[kznewman]

If all this is true, I would have a problem with a co-worker who would stand up and lie. By starting the meeting by being "super supportive" while knowing along with co-conspirators that you were trying to kill it, a good deal of creditability has been destroyed.

Maybe I am naive, and this is how things really get done, but regardless of which side I might have been on during this meeting, he is no longer trusted.

[S_A_P]

I kind of agree here. I think it says more about Googles culture not being all that different from any other big company. This article insinuates to me that politics are more important than sound ideas that are good for the business. If the skype deal was bad because it would need a large overhaul, why not just lay out a convincing case to that effect?

[bad_user]

     politics are more important than sound ideas 
     that are good for the business

The problem in big corporations is that there's lots of voices and lots of opinions floating around. You can't really distinguish signal from noise unless you have some kind of hierarchy.

Google cannot be different in that regard. They can't work with a flat organization in which Joe Sixpack has the same credibility as an early employee -- they are too big for that.

The only way such a corporation can improve (over the rest) is to build that hierarchy based on better metrics than the rest, to avoid situations in which big responsibilities fall on complete morons that can kiss ass. Such a corporation would also need to maintain the number of layers to a minimum.

Politics in big corporations are inevitable, which isn't necessarily bad, it's just a different environment than in a startup.

[maxwell]

I think you're confusing politics with persuasion. Technical people have a problem with persuasion; I did, before I joined a large company, decided I wanted to actually change things for the better, and realized there's nothing dishonest about convincing people that someone will improve their company/lives. I was just bad at it.

Technical people seem to lay out arguments that are sound, but just aren't convincing or appropriate for the audience at hand. This is why shitty technology can win out when the customer lacks the time to make an informed decision, and makes the perfectly rational decision to go with the more convincing pitch.

And that's just it: decision makers don't have time to go through a thorough, completely objective, scientific argument. So, you either do what you need to get things done in what you feel is the right way, or you don't. There's nothing wrong with hacking a meeting, so long as the hack benefits the company, or at least is done in the company's best interest. As with software, the only bad hacks are those that benefit the hacker at the expense of the organization.

[abecedarius]

People rationalize why what's good for them and their allies is the common good. (A person who believes they don't, well, that's evidence against them more than it's evidence in their favor.)

I agree with your first two paragraphs.

[maxwell]

It's a problem if one puts their own interests first; it's not to convince oneself and one's allies to do what's in the common good.

[toddmorey]

I personally don't buy it. Sounds like a rewrite of history to more positively frame his involvement in the events that transpired.

[paulrademacher]

Sounds like all he did was say "let me tell you everything great about this.... and now here's why I actually oppose it." How is that lying?