Google was beloved as an employer for years. Then it laid off thousands by email(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Google was beloved as an employer for years. Then it laid off thousands by email
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/20/tech/google-layoffs-employee-culture/index.html
141 コメント
This is true for spherical employed human resource units in a vacuum.
It is less true for living breathing members of Homo sapiens.
It is less true for living breathing members of Homo sapiens.
For a small organization with single digit employees, it's possible to give the layoffs a human touch. For mass layoffs that does not scale.
Then there is the aspect where we can't have nice things because someone somewhere took advantage of some discretion and now HR sees any discretion as a potential liability so they don't afford that discretion but for rare exceptions.
Then there is the aspect where we can't have nice things because someone somewhere took advantage of some discretion and now HR sees any discretion as a potential liability so they don't afford that discretion but for rare exceptions.
Essentially every worker should have a manager of some description, in not-massive teams (generally). That manager can convey to the employee, in human terms, what's going on.
I think many people would disagree with this assessment. It's akin to saying that the only thing that matters in a job is "compensation", and everything else is useless. While some people hold this view, many others like to be treated nicely in other ways: good working facilities, nice colleagues, fun perks, etc.
Same thing about getting laid off: it's never nice to lose your job, but even if the severance is good it's not nice to have your employer suddenly behave like an asshole, and that they think that your work is so worthless that it isn't necessary for you to wrap anything up.
Same thing about getting laid off: it's never nice to lose your job, but even if the severance is good it's not nice to have your employer suddenly behave like an asshole, and that they think that your work is so worthless that it isn't necessary for you to wrap anything up.
It's not that the things you mentioned don't matter, it's that employee<>employer relationships are transactional. While I maintain a friendly relationship with all the people I work with, very few are actually friends. If they are, we'll still talk after the relationship with my employer ends.
Unless you have a contract with your employer around the severing of that relationship, neither parties are beholden to each other and any expectation of such behavior is ultimately unproductive and quite unhealthy (mostly for you, $bigTech doesn't care).
Unless you have a contract with your employer around the severing of that relationship, neither parties are beholden to each other and any expectation of such behavior is ultimately unproductive and quite unhealthy (mostly for you, $bigTech doesn't care).
Not everyone sees work in that way. Human psychology is complex and often times it's difficult to reduce workplace relationships down to simple economic relationships. You might argue that people should view all work relationships as transactional, but I'm not ready to agree with that (I think it is better to see coworkers as complete human beings), and in any case that just isn't how many people think as a matter of fact.
The point is that if you view them as anything other than an economic relationship, you'll be emotionally spurned by layoffs like this article alludes to. Also, the economic relationship is between that of employee and employer, not as much about relationships between co-workers.
Yes it's true! People with non-economic viewpoints are vulnerable to being hurt or taken advantage of by management. It sucks.
You're not wrong. The economic perspective usually determines company actions more than anything in practice. $bigtech really doesn't care, and it probably is incapable of caring due to its economic and organizational structure and priorities. It's the most realistic and accurate model for work at $bigtech.
But layoffs can still feel like being cast out of your tribe. You lose the daily casual social interactions that humans tend to want and need, and maintaining actual friendships becomes much harder. Not to mention losing your livelihood, social status, and health insurance.
The way companies communicate to employees that they've been laid off (locked out of the building, passwords stop working, maybe an email if you're lucky, etc.) is explained well by economics and company priorities, but from the human perspective it does rub salt in the wound.
For hiring and retention purposes, companies will often claim that they treat employees well. The truth is you might be treated OK until the day you aren't, and layoff day is absolutely one of those days.
But layoffs can still feel like being cast out of your tribe. You lose the daily casual social interactions that humans tend to want and need, and maintaining actual friendships becomes much harder. Not to mention losing your livelihood, social status, and health insurance.
The way companies communicate to employees that they've been laid off (locked out of the building, passwords stop working, maybe an email if you're lucky, etc.) is explained well by economics and company priorities, but from the human perspective it does rub salt in the wound.
For hiring and retention purposes, companies will often claim that they treat employees well. The truth is you might be treated OK until the day you aren't, and layoff day is absolutely one of those days.
>Not to mention losing your livelihood, social status, and health insurance.
That last part is a uniquely American problem.
That last part is a uniquely American problem.
I have lots of coworkers for whom I don't have personal contact information. It's very common to just use work email or work phones.
Linkedin is a hellscape but it has its usefulness once in a blue moon.
When I worked at Google a lot of people didn't have LinkedIn. I guess because they'd been there so long and expected to stay for life.
funny enough, it's probably the least hellscape of a social network by now. At worst it's just a bit spammy and dull, all others are dumpster fires by now
LinkedIn is great; I really don't see the problem with it.
1. It has your resume posted for recruiters to see. You get emails from recruiters scouting you for jobs you might never have found on your own. Many recruiters are useless 3rd-party recruiters, but some are useful 1st-party recruiters.
2. You can keep in contact with your old coworkers; people you aren't close enough to have as friends through some other venue.
3. It doesn't actively spread conspiracy theories and destroy society. You get some recruiter spam, and that's it. The site is nothing more than a tool to aid your professional life and career, and it doesn't try to be anything more than that.
What's the problem, exactly?
1. It has your resume posted for recruiters to see. You get emails from recruiters scouting you for jobs you might never have found on your own. Many recruiters are useless 3rd-party recruiters, but some are useful 1st-party recruiters.
2. You can keep in contact with your old coworkers; people you aren't close enough to have as friends through some other venue.
3. It doesn't actively spread conspiracy theories and destroy society. You get some recruiter spam, and that's it. The site is nothing more than a tool to aid your professional life and career, and it doesn't try to be anything more than that.
What's the problem, exactly?
This is where LinkedIn shines. I try to connect there with everyone I work with and have been doing so since 2004. Build a great network, keep in touch with people I appreciate as coworkers and hopefully future referrals.
No. It’s dehumanizing to get laid off in the middle of the night. The thing that matters is treating you like a person and telling you to your face.
How would you feel if your wife left you in the night without having the courage to tell you to your face?
That’s how getting laid off by 2am e-mail feels.
Google crowed for years about how employees are family. Middle of the night firings showed that was a lie.
How would you feel if your wife left you in the night without having the courage to tell you to your face?
That’s how getting laid off by 2am e-mail feels.
Google crowed for years about how employees are family. Middle of the night firings showed that was a lie.
How is this the top comment
Was Google really a beloved employer? I feel like that was vapor marketing hype most real people saw through as bs, you'd pretty much see constant stories of overwork and toxic teams run by incompetent "project managers" just like every other overvalued Silicon Valley FAANG shop
Overwork? Toxic teams? Project managers running teams?
I've been at Google for a very long time, in quite a few orgs, and none of those things ring any bells. (Some probably exist in some pockets, though the last one sounds particularly implausible. It's just not how Google job ladders and the management structure work.)
Now, I have to admit to having not read the article, but the headline does resonate. I've spoken to a lot of current Googlers about this, and their attitude towards the company has definitely changed rather dramatically, almost overnight. People in non-US jurisdictions are feeling this particularly acutely, due to how the layoffs have been playing out for them.
I've been at Google for a very long time, in quite a few orgs, and none of those things ring any bells. (Some probably exist in some pockets, though the last one sounds particularly implausible. It's just not how Google job ladders and the management structure work.)
Now, I have to admit to having not read the article, but the headline does resonate. I've spoken to a lot of current Googlers about this, and their attitude towards the company has definitely changed rather dramatically, almost overnight. People in non-US jurisdictions are feeling this particularly acutely, due to how the layoffs have been playing out for them.
I’ve been at Meta for a few years and would say similar - I’m pretty sure that at any company with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees, you are going to get some horror stories - but in general it used to be an amazing place to work (ranked #1 on glassdoor for several years for good reason), but now… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I currently work at Google and my take is that it really depends on the team. If an IC is toxic, the effect of it isn't terrible. If a manager is, the effect spreads and if a manager of managers is toxic, that's a recipe for disaster and so on.
I personally am in a situation where nasty politics are being played out just for the sake of getting promoted. It's fine to focus on your promo, but not at the cost of your colleagues or the environment.
That being said, the broader google ecosystem and culture holds on a macro level. It really is the people that work there who define and uphold it. A couple of rogue high level folks are enough to destroy it.
I personally am in a situation where nasty politics are being played out just for the sake of getting promoted. It's fine to focus on your promo, but not at the cost of your colleagues or the environment.
That being said, the broader google ecosystem and culture holds on a macro level. It really is the people that work there who define and uphold it. A couple of rogue high level folks are enough to destroy it.
> Overwork?
I don't know anyone working at Google, nor anyone who worked at Google in the past (except a single intern). Hell, I don't even live anywhere near a Google campus!
But I always assumed that Google wants you to spend your whole day there, from morning until evening. Because big tech is usually implicitly aiming at that.
- Serve three major meals a day, + you can bring your dog to your office, which eliminates any reason to go home (especially for those who don't have a house or spouse to take care of).
- Shuttle bus, where many employees have like, idk, 40min of free time? Why not just start working on the laptop already?
- Food servings are stretched out. Breakfast is till 10AM; dinner is served at 6:30PM, so if you started at 8:30AM, you need to stay another 1.5h to make use of dinner. Why not work in the meantime?
And some classical fear stuff which makes you want to work hard and long hours:
- Aggressive deadlines
- Get the promotion in 2 years or get fired
I dunno, I probably wouldn't mind working under these conditions, but I think there are reasons why the average tenure of a Googler is 1.5 years.
I don't know anyone working at Google, nor anyone who worked at Google in the past (except a single intern). Hell, I don't even live anywhere near a Google campus!
But I always assumed that Google wants you to spend your whole day there, from morning until evening. Because big tech is usually implicitly aiming at that.
- Serve three major meals a day, + you can bring your dog to your office, which eliminates any reason to go home (especially for those who don't have a house or spouse to take care of).
- Shuttle bus, where many employees have like, idk, 40min of free time? Why not just start working on the laptop already?
- Food servings are stretched out. Breakfast is till 10AM; dinner is served at 6:30PM, so if you started at 8:30AM, you need to stay another 1.5h to make use of dinner. Why not work in the meantime?
And some classical fear stuff which makes you want to work hard and long hours:
- Aggressive deadlines
- Get the promotion in 2 years or get fired
I dunno, I probably wouldn't mind working under these conditions, but I think there are reasons why the average tenure of a Googler is 1.5 years.
I worked at Google for three years. It was a great experience and I mainly left because I had grown accustomed to remote work and was planning on moving back to live closer to family after having a falling out with the bay area.
I do get the impression that people have had vastly differing experiences at Google, but the culture was very laid back. Deadline pressure existed, but ultimately it never felt that bad: if we weren't going to hit it, we weren't going to hit it. It happened.
>Get the promotion in 2 years or get fired
I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure once you're L4 or so you can pretty much coast. I heard a similar thing when I was at Google, but knew of many counter examples within my circle of coworkers.
I do get the impression that people have had vastly differing experiences at Google, but the culture was very laid back. Deadline pressure existed, but ultimately it never felt that bad: if we weren't going to hit it, we weren't going to hit it. It happened.
>Get the promotion in 2 years or get fired
I don't think this is true. I'm pretty sure once you're L4 or so you can pretty much coast. I heard a similar thing when I was at Google, but knew of many counter examples within my circle of coworkers.
First: Thank you for sharing your experience! But I have one question, I'd be glad to get some clarification.
> I'm pretty sure once you're L4 or so you can pretty much coast. I heard a similar thing when I was at Google, but knew of many counter examples within my circle of coworkers.
Do you mean that there are employees who were below L4 and have not been promoted in the past two years?
Or do you mean that you know employees, who are L4, but haven't promoted to L5 in the past two years?
In general, it seems (judging from HN comments) like L4 is the minimum growth expectation.
> I'm pretty sure once you're L4 or so you can pretty much coast. I heard a similar thing when I was at Google, but knew of many counter examples within my circle of coworkers.
Do you mean that there are employees who were below L4 and have not been promoted in the past two years?
Or do you mean that you know employees, who are L4, but haven't promoted to L5 in the past two years?
In general, it seems (judging from HN comments) like L4 is the minimum growth expectation.
I am not sure if it is ladder-dependent but yes, you can stay at L3 for longer without getting fired. Not sure if there's actually a set limit anywhere, and I suspect it's more of a rule of thumb.
> I always assumed that Google wants you to spend your whole day there, from morning until evening.
People always cynically assume that's why Google has the perks but in all the Google offices I've worked from or visited, the building is a ghost town after 6:00pm.
The real reason is that Google is competing with other tech companies and perks are an effective incentive to get people to pick your company over another one.
> Because big tech is usually implicitly aiming at that.
Tech companies are aiming for maximum long term productivity of intellectually challenging complex work. I'm not aware of any data that shows the way to get that is by grinding your employees into the dust with overtime.
People always cynically assume that's why Google has the perks but in all the Google offices I've worked from or visited, the building is a ghost town after 6:00pm.
The real reason is that Google is competing with other tech companies and perks are an effective incentive to get people to pick your company over another one.
> Because big tech is usually implicitly aiming at that.
Tech companies are aiming for maximum long term productivity of intellectually challenging complex work. I'm not aware of any data that shows the way to get that is by grinding your employees into the dust with overtime.
yeah, I've heard a crazy amount of bellyaching at other FAANG companies about not having the same perks as Google
I'm sitting here thinking "News flash: you can just buy lunch for yourself at a restaurant using the $400,000 they pay you per year"
Those perks are the real deal. They do pull people in
I'm sitting here thinking "News flash: you can just buy lunch for yourself at a restaurant using the $400,000 they pay you per year"
Those perks are the real deal. They do pull people in
> "News flash: you can just buy lunch for yourself at a restaurant using the $400,000 they pay you per year"
The magic of free food as a perk is that it's a non-zero value proposition for both employees and the company.
Before I worked at Google, I worked at a software job without free food. We could afford to eat out for lunch every day and we did.
But it meant at least twenty minutes of driving every day. The food was more expensive because it didn't have the same economies of scale as cafeteria style service. It was less healthy because restaurant food tends to go over the top with salt and fat to amp up the flavor and entice people in. There were never any serendipitous conversations with new coworkers because I always went with the same team every time.
Conversely, when I eat at Google now, it's a five minute pleasant walk. There's no wasted time sitting waiting to get served. There are fewer options so I don't get stupid analysis paralysis deciding where to go to lunch or what I want to eat. I eat more salads and smaller meals because I don't feel compelled to get my money's worth. When I travel to other offices, I know I can easily get breakfast and lunch there without having to navigate an unfamiliar city if I don't feel like it.
Meanwhile, the cost of driving to restaurants and eating out each day is quite a bit higher than the total cost of feeding employees in a cafe. So for companies that don't offer this perk, they have to compensate employees enough for them to feed themselves and I suspect that the total comp for that is more expensive than just feedling them.
Free food is my absolute favorite perk at Google, and I treasure it deeply.
The magic of free food as a perk is that it's a non-zero value proposition for both employees and the company.
Before I worked at Google, I worked at a software job without free food. We could afford to eat out for lunch every day and we did.
But it meant at least twenty minutes of driving every day. The food was more expensive because it didn't have the same economies of scale as cafeteria style service. It was less healthy because restaurant food tends to go over the top with salt and fat to amp up the flavor and entice people in. There were never any serendipitous conversations with new coworkers because I always went with the same team every time.
Conversely, when I eat at Google now, it's a five minute pleasant walk. There's no wasted time sitting waiting to get served. There are fewer options so I don't get stupid analysis paralysis deciding where to go to lunch or what I want to eat. I eat more salads and smaller meals because I don't feel compelled to get my money's worth. When I travel to other offices, I know I can easily get breakfast and lunch there without having to navigate an unfamiliar city if I don't feel like it.
Meanwhile, the cost of driving to restaurants and eating out each day is quite a bit higher than the total cost of feeding employees in a cafe. So for companies that don't offer this perk, they have to compensate employees enough for them to feed themselves and I suspect that the total comp for that is more expensive than just feedling them.
Free food is my absolute favorite perk at Google, and I treasure it deeply.
Yeah, all that stuff is true.. although most of it's true about the subsidized cafeterias at Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft too
I'm not making a relative comparison to other companies that also offer free food.
Part of the reason the average tenure is so short is companies usually quote Median, and that’s low by definition in high growth companies. If you double your headcount in 2 years, your median will be less than 2 years even if nobody quits.
> I don't know anyone working at Google, nor anyone who worked at Google in the past (except a single intern). Hell, I don't even live anywhere near a Google campus!
I did a couple year stint at Google, and I also didn't know anyone who worked there at all.
I did a couple year stint at Google, and I also didn't know anyone who worked there at all.
I just wanted to underline that my "knowledge" comes from reading HN comments. And it looks like I got a lot of stuff wrong too!
Did you hear about "megablocks"? They ran the shuttles and cafes on the weekends and "encouraged" engineers to work through the weekend until that project was done. I wasn't in that org and joined Google a bit after the project concluded, but it had an infamous reputation that stuck around.
At Google, developers were the product, not overhead. As such, they were supported lavishly, with meals and massages, at a level not previously seen, at least not in career available to people who weren't fifth-generation Ivy grads. And the pay, total comp is still trumpeted here at HN as among the highest around.
Sure, a lot of people saw those perks as being aimed a particular demographic: young people without attachments who were willing to spend nearly 168 hours each week on site. And a lot of us saw the selection of perks as those most likely to attract that demographic.
But people who joined Google didn't often leave for reasons related to Google, and I'm not sure there's a better way to describe that than "beloved." Low turnover tells the story.
Sure, a lot of people saw those perks as being aimed a particular demographic: young people without attachments who were willing to spend nearly 168 hours each week on site. And a lot of us saw the selection of perks as those most likely to attract that demographic.
But people who joined Google didn't often leave for reasons related to Google, and I'm not sure there's a better way to describe that than "beloved." Low turnover tells the story.
> As such, they were supported lavishly, with meals and massages, at a level not previously seen, at least not in career available to people who weren't fifth-generation Ivy grads.
I think if you push further back, we did see it. Go find the oldest retired IBMer you can and ask them what it was like in the good days. You'll find it was very similar.
Sure, they didn't do the whole come-be-an-activist-while-ignoring-your-actual-job thing, and there were no nap pods, but the perks were up there. From free food to the parties (and yes, your kids are coming to many of them and they and your wife/husband are going to get free gifts from IBM at every chance). There was a time when landing a job at IBM was like getting a job at Google was a while ago - except that they still did the employee-for-life thing and even if you were laid off, it was with your consent (and an obscene benefits package).
But you also did have to do actual work, not just attend one meeting per week with no deliverable.
Edit: Actually I think it may have been even better back then. There was no company shuttle to the office. You had a company car. There was no roommate while giving 60% of your income to a landlord, housing was still affordable and your spouse didn't really have to work unless they wanted to.
I think if you push further back, we did see it. Go find the oldest retired IBMer you can and ask them what it was like in the good days. You'll find it was very similar.
Sure, they didn't do the whole come-be-an-activist-while-ignoring-your-actual-job thing, and there were no nap pods, but the perks were up there. From free food to the parties (and yes, your kids are coming to many of them and they and your wife/husband are going to get free gifts from IBM at every chance). There was a time when landing a job at IBM was like getting a job at Google was a while ago - except that they still did the employee-for-life thing and even if you were laid off, it was with your consent (and an obscene benefits package).
But you also did have to do actual work, not just attend one meeting per week with no deliverable.
Edit: Actually I think it may have been even better back then. There was no company shuttle to the office. You had a company car. There was no roommate while giving 60% of your income to a landlord, housing was still affordable and your spouse didn't really have to work unless they wanted to.
> Go find the oldest retired IBMer you can and ask them what it was like in the good days. You'll find it was very similar.
I don't think this was true. Before Google really started poaching everyone, big tech engineering jobs were almost always lower paid than almost any managerial job, and compensation was never in line with lawyers or medical doctors.
Plenty of people who put in 10+ years at FAANG companies have enough to retire, did you really see IBM engineers retiring in their 40s (or, the ability to if they wanted?).
I've been in the industry for over 20 years, and when I started, regardless of how good of an engineer you were, unless you hit it big with an IPO riches were not to be had. That has changed drastically in the last fifteen years.
I don't think this was true. Before Google really started poaching everyone, big tech engineering jobs were almost always lower paid than almost any managerial job, and compensation was never in line with lawyers or medical doctors.
Plenty of people who put in 10+ years at FAANG companies have enough to retire, did you really see IBM engineers retiring in their 40s (or, the ability to if they wanted?).
I've been in the industry for over 20 years, and when I started, regardless of how good of an engineer you were, unless you hit it big with an IPO riches were not to be had. That has changed drastically in the last fifteen years.
Yup. I was at Google for over a decade, I should have left years ago for a startup, I had offers, but I loved what I did, I loved my fellow coworkers, and I was well compensated. There was little reason to leave, and a lot of reasons to stay.
Have you left?
Laid off, and from the one division I thought would be less subject to layoffs: AI. (I thought Ads would be well insulated too, but I know a lot of Ads folks who were let go). But I'm not that broken up about it, because I feel like tech is getting exciting again, almost like the 90s, when everyday, some new amazing thing comes out. Last week in AI for example, super exciting.
There's a lot of opportunity now to build cool stuff in this emerging ecosystem, it's totally unknown space, and what's going to exist 5 yrs from now is going to be as crazy as all of the companies that now exist because of smartphones, or the invention of the browser.
I think Google (and OpenAI) might be the best places for AI research, but I'm not sure Google is the best place for applied-research at the application level. I think the startup ecosystem is going to explore that space way more rapidly, and it'll be fun to play in that space.
There's a lot of opportunity now to build cool stuff in this emerging ecosystem, it's totally unknown space, and what's going to exist 5 yrs from now is going to be as crazy as all of the companies that now exist because of smartphones, or the invention of the browser.
I think Google (and OpenAI) might be the best places for AI research, but I'm not sure Google is the best place for applied-research at the application level. I think the startup ecosystem is going to explore that space way more rapidly, and it'll be fun to play in that space.
> As such, they were supported lavishly, with meals and massages, at a level not previously seen
This is simultaneously true and the CEO wrote a book about how he did an across the board 10 percent raise[1] because Google was underpaying relative to the competition, _for some reason_.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703523604575605...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
This is simultaneously true and the CEO wrote a book about how he did an across the board 10 percent raise[1] because Google was underpaying relative to the competition, _for some reason_.
[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703523604575605...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...
> Sure, a lot of people saw those perks as being aimed a particular demographic: young people without attachments who were willing to spend nearly 168 hours each week on site. And a lot of us saw the selection of perks as those most likely to attract that demographic.
It reflects the demographics of the early employees and founders.
It reflects the demographics of the early employees and founders.
I was there 2013->2015. It was not viewed as "beloved" in my eyes; more like a benevolent, paternalistic overlord. There were certainly negatives. It was nearly impossible to concentrate at work, due to being in a large open space with many teams, and they would not let me be full-time remote (even as an L6 "staff" SWE), crowded bathrooms, crowded cafes, etc.
However, they put a lot of effort into the endless perks, and the feeling of job security. It really felt like they cared about you, and your career development.
I was shocked by the layoffs. My old group's PM, who was fantastic (and well connected) was let go in the purge.
However, they put a lot of effort into the endless perks, and the feeling of job security. It really felt like they cared about you, and your career development.
I was shocked by the layoffs. My old group's PM, who was fantastic (and well connected) was let go in the purge.
If you remember, there was the great "de-frag" at one point, where they wanted to reduce # of satellite offices, and tried to move everyone into a few big HQ, this resulted in overcrowding, and one aspect of that was "no remote work". (post-pandemic, this sounds bizarre now).
The closing of some of the satellite offices resulted in some of the first shocking "layoffs", for example, the Google Atlanta office was shuttered, most of the former couldn't move, and so left for other companies. (technically not a layoff, but if you can't relocate, it's basically the same) :(
The closing of some of the satellite offices resulted in some of the first shocking "layoffs", for example, the Google Atlanta office was shuttered, most of the former couldn't move, and so left for other companies. (technically not a layoff, but if you can't relocate, it's basically the same) :(
The defrag was a year or two before I joined, as I recall.
The remote work policy seemed to go by org. I worked in platforms, and our VP was old-school, adamantly opposed to remote work. He'd proudly walk around the office, surveying his domain. He was rather like a proctor in an exam. Meanwhile, I worked closely with several folks in the kernel team who were allowed to work remotely. One of them was very interested in what we were doing, was a luminary in his field, and wanted to transfer to our group, but worked remotely, and didn't want to give that up. Similarly, I left for Netflix because they allowed remote work in the Open Connect kernel group.
The remote work policy seemed to go by org. I worked in platforms, and our VP was old-school, adamantly opposed to remote work. He'd proudly walk around the office, surveying his domain. He was rather like a proctor in an exam. Meanwhile, I worked closely with several folks in the kernel team who were allowed to work remotely. One of them was very interested in what we were doing, was a luminary in his field, and wanted to transfer to our group, but worked remotely, and didn't want to give that up. Similarly, I left for Netflix because they allowed remote work in the Open Connect kernel group.
Before the doubleclick merger, Google was absolutely the ideal place to work as an engineer.
I feel that perhaps after 2007 a lot of Google's reputation was still held up by what the culture was like in the years surrounding their IPO.
But of course, this is ancient tech history. I haven't entertained a Google recruiter in probably a decade now.
I feel that perhaps after 2007 a lot of Google's reputation was still held up by what the culture was like in the years surrounding their IPO.
But of course, this is ancient tech history. I haven't entertained a Google recruiter in probably a decade now.
I wasn't there in 2007, didn't get there til 2011, but looking at the facts think 2007/2008 era it seems like a juncture from one Google to the next, for sure.
The other, really major, shift -- which happened while I was there -- was Patrick Pichette leaving as CFO and Ruth Porat coming on. And then the subsequent "Alphabetization" which... it was so bungled and mismanaged... and it was clear at that point L&S were clueless about what was actually going on inside the company... that to me was when the company had seriously dramatically shifted in tone and structure. I think that was .. what... 2015?
Sundar taking over was just the formalization of that degradation.
For me, personally I wish I'd only stayed there for 4-5 years, and left around then. But before remote work there weren't any competitive options in my region, so I got stuck there for 10 years.
The other, really major, shift -- which happened while I was there -- was Patrick Pichette leaving as CFO and Ruth Porat coming on. And then the subsequent "Alphabetization" which... it was so bungled and mismanaged... and it was clear at that point L&S were clueless about what was actually going on inside the company... that to me was when the company had seriously dramatically shifted in tone and structure. I think that was .. what... 2015?
Sundar taking over was just the formalization of that degradation.
For me, personally I wish I'd only stayed there for 4-5 years, and left around then. But before remote work there weren't any competitive options in my region, so I got stuck there for 10 years.
(I was there 2009-2014 and again 2020-present. Worked with several single/double-digit employee number Googlers.)
IMHO the "eras" of Google were:
1.) 1998-2001. Origins. Larry was CEO, company was still basically in the garage or the PayPal offices in Palo Alto, everything was an ad-hoc scrappy startup.
2.) 2001-2004. Growth. Eric was CEO. They moved into the Googleplex. Exploring new lines of business (Groups, AdSense, GMail, Maps/Earth), but they were all just explorations, and most of the company remained focused on Search. Key infrastructure like GFS, MapReduce, BigTable, Stubby, Sawzall were invented.
3.) 2004-2008. Conglomeration. Eric was CEO. IPO. Big college-hiring push started in this era (remember the Google Labs Aptitude Test?), as did a push to hire outside managers from other companies. GMail, Maps, Labs, Scholar, Toolbar, Chrome, Android all launched, and Docs/Sheets/Slides/YouTube were acquired. This is when the modern Google product portfolio was built, and much of its current culture and processes solidified.
4.) 2009-2010. Interregnum. Eric was CEO. Financial crisis happened here, which basically shut down growth, and it also faced serious competitive threats from Bing, iPhones, etc. As a result the culture during the interregnum almost harkened back to the 2001-2004 era: there was a refocusing on core search/ads/infrastructure and a generally scrappier mentality.
5.) 2011-2015. Google+ & X. Larry was CEO again, company shifted to make everything about G+. There was an overall futile attempt to address a major competitive threat that turned out not to matter anyway.
6.) 2015-2020. Alphabetization. Sundar was CEO, but Ruth came in as CFO and realistically runs the company. Finance plays a much bigger role - I don't think Google's produced a single successful new product post-2015 (come to think of it, there weren't many new successes post-2009), but revenue has grown through continued optimization and profits have grown through cost-cutting.
7.) 2020+. Post-COVID. Culture was hurt significantly by remote work, it's very hard to realign the company to adapt to outside changes.
The irony is that what many Googlers nostalgically think of "Google culture" actually came from the 2004-2008 era, when Eric was CEO and many of the new hires either came from college or outside companies. If you listen to pre-IPO hires, they'll say that very early Google culture was a lot scrappier, a lot less entitled, a lot more opinionated, a lot more willing to take top-down direction from Larry specifically, and a lot more focused on the work itself and how to deliver excellent technical solutions quickly.
IMHO the "eras" of Google were:
1.) 1998-2001. Origins. Larry was CEO, company was still basically in the garage or the PayPal offices in Palo Alto, everything was an ad-hoc scrappy startup.
2.) 2001-2004. Growth. Eric was CEO. They moved into the Googleplex. Exploring new lines of business (Groups, AdSense, GMail, Maps/Earth), but they were all just explorations, and most of the company remained focused on Search. Key infrastructure like GFS, MapReduce, BigTable, Stubby, Sawzall were invented.
3.) 2004-2008. Conglomeration. Eric was CEO. IPO. Big college-hiring push started in this era (remember the Google Labs Aptitude Test?), as did a push to hire outside managers from other companies. GMail, Maps, Labs, Scholar, Toolbar, Chrome, Android all launched, and Docs/Sheets/Slides/YouTube were acquired. This is when the modern Google product portfolio was built, and much of its current culture and processes solidified.
4.) 2009-2010. Interregnum. Eric was CEO. Financial crisis happened here, which basically shut down growth, and it also faced serious competitive threats from Bing, iPhones, etc. As a result the culture during the interregnum almost harkened back to the 2001-2004 era: there was a refocusing on core search/ads/infrastructure and a generally scrappier mentality.
5.) 2011-2015. Google+ & X. Larry was CEO again, company shifted to make everything about G+. There was an overall futile attempt to address a major competitive threat that turned out not to matter anyway.
6.) 2015-2020. Alphabetization. Sundar was CEO, but Ruth came in as CFO and realistically runs the company. Finance plays a much bigger role - I don't think Google's produced a single successful new product post-2015 (come to think of it, there weren't many new successes post-2009), but revenue has grown through continued optimization and profits have grown through cost-cutting.
7.) 2020+. Post-COVID. Culture was hurt significantly by remote work, it's very hard to realign the company to adapt to outside changes.
The irony is that what many Googlers nostalgically think of "Google culture" actually came from the 2004-2008 era, when Eric was CEO and many of the new hires either came from college or outside companies. If you listen to pre-IPO hires, they'll say that very early Google culture was a lot scrappier, a lot less entitled, a lot more opinionated, a lot more willing to take top-down direction from Larry specifically, and a lot more focused on the work itself and how to deliver excellent technical solutions quickly.
"7.) 2020+. Post-COVID. Culture was hurt significantly by remote work, it's very hard to realign the company to adapt to outside changes."
Agreed. I left end of 2021 after a year and a half of struggling with bad execution on WFH. Some teams did better than others but company as a whole I think lost out on that.
WFH can work. But it didn't work at Google, really.
And when the office was open during those times I went in, and the whole situation was just... crap. Floating reserved desks. Take away meh, food. Nobody else in the office. Ghost town but somehow the parking situation still sucked.
Agreed. I left end of 2021 after a year and a half of struggling with bad execution on WFH. Some teams did better than others but company as a whole I think lost out on that.
WFH can work. But it didn't work at Google, really.
And when the office was open during those times I went in, and the whole situation was just... crap. Floating reserved desks. Take away meh, food. Nobody else in the office. Ghost town but somehow the parking situation still sucked.
As someone who was there start of 2007 to end of 2010, this resonated. My first two years were very different to the last two.
[deleted]
From the lofty heights of your high horse I doubt anyone on earth would even hear you and run risk of being “entertained” by you.
Whatever dude. I'm the one getting frequent inMails from Google recruiters. I have never once applied for a role there.
No, that wasn't always the case, it's the same thing that happenned with MS. Back in the late oughts and early 2010's Google was a fantastic place to work based on the reports I've heard, that was considered work nirvana. They were the ones who introduced things like catered lunchs, and a lot of other amenities that many people consider now standard fare in many tech shops.
Based on what I heard it was a wonderful time, you got to spend all day working on interesting problems, with super smart people that were at the peak of their field, money was coming in hand over fist, and the people running the show had an understanding of engineering.
The problem is that success attracts leeches, you start getting lots of MBA types, PMs, bean counters, etc. Then things went downhill. But it wasn't always this way, it just so happens that once you become successful enough you will attract people that aren't interested in what you do, but in getting a piece of that pie, and those people and that thinking and mindset will ruin any organization.
P.S. It's an interesting line to draw between being overworked by a boss that is forcing you to spend 60 hours a week chained to a desk, and loving what you do so much that you are happy to spend 60 hours a week on it, just because you derive that much satisfaction from it.
Based on what I heard it was a wonderful time, you got to spend all day working on interesting problems, with super smart people that were at the peak of their field, money was coming in hand over fist, and the people running the show had an understanding of engineering.
The problem is that success attracts leeches, you start getting lots of MBA types, PMs, bean counters, etc. Then things went downhill. But it wasn't always this way, it just so happens that once you become successful enough you will attract people that aren't interested in what you do, but in getting a piece of that pie, and those people and that thinking and mindset will ruin any organization.
P.S. It's an interesting line to draw between being overworked by a boss that is forcing you to spend 60 hours a week chained to a desk, and loving what you do so much that you are happy to spend 60 hours a week on it, just because you derive that much satisfaction from it.
But now the company has shown that it will use layoffs. So now Google is threatening the livelihoods of it's employees.
So most everyone is a leech now. Not because they want to or it's in their character, it's just something that will at least give you some basic safety.
So most everyone is a leech now. Not because they want to or it's in their character, it's just something that will at least give you some basic safety.
As someone who worked at Google for 15 yrs, who also worked at Oracle and IBM, I can confidently say that Google was the least toxic, least overworked place I've ever been. That's not to say there aren't management problems, especially around the erratic way they launch new projects and kill others with no real rhyme or reason, but working environment was never one of the complaints.
At IBM and Oracle, I'd regularly be in meetings with shouting matches. People were tear down others. There was excessive territorialism. Googley culture, although it changed over time, did promote cooperation and constructive criticism. Post-Mortems emphasized what went wrong and what could be done better, not who went wrong. Other teams were often, if not always, eager to partner or share their work.
Work location flexibility, the cafes, all of it was very good.
Now, I did perceive a cultural decline, I think it was sometime around the launch of Google Hangouts, I started sensing a more bean-counting approach, I think because the Seattle office brought in a bunch of MS managers in too short a period of time for them to absorb Googley culture. At one point, the initial launch of Hangouts didn't have presence indicators, and when employees brought it up, one response was "You are not the audience". As if presence indicators are something only elite engineers want, and not regular folks. This was totally antithetical to way products like Gmail were built, out of personal desire and need.
I didn't work in Cloud, but I suspect Thomas Kurian brought a more Oracle "Sales Engineer" driven approach, and that too can change culture. Might be bad for culture, but good for external customers.
One of the issues over the years that I feel an acute sense of now that I'm looking for a job again, is that Google invented a lot of technology early internally, from Borg to Map/Reduce/etc. Eventually, the outside world cloned these, and when they became on-par and standardized, at that point I really think Google should have switched their internal stack to the OSS equivalents. For example, Google still builds products on the internal Borg system, rather than using GCP/Kubernetes/Terraform/etc. If GCP/Kube is missing functionality to run say, Maps or Gmail, then perfect, that indicates a good driver for improving the external facing product. Working on some of Google's tech stack feels like an alien world compared to working on stuff outside.
In ML at least, there's synergy, as Tensorflow and JAX are used internally and externally. But in terms of major systems, there needs to be a lot more of this. Blaze was opened as Bazel way too late for example, should have been done years ago.
At IBM and Oracle, I'd regularly be in meetings with shouting matches. People were tear down others. There was excessive territorialism. Googley culture, although it changed over time, did promote cooperation and constructive criticism. Post-Mortems emphasized what went wrong and what could be done better, not who went wrong. Other teams were often, if not always, eager to partner or share their work.
Work location flexibility, the cafes, all of it was very good.
Now, I did perceive a cultural decline, I think it was sometime around the launch of Google Hangouts, I started sensing a more bean-counting approach, I think because the Seattle office brought in a bunch of MS managers in too short a period of time for them to absorb Googley culture. At one point, the initial launch of Hangouts didn't have presence indicators, and when employees brought it up, one response was "You are not the audience". As if presence indicators are something only elite engineers want, and not regular folks. This was totally antithetical to way products like Gmail were built, out of personal desire and need.
I didn't work in Cloud, but I suspect Thomas Kurian brought a more Oracle "Sales Engineer" driven approach, and that too can change culture. Might be bad for culture, but good for external customers.
One of the issues over the years that I feel an acute sense of now that I'm looking for a job again, is that Google invented a lot of technology early internally, from Borg to Map/Reduce/etc. Eventually, the outside world cloned these, and when they became on-par and standardized, at that point I really think Google should have switched their internal stack to the OSS equivalents. For example, Google still builds products on the internal Borg system, rather than using GCP/Kubernetes/Terraform/etc. If GCP/Kube is missing functionality to run say, Maps or Gmail, then perfect, that indicates a good driver for improving the external facing product. Working on some of Google's tech stack feels like an alien world compared to working on stuff outside.
In ML at least, there's synergy, as Tensorflow and JAX are used internally and externally. But in terms of major systems, there needs to be a lot more of this. Blaze was opened as Bazel way too late for example, should have been done years ago.
I worked for Google for 10 years- at first in a great but intense (overworked) SRE team, then later as a SWE running my own project (again intense and overworked, but totally self-imposed) and then on various ML and 3D printing teams. By and large it was great, but it got worse over time (increasingly clueless managers with night-school MBAs) and more toxic.
Occasionally I'd see memes or posts from other teams that described business practices I couldn't believe (like, "I have to stay at the office until my manager leaves or I'll be fired, and he doesn't leave until 8PM so I dont' see my family much") which didn't make sense until I learned that entire teams were H1-B visas reporting to managers who applied caste in their jobs in the US.
Absolutely nothing I've seen compares to borg or a full TPUv4 cluster.
Occasionally I'd see memes or posts from other teams that described business practices I couldn't believe (like, "I have to stay at the office until my manager leaves or I'll be fired, and he doesn't leave until 8PM so I dont' see my family much") which didn't make sense until I learned that entire teams were H1-B visas reporting to managers who applied caste in their jobs in the US.
Absolutely nothing I've seen compares to borg or a full TPUv4 cluster.
Wow, I'm shocked to hear that. Was this at a US office? I know some overseas offices have different culture. I guess it's not unprecedented. My wife (eng manager) resigned from Google around 2015 I think, in part because Google Cloud had brought on a new boss in a re-org who was a McKinsey-and-associates person, and her boss tasked her mostly with making spreadsheets of business processes, because that's the format she was used to doing all her work in (spreadsheets). She went from managing Chrome engineers and sitting in on meetings to discuss features, to doing spreadsheets. :(
There was definitely a decline over the years, I was probably lucky in that the teams I joined (Infra, Gmail, AI) were run mostly by engineers and pretty cool people.
There was definitely a decline over the years, I was probably lucky in that the teams I joined (Infra, Gmail, AI) were run mostly by engineers and pretty cool people.
Mountain View. In fact during the nest debacle there was a whole office building of people doing nothing with a clock on the wall which was "how long until Tony Fadell no longer controls you" counting down the days.
I worked in Cloud from 2015-2023. I was personally hired by Amit Singh, who was the first "CEO" of "Cloud", back when it was just "Google Apps" + GCS/GCE/GAE. About 8 months later Diane Greene was brought in to scale the business because the org under Amit was too googley. Literally. Google's legacy culture of engineering meritocracy and ICs who vote with their feet on the "best" projects was not conducive to becoming an enterprise technology company. Diane brought in Diane Bryant as COO (from Intel) and PH Ferrand as sales president (from Dell), and while PH gave it a good try on the GTM side, Diane left after barely 6 months and there just wasn't enough enterprise experience across the org to make things work. Diane was likely brought in at least partly because she is googley, and her VMWare history probably looked like enterprise software success, but she was too googley to turn the ship and he org flailed for a couple more years. Then the board appointed TK, who absolutely knows 100% how to sell to enterprise. He spent 2 years almost exclusively hiring senior staff from outside: Microsoft, SAP, AWS, IBM, Salesforce, Oracle, etc, and rebuilding something that looks roughly like if Microsoft went back in time 20 years.
The upsides are that the business has grown mightily and Cloud is now almost exclusively market driven, at least on core products/services. The downside is that he broke the culture and alienated thousands of googlers whose advancement opportunities were essentially eliminated. Because of the hiring needs, the bar is much lower now, cronyism is prevalent, and politics+bureaucracy get in the way of progress.
During my years at Google, I sat in The Quad, Tech Corners, Moffett Park, and then back at Tech Corners, and spent time in many of the rest of the bay area offices. I will state with confidence that the Cloud offices do not feel "googley" when you walk around the cube spaces. There are few decorations, no buzz, not many people who appear to be enjoying themselves, very few tech talks, guest speakers or events, etc. Just taking a walk around the MP, Matilda or TC campuses and then visiting YT in San Bruno or one of the Android teams in MTV is a stark difference.
Cloud is not googley. Let's see if the consumer-oriented PAs can keep that alive.
The upsides are that the business has grown mightily and Cloud is now almost exclusively market driven, at least on core products/services. The downside is that he broke the culture and alienated thousands of googlers whose advancement opportunities were essentially eliminated. Because of the hiring needs, the bar is much lower now, cronyism is prevalent, and politics+bureaucracy get in the way of progress.
During my years at Google, I sat in The Quad, Tech Corners, Moffett Park, and then back at Tech Corners, and spent time in many of the rest of the bay area offices. I will state with confidence that the Cloud offices do not feel "googley" when you walk around the cube spaces. There are few decorations, no buzz, not many people who appear to be enjoying themselves, very few tech talks, guest speakers or events, etc. Just taking a walk around the MP, Matilda or TC campuses and then visiting YT in San Bruno or one of the Android teams in MTV is a stark difference.
Cloud is not googley. Let's see if the consumer-oriented PAs can keep that alive.
As a Googler for 10 years, I'd say -- on the whole, yes, well loved. But steadily worsening over that 10 year period. And, no, most people I knew were not overworked. Not at my site, anyways. And certainly not compared to what I saw from people I knew at Apple or Amazon.
I had my beefs with the place always, and I was like a square peg round hole there -- BUT ... Not even talking about the pay -- above average -- benefits were amazing. Culture when I started was very engineering driven. Mostly a very respectful professional environment apart from one asshole TL I had to deal with, but I was able to route around him after a few months. Good mix of age ranges and not biased against middle aged or older like many other workplaces in our industry.
I didn't like the work / projects I had to do there. I didn't like the promo process. I didn't like the way projects were managed. But I liked the company ethic overall (obviously I always had issues) -- but it degraded every year I was there. But not because of overwork etc but because of bureaucratic dysfunction and ethical lapses.
I had my beefs with the place always, and I was like a square peg round hole there -- BUT ... Not even talking about the pay -- above average -- benefits were amazing. Culture when I started was very engineering driven. Mostly a very respectful professional environment apart from one asshole TL I had to deal with, but I was able to route around him after a few months. Good mix of age ranges and not biased against middle aged or older like many other workplaces in our industry.
I didn't like the work / projects I had to do there. I didn't like the promo process. I didn't like the way projects were managed. But I liked the company ethic overall (obviously I always had issues) -- but it degraded every year I was there. But not because of overwork etc but because of bureaucratic dysfunction and ethical lapses.
(Disclaimer: I was a software engineering intern at Google during the summers of 2013 and 2014.)
In the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s, Google felt like the dream place to work. Yes, a lot has been said about the perks and the generous pay, but another thing that made Google appealing was its cutting edge projects. I was a huge fan of Google Inbox (sadly long discontinued). As a graduate student researching storage systems and who enjoyed reading the MapReduce, BigTable, and Spanner papers, being able to work on Spanner as an intern was a dream come true. I also loved all of the internal support I received as a developer, from the amazing internal infrastructure to the various internal tutorials. I never felt siloed off from the rest of the company, compared to other employers I've had. It was an amazing place to work and I'd rank it as my second-best work experience (my best being eight months I spent at Fujitsu Laboratories in Kawasaki, Japan where I worked in a storage lab on an SSD cache....that was a downright magical experience), though granted as an intern I was shielded from the performance review process and on-calls, so I can't comment about these things.
I would love to work for a team similar to the teams I worked on during my internships at Google, as well as the general feeling of 2013-14 Google. However, I'm under the impression that Google's culture started changing a lot during the Alphabet reorganization and the rise of Sundar Pichai as CEO. I don't know if there's a place in the Valley these days that captures the feel of pre-Alphabet Google; it seems to me that the Valley itself has changed a lot (and for the worse) since roughly 2015, but that's another discussion for another time.
In the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s, Google felt like the dream place to work. Yes, a lot has been said about the perks and the generous pay, but another thing that made Google appealing was its cutting edge projects. I was a huge fan of Google Inbox (sadly long discontinued). As a graduate student researching storage systems and who enjoyed reading the MapReduce, BigTable, and Spanner papers, being able to work on Spanner as an intern was a dream come true. I also loved all of the internal support I received as a developer, from the amazing internal infrastructure to the various internal tutorials. I never felt siloed off from the rest of the company, compared to other employers I've had. It was an amazing place to work and I'd rank it as my second-best work experience (my best being eight months I spent at Fujitsu Laboratories in Kawasaki, Japan where I worked in a storage lab on an SSD cache....that was a downright magical experience), though granted as an intern I was shielded from the performance review process and on-calls, so I can't comment about these things.
I would love to work for a team similar to the teams I worked on during my internships at Google, as well as the general feeling of 2013-14 Google. However, I'm under the impression that Google's culture started changing a lot during the Alphabet reorganization and the rise of Sundar Pichai as CEO. I don't know if there's a place in the Valley these days that captures the feel of pre-Alphabet Google; it seems to me that the Valley itself has changed a lot (and for the worse) since roughly 2015, but that's another discussion for another time.
If you find such a place, don't hesitate to spread the word :)
never heard of Google being a place people were "overworked" at all, not compared to Amazon, at least, or as hyper-competitive as Netflix.
With enough total comp you can be my Beloved Employer.
it was definitely a great place to work in it's heyday 10+ years ago, as I believe most of the FAANG companies were. It was so nice back in the day having companies you knew would be great if you could just get into them. Are there any companies like that these days?
There are _definitely_ great companies out there, depending on what makes a place great FOR YOU. Working on great products with smart people? Yeah, there are places out there like that, and not always in the 'obvious' places. Great compensation? Yeah, there are places/industries that still offer that. Getting everything combined with one employer? That's more of a unicorn problem and you might have to compromise on something.
Can you name some? It always seems like some sort of open secret until its too late. There was some discussion about Oxide Computers being one of these companies.
I've been working mostly with embedded/IoT/backendCloud stuff lately, with a focus on embedded/IoT stuff and having spend about a month this year interviewing, the quality of companies and projects out there vary VASTLY. I ended up joining a manufacturing company that's adding some specialized robotics...stuff to their product line. Cool stuff and in a product domain I know a lot about. Great people, too. I heard about these guys because my former boss worked with them all before their start up got acquired by the MfgCo a while back. Definitely not the folks you'd peg for doing quality tech work, but they are. Compensation wasn't the best offer I landed, but it's good enough and I feel like I'm working with adults who know what they're doing and that's worth a lot to me.
Yes I would say that working in the United States at a Federally Funded Research and Design Center https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/ are great companies if only you can get into them.
Also as long as you don't mind below market rates and job security tied to federal budget allocations. Or your paycheck disappearing for an unknown period of time whenever there's divided government.
If that's what you want then you can always start one.
Edit: it's interesting that this comment is being down voted on a site run by a VC firm dedicated to helping entrepreneurs found their own companies. If you don't like working for Google or some other big company then start your own any you'll have complete freedom to set your own policies.
Edit: it's interesting that this comment is being down voted on a site run by a VC firm dedicated to helping entrepreneurs found their own companies. If you don't like working for Google or some other big company then start your own any you'll have complete freedom to set your own policies.
I was there roughly about a decade ago. At that time Google was a fantastic place to work. I didn't have toxic teams nor was I asked to overwork. I left the office at 5pm nearly every day. Google at least in the Chicago office deserved it's reputation as the best place to work in tech.
I still know people there and talking to them it does seem like there was a dramatic shift over the last 5+ years or so. I don't think it can claim the same culture that it had when I was there.
I still know people there and talking to them it does seem like there was a dramatic shift over the last 5+ years or so. I don't think it can claim the same culture that it had when I was there.
[deleted]
As a viewpoint from outside of the fang(whatever), I've always felt (and heard) that google was the best of the bunch in terms of employee opinion of the organization.
For a while now Google has been seen as the place you go to coast, at least if you're not gunning for promotions.
I may be a very basic software engineer with neither high YOE or high quality skills but what would I get excited about from a FAANG job nowadays? These companies that I've used everyday for nearing 2 decades from even a user perspective have become stale. Mountains of money and the best talent and even simple issues that have lingered for years are not fixed in favor of big ideas that no one wants.
You get excited for one reason and one reason only - the money. FAANG jobs pay between double and triple of normal software gigs. Some folks want to optimize for interesting work, or groundbreaking products or autonomy. Thats cool - you might not find that at a FAANG. Some folks optimize for the biggest paycheck. For that its basically two options - FAANG (and adjacent) or High Frequency Trading. To each their own!
I used to believe that, but searching for a job now, I see many non-FAANG companies with compensation in-line, or better, with the exception of those who aren't public. OpenAI for example, has base salaries in the $400k range for ML jobs at $250k range elsewhere at like an IC5 level, because of non-public equity.
Yes, I think FAANG grouping is too narrow. The true group is "big tech" - with the regular FAANGS, as well as Uber, Airbnb, Stripe, Pinterest, etc...
While each company has some unique qualities, my guess is that being an engineer in any of these places would be pretty similar and include:
* A lot of engineers and teams
* Lots of organizational / promo based manuevering and social engineering
* Problems at scale - some technology, but mainly "number of cooks in the kitchen"
* Work which might not be very interesting
* high compensation
My guess is that the OP's concerns would hold true at most of these big tech places that pay top dollar.
While each company has some unique qualities, my guess is that being an engineer in any of these places would be pretty similar and include:
* A lot of engineers and teams
* Lots of organizational / promo based manuevering and social engineering
* Problems at scale - some technology, but mainly "number of cooks in the kitchen"
* Work which might not be very interesting
* high compensation
My guess is that the OP's concerns would hold true at most of these big tech places that pay top dollar.
There are other reasons too like scale. Obviously not everyone can work on those types of projects but few companies can claim their engineers' code will affect a billion users for example. At that scale, the problems that need to be solved can be interesting even if they're trivial for a smaller set of users.
How does one get into HFT?
Learn low latency network programming in either C++ or something safe like Rust. If you make something people notice HFT companies will beat a path to your door.
Learn Rust, C++, Haskell or OCaml. Or get a PhD in mathematics or physics. Other languages or domains might work, too.
Rust mentioned twice here, maybe there’s something too it
I don’t think it’s possible for me to go down a PHD path.
HFT seems like a cool gig if you can get it
I don’t think it’s possible for me to go down a PHD path.
HFT seems like a cool gig if you can get it
I've been approached several times for HFT or Quant jobs (yes, I know that they're different but I tend to sort them in the same bucket in my mind) because I code in Rust, C++ and OCaml.
I didn't go into the domain because I'm not a big fan of money games. YMMV.
I didn't go into the domain because I'm not a big fan of money games. YMMV.
I think your options are:
* get a CS degree from a top tier program, preferably a PHD
* Pivot in from a normal software job. This is probably only possible if you have a bunch of C++ experience, and some top (FAANG) names on your resume.
* get a CS degree from a top tier program, preferably a PHD
* Pivot in from a normal software job. This is probably only possible if you have a bunch of C++ experience, and some top (FAANG) names on your resume.
I’ve worked at a couple, I’ve probably been an outlier but I’ve really enjoyed them as long as you’re ruthless about finding projects that you enjoy. There is a ton of opportunity to work on pretty much anything you want at a large corporation. I’ve mostly focused on r&d hardware and compiler projects.
Prestige
Don't worry, you'll never get into FANG companies.
What a mean thing to say to someone. I've been telling people the exact opposite for years - with enough time and motivation, anyone can get into FAANG companies, it's just a question of how much time and energy you want to dedicate to that.
Contrast this with becoming an astronaut or a gymnast, or a tennis player, or anything that requires you to acquire physical skills starting at a very early age and do it for decades.
I've been almost 10 years at FAANGs. There's nothing special about me. My GPA was 2.75. I suppose I can code and at this point I have some experience, but I'm no Carmack.
Contrast this with becoming an astronaut or a gymnast, or a tennis player, or anything that requires you to acquire physical skills starting at a very early age and do it for decades.
I've been almost 10 years at FAANGs. There's nothing special about me. My GPA was 2.75. I suppose I can code and at this point I have some experience, but I'm no Carmack.
I always encourage people who want to join FANG companies.
OP is the typical 'sour grapes' dissing on FANG. Why would I want them to work for FANG, if they don't appreciate it?
You have to be hungry for it to want it. They are millions of people who are grateful to work for FANG and I'll absolutely help them
OP is the typical 'sour grapes' dissing on FANG. Why would I want them to work for FANG, if they don't appreciate it?
You have to be hungry for it to want it. They are millions of people who are grateful to work for FANG and I'll absolutely help them
Not sure what the author expected Google to do. Are they supposed to have individual meetings and a farewell party with 10K (ex) employees? My dad worked for the same company for 35 years then retired. In my 20 year career I have worked for at least half a dozen companies. There's no such thing as job security anymore, as long as you are employed by someone else you are disposable, no matter how hard you work and how loyal you are to your employer. If investors want more dividends they will let people go, doesn't matter if you are sick or just bought a new house. Actually the person making the decision to fire you probably doesn't even know your name. Think about how depressing that is. For that reason I became a consultant. It sounds harder and scarier than it actually is, but once you figure it out you realize how much more enjoyable working for yourself is and there's absolutely no way you will ever work anyone else again. I hope some of these ex Google folks take this opportunity to do something on their own.
> Are they supposed to have individual meetings
Yes?
Surely they have managers proportional to their employees - I certainly don't expect the CEO to have the meetings but having their direct or skip level manager meet with them is the right way to do it.
Yes?
Surely they have managers proportional to their employees - I certainly don't expect the CEO to have the meetings but having their direct or skip level manager meet with them is the right way to do it.
The GP paints individual meetings as an infeasible, far-fetched idea. However, Google has held individual meetings in some non-US jurisdictions, where the ratio of management to front-line workers is comparable to that in the US. This shows that it's not infeasible, it's a choice.
"How do you maximize talent preservation and minimize morale loss when firing employees from a tree structure with height O(15), where each level under SVP (2) may have layoffs?"
Feels like the execs didn't answer this interview question well. There were better ways to accomplish this.
Feels like the execs didn't answer this interview question well. There were better ways to accomplish this.
Are you aware that developers have 1:1 meetings with their manager, regularly? It's entirely practical for them to schedule meetings and tell people in person.
> Not sure what the author expected Google to do.
Don't get that either. The company is not my mother or my wife, it's just a professional relationship; they buy my hours to produce what they want me to. If they don't want my services anymore, of if I don't want to provide my services to them, it's fine, life goes on.
Now, there's this sad article, with a sad lady framed like she has just cried, like if it's the end of world. Yeah, Google was the best company once, Rome was the most powerful nation once, things change and get over it.
Sorry for the rant.
Don't get that either. The company is not my mother or my wife, it's just a professional relationship; they buy my hours to produce what they want me to. If they don't want my services anymore, of if I don't want to provide my services to them, it's fine, life goes on.
Now, there's this sad article, with a sad lady framed like she has just cried, like if it's the end of world. Yeah, Google was the best company once, Rome was the most powerful nation once, things change and get over it.
Sorry for the rant.
I doubt that these 10k all have the same supervisor, so it's totally possible to tell everyone in person.
I view it more like a corporate version of John Locke's social contract, and that it's not the way they laid off people, but the simple fact that they did.
Some good performers were laid off, so the pre-existing situation-- where one could join Google and focus on work without worrying about downsizing-- no longer exists
Some good performers were laid off, so the pre-existing situation-- where one could join Google and focus on work without worrying about downsizing-- no longer exists
I think "Die a hero or live long enough to become a villain" quote applies here, right?
the employees were fools for falling in love with their employer, not sure how else to say it
they should be grateful they were paid so well for so long to do so little...chances are they will never see comp like that for work like that again
...and hopefully no one is naive enough to think Google is "done"...after next earnings I expect an even bigger round
the same thing is happening all over tech - go down to a reduced staff of essential contributors and re-hire later for much lower comp
they should be grateful they were paid so well for so long to do so little...chances are they will never see comp like that for work like that again
...and hopefully no one is naive enough to think Google is "done"...after next earnings I expect an even bigger round
the same thing is happening all over tech - go down to a reduced staff of essential contributors and re-hire later for much lower comp
I don’t think people were fools for falling in love with their employer. Naive maybe. But Google was really nice to employees and (intentionally) made it easy to forget you were a number in the capitalist machine. They listened and responded to employees, they made work more comfortable and easy with perks, and they regularly changed to stay up to date on what helped employees.
> ...and hopefully no one is naive enough to think Google is "done"...after next earnings I expect an even bigger round
I haven’t seen it talked about anywhere. I’m an ex-googler from layoffs. My old team was massively impacted and some coworkers were put on “delayed exit” to wind down their projects by fall. I don’t know the extent of it company wide but on my old team, the lay offs and delayed exit were 1:1 roughly.
> ...and hopefully no one is naive enough to think Google is "done"...after next earnings I expect an even bigger round
I haven’t seen it talked about anywhere. I’m an ex-googler from layoffs. My old team was massively impacted and some coworkers were put on “delayed exit” to wind down their projects by fall. I don’t know the extent of it company wide but on my old team, the lay offs and delayed exit were 1:1 roughly.
> I haven’t seen it talked about anywhere. I’m an ex-googler from layoffs
Why would you hear about a confidential layoff plan??
Why would you hear about a confidential layoff plan??
People have been notified about their “delayed exit”. Like you get an email that says “your job ends in October” type of notice.
It’s not confidential, afaik, since people were told about it. I’m surprised no one offers up their status as part of it in discussions.
It’s not confidential, afaik, since people were told about it. I’m surprised no one offers up their status as part of it in discussions.
so he can just announce another delayed exit...
every layoff so far has had a month or more between announcement and implementation
every layoff so far has had a month or more between announcement and implementation
Not Google, the company in question. They announced layoffs same day.
>the same thing is happening all over tech - go down to a reduced staff of essential contributors and re-hire later for much lower comp
If supply and demand stay the same, then why do you think the price will change?
If supply and demand stay the same, then why do you think the price will change?
>If supply and demand stay the same, then why do you think the price will change?
Fear. Much of this layoff activity is intended to induce fear. Employees were getting too uppity. Talking back to management. Doing side projects. Talking with each other about wages and working conditions. Even forming unions. That had to be stopped.
"A touch of the lash will keep them in line."
Fear. Much of this layoff activity is intended to induce fear. Employees were getting too uppity. Talking back to management. Doing side projects. Talking with each other about wages and working conditions. Even forming unions. That had to be stopped.
"A touch of the lash will keep them in line."
I suspect this was not the main reason for the layoffs. But whether it was the intention or not, it definitely is a powerful psychological tool in negotiations during a time when many employees were demanding more and more.
Isn’t >100K cumulative layoffs in the industry and widespread hiring freezes exactly a reduction in demand?
Do you think the demand for SWEs will be the same in April of 2023 as it was in April of 2021?
Do you think the demand for SWEs will be the same in April of 2023 as it was in April of 2021?
If they're just hiring them back, then yes, demand is the same?
You and I appear to disagree on the April 2023 vs 2021 demand. I think April 2023 will have a lot less demand for SWEs than 2021.
That's great, but has nothing to do with the original comment I was responding to
If there is less demand in the future from the overall industry cutbacks, that is definitely relevant to whether the supply and demand are the same.
That's great, but still has nothing to do with the original comment I was responding to. I suggest reading it first before continuing to argue points that are irrelevant.
> employee in labor with her second child were all cut
Isn't this illegal to do in the States? If it isn't, why not? That's just cruel.
Isn't this illegal to do in the States? If it isn't, why not? That's just cruel.
A product of decades long quantitive easing with cheap money and near zero interest rate economic policy with a techno pseudo-utopian world view belief that Google is a forever day care and a "beloved employer".
As soon as competition is around the corner with a scarce and expensive dollar, it is crunch time and layoffs need to happen to remove the deadwood. (Seniors, managers, HR, etc affected.)
Don't worry though, I heard that the circus was hiring...
As soon as competition is around the corner with a scarce and expensive dollar, it is crunch time and layoffs need to happen to remove the deadwood. (Seniors, managers, HR, etc affected.)
Don't worry though, I heard that the circus was hiring...
> techno pseudo-utopian world view belief that Google is a forever day care and a "beloved employer".
The catch is that Google could have made that utopia possible, had all the funds and resources needed to do it, and actually did have that philosophy at the start and publicly so - until the bean counters took over and started minmaxing everything for the sake of absentee shareholders. The 'MBAification' eventually destroyed its mission. Various detailed comments from some long-time Googlers in different threads under TFA tell how that MBAification happened in minute detail.
Its just another case of capitalism destroying things while maximizing profits through 'MBAification'.
The catch is that Google could have made that utopia possible, had all the funds and resources needed to do it, and actually did have that philosophy at the start and publicly so - until the bean counters took over and started minmaxing everything for the sake of absentee shareholders. The 'MBAification' eventually destroyed its mission. Various detailed comments from some long-time Googlers in different threads under TFA tell how that MBAification happened in minute detail.
Its just another case of capitalism destroying things while maximizing profits through 'MBAification'.
This whole saga has been funny to someone in Sweden... Here it is 1-3 month lay off time, eg you need to find out in advance and your employer needs to find out in advance if you leave. For full time hires. There is 6month probation.
Expecting a company to do good when it does not have to is madness.
Expecting a company to do good when it does not have to is madness.
Apples and Oranges. There are no jobs in Sweden that pay $300k.
And yet the entire thread is people wanting to guilt trip Google.
Feels like a nice dream interrupted for most of the googlers. Probably they felt tenured and even 6 months of severance cannot assuage the hurt feeling. Looking around and doing some reality check might help. Every company is trying to improve the bottom line when the topline is not moving up. The layoff didn't just happen this year, it has been in the corporate world all the time.
If there are true friends in the company then they will find a way to reach out. Others are just lunch/coffee buddies and they might be already enjoying their pastime with someone else. Find a way to put this in the rear-view mirror as soon as possible.
If there are true friends in the company then they will find a way to reach out. Others are just lunch/coffee buddies and they might be already enjoying their pastime with someone else. Find a way to put this in the rear-view mirror as soon as possible.
Google is a megacorp. Of course it behaves as a megacorp. And tbh what would you expect - if they fire thousands, there is no way they'd do it with individual attention to every person.
That said, I don't think Google has been "beloved" for years now. It has been just another megacorp that pays reasonably well.
That said, I don't think Google has been "beloved" for years now. It has been just another megacorp that pays reasonably well.
"it laid off thousands by email" I know that the laying off thousands is the worst part but I also saw some people taking exception to the "by email" part (as inhumane or something; what's the alternative? also of course people were not able to log in right away all at the same time, it would be tremendously irresponsible to do otherwise.
The alternative is to shut off access to anything that could cause harm: production systems, version control, maybe Drive. But leave them access to tools like email, Meet and chat for a reasonable period. Let people actually say goodbye, hand their work off properly if they choose to. Make sure nothing personal is tied to their corporate account, and migrate anything that is in an orderly manner. Give them a bit of notice before bricking their corp phones and laptops.
They definitely have the capability to do access control at that granularity, as well as ample time as they had clearly been preparing for months. They just chose not to
They definitely have the capability to do access control at that granularity, as well as ample time as they had clearly been preparing for months. They just chose not to
there is no such thing as beloved employer. unless you work in your dad's shop
12000 employees. A significant percentage of them probably working remotely. How else are you supposed to lay them off if not by email?
when any company moves away from the motto "don't be evil" it's a pretty sure sign it's gonna end badly.
[deleted]
There was more or less a decade in between though.
Apple is Next.
Apple was never viewed as an ideal place to work. They don't have the "amenities" that other FAANG companies have (had?), generally pay less, and their employees are forced into secrecy even amongst their coworkers. People work at Apple because they want to work at Apple, not because Apple provides a cushy work environment.
I thought Google was also known for paying less.
Apple purchased NeXT in 1997 for $400 million, but I wouldn't go so far to say that Apple is NeXT.
Everything else is useless.
If your co-workers liked you and wanted to say goodbye, they will call and throw a party. If I'm fired, there is no reason for me to log on to my workstation. All relevant documents are given to you anyway. Your personal items will be shipped to you.