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

Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#101

Post by mattkrause »

unity1001 wrote: post #79
softwaredoug wrote: post #36

It’s been eye opening to see Google, FAANG, et al to gradually be transformed from the “rebel” to basically the core of corporate America - with the corresponding structures and incentives they once said to have despised. Early on, they set out to keep the “startup” culture internally - to drive ongoing innovation. But it turns out that this requires a tremendous amount of both trust and capital to waste to do at sca…

> Early on, they set out to keep the “startup” culture internally - to drive ongoing innovation There are a lot of companies outside the US that keep their original culture way into their maturity at global scale. Hetzner, for example - started as an upstart hosting provider that prioritized engineering. It became a global entity with DCs in Europe and the US, possibly the biggest datacenter operator and cloud provid…

> If you don't sell your soul to the devil and suck every cent as profit for the shareholders, the shareholders have a right to sue....

That's not actually true, except insofar as anyone can file a lawsuit for basically anything.

Long discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23393674 but in brief, Dodge v. Ford is a tough case that gets overinterpreted. More recent ones give enormous latitude to the company's management.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#102

Post by bradlys »

rvnx wrote: post #92
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not if you are serious or not, but in case you are: it is extremely difficult to assess someone's performance at work in a fair way, especially in tech. The ways to measure performance like LoC are largely inadequate and say nothing about the quality of one's work. And in some areas like DevOps, good luck assessing someone's performance - you can discover your mistake once that person you've fired is gone.

Usually in large orgs there is multi-layer reviews, and this is a quite efficient indicator; if the colleagues say that you are not doing your job well + the managers say you are not doing your job well + the people under you say you are not doing your job well. + the customers say you are not doing your job well. Then why an employee would even stay in a company where literally everybody thinks they are not helpful…

If everyone is saying you’re not doing your job well then they might have a point. The issue is that’s it’s often just a PM or EM saying it and no one else. Firings are often made based upon how the manager feels and that’s all it takes.

People who ruffle feathers of PMs and EMs are often the best performers but get axed for questioning authority. But are they fired for asking questions? No - they’ll be axed for “performance” when in reality it’s more due to not wanting anyone to undermine their authority/job security.

I’ve worked in SV for a while - it’s extremely political and not based upon meritocracy at all. People who get promoted are most often the biggest boot lickers and average performers.

Most firings I’ve seen are pure bullshit and are only due to someone in an authoritarian position wanting slaves and not engineers.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#104

Post by throwawaymaths »

lb1lf wrote: post #57
projectileboy wrote: post #7

It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.

-At a former employer, the upper management managed to one-up this by telling those of us still working there that we were the damaged goods; during an all-hands meeting where it was announced that we were to acquire a competitor, our CFO managed to blurt that 'We've learned from past acquisitions, and this time we will ensure that the onboarding experience is a good one. We can not and will not end up with a repeat…

I wonder why the good performers left!

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#105

Post by mansion7 »

bluescrn wrote: post #52

It'll be interesting to see how this (and the Meta layoffs) are reported on, compared to the to weeks of non-stop outrage over the goings on at Twitter

Surely now we'll see a barrage of articles about how those respective CEOs are terrible, how they are associated with left-wing figures (as it is frequently pointed out that Musk is right-wing as a perjorative), sob stories of the laid off parties, journalist inquiries to their advertisers if they intend to halt ads (with the implication that they should), guides a on how to flee those services and providing free advertisement for their competitors, etc.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#106

Post by ZiiS »

xwdv wrote: post #86
ZiiS wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact someone was not able to move the needle at Google has very close to zero bearing on whether they can deliver for you.

Still, no reason to give the same priority to Google’s poor performers when you can poach people moving the needle at other companies with salacious offers of higher salary and better benefits.

If you are offering higher like for like salary the Google then I wish you luck but am not hopful.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#107

Post by Tade0 »

jarek83 wrote: post #91

So now it seems that all big-tech was keeping tens of thousands of poor performers for years. I believe those performers were not really poor, it is probably matter of bad management so people were not able to present their true skill, but in any case - why they kept so many people as it seems they never needed them?

A few months ago I interviewed a candidate who was being recruited internally.

Few days passed and the delivery manager reached me to arrange a meeting with some other people who interviewed the same person.

Apparently their assessment was very different and they didn't want him in their project, so they were curious why mine was generally positive. We went back and forth on this and eventually I asked how long he's been in this organisation.

Two years.

He's now in a mostly solo project and I occasionally review his work. It's fine. I've seen much worse around here.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#108

Post by xwdv »

ZiiS wrote: post #106
xwdv wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, no reason to give the same priority to Google’s poor performers when you can poach people moving the needle at other companies with salacious offers of higher salary and better benefits.

If you are offering higher like for like salary the Google then I wish you luck but am not hopful.

Poor performers from Google shouldn’t expect better salary or even equivalent salary when better performers can be hired for less.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#109

Post by x86x87 »

baron816 wrote: post #58
sio8ohPi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame Google yet. This is Forbes fabricating a story for clicks, and the Independent parroting it uncritically. It's possible (and IMO likely) that Google will undergo layoffs (but you don't need to be Nostradamus to predict "company will undergo layoffs" during a recession), but both Forbes and the Independent appear to be misrepresenting their speculation as special knowledge.

Yes, this is not a real story. Pure speculation. No real sources. IMO as a Google employee, I don’t see layoffs happening. The company has started hiring again. My coworkers are flooded with interviews. We’re still having holiday parties and other “fun” spending seems to have returned. I have no inside knowledge, that’s just my own personal observation.

I don't want to be a party pooper but it's unlikely that Google will not undergo some sort of reduction in workforce. I really really hope that I'm wrong but based on the messaging this will happen.

Re: Google to lay off 10k “poor performers”

#110

Post by opportune »

projectileboy wrote: post #7

It’s incredibly shitty to telegraph to other employers that all the people you’re about to layoff are damaged goods. Completely unnecessary.

What actually happened is that, many months ago, Google announced it would start marking a larger portion of people per performance cycle as low performers. That’s it.

Only recently a bunch of news outlets are trying to spin it as a layoff and running away with their own narrative. It’s quite literally fake news

What is happening is that a lot of people want to hate Google so there’s a lot of demand for “Google bad” articles like this and all the inaccurate ones about RTO, truth be damned

Post reply on HN