Live data from Hacker News

'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

business-standard.com

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#261
Everyone in the Bay Area knows Google is a retirement home and FB is where you go to join a team that is 20% high-performance, 40% normal, and 40% low-performance-never-fired. It's like the standard story of a group project in university (though all my group projects had hotshots I'd gladly work with).

But this seems like it's inevitable at larger companies. I recall at one such company someone told a friend of mine that one project was going to take 29 months or something to execute. That company had a realistic 6 months to justify their stock price at the time. It cratered 75% - and this was not a COVID boost situation.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#262
All I can say is, thank god there seems to be some conserved (or marginally decreasing) quantity of output with increasing size of the company. (i.e. even as you grow bigger your efficiency and effectiveness drops in opposition to the number of people you accrete)

Otherwise we'd all be living under our corporate overlords for sure.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#263
post #239

This is such an embarrassment for these two... Aren't YOU the CEO of your company? Didn't YOU approve hiring plans and corporate goals? If there's not enough work, why don't you find something for them to work on, or replace your managers with folks that will. Instead, it's the employee's fault for being so unproductive.

Not to defend either of them as CEOs but isn't that what they're doing? Part of addressing a problem is surfacing it in the first place.

They are surfacing it in a weaselly way which absolves them of personal responsibility.

In reality, they approved the strategic direction of the company and signed off on the outrageous hiring plans. They were responsible for fostering a culture of execution and measuring the results of their teams. They were responsible for ensuring their investments were paying off.

Instead of messaging that "As CEO, we did not invest in the correct strategic direction of the company with the associated supporting culture to execute on our plans and as a result need to re-calibrate our investments" - they instead say "Too many employees aren't working, it's all the fault of the low performers!" or a variation of that message.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#264
Looks like some cuts are coming to the FAANG workforce - perhaps it's a good time to poach people for your upcoming initiative.

Not necessarily just those who will be laid off, but the ones who don't like their coworkers getting laid off so they can do 1.5x the work for the same money.

Fire up those LinkedIn contacts!

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#265
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started as a test engineer on an SRE team (ads database, which I think no longer exists), did a mission control rotation, and then sort of found a way to be a software engineer (non-SRE, which pissed off the SRE leadership) and run my own projects in prod without any real oversight (that was exacycle- using all the idle cycles in prod). I used my knowledge of SRE and my good connections with SRE to run my service w…

What are test engineer roles like at Google? I’ve basically only spent my time in startups on critical systems (defense, finance) so have no idea what it’d be like at a larger company or team.

This was a long time ago and it was a "bespoke" position created by the SRE team. I set up a continuous build and then fixed bugs until it went green.

Test engineers at Google at the time (~2008) were expected to build test infrastructure, rather than writing unit tests (SWEs were expected to write unit tests and integration tests), or to build complex system tests.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#266

Glad these guys seem to finally be noticing. I was a software engineering manager at a lean, high-margin, profitable start-up based in the NYC area starting in the late 2000s. We were acquired in 2014 by a very typical (for the time) SV-based competitor that had raised hundreds of millions in an IPO a few years earlier. Our acquirers had yet to see a single quarter of profit, of course. I and my team had so many good…

I see where you're coming from. One of the pieces of cognitive dissonance I had at Google was that I always had so much work to do, and there were just so many people around the office chilling out; waiting in long lines for free food, playing ping pong, making themselves an espresso. I never really felt like I had time for that; I got a grab and go sandwich and drip coffee and then hung out at my desk for 8 hours. I started the day with an infinite amount of work, and ended the day with an infinite amount of work. The melancholy of a good idea is that working on it just yields more good ideas; no matter how much work you get done, you'll always be making more.

The downside to my approach is that I super burned out. I had "strongly exceeding expectations" for 2 quarters, then my project was cancelled so I switched teams and went on a PIP. Indeed, I flat up stopped showing up to work. (I was so bitter about the fact that I lined up a new job immediately, but people that didn't do that got 6 months of paid vacation to explore other teams. I got nothing, and I needed it bad. The company doctor did give me antidepressants and some unpaid leave though. Thanks for that, turns out antidepressants don't treat burnout.)

I didn't even know that burnout was a thing back then, but if I did, I would know that making sure that you jam in 40 hours of programming and meetings into every week without taking a break isn't that healthy or productive over the long term. All these people chatting in the lunch line or playing ping pong or doing an aggressive workout and then showering in the middle of the day were optimizing for their long-term productivity. 1 hour less task-doing today, 10 extra years in their career. Not a bad tradeoff at all.

At a startup, you might not be able to afford that; by the time you're burned out, you've already sold your company and are retired, so it's all good. But at a big company, it makes a lot of sense; talent acquisition is expensive and if you can get 10 years out of someone instead of 6 months, you're going to be a lot more successful. And there's that uncomfortable medium where that extreme productivity didn't actually make a business that can afford to not burn people out, but now everyone's burned out. A lot of companies are in that state, and there isn't an easy way out of that without a time machine.

Engineers that call you out on you burning them out are absolutely right to complain. The basketball game is a much better use of their time than the standup. Standups only matter to people organizing the project; the meeting is only for your benefit. It saves you the time of reading their commits and design docs, sitting in on their engineering discussions, soliciting feedback when writing performance reviews, etc. The actual creative work of software engineering is done when your head is free from distractions and anything you don't need to know about. A walk around the quad or a basketball game is a great way to chew on the ideas, discard all that's unnecessary, and set you up for the 4 hours where you physically translate a quarter's worth of thinking into code that can be checked in.

At the end of the day, it's not really the software engineer's fault for the company losing money. Businesses fail because there is not a plan for making money and the actual engineering tasks are irrelevant. "Sprint 12323: rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic." is what 90% of software engineers are doing right now. They are right to go elsewhere when your business plan is so bad that the company can't even afford blueberries. Do you really think that if people just sat in front of their computer for 30 more minutes a day, or provided better updates in their standup, that the bad idea of a company would be saved? Some companies just weren't meant to be. VCs are very bad at not giving these companies money, though, so there are a lot of people running in circles doing nothing as they slowly realize they never should have started the company. Ultimately, you can't blame the nice campus or intramural basketball league for that.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#267
post #22

This seems like something that should be expected? Every time the WFH battle has come up over the last few years, there are always people talking about how they’re able to do all their days work in 4 hours and spend the rest of the time idle “pretending to work”. Is it really surprising that as a result of this companies are reevaluating how much slack time their employees have? Especially as wages and demand for wag…

[deleted]

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#268
post #170

Maybe it’s not the employees fault, but the management who hired them… or maybe it’s the fact that it takes forever to get anything done at FAANG nowadays. Or maybe, just maybe, interviewing based on esoteric computer science problems isn’t the best way to identify high performing builders.. but a great way of identifying people who can hack a process to secure maximal reward. Look, if I can ‘crack the coding intervi…

> when the last time was that Mark or Sundar actually wrote any code they pushed to prod That would be a surpreme waste of company money, and probably they have engineers working for them who are far better developers than they are.

Yea, as an engineer I would not be happy with my CEO swooping in to commit some code then bugger off.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#269

Which companies with similar concerns have actually managed to increase productivity in a way that satisfies the C-suite? A much older anecdote: I had a friend who worked at Yahoo around the time Marissa Mayer was coming on as CEO. At the time, they were allowing semi-WFH for certain positions. I literally never saw this guy go to work, or actually do any work. He was part of a stand-up comedy workshop and spent 100%…

I think yahoo found something like 35% of its wfh staff hadn’t logged in for weeks or months. (I can’t find a source for the number, so maybe I’m off, but vpn logs were used to justify ending wfh, which is… an imperfect approach for many reasons).

Overall, I don’t think the plan at yahoo was to fix anything, but just asset-strip it, which worked well for stockholders.

Re: 'Too many employees, but few work': Pichai, Zuckerberg sound the alarm

#270

Which companies with similar concerns have actually managed to increase productivity in a way that satisfies the C-suite? A much older anecdote: I had a friend who worked at Yahoo around the time Marissa Mayer was coming on as CEO. At the time, they were allowing semi-WFH for certain positions. I literally never saw this guy go to work, or actually do any work. He was part of a stand-up comedy workshop and spent 100%…

Given her attitude toward WFH, I'd say Marissa Mayer knew. Maybe not about this specific person, but then he was likely not a special case.
Post reply on HN