The Grownup at Google
Technology start-ups typically call in "adult supervision" when they emerge from the two-guys-in-a-garage stage and attract venture capital. Google Inc. is no different.
The company was founded in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Stanford graduate students with a better way to search through the Internet's ever-expanding material. Three years later, Silicon Valley veteran Eric Schmidt joined as chairman and chief executive to bring some structure to the unorthodox -- some might say anarchic -- start-up.
Mr. Schmidt, 48, says he was given one instruction by Google's board: "'Don't screw this up now, Eric. This is a really, really good starting point. ... So it doesn't require some gross change.'" Google's venture backers wanted the company to grow without introducing cumbersome bureaucracy.
Grow it has. Google (
www.google.com) is the preferred site for Internet searches, and has built a thriving business placing ads near its search results. More recently, Google has branched into shopping, news and a "community" site that links users to friends. Mr. Schmidt has added process and rigor to the Mountain View, Calif., company, introducing enhanced financial systems and taming Google's famously unwieldy hiring process. The company has been profitable since 2001 and revenue may have approached $1 billion last year. (It won't disclose the figure.) Its success is drawing attention, and countermoves, from a growing list of rivals, including Microsoft Corp., Amazon.com Inc., and Yahoo Inc.
Now, Mr. Schmidt is leading Google through another tricky phase: toward an anticipated initial public stock offering that could raise $2 billion. He recently discussed the challenges of steering a successful, small company with such a unique culture. Excerpts:
WSJ: What was the management structure like when you arrived at Google?
Mr. Schmidt: There wasn't much of an infrastructure at all when I showed up. There was a staff meeting on Wednesday for two hours, which was fascinating because it would wander from interesting topic to interesting topic. But somehow out of that, decisions were made.
WSJ: So how has that changed?
Mr. Schmidt: Whenever we have something important, two people have to agree. I really, really like this approach. It typically means that you get a kind of check and balance in the decision-making process. Now, often the two are the founders. When it's managerial things, things Larry and Sergey aren't as focused on, we try to get two of the vice presidents to agree. The other thing that happens is decisions are made in front of people. We don't like people to go off and make a decision. We try to make decisions in as large a group as possible by as few people as possible.
You do not want to take big-company structures and apply them to small companies. You want to evolve small-company structures on a need-appropriate basis.
WSJ: The founders are famous for saying 'do no evil.' What does it mean and how does it affect the company?
Mr. Schimdt: There's enormous opportunity to mine the information we have for financial gain and those would be examples of evil.
I thought they weren't really serious about it . . . [but] as I was learning the business, someone made a proposal that involved using some of the advertising information in some way that was iffy and Larry or Sergey [got] very rough: 'No, that's completely counter to our principles, there's no way to do this, it's completely unacceptable.'
This had been a perfectly calm meeting. I go, 'Wow.' And this is one of those changes which would've magnified revenue. I thought, 'These guys are really serious.'
WSJ: How do you choose people to work at your company?
Mr. Schmidt: The principle that Google operates under is to hire very, very strong-willed, sort of driven persons. We have relatively little management and the management is very, very thoroughly vetted. They both have the intelligence and the history of working in high-tech and they want to work, they want to change the world.
We always talk at Google about how brilliant the engineering teams are, which is indeed true. It's just as important to have corresponding managers or leaders who have the strategic understanding of what we're trying to do because it changes every nine months.
When we recruit people, we make the managers write an essay on how they're going to add value to Google. And it's quite interesting. It's very hard to write an essay as a candidate for a job that you haven't been offered yet. And we actually read them! Just like if you're applying to a university. And so the programmers do programmer tests; the marketing people do marketing tests; the salespeople have to do a sales pitch to the salespeople! Can you imagine?!
WSJ: As the CEO, do you make decisions in consultation with the two founders?
Mr. Schmidt: We run as a triumvirate. ... The way it really works is that if it's really important, (one of us) drives the three of us to agree. It has been a great personal partnership. When I was recruited, the goal was to build a culture that could scale from this extraordinary thing that Larry and Sergey had built. And so it required a different management function, a leadership approach.
WSJ: Has there been an example where you've had to override the founders?
Mr. Schmidt: The word 'override' is the wrong word. We, in fact, drive to consensus. Now, if two people agree, then the third person is yelled at for a while and vice-versa. And by the way, it rotates around. Think about partnerships -- a three-person partnership is just more complicated than a two-person partnership. But the fact of the matter is that there are many things that I told Larry and Sergey I just want them to own.
Most of the issues, we operate together. So we do the product reviews together; we do business reviews together; we do the deal reviews together. They typically lead the employee meetings, with me assisting. I lead the management meetings.
WSJ: But you're the CEO. Doesn't the buck stop with you?
Mr. Schmidt: It does because the CEO has legal responsibilities to the board and we will make sure that I meet those responsibilities. You're talking about edge cases that just don't come up.
WSJ: You've been quoted saying that an IPO would simply be a financing event. If you're profitable, why do you need a financing event?
Mr. Schmidt: What I always say is that we are fortunate at Google that our business generates enough cash that we have not had the kind of pressure to raise money that many other companies have legitimately had. And the board had the wisdom to not do anything prematurely.
There are always other reasons to go public -- either liquidity, venture returns, the ability to do acquisitions. These are well-known. But one that typically forces it is not present at Google and we don't foresee it to be present. So we've had the luxury of thinking about this question and we continue to think about it.
We've told the company that we will run the company the same way, whether it's a private or public company.
WSJ: Has the preparation for a possible IPO gotten in the way of running the business?
Mr. Schmidt: The IPO discussion has not materially changed the way we do anything except that we're more careful within public settings. I think inside the bigger change has been that we now have hundreds of engineers and so it's not quite as informal a communication style. But that's not related to this IPO question. At the board meetings, in the management meetings, we don't talk about the elephant in the room. I know this is hard to imagine.
施米特如何改善Google的管理方式？
当白手起家的科技初创公司逐步发展壮大，吸引了风险投资的视线时，他们通常会请"大人来监督"。Google Inc也不例外。
Google是由斯坦福大学毕业生拉里?佩奇(Larry Page)和瑟奇?布林(Sergey Brin)于1998年创立的，当时他们想出了更好的方法，能更有效地在信息量不断膨胀的互联网上进行搜索。三年后，矽谷的资深专家埃立克?施米特(Eric Schmidt)加入了Google，担任董事长兼首席执行长，使这个非正统的（有些人说是毫无章法的）初创公司变得井井有条了。
现年48岁的施米特说，Google的董事会给他的指示是"别把公司弄糟了，埃立克。公司的起点非常非常好……可别进行重大变革"。支持Google的风险投资家们希望这家公司在茁壮成长的同时不要染上讨厌的官僚习气。
Google的确在不断成长。它是人们最青睐的互联网搜索网站，在搜索结果旁边插放广告的业务也是生意兴隆。
就在最近，该公司还把触角伸入了购物、新闻以及把用户与他们的朋友连结起来的"社区"网站。施米特给这家位于加利福尼亚州的公司输入了秩序和活力，引进了更先进的财务系统，并彻底改变了特别繁琐的招聘程序。
Google从2001年以来就一直保持盈利，去年的收入大约近10亿美元（该公司不愿透露具体数字）。Google的成功引起了人们的关注，也引来了更多的竞争对手，其中包括微软(Microsoft Corp., MSFT)、亚马逊公司(Amazon.com Inc., AMZN)和雅虎公司(Yahoo! Inc., YHOO)。
眼下，施米特正带领Google应对另一次重大考验：该公司即将进行首次公开募股，预计将筹集20亿美元的资金。
他最近在接受本报采访时分析了领导一个拥有独特企业文化、表现出众的小公司所面临的挑战。以下为采访摘要：
本报：在您刚刚加入Google时，公司的管理结构是怎样的？
施米特：当我刚踏入公司时，它几乎没什么管理构架。每周三公司会举行一个两小时的员工会议。这个会议很吸引人，因为大家会从一个有趣的话题漫游到另一个有趣的话题。可不知怎的，重要决定就在会上做出了。 本报：那么后来是怎么改变的呢？
施米特：当我们碰到重大事项时，必须有两个人表示赞同。我的确很喜欢这种方式，因为这通常意味著决策过程是慎重的，经过权衡的。目前，这两个人通常是公司的创立者。如果是管理上的事，即那些不是拉里和瑟奇重点考虑的事，我们会试图让两名副总裁达成一致。另一点是，决定是在员工面前作出的。我们不喜欢背著员工做决定。我们试图在尽可能多的员工面前、由尽可能少的人做决定。
我们不希望把大公司的那套构架搬到小公司身上。我们希望根据实际需要，形成小公司的管理结构。 本报：贵公司的创立者曾说过一句很有名的话："别做坏事"。它的含义是什么，又是如何影响贵公司的？
施米特：有很多机会来利用我们手头的信息来赚钱，这些都是做坏事的例子。
我原先认为他们对此并不当真……可是当我逐步入行之后，有人提议用某种有些可疑的方式利用部分广告信息。拉里和瑟奇对此很认真，他们认为这完全违背了公司的经营原则，是根本不能接受的。
那是一次十分平静的会议，我当时感到十分意外。如果改变做法，那将增加公司的收入。我当时想：这两个家伙真是够认真的。 本报：贵公司是任何挑选员工的？
施米特：Google的原则是聘用主观能动性很强的人。我们几乎不太管员工，不过管理层都是非常有经验的人。他们才智过人，并拥有高科技领域的从业经验。不仅如此，他们热爱工作，想要改变世界。
我们总是在公司里说我们的工程师队伍是如何了不起，事实的确如此。同样重要的是，公司的管理人员在战略上明白我们想要做什么，因为我们的目标每9个月就进行调整。
当我们招聘管理人员时，我们会让候选人写篇关于如何为Google提升价值的短文。这是很有趣的。对于那些没有正式加入公司的候选人来说，写这样的文章可不容易，而且我们还得拜读！这就像你申请一所大学一样。依此类推，应聘程序员的人要接受程序员测试；应聘市场营销的人要接受营销测试；而销售人员则要做现场推销！你想像得到吗？
本报：作为公司的CEO，你作决定时会与两位创始人商量吗？
施米特：我们是三人执政……实际上，如果这件事真的很重要，我们中的一个人会说服其余两人同意。这是一种十分密切的私人合作。当我刚来时，公司的目标是建立一种企业文化，改掉拉里和瑟奇建立的这种特别作风。因此，公司需要一种截然不同的管理方式，一种由领导人员管理的方式。 本报：你遇到过必须否决两位创始人的时候吗？
施米特：否决这个词不正确。事实上，我们会力求取得一致。目前，如果两个人取得一致，那么就会试图说服第三个人，反之亦然。通过这种方式，一切就能正常运转。想想合作关系，三个人之间的合作关系可比两个人的合作复杂。实际上，许多事我都会告诉他们，我希望大家都同意。
对于大多数事情，我们都是一起行动。因此，我们一起对产品进行评审；我们一起进行经营评审；我们一起进行交易评审。他们通常主持员工会议，而我在一旁协助。我则主持管理层会议。
本报：但你是CEO。难道承担责任的不是你吗？
施米特：是这样。因为CEO在法律上对董事会负责，所以我们要确保我是尽责的。你说的属于不会出现的极端事例。
本报：有报导说你曾经说IPO只是单纯的融资活动。既然贵公司是盈利的，你们为什么需要这样的融资活动？
施米特：我一直强调的是Google是很幸运的，因为我们有足够的现金，所以没有其他许多公司得面临的融资压力。此外，公司董事会也很明智，不会做不成熟的事。
上市总有其他原因─或是考虑到资产的流动性，或是投资回报，或是实施收购的能力。这些都是众所周知的。不过，这些常见的原因并不适用于Google，我们认为将来也不会适用于本公司。因此，我们可以慢慢思考这个问题，我们会一直关注这个问题。
我们对员工说，我们会一如既往地经营公司，无论这是一家私人公司，还是上市公司。
本报：IPO的准备活动会影响公司的正常经营吗？
施米特：IPO的准备工作并没有对公司的经营产生重大影响，只是我们在公开场合更加谨慎了。从公司内部来看，我认为比较大的变化是我们目前拥有成百上千名工程师了，因此交流方式不再那么随意了。但这与你的问题无关。在董事会和管理层会议上，我们不再天马行空了。我知道这是很难想像的。
