Google Engineering Management Mistakes • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#81

Post by tkahnoski » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 10:33 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #3

Wow, this is one of the coolest things HN has found in awhile. It's remarkable how, time and time again, formal incentive compensation schemes are shown to cause more harm than benefit. I started paying attention when Joel Spolsky called it out 6-7 years ago, and then read Peopleware (an excellent book) which reiterates the point (and calls it "teamicide"), and then read the Harvard Business Review article ("Why Ince…

While we're quoting Joel Spolsky: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Ladder.html

I wonder if Fog Creek has had the similar frustrations with engineering ladders that Piaw mentions. Although given the distinct difference in company size, it might not be a valid comparison.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#82

Post by benzheren » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 10:51 PM UTC

There is no perfect system and it is always very difficult to find the right incentives for everyone in the company.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#83

Post by othermaciej » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 11:10 PM UTC

He says offhand that Google is a better place for engineers to work than Apple, but as far as I can tell, Apple makes none of these five mistakes.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#84

Post by Silhouette » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 11:12 PM UTC

kreek wrote: post #38

Splines wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TED appears to be down. Here's the same (I think) video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y

or with animation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

Watching that was a very worthwhile 10 minutes: an interesting set of ideas, brilliantly presented.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#85

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 11:35 PM UTC

gamble wrote: post #52

kenjackson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just have a hard time believing incentives don't work. For example, if I lost all of my stock options today and was told I'd never get another raise or bonus, except CoL, I'd quit on the spot. In fact I'd argue, if there were no financial incentives, most HNers wouldn't do startups. I know everyone likes to say they do it to change the world and the passion of something or other. But in reality I've yet to see many…

It's not only about the money, but it's still about money. No matter what the company's 'mission', anything that changes the distribution of equity or profits will bring out that truth awfully quick.

An insight gleaned from Donna Meadows is that profit is not the purpose of a company's existence. Profit is merely survival, it's what facilitates the company staying "in the game".

Her view is that the purpose of companies is to grow.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#86

Post by neworbit » Wed, Nov 03, 2010, 11:43 PM UTC

anonymous246 wrote: post #4

tptacek wrote: post #3

Wow, this is one of the coolest things HN has found in awhile. It's remarkable how, time and time again, formal incentive compensation schemes are shown to cause more harm than benefit. I started paying attention when Joel Spolsky called it out 6-7 years ago, and then read Peopleware (an excellent book) which reiterates the point (and calls it "teamicide"), and then read the Harvard Business Review article ("Why Ince…

> Why would a company as smart as Google forge ahead with schemes like this in the face of all available evidence that it's a bad idea? My guess: because it can be algorithmized.

But clearly not well

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#87

Post by bmj » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 12:37 AM UTC

mmt wrote: post #22

sruffell wrote: post #10

"biggest mistake is still having a tech ladder"? What specifically is this referring to? A separate career progression for techs vs managers? I thought that was desirable so you don't need to move your best engineers out of engineering positions to promote them. I fear I'm missing something.

If I understand correctly, it's suggesting that having formal levels, regardless of whether managers do or not, is what's undesirable. I infer the alternative to be flat, such that there's only difference in compensation, with no difference in formal title. Perhaps I'm biased, since I very much believe you can call me whatever you want, as long as I'm suitably paid. This function-over-form attitude is why I prefer st…

Perhaps I'm biased, since I very much believe you can call me whatever you want, as long as I'm suitably paid. This function-over-form attitude is why I prefer startups.

Then I'm biased, too. I don't work for a start-up (100+ employees, with only seven of us doing software development), but we really don't have "career tracks." There are two management positions in our group (VP and lead engineer), so unless one of them leaves the company, no one is moving up, nor do titles change, even with raises. And this suits me perfectly fine.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#88

Post by VladRussian » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 12:38 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #30

This also reminds me of a paper I had submitted in the past. Randomly promoting people is more effective than using merit: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455

do you know of any research on randomly electing people in the government offices? I believe it would also be much more effective.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#89

Post by mturmon » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 12:42 AM UTC

LiveTheDream wrote: post #42

"The sum of money just appeared in my bank account, but was so insulting low that I felt devalued. If a manager had just talked to me about how much my work was appreciated, it would have been better than money." This is true at a certain threshold. Appreciation is immeasurably better than an demoralizing, insultingly-sized bonus. However on the other end, if you go above and beyond normal expectations and save or ea…

What type of award is valued is very person-dependent.

Some people thrive on non-cash awards (like medals and award ceremonies), some like recognition from above, others care more for money.

It's very easy (even expected) for a large organization to guess wrong in a particular case. So that anecdote is not really data.

Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes

#90

Post by VladRussian » Thu, Nov 04, 2010, 12:43 AM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #48

matwood wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once worked at company that employed a lot of hourly wage type people. One exec wanted to stack rank each group of wage employees each month and fire the bottom 25%. I tried to explain to him the negative morale effect that would lead to lower performance across the board, the fact any employes who were decent would just leave on their own, and there is a significant training cost for each new employee that he was…

This is what Jack Welch did at GE in the 80s, firing 10% of management every year. It's not universally derided as an HR/Management policy. I mean, it's pretty much the entire premise of the TV show "The Apprentice," no? Pro: http://www.cogmap.com/blog/2009/11/12/force-ranking-to-fire-... Con: http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/where-jack-welch-got-...

>firing 10% of management every year

that is completely different. All stack ranking mentioned so far was about employees. Firing 10% of management every year have real potential to improve morale.