6 ms·

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 t

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.
    - badpun 8y ago
      > 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. I think a lot of people would enjoy a blog post elaborating on that experience (possibly under a pseudonym to protect you from vengeance).
      - borroka 8y ago
        I will, anonymously, in a few months. It's going to be good fun, both for the readers and for me.
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.

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.
  - badpun 8y ago
    > 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. I think a lot of people would enjoy a blog post elaborating on that experience (possibly under a pseudonym to protect you from vengeance).
    - borroka 8y ago
      I will, anonymously, in a few months. It's going to be good fun, both for the readers and for me.

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.