6 ms·

Don't try to emulate google. Seriously. It's how you're going to kill your company if you do. Google is not an efficient or fast company. You need to be effici

Don't try to emulate google. Seriously. It's how you're going to kill your company if you do. Google is not an efficient or fast company. You need to be efficient and fast to deal with the momentum google has. If you interview people from FAANG and you see they are going to want to recreate their company within yours, don't hire them. They're going to ruin team dynamics. And seriously, make sure these people aren't assholes. With some companies in particular you need to really be an asshole to survive. Weeding out assholes is far more important for most smaller companies than technical expertise. Heck for most people you probably don't need a separate technical interview. Just, honestly whatever google does do the opposite. From hiring to project management to planning to software development.

anon2020dot00 5y ago
Agree with the other commentator that this is an unconstructive message. Replace Google in the message with Apple/Netflix/Microsoft and it will read exactly the same since it has no specifics except "don't do what x company is doing" with no particular reasoning behind it.
elromulous 5y ago
This is not a very constructive comment. It doesn't mention any specifics, then it jumps into assuming that Google / FAANG have more assholes? Disclaimer: I'm a swe at alphabet.
- bartread 5y ago
  > This is not a very constructive comment. I think there's some substance. I've personally experienced examples where teams have looked at Google or other FAANGs, cargo-culted in practices - or at least their understanding of the practices - and then things have not gone well. With that being said, it's not to say that there's nothing to be learned from FAANGs: you can learn plenty but you need to be choosy in the application of that knowledge. The wider point is that I've observed a trend in industry - stronger at some companies than others - of applying solutions, trendy or otherwise, without a clear understanding and articulation of the problem being solved and the value of solving that problem to the business. That being said, I don't think it's fair to generalise that one has to be an asshole to survive at one of these companies - which is certainly implied by GP's choice of phrasing. I now know quite a few people who've worked at FAANGs for varying periods of time, and none of them are assholes. There are no doubt assholes at FAANG but I've seen no evidence that they're any more concentrated than in the general population.
- onion2k 5y ago
  It doesn't mention any specifics, then it jumps into assuming that Google / FAANG have more assholes? These are companies that operate at the sort of scale where you harvest huge amounts of data about people and then use it to maximize your profit regardless of the impact on the people themselves. Those are asshole tactics, and people who think "I'll get paid a lot to work on that!" are probably skewed towards the asshole end of the spectrum of all humans. I don't think it's a huge leap to believe FAANGs overrepresent the number of assholes they employ. I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. As much as many of the staff are assholes, the companies make things a shitload of people want. There's some good in that. You can be an asshole, make a pile of money, and still be doing good work. (Of course, if you're reading this and you work for a FAANG I don't mean ~you~. Although, if you're reading HN... )
  - georgia_peach 5y ago
    The so-cal adtech, social media, & gaming crews make fintech seem saintly in comparison--the difference between preying on people with enough assets to know better vs. preying on children, the elderly, & the mentally infirm. The kids are getting their brains fried, and they don't even know it.
- doix 5y ago
  It's almost definitely confirmation bias. Google/FAANG employee a lot of people, so as an absolute number, there are probably a lot of assholes and when you meet them you'll remember their employer. I doubt there's a significantly higher percentage of assholes at those companies compared to regular life/other large companies. Slightly off topic, but happened this week. A Google employee commissioned my girlfriend on Reddit to draw two minions. Paid for the first one and then didn't for the second, it was literally $10 for someone that's making > 250k. It's also kinda funny that he paid with a PayPal account that's tied to his entire digital identity: github/linkedin/etc. I'll definitely remember that the guy was from Google (ex-Amazon) and is/was an asshole.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I never said they have more assholes. I said the culture of these big companies creates an unhealthy system that leads to people having to change how they interface with others. This is a bigger problem with some companies.
0x20cowboy 5y ago
> They're going to ruin team dynamics. And seriously, make sure these people aren't assholes. I’ve worked with a number of X-FANNGers, and interviewed at a couple places that were predominantly run by them. Your comment brought up some unsavoury memories. When I research places to work now, if any of the main people are X-FANNG I politely decline the opportunity - it just saves everyone’s time.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  FANNG is a completely arbitrary phrase. What about Microsoft? Why Netflix and not Hulu, HBO, Disney? What about Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, and so on? Twitter?
  - rockbruno 5y ago
    It's definitely an outdated term. Nowadays I personally use FAANG as an alias to "tech company in which employment is synonymous with status in the tech community"
    - willis936 5y ago
      I would suggest "Fortune 500 Technology sector" but that captures a lot of companies that don't have an emphasis on software.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      Effectively Yes. I felt like I don't really need to clarify that this includes more than what the literal FAANG is to this audience haha.
      - Apocryphon 5y ago
        But using it in such a sense lacks clarity. Would it better to say any "non-startup tech company"?
  - gumby 5y ago
    It’s just a fun synecdoche. Netflix was included to make the acronym fun. It’s like when some people say “Silicon Valley” when they mean San Francisco or vice versa: from a distance they look like the same thing.
dkersten 5y ago
> From hiring to Speaking of hiring, just yesterday I spoke with a Google recruiter but bowed out when he told me that the process takes months. I can't think of any point in my career where I'd be willing to put up with a process that takes MONTHS. Either I'm actively looking for work and want something ASAP, or I'm not actively looking, in which case why would I put myself through that? My time is valuable, I won't spend months on an interview/hiring process. If anything, Google better spend that time telling me why I should work there, because I have plenty of alternative options. So, if you copy their multi-month hiring process, I certainly won't be applying.
- jstx1 5y ago
  I would gladly spend the time. Also, having some time between interview stages allows you to prepare well. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me but moving to Google would be a big step up in my career. If you have alternatives that are similar enough, then it makes more sense to be picky about their hiring process.
- blippage 5y ago
  If it takes months to hire an employee, then it speaks volumes about their processes generally. But then I'm just a curmudgeony old fart with a decaying brain. Google is for bright young things in their 20's.
  - jethkl 5y ago
    Agree that on behavioral front, there is not much new signal after a few hours of conversation. Some evidence for this is a well-known study [1]. Unsure if the study has been validated, but the idea has stuck with me. Regarding cognitive decay: I like to think time is simply pruning the weak and lazy neurons. At least that's what my remaining grey matter is telling itself. Your comment made me laugh. Thanks. [1] https://kevin.burke.dev/pdf/30_seconds_teacher_quality.pdf https://kevin.burke.dev/pdf/30_seconds_teacher_quality.pdf
    - blippage 5y ago
Tepix 5y ago
> Just, honestly whatever google does do the opposite. From hiring to project management to planning to software development. Also, respecting the privacy of your customers and having a business model that does not depend on collecting data they may not want to be collected.
alexashka 5y ago
You're bringing your personal trauma/opinions and re-stating them as universal truths.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  Maybe. I've consulted a few companies on this and have found a pretty interesting pattern. My main point stands though. Don't emulate google or your startup is going to fail.
jeffbee 5y ago
Gotta say this is absolutely not my experience. I've worked at a lot of companies and have never seen one with anywhere near the developer productivity as Google enjoys. They have the groundwork that enables the velocity, so you can build/test/deploy very very quickly. Other organizations believed they had velocity because they skipped unit tests, code review, production security, supply chain security, etc. Consequently their whole thing becomes a haunted graveyard that everyone is terrified to change.
no_wizard 5y ago
Name names. I think we are doing ourselves injustices not to name name's here. If Google, or Meta (Facebook) or whatever has terrible cultural practices as you describe, I think we as a community owe it to ourselves to call it out. This also otherwise rings a little hollow without specific things to backup the assertion. I think being direct forces us to have the real conversation.

anon2020dot00 5y ago

Agree with the other commentator that this is an unconstructive message. Replace Google in the message with Apple/Netflix/Microsoft and it will read exactly the same since it has no specifics except "don't do what x company is doing" with no particular reasoning behind it.

elromulous 5y ago

This is not a very constructive comment. It doesn't mention any specifics, then it jumps into assuming that Google / FAANG have more assholes? Disclaimer: I'm a swe at alphabet.

bartread 5y ago
> This is not a very constructive comment. I think there's some substance. I've personally experienced examples where teams have looked at Google or other FAANGs, cargo-culted in practices - or at least their understanding of the practices - and then things have not gone well. With that being said, it's not to say that there's nothing to be learned from FAANGs: you can learn plenty but you need to be choosy in the application of that knowledge. The wider point is that I've observed a trend in industry - stronger at some companies than others - of applying solutions, trendy or otherwise, without a clear understanding and articulation of the problem being solved and the value of solving that problem to the business. That being said, I don't think it's fair to generalise that one has to be an asshole to survive at one of these companies - which is certainly implied by GP's choice of phrasing. I now know quite a few people who've worked at FAANGs for varying periods of time, and none of them are assholes. There are no doubt assholes at FAANG but I've seen no evidence that they're any more concentrated than in the general population.
onion2k 5y ago
It doesn't mention any specifics, then it jumps into assuming that Google / FAANG have more assholes? These are companies that operate at the sort of scale where you harvest huge amounts of data about people and then use it to maximize your profit regardless of the impact on the people themselves. Those are asshole tactics, and people who think "I'll get paid a lot to work on that!" are probably skewed towards the asshole end of the spectrum of all humans. I don't think it's a huge leap to believe FAANGs overrepresent the number of assholes they employ. I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. As much as many of the staff are assholes, the companies make things a shitload of people want. There's some good in that. You can be an asshole, make a pile of money, and still be doing good work. (Of course, if you're reading this and you work for a FAANG I don't mean ~you~. Although, if you're reading HN... )
- georgia_peach 5y ago
  The so-cal adtech, social media, & gaming crews make fintech seem saintly in comparison--the difference between preying on people with enough assets to know better vs. preying on children, the elderly, & the mentally infirm. The kids are getting their brains fried, and they don't even know it.
doix 5y ago
It's almost definitely confirmation bias. Google/FAANG employee a lot of people, so as an absolute number, there are probably a lot of assholes and when you meet them you'll remember their employer. I doubt there's a significantly higher percentage of assholes at those companies compared to regular life/other large companies. Slightly off topic, but happened this week. A Google employee commissioned my girlfriend on Reddit to draw two minions. Paid for the first one and then didn't for the second, it was literally $10 for someone that's making > 250k. It's also kinda funny that he paid with a PayPal account that's tied to his entire digital identity: github/linkedin/etc. I'll definitely remember that the guy was from Google (ex-Amazon) and is/was an asshole.
aaomidi 5y ago
I never said they have more assholes. I said the culture of these big companies creates an unhealthy system that leads to people having to change how they interface with others. This is a bigger problem with some companies.

0x20cowboy 5y ago

> They're going to ruin team dynamics. And seriously, make sure these people aren't assholes. I’ve worked with a number of X-FANNGers, and interviewed at a couple places that were predominantly run by them. Your comment brought up some unsavoury memories. When I research places to work now, if any of the main people are X-FANNG I politely decline the opportunity - it just saves everyone’s time.

Apocryphon 5y ago
FANNG is a completely arbitrary phrase. What about Microsoft? Why Netflix and not Hulu, HBO, Disney? What about Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, and so on? Twitter?
- rockbruno 5y ago
  It's definitely an outdated term. Nowadays I personally use FAANG as an alias to "tech company in which employment is synonymous with status in the tech community"
  - willis936 5y ago
    I would suggest "Fortune 500 Technology sector" but that captures a lot of companies that don't have an emphasis on software.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    Effectively Yes. I felt like I don't really need to clarify that this includes more than what the literal FAANG is to this audience haha.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      But using it in such a sense lacks clarity. Would it better to say any "non-startup tech company"?
- gumby 5y ago
  It’s just a fun synecdoche. Netflix was included to make the acronym fun. It’s like when some people say “Silicon Valley” when they mean San Francisco or vice versa: from a distance they look like the same thing.

dkersten 5y ago

> From hiring to Speaking of hiring, just yesterday I spoke with a Google recruiter but bowed out when he told me that the process takes months. I can't think of any point in my career where I'd be willing to put up with a process that takes MONTHS. Either I'm actively looking for work and want something ASAP, or I'm not actively looking, in which case why would I put myself through that? My time is valuable, I won't spend months on an interview/hiring process. If anything, Google better spend that time telling me why I should work there, because I have plenty of alternative options. So, if you copy their multi-month hiring process, I certainly won't be applying.

jstx1 5y ago
I would gladly spend the time. Also, having some time between interview stages allows you to prepare well. It doesn't seem that unreasonable to me but moving to Google would be a big step up in my career. If you have alternatives that are similar enough, then it makes more sense to be picky about their hiring process.
blippage 5y ago
If it takes months to hire an employee, then it speaks volumes about their processes generally. But then I'm just a curmudgeony old fart with a decaying brain. Google is for bright young things in their 20's.
- jethkl 5y ago
  Agree that on behavioral front, there is not much new signal after a few hours of conversation. Some evidence for this is a well-known study [1]. Unsure if the study has been validated, but the idea has stuck with me. Regarding cognitive decay: I like to think time is simply pruning the weak and lazy neurons. At least that's what my remaining grey matter is telling itself. Your comment made me laugh. Thanks. [1] https://kevin.burke.dev/pdf/30_seconds_teacher_quality.pdf https://kevin.burke.dev/pdf/30_seconds_teacher_quality.pdf
  - blippage 5y ago

Tepix 5y ago

> Just, honestly whatever google does do the opposite. From hiring to project management to planning to software development. Also, respecting the privacy of your customers and having a business model that does not depend on collecting data they may not want to be collected.

alexashka 5y ago

You're bringing your personal trauma/opinions and re-stating them as universal truths.

aaomidi 5y ago
Maybe. I've consulted a few companies on this and have found a pretty interesting pattern. My main point stands though. Don't emulate google or your startup is going to fail.

jeffbee 5y ago

Gotta say this is absolutely not my experience. I've worked at a lot of companies and have never seen one with anywhere near the developer productivity as Google enjoys. They have the groundwork that enables the velocity, so you can build/test/deploy very very quickly. Other organizations believed they had velocity because they skipped unit tests, code review, production security, supply chain security, etc. Consequently their whole thing becomes a haunted graveyard that everyone is terrified to change.

no_wizard 5y ago

Name names. I think we are doing ourselves injustices not to name name's here. If Google, or Meta (Facebook) or whatever has terrible cultural practices as you describe, I think we as a community owe it to ourselves to call it out. This also otherwise rings a little hollow without specific things to backup the assertion. I think being direct forces us to have the real conversation.