3 ms·

I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great so

by ljw1001 14y ago

I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great software produced there.

michaelochurch 14y ago
One of Google's great strengths is that it was founded by engineers, and the engineering DNA is strong in the company. Google has cultural problems as any large company will, but they're fundamentally different (and less damaging to a technical firm) than the kind that MBA-culture creates. You could take 10 random Googlers and ask them to do a startup and they'd probably build something awesome. That's not true of the companies where MBA culture dominates. I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. If you think that engineering is what smart people do and PM work is for idiots, guess who ends up making product decisions? Another of Google's weaknesses is that there are places where the engineering mentality doesn't apply, and Google doesn't seem to get that. Example 1: the Perf system has those nonsense calibration scores. They don't add anything; they just add another SPOF. It's data collection for the sake of data collection. But it turns out, in the real world, that data can be harmful. It can be used in ways that are really disgusting. (That's why Real Names is such an issue.) Google never got that. Example 2: the 3-word mission statements were a really bad idea. Same with downslotting. Engineers are supposed to fly with crazy ideas and give demos when things are still scrappy and rough. But in management, you really can't deploy an idea until you know whether it's good or not, because it's going to affect peoples' careers, and if you deploy a shitty idea it's hard to backtrack and take it all back. Downslotting never should have gotten through the door. Google has some excellent engineers and many of them are people I'd love to work with again, but the place is losing its culture. Google+ and the executive attitude exhibited on Real Names established that.
- zaphar 14y ago
  I was really trying not to respond to you here but I can't let this statement stand uncontested: I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. This is false. Nowhere in the company have I seen this "mentality" you speak of. Either you imagined it or you're making it up. The PMs and Managers I've worked with and encountered have been, without exception, very smart and very well informed and very concerned with helping me do my job as an engineer. Some of them were former engineers who were both very knowledgeable and very good at their jobs who decided they would like a change.
- temphn 14y ago
  Google is a multibillion dollar company and arguably the best software engineering shop on the planet. You spout theory. They work in practice. You were fired from Google within months of being hired, and continue to trash them in every single thread on even marginally related topics. They go from strength to strength, shipping extraordinarily complicated products like Google Drive and pushing the future with Google Glass and self-driving cars. Start your own company and try your management strategies there. Until then, stop attacking a company and organization that is far greater than anything most people (including yourself) will ever build.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Actually, I was never fired from Google, and I'll readily admit that they do a lot of things right. I agree that self-driving cars are great. Their search engine is also pretty nifty. This is not to say they do everything right. That's been proven false.

by ljw1001 14y ago

I don't believe Google's system works poorly. Any organization of that size will have some successes and some failures, but there is a hell of a lot of great software produced there.

michaelochurch 14y ago

One of Google's great strengths is that it was founded by engineers, and the engineering DNA is strong in the company. Google has cultural problems as any large company will, but they're fundamentally different (and less damaging to a technical firm) than the kind that MBA-culture creates. You could take 10 random Googlers and ask them to do a startup and they'd probably build something awesome. That's not true of the companies where MBA culture dominates. I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. If you think that engineering is what smart people do and PM work is for idiots, guess who ends up making product decisions? Another of Google's weaknesses is that there are places where the engineering mentality doesn't apply, and Google doesn't seem to get that. Example 1: the Perf system has those nonsense calibration scores. They don't add anything; they just add another SPOF. It's data collection for the sake of data collection. But it turns out, in the real world, that data can be harmful. It can be used in ways that are really disgusting. (That's why Real Names is such an issue.) Google never got that. Example 2: the 3-word mission statements were a really bad idea. Same with downslotting. Engineers are supposed to fly with crazy ideas and give demos when things are still scrappy and rough. But in management, you really can't deploy an idea until you know whether it's good or not, because it's going to affect peoples' careers, and if you deploy a shitty idea it's hard to backtrack and take it all back. Downslotting never should have gotten through the door. Google has some excellent engineers and many of them are people I'd love to work with again, but the place is losing its culture. Google+ and the executive attitude exhibited on Real Names established that.

zaphar 14y ago
I was really trying not to respond to you here but I can't let this statement stand uncontested: I think one of Google's weaknesses is that there's an unspoken mentality that engineering is for smart people and everything else is for people who couldn't cut it. That might be why Google has excellent engineers but incompetent PMs and middle managers. This is false. Nowhere in the company have I seen this "mentality" you speak of. Either you imagined it or you're making it up. The PMs and Managers I've worked with and encountered have been, without exception, very smart and very well informed and very concerned with helping me do my job as an engineer. Some of them were former engineers who were both very knowledgeable and very good at their jobs who decided they would like a change.
temphn 14y ago
Google is a multibillion dollar company and arguably the best software engineering shop on the planet. You spout theory. They work in practice. You were fired from Google within months of being hired, and continue to trash them in every single thread on even marginally related topics. They go from strength to strength, shipping extraordinarily complicated products like Google Drive and pushing the future with Google Glass and self-driving cars. Start your own company and try your management strategies there. Until then, stop attacking a company and organization that is far greater than anything most people (including yourself) will ever build.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Actually, I was never fired from Google, and I'll readily admit that they do a lot of things right. I agree that self-driving cars are great. Their search engine is also pretty nifty. This is not to say they do everything right. That's been proven false.