Why Doug Bowman's Move Is A Big Deal

I know I'm late to comment on this but I think it's important that everyone understand Doug Bowman's recent decision to leave Google and join Twitter. Doug did a great job of explaining his rationale. It's all worth reading. I haven't seen anything from Google, so, if anyone's seen something from Marissa or anyone else in a position to speak to the issue, please let me know. What I read so far is very informative.

In his first piece, Doug, in a piece entitled, "Goodbye Google," explains his decision to leave the Internet's premiere creative engine. Mainly, he says, it's a case of the quants taking over and relegating anything, even elegant design, that can't be counted to the realm of "unproven." Trust not thine self; trust only the trackable actions of millions of selves, unable to express their actual lived experience as a consequence of the inadequacy of your collection tools.

So, Doug decides it's time to depart.

Where does he go? Twitter. Why?

Over the past year, I spoke with several organizations about coming on board to lead a design team. But Twitter felt the like most natural fit from the very start of my talks with the team. It’s still early in Twitter’s history. The company is small. Its user base is growing rapidly. And I see lots of potential to directly impact and to help shape the Twitter brand.

Google's brand is fixed. Stagnant, Bowman is saying. WYSIWYG. Twitter on the other hand, dynamic and growing. Nothing surprising there.

But it did give me a moment's pause to recognize that one of the most innovative big companies we've ever seen has settled into its genetic destiny: the pyramid. 

Bowman is betting that the latent creative potential of this little, stupid messaging service is greater than that of the Internet's leviatan.

I think that's a big deal.

Comments

[Jeff Rosenberg]

Very interesting. I think this is another data point in an increasing number of data points that highlights Google's vulnerability, most of which is self-inflicted. But that's typical of companies of Google's size and reach.

[Tom Guarriello]

Yes, Jeff, I think it's practically unavoidable that today's companies go through the "pyramidal phase." I don't think that will be the case for tomorrow's companies. Thanks.

PS - The podcast is only a sketch, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you have 15 or so minutes to listen to it.

[Jeff Rosenberg]

Tom, great podcast. I really enjoyed the content, the progression, and the format. I agree with your position that we need a new paradigm for managing and growing companies in such a way that they do not meet the same fate as every other large company. A way for companies that get enormous to not lose their ability to be agile, fast, and innovative. To not get bogged down in and fatigued by its own structure. It can't be because of a dynamic leader / leadership team (e.g., Steve Jobs, Jack Welch). We have to evolve to a place where we aren't dependent on any one individual to successfully run a huge company, but rather it's in all of our DNA that organizations run in such a way that they naturally foster creativity. Your podcast made me think of this in a deeper, more specific way than I ever have before - I really thing you have something exciting here that can be explored deeply and broadly, and that we could all benefit from your work in this area. Timing is great given the behavioral shifts of the emerging workforce brought on by the social web, and advancements in technology that, as you say, are changing how we communicate. It's creating a new way of managing life, thinking, relationships, etc. that will dramatically impact how we behave / act / relate in the work place.

[Tom Guarriello]

Thanks for the comment, Jeff. I've been thinking about how to portray this historical moment for some time and the notion of the "corporate genome" seems apt. Would enjoy talking with you about these ideas.