4 ms·
I always wondered why Google needs hundreds of VP's? Is i just a scheme with them giving each other great peer feedback and promoting more to extract huge salar
by username90 7y ago
I always wondered why Google needs hundreds of VP's? Is i just a scheme with them giving each other great peer feedback and promoting more to extract huge salaries from the company?
- riku_iki 7y agoHow many VPs company with 100+k headcount should have?
- username90 7y ago5k people per VP seems reasonable, so 20? Then they can have 10 senior directors each with 500 persons under them.
- codemac 7y agotwo pizza team = 8 ICs max reporting every 8 ICs + 1 manager = 9 every 8 managers = 1 director = 8 * 9 + 1 = 73 every 8 directors = 1 sr director = 8 * 73 + 1= 585 every 8 sr directors = 1 VP = 8 * 585 + 1 = 4681 every 8 VPs = 1 SVP = 8 * 4681 + 1 = 37449 every 8 SVPs = 1 EVP (c level exec) = 8 * 37449 + 1 = 299593 Clearly the problem is one of the large distribution of team sizes, rather than just "have less VPs".
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y agoCertainly an anomaly, but there's a distribution to the number of ICs assigned to the lowest level managers (M1/M2s). I've seen anywhere from 3 to 30. The people with 30 basically just jumped from 1:1 to 1:1 on repeat biweekly.
- username90 7y agoProblem is that there aren't enough people to every VP, so they fight for headcount and projects leading to frequent reorgs or projects shuttering to make room for VP's pet projects.
- thrower123 7y agoIt's interesting how closely these estimates correspond to military TOEs. It's almost like we've figured out over the course of thousands of years what the most effective general-purpose hierarchical organization is.
- wisty 7y agoHow many employees should a search and recommendation engine have?
- cletus 7y agoFunny that you mention that but the comment you're replying to prompted me to do some back of the envelope calculations. Things to note: - About half Google's staff were technical - There are ~80k employees? - So assume 40k engineers - Most engineers are ICs - ICs are given levels from T3 (college grad) to T9 (can walk on water) with there being like a handful of Google Fellows beyond that (your Jeff Deans). - Managers are M1s through M3s with M1s being baby managers. Most are M2s (equivalent to T6) who are managers of ICs and M3s (T7s) who are managers of managers (and higher level ICs). - Higher level ICs (T7+) may well directly report to M2s or even directors or VPs but there's so few of those (~1%?) that they don't really change the math. - In terms of rolled up head count you're looking at 5-20 for an M1/M2, 20-50 for an M3, 50-200 for a director, 150-1000+ for a VP. - Directors have levels, D1 (T8) and D2 (T9). Sometimes you end up with 2 or even 3 directors within a management chain. - The archetypal management chain is: CEO -> SVP -> VP -> Director -> M3 -> M1/M2 -> IC So my opinion is the structure should ideally look something like this: - M1/M2 average 10 ICs - M3s average 5 M1/M2s - Directors average 5 M3s - VPs average 4 directors with the following constraints: - There is only 1 VP in a chain - There is only 1 SVP in a chain - There is only 1 director in a chain - There are at most 2 managers in a chain So 40K ICs need: - 4K M1/M2s - 800 M3s - 160 directors - 40 VPs Now this "ideal" scenario obviously ignores some realities like a management structure built around products and infrastructure may not fit these numbers so neatly but then again some M1s could have 12 ICs while others have 8 and it all sort of works out. I don't know what Google's numbers are here but I suspect it is MUCH MUCH higher than this.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- wuliwong 7y agoI don't know if your math is right but I enjoyed reading your comment.
- mavelikara 7y agoGreat job at deriving a Fermi estimate! (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem)
- harimau777 7y agoIt seems to me that as a back of the envelope estimation might be: Suppose we say that an organization has n employees and that everyone in a position of leadership leads m people. The result would be a m-ary tree whose height is roughly: h = log_m ((m - 1) * n)) If we say that there are l levels of seniority before one becomes a VP, then anyone not in the bottom l levels of the tree is a VP. h_vp = # of levels of VPs = h - l The number of VPs would then equal the number of nodes in a complete m-ary tree of height h_vp: n = (m^h_vp) / (m - 1) (Forgive me if I made any mistakes in my math, it's been a long time since I took algebra.)
- Aeolun 7y agoTheoretically you manage about 10 people effectively, so: CEO: 1 CXO: 10 SVP: 100 VP: 1000 Director: 10000 Employees: 88889
- vchak1 7y agoYou can have higher ratios at the CXO and SVP level, and need lower ratios below director because at the higher level most people dont need as much day to day oversight.
- Aeolun 7y agoFrom my experience at the bottom, it’s the higher level people that need more oversight.
- chrisdhoover 7y agoMost companies have line managers. Line managers are not directors, they are managers. There are also senior managers. I think your schedule is good but I think you should add at least 1 layer maybe two.
- Aeolun 7y agoYeah, I just ran out of employees to cover and I worked backwards, so I didn’t get to use the term manager. I guess the system is good until the 1.000.000 mark ;) I think line manager is a generic term for the person you explicitly report to though (e.g. the one who approves your time off), not a role in specific.
- lmilcin 7y ago"VP" has become, not just for Google, a title you get instead of a raise. You know, to make you feel you are getting somewhere with your career without breaking the budget. Haven't worked for Google but I worked for couple large banks (Credit Suisse, currently Citi) and VP is currently synonym for line manager. You can be Associate VP without having anybody report to you, just a senior contributor.
- username90 7y agoAt Google VP is equivalent to CXO roles, so it is not that kind of "fake" VP.
- frei 7y agoAre you thinking of SVP?
- username90 7y agoEven if you just take SVP don't they have like a hundred of them? I feel it would go a lot better if they put more wood behind fewer arrows (VP+ people). Then maybe a few projects would stick.
- foobaw 7y agoSVP is a big deal in Google actually.
- username90 7y agoYes that is the problem, having like a hundred people who are a big deal means that the company has no direction.
- taurath 7y agoThe company is tens of thousands of people. At some point theres a limit to how flat one can be.