7 ms·

it's almost impossible to transfer teams before you've spent at least 1.5 years on that team. At least you admit to that problem. Yes, that is correct.

by Nitramp 14y ago

*it's almost impossible to transfer teams before you've spent at least 1.5 years on that team.* At least you admit to that problem. Yes, that is correct. Actually, I've seen two people transfer teams in their first couple of months because they were unhappy with their job, and it was not a big deal at all (find potential new job, talk to new team, talk to manager, notify HR, done). I think the 1.5 years is the time you're expected to stay on a project because below that you might end up being more effort than gain to the team, but as long as you don't make a habit out of job hopping across the company, it's not an issue.

mvgoogler 14y ago
I've seen plenty of instances of the same thing - new hires where it was clear he team wasn't a good fit. They had an adult conversation with the current manager and did their best to be productive until they found a team that was a better fit and transferred. No drama and no hard feelings.
michaelochurch 14y ago
Google depends a lot on your manager. If you have a good manager, then it's still the Old Google and the company is still open to you. With a good manager, you can transfer as you wish, and as long as you don't have a complete don't-give-a-shit attitude toward your assigned project, you're OK no matter how things play. I'll be the first to say that there are good managers at Google. However, the major reason why people work for large companies is to be protected from the event of a bad manager. Startups fire same-day. Large companies offer transfer for the no-fault "fit" cases. Google does not extend such protection, which means it lacks the one upside of a large company. That's why I always tell people that if they get a chance to work for Google, they should give it a shot. Nonetheless, their HR infrastructure and executives have failed to do their jobs; that much is clear. The matter of whether that will affect a specific individual is unpredictable.
marssaxman 14y ago
That's what they told me it would be like when I interviewed at Google, but that's not what actually happened. I believe that it does work that way for some people, but the system is not transparent; it did not work for me and I don't believe that my manager or Google HR were ever being completely straight with me about what was going on. Perhaps there is some narrow, undocumented window during which you can do this kind of transfer, and I unknowingly passed it? It did take me about three months to understand what was going on well enough to realize just how much I hated the project I'd been assigned, another month to figure out where I wanted to go and to talk things over with the team I wanted to join, and another month for them to deal with some headcount freeze and some apparently-brand-new interdepartmental transfer process (!?). By that time the manager who'd hired me had moved on to something else, and the team was run by some guy in another city who was clearly overextended. When I told him I wanted out, there was no "sorry the starter project didn't work out, enjoy your new team"; instead it was "what the hell do you think you're doing" and a PEP, blocking the transfer.
- codex 14y ago
  If there was a PIP involved, you were likely not meeting expectations, and either the new team didn't want the liability, or the transfer was killed by HR to prevent under performers from avoiding a PEP by continually transferring to a new team. It's OK to hate your project but it's not OK to underperform.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    The problem is the measure of "performance". Some companies including Google do it via a central committee, but that has it's own problems.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    If there was a PIP involved, you were likely not meeting expectations Or, his boss was resentful of his desire to transfer and, because each manager has a limited number of "review points" (that's how Enron/Google-style performance review systems work; the forced curve means that a manager's generosity in reviews is limited by his credibility) he was thrown under the bus. That's much more likely. This is called the Welch Effect. "Underperformers" tend to be average-performing, junior members of underperforming teams (who had the least to do with the team's underperformance). The reason is that that the manager (who is also desperate, but in slow motion) doesn't have many "calibration" points to give out and tends to focus everything he has on senior people who are likely to stay because, without superior review scores, they'll flee. Credible, less desperate, managers look out for all their reports. The ones who are on the bubble tend to scapegoat one every year, and spend all their review points on the senior people who hold the project together in spite of mismanagement. the transfer was killed by HR to prevent under performers from avoiding a PEP by continually transferring to a new team. Then the people in HR who blocked the transfer should be fired in disgrace because they're mean-spirited pieces of garbage and it's irresponsible to let them make decisions that affect other people. It's OK to hate your project but it's not OK to underperform. Do you know how disgustingly self-righteous you sound? You know nothing about the guy and you're telling him that he's "not OK". If you actually think more than 10% of people labelled as "low performers" in any company are real problem employees, then you're either (a) under 23, or (b) fucking stupid. Management uses "low performer" labels to brush away its own failures and messes. Most problem employees and true low performers never get caught, and that's why companies tend toward mediocrity and failure over time.
jjwiseman 14y ago
Official policy (when I was there) is 18 month minimum before you can transfer. There can be exceptions, but they are exceptions. About 3 months in, I talked to my manager about transferring off a project I disliked. His response a month later, which I believe came from the site director, was literally "We don't care." Which is fine, I just think it's important to know that Google is not generally flexible about initial allocation, and you will generally be expected to stay on your first project for 1.5 years--regardless of how you feel about it. And you may not know what your first project will be until after you're hired, or even after orientation.

*it's almost impossible to transfer teams before you've spent at least 1.5 years on that team.* At least you admit to that problem. Yes, that is correct.

by Nitramp 14y ago

mvgoogler 14y ago

I've seen plenty of instances of the same thing - new hires where it was clear he team wasn't a good fit. They had an adult conversation with the current manager and did their best to be productive until they found a team that was a better fit and transferred. No drama and no hard feelings.

michaelochurch 14y ago

Google depends a lot on your manager. If you have a good manager, then it's still the Old Google and the company is still open to you. With a good manager, you can transfer as you wish, and as long as you don't have a complete don't-give-a-shit attitude toward your assigned project, you're OK no matter how things play. I'll be the first to say that there are good managers at Google. However, the major reason why people work for large companies is to be protected from the event of a bad manager. Startups fire same-day. Large companies offer transfer for the no-fault "fit" cases. Google does not extend such protection, which means it lacks the one upside of a large company. That's why I always tell people that if they get a chance to work for Google, they should give it a shot. Nonetheless, their HR infrastructure and executives have failed to do their jobs; that much is clear. The matter of whether that will affect a specific individual is unpredictable.

marssaxman 14y ago

That's what they told me it would be like when I interviewed at Google, but that's not what actually happened. I believe that it does work that way for some people, but the system is not transparent; it did not work for me and I don't believe that my manager or Google HR were ever being completely straight with me about what was going on. Perhaps there is some narrow, undocumented window during which you can do this kind of transfer, and I unknowingly passed it? It did take me about three months to understand what was going on well enough to realize just how much I hated the project I'd been assigned, another month to figure out where I wanted to go and to talk things over with the team I wanted to join, and another month for them to deal with some headcount freeze and some apparently-brand-new interdepartmental transfer process (!?). By that time the manager who'd hired me had moved on to something else, and the team was run by some guy in another city who was clearly overextended. When I told him I wanted out, there was no "sorry the starter project didn't work out, enjoy your new team"; instead it was "what the hell do you think you're doing" and a PEP, blocking the transfer.

codex 14y ago
If there was a PIP involved, you were likely not meeting expectations, and either the new team didn't want the liability, or the transfer was killed by HR to prevent under performers from avoiding a PEP by continually transferring to a new team. It's OK to hate your project but it's not OK to underperform.
- yuhong 14y ago
  The problem is the measure of "performance". Some companies including Google do it via a central committee, but that has it's own problems.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  If there was a PIP involved, you were likely not meeting expectations Or, his boss was resentful of his desire to transfer and, because each manager has a limited number of "review points" (that's how Enron/Google-style performance review systems work; the forced curve means that a manager's generosity in reviews is limited by his credibility) he was thrown under the bus. That's much more likely. This is called the Welch Effect. "Underperformers" tend to be average-performing, junior members of underperforming teams (who had the least to do with the team's underperformance). The reason is that that the manager (who is also desperate, but in slow motion) doesn't have many "calibration" points to give out and tends to focus everything he has on senior people who are likely to stay because, without superior review scores, they'll flee. Credible, less desperate, managers look out for all their reports. The ones who are on the bubble tend to scapegoat one every year, and spend all their review points on the senior people who hold the project together in spite of mismanagement. the transfer was killed by HR to prevent under performers from avoiding a PEP by continually transferring to a new team. Then the people in HR who blocked the transfer should be fired in disgrace because they're mean-spirited pieces of garbage and it's irresponsible to let them make decisions that affect other people. It's OK to hate your project but it's not OK to underperform. Do you know how disgustingly self-righteous you sound? You know nothing about the guy and you're telling him that he's "not OK". If you actually think more than 10% of people labelled as "low performers" in any company are real problem employees, then you're either (a) under 23, or (b) fucking stupid. Management uses "low performer" labels to brush away its own failures and messes. Most problem employees and true low performers never get caught, and that's why companies tend toward mediocrity and failure over time.

jjwiseman 14y ago

Official policy (when I was there) is 18 month minimum before you can transfer. There can be exceptions, but they are exceptions. About 3 months in, I talked to my manager about transferring off a project I disliked. His response a month later, which I believe came from the site director, was literally "We don't care." Which is fine, I just think it's important to know that Google is not generally flexible about initial allocation, and you will generally be expected to stay on your first project for 1.5 years--regardless of how you feel about it. And you may not know what your first project will be until after you're hired, or even after orientation.