5 ms·

I think you're absolutely right, in general, but I've been at Facebook for 5 years now, and the one thing I'll say about it is that once you establish a track r

I think you're absolutely right, in general, but I've been at Facebook for 5 years now, and the one thing I'll say about it is that once you establish a track record of 1) doing good work and 2) making good long-term decisions, that trumps any considerations around level. The culture is definitely such that the very senior folks (Director++) will value trust over level, so it's very much "influence over authority." Personally, this has lead to me getting messed with my managers ~never, which is a very high-order bit in my work happiness.

Mithaldu 10y ago
The last time i was at a place where trust went above everything, literally all the code was the worst horrible shit, because they sold tyres and that being a solid business had run into zero trouble, ever, and thought that the developer who'd been with them for over a decade was the best, since "he has never made a wrong decision" (i.e. the company hadn't gone bankrupt yet), despite his code managing to create, just on its own, an amazing turn-over rate in developers.
- pm 10y ago
  The place I'm currently about to leave had a similar situation in times past, due to the fact they weren't a software organisation. Facebook is a software organisation, so the same situation would rarely apply. However, I think you should trust but verify. If you're unable to accomplish the verify part (for whatever reason), you'll have problems.
  - alttab 10y ago
    Yeah, a lot of people make the mistake on what type of company it is. For instance, a lot of non-software companies may pay more and provide a director or executive level title to a developer and give them a team just to get them in the door. What these people don't immediately realize is they are giving up being a "tier-1" employee at the organization. First and foremost if you are at say, a tire company, software is most likely a cost center and not central to the strategy. This means they wont attract good developers, and have to do things like above to get them in the door. If you want to work with really passionate and talented software developers, you'll want to be at a primarily software organization, or one that sees the logistics of software central to the business strategy.
frankydp 10y ago
While this system does work well for very meritocratic groups, it is a mostly anecdotal/self-constructed replacement for defined/quantified hierarchy. The "influence over authority" framework is the adhoc social group hierarchy that is replacing a defined hierarchy, and is very susceptible to silos, clicks, and favoritism; regardless of the accuracy of the merit calculations by the members, of the members. I am not knocking the system, as I agree that a meritocratic structure can work in small social systems, but there are some risk. The primary ones would be new member exclusion which can be hidden behind the meritocratic mantle of "it's the best choice", and fiefdom building that can result from the finite number of members that can function in a social group or that can reliably be recalled/indexed by members with in a group. It may be possible to have numerous self contained and self structured groups operating within a larger organization, assuming the time tables allow for them to establish, and that new member barriers are not so obvious that they decrease retention. Facebook may be knowingly or unknowingly leveraging their Employer Brand to mitigate the risk of attrition within hierarchy-lite system.
- lambdasquirrel 10y ago
  I really wouldn't be that cynical about it in that sense. I don't work at Facebook. I never have. But I've seen this work. It really can happen. The problem isn't traditional office politics, as far as I've seen. The problem is that sometimes the influential engineers can be shortsighted about other teams' needs and it can actually be hard for management to step in and say hey look.
- swolchok 10y ago
  > silos, clicks, and favoritism In case this wasn't a phonetic typo and you're really not aware, the word you are looking for is "cliques". Cheers!
kmonsen 10y ago
"value trust over level" Isn't this the definition of politics? Trust is a personal feeling based on other opinion and your own experience while level should be based on documented achievements in the company. Same with influence over authority. Influence is just another word for politics.
- personjerry 10y ago
  The parent's comment uses the word "influence" more in the sense of "Merit Influence" than "Political Influence", I think
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    Doesn't that still mean more informal, people in my sphere than formal merit recognition which is the whole point of levels? Maybe I'm just not getting it.
  - ethanbond 10y ago
    Then that means there are people whose work merits higher levels/pay/promotions/fancier desks who aren't getting them, but instead get to be advisors to people with fancy desks? Still toxic.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Office politics becomes toxic because it's about using political structures for personal gain. Political status becomes the primary product at work. Actual work performance of individuals and teams becomes secondary. Decisions become increasingly irrational because the interests of low-status individuals - including customers, suppliers, and other employees - start being seen as an annoying distractions from personal profit/status. If that's reversed and performance becomes more important than status, you're already in a healthier place. Empires can be very profitable. But they're also miserable places to work, and they rarely have much customer good will.
- hashkb 10y ago
  Thank you. So obvious.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Mithaldu 10y ago

The last time i was at a place where trust went above everything, literally all the code was the worst horrible shit, because they sold tyres and that being a solid business had run into zero trouble, ever, and thought that the developer who'd been with them for over a decade was the best, since "he has never made a wrong decision" (i.e. the company hadn't gone bankrupt yet), despite his code managing to create, just on its own, an amazing turn-over rate in developers.

pm 10y ago
The place I'm currently about to leave had a similar situation in times past, due to the fact they weren't a software organisation. Facebook is a software organisation, so the same situation would rarely apply. However, I think you should trust but verify. If you're unable to accomplish the verify part (for whatever reason), you'll have problems.
- alttab 10y ago
  Yeah, a lot of people make the mistake on what type of company it is. For instance, a lot of non-software companies may pay more and provide a director or executive level title to a developer and give them a team just to get them in the door. What these people don't immediately realize is they are giving up being a "tier-1" employee at the organization. First and foremost if you are at say, a tire company, software is most likely a cost center and not central to the strategy. This means they wont attract good developers, and have to do things like above to get them in the door. If you want to work with really passionate and talented software developers, you'll want to be at a primarily software organization, or one that sees the logistics of software central to the business strategy.

frankydp 10y ago

While this system does work well for very meritocratic groups, it is a mostly anecdotal/self-constructed replacement for defined/quantified hierarchy. The "influence over authority" framework is the adhoc social group hierarchy that is replacing a defined hierarchy, and is very susceptible to silos, clicks, and favoritism; regardless of the accuracy of the merit calculations by the members, of the members. I am not knocking the system, as I agree that a meritocratic structure can work in small social systems, but there are some risk. The primary ones would be new member exclusion which can be hidden behind the meritocratic mantle of "it's the best choice", and fiefdom building that can result from the finite number of members that can function in a social group or that can reliably be recalled/indexed by members with in a group. It may be possible to have numerous self contained and self structured groups operating within a larger organization, assuming the time tables allow for them to establish, and that new member barriers are not so obvious that they decrease retention. Facebook may be knowingly or unknowingly leveraging their Employer Brand to mitigate the risk of attrition within hierarchy-lite system.

lambdasquirrel 10y ago
I really wouldn't be that cynical about it in that sense. I don't work at Facebook. I never have. But I've seen this work. It really can happen. The problem isn't traditional office politics, as far as I've seen. The problem is that sometimes the influential engineers can be shortsighted about other teams' needs and it can actually be hard for management to step in and say hey look.
swolchok 10y ago
> silos, clicks, and favoritism In case this wasn't a phonetic typo and you're really not aware, the word you are looking for is "cliques". Cheers!

kmonsen 10y ago

"value trust over level" Isn't this the definition of politics? Trust is a personal feeling based on other opinion and your own experience while level should be based on documented achievements in the company. Same with influence over authority. Influence is just another word for politics.

personjerry 10y ago
The parent's comment uses the word "influence" more in the sense of "Merit Influence" than "Political Influence", I think
- kmonsen 10y ago
  Doesn't that still mean more informal, people in my sphere than formal merit recognition which is the whole point of levels? Maybe I'm just not getting it.
- ethanbond 10y ago
  Then that means there are people whose work merits higher levels/pay/promotions/fancier desks who aren't getting them, but instead get to be advisors to people with fancy desks? Still toxic.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Office politics becomes toxic because it's about using political structures for personal gain. Political status becomes the primary product at work. Actual work performance of individuals and teams becomes secondary. Decisions become increasingly irrational because the interests of low-status individuals - including customers, suppliers, and other employees - start being seen as an annoying distractions from personal profit/status. If that's reversed and performance becomes more important than status, you're already in a healthier place. Empires can be very profitable. But they're also miserable places to work, and they rarely have much customer good will.
hashkb 10y ago
Thank you. So obvious.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]