Data-loving, diva-accepting, knave-hating smart creatives out to save the world and rescue us from the evil incumbents. Ready to hear that again and again? Good, because if there's one message the authors of "How Google Works" actually adhere to, it's that "repetition doesn't spoil the prayer" (even when it does).
For all the talk of pithy, to-the-point meetings, messages, and culture, this book sure is long. A 3-year, 260 page effort that could (and should) have been condensed into a book half its size. Chapters and their included sections feel disjointed and commonly rehash the same topics, only differing in what witty footnotes and CS puns they choose to add for flavor.
The writing feels more patronizing than anything, and at the end of the day I'm not sure I actually learned too much. The authors paint an idealized picture of not only Google, but of this concept of a "smart creative" that's so extreme it borders on absurdity. They exaggerate the core values of the company (e.g. "Don't be evil") to comical proportions, and write as though every single action ever taken by the company has been entirely altruistic. It's pandering, plain and simple. With the recent NSA scandal and omnipresent net-neutrality litigation, it's not enough to say "we're working on self-driving cars, we're the good guys." That's not substance.
When it comes to discussing, well, how Google works, don't expect much beyond surface-level generics. Worse, any mention of an interior struggle/problem is purely perfunctory, intended to tease that coy humility while being quickly dismissed with a tone of "our weakness is our strength" that's so poignant it's impossible to miss the irony.
The book is not without its merits, however. It does a great job describing Google's early years, especially with regard to the impact of Larry Page. The discussion around the interview process is also enlightening, and had me sitting there with a pen and paper trying to reason out one of the commonly-asked riddles. These sections, while great, are just ultimately too sparse.
Google has done some amazing things, there's no discounting that. But the title of this book is "How Google Works," not "Google: We're awesome and here's why." So between the pom-pom waving and pats on the back, I was left trying to connect what substance I could to how I (as a user, Google) perceive the company. Below is an example of that.
In the latter half of the book, the authors discuss the importance of cutting the lifeline on products that aren't working. They allude to an instance where a website moved the front-page location of a failing section to a more prominent position in order to make up for its shortcomings. Makes sense why this is bad, but I couldn't get Google+ out of my mind. From the outset it seems to betray one of their core axioms: get it into the hands of the users ASAP; well, we all know how that private beta turned out. Not only that, but they're now doing exactly what they advised against by making it an integral part of their much more successful Youtube (to many users' distaste). Maybe I'm wrong, but that's exactly what I'd like to hear from the book! Teach me, please! That's why I'm reading your book!
I don't know why I wrote that much, or why I'm this upset. I got the book as a gift and thought I'd learn some cool new things about a company that's made such a huge and often positive impact on our world. It's a shame because there was so much they could have talked about, but instead opted for something just short of a propaganda piece.
Oh, and don't get me started on the substitution of the singular generic pronoun "he" with "she". Using "he" generically does not imply gender in colloquial English, and the switch just comes off as pretentious.