I'm always amazed with how big tech companies get in terms of employee count. I once wandered the engineering area of the HQ (with an employee) of a FAANG (MAANG sounds... silly) and made a tick mark on my notebook when I saw someone actually coding - or at least having code on screen. There were over 1200 people on the development team and at the time most worked out of HQ. So... when I was done walking, I had 22 tick marks. Lots of email, lots of documents, and very little programming.
At a certain level of complexity, necessary to support everything a large company does at their scale, simply mindlessly churning out more code actually makes things worse not better. The big question is how to do something and not the actual work of doing it. Bringing down Facebook for a day due to a bad config is going to cost more money than a century of someone writing code.
Most of these jobs hire software engineers, not programmers. The job is more than coding.
Software engineering is writing technical design docs. Gathering business requirements. Gathering technical requirements. Negotiating with stakeholders like InfoSec, legal and accounting. Discussing user research and new features with UX practitioners. Etc.
Mentally I always chuckle at MANGA (sleeve in Spanish, or the comic style),and it could also be MAGNA, but has possibly too good of a sound to it to be worth it.
Yes, but haven't you heard that productivity has gone up since we've moved to WFH? You'd probably have like 30-40 tick marks now if you toured all their homes.
I wonder how many of layoffs that have happened, the ones coming are actually needed financially. For example: I suspect a lot of companies took the opportunity of the first covid lockdowns to fire some people?
Nothing against it since every company is just improving its chances of survival, just thinking out loud about the reasons they share publicly. Also, of course there would be some whose survival was in good shape, but the layoffs were just to increase the profits?
Founded in 2016. Raised 926 million dollars. On track for record profits this year.
Yeah, IMHO this was just an excuse to slim down the fat. Better returns for investors and better position to swoop in and grab other businesses that can no longer get funding. Shrewd but heartless IMHO.
It could also be businesses reacting to the swinging pendulum of the economy, it's been a crazy 2 years.
First we have a booming economy, brought to it's knees by the pandemic. Everything shuts down so businesses lay off. But then it came back, in some places in a very major way, and businesses that were laying off yesterday are back hiring today. But as the economy cooled off again, companies realize they can't afford these inflated workforces and start making cuts again.
I was thinking the exact same thing. It's easy to say it's because of the market sentiments, but you could also use that as an excuse.
Covid lockdowns forced businesses to rethink their operational models. For some remote work etc. turned out to be profitable opportunities - you could do the same with less infrastructure.
On another note, their CEO said "There are exciting days ahead for OneTrust as we transform into the Trust Intelligence Platform company." That sounds pretty wtf. Like someone just put some fancy words in line.
I mean, rarely do companies have a stack of termination paperwork ready just in case - more likely it was handed down to line managers "We're trying to cut X$ out of our budget, you're responsible for Y% of that, please choose accordingly"
I've definitely had that list ready to go before (and also been on there fighting to say no, it's not tenable for the business to let Y% of my team go). It depends on circumstances and the team.
But yeah, if the company needs to save a few hundred grand off my budget this year, I know exactly who I'm taking off payroll - good enough to not get fired, but more work to keep them on task than they're producing. I'd rather half a dozen juniors that are amenable to direction than a superstar that's a fight to even give bowling bumpers to.
"I know this news is surprising, especially as you heard last month that the business is on track with record quarters and increasing customer demand. However, capital markets sentiment shifted to a more balanced approach between growth and profitability, and at this time, we have decided the best course of action is to reorganize to position OneTrust for continued long-term success."
Translation: we over-hired based on the assumption that VC money would keep being easy to come by, and now that VCs might be tightening their purse strings, we want to preemptively lower our burn rate in case the next round of funding is tougher.
I get it, but every pre-IPO company that does this just indicates that their leadership are short sighted and gobble up as much VC money as possible just because they can, rather than raising only the amount needed for their growth goals.
This whole "let's over hire while the VC money is flowing and mass lay off as soon as it's not" thing will make talent think twice before applying to your company, and will make your existing talent eager to look elsewhere for more a more secure role.
> This whole "let's over hire while the VC money is flowing and mass lay off as soon as it's not" thing will make talent think twice before applying to your company, and will make your existing talent eager to look elsewhere for more a more secure role.
It really won’t though. People have short term memories and ego. Also, the next hiring round will most likely be from a fresh crop of graduates that will zero collective memory of what happened since they were still in school.
> leadership are short sighted and gobble up as much VC money as possible just because they can, rather than raising only the amount needed for their growth goals.
When money is excessively easy and cheap, far-sighted leaders might reasonably choose to gorge on that opportunity.
Goals are defined by capabilities, are they not? And if you have greater capability (more VC money in this case) your goals will surely be loftier as well.
And they actually violate European data privacy laws, as do most of the consent management platforms. Or, they are implementend in a way that breaches GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive - pre-ticked boxes etc.
I often wonder how companies like this exist. Their "Market" isn't really a market but forced government regulation. I suppose its all sweethart deals, kickbacks, lobbying for contracts, and fedramp.
Having 4000 employees for what is essentially streamlining the process of filling out government paperwork seems absurd to me. Don't misunderstand I've delt with compliance and know very well how much a headache it is and the mountains of paperwork. Yet I just cannot possibly see how this many employees could be needed or profitable to hire.
Their "Market" isn't really a market but forced government regulation.
Regulatory compliance is a huge, stable, market. (IDK anything about the specifics of this company, just pointing out that government regulation creates markets.)
Interesting, I had a call with one of their sales people a couple days ago.
The whole product is a glorified spreadsheet. It is super customizable, which is almost a bad thing since you really just want a product like this to kind of guide you through all the laws and regulations. Instead, it is tailored towards creating a job description for someone to sit there and fill in data that nobody will ever look at.
Building an engineering playground. It doesn't matter what business problem the tech solves, the tech itself is the goal even if it produces no useful output as long as the (self-inflicted) complexity convinces investors to pour even more money into it.
The current recession suggests the investor money is becoming scarce and you actually need to find other sources of income, so all the useless complexity is being cut back.
Same thing as the other "tech" companies: "tech" stuff and if you can't imagine what that is then you haven't drank enough Kool-Aid yet. Something something products, internal tooling, documentation, yadda yadda.
Seems like a service company disguised as a SaaS company which says their revenue is coming from "SaaS" but actually they have an internal tool which doesn't scale and 4000 engineers that are doing basically one-off services. But given you say you are a SaaS company you can get 50x multiples (or you could in the past). but the moment there is downturn the "scam" is floating up because every engineer you cut is directly affecting revenue due to the underlying service model.
Interesting to see how many more "SaaS" companies like this are in the market
The job market for developers right now is tough. My last time interviewing I was 2 offers for 4 interviews. I started looking for a job a month ago and I've gotten 0 offers for probably 10 interviews. It's my first time interviewing over virtual meetings, maybe that's it, but I think it's the general job market. My last feedback was "TL;DR - The general agreement was that you can code, and likely code well. However, there were opportunities to lean into deeper context and alternatives to problem solving." Maybe recruiters trying to only hire the "perfect" candidate with the increased supply of developers in the job market right now.
i am in the market now and have the opposite experience.
I do agree that lots of ppl are very prepared for interviews now, it wasn't the case even few years ago.
They expect you to do everything perfectly in interviews these days.
In your case you were probly expect to explore other ways to solve problems, eg: some alogorithm will have worst put complexity but most calls are to get so we can sacrifice some put complexity to improve get complexity. stuff like this.
That's definitely frustrating feedback. Even so, I would consider asking for specifics about those opportunities were, potentially even reaching out to individual interviewer engineers who are more likely to share as opposed to only the recruiter or HR rep.
Actually there seems to be a decreased supply of developers because everyone is trying to hire them. If you're getting feedback, I'd say take it seriously and see how you can proactively address it on your next interview. It's like Sales: anticipate the objection and be prepared to handle it.
indymike|3 years ago
kristjansson|3 years ago
marcinzm|3 years ago
jdavis703|3 years ago
Software engineering is writing technical design docs. Gathering business requirements. Gathering technical requirements. Negotiating with stakeholders like InfoSec, legal and accounting. Discussing user research and new features with UX practitioners. Etc.
RBerenguel|3 years ago
abduhl|3 years ago
scarmig|3 years ago
wbsss4412|3 years ago
andsoitis|3 years ago
and mangy.
roansh|3 years ago
Nothing against it since every company is just improving its chances of survival, just thinking out loud about the reasons they share publicly. Also, of course there would be some whose survival was in good shape, but the layoffs were just to increase the profits?
culpable_pickle|3 years ago
Yeah, IMHO this was just an excuse to slim down the fat. Better returns for investors and better position to swoop in and grab other businesses that can no longer get funding. Shrewd but heartless IMHO.
_fat_santa|3 years ago
First we have a booming economy, brought to it's knees by the pandemic. Everything shuts down so businesses lay off. But then it came back, in some places in a very major way, and businesses that were laying off yesterday are back hiring today. But as the economy cooled off again, companies realize they can't afford these inflated workforces and start making cuts again.
jussivee|3 years ago
Covid lockdowns forced businesses to rethink their operational models. For some remote work etc. turned out to be profitable opportunities - you could do the same with less infrastructure.
On another note, their CEO said "There are exciting days ahead for OneTrust as we transform into the Trust Intelligence Platform company." That sounds pretty wtf. Like someone just put some fancy words in line.
parkingrift|3 years ago
abofh|3 years ago
I've definitely had that list ready to go before (and also been on there fighting to say no, it's not tenable for the business to let Y% of my team go). It depends on circumstances and the team.
But yeah, if the company needs to save a few hundred grand off my budget this year, I know exactly who I'm taking off payroll - good enough to not get fired, but more work to keep them on task than they're producing. I'd rather half a dozen juniors that are amenable to direction than a superstar that's a fight to even give bowling bumpers to.
KoftaBob|3 years ago
Translation: we over-hired based on the assumption that VC money would keep being easy to come by, and now that VCs might be tightening their purse strings, we want to preemptively lower our burn rate in case the next round of funding is tougher.
I get it, but every pre-IPO company that does this just indicates that their leadership are short sighted and gobble up as much VC money as possible just because they can, rather than raising only the amount needed for their growth goals.
This whole "let's over hire while the VC money is flowing and mass lay off as soon as it's not" thing will make talent think twice before applying to your company, and will make your existing talent eager to look elsewhere for more a more secure role.
laichzeit0|3 years ago
It really won’t though. People have short term memories and ego. Also, the next hiring round will most likely be from a fresh crop of graduates that will zero collective memory of what happened since they were still in school.
sokoloff|3 years ago
When money is excessively easy and cheap, far-sighted leaders might reasonably choose to gorge on that opportunity.
jjav|3 years ago
If it did, why were people applying since the cycle has repeated many times already? The dot.com crash happened after all.
Also, VCs generally give the company money for the purpose of growing, so when the VC money is flowing you kinda have to do that.
missedthecue|3 years ago
dzuc|3 years ago
andai|3 years ago
animsriv|3 years ago
/s
Beltiras|3 years ago
sleazebreeze|3 years ago
jussivee|3 years ago
For context: https://techcrunch.com/2022/03/04/noyb-second-cookie-complai...
They also use deceptive design and make it too hard for a website visitor to understand what's going on under the hood.
citizenpaul|3 years ago
Having 4000 employees for what is essentially streamlining the process of filling out government paperwork seems absurd to me. Don't misunderstand I've delt with compliance and know very well how much a headache it is and the mountains of paperwork. Yet I just cannot possibly see how this many employees could be needed or profitable to hire.
battery_glasses|3 years ago
Regulatory compliance is a huge, stable, market. (IDK anything about the specifics of this company, just pointing out that government regulation creates markets.)
latchkey|3 years ago
The whole product is a glorified spreadsheet. It is super customizable, which is almost a bad thing since you really just want a product like this to kind of guide you through all the laws and regulations. Instead, it is tailored towards creating a job description for someone to sit there and fill in data that nobody will ever look at.
whostolemyhat|3 years ago
Nextgrid|3 years ago
The current recession suggests the investor money is becoming scarce and you actually need to find other sources of income, so all the useless complexity is being cut back.
abduhl|3 years ago
imroot|3 years ago
yevpats|3 years ago
Interesting to see how many more "SaaS" companies like this are in the market
fasteddie31003|3 years ago
siva7|3 years ago
bin_bash|3 years ago
I’m sorry to hear your search is going so poorly. Do some retrospective and practice the bits you think you might be missing.
adrr|3 years ago
dominotw|3 years ago
I do agree that lots of ppl are very prepared for interviews now, it wasn't the case even few years ago. They expect you to do everything perfectly in interviews these days.
In your case you were probly expect to explore other ways to solve problems, eg: some alogorithm will have worst put complexity but most calls are to get so we can sacrifice some put complexity to improve get complexity. stuff like this.
pls see this : https://www.teamblind.com/post/7-onsites-7-offers-aAFTykAD
mandelbrotwurst|3 years ago
tekla|3 years ago
The opposite of true.
HeyLaughingBoy|3 years ago
cupofpython|3 years ago
usrn|3 years ago
onphonenow|3 years ago
Come on. You did some projections, met with the board, discussed at exec level and decided to make this change.
Wonder if they will get any payouts on their unused "unlimited" PTO
kwertyoowiyop|3 years ago