Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

warp.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 613 posts

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

#161

Post by zeroonetwothree »

somethoughts wrote: post #85
xoofoog wrote: 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…

At least in my own small company - I'm hoping to promote the concept of the T shaped technical leader ladder. You're rewarded/measured on two metrics - breadth and depth - a depth metric - leadership in your own specific project team where you add features. - a breadth metric - you've demonstrably shown that you've gotten other teams outside your own to contribute to your project effectively. Additionally and perhaps…

I think both are important but it’s not necessary for any one person to excel at both. Some will naturally be better at depth and others at breadth. As long as you acknowledge both types of contributions I think it will work out well.

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

#162

Post by leros »

jstanley wrote: post #152
leros wrote: post #5

I used to manage engineers at another large tech company and this was a big problem. There was nowhere near enough big projects to get everyone the evidence they needed for promotions. As a result we ended up doing two things a lot: 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)…

> There was nowhere near enough big projects to get everyone the evidence they needed for promotions. Would the goal be to promote everyone ? Who's going to do the work they all used to do?

It's a retention issue. If people don't level up fast enough and get raises they'll leave for another company.

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

#163

Post by apozem »

lisper wrote: post #125
xoofoog wrote: 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 former Googler here (from waaaaaaayyyy back -- I was employee #104). The reason Google is the way it is, and many organizations are the way they are, is that they are trying to reproduce the circumstances that led to their initial success. Google initially succeeded by solving what was at the time a Really Hard Problem, and so the people at the top want to reproduce that by encouraging people to solve more Re…

That makes sense. Googlers keep dumping out technically interesting products with no go-to-market strategy because one time doing that, they made a perpetual money machine (search ads). The problem is it’s 20 years later, technology has changed and not all markets are like search.

Throwing something out there is fine when it’s a magic website that answers your questions. When it’s, say, a half-baked messaging app none of your friends use, not so much.

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

#164

Post by bern4444 »

lisper wrote: post #125
xoofoog wrote: 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 former Googler here (from waaaaaaayyyy back -- I was employee #104). The reason Google is the way it is, and many organizations are the way they are, is that they are trying to reproduce the circumstances that led to their initial success. Google initially succeeded by solving what was at the time a Really Hard Problem, and so the people at the top want to reproduce that by encouraging people to solve more Re…

I think Apple continues to innovate in new product categories.

Apple Watch

AirPods

M1 Chip

Services (Apple TV+, Apple Pay, Music, Fitness, iCloud etc).

I include iCloud for services likeHide My Email and Private Relay.

They do this all while maintaining a consistent release cycle of upgraded versions of their hardware (new iphones, macs etc).

Also, everything in the list above has been developed under Tim Cook which is also impressive. He's been able to maintain Apple's ability to expand into new products and services.

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

#165

Post by sytelus »

joshuamorton wrote: post #142
xoofoog wrote: 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…

So what happens when you promote someone for maintaining the same system for years? When do you stop promoting them? There's a person on my team who is happy to maintain what he works on. He has worked on fundamentally the same project for over a decade. He's a senior level engineer, and as far as I know doesn't have aspirations beyond that, which is perfectly fine. Assuming he keeps doing that work, and no more, doe…

If a person is locked up in one feature/one product and unwilling to learn new things for the years then I do not think that person should be promoted. You can certainly give merit increases to keep up with inflation but that's about that. Ultimately, we all responding to market value of a person. That value remains unchanged for someone not learning anything new for years after the earned experience saturates. In many professions like doctors or pilots, experience never saturates and continues to increase person's market value however in other like cashier or barista that's not the case. So this opinion is job-dependent.

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

#167

Post by srean »

aroman wrote: post #65
ahtihn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a joke? What is median household income for families in both of these cities? Fairly sure it's below 100k.

In San Francisco, the median household income was $120k. That’s 2 years ago mind you, and a lot of inflation has occurred since then. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia

Do their budgets balance or do they take on credit card and other debt to manage the deficit ? I am not claiming its one way or the other as I do not know the answer.

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

#168

Post by kmonsen »

nineplay wrote: post #31

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.

I have worked in three FAANG's and that was not true in any of those once you reach a certain level. This is somewhere between 4/5. The reason is that at that point the employee is considered mostly independent and can be expected to solve their task without too much intervention.

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

#169

Post by skrbjc »

xoofoog wrote: post #107
klipt wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty sexist to associate solving hard problems with masculinity. Women at Google also work on hard problems.

The sexist part is not the "hard problems" but the competitiveness. I don't think sexism is intrinsic to solving hard problems - certainly gender-inclusive companies work on hard problems successfully. But in my experience those companies tend to be more collaborative. Google needs to celebrate heroes. Like Jeff Dean. Or Sanjay Ghemawat. Those are Great Men. They are "Living Gods" because they solved Really Hard Prob…

Women aren’t competitive???

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

#170

Post by hintymad »

xoofoog wrote: 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…

Isn't this problem shared by pretty much every large company? Why is Google particularly bad?
Post reply on HN