Why did I leave Google or, why did I stay so long?

> There's a significant difference between being passionate about what you do and being passionate about the company/mission.

Absolutely.

> I suspect employers would like both, but would prefer to subordinate the former to the latter

I think this depends on the company - size in particular seems very relevant. A lot of startups want their hires to be "mission driven", i.e. passionate about the company's objectives. This is more important if (like most startups) you're hoping for your hires to be generalists, and figure things out as they go along. In this scenario you can have meta-level "passionate about what you do" regardless of what the object-level task is (or more realistically, within a broad range of tasks that fall within your area of competence-but-not-expertise). But that's not as important as passion for the mission, and I do wonder if "passionate for whatever thing you're working on" is an oxymoron. In this situation I think your point is correct, the small companies want passion about the mission.

One of the complaints in the OP was that Google employees are _not_ (as) mission-driven. My model here would be that at a big company, you're looking for a bunch of highly-specialized individuals that are effectively PhD-level experts in their field (not saying you completely discard/devalue generalists, but the trend is towards more specialists as you get bigger since you have more tasks that can actually keep a specialist busy full-time). For hiring/motivating specialists, you need to select for people that are passionate about the craft, not necessarily the mission. Not to mention if I understand correctly at the lower levels at least you tend to apply to a broad "Software engineer" role and get slotted in to a team, rather than applying specifically for a role in a specific subject area. I'm guessing the median Googler is substantially less mission-oriented than the median 10-person-startup engineer. Indeed to the extent that your mission is "boring" (I don't know many people that are excited by selling ads, for example) I suspect you want to actively select for people that are passionate about the craft, not the mission; these people will be happy with any mission, as long as they get to craft well. So for large companies I think I disagree with your theory about preferences between the two passions.

Note with all of this -- you can still be a primarily mission-based small/growth startup, and have a situation where a skill mismatch emerges, and you need to replace someone. I don't think it's hypocritical to want your employees to be passionate about the mission, while also having the skills required to do the job, and recognize that sometimes your passionate and mission-driven employee is just not the right person for the role they are currently in.

> And that's a pretty big ask if as an employer you also want the ability to discard people who are no longer good skill fits for the company.

Perhaps there is some hypocrisy if you are really encouraging passion about _the company_, and selling the "we are a family" story, and then turn around and terminate someone because you pivoted and no longer need them. I know some startups do this and it's a bit awkward. Your company may be close, but you're not a family. But I don't think "hires mission driven people" and "fires fast if there's a lack of fit" are mutually incompatible asks/expectations in general.

All the reasons you've given for fast pace are tech reasons and I don't think anyone is arguing with that. The author mostly discussed how people reasons is why the pace is slowed down and that's something that's a lot more prevalent at big corporations than at startups.

When highly compensated people moan about the less compensated people not putting in the same kind of hours I wonder what kind of blinders they have on. Anyone who has even a little bit of smarts realizes that they generally shouldn't work as hard as their boss, because they will not be compensated the same.

Early on in my career I believed the mantra that managers shoulder more risk, so that is why they deserve higher compensation. But in my 30 year career I have never seen anyone in my management chain face legal trouble. At most managers were fired, same as regular employees.

Very high level position hiring tends to be slower than lower positions, so you could argue that that is the reason the VP salary should be higher. But the compensation is so out of whack that this doesn't hold water either. Companies could save a lot of money if they paid employees more uniform compensation, and when firing someone, the compensation package would be proportional to how long a person in that position typically takes to find the next job. So maybe an engineer would get a month, and a VP 6 months equivalent of salary.

That was some T7-9 whining right there. Do you think it's easier to get unplanned compute capacity at some other company?

The actual problem is not them doing those things, the problem is them not doing their job

That's where the demands should lie, not on "bottoms on seats"