I learned much more about the concept and practicality behind their 20% time by reading this post, very informative and opinionated.

I had written a previous post regarding this subject and Google’s performance management styles, and this post even further stresses their unique yet effective approach.

It’s very interesting how they use a rule that works implicitly as a culture guideline to encourage the innovation and creativity of the brilliant minds that they employee. It also states, “Google culture, much like Microsoft in the early 90s, has a very strong, competitive work ethic, and peer pressure and pride drive many people to work hard”, showing how their workers seem to get an emotional return for working hard at Google. Their employees are obviously successful academics, which can explain why they seem to have a “resistance” to hierarchy because they’ve come so far on their own and having degrees can be taken as a status symbol. Thus, how Google created an environment that provides much freedom and accommodations to their employees, a culture that nurtures the innovations they are capable of, and intrinsically motivates them, is truly impressive and a performance management model to strive for.

I found this post entertaining. It is really quite funny how dramatically a large firm like Starbucks would react to a small family owned one just to protect their brand positioning.

Yet I also wonder why they reacted so negatively to it. Having “Charbucks” around would only increase the brand awareness, channels, and revenue streams. Having a branded drink named after them in fact would enforce Starbucks as the name people first think of when we hear the word coffee.

Similiarly, when Netflix became aware of how many users were sharing passwords, they also knew that it may not be a bad thing. In fact, finding that many who borrowed passwords were likely to eventually day for the service.

Overall, interesting how Starbucks takes their brand positioning so seriously. Being Starbucks, they must know something about being a popular coffee chain. However, is it possible for such close watch on their brand image be restricting their possibilities?

I agree that the government and car manufacturers should be addressing the issues among the use of electric cars so that it’s popularity will increase among consumers.

However, I disagree that the government should not give subsidies to manufacturers. It’s extra pricey to make electric cars than normal cars, so it would be very helpful for those willing to invest in creating electrics. It will allow companies to pass a profit point so that they can innovate and keep developing electric cars advancements. With more to work with, they can develop cars, and have the money to offer them, that can run on different terrain and ultimately match the performance capabilities of a fuel-run car.

Electric cars is most likely not an easy industry to thrive in, so then again subsidies would be useful. With rising companies that can offer more, electric cars would develop as a trend and become of greater performance capabilities.

original: https://blogs.ubc.ca/ohhmichelle/2013/11/18/electric-cars/

Facebook creates “internet.org”, an alliance with a goal to bring about internet access to 4.4 million people around the world who do not already have it. This project will call upon the collaboration of many developers, mobile operators and device manufacturers to find ways for more people to go online.

It has stirred up a level of controversy, with from Zuckerberg masking behind charity to fuel facebook’s future profits. Many argue that they are complete out of touch with what the developing countries really need, such as clean water, shelter, and education.

So because it is not stated as a non-profit, does it really mean it’s all just a greedy plan to reap profit from second and third world potentially new facebook users? I’d advocate that even if it is, they are doing no harm. While it is arguable that many firms mask profit-driven plans under a surface of corporate responsibility, in this case, providing internet to a disconnected population only opens up a world of new opportunities. Suddenly, massive amounts of data is available to them, and they can reach out to grab these opportunities.

In all, it’s a win-win situation where Facebook makes profit while fueling a social initiative.

reference:

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/08/facebooks-selfish-gift/

Who said it’s time to say goodbye to traditional TVs?

It may be surprising, but since 2011, only 3.5% of 11.8 million television-watching Canadians have cut the cord. In fact, it only started cutting after the arrival of Netflix.

Television providers are still having a tough time, just to be clear, and who wouldn’t? Internet viewing is a vicious competitor with it’s significantly cheaper prices, flexibility and variety. It’s up to TV providers to pull together great enough programs to offer a value proposition that people are willing to pay that extra for. They do, undeniably, have a great competitor advantage of much more money to pay for the ought-after content that Netflix is lacking.

Samsung has been forecasting trends, and has recently come out with a line of elegant 3D TVs, expecting to catch in on that market while it’s still much alive.

Hopefully, when a generation arrives that doesn’t bother to ever get a TV subscription, TV providers will move quickly enough as to not end up like Blockbuster when Netflix arrived.

August this year, Google’s famous 20% time, where employees get one day a week to work on any of their self-determined projects, was announced to be dead. The reaction from tech companies in Silicon Valley and programmers worldwide was dramatic.

Now, with Google seen as a leader in innovation and creativity,  it’s interesting to look at the performance management involved. Working at Google is demanding, for sure, so the people they employ must have shown excellence in their respective fields before being hired. People with a passion for what they do, and are self-motivated to venture further. 20% time nurtured the undeniable talent of their pool of employees. 20% time projects include Gmail and Appsense.

Shortly after, Google officially responded to media outcries, announcing that 20% time is “alive and well.” Employees are still encouraged to pursue their own projects, and their are slightly different rules around it now. It does make sense that one of the world’s largest tech companies may find it dangerous to allow employees to stray from the company’s stated goals a whole day each week.

It has been proven by many studies that monetary (extrinsic) incentives are not going to produce groundbreaking or truly exceptional results. Google is just another example of how performance management that nurtures is more effective that one that enforces a rules.

reference:

http://www.wired.com/business/2013/08/20-percent-time-will-never-die/

http://qz.com/117164/20-time-is-officially-alive-and-well-says-google/