Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#101

Post by 0xbear »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #94
0xbear wrote: post #89

Google is a very “sink or swim” place, and these well intentioned studies aren’t going to change that. I suspect they get funded in part for their positive PR aspect. Anecdotally, two of the three teams I worked in at Google were among the highest performing if you look at impact and results, and there was nothing “touchy-feely safe space” about them. It was pretty much “deliver or GTFO”, and how you feel about any o…

When you say GTFO, what is it exactly that you mean? Have you seen anyone fired or punished for underperformance?

You won’t be fired per se. You just won’t perform well against your peers an will feel like shit because of that. After some time you’ll leave on your own accord to a team where demands aren’t quite as high. There are plenty of those around: it’s a huge company now, and demanding, high performance teams that do something that actually matters are a small minority.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#102

Post by 0xbear »

itronitron wrote: post #98
0xbear wrote: post #89

Google is a very “sink or swim” place, and these well intentioned studies aren’t going to change that. I suspect they get funded in part for their positive PR aspect. Anecdotally, two of the three teams I worked in at Google were among the highest performing if you look at impact and results, and there was nothing “touchy-feely safe space” about them. It was pretty much “deliver or GTFO”, and how you feel about any o…

How do any of us know what the other means by 'touchy-feely safe space' ? I am pretty confident I have never worked in such an organization although someone with a different work experience might disagree. Same goes for 'deliver or GTFO' << that pretty much defines every work environment even though they are all different.

What I’m saying is that at no point in my rather lengthy stint at Google were my feelings even a passing consideration to anybody in my chain of command. A couple of peers cared, but even there the environment is much more impersonal than in other companies I’ve worked at. And that’s _good_ for things like code quality etc, because your design won’t gain approval if it sucks no matter how chummy you are with your peers or boss. Same with code reviews, you will regularly get mercilessly savaged with the most pedantic nitpicking you’ve ever seen, sometimes to the point where your blood would boil. And that’s how it’s supposed to be if you want excellent engineering. But it’s not the most hospitable atmosphere for you as a person.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#103

Post by emodendroket »

itronitron wrote: post #99
emodendroket wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only obvious if you take it as a given that the more money you have the smarter you are. Besides that, has there been a large change in the portion of the population with Internet access since 2016? And, besides that, the supposed "proof" the Internet has gotten stupider is becoming critical of Google.

I think both of the parent comments are intended to be sarcastic, but I could be wrong.

I find it hard to tell.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#104

Post by dasmoth »

andrewflnr wrote: post #90
golemotron wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One of the easiest ways to gauge social sensitivity is to show someone photos of people’s eyes and ask him or her to describe what the people are thinking or feeling — an exam known as the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. People on the more successful teams in Woolley’s experiment scored above average on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. What isn't mentioned is that the 'Mind in the Eyes' test is used to ass…

Where do you think teamwork is not important? Such circumstances are vanishingly rare at best, mostly debatable, and will get rarer as humanity's ambition increasingly exceeds the capabilities of individuals. Meanwhile, having the ability to work with others will always be better than not.

Writing novels has always been a primarily-solo activity. I don't see demand for those dropping off drastically.

The guy who re-plumbled my house was working there alone pretty much all the time. That seems to be a common way of working in many trades, and plumbers don't seem desperate for work.

A fair number of bits of heavily-used software started out as one person's project (many of the successful ones do eventually morph into community projects, but titles like "benevolant dictator for life" show that community doesn't necessarily mean a flat "team" setup). Lots of programming languages fall in this category. Sublime Text. Indy games (and, not so very long ago, the majority of games). Building software as a solo endeavour does seem to be somewhat out of fashion right now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't work.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#105

Post by Top19 »

m3kw9 wrote: post #79

The fact that they think there is perfection in such a thing should already be the wrong path to go down on

Reminds me of the scene in The Circle where Tom Hanks says “we believe in the perfectability of human beings!”.

Google is such a frightening, creepy company that really tries hard not to be. Kind of like the guy who breaks into a girl’s home with a gun screaming “why won’t you go out with me I’m a nice guy”.

If you work for Google no offense, you’re still competitive on the job market and Google became creepy as a function of emergence rather than anyone’s choice, but still wanted to say something...

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#106

Post by perl4ever »

dageshi wrote: post #42
indubitable wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google and Psychological Science play a key role in this article. Opinions of both have shifted sharply in the past couple of years. We should of course base our opinions of writings based on what is written instead of what is written about, but the vast majority of people do not do this. And it goes both ways. Is the response to this publication of the article unreasonably negative, or was the response to the origin…

> Google and Psychological Science play a key role in this article. Opinions of both have shifted sharply in the past couple of years. I would note perhaps that as someone outside the US, it appears like opinions of people in the US about large tech companies appears to have shifted very recently, within the past 6 months so it seems to me. Personally I feel the same about Google/Amazon/Facebook as I ever did.

As someone inside the US, I feel like there was a theme of opposition to fracking not long ago, and it switched to opposition to tech, almost as if it was orchestrated. This could be just my paranoid tendencies speaking, but if the anti-silicon valley sentiment is largely genuine, why does it seem to me like the anti-fracking sentiment has disappeared from the forums I read? It's as though some astroturfing campaign was attacking what was perceived as the strongest industry in the American economy, and when it didn't make much of a difference, moved on to another target.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#107

Post by tajen »

dinoleif wrote: post #6

Ridiculous puff piece & PR job. There is not a single piece of data in that entire article. The way this works is: 1/ Google crunches some data 2/ The company leadership looks at that data, twists it to leave out "inconvenient" facts, and tells whatever narratives they want to tell (internally and to the NYT) 3/ No data or any empirical results are ever released (even internally)

Is there a relationship between NYT and Google? I’m surprised how they are (politically) aligned to display a coherent message.

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#108

Post by tajen »

jamra wrote: post #20
jpatokal wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work at Google, or what are you basing these bold assertions on? FTR, I'm a manager at Google. I don't feel qualified to comment on the research or the specifics of this article, but I can assure you Google takes building effective teams pretty darn seriously.

Are you suggesting that working at google somehow impacts OP's ability to read the article and determine if the article cites data?

Or he’s suggesting that if he worked at Google he would face an immediate disciplinary measure. He said he’s a manager so he’s involved in the prosecution that J. D. denounced (and was fired for).

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#109

Post by jack9 »

emodendroket wrote: post #78
jack9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the internet population increased the mean intelligence went down. Such an obvious and expected trend, I have to wonder if you're ok. Maybe you're so well-trained that you stop thinking when you jump to a conclusion.

That's only obvious if you take it as a given that the more money you have the smarter you are. Besides that, has there been a large change in the portion of the population with Internet access since 2016? And, besides that, the supposed "proof" the Internet has gotten stupider is becoming critical of Google.

> That's only obvious if you take it as a given that the more money you have the smarter you are.

Intelligence isn't a ladder, so that wouldn't make sense in any context. Effective understanding of the relationship of Google vs God vs a domestic country's population vs yourself, does require some sophistication that involves general intelligence (in aggregate) and education. There are correlations with median income and these factors. As the population of the world gains access, simplistic fears about shadowy organizations are bound to gain ground from a myriad of historical and cultural parallels, as the median education level falls (among other associated factors, like wealth).

Re: What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team (2016)

#110

Post by itronitron »

0xbear wrote: post #102
itronitron wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do any of us know what the other means by 'touchy-feely safe space' ? I am pretty confident I have never worked in such an organization although someone with a different work experience might disagree. Same goes for 'deliver or GTFO' << that pretty much defines every work environment even though they are all different.

What I’m saying is that at no point in my rather lengthy stint at Google were my feelings even a passing consideration to anybody in my chain of command. A couple of peers cared, but even there the environment is much more impersonal than in other companies I’ve worked at. And that’s _good_ for things like code quality etc, because your design won’t gain approval if it sucks no matter how chummy you are with your pee…

>> with code reviews, you will regularly get mercilessly savaged with the most pedantic nitpicking you’ve ever seen

That is interesting and I would not have expected that as I keep hearing that google's hiring process is focused on only hiring the best.

Post reply on HN