Live data from Hacker News

The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

warp.dev

111–120 of 613 posts

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#111

My take on these BigCos is that there is so much middle management and hierarchy that the frontline workers are blocked from the actual performance of the company. My proposed fix is entire product groups and their members should be held accountable and directly take profit of what they earn. If the product does well that quarter, engineers should be rewarded. Something to keep them working on a great product rather…

What about infrastructure teams? Not all work is product work.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#112
post #72
post #43

Former Googler here. This person has correctly identified that a key reason why google sucks is that people very often... > choose between doing what’s best for users or what’s best for their career But the root cause isn't that people want to get promoted. It's that Google promotes people for the wrong reasons. Put very simply, the problem is that Google promotes people for "solving hard problems" not for solving US…

Another example of this is their OKR system. If you meet all your quarterly goals at Google, that's not a success. In fact, you're frowned upon for not setting your goals high enough. Their whole management process encourages people to chase after impossible goals, and literally discourages people from getting things done.

Yeah from what I've heard you ideally want to hit 70-80% of your OKRs, and people game it to make sure they fail at one or two so they don't get accused of being "too easy".

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#113
Half of me wishes we just got rid of titles and just adjusted pay based on the value perceived/demonstrated to the company YoY. People would probably be more inclined to work harder and on more challenging stuff if their comp was more outcome driven like a sales type role.

Incentives make people do the weirdest stuff. It becomes pure politics at a certain point and largely a cool kids club of who you know to sponsor you and being generally well-liked. I'm not going to kiss ass for a title. I'm going to demonstrate I earned it the hard way. While most companies don't recognize that path as much anymore, it's not very hard to get the title at another company.

The people who bring the most value to each team are often the unsung heroes who don't get promoted fast either. Good leaders will take notice however.

The book "Staff Engineer" by Will Larson has some good bits on this topic.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather work twice as many hours per year for half as many years. It’s not that one choice is obviously dominant over the other across all people.

Yes, given "getting hit by a bus" is a probabilistic event that is independent of my working hours, I would rather make 2x for half as many years, all other things being equal. I'd also rather make 3x for a third as many years, and so on, if it were possible. Given time value of money and compounding interest, it's always better to front load your working time and make Nx for 1/N as much calendar time worked. And for…

I agree with your conclusion, but I think there’s a fair argument to say that an extra week of leisure in your 20s is worth more than an extra week of leisure in your 50s or 60s. That is even more true if you’re working 48 weeks/year in your 20s and zero weeks in your 60s.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#115

Most promotions I've seen are when someone has a huge amount of tribal knowledge about some system and the company cannot afford to have them leave. So they get promoted. This is even within FAANG, where this narrative about impact or 10x developers is common. Not saying promotions dont happen for those reasons, just that huge systems that few people understand lead to promotions for those who do understand them

This is very common! What's worse is these engineers likely created or at least contributed to a situation where tribal knowledge is valuable, rather than developing simple decoupled systems that can be picked up by new engineers.

Yeah it’s your usual “hire a bunch of underpaid and under skilled-for-the-job” “engineers” at the beginning of your startup that write piles of crap code that then become knowledge pullers of the business. When if you paid good money in the first place you wouldn’t need that knowledge in the first place.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve openly stated that I want my retirement job to be an SWE3-ish role somewhere. High enough to have interesting, somewhat challenging work, but with negative desire to climb the ranks any further.

Problem with that is due to inflation, you're making less and less compensation every year. Standard "you're doing a good job" raises often do not meet inflation, and certainly are not right now where inflation is higher than the recent historical mean. This is not a problem for some people, maybe including you, but I think most people have a general vague career expectation of making more when they're 60 than they m…

I may have been unclear. By retirement job, I meant a job that I took during (read: after) retirement, not the one I’d walk away from at the moment of retiring.

At that point, financial arrangements are presumably already all set.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#117
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) over-engineering a feature that should be simple into something with architectural significance (e.g. a new set of services that could have just been a feature in an existing service) Ideally this gets people fired, not promoted. Google explicitly calls out "solutions to hard problems are easy to maintain" on its ladder, for example. People can fail to identify these cases, but the intention is to promote based…

Do they consider fixing easy bugs are hard problem? Should someone ignore a bug report "The is not spelled teh?" until it has bounced around unsolved for months on end, then spend 2 weeks "investigating" to show that it is a hard bug? I've seen real bugs that bounce around for months, each time to someone who looks decides it isn't in their code and points to someone else: eventually we tell one engineer to solve it…

No, this wouldn't get someone promoted, because it doesn't actually solve the problem. The problem here is that the triage process is a mess. Fixing that, so that bugs don't bounce around for months, would probably get someone promoted, or at least be a significant factor.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#118
post #8

This all sounds nice but it's missing the concrete details and that's the most important part. "Build into core values wanting to create a culture where the end-user is the priority, not individual advancement up the ladder" Is there any non-exploitative way to interpret this? The only thing worse than wasting my time on features for promo rather than users is working overtime to make more money for those with signif…

It reads a bit unintentionally exploitive as well. You're essentially asking employees to put the companies growth ahead of their compensation.

This passage specifically:

> For as long as possible, make the success of the company the primary motivator, rather than promo

How do you simply make the success of the company the primary motivator? IMO, you either try real hard to pay/promote them based on the success of the company, which feeds into the promo culture problem, or you find people to work towards the company's success without explicit promises of rewards, maybe by alluding to potential rewards you may/may-not give them (aka maybe exploiting them).

One alternative is you can find people who are satisfied with their place in life, and willing to just crank out work regularly without promises of increased rewards. IME, people like that AND skilled enough are very rare. It would be very hard to build a company of solely those people.

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off the top of my head: 1. More money means less time till I hit FU money and can choose work without any consideration of pay 2. 200k/yr is not as much as it seems if you're in the bay area and have kids 3. Bigger title -> more input on core design decisions. Hate some idea coming from the higher ups? You're in a position to do something about it. 4. Bigger title -> more control in picking interesting problems to wo…

Do you worry about being hit by a bus before you have FU money? Personally I'd rather work half time for twice as many years than try to race to retire. A lot of responses seem to be focused on high cost-of-living areas, which is kind of a chicken-and-egg problem. If you want to be a moderately checked out person, living in a smaller city and stretching your giant bay area salary is the way to go. If you want to be a…

My todo list will keep me busy until I'm 3000 years old. I might not be hit by a bus, but I have no reason to think I will ever get to the end of that list. Money can buy things required for the list that are not on the list, but I have to work to get them. In many cases I spend less time working then I would just doing it. I could make a canoe from scrap wood and row to New Zealand, but in a week at work I get enough money to pay for a plane ticket, while paddling across the ocean would take months (people have taking canoes across the ocean so I know it is possible - though I'm not sure how risky it is)

Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

#120

My experience has been that some companies pressure engineers to want to advance. If you come into a performance review and say "actually I'm happy where I am" it's seen as a lack of motivation and will count as a mark against you. I had a boss say to me "I always want to move to the next level and I expect the same of my reports". Whatever, I guess I'm a poor employee because I like my job.

Some (many?) companies have an 'up or out' requirement where each position has a time limit to get promoted, unless it's a 'terminal position' which is ok to stay at.

When I was at Facebook, this was administered by using the next level review guidelines after you had a position for N months (depends on the position), and if you don't meet those expectations, putting you into the firing pipeline (PIP, etc). One of many reasons I was happier when I stopped having people reporting to me.

Post reply on HN