4 ms·

Okay, but then, why fire such rockstars as Di Bona and Allison?? These are not coasters. AT&T and whatever company inherited the Bell Labs might have done roun

Okay, but then, why fire such rockstars as Di Bona and Allison?? These are not coasters. AT&T and whatever company inherited the Bell Labs might have done rounds after rounds of layoffs but never fired Dennis Ritchie, for example. People such as DiBona and Allison are assets to any company who can afford to hire them. This is simply unexplainable.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Because that in particular will freak everyone else in the company out, and .. most importantly... Google is no longer scared about those people going to their competition, because their competition is also flushing talent away. In the past, Google was willing to dump all sorts of cash into talent as long as it kept people from creating a truly competitive landscape. Now, they don't have to worry as much. The layoffs had nothing to do with getting rid of low performers, it was a way of putting everyone on notice that it doesn't matter how well you perform... management has the power, not you.
- sumeno 4y ago
  Random layoffs that affect high performers and low performers equally doesn't encourage performing higher. If anything it encourages performing lower because why bother if it's not going to even save your job?
  - djur 4y ago
    It might not be so much about encouraging performance as encouraging compliance.
    - rqtwteye 4y ago
      That’s my impression of large companies. They value compliance way more than performance.
  - raydev 4y ago
    Because it doesn't matter. The idea that these companies are overflowing with "low performers" is a complete myth, a lie that people use to comfort themselves. The Big Names are actually filled with so many smart and productive people that it doesn't matter who they lay off.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Ok but why work harder when the message was "it doesn't matter how hard you work"?
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  are you suggesting that they are intentionally scaring their staff in order to increase productivity? What management school is this thesis from?
  - oblio 4y ago
    The management school of stupidity, which in practice is met a lot more than any other management school, even at top tier companies. The more I read about this stuff, the more I realize that a lot of is out of sheer luck of hitting product market fit. Google monopolized open internet ads 20 years ago and except for protecting their moat they haven't done much else, 90% of their money still comes from there. They're trying to expand with the cloud, but they're a distant 3rd or 4th.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    it's not to increase productivity, it's to increase compliance and push down salary bands. Have you forgotten this is the same company that had a backroom non-poaching pact with Apple (and probably other SV firms) a decade ago? And got caught red handed and got in a shitload of trouble for it? When I joined Google in 2011 they were still dealing the fallout from that.
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      > it's not to increase productivity, it's to increase compliance and push down salary bands. Its as if someone has forgotten that they can increase revenue instead.
      - hnfong 4y ago
        Which one is easier for executives, particularly during a recession?
        Quarrelsome 4y ago
        fair point, short-termism is so ick and its such little thinking.
- sombragris 4y ago
  That would put me on notice that it is not worth working for such a company and I'd start sending résumés to various recruiters. No matter how you would explain this, it is nothing short of idiotic.
- rurp 4y ago
  This reasoning seems plausible to me, but it seems to be having the opposite on employees from what I have seen. Why invest yourself in a company that will fire thousands of people for petty reasons? I think this will cause many employees to shift more focus on how to look good on paper, versus doing actual interesting or useful work that might fly under the radar.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Google makes so much money on ad revenues that their entire workforce could be completely lazy and unproductive and get almost nothing done and they'd still have money to burn. Ads is a money printing machine. The most important roles there are SRE, data centre, and ops/infra jobs that keep the machine up and running.
    - ghostpepper 4y ago
      Are you sure about that? "Profits [in Q3 2022] were at $13.9 billion, down from $18.9 billion in Q3 2021" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/google-profits-plummet-27-percent-in-q3-2022-earnings-report/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/google-profits-plumm...
hortense 4y ago
> These are not coasters. Citation needed. Even if they were not coasters, I suspect they had a fat paycheck disproportionate to what they brought to the company.
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  This ratio is key. Impact/pay. And from what I gathered working there until 2020, impact was starting to weigh more on how you elevate others around you. Meaning leadership. These “stars” might have personal brand power, but if they are collecting big pay and even working “hard” it might not be enough
  - nvarsj 4y ago
    IME, having worked with "tech celebrities", the veneer they can work so hard on maintaining isn't exactly reflective of actually working with them. I worked with one particularly famous person, who barely did anything internally, and spent all their time on external conferences and talks to preserve their external reputation - mostly coasting on past accomplishments. Not saying that's what happened here, but public visibility isn't correlated to internal engineering/leadership impact imo, and can even be detrimental.
    - gumby 4y ago
      > IME, having worked with "tech celebrities", the veneer they can work so hard on maintaining...Not saying that's what happened here... I know both Chris and Jeremy well and I wouldn't imagine either of them trying to "maintain a veneer"
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - zeruch 4y ago
        Knowing Jeremy fairly well, I would certainly agree on that.
    - 4y ago
KKKKkkkk1 4y ago
> Okay, but then, why fire such rockstars as Di Bona and Allison?? These are not coasters. The official messaging is that the layoffs were made in areas that are low priority for the company. Open source has been an afterthought at Google for many years. Occam's razor says that these people were laid off because they were working in areas of low priority.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Because that in particular will freak everyone else in the company out, and .. most importantly... Google is no longer scared about those people going to their competition, because their competition is also flushing talent away. In the past, Google was willing to dump all sorts of cash into talent as long as it kept people from creating a truly competitive landscape. Now, they don't have to worry as much. The layoffs had nothing to do with getting rid of low performers, it was a way of putting everyone on notice that it doesn't matter how well you perform... management has the power, not you.

sumeno 4y ago
Random layoffs that affect high performers and low performers equally doesn't encourage performing higher. If anything it encourages performing lower because why bother if it's not going to even save your job?
- djur 4y ago
  It might not be so much about encouraging performance as encouraging compliance.
  - rqtwteye 4y ago
    That’s my impression of large companies. They value compliance way more than performance.
- raydev 4y ago
  Because it doesn't matter. The idea that these companies are overflowing with "low performers" is a complete myth, a lie that people use to comfort themselves. The Big Names are actually filled with so many smart and productive people that it doesn't matter who they lay off.
sanderjd 4y ago
Ok but why work harder when the message was "it doesn't matter how hard you work"?
Quarrelsome 4y ago
are you suggesting that they are intentionally scaring their staff in order to increase productivity? What management school is this thesis from?
- oblio 4y ago
  The management school of stupidity, which in practice is met a lot more than any other management school, even at top tier companies. The more I read about this stuff, the more I realize that a lot of is out of sheer luck of hitting product market fit. Google monopolized open internet ads 20 years ago and except for protecting their moat they haven't done much else, 90% of their money still comes from there. They're trying to expand with the cloud, but they're a distant 3rd or 4th.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  it's not to increase productivity, it's to increase compliance and push down salary bands. Have you forgotten this is the same company that had a backroom non-poaching pact with Apple (and probably other SV firms) a decade ago? And got caught red handed and got in a shitload of trouble for it? When I joined Google in 2011 they were still dealing the fallout from that.
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    > it's not to increase productivity, it's to increase compliance and push down salary bands. Its as if someone has forgotten that they can increase revenue instead.
    - hnfong 4y ago
      Which one is easier for executives, particularly during a recession?
      - Quarrelsome 4y ago
        fair point, short-termism is so ick and its such little thinking.
sombragris 4y ago
That would put me on notice that it is not worth working for such a company and I'd start sending résumés to various recruiters. No matter how you would explain this, it is nothing short of idiotic.
rurp 4y ago
This reasoning seems plausible to me, but it seems to be having the opposite on employees from what I have seen. Why invest yourself in a company that will fire thousands of people for petty reasons? I think this will cause many employees to shift more focus on how to look good on paper, versus doing actual interesting or useful work that might fly under the radar.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Google makes so much money on ad revenues that their entire workforce could be completely lazy and unproductive and get almost nothing done and they'd still have money to burn. Ads is a money printing machine. The most important roles there are SRE, data centre, and ops/infra jobs that keep the machine up and running.
  - ghostpepper 4y ago
    Are you sure about that? "Profits [in Q3 2022] were at $13.9 billion, down from $18.9 billion in Q3 2021" https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/google-profits-plummet-27-percent-in-q3-2022-earnings-report/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/10/google-profits-plumm...

hortense 4y ago

> These are not coasters. Citation needed. Even if they were not coasters, I suspect they had a fat paycheck disproportionate to what they brought to the company.

enos_feedler 4y ago
This ratio is key. Impact/pay. And from what I gathered working there until 2020, impact was starting to weigh more on how you elevate others around you. Meaning leadership. These “stars” might have personal brand power, but if they are collecting big pay and even working “hard” it might not be enough
- nvarsj 4y ago
  IME, having worked with "tech celebrities", the veneer they can work so hard on maintaining isn't exactly reflective of actually working with them. I worked with one particularly famous person, who barely did anything internally, and spent all their time on external conferences and talks to preserve their external reputation - mostly coasting on past accomplishments. Not saying that's what happened here, but public visibility isn't correlated to internal engineering/leadership impact imo, and can even be detrimental.
  - gumby 4y ago
    > IME, having worked with "tech celebrities", the veneer they can work so hard on maintaining...Not saying that's what happened here... I know both Chris and Jeremy well and I wouldn't imagine either of them trying to "maintain a veneer"
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - zeruch 4y ago
      Knowing Jeremy fairly well, I would certainly agree on that.
  - 4y ago

KKKKkkkk1 4y ago

> Okay, but then, why fire such rockstars as Di Bona and Allison?? These are not coasters. The official messaging is that the layoffs were made in areas that are low priority for the company. Open source has been an afterthought at Google for many years. Occam's razor says that these people were laid off because they were working in areas of low priority.