Ask HN: Is Google still a cool place to work?
I'm most interested in opinions from xooglers. From what I see it's still a great company and great place to work. Some xooglers seem to think it's lost its luster. I'm trying to collect all opinions.
42 comments
I'm a Xoogler. I joined in late 2016 and quit January 2021. In my opinion, the company didn't change much in absolute terms while I was there. It became more secretive, but overall the experience was similar in 2017 and 2020. It was generally good given the alternatives - no major complaints that don't apply to other software companies. Good work-life balance and good compensation. Many great people under-leveled (but generally no underpaid).
Was it cool? That depends on what you value and who you're trying to impress. I didn't think the work I did was very fulfilling. At Google many problems are already solved, and the ones that remain often seem like small incremental improvements. There's a ton of uninteresting work, just like anywhere else. The difference is that when something is interesting, there are a lot of very qualified Googlers who will flock to it because they're not really needed on what they're doing. So you rarely get opportunities to own something much bigger than you're qualified for. At a smaller company those things can drop in your lap.
A lot of coolness is about perception, and I can definitely say that recruiters think it's cool. When I was at Google I would get a couple of LinkedIn messages each day. The effect still seems to linger.
Was it cool? That depends on what you value and who you're trying to impress. I didn't think the work I did was very fulfilling. At Google many problems are already solved, and the ones that remain often seem like small incremental improvements. There's a ton of uninteresting work, just like anywhere else. The difference is that when something is interesting, there are a lot of very qualified Googlers who will flock to it because they're not really needed on what they're doing. So you rarely get opportunities to own something much bigger than you're qualified for. At a smaller company those things can drop in your lap.
A lot of coolness is about perception, and I can definitely say that recruiters think it's cool. When I was at Google I would get a couple of LinkedIn messages each day. The effect still seems to linger.
How big is the "very qualified Googlers take all the interesting positions" issue?
It's something that has always put me off those huge companies, you apply for a chance to work with them, not to work on something specific. And it seems very likely that, as a newcomer, you won't be assigned to the cool projects, but to the things no one else want to do.
You can definitely match to an interesting team if it has openings and your recruiter finds the opportunity for you. For example, when I joined I was working on Instant Apps, a new and technically interesting project I'd heard of that hadn't launched yet. The clearer you are about what interests you the better the recruiter can be.
The difficulty I saw was more that your actual slice of responsibility on such a project is likely to be somewhat small. Of course, your mileage may vary.
The difficulty I saw was more that your actual slice of responsibility on such a project is likely to be somewhat small. Of course, your mileage may vary.
This is such an accurate and concise summary - esp. around the "exciting work" at big tech.
Present Googler. Been here 7 years. As with all these things, this depends largely on what you are looking for. This comment applies to engineering exclusivelyq. A good number of teams and products at Google are very mature with large teams working on them. This leads to slow growth and obviously less challenging work on one hand. On the other hand, if you would like an easy job with time to focus on personal priorities, it makes this possible. A good number of these teams also consist of engineers who have hit a certain level of growth equilibrium which prevents other junior and newer engineers from growing beyond a certain level. In fact, such engineers are labelled the "rest and vest" engineers.
However, with a company this large, this is not generalizable to absolutely all teams. There are smaller teams building new products and working on interesting and challenging things. In case you are interested in Google, my advice would be to look for the right team and ask a lot of direct questions to understand the team dynamics and the actual day to day work. It might also be worth considering non-Google Alphabet companies as they tend to have newer things to work on.
However, with a company this large, this is not generalizable to absolutely all teams. There are smaller teams building new products and working on interesting and challenging things. In case you are interested in Google, my advice would be to look for the right team and ask a lot of direct questions to understand the team dynamics and the actual day to day work. It might also be worth considering non-Google Alphabet companies as they tend to have newer things to work on.
"A good number of these teams also consist of engineers who have hit a certain level of growth equilibrium which prevents other junior and newer engineers from growing beyond a certain level."
Unsure what you mean here. Do you mean because teams can only have so many heads at certain levels, the people who are holding those seats block others from getting promoted?
Unsure what you mean here. Do you mean because teams can only have so many heads at certain levels, the people who are holding those seats block others from getting promoted?
That's right. Also, as with most hierarchical engineering teams, the senior engineers are expected to push the boundaries of a project and define new stuff for the junior engineers to work on. However, the senior engineers might not care about growth anymore and end up maintaining the status quo. This could hamper the growth of the junior engineers on the team.
I don't think these problems are exclusive to Google or Google-sized companies.
Once devs have worked on a particular system for long enough, they become a nuisance because they know all the (good) reasons not to do something. Not necessarily because they are lazy / don't want to grow.
Once devs have worked on a particular system for long enough, they become a nuisance because they know all the (good) reasons not to do something. Not necessarily because they are lazy / don't want to grow.
It's unfair to say this is due to senior engineers refusing to push boundaries. A team (eng + product + management) collectively defines its vision and strategies.
I'm on my 3rd team, and 2nd PA in 9 years at Google and I've never seen a dearth of upward mobility opportunity for any junior engineer who wants it. There are almost always new an innovative projects beginning and available to work on.
I'm on my 3rd team, and 2nd PA in 9 years at Google and I've never seen a dearth of upward mobility opportunity for any junior engineer who wants it. There are almost always new an innovative projects beginning and available to work on.
Current googler here - only for a few years, so I don't have years of comparison. My perception in general is that, as someone else has mentioned, the openness has been dialed back a lot. It used to be standard that basically anyone could read or look at almost anything aside from obviously sensitive information like revenue and earnings. Today, it can be annoying - things are default blocked off to particular product areas, which makes it harder when you work across those areas (e.g. I work on Workspace, which works a lot with Android, and I have to go ask to have documents opened up to me all the time because they're locked down to just Android - and the same thing happens the other direction).
I've also heard that in the past things were a lot more bottom up - teams advocating what they thought they should build up to leadership and getting approval, and while that still happens, there's more top-down than before.
I have very little experience with large companies, so I can't compare Google to FB or Microsoft or any of the other big tech companies. But I will say that what's cool about Google is (depending on your team) you can work on highly impactful and highly visible products, you see a lot of interesting technology, the people are generally extremely smart and capable, and the benefits and quality of life are great. Because it's a big company, things are very slow - planning cycles are long. Stuff that was a six week cycle at a startup are a six month cycle at Google, but I will say that when I was at a startup, I'd often get pulled into a meeting where someone says, "Oh, hey, for X we were building, we realized that it won't work for Y reason, so we have to either push out our timeline for a lot of time, or cut Z critical feature out of the launch". At Google, that's a lot rarer, because the planning up front tends to be comprehensive and carefully designed (it is not unheard of, but it is a lot less likely).
I'm not sure that it's an ideal place for junior folks to learn how to build software, just because Google is so unique and specific in how they do things - I suspect that a lot of people who start their careers at Google and then shift to your typical smaller software company get whiplash (I have no data to back this up, it's just a gut feeling). But for people who already have a grounding in other companies or are further along in their career, I think it's a really interesting place to work at a different scope than is typically available at a smaller company.
I've also heard that in the past things were a lot more bottom up - teams advocating what they thought they should build up to leadership and getting approval, and while that still happens, there's more top-down than before.
I have very little experience with large companies, so I can't compare Google to FB or Microsoft or any of the other big tech companies. But I will say that what's cool about Google is (depending on your team) you can work on highly impactful and highly visible products, you see a lot of interesting technology, the people are generally extremely smart and capable, and the benefits and quality of life are great. Because it's a big company, things are very slow - planning cycles are long. Stuff that was a six week cycle at a startup are a six month cycle at Google, but I will say that when I was at a startup, I'd often get pulled into a meeting where someone says, "Oh, hey, for X we were building, we realized that it won't work for Y reason, so we have to either push out our timeline for a lot of time, or cut Z critical feature out of the launch". At Google, that's a lot rarer, because the planning up front tends to be comprehensive and carefully designed (it is not unheard of, but it is a lot less likely).
I'm not sure that it's an ideal place for junior folks to learn how to build software, just because Google is so unique and specific in how they do things - I suspect that a lot of people who start their careers at Google and then shift to your typical smaller software company get whiplash (I have no data to back this up, it's just a gut feeling). But for people who already have a grounding in other companies or are further along in their career, I think it's a really interesting place to work at a different scope than is typically available at a smaller company.
My parents had a saying when I was little: “every rule can be traced back to at least one asshole”... I believe google had some incidents (people) that resulted it needing to dial back the openness...
That asshole could be someone that made troubles, or could be the one that created the rule
- Google is a monoculture. It is just boring.
- Promotions are hard and work is boring.
- A lot of time is spent on red tape.
- Perks are excellent. While I despise the work that is the only thing keeping me here.
- Perks are excellent. While I despise the work that is the only thing keeping me here.
It was a lot easier to leave in the last year since we don't get many of those perks anymore. Except vacation, which is below average at Google for those who haven't been at the company forever.
Xoogler, current facebooker.
Reach out: [email protected]
Edit: Not sure why I got negative votes. Having this discussion on HN is not effective. I am fairly unbiased, but i need to know what kind of person he is, what kind of work he is willing to do, and might also offer career advice.
Edit: Not sure why I got negative votes. Having this discussion on HN is not effective. I am fairly unbiased, but i need to know what kind of person he is, what kind of work he is willing to do, and might also offer career advice.
Upvote from me. Up to you but I recommend put the email in your profile.
You can remove it later if needed which is not possible with the comment after so many hours.
that's a fair point that i normally do, but forgot to do this time.
Thanks.
Not sure about this anymore. You dont seem to get interviews at google anymore if you apply directly via the website. Much like the support policy for their "products," you need to know someone within, be aligned politically from your past with the person and only then get a call. In short, Google has become good at hiring cliques.
finally someone said it out loud. It is so hard to even get a call if you do not go through a referral.
Hard to say it is a google problem as the pool they can access is one of the biggest in the world.
Isn't this really true about most companies of a certain size? Applying via online application system always seems to be a first class ticket to ghosting or automated rejection letter.
I don't think I've ever gotten a single positive response from applying to any company via their online application system. Every interview I've ever gotten from any company was via a recruiter reaching out first, or through an internal referral.
Having said that, there was a Google recruiter I had spoken to in the past, but I had declined to interview back then due to being in the process of getting married. Reached out to him last week but seem to have been ghosted.
I don't think I've ever gotten a single positive response from applying to any company via their online application system. Every interview I've ever gotten from any company was via a recruiter reaching out first, or through an internal referral.
Having said that, there was a Google recruiter I had spoken to in the past, but I had declined to interview back then due to being in the process of getting married. Reached out to him last week but seem to have been ghosted.
spouse faced the same with facebook- reached out earlier but had another offer then. Reached out later but ghosted.
I used to work at both Google and Facebook and I still know a lot of people at both those places. My take on working at these large companies is, your experience will be massively different depending on what project you work on and what team you work with. Both companies have both brilliant engineers and mediocre engineers. The % of brilliant is higher than most workplaces, but there’s no guarantee. You have to actively seek out the work and the teammates that you click with.
I've been at Google for 4 years now.
The opportunity for growth, colleagues, support, tooling, pay and perks are far beyond what I've had in other jobs.
There's a bit of a monoculture here though.
The opportunity for growth, colleagues, support, tooling, pay and perks are far beyond what I've had in other jobs.
There's a bit of a monoculture here though.
For a place that prides on hiring people from all backgrounds for coding roles, it sure does a helluva job asking leetcode all the time.
The bulk of folks with myriad backgrounds would be in higher positions & most likely brought in by acquisitions or recommendations, but not from the typical interview cycle.
The bulk of folks with myriad backgrounds would be in higher positions & most likely brought in by acquisitions or recommendations, but not from the typical interview cycle.
interesting counterpoint, but from what I see on forums, candidates who want to get into Google are very deep into leetcode prep, so I am expecting there is a good chance for them to get in.
At a 100,000+ company it would be impossible to generalize
People can generalise about many millions in a country.
I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true (or not).
I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true (or not).
Or never really true like with the case of of the average Air-force pilot.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
OT: This was a great, thanks! For those interested in the HN comments, it was last posted 11 month ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22956832
On topic: I think the comments already give a broad overview of what to expect, and not the idealized but non-existent average. Though a lot posted here seems to be quite generic; I know some issues first hand though I never worked at a company that could compare to Google on matters of size (similarities might be related to the composition of employees and the maturity of the product and processes).
On topic: I think the comments already give a broad overview of what to expect, and not the idealized but non-existent average. Though a lot posted here seems to be quite generic; I know some issues first hand though I never worked at a company that could compare to Google on matters of size (similarities might be related to the composition of employees and the maturity of the product and processes).
Great article - thanks for sharing.
I think this talks to "I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true"
Here sizing was specific. E.g. Even simplified to a single measure, the Dutch are generally tall. Few are likely to be exactly the average height, and that number of exactly average people is going to reduce the more specific the measurement e.g 183cm vs 182.523431412cm
So if you want to fault a generalisation, be more specific.... see second line.
I think this talks to "I think with generalisations, some people forget its only generally true"
Here sizing was specific. E.g. Even simplified to a single measure, the Dutch are generally tall. Few are likely to be exactly the average height, and that number of exactly average people is going to reduce the more specific the measurement e.g 183cm vs 182.523431412cm
So if you want to fault a generalisation, be more specific.... see second line.
Theres almost always some truth to them.
Not really - just more datapoints to confirm such generalizations.
Did you watch Silicon Valley? What do you think about sitting on the roof with a Slurpee (or a Big Gulp)? Would you rather be building stuff?
Would I try get a job in Google if it was the same salary as my current job and the interview was 'normal'? Yes.
Would I try get a job there if the salary was the same, or even more, than my current job but the interview process is how it is? Nope.
Would I try get a job there if the salary was the same, or even more, than my current job but the interview process is how it is? Nope.
Serious question to current Googlers: what is the diversity and inclusion sitatuon like in your department?
It is understood that Google is a large enterprise, and by no means a business unit represents the entire company culture. But it would be enlightening to hear what individuals views.
It is understood that Google is a large enterprise, and by no means a business unit represents the entire company culture. But it would be enlightening to hear what individuals views.
> what is the diversity and inclusion sitatuon like in your department?
Complex.
The company is so large and hiring managers are so dependent on recruiters that actually having a diverse pipeline is difficult. There are processes that can help ensure that you hire from a diverse pool if it exists, but they can only do so much.
People from less represented groups consistently self-report lower scores on things like feeling included at the company or feeling like their voices are being heard. The scores aren't awful, but there is clearly a statistically noticeable effect. There are examples of people being treated badly that are heartbreaking.
Still, I see managers consistently taking bias and inclusion extremely seriously, especially regarding performance management. And not just for the obvious big categories (race, gender) but also for all sorts of other ways that a person might not fit the common mold. I've seen high level leaders take dramatic action to rescue people from bad situations.
I'm also somebody with a very typical background for a Googler, so I don't think I have a clear view of how everybody feels. My conclusion is that things definitely are not squeaky clean but I suspect that Google is a better place than many for people who don't fit the typical silicon valley mold.
Complex.
The company is so large and hiring managers are so dependent on recruiters that actually having a diverse pipeline is difficult. There are processes that can help ensure that you hire from a diverse pool if it exists, but they can only do so much.
People from less represented groups consistently self-report lower scores on things like feeling included at the company or feeling like their voices are being heard. The scores aren't awful, but there is clearly a statistically noticeable effect. There are examples of people being treated badly that are heartbreaking.
Still, I see managers consistently taking bias and inclusion extremely seriously, especially regarding performance management. And not just for the obvious big categories (race, gender) but also for all sorts of other ways that a person might not fit the common mold. I've seen high level leaders take dramatic action to rescue people from bad situations.
I'm also somebody with a very typical background for a Googler, so I don't think I have a clear view of how everybody feels. My conclusion is that things definitely are not squeaky clean but I suspect that Google is a better place than many for people who don't fit the typical silicon valley mold.
Googler here.
It really depends on what you want to do, and where you want to do it.
It really depends on what you want to do, and where you want to do it.
define "work"
Not a xoogler, but know lots.
You may be happy there if you like breaking things for no apparent reason that used to work.
I was talking with some people from Facebook about whether Facebook was too evil to work at. They said Facebook only wishes it could ever someday be as evil as Google. Nowadays even Microsoft wishes that. Not sure where Apple fits: they have a lock on contempt for users, but do they hate everyone else equally?
You may be happy there if you like breaking things for no apparent reason that used to work.
I was talking with some people from Facebook about whether Facebook was too evil to work at. They said Facebook only wishes it could ever someday be as evil as Google. Nowadays even Microsoft wishes that. Not sure where Apple fits: they have a lock on contempt for users, but do they hate everyone else equally?