Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
The current model of NPCs have a limited dialogue tree. Saving CPU cycles by sticking to the script helps maximize their ESG score.
The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
291–300 of 613 posts
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Apple has done a fantastic job of incremental improvements on their products rather than chasing the next cool thing. Can you name a company that has actually been doing this better? For instance, they often resist new technologies like high refresh rate or OLED screens, 5G, etc., until they feel the technology is developed sufficiently and won’t impact battery life. There are other brands that compete by mak…
> both the Touch Bar and the butterfly keyboard are gone now Everybody was surprised by that because they've so rarely admitted that they were wrong. It took Jony Ive's departure for it to happen.
I realise it's uncool to say so, but I quite like the Touch Bar on my MBPro.
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#293Quoted post unavailable.
Not google, but I was once given feedback that I wasn't promoted to a management position at a company because I was seen as being too "nice". This was despite 4 years of being a manager at past companies and being perfectly able to solve problems w/o pounding on the table and twisting arms. I left that company soon after. But I see that as an symptom of toxic competitiveness culture too.
I understand doing it accidentally or as a side-effect of hard-to-fix dysfunction, but it boggles my mind that they were fully explicit and self-aware and intentional about creating a process where you couldn't succeed without being an asshole. What a terrible place!
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#294I spent over 9 years at Google. Got promoted 3 times. Was a manager. Google is absolutely bonkers when it comes to promotions. At every opportunity to provide feedback towards upper management, I had one consistent refrain: Everyone needs to chill the f### out. The stakes (seem) too high. The amount of time invested is too high. The amount of discussion, rehashing, tinkering, rejiggering, and calibration is just too…
> It reduced the bias in the system from ICs writing up their own packets, which disadvantaged poor writers and poor self-promoters less. It got employees thinking less about promotion, since there was less they could control or do.
I agree that this seems positive, but you lose some things with this sort of change as well. ICs often have knowledge of their own performance that their managers don't, even when you're having highly effective 1-on-1s. You definitely don't want engineers spending huge amounts of time and energy selling themselves, but you probably do want them to at least a little bit!
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#295Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, this wouldn't get someone promoted, because it doesn't actually solve the problem. The problem here is that the triage process is a mess. Fixing that, so that bugs don't bounce around for months, would probably get someone promoted, or at least be a significant factor.
What if the solution to that hard problem is improving the incentive structure and paying/promoting people for fixing bugs? That's something only ELT or SVPs can do and they aren't getting promoted for that.
If you think the problem can only be solved by management attention, and you cannot demonstrate to your management that the problem is impactful enough that it deserves their attention, either you are incapable of making a clear enough argument to focus on the right problem, or the problem isn't actually as dire as you think it is (or management is bad and wrong, or at the very least mismatches your values).
Two of these are a signal that perhaps you shouldn't be promoted. The third is a signal that you should leave.
In a less generic sense, I think that there are almost always ways to improve incentive structures and encourage people to focus on specific problems that don't directly involve SVPs. Your manager has some control over your rating. If you can argue that "customer happiness" should be a priority and as part of that, end to end bug triage time will impact ratings, you have successfully created an incentive structure that will reward that, without involving anyone who can modify compensation structure.
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only true for E3/4. After that you can stay forever. I know someone that’s been E5 for 12 years
I just want to say that I can't believe some of the smartest people in the world are willing to put up with all of this off-putting corporate bullshit. No disrespect.
I'd argue they are far from some of the smartest people in the world. Smart? Sure, some (many?) but I've known quite a few idiots in software. But I'd hardly compare the regular software engineer at a FAANG to some of the geniuses in the world.
But they put up with it because it's a career and not a job. Many of them couldn't handle a minimum wage or working class job. No breaks, short lunches, no wriggle room for life, permanent fast-tracks to firing.
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#298I clicked the link ready to read and then feel critical about a criticism of meritocracy, but found the exact opposite. This makes me realize that promotion in the current state of tech and likely other types of businesses is pretty far removed from merit. Great article, and it's sad that business has made it necessary to point out that doing a good job and being awesome are the most important parts of promoting employees. There's a lot of fat to be trimmed in organizational structures, I would hypothesize.
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another example of this is their OKR system. If you meet all your quarterly goals at Google, that's not a success. In fact, you're frowned upon for not setting your goals high enough. Their whole management process encourages people to chase after impossible goals, and literally discourages people from getting things done.
Had to look it up. Objectives and key results (OKR, alternatively OKRs). More at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OKR . Hmm. If you are supposed to not meet all your OKRs, then that guarantees you will have a record of unmeet OKRs, which can be used as ammunition to deny promotion or even fire someone. So that encourages a sort of favoritism, where the people you want to promote anyway have their missed OKRs overlooked,…
Never worked at Google but I have seen exactly this happening at other OKR-based companies. Ultimately whether missing your OKRs is framed as valiant struggle or disappointing failure does absolutely depend on external perception.
Re: The Google incentive mismatch: Problems with promotion-oriented cultures
#300I spent over 9 years at Google. Got promoted 3 times. Was a manager. Google is absolutely bonkers when it comes to promotions. At every opportunity to provide feedback towards upper management, I had one consistent refrain: Everyone needs to chill the f### out. The stakes (seem) too high. The amount of time invested is too high. The amount of discussion, rehashing, tinkering, rejiggering, and calibration is just too…
> It reduced the bias in the system from ICs writing up their own packets, which disadvantaged poor writers and poor self-promoters less.
It could be a blessing and a curse. Sometimes managers are rotated right before the next round of appraisals, and the new manager knows nothing about you or your contributions.