5 ms·

Now granted, I never worked at Google, but I've worked for several F500 companies through the years. I made a promise that I'll never work for one ever again b

Now granted, I never worked at Google, but I've worked for several F500 companies through the years. I made a promise that I'll never work for one ever again because this corporate structure and bloat tend to engineer promotions and reward through things that do not actually benefit the company. His work, which was useful to the company essentially got reworked into something that impressed the "promotion committee". I think this is the notion that should terrify all founders, to not let the original culture turn into endless committees and stifled work products. I guess Google can endure this only due to the sheer cash it generates, and no i do not think that their promotion structure supports that.

Tade0 7y ago
My take is that it's a product of their situation: Google has thousands of highly talented people on board who probably have some expectations regarding professional growth, so in order to keep them they produce it. Does this mean that we have an overabundance of talent? I don't think so. I guess Google simply has enough money to keep its competitors at bay by hoarding talent. And they appear not to be alone in this as the anti-poaching agreement scandal showed.
rb808 7y ago
If you're at a corporation you should figure out which game you're playing. Are you there to "benefit the company" or get "promoted and rewarded"? Make a decision but they are different paths leading different directions.
- vonseel 7y ago
  Those are equally terrifying statements to what the user above said.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Those statements aren't "terrifying" in the least once you consider that your relationship with the employer is a _business_ relationship. If the employer didn't want career games, they wouldn't reward them. As simple as that. If your company's official party line diverges from its reward structure, the best thing you can do for yourself is to follow the reward structure and ignore the exhortations to be doing things the company obviously doesn't give a shit about (as measured in dollars, the only reliable measure). Fundamentally your only rational goal in the situation is to maximize your expected return over the duration of your employment. At Google or FB you maximize it by launching stuff that looks good in a promo packet (with metrics and numbers, too; if you can't measure something it's worthless at promo time), and never, ever working on anything "legacy" related. Those are, at a basic level, the rules of the game. Your _rational_ choices are: play the game well, or play some other variant of the game somewhere else. Not playing the game is not an option. Playing the game poorly is irrational. Here's the authoritative guide for Google specifically: http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/tips-for-noogler-engineers.html http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/tips-for-noogler-engineers..... It should serve you well at other, similar companies, with only minor tweaks.
    - vonseel 7y ago
      I will have to take a look at that link. Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing. I don’t think the game is limited to the tech industry. What scares me is it seems pretty much all office jobs eventually turn into corporate politics / bs. On one hand, I can see how the politicking and playing the game seems to be in the best interest of the company - look! We’re getting stuff done and it looks awesome! OTOH, I worry that less obvious ideas (and good people) are neglected and like you said, The Game promotes the wrong behavior. I guess if you get to that top “Fellow” developer level at a comfortable place maybe you don’t have to worry bout it anymore. Or maybe it becomes more important than ever... I hope not!
      - amznthrowaway5 7y ago
        On one hand, I can see how the politicking and playing the game seems to be in the best interest of the company - look! We’re getting stuff done and it looks awesome! Often, behind the smoke and mirrors, not much is actually done. And then you may end up with a disastrous product launch like Google Stadia. Unfortunately most projects don't have similarly useful public evaluations to show how poorly they are actually delivering. Those who would put in the time to develop a good product wouldn't be promoted.
  - rb808 7y ago
    One thing I was going to add but didn't makes it less terrifying. Often people what people think is benefiting the company isnt. eg being a hero working long hours is great in the very short term, but a better solution is managing a more sustainable process that consistently delivers.
- pmart123 7y ago
  My general feeling regarding any company is work closest to the source of revenue. This way, your performance will be attached to what drives the business performance.
  - pmart123 7y ago
    The corollary to this is working in the area that the company appreciates the most. So, for Apple, it might be design, for Google, software engineering, for Salesforce, being on the sales side.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Don't know how it is now, but this would be a bad idea at Google specifically when Larry was in charge. Back then you'd need to work on something he cared about to have the best career trajectory. To give an example: Larry never particularly seemed to care about Cloud, Ads or Technical Infrastructure (TI). He did seem to care a lot about Google+, at least until it became obvious that it's not going anywhere, Android, and "moonshot" projects like Waymo (nee Chauffeur).
- heyflyguy 7y ago
  I don't disagree with you, only as a business owner I'd be pretty upset if I even knew that was going on amongst my new hires. If someone can't explain to me our company vision after 90 days, as well as their role in delivering it - I'm not saying they'll be fired but it's not a long term engagement between us.
  - kbutler 7y ago
    Isn't that a management failure? If the most effective way to "get promoted and rewarded" is substantially different from "benefit the company", then management is not directing effectively.
    - heyflyguy 7y ago
      100% my point in fact.
  - rb808 7y ago
    You're right, but I specifically mentioned corporations as that is where its less obvious what is right for the company and more likely to make it hard to get promoted or recognized.
  - BossingAround 7y ago
    > If someone can't explain to me our company vision after 90 days, as well as their role in delivering it - I'm not saying they'll be fired but it's not a long term engagement between us As a business owner, that would be your failure, not the new hire's. This seems like a highly US-centric point of view. In reality, either you give you new hire resources to learn these things, i.e. give enough time on the clock to dedicate to this, as well as materials to learn from, or the person will not know these things.
    - heyflyguy 7y ago
      Re: Drucker There are some people who need to be shown their way off the bus.
stjohnswarts 7y ago
I don't consider myself above say a mediocre programmer, but some of the atrocities called "code" that I saw at the Fortune 500 companies, I swore them off and have been working as a consultant for startups since. I have to change up companies every year or two or I become anxious and bored.

Tade0 7y ago

My take is that it's a product of their situation: Google has thousands of highly talented people on board who probably have some expectations regarding professional growth, so in order to keep them they produce it. Does this mean that we have an overabundance of talent? I don't think so. I guess Google simply has enough money to keep its competitors at bay by hoarding talent. And they appear not to be alone in this as the anti-poaching agreement scandal showed.

rb808 7y ago

If you're at a corporation you should figure out which game you're playing. Are you there to "benefit the company" or get "promoted and rewarded"? Make a decision but they are different paths leading different directions.

vonseel 7y ago
Those are equally terrifying statements to what the user above said.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Those statements aren't "terrifying" in the least once you consider that your relationship with the employer is a _business_ relationship. If the employer didn't want career games, they wouldn't reward them. As simple as that. If your company's official party line diverges from its reward structure, the best thing you can do for yourself is to follow the reward structure and ignore the exhortations to be doing things the company obviously doesn't give a shit about (as measured in dollars, the only reliable measure). Fundamentally your only rational goal in the situation is to maximize your expected return over the duration of your employment. At Google or FB you maximize it by launching stuff that looks good in a promo packet (with metrics and numbers, too; if you can't measure something it's worthless at promo time), and never, ever working on anything "legacy" related. Those are, at a basic level, the rules of the game. Your _rational_ choices are: play the game well, or play some other variant of the game somewhere else. Not playing the game is not an option. Playing the game poorly is irrational. Here's the authoritative guide for Google specifically: http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/tips-for-noogler-engineers.html http://piaw.blogspot.com/2010/08/tips-for-noogler-engineers..... It should serve you well at other, similar companies, with only minor tweaks.
  - vonseel 7y ago
    I will have to take a look at that link. Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing. I don’t think the game is limited to the tech industry. What scares me is it seems pretty much all office jobs eventually turn into corporate politics / bs. On one hand, I can see how the politicking and playing the game seems to be in the best interest of the company - look! We’re getting stuff done and it looks awesome! OTOH, I worry that less obvious ideas (and good people) are neglected and like you said, The Game promotes the wrong behavior. I guess if you get to that top “Fellow” developer level at a comfortable place maybe you don’t have to worry bout it anymore. Or maybe it becomes more important than ever... I hope not!
    - amznthrowaway5 7y ago
      On one hand, I can see how the politicking and playing the game seems to be in the best interest of the company - look! We’re getting stuff done and it looks awesome! Often, behind the smoke and mirrors, not much is actually done. And then you may end up with a disastrous product launch like Google Stadia. Unfortunately most projects don't have similarly useful public evaluations to show how poorly they are actually delivering. Those who would put in the time to develop a good product wouldn't be promoted.
- rb808 7y ago
  One thing I was going to add but didn't makes it less terrifying. Often people what people think is benefiting the company isnt. eg being a hero working long hours is great in the very short term, but a better solution is managing a more sustainable process that consistently delivers.
pmart123 7y ago
My general feeling regarding any company is work closest to the source of revenue. This way, your performance will be attached to what drives the business performance.
- pmart123 7y ago
  The corollary to this is working in the area that the company appreciates the most. So, for Apple, it might be design, for Google, software engineering, for Salesforce, being on the sales side.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Don't know how it is now, but this would be a bad idea at Google specifically when Larry was in charge. Back then you'd need to work on something he cared about to have the best career trajectory. To give an example: Larry never particularly seemed to care about Cloud, Ads or Technical Infrastructure (TI). He did seem to care a lot about Google+, at least until it became obvious that it's not going anywhere, Android, and "moonshot" projects like Waymo (nee Chauffeur).
heyflyguy 7y ago
I don't disagree with you, only as a business owner I'd be pretty upset if I even knew that was going on amongst my new hires. If someone can't explain to me our company vision after 90 days, as well as their role in delivering it - I'm not saying they'll be fired but it's not a long term engagement between us.
- kbutler 7y ago
  Isn't that a management failure? If the most effective way to "get promoted and rewarded" is substantially different from "benefit the company", then management is not directing effectively.
  - heyflyguy 7y ago
    100% my point in fact.
- rb808 7y ago
  You're right, but I specifically mentioned corporations as that is where its less obvious what is right for the company and more likely to make it hard to get promoted or recognized.
- BossingAround 7y ago
  > If someone can't explain to me our company vision after 90 days, as well as their role in delivering it - I'm not saying they'll be fired but it's not a long term engagement between us As a business owner, that would be your failure, not the new hire's. This seems like a highly US-centric point of view. In reality, either you give you new hire resources to learn these things, i.e. give enough time on the clock to dedicate to this, as well as materials to learn from, or the person will not know these things.
  - heyflyguy 7y ago
    Re: Drucker There are some people who need to be shown their way off the bus.

stjohnswarts 7y ago

I don't consider myself above say a mediocre programmer, but some of the atrocities called "code" that I saw at the Fortune 500 companies, I swore them off and have been working as a consultant for startups since. I have to change up companies every year or two or I become anxious and bored.