4 ms·

Are you referring to Enron's stacked ranking practice? I don't think Google does anything approaching that.

michaelochurch 14y ago
At Google, "Perv" history is part of the transfer packet, which means that people with average political-success (sorry, I mean "performance") histories become immobile, creating a low-morale underclass that is good for mailing-list drama but bad for the company. It turns average employees and no-fault lack-of-fit cases into problem employees who have to be pushed out. It's disgusting, and people who believe this is okay shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that affect other people. Or drive. Or breathe. I know that practice is now typical in companies, but it's morally indefensible. Having "Don't Be Evil" as a motto is no excuse. I think Google is a great company in many ways and I have a lot of respect for the engineers I met there, but the people who designed "Perf" belong in jail for the billions of dollars of shareholder value that they torched for no good reason.
- gadders 14y ago
  "Perv" history? They can see what you search for in incognito mode? :-O
  - joeblubaugh 14y ago
    Typo for "Perf" - or maybe you are making a joke I didn't get.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      Intentional typo. A lot of people call it Perv, as in perversion of justice.
      - jrockway 14y ago
        A lot of people call it Perv This is the first time I've heard that term.
    - gadders 14y ago
      Yes, I was making a joke you didn't get.
- skrebbel 14y ago
  > belong in jail for the billions of dollars of shareholder value that they torched for no good reason. Wait, isn't it the shareholders' risk of investing in a company that torches money for no good reason?
- kabdib 14y ago
  This happens at Microsoft, too. Have a bad year, get "underperformed". (I dare anyone to have a long career without having a bad year at some point). Ding! Now it's really hard to move until you've scorched that badness from your record. Your mission is to get a bunch of good reviews, or get promoted, or find a sympathetic ex-manager who's willing to hire you anyway (this is why you need a network, and one reason why the "patron" mechanism emerged -- the patron model compensates for a broken review system and a bunch of busted policies that surround it). I've been in the software biz 30+ years and I've had really horrible reviews 3-4 times. It can be devastating if you're in an organization run by robotic principles. [btw, I'm not a bozo. You only have my word for that, I know . . . but I'm not :-) ]
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    I believe you. Bad reviews have a lot more to do with politics than anything "performance" related. Making the review part of the transfer packet is one of the worst corporate "innovations" designed. It's not just mean-spirited and immoral (because it gives managers a way to keep people captive). It also makes the review process totally pointless. An honest review needs to be between the manager and employee. Here's what you did right, here's what you did wrong. If it starts having long-term effects on the employee's career, then you can no longer have an honest review process because the stakes are too high. There are two options. (1) Give everyone high ratings they don't deserve, so your employees still like you, making the "review" pointless. (2) Give a few bad ratings, and turn no-fault lack-of-fit cases that would usually be resolved with transfer into outright wars that burn up a lot of time and energy and generally hurt the company.
    - exSoftyGoogler 14y ago
      What is wrong with a manager who is considering bringing you onto their team wanting to know about your past performance at the company? I bet that happens at EVERY company. It certainly did at Microsoft.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago

At Google, "Perv" history is part of the transfer packet, which means that people with average political-success (sorry, I mean "performance") histories become immobile, creating a low-morale underclass that is good for mailing-list drama but bad for the company. It turns average employees and no-fault lack-of-fit cases into problem employees who have to be pushed out. It's disgusting, and people who believe this is okay shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that affect other people. Or drive. Or breathe. I know that practice is now typical in companies, but it's morally indefensible. Having "Don't Be Evil" as a motto is no excuse. I think Google is a great company in many ways and I have a lot of respect for the engineers I met there, but the people who designed "Perf" belong in jail for the billions of dollars of shareholder value that they torched for no good reason.

gadders 14y ago
"Perv" history? They can see what you search for in incognito mode? :-O
- joeblubaugh 14y ago
  Typo for "Perf" - or maybe you are making a joke I didn't get.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Intentional typo. A lot of people call it Perv, as in perversion of justice.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      A lot of people call it Perv This is the first time I've heard that term.
  - gadders 14y ago
    Yes, I was making a joke you didn't get.
skrebbel 14y ago
> belong in jail for the billions of dollars of shareholder value that they torched for no good reason. Wait, isn't it the shareholders' risk of investing in a company that torches money for no good reason?
kabdib 14y ago
This happens at Microsoft, too. Have a bad year, get "underperformed". (I dare anyone to have a long career without having a bad year at some point). Ding! Now it's really hard to move until you've scorched that badness from your record. Your mission is to get a bunch of good reviews, or get promoted, or find a sympathetic ex-manager who's willing to hire you anyway (this is why you need a network, and one reason why the "patron" mechanism emerged -- the patron model compensates for a broken review system and a bunch of busted policies that surround it). I've been in the software biz 30+ years and I've had really horrible reviews 3-4 times. It can be devastating if you're in an organization run by robotic principles. [btw, I'm not a bozo. You only have my word for that, I know . . . but I'm not :-) ]
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  I believe you. Bad reviews have a lot more to do with politics than anything "performance" related. Making the review part of the transfer packet is one of the worst corporate "innovations" designed. It's not just mean-spirited and immoral (because it gives managers a way to keep people captive). It also makes the review process totally pointless. An honest review needs to be between the manager and employee. Here's what you did right, here's what you did wrong. If it starts having long-term effects on the employee's career, then you can no longer have an honest review process because the stakes are too high. There are two options. (1) Give everyone high ratings they don't deserve, so your employees still like you, making the "review" pointless. (2) Give a few bad ratings, and turn no-fault lack-of-fit cases that would usually be resolved with transfer into outright wars that burn up a lot of time and energy and generally hurt the company.
  - exSoftyGoogler 14y ago
    What is wrong with a manager who is considering bringing you onto their team wanting to know about your past performance at the company? I bet that happens at EVERY company. It certainly did at Microsoft.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago