4 ms·

This isn't new or surprising. Nor is it new. For those unfamiliar, Google engineering levels generally go from L3 (new grad) to L9 IDistinguished SWE). There i

by cletus 4y ago

This isn't new or surprising. Nor is it new. For those unfamiliar, Google engineering levels generally go from L3 (new grad) to L9 IDistinguished SWE). There is an expectation of growth to L5 (Senior SWE). I'm not sure what the figures look like today but pre-layoffs the total comp for an L5 Google SWE was typically at least $350k and can be over $400k. Everyone who has been in this sytem knows that the bar to get to the next level (L6; Staff SWE) is gotten increasingly difficult. You packet will go through multiple promo committees and has to pass all of them. What would've gotten you promoted 10 years ago certainly wouldn't today. But here's how promo committees work: you'll basically get stack ranked. That committee might have 10-15 packets and they'll get ranked. A certain point (usually called the bubble) will differentiate between promote those above the bubble, don't below. Committee consist of higher level ICs so a L5->L6 committe will consist of L7 ICs. There is and probably has been a target percentage for promotions. This number is opaque. One of the things that Ruth Porat did when she came in to reduce costs was simply to reduce the promotion target percentage. I'm having difficulty finding the original leak for this but it leaked several years ago. What slots there are to get promoted at these companies are probably filled by a revolving door of external hires. So this is just more attacks on labor costs while executive pay is astronomically high and Google made a profit of ~$60B last year. Disclaimer: Xoogler.

eitally 4y ago
In addition to your points, if you go for promo once, you may have an easier time of it the second try (if your manager gets senior leads to back the idea for the next round), but if you try twice and fail both, you may as well leave the company. +100 to the "revolving door of external hires". I was let go in the January action after almost 8 years of doing the same thing at Google. During that time, I saw 3 Cloud CEOs and I personally had 6 directors and 9 VPs. Change isn't always bad, but Google clearly does not value leadership & management as skills in the same way most large corporations do.
- cletus 4y ago
  The leadership churn you mention is very real. The joke at Google even when I worked there (2017) was every few months you'd get an email saying your manager's manager's manager's manager now reports to a new manager. You didn't know nor had ever met any of these people. I have a theory about this: middle management likes churn because it makes you immune to the consequences of their actions. You can't fail if none of your decisions are permanent and you constantly shift responsibilities. That's not an accident. It's by design. My experience at Google was this was a huge problem. Sorry you were let go.
  - itsdrewmiller 4y ago
    >71. Now you see this at work with mistakes. You can make mistakes in the work you do and not suffer any consequences. For instance, I could negotiate a contract that might have a phrase that would trigger considerable harm to the company in the event of the occurrence of some set of circumstances. The chances are that no one would ever know. But if something did happen and the company got into trouble, and I had moved on from that job to another, it would never be traced to me. The problem would be that of the guy who presently has responsibility. And it would be his headache. There’s no tracking system in the corporation. Some managers argue that outrunning mistakes is the real meaning of “being on the fast track,” the real key to managerial success. The same lawyer continues: In fact, one way of looking at success patterns in the corporation is that the people who are in high positions have never been in one place long enough for their problems to catch up with them. They outrun their mistakes. That’s why to be successful in a business organization, you have to move quickly. (Location 2013) https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-mazes/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-ma...
    - shostack 4y ago
      Am I the only one shocked their commercial legal contract systems had zero way to trace that back, even with track changes from an old contract version with their name or approval logged somewhere?
      - sowbug 4y ago
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
"There is an expectation of growth to L5" This is out of date. "Up or out" from L4 was dropped around 2015 or 2016 or so. It was considered "fine" to stay at L4.
- cletus 4y ago
  I left in 2017 and it was still the expectation then but there was a lot of variance in orgs and with particular managers and ICs. For example: I had known at that point people who had been L4 for years. I think 8 years was the longest I encountered. So you're right there wasn't a strict "up or out" culture but that was always the case. The problem was if you were a long-term L4 one management change could suddenly put you in the hot seat. A new director may decide they like "up or out" so even though you had 8 years of EE+ ratings, you suddenly were vulnerable if you didn't get promoted. Back when I worked at Google L4 and L5 promos were done by committee. These are now done in-org by leadership. This is both better and worse. It also makes long-term L4s less likely to happen. Interestingly these promotions still have target percentages. The first time it was tried they had to un-promote some people because too many got promoted.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    My recall there was an explicit policy change that was communicated from the top around 2015 or so about this. Specifically about L4->L5. I recall it around this time because this is about when I got to 4 years of L4, and it was a relief to me because I really didn't want to have to go through the hassle of going through promo. My ratings were fine and I was happy with my comp and work, why would I get myself up to L5 and then start getting lower ratings at the new level? FWIW, I was there 10 years, stayed L4 the whole time because I never wanted to go for promo because the whole process stunk. Left end of last year of my own accord (never liked the place). The only place where being "still" L4 caused me grief was from a higher up inside Access (Fiber), where they got pretend to play at being their own company for a while (with their own policies etc) after Ruth's Alphabetization -- and then they got the axe. Ironically the new process they brought out a couple months after I left would have served me better and I would probably have ended up in L5 without having to politic for it. Though I hated the last project I was on, so. In any case, agree about your other points. It's labour discipline coming to Google. Though I think it's less about cost and more about discipline/subservience.

by cletus 4y ago

eitally 4y ago

In addition to your points, if you go for promo once, you may have an easier time of it the second try (if your manager gets senior leads to back the idea for the next round), but if you try twice and fail both, you may as well leave the company. +100 to the "revolving door of external hires". I was let go in the January action after almost 8 years of doing the same thing at Google. During that time, I saw 3 Cloud CEOs and I personally had 6 directors and 9 VPs. Change isn't always bad, but Google clearly does not value leadership & management as skills in the same way most large corporations do.

cletus 4y ago
The leadership churn you mention is very real. The joke at Google even when I worked there (2017) was every few months you'd get an email saying your manager's manager's manager's manager now reports to a new manager. You didn't know nor had ever met any of these people. I have a theory about this: middle management likes churn because it makes you immune to the consequences of their actions. You can't fail if none of your decisions are permanent and you constantly shift responsibilities. That's not an accident. It's by design. My experience at Google was this was a huge problem. Sorry you were let go.
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  >71. Now you see this at work with mistakes. You can make mistakes in the work you do and not suffer any consequences. For instance, I could negotiate a contract that might have a phrase that would trigger considerable harm to the company in the event of the occurrence of some set of circumstances. The chances are that no one would ever know. But if something did happen and the company got into trouble, and I had moved on from that job to another, it would never be traced to me. The problem would be that of the guy who presently has responsibility. And it would be his headache. There’s no tracking system in the corporation. Some managers argue that outrunning mistakes is the real meaning of “being on the fast track,” the real key to managerial success. The same lawyer continues: In fact, one way of looking at success patterns in the corporation is that the people who are in high positions have never been in one place long enough for their problems to catch up with them. They outrun their mistakes. That’s why to be successful in a business organization, you have to move quickly. (Location 2013) https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-mazes/ https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/quotes-from-moral-ma...
  - shostack 4y ago
    Am I the only one shocked their commercial legal contract systems had zero way to trace that back, even with track changes from an old contract version with their name or approval logged somewhere?
    - sowbug 4y ago

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

"There is an expectation of growth to L5" This is out of date. "Up or out" from L4 was dropped around 2015 or 2016 or so. It was considered "fine" to stay at L4.

cletus 4y ago
I left in 2017 and it was still the expectation then but there was a lot of variance in orgs and with particular managers and ICs. For example: I had known at that point people who had been L4 for years. I think 8 years was the longest I encountered. So you're right there wasn't a strict "up or out" culture but that was always the case. The problem was if you were a long-term L4 one management change could suddenly put you in the hot seat. A new director may decide they like "up or out" so even though you had 8 years of EE+ ratings, you suddenly were vulnerable if you didn't get promoted. Back when I worked at Google L4 and L5 promos were done by committee. These are now done in-org by leadership. This is both better and worse. It also makes long-term L4s less likely to happen. Interestingly these promotions still have target percentages. The first time it was tried they had to un-promote some people because too many got promoted.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  My recall there was an explicit policy change that was communicated from the top around 2015 or so about this. Specifically about L4->L5. I recall it around this time because this is about when I got to 4 years of L4, and it was a relief to me because I really didn't want to have to go through the hassle of going through promo. My ratings were fine and I was happy with my comp and work, why would I get myself up to L5 and then start getting lower ratings at the new level? FWIW, I was there 10 years, stayed L4 the whole time because I never wanted to go for promo because the whole process stunk. Left end of last year of my own accord (never liked the place). The only place where being "still" L4 caused me grief was from a higher up inside Access (Fiber), where they got pretend to play at being their own company for a while (with their own policies etc) after Ruth's Alphabetization -- and then they got the axe. Ironically the new process they brought out a couple months after I left would have served me better and I would probably have ended up in L5 without having to politic for it. Though I hated the last project I was on, so. In any case, agree about your other points. It's labour discipline coming to Google. Though I think it's less about cost and more about discipline/subservience.