12 ms·

The problem here is that the modern company embodies a lot of the principles of medieval serfdom. Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their

by cletus 14y ago

The problem here is that the modern company embodies a lot of the principles of medieval serfdom. Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. The modern company is a kingdom. Managers are feudal lords. Managers can decide to hire (and fire) employees such that the employee is essentially beholden to that manager. Employment status is analagous to the land serfs worked. The problem is that most companies have little internal mobility. If you don't get on with your manager the best thing for you and the company is to work for a different manager yet most companies make this exceedingly difficult. At Google, individual engineers are far more empowered than that. There is a strong internal process for simply changing projects. Also, most companies have performance feedback come solely from managers. Managers are an important source at Google but peer feedback carries a huge amount of weight. So in many companies employees leave because they can't escape their feudal lord. I get it. The problem here is corporate feudalism. Companies need to stop making it easier to move to a better team or getting a pay raise by leaving the company rather than moving within the company.

VexXtreme 14y ago
The biggest irony lies in the fact that in most traditional companies managers (people who manage developers) are usually the people who were never smart enough to make it as developers in the first place. My company does this all the time. Didn't do well enough at the job interview or you're a total bozo and poor at understanding technical concepts/writing code? No problem! They'll appoint you as a project manager and you will get a team of developers to manage. At the same time, the brightest and the best engineers rarely get promoted because they are keeping their heads down and actually getting shit done. And there is little incentive for the company to promote such people because they lose a skilled and productive programmer if they do that (they don't care about anything except for how fast you can crank out code - one of the typical ailments of consulting companies). It's a very sad state of affairs. Makes me want to quit really.
- danpat 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
  - aangjie 14y ago
    http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
- melling 14y ago
  Yes, and they get to give you lots of work then go home. Meetings and checklists for them. Plus, every now and then they get to explain how to do your job to you. It's kind of weird. I've been doing this for 20 years. I was wondering if anyone else noticed.
- seivan 14y ago
  true, I've experienced that as well. The morons who wrote shitty code, made project managers.
- speeder 14y ago
  I know a huge bank that had problems that every developer they promoted, quit. It was because their managment positions were so stressful and so communication heavy, that most developers were totally not suited for it, and just plainly quit.
  - fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    Technical types tend to think that there's not much to the task or process of motivating and managing a team. The people that promote individuals into management roles are often just as naive. The individuals are expected to develop new skills simply by virtue of having been promoted.
- jaredmcateer 14y ago
  It's a fallacy to believe that good developers should make good managers and vice versa. I've had great managers that haven't written a line of production worthy code in their life, I've had horrible managers that were genius developers. Companies without a technical career path create bad managers because great developers that should go on to be Principle Engineers and Architects have no choice but to get into HR in order to advance their career even if they aren't fit for it.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Here we are still mucking about in the echoes of the late 19th century trying to make these outmoded models work, in education, in politics, in the workplace. There is too much inertia due to power dynamics and due to government control, things won't change until people start proving there are better ways.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Ok, what is the model you are envisioning then? There aren't many other structural models I'm aware of. Are you thinking modern companies should be more like Valve, perhaps, which are very flat instead of hierarchical? This works great for Valve, but they do cherry-pick veterans of their respective trades. I know the "flat" model is enticing, but I have yet to see an example that handles greenhorns well.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    If I had a sure fire management model that was objectively superior and worked in almost all circumstances I wouldn't be talking about the problem I'd be off making money with it or proselytizing. I have many solid arguments as to why the current system, which really is rather feudal, is broken and could not possibly represent the apex of management systems. I also have a few good ideas about alternate systems. However, that would make for quite too long of a discussion here, so I'll save it for some other time/place. Nevertheless, I will point out that if there is a solid trend as it relates to the impact of the progression of networking technology and software in general it is that both have a tendency toward disintermediation. And if there is one intermediary who is oh so very ripe for being kicked into the gutter it is certainly the middle manager. How do we get along without him/her? To my ears such a question has the ring of "how will we get along without cholera?" So, here's some bullet points: greater individual autonomy/responsibility/return (e.g. profit sharing & equity); more peer relationships and fewer superior/insubordinate relationships (though not the absence of such), note carefully that this is not identical to a flatter hierarchy; more freelance-style and partnership relationships (whether across or within corporate boundaries); more reliance on leads instead of managers; more mentor/apprentice style relationships. In general the "employer/employee" relationship being closer to a partnership that both have entered into freely and with respect for the other party with the expectation of mutual benefit resulting rather than a coercive, unequal, and authoritarian bond that employment often imitates today.
jonnathanson 14y ago
On a related note, some of the more effective companies I've worked for have had strong "up or out" cultures. Now, I know that this sounds harsh and draconian at first. And it conjures up images of political intrigue, heated power struggles, and corporate backstabbing. But truth be told, I've actually found those evils to be more prevalent in companies that don't cull their dead weight. What happens is that these firms accumulate a vast, stagnant layer of middle and upper management types who have no incentive to work any harder, take new risks, or develop talented employees. Instead, they're simply cashing in on a safe paycheck, riding a pretty cushy high horse, and fiercely fending off anyone they perceive to be competition for their sweet gigs. Compounding this problem is the fact that mobility slows to a crawl, because the queue is full. This breeds dissatisfaction with the young, ambitious types, while simultaneously breeding resentment among the older, entrenched types who adopt the grumbly "kids these days..." defensive mentality. Now, there are plenty of ways to screw up the up-or-out system: bad KPIs and standards, inept evaluation processes, etc. But no system is perfect, and at least a system that forces honest dialogue with managers about their future advancement prospects is better than a system wherein lousy managers can overstay their welcome.
- dasmoth 14y ago
  I imagine it works best if there are at least some "up" paths which don't lead into management.
- michaelt 14y ago
  Interesting. What does 'up or out' do with senior engineers who don't want to start managing people? Do they leave the company?
  - ryanmolden 14y ago
    At least at Microsoft, and I assume other primarily tech companies, there are level bands (job titles) above "senior developer" (principal, partner, technical fellow, distinguished engineer) that have nothing to do with management. Generally one can have a full career striving for technical fellow/distinguished engineer without stagnating (though not necessarily achieving it, tis a lofty accomplishment).
yuhong 14y ago
Yea, michaelochurch have talked about "open allocation" before.
- jsolson 14y ago
  So this is apparently less of a thing now, or at least it wasn't an issue for me. I negotiated an offer with Google last week, and I have a very good idea of which team I'm going to. I was given three options based on preferences and "matching my background to teams". Before accepting the offer, I was allowed to narrow this down to a single team. I don't know if this is common now or only applies to people coming off of the industry track instead of the university track, but it was not at all what I'd been warned to expect. So far everything about Google has been generally fantastic. I'm hoping it lives up to it once I'm inside.
  - jemfinch 14y ago
    This is exactly how my allocation went in mid-2010.
    - nostrademons 14y ago
      Mine as well. Early 2009. I do suspect it has something to do with your employee bargaining power, which depends both on your past track record and on how many people are being hired relative to staffing needs. Managers bid on Nooglers, draft-style; if many teams are bidding on you, you have a lot of flexibility in where you end up, while if only one team bids you're basically stuck with them. michaelochurch was hired in 2011 IIRC, when Google notoriously overhired, and it could be that many of the other teams were flush with Nooglers and not looking for anyone else.
- huggah 14y ago
  When I was hired, I had a list of five managers to interview with. During the first two weeks after I started, I talked with each of them and decided where I wanted to be placed. It was made clear to me that if I didn't like any of those five, I would get another list. Just my experience; I started at the beginning of 2012.
codewright 14y ago
Your prodigious propagandization of your paymaster is praiseworthy, but you don't need to take michaelochurch seriously to perceive this isn't a perfect picture of paradise.
- Patient0 14y ago
  I like the alliteration! Except that I feel a need to wipe my imaginary spittle from my face... ;-)
  - codewright 14y ago
    >I like the alliteration! Good! If you really like words and want to get some copy edited you should check out http://www.edithero.com/ http://www.edithero.com/
btilly 14y ago
That is the theory at Google. And then there is the practice. Which varies across the organization, and can be influenced by the manager in a lot of ways. Let's just say, I've heard rumor that my manager was asked to leave not too long after I was. And the circumstances of my leaving were not entirely unconnected.
DufusM 14y ago
Facebook has an explicit program (hackamonth) to avoid limiting internal mobility - https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/hackamonth-mixing-things-up/10150161285048920 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/hackamon...
incision 14y ago
>The modern company is a kingdom. Managers are feudal lords. Managers can decide to hire (and fire) employees such that the employee is essentially beholden to that manager. Employment status is analagous to the land serfs worked. Exactly. It doesn't just hurt the employees, but the company (kingdom) as a whole. The managers (lords) concern themselves primarily with expanding their departments (fiefdoms), typically at the expense of other managers, rather than working to grow the company or improve the quality of life within it. This leads to a mentality of collecting more rather than better staff, ass covering rather than innovating and all sorts of other bullshit.
varelse 14y ago
"At Google, individual engineers are far more empowered than that. There is a strong internal process for simply changing projects." That assumes the Hogwarts Hat of random allocation doesn't land you with a stinker from the get-go. And I speak from personal experience that it occasionally does. If I had been able to change projects to something more relevant to my skills, I would still be there. There have been far too many stories of arbitrary google managers both here and elsewhere to keep putting forth the story that if one goes to google, one can simply change projects if one doesn't like what they're doing. Just one example from http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Google-Reviews-E9079.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Google-Reviews-E9079.htm "For the most part, Google is held together by duct tape. Management quality is clearly below what's required for a company of this size. In a lot of cases managers are simply too junior and lack people skills."
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. The most important point making it like slavery was the fact that serfs couldn't leave their fiefdom. That's where the analogy to a modern corporation breaks down - employees can quit whenever they want.
- eropple 14y ago
  That's where the analogy to a modern corporation breaks down - employees can quit whenever they want. If they like starving, yes. Being subject to Morton's fork doesn't make for a great day. Software developers are currently in a pretty great place in this economy. Not everyone is. It's pretty important to remember that.
  - koide 14y ago
    And it's also pretty important to remember there's life outside the US of A, where software developers are in a less rosy place.
- g8oz 14y ago
  Well then maybe sharecropping is a better analogy. Similar lack of agency but in theory you could leave.
- taproot 14y ago
  Thats not exactly true, and I don't feel it breaks the analogy. Many, many people cannot simply up and leave. Sometimes people are locked in place due to family and lack of alternative employment in the given area. Sounds like you don't have any ties to where you are and what you do. How is that working out for you? (genuine question)
michaelochurch 14y ago
This is a great post, but my experience with Google is that it doesn't empower individual engineers until they reach the Sr. SWE or Staff SWE levels. There's a Real Googler Line, which seems to be somewhere in the Senior SWE tier. If you're above it, you have independent credibility and you can change projects and as long as you're not a total flake about it, you get enough opportunities that you can find a place where you shine. If you're below the RGL, you get locked out by headcount limitations and your best hope is, after 18 months, to transfer to a slightly less bad project. What you're discussing is the Credibility Drought. Companies define credibility so that only managers have it, in order to create an artificial scarcity that makes employees easier to control. That's what enables the managerial extortion that forces employees to serve local goals (the manager's own career) rather than the benefit of the company (or the growth of the individual). Very few companies formally allow a manager to unilaterally fire. That's way too much of an HR/lawsuit risk. Instead, these closed-allocation dinosaur companies define credibility in such a limited way that managers can either support or not support the employee, and then if the person is not supported, that person's credibility is zero and the manager isn't firing that person. "The company" does it, after "careful review" of "objective" performance statistics. On top of this, they set tight headcount limits so that for anyone to get a good project requires a special favor, allowing the company to say "no" and appear consistent on the matter. Google is aware enough of this problem to allow engineers at above a certain level to acquire independent credibility. At Staff, you can pull a Yegge (quit your project in public) and be OK. If you're a SWE 3 and you try that, you're fucked. So Google may be different from the full-on closed-allocation nightmare corporation, but you only if you either (a) start at a senior level, or (b) get on visible, desirable projects when you start, so you can get promotions quickly. The only time it isn't difficult to transfer to something better is immediately after a promotion (and there are some managers who withhold promotions to keep people captive; Google, to its credit, has a system that occasionally overrides managerial objections to promo). The sad thing is that I don't doubt that Google is better than 95 percent of large corporations its size in terms of internal mobility, individual autonomy, and engineer-centric culture. It might be better than 98%. It's still pretty awful for a large percentage of people who work there, and the fact that it's so much better than most of what else is out there is a damnation of Corporate America, not an endorsement of Google.
- 14y ago
baddox 14y ago
> Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. Add in the ability to occasionally submit votes that are statistically irrelevant and you've got modern Western democracy.
cookiecaper 14y ago
>Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. I guess it depends on your definition of slavery. Most serfs had some degree of autonomy and self-determination even if they were forced to pay tribute unfairly. So that incites us to ask, how is it any different today, when we are also forced to pay a [quite hefty] tribute to the government simply for collecting money? We all have some form of autonomy, but the government has demonstration that only exists so long as we pay tribute and sacrifice the fruits of our labors. Same story as a serf, who would be granted a parcel and expected to pay a tribute to his lord or suffer serious infractions of basic rights to self-determination.

by cletus 14y ago

VexXtreme 14y ago

The biggest irony lies in the fact that in most traditional companies managers (people who manage developers) are usually the people who were never smart enough to make it as developers in the first place. My company does this all the time. Didn't do well enough at the job interview or you're a total bozo and poor at understanding technical concepts/writing code? No problem! They'll appoint you as a project manager and you will get a team of developers to manage. At the same time, the brightest and the best engineers rarely get promoted because they are keeping their heads down and actually getting shit done. And there is little incentive for the company to promote such people because they lose a skilled and productive programmer if they do that (they don't care about anything except for how fast you can crank out code - one of the typical ailments of consulting companies). It's a very sad state of affairs. Makes me want to quit really.

danpat 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle
- aangjie 14y ago
  http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
melling 14y ago
Yes, and they get to give you lots of work then go home. Meetings and checklists for them. Plus, every now and then they get to explain how to do your job to you. It's kind of weird. I've been doing this for 20 years. I was wondering if anyone else noticed.
seivan 14y ago
true, I've experienced that as well. The morons who wrote shitty code, made project managers.
speeder 14y ago
I know a huge bank that had problems that every developer they promoted, quit. It was because their managment positions were so stressful and so communication heavy, that most developers were totally not suited for it, and just plainly quit.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  Technical types tend to think that there's not much to the task or process of motivating and managing a team. The people that promote individuals into management roles are often just as naive. The individuals are expected to develop new skills simply by virtue of having been promoted.
jaredmcateer 14y ago
It's a fallacy to believe that good developers should make good managers and vice versa. I've had great managers that haven't written a line of production worthy code in their life, I've had horrible managers that were genius developers. Companies without a technical career path create bad managers because great developers that should go on to be Principle Engineers and Architects have no choice but to get into HR in order to advance their career even if they aren't fit for it.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Here we are still mucking about in the echoes of the late 19th century trying to make these outmoded models work, in education, in politics, in the workplace. There is too much inertia due to power dynamics and due to government control, things won't change until people start proving there are better ways.

sliverstorm 14y ago
Ok, what is the model you are envisioning then? There aren't many other structural models I'm aware of. Are you thinking modern companies should be more like Valve, perhaps, which are very flat instead of hierarchical? This works great for Valve, but they do cherry-pick veterans of their respective trades. I know the "flat" model is enticing, but I have yet to see an example that handles greenhorns well.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  If I had a sure fire management model that was objectively superior and worked in almost all circumstances I wouldn't be talking about the problem I'd be off making money with it or proselytizing. I have many solid arguments as to why the current system, which really is rather feudal, is broken and could not possibly represent the apex of management systems. I also have a few good ideas about alternate systems. However, that would make for quite too long of a discussion here, so I'll save it for some other time/place. Nevertheless, I will point out that if there is a solid trend as it relates to the impact of the progression of networking technology and software in general it is that both have a tendency toward disintermediation. And if there is one intermediary who is oh so very ripe for being kicked into the gutter it is certainly the middle manager. How do we get along without him/her? To my ears such a question has the ring of "how will we get along without cholera?" So, here's some bullet points: greater individual autonomy/responsibility/return (e.g. profit sharing & equity); more peer relationships and fewer superior/insubordinate relationships (though not the absence of such), note carefully that this is not identical to a flatter hierarchy; more freelance-style and partnership relationships (whether across or within corporate boundaries); more reliance on leads instead of managers; more mentor/apprentice style relationships. In general the "employer/employee" relationship being closer to a partnership that both have entered into freely and with respect for the other party with the expectation of mutual benefit resulting rather than a coercive, unequal, and authoritarian bond that employment often imitates today.

jonnathanson 14y ago

On a related note, some of the more effective companies I've worked for have had strong "up or out" cultures. Now, I know that this sounds harsh and draconian at first. And it conjures up images of political intrigue, heated power struggles, and corporate backstabbing. But truth be told, I've actually found those evils to be more prevalent in companies that don't cull their dead weight. What happens is that these firms accumulate a vast, stagnant layer of middle and upper management types who have no incentive to work any harder, take new risks, or develop talented employees. Instead, they're simply cashing in on a safe paycheck, riding a pretty cushy high horse, and fiercely fending off anyone they perceive to be competition for their sweet gigs. Compounding this problem is the fact that mobility slows to a crawl, because the queue is full. This breeds dissatisfaction with the young, ambitious types, while simultaneously breeding resentment among the older, entrenched types who adopt the grumbly "kids these days..." defensive mentality. Now, there are plenty of ways to screw up the up-or-out system: bad KPIs and standards, inept evaluation processes, etc. But no system is perfect, and at least a system that forces honest dialogue with managers about their future advancement prospects is better than a system wherein lousy managers can overstay their welcome.

dasmoth 14y ago
I imagine it works best if there are at least some "up" paths which don't lead into management.
michaelt 14y ago
Interesting. What does 'up or out' do with senior engineers who don't want to start managing people? Do they leave the company?
- ryanmolden 14y ago
  At least at Microsoft, and I assume other primarily tech companies, there are level bands (job titles) above "senior developer" (principal, partner, technical fellow, distinguished engineer) that have nothing to do with management. Generally one can have a full career striving for technical fellow/distinguished engineer without stagnating (though not necessarily achieving it, tis a lofty accomplishment).

yuhong 14y ago

Yea, michaelochurch have talked about "open allocation" before.

jsolson 14y ago
So this is apparently less of a thing now, or at least it wasn't an issue for me. I negotiated an offer with Google last week, and I have a very good idea of which team I'm going to. I was given three options based on preferences and "matching my background to teams". Before accepting the offer, I was allowed to narrow this down to a single team. I don't know if this is common now or only applies to people coming off of the industry track instead of the university track, but it was not at all what I'd been warned to expect. So far everything about Google has been generally fantastic. I'm hoping it lives up to it once I'm inside.
- jemfinch 14y ago
  This is exactly how my allocation went in mid-2010.
  - nostrademons 14y ago
    Mine as well. Early 2009. I do suspect it has something to do with your employee bargaining power, which depends both on your past track record and on how many people are being hired relative to staffing needs. Managers bid on Nooglers, draft-style; if many teams are bidding on you, you have a lot of flexibility in where you end up, while if only one team bids you're basically stuck with them. michaelochurch was hired in 2011 IIRC, when Google notoriously overhired, and it could be that many of the other teams were flush with Nooglers and not looking for anyone else.
huggah 14y ago
When I was hired, I had a list of five managers to interview with. During the first two weeks after I started, I talked with each of them and decided where I wanted to be placed. It was made clear to me that if I didn't like any of those five, I would get another list. Just my experience; I started at the beginning of 2012.

codewright 14y ago

Your prodigious propagandization of your paymaster is praiseworthy, but you don't need to take michaelochurch seriously to perceive this isn't a perfect picture of paradise.

Patient0 14y ago
I like the alliteration! Except that I feel a need to wipe my imaginary spittle from my face... ;-)
- codewright 14y ago
  >I like the alliteration! Good! If you really like words and want to get some copy edited you should check out http://www.edithero.com/ http://www.edithero.com/

btilly 14y ago

That is the theory at Google. And then there is the practice. Which varies across the organization, and can be influenced by the manager in a lot of ways. Let's just say, I've heard rumor that my manager was asked to leave not too long after I was. And the circumstances of my leaving were not entirely unconnected.

DufusM 14y ago

Facebook has an explicit program (hackamonth) to avoid limiting internal mobility - https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/hackamonth-mixing-things-up/10150161285048920 https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/hackamon...

incision 14y ago

>The modern company is a kingdom. Managers are feudal lords. Managers can decide to hire (and fire) employees such that the employee is essentially beholden to that manager. Employment status is analagous to the land serfs worked. Exactly. It doesn't just hurt the employees, but the company (kingdom) as a whole. The managers (lords) concern themselves primarily with expanding their departments (fiefdoms), typically at the expense of other managers, rather than working to grow the company or improve the quality of life within it. This leads to a mentality of collecting more rather than better staff, ass covering rather than innovating and all sorts of other bullshit.

varelse 14y ago

"At Google, individual engineers are far more empowered than that. There is a strong internal process for simply changing projects." That assumes the Hogwarts Hat of random allocation doesn't land you with a stinker from the get-go. And I speak from personal experience that it occasionally does. If I had been able to change projects to something more relevant to my skills, I would still be there. There have been far too many stories of arbitrary google managers both here and elsewhere to keep putting forth the story that if one goes to google, one can simply change projects if one doesn't like what they're doing. Just one example from http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Google-Reviews-E9079.htm http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Google-Reviews-E9079.htm "For the most part, Google is held together by duct tape. Management quality is clearly below what's required for a company of this size. In a lot of cases managers are simply too junior and lack people skills."

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. The most important point making it like slavery was the fact that serfs couldn't leave their fiefdom. That's where the analogy to a modern corporation breaks down - employees can quit whenever they want.

eropple 14y ago
That's where the analogy to a modern corporation breaks down - employees can quit whenever they want. If they like starving, yes. Being subject to Morton's fork doesn't make for a great day. Software developers are currently in a pretty great place in this economy. Not everyone is. It's pretty important to remember that.
- koide 14y ago
  And it's also pretty important to remember there's life outside the US of A, where software developers are in a less rosy place.
g8oz 14y ago
Well then maybe sharecropping is a better analogy. Similar lack of agency but in theory you could leave.
taproot 14y ago
Thats not exactly true, and I don't feel it breaks the analogy. Many, many people cannot simply up and leave. Sometimes people are locked in place due to family and lack of alternative employment in the given area. Sounds like you don't have any ties to where you are and what you do. How is that working out for you? (genuine question)

michaelochurch 14y ago

This is a great post, but my experience with Google is that it doesn't empower individual engineers until they reach the Sr. SWE or Staff SWE levels. There's a Real Googler Line, which seems to be somewhere in the Senior SWE tier. If you're above it, you have independent credibility and you can change projects and as long as you're not a total flake about it, you get enough opportunities that you can find a place where you shine. If you're below the RGL, you get locked out by headcount limitations and your best hope is, after 18 months, to transfer to a slightly less bad project. What you're discussing is the Credibility Drought. Companies define credibility so that only managers have it, in order to create an artificial scarcity that makes employees easier to control. That's what enables the managerial extortion that forces employees to serve local goals (the manager's own career) rather than the benefit of the company (or the growth of the individual). Very few companies formally allow a manager to unilaterally fire. That's way too much of an HR/lawsuit risk. Instead, these closed-allocation dinosaur companies define credibility in such a limited way that managers can either support or not support the employee, and then if the person is not supported, that person's credibility is zero and the manager isn't firing that person. "The company" does it, after "careful review" of "objective" performance statistics. On top of this, they set tight headcount limits so that for anyone to get a good project requires a special favor, allowing the company to say "no" and appear consistent on the matter. Google is aware enough of this problem to allow engineers at above a certain level to acquire independent credibility. At Staff, you can pull a Yegge (quit your project in public) and be OK. If you're a SWE 3 and you try that, you're fucked. So Google may be different from the full-on closed-allocation nightmare corporation, but you only if you either (a) start at a senior level, or (b) get on visible, desirable projects when you start, so you can get promotions quickly. The only time it isn't difficult to transfer to something better is immediately after a promotion (and there are some managers who withhold promotions to keep people captive; Google, to its credit, has a system that occasionally overrides managerial objections to promo). The sad thing is that I don't doubt that Google is better than 95 percent of large corporations its size in terms of internal mobility, individual autonomy, and engineer-centric culture. It might be better than 98%. It's still pretty awful for a large percentage of people who work there, and the fact that it's so much better than most of what else is out there is a damnation of Corporate America, not an endorsement of Google.

14y ago

baddox 14y ago

> Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. Add in the ability to occasionally submit votes that are statistically irrelevant and you've got modern Western democracy.

cookiecaper 14y ago

>Serfs occupied a portion of land and owed a portion of their crops to the lord of the manor or their feudal lord. It was slavery in all but name. I guess it depends on your definition of slavery. Most serfs had some degree of autonomy and self-determination even if they were forced to pay tribute unfairly. So that incites us to ask, how is it any different today, when we are also forced to pay a [quite hefty] tribute to the government simply for collecting money? We all have some form of autonomy, but the government has demonstration that only exists so long as we pay tribute and sacrifice the fruits of our labors. Same story as a serf, who would be granted a parcel and expected to pay a tribute to his lord or suffer serious infractions of basic rights to self-determination.