4 ms·

I can say with confidence that managers at Google are not even fairly independent. Lots of pressure (and toxicity) can float down from higher up in the org char

I can say with confidence that managers at Google are not even fairly independent. Lots of pressure (and toxicity) can float down from higher up in the org chart. My first eng manager at Google was really mistreated by people higher up in the org and as a result didn't have much freedom to make things right for our team (or our project, which generally struggled a lot as a result). This is not extrapolation or speculation: He confirmed it to me. If anything, I think engineers at Google probably have more independence and freedom than managers do, because they're really only accountable for their own work and personal results. Managers have to corral all those independent engineers into a group they can get away with taking responsibility for, and the upper levels of the chain don't always act in a way that acknowledges how hard management can be. The disconnect also means that "best for a manager's career" is not automatically going to be compatible with the career health of their reports. The gap between "labor" and "management" in this scenario is also a great example of why unions for labor are important - it's very difficult to represent the needs of both labor and management collectively, so a good method is for them to each bargain collectively based on their own needs and interests.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Unclear where that's going? Sounds like, managers are responsible for measures (unspecified?) that are not in alignment with direct reports' interests. Sure, agreed. Managers are almost always responsible for some fiscal efficiency measure. Which is why they 'locally optimize'. Right?
- kevingadd 7y ago
  My argument is that in many cases it's not local optimization at all. It's not optimal for anyone, their freedom is constrained by upper level management (the hierarchy / the corporation / the hivemind) which means neither the managers or their reports have freedom. If the managers actually had more freedom, you'd get something closer to a bunch of small groups optimizing locally and producing (ideally, with the right incentive) collectively good results. Here's a really easy example from my career (not Google, though): A manager needs to deliver on schedule. He has a set number of people on his team. One of those people is going to quit because he has a baby on the way, and the company's salary is not good enough. If the manager had enough freedom, they'd have options available. The company is going to cut some of those off, but I'll enumerate some of the ones we potentially had at our fingertips (I was one of the team's managers in this situation): * Give him a raise so he stays * Promote someone qualified from the team, hire a junior employee to replace them * Hire a senior employee to replace him and train them up ASAP to fill the gap * Adjust the schedule to make up for the loss of his contribution * Adjust the scope of the project to same as the above In the end the studio head basically told us to go fuck ourselves, and the report ended up quitting. The project came in late, as I expected. This happened multiple times and in multiple cases it was direct interference from higher nodes in the chain - neither us in management or the labor below us were able to optimize at all. The product as a whole ended up shipping multiple years late due to lots of smaller-scale interference like that.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Yeah some middle manager at the next layer up, had a local optimization to spend only the budget they'd allotted. So, the 'screw you' to the manager below. This is a typical example of local optimization?
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      It's nonlocal specifically because it skipped the chain, and that happens in other places.
    - barrkel 7y ago
      I think you're redefining 'local optimization' until it covers all behaviour. It's trivially true that everyone acts according to their incentives, extrinsic and intrinsic.
      - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
        Or, I'm recognizing it when I see it. (And so are you - that description is pretty much spot-on a 'local optimization). Do we believe upper management said "screw with your workers until they stop being effective"? That's trivially false.
shadowgovt 7y ago
Yep. Google management is unusual relative to management at many other companies; it's less direction and more cat-herding. Engineer empowerment is so high that managers don't have many of the tools in their toolbox for managing that they do at other companies.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Unclear where that's going? Sounds like, managers are responsible for measures (unspecified?) that are not in alignment with direct reports' interests. Sure, agreed. Managers are almost always responsible for some fiscal efficiency measure. Which is why they 'locally optimize'. Right?

kevingadd 7y ago
My argument is that in many cases it's not local optimization at all. It's not optimal for anyone, their freedom is constrained by upper level management (the hierarchy / the corporation / the hivemind) which means neither the managers or their reports have freedom. If the managers actually had more freedom, you'd get something closer to a bunch of small groups optimizing locally and producing (ideally, with the right incentive) collectively good results. Here's a really easy example from my career (not Google, though): A manager needs to deliver on schedule. He has a set number of people on his team. One of those people is going to quit because he has a baby on the way, and the company's salary is not good enough. If the manager had enough freedom, they'd have options available. The company is going to cut some of those off, but I'll enumerate some of the ones we potentially had at our fingertips (I was one of the team's managers in this situation): * Give him a raise so he stays * Promote someone qualified from the team, hire a junior employee to replace them * Hire a senior employee to replace him and train them up ASAP to fill the gap * Adjust the schedule to make up for the loss of his contribution * Adjust the scope of the project to same as the above In the end the studio head basically told us to go fuck ourselves, and the report ended up quitting. The project came in late, as I expected. This happened multiple times and in multiple cases it was direct interference from higher nodes in the chain - neither us in management or the labor below us were able to optimize at all. The product as a whole ended up shipping multiple years late due to lots of smaller-scale interference like that.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Yeah some middle manager at the next layer up, had a local optimization to spend only the budget they'd allotted. So, the 'screw you' to the manager below. This is a typical example of local optimization?
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    It's nonlocal specifically because it skipped the chain, and that happens in other places.
  - barrkel 7y ago
    I think you're redefining 'local optimization' until it covers all behaviour. It's trivially true that everyone acts according to their incentives, extrinsic and intrinsic.
    - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
      Or, I'm recognizing it when I see it. (And so are you - that description is pretty much spot-on a 'local optimization). Do we believe upper management said "screw with your workers until they stop being effective"? That's trivially false.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Yep. Google management is unusual relative to management at many other companies; it's less direction and more cat-herding. Engineer empowerment is so high that managers don't have many of the tools in their toolbox for managing that they do at other companies.