Monday, February 25, 2013

Spread your light!

Change the World, One Leader at a Time

Change the World, One Leader at a Time - YouTube

Strengths-Based Leadership for Innovative Culture

A New Vanguard of Leaders is Emerging.. Globalization. Geo-political blur. Nano-technology. Blackberrys. The connectivity and sheer velocity of business today have rendered the old models of leadership obsolete. They don’t scale effectively to a portable world in which most communication is virtual and decisions are made at rocket speed. The balance of power has shifted to the masses while the free-agent knowledge worker of today experiences incredible liberty. Learn more about the reasons a new model for leadership is not only relevant but essential.

The New Leader of the Future

A New Vanguard of Great Leaders is Emerging

Globalization. Geo-political blur. Nano-technology. Blackberrys. The connectivity and sheer velocity of business today have rendered the old models of leadership obsolete. They don’t scale effectively to a portable world in which most communication is virtual and decisions are made at rocket speed. The balance of power has shifted to the masses while the free-agent knowledge worker of today experiences incredible liberty. Today, work is about networks and collaboration. Command and control has given way to social networking as the way to influence. Authenticity, transparency, connectedness and consensus are highly valued tangible assets. These assets have made the ability to build a compelling leadership presence, based on trust and integrity, the new lever that fuels priorities and objectives. People want to buy from (and work for) socially responsible companies where everyone is treated with respect. And where there is a high level of integrity and trust. They want to think of themselves as citizens, not consumers. Employees want to work in companies that are proactive, creative and innovative. They want to work in a climate where leaders know how to ensure that team behaviors are healthy and productive. A place where talents are appreciated and skills are developed with continuous learning and challenge. What all this means is that your leaders and key associates must understand and master positive relationships through multiple points of access, culture, and skill in markets internally and around the world. Are they ready?

Saturday, February 23, 2013

IBM on a Mission to Save the Planet - Businessweek

IBM on a Mission to Save the Planet - Businessweek

IBM Chief Executive Virginia Rometty
Photograph by Mauricio Ramirez
IBM Chief Executive Virginia Rometty


IBM on a Mission to Save the Planet

IBM has broadcast more than a dozen “Smarter Planet” television ads, most of which document some sort of life-altering technological marvel produced by Big Blue. In the ads, IBM (IBM) sometimes fights the scourge of counterfeit medicine. Other times, it tackles global warming. The real stunner, though, may be the one in which IBM discloses that improvements to the Washington (D.C.) sewer system were “built off analytics that predict traffic in Singapore and helped prepare for flooding emergencies in Rio.” Beat that, Facebook.
Outside of Apple (AAPL), it’s hard to think of another tech company that celebrates itself with as much skill as IBM. Just a few years ago, IBM peddled PCs, disk drives, and other basic building blocks of computing. Now it sells itself as a kind of tech visionary able to reshape cities in a single bound through analytics software and the brainiest consultants on the planet. On some level, the Smarter Planet pitch, unveiled in November 2008, appears to resonate with the public. IBM has an ethos that speaks to the future, while rivals such as Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Dell (DELL), and Oracle (ORCL) often seem like they’re doing the same old, same old.
Is it causation or correlation?Is it causation or correlation?
IBM stock surged almost from the moment the Smarter Planet campaign began. In early March, shares moved past $200, up from $70 in late 2008, and they continue to trade right at an all-time high. IBM’s market capitalization has risen to about $234 billion. Some analysts, however, are quick to point out that IBM’s bull run relies far more on business basics than the introduction of newfangled technology.
The ads portray an IBM that has transformed itself from a PC maker into an amorphous think tank—so much so that many people struggle to put their finger on what IBM actually sells these days. The company, with annual revenue of $107 billion, still makes tens of billions of dollars a year selling traditional data-center hardware and software. Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein (AB), estimates that about 20 percent of IBM’s revenue and 40 percent of its profits can be traced to hardware, software, services, and financing on mainframes, the grizzled veterans of corporate computing. Such machines are not analytics dynamos but rather workhorses crunching away at the most mundane tasks.
The bulk of the rest of IBM’s business revolves around software and services, in which the company deploys tens of thousands of people to customers’ sites for what can be very lengthy technology installation and consulting engagements. “Most of the technology involved there has been around for 15 or 20 years,” says Vinnie Mirchandani, a technology consultant and author of The New Technology Elite. “IBM is selling stuff customers need, but it’s certainly not innovative.” An IBM spokesman declined to comment.
In recent years, IBM has viewed its old-line hardware businesses as a vehicle for these software and services sales. About 90 percent of IBM’s profits now come from software, services, and financing, which tend to be higher-profit businesses that produce steady sales year in and year out. Through a meticulous, protracted push in this direction, IBM has managed to paint itself as a more sophisticated animal than, say, hardware-heavy HP.
Unlike Apple, IBM’s revenue growth has not surged, and it’s hard to point to any new blockbuster products. Still, IBM has managed its business in a way that produces consistent financial results, and that’s what Wall Street has started to respond to, says Sacconaghi. Investors think of it “less as a technology stock and more like a high-return-of-cash stock,” he says. “I do think things like Watson and Smarter Planet are kind of aspirational things that investors kind of like. But the real resonating factors among investors are the discipline of the financial model and the ability to deliver against it.”
It’s a rare feat for a company as large and as old as IBM to rewrite its image and reignite interest among once cool investors. In its annual report, IBM highlights that its analytics business grew 16 percent, its cloud computing revenue tripled, and its percentage of sales to high-growth emerging markets has doubled over the past decade. All heady stuff. But when it came time for Warren Buffett to explain his 5 percent stake in IBM, he didn’t pat the company on the back for its technological prowess. In his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) shareholders, Buffet wrote: “The company has used debt wisely, made value-adding acquisitions almost exclusively for cash and aggressively repurchased its own stock.”
The bottom line: IBM’s stock price tripled to more than $200 a share after the tech giant launched its Smart Planet marketing campaign.
Vance is a technology writer for Bloomberg Businessweek in Palo Alto, Calif. Follow him on Twitter @valleyhack.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Ginny Rometty and Arnold Schwarzenegger my dream team to build a smarter planet

I would love to see this Dream Team come together! Arnie and Ginny should connect , combine efforts and work together to build a brighter a sustainable future...they could realy build a smarter planet together!  The incredible power of Arnold Schwarzenegger and his R20 with the Thought Leadership and the Innovation power of IBM!

Ginny Rometty as the CEO of IBM the Greenest  company in the USA with a great vision to build a smarter planet! 

Over the past several months, I have met with thousands of IBMers and hundreds of leaders from government, communities and businesses around the world. As I began my tenure as IBM’s CEO, I wanted to hear their concerns and perspectives. Most importantly, I wanted to hear their aspirations—for themselves, for our world, and for IBM.
What have struck me most powerfully in these conversations are two related beliefs—about this moment in history, and about IBM itself.
First was the belief that despite the present troubles of the world’s economy, the potential for a bright future, characterized by sustained prosperity and societal progress, is within our grasp. Second, I found a widespread belief that as IBM enters its second century, it possesses unique capabilities—in technology, in business expertise and most importantly, in a deep and systemic understanding of global citizenship—to lead the world in making that potential real.
It is inspiring to hear that so many inside and outside the company believe IBM performs this distinctive role, and are eager to work together to see it succeed. Along with my colleagues, I believe we have not just an opportunity, but a responsibility to do so.
This shared belief in a higher purpose reaffirms aspirations and values that have been at the core of this enterprise since its inception, more than a century ago. These never change. But they are being reanimated and redirected today thanks to a radically new era in technology—the emergence of new tools and ways of working that can make our world more sustainable, efficient, equitable and intelligent.
Capturing this historic opportunity will, without question, be a challenge. Most crucially, it will be necessary for all sectors of civil society to break free from old definitions, and to assume new kinds of responsibility.
Business, in particular, must seize the initiative. We must not wait for government mandates. We must be active in convening all sectors of society to solve problems that none can solve on their own. We must energize our own resources—not just financial, but also human. Most crucially, we must create corporate citizenship and business strategies that are not merely “linked,” but one.

Arnold Schwarzenegger as the founder of the R 20 Regions of climate action!

The R20 Regions of Climate Action is a non-profit organization founded in 2011 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and other global leaders in cooperation with the United Nations. The R20 is a coalition of partners led by regional governments that work to promote and implement projects that are designed to produce local economic and environmental benefits in the form of reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions; strong local economies; improved public health; and new green jobs. These local actions can help the world achieve our shared global environmental and economic goals.
" R20 is not just another NGO or network of regions, it is much more than that. It is a real coalition of forces which believe that climate change and green economic development can be tackled at the subnational level." — Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
What we need is to double up the hard work. Results will only come through efforts at all levels, individual and collective, local and global. I am myself ready to take on a leading role.

Therefore, my agenda will be dedicated to mobilizing efforts world-wide, in particular at the sub-national level. Our operational arm, the R20 - Regions of Climate Action, will be at your disposal to put forward concrete modalities for collaboration.  I know that we will mold our vision into a green reality.  Arnold Schwarzenegger

“Being a champion in body building, in movies or in politics, I learned that the key to success is people power – - motivating and inspiring everyone to be a part of the solution, not just part of the problem,”

Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

“The era of talk is over. It is time for action – and the companies, institutions and persons who represent green solutions are the new breed of action heroes whose efforts we should celebrate and encourage".

The R20 mission is extremely challenging. Yet, as our Founding Chair often puts it, things may seem impossible, until you make them possible.
If we want to make the difference, the competencies and efforts of all are needed.
R20 Executive Director Christophe Nuttall  

 The Perfect Team?  What do you say?

Sunday, February 17, 2013

How it Works

It's as easy as this: get moving. Bikers earn 10¢ a mile and walkers and runners earn 25¢ a mile, up to our initial $1,000,000 sponsorship pool.

Eric Schmidt talking about the future of technology very interesting

Eric Schmidt at Washington Ideas Forum 2010 - YouTube

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Google’s Larry Page on Why Moon Shots Matter

Larry Page lives by the gospel of 10x. Most companies would be happy to improve a product by 10 percent. Not the CEO and cofounder of Google. The way Page sees it, a 10 percent improvement means that you’re basically doing the same thing as everybody else. You probably won’t fail spectacularly, but you are guaranteed not to succeed wildly.
That’s why Page expects his employees to create products and services that are 10 times better than the competition. That means he isn’t satisfied with discovering a couple of hidden efficiencies or tweaking code to achieve modest gains. Thousand-percent improvement requires rethinking problems entirely, exploring the edges of what’s technically possible, and having a lot more fun in the process.
This regimen of cheeky aspiration has made Google an extraordinary success story, changing the lives of its users while fattening the wallets of its investors. But it has also accomplished something far beyond Google itself: In an industry rife with bandwagon-hopping and strategic positioning, Page’s approach is a beacon for those who want more from their CEOs than a bloated earnings statement. While Google has made some missteps in recent years, and while its power has deservedly drawn the scrutiny of regulators and critics, it remains a flagship for optimists who believe that innovation will provide us with not just delightful gadgetry but solutions to our problems and inspiration for our dreams. For those people—and maybe for the human enterprise itself—a car that drives itself (to name one of the company’s recent tech triumphs) is a much more valuable dividend than one calculated in cents per share. There’s no question which is more important to Larry Page.
Of course, it can be challenging working for a boss whose dominant trait is dissatisfaction with the pace of progress. Astro Teller, who oversees Google X, the company’s blue-sky skunkworks division, illustrates Page’s proclivities with a parable. Teller imagines wheeling a Dr. Who time machine into Page’s office. He plugs it in and—it works! But instead of being bowled over, Page asks why it needs a plug. Wouldn’t it be better if it didn’t use power at all? “It’s not because he’s not excited about time machines or he’s ungrateful that we built it,” Teller says. “It’s just core to who he is. There’s always more to do, and his focus is on where the next 10X will come from.”
Page thought big even when he was little—he has said he always wanted to be an inventor, not just to produce gadgetry but to change the world. As an undergrad at the University of Michigan, he found inspiration in a student leadership-training program called LeaderShape, which preached “a healthy disregard for the impossible.” By the time he got to grad school at Stanford, it was a natural step for him to 10X his potential thesis idea—a tool to annotate web pages—into a search engine that transformed the web and the world. And once Google’s riotously successful ad business provided a plump financial cushion, Page was free to push for innovations that bore only a passing relationship to his core business. Google would build an email service—with 100 times the storage of competitors. Google would provide translations—for the entire web, from any language to any other. Google would give readers instant access to a global library—by scanning nearly every book ever published and putting the contents in its indexes. More recently, Google launched its own version of an ISP service—laying its own fiber and providing broadband service to Kansas City customers at 100 times industry-standard speeds.
That moon-shot mentality is the basis of Google X, which the company established in early 2010 to identify and implement once-impossible sci-fi fantasies: Hail Mary projects like the self-driving car. Or Google Glass, a wearable computing system. Or an artificial brain, in which a cluster of computers running advanced algorithms learn from the world around them, much like humans do. (In one experiment, it took only three days for a digital colony of 1,000 machines, with a billion connections, to surpass previous benchmarks in identifying photos of faces and cats.)
Page was closely involved in establishing Google X, but since he has ascended to lead the company, he can’t spend as much time there. Some Googlers wonder if Page, clearly at his happiest working on moon shots, is essentially taking one for the team by assuming the sometimes prosaic tasks of a CEO. (Talking to bureaucrats about antitrust issues, for example, is probably not his idea of a good time.) The evidence shows, however, that Page has attacked his role with full-hearted fervor, applying the same 10X mentality to the process of running the company. He reorganized the management team around an “L-Team” of top aides, and he relentlessly rallied employees around a sweeping effort to integrate all of Google’s offerings into a seamlessly social whole. And in the boldest move in his tenure, he engineered the $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility, one of the world’s biggest handset companies.
In one of the rare interviews he has granted as CEO, Page recently discussed thinking big and other Googley issues with Wired at the company’s Mountain View, California, headquarters. Later that same day, Page, who turns 40 in March, announced a new philanthropic venture. After observing epidemiological behavior via Google Search’s flu-tracking service, he decided to pay for free flu shots for kids in the entire Bay Area. How 10X of him.
Wired: Google is known for encouraging its employees to tackle ambitious challenges and make big bets. Why is that so important?
Larry Page: I worry that something has gone seriously wrong with the way we run companies. If you read the media coverage of our company, or of the technology industry in general, it’s always about the competition. The stories are written as if they are covering a sporting event. But it’s hard to find actual examples of really amazing things that happened solely due to competition. How exciting is it to come to work if the best you can do is trounce some other company that does roughly the same thing? That’s why most companies decay slowly over time. They tend to do approximately what they did before, with a few minor changes. It’s natural for people to want to work on things that they know aren’t going to fail. But incremental improvement is guaranteed to be obsolete over time. Especially in technology, where you know there’s going to be non-incremental change.
So a big part of my job is to get people focused on things that are not just incremental. Take Gmail. When we released that, we were a search company—it was a leap for us to put out an email product, let alone one that gave users 100 times as much storage as they could get anywhere else. That is not something that would have happened naturally if we had been focusing on incremental improvements.

Larry Page changed the world by co-inventing a search engine that could give us all instant access to the world’s information. And he was just getting started. Here’s a short tour of his long list of accomplishments. —Victoria Tang


After attending a Montessori school, which encourages creative thinking, graduates from the University of Michigan with a degree in engineering.


Starts the doctorate program in computer science at Stanford. After what he later describes as “a vivid dream,” begins working with Sergey Brin on a search engine initially dubbed BackRub.


Launches the search engine—now called Google—commercially from a friend’s house. Maxes out three credit cards to buy the initial hardware.


Receives a patent for PageRank, which orders each search result based on “an objective measure of its citation importance that corresponds well with people’s subjective idea of importance.”


Bucks Wall Street tradition by running the Google IPO as a modified Dutch auction, which makes it easier for everyday investors to snare a share.


Appointed to the board of trustees of the X Prize Foundation, which offers rewards to inventors who can accomplish seemingly unreachable goals.


Invests in Tesla Motors, a company that taps into Page’s long-standing interest in electric cars. Back in his college days, he helped design a solar-powered car that raced in the 1993 World Solar Challenge.


Seeds a team to experiment with self-driving cars, capitalizing on technology like laser range finders and radar sensors to improve safety and efficiency.


After serving as Google’s president of products for a decade, replaces Eric Schmidt as CEO.


Demonstrates the Google Glass wearable computer from the secretive Google X lab. In a move toward hands-free devices, the futuristic headgear projects information onto a lens above the user’s right eye.


Launches the Solve for X event, where 46 entrepreneurs, innovators, and scientists gather to discuss “technology moon shots,” a concept repeatedly touted at Google.


Establishes Global Impact Awards for nonprofits that use technology to “tackle some of the world’s toughest human challenges,” including projects like real-time clean water sensors and DNA barcoding.
Click the arrows to move through the timeline.
Wired: But you have to gradually improve your existing products too, right?
Page: Of course. But periodically, every n years, you should work on something new that you think is really amazing. The trick is coming up with those products. I could probably give you a list of 10 major things that are wrong with email. I try to maintain lists like that in my head.
Wired: Now you have a separate division called Google X, dedicated to moon-shot projects like self-driving cars. Why did you decide you needed to set up an entire department for this?
Page: I think we need to be doing breakthrough, non-incremental things across our whole business. But right now Google X does things that can be done more independently.
You know, we always have these debates: We have all this money, we have all these people, why aren’t we doing more stuff? You may say that Apple only does a very, very small number of things, and that’s working pretty well for them. But I find that unsatisfying. I feel like there are all these opportunities in the world to use technology to make people’s lives better. At Google we’re attacking maybe 0.1 percent of that space. And all the tech companies combined are only at like 1 percent. That means there’s 99 percent virgin territory. Investors always worry, “Oh, you guys are going to spend too much money on these crazy things.” But those are now the things they’re most excited about—YouTube, Chrome, Android. If you’re not doing some things that are crazy, then you’re doing the wrong things.
“There are all these opportunities to make people’s lives better. Tech companies are attacking 1 percent of them. That leaves 99 percent virgin territory.”
Wired: On the other hand, as the canard goes, the pioneers take the most arrows. Look at the experience of Xerox PARC, where fantastic innovations didn’t seem to help the corporation itself.
Page: PARC had a tremendous research organization and they invented many of the tools of modern computing. But they weren’t focused on commercialization. You need both. Take one company I admire, Tesla. They’ve not only made a really innovative car, but they’re probably spending 99 percent of their effort figuring out how to actually get it out to people. When I was growing up, I wanted to be an inventor. Then I realized that there’s a lot of sad stories about inventors like Nikola Tesla, amazing people who didn’t have much impact, because they never turned their inventions into businesses.
Wired: Why don’t we see more people with that kind of ambition?
Page: It’s not easy coming up with moon shots. And we’re not teaching people how to identify those difficult projects. Where would I go to school to learn what kind of technological programs I should work on? You’d probably need a pretty broad technical education and some knowledge about organization and entrepreneurship. There’s no degree for that. Our system trains people in specialized ways, but not to pick the right projects to make a broad technological impact.
Wired: I know that you and Google cofounder Sergey Brin have been thinking about some of these challenges for a long time. In an interview I did with you both back in 2002, you virtually wrote me out the specs to Google Glass.
Page: Why didn’t we do it then? We’d have had a lot more time to get it done! It’s like autonomous cars. I wanted to do them when I was at Stanford. That was over 14 years ago. The only thing that changed was we got the guts to actually do it.
Wired: Google X’s moon shots aside, what’s taking your time at Google?
Page: A great deal of my effort is spent making sure that we have a great user experience across our core products. Whether you’re in Chrome or Search or Gmail, it’s just Google, with one consistent look and feel. It’s not a good user experience if there are 50 different ways to share something. That requires integration.
Wired: As Google now grapples with its image as a powerful, maybe scary company, does it get harder to implement big changes?
Page: It’s harder, but there are also more benefits. A billion people use our products.
Wired: But have you done a good enough job explaining your intentions? Take Book Search. Providing a way to search through the world’s books seemed to you to be an unalloyed good. But you ran into a backlash and chronic litigation.
Page: It’s certainly not pleasant. But show me a company that failed because of litigation. I just don’t see it. Companies fail because they do the wrong things or they aren’t ambitious, not because of litigation or competition.
Wired: Steve Jobs felt competitive enough to claim that he was willing to “go to thermonuclear war” on Android.
Page: How well is that working?
Wired: Do you think that Android’s huge lead in market share is decisive?
Page: Android has been very successful, and we’re very excited about it.
Wired: Did you envision that kind of success when you bought Andy Rubin’s small company in 2005?
Page: We have a good ability to see what’s possible and not be impeded by the status quo. At the time we bought Android, it was pretty obvious that the existing mobile operating systems were terrible. You couldn’t write software for them. Compare that to what we have now. So I don’t think that betting on Android was that big a stretch. You just had to have the conviction to make a long-term investment and to believe that things could be a lot better.
Wired: One area where people say that Google is indeed motivated by competition is the social realm, where in the past two years you have been working hard in a field dominated by a single rival, Facebook. That’s not the case?
Page: It’s not the way I think about it. We had real issues with how our users shared information, how they expressed their identity, and so on. And, yeah, they’re a company that’s strong in that space. But they’re also doing a really bad job on their products. For us to succeed, is it necessary for some other company to fail? No. We’re actually doing something different. I think it’s outrageous to say that there’s only space for one company in these areas. When we started with search, everyone said, “You guys are gonna fail, there’s already five search companies.” We said, “We are a search company, but we’re doing something different.” That’s how I see all these areas.
Wired: What’s your evaluation of Google+?
Page: I’m very happy with how it has gone. We’re working on a lot of really cool stuff. A lot of it has been copied by our competitors, so I think we’re doing a good job.
Wired: Android has always prided itself on being a more open platform, compared to Apple’s walled-garden approach. That came into stark relief when Apple pulled Google Maps from iOS6 and launched its own maps app. Did the uproar over that decision vindicate your commitment to openness?
Page: I don’t want to comment on partner relationships. But we’ve been working on Maps for a long time, and it’s nice to see people realize that we’ve put a lot of effort and investment into it. That’s clearly more appreciated now.
Look, you may have the greatest maps in the world, but if nobody uses them, it doesn’t matter. Our philosophy has always been to get our products out to as many people as possible. Unfortunately that’s not always easy in this day and age. The web has been great; we were able to get products out to everyone, quickly and with high quality. Now we’re going backward with a lot of the platforms that are out there. Companies are trying to wall everything off, and I think that impedes the rate of innovation.
Wired: Google has been challenged on the patent front, an issue you addressed by buying Motorola’s portfolio.
Page: We bought the company as well.
Wired: Exactly. But since then the company has released only products that were previously in the pipeline. We don’t know what your plans are. Should we expect Google to be as disruptive and innovative with Motorola as it has been in other areas?
Page: As we said when we acquired Motorola, we’re running it independently, and Dennis Woodside is in charge. But that’s very much what we want to do with Motorola and what Dennis wants to do. There’s a lot of room for innovation in hardware. The phones we use now have glass that everyone worries will break if they drop the device. Five or 10 years from now, that will be different. There’s going to be a lot of change.
Wired: As we speak, anyone who goes to Google’s homepage sees a link to information in opposition to an International Telecommunication Union proposal that may constrain the open Internet. Last year you did something similar around the controversial SOPA bill. We didn’t use to see that kind of lobbying on Why do it now?
Page: Consider our own history. When we started Google, it wasn’t really obvious that what we were doing wouldn’t get regulated away. Remember, at the time, people were arguing that making a copy of a file in a computer’s memory was a violation of copyright. We put the whole web on our servers, so if that were true, bye-bye search engines. The Internet’s been pretty great for society, and I think that 10 or 20 years from now, we’ll look back and say we were a millimeter away from regulating it out of existence.
Wired: My guess is that talking to regulators is probably not your favorite thing to do.
Page: I like talking to everyone. That’s just the way I’m wired. But I do think the Internet’s under much greater attack than it has been in the past. Governments are now afraid of the Internet because of the Middle East stuff, and so they’re a little more willing to listen to what I see as a lot of commercial interests that just want to make money by restricting people’s freedoms. But they’ve also seen a tremendous user reaction, like the backlash against SOPA. I think that governments fight users’ freedoms at their own peril.
Wired: How do you maintain the Google culture—including the mandate to think big—within such a huge company?
Page: We’re a medium-size company in terms of employee count. We have tens of thousands of employees. There are organizations out there that have millions of employees. That’s a factor of a hundred, basically. So imagine what we could do if we had a hundred times as many employees.
Wired: You hold a weekly TGIF meeting, where any employee can ask you or other top executives a question, either in person or electronically. How can you keep that kind of intimacy as you grow?
Page: Anything is scalable. We do need to be more cognizant of time zones, because we’ve got a lot of people in different places. Short of building a giant space mirror that causes the whole Earth to light up at the same time, there’s not much we can do about that. So we’re moving that TGIF meeting to Thursday, so that people in Asia can get it during their work week. That process still works pretty well at our size, and I’m sure it will work fine up to a million people as well.
Wired: Wait, that’s the second time you’ve mentioned Google as potentially a million-person company.
Page: Doesn’t Walmart have more than a million employees? OK, maybe it’s not important for us to have a million employees, but I like to think that we could build companies that are really scalable to that size. We could add people and still be really innovative. That would be great for us. We’re one of the bigger companies of the world, and I’d like to see us do more stuff—not just do what somebody else has done, but something new.