4 ms·

Here’s some reliable second-hand information I’m posting on this one-off account. Take this with whatever degree of salt you wish. My understanding from somebo

Here’s some reliable second-hand information I’m posting on this one-off account. Take this with whatever degree of salt you wish. My understanding from somebody in a position to know is each VP was given a target/quota of cuts. Then they basically had big spreadsheets with salaries and performance ratings, and then pseudo-blindly cut teams or people to make quotas without input from directors/managers, and gave those lists to SPVs. On receipt of these lists some of the VPs were then canned. To avoid lawsuits for discrimination in the USA they then added some statistical “noise” by firing a number of people randomly so the numbers balanced out with no “bias”. The company is run by total morons in my opinion. I’m an extremely high performer with world class expertise. I didn’t get cut, but I’m interviewing elsewhere. I won’t work someplace my tenure is based on a dice roll. I’d rather take PIP culture. Ultimately Google needs me more than the other way around.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Yep. I think it really is the end for them as a company with a reputation for attracting really bright people. They were in decline over the last 6-7 years, but now Sundar really really blew it. The sheen will just wear off more and more until they just look like any another spent SV company from the past. There was I'm sure a way to make a whole restructuring or cost cutting process happen in a way that could have salvaged their reputation. But they didn't spend any effort trying to find it. And if ad spend drops significantly and/or there's actual anti-monopoly enforcement against them, it will really accelerate things. They have enough $$ they can coast for years, but it isn't going to be pretty.
- temp-goog 4y ago
  [dead]
raydev 4y ago
> I won’t work someplace my tenure is based on a dice roll. Having lived through multiple layoffs in the last few years, I'm not sure there's any org larger than, just handwaving here, 1k people that doesn't do this. I think you'd have to go to a startup before your absence is actually felt.
- temp-goog 4y ago
  That’s a good point, also why I’m looking closely at startups.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Yep. I think it really is the end for them as a company with a reputation for attracting really bright people. They were in decline over the last 6-7 years, but now Sundar really really blew it. The sheen will just wear off more and more until they just look like any another spent SV company from the past. There was I'm sure a way to make a whole restructuring or cost cutting process happen in a way that could have salvaged their reputation. But they didn't spend any effort trying to find it. And if ad spend drops significantly and/or there's actual anti-monopoly enforcement against them, it will really accelerate things. They have enough $$ they can coast for years, but it isn't going to be pretty.

temp-goog 4y ago
[dead]

raydev 4y ago

> I won’t work someplace my tenure is based on a dice roll. Having lived through multiple layoffs in the last few years, I'm not sure there's any org larger than, just handwaving here, 1k people that doesn't do this. I think you'd have to go to a startup before your absence is actually felt.

temp-goog 4y ago
That’s a good point, also why I’m looking closely at startups.