Google Engineering Management Mistakes
docs.google.com
Google Engineering Management Mistakes
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#2"Stack ranking system was harmful:"
whoa! I didn't know Google practiced stack ranking. There is a lot of unnecessary stress generated at Microsoft due to this[1]. I would have thought the Google folks would be wise enough to avoid it.
As for ".... SVP response: “If you wanted to get promoted for these non-engineering tasks, move into management"
heh! How big company ish is that? The best way to join Google these days seems to be as part of an acquired startup. Then you are at worst running out any vesting period while enjoying those free massages.
[1] http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2005/07/microsoft-stack-ranking...
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#3Wow, this is one of the coolest things HN has found in awhile.
It's remarkable how, time and time again, formal incentive compensation schemes are shown to cause more harm than benefit. I started paying attention when Joel Spolsky called it out 6-7 years ago, and then read Peopleware (an excellent book) which reiterates the point (and calls it "teamicide"), and then read the Harvard Business Review article ("Why Incentive Plans Cannot Work").
Why would a company as smart as Google forge ahead with schemes like this in the face of all available evidence that it's a bad idea?
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#4Wow, this is one of the coolest things HN has found in awhile. It's remarkable how, time and time again, formal incentive compensation schemes are shown to cause more harm than benefit. I started paying attention when Joel Spolsky called it out 6-7 years ago, and then read Peopleware (an excellent book) which reiterates the point (and calls it "teamicide"), and then read the Harvard Business Review article ("Why Ince…
> Why would a company as smart as Google forge ahead with schemes like this in the face of all available evidence that it's a bad idea?
My guess: because it can be algorithmized.
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#5"Stack ranking system was harmful:" whoa! I didn't know Google practiced stack ranking. There is a lot of unnecessary stress generated at Microsoft due to this[1]. I would have thought the Google folks would be wise enough to avoid it. As for ".... SVP response: “If you wanted to get promoted for these non-engineering tasks, move into management" heh! How big company ish is that? The best way to join Google these day…
I had to look up "stack ranking" just now, so, for the benefit of the class:
Stack ranking means that if you have a group of 20 people, during each performance review cycle the group manager is expected to rank them from 1 to 20, and the company distributes bonuses and promotions accordingly.
That just seems completely asinine.
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#6Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#7"Stack ranking system was harmful:" whoa! I didn't know Google practiced stack ranking. There is a lot of unnecessary stress generated at Microsoft due to this[1]. I would have thought the Google folks would be wise enough to avoid it. As for ".... SVP response: “If you wanted to get promoted for these non-engineering tasks, move into management" heh! How big company ish is that? The best way to join Google these day…
I had to look up "stack ranking" just now, so, for the benefit of the class: Stack ranking means that if you have a group of 20 people, during each performance review cycle the group manager is expected to rank them from 1 to 20, and the company distributes bonuses and promotions accordingly. That just seems completely asinine.
"Stack ranking means that if you have a group of 20 people, during each performance review cycle the group manager is expected to rank them from 1 to 20, and the company distributes bonuses and promotions accordingly.
That just seems completely asinine."
Worse, there is often an associated ideal distribution ("the curve") with fixed ratios for "exceeds expectations", "below expectations" and so on and managers are under pressure to conform. If you have an all superstar team, a certain number must still be in the bottom most bucket, and the bottommost 5-10 % is often let go or put on a watchlist (I am not saying this is how Google does it).
Over a few years this gets very political as you can imagine. The (bad) middle managers love this part of their jobs.
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#8Curious, why does he end the presentation saying that a tech ladder is bad? Is the idea that they should have a management ladder, but all engineers are at the same level? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#9Wow, this is one of the coolest things HN has found in awhile. It's remarkable how, time and time again, formal incentive compensation schemes are shown to cause more harm than benefit. I started paying attention when Joel Spolsky called it out 6-7 years ago, and then read Peopleware (an excellent book) which reiterates the point (and calls it "teamicide"), and then read the Harvard Business Review article ("Why Ince…
Spolsky's article:
Re: Google Engineering Management Mistakes
#10"biggest mistake is still having a tech ladder"?
What specifically is this referring to? A separate career progression for techs vs managers? I thought that was desirable so you don't need to move your best engineers out of engineering positions to promote them. I fear I'm missing something.