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

How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

aaronsw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#151

Post by judk »

pjscott wrote: post #45
walid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that one of Aaron's strengths, or at least a point of focus, was gamification. Looking at this article in that light you realize that he was trying to stir up a conversation. He also didn't seem to bother to be nice, at least when he had an opposing opinion.

I think the word for that is "trolling." And you're right: the article does make more sense when looked at that way.

The word for it is "contrarian", trying to make a name for himself by declaring himself opposite of the popular #1 (Google)

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#152

Post by judk »

charleslmunger wrote: post #22

I don't think this is really accurate. It's not about treating people like kids, it's about rejecting the attitude found at dilbert-style corporations. The T-Rex skeleton and the shark fins are there because they're cool. Google has monorail cars as meeting rooms in the Sydney office [1] - because an engineer requested it. It shows that management listens to employees. It gives people the confidence to propose somewh…

And posting with your real name! (Or impersonating a Googler)

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#153

Post by judk »

derwiki wrote: post #11
pcvarmint wrote: post #5

I thought it looked creepy, like an adult daycare center. I was approached twice and interviewed twice by Google but I don't think I'd fit that culture. No offices -- just open spaces. A meritocracy where you are evaluated by your peers generally, rather than by a boss or customer for your merits in a particular job. Where you don't even know what you will be working on until you're hired, as if that gives you a choi…

I'm surprised at how polarizing no offices vs open offices is. My first job at IBM, I had an office with two co-workers. They were great, but on days they were out it was sooo isolating. When I quit and took a job at a start up in SF with an open office plan, I loved it immediately. I could look across the room and see if the systems guy was there or getting coffee, instead of pinging into the Sametime void. So, I'm…

Open offices are bad when people not on your team wander through and have loud conversations. This problem gets more likely/common in larger companies.

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#154

Post by sirkneeland »

niketdesai wrote: post #128

I transferred to the Motorola division so I kind of have both perspectives while being at Google. In some regard, a lot of Googlers don't even know how good they have it. What Google manages to do pretty well is pick the right people for 'the company' and then acclimatize them extremely fast to everything: process, tools, lifestyle and sometimes koolaid. In doing so are we infants? Perhaps. But fundamentally this is…

So what's the moto side like?

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#155

Post by raldi »

judk wrote: post #150
raldi wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people interpret "Aaron worked on RSS 1.0" as "Aaron was involved in creating RSS", but in fact, he had almost nothing to do with that. There were many versions of RSS prior to v1.0, and it was already pretty established by the time he got involved. And actually, the standard had already forked before that point, and the one that ended up being called "RSS 1.0" was the less-popular fork that never really wen…

Yeah and Larry Page's Google engine was a toy demo until Jeff Dean rebuilt it. We can knock the wind out of almost anyone with the cutting insight that they were part of a team and not Godlike ubermensch.

There's a difference between helping pull the sled and dropping in now and then to say hello to the ones pulling the sled.

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#156

Post by choosewisely »

hanspeide wrote: post #143
choosewisely wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And no, fraud does not account for most of Google's income. Google is a public company and you are more than welcome to review those figures yourself. Fraud: saying from every top of the mountain that we serve results best for the users, we serve unbiased results, you can't buy a top rank on Google etc etc etc and then showing barely distinguishable (from content) ads on top and in many case showing almost all ads. T…

I'm sure a lot of people would welcome a free alternative without ads. Now go code it. Oh, wait...

From one extreme to another, from no ads to virtually all ads. Sure there must something in between?

And there's a huge difference in clearly marked ads and those that are ads but seem like unbiased "opinion"

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#157

Post by madaxe_again »

pvdm wrote: post #146
madaxe_again wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm personally aware of a very incapable 22 year old, fresh graduate, who has been hired for north of $200k. I'm also aware of a whole bunch of other folks who have been variously hired within months of graduation, so I'd wager there's some selection bias from your corner too.

freudian slip ?

Beg pardon?

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#159

Post by madaxe_again »

pvdm wrote: post #158
madaxe_again wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beg pardon?

you mean capable, right ?

No, sadly. This person cannot think their way out of a paper bag. There must be some talent I'm missing, but in a decade of knowing them I've not seen it. Bit mystifying as the role is secret.

Re: How Google keeps employees by treating them like kids (2006)

#160

Post by coldtea »

mwfunk wrote: post #142
coldtea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I used to pay high prices to eat lunch at IBM Cafeterias, and it was terrible food. But this infantilized me less? Well, obviously yes. At least you knew you were in a employee -employer relation, not a "nice person giving you nice food" relation.

I'm pretty sure he understands that Google is his employer and not just some nice person giving him stuff.

Well, the whole point of TFA was that it's not really that easy to distinguish between the two notions, even if you consciously understand it.

That is, the employeer can use the "nice food / ping pong table" etc, in order to get people to work for free (unpaid overtime, crunch marches, uncompetitive pay, etc).

Post reply on HN