3 ms·

In my org at the Goog, we didn't have any layoffs, but we also aren't expecting any new headcount any time soon. Projects that need more staff are expected to c

In my org at the Goog, we didn't have any layoffs, but we also aren't expecting any new headcount any time soon. Projects that need more staff are expected to cannibalize it from other projects under the same VP. I feel like this is actually a good way of doing things, and wish Google did this more broadly. Just think if everyone who would have been laid off was instead transferred to a project that needs their skills, or given training to move into a role that's needed. Can you imagine what type of employee loyalty and morale that would engender?

epolanski 3y ago
Google used to be exactly like that up to a decade ago. Talent was considered core for the org so you would be relocated rather than cut off. Values shifted with the focus on earnings and growth getting less impressive.
- Jensson 3y ago
  Rewarding managers by headcount is like rewarding software engineers per line of code, yes, but that is how basically every company rewards managers. Imagine how obnoxious code reviews would be if everyone wanted to submit as many lines as possible for their salary to go up, that is how management headcount requests works today.
eitally 3y ago
The problem with this (and I was also in an org that didn't get any headcount -- for several years) is that those non-growing teams often ultimately just wither and die, whether it's through internal transfer, attrition or layoff. Google doesn't really reward managers for their managerial skill, and there's nothing that says "managerial incompetence" at Google more than having the same size team for years on end.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Maybe that’s okay though? It’s not like every team is supposed to exist forever. You could argue it’s ineffective or inefficient at this, perhaps.
- brokencode 3y ago
  The idea that a manager’s success should be measured in the number of people below them is truly idiotic. That is how you end up with companies like Google increasing their headcount by massive amounts during the pandemic only to have to turn around and do layoffs a year later. Middle managers serve a role but honestly many of them can be replaced without really disrupting anything. At a certain point, you become too far removed from the actual work that is being done to really matter. On the other hand, there are many low level managers with teams of fewer than 10 people who can be very valuable and hard to replace. People with deep expertise in the specific area they work on. Measuring a manager by their headcount is just a lazy way to evaluate impact and calculate salary.

epolanski 3y ago

Google used to be exactly like that up to a decade ago. Talent was considered core for the org so you would be relocated rather than cut off. Values shifted with the focus on earnings and growth getting less impressive.

Jensson 3y ago
Rewarding managers by headcount is like rewarding software engineers per line of code, yes, but that is how basically every company rewards managers. Imagine how obnoxious code reviews would be if everyone wanted to submit as many lines as possible for their salary to go up, that is how management headcount requests works today.

eitally 3y ago

The problem with this (and I was also in an org that didn't get any headcount -- for several years) is that those non-growing teams often ultimately just wither and die, whether it's through internal transfer, attrition or layoff. Google doesn't really reward managers for their managerial skill, and there's nothing that says "managerial incompetence" at Google more than having the same size team for years on end.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
Maybe that’s okay though? It’s not like every team is supposed to exist forever. You could argue it’s ineffective or inefficient at this, perhaps.
brokencode 3y ago
The idea that a manager’s success should be measured in the number of people below them is truly idiotic. That is how you end up with companies like Google increasing their headcount by massive amounts during the pandemic only to have to turn around and do layoffs a year later. Middle managers serve a role but honestly many of them can be replaced without really disrupting anything. At a certain point, you become too far removed from the actual work that is being done to really matter. On the other hand, there are many low level managers with teams of fewer than 10 people who can be very valuable and hard to replace. People with deep expertise in the specific area they work on. Measuring a manager by their headcount is just a lazy way to evaluate impact and calculate salary.