What the Alliance looks like from the Empire

June 27, 2007 5:45 AM

Life at Google - The Microsoftie PerspectiveMicrosoft Employee writes: "The following has been making the rounds on just about every internal email list I belong to in Microsoft. Here it is to share a little insight with the rest of the world. Microsoft is an amazingly transparent company. Google is not. Any peek is a good peek." Let the metavalanche begin.
posted by psmealey (66 comments total)

My manager had over 100 direct reports and is the common case for managers at Google.

That does sound a little messed up. My manager has something like a dozen direct reports, and that includes developers and BAs. Am I just spoiled?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:59 AM on June 27, 2007

They have a point. Google is pretty damn secretive, while Microsoft, over the past few years has actually been pretty transparent. On the other hand, it would be kind of exciting to work at Google and see all their secret stuff.

I think part of that desire for secrecy is borne out of constant pressure put on them by spammers and, I guess you would say "black hat SEOs" to try to game their system, or do click fraud, or whatever.

But still, it's pretty annoying.
posted by delmoi at 6:00 AM on June 27, 2007

So, uh, is this real in any way? Just curious. It certainly could have just been created out of whole cloth.

On the other hand, and I don't work in any computer related field, so I don't care all that much, the indictment isn't really all that strong. Aside from a lack of career development options and, maybe, a lack of private office space, Google still comes out pretty good.
posted by OmieWise at 6:01 AM on June 27, 2007

My manager had over 100 direct reports and is the common case for managers at Google.

That have to mean extended reports, rather than directs, or else they are completely insane. I struggle with overseeing 8 direct reports and getting my own work done. Often times, I can't get my own stuff done until everyone goes home. Incidentally, other than for assembly line or sales jobs where people have very specific functions to perform and goals to meet, most books on the subject put the maximum amount of direct reports that can be effectively overseen at 6 or 7.
posted by psmealey at 6:05 AM on June 27, 2007

Any peek is a good peek, but that doesn't mean I'll take a transparent turd over an opaque flower. In the end, companies have to be judged by their actions and effects, not their philosophy.
posted by DU at 6:13 AM on June 27, 2007

Most of the observations in that blog post jibe with mine when I visited the Googleplex. The laundry is nice, the vegan cafe is nice, the community garden is nice, but the warren-like atmosphere is a big turnoff for me. And the working environment makes me cringe -- I have an office with a door I can close, and I'm much more productive because of it.
posted by xthlc at 6:34 AM on June 27, 2007

Some of the comments are pretty wild. Some border on threatening the blogger. Some folks are taking this waaayyyyy too seriously.

It was an interesting insight, for me, into the bleeding generational edge of technology-culture. One of my bosses was talking about an article she'd read recently about how to "court" and "win" "Gen-Nexters" (or whatever the hell they call kids out of college these days). You're supposed to make a project out of everything, and expend a lot of effort continually engaging them and nurturing them and keeping things interesting for them.

Her attitude was basically, "Screw that, I'll hire someone older and more experienced and we'll get more work done because I don't have to babysit them all the time."

My wife teaches at the college level, and occasionally does academic advising for for extra cash. She's continually amazed at the degree to which college-age kids expect to be handed everything on a platter. That's not exactly new -- I used to see it when I worked at Cornell in the '80s and went to a "cheap-Ivy" school in the early '90s, and it seems to me to correlate more strongly with privilege and class than generationalism. (E.g., the Ag students at Cornell, mostly farm kids and science geeks, were quite capable of handling things on their own. Likewise the foreign students at my alma mater, who often had less privileged backgrounds than their American fellow-students.)

But generations are sometimes privileged. Case in point, my stepson, who's accustomed to instant gratification in most things, from IM to txting to driving three blocks to the 7-11 for crap food to bumming rides to work instead of saving for a car to washing out of high school because high school classes don't provide instant results. Why, when I was a boy, we didn't even have cell phones, and I didn't get a car until I was 20, and... GET TEH HELL OFF MY LAWN! (GTHOML?)

Anyway, it was the "total system" cultural approach of Google that I found most interesting, in comparison with MS. It's a step toward the total-culture of Gibson's Sprawl stories, where people end up getting so deeply integrated into their corporate culture that moving from one company to another is analogous to defection. (Another thing the youngsters won't really understand, since the Soviet Union has been gone and China has had more or less open borders since they were wee bairns.)
posted by lodurr at 6:53 AM on June 27, 2007 [6 favorites]

Three observations:

1. This doesn't appear to say anything especially negative about Google. It basically says "there are some good ideas there, and some things that I did not like" - which would describe pretty much any work environment. A scathing indictment this is not.

2. I would not necessarily fully trust a person who left the company to be objective, not having met him/her in person or understanding why he/she left in the first place. It is a peek inside Google, but in some ways it could be a biased peek. (Given the relatively mild complaints, this doesn't appear to be the case - but there is such a thing as sucking up to the new boss, eh?)

3. I would definitely not trust a Microsoft source to be very objective about Google's corporate environment, any more than I would trust a Google source to be very objective about Microsoft.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:53 AM on June 27, 2007

(By "comments", I meant the comments in-thread. And I should have said "total institution", not "total system." Carry on...)
posted by lodurr at 6:57 AM on June 27, 2007

Interesting stuff, thanks!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:06 AM on June 27, 2007

There is no career development plan from individual contributor to manager. Basically if you get good reviews, you get more money and a fancier title (“Senior Software Engineer II”) but that’s about it.

...and that sums up the cultural divide quite nicely, I think. I've never been able to wrap my head around the mindset of people who think that good developers actually want to go into management. It's like expecting doctors, after three or four years of practicing medicine, to leap at the chance to become accountants. Ah, yes, that's why I went to med school. Wait, what?

There is a subspecies of developer who is interested in management. I find that it tends to be composed of folks who weren't really that interested in programming to begin with. In which case, why would we have hired them as a programmer anyway? I'd much rather hire a manager who has been trained as a manager.

I have a few reports now, and I see my job as checking in once in a while to make sure that they're happy, and then getting the fuck away. Every hour I spend with a report or my manager talking about "career development frameworks" or whatnot I see as two hours of time better spent doing the jobs we're actually trained for, and (at least in my case) enjoy.

Anyway. The Google folks I know seem like they're much happier hacking than they are checking agendas and organizing meetings. Maybe I'm just an ossified nerd, but I know who I'd rather hang out with.
posted by phooky at 7:13 AM on June 27, 2007 [8 favorites]

Google seems so much like work!
posted by KokuRyu at 7:32 AM on June 27, 2007

I've never been able to wrap my head around the mindset of people who think that good developers actually want to go into management.

Amen to that! Companies should have technical leadership positions equal in prestige and authority to personnel management positions as well as clear career progression paths for developers. This has been a big issue in my world.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:37 AM on June 27, 2007

... that good developers actually want to go into management.

I'm hoping to retire in twenty or so years without ever having gotten a promotion. I like being a software developer and I would hate every second of being a manager. Most of the developers that I've known who got promoted quit to go somewhere else where they could be developers again.
posted by octothorpe at 7:52 AM on June 27, 2007

I'm using the information I found in the blog (both Google and Microsoft perks) to make recommendations to my company. I expect they will laugh in my face.
posted by malaprohibita at 7:56 AM on June 27, 2007

phooky: I'd much rather hire a manager who has been trained as a manager.

If by that you mean, you'd rather hire someone who's had management training, I'm with you. Actual management training is invaluable to someone who has to manage. It can come in many forms, of course (mentorship, for example), but it's a Good Thing.

If by that you mean, you'd rather hire someone who set out to be a manager -- e.g., someone with a high-rent B-school degree, and little to no experience actually working on development projects -- I'm most decidedly not. Such scenarios are almost always highly non-optimal, in my experience. People with that kind of experience are often wont to spout such pernicious trite-isms as "Failure is not an option" (when any idiot knows it always is, and usually the default one).

As far as what kind of developers (or engineers, or doctors) usually go into management, in my experience it usually falls into two categories:

1. They like the challenges of managing people or projects -- by the way, that doesn't mean they're not a good coder/doctor/lawyer/engineer
2. They feel they need the money, whether it's to support their family or stroke their egos or build an ark

My own father, a career shielding designer, went into management because he wanted the latitude to make sure his kids went to good colleges and still provide for his retirement. He hated managing people. He was very good at it, though. I have come to find that fact quite unsurprising, fifteen or sixteen managers into my work life. Folks who are "into" managing are often into it for unhealthy reasons; folks who have to be talked into it (even when they end up really liking it) are much more often open to the idea that they aren't the local proxy for Jehovah.
posted by lodurr at 8:04 AM on June 27, 2007 [4 favorites]

Not only with devs either. Systems techs often feel the same way...if I like fixing things, what makes management think I want to manage people who fix things? Just because I'm the senior guy doesn't mean I want to trade technical work for paperwork.
posted by JaredSeth at 8:05 AM on June 27, 2007

I'm amused by all of the comments under the article consisting of "you should be fired"

Kind of makes you wonder about the cult aspect of Google. It appears that the Googlites are very upset about one of their own revealing the secret handshake.

Other than that I didn't see anything remarkable other than the three meals, which is old news. Having worked for a big company before, I'd say the lack of management layers and 'career development' track into management is a really good thing.
posted by eye of newt at 8:22 AM on June 27, 2007

Google appears to operate like every other 1990's dot-com start-up I've been into. They all spent lavishly and recklessly on perks and environment - almost as though they were spending other people's money. The difference is that Google, for the moment, makes a profit.
posted by three blind mice at 8:23 AM on June 27, 2007

eye of newt writes "Having worked for a big company before, I'd say the lack of management layers and 'career development' track into management is a really good thing."

I dunno, a middle path would actually be best: a management track, but one that isn't forced. (I say this as someone who has been offered a managerial position 3 times, and turned it down 3 times: it's nice having the option. It's also nice not having to take it)

three blind mice writes "They all spent lavishly and recklessly on perks and environment - almost as though they were spending other people's money. The difference is that Google, for the moment, makes a profit."

Yes, but that's a tremendous difference. It's why we take pity on / scorn someone who is in credit card debt because they spend a lot, and not on someone who does fine because they spend a lot but make far more.
posted by Bugbread at 8:38 AM on June 27, 2007

Hmmm. I work as a developer, my hours are roughly 10 to 6 (or sometimes longer), and I now have veal pen (cubicle, used to have an office , then we moved). And there the similarity ends...

I actually like most aspects of my job, but based on that article, I think I could be happy at either Google or MS. but I'm that older developer, I can manage myself, and I'd know how to take in all the perks and how to carve out that 20% for something interesting.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:48 AM on June 27, 2007

Well Google's profit margins are around 29%, so they can spend it all on hookers and coke and still come out on top. Here's what I've noticed (speaking as a recent college grad) about the Google environment:

(1) They put a very, very high emphasis on degree. If you think top law firms are little Ivy cults, than Google is sort of like the Mafia. They recruit very heavy from top schools and demand things (e.g., GPA) that other, more established companies do not.

(2) Google is in the middle of nowhere. The people I know who were recruited were not developer, geeky types. These were business types whose other choices were consulting, finance or marketing related. They were smart and ambitious and were put off by the Google atmosphere. The whole idea of Google paying for everything may be great for those who like it, but for this so-called top talent they were social climbers too. They want a big city and the ability to go out and socialize, not spend every waking hour at work (not that they don't work crazy hours, but put an emphasis on having a social life too).

(3) The lack of career development is huge. Google right now looks great on a resume, but I heard some people complain about how they were worried about a lateral move to another company (Bain, McKinsey) would be hard as those are relatively established companies with established milestones as to where one should be at what point in their career. I understand developers not wanting to be managers, but some people do want to advance.

I also, personally, fear that Google is relying too much on top school business types. Not that my friends are not smart, ambitious, etc., but in my experience such schools tend to breed automatons to a certain extent. Kids who know standard management practice, power points and how to apply it. This is great from an organizational standpoint, but I think after a point you begin to lose "hybrid vigor" of people coming from different backgrounds. Not to mention a lot of my friends think they are invincible business school assholes and can do no wrong. Get a couple hundred of them in a group and suddenly you have something that is completely obvious to most people, but not to them. That is somewhat of a separate issue though.

So that's what my take on it is. I don't know that many people going into the technology field, only that Google is trying to recruit away from what I take to understand as "non-traditional" students, that is those who would go to more white shoe firms traditionally. A lot of problems relating to its start-up culture, I am sure, will begin erode as the business types begin to get more sway from developers.

I personally wouldn't want to work for them, not they asked, and would probably look at other West Coast tech companies whose culture I've heard good things from -- Pixar comes to mind. It is nice to hear all the different anecdotes I've heard lately confirmed.
posted by geoff. at 8:54 AM on June 27, 2007 [3 favorites]

I've never worked at either place but interviewed (4x) at Google recently. One of the interviewers was ex-MSFT. I was dinged because of my age. Two of the four interviewers made direct comments about it. I was clearly qualified (if perhaps a bit over-qualified) for the role I was interviewing for. I can't believe that if this is the norm that it bodes well for Google, maybe its just 'sour-grapes.'

It sure seemed like the people who worked there enjoyed it, but several made comments about it being chaotic and disorganized, and felt they were lacking direction. I guess that comes with the territory. None of the managers seemed very astute to me, although the tech guys were good. A lot of passion too, which was attractive to me.

I don't have a great deal of belief in the 'wholesomeness' of Google - it seems to be a lot of self-generated hype coupled with astute playing on anti-Microsoft bias. Its a corporation like any other, and as quarter-to-quarter profitability pressure its stock, a lot of the perks will disappear. Its still riding its post-IPO cash infusion.
posted by sfts2 at 9:03 AM on June 27, 2007

There is a subspecies of developer who is interested in management. I find that it tends to be composed of folks who weren't really that interested in programming to begin with. In which case, why would we have hired them as a programmer anyway?

Because they were good at it and got the job done?

Back in the dotcom boom I worked with a lot of people who hated code, but were doing it because they were making a ton. Some of them had clear management talent; one of them got an MBA after the crash and is managing people. Others drifted into other positions.

And a lot of them (like me) didn't have CS degrees, but just fell into the web because they built sites in college, or because they wanted to create content. And also, because in 1999-2000 in Seattle having any dotcom experience guaranteed recruiters were going to call you 24/7.

But back to the point at hand: Good companies spot management material and cultivate them. They spot visionaries and cultivate them. And the best managers I've had started out as coders and were transitioned into being people/project managers through training and experience. The next best managers have been true people managers. The worst managers I've had didn't really understand the process and just didn't want to.

I think that's going to come back and bite Google later. If MSFT decides not to buy YHOO and their coders, they'll start flashing the cash to important Google coders. And VC-laden companies will do the same. They're just circling, waiting for a sign of weakness, smelling for blood. And when they sense it... Google will suddenly have a management training program.

MSFT went through the same thing. Their solution was to beef up management training considerably. Of course, they also learned that the most effective way to stay competitive was to expose their bad middle managers to poaching, allowing them to dump dead weight onto unsuspecting startups. (Such as the one I worked for....)
posted by dw at 9:27 AM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

I personally wouldn't want to work for them, not they asked, and would probably look at other West Coast tech companies whose culture I've heard good things from -- Pixar comes to mind. It is nice to hear all the different anecdotes I've heard lately confirmed.

A friend of mine has worked for Pixar for a number of years. He has work hassles, but it's clear he loves his job and has no interest in leaving, and that they really treat their employees well.
posted by dw at 9:33 AM on June 27, 2007

dw, what do you mean by poaching? How does MS protect good middle managers while letting bad managers get poached?
posted by geoff. at 9:34 AM on June 27, 2007

(2) Google is in the middle of nowhere.

Since when is Mountain View the middle of nowhere? For a tech company, the middle of Silicon Valley is hardly "nowhere".

Also, having worked at Microsoft for few years (and still have lots of friends there), any complaining on their part about the chaotic nature of other companies is a bit disingenuous. Re-orgs at MS were a quarterly occurance while I was there.
posted by doctor_negative at 9:34 AM on June 27, 2007

"Basically if you get good reviews, you get more money and a fancier title ..."

Uh, forget the title, just give me more money. I have no desire to "move up" in the company. I work in this job because I like it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:13 AM on June 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

Since when is Mountain View the middle of nowhere? For a tech company, the middle of Silicon Valley is hardly "nowhere".

But if you're one of the aforementioned b-school "social climbers", Silicon Valley could still pretty much be the middle of nowhere. It may be a tech mecca, but that doesn't mean there's much in the way of cultural/night life.
posted by lodurr at 10:52 AM on June 27, 2007

lodurr writes "But if you're one of the aforementioned b-school 'social climbers', Silicon Valley could still pretty much be the middle of nowhere. It may be a tech mecca, but that doesn't mean there's much in the way of cultural/night life."

I doubt this was an accident.
posted by mullingitover at 11:03 AM on June 27, 2007

phooky - fuck, does that mean I have to put up weith the grind of being a developer FOREVER? Because, TBH, one gets tired of being a performing monkey after a year or ten of it.
posted by Artw at 11:22 AM on June 27, 2007

Accident? Depends on what you mean, but I think it was more or less entirely an accident. If by "accident", you mean a naturally-evolving social economy.
posted by lodurr at 11:27 AM on June 27, 2007

dw, what do you mean by poaching? How does MS protect good middle managers while letting bad managers get poached?

Well, this was back in the late 1990s, but I noticed that a lot of guys running dotcoms had been middle managers at MSFT. All of them had tons of options. Most of them were incompetent.

What I discovered was that in a lot of these cases, their pay rates wouldn't go up, but their options would. So, all a startup had to do was offer these guys more money, and they'd bolt. The good managers, OTOH, got pay increases AND options and remained with MSFT.

IOW, MSFT rewarded their best people with cash, the not so great people with stock. Both got rich, but the latter was more likely to bolt for the hot new startup.
posted by dw at 11:31 AM on June 27, 2007

Steven Yegge, a blogger I have endless time for, wrote this recently, which considering his recent move to Google and the time he's spent writing Rails to run on a Javascript platform, reads strongly like what it's actually like inside Google.

And the wolves are coming, apparently.
posted by bonaldi at 11:43 AM on June 27, 2007

"Give everyone else half the merit increases we would have gotten AND ANNOUNCE THE FREE FOOD AT THE SAME TIME."

Uhh, yeah... that'll go over well.
posted by sad_otter at 11:44 AM on June 27, 2007

This doesn't appear to say anything especially negative about Google

I think this is pretty negative:

nearly everyone is on e-mail 24/7 and most people spend most of their evenings working from home.

I interviewed with Yahoo (which sounded very similar to how this describes Google) and this kind of expectation was the main reason I didn't take the job. Working nights and weekends is sometimes necessary, but screw doing it all the time.

Since when is Mountain View the middle of nowhere?

Google headquarters is in an office park next to a residential subdivision, which isn't very exciting. And being close to other tech companies isn't that great if you're expected to be at work all the time.

Give everyone else half the merit increases we would have gotten AND ANNOUNCE THE FREE FOOD AT THE SAME TIME.

"Will work for food."
posted by kirkaracha at 12:02 PM on June 27, 2007

sfts2: I've never worked at either place but interviewed (4x) at Google recently. One of the interviewers was ex-MSFT. I was dinged because of my age. Two of the four interviewers made direct comments about it. I was clearly qualified (if perhaps a bit over-qualified) for the role I was interviewing for. I can't believe that if this is the norm that it bodes well for Google, maybe its just 'sour-grapes.'

Uh- how is that NOT incredibly illegal? Aren't age questions among the very very taboo "never ask in an interview unless you like getting sued" topics?

dw: But back to the point at hand: Good companies spot management material and cultivate them. They spot visionaries and cultivate them.

Emphasis my own- that is very very true!!! What may hurt Google is if they're as degree-heavy and pretentious as they sound, they are missing out on some of the brightest, most innovative talent out there. It's the same problem MS had, but sped up: get so top-heavy and encroached, that you quickly lose any innovative or "new" ideas from a diverse set of backgrounds.

dw: MSFT went through the same thing. Their solution was to beef up management training considerably. Of course, they also learned that the most effective way to stay competitive was to expose their bad middle managers to poaching, allowing them to dump dead weight onto unsuspecting startups. (Such as the one I worked for....)

Sadly, that's not entirely true... :(
posted by hincandenza at 12:47 PM on June 27, 2007

Maybe not entirely true, but it's a fascinating idea.
posted by lodurr at 12:52 PM on June 27, 2007

No, I meant not true in that this "solution" appears to have never been implemented. Having been there as recently as a couple of years ago, that there are a LOT of crappy managers and middle-tier people around. My running theory is that like barnacles, they cling tightly on to the MS job: they know on some level, even if their ego precludes them from stating this or even acknowledging it consciously, that they provide no real value.

They are like Tom from Office Space, simply passing paper around between people who actually do work. They are the least likely to leave, because they know they'll never have it so good anywhere else if they have to start from scratch and without the benefit of just having been around a long time.
posted by hincandenza at 1:01 PM on June 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Sure. But it's still a fascinating idea. Fodder for fiction. A new Patterns, perhaps.
posted by lodurr at 1:29 PM on June 27, 2007

Re: bonaldi's link
What do the marshmallows represent? I'm guess the maze is red tape? What's going on!!!??
posted by pantsrobot at 1:49 PM on June 27, 2007

I think eating the marshmallows is basically a signifier that you're buying into the institutional myth. They ate the marshmallows because they were told there would be dire and unspecific consequences if they didn't -- they were told that by "the foremen."

The marshmallow part is kind of like the popular meaning of "drinking the koolaid" (which is of course much weaker than the original, Jonestownian meaning).

The maze is something similar. What's important about the maze AFAICS is not that it's confusing -- they all got through it alright, well, mostly, though it surely slowed them down -- but that a) they have to get through it, and even more important, b) they accept it without question. Getting through the maze, living with the maze, is a lot like eating the marshmallows: It's a token of committment to the cause.

Then of course there's the psychic imagery of the maze. In the fuzzy and warm world of popular mythological exegesis, mazes are places of spiritual discovery. But they can as easily, and I think throughout literary history have more often been, places of submergence and abnegation. We go into the maze, most often, not to find but to lose ourselves.

To say that the maze "is red tape" or the marshmallows "are x" is to over-allegorize. This story could be applied to so many circumstances. It fits any number of dotcoms and other startups I've seen or heard of; it fits any number of software devleopment projects many of us have seen; it fits our adventures in Vietnam or Iraq, for that matter.
posted by lodurr at 2:08 PM on June 27, 2007

I interviewed with Yahoo (which sounded very similar to how this describes Google)

I am a Y! employee, and can tell you with confidence that the environment here does not align with Google as described here. :)

Also, re the tech-to-management thing: if you're lucky/smart, you hire techs that have experience working for bad managers; in my experience, they're the most likely to (a) have a history of self-management, so have developed a wealth of diplomacy and people-problem-solving skills that your typical tech does not have, (b) have developed a desire to be a good manager someday, as they've suffered under bad managers in the past.

So the good techs stay techs and advance within that track, but some folks get so good (hopefully at their previous companies, not yours!) at self-management that they realize they have an affinity for it, and can add more value solving their (and other people's) problems than they can as a tech. Those folks should be put on a management track with proper training, to become the tech-savvy, motivated and happy management that a company needs at the mid level of a tech firm.

just my two cents
posted by davejay at 2:11 PM on June 27, 2007

I've never worked at either place but interviewed (4x) at Google recently. One of the interviewers was ex-MSFT. I was dinged because of my age. Two of the four interviewers made direct comments about it.

Then congratulations -- you just hit the lottery. Take your experience to an employment lawyer, as you are now going to be subsidized for life courtesy of the settlement Google's going to have to pay.
posted by felix at 2:48 PM on June 27, 2007

Sadly, that's not entirely true... :(

Probably not completely true, but I can tell you at the turn of the millennium they were bleeding lots of people to the dotcoms, lots of really crappy managers. And I worked for those crappy managers. And the good people I knew at MSFT stayed with MSFT; they survived the crash.

It's really entrenched over there now, though. It was hard to get a blue card in 2000; it's even tougher now. A friend of mine still is stuck with an orange card after five years because of entrenchment.

My running theory is that like barnacles, they cling tightly on to the MS job: they know on some level, even if their ego precludes them from stating this or even acknowledging it consciously, that they provide no real value.

In other words, Microsoft is now a middle-aged company. These barnacles are exactly like some of the people I see around the university. They have a safe job where they provide institutional memory and a warm body. If they left the job, they'd have nowhere else to go, not at their current wages. So, there they sit, doing little, collecting a paycheck.

Now, the entire university is not at all like that. Most offices are criminally understaffed. But there are pockets where there's dead wood.

Companies are like trees. They grow fast young, but over time they build up rings of dead wood, which keeps it stable as it grows, while the outer layer of younger, newer wood produces growth, and that growth becomes slower and slower over time. Eventually, the tree is almost all dead wood with just a thin layer of growth on the outside, tall, large, and vulnerable to fire or wind or lightning or a chain saw.
posted by dw at 2:52 PM on June 27, 2007

... you are now going to be subsidized for life courtesy of the settlement Google's going to have to pay.

Rrrriiiiiight.

I'm sure somebody can find examples of cases where someone won a judgement for age discrimination. But I seriously doubt you're going to find a case where it was a 'subsidy for life.' And I'll be really, really surprised if Google has ever lost in such a complaint.

That said, I did have a similar thought when I read that passage. I thought, "They're not supposed to do that. He's got grounds for complaint." But to the best of my knowledge, the settlement in cases like that usually entails the defendant being compelled to offer a job to the plaintiff, and not necessarily one the plaintiff would want. (Where's a lawyer when you need one?)
posted by lodurr at 2:57 PM on June 27, 2007

What may hurt Google is if they're as degree-heavy and pretentious as they sound, they are missing out on some of the brightest, most innovative talent out there. It's the same problem MS had, but sped up: get so top-heavy and encroached, that you quickly lose any innovative or "new" ideas from a diverse set of backgrounds.

I should say, I met some insanely talented people at SXSW this year, and I think only one of them held a degree from a school Google lionizes.
posted by dw at 3:01 PM on June 27, 2007

What may hurt Google is if they're as degree-heavy and pretentious as they sound, they are missing out on some of the brightest, most innovative talent out there.

I asked a question about this last week in a phone interview, basically was the interviewer concerned they were developing a monoculture. He said if I had asked a year ago, he would have ranted for an hour in response but that it's getting better. I can't tell which is right (and I have a second call in about an hour).

I wonder if any group of more than, say, 20 people can ever be an effective organization. Reading Steve Yegge's post last week and now this, I'm hearing Buck O'Neill: "Damn. There's got to be something better than this."
posted by yerfatma at 3:02 PM on June 27, 2007

dw: Companies are like trees. They grow fast young, but over time they build up rings of dead wood, which keeps it stable as it grows, while the outer layer of younger, newer wood produces growth, and that growth becomes slower and slower over time. Eventually, the tree is almost all dead wood with just a thin layer of growth on the outside, tall, large, and vulnerable to fire or wind or lightning or a chain saw.

President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

Being There
posted by lodurr at 3:07 PM on June 27, 2007

What a weird legal idea that would be.

1 2 3 4
posted by felix at 3:08 PM on June 27, 2007

Oh, please. Did you actually read those before you linked them? Or were you just hoping that weight of links would create the illusion of making a point?
posted by lodurr at 3:12 PM on June 27, 2007

Uh, all of them show large, sometimes gigantic cash awards for age discrimination. I picked them essentially randomly from the google search for 'age discrimination settlement', which would be illustrative of the fact that money tends to be the currency of this, a violation of federal law.

If you can find, say, 4 counterexamples showing that employers really prefer to hire the people back, the would-be employee agrees and the jury decides that would make them whole, I'd love to see them.
posted by felix at 4:18 PM on June 27, 2007

What may hurt Google is if they're as degree-heavy and pretentious as they sound, they are missing out on some of the brightest, most innovative talent out there.

I doubt it. (Disclaimer: my best friend is a manager at Google's NYC office).

Google has offices around the globe. Don't like the Mountain View campus? I hear New York's got some things to do. I can't verify how many devs directly report to him... we've never talked about it, though I assume if the number were anywhere near one hundred he would have mentioned it. 100 developers and a single manager is like herding cats. Sorry, but no fucking way.

My friend was a Harvard / MIT (Sloan) geek, I suppose just the sort of degreed geek that Google likes. And I can't speak for other degreed geeks at Google, but I can speak for my friend when I say that there's nobody on the planet, personality-wise, that I'd rather have as a manager. Just because they go to good schools doesn't automatically make them banal automatons.

They might be missing out on some great talent, but I doubt it. Anyway, make a name for yourself, start up your own company and nobody cares where the ink came from on your degree.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:48 PM on June 27, 2007

There is a subspecies of developer who is interested in management. I find that it tends to be composed of folks who weren't really that interested in programming to begin with. In which case, why would we have hired them as a programmer anyway? I'd much rather hire a manager who has been trained as a manager.


Well, there is a sub-(sub?)-set of those: people who mainly care about building a great thing (software,hardware,whatever). Usually, this would mean you would start as an engineer, but what you learn as an engineer is that if your management sucks, you will never accomplish these great things, and so maybe THAT is where you should be if you want things to succeed.

Basically, people with flexible skillsets who want to get things done, and care less about the details of how they do that. You can still be a good engineer with this mindset, not all programmers are in it for the code, some are in it for the product (subtle but important distinction).

I've been a developer for 9 years and have become a pseudo-manager (more like a lead), unfortunately I've found dealing with people as a primary job too taxing to go any further with that.

On a side note, Microsoft (which is where I work, yes) at least has been heavily promoting the idea that you can now advance as an Individual Contibutor just as much as you can as a Manager (this is relatively new, like the last year or two). This is a really good idea... of course, like all Really Good Big Ideas, the implementation of this varies within the company.
posted by wildcrdj at 6:49 PM on June 27, 2007

Oh, and Mountain View isn't so bad... it's also where Microsoft's Silicon Valley campus is (a few blocks from Google's campus).
posted by wildcrdj at 6:50 PM on June 27, 2007

Her attitude was basically, "Screw that, I'll hire someone older and more experienced and we'll get more work done because I don't have to babysit them all the time."

Same attitude as what I hear is happening up in Canada's northern mines: the kids are lazy and ditch the job because it's hard work, even though they're making $120K or more a year. Mines are now looking for more mature workers, people who will actually see that a job gets done, and done well.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:04 PM on June 27, 2007

Friendly competition is good. It keeps us on our toes and keeps the creative juices flowing.....
posted by believe at 1:09 AM on June 28, 2007

Felix: Your cherry-picking skills need work. From the Career Journal link you cited:

From 1997 to 2003, the median compensatory award for those who won age-discrimination cases was $255,143. That's 22% more than the $210,000 median for plaintiffs who won disability cases, the next-highest category of such awards by dollar amount. For state-court cases, the median compensatory award for age-discrimination cases was even higher, $283,000, or 46% more than the $194,245 median award for disability claims. [emphases added]

You and I clearly have different ideas of the meaning of the terms "subsidy for life" and "gigantic", if this is what you're citing.

But you're probably applying the "sometimes gigantic" to the other settlements you cited -- all of which were 'lost income' settlements over many-year periods (15 to 25 for the amounts cited, with the class action you cited not having a specified term of prior employment). Sometimes these folks were making a lot of money; when you stack up a big base salary and a long term and compound the interest, you can get a big back-settlement. Case in point:

The EEOC recently entered into a settlement agreement in which an insurance brokerage firm agreed to pay $28 million to settle an age-discrimination claim on behalf of 13 former directors who were forced to retire at 62 years of age. The court ruled that the company's retirement policy violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because it required directors to retire at the end of the year in which they reached 62 years of age, or at the end of the year in which they reached 60 years of age and completed 15 years of service. The court affirmed the EEOC's broad statutory power to enforce the ADEA and curtail age discrimination. The individual directors originally signed waivers in exchange for $1,000; however, they will now receive payments from $1.2 to $3.5 million in settlement of their case [EEOC v. Johnson & Higgins Inc., SDNY #93-5481; settlement 7/29/99]. Employers should review retirement policies to ensure compliance with ADEA. -- E. F.

From where I'm sitting, you look an awful lot like you're just trotting out the old "litigious society" bogeyman. At the least, you're being at least a tad disingenuous.
posted by lodurr at 5:18 AM on June 28, 2007

Civil_Disobedient wrote: They might be missing out on some great talent, but I doubt it.

Google's hiring preference places a very strong emphasis on degrees from prestigious universities. Are you suggesting that all great talent possesses such a degree?
posted by ryanrs at 7:26 AM on June 28, 2007

Strictly speaking, of course, every employer everywhere is missing out on some great talent, regardless of their screening processes.
posted by lodurr at 8:49 AM on June 28, 2007

My wife recently left a position where she was repeatedly on the receiving end of discrimination from her boss. We've considered suing or filing a complaint, but we both still work in other parts of the larger organization and don't want to deal with the trouble that would cause.

Even if we did sue, though, we wouldn't be asking to be "set for life," more just seeing something punitive against the boss. And in the few cases I've seen go through in our organization, it's typically been settled before trial, save one case that was thrown out.
posted by dw at 9:13 AM on June 28, 2007

Right- my reason for noting it earlier was because it's well known whenever you conduct interviews- at any company I've been at- that there are certain questions you don't touch. Age, along with things like marital status/personal life, religious beliefs, etc, are in those categories. It doesn't mean you'll "be set for life" but that median value suggests a nice tidy nest egg (and a company with the deep pockets of Google might pay more, because the case could be made that being denied a job there simply because of your age has a greater loss of income/earning due to its current high-flying stock price and profitability).

I'm just flabbergasted that sfts2 wasn't on the phone with a lawyer before the day was over that they had that interview. I'm not sure how you'd prove it- those interviewees would likely deny they ever said any such thing- but it's astounding that more than one person would say such an obviously illegal and lawsuit-attracting comment about age.
posted by hincandenza at 11:06 AM on June 28, 2007

Lawsuits like this are going to be hard to prove. They are going to have to prove that they didn't hire him because of his age and given a place with strict hiring standards such as Google, it will be hard unless there is some good, unbias evidenced. It could very easily be a he-said-she-said type of deal.

Also a sad, but true fact is that in an industry where everyone knows each other, especially among upper-management, filing a lawsuit against a place like Google could very well be a career ender.
posted by geoff. at 11:48 AM on June 28, 2007

Lawsuits like this are going to be hard to prove.

Very true. But their willful and flagrant flouting of what is, in fact, the law paints a picture of arrogance that will not suit their long-term interests very well when word gets around enough times.
posted by psmealey at 12:40 PM on June 28, 2007

Let me just say that before I was allowed to interview anyone, I was made quite aware (in a very real and legally binding way :) of the categories of questions that were not just inappropriate, but illegal. One of the things Google is organized and diligent about is compliance, and I am surprised that this area even came up, and would be even more suprised if it was used for any hiring decision (as that would be evil, and really, we take that "Don't Be Evil" thing pretty seriously, even it we aren't always perfect at it.)

I also found it amusing that for my little group in EEOC training, I was the only one who was middle aged, or white, or from North America. The only diversity I didn't see was a visible disability.
posted by Hello Dad, I'm in Jail at 12:37 AM on June 29, 2007

Hello Dad, about that "don't be evil" thing -- you say it's taken pretty seriously. I wonder if you could give us some examples. Given the [sic] terribly civil nature of discourse on the 'net [/sic], I'll say in advance that this is totally not a troll nor a setup and that I understand completely if you don't want to answer. (Though a few words on your particular reasons for not wanting to answer, and how widely/deeply you think those reasons be shared, would be interesting.)

What I'm curious about is how a vague ethical admonishment like "Don't Be Evil" plays out when it filters down to the mushroom level. What kinds of ways do people in the trenches implement it in their daily work (or personal) lives? Do people talk about it? Is there any kind of judgement applied (not just by yourself, but also by others)? What are the criteria within the Google ethos for defining an act, or an attitude, as 'evil'? Are they ethical, moral, technical, aesthetic? Is it common/uncommon to apply those criteria to corporate actions?

I'm asking out of anthropological curiosity.
posted by lodurr at 4:57 AM on June 29, 2007