The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by metadat » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:26 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #388

metadat wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated in TFA and throughout this thread, moving the burden to the ICs means they will be incentivized to focus on Promo Packet instead of real work. No offense intended, but in your comment it comes off a bit selfish and bears the hallmarks of a classic archetype of terrible manager. I'd never willingly work for you. Being in management isn't for everyone, it's a people-focused domain. The whole job is about supp…

Hey, agree to disagree on basically every point you make. But, just to provide some context you're missing, I had someone promoted the last promo cycle without any mention of features or new products in her packet. It was entirely support work, tackling tech debt, etc, all of which was stuff she personally was passionate about, and which had led to her being passed over for promotion -for years- prior to my managing…

There is no single correct take, and I appreciate you filling in more of your perspective on the matter.

I'd be curious to understand what exactly you feel my points were, and why you think differently. I can't help but feel like I must be missing something or misunderstanding your comment.

Fortunately we're unlikely to ever collide in real life :). Again, I mean no disrespect. Genuinely would like to understand your point and see how it maps to higher overall team health and better output.

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

#392

Post by gowld » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

digitalgangsta wrote: post #151

What often happens when an employee doesnt get promoted? they leave and usually are able to get that next level role in another company. Why is that?? Why does the current company require employees to show a track record and data points to be promoted, while they hire externally for the same position and often only look at resumes, interview and maybe an assessment. Why isnt it the same bar for internal vs external.…

> they leave and usually are able to get that next level role in another company.

how do you know that's what usually happens?

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

#393

Post by cyanydeez » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

dolni wrote: post #362

elefanten wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ We have around 50 people on staff, and for the past couple of years, we have leveled new employees based on years of relevant experience. We had three levels, each with a single, non-negotiable salary that was the same across locations, and everybody was assigned to one of those levels. We've always been completely remote” I guess the main question that comes to mind is “why would a strong-performing, early-in-care…

Normalizing pay to years experience is a bad move in general, IMO. You are going to have a distribution of high and low performers at all levels of experience. If you pay all the senior people the same, you have less money to pay your high performers. And maybe they go get that pay from elsewhere. There's a difference between having 20 years of experience and one year of experience 20 times.

If your manages appropriately manage the employees, it'd require letting go poor performance.

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

#394

Post by BlargMcLarg » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:30 PM UTC

mrtranscendence wrote: post #329

usrn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women demand men that are better than their peers while men only demand women who are good on their own. The evolutionary pressure produces men who are competitive in this toxic way.

This is pure evopsych fantasy land. Women do not, as a rule, demand men "better than their peers". We would see more little old ladies out there who held out for above average, never got it, and chose instead to remain single.

>We would see more little old ladies out there who held out for above average

How in the world can you come to this conclusion when society hasn't been in the situation where old ladies as a whole were in a position to be close to equal financially compared to their male peers in at least the last century? If anything, you have to wait a few more decades to come to this conclusion at minimum.

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

#395

Post by digitalgangsta » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

bostik wrote: post #175

digitalgangsta wrote: post #151

What often happens when an employee doesnt get promoted? they leave and usually are able to get that next level role in another company. Why is that?? Why does the current company require employees to show a track record and data points to be promoted, while they hire externally for the same position and often only look at resumes, interview and maybe an assessment. Why isnt it the same bar for internal vs external.…

I think promotions to the next level should just be considered a new job (in the same company), and you don't 'win it' or get promoted - instead you apply for it and go through an interview process. That sounds like a recipe for an incredibly toxic environment. Not only are you hired for a specific pigeonhole, you are expressly forbidden from progressing through it : at least in some sane companies promotion is prece…

codified caste system? Have no idea what you mean.

You're hired for a position, when you feel you're ready for the next level you apply, if not, just continue where you are. This doesnt mean you dont get paid more the better you perform. Why do you need someone above you to say you're ready for the next level?

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

#396

Post by digitalgangsta » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #187

digitalgangsta wrote: post #151

What often happens when an employee doesnt get promoted? they leave and usually are able to get that next level role in another company. Why is that?? Why does the current company require employees to show a track record and data points to be promoted, while they hire externally for the same position and often only look at resumes, interview and maybe an assessment. Why isnt it the same bar for internal vs external.…

That just gives you a huge incentive to apply externally, which most employers don’t want.

not at all - i think it's the opposite. Why apply externally, when you know the ins and outs of the current company and have to go through an interview process anyway

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

#397

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

fatnoah wrote: post #338

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen how wide the bands can be (especially when factoring in appreciation)? Some L4s can make more than L6s. What is bonkers is that you can care about levels so much - but pay is wildly disconnected. What's the point behind putting all this effort into it when at the end of the day it means almost nothing?

>What's the point behind putting all this effort into it when at the end of the day it means almost nothing? At a company like Facebook, the difference between L4 and L6 is over $100k in salary, and $80k in stock (difference in 4 year refresh grant of $325k). $180k a year difference isn't almost nothing.

IIUC, there's a >$100k range in TC (grants, bonus, salary) - WITHOUT appreciation for L4s. It's >$150k range in TC for L6s.

If there's a ~$180k difference between the average L6 and the average L4, and the bands are that wide - you have a lot of L4s making more than L6s.

If an L4 is "Exceeding Expectations" enough to get huge grants and bonuses, and an L4 is "Needing Improvement" enough to get terrible grants and bonuses... Why is the L4 an L4 and the L6 an L6?

Additionally, everyone has different (with big swings) of how much of their compensation comes from stock vs salary & bonus. When appreciation comes into play - this has large implications.

Additionally, people working between 2-4 years often make substantially more money than anyone else at the company in their current level.

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

#398

Post by carl_sandland » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:43 PM UTC

This is a fascinating, complex topic. Why are a group of very clever, smart people spending ANY energy on giving each other high-school level report cards? Why does one of our best ever tech companies become focused on everything but the customer ? I'd like to think they are dumb but c'mon, they are not dumb people.

It doesn't mean I can't feel sad and deeply upset at this is what it takes to 'succeed' at a company I have honest admiration for.

BUT; I've been researching this 'problem'; which boils down to "is a hierarchical management structure needed" for a group of 'activists' to achieve great things? So far I have found no alternatives, why do we have to keep track of our 'success' and relative worth so intensely so share the pie around?

as the top responses says; everyone needs to chill out and I'd add "try to be nice and do no harm".

The only point I have to add is that as someone who wants to not participate and does not care what "level" they rank; f### off?

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

#399

Post by qzx_pierri » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

hotpotamus wrote: post #350

_j5l3 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess you could switch the process to "promo after N years of not being fired at your current level" but that seems even worse. Ex googler here, and when I was there 4 years ago this was true of L3 and L4. My entire team was L3's and L4's. We spent literally all of our time on projects with no meaningful impact on the company, but that made for promo packets. 6 engineers focused on rewriting the form to input cre…

Sometimes I don't think I could make it at a FAANG, and then I read stuff like this and I don't think I could make it at a FAANG, but for different reasons.

It seems like a soul sucking marathon run by relentless ladder climbers fueled on concentrated avarice and amphetamines.

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

#400

Post by ZephyrBlu » Wed, May 04, 2022, 9:51 PM UTC

happimess wrote: post #126

ryandrake wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 think it's insane to, for example, work at an office early in your 20s, to put a couple grand in your 401(k). Those 1-2 years, if spent exploring, could mean finding a happier and more thoughtful way to progress through the latter 70% of your life.

Early on the money is probably the least important part. Momentum seems like a lot more important.

If you finish uni and take 1-2yrs off, that puts you wayyy behind someone who goes straight into a job. If you take 1-2yrs off your knowledge won't be fresh and you'll not really be a new grad anymore.