Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaving Google

jayconrod.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 464 posts

Re: Leaving Google

#361

Post by ashtonkem »

topkai22 wrote: post #93
ashtonkem wrote: post #38

> Second, management was spread way too thin. My last manager had around 25 reports It would be rude to describe my anatomical response to having 25 reports, but suffice to say it wasn’t good. I generally consider 6-7 the ideal max, and 8-9 the “I’m dropping all the unimportant balls in order to keep juggling” line. 25 is so far beyond the pale I can’t imagine how any manager of managers’s worth their salary would le…

Not a Googler, but I’m my experience 25 person managers can work (barely) if they are just their to keep the HR stuff in line and people actually transactional work with other teams or if there is an informal team structure beneath the manager. Think a team where there are 4 tech leads that actually run the teams, but where the “manager” deals with career and hr issues. While working in consulting I spent about 4 mon…

I think the only way 25 comes anywhere close to working is by creating an informal team structure under the manager who has 25 “directs”, as you said. But at that point you’re informally creating the team structure that should formally exist, which in and of itself is a management failure. Either the org should hire some managers to manage those people, or some of the ICs in that informal structure are functionally performing management duties, and deserve the recognition, comp, and training opportunities that a formal promotion into management comes with.

Re: Leaving Google

#362

Post by sulam »

AlbertCory wrote: post #68

2005-2017 for me. On the "20% project" stuff, which everyone seemed to have heard of: I think it was 2008 or so when I was sitting at a table with about eight other people, and somehow or other the question came up "who has a 20% project?" Only one of us did. The main utility of a 20% was that you could try out a new group before transferring to it, and they could try you out. Other than that, very few people actuall…

I can only speak for myself and my org of 300 or so, but it’s surprising how few people are actually interested in a 20% project. I’m sure there are factors at play here:

* we have a lot of work to do, the poster in this thread who is bored and only has 5 hours of real work a week is definitely not in my BU

* they may be concerned how such a project will reflect on them in perf. it may seem better to go all in on one thing vs splitting your attention

* we’re relatively new (acquisition) so perhaps the 20% ethos hasn’t percolated over to us yet

But at any rate, I think I’ve gotten exactly 2 requests for 20% projects, which I approved after confirming the person wasn’t going to be doing the dreaded 120% project.

Re: Leaving Google

#363

Post by ashtonkem »

wdr1 wrote: post #129
ashtonkem wrote: post #38

> Second, management was spread way too thin. My last manager had around 25 reports It would be rude to describe my anatomical response to having 25 reports, but suffice to say it wasn’t good. I generally consider 6-7 the ideal max, and 8-9 the “I’m dropping all the unimportant balls in order to keep juggling” line. 25 is so far beyond the pale I can’t imagine how any manager of managers’s worth their salary would le…

You're partly right: With a significant number of reports, you can't keep juggling all the balls yourself. But what varies is how that handled? A micromanager will be absolutely crushed by a high number of reports. In fact 10+ years at Google, managers intentionally had a large number of directs so they couldn't micromanage. If you have a pretty autonomous team, strong tech leads, can delegate, ~20 still isn't great,…

I agree that micromanagers can’t micromanage at 20, but good managers also can’t give the attention and mentorship their directs deserve either. In my experience teams want a good manager, and being under managed by an overworked or absentee manager can be a problem for morale and team cohesion.

I think the real solution here is to find the micromanagers and train them or fire them, rather than hampering all the managers in order to cut the micromanagers off at the metaphorical pass.

Personally I’d quit in such a situation. If I’m going to be managing 20 people and creating informal team structures under me, then some of my directs deserve a management title and I would want a title befitting a manager of managers. The whole thing has a whiff of “how can we avoid promoting a bunch of people” to me.

Re: Leaving Google

#364

Post by ashtonkem »

sulam wrote: post #354
saagarjha wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to various internal reorgs my manager currently has a number of reports approaching that number. It's mostly gone fine for now, because there are multiple teams under her that are mostly self-sufficient in deciding their product direction. We have a team lead who isn't a "manager" but is providing input on what we do and we go to her when we have problems or need administrative work done. It's not horrible.

Your manager’s manager should be working with her to help her address the issue, because it’s not sustainable. It may be okay for now, not disputing that at all, but what to you may look like relative calm is much more likely her giving her best imitation of a duck (calm on the surface, but paddling furiously). For instance, has she had to reduce the frequency, duration, and/or quality of her 1:1s? I’m guessing the a…

> It’s often the case in the situation you’re describing that the TL is interested in moving into management, and this is a “try out” effectively. Personally I like to be open about situations like this, although there are valid arguments against that. In any event, I think most people would agree that it’s best do such “try outs” when the stakes are relatively low, and the TL can have an easy escape if they need it.

The best way I’ve seen to accomplish this is have a job title that’s purposefully ambiguous. Usually I’ve seen this as a “lead engineer”, which can come with or without direct reports. This lets people try out management while giving them space to change their mind without losing title or status.

Re: Leaving Google

#365

Post by ghaff »

mbesto wrote: post #341
discordance wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how employee motivation, loss of talent, erosion of customer services are related to the need for unyielding year on year growth. There are companies out there, private ones, where their customers are happy, their employees are happy (most of the time) and their retention is high.

> There are companies out there, private ones, where their customers are happy, their employees are happy (most of the time) and their retention is high. Companies that aren't growing? I meet A LOT of companies (about ~50 or so a year) and I can tell you there is massive difference between the distressed ones and the ones who are growing. btw - even 2~5% growth is fine, it doesn't need to be 25% google scale growth..…

There are plenty of small private companies that more or less plod along year after year--small consultancies and the like. You're not going to have the level of compensation and opportunities you have at a large profitable growing public firm but you may be OK with that. Obviously declines are bad and, in any case, compensation will probably be a fraction of Google etc.

Re: Leaving Google

#366

Post by borroka »

A few days ago I got the usual call from the Google recruiter, after being rejected a year ago with feedback of 2 sure hire, one lean, two no hire. A strange collection, isn't it? Well, I would have “fired" two of them plus the recruiter, one who wasn't paying attention to my interview and one who turned off the video and whose accent and questions were basically incomprehensible (I am non-US myself, btw). Maybe the two no-hire?

I make 75% of what a Google would make for the (high) position they would hire me for, but I work 1/5 of what I would work at Google and with little overhead such as performance review, promotion packages, and excuse my French, other assorted bs I have zero interest for at my age and with my experience.

If the hiring process were more reasonable, i.e., not dependent on the mood, accent, question of the day of interviewers whom I will (probably) never meet again after they nonchalantly determine my future employment, I might agree to interview again and then evaluate their proposal, but otherwise I think Google will continue to bleed talent and hire little uninteresting robots (mine is a salty-fish generalization of course) who have the patience for nonsense that I, and people like me, do not have.

Re: Leaving Google

#367

Post by otikik »

We live in a finite planet with finite resources. I think every argument for growth (on the scale FAANG companies operate) should also mention that part.

I also want to say that it's completely acceptable to work on a place without exorbitant pay, stocks, or promotions every 6 months. A job can be many other things. Different people want different things at different phases of their life. For some of them, a job is just a job.

Re: Leaving Google

#368

Post by DubiousPusher »

burntoutfire wrote: post #339
discordance wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how employee motivation, loss of talent, erosion of customer services are related to the need for unyielding year on year growth. There are companies out there, private ones, where their customers are happy, their employees are happy (most of the time) and their retention is high.

Without growth, the only way to get promoted is to get a spot of some higher-up who left the company (or retired/died). Whereas, in growing companies, there are new senior/management positions created all the time, to account for the growth - so, getting promoted is easier. Ambitious, hard working people like promotions, so they gravitate towards growing companies and not stale companies.

> Ambitious, hard working people like promotions

Ambitious maybe (though that's nearly the definition of ambitious). Hardworking, not necessarily. I know a cement guy that you have never in your life worked a harder day than who has never received a promotion nor even sought one.

Re: Leaving Google

#369

Post by throwawaylinux »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #344
throwawaylinux wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning, if you don't agree with their claims and accusations then that only proves you are a sinner. And if you do confess, then Lord help you. I must say though, it is a bit rich that Google sudde…

> This is basically mainstream teaching now (see critical race theory). It's like witch burning… >> She attributed every difference to her paper or claim to racism or white supremacy or oppression or any combination out of the three. Critical race theory is not yelling to claim every problem is due to racism or oppression. While I don’t agree with all tenants of the recent evolution of critical race theory, I do with…

> Critical race theory is not yelling to claim every problem is due to racism or oppression.

It largely is these days.

> While I don’t agree with all tenants of the recent evolution of critical race theory, I do with the historical purpose of it.

I don't. It's divisive hateful racist pseudoscientific nonsense that relies on bullying and threats to shut down its critics.

> Fast forward to today and you have a more broad and insistent approach developing with Critical Race Theory. Primarily due to all of the push back on having legitimate societal conversations and decisions about systemic discrimination since the civil right movement in the US (even going back to the 1968 Kerner Commission).

It's always funny when they talk about systemic discrimination while also being the ones trying to institute segregation, keep too many "undesirable" races out of colleges, and generally agitate for institutional racism.

> While the focus now on structural determinism, the critiques of liberalism or the use of narratives and lived experiences of CRT might upset you.

My conscience is quite clear, I have never lusted for policies of racism. I have never complained about too many Asians in colleges, for example. I am not a racist. I stand with greats like MLK Jr on the right side of history, and opposite them. I'm not offended by their attempts to invert definitions to absolve themselves and bully me, I'm only offended by their racism.

> CRT is not at all simply what you described.

I disagree, it is very much like what I described.

Re: Leaving Google

#370

Post by ghaff »

im3w1l wrote: post #342
burntoutfire wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and no market is really a "winner takes it all" Market for OSes for PCs (not Macs) is a great example. Windows has what, 98% market share there? It got there thanks to the dynamics of this particular market, which is totally a "winner takes all" one. In particular, if Microsoft were more relaxed in 80ties and 90ties, there likely would not be Microsoft or Windows at all today, and everybody'd be using Os/2 Warp or…

> OSes for PCs (not Macs) If you slice the market thin enough anything can be a monopoly. This particular distinction seems pretty arbitrary to me.

I agree but even if you throw Macs in there, the Windows marketshare is probably still over 90%. Maybe a bit lower if you include Chromebooks too.
Post reply on HN