i especially like how he has nothing but disdain for jack dorsey but is perfectly happy to tweet the day away
The Google+ project and exec team
111–120 of 187 posts
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#112Controversial 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…
> It sucks that the author's grandmother died and that he felt the need to work through the night while that happened, but it's unfair to take that out on your colleagues.
It's unfair to take that out on your colleagues, but it is fair to blame it on management and the culture they set. Some people are going to be more politically protected than others for reasons that aren't strongly related to the value they add to the business and able to get away with things others aren't, and if you don't counteract that, you'll both get inefficient results (either they're doing something they shouldn't, or other people don't feel empowered to do something they should) and also cause a loss to morale and trust.
Setting clear (if mechanical) rules about things that would otherwise turn into "the politically connected can do this, the rest of you can't" is absolutely the responsibility of management. Saying to people up front that they should always feel free to take time off or cancel meetings for personal emergencies and the company trusts their judgment (if that is in fact the policy) and making sure people act like it's true - or making sure people show up and have extremely good excuses when they don't, if that's the policy - is management's job.
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a hard lesson for me to learn in the past: if you care wildly more than the people around you -- so much that you work late into the night while your grandmother is dying and your coworkers are pounding drinks with their counterparts at a competitor -- you'll just end up really hurt and frustrated and they'll all think that you are the problem. The author seems like the kind of person that I'd love to do a 3-p…
and they'll all think that you are the problem. Agreed.
The thing is that often they are right. It's almost literally crazy to me that he wouldn't just try to reschedule the meeting and that he would work when his grandma was dying. It's not working long hours that's a problem but in my experience it often correlates with people who don't work well in a team (which this guy seems like a perfect example of).
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Would you take up the job if the salary was reduced on day one? I'd certainly tell people on as many public forums as possible instead of just letting someone walk all over me and also see if I could get anyone with influence to reverse the decision. Do I sit and take it? Hell no. And you shouldn't either because you should have more self-respect.
Is this your definition of "walking all over you"? How much of a bubble is silicon valley? I have worked in the biggest bank in Australia where subcontractors were siphoning away the source codes and customer data via mobile hotspots. I blew the whistle to data security and got fired in return. Company later paid me huge chunk of money in return for silence. Sometimes you just gotta walk away to better deals. Life is…
Breaking promises is considered unethical in most cultures, not just in silicon valley. Maybe "walking all over you" is an overstatement, but an egregious thing that has happened to you doesn't make what happened to the OP less bad.
I've heard this is standard behavior for google - completely disregarding what an applicant wants to work on and putting them instead on a project chosen by the hiring committee. Considering that the range of different projects where you may end up is enormous, I agree that it sucks.
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#115I was complaining about some of the problems in a few HN posts back then.
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this your definition of "walking all over you"? How much of a bubble is silicon valley? I have worked in the biggest bank in Australia where subcontractors were siphoning away the source codes and customer data via mobile hotspots. I blew the whistle to data security and got fired in return. Company later paid me huge chunk of money in return for silence. Sometimes you just gotta walk away to better deals. Life is…
Breaking promises is considered unethical in most cultures, not just in silicon valley. Maybe "walking all over you" is an overstatement, but an egregious thing that has happened to you doesn't make what happened to the OP less bad. I've heard this is standard behavior for google - completely disregarding what an applicant wants to work on and putting them instead on a project chosen by the hiring committee. Consider…
You've heard that, huh?
HC doesn't pick your job, they decide whether or not to hire you. Hence the name. At Google it's typically trivially simple to switch teams (this article notwithstanding), so teams don't recruit and hire independently like happens in many companies.
So after a hire is approved, they have to be matched up with a team. Teams decide whether or not a hire is appropriate for their team, and candidate decides whether or not team is appropriate for their interests.
If you're approved for hire but you don't like the team you're paired with, say "I'd prefer to work on X", and if X is hiring and their hiring manager thinks you're a good fit, then you can go there instead. That route is more complicated because recruiters specialize in a given area, but the whole point is for you to like your job.
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#117The 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.
In 2014 Google paid a guy named Neal Mohan $100 to refuse the head of product job at Twitter.[0]
[0]https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/neal-mo...
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#118I tried reading this, but it is just stream of consciousness writing and littered with unnecessary details. It comes across as petty and the author doesn't seem to be good at communicating what he wants. For instance, he's whining about a 9am meeting with a coworker. If it's such a big deal, why didn't you ask for a later meeting?
I think the stream-of-consciousness might be partially the fault of the format. The article is a long series of tweets, Threader is just a website that compiles them into an article.
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a hard lesson for me to learn in the past: if you care wildly more than the people around you -- so much that you work late into the night while your grandmother is dying and your coworkers are pounding drinks with their counterparts at a competitor -- you'll just end up really hurt and frustrated and they'll all think that you are the problem. The author seems like the kind of person that I'd love to do a 3-p…
and they'll all think that you are the problem. Agreed.
Or have a problem ;)
Re: The Google+ project and exec team
#120Megacorps don't work to make products. They work to keep their top-dog status perpetual. One way to do this is to hire smart people and keep them locked away wasting time. Two benefits: them not working productively at a competitor's place is one, and them losing the skills and drive to make real-world useful things after a few years is another.
Ive read other post basically making the same claim, Google is happy to create, fund, and hire for projects just to capture/retain talent and remove it from the hiring pool. Is that HN folks reading too much between lines or is it a thing?
It's not a Google thing. Every single large, successful company does this.
It is a no-brainer decision from a game theoretic point of view: these companies already have a top-of-the-line, best in the world product. Working on more products requires lots of inspiration, time and luck, and even in the best case all you get is just another amazing product. (I.e., just more of the stuff you already got.)
Using your money and fame to neutralize talent that could be used against you requires no effort or thinking at all, only money. These companies don't know what to do with their profits anyways.