Google decision making process as seen by outsiders

Much has been said about Google over the years, both good and bad. As an internet giant (or the internet giant), its stature makes it an easy target for criticism and praise; everything that it does either alienates people or garners more fans. It`s a contradiction, a paradox, the Big G that so many people love to hate. And as with all successful, controversial giants, spectators are anxious to find out what makes them tick. This is partly out of curiosity, partly out of admiration and partly out of fear. If their inner workings are made public, then they can be emulated, or cut off if they become too threatening.

And that`s the situation in which Google finds itself. It invokes awe and terror in its users and its competitors. In a Search Engine Land blog, Danny Sullivan tries to dissect Google`s thought processes to determine whether their success in so many areas has been calculated, or is the result of happy circumstance. Danny argues for the latter; for decentralised decision making, which he calls “the hive mind”. He argues that when it comes to making big decisions (AdSense, Gmail, offline advertising) Google doesn`t have a master plan, but follows a path that make sense at the time, that they believe will benefit users and that will ultimately benefit the company.

John Battelle counters Sullivan`s hive mind theory by stating that Google`s moves are calculated according to a central plan and that the hive mind is part of that plan. He contends that the hive mind is much smaller than perhaps Sullivan thinks it is; that it consists of the Golden G triumvirate of the most powerful men in search: Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt.

If you follow Battelle`s line of thinking Google is a cold, calculating internet monolith slowly crushing its competition until it achieves world domination. Battelle`s Google is a thing to be feared. It`ll chew us up and spit us out to fertilize newer, richer opportunities.

But what about Sullivan`s Google; the one that seems to succeed haphazardly and almost despite itself; the one that has the best intentions? Could it lead us inadvertently to hell?

Which is scarier: the company that sets out to dominate, or the one that dominates accidentally? The one can be read, anticipated and challenged, but how do you anticipate the moves of a company that by its own admission doesn`t know where it`ll go next?

I, like Sullivan (and many others), believe that Google`s competitors would do well to stop focussing on catching Google, and on what Google is and isn`t doing, and start focussing on their own products, and how they can benefit users and the net as a whole, rather than expanding their empires. And for that, Danny Sullivan suggests that a hive-minded approach might just be best.