The Google+ project and exec team • Hacker News Board

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#101

Post by quest88 » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

whack wrote: post #10

Controversial opinion here. I know that exaggerating and complaining is a surefire way to get clicks, but it's hard to take the author's criticisms seriously when he complains about so many different things. Some as minor as the noogler orientation. Others as petty as putting down colleagues who haven't worked as designers before. Regarding the main event in question: I like that Google allows people to party in the…

I find not being able to show up to your job, especially a 9am meeting you scheduled, because you were hungover to be irresponsible and unprofessional.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#102

Post by adrianmonk » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #36

pi-squared wrote: post #31

The Googleyness is weak with this one. Inferiority complex. Work-life balance problems (work over xmas break, late night after work). Not being able to stand for oneself (salary, reschedule meeting). Wanting everyone to like him (literally said it). Seems to dismiss other people's jobs and even names as being less important than his. Nobody's perfect, we all have some bad things in our personalities. But it's impossi…

Unfortunately in big companies no one is valuable. If someone is, the company has a problem.

I don't think valuable should be seen as black and white, although companies and employees both make that mistake in different ways.

Irreplaceable is an extreme version of valuable. Companies are right to avoid that extreme. But they shouldn't take it so far that they are allergic to admitting that employees have value. Any current employee who is right in the middle of the bell curve has value because, while they could be replaced, they are a known quantity.

From the employee side, there can be a temptation to believe that because you're not exceptional, you're not valuable. Even if you're merely average, that is OK, and you need to accept that you are a worthwhile member of the team. If mentally you can't claim the position you rightfully deserve as your own, then you believe something wrong about the world, and like any wrong information, that will corrupt your decisions about how to act.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#103

Post by joe_momma » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #47

> ... I should air my dirty laundry on how awful the project and exec team was. No, this is never true. Airing dirty laundry almost never produces a real change in the world. It just burns bridges and often makes you look petty.

Possibly, but sometimes things do need to be said and he changed the names of the actual people he did not like so much, so maybe consider this "dry cleaned"? It definitely is useful to other people in similar circumstances and pretty much raises a point about all the pettiness that occurs in all industries. This is a human condition that needs to be addressed or this world will continue to be built by people who shouldn't be in charge.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#104

Post by joe_momma » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:11 PM UTC

jesusthatsgreat wrote: post #18

Publicly criticizing people & companies you've worked with because you haven't seen eye to eye with them... Is this the sort of person you'd want to work with or hire to work for you? If it were a company that didn't pay you or were doing something unethical etc then fair enough - blow that whistle... but as far as I can see this is just someone with a chip on their shoulder and a bruised ego who can't move on.

This is the type of person I would want to work with, and if he had an issue with me I'm pretty sure it wouldn't show up in a twitter rant because I'm the type of person that would work it out in house. There is some responsibility on those managers that they did not consider and should be held accountable for.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#105

Post by rabidrat » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #27

whack wrote: post #10

Controversial opinion here. I know that exaggerating and complaining is a surefire way to get clicks, but it's hard to take the author's criticisms seriously when he complains about so many different things. Some as minor as the noogler orientation. Others as petty as putting down colleagues who haven't worked as designers before. Regarding the main event in question: I like that Google allows people to party in the…

Employees like these quickly wear you down if you are leading then. I am surprised Google is not doing a personality test before recruiting. When I was a recruiter for ibm I always made sure to check if the potential was an asshole or not before going ahead with tech. Talent can always be learned by those willing. Attitude is permanent.

You've got that backwards. Attitude can be adjusted, but only if the person is willing. Talent can't be learned--at least not by most people, and not on the timescale of an actual job to be performed.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#106

Post by zinclozenge » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

rabidrat wrote: post #105

ganeshkrishnan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees like these quickly wear you down if you are leading then. I am surprised Google is not doing a personality test before recruiting. When I was a recruiter for ibm I always made sure to check if the potential was an asshole or not before going ahead with tech. Talent can always be learned by those willing. Attitude is permanent.

You've got that backwards. Attitude can be adjusted, but only if the person is willing. Talent can't be learned--at least not by most people, and not on the timescale of an actual job to be performed.

Talent only even begins to matter when you're at levels roughly 4-5 standard deviations away from the mean.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#107

Post by toomim » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

jesusthatsgreat wrote: post #18

Publicly criticizing people & companies you've worked with because you haven't seen eye to eye with them... Is this the sort of person you'd want to work with or hire to work for you? If it were a company that didn't pay you or were doing something unethical etc then fair enough - blow that whistle... but as far as I can see this is just someone with a chip on their shoulder and a bruised ego who can't move on.

I would hire him because he's honest. Honest people produce better work.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#108

Post by lern_too_spel » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:27 PM UTC

throwaway080383 wrote: post #60

raydev wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "coworker" seemed more like a superior. I'd also be wary of cancelling meetings with a hostile superior.

To me, it sounded like they all reported to Greg.

At places like Google, where peer reviews determine your bonuses and your career advancement, senior people on your team have to be handled politically. For a person coming in at a level 2, this means nearly everyone.

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#109

Post by sealjam » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

brianberns wrote: post #12

whack wrote: post #10

Controversial opinion here. I know that exaggerating and complaining is a surefire way to get clicks, but it's hard to take the author's criticisms seriously when he complains about so many different things. Some as minor as the noogler orientation. Others as petty as putting down colleagues who haven't worked as designers before. Regarding the main event in question: I like that Google allows people to party in the…

Seriously. When Jim schedules a meeting for 9am the next day, just tell him that you need more time than that. Instead, this guy goes home and works through the night so he can prove Jim wrong. Way too much ego tied up in petty disagreements here.

Agreed. The thing it took me a long time to realise about stuff like that is that you're not winning by breaking your neck to get something done for an unrealistic deadline, they are!

Re: The Google+ project and exec team

#110

Post by Alex3917 » Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

zinclozenge wrote: post #106

rabidrat wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got that backwards. Attitude can be adjusted, but only if the person is willing. Talent can't be learned--at least not by most people, and not on the timescale of an actual job to be performed.

Talent only even begins to matter when you're at levels roughly 4-5 standard deviations away from the mean.

This. In college I was a lightweight rower. Despite there being thousands of people in that sport at the college level, in most years there are 0 to 1 kids with enough genetic talent to be unbeatable by everyone else who just works hard.