3 ms·

I often hear a lot of people speak poorly about Googlers, claiming they’re lazy/entitled/whatever, but I hope we can all agree that performance reviews should b

I often hear a lot of people speak poorly about Googlers, claiming they’re lazy/entitled/whatever, but I hope we can all agree that performance reviews should be fair and not expect “the near impossible”. It seems likely that Google over-hired and is trying to avoid public layoffs or just raise productivity/velocity. I wish employers who wanted to layoff workers would do it directly instead.

zug_zug 4y ago
I'd go a step further and say that several marketplaces are moving toward a trend of "Overhire, overwork, attempt to cut the 'bottom' 15%, repeat" [tech support, amazon, now engineers] It's dehumanizing and unsustainable -- any job that sets a pace you can't keep up until retirement (i.e. 30+ more years) is overtaxing you. Not to mention the lack of psychological safety -- no point befriending anybody at work if you're all interchangeable at a moment's notice. I think to turn this trend around we need to say "no" to places that treat you this way, and not glorify them simply because they are big (I'm referring to the F-word).
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Other than the overhire part the trades have been this way for decades...
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > It's dehumanizing and unsustainable Absolutely. And there are a variety of legal solutions to this. Unions are the big scary one in the US. Other nations give employees equal voting power to shareholders etc. I think tech unions could be good. Everyone always defaults to “blue collar” unions like factories that set wages but there are “high skill” unions where wages aren’t set (eg Hollywood unions). They spread the protection around too. Eg if you want to hire a famous Union actor, you need Union cameramen. Everyone wants the famous actor, and that protects the camera crew. In Hollywood unions, they set hours and expectations and basic standards but not salaries and other perks. Another benefit a Union could get is related to on-call load and getting paid for that overtime.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Is it not factored into the high salary? It's always an option to not work at these high comp/high stress companies.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    It’s modern, white collar hazard pay, even if it will take some time for that to be recognized. There are absolutely lower stress, lower pay jobs out there for a lot of these “high stress” skill sets. The declining economy does the same with these choices as it does everywhere - make the risk more acceptable.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    Yes but realistically they’re not paying that much. Most of US salaries have stagnated for years (thanks inflation) but factoring in inflation, this is where white collar salaries should be. A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a young single person, but not to support a family. Obviously most people make less, and most households in America make less, but a solid, comfortable, stress free, middle-class life expects that now.
    - ethics13 4y ago
      >>A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most >>of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with >>college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a >>young single person, but not to support a family. Especially in cities like New York, San Francisco, etc...
  - olliej 4y ago
    The salaries aren't particularly high at google vs any other tech company, especially when you look at the cost of living where they are located. A lot of total comp is in the form a stock grants, which given stagnating and decreasing stock price represents a reduction in total comp for folk who are there long enough. But also there's a difference between "this is your salary" and "this is your salary, but your job is no longer any safer than a contractor's"
- throwaway128128 4y ago
  It's called "rank and yank", a philosophy invented by Jack Welch at GE and wielded heartlessly Microsoft for decades.
mathverse 4y ago
I dont get overhiring for money printing companies like Google. Cant they just move these people into some “experiment, r&d divisions”?
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  Google hasn’t built new income streams though, despite being famously R&D focused. Look at stadia, or their countless other paid products they killed.
  - steve1977 4y ago
    As customer, I haven’t really seen any innovation from Google in the last couple of years and the quality of their core products (search, YouTube, Gmail) has rather deteriorated than improved.
- thefourthchime 4y ago
  That’s all they do. They come up with something, make it a product for a couple years. Then kill it. They have zero commitment to any of these products. If they don’t suddenly become the next search they’re dead.
  - astrange 4y ago
    They also make up internal projects because external software can’t handle their “scale” they also made up. And rewrite all their internal projects every few years because that’s the best way to deal with their changing environment, which changes due to their policy of rewriting everything every few years. Basically what I’m saying is they’d do fine if all their engineers just stayed home for a year.
    - dilyevsky 4y ago
      > They also make up internal projects because external software can’t handle their “scale” they also made up Which part of their scale did companies like Google and Netflix make up?
justin_oaks 4y ago
Performance reviews should be fair, but I dare say that none of them are. They're based on the subjective views of the bosses. I wish we could all just drop the charade and eliminate formal performance reviews. Bosses should provide frequent feedback on employees' performance, not just once a year. I don't believe that low performers (or perhaps employees that the boss dislikes) should be surprised that they're getting fired. They should be able to see it coming well before it happens.
- wildrhythms 4y ago
  >Bosses should provide frequent feedback on employees' performance, not just once a year. I agree, but I don't think this addresses the problem; a boss with an axe to grind, or some quota to fulfill still leaves the worker with no means of pushback within the organization (absent of collective action).
- gcheong 4y ago
  It's more or less a CYA thing for HR when someone is let go for "performance reasons".
- joshuamorton 4y ago
  Fun fact, these are all things that the new system encodes. Before you can officially be given bad ratings, you have to have like 1-2 quarters of official warnings and you get feedback/check-ins on performance quarterly as opposed to 1-2x a year under Google's own system.
joshuamorton 4y ago
The expectations for that top rating band (previously "Superb", now "Transformative") have always been high. Something like 3-4% of people are expected to get it per cycle. I've been promoted at a well above average pace, and even with strong performance and a strongly supportive manager, only managed to come close to that top rating once. There's really no expectation that anyone ever get that top rating. Most employees never will. That's fine.

zug_zug 4y ago

I'd go a step further and say that several marketplaces are moving toward a trend of "Overhire, overwork, attempt to cut the 'bottom' 15%, repeat" [tech support, amazon, now engineers] It's dehumanizing and unsustainable -- any job that sets a pace you can't keep up until retirement (i.e. 30+ more years) is overtaxing you. Not to mention the lack of psychological safety -- no point befriending anybody at work if you're all interchangeable at a moment's notice. I think to turn this trend around we need to say "no" to places that treat you this way, and not glorify them simply because they are big (I'm referring to the F-word).

dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Other than the overhire part the trades have been this way for decades...
vineyardmike 4y ago
> It's dehumanizing and unsustainable Absolutely. And there are a variety of legal solutions to this. Unions are the big scary one in the US. Other nations give employees equal voting power to shareholders etc. I think tech unions could be good. Everyone always defaults to “blue collar” unions like factories that set wages but there are “high skill” unions where wages aren’t set (eg Hollywood unions). They spread the protection around too. Eg if you want to hire a famous Union actor, you need Union cameramen. Everyone wants the famous actor, and that protects the camera crew. In Hollywood unions, they set hours and expectations and basic standards but not salaries and other perks. Another benefit a Union could get is related to on-call load and getting paid for that overtime.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Is it not factored into the high salary? It's always an option to not work at these high comp/high stress companies.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  It’s modern, white collar hazard pay, even if it will take some time for that to be recognized. There are absolutely lower stress, lower pay jobs out there for a lot of these “high stress” skill sets. The declining economy does the same with these choices as it does everywhere - make the risk more acceptable.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  Yes but realistically they’re not paying that much. Most of US salaries have stagnated for years (thanks inflation) but factoring in inflation, this is where white collar salaries should be. A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a young single person, but not to support a family. Obviously most people make less, and most households in America make less, but a solid, comfortable, stress free, middle-class life expects that now.
  - ethics13 4y ago
    >>A starting salary of 100k (lower than most FAANGs) may be excessive but in most >>of America 100k is barely enough for a house, car, kids (especially with >>college), and a comfortable retirement savings. It’s more than enough for a >>young single person, but not to support a family. Especially in cities like New York, San Francisco, etc...
- olliej 4y ago
  The salaries aren't particularly high at google vs any other tech company, especially when you look at the cost of living where they are located. A lot of total comp is in the form a stock grants, which given stagnating and decreasing stock price represents a reduction in total comp for folk who are there long enough. But also there's a difference between "this is your salary" and "this is your salary, but your job is no longer any safer than a contractor's"
throwaway128128 4y ago
It's called "rank and yank", a philosophy invented by Jack Welch at GE and wielded heartlessly Microsoft for decades.

mathverse 4y ago

I dont get overhiring for money printing companies like Google. Cant they just move these people into some “experiment, r&d divisions”?

vineyardmike 4y ago
Google hasn’t built new income streams though, despite being famously R&D focused. Look at stadia, or their countless other paid products they killed.
- steve1977 4y ago
  As customer, I haven’t really seen any innovation from Google in the last couple of years and the quality of their core products (search, YouTube, Gmail) has rather deteriorated than improved.
thefourthchime 4y ago
That’s all they do. They come up with something, make it a product for a couple years. Then kill it. They have zero commitment to any of these products. If they don’t suddenly become the next search they’re dead.
- astrange 4y ago
  They also make up internal projects because external software can’t handle their “scale” they also made up. And rewrite all their internal projects every few years because that’s the best way to deal with their changing environment, which changes due to their policy of rewriting everything every few years. Basically what I’m saying is they’d do fine if all their engineers just stayed home for a year.
  - dilyevsky 4y ago
    > They also make up internal projects because external software can’t handle their “scale” they also made up Which part of their scale did companies like Google and Netflix make up?

justin_oaks 4y ago

Performance reviews should be fair, but I dare say that none of them are. They're based on the subjective views of the bosses. I wish we could all just drop the charade and eliminate formal performance reviews. Bosses should provide frequent feedback on employees' performance, not just once a year. I don't believe that low performers (or perhaps employees that the boss dislikes) should be surprised that they're getting fired. They should be able to see it coming well before it happens.

wildrhythms 4y ago
>Bosses should provide frequent feedback on employees' performance, not just once a year. I agree, but I don't think this addresses the problem; a boss with an axe to grind, or some quota to fulfill still leaves the worker with no means of pushback within the organization (absent of collective action).
gcheong 4y ago
It's more or less a CYA thing for HR when someone is let go for "performance reasons".
joshuamorton 4y ago
Fun fact, these are all things that the new system encodes. Before you can officially be given bad ratings, you have to have like 1-2 quarters of official warnings and you get feedback/check-ins on performance quarterly as opposed to 1-2x a year under Google's own system.

joshuamorton 4y ago

The expectations for that top rating band (previously "Superb", now "Transformative") have always been high. Something like 3-4% of people are expected to get it per cycle. I've been promoted at a well above average pace, and even with strong performance and a strongly supportive manager, only managed to come close to that top rating once. There's really no expectation that anyone ever get that top rating. Most employees never will. That's fine.