising, right? Every company wants leaders. But Google looks for a particular type of leadership, called “emergent leadership.” This is a form of leadership that ignores formal designations—at

“Googleyness.” We want people who will thrive at Google.

Role-Related Knowledge. By far the least important attribute we screen for is whether someone actually knows anything about the job they are taking on. Our reasoning and experience is that someone who has done the same task—successfully—for many years is likely to see a situation at Google and replicate the same solution that has worked for them.

He found that four interviews were enough to predict whether or not we should hire someone with 86 percent confidence.

Sixth, we rely on disinterested reviewers. In addition to using structured interviews and the hiring attributes, we deliberately include at least three layers of review for each candidate. The hiring committee takes a first look, recommending whether or not to move a candidate forward.

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

He’s shouting that those in authority must be held to even higher standards than the rest.

Managers aren’t bad people. But each of us is susceptible to the conveniences and small thrills of power.

If you believe people are fundamentally good, and if your organization is able to hire well, there is nothing to fear from giving your people freedom.

One of the nobler aspirations of a workplace should be that it’s a place of refuge where people are free to create, build, and grow.

The first step to mass empowerment is making it safe for people to speak up.

If you want a nonhierarchical environment, you need visible reminders of your values.

‘If you have facts, present them and we’ll use them. But if you have opinions, we’re gonna use mine.’ ”

Just run an experiment. This leaves management free to worry about the stuff that is hard to quantify, which is usually a much better use of their time.” We use data—evidence—to guard against rumor, bias, and plain old wrongheadedness.

People make all kinds of assumptions—guesses, really—about how things work in organizations. Most of these guesses are rooted in sample bias.

“If you’re not careful, you may learn something before you’re done.”

We take action on what we learn, which encourages future participation, which then gives us an ever more precise idea of where to improve.

“Micromanagement is mismanagement.… [P]eople micromanage to assuage their anxieties about organizational performance: they feel better if they are continuously directing and controlling the actions of others—at heart, this reveals emotional insecurity on their part. It gives micromanagers the illusion of control

The truth is that people usually live up to your expectations, whether those expectations are high or low.

If you expect little, that’s what you’ll get.

What managers miss is that every time they give up a little control, it creates a wonderful opportunity for their team to step up, while giving the manager herself more time for new challenges. Pick an area where your people are frustrated, and let them fix it. If there are constraints, limited time or money, tell them what they are. Be transparent with your people and give them a voice in shaping your team or company. You’ll be stunned by what they accomplish.

performance management has been reduced to prescribed, often discrete steps within formal administrative systems.… Although formal performance management systems are intended to drive… the day-to-day activities of communicating ongoing expectations, setting short-term objectives, and giving continual guidance… these behaviors seem to have become largely disconnected from the formal systems.”110

Most real-time feedback systems quickly turn into “attaboy” systems, as people only like telling each other nice things. And how often are your comments structured in a way that actually causes behavior to change?

John Doerr introduced us to a practice he had seen Intel use with much success: OKRs, or Objectives and Key Results. The results must be specific, measurable, and verifiable; if you achieve all your results, you’ve attained your objective.