3 ms·

What an odd message to fire across all employees. For an industry that wants so desperately to believe in meritocracy, to admit that there is a somewhat hidden

by taeric 4y ago

What an odd message to fire across all employees. For an industry that wants so desperately to believe in meritocracy, to admit that there is a somewhat hidden quota on how many people you want at a given level feels to give the lie to the idea that it is strictly merit based.

version_five 4y ago
No that doesn't make sense. Meritocracy doesn't automatically mean "promoting" someone when they have checked some boxes. That's actually the opposite. I see lots of people that approach work as if it's public school, that if they do the things the need to pass grade 4, they get into grade 5, and lots of companies pretend it's that way for junior roles. There is a "quota" for each level, it's driven by the business need. That has no relationship with merit based promotion.
- taeric 4y ago
  I hate to play the definition game, but "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability" is given for meritocracy. If your ability is that you are at that level, you should be held to that level. If this is a meritocracy. If promotion is also bound by availability of "slots" at a given level, than by definition you will exclude some folks that are otherwise at that level. I fully sympathize that inflation of level is a thing. I also fully sympathize that resources to use people at a given level are finite. Such that you will have to do this for practical reasons. Still, the message for that is almost certainly tailored to the individual that you turned down and best left for the specifics. Blasting out this message as generically as it was done just feels wrong.
  - huhneverthot 4y ago
    [dead]
  - bentlegen 4y ago
    Aside (and this is not meant as a rebuttal), it’s interesting to me that nobody denies that managerial roles only have so many “slots” (e.g. can’t have 5 CTOs or 7 VPEs, or Directors managing teams of 2 people), and yet, nobody decries the lack of opportunities for those in the management track.
    - taeric 4y ago
      Me thinks you just don't listen to enough people complain? :D I've certainly heard those complaints. More than a few times. Now, I'm fully onboard with what I think I read as part of your main point here. Management is a skill and it can be funny how few folks in the non-management world will acknowledge that. You can see similar with coaches. And it seems to be human nature that we love building a hierarchy up to a single point. Even in very distributed organizations.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    Meritocracy has never been about that. It's always about filling the necessary roles with the best qualified people available. The purpose of meritocracy is not about rewarding people who meet arbitrary thresholds with fake titles and higher compensation. It's about giving the organization better chances to reach its goals. If you have the ability to perform at a higher level but there are enough people with even more ability, you won't get promoted in a meritocracy.
    - taeric 4y ago
      I mean, I know that it can be justified in many ways. But, know that if you have positions that are filled and only promote new ones when "merit is matched by availability," than you are bound to have some people that are more qualified than those in the currently held slots. Which will again hamstring the spirit behind the idea that this was the "best qualified people available." It is at best that with the added "at that time." And you are trying to allude to inflation of role and expectations, I suspect? And that is a thing. But since you don't demote people that fall behind on the inflation, you are back to my first paragraph. That or you are pushing out the folks to make room, but you will regret pushing out some folks from the highest levels.
      - jltsiren 4y ago
        Meritocracy is fundamentally about the needs of the organization. It's about making the organization more effective. It's common that there are people who would be more qualified to a position than the person currently holding the position, as long as we view merits in isolation. But the real ability the organization cares about is the ability to advance the goals of the organization when working within the organization. If replacing a person with a "more qualified" one demoralizes other employees enough that the organization's ability to reach its goals is compromised, the replacement is actually less qualified than the original person.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  There is no "business need" like this at Google. This is a company swimming in cash for where most individuals' work has little relevance to revenue bottom lines or business success. They'll kill or promote entire products because a given product area's position shifted in position on an org chart, or because some set of people involved don't feel they can get promotions or corporate success anymore from it. The drive is political success. The criterion is openly about ability to promote and politic one's work. ("Demonstrating impact", key emphasis on "demonstrating". Written PRDs and design docs, name prominently placed, recognition from peers. Esp if they're on other teams, etc.) It's frankly what you get when you have a company founded by academics who never worked in industry (but know all about defending your thesis to a committee, or "publish or perish") combined with unbounded revenue and seemingly infinite growth.
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  Might be true for management or leadership positions. Less true for IC roles. I find those roles tend to see promotions doled out when companies are desperately trying to keep people from leaving.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  The old system was always "define each level based on business objectives and expectations and then promote people when they are demonstrating that they are hitting those objectives and expectations." So you couldn't be promoted to L7 unless there was a business need for an L7 because you must be doing L7 work, which requires a business need.
gotoeleven 4y ago
I don't think you have the merit to understand relative measures.
chitowneats 4y ago
The private sector grades on a curve. That curve is bent over time and the levels adjust.
spankalee 4y ago
There's always been a promotion budget.
lliamander 4y ago
Most everything I've seen about advancing beyond "career-level" (usually into a "staff+" engineer track) has said that ability alone will not get you a promotion. In general, there needs to be a "business need" for those positions to be created in the first place. It does not run contrary to the idea of meritocracy to assert that a firm has limit on the number of people that it can hire into a certain position - so long as the people who do fill those are selected are (more or less) the most qualified. Note that I am not saying anything about whether Google actually meets this ideal.
- taeric 4y ago
  I mean, at a very real level, that is true for all positions. If the business doesn't have a need to pay you at a level, they won't do so. I thought I had just always heard pride from the Google sphere about how they were much closer to the ideal of a meritocracy than other places. This feels... not that. :D
kodah 4y ago
Tech isn't and hasn't been a meritocracy, I think a lot of people are having to grapple with this idea this year. Worse, a lot of people are also finding out that high salaries of tech often aren't worth it when you're forced to work in very expensive areas that negate much of that salary. There's a bubble that popped this year, and much of it was what the idea of tech to some people was.
yodsanklai 4y ago
Promotion isn't the only way to get rewarded. Bonus, refresher, raise. There's a lot of leverage there.
- shaftway 4y ago
  Not at Google. Most of those things are decided for your manager with no knowledge of the person they're for. Your peers can affect your total comp by about 3 figures. Your manager can directly affect your total comp by about 4 figures. If you really go above and beyond your director can bump that to 5 figures. For anything bigger than that you'll need a promo. Bonuses, refreshers and raises were all clockwork.
- UncleMeat 4y ago
  Only sort of. Merit lines suck this year and O/T ratings are consumed by people on the promo track. Managers get little discretion for salary/bonus payouts. There is much more discretion for equity, but tons of line managers aren't equity planners and my experience is that equity discretion largely goes to people above L5. I've got a high performing L5 who is critical to the success of my team. My discretion on their raise was largely undone by my director and nobody acted on my recommendation that they receive discretion on their equity refresh.
chrismcb 4y ago
I'm not saying it is strictly merit based. But saying you are limiting the number didn't mean it isn't merit based. The idea is they still want to take the top x people, it is just that x is smaller. Or a better way to look at it, is they are just making it harder. Someone who got promoted a year ago may not get promoted now. Didn't mean it isn't merit based
throwawaylinux 4y ago
Meritocracy became racist, sexist, extremist, and various other -ists and -isms many years ago. A corporation like Google wants to be seen as supporting meritocracy in the US about as much as they want to be seen as supporting gay rights in Saudi.

by taeric 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

No that doesn't make sense. Meritocracy doesn't automatically mean "promoting" someone when they have checked some boxes. That's actually the opposite. I see lots of people that approach work as if it's public school, that if they do the things the need to pass grade 4, they get into grade 5, and lots of companies pretend it's that way for junior roles. There is a "quota" for each level, it's driven by the business need. That has no relationship with merit based promotion.

taeric 4y ago
I hate to play the definition game, but "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability" is given for meritocracy. If your ability is that you are at that level, you should be held to that level. If this is a meritocracy. If promotion is also bound by availability of "slots" at a given level, than by definition you will exclude some folks that are otherwise at that level. I fully sympathize that inflation of level is a thing. I also fully sympathize that resources to use people at a given level are finite. Such that you will have to do this for practical reasons. Still, the message for that is almost certainly tailored to the individual that you turned down and best left for the specifics. Blasting out this message as generically as it was done just feels wrong.
- huhneverthot 4y ago
  [dead]
- bentlegen 4y ago
  Aside (and this is not meant as a rebuttal), it’s interesting to me that nobody denies that managerial roles only have so many “slots” (e.g. can’t have 5 CTOs or 7 VPEs, or Directors managing teams of 2 people), and yet, nobody decries the lack of opportunities for those in the management track.
  - taeric 4y ago
    Me thinks you just don't listen to enough people complain? :D I've certainly heard those complaints. More than a few times. Now, I'm fully onboard with what I think I read as part of your main point here. Management is a skill and it can be funny how few folks in the non-management world will acknowledge that. You can see similar with coaches. And it seems to be human nature that we love building a hierarchy up to a single point. Even in very distributed organizations.
- jltsiren 4y ago
  Meritocracy has never been about that. It's always about filling the necessary roles with the best qualified people available. The purpose of meritocracy is not about rewarding people who meet arbitrary thresholds with fake titles and higher compensation. It's about giving the organization better chances to reach its goals. If you have the ability to perform at a higher level but there are enough people with even more ability, you won't get promoted in a meritocracy.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I mean, I know that it can be justified in many ways. But, know that if you have positions that are filled and only promote new ones when "merit is matched by availability," than you are bound to have some people that are more qualified than those in the currently held slots. Which will again hamstring the spirit behind the idea that this was the "best qualified people available." It is at best that with the added "at that time." And you are trying to allude to inflation of role and expectations, I suspect? And that is a thing. But since you don't demote people that fall behind on the inflation, you are back to my first paragraph. That or you are pushing out the folks to make room, but you will regret pushing out some folks from the highest levels.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      Meritocracy is fundamentally about the needs of the organization. It's about making the organization more effective. It's common that there are people who would be more qualified to a position than the person currently holding the position, as long as we view merits in isolation. But the real ability the organization cares about is the ability to advance the goals of the organization when working within the organization. If replacing a person with a "more qualified" one demoralizes other employees enough that the organization's ability to reach its goals is compromised, the replacement is actually less qualified than the original person.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
There is no "business need" like this at Google. This is a company swimming in cash for where most individuals' work has little relevance to revenue bottom lines or business success. They'll kill or promote entire products because a given product area's position shifted in position on an org chart, or because some set of people involved don't feel they can get promotions or corporate success anymore from it. The drive is political success. The criterion is openly about ability to promote and politic one's work. ("Demonstrating impact", key emphasis on "demonstrating". Written PRDs and design docs, name prominently placed, recognition from peers. Esp if they're on other teams, etc.) It's frankly what you get when you have a company founded by academics who never worked in industry (but know all about defending your thesis to a committee, or "publish or perish") combined with unbounded revenue and seemingly infinite growth.
dclowd9901 4y ago
Might be true for management or leadership positions. Less true for IC roles. I find those roles tend to see promotions doled out when companies are desperately trying to keep people from leaving.
UncleMeat 4y ago
The old system was always "define each level based on business objectives and expectations and then promote people when they are demonstrating that they are hitting those objectives and expectations." So you couldn't be promoted to L7 unless there was a business need for an L7 because you must be doing L7 work, which requires a business need.

gotoeleven 4y ago

I don't think you have the merit to understand relative measures.

chitowneats 4y ago

The private sector grades on a curve. That curve is bent over time and the levels adjust.

spankalee 4y ago

There's always been a promotion budget.

lliamander 4y ago

Most everything I've seen about advancing beyond "career-level" (usually into a "staff+" engineer track) has said that ability alone will not get you a promotion. In general, there needs to be a "business need" for those positions to be created in the first place. It does not run contrary to the idea of meritocracy to assert that a firm has limit on the number of people that it can hire into a certain position - so long as the people who do fill those are selected are (more or less) the most qualified. Note that I am not saying anything about whether Google actually meets this ideal.

taeric 4y ago
I mean, at a very real level, that is true for all positions. If the business doesn't have a need to pay you at a level, they won't do so. I thought I had just always heard pride from the Google sphere about how they were much closer to the ideal of a meritocracy than other places. This feels... not that. :D

kodah 4y ago

Tech isn't and hasn't been a meritocracy, I think a lot of people are having to grapple with this idea this year. Worse, a lot of people are also finding out that high salaries of tech often aren't worth it when you're forced to work in very expensive areas that negate much of that salary. There's a bubble that popped this year, and much of it was what the idea of tech to some people was.

yodsanklai 4y ago

Promotion isn't the only way to get rewarded. Bonus, refresher, raise. There's a lot of leverage there.

shaftway 4y ago
Not at Google. Most of those things are decided for your manager with no knowledge of the person they're for. Your peers can affect your total comp by about 3 figures. Your manager can directly affect your total comp by about 4 figures. If you really go above and beyond your director can bump that to 5 figures. For anything bigger than that you'll need a promo. Bonuses, refreshers and raises were all clockwork.
UncleMeat 4y ago
Only sort of. Merit lines suck this year and O/T ratings are consumed by people on the promo track. Managers get little discretion for salary/bonus payouts. There is much more discretion for equity, but tons of line managers aren't equity planners and my experience is that equity discretion largely goes to people above L5. I've got a high performing L5 who is critical to the success of my team. My discretion on their raise was largely undone by my director and nobody acted on my recommendation that they receive discretion on their equity refresh.

chrismcb 4y ago

I'm not saying it is strictly merit based. But saying you are limiting the number didn't mean it isn't merit based. The idea is they still want to take the top x people, it is just that x is smaller. Or a better way to look at it, is they are just making it harder. Someone who got promoted a year ago may not get promoted now. Didn't mean it isn't merit based

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Meritocracy became racist, sexist, extremist, and various other -ists and -isms many years ago. A corporation like Google wants to be seen as supporting meritocracy in the US about as much as they want to be seen as supporting gay rights in Saudi.