Live data from Hacker News

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

business-standard.com

31–40 of 1001 posts

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

#31
post #3

Either these CEOs are insanely incompetent leaders who have gone on obviously unnecessary hiring sprees as late as a few months ago, or something else is up. Either way, it takes a particularly dishonest leaders to suggest that the main problem is low employee productivity.

Doubtless those honest, selfless CEO's were completely duped by evil conspiracies of rotten & incompetent middle managers, who've spent the last decade or two building ever-larger pyramids of bloat to set their golden thrones on top of...

This!

Far too often middle managers are incentivized to build the largest team possible.

While the message from the top may be "lean and mean" but you compensate middle managers based on team size...

Perverse incentive certainly comes to mind.

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

#32
> To be sure, the Covid-induced pandemic saw Meta embark on a massive hiring spree, growing its number of full-time staff from 48,000 at the end of 2019 to more than 77,800 — a 62 per cent jump. But now the firm must “prioritise more ruthlessly” and “operate leaner, meaner, better executing teams,” Meta Chief Product Officer Chris Cox wrote in a memo, which appeared on the company’s internal discussion forum Workplace before the Q&A.

The article doesn't mention a different problem. Those new hires entered at extremely inflated salary levels due to literally every other company doing the same thing at the same time. Righting that ship means not just layoffs, but recalibrating salary expectations. The process is just starting.

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

#33
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, just have no meetings at all. Just send you tickets with perfect specs. You'll never have to talk to anyone.

I mean the middle men meeting where someone translate business requirements to technical solutions. Engineers should be treated as problem solver and not code monkey

The translation is a legitimate skill that should not be underestimated. Especially when you add in that there ought to be flow the other way as well. As an engineer, I want to be involved early in the business processes, because as we all know sometimes business people assume that very hard things are easy, but sometimes there is something I can offer them that they don't have any idea is easy. It's best to work through the cost/benefit process together, rather than the business people huddling in a corner before flinging over a set of requirements to engineering as Holy Writ.

(Kinda struggling with that now; I'm peripherally involved in a project with big monetary implications. The "solution" is to build a big system as quickly as possible and run around making super-high-priority requests across a whole lot of teams, almost all of which need to be in place before any value is obtained, and which consequently is behind schedule and dragging out. On the other hand, a week, some database queries, and a reasonable amount of manual labor could get about 50-75% of the value now. But none of the project managers are interested in that fact, which frankly boggles my mind. I'm not sure if they just don't understand what I'm saying, or are just so stuck on the solution they designed that they've lost all ability to think outside it. One thing I have confirmed is that it isn't just that I don't have a full picture of the problem, which is the usual situation; I'm quite confident what I'm thinking would work.)

However, while that skill is not necessarily something you need a graduate degree for and 20 years dedicated experience, and engineers can pick it up, there are engineers who don't have it yet, or even won't pick it up because they despise it. The list of skills required to be an engineer is already pretty long, requiring this to be added as well raises the bar even higher.

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

#35
post #9
post #3

Either these CEOs are insanely incompetent leaders who have gone on obviously unnecessary hiring sprees as late as a few months ago, or something else is up. Either way, it takes a particularly dishonest leaders to suggest that the main problem is low employee productivity.

It’s no secret that most people at Google hardly work. It’s been like this for years but you’re right it’s management’s fault for allowing this culture.

Allowing? They've encouraged it by creating a system where there is very little relationship between what gets you promoted and what is good for your business unit. That's why you have 13 failed exciting messaging apps, all of which got lots of ICs promoted, instead of 1 successful boring messaging app that just kept getting maintained in a wise manner, getting very few people promoted.

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

#37

Google would have been a lot more productive if it had hired people to work on one good messaging app instead of 13+ bad messaging apps. Google has long had an attitude of "we hire the best so we can afford to have them stand on one leg and balance on a ball while holding a cane in their mouth and balancing a bunch of dishes on the end of the cane while typing with one hand on a chorded keyboard and looking at a moni…

Blaming the employees smells like a smokescreen for poor management IMO.

Who's to blame for lowered employee productivity: employees who are disconnecting from work more to avoid burnout thanks to corporate BS like paperwork and constant report filing? Or the managers who impose those requirements on employees but fail to empower the individual contributors beneath them in the org chart?

I recently left a large-medium sized tech company that failed to address massive structural issues in my department for years. It's not like these were a secret -- I brought them up constantly in my 1on1s, and tried to brainstorm solutions with my management chain.

When I left, the head honcho begged me to stay, and when I brought up those issues... told me he had no idea that was such a problem! But also refused to address it because he had to "gather information" about the issue.

I'm much happier at a smaller company without so much bureaucracy. At some point, managers are so disconnected from their underlings that they are completely incapable of improving work conditions. And when you need high-level approval to make a big decision... more often than not, the big decision just never gets made.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

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

#38
Few work, mostly because the desire to get stuff done gets nixed from day one by process, bureaucracy and business drones. Also, the prospect to make an actual fuckton of money is completely unlikely these days.

Google can't get anything done for a very simple reason:

a) comps are way too high. why bother doing anything when gold rains from the sky every day of the year.

b) you're never going to make it to 50 Million at Google however hard you work, unless you make it to SVP, which is a 15 year endeavor. In other words, strictly no incentives to do amazing stuff when compared to a startup.

c) the environment is highly political, actual entrepreneur spirit is long gone and/or smothered by product type folks.

If what you're looking for in life is a civil servant type of highly paid cushy job, Google is the perfect place to be. If you want to innovate and change the world, flee this godforsaken place as soon as you can.

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

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubtless those honest, selfless CEO's were completely duped by evil conspiracies of rotten & incompetent middle managers, who've spent the last decade or two building ever-larger pyramids of bloat to set their golden thrones on top of...

This! Far too often middle managers are incentivized to build the largest team possible. While the message from the top may be "lean and mean" but you compensate middle managers based on team size... Perverse incentive certainly comes to mind.

"We can only promote you to director if your team size is 15+"
Post reply on HN