Revelations of an employee of large IT companies [in Silicon Valley]
This email came to me. I just edited it a bit to remove some personal data. The story is long, so I hide under the cat:
[Previously] I joined Google as CTO. I think that this happened after Larry either suggested or personally tried to dismiss all project managers, because he thought that only a few of their actions could be considered productive.
At this time, a lot of people were pestering the company. Quite a lot of them, after careful checks and mandatory passing of “tests of intelligence”, were able to get inside. The main slogan was: "Hire the smartest people and they themselves will understand what and how to do." As a rule, employees had the right to become a participant in any project of their interest (there was even a database where engineers could easily add their name to any project of interest). In addition, employees were actively encouraged to move to remote offices. Someone (hardly Eric, I think it was Sergey) offered to open offices wherever there are smart people so that the company can easily clean them. Virtually any idea was seen as a new project, with the exception of those that turned out to be “not ambitious enough”. Fed just great. They say that recruiters assured people that they could work "on everything they want." Every 150-200 meters there were micro-cups with incredibly tasty treats, and the toilets were like in Japan ... uh ... with auto-cleaning and auto-drying.
And ... infrastructure projects and unattractive projects needed someone to start working on them. Meetings devoted to the consideration of file systems lasted for half a day ... it turned out that many top programmers with all their hearts dream of writing their own file system. The level of rights due was manifested in what treats were provided and how vigorous micro-cuisines were. (Later, one comical situation arose. The management changed the bus schedule so that people could not exploit the kitchen and take [and the family ... I saw it with my own eyes!] Dishes "with me" and then go on the Google bus and take all this food home At the next meeting, someone really complained that the new schedule ... prevented them from taking food "to go." And the bus schedule was changed back, even though it was originally done to reduce the abuse of free food.
')
Google (I think it was basically Larry) was fearlessly trying everything new. The main motto of the company was that we are so smart that we can find a new and better way to do something ourselves. And it was awesome. I would say that on the whole this did not meet expectations ... from time to time something happened, but the understanding that working in this company was so fun created an atmosphere where something great could hardly have happened.
Google swam in the money and gladly threw them among the employees. Too cool, but not something that can be implemented in all enterprises. The same Amazon adhered to completely different principles. (It is very painful to see stories about what Spartan conditions were supported by Amazon. For some time I was a manager at [xxxx] Google’s office and during that time we managed to hire enough refugees from Amazon. On the whole, they were really happy to be at Google ... which is not has always been to our advantage).
I have worked in the company for more than ten years. Over time, the rule “you get what stimulates you” led to the fact that the entire production mechanism slowed down its movement, and the weight of sustaining growth on Wall Street had a truly negative impact (Larry and Sergey, of course, bravely continued to move to another ” a big hit ").
I have some scraps of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon. I know people who worked at Netflix, but I know very little about the company itself. I know enough about Google. During my life I worked in a variety of startups and larger companies. The last time I worked for a non-information technology company (Ford) was when I was 19 (I was still a student and worked in a team that created early models of on-board computers ... but this is another interesting story).
I think that the main contribution that IT companies make to organizational management is a significant reduction in the power that executives have in solving organizational problems. These companies develop, measure, optimize and debug system problems [as a manager, I work in the same way with emotional, human problems that arise during the work process], pay all attention to hiring the most talented professionals and very generously distribute material resources *
* By itself, this is possible only with a certain organizational structure.
Google avoided categories of work that can reduce the level of responsibility. Google avoided such a category of employees as architects, because such a position gives a person high status, but at the same time is associated with a low level of accountability, which makes it an excellent opportunity for leading experts to get a warm place, but at the same time minimize all possible interactions (Company Sun Microsystems is notorious for having so many architects).
Google avoided the category of project manager, which would allow the heads of the engineering group to avoid the dirty part of their work (and be away from engineering realities). I don’t know the whole history of this particular installation - we had people whose position was called something like “technical program manager” - they had to make a significant scientific contribution, and not just track projects.
Google used the "level of abstraction" to prevent its managers from dominating employees or employees to show excessive emotional connection with managers.
Recruitment committees were created that excluded managers from the hiring process and (mostly ... especially at the beginning) the design assignments.
The promotion group, which assessed issues related to promotion, removed the promotion authority from the manager (had little weight, as indicated by the link I sent).
Advances have been strongly associated with various algorithms; increases and bonuses were related to performance evaluations in such a way that getting a high score (at the current level) resulted in a greater bonus, and that if an employee's resume was not ideal for promotion, he did not feel that his income was subject to any penalty. This gave promotion groups more freedom and the ability to say “no by default”, and managers have less incentive to persistently fight for the promotion of their people.
The industry has its weird relationship with the business: product managers can be valuable employees if they have developed business skills, or if they have a sense for something amazing — something that can become the basis for starting a business. Google (and other companies) explicitly viewed product managers as "mini-directors." Therefore, they attracted more people who ... wanted to be a mini-director ... but did not always fit the role of a full-fledged general director. (At the moment I have a low opinion of product managers and those who are committed to managing products ... with significant exceptions, of course)
Many developers want to create free software; Many developers know only how to create products for other developers, so they try to do business where deep subject knowledge is required; Currently there are many competing businesses on the market (where, marketing, awareness and competent business strategy are key indicators). All this leads to an excessive concentration on really knowledgeable programmers, since this almost exclusive goal of hiring becomes the main reason that makes it difficult to succeed.
Selling advertising ... I am not a supporter of this engine commerce. Amazon is known for its power accumulated during ruthless exploitation on the scale of a low-profit industry, where everyone “does for a dollar, sells for two ...”, which makes this company dangerous for any competitor.
You get what you reward product managers for, which means they tend to launch a product and shirk from rewarding managers for the size of the group. And Google is no exception - this is the place where it is most difficult to avoid feudal methods with the centralization of power.
Some points that are associated with too high monetary costs than with technical guidance, in particular:
Some things related to scale that can work better in an organization based on close interpersonal relationships (as opposed to the reduced managerial power described above): some processes are indirectly related to how much people know each other or how much one person is above another ( for example, promotion), as far as he is able to justify payment for creative, risky work. A significant role is played by the reward for the work of engineers that does not have visible results.
As already indicated, I admire Amazon’s strategic approach and its “business first” principle. Google did a lot and did well, but it had innumerable expenses and a lot of opportunities that were lost due to indulgences and unorganized approach to work. If you choose a real model of an IT company, I will choose Amazon (even though I would hardly agree to work there).
Facebook is nothing special. This is a production company. And personally, I do not think that their product unconditionally attracts everyone's attention. I think they took advantage of the moment, but over time they will face the fate of MySpace. I cannot choose the innovations of this product that would amaze me (except the fact that the project was being hatched in the college territory and more or less tastefully exploited sex). But their infrastructure is quite raw. That is, hiring a lot of people who will allow them to achieve the necessary scale, in the end, they will face serious problems.
Apple I know a little about this company, but it is definitely out of date. Really outdated. For some time I was on an interview with company representatives, and they said that they like to set arbitrary deadlines for their projects, because when people are late, they work more intensively. I refused to continue working, despite the fact that I have no idea whether this approach is some kind of widespread practice or existing practice. What they do means that new business models are more important than new technologies, so real, interesting technological contributions from the company are such things as plans with a fixed data transfer rate or songs of 99 cents. Since Steve Jobs has died, I have not seen anything like this, but I am not so familiar with this company. Obviously, this is not typical for all IT companies. Rather, this approach becomes possible if you already have new inventions.
Microsoft is the epitome of a massive, oppressive software, abuse of a dominant market position, decline and subsequent return in a new way. IBM II. I don’t know what is special about their corporate culture or current situation. They had their crazy "partner" system, where big stakes were made on internal competition, which actually looked awful in terms of moral standards and team cohesion. I wouldn't want to work here either, despite the fact that (as in the case of Amazon) I have a few friends who are really happy with the work in this company. In general, there are significant negative consequences of the environment associated with significant competition for material rewards. I don’t like this, so such companies are unlikely to attract people like me ... I would like to believe that they are terrible for business ... although I’m not at all sure that this is true.
Netflix Little information about them. A successful startup that slightly changed the original direction of its activities, but I don’t know if this is good or bad.
Amazon is an absolutely excellent, really scary, efficient and highly business oriented company. A change in capital expenditures on operating costs through the Cloud is one of the changes in doing business that I saw at Apple, along with “selling close to value using stock market money so that no one can compete with you, because you lower prices by increase their own scale, and because of this, no one can afford to enter the market. " They also tend to throw products that do not work. Apparently, working here is hard.
Problems that I see in other industries: weak imagination, someone controlled territory or area of ​​interest / politics, inefficiency, problems with communication ... everyone can benefit from investing in technical companies. If your business brings low income ... then it will be even more difficult for you, because low income does not give you the opportunity to attract and retain leading talents who are usually interested in the monetary component. But undoubtedly, best practices are useful for business, along with an awareness of the importance of such things as a business model, systems design in business, communication and culture, attitudes towards government, politics and motivation.
Remaining problems in the technology industry: scaling up and incentives (and incentives to scale :). I also see a significant bias against extroverts, which sounds funny to the tech industry. But, again, product managers (or, God forbid, sales specialists) are planning and problem solving in the spirit of “let's bring more people”. I firmly believe that tremendous productivity is recklessly wasted by people who have chosen the wrong communication setup. I think that they are often chosen on the basis of convenience or for the benefit of someone who is in the role of an extrovert, or is prone to extraversion. This is a huge problem in Google, which, given their structure, is quite ironic. Amazon has some thoughts on how to avoid such moments (for example, “reading time”), but I don’t know how comprehensive they are and how effective others are.
I thank the author for taking the time to this issue. Of course, I just publish the material and can not vouch for the veracity of all the information provided.
Prehistory
[Previously] I joined Google as CTO. I think that this happened after Larry either suggested or personally tried to dismiss all project managers, because he thought that only a few of their actions could be considered productive.
At this time, a lot of people were pestering the company. Quite a lot of them, after careful checks and mandatory passing of “tests of intelligence”, were able to get inside. The main slogan was: "Hire the smartest people and they themselves will understand what and how to do." As a rule, employees had the right to become a participant in any project of their interest (there was even a database where engineers could easily add their name to any project of interest). In addition, employees were actively encouraged to move to remote offices. Someone (hardly Eric, I think it was Sergey) offered to open offices wherever there are smart people so that the company can easily clean them. Virtually any idea was seen as a new project, with the exception of those that turned out to be “not ambitious enough”. Fed just great. They say that recruiters assured people that they could work "on everything they want." Every 150-200 meters there were micro-cups with incredibly tasty treats, and the toilets were like in Japan ... uh ... with auto-cleaning and auto-drying.
And ... infrastructure projects and unattractive projects needed someone to start working on them. Meetings devoted to the consideration of file systems lasted for half a day ... it turned out that many top programmers with all their hearts dream of writing their own file system. The level of rights due was manifested in what treats were provided and how vigorous micro-cuisines were. (Later, one comical situation arose. The management changed the bus schedule so that people could not exploit the kitchen and take [and the family ... I saw it with my own eyes!] Dishes "with me" and then go on the Google bus and take all this food home At the next meeting, someone really complained that the new schedule ... prevented them from taking food "to go." And the bus schedule was changed back, even though it was originally done to reduce the abuse of free food.
')
Google (I think it was basically Larry) was fearlessly trying everything new. The main motto of the company was that we are so smart that we can find a new and better way to do something ourselves. And it was awesome. I would say that on the whole this did not meet expectations ... from time to time something happened, but the understanding that working in this company was so fun created an atmosphere where something great could hardly have happened.
Google swam in the money and gladly threw them among the employees. Too cool, but not something that can be implemented in all enterprises. The same Amazon adhered to completely different principles. (It is very painful to see stories about what Spartan conditions were supported by Amazon. For some time I was a manager at [xxxx] Google’s office and during that time we managed to hire enough refugees from Amazon. On the whole, they were really happy to be at Google ... which is not has always been to our advantage).
I have worked in the company for more than ten years. Over time, the rule “you get what stimulates you” led to the fact that the entire production mechanism slowed down its movement, and the weight of sustaining growth on Wall Street had a truly negative impact (Larry and Sergey, of course, bravely continued to move to another ” a big hit ").
Returning to the problem
I have some scraps of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon. I know people who worked at Netflix, but I know very little about the company itself. I know enough about Google. During my life I worked in a variety of startups and larger companies. The last time I worked for a non-information technology company (Ford) was when I was 19 (I was still a student and worked in a team that created early models of on-board computers ... but this is another interesting story).
I think that the main contribution that IT companies make to organizational management is a significant reduction in the power that executives have in solving organizational problems. These companies develop, measure, optimize and debug system problems [as a manager, I work in the same way with emotional, human problems that arise during the work process], pay all attention to hiring the most talented professionals and very generously distribute material resources *
* By itself, this is possible only with a certain organizational structure.
What good is Google
Google avoided categories of work that can reduce the level of responsibility. Google avoided such a category of employees as architects, because such a position gives a person high status, but at the same time is associated with a low level of accountability, which makes it an excellent opportunity for leading experts to get a warm place, but at the same time minimize all possible interactions (Company Sun Microsystems is notorious for having so many architects).
Google avoided the category of project manager, which would allow the heads of the engineering group to avoid the dirty part of their work (and be away from engineering realities). I don’t know the whole history of this particular installation - we had people whose position was called something like “technical program manager” - they had to make a significant scientific contribution, and not just track projects.
Google used the "level of abstraction" to prevent its managers from dominating employees or employees to show excessive emotional connection with managers.
Recruitment committees were created that excluded managers from the hiring process and (mostly ... especially at the beginning) the design assignments.
The promotion group, which assessed issues related to promotion, removed the promotion authority from the manager (had little weight, as indicated by the link I sent).
Advances have been strongly associated with various algorithms; increases and bonuses were related to performance evaluations in such a way that getting a high score (at the current level) resulted in a greater bonus, and that if an employee's resume was not ideal for promotion, he did not feel that his income was subject to any penalty. This gave promotion groups more freedom and the ability to say “no by default”, and managers have less incentive to persistently fight for the promotion of their people.
What was not so good
The industry has its weird relationship with the business: product managers can be valuable employees if they have developed business skills, or if they have a sense for something amazing — something that can become the basis for starting a business. Google (and other companies) explicitly viewed product managers as "mini-directors." Therefore, they attracted more people who ... wanted to be a mini-director ... but did not always fit the role of a full-fledged general director. (At the moment I have a low opinion of product managers and those who are committed to managing products ... with significant exceptions, of course)
Features of Google and the software industry
Many developers want to create free software; Many developers know only how to create products for other developers, so they try to do business where deep subject knowledge is required; Currently there are many competing businesses on the market (where, marketing, awareness and competent business strategy are key indicators). All this leads to an excessive concentration on really knowledgeable programmers, since this almost exclusive goal of hiring becomes the main reason that makes it difficult to succeed.
Selling advertising ... I am not a supporter of this engine commerce. Amazon is known for its power accumulated during ruthless exploitation on the scale of a low-profit industry, where everyone “does for a dollar, sells for two ...”, which makes this company dangerous for any competitor.
You get what you reward product managers for, which means they tend to launch a product and shirk from rewarding managers for the size of the group. And Google is no exception - this is the place where it is most difficult to avoid feudal methods with the centralization of power.
What worsened over time in Google
Some points that are associated with too high monetary costs than with technical guidance, in particular:
- awareness of the importance of the company's mission in comparison with the perception of everything for granted:
- pursuit of the company's mission versus individual advancement.
- an influx of people who are mainly focused on financial benefits.
Some things related to scale that can work better in an organization based on close interpersonal relationships (as opposed to the reduced managerial power described above): some processes are indirectly related to how much people know each other or how much one person is above another ( for example, promotion), as far as he is able to justify payment for creative, risky work. A significant role is played by the reward for the work of engineers that does not have visible results.
Trivia about other companies
As already indicated, I admire Amazon’s strategic approach and its “business first” principle. Google did a lot and did well, but it had innumerable expenses and a lot of opportunities that were lost due to indulgences and unorganized approach to work. If you choose a real model of an IT company, I will choose Amazon (even though I would hardly agree to work there).
Facebook is nothing special. This is a production company. And personally, I do not think that their product unconditionally attracts everyone's attention. I think they took advantage of the moment, but over time they will face the fate of MySpace. I cannot choose the innovations of this product that would amaze me (except the fact that the project was being hatched in the college territory and more or less tastefully exploited sex). But their infrastructure is quite raw. That is, hiring a lot of people who will allow them to achieve the necessary scale, in the end, they will face serious problems.
Apple I know a little about this company, but it is definitely out of date. Really outdated. For some time I was on an interview with company representatives, and they said that they like to set arbitrary deadlines for their projects, because when people are late, they work more intensively. I refused to continue working, despite the fact that I have no idea whether this approach is some kind of widespread practice or existing practice. What they do means that new business models are more important than new technologies, so real, interesting technological contributions from the company are such things as plans with a fixed data transfer rate or songs of 99 cents. Since Steve Jobs has died, I have not seen anything like this, but I am not so familiar with this company. Obviously, this is not typical for all IT companies. Rather, this approach becomes possible if you already have new inventions.
Microsoft is the epitome of a massive, oppressive software, abuse of a dominant market position, decline and subsequent return in a new way. IBM II. I don’t know what is special about their corporate culture or current situation. They had their crazy "partner" system, where big stakes were made on internal competition, which actually looked awful in terms of moral standards and team cohesion. I wouldn't want to work here either, despite the fact that (as in the case of Amazon) I have a few friends who are really happy with the work in this company. In general, there are significant negative consequences of the environment associated with significant competition for material rewards. I don’t like this, so such companies are unlikely to attract people like me ... I would like to believe that they are terrible for business ... although I’m not at all sure that this is true.
Netflix Little information about them. A successful startup that slightly changed the original direction of its activities, but I don’t know if this is good or bad.
Amazon is an absolutely excellent, really scary, efficient and highly business oriented company. A change in capital expenditures on operating costs through the Cloud is one of the changes in doing business that I saw at Apple, along with “selling close to value using stock market money so that no one can compete with you, because you lower prices by increase their own scale, and because of this, no one can afford to enter the market. " They also tend to throw products that do not work. Apparently, working here is hard.
Problems that I see in other industries: weak imagination, someone controlled territory or area of ​​interest / politics, inefficiency, problems with communication ... everyone can benefit from investing in technical companies. If your business brings low income ... then it will be even more difficult for you, because low income does not give you the opportunity to attract and retain leading talents who are usually interested in the monetary component. But undoubtedly, best practices are useful for business, along with an awareness of the importance of such things as a business model, systems design in business, communication and culture, attitudes towards government, politics and motivation.
Remaining problems in the technology industry: scaling up and incentives (and incentives to scale :). I also see a significant bias against extroverts, which sounds funny to the tech industry. But, again, product managers (or, God forbid, sales specialists) are planning and problem solving in the spirit of “let's bring more people”. I firmly believe that tremendous productivity is recklessly wasted by people who have chosen the wrong communication setup. I think that they are often chosen on the basis of convenience or for the benefit of someone who is in the role of an extrovert, or is prone to extraversion. This is a huge problem in Google, which, given their structure, is quite ironic. Amazon has some thoughts on how to avoid such moments (for example, “reading time”), but I don’t know how comprehensive they are and how effective others are.
I thank the author for taking the time to this issue. Of course, I just publish the material and can not vouch for the veracity of all the information provided.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/351230/
All Articles