It starts with some general points one could summarize as defining a "good culture" and how that should pay off for both employer and employees, but then later tramples all over it by excusing or outright endorsing the exact type of political behaviour that was criticized at the beginning: upward perception, the favour economy, finding influential friends, connectors, not burning bridges, and facetime.
edit: The mentioned plan B (leaving) is really the only option for what they call a "hostile corporation". I don't agree with many of the plan A "learning to play the game" recommendations. This just changes you for the worse.
The author also published [1] an email he wrote at the beginning of his tenure. It is amazing how alien and out of place early Google sounds in today's corporate environment. They have completely eroded the perception that Google is this kind of place:
> Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground [...] Every once in a while, a manager skims over the bubbling activity, looking for products to "reap" from the creative harvest. The programmers completely drive the company, it's really amazing. I kept waiting for people to walk up to me and ask me if I had declared my major yet. They not only encourage personal experimentation and innovation, they demand it. Every programmer is required to spend 20% of their time working on random personal projects. If you get overloaded by a crisis, then that 20% personal time accrues anyway. Nearly every Google technology you know (maps, earth, gmail) started out as somebody's 20% project, I think.
Even if this was only half-true back then, there's very little you could do to convince me that it's true at all now. This culture and the public perception of it has been squandered.
> it makes no sense to either love or be angry at “Google”
Someone decided to handle this situation that way, so one has a perfect right to be angry at them, and generalize that as "being angry at Google".
The author takes it with philosophy and pragmatism, that's admirable and I'm certainly not one to tell them how they should feel. But other factors indicate that his situation was also prone for that positiveness (feeling like a relief because of golden handcuffs, long tenure in a stock-distributing tech company + director level meaning that there's likely no concerns regarding money, side career already underway, maybe a relief to have some change).
Others might not be in the same situation, and are now jobless in in slow economy, with tenuous savings, rent or mortgage coming up. They might feel outright furious for a layoff that they have neither control on, nor were a reason for, and that shows no face to take responsibility - and they're completely entitled to feel that way, if that helps them cope. I'd say it makes sense to me, and don't feel bad for being angry if that's how you feel.
Director at Google is a 7 figure position. I have no problem if Google demands extraordinary performance from someone making that kind of money, and decides to lay off people who don't meet that bar.
This is very different than say, if an L3 engineer got hit with a layoff a year after joining.
If you worked at Google for any number of years, is there any reason to have tenuous savings?
Heck in any major city in the US, your average CRUD enterprise dev is probably making twice as much as the local median household income and should have savings
And this is why Googlers' favorite line is "I'm sorry you feel that way." At Google, yes there are feelings good and bad, but only reason is right, and so Google protects itself by making any criticism unreasonable.
> Context: When I was laid off from Google, I knew I'd be deluged with questions. I wrote this FAQ to share with friends and family, to prevent repeated explanation.
This is quite sweet in its stereotypical techie approach to life - your friends and family are asking questions about your situation because they care about and want to bond with you, not because they particularly care about the actual information you're conveying :-)
Well they can find alternative methods then that are less frazzling, there are fewer things worse than not feeling seen due to only answering questions!
I know it can be good, but sometimes the questions can legitimately get in the way of connection and spending quality time, and not everyone wants to have the hard conversation while being in the hotseat (especially not over, and over, and over again. I am transgender, for example, and while having 1 mildly hostile family member would be a somewhat-problem, most of my extended family only wants to talk about that thing, and that one thing, with me, to the point where it effectively creates a wall. That at least is my experience of the issue, it's not quite the same, but I've definitely experienced the "questions dynamic" within other, much-more-mild scenarios, and generally, IMPE, I really dislike it unless I'm actively getting something interesting out of it, which I'm oftentimes not! It can be very much isolating, as far as my personal experience goes.)
So, not really a terrible solution, I think! <3 :'))))
With certain things like being laid off, being able to tap the sign is a lot nicer than relitigating something a couple of dozen times, which can be stressful.
I took this writing as a way for him to still reconcile unresolved feelings, seeing how he wants follow up with more writing on cultural shift at Google.
I mean, most techies get that, but ask yourself: if it were you in this situation, could you really pass up on an opportunity to change an O(N) operation into O(1)?
Has this ever happened before. It does seem like SV folks have an elevated sense of purpose. Which is maybe fair to a point because of SVs inclusion in our online lives. But really, it seems like people in high paid jobs getting laid off isn't so much news for anyone, in general.
Maybe if there's some juice about how to order the world's information, but then they'd get sued for saying no doubt.
IMHO, these senior people leaving is a good thing for them and for society.
Most have enough savings to be able to start up something interesting, fun, and that delivers a lot more societal value than their current Google role.
Junior redundancies are more problematic, particularly in the current job market.
Very easy FAQ to write for a 55 years old someone who's been a director for close to 6 years and therefore earning more than a million a year for that period. It's another story for a newly hired L3 engineer.
I'm lucky that not a single one of my friends has been affected by layoffs at my company, but I find apologism of bad executive management like this is incredibly bad taste if not outright insulting to people that are affected by layoffs.
How did this person work here for so long and not understand the function of googles special Executive Board — it’s literally three people that control the entire company.
* Loss of trust, loss of openness. Someone kept leaking TGIF presentations to the media, so TGIF turned into contentless corpspeak and dodging of any hard questions. Someone kept leaking internal docs, so new docs now are locked down to specific teams or divisions instead of being readable company-wide.
* Attempts to start some lucrative but morally questionable projects (like the CBP contract or the China reengagement) that many employees felt went against "don't be evil".
* Cost cutting everywhere. Putting more work on fewer, burned out people. Desk hoteling in some places. No hardware refreshes. Very limited travel. And of course, cancelling or downsizing some fun but experimental projects.
* The pointlessly insulting way the 2023 layoffs were handled - e.g. cutting the laid off people off from all corp network access, even their email, without warning.
IMHO a lot of googlers (especially old timers) believe they were special, here is a news flash. You weren't, Google didn't come with a lot of products. And that's why where Google is right now.
I'm a software engineer with 5 years at a FANG company. In the entirety of your time at Google did you ever identify a high performing contractor and make your mission to make them a full-time employee?
Hey, current Googler here. I joined in 2017. For those who are looking from outside to those who reminisce past Google, I have an update for you: Google is still a f'ing amazing workplace. It's easily the best company I worked for in my 24 yrs of post-college career. Amazing colleagues. Incredible learning opportunity. Super fun projects. Really good pay. Your mileage may vary. This is my N=1 impression as an ML expert currently working on Ads. Best of luck!
[+] [-] sethops1|2 years ago|reply
The Myth of the Genius Programmer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SARbwvhupQ
The Art of Organizational Manipulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTCuYzAw31Y
I rewatch these every few years, or before an interview. Puts me back in the right headspace.
If you're reading this Ben, thank you.
[+] [-] laboratorymice|2 years ago|reply
It starts with some general points one could summarize as defining a "good culture" and how that should pay off for both employer and employees, but then later tramples all over it by excusing or outright endorsing the exact type of political behaviour that was criticized at the beginning: upward perception, the favour economy, finding influential friends, connectors, not burning bridges, and facetime.
edit: The mentioned plan B (leaving) is really the only option for what they call a "hostile corporation". I don't agree with many of the plan A "learning to play the game" recommendations. This just changes you for the worse.
[+] [-] thrtythreeforty|2 years ago|reply
> Google is the opposite: it's like a giant grad-school. Half the programmers have PhD's, and everyone treats the place like a giant research playground [...] Every once in a while, a manager skims over the bubbling activity, looking for products to "reap" from the creative harvest. The programmers completely drive the company, it's really amazing. I kept waiting for people to walk up to me and ask me if I had declared my major yet. They not only encourage personal experimentation and innovation, they demand it. Every programmer is required to spend 20% of their time working on random personal projects. If you get overloaded by a crisis, then that 20% personal time accrues anyway. Nearly every Google technology you know (maps, earth, gmail) started out as somebody's 20% project, I think.
Even if this was only half-true back then, there's very little you could do to convince me that it's true at all now. This culture and the public perception of it has been squandered.
[1]: https://social.clawhammer.net/blog/posts/2005-09-25-FirstWee...
[+] [-] charles_f|2 years ago|reply
Someone decided to handle this situation that way, so one has a perfect right to be angry at them, and generalize that as "being angry at Google".
The author takes it with philosophy and pragmatism, that's admirable and I'm certainly not one to tell them how they should feel. But other factors indicate that his situation was also prone for that positiveness (feeling like a relief because of golden handcuffs, long tenure in a stock-distributing tech company + director level meaning that there's likely no concerns regarding money, side career already underway, maybe a relief to have some change).
Others might not be in the same situation, and are now jobless in in slow economy, with tenuous savings, rent or mortgage coming up. They might feel outright furious for a layoff that they have neither control on, nor were a reason for, and that shows no face to take responsibility - and they're completely entitled to feel that way, if that helps them cope. I'd say it makes sense to me, and don't feel bad for being angry if that's how you feel.
[+] [-] ergocoder|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jart|2 years ago|reply
People who climb their way to Director usually don't tilt at windmills and shake their fists at clouds.
[+] [-] AndrewGaspar|2 years ago|reply
This is actually not a productive way to cope and it’s good advice to tell people not to cope this way.
[+] [-] VirusNewbie|2 years ago|reply
This is very different than say, if an L3 engineer got hit with a layoff a year after joining.
[+] [-] scarface_74|2 years ago|reply
Heck in any major city in the US, your average CRUD enterprise dev is probably making twice as much as the local median household income and should have savings
[+] [-] cirelli94|2 years ago|reply
It really doesn't look like a slow economy!
See https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
[+] [-] choppaface|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|2 years ago|reply
Because "getting rid of senior people" is exactly what that is.
[+] [-] danparsonson|2 years ago|reply
This is quite sweet in its stereotypical techie approach to life - your friends and family are asking questions about your situation because they care about and want to bond with you, not because they particularly care about the actual information you're conveying :-)
[+] [-] tysam_and|2 years ago|reply
I know it can be good, but sometimes the questions can legitimately get in the way of connection and spending quality time, and not everyone wants to have the hard conversation while being in the hotseat (especially not over, and over, and over again. I am transgender, for example, and while having 1 mildly hostile family member would be a somewhat-problem, most of my extended family only wants to talk about that thing, and that one thing, with me, to the point where it effectively creates a wall. That at least is my experience of the issue, it's not quite the same, but I've definitely experienced the "questions dynamic" within other, much-more-mild scenarios, and generally, IMPE, I really dislike it unless I'm actively getting something interesting out of it, which I'm oftentimes not! It can be very much isolating, as far as my personal experience goes.)
So, not really a terrible solution, I think! <3 :'))))
[+] [-] fullspectrumdev|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcurve|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makeitdouble|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ttymck|2 years ago|reply
You haven't met my family. They just want gossip.
[+] [-] caskstrength|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adrianmonk|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _xlxy|2 years ago|reply
Has this ever happened before. It does seem like SV folks have an elevated sense of purpose. Which is maybe fair to a point because of SVs inclusion in our online lives. But really, it seems like people in high paid jobs getting laid off isn't so much news for anyone, in general.
Maybe if there's some juice about how to order the world's information, but then they'd get sued for saying no doubt.
[+] [-] nextos|2 years ago|reply
Most have enough savings to be able to start up something interesting, fun, and that delivers a lot more societal value than their current Google role.
Junior redundancies are more problematic, particularly in the current job market.
[+] [-] bumbledraven|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ggambetta|2 years ago|reply
Amen :_(
[+] [-] vesinisa|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] another2another|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kagakuninja|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramon156|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iLoveOncall|2 years ago|reply
I'm lucky that not a single one of my friends has been affected by layoffs at my company, but I find apologism of bad executive management like this is incredibly bad taste if not outright insulting to people that are affected by layoffs.
[+] [-] SlightlyLeftPad|2 years ago|reply
Unfortunately, That is so certainly not the reality I live in right now.
[+] [-] erehweb|2 years ago|reply
Literally true. On the other hand, the founders still have complete voting control of the company, so really the buck stops with them.
[+] [-] tsunamifury|2 years ago|reply
It’s absolutely a person — well 3 to be exact.
[+] [-] _xlxy|2 years ago|reply
But if you look at Googler posts here, it's pretty clear how bent out of place a lot of them are.
All said, smart as they are, plenty less smart people leave jobs, so what's the news here?
It was the same with Twitter. There's no special 'crying place' for other jobs and departures, so why here and now?
[+] [-] camdenlock|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tetromino_|2 years ago|reply
* Loss of trust, loss of openness. Someone kept leaking TGIF presentations to the media, so TGIF turned into contentless corpspeak and dodging of any hard questions. Someone kept leaking internal docs, so new docs now are locked down to specific teams or divisions instead of being readable company-wide.
* Attempts to start some lucrative but morally questionable projects (like the CBP contract or the China reengagement) that many employees felt went against "don't be evil".
* Cost cutting everywhere. Putting more work on fewer, burned out people. Desk hoteling in some places. No hardware refreshes. Very limited travel. And of course, cancelling or downsizing some fun but experimental projects.
* The pointlessly insulting way the 2023 layoffs were handled - e.g. cutting the laid off people off from all corp network access, even their email, without warning.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mlcrypto|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] free652|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derfnugget|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bitwize|2 years ago|reply
Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower...
[+] [-] AceJohnny2|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
It's a hilarious rant, starting at 34:00, and the specific quote around 38:35.
[+] [-] to11mtm|2 years ago|reply
I do love the weird qualifier of 'to that end'.
Would love to see a follow up in 6-12 months when the culture's flavor-aid is cleared out of their system.
[+] [-] patrickmay|2 years ago|reply
. . . it doesn't like it.
[+] [-] starchild3001|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MOARDONGZPLZ|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]