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

591–600 of 613 posts

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

#591

Post by kajecounterhack »

Husafan wrote: post #545
kajecounterhack wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With a little bit of thought around how to show that the work you are doing actually is valuable to your organization's OKRs, you can get promoted doing whatever work appeals to you the most. If you put yourself in the shoes of an L3 or L4, you know this is not exactly true. Who your manager is and what their priorities are, and how they view the promo process can greatly affect your ability to get a promo. I mean,…

I don't see how any of this is specific to Google. Everything you've said here is how companies function. If you want to work on things that are not important to your manager, why should you expect anything? And bad managers exist everywhere. My point here is that my managers thought the latency of Google Maps was important, doing good work on it got me promoted, it was not a product launch, and things like this are…

Sure. I was just pushing back on the idea that "you can get promoted doing whatever work appeals to you the most." The "dot dot dot" that is required in order to make that work is a lot of luck, because your manager and their incentives factor so heavily into that. You got lucky -- plenty of folks do similar work and don't find as much support.

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

#592

Post by icedchai »

prakhar897 wrote: post #588
icedchai wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at a place that did perf reviews every 6 months. 360 degree style, where you got manager feedback and a bunch of peers that you nominated. None of the feedback I received was ever actionable or useful. None of the feedback I gave was ever really useful, either! People rated you on a bunch of silly, vaguely described sliding scales from 1 to 5, then answered a couple of equally vague questions. It probably di…

This is Amazon 100%.

It was actually a much smaller tech company! I hesitate to call it a startup, since it was well over 10 years old.

This sort of BS review process is pervasive in the industry.

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

#593

Post by JJMcJ »

twayt wrote: post #451
titzer wrote: post #226

I spent over 9 years at Google. Got promoted 3 times. Was a manager. Google is absolutely bonkers when it comes to promotions. At every opportunity to provide feedback towards upper management, I had one consistent refrain: Everyone needs to chill the f### out. The stakes (seem) too high. The amount of time invested is too high. The amount of discussion, rehashing, tinkering, rejiggering, and calibration is just too…

Google hires a ton of really competent and motivated people with low experience at a low level. Many times undeservedly so. I’ve seen some phds with 3-4 years of experience being hired at L4 (starting phd level), some masters with 3-4 years of experience, sometimes even leading teams at previous companies at L3 and some experienced managers with 10 years of experience at L4. Why do these people accept offers? Because…

> PhD with 4 years of experience

Google and other FAANGs pay very well, so it's not surprising they can hire PhDs but I sometimes wonder about the negative effects of vacuuming up so many research level people and having them do very mundane work.

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

#594

Post by selimthegrim »

digitalgangsta wrote: post #395
bostik wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When professors apply for promotion from associate to full in academia, and they don't get it, do you think they apply again? Clearly you would have to jump to a different company in your case if you are denied the first time unless there has been a total management turnover.

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

#595

Post by joshuamorton »

dudeman13 wrote: post #578
joshuamorton wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, there are loads of features that were far easier to implement after the refactoring. Congratulations, you have demonstrated the value and made it easier to do something. As someone who has gotten promoted 2 times (and soon to be 3) primarily off of tech debt reduction and infrastructural improvements that don't themselves do anything, but drive future productivity, of course I think this is valuable. This kin…

>it is in fact the case that getting new stuff done is the only way to benefit the company >[work that will] drive future productivity, of course I think this is valuable These 2 aren't compatible. Seems like you've walked back on the former from this last reply.

No, they're perfectly compatible, you're just choosing to take an extreme interpretation of the first.

Like there is always groundwork that has to be done as part of the new thing, and doing that work is part of getting new stuff done. If getting new stuff done is the end goal, "getting new stuff done 5% faster" will obviously get new stuff done (and benefit the company).

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

#596

Post by uoaei »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #156
uoaei wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is a masculine (in the sense of gender roles that a person assumes for themselves) way to do it, and that is what is typically expressed in these settings. And it is typically more harmful for more people on average than the feminine expressions of same.

Tell me, what do you consider "toxic masculinity"? You're not really presenting a frame for us to discuss this in. >And it is typically more harmful for more people on average than the feminine expressions of same. Yeah, no. This is borderline sexist. It's one thing to argue "the workplace only allows masculinity in its toxic form". It's another entirely to go "feminine better".

I'm saying "masculine worse", yes, because it is. Any assertion to the contrary is deliberately ignoring the decades of research into aggressive tendencies and the (inverse) correlation to wellbeing globally. Anybody who speaks on this, having not informed themselves of the research, is acting in bad faith. By this point in global human connectivity, you really have to be trying in order to stay in a tiny little filter bubble that doesn't acknowledge this.

Nobody appreciates people who speak without knowing about what they speak!

Not to mention that any argument whose central point starts with "I would prefer..." cannot be taken seriously. Your opinions have no bearing on material realities, or, put another way, facts don't care about your feelings.

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

#597

Post by Terry_Roll »

HWR_14 wrote: post #439
astrange wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be forgetting self-employment tax there?

He's talking about making 10 million a year and you think the issue is he forgot the 8k or so of self employment FICA taxes?

I've worked in UK tax havens.

At the end of 2008 I had to add 3 more zero's so a trader could be paid their bonus.

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

#598

Post by cmrdporcupine »

effingwewt wrote: post #297
ShamelessC wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to say that I can't believe some of the smartest people in the world are willing to put up with all of this off-putting corporate bullshit. No disrespect.

I'd argue they are far from some of the smartest people in the world. Smart? Sure, some (many?) but I've known quite a few idiots in software. But I'd hardly compare the regular software engineer at a FAANG to some of the geniuses in the world. But they put up with it because it's a career and not a job. Many of them couldn't handle a minimum wage or working class job. No breaks, short lunches, no wriggle room for li…

I dunno, I would say on my whole in my 10 years at Google I really did meet some of the most talented (in terms of raw knowledge or focus or some other skill) people ever in my career.

But they were mostly being paid handsomely to apply those amazing skills to really humdrum tasks -- but painting them up to be really profound -- and that's the saddest thing.

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

#599

Post by waterhouse »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #293
dv_dt wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not google, but I was once given feedback that I wasn't promoted to a management position at a company because I was seen as being too "nice". This was despite 4 years of being a manager at past companies and being perfectly able to solve problems w/o pounding on the table and twisting arms. I left that company soon after. But I see that as an symptom of toxic competitiveness culture too.

I understand doing it accidentally or as a side-effect of hard-to-fix dysfunction, but it boggles my mind that they were fully explicit and self-aware and intentional about creating a process where you couldn't succeed without being an asshole. What a terrible place!

To give a maximally charitable interpretation, "nice" could be a euphemism for "doormat/not assertive/not raising objections when one should". Though "being perfectly able to solve problems w/o pounding on the table and twisting arms" is evidence against this. (Though conceivably those giving feedback hadn't noticed that evidence; I have no knowledge here.) Also, it would be ironic if they were "nice" enough to use a euphemism that obscured their point completely.

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

#600

Post by pinewurst »

lanstin wrote: post #503
dave250 wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if it's always true for people, but my performance goes up and down quite a lot depending on how much I believe in the group mission and the group dynamic. I'll occasionally stay late working for some abstract metric that might impact 10% of my pay, but I'll stay up 48 hours working fanatically to make something work for my friends and co-workers and the dream of success in changing the world that the…

I don't mean the "slackers" that want to go home at a reasonable time and hike the Appalachian trail or rescue lost mountain climbers or whatever, I mean the ambitious types that worry if they are getting 185K USD instead of 205K USD rather than on making the digital transformation a really cool thing for humanity, and making products that they are proud to try to explain to their families.

As I feel the "digital transformation" is mostly handwaving BS, indeed it takes that increment of compensation (as much as possible!) not to perseverate on the worthlessness of that buzzword. I'm in the midst of changing jobs right now because I'd rather devote my efforts to the honorable (IMHO) concrete instead of being the DT advocate (one of the parts of my current job).
Post reply on HN