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

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

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 366 posts

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

#161

Post by pjc50 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #27
extr wrote: 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'm curious if you've considered that there is a pretty major cost difference between the two options? (at least for the company) Would you conclude that In Person is much better , in excess of the additional costs ?

Weirdly, companies don't seem to care about this kind of cost. I don't think I've ever seen "we're going remote first to save costs"?

More likely is the "prestige HQ" which is deliberately made more expensive than it needs to be for status.

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

#162

Post by iainmerrick »

fhd2 wrote: post #124

Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If…

Nobody ever actually wins a flame war, though, right?

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

#164

Post by i-use-nixos-btw »

What’s the important metric? Performance.

What’s one of the measures they use to establish performance? In-person attendance.

Why? Because it… improves… performance?

I mean, that’s just like testing to see how warm a house is by seeing how often the heating is turned on. Except some houses are in Cuba and some are in Siberia. It’s the wrong approach.

But meh. The largest company I’ve worked for had 0.5% of the staff Google has, so who am I to say what does and doesn’t work as a metric for them? It’s an entirely different ballgame, and not one I think I would enjoy being a part of.

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

#165

Post by teddyh »

himinlomax wrote: post #145
caskstrength wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood. Such rules never apply to _those_ people's performance reviews. They are only for peons.

Same with open office plans. Managers who implement them always seem to end up with a private office, for some weird reasons.

Or, as is often reported, they commandeer one of the conference rooms for themselves.

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

#166

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

72f988bf wrote: post #94
extr wrote: 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…

> 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. true. > For large companies like FAANG, I actually think they mostly fall in bucket 2 Also true most fall in the "figure it out" bucket... But here's where it gets funny: just meet in-person you say? No, this is FAANG. Yo…

> No, this is FAANG, every building is open office layout, it'd be rude & disrespectful to your colleagues around who are busy coding.

But at the same time it's perfectly okay to just come up to your busy colleague and pester them about something, because collaboration.

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

#168

Post by sublimefire »

iainmerrick wrote: post #162
fhd2 wrote: post #124

Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If…

Nobody ever actually wins a flame war, though, right?

emacs won, didn't it :D

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

#169

Post by sublimefire »

angarg12 wrote: post #106
IlPeach wrote: post #97

While I enjoy this whole debate in HN about remote Vs in-person, the point here majority seems to be missing is that the sole attendance is used as a threat for performance review. Effectively a joke. If Google had a problem with people and teams hiding behind a monitor not doing much, I'm sure you can recall a pre-pandemic world where this was also the norm when in the office.

Now that my company has started enforcing RTO, I noticed patterns in some of my colleagues, such as arriving late and leaving early, leaving the laptop in their desk disappearing for a long while, not answering messages for hours with nowhere to be seen, and very vague status updates when asked. It turns out slackers will slack, be it at home or at the office.

They are having water cooler conversations and collaborating on the new product engineering.

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

#170

Post by sublimefire »

almost_usual wrote: post #139
somsak2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PM at google > couldn't afford living in SF

They can afford to live in SF, they can’t afford the lifestyle they want.

this is a bit bizarre, how do you know what personal issues they have? maybe they need to care for someone or need special assistance due to their disability, maybe she is actually paid less than many other PMs
Post reply on HN