Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#231

Post by pdimitar » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 4:15 PM UTC

Clamhead wrote: post #139

RealityNow wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our CEO has flat out told us that it's incredibly hard for him to get honest feedback from anyone (except for maybe the board and investors), and another executive echoed this. Nobody wants to question the almighty CEO to his face. Nothing against the CEO. He's an extremely friendly and approachable person. Most people just fear questioning authority and power, and the CEO in a modern day corporation is revered simil…

It's not possible to implement some type of anonymous feedback system? My company sends out periodic anonymous surveys as an attempt to garner feedback from the employees. The only problem I see is if employees, for whatever reason, don't believe such a system is truly anonymous and thus refuse to give honest feedback. I don't see that being a common trend though. If so, it probably signals more serious problems betw…

I never trust claims that any given survey is anonymous. To me that's a lie to gently coerce employees to tell the truth.

Not that I give a crap anyway, I still tell the truth knowing full well it might be used against me. If they can't handle honesty, they need to surpass 16-year old mental age. And I can find another job before my notice period expires.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#232

Post by donmatito » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #212

donmatito wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you envy them but I'm not sure you really do. Working without feeling involvement or purpose in what you do is mind-numbing. Of course lots of people have to endure it, and some find solace in hobbies/family. But if you are the type of person who always feel you have skin in the game, I don't think you'd last a month in a position where you don't care :-D

That's an odd viewpoint. Work hands me money, some projects are interesting others less so. But, doing a good job is enjoyable even if you don't care about the end result. Like playing a sport without paying attention to the score.

It's odd only if you have not tasted it. Once you have the experience of work with a sense of purpose, working without it (if you're skilled enough to be in a position to choose) looks like an odd life choice.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#233

Post by Retric » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 4:50 PM UTC

donmatito wrote: post #232

Retric wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an odd viewpoint. Work hands me money, some projects are interesting others less so. But, doing a good job is enjoyable even if you don't care about the end result. Like playing a sport without paying attention to the score.

It's odd only if you have not tasted it. Once you have the experience of work with a sense of purpose, working without it (if you're skilled enough to be in a position to choose) looks like an odd life choice.

I have done work I though was important, as in saving lives etc. But, it's not like I am the only person that can do this stuff. Really when someone else is paying you they could pay thousands or possibly millions of other people to do that job. The fact you happen to be the one doing it is not really important other than a sense you should not mess up.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#234

Post by sanderjd » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:19 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #166

sanderjd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the unpopular position of supporting a small room of a few "higher ups" making decisions. This is exactly what you want: a small number of people with a lot of skin in the game making important decisions. Good leaders gather feedback and counter-arguments beforehand, but then make a firm decision, and it's diminishingly rare for that decision to please everyone. The people who are not pleased should still f…

That is the same argument kings and emperors used. But over time the abuses, and the frequently stupid decisions, became too much. It's faster in an business but no different. Democracy is coming to the last bastion of dictatorship in modern western world. It won't be pretty - but it will lead to better companies

But businesses aren't states. If a business makes the wrong decisions, it can fail and be replaced. It is too dangerous for states to go through failure and replacement, but as you note, it's also bad for there to be no mechanism to punish of bad decisions. The goal of a republic is to bring the fail-and-be-replaced mechanism to state governance, but in a controlled way. But this is less efficient, so if it's ok (with respect to society at large) for an organization to fail, it makes sense to just use that mechanism directly.

There's definitely a loophole with "too big to fail" companies. Maybe those should be run more democratically. I'm not sure, I've never worked for a company that couldn't just fail if it persistently made the wrong call.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#235

Post by hinkley » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:21 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #214

hinkley wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is fuzzy but the one place I got options that were worth anything, it would have taken me about 8 years to double the stock grant I was given when we were acquired. So I had this big block of initial options of which hundreds of shares vested every quarter, and then dozens of shares of the subsequent grants came due at a slightly different time. To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the…

> To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the recipient did all of the work before the reward. If you make them work afterward then it sours the desserts. For executives and directors, I disagree completely. The shareholders are paying them to make and execute decisions that will grow the company (and share price) over a long period of time. The share-based compensation plan should reflect (and hel…

We aren't discussing keeping directors and executives happy. We're discussing directors and executives making stupid decisions and thinking the people doing the work won't care.

Also, stock options are worth less than nothing several times over if you are not in a position to make decisions. First, they're issued at market rate, so since they're options and not a stock grant, after fees you'd lose money selling them. Except you can't sell them because they are pieces of paper for a year.

And I know this will stick in the craw of a lot of developers, but as a non executive, any control you believe you have over the stock price is either tiny, illusory, or something the executives will take away if they notice. This is their game and to them you are a pawn, no matter how brilliant and indispensable your team and boss think you are. If you're affecting the stock price then it'll be up or out for you. You'll either be made a manager or treated as an unwanted variable.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#236

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

e59d134d wrote: post #144

sanderjd wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the unpopular position of supporting a small room of a few "higher ups" making decisions. This is exactly what you want: a small number of people with a lot of skin in the game making important decisions. Good leaders gather feedback and counter-arguments beforehand, but then make a firm decision, and it's diminishingly rare for that decision to please everyone. The people who are not pleased should still f…

In my professional experience, every time higher ups made a decision without input from worker bees, the project failed, delayed, or cancelled. I personally love it when higher-ups make a decision without consulting me. Because then I have zero skin in the game. I don't work ridiculous hours. When I am involved in decision making, then I make sure project succeeds. Sometimes that means working late hours, taking pro-…

There's a difference between having A Decider and having your decider make all the important decisions.

Yes, there needs to be a captain of the ship, and when she tells you to do something, you fucking do it because that's what captain means and you can kvetch about it when you're back on land.

But if the captain is making all of the important decisions, something has gone terribly wrong and your boat will not function. The captain is there to

1) make small changes necessary to stay on a long term course

2) push decisions through in moments when speed is critical

3) break conflicts that can't be resolved

They are not the chief achitect or the chief strategist or the chief anything really.

And if you are both the captain and the chief strategist, you need to recognize that you're playing two roles in one body and you need to be very aware at all times of when you're wearing the captain hat and when you're not. You don't get to boss people around when you're doing strategy.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#237

Post by hinkley » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #214

hinkley wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My memory is fuzzy but the one place I got options that were worth anything, it would have taken me about 8 years to double the stock grant I was given when we were acquired. So I had this big block of initial options of which hundreds of shares vested every quarter, and then dozens of shares of the subsequent grants came due at a slightly different time. To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the…

> To me, the first rule of rewarding someone is to make sure the recipient did all of the work before the reward. If you make them work afterward then it sours the desserts. For executives and directors, I disagree completely. The shareholders are paying them to make and execute decisions that will grow the company (and share price) over a long period of time. The share-based compensation plan should reflect (and hel…

In that particular line I'm talking more about execution of incentives, then painting options with that brush. Have you ever won a contest or award at work and then they can't seem to deliver it? The check or the tickets never shows up and you have to keep working for something that was already promised you? It sours the whole experience.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#238

Post by erikpukinskis » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 5:59 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #164

Hermel wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Providing counter-arguments that question the decisions of the executive caste is often seen as a threat The key to have an impact is not to pose critical questions, but to make constructive suggestions. Instead of saying "you are doing this wrong", suggest how to do better. Good leaders appreciate and encourage this, in particular if the request comes in an actionable format, i.e. "I suggest to do X in order to ac…

I don't find it very comforting that the people who are compensated the best have to be treated with kids gloves just so they can listen to the information coming from their people. I understand that may be how it _is_ but it's not how it _should be_. Additionally, people lower in the management chain are just going to avoid volunteering information if they are not 100% certain that the bosses are gonna take it well

It's not kid gloves so much as laziness. A good leader can listen to the problem, and just turn it back on the staff for a solution without wasting their brainpower, but many leaders can't... They hear the criticism and think they need to go into "formulate appropriate response" mode. That leads nowhere because there's no space left in their brain, and even if they come off sympathetic the net result is they're not really listening.

In those cases, as the underling, it's better to offer a suggestion because they can run with that.

Of course, it's easier said than done. Especially if you're busy, you know, doing your job, it can be hard to find the time to sit down and find solutions to what is probably a pernicious problem if it's being elevated to leadership.

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#239

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 6:06 PM UTC

objclxt wrote: post #23

scdoshi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many (if not most) companies do stock refreshes annually, don't they?

Yes, but after the initial grant has vested entirely your opportunities for growth are limited. Here's an example - say I'm hired with 1000 units of stock over four years. Each year I receive a refresher grant of 250 units of stock, again vesting over four years. Once I reach Year 4, my stock compensation stabilizes, assuming my refreshers remain the same (I'm am obviously grossly simplifying - you could be promoted…

[deleted]

Re: Why Good People Leave Large Tech Companies

#240

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 22, 2017, 6:10 PM UTC

hkmurakami wrote: post #59

mnm1 wrote: post #46

This attitude of "you really have to want to work here or you ought to leave" justifies a lot of insanity. I've heard it from companies who make potential employees jump through ridiculous hoops to even get a chance at a job. Here's reality for people who suffer from this delusion: most people don't give a fuck and are just looking for a job. They're applying to dozens or hundreds of jobs (yes, even in software), and…

As an aside, my 20-something-SF-resident-friends are flabbergasted when I tell them that I, as a person who's spent his whole life is this start up la-la-land that is SV, have absolutely no interest in "changing the world". I just want to work on interesting business problems, just like many others just want to work on interesting technical problems.

[deleted]