3 ms·
Well performing people by what metrics? Plus, how many well performing engineers do you need when you haven't shipped a successful product in nearly a decade w
by ChuckNorris89 4y ago
Well performing people by what metrics?
Plus, how many well performing engineers do you need when you haven't shipped a successful product in nearly a decade while canceling more of your existing products.
It's more like Google overhired during the market boom just to starve their competitors for talent and not because they actually had a use for all those people.
At one point you reach diminishing returns in terms of headcount and onboarding more well performing people just slows your org down as that just adds more overhead and various fiefdoms start to form that fight to entrench or upgrade their position in the org instead of doing what's good for the company, causing stagnation and complacency while competitors are running circles around you. I've seen this at every single big-corm I've worked at.
It makes sense orgs end the overhiring spree from the free fed money bonanza, and are starting to think about efficiency as well.
- yreg 4y agoWell performing people by their performance reviews.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoBut that's just the word on the street. We don't have access to Googles performance reviews to judge. Plus, from my experience, performance reviews are pretty meaningless. They just measure how much you conform to the corporate hive mind rather than how good you are as an engineer. And to play the devis advocate, if you don't need those people anymore, why keep them, regardless of their performance reviews? Just to have the most expensive seat warmers in the world?
- candiodari 4y agoOne might hope Google's performance reviews are not meaningless to Google. I mean if they are, why bother?
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoI'm asking again. What good is it performance when you don't need those people because you have no meaningful work to give them due to shifts in market/product development? Keeping expensive seat warmers?
- candiodari 4y agoYou are just pushing the same pre-existing assumption here. Obviously that company thinks they're useful. Also I would argue that if a company cannot use these people to make profit and grow, that company should probably be ended. If you simplify things, then literally the ONLY point of a (public) company is to invest in the means of production, and have that investment grow over time. If a company cannot use people to grow, it's useless as a company. At best this is a serious management failure.