No, I still don't want to work for Google • Hacker News Board

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#391

Post by pnathan » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 3:51 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #329

michaelochurch wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things I disliked about Google was the tyranny of At Google. If you didn't do it At Google, it doesn't count. You don't really know the first thing about anything unless you did it At Google. It's an extreme case of institutional arrogance. This explains the blind allocation policy. If knowledge that is not At Google doesn't count, then there's no point in matching people with their expertise or interests,…

Again, None of what you are saying seems to be a problem only at Google. These are really MegaCorp problems, and they apply to Google as well. I knew even from the beginning even 5-6 years earlier, when there was immense desperateness among geeks to work there. It was only a matter of time when all MegaCorp problems will eventually plague Google.

+1, This problem is not unique to Google.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#392

Post by mietek » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 4:03 PM UTC

trhtrsh wrote: post #336

mietek wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Michael O'Church seems quite happy to share what went on. What's stopping you? Michael O'Church's arguments are internally consistent, and more persuasive than vague statements impugning his character.

> What's stopping you? Respect for the confidentiality of internal communications. Anyone is free to share their own impressions, but it is inappropriate to pull someone else's privileged documents and wave them in public.

Just how respectful and appropriate is it to make public claims about someone's character without giving evidence?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#393

Post by kenko » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 5:33 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #358

kamaal wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the "10,000 hours" principle is may be you will be immensely successful following it. But don't be surprised if you don't. For you to be successful "10,000 hours" might be one of the many thing that need to fall in place. In many cases it might not even matter, to give you a simple example- If you are born in a society full of tribal wars in some poor country in Africa. I seriously doubt merely putti…

i doubt anyone is claiming that having 10,000 hours put into a skill/craft is going to make you successful. It's merely a pre-requisite, and not the only one at that.

Look at Mozart, for instance. He'd put in his ten thousand hours by the time he was like three.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#394

Post by exSoftyGoogler » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 6:02 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #372

kabdib wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens at Microsoft, too. Have a bad year, get "underperformed". (I dare anyone to have a long career without having a bad year at some point). Ding! Now it's really hard to move until you've scorched that badness from your record. Your mission is to get a bunch of good reviews, or get promoted, or find a sympathetic ex-manager who's willing to hire you anyway (this is why you need a network, and one reason why…

I believe you. Bad reviews have a lot more to do with politics than anything "performance" related. Making the review part of the transfer packet is one of the worst corporate "innovations" designed. It's not just mean-spirited and immoral (because it gives managers a way to keep people captive). It also makes the review process totally pointless. An honest review needs to be between the manager and employee. Here's…

What is wrong with a manager who is considering bringing you onto their team wanting to know about your past performance at the company? I bet that happens at EVERY company. It certainly did at Microsoft.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#395

Post by genwin » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 6:13 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #280

genwin wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key to success at most companies is to please your boss's boss, indirectly of course.

The key to success at most companies is to be a unicorn. Let's quantify ambition using the letter A. At A > 1.0, people are interested in advancing their own careers and are only going to work hard on their assigned stuff when there's a long-term, career benefit. If they have a surplus of time (which is common, because they're good at getting shit done) they will pursue their own education rather than asking for more…

I'm at A 1.0 types. I do expect to be "managed out", but only because everyone but top management gets laid off eventually, to keep the staff young.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#396

Post by rhizome » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 6:30 PM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #325

rhizome wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has been criticized for a lack of rigor in his assertions.

It's not academic research. The guys is primarily an author selling books, and rigorous academic treatises tend to end up in journals nobody reads.

It's not black and white like that, and the marketplace means that there is a meeting in the middle when assertions are presented scientifically enough for a layperson to ascribe authority to them.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#397

Post by michaelochurch » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 6:43 PM UTC

exSoftyGoogler wrote: post #394

michaelochurch wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you. Bad reviews have a lot more to do with politics than anything "performance" related. Making the review part of the transfer packet is one of the worst corporate "innovations" designed. It's not just mean-spirited and immoral (because it gives managers a way to keep people captive). It also makes the review process totally pointless. An honest review needs to be between the manager and employee. Here's…

What is wrong with a manager who is considering bringing you onto their team wanting to know about your past performance at the company? I bet that happens at EVERY company. It certainly did at Microsoft.

Of course, the manager is going to want to know. People would rather have information than not have it, even if it's wildly inappropriate.

Microsoft was destroyed by stack-ranking and the global visibility of political-success review (I mean, "performance review") history. Are you seriously trying to use Microsoft to make a case?

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#398

Post by dpritchett » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 7:54 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #396

tsotha wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not academic research. The guys is primarily an author selling books, and rigorous academic treatises tend to end up in journals nobody reads.

It's not black and white like that, and the marketplace means that there is a meeting in the middle when assertions are presented scientifically enough for a layperson to ascribe authority to them.

Exactly - I feel guilty citing Gladwell on a forum because it smells factual when in reality it's merely persuasive.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#399

Post by tsotha » Tue, Oct 30, 2012, 10:17 PM UTC

rhizome wrote: post #396

tsotha wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not academic research. The guys is primarily an author selling books, and rigorous academic treatises tend to end up in journals nobody reads.

It's not black and white like that, and the marketplace means that there is a meeting in the middle when assertions are presented scientifically enough for a layperson to ascribe authority to them.

Well, sure, but the problem is the more scientific you get the smaller your readership is. It might not matter so much to you as the author, but your book can't become an object of discussion if it isn't widely read.

Re: No, I still don't want to work for Google

#400

Post by SilvaR » Wed, Oct 31, 2012, 1:55 AM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #132

I think it's fairly obvious from all of these stories about the Google recruiting process - being pestered fairly regular by different people who appear unaware or indifferent to your past experiences with Google, either as an employee/contractor/failed candidate - that the recruiters have some sort of quota system and need to keep feeding potential candidates into the interview process to meet their own metrics. Hen…

Correct! This is the main source of external Google HR issues. When there is a certain stretched goal to hire X number of people, this sort of situation tends to happen.