8 ms·

I've always been confused by Google's reputation for pushing in-the-office work. I've met with... 3, I think, Google teams quite a few times over the years, and

by macksd 5y ago

I've always been confused by Google's reputation for pushing in-the-office work. I've met with... 3, I think, Google teams quite a few times over the years, and not once have I seen Google engineers in the office for these meetings. I even flew into the area for a meeting at Mountain View once, we got escorted in by a manager, and we sat in a conference room while all the Google engineers dialed in from their homes around the Bay Area. But yeah, everyone seems to talk about Google not being remote friendly (pre-COVID, that is).

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
creato 5y ago
Everywhere I've worked has had a policy of no remote work. Yet, if you got your work done, and your manager was OK with it (probably the case if you get work done), no one cared. I guess they could look at badge data (if your company has them) but I've never seen a company do that. I don't think I've ever had a manager that could be convinced to care about this even if some level of management did in fact care. Who the hell wants to spend time taking attendance like a schoolteacher?
nostrademons 5y ago
[Also a Googler here, speaking my own interpretation rather than any official policy.] They make the official policy in-office to set the expectation that that's where you'll be, and then they can negotiate exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen a high-performing Googler (meaning one who has successfully launched a project) turned down for remote work or office transfers. They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. If you're meeting with engineers as an external partner or customer, it's almost certain those are high-performing engineers, because they wouldn't be put in that position otherwise.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  > They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. Why not?
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    I'd assume that verifying that non-performing Googlers are actually working, and correcting performance issues, is much harder when they're remote. Most knowledge workers pretty much have to be trusted to perform their jobs, but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results. In most knowledge work - not just Google - you're fine as long as you're either putting in effort or getting results. After all, software development has plenty of risks, it's possible to fail to deliver for many reasons other than being lazy. But when you are neither putting in effort nor getting results, that's when you're at risk of getting fired, because the company starts to wonder why they're paying you. Remote work makes it much harder to observe the "putting in effort" piece.
    - f6v 5y ago
      > but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result.
      - nostrademons 5y ago
        People who consistently deliver code and working features usually don't have a problem getting approved to work remotely. That's the case-by-case part. It's the people whose code is buggy or nonexistent and whose features don't work that are stuck in the office.
      - herodoturtle 5y ago
        If I may humbly weigh in on this... It's not just about the code, it's also about the culture. Non-performing staff could be non-performing for different reasons - not just output - and it's often easier to spot those reasons (and address them) when you're working in the same office. Source: I've been running a company with hybrid in-office + remote staff for 15 years. Would be happy to expand on the above if asked.
- anothernewdude 5y ago
  > They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. They don't want to increase the performance of the low-performers? When Google got big, it got stupid.

by macksd 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

creato 5y ago

Everywhere I've worked has had a policy of no remote work. Yet, if you got your work done, and your manager was OK with it (probably the case if you get work done), no one cared. I guess they could look at badge data (if your company has them) but I've never seen a company do that. I don't think I've ever had a manager that could be convinced to care about this even if some level of management did in fact care. Who the hell wants to spend time taking attendance like a schoolteacher?

nostrademons 5y ago

[Also a Googler here, speaking my own interpretation rather than any official policy.] They make the official policy in-office to set the expectation that that's where you'll be, and then they can negotiate exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen a high-performing Googler (meaning one who has successfully launched a project) turned down for remote work or office transfers. They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. If you're meeting with engineers as an external partner or customer, it's almost certain those are high-performing engineers, because they wouldn't be put in that position otherwise.

nextaccountic 5y ago
> They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. Why not?
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I'd assume that verifying that non-performing Googlers are actually working, and correcting performance issues, is much harder when they're remote. Most knowledge workers pretty much have to be trusted to perform their jobs, but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results. In most knowledge work - not just Google - you're fine as long as you're either putting in effort or getting results. After all, software development has plenty of risks, it's possible to fail to deliver for many reasons other than being lazy. But when you are neither putting in effort nor getting results, that's when you're at risk of getting fired, because the company starts to wonder why they're paying you. Remote work makes it much harder to observe the "putting in effort" piece.
  - f6v 5y ago
    > but that trust is much harder when you can observe neither process, progress, or results I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result.
    - nostrademons 5y ago
      People who consistently deliver code and working features usually don't have a problem getting approved to work remotely. That's the case-by-case part. It's the people whose code is buggy or nonexistent and whose features don't work that are stuck in the office.
    - herodoturtle 5y ago
      If I may humbly weigh in on this... It's not just about the code, it's also about the culture. Non-performing staff could be non-performing for different reasons - not just output - and it's often easier to spot those reasons (and address them) when you're working in the same office. Source: I've been running a company with hybrid in-office + remote staff for 15 years. Would be happy to expand on the above if asked.
anothernewdude 5y ago
> They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. They don't want to increase the performance of the low-performers? When Google got big, it got stupid.