Live data from Hacker News

Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

mtlynch.io

491–500 of 783 posts

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#491
post #29

> I drastically reduced the time developers spent repairing those failures, but there were no metrics that tracked developer time. For several jobs in a row, I've felt that helping others on a team is undervalued and under-recorded. I've been planning to implement the "assist" metric, similar to basketball, on my own team for a while. The idea would be something along the lines of everyone gets a set of assist points…

I've never tried it, but I suspect you'll run into the same issue that sports does, where "assists" don't accurately reflect the people who are making things happen on the court. We miss the perimeter shooter who positions themselves just so to pull two defenders out of position, but give credit to the point guard who makes the now-easy pass for the "assist". It's entirely possible for the person most responsible for…

The NHL at least takes into account not only the person who passed to the player who scored, but sometimes also the person to passed to that person as well.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#492
post #362

The more I hear about the inner workings of Google, the less impressed I am. It seems their vaunted hiring process has let in folks who specialize more at internal politicking than getting things done. It doesn't take too many of those kind of people to ruin a culture, and cause a company to stagnate or go backwards.

I don't know that it is so much that the Google hiring process has selected for adept internal politicians as it is that Google hasn't paid as much attention to human factors as it should.

A lot of Google's philosophy is about automating things a person normal would use their judgment on and just choosing not to perform some human-centric functions at all (e.g. customer support).

It's hard to get internal culture right in the best of circumstances. When you treat like an algorithm and you don't get that algorithm right, it encourages all sorts of maladaptive behavior, politicking, etc.

To be fair Google's promotion board is not as flawed as say, Microsoft's old stack ranking system. But it does set up incentives in such a way that to advance people may optimize their work in a way that doesn't benefit the company.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#493

This is why people change companies every two years. It's easier to get a promotion by studying for interviews on leetcode than by spending the extra time promo gaming in one's career. "Facebook will give me a sr software engineer position after 5 hours of interviews, here is that offer letter" is a very strong position. Market dynamics are a lot faster than internal promo dynamics at bigco. Once you reach sr althoug…

So I just checked out leetcode... it's supposed to be for juniors or undergrads, I assume? The hardest problems on there seem pretty trivial, especially when compared to the problems on projecteuler.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#494
post #29

> I drastically reduced the time developers spent repairing those failures, but there were no metrics that tracked developer time. For several jobs in a row, I've felt that helping others on a team is undervalued and under-recorded. I've been planning to implement the "assist" metric, similar to basketball, on my own team for a while. The idea would be something along the lines of everyone gets a set of assist points…

The irony is that Google actually has a separate eng job ladder (Software Engineer, Tools and Infrastructure) which is designed to reward that kind of work specifically. If he had ladder-transferred (a fairly easy process) and gone up before a SETI committee with that same data (peer feedback on stuff like saved development time carries weight that metrics may miss), it probably would have turned out very differently.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#495
post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The customers still dictate your work. If you don't build the features they want, you won't have a business. Essentially you're still working for them.

Yes, sure, you're working for them; but it's still better (IMHO) to have clients than bosses. A boss is someone that uses you to look good to his own boss, but doesn't really care about what you do. A client, most of the time, actually needs what you produce.

Have you ever dealt with clients? I'm gonna take a wild guess and say no.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#496
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(former Google engineer here) No questions, but it was a good read. I'm sad to hear that the gaming of the promo system is still such a large concern. Unfortunately that was also the case way back in 2005, through 2010, and until I left. What's new to me is the shuffling of projects back and forth to India. That's not something that seemed to be an issue when I was there, and it's sad to hear this new concern for kee…

Thanks for reading. Sorry to hear you had the same experience. What's your experience been post-Google?

I've been working on open source software for the last couple years (links in my profile).

The funny thing is that after more than one promo disappointment, I just started working on open source projects at work. I did that seriously for the last 6-7 years of my 11 year tenure (maybe 30-60% time instead of 20% time).

That ended up improving my skills a lot, and I never got the sense of my work being thrown away (which would have led to me leaving much earlier). Like you, I always had a lot of respect from my coworkers and manager, and they never questioned what I was doing. I was always maintaining some legacy system that everybody knew was important but nobody wanted to touch (or knew how to touch).

I did eventually get promoted, but somewhat to my chagrin it was for a committee-friendly project -- C++ that handles a lot of qps. In contrast, I think all the developer tools I wrote in Python had a lot more impact on the company. I got a lot more positive feedback on those (just not from the right people apparently, as non-engineer or junior engineer feedback isn't counted that strongly, as it was explained to me).

I guess my view was that the promo committees cared more about technical difficulty than impact on the company, which leads to the obvious situation where people invent difficult work to do.

In my mind, it's not a coincidence that most Google products are now slow and full of bugs -- at least the ones that make it past the all-too-common "just barely launched" state. I never worked on front end code, but I noticed that front end engineers also get the shaft. The products show it.

-----

I was disappointed in certain things at Google, and there was a certain amount of "believing your own PR", but overall it was fantastic for me. Otherwise I wouldn't have stayed for so long.

I don't have any illusion that other companies are better. They might not have these problems, but they have other problems that Google doesn't. (I know plenty of people who stayed at Google for 5 or more years, then went to another company and left that company after a year.)

I think you might feel the same way, since your choice was to start something on your own rather than take a job at a similar company.

Employees just hold Google to a very high standard, which is both fair and good for the company!

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#498

I thought google was supposed to be an industry leader in assessing and managing human assets. This whole thing boils down to making a simple problem complex. The simple solution is that direct superiors and co-workers are the best resources for determining viability. The junior engineer he trained is better informed than the entire promotion committee with their metrics packet. Maybe it works sometimes but for all t…

Not really - the counterpoint to that is that giving supervisors too much direct power is also an invitation for bias, blindspots, or abuse of power. You also don't want to slip into stack ranking (witness how demoralizing it was at Microsoft), which is easy if you don't have a way of getting globally calibrated.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#499
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience this often just becomes a popularity contest/give to whoever you eat lunch with. I can have my head down all week neck deep in code but because of this I'm not interacting with people around me as much and basically get punished for focusing on work.

Yes. You can't change people. Your actual job description is worth 20% or less of your workplace success; as long as you're doing enough to stave off disaster, you are pretty much fine. There is a simple metric for workplace success: if most people are happier while you're around (including and especially anyone above you in the chain of command), you're winning; if not, you're not. This can probably be summarized as…

I 100% agree that you have to put a lot of focus on how you interact with your coworkers. And further--most people can't take criticism well. At the end of the day business is all about people.

But I would say a lot of managers are trying to get their coders to be more productive with coding. When they introduce something like "assist points" which is really just a popularity game, it doesn't incentivize coding as they think it does. It incentivizes more socializing. Which frequently also means less productive with coding. Don't get me wrong I do need to work with my coworkers, but a lot of the time I need to be working alone, or just send a quick email. And I'll get punished for doing that even if that's the most productive thing to do.

On your theory--I think it depends. Sometimes it's "I'm insecure and need to compensate in some way, like expensive watches" but sometimes it's "I take pride in everything I do, including my looks." Also while in some ways I'd probably be happy to wear PJs every day, I understand that the easiest way to get more power in social situations and business is just to dress nicely.

Re: Why I Quit Google to Work for Myself

#500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes my stomach turn is the interpersonal aspect. How can all your teammates see you fail through no fault of your own for days and pretend they don't notice. Unfortunately in my experience, that's not a rare occurrence.

I can give some insight from my own experience. In my current position, there are a large number of "things" that I've had to figure out, either by reverse engineering, reading code, or intuition. So I get constantly bombarded with helping others get unstuck. Well, when it comes time for a project meeting, those on the meeting are far removed from the other groups that I constantly have to help out. And it sounds lik…

Just to try to put this in a (unfair to you) constructive context:

> I could be stuck for days because following the README in a repo just wasn't enough to get the project to compile and run.

>> I can give some insight from my own experience. In my current position, there are a large number of "things" that I've had to figure out, either by reverse engineering, reading code, or intuition. So I get constantly bombarded with helping others get unstuck.

This is why I always try to follow readmes, log my progress and fix errors as I find them. Also document hidden assumptions etc.

That way others can help themselves - follow the readme, look at the up to date network/architecture diagram etc.

Partly this is because I really cannot be bothered to keep such details in my head, anyway.

Post reply on HN