The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures

Post by _j5l3 » Thu, May 05, 2022, 9:32 PM UTC

ceras wrote: post #464

_j5l3 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Google at least, if you stay low level for too long, you get fired. If your team is full of low level people maintaining a project that's stable, you need to invent work to justify your existence.

You only need one promotion, L3 (entry level) to L4 (mid level), to not get fired at Google. And the company is quite generous with how long it gives you to get there. L3 to L4 is basically about writing good code on your own, and isn't really affected by promo culture -- doesn't really need shiny work. Several years back, you had to also eventually get to L5. This was more affected by promo culture, but was also lar…

Post by nickm12 » Fri, May 06, 2022, 6:26 AM UTC

thewarrior wrote: post #310

tfp137 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dual-ladder system exists to fix something that is broken but ends up breaking it more. In essence, there's the E9/O1 problem. An elite engineer with 25 years of experience simply knows more than an entry-level manager. Organizations try to solve this by dual-laddering and saying that there are "Director-equivalent" engineers (e.g. Staff or Principal) and so on, to rectify the obvious injustice of a scenario wher…

How can every single manager become a director ? That seems impossible.

Post by samhw » Fri, May 06, 2022, 3:55 PM UTC

JJMcJ wrote: post #416

tfp137 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dual-ladder system exists to fix something that is broken but ends up breaking it more. In essence, there's the E9/O1 problem. An elite engineer with 25 years of experience simply knows more than an entry-level manager. Organizations try to solve this by dual-laddering and saying that there are "Director-equivalent" engineers (e.g. Staff or Principal) and so on, to rectify the obvious injustice of a scenario wher…

In the military the E9/O1 issue is at least understood. Not so much in corporate life. The parity between the two ladders is something of a myth. At most companies, you can see that clearly if you count heads. A director might oversee 150 to 250 people. There will likely be five second level managers reporting to the director, and maybe twenty first level managers reporting to those second level managers. So 30 manag…

Post by digisign » Sat, May 07, 2022, 2:12 AM UTC

hansvm wrote: post #521

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this approach is the FLOSS stuff being more interesting ends up impacting the success of $work, or the $work distracts you enough that you can never focus long enough on the FLOSS. Plus the guilt. Plus, at Google in particular, you have to make them aware of your OSS work and go through the motions of getting the licensing set up so either they own it or you get permission.

Even if you "get permission" that's only for copyright. They still claim ownership of other IP (patents, trademarks, trade secrets), ... on _everything_ in your private life. I doubt it gets enforced often, but the employment contracts are draconian.

Post by RHSeeger » Sun, May 08, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

bjt wrote: post #528

RHSeeger wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you let go the poor performers, there's still a wide range of ability in the rest. It also means people will do just enough work to not get layed off (or appear to do that much work), because there's no benefit to doing better.

While I see your point, I'd argue with "there's no benefit to doing better." People are motivated by more than money. Mastery, autonomy, and purpose come to mind.