4 ms·

I saw someone who was laid off after being at Google for 16 years. I saw their resume and they had only been a manager for the last few years and before that th

I saw someone who was laid off after being at Google for 16 years. I saw their resume and they had only been a manager for the last few years and before that they were just Senior. I think if you’re only L5/L6 after 16 years then you’re probably a low performer. This is especially true at a company like Google which was a rocket ship in the last 16 years which means there were a million opportunities to get ahead. Your future value is lower than someone who made L6 after 8 years because that person may be a director in another 8 years. It doesn’t sound very nice but it’s fair.

pm90 4y ago
> I think if you’re only L5/L6 after 16 years then you’re probably a low performer. L5 is supposed to be a “terminal level” so there isn’t an expectation for employees to want to advance further. But perhaps there are some implicit assumptions on max tenure at that level.
- sahila 4y ago
  *L4 is now the new terminal. Agree with what you said otherwise.
temp20160423 4y ago
If everyone is gunning for L6 after 8 years or L6 -> director in 8 more years, then the culture will be much worse. Assuming the long-tenured senior SWE is actually a solid engineer but doesn't want to play politics or manage up as required for L6+, this was a person who made G a very pleasant place to work. I know many L5 like this: smart, helpful, and made excellent colleagues. That being said, I doubt it was mostly targeting people who were tenured too long without enough promos. My guess is these are people without the full backing of their upper mgmnt chain. Since even directors had no input into this layoff round, you needed your VP's support. Added: maybe the person above is right since the grad changes are already moving G's culture into a more aggressive mode. G will slowly become like the other big tech companies (G will just pay slightly less since people will still have the outdated perception that the culture is better).
nilkn 4y ago
I wouldn't infer that the person is a low performer. However, I do think it's fairly likely they were either unknown at the VP level or not viewed as worth fighting to keep by VPs. Large layoffs are typically discussed and orchestrated only at the highest levels of management, so if you're an IC if you want to be protected you need to be on the radar of your boss's boss's boss's boss (or something like that). And I think you're right that someone who sat at L5/L6 for 15+ years wouldn't be a stand out at that level by any stretch.

pm90 4y ago

> I think if you’re only L5/L6 after 16 years then you’re probably a low performer. L5 is supposed to be a “terminal level” so there isn’t an expectation for employees to want to advance further. But perhaps there are some implicit assumptions on max tenure at that level.

sahila 4y ago
*L4 is now the new terminal. Agree with what you said otherwise.

temp20160423 4y ago

If everyone is gunning for L6 after 8 years or L6 -> director in 8 more years, then the culture will be much worse. Assuming the long-tenured senior SWE is actually a solid engineer but doesn't want to play politics or manage up as required for L6+, this was a person who made G a very pleasant place to work. I know many L5 like this: smart, helpful, and made excellent colleagues. That being said, I doubt it was mostly targeting people who were tenured too long without enough promos. My guess is these are people without the full backing of their upper mgmnt chain. Since even directors had no input into this layoff round, you needed your VP's support. Added: maybe the person above is right since the grad changes are already moving G's culture into a more aggressive mode. G will slowly become like the other big tech companies (G will just pay slightly less since people will still have the outdated perception that the culture is better).

nilkn 4y ago

I wouldn't infer that the person is a low performer. However, I do think it's fairly likely they were either unknown at the VP level or not viewed as worth fighting to keep by VPs. Large layoffs are typically discussed and orchestrated only at the highest levels of management, so if you're an IC if you want to be protected you need to be on the radar of your boss's boss's boss's boss (or something like that). And I think you're right that someone who sat at L5/L6 for 15+ years wouldn't be a stand out at that level by any stretch.