4 ms·

Apologies if this is naive, but it seems like Google employees need to understand that its no longer a company that has their interests at heart. The company le

by pm90 4y ago

Apologies if this is naive, but it seems like Google employees need to understand that its no longer a company that has their interests at heart. The company leadership is making it clear through their actions. Is the expectation that leadership will really provide more clarity on why high performers were laid off? Why? What will the employees do if they don’t, or more likely let consultants come up with nonanswers?

vineyardmike 4y ago
> Google employees need to understand that its no longer a company that has their interests at heart. Google has spent decades trying to create this image, but you're right. > Is the expectation that leadership will really provide more clarity on why high performers were laid off? The company said nothing. If you don't know why someone was impacted, you can't know how to avoid future impact if you survived. Its bad for morale if everyone is looking over their shoulder. If the company hit low-performers, than its flawed if coworkers perceive a high-performer impacted (which is scary, since you could be the false-positive next). If its based on team (more important team, less important team), than people in "low priority" teams will want to prep their resume. > Why? Morale. If your employees are scared, they may work harder now, but they won't be loyal, and you may have issues long-term. Compare google to amazon.
- mandeepj 4y ago
  > Compare google to amazon. Is there any difference now between them?
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    One bad deed vs many bad deeds? Give it time and wait to see. Microsoft supposedly got less-toxic as it aged, so there’s room for significant change.
    - mandeepj 4y ago
      > there’s room for significant change. And, that comes with top leadership change like MS. I don’t think Google is toxic, just mismanaged. That can’t be said entirely about Amazon.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  > people in "low priority" teams will want to prep their resume. That seems like sound advice in general.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  I am confident that it is based on team. I know nearby teams that were unaffected that have short-tenure underperformers at multiple seniority levels. I had a solid performer with upward rating trajectory on my team fired. That is 100% a judgement on the relative importance of my team vs other teams. I don't know what mechanism was chosen once the teams were chosen, but I'm almost certain that it started with the teams.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - doktorhladnjak 4y ago
    Every layoff is a combination of factors. Although the specific combo is unique, from most to least common in tech goes something like: team/product: Product X is being deprioritized/sunset, cost centers vs revenue centers performance: those with worse reviews, those on PIP or otherwise in the process of being fired pay: often negotiated better upon hire but are otherwise similar to others at your level, sometimes more experienced employees role: we’re eliminating all testers, we’re reducing the ratio of designers to engineers location: we are closing this office to save on real estate and compliance costs tenure: first hired, first fired

by pm90 4y ago

vineyardmike 4y ago

> Google employees need to understand that its no longer a company that has their interests at heart. Google has spent decades trying to create this image, but you're right. > Is the expectation that leadership will really provide more clarity on why high performers were laid off? The company said nothing. If you don't know why someone was impacted, you can't know how to avoid future impact if you survived. Its bad for morale if everyone is looking over their shoulder. If the company hit low-performers, than its flawed if coworkers perceive a high-performer impacted (which is scary, since you could be the false-positive next). If its based on team (more important team, less important team), than people in "low priority" teams will want to prep their resume. > Why? Morale. If your employees are scared, they may work harder now, but they won't be loyal, and you may have issues long-term. Compare google to amazon.

mandeepj 4y ago
> Compare google to amazon. Is there any difference now between them?
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  One bad deed vs many bad deeds? Give it time and wait to see. Microsoft supposedly got less-toxic as it aged, so there’s room for significant change.
  - mandeepj 4y ago
    > there’s room for significant change. And, that comes with top leadership change like MS. I don’t think Google is toxic, just mismanaged. That can’t be said entirely about Amazon.
sokoloff 4y ago
> people in "low priority" teams will want to prep their resume. That seems like sound advice in general.
UncleMeat 4y ago
I am confident that it is based on team. I know nearby teams that were unaffected that have short-tenure underperformers at multiple seniority levels. I had a solid performer with upward rating trajectory on my team fired. That is 100% a judgement on the relative importance of my team vs other teams. I don't know what mechanism was chosen once the teams were chosen, but I'm almost certain that it started with the teams.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- doktorhladnjak 4y ago
  Every layoff is a combination of factors. Although the specific combo is unique, from most to least common in tech goes something like: team/product: Product X is being deprioritized/sunset, cost centers vs revenue centers performance: those with worse reviews, those on PIP or otherwise in the process of being fired pay: often negotiated better upon hire but are otherwise similar to others at your level, sometimes more experienced employees role: we’re eliminating all testers, we’re reducing the ratio of designers to engineers location: we are closing this office to save on real estate and compliance costs tenure: first hired, first fired