Google uses in-person office attendance as part of employee performance reviews • Hacker News Board

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

#311

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:20 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #68

hparadiz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fully remote with 2-3 day quarterly in-person meet ups would provide tech companies with the in person collaboration they seek and be cheaper. Remote first companies do this all the time. Employees feel way better about it if the company provides hotel and accommodations when doing destination meet ups.

I haven’t found in-person meetups to be that useful. In my experience they only really started happening in late 2021/early 2022 due to the pandemic, and since then they’ve been severely curtailed due to the market downturn. So when you do meet up it’s more about finally seeing people in person, team building, and restating your team’s goals and mission. Any brainstorming I’ve seen happens in over-long sessions with…

[deleted]

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

#312

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:29 PM UTC

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…

If I went into "my" office I probably wouldn't recognize a single person at this point and I'm not sure there's anyone who I regularly work with who is assigned to that office, much less goes in.

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

Individual offices have not been the norm for everyone at large companies maybe ever? Cubicles are "better" but not that much better. (Source: I had one for years--both full-height and then shorter.) And the fact is that lots used to spend a lot more time on the phone than they generally need to today given other communication channels. When I've been in an office I absolutely make calls from my desk and everyone else does too.

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

#313

Post by pjdemers » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

For an employer the great advantage of remote work is the ability to hire people who live anywhere in the world (or at least anywhere in your country). But, when you're not hiring, that no longer matters.

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

#314

Post by hbn » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

jkukul wrote: post #219

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…

> 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 You nailed it. Ideally, both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite…

> both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences

Not that I'm antsy to get back to the office, but that scenario is not an "everyone wins" scenario, it's just another version of remote work. Onsite is only onsite if everyone is onsite. If it's some people in the office and some people at home, the people in the office are just working remotely from the office. All your meetings will be virtual, you don't get the benefits of onsite like being able to gauge someone's availability by just looking at them, you're gonna be screen sharing instead of just pulling up a chair next to someone, etc etc etc.

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

#315

Post by no_wizard » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:41 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #292

no_wizard wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be because some want to go in an office so we all do? If you want to work in an office go work in one. Join a co-working space or if there is sufficient momentum have everyone who wants an office join the same one in your area. But don’t force it on everyone. Let people choose. That’s the thing I hate about these conversations is it should just be personal choice for the individual. Make async pra…

That argument works the other way around too, either way you are asking others to accommodate your preference. I think “let people choose” is the right idea at the “choose your job” or sometimes “choose your team” level.

There's objectively practices of team building, communication, knowledge sharing, collaboration (and other attributes of a positive work place) that work for both remote or in office folks equally well and drive a net benefit.

Some of them are

- Async communication. Embracing long form writing is huge here, as is dropping the expectation of "now" in regards to getting responses.

- Holistic documentation & discussions. Processes, cultural values (and what they really mean and are expected to be followed specifically) and really just about anything meant to be repeated over and over should be documented at length, and reviewed consistently. This useful to everyone and has the added benefit of storing historical context and discussion

- Work in the open, whenever appropriate. If people can see whats going on, they can see things that traditionally are the "in between" things. Engineers already do this (PRs come to mind) in alot of ways, but this should extend to decision making as well, whenever reasonably possible. This facilitates the above points too.

- For socialization, its important that people have several avenues to get to know their co-workers. I think this one is possibly the least understand part of it, but its more than just "random lunch with co-workers if you join this channel!" there are ways to do remote team building exercises, to setup meaningful interactions between teams and departments etc. For instance, a positive thing I've seen people do with remote first around this is having product and engineering have Q&A with each other once every 2 weeks to just talk about stuff, it doesn't have to be related to what is going on right now. It can even be non work related if that is fitting to the people at the time, but it exists to just share things with each other, talk through ideas etc.

Unfortunately, these are things that aren't common in the work place currently. Most companies that have remote workers right now haven't moved beyond the "message eagerly or start a call" phase.

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

#316

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:46 PM UTC

ska wrote: post #292

no_wizard wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it have to be because some want to go in an office so we all do? If you want to work in an office go work in one. Join a co-working space or if there is sufficient momentum have everyone who wants an office join the same one in your area. But don’t force it on everyone. Let people choose. That’s the thing I hate about these conversations is it should just be personal choice for the individual. Make async pra…

That argument works the other way around too, either way you are asking others to accommodate your preference. I think “let people choose” is the right idea at the “choose your job” or sometimes “choose your team” level.

It's perfectly reasonable to want a co-located team that you collaborate with/are social with/etc.

But if that's not the situation at the team/company level, you need to either figure out some compromise approach (like getting a co-working space or even just picking up some non-work social activities) or move on to an environment more in keeping with your preferences. At some point, if a situation just isn't to your liking, you should probably stop hitting your head against the wall.

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

#317

Post by jacooper » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:48 PM UTC

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…

What are PMF and NGMI?

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

#318

Post by ChuckNorris89 » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:49 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #286

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the market goes up, devs don't want to hear about unions because that would prevent them from jumping ship with a 50% raise. When the market goes down, they want a union to protect them from being fired from that +50% job they got knowing they would be paid much less in the current economy. The dev logic is "fuck you I've got mine, you go get yours" but only as long as "line goes up".

>When the market goes up, devs don't want to hear about unions because that would prevent them from jumping ship with a 50% raise. NOTHING about unions prevents an individual being rewarded for their individual merits or jumping from job to job.

Unions, at least in Germany, dictate stric salary bands for all employees, existing and new-commers. You can't have new-hires making 50% more than old-timers who've been 10 years with the company, just because the stock market has an uptick and an increased demand for people where there's a shortage. You can bring in the new-hire at similar wages to everyone already in the company with the same experience as him, or you have to raise wages for everyone else to give him a major increase. Guess which options companies here take.

Unionized companies don't grow according to the stock market but according to profits, sales and customer orders, so you never see mass hires because the stock market went up, you also don't see mass fires because the market went down.

That's why there isn't a huge salary difference between a senior and a junior, at least not like in the US where seniors can make 4-8 times as much as a junior.

Unionized companies here also look down on job hoppers (people who jump ship for more compensation every 2-3 years) and tend not to hire them.

So yeah, from historical evidence we have so far, from my PoV, unions and crazy compensations that also grow like crazy in sync with the stock market, are mutually exclusive. Do you want uniuonized slow stable growth that lags the stock market, or do you want to make money in sync or above the stock market? Pick one.

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

#319

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 3:59 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #135

onion2k wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build.. Can you explain how some of the greatest technical research projects of our time like the internet, Linux, etc happened without a big office then? It's clearly nonsense to suggest you have to be collaborating in-person to build big unknown things. There are thousands of examples throughout open source and more where that hasn't been the case, and mil…

> ...etc happened without a big office while linux or git was created relatively sololy by a single person (at least at the beginning), i dont think you can call the internet a solo production.

>i dont think you can call the internet a solo production

No, although there were certainly co-located or nearby individuals and teams that contributed specific chunks--certainly parts that were hardware or depended on hardware.

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

#320

Post by ghaff » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 4:03 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #295

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…

Tech pays Industrial Psychologists, I don't know why we don't put them to work on this. I restarted my software career doing remote work. I didn't have a problem finding things to do because my responsibilities were clear (read: I had a good manager) and I was self-taught so I already had a muscle for seeking knowledge on my own. I suspect that remote work success is highly influenced by an equation involving how goo…

>I suspect that remote work success is highly influenced by an equation involving how good your manager is

I suspect the people on here who like to hate on managers either have a bad one or just don't realize how much crap they're being shielded from--a lot of which is inevitable in a large organization (where you can't tell everyone "hey figure it out on your own").