3 ms·

How so? For the majority of employees, the lists' main adverse effect on promotions is the time sink that they represent, just to read them. When I was there, o

by puzzle 9y ago

How so? For the majority of employees, the lists' main adverse effect on promotions is the time sink that they represent, just to read them. When I was there, only a minority of subscribers actually posted in the conversations. The rest would read them, mute them and sometimes frown ("why the hell did I sign up for eng-misc again?"). This is par for the course for any place where you're given a microphone, for good or for bad.

ben_jones 9y ago
I would guess expressing a viewpoint strongly aligned with the individual most responsible for your promotion would help you land that promotion. Likewise voicing an opinion counter to a popular narrative of that individual could prevent you from getting one. If the majority of your team or even just the management level of your department are participating, you must pick a side, keeping in mind silence and abstaining from emotionally charged discussions if often seen as picking a side in and of itself.
- puzzle 9y ago
  In my almost ten years, under almost as many managers and directors, only one of them was occasionally active on any of the lists I was on. Although some of his discussions with others got a bit tense, they were mostly of tech policy nature and I never felt afraid of disagreeing if I wanted to - with him, of all managers. Just one data point to say that perhaps "horrific" and "hostile" are a bit excessive.
- boulos 9y ago
  Disclosure: I work at Google. Because the promotion process is based on feedback from your peers, but is decided by a random selection of people two levels higher than you, this shouldn't particularly be the case. I mean you could obviously alienate all your peers, such that nobody would give you even the faintest praise in your peer feedback, but that seems almost as hard as being promoted :). Again, your manager and your management chain don't directly decide whether or not you're promoted here. It's overall refreshing, if imperfect.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Damore's memo specificially cites Googlers receiving peer bonuses for participating in political conversation on these lists. Surely receipt (or lack thereof) of such bonuses would be taken into account by the random people who determine promotions, yes? At the very least, alienating peers puts you at a financial disadvantage.
    - joshuamorton 9y ago
      I doubt anyone can give a very good answer to this without saying anything confidential, but suffice to say no, I don't believe that's the case. Perhaps others will chime in.

by puzzle 9y ago

ben_jones 9y ago

I would guess expressing a viewpoint strongly aligned with the individual most responsible for your promotion would help you land that promotion. Likewise voicing an opinion counter to a popular narrative of that individual could prevent you from getting one. If the majority of your team or even just the management level of your department are participating, you must pick a side, keeping in mind silence and abstaining from emotionally charged discussions if often seen as picking a side in and of itself.

puzzle 9y ago
In my almost ten years, under almost as many managers and directors, only one of them was occasionally active on any of the lists I was on. Although some of his discussions with others got a bit tense, they were mostly of tech policy nature and I never felt afraid of disagreeing if I wanted to - with him, of all managers. Just one data point to say that perhaps "horrific" and "hostile" are a bit excessive.
boulos 9y ago
Disclosure: I work at Google. Because the promotion process is based on feedback from your peers, but is decided by a random selection of people two levels higher than you, this shouldn't particularly be the case. I mean you could obviously alienate all your peers, such that nobody would give you even the faintest praise in your peer feedback, but that seems almost as hard as being promoted :). Again, your manager and your management chain don't directly decide whether or not you're promoted here. It's overall refreshing, if imperfect.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Damore's memo specificially cites Googlers receiving peer bonuses for participating in political conversation on these lists. Surely receipt (or lack thereof) of such bonuses would be taken into account by the random people who determine promotions, yes? At the very least, alienating peers puts you at a financial disadvantage.
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I doubt anyone can give a very good answer to this without saying anything confidential, but suffice to say no, I don't believe that's the case. Perhaps others will chime in.