4 ms·

A lot of people are saying this biased towards letting go of high-paying engineers. Rather, from anecdotes I've heard, there seems to have been a focus on long-

A lot of people are saying this biased towards letting go of high-paying engineers. Rather, from anecdotes I've heard, there seems to have been a focus on long-tenured folk (people who have been around for 10+ years). There may have been some rationale that these folks are too comfortable, etc. But, when you let go of people who have been around that long, it sends a pretty bad message about how you treat long-standing contributors. I think it also underestimates the value those long-tenured folk bring purely by nature of having context on past decisions.

bushbaba 4y ago
Would not the folks who've been around for 10+ years have comp way higher than a more recent hire given Google's 4+ year refresher structure coupled with stock growth?
- medler 4y ago
  Grants vest over four years so being there longer than that doesn’t organically increase your comp or give you more benefit from stock growth. I guess it could be different for people at very high levels
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    People who have been there for longer are more likely to be a higher level though, which would mean higher total comp.
- Ozzie_osman 4y ago
  Yes, it almost certainly correlates.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
anoncoward604 4y ago
My complete asspull rationale when I saw the distinguished engineer got cut was that maybe they thought he wouldn't be as useful if Google tries to hard pivot into generative ai just because he was so focused on search as a topic. More generally high tenureship could come with baggage as to how they view the business and how things are just done. However, at the end of the day smart people are just smart people and even with a background in another discipline or lots of history at a company can adapt to new modalities of operation and still add value so I don't really believe it. It is something I could see a manager or other suit saying though when looking over salaries to justify the decision...

bushbaba 4y ago

Would not the folks who've been around for 10+ years have comp way higher than a more recent hire given Google's 4+ year refresher structure coupled with stock growth?

medler 4y ago
Grants vest over four years so being there longer than that doesn’t organically increase your comp or give you more benefit from stock growth. I guess it could be different for people at very high levels
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  People who have been there for longer are more likely to be a higher level though, which would mean higher total comp.
Ozzie_osman 4y ago
Yes, it almost certainly correlates.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

anoncoward604 4y ago

My complete asspull rationale when I saw the distinguished engineer got cut was that maybe they thought he wouldn't be as useful if Google tries to hard pivot into generative ai just because he was so focused on search as a topic. More generally high tenureship could come with baggage as to how they view the business and how things are just done. However, at the end of the day smart people are just smart people and even with a background in another discipline or lots of history at a company can adapt to new modalities of operation and still add value so I don't really believe it. It is something I could see a manager or other suit saying though when looking over salaries to justify the decision...