Live data from Hacker News

Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

fortune.com

81–90 of 366 posts

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#81
post #29

I never cease to be amazed the extent to which companies are trying to squeeze the remote work genie back into the bottle. They're desperate to find ways to make that expensive office space seem justified. "See, look! The people are using it. They love it." (Just out of frame, guns are pointed at the workers.)

I never cease to be amazed at the extent to which knowledge workers want to make "replace us with Eastern Europeans/Latin Americans/Indians" as painless a drop in as possible.

You get what you pay for

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM was in this position way back too. Revenue is a lagging indicator.

IBM was a big driver in viewing teams and employees as fungible and assembly-line pieces and shifting to offshore work. I think the fact that Google isn't yet worried about cost more than productivity is a good sign that they're still a ways away from that.

What makes you think they aren't? Everything they've done the last few years has been cost driven.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#83
post #20

After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…

I don’t think in-person is better if you don’t know what you need to build. I’ve experienced teams where people were totally without direction despite being in-person. I think in-person just makes it easier to look like you are busy when you have no direction, and remote lays the fact bare.

Agree that though it's better in person during brainstorm / discussion, it isn't decisive. When people are having zero ground during the meeting, it won't provide any meaningful result no matter what you do. And if it resulting in something, usually it'll be bad.

What I found to be the best approach is one or two people already established a concept at what to make or at least the image of it, and the discussion can move to the details and implementation plan. And that doesn't need to be in person

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#84
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My best experiences working remotely—both during the pandemic and with folks in other locations before that—has been with research-oriented work. The reason? We had the time and space to work and communicate the way that made sense to us. We had plenty of shared pair/group sessions to work out design ideas and experiments, iterate on the system, debug trickier issues... etc. Everything else we could do well asynchron…

I think you're using different phrasing to describe the same effect. Autonomy and the org knowing what it wants to do/needs to do go hand in hand. In your long-term speculative research oriented work, you had autonomy because you knew what you were working on - not what it was in terms of tickets per se, but it sounds like you knew your scope and your objectives. At 10+ person org sizes, most people can't have long-t…

I agree. Research is ideal for remote work, since you are effectively your own manager and by definition there is no specific vision that needs to be worked toward - you are discovering that vision yourself. It's the literal ivory tower. In my experience if you give non-R&D engineers and small teams total autonomy they will all end up building great solutions to problems that are slightly different than the problem you actually needed solved.

> I think figuring out the best way to use a team of 20, 100, 1000 engineers to accomplish business goals is just an incredibly hard problem...

Agreed, don't mean to downplay how difficult good management is. I think the key thing I've realized is that in a remote environment, bad management is so much more obvious and detrimental to the employee and organization. In office, if your manager doesn't communicate vision/objectives well you can always tap the shoulder of the guy next to you, or discretely pick your skip's brain in the break room. The rest of the organization can pick up the slack. But that's much harder remotely.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#86
post #20

After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…

I would assume the importance of in-person versus remote also depends on the role.

More team work versus individual work?

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#87
post #85

This is just another form of layoffs, I think. The problem is that many other execs will follow. It's bizarre how this is purely about making life worse for the engineers without any rational reason.

it's almost like there should be a union or something

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#88
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're using different phrasing to describe the same effect. Autonomy and the org knowing what it wants to do/needs to do go hand in hand. In your long-term speculative research oriented work, you had autonomy because you knew what you were working on - not what it was in terms of tickets per se, but it sounds like you knew your scope and your objectives. At 10+ person org sizes, most people can't have long-t…

I agree. Research is ideal for remote work, since you are effectively your own manager and by definition there is no specific vision that needs to be worked toward - you are discovering that vision yourself. It's the literal ivory tower. In my experience if you give non-R&D engineers and small teams total autonomy they will all end up building great solutions to problems that are slightly different than the problem y…

Do you write a blog? Your experience resonates with mine.

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#89

This is yet another sign that Google is in ruin …

Is that so? WFH is still a largely a COVID thing, even 3 times a day is still better than going to office 5 times week, as before?

3 times a week in way worse than zero.

Are we all going to just drive somewhere, sit at a desk and not talk to our co-workers cause they actually in some other office, then drive home?

Re: Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews

#90
post #80

I never cease to be amazed the extent to which companies are trying to squeeze the remote work genie back into the bottle. They're desperate to find ways to make that expensive office space seem justified. "See, look! The people are using it. They love it." (Just out of frame, guns are pointed at the workers.)

Not only trying, but largely succeeding. I haven't seen one instance where these decisions have been reversed due to pushback.

If management had enough leverage to push them back in, they weren't going to escape
Post reply on HN