How does Google work? Glenn invited two top executives to talk about how one of the biggest companies of the 21st century stays innovative

October 06, 2014

Writer

Glenn has a love/hate relationship with technology. He loves the vision of the future and the freedom it gives people. However, the exponential growth of technology also creates the opportunity for giant companies to get so giant that they can crush the life out of you. Glenn isn't sure where he stands on some of these big technology companies. Google, being number one in that category because they do some pretty scary things, but they also do some amazing things. He invited two key Googlers, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and advisor and former SVP Jonathan Rosenberg, onto the show to discuss the Google culture and their new book How Google Works.

GLENN: Hi, guys. How are you?

SPEAKER: Hi, Glenn. How are you? It's Eric.

GLENN: Very good.

ROSENBERG: It's Jonathan. Great to be here.

GLENN: Thanks for being here. I want to start with: Really good book. But I want to get into a couple of things and dive right in to Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs is not a guy that liked you or Google at all. And yet, you say some really good things about him in this book. You want to take me through what the philosophy is? I mean, was it not a two-way street with you guys?

ERIC: Well, this is Eric. If you think about the Steve, Steve was perhaps the greatest inventor of my generation. He took a company that he founded that was a near-death situation and invented pretty much the way people use computers today through their phones. So although he was certainly difficult at times, his brilliance meant that many, many smart people flocked with him. In our industry -- and we talk about this in the book -- people help each other out. And so I would help Steve out. He would help me out. And, in fact, I was on the Apple board for three and a half years.

ROSENBERG: Glenn, we also point out in the book that there's a new archetype, a new character that we're defining, that's sort of the hero of our book, which is the smart-creative. And the characteristics of those people are that they combine technical ability, they're business savvy, they're extremely curious and passionate. And we really felt that Steve was a great example of that persona.

GLENN: Well, you say here, the culture stems from the founders, best reflected in the trusted team. You say: You have to ask the team -- and I think this is really, really good. You ask the team several questions.

What do we care about? What do we believe? Who do we want to be? How do we want our company to act and make decisions?

Can you tell me about that list, and what you're driving at here?

ROSENBERG: Sure. This is Jonathan. I think one of the things that we've seen, particularly in the Valley, is that there's a very strong selection bias when you define your culture early. So one of the things that you find is that many founders get that right initially, others kind of just focus on the business and then delegate those values to an HR organization or PR people later in the process.

What we found is that you want to define the culture in the beginning, create a selection bias, so the kind of people that you're looking for and believe your culture come to the company and then you want to allow them to answer the questions in more detail so that that first group of employees define the culture for you.

GLENN: So define the Google culture.

ERIC: Well, it's certainly smart and quick, and it's very reliant on the people that we're describing as smart-creatives, people who sort of have a vision. And we tolerate them. We sort of say: Have a good time. Come up with your ideas. We'll see how far you get.

One of the characteristics of that is, that model is scalable. You can end up with 100 of them and then 1,000 of them. And I've become convinced that these people are the future of America because these are the future inventors. These are the future people who will create jobs and new companies, and they'll spin out of Google to do a startup and so forth.

GLENN: Are we all kind of inventors now? I mean, don't we have the ability to do things that we've never been able to do before?

ERIC: The barrier of entry to start a startup is the lowest it's been.

Let me say, Glenn, that you did this. You set out a strong culture. You set out a five-year plan. And off you went, and look at the success you've achieved. So it works. Right? It takes guts, and it's typically done by young people in small teams that work very, very hard. Very specific type.

GLENN: This is something that I've been wrestling with. I don't trust -- I don't trust a company over 100 people because I just don't think -- there's too many people you have to answer to.

ERIC: This is like, don't trust anybody over 30. You already have more than 100 people.

GLENN: I know. I've got a company of 310 people, and I just -- we can't ever get anything done.

STU: I don't think that's accurate.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second.

Do you guys ever feel that way that you get to a point -- I mean, you talk about the two-pizza theory, which I think is absolutely rock solid, and it's kind of where I'm at where, just break everything up into teams because one person cannot handle such a bureaucracy, and the bigger it gets, the more people that have sign off on crap and you never get anything done. You spend all your time in meetings.

So explain the two-pizza theory. And then, how do you build off of that?

ROSENBERG: Sure, Glenn. This is Jonathan. The two-pizza theory we actually got from Jeff Bezos, which says that you don't want to allow any teams to grow beyond the point where you can't feed them with two pizzas. And there's always been, in sort of the history of software, this notion of the mythical man month, which basically says, as you start adding people to a programming project, it becomes much, much less efficient.

So our focus has always been to keep people in very small teams, keep those teams in small groups working together, and then as we scale, we're constantly trying to break the projects down into smaller teams. The other things that we're seeing is, it's getting much easier to standardize products so that one product can build on another, and that allows us to keep teams much smaller.

GLENN: Explain the -- because you guys are -- you're into everything. Absolutely everything. Oh, yes. You're controlling my thermostat. You're driving cars now on the highway. I mean, you're into absolutely everything. How do you keep the teams working in the same general direction? How does that work?

And beyond that, explain the diagram. You have a Venn diagram, and you say how you -- you know, how you choose ideas. Big ideas. So explain, A, how do you keep the teams all generally going in the same direction? How do you know what's a Google thing and what's not? How do you do that?

ERIC: We make a list, and then we sort of go through it. We used to have a list called the Top 100, which had 300 things on it. We could never get it down to 100. And we would sit there and say, well, which of these are more important. And through that process of discussion, we would end up prioritizing.

And the key thing about the management meetings is they can't be consensus. They have to be looking for the best idea. And they're different. In a consensus, everybody kind of fights to the median.

Whereas, in our case, we say, what's the better idea? Does anybody have a better idea than what we're currently doing? Then we have this big argument internally. Eventually someone says, well, why don't we try this? And the job of the leader, in this case you, is to say, okay, let's go after that. And come back in a day and tell me what to do.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Glenn. You asked about the Venn diagram, and that really relates to starting from the premise of how large is the opportunity. Many companies kind of focus on what they see as greenfield markets, which are usually green for a reason. There's not a great opportunity there.

So, for us, the number one thing is: What is the scope and opportunity of this market?

And the next thing that we then look at is: Can we use technology in some unique way to fundamentally improve the products in that space?

And where those two things match, we then conclude that there's a big opportunity.

GLENN: So do you guys start with, I want to change the world, or do you start with, we need to make money?

ERIC: Well, a little bit of both. One of the secrets of Google is that the search business has been highly profitable in the sense of the ads work really, really well. And that money gives us, if you will, the rope to try things. Maybe other companies that don't have such high gross margins are unable to or they can't get the financing.

But the core principle is actually not about money at all. It's about users. And one of the sort of key slogans of the company is: Put the user first.

So if the nest thermostat makes the user happier, which indeed it does, that's an improvement. If the car, the self-driving improves people's lives and, in particular, allows them to stay alive, that's much better. We don't worry about what the prices of these things are. We'll figure that out later.

GLENN: I think there's -- and I could be wrong. I think there's a change in Silicon Valley. I think there are a lot of people in Silicon Valley that maybe thought that they were wildly liberal and had found themselves to be more Libertarian because a lot of these guys are, you know, 25 years old, and they started something in their basement. And now they're like, holy cow, look at what I'm building. And they know they don't need the government, and now the government is starting to knock on their door and say, hey, hey, you can't do that.

And I think people that are 20-something years old are not used to somebody coming in and saying, you can't do that. And now they're finding themselves saying, you know, government is a necessary evil, but we don't need to have all of this government. You guys, on the other hand, are deeply in bed with the government. You got what is it, 25 -- the self-driving cars. There were 29 permits issued for the state of California; 25 of them went to you guys.

ERIC: We're not in bed with them. We're regulated by them.

What you're saying is something that's been true for many, many decades. Right? The tech industry is famously liberal on social issues and famously conservative on financial issues. The saying of the industry is: Government out of the boardroom, government out of the bedroom.

And I think that's roughly what you're feeling. This libertarian streak has been there for a very long time, for the reasons that you say. Exactly right.

And the problem, of course, is that we're inventing things that really do affect traditional agreements with governments. So Google is in the information business. Well, there's nothing more important than information. So if you're a political leader or a government or especially a restrictive government, a dictatorship, you want to control information. You don't want freedom of expression for your citizens.

GLENN: How do you guys view the world -- with the world changing as much as it is and driving cars, how long before the driving car is -- we're all being driven to work?

ERIC: It's completely dependent upon the regulatory process. The technology works. It was invented literally in 2004 and 2005. And the reason this is serious is there are roughly 31,000 people who die on American highways every year. So those are your family. Those are your friends. Those are our citizens. So the quicker we can move this stuff out, the better. We don't know how long it's going to take, but we're sure it will happen over a long enough period of time. It's valuable.

GLENN: See, isn't that an amazing thing? That talks about the problem I think with -- with the way our system is. Our government is not run with a two-pizza rule. And that's kind of the problem.

You're saying the system works. It can all go in. But the regulatory process -- and you know that's going to be a bloodbath of just payoffs and all kinds of problems -- isn't that -- I mean, wouldn't we be much better off to be able to, now that we have the technology to do some of these things -- we're not living in the 1950s anymore. The entire world has changed. How do we break down these walls to start moving a little faster without government interference?

ERIC: A lot of the cases, the regulations have been written by existing incumbents or the industry. And the best kind of regulation says, what we want to do is we want to get more people to their destinations safer, faster, and in a more comfortable way. If the law just said that, then it would be a lot easier. But it ends up being very complicated. And Google has literally thousands of people worldwide who works on these sorts of issues. And I think this is normal for American corporations. I don't Google is unusual.

GLENN: Explain the 70/20/10 approach that's in the book.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Glenn, this is Jonathan. So 70/20/10 was basically an algorithm that Sergey Brin derived, and it stemmed from looking at the set of the companies top 100 priorities when we were much smaller, and Sergey Brin basically observed that the company felt about right at that scale, and 70 percent of the resources were going into the core efforts, 20 percent into emerging, and then 10 percent into kind of the wacky crazy ideas.

So we decided we would institutionalize that and try to keep that framework as sort of the broad -- as we grew over time. One of the nice things about 10 percent is that it's enough that you can actually kick things off and get them started, but it's not so much resource devoted around one thing that the company gets so invested in it that we can't kill it if it's failing.

STU: We're actually doing a version of that, but it's 1/5/94 is our current...

GLENN: I've been trying to talk to some of the guys in my own company and said, I really like your -- what is it -- your 70/30, work for the company 70 percent of your time -- or is it 80/20. Where that extra 20 or 30 percent of your week is kind of on the things you want to pursue. Can you explain that? Are you still doing that in the first place? Do you know what I'm talking about?

SPEAKER: Yes. We've always in the company a rule that employees could spend 20 percent of their time on whatever they wanted to do rather than what their manager wanted to do. So -- is our 20 percent project. We have other duties as well. And it exists because it's a way of being creative without putting too much at risk. Because if you just have one person spending one-fifth of their time and wasting their time, you don't have a huge risk, and you might have some great idea. And so what happens is, many of the great ideas that we hear started off at 20 percent times.

GLENN: I think what you guys are creating is the future, and I hope that as -- Eric, as I've said to you before, I hope the don't be evil, actually remains in place. Because of the amazing power of Google. But I really appreciate it. The name of the book is How Google Works. Hope to have you guys on again. Thank you so much.

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Glenn's Show Prep