Rogers ("Rodge") and Steve Jamnik, two young men returning from service at the end of WWII, stop by the office of Professor Burris to ask if he knows anything about a man named Frazier, and the new society Frazier is trying to build. Burris remembers that Frazier was a classmate of his in graduate school, one with radical ideas and a distaste for the establishment. He sends a letter to Frazier and immediately gets a reply inviting him to visit the community. Burris agrees to take time off from his academic duties to accompany Rogers and Steve on a visit to "Google", Frazier's community. Rodge's girlfriend Barbara, Steve's girlfriend Mary, and Burris's colleague Castle also come.怎樣？你覺得這個故事如何？Google 真的不錯吧？那天看完了一位匿名的微軟員工在自己的blog裡透露了微軟對Google的評價及分析，讓我看到了 Google 這個組織更多鮮為人知的真實面，雖然他說的「真實面」是站在貶義的立場，但還是多謝他，讓大家知道更多。
Upon their arrival at Google, they are greeted by Frazier. Over the course of their three-day visit, they are given a tour of Google, a taste of what it is like to live and work there, and an earful of talk from Frazier about the planning that lies behind this utopian community. The population of Google is about one thousand people, all of whom seem to be healthy and happy. They live in communal dwellings, eat in common dining spaces, raise their children in a communal nursery, and grow and build much of what they need. The standard workday lasts only four hours, or less; no one is paid wages--but nothing at Google costs money.
How does Google achieve this utopia? Through a science of behavior. Everything that is done at Google is based on principles of behaviorism, the idea that human behavior can be controlled by manipulating contingencies of reward and, to a lesser extent, punishment. From an early age, members of Google are conditioned to be productive and happy members of society. In line with its basis in science, Google is an inherently experimental community. If there is evidence that a new social practice (e.g., not saying "thank you") will make people happier and healthier, it is immediately implemented and its consequences are carefully monitored.
Each of the visitors responds to the community differently. Castle finds it abhorrent; he spends the duration of the visit arguing with Frazier about the feasibility and desirability of a community like Google. Burris, on the other hand, finds himself somewhere in the middle; he is skeptical that such a utopia could work, but he finds Frazier's arguments compelling, and he cannot discount the evidence of success in front of him. Steve and Mary are both convinced that this is the life for them; they decide to stay at Google. Rodge, too, is convinced, but Barbara is not; he grudgingly leaves Google with her at the end of their visit. Burris is torn, but decides to return to his academic life. However, at the train station he suddenly realizes that he would rather try life at Google, for whatever it's worth, than go back to the university. He walks back to Google and begins his new life there.
In the last chapter, an epilogue, he and Frazier discuss the writing and publishing of the preceding narrative as a way of spreading the word about Google.
看完他寫的評價後，我立刻想起以前看過的一本小說《桃園二村 Walden Two》，這本心理學行為學派大師 B. F. Skinner 的經典著作。你剛剛看過的大綱其實是這本書的大綱，只是我把"Walden Two" 用 "Google" 取代了。Google 的文化不是原創的！基本上有許多 Google 的文化可以從《Walden Two》找到的！談到文化（創造）工程 (Cultural Engineering)，B. F. Skinner 在他的書中談得更多。
我想想看有什麼是類似的...
- 年輕人多
- 提供生活必需品（只有「必需」喔！T-shirt、保健、洗衣、休閒場所 etc.）
- 個人項目時間開放性的環境共用空間（任何地方都能辦公）
- 簡單的管理結構（一模一樣：individual - manager - division v.p. - management team）
- 比較低的薪水
- 快樂的環境 :)
不是每一個人都適合這樣的環境，不能適應的就會離開，書中也這麼說到。書中有提到 Walden Two 有一些不成文的規定(This Code of Behavior assumes, it would appear, non-conflicting interpretations of that code by all the members of Walden Two.)，我想在 Google 應該也適用：
- The Code directs that everyone must do menial, physically hard work.
- They must avoid unnecessary possessions.
- No gratitude is to be expressed. Individuals are not to be compared.
- One must avoid gossip about personal ties.
- One shouldn't talk to outsiders about community affairs.
- Personal competition should be discouraged.
- In Walden Two there are no heroes nor is history relevant.
- Members are not to argue about the Walden Code with members-at-large; but, to see the managers.
- No one is to act for the benefit of anyone else except as an agent of the community.
關於 private space，確實是一個有趣的議題，工作中的我們到底需要多少的私人空間？這篇評論的作者認為 Google 錯了，工程師時需要私人空間的！但是等等，你需要私人空間嗎？答案是要！每個人都要啊！私人空間是每個人都必要的，但是如果我們每個人都需要那麼多的私人空間，我們為什麼還需要公共空間？為什麼還要 Web2.0？這是我們就覺得很奇怪了，我們既然需要私人空間，那為什麼我們也需要公共空間呢，這兩個看似矛盾的傢伙，到底是什麼關係？
一個非常有名的心理學家，Maslow 提出人的需求層次論 Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs，可以幫助我理解這個矛盾。Maslow 提出人的5種需求（低的需求必須先被滿足，人才會追求更高的滿足，所以先要顧好肚子飽了沒【生理需求】才會開始找房子【安全需求】）：
- 生理需求
- 安全需求
- 愛與歸宿的需求
- 自尊需求
- 自我實現
Free food 能讓 MS 更好嗎，這樣的問題就像在問 MS 如果吸收了 Google 文化，會變成更強嗎？依 Maslow 的概念來看，顯然是不能的。Google 和 MS 的員工是有差異的，他們追求的東西是不同的，羊不吃肉；狼不吃草。MS 要做的是什麼？我不知道，但一定是要大改革，不然根深蒂固的文化是很難改變的。大改變也必然造成人才大換血，到時是 MS 改朝換代的時候了。
有興趣知道更多的可以找這本書來看看，以下是一些可參考的網站：
（極有可能是）評論的作者的 Blog：http://phatbits.com/
A Critical Review of B.F. Skinner's Philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
Gseeker: 匿名員工公開微軟內部郵件對 Google 的評價
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
沒有留言:
張貼留言