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

Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#41

Post by F_J_H »

jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs? After all, when companies explore cheaper offshore options, it “simply allows software developers to be efficiently priced as market conditions change.”

I’m sure I will get my share of down votes for this, but as a cofounder that has hired several developers, I’ve had people come to me with better offers and give me an ultimatum. I rarely counter as there is no guarantee they won’t come back sometime later with an even higher offer, and so on and so on. What if your employer did the same sort of thing and came to you and said – “hey, someone with equal credentials and experience told me they would do your job for less, so you either need do it for the same or I will replace you.”

Yes I know there is no guarantee that the new person could perform as well, and that there would also be inefficiencies due to having to come up the learning curve, but there is also no guarantee that the other job will be better for the person entertaining the “better” offer. I have had people leave for a “better” job, ended up completely hating it, and then asking if they can come back. Um….no. This isn’t mom’s basement where if it doesn’t work out, you can always move back.

I’ve found to keep people, you need to pay them enough to take the “money” question off the table, and the ensure they have something meaningful and rewarding to do.

*edit - typo

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#44

Post by amirmc »

jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

Ben Horowitz wrote a great post on why 'rewarding' this kind of behaviour can be damaging to your company in the long run.

From: http://bhorowitz.com/2010/08/23/how-to-minimize-politics-in-...

Specifically, you will be rewarding behavior that has nothing to do with advancing your business. The employee will earn a raise by asking for one rather than you automatically rewarding them for outstanding performance. Why is this bad? Let me count the ways:

1. The other ambitious members of your staff will immediately agitate for raises as well. Note that neither this campaign nor the prior one need be correlated with actual performance. You will now spend time dealing with the political issues rather than actual performance issues. Importantly, if you have a competent board, you will not be able to give them all out-of-cycle raises, so your company executive raises will occur on a first-come, first-serve basis.

2. The less aggressive (but perhaps more competent) members of your team will be denied off-cycle raises simply by being apolitical.

3. The object lesson for your staff and the company will be the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the political employee gets the raise. Get ready for a whole lot of squeaky wheels.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#45

Post by sabj »

Revisor wrote: post #43
bambax wrote: post #10

This looks like a new bubble. Why would a Twitter IPO raise so much money? What are its growth prospects? Facebook may be different, but still, it all sounds very crazy.

Maybe a more proper question: How is Twitter going to make money, as in "earn cash"?

Flashbacks to summer 2009 - Twitter has lots of way to make money, and is doing so quite well at present. Sponsored trending topics, ads in the tweet stream, geo things, local things, other kinds of corporate tie ins... I don't know enough to say that X$ billion is worth it on their current business model, but honestly there are lots of way they can (and are) monetizing.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#46

Post by zacharycohn »

amirmc wrote: post #44
jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

Ben Horowitz wrote a great post on why 'rewarding' this kind of behaviour can be damaging to your company in the long run. From: http://bhorowitz.com/2010/08/23/how-to-minimize-politics-in-... Specifically, you will be rewarding behavior that has nothing to do with advancing your business. The employee will earn a raise by asking for one rather than you automatically rewarding them for outstanding performance. Why is…

I remember that post, it was a good one.

I was asking myself what I would do in a Googler's situation. Would I game for a significant raise or not. I'm still not sure - I do feel like it's kind of a shady practice, almost like blackmailing your employer.

I wonder if there will be any backlash (unofficial or otherwise) for those employees in the future. Maybe they'll get passed up on future raises or promotions, get less interesting projects etc.

Does anyone have any predictions?

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#47

Post by jessriedel »

amirmc wrote: post #44
jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

Ben Horowitz wrote a great post on why 'rewarding' this kind of behaviour can be damaging to your company in the long run. From: http://bhorowitz.com/2010/08/23/how-to-minimize-politics-in-... Specifically, you will be rewarding behavior that has nothing to do with advancing your business. The employee will earn a raise by asking for one rather than you automatically rewarding them for outstanding performance. Why is…

Well, first, this is an argument about why it is bad for the company, not for the correct allocation of resources for society. (Although maybe you could adapt the parts about political inefficiencies to argue also for the latter.)

Second, it seems like all these problems go away (at least to first order) if you simply pay people what they are worth (as defined by the market). Being squeaky only helps if you need to do it to call attention to inadequate compensation.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#48

Post by jessriedel »

F_J_H wrote: post #41
jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs? After all, when companies explore cheaper offshore options, it “simply allows software developers to be efficiently priced as market conditions change.” I’m sure I will get my share of down votes for this, but as a cofounder that has hired several developers, I’ve had people come to me with better offers and give me an ulti…

> So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs?

Yes.

>I rarely counter as there is no guarantee they won’t come back sometime later with an even higher offer, and so on and so on.

If I'm a builder and the price of wood goes up--but it's still the cheapest material for my needs--I keep using it. If it keeps going up, I keep paying more and more until there is a cheaper alternative.

Yes, it can be argued that there are key differences between people and wood, but you haven't identified them and why they are important here.

>What if your employer did the same sort of thing and came to you and said – “hey, someone with equal credentials and experience told me they would do your job for less, so you either need do it for the same or I will replace you.”

I would be bummed I was no longer as valuable of a commodity, but I wouldn't fault the employer.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#49

Post by mmt »

F_J_H wrote: post #41
jessriedel wrote: post #31

> And worse – he’s confirmed that many Google employees are interviewing with Facebook and Twitter, among others, simply to get a hefty raise. “Many people at Google use Facebook offers in order to get a big raise,” says Buchheit. I don't understand why this is "worse", i.e. why interviewing purely to get a raise should be thought of as a bad thing. To me, having many (hopefully low cost) interviews simply allows sof…

So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs? After all, when companies explore cheaper offshore options, it “simply allows software developers to be efficiently priced as market conditions change.” I’m sure I will get my share of down votes for this, but as a cofounder that has hired several developers, I’ve had people come to me with better offers and give me an ulti…

I’ve found to keep people, you need to pay them enough to take the “money” question off the table, and the ensure they have something meaningful and rewarding to do.

I would conclude, then, if employees are seeking substantial[1] raises by whatever tactic, that they're not being paid enough to take the money question off the table.

With Google, that should be no surprise.

[1] There's an assumption of rational behavior here, admittedly.

Re: Google Fights Back In Battle For Talent

#50

Post by F_J_H »

jessriedel wrote: post #48
F_J_H wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs? After all, when companies explore cheaper offshore options, it “simply allows software developers to be efficiently priced as market conditions change.” I’m sure I will get my share of down votes for this, but as a cofounder that has hired several developers, I’ve had people come to me with better offers and give me an ulti…

> So, would you say it is no different than when companies offshore development to reduce costs? Yes. >I rarely counter as there is no guarantee they won’t come back sometime later with an even higher offer, and so on and so on. If I'm a builder and the price of wood goes up--but it's still the cheapest material for my needs--I keep using it. If it keeps going up, I keep paying more and more until there is a cheaper…

That's good - many people seem to fault the employer in my experience.

Question though - the wood analogy was yours. You were expecting me to foresee that and list the difference between people and wood? I am also disappointed that your response did not address the differences between companies and....let’s say…Antarctica penguin colonies. ;-)

Post reply on HN