My assumption with mission statements was that they were always bullshit made up by a marketing team or some exec and I wouldn't expect them to have much relation to reality. Was I in the minority?
"Move fast and break things" isn't just a feel-good truism like most values that companies come up with are. It's something that at least some people are going to disagree with, and it's something that can actually be instructive when making a decision at that company.
I don't personally agree with it, but I respect that at least in the past Facebook was willing to take a stance on how they developed products that wasn't some saccharine feel-good BS that values usually are.
(source: my brother, who worked there for a few years following acquisition)
Most businesses have an official mission statement to the effect of: "Help people do {x} at a competitive price."
Only a 23 year old CEO says things like "Changing the world by connecting people."
A real one does have a _huge_ effect on the culture of the organisation, above and beyond what is achievable otherwise. I've seen one be transformative at a former workplace. I hope you have the opportunity as part of your career.
That outlier quality is why they are seen as important, even if they get cargo-culted in most instances.
Maybe it's the flip side of the hustle mentality that the mission statement is used to manipulate rather than a genuine expression of shared values and goals?
In my experience they are concocted by a dozen people from across the company sitting in a room all day filling white boards with feel good, businessy words that only vaguely relate to their employer.
Agreement on the mission statement has to be unanimous within this group as well as being signed off on by several execs who will not be present during its drafting. The requirement for consensus ensures that only something incredibly tepid can get over the line.
Hiring? Every interviewer is trying to gain insight into one or two of those specific leadership principles. Promotions? Better have demonstrated them and have documentation to prove it.
It's not perfect, but the company tries really hard to make them not be bullshit.
...except when helping the Chinese government oppress and spy on its citizens.
What is Google's mission nowadays? I don't see them following a lot of "Organize the world's information and make it open". There's a ton of closed walls, they even acquired companies like freebase and then their stuff went behind closed doors.
To be clear, I prefer the first interpretation, but I realize open data geeks (and those who would use the raw data if granted access) are far fewer than ML geeks (and those who enjoy the automagic suggestions) and the gap is only widening.
In the early days of Google, I assumed that to organize and make accessible meant to index and link to information presented by others - and not to ‘own’ the data.
It saddens me that that interpretation is no longer correct - and perhaps never was?
But the wording is certainly neutral on who houses and owns the data.
I'm guessing that you're right as to the early interpretation, since that's what makes sense for web search.
But other interpretations are the logical thing to think of first for some of their more recent ML-powered assist/suggest products, and the wording of the mission statement leaves product managers and architects/designers free to apply whatever interpretation makes natural sense in context.
"Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22155.Let_My_People_Go_S...
Powerful read that also happens to be interesting.
Recommended.
Plus they're actively working on the microplastics problem: https://www.patagonia.com/blog/2017/02/an-update-on-microfib...
In regards to their product, they make high quality clothing that lasts longer (reducing consumption) and sheds less.