Google cuts jobs at cloud-computing group

Post by smt88 » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 4:51 AM UTC

namelosw wrote: post #111

vtail wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate to be that guy, but I want to point out that more people not always equate to more output. E.g. if you create a "controller" role, they would try to justify their existence and create more work/overhead for others. And you would be surprised how many roles in big bureaucracies are "controller" roles by nature.

It's good to point it out. In the third world, if you hire 100 people for a 5-man project, people end up doing nothing but their own things. It's bad but it's obvious that something is going wrong. In the first world, if you hire 100 people for a 5-man project, people end up to invent and justify 100-man's job. Everyone's role would become their identity, everyone is busy and hardworking. The output is high, they wou…

Post by adrianN » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 4:58 AM UTC

filoleg wrote: post #36

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In "defrags" like this, Google does not lay off people outright, it just tells them their job is going away and they have X months to find a new one within Google -- and they usually do.

This is a very smart tactic that also, as a side effect, brings the average quality across all engineers at the company up. Smart people with desirable skills would have no problem finding another team within Google to transfer to, while bottom tier performers won’t, thus leaving Google.

Post by mav3rick » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:21 AM UTC

ericd wrote: post #139

WoahNoun wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entirely dependent on the team and hiring manager. And the technical requirements of the role you want to move into versus your prior role. If you want to move from working on gmail to working on the android kernel, I imagine there's gonna be some whiteboarding. (Not that gmail is simple software, but just picked two examples that came to mind with different domain expertise).

Sounds reasonable. I was referring more to the gatekeeping type, like a heavy focus on things like balancing trees and recursion for roles that clearly involve neither trees nor recursion.

Post by dboreham » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:38 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #37

downerending wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a couple: 1. Google's tech staffers are supposed to be some of the top people in the world, and Google spends a considerable amount of resources hiring them. It seems foolish not to keep them on the bench a bit, unless Google foresees that it will be shrinking soon. 2. The people not laid off will very much notice their colleagues being zapped the moment they're not needed. They will rationally tilt towards le…

You haven’t heard about Netflix’s policy.... https://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664 “We’re a team, not a family.” They “hire, develop, and cut smartly”. It doesn’t seem to have hurt their recruitment.

Post by balladeer » Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 5:50 AM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #181

namelosw wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to point it out. In the third world, if you hire 100 people for a 5-man project, people end up doing nothing but their own things. It's bad but it's obvious that something is going wrong. In the first world, if you hire 100 people for a 5-man project, people end up to invent and justify 100-man's job. Everyone's role would become their identity, everyone is busy and hardworking. The output is high, they wou…

> In the first world, if you hire 100 people for a 5-man project, people end up to invent and justify 100-man's job. Everyone's role would become their identity, everyone is busy and hardworking. The output is high, they would also have fancy analytics and reports. This is such utter nonsense that it's hard to believe you've worked in any human organization. People in the first and third world are not different speci…