6 ms·

I was at a talk last week given by a startup founder and he said something similar that went along these lines: The bigger the company, the smaller your role's

I was at a talk last week given by a startup founder and he said something similar that went along these lines: The bigger the company, the smaller your role's coverage. You get well-compensated and aren't worked too hard, but your job might effectively be "you're responsible for these two screens of this one component of this particular application". The conflict is that the bigger the company, the higher the bar for entry. So you end up with a bunch of really bright, challenge-loving people cooped up working day in day out on very specific cogs of the giant machine, and that's not an ideal lifestyle for all of those people.

shanghaiaway 8y ago
"Product Manager, Friend List at Facebook"
ilovecaching 8y ago
That's not what's incentivized though. Getting in to a FAANG is just the first step. The next step is to actually show that you can affect more than just your two screens. That's why they work in constant review cycles. People who get frustrated are often the people who don't know how to affect more than their two screens. It's hard, because you're competing with other people who are equally or more brilliant. Although Google is big enough now that we can demote brilliant to fairly intelligent I think.
- basejumping 8y ago
  From what I hear it's turning fairly intelligent to asshole
  - baccheion 8y ago
    Google has been riddled with a--holes since at least 2010.
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      To be honest our whole industry has more than its fair share.
  - hknd 8y ago
    99% of people within FAANG are the most friendly people ever. E.g. for Google not being a dick is a hiring criteria (Googleyness).
    - hnaccy 8y ago
      >for Google not being a dick is a hiring criteria Wonder what the false negative rate is?
      - ry_ry 8y ago
        Probably quite high. Google's culture and hiring process is so well documented at this point, I suspect any suitably talented individual could appropriate some cultural fit. Of the (current and former) googlers I know personally, they are a mixed bag but there are some traits that are more common. Self assurance and the uncanny ability to never be seen to be demonstrably incorrect are prevalent tbh - but that applies equally to most of the industry.
        pvarangot 8y ago
        > the uncanny ability to never be seen to be demonstrably incorrect I think that may be very easy to do, just state that everything you say is just a theory or your opinion... but this is just a theory.
      - hknd 8y ago
        I'm an interview at a FAANG company, and I did and will reject people if I have the feeling that they are not a cultural fit. (e.g. being a dick, arrogant, ...)
    - borroka 8y ago
      > 99% of people within FAANG are the most friendly people ever I worked at one the FAANG and I found in my team and some of the neighboring teams the most insecure, unfriendly, back-stabbing, conspiratorial bunch of technically semi-competent losers I ever had the displeasure of working with. Other people were competent, trustworthy, confident in themselves and thus enjoyable. I also interviewed at other FAANGs and maybe the interviewers were all wonderful people, but I had a mixed experience. Some appeared to be ok, some definitely not. Very different experience from the parent's.
- grey-area 8y ago
  But you're not competing with those brilliant people on technical merit, but in the political game of building a fiefdom in a large company. That takes very different skills, and many people find it distastful.
  - tpurves 8y ago
    Some might be surprised at what are the most effective strategies in fifedom building and rising in a large org. It very often has much more about making deliberate choices to help those around you succeed, to actively recognize others and help others arond you sieze opportunities. And that kind of demonstrated leadership is what will propel your own rise in status within an organization. It’s a mistake, and will set you back to think of politics as a zero-sum game.
    - baccheion 8y ago
      Advancing at Google (as a Software Engineer) involved getting lucky. In order to be promoted in 2010, you needed to be responsible for a relevant part of a valuable project (in the eyes of executives and other Engineers) that succeeds. During many cycles, it was clear if a promotion or raise would be possible before work even began. As loyalty is rewarded, it also tended to be wiser to stick with one project/manager until leveled up.
      - gowld 8y ago
        Yes, people are rewarded for being successful, and there is an element of luck in landing a good opportunity -- withing a company or at a different company. If you are on a bad project, move; don't expect to be rewarded for wasting your and everyone else's time and money. That's necessarily how it must be, or else everyone would get promoted for hiding out in a corner making beautiful useless things no one cares about, and there's be no money to pay for those promotions.
    - grey-area 8y ago
      It's still building a fiefdom based on loyalty. You'll be competing with people who build loyalty in other, more negative ways - good doesn't always triumph, and I'd contend that in large orgs it rarely does. The pressures that come to bear as you rise will not push you to be good to those under you. Politics does not have to be a zero sum game but often those who view it that way and are absolutely ruthless rise to the top. Perhaps that's just the human condition.
virgilp 8y ago
One of my colleagues complained a while ago to management that "you hire brain surgeons and put them to work to peel potatoes". Quite a poetic way to express the same idea, I'd say :D
- geezerjay 8y ago
  I had a colleague of mine complain to management that their hiring process looked for Ferraris but once someone joined the company they would bolt on a plow to that Ferrari and expected it to deliver acres of plowed fields.
  - Mvandenbergh 8y ago
    More a task for a Lamborghini than a Ferrari I would think.
    - ido 8y ago
      There literally are Ferrari tractors :)
      - aesh2Xa1 8y ago
        Lamborghini began as a tractor company, so I think the joke is pointing towards history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Trattori https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Trattori
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >One of my colleagues complained a while ago to management that "you hire brain surgeons and put them to work to peel potatoes". I work in one of the top tech companies that is not FAANG, and the sentiment is the same. They hire only PhDs for a big chunk of the company and they pay relatively well - most of the people who complain about this cannot get a better paying job. A friend of mine even said to his boss 6 months after he was hired "Why did you hire a PhD like me for this job? This work is not even close to requiring a PhD". While I feel for him, my counter is "OK. Where would you rather work where you will do work worthy of a PhD?" They'll usually name the same few places, and not realize that those places are already "full". And they all pay less. The reality is that there are many more qualified people than positions for the interesting work. If my company decided that yes, you're right, we don't need to hire PhDs for the job and we'll just hire MS folks, then the very people complaining would be in another company, getting paid less, and complaining about the same thing.
utdiscant 8y ago
"The conflict is that the bigger the company, the higher the bar for entry." is that true? I would think that the bar to get in is lowered as you need more and more people. Of course, some institutions like Google manage to make a good branding effort and attract talent, but becoming an early engineer in a successful small startup requires you to be extremely smart too.
- ido 8y ago
  Google can afford to pay better, relocate people from all over the world & is prestigious.
not_real_acct 8y ago
The smartest dude on my team was hired by Google a year ago. On my team, he was a subject matter expert and he routinely contributed to open source projects. Google hired him to be a salesperson. I definitely wonder if he could be happy in that role. I understand that it's important to have technically adept salespeople, but I can't see him being happy in that long term.
- sjg007 8y ago
  If you can get commissions then it can be lucrative.

shanghaiaway 8y ago

"Product Manager, Friend List at Facebook"

ilovecaching 8y ago

That's not what's incentivized though. Getting in to a FAANG is just the first step. The next step is to actually show that you can affect more than just your two screens. That's why they work in constant review cycles. People who get frustrated are often the people who don't know how to affect more than their two screens. It's hard, because you're competing with other people who are equally or more brilliant. Although Google is big enough now that we can demote brilliant to fairly intelligent I think.

basejumping 8y ago
From what I hear it's turning fairly intelligent to asshole
- baccheion 8y ago
  Google has been riddled with a--holes since at least 2010.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    To be honest our whole industry has more than its fair share.
- hknd 8y ago
  99% of people within FAANG are the most friendly people ever. E.g. for Google not being a dick is a hiring criteria (Googleyness).
  - hnaccy 8y ago
    >for Google not being a dick is a hiring criteria Wonder what the false negative rate is?
    - ry_ry 8y ago
      Probably quite high. Google's culture and hiring process is so well documented at this point, I suspect any suitably talented individual could appropriate some cultural fit. Of the (current and former) googlers I know personally, they are a mixed bag but there are some traits that are more common. Self assurance and the uncanny ability to never be seen to be demonstrably incorrect are prevalent tbh - but that applies equally to most of the industry.
      - pvarangot 8y ago
        > the uncanny ability to never be seen to be demonstrably incorrect I think that may be very easy to do, just state that everything you say is just a theory or your opinion... but this is just a theory.
    - hknd 8y ago
      I'm an interview at a FAANG company, and I did and will reject people if I have the feeling that they are not a cultural fit. (e.g. being a dick, arrogant, ...)
  - borroka 8y ago
    > 99% of people within FAANG are the most friendly people ever I worked at one the FAANG and I found in my team and some of the neighboring teams the most insecure, unfriendly, back-stabbing, conspiratorial bunch of technically semi-competent losers I ever had the displeasure of working with. Other people were competent, trustworthy, confident in themselves and thus enjoyable. I also interviewed at other FAANGs and maybe the interviewers were all wonderful people, but I had a mixed experience. Some appeared to be ok, some definitely not. Very different experience from the parent's.
grey-area 8y ago
But you're not competing with those brilliant people on technical merit, but in the political game of building a fiefdom in a large company. That takes very different skills, and many people find it distastful.
- tpurves 8y ago
  Some might be surprised at what are the most effective strategies in fifedom building and rising in a large org. It very often has much more about making deliberate choices to help those around you succeed, to actively recognize others and help others arond you sieze opportunities. And that kind of demonstrated leadership is what will propel your own rise in status within an organization. It’s a mistake, and will set you back to think of politics as a zero-sum game.
  - baccheion 8y ago
    Advancing at Google (as a Software Engineer) involved getting lucky. In order to be promoted in 2010, you needed to be responsible for a relevant part of a valuable project (in the eyes of executives and other Engineers) that succeeds. During many cycles, it was clear if a promotion or raise would be possible before work even began. As loyalty is rewarded, it also tended to be wiser to stick with one project/manager until leveled up.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Yes, people are rewarded for being successful, and there is an element of luck in landing a good opportunity -- withing a company or at a different company. If you are on a bad project, move; don't expect to be rewarded for wasting your and everyone else's time and money. That's necessarily how it must be, or else everyone would get promoted for hiding out in a corner making beautiful useless things no one cares about, and there's be no money to pay for those promotions.
  - grey-area 8y ago
    It's still building a fiefdom based on loyalty. You'll be competing with people who build loyalty in other, more negative ways - good doesn't always triumph, and I'd contend that in large orgs it rarely does. The pressures that come to bear as you rise will not push you to be good to those under you. Politics does not have to be a zero sum game but often those who view it that way and are absolutely ruthless rise to the top. Perhaps that's just the human condition.

virgilp 8y ago

One of my colleagues complained a while ago to management that "you hire brain surgeons and put them to work to peel potatoes". Quite a poetic way to express the same idea, I'd say :D

geezerjay 8y ago
I had a colleague of mine complain to management that their hiring process looked for Ferraris but once someone joined the company they would bolt on a plow to that Ferrari and expected it to deliver acres of plowed fields.
- Mvandenbergh 8y ago
  More a task for a Lamborghini than a Ferrari I would think.
  - ido 8y ago
    There literally are Ferrari tractors :)
    - aesh2Xa1 8y ago
      Lamborghini began as a tractor company, so I think the joke is pointing towards history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Trattori https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Trattori
BeetleB 8y ago
>One of my colleagues complained a while ago to management that "you hire brain surgeons and put them to work to peel potatoes". I work in one of the top tech companies that is not FAANG, and the sentiment is the same. They hire only PhDs for a big chunk of the company and they pay relatively well - most of the people who complain about this cannot get a better paying job. A friend of mine even said to his boss 6 months after he was hired "Why did you hire a PhD like me for this job? This work is not even close to requiring a PhD". While I feel for him, my counter is "OK. Where would you rather work where you will do work worthy of a PhD?" They'll usually name the same few places, and not realize that those places are already "full". And they all pay less. The reality is that there are many more qualified people than positions for the interesting work. If my company decided that yes, you're right, we don't need to hire PhDs for the job and we'll just hire MS folks, then the very people complaining would be in another company, getting paid less, and complaining about the same thing.

utdiscant 8y ago

"The conflict is that the bigger the company, the higher the bar for entry." is that true? I would think that the bar to get in is lowered as you need more and more people. Of course, some institutions like Google manage to make a good branding effort and attract talent, but becoming an early engineer in a successful small startup requires you to be extremely smart too.

ido 8y ago
Google can afford to pay better, relocate people from all over the world & is prestigious.

not_real_acct 8y ago

The smartest dude on my team was hired by Google a year ago. On my team, he was a subject matter expert and he routinely contributed to open source projects. Google hired him to be a salesperson. I definitely wonder if he could be happy in that role. I understand that it's important to have technically adept salespeople, but I can't see him being happy in that long term.

sjg007 8y ago
If you can get commissions then it can be lucrative.