I think it's perhaps not quite that. If this post[0] is correct, then this is Google's intended way of doing things. They intentionally do not have strong leadership, because they don't believe that's the best way for them to operate.
Whether or not that's "right" or "wrong" (or neither) is of course up for debate. I personally think they could probably use at least some top-down initiatives here and there, but overall I think having most of their decisions be bottom-up is a nice way to work. I think their culture around that may not be quite right, though, as it seems to incentivize project-hopping and not seeing things through past the explosive "wow factor" phase.
I don't think that post is entirely true. It's overly simplistic and I don't think any of my friends or family that work at Google would agree wholeheartedly with that characterization.
You may still have a broader point that's worth considering but I don't think it negates my characterization of their issues entirely.
Whether or not that's "right" or "wrong" (or neither) is of course up for debate. I personally think they could probably use at least some top-down initiatives here and there, but overall I think having most of their decisions be bottom-up is a nice way to work. I think their culture around that may not be quite right, though, as it seems to incentivize project-hopping and not seeing things through past the explosive "wow factor" phase.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42404117