5 ms·

First of all, I don't think constructive criticism and frank incivility belong in the same bucket. One is a good thing about us. The other is a negative. Howev

First of all, I don't think constructive criticism and frank incivility belong in the same bucket. One is a good thing about us. The other is a negative. However, if we want to restore our tribal integrity, we can't let management play us against each other so easily. There are so many conflicts that look technical but are actually cases where management deliberately played tech people against each other (usually, to create a sense of competition on work hours, dedication, et al). Most engineers lack the social skills to perceive when this is happening. One thing about business people: they constantly talk each other up. Even if they don't like each other, they say good things about one another. It's game theory. They know the difference between luke-warm and real praise, but everyone else thinks The Manager is in good standing (and therefore stays in line). They get themselves to a state where not saying something positive about someone is a damnation. They can dog-whistle by criticizing a member of their tribe within it, but in a way that outsiders don't recognize, allowing them to keep a unified front. On our over-honesty, there's one case I know about where an engineer was leapfrog promoted to top management and had a lot of non-engineering reports. They had a performance review system where 5 (out of 9) was nominally average, but everyone came in between 7.5 and 9.0. He gave a lot of 6's and 7's thinking he was giving honest ratings (because no one looked at the perf numbers for IT, reviews he'd written in the past had no effect) but it ended up making a huge mess when HR wanted to put two-thirds of his team on PIPs. He reacted by changing everyone's rating to a 9.0 and giving honest feedback verbally, which is how it should be done. I feel like we need a similar "understanding" with each other. To other engineers and technologists, we give blunt and honest feedback. But we need to stop the cannibalism. To management and HR, we take a strict attitude of praising other engineers (whether we think they deserve it or not). We should never narc each other out.

yuhong 14y ago
I'd consider it only a workaround.
kyllo 14y ago
Yeah, this is really an extension of "praise in public, criticize in private," which is one of the golden rules of good management. Non-tech management understands this concept better than tech management, perhaps.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Tech people really suck at negotiation and that doesn't stop when they become managers. Which means that they don't realize that "You need to be hard on your reports" is a test and not a directive. When the boss^2 (who does understand negotiation and human dynamics) says "You need to be tougher on your reports", saying "Yes, sir" means you fail the test. If you're not standing up for your reports and selling their efforts with highest praise, then they probably aren't loyal to you, either.
  - kyllo 14y ago
    That, and if you're a boss, badmouthing anyone on your team to your own boss sends a message that you can't keep your house in order and maybe you aren't fit to lead a team. So if you're a manager and you're smart, then when your boss asks you about your reports, the correct answer is always yes sir/ma'am, everyone is doing great--anything less reflects poorly on your ability to manage them. Your boss doesn't want to deal with people-managing your reports, that's why he/she hired you in the first place.
tiredofcareer 14y ago
When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I interviewed at Google recently and asked my interviewers about you, Michael, based on the threads you start here that talk about the management vs. engineers culture at Google. Rather than go "oh, Michael, you're so wrong," I gave you a chance and brought it up as a valid concern to each of my five interviewers. The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so. (It goes without saying that it's really interesting that all five knew who you were, since I interviewed on the warm coast and you worked in NY.) I didn't just get that from people putting on a game face to interview me. I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public. It's an effective technique, really, because you know that you win if they go toe to toe with you. Given that you're discussing slitting throats for more equity in other parts of this thread, and previously you've compared Google management to the terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center, I implore you to seek help. Please. Way too many people feed in to your reality distortion who haven't been around the block in the valley and Hacker News, and it's disgusting to watch.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I wasn't talking about Google. Not for that specific case. That happened at another company, where I didn't work, but I know the story. Lots of companies use PIPs and performance reviews. The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so. If they want to defend their company's practices, they should. Who knows? Perhaps the company improved massively after I left. Perhaps calibration scores were abolished last year. I'd have no way of knowing and, if that's the case, the public should know. I'm better known for that than I'd like to be. However, I'd say that my support is about 25/25/50. 50 percent of Googlers see me as Emmanuel Goldstein and would probably never want to talk to me, that's true. I don't like that I have potentially thousands of enemies, but sometimes a person like me has to do the right thing, even at the cost of unpopularity. 25 percent are just completely indifferent. 25 percent view me positively because they want to see Google improve and think it takes someone like me to draw executive attention to problems. Oddly enough, I'm probably doing more good for Google engineers than anyone realizes, because upper management is now aware of abuses in the middle and, at least, has a chance to correct them. I haven't probed (I don't care) but the company could be fixing itself, thanks to something I started. Of course, the perverse irony is that if Google management fixes their culture, I'll probably still be the villain (as a guy who worked there at the nadir and gave it a negative reputation) rather than the catalyst. The best thing for my personal reputation is for Google not to improve itself, because then I'm still right. Still, it's better for the world for Google to heed my advice and fix itself in order to make all the things I've said wrong. I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public. I've said a lot of positive things about Google. They have great engineers. I've also criticized the place. Whoever came up with "calibration scores" needs to stop using his employer as a nursing home and start using an actual nursing home as a nursing home. If Google's upper management indicates will to resolve its cultural problems (and hell, I'll work with them on this, and at a cut rate) then I will shut up. I am already willing to admit that my information is a year and a half out of date. So there.

yuhong 14y ago

I'd consider it only a workaround.

kyllo 14y ago

Yeah, this is really an extension of "praise in public, criticize in private," which is one of the golden rules of good management. Non-tech management understands this concept better than tech management, perhaps.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Tech people really suck at negotiation and that doesn't stop when they become managers. Which means that they don't realize that "You need to be hard on your reports" is a test and not a directive. When the boss^2 (who does understand negotiation and human dynamics) says "You need to be tougher on your reports", saying "Yes, sir" means you fail the test. If you're not standing up for your reports and selling their efforts with highest praise, then they probably aren't loyal to you, either.
- kyllo 14y ago
  That, and if you're a boss, badmouthing anyone on your team to your own boss sends a message that you can't keep your house in order and maybe you aren't fit to lead a team. So if you're a manager and you're smart, then when your boss asks you about your reports, the correct answer is always yes sir/ma'am, everyone is doing great--anything less reflects poorly on your ability to manage them. Your boss doesn't want to deal with people-managing your reports, that's why he/she hired you in the first place.

tiredofcareer 14y ago

When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I interviewed at Google recently and asked my interviewers about you, Michael, based on the threads you start here that talk about the management vs. engineers culture at Google. Rather than go "oh, Michael, you're so wrong," I gave you a chance and brought it up as a valid concern to each of my five interviewers. The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so. (It goes without saying that it's really interesting that all five knew who you were, since I interviewed on the warm coast and you worked in NY.) I didn't just get that from people putting on a game face to interview me. I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public. It's an effective technique, really, because you know that you win if they go toe to toe with you. Given that you're discussing slitting throats for more equity in other parts of this thread, and previously you've compared Google management to the terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center, I implore you to seek help. Please. Way too many people feed in to your reality distortion who haven't been around the block in the valley and Hacker News, and it's disgusting to watch.

michaelochurch 14y ago
When you use specific terms like PIPs and perf, we know who you're talking about. I wasn't talking about Google. Not for that specific case. That happened at another company, where I didn't work, but I know the story. Lots of companies use PIPs and performance reviews. The resounding sentiment from every single engineer who interviewed me (two of them with more than 8 years at Google) was how badly you misrepresent and malign Google and how half of engineering wishes they could correct you, but legality and common sense prevents them from doing so. If they want to defend their company's practices, they should. Who knows? Perhaps the company improved massively after I left. Perhaps calibration scores were abolished last year. I'd have no way of knowing and, if that's the case, the public should know. I'm better known for that than I'd like to be. However, I'd say that my support is about 25/25/50. 50 percent of Googlers see me as Emmanuel Goldstein and would probably never want to talk to me, that's true. I don't like that I have potentially thousands of enemies, but sometimes a person like me has to do the right thing, even at the cost of unpopularity. 25 percent are just completely indifferent. 25 percent view me positively because they want to see Google improve and think it takes someone like me to draw executive attention to problems. Oddly enough, I'm probably doing more good for Google engineers than anyone realizes, because upper management is now aware of abuses in the middle and, at least, has a chance to correct them. I haven't probed (I don't care) but the company could be fixing itself, thanks to something I started. Of course, the perverse irony is that if Google management fixes their culture, I'll probably still be the villain (as a guy who worked there at the nadir and gave it a negative reputation) rather than the catalyst. The best thing for my personal reputation is for Google not to improve itself, because then I'm still right. Still, it's better for the world for Google to heed my advice and fix itself in order to make all the things I've said wrong. I know five current Googlers from all walks of life and corporate structure, including someone who worked near you during your tenure, and they all hate what you do in public. I've said a lot of positive things about Google. They have great engineers. I've also criticized the place. Whoever came up with "calibration scores" needs to stop using his employer as a nursing home and start using an actual nursing home as a nursing home. If Google's upper management indicates will to resolve its cultural problems (and hell, I'll work with them on this, and at a cut rate) then I will shut up. I am already willing to admit that my information is a year and a half out of date. So there.