7 ms·

Don't discount the massive increase in the number of employees. The more people you add, the more the culture dilutes. It becomes impossible for employees to fe

Don't discount the massive increase in the number of employees. The more people you add, the more the culture dilutes. It becomes impossible for employees to feel like they're part of single a tribe with a clear goal. Factions develop, tensions mount, and you get angry employees leaking confidential information constantly. Most of the negative press the public has heard about Google in the past year is a direct result of leaks. It just doesn't feel as "fun" anymore.

ehsankia 8y ago
Going back to the previous comment, I don't really see how it's possible to grow your employee count by an order of magnitude without introducing 1-2 more levels of management. As much as flat structures are cool, I'm not sure how much they scale. The other option would be to just not grow, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.
- protomyth 8y ago
  I guess it comes down to how you build a hierarchy with a belief or lack of one in Dunbar’s number. I honestly think a lot of this is too low a number of interactions and the requirement to have job titles and responsibilities common to other companies.
aylmao 8y ago
Moreover, you stop being the underdog and become the Goliath-- this can be understated. It's easier to rally a tribe behind the banner of defeating a bigger evil/foe, be the unlikely victor in a lopsided battle. I doubt this is a sentiment people working at Google feel much at all any more.
osrec 8y ago
I used to work a corporate job in an investment bank with around 30k employees. The majority of those employees were politicking chameleons with little productive output and a disproportionate salary. I used to hope that large innovative tech companies were different. From what I hear on HN it's becoming clear that that's not the case. It's almost as if the "largeness" of a company allows the non productive people to hide within it, all while successfully siphoning off their sustenance.
- blihp 8y ago
  That's pretty much it in a nutshell. On the other hand, in smaller companies you have to deal with the egos and personality quirks of those at the top because there's nowhere for you to hide from them. Pick your poison.
  - scottLobster 8y ago
    Eh, I still wouldn't say they're equivalent. A CEO with an ego you can build a strategic relationship with, a headless mass of uncoordinated politicking and beuraucracy is that times 1000, and is often far more impenetrable from the ground floor
    - blihp 8y ago
      I didn't say they were equivalent, just that for those who have only worked in large companies, there are some weeds in that nice green grass they might have been admiring. I would disagree that it's possible to build a strategic relationship with all small company CEOs... some are just way too dysfunctional.
- friedman23 8y ago
  > From what I hear on HN it's becoming clear that that's not the case. I was hoping you would have a personal experience to share but I guess that's not the case. I wonder how often in anonymous forums people share beliefs (not data) on things they haven't personally experienced but have heard other people on the internet experience (who may have been lying).
- loganfrederick 8y ago
  I’ve had that experience before as well. What always surprises me is how upper management overlooks the opportunity to pocket more money for themselves by cost-cutting the net negative employees. Too often the ones who do it go overboard and completely gut the company to death instead of just making it more effective and profitable. For example, a company with 5,000 employees might have about 500 positions that could actually be eliminated via automation, improved processes, and removing net negative contributors. If the average fully loaded cost is $100k/year (many old companies still have people not comped as high as Silicon Valley folks), you’re looking at roughly $50 million in dollar savings, not to mention the top performers aren’t distracted by the under-performers. If I’m at the C-level, it’d be completely reasonable to pitch making this move, pocket an extra $500k for myself, and give $5 million worth of bonuses to the remaining 4,500 people ($1k minimum each), and you’ve still saved roughly $45 million to the company’s bottom line for savings or growth investment or higher comp for top performers. These are all rough numbers, but you get the point. I suspect companies don’t do this more often because 1) they have a hard time, from the upper management vantage point, knowing where to cut/identifying the poor performers who try to hide, 2) scared to accidentally cut someone actually important, and 3) like managing a “big” company, even at the expense of their own potential executive comp.
beambot 8y ago
It's not just culture, it comes down to unclear vision. Under Google, it was "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." Under Alphabet? It's super unclear. "Do cool stuff and make money?"
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  You should probably substitute "make money" with "subsidize it with our ad money".
  - _betty_ 8y ago
    Do cool stuff and sunset it a couple of years later
sybhn 8y ago
totally anecdotal, but we have seen a fair number of not so great engineers leave our company for google in the last 2 years. these engineers were great prepping interviews (leet code, system design white birding etc), but in terms of contribution, accountability and impact were sub par to their peers. i’m hoping this is indeed anecdotal and not the norm!

ehsankia 8y ago

Going back to the previous comment, I don't really see how it's possible to grow your employee count by an order of magnitude without introducing 1-2 more levels of management. As much as flat structures are cool, I'm not sure how much they scale. The other option would be to just not grow, but I'm not sure how realistic that is.

protomyth 8y ago
I guess it comes down to how you build a hierarchy with a belief or lack of one in Dunbar’s number. I honestly think a lot of this is too low a number of interactions and the requirement to have job titles and responsibilities common to other companies.

aylmao 8y ago

Moreover, you stop being the underdog and become the Goliath-- this can be understated. It's easier to rally a tribe behind the banner of defeating a bigger evil/foe, be the unlikely victor in a lopsided battle. I doubt this is a sentiment people working at Google feel much at all any more.

osrec 8y ago

I used to work a corporate job in an investment bank with around 30k employees. The majority of those employees were politicking chameleons with little productive output and a disproportionate salary. I used to hope that large innovative tech companies were different. From what I hear on HN it's becoming clear that that's not the case. It's almost as if the "largeness" of a company allows the non productive people to hide within it, all while successfully siphoning off their sustenance.

blihp 8y ago
That's pretty much it in a nutshell. On the other hand, in smaller companies you have to deal with the egos and personality quirks of those at the top because there's nowhere for you to hide from them. Pick your poison.
- scottLobster 8y ago
  Eh, I still wouldn't say they're equivalent. A CEO with an ego you can build a strategic relationship with, a headless mass of uncoordinated politicking and beuraucracy is that times 1000, and is often far more impenetrable from the ground floor
  - blihp 8y ago
    I didn't say they were equivalent, just that for those who have only worked in large companies, there are some weeds in that nice green grass they might have been admiring. I would disagree that it's possible to build a strategic relationship with all small company CEOs... some are just way too dysfunctional.
friedman23 8y ago
> From what I hear on HN it's becoming clear that that's not the case. I was hoping you would have a personal experience to share but I guess that's not the case. I wonder how often in anonymous forums people share beliefs (not data) on things they haven't personally experienced but have heard other people on the internet experience (who may have been lying).
loganfrederick 8y ago
I’ve had that experience before as well. What always surprises me is how upper management overlooks the opportunity to pocket more money for themselves by cost-cutting the net negative employees. Too often the ones who do it go overboard and completely gut the company to death instead of just making it more effective and profitable. For example, a company with 5,000 employees might have about 500 positions that could actually be eliminated via automation, improved processes, and removing net negative contributors. If the average fully loaded cost is $100k/year (many old companies still have people not comped as high as Silicon Valley folks), you’re looking at roughly $50 million in dollar savings, not to mention the top performers aren’t distracted by the under-performers. If I’m at the C-level, it’d be completely reasonable to pitch making this move, pocket an extra $500k for myself, and give $5 million worth of bonuses to the remaining 4,500 people ($1k minimum each), and you’ve still saved roughly $45 million to the company’s bottom line for savings or growth investment or higher comp for top performers. These are all rough numbers, but you get the point. I suspect companies don’t do this more often because 1) they have a hard time, from the upper management vantage point, knowing where to cut/identifying the poor performers who try to hide, 2) scared to accidentally cut someone actually important, and 3) like managing a “big” company, even at the expense of their own potential executive comp.

beambot 8y ago

It's not just culture, it comes down to unclear vision. Under Google, it was "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible." Under Alphabet? It's super unclear. "Do cool stuff and make money?"

joejerryronnie 8y ago
You should probably substitute "make money" with "subsidize it with our ad money".
- _betty_ 8y ago
  Do cool stuff and sunset it a couple of years later

sybhn 8y ago

totally anecdotal, but we have seen a fair number of not so great engineers leave our company for google in the last 2 years. these engineers were great prepping interviews (leet code, system design white birding etc), but in terms of contribution, accountability and impact were sub par to their peers. i’m hoping this is indeed anecdotal and not the norm!