3 ms·

It is sad because I spent nearly 10 years at Google and nearly all the people I met were well-meaning, seemingly harmless, engineering-oriented, and data-driven

by titzer 4y ago

It is sad because I spent nearly 10 years at Google and nearly all the people I met were well-meaning, seemingly harmless, engineering-oriented, and data-driven. But the configuration of people that makes up the superorganism that is Google nowadays is driven by both local incentives and a broad top incentive to grow. Scale to more computation, more storage, more bandwidth, and with lower overhead--morally, those are neutral to positive, IMHO, but they are put in service of the real goal at the end of the day: swallow more money. More revenue, more markets, more ads, more engagement, more watch time...muscle out the competition, dominate. 20% YoY growth for nearly 25 years running, and suddenly you get huge, scary numbers. And you have to do insane things to keep that exponential curve from regressing to an S-curve like the laws of physics dictate it must.

aporetics 4y ago
> well-meaning, seemingly harmless, engineering-oriented, and data-driven At some point I really hope that we can all recognize that “seemingly harmless”, “engineering-oriented”, and “data-driven” are not virtues.
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  If you believe they are neither vices as well, then I can see your point — they just are. Perhaps this is the point you are making: if one is data-driven and engineering-oriented without regard to the consequences, that could be seen as a vice. Despite the amazing engineering/science, it is hard to come to peace with von Braun or Teller (just to pick two examples).
  - aporetics 4y ago
    Yes exactly. But until this is clear and accepted, these terms are apt to be misdirections—for example here, in a discussion trying to understand how things went so wrong at a leading tech company. Hopefully we can get to the point of putting purpose (I think “mission” is a bit too hackneyed and neat to work here) first in discussions of culture, whether corporate or engineering culture.
    - JKCalhoun 4y ago
      I think most of us want to view "engineering culture" as just problem solving, amoral. If these companies we worked for didn't have such an outsized effect on the greater world we live in that would probably be a reasonable way to view engineering culture.
blagie 4y ago
The overall problem -- and this is not specific to Google -- is that managers at all levels are incentivized to grow head counts. Google has at least 10x as many employees as it needs. That's based on decades of revenue being decoupled from costs, and from monopoly profits. It's the double-whammy of being in tech (where costs and revenues don't couple since incremental costs are close to zero), and having a super-profitable monopoly. You can't fire 90% of the workforce; even morale and culture problems aside, at this point, the organization is structured to need too many people. On the other hand, organizing over 100k employees turns into this superorganism problem. At >100k employees, the influence of anyone -- up to and including the CEO -- is very, very limited. Dynamics take over. I've been bearish on Google for a long time, but I haven't shorted the stock. Market irrationality can last a lot longer than my wallet. Fundamentally, though, one could muscle through building a new, better Google for much less than the valuation of Google. Google could also be worth a lot more with a breakup. There is negative synergy between, for example, advertising, Google Workspace, Android, hosting, etc. If those were independent businesses, with partnerships around things like data sharing, the total value could be much higher. Alphabet was a move in the right direction, but the move should have been much deeper. Right now, Alphabet is Google + a bunch of tiny startups.
- evgen 4y ago
  > The overall problem -- and this is not specific to Google -- is that managers at all levels are incentivized to grow head counts. No one is incentivised to grow head count. They are incentivised to do more, produce more revenue, and expand the reach of the company; most of these goals require the application of more smart people to a problem. They are not getting a promotion or salary bump because their group increased from 200 to 300 people over the previous quarter, they are receiving rewards for being able to effectively direct those people in order to achieve some specific goal. Increasing head count by 50% while delivering 250% growth in revenue/engagement/view/etc is what is being rewarded.
  - inoffensivename 4y ago
    Respectfully, I think this is a little bit naive. While the job ladder doesn't explicitly specify org growth as a requirement to get ahead, leading more people is a classic way to get ahead as a relatively junior manager. If a manager's peers are all more senior but are leading similar sized or smaller orgs, it will seem natural that the junior manager should get promoted to the same level. Building orgs is a classic way for managers to get ahead. Actually delivering value is a huge advantage too, but as far as I've seen is not prerequisite for getting ahead.

by titzer 4y ago

aporetics 4y ago

> well-meaning, seemingly harmless, engineering-oriented, and data-driven At some point I really hope that we can all recognize that “seemingly harmless”, “engineering-oriented”, and “data-driven” are not virtues.

JKCalhoun 4y ago
If you believe they are neither vices as well, then I can see your point — they just are. Perhaps this is the point you are making: if one is data-driven and engineering-oriented without regard to the consequences, that could be seen as a vice. Despite the amazing engineering/science, it is hard to come to peace with von Braun or Teller (just to pick two examples).
- aporetics 4y ago
  Yes exactly. But until this is clear and accepted, these terms are apt to be misdirections—for example here, in a discussion trying to understand how things went so wrong at a leading tech company. Hopefully we can get to the point of putting purpose (I think “mission” is a bit too hackneyed and neat to work here) first in discussions of culture, whether corporate or engineering culture.
  - JKCalhoun 4y ago
    I think most of us want to view "engineering culture" as just problem solving, amoral. If these companies we worked for didn't have such an outsized effect on the greater world we live in that would probably be a reasonable way to view engineering culture.

blagie 4y ago

The overall problem -- and this is not specific to Google -- is that managers at all levels are incentivized to grow head counts. Google has at least 10x as many employees as it needs. That's based on decades of revenue being decoupled from costs, and from monopoly profits. It's the double-whammy of being in tech (where costs and revenues don't couple since incremental costs are close to zero), and having a super-profitable monopoly. You can't fire 90% of the workforce; even morale and culture problems aside, at this point, the organization is structured to need too many people. On the other hand, organizing over 100k employees turns into this superorganism problem. At >100k employees, the influence of anyone -- up to and including the CEO -- is very, very limited. Dynamics take over. I've been bearish on Google for a long time, but I haven't shorted the stock. Market irrationality can last a lot longer than my wallet. Fundamentally, though, one could muscle through building a new, better Google for much less than the valuation of Google. Google could also be worth a lot more with a breakup. There is negative synergy between, for example, advertising, Google Workspace, Android, hosting, etc. If those were independent businesses, with partnerships around things like data sharing, the total value could be much higher. Alphabet was a move in the right direction, but the move should have been much deeper. Right now, Alphabet is Google + a bunch of tiny startups.

evgen 4y ago
> The overall problem -- and this is not specific to Google -- is that managers at all levels are incentivized to grow head counts. No one is incentivised to grow head count. They are incentivised to do more, produce more revenue, and expand the reach of the company; most of these goals require the application of more smart people to a problem. They are not getting a promotion or salary bump because their group increased from 200 to 300 people over the previous quarter, they are receiving rewards for being able to effectively direct those people in order to achieve some specific goal. Increasing head count by 50% while delivering 250% growth in revenue/engagement/view/etc is what is being rewarded.
- inoffensivename 4y ago
  Respectfully, I think this is a little bit naive. While the job ladder doesn't explicitly specify org growth as a requirement to get ahead, leading more people is a classic way to get ahead as a relatively junior manager. If a manager's peers are all more senior but are leading similar sized or smaller orgs, it will seem natural that the junior manager should get promoted to the same level. Building orgs is a classic way for managers to get ahead. Actually delivering value is a huge advantage too, but as far as I've seen is not prerequisite for getting ahead.