11 ms·

> You get a range for your calibration score. Whether your manager tells you the specific number is up to him, and you have no way of knowing whether he's telli

> You get a range for your calibration score. Whether your manager tells you the specific number is up to him, and you have no way of knowing whether he's telling the truth. No, the calibration score can be displayed in the internal performance tool based on a manager's preference. And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. Regardless, as long as one is "Meets Expectations" or higher, they will have no issue transferring teams after their 1.5 years of service to their current team. Your problem was that you were both new to the team and were performing at the level below "Meets Exceptations". > If you go to HR, you get fired ... More bullshit about Google from someone who has no clue. I (and plenty of people I've worked with, including those that have successfully gone through a PIP) have had very pleasant experiences with HR and their boss^2. > At least you admit to that problem. Yes, that is correct. I don't believe requiring someone to stay on a team for 1.5 years before transferring is a problem. The honest truth is that no team wanted you, because if they did, there would have been an exception made. We get it, you had a horrible time at Google, performed incredibly poorly, and continue to blame others/the system for your issues. Even worse, your attempt to garner sympathy and support from other Googlers didn't work out as your illusions of grandeur would have suggested. Now you continue to jump at any opportunity to smear Google as if getting agreement from people who've never worked there will somehow make it all better.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Dear Cowardly Anonymous FAL-Dude, Name yourself or stop with the ad hominem attacks. Thanks. You know nothing about my situation, nor why I left Google. Please stop speculating. Even I never found out what calibration score I got. My manager promised a 3.4, gave something lower (his boss confirmed) and it was being appealed at the time I left. Call it -6.2 for all I care. I was in the process of internal transfer and it was going alright; however, I got an offer from another company and left. I figured that a clean start would be better than an HR file that, while it wouldn't affect me in the short term, would have long-term implications come promo time and that it'd take months of grueling, bureaucratic effort (some of dubious ethical character) for me to fix. It was like this: Option A is that I transfer, stay at Google, but may have an early-term smear of my Perf history and might have to cut bribes to people with HR database access in a few years when I rise to a level where even early, cosmetic, irrelevant stuff counts. Option B is that I get another job. Option A is unethical and unlikely to work. Option B is much easier. So I chose B. Some time after I left, Google did something about a few horrible managers on the issues that I'd raised, but I don't know how much progress they've made and it makes no damn difference to me at this point.
- mvgoogler 14y ago
  > It was like this: Option A is that I transfer, stay at Google, but may have an early-term smear of my Perf history and might have to cut bribes to people with HR database access in a few years when I rise to a level where even early, cosmetic, irrelevant stuff counts Sorry but that's complete and utter crap. If you had transferred to another group and consistently performed well no promo committee would have cared about what happened in your first few months. If anything they would have looked at it and thought something along the lines of "well he had a rough first few months, but since then he's been kicking butt. Either his first team was a bad fit, or he learned and grew since then." Promo committees (and hiring committees for that matter) have to sort through conflicting feedback all of the time. When you're on a promo/hiring committee you are constantly "reading through" the feedback to look for patterns and trends, and trying to build a broader context to help interpret any outliers. A bad patch early on wouldn't have mattered, as long as your trajectory afterwards was positive. Many (very) senior developers offered to sit down and talk with you privately. I'm sure if you had taken them up on their offers they would have said the same thing. There is nothing that happened in your months here that couldn't have been fixed by transferring to a group that was a better fit and focusing more on producing great software than on posting to the internal mailing lists.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    BTW, piaw has several blog articles about problems with performance review committees: http://piaw.blogspot.ca/2010/04/promotion-systems.html http://piaw.blogspot.ca/2010/04/promotion-systems.html
- Matt_Cutts 14y ago
  "stop with the ad hominem attacks" Michael, you're complaining about rude attacks the day after you wrote "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 ?
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Rude != ad hominem. Different categories altogether. Ad hominem attacks usually involve asymmetry of public identity and often place a target between two undesirable options: (a) letting the attacks stand, or (b) further exposing information that's irrelevant to the discussion and possibly compromising, especially with the persistence of the Internet. I am fine with rudeness. In fact, in many circumstances, I encourage it.
chris_mahan 14y ago
Dear Googler123. Telling someone STFU is not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Also, it is quite inappropriate, and may be illegal as well as unethical, to discuss a person's performance while at a company. The real culprit is Google, no matter what. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 for my take on management's responsibility for what happens in a company. Does Michael have a beef? Yes he does. Does Michael have a right to express himself, give his opinion publicly? Yes he does. If Google is the subject of his smears, Google only has Google to blame.
- mayanksinghal 14y ago
  He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
    - wutbrodo 14y ago
      > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
      - chris_mahan 14y ago
        Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?
DenisM 14y ago
Seriously, you make good counterpoints, but the adhoms are not called for. Not cool.
zohebv 14y ago
Any one with work experience and common sense can tell that talking to boss^2 and HR is a recipe for disaster. You are also unwilling to challenge michael's claim that he was meeting expectations and in the midst of a transfer. You also think restricting transfers for 1.5 years is not a problem. Is there any problem within Google that you are willing to admit? You sound like an HR drone tasked with attacking michael's record with false data. You haven't responded to his claim that his record met expectations. Unless you use a real identity, your claims will have no credibility.
- VikingCoder 14y ago
  I have work experience and common sense, and I've had success talking to boss^2 and HR. You get out of life what you put into it. Also, at some point, you have to be willing to take the risk that things won't go well. What's the worst thing they can do? Fire you? Michael was already thinking about leaving anyway. At some level, you just have to ACT like the company you work for is the company you WANT to work for - and if they don't see it the same way, no hard feelings. If Google was the company he wanted to work for, and he and his manager didn't get along, what SHOULD he do? Stand up for yourself. Don't quit for the sake of your "permanent record." If there's more to it, then that's fine - but if that's your reason for quitting...? It's a company, and you have a job. If your manager sucks, say something about it. If that doesn't work, vote with your feet. Talk to boss^2 and HR.
  - hga 13y ago
    Is anyone saying that "Talk to boss^2 and HR" will never work, or just that it's very unlikely to work? I too have work experience, but perhaps not common sense when it comes to dealing with people, and I never got anything accomplished by talking to boss^2, who as Church noted was more invested in their choice of hiring your boss than in you the underling, and indeed then voted with my feet.
    - VikingCoder 13y ago
      Yes, I think Michael is saying it will never work. Michael: "If you go to HR, you get fired." "If you go to your boss^2, you are similarly fucked..." I think that's terrible advice. I'm sorry you had to vote with your feet, but I'm glad that you did. The only way boss^2 or HR have a chance to learn is if employees do what they're supposed to, and Michael is actively telling people to not do what they're supposed to.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Dear Cowardly Anonymous FAL-Dude, Name yourself or stop with the ad hominem attacks. Thanks. You know nothing about my situation, nor why I left Google. Please stop speculating. Even I never found out what calibration score I got. My manager promised a 3.4, gave something lower (his boss confirmed) and it was being appealed at the time I left. Call it -6.2 for all I care. I was in the process of internal transfer and it was going alright; however, I got an offer from another company and left. I figured that a clean start would be better than an HR file that, while it wouldn't affect me in the short term, would have long-term implications come promo time and that it'd take months of grueling, bureaucratic effort (some of dubious ethical character) for me to fix. It was like this: Option A is that I transfer, stay at Google, but may have an early-term smear of my Perf history and might have to cut bribes to people with HR database access in a few years when I rise to a level where even early, cosmetic, irrelevant stuff counts. Option B is that I get another job. Option A is unethical and unlikely to work. Option B is much easier. So I chose B. Some time after I left, Google did something about a few horrible managers on the issues that I'd raised, but I don't know how much progress they've made and it makes no damn difference to me at this point.

mvgoogler 14y ago
> It was like this: Option A is that I transfer, stay at Google, but may have an early-term smear of my Perf history and might have to cut bribes to people with HR database access in a few years when I rise to a level where even early, cosmetic, irrelevant stuff counts Sorry but that's complete and utter crap. If you had transferred to another group and consistently performed well no promo committee would have cared about what happened in your first few months. If anything they would have looked at it and thought something along the lines of "well he had a rough first few months, but since then he's been kicking butt. Either his first team was a bad fit, or he learned and grew since then." Promo committees (and hiring committees for that matter) have to sort through conflicting feedback all of the time. When you're on a promo/hiring committee you are constantly "reading through" the feedback to look for patterns and trends, and trying to build a broader context to help interpret any outliers. A bad patch early on wouldn't have mattered, as long as your trajectory afterwards was positive. Many (very) senior developers offered to sit down and talk with you privately. I'm sure if you had taken them up on their offers they would have said the same thing. There is nothing that happened in your months here that couldn't have been fixed by transferring to a group that was a better fit and focusing more on producing great software than on posting to the internal mailing lists.
- yuhong 14y ago
  BTW, piaw has several blog articles about problems with performance review committees: http://piaw.blogspot.ca/2010/04/promotion-systems.html http://piaw.blogspot.ca/2010/04/promotion-systems.html
Matt_Cutts 14y ago
"stop with the ad hominem attacks" Michael, you're complaining about rude attacks the day after you wrote "Choke on a fucking taint, Google. Choke. On. A. Taint" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5508058 ?
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Rude != ad hominem. Different categories altogether. Ad hominem attacks usually involve asymmetry of public identity and often place a target between two undesirable options: (a) letting the attacks stand, or (b) further exposing information that's irrelevant to the discussion and possibly compromising, especially with the persistence of the Internet. I am fine with rudeness. In fact, in many circumstances, I encourage it.

chris_mahan 14y ago

Dear Googler123. Telling someone STFU is not nice, in any universe, not even HN. Also, it is quite inappropriate, and may be illegal as well as unethical, to discuss a person's performance while at a company. The real culprit is Google, no matter what. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5296146 for my take on management's responsibility for what happens in a company. Does Michael have a beef? Yes he does. Does Michael have a right to express himself, give his opinion publicly? Yes he does. If Google is the subject of his smears, Google only has Google to blame.

mayanksinghal 14y ago
He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.
- chris_mahan 14y ago
  He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
  - wutbrodo 14y ago
    > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
    - chris_mahan 14y ago
      Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?

DenisM 14y ago

Seriously, you make good counterpoints, but the adhoms are not called for. Not cool.

zohebv 14y ago

Any one with work experience and common sense can tell that talking to boss^2 and HR is a recipe for disaster. You are also unwilling to challenge michael's claim that he was meeting expectations and in the midst of a transfer. You also think restricting transfers for 1.5 years is not a problem. Is there any problem within Google that you are willing to admit? You sound like an HR drone tasked with attacking michael's record with false data. You haven't responded to his claim that his record met expectations. Unless you use a real identity, your claims will have no credibility.

VikingCoder 14y ago
I have work experience and common sense, and I've had success talking to boss^2 and HR. You get out of life what you put into it. Also, at some point, you have to be willing to take the risk that things won't go well. What's the worst thing they can do? Fire you? Michael was already thinking about leaving anyway. At some level, you just have to ACT like the company you work for is the company you WANT to work for - and if they don't see it the same way, no hard feelings. If Google was the company he wanted to work for, and he and his manager didn't get along, what SHOULD he do? Stand up for yourself. Don't quit for the sake of your "permanent record." If there's more to it, then that's fine - but if that's your reason for quitting...? It's a company, and you have a job. If your manager sucks, say something about it. If that doesn't work, vote with your feet. Talk to boss^2 and HR.
- hga 13y ago
  Is anyone saying that "Talk to boss^2 and HR" will never work, or just that it's very unlikely to work? I too have work experience, but perhaps not common sense when it comes to dealing with people, and I never got anything accomplished by talking to boss^2, who as Church noted was more invested in their choice of hiring your boss than in you the underling, and indeed then voted with my feet.
  - VikingCoder 13y ago
    Yes, I think Michael is saying it will never work. Michael: "If you go to HR, you get fired." "If you go to your boss^2, you are similarly fucked..." I think that's terrible advice. I'm sorry you had to vote with your feet, but I'm glad that you did. The only way boss^2 or HR have a chance to learn is if employees do what they're supposed to, and Michael is actively telling people to not do what they're supposed to.