30 ms·

Google cancels TGIF weekly all-hands meetings

416 points by stygiansonic 7y ago

pixiemaster 7y ago
So, the executives stopped attending and then the employers stopped attending as well. what a shocking correlation.
- m0zg 7y ago
  More likely: employees were attending too much for the reasons inconvenient to the executives. As an ex-Googler: this is the surest indication yet that Google is in deep trouble. TGIF would be canceled from time to time before when the execs suspected things would get confrontational and employees wouldn't like even remotely honest answers. But to cancel them basically permanently is going to blow up in Sundar's face. The ongoing communication channel, as difficult as it might be politically for both sides, is an integral (and very beneficial) part of Google culture. Or, _was_, at this point.
  - arkitaip 7y ago
    What might happen is the rise of an informal communications channel managed by employees that Google executives cannot direct let alone cancel. That's far worse in a way.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Communication implies two sides. If one is not willing to listen, what's more likely to happen is instead of communication channel an echo chamber will form and without the avenue to vent frustrations the rhetoric will get more and more extreme as people assume the worst, often incorrectly.
    - mbo 7y ago
      A communications channel controlled by the workers and not the managerial structure? This is a truly tragic development.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        The issue of "control" is pretty peripheral to this conversation. TGIF was a fixture in the company culture and as such nobody really "controlled" it. It was just expected that it'd happen every week, you'd go grab a beer, and watch the execs answer the top voted Dory questions they'd rather avoid, at least from time to time. That was a crucial feedback mechanism which is now at least reduced if not gone entirely. This will make the system (Google) less stable.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  s/employers/employees/ ?
  - pixiemaster 7y ago
    yes
scohesc 7y ago
It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they can't relate with under the company's now "controversial" common goals and objectives. Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can to reduce employee's face time with the higher-ups since management knows the company is moving in a direction that a large number of employees disagree with!
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they can't relate with I might agree but I'm not sure that this is news. Ever since Sundar became CEO there, there's been a somewhat widespread perception that he would focus on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with little or no innovation to speak of. (For that matter, you could even view this as a very reasonable response to increased challenges in the Internet advertising market, which is of course where Google makes most of their money.)
  - tenpies 7y ago
    Yes, I think the IBM-ification of Google was telegraphed a decade ago. Sure, there's kombucha on tap, you don't have to wear a blue suit with black shoes, and you're not forced to use Lotus Notes; but the differences are constantly declining. If I were Google, I would also be alarmed by the "Google vs Bing" meme format. It's a silly meme, but it's pointing out that consumers are realizing that Google's filtering and groupthink shape results. If you want the approved marketer-friendly result, you use Google. If you want the truth you use Bing.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    > ...would focus on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with little or no innovation to speak of. Surprising that folks would think along those lines given Sundar's background as head of product with Chrome browser, Chrome OS, and Android before he took over as CEO in 2015.
    - throwaway13337 7y ago
malvosenior 7y ago
I wonder if companies like Google and GitHub that actively courted activists are now regretting their decision. For a long time it was common knowledge that you would try to keep stuff like that out of the workplace. The past 10 years have been an about face to that strategy and now we're seeing more or less complete chaos internally at these previously pro-politics (some kinds of politics) workplaces. My guess is there will certainly be a shift away from other companies trying to do this in the future. Rightfully so imho.
- markovbot 7y ago
  To be clear, "keep politics out of the workplace" is another way of saying "I'm okay with the status quo, and if you don't like it I don't want to hear about it at work".
  - ta999999171 7y ago
    It's actually another way of saying I'm okay with MY status quo. Not that that's good, necessarily. Just distinct.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    The "status quo" in the workplace (at least in this rather narrow subsector of "tech") is far from politics-free, so I'm not sure that your comment makes much sense.
    - bbddg 7y ago
      I think what they mean by status quo is the political and power dynamics. Not how much "politics" is discussed.
      - zozbot234 7y ago
        Because discussing garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively, of course. Not, e.g. by focusing on the actual policy issues you care most about, applying systems thinking and seeking plausible points of leverage (which often boils down to rejecting the oppositional game entirely and "pushing the rope sideways" in wholly unexpected ways). Seriously?
kccqzy 7y ago
This reminds me of this sentence from a Wired article[0] in August: > TGIF's transformation from candid conversation to press conference was pretty much complete. As a Googler I'm totally not surprised this is happening. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...
- threeseed 7y ago
  Unfortunately that's what happens when the discussions get leaked. It's hard to be candid and open if what you say might end up distorted in the media and without you having an ability to defend yourself.
  - pas 7y ago
    I fail to see how that really matters. Facebook had all kinds of media exposure (Cambridge Analytica, Libra, etc). Nothing happened.
    - slimed 7y ago
      He's referring to individuals. There have certainly been consequences for some of them.
      - pas 7y ago
        Okay, fair point, that's an interpretation that occurred to me after posting the comment, but I'm not really familiar with any high profile case. Has FB sent away anyone? Or G? Due to leaks about real talk I mean. (And I guess the answer must be some sort of yes, after all they are huge organizations and the culture of taking responsibility via looking-for-new-challenges is a rather Western thing, so maybe I'm just too far from it.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - 7y ago
hiroking81 7y ago
Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can to reduce employee's
acruns 7y ago
I turned down an offer from Google (cloud) because I didn't want to work for a company that was so focused on politics internally. This was just after they fired Damore, not that I agree or disagree with his opinion, but because Google seems promote internal fighting. That type of culture doesn't appeal to me.
- paggle 7y ago
  You should consider Microsoft and Apple... employees there don't really care too much about these things
  - techie128 7y ago
    Microsoft and Apple employees might care. However, workplace is not an appropriate forum to fight over politics or other non-work related topics. More importantly, it is important to maintain professionalism and focus on the job you've been hired to do. You can be an activist in your spare time. You may also not like your coworkers due to their political views but we live in a diverse world. Acknowledge that and work with them regardless of their political leanings.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Some politics isn't work-related. Some is, especially when a company has 100,000 people. I think, perhaps, it is easy for people to forget that when some Googlers fought against the Dragonfly project, it's because they have friends and loved ones who are Chinese expats under threat from China's government (meanwhile, some Googlers are Chinese citizens). When some Googlers fought against project Maven, they were only two or three degrees of separation from people who had lost loved ones as "collateral damage" in US drone strikes during the "war on terror." I think one of the most interesting questions is whether a 100,000 person multinational can survive without a hard "Don't question leadership" culture in a world with simultaneously this easy flow of communication and people and this much inequality and conflict.
      - 7y ago
pmoriarty 7y ago
Are all-hands meetings actually ever useful to anyone or ever more than merely internal PR?
- cfors 7y ago
  Good question. I have had all-hands in the past that were used to hear the intended direction of how goals were going to be measured, which was useful since there is always some whisper-down-the-lane noise for the actual message. But I have also been a part of all-hands that were just PR fluff about what a great job everyone is doing. So, I guess as most things, it depends.
- paggle 7y ago
  They were incredible back when they were private. Unprecedented level of transparency for a company of that size.
- henrikschroder 7y ago
  I was at Yahoo under Marissa Mayer, who instated a weekly Friday all-hands, FYI, obviously modeled on whatever Google had. Those who worked at Yahoo before her said that it was a huge change, because previous upper management was pretty much invisible, no-one knew who they were, what they did, what they were thinking, which direction the company was going in. So even if you're 100% cynical about it and thinking the all-hands are just internal PR, it was still a positive change, because you got to see upper management, see them talk about where the company was going and why, and they had to "defend" their direction. Of course, the flipside to this is that if it seems like upper management doesn't have their shit together, meetings like these make that obvious, which can torpedo morale.
  - libria 7y ago
    So transparent competence > opaque incompetence > transparent incompetence.
  - umeshunni 7y ago
    Not 100% sure, but didn't Yahoo have TGIFs in the 90s?
threeseed 7y ago
Nobody actively courted activists. It's more just than tech startups generally skew younger and newer generations want their companies to reflect their own values. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And these companies are not in complete chaos. In fact apart from the James Damore incident there hasn't been any significant change in the company cultures.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  > Nobody actively courted activists. Yes, actually they did actively court them. Here's one of many examples: https://diversity.google/ https://diversity.google/ Younger generations are not politically homogeneous, Google picked a political position and pushed it hard.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    What is the political position picked by the site you provided?
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        That's not what the site you provided is about though.
        manigandham 7y ago
        I didn't post the site, but those are the politics involved within the company and its hiring. The connection is pretty clear.
        triceratops 7y ago
ehvatum 7y ago
Unmanaged Executive Underling Dialog Events present excessive temptation for signalling politically-correct bandwagon membership as the only unifying force between leadership and implementors, which is problematic in the wider context of a company and a world that is neither utopian, nor socialist, nor capable of becoming a becoming a socialist utopia so long as resource contention exists. This thinking must be limited to public relations. Its purpose is to convince the world that We Are The Good Guys and not just another bunch of people looking to put food on the table and Teslas in our garages. If WE start ACTUALLY BELIEVING these democrat things, we'll go the way of the USSR, so these talkies are OVER.
draw_down 7y ago
The employees were being too mean to the leadership, I guess. Obviously companies need to do what they need to do to keep operating. But they should really knock off this "bring your whole self to work" business, because they don't actually want that and it's dishonest to pretend that they do.
40acres 7y ago
Sounds like Googlers spoiled the well. I'm not sure exactly why but Google employees always seem to be in the news about something and have leaked conversations that management had with them. In some instances the controversy is warranted (Rubin Payout, etc.) but it must be annoying from a management perspective.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  When you sign up to manage a company that's been on the Fortune 500 for over a decade, I imagine you're being paid to tolerate and manage some amount of annoyance.
- brown9-2 7y ago
  I think it’s interesting that people absolve management from blame, when they actively hid details of military contracts with employees.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    Can’t really blame them for that given the reaction. You can blame them for taking those contracts in the first place.
    - rexpop 7y ago
      Of course we can blame them for hiding their abusive, violent behavior. It's never too late to come clean, and embrace accountability.
    - PavlovsCat 7y ago
      By what principle could one blame them for one thing and not the other?
- compiler-guy 7y ago
  Pichai is making over $100,000,000 a year. That is more than enough to deal with all the annoying crap that goes on.
ralph84 7y ago
Activists at work used to focus on things that would improve the lives of workers. Now they just want everyone to be as miserable as they are.
- underwater 7y ago
  I figure there are just people of every political persuasion who default to being confrontational. When they are on your side you see them as principled and necessary, if you disagree with them they are antagonistic SJWs.
- ttraub 7y ago
  Is political activism such a widespread phenomenon in S.I. companies? I work in a more traditional company and never see this kind of thing, so I'm curious what it's like, how the management handles it etc. The most "activism" we see is an occasional announcement about volunteers pitching in for some charitable cause around Christmas time. 20-25 years ago, politics was basically off limits in corporate America. Technology people (who were mostly guys) were pro-capitalist libertarians. It was a different time, I guess.
avocado4 7y ago
Did you die mid sentence?
blaisio 7y ago
It makes sense, if I was CEO and only 20% of employees were attending, and whatever I said at the meeting got leaked, I'd cancel them too. And I think most people would. Also, I think a lot of people just want to go to work and work, they don't care about politics or even business strategy.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Or convert the meetings into a vehicle for press disclosure. "The purpose of a system is what it does." (Hold my Beer.)
- utopcell 7y ago
  (1) 20% is 20,000 people; (2) almost everyone sees the summaries the next days; (3) TGIF is [was] not about politics. I agree that leaks is what seems to have brought TGIF down though.
cletus 7y ago
When I first joined Google, I loved this meeting. This was 2010. You got some pretty candid responses and presentations from the executives. Fast forward 2-3 years and it had largely turned into a dry run of a public announcement later that day. All very choreographed, no real answers to anything. So probably around 2013 I stopped even paying attention to it. What I find most interesting is the change that happened in this country, including Google, with Trump being elected. Google had enough closet Trump acolytes and sympathizers who were removed from reality like only a Trump supporter can be (it seems). You can disagree with policies like immigration, tax breaks for the GOP donor class and so on without thinking that supporter is delusional. But what changed is that those same Trump supporters suddenly thought reprehensible behaviour was suddenly justifiable, even required. Examples: - Leaking videos of TGIF because you think the company oppresses your political views (just leave!) - Worse, you leak personal details of employees who speak up against issues you believe in so they essentially get targeted by alt-right zealots. In no world can I fathom me taking my personal political disagreement to the point of doxxing someone. How anyone can think this is justifiable is utterly beyond me. You see this in the US government too. Like we now have too many leaders who are prepared to burn institutions to the ground to further political goals. Look at Mitch McConnell's stonewalling of the Obama administration (more cloture motions than any previous Senate by a huge margin), choosing not to hold hearings on nominees, stuffing the judiciary with underqualified minions and so on. Look at the Justice Department, which is now defending the White House despite any evidence to the contrary. How can anyone think this is OK? Whatever norms are established by the GOP now will absolutely be used against them in the future (eg a simple majority on Supreme Court nominees). Do these people not realize how dangerous it is to destroy institutions meant to protect all of us? But that's the Trump era we live in. I've met more than one Trump adherent who simply will not or cannot see fault in anything Trump does. And I'll tell you, that scares the bejesus out of me. I fully agree with Google employees protesting things like helping the US DoD better identify kill targets (identifying what not to kill is the same as identifying what to kill) and supporting the oppression of a billion people by pandering to Chinese censorship. Gone are the days when Sergey was essentially responsible for pulling Google out of China. But what Google really needs at this point is a purge of people who are prepared to dox their fellow employees. Those people are utterly destructive to the company and need to be excised. So anyway I'm not surprised at TGIF being scaled back. It's been on the cards for years and, at this point, it's honestly not much of a loss. Whatever Google's problems are however I don't think Sundar is the leader they need.
tanilama 7y ago
Nothing to see here. While most employees are chill, I would imagine Google has a disproportionation of hyper ideologists who are intolerant to different opinions and self-righteous to bring everything down to achieve personal validation. The trust is reduced, but it is both way, between employer and employees. Without that, any conversation is meaningless.
- nemo44x 7y ago
  If you're an engineer at Google, you've probably had a great technical education, you feel empowered because if Google would hire you, you can assume most anyone else would too; you probably feel smart because of this and in many ways you probably are a pretty smart person. You're very well paid and compensated and you know it. There are a lot of things here that not only give someone confidence but also conviction. As you rise up the social hierarchy, and a Google engineer is very high on the social hierarchy, you begin to question your beliefs less and less and have more conviction that you are right - you must be enlightened. Because if you're so awesome as to be an in-demand engineer (at Google!), clearly your opinions are more informed and enlightened than people below you on the social hierarchy. This conviction is going to grant you confidence to not only openly proclaim positions on topics most people find private, but use this newfound social power to leverage dominance over those subordinate to your leadership position in society. How could you be wrong? Just look at how awesome you are - your expensive house, nice car, rare foods, and luxury recreation activities validate this. Lift your hammer of justice (it's a heavy burden you carry with the privilege's you were born to have) and smash any who your in-group find problematic. After all, it's only collateral damage if some honest, humble, and hard working people are destroyed in your wrath to feed your new, insatiable appetite for further social conquest.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    If you think that's bad, think of what they're like when they eventually move on to other engineering organizations as leadership...
  - zarkov99 7y ago
    That can't be the whole story. Google is not the only provider of high status jobs for nerds. Why aren't Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook also rife with this sort of activism?
drewg123 7y ago
As an Xoogler (left in 2015) I find that news highly disappointing. I think that without honest, regular Q&A at events like TGIF, the company will become more and more out of touch. When I was there, TGIF was watered down, but we still asked uncomfortable questions of management. I remember asking a question of Sundar when he was head of Android when the Nexus 6 came out questioning our chasing Apple into the high end market, rather than making affordable devices.
- chance_state 7y ago
  Do you remember other "uncomfortable" or probing questions that were asked? Just out of curiosity. I work for a company that holds similar "town halls" where employees are able to ask anonymous questions of management and they can get pretty brutal sometimes ("why is turnover so high?", "why is upper management's compensation so much higher than others?", etc).
  - 1000units 7y ago
    My work has this too and it gets a little embarrassing when people reveal they fundamentally misunderstand the relationship they have with their employer.
    - chance_state 7y ago
      ha! I completely agree. Some of the questions are genuinely things that everyone is thinking but too afraid to ask, and some are complaints from employees to management that are as old as time. But with both types, it at least gives people the feeling that they can be heard.
    - chii 7y ago
      > reveal they fundamentally misunderstand the relationship they have with their employer. Due to the great PR that an employer create via their branding (for HR and recruiting). It is wise to always remember that if you earn a wage/salary, the relationship between an employer and employee is going to remain as such - the business's interests supersedes your own. I would like to see a future world where there is no such employer/employee relationship, because everyone works for themselves (but also cannot hire anyone).
sys_64738 7y ago
Ad company cancels all hands meeting. Why is this news?
- lucasmullens 7y ago
  Because that "ad company" is one of the highest valued companies in the world, and Google's TGIF is something even many people outside of Google are familiar with.
  - sys_64738 7y ago
    Not sure why you’d put ad company in quotes.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
utopcell 7y ago
This is so sad on many levels. I first saw this article on HN and then went back to search my mail folder in disbelief (I hadn't seen an internal memo about this.) TGIF used to be a wonderful forum to communicate with leadership and enjoy our latest and greatest achievements.
fooker 7y ago
RIP I'm one of those people who go work at Google once every few years. The transformation of culture from about 2013 onwards has been somewhat sad to experience. Interestingly, most people who have been continuously employed there have not felt the very slight gradient. However, the changes in culture, freedom, food quality, etc are fairly obvious when one returns after ..say.. 18 months. Here are some semi-concrete metrics: Decreasing TGIF frequency (now gone..), 'micro kitchen' snack variety and quality, which doors in buildings you are allowed to enter from(:facepalm:), badging in for meals(also :facepalm:), weird restrictions on business flights, attempt to make everything look uniform (no candies in receptions! No decorations..), defense contracts(much publicized here), any other discretionary spending by teams. Anything I forgot?
- Tempest1981 7y ago
  > No decorations.. Where does this apply? Just reception, or more? Can I have a poster or art? A plant?
  - fooker 7y ago
    Receptions and front desk, iirc. People manning them were previously allowed (and long ago, encouraged) to decorate the space to their liking. That went away this year (and partly restored as a result of memegen-driven protests, after I left as I hear.)
- bowmessage 7y ago
  Point taken, but how is badging for meals a ‘facepalm’? Re: decorations, https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/10/04/google-seattle-halloween-cemetery/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/10/04/google-seattle-hall... ?
  - rachelbythebay 7y ago
    This, from 2009? "Badging today will allocate funds for your meal tomorrow". And I wrote about it eight years ago. https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/10/17/badging/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/10/17/badging/
crappy-doo 7y ago
be evil.
hughtrevorroper 7y ago
I just want to say as a person in DC watching the president get impeached...you guys are all out of touch. Stuff your ideology and the comfortable lifestyle (funded by a industry that could not exist without MAU and click fraud) that enables it. The rest of us have to get up and go to work.
lbjwasbadass 7y ago
I just want to say as a person in DC watching the president get impeached...you guys are all out of touch. Stuff your ideology and the comfortable lifestyle (funded by a industry that could not exist without MAU and click fraud) that enables it. The rest of us have to get up and go to work.
ChrisCinelli 7y ago
The parts of Google culture that were very unique are being slowly eroded. Most of the outsiders have seen Google's practice as something that does not belong in a "mature" firm (the zombie corporations they were coming from). People wanted to go to work for Google to change the world. Now they are joining because it is a comfortable company to work for. As early employees stared leaving or becoming complacent, more bozos started to be hired and shifting the culture. They have been wrecking Google's great culture a little bit at the time.
hgytr 7y ago
First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said. Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums. CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point. Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attendence. Nothing surprising here. Sundar's solution seems to be resorting to boring once a quarter all-hands about business strategy. I wonder what the attendance will be. It's a hypocrisy to complain about troubles with trust and at the same time ban political or whatever discussions. Googlers are generally very smart folks and understand that whatever they say may be used against them in the future, when policies change once again. Today you post a memegen where you state that triangles are better than squares, tomorrow you get fired because squares have become the symbol of some protected class. You have to apply a form of forward self-censorship and be very careful about what you say to whom. I don't think there is a tension between execs and workers, but only because the two classes live in different worlds. Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay, but as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with typical corporate politics. Just my 2c.
- redblacktree 7y ago
  > typical big corporation with typical corporate politics I don't know why this would surprise anyone. People are people and politics are politics in any large organization. There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    > There is no reason to think Google would be exempt. It can be controlled in some way. If you only hire people from the same political pool, for example. Or getting them early enough (young enough) to shape them in a way that will lower internal tensions. Not every large company is burning in political fires.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Another option is to have a culture of not permitting political fires to be lit on company property. In other words, not talking about politics at work.
kartayyar 7y ago
As a Xoogler who just wanted to get on topic product updates ( and Sergey jokes I guess - he really is insanely funny), I actually found it frustrating that it was an overloaded forum for any and all random topics. Were I working there, this would have made sense to me. I didn't work there to be an activist. I worked there to go work on products. I don't get other comments that say "courted activists". The recruiting pitch is about impact, a good work environment, compensation and interesting products.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ddingus 7y ago
When the agenda is a net good, an all hands on meeting and or some potential leaks make great sense. Now that is much less true, ditchng the meetings also makes sense. Google grows up, ends up like most big companies. Not a shocker, but the initial, "users really trust us to do good"culture is a major clash. Could be a very painful, enduring one.
subsaharancoder 7y ago
I'm expecting the internal meme tool, aptly named memegen, to suffer the same fate as TGIF.
tempsolution 7y ago
Wow, weekly all-hands. What a waste of time. God save anyone who works in a company like that.
chewz 7y ago
Seems like Larry and Brin have re-created Soviet factory in full. > The best way for a man to advance in the Communist hierarchy is to make speeches constantly at party and public meetings. [1] * Workers' councils * Factory committies Google in 1930 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas [1] https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg=RA4-PA4&dq=soviet+factory+meetings&source=bl&ots=mZBHPpgBwk&sig=ACfU3U2q90H9xnbrq8gH-NplUO006QEdSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi80aTosu7lAhUJa1AKHd_PCTQQ6AEwG3oECBAQAQ https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg...
bborud 7y ago
I'll repost what I posted on my Facebook timeline since it seems relevant to this discussion. One thing I'd like to add though: given how things have changed over the past decade, the culture at Google is no longer just a shareholder or employee concern: it is a societal concern. Companies like Google and Facebook own our lives and it is in humanity's interest that the company be under proper leadership. The alternative is more regulation on these kinds of companies (which probably isn't a bad thing in any case). It has been a decade since I worked at Google, but this makes me really sad. To be fair, the Google culture had its fair share of problems with whiny, entitled little shits and "brogrammers". And it has had its some spectacularly bad executives who are probably irredeemable assholes as well as executives who are too weak to keep their colleagues in line. But even at around 30.000 employees it was a fundamentally good place to work. Yes, it was competitive as fuck, but that's what happens when you have a high density of talent and ambition in one place. Much of the internal competitiveness was good. At least the way I saw it. I haven't worked many places where you start to work on something, only to discover that someone else is working on the same thing and this becomes a positive. You can collaborate and/or compete. And both can, and did, lead to better outcomes. Of course, occasionally you'd have deadbeats that would game the system and use the efforts of others to promote themselves unfairly, but largely I think people deserved their success. A few friends of mine still at Google have told me that the company I worked for is gone. It is a different company now. More corporate. Less open. Less creative. Less fun. Most don't really talk about Google anymore. Be it in positive or negative terms. TGIF was among the things that set Google apart. That even inspired other companies and led them to understand that it is important to bring the top and bottom of the company in contact with each other on a regular basis. I don't buy that Google has outgrown TGIF. I think the problem is that top management simply haven't been capable of evolving. I suspect Sundar Pichai simply isn't able to lead the company in a manner that can preserve what was good about Google. If "only" 25% of employees follow TGIF (which would be a great turnout for most companies) that's on Sundar. That is his failure as a leader. It isn't that the company has outgrown it. And that's sad, because when the soul of a company dies, eventually, so will its ability to attract talent and perform. It'll be a slow decline. But this is nonetheless a clear symptom of decline. Sundar needs to get his act together or Larry needs to find a more suitable CEO.
cromwellian 7y ago
I’ve worked at IBM, Oracle, and Google and have friends at Intel, Microsoft and Adobe. I’d say the reduction of openness and transparency Of management with employees is regrettable but the biggest thing I still enjoy about Google culture is still intact: is the relative lack of egotistical assholes, political douchebags, macho primadonna engineers, and other toxic people that I’ve encountered at other companies. In general, the overall friendliness of people to work together, lend help, and accept or provide “constructive” criticism has been a welcome respite. At the other companies mentioned, I’ve encountered a mixture of people deliberately backstabbing and sabotaging other groups projects, engineers who scream at or insult others, or just straight up refusing to admit fault. Granted this is likely to change because Google is hiring too many people too fast which will reduce cultural assimilation. But at this point I don’t think I could stomach working on a team at another Big company with some “alpha” macho engineer types unless their name happened to be Linus Torvalds, and even then I don’t think I’d want to be in that environment. Microsoft seems like it has vastly improved after Balmer left. I’m also not going to work at any company that doesn’t value work/life balance.
- username90 7y ago
  Is it really that bad at other companies? I also work for Google and always wondered where everyone find all these "Brilliant Jerks", but maybe it is just that there aren't that many of them here?

416 points by stygiansonic 7y ago

pixiemaster 7y ago

So, the executives stopped attending and then the employers stopped attending as well. what a shocking correlation.

m0zg 7y ago
More likely: employees were attending too much for the reasons inconvenient to the executives. As an ex-Googler: this is the surest indication yet that Google is in deep trouble. TGIF would be canceled from time to time before when the execs suspected things would get confrontational and employees wouldn't like even remotely honest answers. But to cancel them basically permanently is going to blow up in Sundar's face. The ongoing communication channel, as difficult as it might be politically for both sides, is an integral (and very beneficial) part of Google culture. Or, _was_, at this point.
- arkitaip 7y ago
  What might happen is the rise of an informal communications channel managed by employees that Google executives cannot direct let alone cancel. That's far worse in a way.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Communication implies two sides. If one is not willing to listen, what's more likely to happen is instead of communication channel an echo chamber will form and without the avenue to vent frustrations the rhetoric will get more and more extreme as people assume the worst, often incorrectly.
  - mbo 7y ago
    A communications channel controlled by the workers and not the managerial structure? This is a truly tragic development.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      The issue of "control" is pretty peripheral to this conversation. TGIF was a fixture in the company culture and as such nobody really "controlled" it. It was just expected that it'd happen every week, you'd go grab a beer, and watch the execs answer the top voted Dory questions they'd rather avoid, at least from time to time. That was a crucial feedback mechanism which is now at least reduced if not gone entirely. This will make the system (Google) less stable.
dredmorbius 7y ago
s/employers/employees/ ?
- pixiemaster 7y ago
  yes

scohesc 7y ago

It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they can't relate with under the company's now "controversial" common goals and objectives. Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can to reduce employee's face time with the higher-ups since management knows the company is moving in a direction that a large number of employees disagree with!

zozbot234 7y ago
> It's almost like the employees are slowly seeing Sundar as somebody they can't relate with I might agree but I'm not sure that this is news. Ever since Sundar became CEO there, there's been a somewhat widespread perception that he would focus on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with little or no innovation to speak of. (For that matter, you could even view this as a very reasonable response to increased challenges in the Internet advertising market, which is of course where Google makes most of their money.)
- tenpies 7y ago
  Yes, I think the IBM-ification of Google was telegraphed a decade ago. Sure, there's kombucha on tap, you don't have to wear a blue suit with black shoes, and you're not forced to use Lotus Notes; but the differences are constantly declining. If I were Google, I would also be alarmed by the "Google vs Bing" meme format. It's a silly meme, but it's pointing out that consumers are realizing that Google's filtering and groupthink shape results. If you want the approved marketer-friendly result, you use Google. If you want the truth you use Bing.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  > ...would focus on beancounting and running Google as a "mature" firm, with little or no innovation to speak of. Surprising that folks would think along those lines given Sundar's background as head of product with Chrome browser, Chrome OS, and Android before he took over as CEO in 2015.
  - throwaway13337 7y ago

malvosenior 7y ago

I wonder if companies like Google and GitHub that actively courted activists are now regretting their decision. For a long time it was common knowledge that you would try to keep stuff like that out of the workplace. The past 10 years have been an about face to that strategy and now we're seeing more or less complete chaos internally at these previously pro-politics (some kinds of politics) workplaces. My guess is there will certainly be a shift away from other companies trying to do this in the future. Rightfully so imho.

markovbot 7y ago
To be clear, "keep politics out of the workplace" is another way of saying "I'm okay with the status quo, and if you don't like it I don't want to hear about it at work".
- ta999999171 7y ago
  It's actually another way of saying I'm okay with MY status quo. Not that that's good, necessarily. Just distinct.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  The "status quo" in the workplace (at least in this rather narrow subsector of "tech") is far from politics-free, so I'm not sure that your comment makes much sense.
  - bbddg 7y ago
    I think what they mean by status quo is the political and power dynamics. Not how much "politics" is discussed.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      Because discussing garden-variety, oppositional politics at work is how you can change "political and power dynamics" most effectively, of course. Not, e.g. by focusing on the actual policy issues you care most about, applying systems thinking and seeking plausible points of leverage (which often boils down to rejecting the oppositional game entirely and "pushing the rope sideways" in wholly unexpected ways). Seriously?

kccqzy 7y ago

This reminds me of this sentence from a Wired article[0] in August: > TGIF's transformation from candid conversation to press conference was pretty much complete. As a Googler I'm totally not surprised this is happening. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time. [0]: https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery-happiest-company-tech/ https://www.wired.com/story/inside-google-three-years-misery...

threeseed 7y ago
Unfortunately that's what happens when the discussions get leaked. It's hard to be candid and open if what you say might end up distorted in the media and without you having an ability to defend yourself.
- pas 7y ago
  I fail to see how that really matters. Facebook had all kinds of media exposure (Cambridge Analytica, Libra, etc). Nothing happened.
  - slimed 7y ago
    He's referring to individuals. There have certainly been consequences for some of them.
    - pas 7y ago
      Okay, fair point, that's an interpretation that occurred to me after posting the comment, but I'm not really familiar with any high profile case. Has FB sent away anyone? Or G? Due to leaks about real talk I mean. (And I guess the answer must be some sort of yes, after all they are huge organizations and the culture of taking responsibility via looking-for-new-challenges is a rather Western thing, so maybe I'm just too far from it.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 7y ago

hiroking81 7y ago

Now Google management is panicking and doing everything they can to reduce employee's

acruns 7y ago

I turned down an offer from Google (cloud) because I didn't want to work for a company that was so focused on politics internally. This was just after they fired Damore, not that I agree or disagree with his opinion, but because Google seems promote internal fighting. That type of culture doesn't appeal to me.

paggle 7y ago
You should consider Microsoft and Apple... employees there don't really care too much about these things
- techie128 7y ago
  Microsoft and Apple employees might care. However, workplace is not an appropriate forum to fight over politics or other non-work related topics. More importantly, it is important to maintain professionalism and focus on the job you've been hired to do. You can be an activist in your spare time. You may also not like your coworkers due to their political views but we live in a diverse world. Acknowledge that and work with them regardless of their political leanings.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    Some politics isn't work-related. Some is, especially when a company has 100,000 people. I think, perhaps, it is easy for people to forget that when some Googlers fought against the Dragonfly project, it's because they have friends and loved ones who are Chinese expats under threat from China's government (meanwhile, some Googlers are Chinese citizens). When some Googlers fought against project Maven, they were only two or three degrees of separation from people who had lost loved ones as "collateral damage" in US drone strikes during the "war on terror." I think one of the most interesting questions is whether a 100,000 person multinational can survive without a hard "Don't question leadership" culture in a world with simultaneously this easy flow of communication and people and this much inequality and conflict.
    - 7y ago

pmoriarty 7y ago

Are all-hands meetings actually ever useful to anyone or ever more than merely internal PR?

cfors 7y ago
Good question. I have had all-hands in the past that were used to hear the intended direction of how goals were going to be measured, which was useful since there is always some whisper-down-the-lane noise for the actual message. But I have also been a part of all-hands that were just PR fluff about what a great job everyone is doing. So, I guess as most things, it depends.
paggle 7y ago
They were incredible back when they were private. Unprecedented level of transparency for a company of that size.
henrikschroder 7y ago
I was at Yahoo under Marissa Mayer, who instated a weekly Friday all-hands, FYI, obviously modeled on whatever Google had. Those who worked at Yahoo before her said that it was a huge change, because previous upper management was pretty much invisible, no-one knew who they were, what they did, what they were thinking, which direction the company was going in. So even if you're 100% cynical about it and thinking the all-hands are just internal PR, it was still a positive change, because you got to see upper management, see them talk about where the company was going and why, and they had to "defend" their direction. Of course, the flipside to this is that if it seems like upper management doesn't have their shit together, meetings like these make that obvious, which can torpedo morale.
- libria 7y ago
  So transparent competence > opaque incompetence > transparent incompetence.
- umeshunni 7y ago
  Not 100% sure, but didn't Yahoo have TGIFs in the 90s?

threeseed 7y ago

Nobody actively courted activists. It's more just than tech startups generally skew younger and newer generations want their companies to reflect their own values. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. And these companies are not in complete chaos. In fact apart from the James Damore incident there hasn't been any significant change in the company cultures.

malvosenior 7y ago
> Nobody actively courted activists. Yes, actually they did actively court them. Here's one of many examples: https://diversity.google/ https://diversity.google/ Younger generations are not politically homogeneous, Google picked a political position and pushed it hard.
- triceratops 7y ago
  What is the political position picked by the site you provided?
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Google and most SV companies are somewhere between left to far-left.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      That's not what the site you provided is about though.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        I didn't post the site, but those are the politics involved within the company and its hiring. The connection is pretty clear.
        triceratops 7y ago

ehvatum 7y ago

Unmanaged Executive Underling Dialog Events present excessive temptation for signalling politically-correct bandwagon membership as the only unifying force between leadership and implementors, which is problematic in the wider context of a company and a world that is neither utopian, nor socialist, nor capable of becoming a becoming a socialist utopia so long as resource contention exists. This thinking must be limited to public relations. Its purpose is to convince the world that We Are The Good Guys and not just another bunch of people looking to put food on the table and Teslas in our garages. If WE start ACTUALLY BELIEVING these democrat things, we'll go the way of the USSR, so these talkies are OVER.

draw_down 7y ago

The employees were being too mean to the leadership, I guess. Obviously companies need to do what they need to do to keep operating. But they should really knock off this "bring your whole self to work" business, because they don't actually want that and it's dishonest to pretend that they do.

40acres 7y ago

Sounds like Googlers spoiled the well. I'm not sure exactly why but Google employees always seem to be in the news about something and have leaked conversations that management had with them. In some instances the controversy is warranted (Rubin Payout, etc.) but it must be annoying from a management perspective.

shadowgovt 7y ago
When you sign up to manage a company that's been on the Fortune 500 for over a decade, I imagine you're being paid to tolerate and manage some amount of annoyance.
brown9-2 7y ago
I think it’s interesting that people absolve management from blame, when they actively hid details of military contracts with employees.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  Can’t really blame them for that given the reaction. You can blame them for taking those contracts in the first place.
  - rexpop 7y ago
    Of course we can blame them for hiding their abusive, violent behavior. It's never too late to come clean, and embrace accountability.
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    By what principle could one blame them for one thing and not the other?
compiler-guy 7y ago
Pichai is making over $100,000,000 a year. That is more than enough to deal with all the annoying crap that goes on.

ralph84 7y ago

Activists at work used to focus on things that would improve the lives of workers. Now they just want everyone to be as miserable as they are.

underwater 7y ago
I figure there are just people of every political persuasion who default to being confrontational. When they are on your side you see them as principled and necessary, if you disagree with them they are antagonistic SJWs.
ttraub 7y ago
Is political activism such a widespread phenomenon in S.I. companies? I work in a more traditional company and never see this kind of thing, so I'm curious what it's like, how the management handles it etc. The most "activism" we see is an occasional announcement about volunteers pitching in for some charitable cause around Christmas time. 20-25 years ago, politics was basically off limits in corporate America. Technology people (who were mostly guys) were pro-capitalist libertarians. It was a different time, I guess.

avocado4 7y ago

Did you die mid sentence?

blaisio 7y ago

It makes sense, if I was CEO and only 20% of employees were attending, and whatever I said at the meeting got leaked, I'd cancel them too. And I think most people would. Also, I think a lot of people just want to go to work and work, they don't care about politics or even business strategy.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Or convert the meetings into a vehicle for press disclosure. "The purpose of a system is what it does." (Hold my Beer.)
utopcell 7y ago
(1) 20% is 20,000 people; (2) almost everyone sees the summaries the next days; (3) TGIF is [was] not about politics. I agree that leaks is what seems to have brought TGIF down though.

cletus 7y ago

When I first joined Google, I loved this meeting. This was 2010. You got some pretty candid responses and presentations from the executives. Fast forward 2-3 years and it had largely turned into a dry run of a public announcement later that day. All very choreographed, no real answers to anything. So probably around 2013 I stopped even paying attention to it. What I find most interesting is the change that happened in this country, including Google, with Trump being elected. Google had enough closet Trump acolytes and sympathizers who were removed from reality like only a Trump supporter can be (it seems). You can disagree with policies like immigration, tax breaks for the GOP donor class and so on without thinking that supporter is delusional. But what changed is that those same Trump supporters suddenly thought reprehensible behaviour was suddenly justifiable, even required. Examples: - Leaking videos of TGIF because you think the company oppresses your political views (just leave!) - Worse, you leak personal details of employees who speak up against issues you believe in so they essentially get targeted by alt-right zealots. In no world can I fathom me taking my personal political disagreement to the point of doxxing someone. How anyone can think this is justifiable is utterly beyond me. You see this in the US government too. Like we now have too many leaders who are prepared to burn institutions to the ground to further political goals. Look at Mitch McConnell's stonewalling of the Obama administration (more cloture motions than any previous Senate by a huge margin), choosing not to hold hearings on nominees, stuffing the judiciary with underqualified minions and so on. Look at the Justice Department, which is now defending the White House despite any evidence to the contrary. How can anyone think this is OK? Whatever norms are established by the GOP now will absolutely be used against them in the future (eg a simple majority on Supreme Court nominees). Do these people not realize how dangerous it is to destroy institutions meant to protect all of us? But that's the Trump era we live in. I've met more than one Trump adherent who simply will not or cannot see fault in anything Trump does. And I'll tell you, that scares the bejesus out of me. I fully agree with Google employees protesting things like helping the US DoD better identify kill targets (identifying what not to kill is the same as identifying what to kill) and supporting the oppression of a billion people by pandering to Chinese censorship. Gone are the days when Sergey was essentially responsible for pulling Google out of China. But what Google really needs at this point is a purge of people who are prepared to dox their fellow employees. Those people are utterly destructive to the company and need to be excised. So anyway I'm not surprised at TGIF being scaled back. It's been on the cards for years and, at this point, it's honestly not much of a loss. Whatever Google's problems are however I don't think Sundar is the leader they need.

tanilama 7y ago

Nothing to see here. While most employees are chill, I would imagine Google has a disproportionation of hyper ideologists who are intolerant to different opinions and self-righteous to bring everything down to achieve personal validation. The trust is reduced, but it is both way, between employer and employees. Without that, any conversation is meaningless.

nemo44x 7y ago
If you're an engineer at Google, you've probably had a great technical education, you feel empowered because if Google would hire you, you can assume most anyone else would too; you probably feel smart because of this and in many ways you probably are a pretty smart person. You're very well paid and compensated and you know it. There are a lot of things here that not only give someone confidence but also conviction. As you rise up the social hierarchy, and a Google engineer is very high on the social hierarchy, you begin to question your beliefs less and less and have more conviction that you are right - you must be enlightened. Because if you're so awesome as to be an in-demand engineer (at Google!), clearly your opinions are more informed and enlightened than people below you on the social hierarchy. This conviction is going to grant you confidence to not only openly proclaim positions on topics most people find private, but use this newfound social power to leverage dominance over those subordinate to your leadership position in society. How could you be wrong? Just look at how awesome you are - your expensive house, nice car, rare foods, and luxury recreation activities validate this. Lift your hammer of justice (it's a heavy burden you carry with the privilege's you were born to have) and smash any who your in-group find problematic. After all, it's only collateral damage if some honest, humble, and hard working people are destroyed in your wrath to feed your new, insatiable appetite for further social conquest.
- busterarm 7y ago
  If you think that's bad, think of what they're like when they eventually move on to other engineering organizations as leadership...
- zarkov99 7y ago
  That can't be the whole story. Google is not the only provider of high status jobs for nerds. Why aren't Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook also rife with this sort of activism?

drewg123 7y ago

As an Xoogler (left in 2015) I find that news highly disappointing. I think that without honest, regular Q&A at events like TGIF, the company will become more and more out of touch. When I was there, TGIF was watered down, but we still asked uncomfortable questions of management. I remember asking a question of Sundar when he was head of Android when the Nexus 6 came out questioning our chasing Apple into the high end market, rather than making affordable devices.

chance_state 7y ago
Do you remember other "uncomfortable" or probing questions that were asked? Just out of curiosity. I work for a company that holds similar "town halls" where employees are able to ask anonymous questions of management and they can get pretty brutal sometimes ("why is turnover so high?", "why is upper management's compensation so much higher than others?", etc).
- 1000units 7y ago
  My work has this too and it gets a little embarrassing when people reveal they fundamentally misunderstand the relationship they have with their employer.
  - chance_state 7y ago
    ha! I completely agree. Some of the questions are genuinely things that everyone is thinking but too afraid to ask, and some are complaints from employees to management that are as old as time. But with both types, it at least gives people the feeling that they can be heard.
  - chii 7y ago
    > reveal they fundamentally misunderstand the relationship they have with their employer. Due to the great PR that an employer create via their branding (for HR and recruiting). It is wise to always remember that if you earn a wage/salary, the relationship between an employer and employee is going to remain as such - the business's interests supersedes your own. I would like to see a future world where there is no such employer/employee relationship, because everyone works for themselves (but also cannot hire anyone).

sys_64738 7y ago

Ad company cancels all hands meeting. Why is this news?

lucasmullens 7y ago
Because that "ad company" is one of the highest valued companies in the world, and Google's TGIF is something even many people outside of Google are familiar with.
- sys_64738 7y ago
  Not sure why you’d put ad company in quotes.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

utopcell 7y ago

This is so sad on many levels. I first saw this article on HN and then went back to search my mail folder in disbelief (I hadn't seen an internal memo about this.) TGIF used to be a wonderful forum to communicate with leadership and enjoy our latest and greatest achievements.

fooker 7y ago

RIP I'm one of those people who go work at Google once every few years. The transformation of culture from about 2013 onwards has been somewhat sad to experience. Interestingly, most people who have been continuously employed there have not felt the very slight gradient. However, the changes in culture, freedom, food quality, etc are fairly obvious when one returns after ..say.. 18 months. Here are some semi-concrete metrics: Decreasing TGIF frequency (now gone..), 'micro kitchen' snack variety and quality, which doors in buildings you are allowed to enter from(:facepalm:), badging in for meals(also :facepalm:), weird restrictions on business flights, attempt to make everything look uniform (no candies in receptions! No decorations..), defense contracts(much publicized here), any other discretionary spending by teams. Anything I forgot?

Tempest1981 7y ago
> No decorations.. Where does this apply? Just reception, or more? Can I have a poster or art? A plant?
- fooker 7y ago
  Receptions and front desk, iirc. People manning them were previously allowed (and long ago, encouraged) to decorate the space to their liking. That went away this year (and partly restored as a result of memegen-driven protests, after I left as I hear.)
bowmessage 7y ago
Point taken, but how is badging for meals a ‘facepalm’? Re: decorations, https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/10/04/google-seattle-halloween-cemetery/ https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/10/04/google-seattle-hall... ?
- rachelbythebay 7y ago
  This, from 2009? "Badging today will allocate funds for your meal tomorrow". And I wrote about it eight years ago. https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/10/17/badging/ https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2011/10/17/badging/

crappy-doo 7y ago

be evil.

hughtrevorroper 7y ago

I just want to say as a person in DC watching the president get impeached...you guys are all out of touch. Stuff your ideology and the comfortable lifestyle (funded by a industry that could not exist without MAU and click fraud) that enables it. The rest of us have to get up and go to work.

lbjwasbadass 7y ago

ChrisCinelli 7y ago

The parts of Google culture that were very unique are being slowly eroded. Most of the outsiders have seen Google's practice as something that does not belong in a "mature" firm (the zombie corporations they were coming from). People wanted to go to work for Google to change the world. Now they are joining because it is a comfortable company to work for. As early employees stared leaving or becoming complacent, more bozos started to be hired and shifting the culture. They have been wrecking Google's great culture a little bit at the time.

hgytr 7y ago

First. Thanks to HN for not demanding phone numbers: anonymity allows to say things that cannot be said. Second. Many googlers read HN. In some sense, HN is the extension of the internal forums. CNBC made a good summary and I can comment on each bullet point. Larry and Brin probably stopped attending because nothing important is said on TGIFs. More people -> more leaks -> less interesting information -> less attendence. Nothing surprising here. Sundar's solution seems to be resorting to boring once a quarter all-hands about business strategy. I wonder what the attendance will be. It's a hypocrisy to complain about troubles with trust and at the same time ban political or whatever discussions. Googlers are generally very smart folks and understand that whatever they say may be used against them in the future, when policies change once again. Today you post a memegen where you state that triangles are better than squares, tomorrow you get fired because squares have become the symbol of some protected class. You have to apply a form of forward self-censorship and be very careful about what you say to whom. I don't think there is a tension between execs and workers, but only because the two classes live in different worlds. Don't get me wrong. Google is still the best workplace with top notch pay, but as it's got big, it's also morphed into a typical big corporation with typical corporate politics. Just my 2c.

redblacktree 7y ago
> typical big corporation with typical corporate politics I don't know why this would surprise anyone. People are people and politics are politics in any large organization. There is no reason to think Google would be exempt.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > There is no reason to think Google would be exempt. It can be controlled in some way. If you only hire people from the same political pool, for example. Or getting them early enough (young enough) to shape them in a way that will lower internal tensions. Not every large company is burning in political fires.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Another option is to have a culture of not permitting political fires to be lit on company property. In other words, not talking about politics at work.

kartayyar 7y ago

As a Xoogler who just wanted to get on topic product updates ( and Sergey jokes I guess - he really is insanely funny), I actually found it frustrating that it was an overloaded forum for any and all random topics. Were I working there, this would have made sense to me. I didn't work there to be an activist. I worked there to go work on products. I don't get other comments that say "courted activists". The recruiting pitch is about impact, a good work environment, compensation and interesting products.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ddingus 7y ago

When the agenda is a net good, an all hands on meeting and or some potential leaks make great sense. Now that is much less true, ditchng the meetings also makes sense. Google grows up, ends up like most big companies. Not a shocker, but the initial, "users really trust us to do good"culture is a major clash. Could be a very painful, enduring one.

subsaharancoder 7y ago

I'm expecting the internal meme tool, aptly named memegen, to suffer the same fate as TGIF.

tempsolution 7y ago

Wow, weekly all-hands. What a waste of time. God save anyone who works in a company like that.

chewz 7y ago

Seems like Larry and Brin have re-created Soviet factory in full. > The best way for a man to advance in the Communist hierarchy is to make speeches constantly at party and public meetings. [1] * Workers' councils * Factory committies Google in 1930 -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3draTawRFas [1] https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg=RA4-PA4&dq=soviet+factory+meetings&source=bl&ots=mZBHPpgBwk&sig=ACfU3U2q90H9xnbrq8gH-NplUO006QEdSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi80aTosu7lAhUJa1AKHd_PCTQQ6AEwG3oECBAQAQ https://books.google.pl/books?id=mNexJrn4wmgC&pg=RA4-PA4&lpg...

bborud 7y ago

I'll repost what I posted on my Facebook timeline since it seems relevant to this discussion. One thing I'd like to add though: given how things have changed over the past decade, the culture at Google is no longer just a shareholder or employee concern: it is a societal concern. Companies like Google and Facebook own our lives and it is in humanity's interest that the company be under proper leadership. The alternative is more regulation on these kinds of companies (which probably isn't a bad thing in any case). It has been a decade since I worked at Google, but this makes me really sad. To be fair, the Google culture had its fair share of problems with whiny, entitled little shits and "brogrammers". And it has had its some spectacularly bad executives who are probably irredeemable assholes as well as executives who are too weak to keep their colleagues in line. But even at around 30.000 employees it was a fundamentally good place to work. Yes, it was competitive as fuck, but that's what happens when you have a high density of talent and ambition in one place. Much of the internal competitiveness was good. At least the way I saw it. I haven't worked many places where you start to work on something, only to discover that someone else is working on the same thing and this becomes a positive. You can collaborate and/or compete. And both can, and did, lead to better outcomes. Of course, occasionally you'd have deadbeats that would game the system and use the efforts of others to promote themselves unfairly, but largely I think people deserved their success. A few friends of mine still at Google have told me that the company I worked for is gone. It is a different company now. More corporate. Less open. Less creative. Less fun. Most don't really talk about Google anymore. Be it in positive or negative terms. TGIF was among the things that set Google apart. That even inspired other companies and led them to understand that it is important to bring the top and bottom of the company in contact with each other on a regular basis. I don't buy that Google has outgrown TGIF. I think the problem is that top management simply haven't been capable of evolving. I suspect Sundar Pichai simply isn't able to lead the company in a manner that can preserve what was good about Google. If "only" 25% of employees follow TGIF (which would be a great turnout for most companies) that's on Sundar. That is his failure as a leader. It isn't that the company has outgrown it. And that's sad, because when the soul of a company dies, eventually, so will its ability to attract talent and perform. It'll be a slow decline. But this is nonetheless a clear symptom of decline. Sundar needs to get his act together or Larry needs to find a more suitable CEO.

cromwellian 7y ago

I’ve worked at IBM, Oracle, and Google and have friends at Intel, Microsoft and Adobe. I’d say the reduction of openness and transparency Of management with employees is regrettable but the biggest thing I still enjoy about Google culture is still intact: is the relative lack of egotistical assholes, political douchebags, macho primadonna engineers, and other toxic people that I’ve encountered at other companies. In general, the overall friendliness of people to work together, lend help, and accept or provide “constructive” criticism has been a welcome respite. At the other companies mentioned, I’ve encountered a mixture of people deliberately backstabbing and sabotaging other groups projects, engineers who scream at or insult others, or just straight up refusing to admit fault. Granted this is likely to change because Google is hiring too many people too fast which will reduce cultural assimilation. But at this point I don’t think I could stomach working on a team at another Big company with some “alpha” macho engineer types unless their name happened to be Linus Torvalds, and even then I don’t think I’d want to be in that environment. Microsoft seems like it has vastly improved after Balmer left. I’m also not going to work at any company that doesn’t value work/life balance.

username90 7y ago
Is it really that bad at other companies? I also work for Google and always wondered where everyone find all these "Brilliant Jerks", but maybe it is just that there aren't that many of them here?