5 ms·

A Smart Guy's Frank Take on Working in Major Tech Companies (2018)

22 points by worldvoyageur 5y ago

criticaltinker 5y ago
> What also went well at Google: Google avoided job categories that were, generally, likely to decrease accountability: > Google avoided the job class of architect — which was both high status and low accountability, making it an easy place for pricey senior people to park and not have much impact (Sun Microsystems was notorious for having lots and lots of architects) > Google avoided the category of project manager, which would have allowed engineering managers to avoid the grungy part of their job (and be out of touch with engineering realities) Pretty forward thinking philosophy here and I can't lie I'm a bit jealous - these points hit a little too close to home.
- cmollis 5y ago
  I never understood how anyone who calls themselves a 'project manager' of a software project, could not actually be a technical contributor. The best projects that I've been associated with have always been led by technicians who also could write, present, manage users, project plans, etc. They're not just 'coders'.. How can anyone define project strategy, tasks, and timelines without an implicit understanding of how it all works? These people (generally rare in my experience) can easily cut through bullshit by technical, and non-technical staff pretty easily. The projects that they lead are generally on time, with fewer problems. I've learned early in my career never to get too far from what it is people are paying us to do : deliver some business value through the act of writing software.
gumby 5y ago
The fundamental problem for Google (visible all throughout this message) is that there is a huge high pressure nozzle in building 42 from which $100 bills come shooting out nonstop, day or night, essentially regardless of what anyone does. Valve has the same problem — actually for Valve the company the situation is even worse. You can see in this memo, and in other efforts Google has made, that they understand one bad facet of this problem: they try very hard to diversify the income stream, and have managed to get advertising down to almost 85% or revenue, although it’s a larger percentage of profit. But the other, more dangerous problem is the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms. This is quite difficult to fix when you are in Google’s position: the gusher of cash removes any sense of urgency and it’s very size makes it hard for any one person to see how their actions can change anything — a problem that extends all the way to the top. This may not look like a problem to some people but it leaves them extremely vulnerable to a a structural change in the market or even a new competitor. Without a depth of resilience, once, as Buffet’s saying goes, the tide goes out they won’t have managed to put on any bathers.
sharadov 5y ago
Facebook - Their infrastructure is pretty crude which means they’ll run into the problem. Not any more.

22 points by worldvoyageur 5y ago

> What also went well at Google: Google avoided job categories that were, generally, likely to decrease accountability: > Google avoided the job class of architect — which was both high status and low accountability, making it an easy place for pricey senior people to park and not have much impact (Sun Microsystems was notorious for having lots and lots of architects) > Google avoided the category of project manager, which would have allowed engineering managers to avoid the grungy part of their job (and be out of touch with engineering realities) Pretty forward thinking philosophy here and I can't lie I'm a bit jealous - these points hit a little too close to home.

cmollis 5y ago
I never understood how anyone who calls themselves a 'project manager' of a software project, could not actually be a technical contributor. The best projects that I've been associated with have always been led by technicians who also could write, present, manage users, project plans, etc. They're not just 'coders'.. How can anyone define project strategy, tasks, and timelines without an implicit understanding of how it all works? These people (generally rare in my experience) can easily cut through bullshit by technical, and non-technical staff pretty easily. The projects that they lead are generally on time, with fewer problems. I've learned early in my career never to get too far from what it is people are paying us to do : deliver some business value through the act of writing software.

gumby 5y ago

The fundamental problem for Google (visible all throughout this message) is that there is a huge high pressure nozzle in building 42 from which $100 bills come shooting out nonstop, day or night, essentially regardless of what anyone does. Valve has the same problem — actually for Valve the company the situation is even worse. You can see in this memo, and in other efforts Google has made, that they understand one bad facet of this problem: they try very hard to diversify the income stream, and have managed to get advertising down to almost 85% or revenue, although it’s a larger percentage of profit. But the other, more dangerous problem is the lack of adequate feedback mechanisms. This is quite difficult to fix when you are in Google’s position: the gusher of cash removes any sense of urgency and it’s very size makes it hard for any one person to see how their actions can change anything — a problem that extends all the way to the top. This may not look like a problem to some people but it leaves them extremely vulnerable to a a structural change in the market or even a new competitor. Without a depth of resilience, once, as Buffet’s saying goes, the tide goes out they won’t have managed to put on any bathers.

sharadov 5y ago

Facebook - Their infrastructure is pretty crude which means they’ll run into the problem. Not any more.