6 ms·

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

by 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

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.