After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him • Hacker News Board

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#121

Post by geofft » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87

Traster wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my old company it was a bit of a joke, you would repeatedly see shit managers become "architect"s. Management were too cowardly to get rid of bad managers, so they were forced to promote them to get them out of their role. So managers who were shit technically constantly ended up with senior technical titles - and everyone knew why.

Were they bad architects though? It's easy to paint bad managers as bad workers (or even bad people ) - but sometimes, they're just bad at managing. In such cases, it's better to shift them into roles they're more suited for than to fire them and hire new people for those roles - existing employees already know the company's procedures and products. Plus, it'll likely be cheaper salary-wise - in our industry, new emp…

How can you possibly be a good architect if you're a bad manager?

Every skill of a good manager - having good working relationships and pleasant interpersonal relations, understanding conflicting needs from different teams, building trust, being able to schedule and prioritize work, etc. - is also a skill of a good architect. If you're off in a corner developing things by yourself, you're not an architect, you're an individual-contributor team of one (or if they're not getting implemented at all, you're just wasting the company's money). If you're actually designing architectures that other people will be following or implementing, you need to be able to work with people.

The balance of work is different, of course: for instance, architects will less often (but not never!) need to have difficult one-on-one conversations. I can understand someone preferring one role or the other, of course. I can't really understand how you can be a good architect, not just a mediocre one, if you're a bad manager, not just a mediocre one.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#122

Post by truetraveller » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:18 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #4

This article leaves out why he was promoted. I assume he was promoted despite the discipline, not as a reward. The article doesn’t research whether he’s reformed or still a bully. Or whether the position is important or not. These are important details. Maybe the position is BS and doesn’t have much authority. Maybe he’s learned the error of his ways. Without useful information this article is lame as it seems to lin…

"still a bully"

Labeling someone a "bully" has become the easy way to bring a person down. There could be personal vendetta. I've read the accusations against him, and they cannot be called "bullying". Need definitive proof.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#123

Post by truetraveller » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #33

Not a good look for google. As a cofounder is he untouchable?

Great look. Not yielding to the obnoxious cancel culture.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#124

Post by xpe » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:21 PM UTC

greesil wrote: post #13

tvirosi wrote: post #5

His disagreeability is probably correlated with his track record of innovation and if we cancel every outlier like that our ability to reach new plateaus will lag decades behind than if we only allow nice people to play.

I'll make up an inane and unproven theory too: Orgs that have leaders that shit all over its employees have large turnover, thus diffusing insider knowledge far and wide. It's a good thing for the world to have leaders be this way.

> I'll make up an inane and unproven theory too: Orgs that have leaders that shit all over its employees have large turnover, thus diffusing insider knowledge far and wide.

I see a hint of underlying logic in this part, though the theory needs more thought put into it. Two comments:

1. Try to quantify the harm to people that get "shit all over". Some portion suffer personally and professionally, which leads to the organization who is 'next in line' having to carry some of that burden.

2. Try to quantify the value in the "insider" knowledge being shared here according to such a theory. Some might be technical, fair enough. But a lot of it is likely related to how much of a jerk that boss was... Remember, not all information has a net positive value for a given time scale. For example, information about a previous toxic workplace may increase anxiety and hurt trust -- and in many cases, such information is often not net positive.

> It's a good thing for the world to have leaders be this way.

No. Not broadly (since there is no mention of harm) and not even in a narrow sense.

Consider the kinds of leaders who help their employees grow so that:

(a) knowledge is shared far and wide internally

(b) employees grow into new roles, some outside of the company

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#125

Post by edgyquant » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

bradlys wrote: post #104

chrisseaton wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were these peopled hired for responsibilities including historical briefings? No? So why are they being asked to do them?

End of the day, it's a job. Requirements change. You have to do things you don't want to do that might not even seem related. If you don't want to work under someone who does that stuff then leave. I yelled at a CEO because he asked me to do something that wasn't related to software engineering role. He stopped asking me and anyone else in eng due to that confrontation. But - guess what - he wanted to fired every sin…

> o - you have to ask - are you willing to lose your job over it? If so - great - see ya! If not - then take your lumps and get it done.

This is ridiculous. Jobs have pretty clear, if arbitrary at times, functions. You wouldn’t ask a chef to brief you on Russian political history, a field of itself that is vastly nuanced just as much as AI itself, nor would you ask a data scientist. It isn’t because job function can’t change it’s because people have careers and an AI researches is not likely to be able to actually brief one on Russian political history without doing a deep dive and learning the field itself.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#126

Post by maccard » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

ATsch wrote: post #113

TeMPOraL wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they bad architects though? It's easy to paint bad managers as bad workers (or even bad people ) - but sometimes, they're just bad at managing. In such cases, it's better to shift them into roles they're more suited for than to fire them and hire new people for those roles - existing employees already know the company's procedures and products. Plus, it'll likely be cheaper salary-wise - in our industry, new emp…

Sorry, but a good architect bully is not a bit better than a bad manager bully.

Someone who is a bad manager and a bully may actually be a fine architect and not a bully, once they are no longer in a position of power over people.

Not a guarantee, but in my experience changing the formal power dynamic can have very unexpected (both positive and negative) effects

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#127

Post by edgyquant » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:25 PM UTC

truetraveller wrote: post #108

sillysaurusx wrote: post #16

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

It's absolutely fine for an exec to ask an employee to do "x" task, where there is value for the company, even if it is not in the employee's scope. This is a moot point, and I'm astonished we're even debating this. What has the world come to? So, imagine I ask my developer or even my accountant on a one-off, rare occasion: "write me a critique of this new UX design". He replies "How dare you ask me about UX design!"…

Did you just compare asking if something looks good to having them write up an assessment of Russian political history?

Yeah I’ll go ahead and ask my dog walker to write me an analysis of the potential outcomes if Britain had joined against the US during the Trent affair. If they refuse I’ll fire them and write horrible reviews about them because obviously they don’t take their job seriously /s

You’ve got to be kidding or seriously biased here.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#128

Post by mLuby » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

ffhhj wrote: post #66

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's personal because it's not work-related. He would demand people do random, pointless tasks for him to show dominance.

Then subordinates must show their dominance not doing useless work. I've been in meetings in which I'm the one screaming to my boss in the face. When another boss tried to make me look bad with our superiors, I showed them their ineptitude and bully behavior. A few times had to quit a job due to the toxic environment, but always got more interesting and rewarding jobs. Never felt guilty about crushing a bully.

> subordinates must show their dominance

That's how to get fired. If the boss says "do it" and you say "no" and you each hold your ground, eventually it gets to "do it or you're fired." (In a few companies it might be "do it or you're fired" vs "stop asking or I'll transfer" but it's rarely "stop asking or boss is fired.") A good boss won't let it to that, but that power over another—to hire, promote, and terminate—is what fundamentally defines the hierarchy.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt as to who was toxic at those jobs that ended badly, it still sounds like you're significantly more assertive than most workers. I do agree that people should stand up for themselves regardless of their position in the hierarchy. There's no excuse for mistreatment, and especially these days, consider how someone who's mistreating you may mistreat someone who's more vulnerable.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#129

Post by truetraveller » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

oytis wrote: post #88

sillysaurusx wrote: post #16

I see a lot of people saying this seems not a big deal, or that his leadership deserved promotion. It’s because this is a second order article. The original, most substantive source that I could find is quite thorough: https://archive.is/wqdkF > "He would ask us to do personal things for him," one of these people said. "He said, 'I need you to write a briefing for me on Russian history and politics.' [...] We had abs…

It's a total mystery to me why do people feel the urge to defend him. I kind of understand this in the case of technically brilliant but socially awkward people, but this guy seems to have done nothing but management in his life. And if this is how he's doing management then I don't understand why he's tolerated at all.

We're defending him because the accusations against him are egregiously exaggerated, and without proof. I'm against screaming, but infrequent/involuntary screaming by a very senior exec does happen, and in my opinion, cannot be called abusive.

In fact, I would be upset if I had a sheep for an exec. I want a exec who is kind, and who can lead and is firm. Not screaming, but almost there.

Re: After DeepMind’s cofounder was placed on leave for bullying, Google promoted him

#130

Post by Tycho » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

Shindi wrote: post #79

Tycho wrote: post #27

This guy appears to be a self-styled liberal activist operating in the business world. According to this fawning Business Insider piece (did his PR agent write it?), he has tried his hand at fixing climate change, inequality, health care, AI ethics, and so on. https://www.businessinsider.com/mustafa-suleyman-the-lefty-a... He dropped out of his degree at Oxford and then founded a telephone helpline for Muslim youths.…

> Who drops out of Oxford unless it’s to start a business? You’d almost think he was an intelligence asset of something. I think you've been smoking too much weed my friend.

If I was the British intelligence services, this is exactly what I’d do. Recruit bright, middle class students from Oxford, fast track their career through the NGO sector (where results don’t matter), build up their public profile with press coverage, then deploy them to the private sector and hope that they will end up inside one of the multinationals that are more powerful and influential than most countries. I mean I’m just idly musing here but something definitely seems off about his bio.