3 ms·
Poetic but misguided. The Google of 2005 didn't have so much fat to trim. When you have 150k employees, there's no escaping it. Not everyone is going to be hung
by suddenexample 4y ago
Poetic but misguided. The Google of 2005 didn't have so much fat to trim. When you have 150k employees, there's no escaping it. Not everyone is going to be hungry, and certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better. Many are happy to collect their paycheck while doing 20 hours of unambitious work per week.
- acituan 4y agoNow the remainder will do 50 hours of "ambitious" work for projects that will eventually get axed, redone, reorganized etc. It was never a raw productivity per hour problem, it was an organizing productivity behind meaningful, useful and profitable projects problem. > certainly not interested or in a position to build things 100x better in an organizational complexity of 150k -> 138k workforce, no one is in a position to make things 10x better, let alone 100x. Shedding 12k is a scapegoating gesture as if there is such a possibility, merely to ease the anxiety of the market price of shares. It doesn't even directly move the needle for profit/asset ratio, but it will help depressing wages with the theatre of "look what we had to do".