Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving(dailytech.com)
dailytech.com
Google Finds That Perks Can't Keep Some Employees From Leaving
http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Finds+That+Perks+Cant+Keep+Some+Employees+From+Leaving/article11794.htm
9 comments
Hardly anyone gets to do the 20% time. Google has done a good job keeping its engineering hiring relatively top notch, but it has not done the same with its management hiring process. Thus there is a good chance your manager will be a complete psycho.
A friend also told me taht he had no time working on his 20% project, because he was so busy doing the other stuff. And I suspect the bonus depends on the regular work, and not on your pet project ;-).
Hell, not even the inventor of python can work on python full time. (only 50%). I expected at least him to work 50% on it, as it's so widely used inside google. The same for people working on php.
Hell, not even the inventor of python can work on python full time. (only 50%). I expected at least him to work 50% on it, as it's so widely used inside google. The same for people working on php.
The perks at Facebook are basically the same as those at Google, but with a lot more freedom for your work (in the form of a lot less supervision). Plus brand new options that aren't nearly underwater.
The only reason I'd leave Google for Facebook is for the options -- if Facebook can wait to implode until after it finds a successful exit at their ridiculous valuation.
I think of job satisfaction as a function with weighted attributes. There's a "perks at work" attribute, a money attribute, an attribute for how much you like your team, how many weekly hours the work culture demands of you, how much you like your boss, whether the work is meaningful and related to your life goals, the opportunities to advance in the company and to grow as a person, whether you can live in a location you like, etc. etc. Google's problem relative to this article is that for many people, the "perks at work" weighting isn't that high. So no matter how good Google's perks are, other factors can dominate.
I think there might be a bit of an effect where people don't appreciate what they don't have to pay for, too.
I think there might be a bit of an effect where people don't appreciate what they don't have to pay for, too.
The title positions Google as a nice resort no one should want to leave. But for most engineers (who would have pursued a different career if they were purely money motivated) salary and perks are "hygiene factors", which can dissatisfy if they are inadequate but can't really satisfy. See Hertzberg's "Two Factor" theory of job satisfaction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_factor_theory
I wonder how Google compares to SAS in job satisfaction? SAS is famously high in employee perks and retention, and is extremely family-friendly.
Outside the bubble of SV/Google, some of us accept free coffee (that we have to make ourselves) in the morning as a perk
I wouldn't call that "outside the bubble of SV/Google"; I would say that is "inside the bubble of working a crappy job". There are many companies outside SV/Google that offer far more perks than free coffee in the morning (and there are even SV companies like Intel that don't offer even that).
Everyone keeps referring to their lunches as "haute cuisine". Maybe I missed something the couple times I ate there, but I don't think it's fair to refer to a buffet as that. I guess relative to the normal corporate vending machines it's pretty awesome, but it's far from a Michelin 3 Star joint.
Are you kidding? How many buffets have you been to with real, decently awesome sushi? Filet Mignon? It's a several leaps above Hometown Buffet in so many ways...
It's kind of like the whole foods buffet.
A few, though none outside of a casino. Still, even those are not really haute cuisine.
There's only one three star joint on the west coast and while it's not far from Mountain View, it's definitely not Google's cafeteria. :)
French Laundry?
Yes. I've been to 6 three-star places over the last few years, but FL takes the cake.
Perks are great - but always remember that there will always be people getting paid $200,000 a year that choose a chance making it big with a startup over a steady salary.
And the more you pay them, the quicker they'll be able to self-bootstrap.
They've been paid obscenely well in stock options. Even if the Google stock price falls to its initial US$85 per share, at least 2200 Googlers are going to get US$10 million or more in vested stock options this summer ( http://www.news.com/Life-after-Google%2C-with-millions/2100-... ).
Precisely.
Also, Google's engineering and hiring and payment policies are frustratingly biased towards C++ developers. I know several top-notch web developers who have turned down google offers because they'd be making less than other companies would pay them, and many of those startups offer options as well.
When you find a top-notch web developer, telling them they're not worth as much as a C++ developer (of any ability) is just crazy. They're a rare and hotly contested breed in the valley.
When you find a top-notch web developer, telling them they're not worth as much as a C++ developer (of any ability) is just crazy. They're a rare and hotly contested breed in the valley.
It is much easier to find a top notch web developer than it is to find someone top notch who is good at C++. This is the case anywhere in Silicon Valley where C++ programmers who actually know what they are doing are needed. VMWare, for instance, pays like $160,000 starting salary to C++ wizards.
> It is much easier to find a top notch web developer than it is to find someone top notch who is good at C++.
I disagree with this. Top notch people in web development are extremely rare. You can find a lot of mediocre people, or motivated people, but finding people both motivated and talented is hard.
It's also unfortunate that Google limits itself to C++, but that's a whole different story.
I disagree with this. Top notch people in web development are extremely rare. You can find a lot of mediocre people, or motivated people, but finding people both motivated and talented is hard.
It's also unfortunate that Google limits itself to C++, but that's a whole different story.
I agree that it is harder to find top notch people than mediocre, that just seems natural, following the talent bell curve(most in the middle level of ability, some very poor, some excel) but how does Google limits itself to C++? I read a lot of noise on Google using Python:
http://www.python.org/about/quotes/ (and this is just a starting point of the info on Google using Python)
They're not limiting themselves to C++. But, view it from a different perspective:
1) C++ is a superset of C (to some extend, this isn't 100% true, but most concepts in C are applicable to C++)
2) If you know C++, it is a little bit easier to grok Java
3) I heard most of their back-end stuffs are written in C++
I also read news about Google being a huge Python company. But to be honest, I haven't heard a product that they shipped that is written in Python.
Python is big internally where they need tools to support their development.
PS:
- GAE library does not count as their product
- Exclude YouTube because they chose Python on their own
1) C++ is a superset of C (to some extend, this isn't 100% true, but most concepts in C are applicable to C++)
2) If you know C++, it is a little bit easier to grok Java
3) I heard most of their back-end stuffs are written in C++
I also read news about Google being a huge Python company. But to be honest, I haven't heard a product that they shipped that is written in Python.
Python is big internally where they need tools to support their development.
PS:
- GAE library does not count as their product
- Exclude YouTube because they chose Python on their own
Google doesn't limit itself to C++, they just happen to need C++ programmers at the moment.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't know if I could get serious work done at that Zurich office. I think it would feel more like working at FAO Schwartz.
Facebook's perks are better. I've seen both. Still dreaming about that damn candy and drink station.
That candy and soda count as a perk indicates the demographic Facebook is trying to woo to work there.
I wouldn't trust a company that tries to poison me.
The main difference is Google's options are actually worth something.
It must be a fine line to walk between finding hyper-intelligent people, meeting their intense need for self actualization, and mostly employing them in the soul numbing work of selling ads.
This criticism -- that genius is being wasted on "soul numbing" ad work -- strikes me as an inaccurate cheap shot.
First, because most of the brain power at Google isn't devoted to the ad systems, but to the services that attract an audience. Don't you think their most "hyper-intelligent people" are engaged in the constant and noble battle to continue improving search, for an ever-changing internet and against the efforts of many unscrupulous manipulators?
Second, because even creating better ad systems is a valuable and intellectually challenging activity. Directly, because matching people to info about things they may want is crucial to our economy, and online systems can do it better than ever before. Indirectly, because ad revenues make so much of the rest of the internet possible. Ad work is no more "soul numbing" than any other commercial work to "make something people want".
First, because most of the brain power at Google isn't devoted to the ad systems, but to the services that attract an audience. Don't you think their most "hyper-intelligent people" are engaged in the constant and noble battle to continue improving search, for an ever-changing internet and against the efforts of many unscrupulous manipulators?
Second, because even creating better ad systems is a valuable and intellectually challenging activity. Directly, because matching people to info about things they may want is crucial to our economy, and online systems can do it better than ever before. Indirectly, because ad revenues make so much of the rest of the internet possible. Ad work is no more "soul numbing" than any other commercial work to "make something people want".
"constant and noble battle"
Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.
Oh come on, give me a break. Google is a commercial company. They are in it for the money, like everybody else.
Not all companies are in it for the money to precisely the same extent.
Google of course already has money in abundance at the moment. It won't last forever, though.
I don't see any altruistic actions on the part of Google, would welcome some pointers? I think the founders started some welfare organization with their money, but I mean Google itself.
Note: I have nothing against people getting paid for making the world a better place. But payment should be enough, it doesn't have to be a "noble battle" on top of that. Also Google has enough money to pay it's developers enough to make the battle worthwhile, noble cause or not.
I don't see any altruistic actions on the part of Google, would welcome some pointers? I think the founders started some welfare organization with their money, but I mean Google itself.
Note: I have nothing against people getting paid for making the world a better place. But payment should be enough, it doesn't have to be a "noble battle" on top of that. Also Google has enough money to pay it's developers enough to make the battle worthwhile, noble cause or not.
Google looks at the web and tries to make money. A phisher or scammer looks at the web and tries to make money. Does that make them equivalent?
You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit.
Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported.
Pharmaceuticals are developed by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle against disease.
The point of my grandparent comment is that the brainpower Google uses for its core service -- improving search -- is engaged in an honorable, beneficial activity. It's a hard problem, they're working against other profit-motivated malicious actors, and we all get a throwoff benefit from Google's work, even if we never click an ad.
That the activity also makes them money, or even was primarily motivated by making money, doesn't change that.
You can be motivated by money but still be engaged in a noble pursuit.
Newspapers are published by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle to report the truth, even though many other entities work hard to get falsehoods reported.
Pharmaceuticals are developed by for-profit companies in a constant and noble battle against disease.
The point of my grandparent comment is that the brainpower Google uses for its core service -- improving search -- is engaged in an honorable, beneficial activity. It's a hard problem, they're working against other profit-motivated malicious actors, and we all get a throwoff benefit from Google's work, even if we never click an ad.
That the activity also makes them money, or even was primarily motivated by making money, doesn't change that.
Your examples only prove the point: newspapers in a noble battle for the truth? Pharmaceutical companies in a noble battle against disease? No offence, but I think you need some reality checks. Not saying that newspapers don't hit upon the truth occasionally, or that pharmaceuticals don't cure the odd disease. But to quote a physician I once talked to: "I wouldn't be surprised if the cure against HIV is already lying in some drawer and not being published, because it has no benefits for the pharmaceutical companies". Or try reading an actual newspaper (not Hacker News) for a couple of days, then reconsider your opinion. It's very obvious that all they care about is making money, and perhaps they get the odd ego boost out of manipulating public opinion to their whims.
I didn't mean this as a hardcore left wing or whatever paranoid comment (at least I don't consider myself any of those things). Maybe it is just because I am a foreign speaker that "noble" simply doesn't sound right to me. Noble is more than just beneficial in my book, I guess it also involves making sacrifices and stuff.
Again I want to stress that I have nothing whatsoever against people reaping benefits of their work. I just took issue with the label "noble", that's all.
Edit: if you could point me to a newspaper that is really fighting a noble battle for the truth, I would be delighted to hear about it. I might actually start reading it.
I didn't mean this as a hardcore left wing or whatever paranoid comment (at least I don't consider myself any of those things). Maybe it is just because I am a foreign speaker that "noble" simply doesn't sound right to me. Noble is more than just beneficial in my book, I guess it also involves making sacrifices and stuff.
Again I want to stress that I have nothing whatsoever against people reaping benefits of their work. I just took issue with the label "noble", that's all.
Edit: if you could point me to a newspaper that is really fighting a noble battle for the truth, I would be delighted to hear about it. I might actually start reading it.
I thought it might be a word-choice and cultural issue; I suspect in Europe 'noble' has different connotations because there are actual aristocracy doing things, occasionally altruistically. (Americans mainly think of aristocracy as a source of camp entertainment.) I meant 'noble' as 'deservedly outstanding; moral; admirable; honorable; generous'.
The journalists working for profit-making papers I have met do believe their work a noble calling, even when they feel cynical or compromised by the economic realities of their market. Though each has internalized biases one should be aware of, the NYTimes and WSJ are both great papers whose staff is usually fighting hard to arrive at the truth.
The journalists working for profit-making papers I have met do believe their work a noble calling, even when they feel cynical or compromised by the economic realities of their market. Though each has internalized biases one should be aware of, the NYTimes and WSJ are both great papers whose staff is usually fighting hard to arrive at the truth.
I think individual journalists are doing a good job and might have the right motivation, I just have never seen the actual newspapers to operate on that basis.
Um...you're going with...um...newspapers and pharmaceuticals as examples of noble corporations?
Um...
OK. I hate to break this too you, but newspapers haven't had shit to do with the truth since ownership rules relaxed enough to turn them into propaganda tools for whatever rich asshole with old money buys. Newspapers are mostly against the truth. When they do report whats true (about things the old money rulers don't care about), it's only so they can lie later, when the money does care.
And there is a special place in hell for the scum fucks who set up pharmaceutical pricing and patenting schemes where AIDS patients all over the world are dying because they can't get access to medications factories in their own countries could make.
And most work in pharmaceuticals is in reformulating drugs where the patent is about to expire and manipulating studies to claim a slight benefit over the previous generation, and then aggressively advertising it to consumers who are completely uneducated about medications while unethically pushing doctors to use it.
Those are really really bad examples of corporations that do noble work.
Um...
OK. I hate to break this too you, but newspapers haven't had shit to do with the truth since ownership rules relaxed enough to turn them into propaganda tools for whatever rich asshole with old money buys. Newspapers are mostly against the truth. When they do report whats true (about things the old money rulers don't care about), it's only so they can lie later, when the money does care.
And there is a special place in hell for the scum fucks who set up pharmaceutical pricing and patenting schemes where AIDS patients all over the world are dying because they can't get access to medications factories in their own countries could make.
And most work in pharmaceuticals is in reformulating drugs where the patent is about to expire and manipulating studies to claim a slight benefit over the previous generation, and then aggressively advertising it to consumers who are completely uneducated about medications while unethically pushing doctors to use it.
Those are really really bad examples of corporations that do noble work.
I agree it's a bit of a cheap shot. I don't think it's inaccurate.
There is no doubt the ad system is valuable. There is no doubt that creating the advertising systems google uses would be an intellectual challenge. But people don't want to see ads. This work is mostly the work of deciding how to best trick people into being distracted by text they don't want to see in the first place.
The better the ad people do their jobs, the worse off most people are for it. This is the basis for the work being soul numbing.
Conversely, on what basis would working on google's ads be the kind of soul affirming work you look back happily on as you cough up blood while you're dying 50 years from now?
Then the googlers can look at all the stuff someone like Ludwig Mies or Steve Reich or Jonathan Ive comes out with. I am sure that google has a huge amount of talent that would be capable of creating at this level (the peak of human potential), and they don't produce much at this level.
There is no doubt the ad system is valuable. There is no doubt that creating the advertising systems google uses would be an intellectual challenge. But people don't want to see ads. This work is mostly the work of deciding how to best trick people into being distracted by text they don't want to see in the first place.
The better the ad people do their jobs, the worse off most people are for it. This is the basis for the work being soul numbing.
Conversely, on what basis would working on google's ads be the kind of soul affirming work you look back happily on as you cough up blood while you're dying 50 years from now?
Then the googlers can look at all the stuff someone like Ludwig Mies or Steve Reich or Jonathan Ive comes out with. I am sure that google has a huge amount of talent that would be capable of creating at this level (the peak of human potential), and they don't produce much at this level.
I think that we will see excessive commercialization as something evil in 50+ years, along with the whole institution of corporations. So, going on this train of thought, how can you be a slave to any corporation where the huge number of employees are making very few very rich and die happy? On my death bed I will not look back and say 'I am really glad I worked for X and sacrificed time from my friends and family to make the company extra money.'
I just want to be proud of my accomplishments and know I worked hard and played hard. Whether or not I got by with ad revenue probably won't factor into it too much for me.
I just want to be proud of my accomplishments and know I worked hard and played hard. Whether or not I got by with ad revenue probably won't factor into it too much for me.
If you live in a highly-developed country, 'the whole institution of corporations', legal fiction/invention that it is, is probably responsible for most of your modern comforts. The institution of corporations is certainly responsible for the startup opportunities cherished by this community.
On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you.
On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you.
"On your death bed, you might wish somebody had worked harder at their company to cure whatever's killing you"
Or you may wish that you hadn't eaten the nutrionless high calorie corporate created food products that lead to your chronic disease? Or maybe it was the corporate toxic wasted dumped in the river upstream from your small town, while the corporate CEO lived on the other side of the country in a mansion and couldn't care less about the environment in your small town?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you too. But you are only half right.
Or you may wish that you hadn't eaten the nutrionless high calorie corporate created food products that lead to your chronic disease? Or maybe it was the corporate toxic wasted dumped in the river upstream from your small town, while the corporate CEO lived on the other side of the country in a mansion and couldn't care less about the environment in your small town?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you too. But you are only half right.
I definitely was trying to bring these sort of situations into light, but my attempt was poor.
As a general followup, and providing far more personal information than I ever do online, my father is currently hospitalized. He has a few things wrong with him, but several are almost certainly tied to chemicals he used at work. This was the reason I posted the 'corporations can be evil' post. It is why I feel strongly that we need to improve the current system to include some social and environmental costs of certain corporations.
I do understand that will not happen soon, and we are forced to work within the rules of the current system.
As a general followup, and providing far more personal information than I ever do online, my father is currently hospitalized. He has a few things wrong with him, but several are almost certainly tied to chemicals he used at work. This was the reason I posted the 'corporations can be evil' post. It is why I feel strongly that we need to improve the current system to include some social and environmental costs of certain corporations.
I do understand that will not happen soon, and we are forced to work within the rules of the current system.
I don't think there currently is a better social and economic system than capitalism and corporations. What I was trying to say wasn't really anything more than most people who work for ANY corporation (not just advertising) probably can't reflect and say they lived idealistically in regards to morals.
Also I was trying to say exactly that: I want to do all I can regardless of what I am doing or where I am working.
Current stress is crushing my writing skills, especially coding.
Also I was trying to say exactly that: I want to do all I can regardless of what I am doing or where I am working.
Current stress is crushing my writing skills, especially coding.
I really think you are wrong about google being a great job where people can easily be fulfilled.
But, I sure agree with you about corporations doing a lot of good for the world. Corporations are great.
The problem with corporations is in a combination of the shitty supreme court ruling that gives them all the rights of people, and the laws that say (unlike people) there only obligation is to maximize shareholder value. A lot of corporate abuse comes from them having all the legal rights of personhood but none of the moral responsibilities or ethics that come with personhood. We need corporations, but they should only get the rights of personhood if they agree to the ethical and moral responsibilities of personhood too. The problem isn't with corporations in and of themselves, it's this shitty legal context they exist in.
The other problem with corporations is that they can pass off costs to the public. For example, the true cost of oil includes the environmental damage from burning hydrocarbons, but this doesn't show up on the balance sheet. Or, if you prefer, the costs of bottling pepsi include water rights issues, yet bottlers often don't have to pay market price for this access, and may continue to get heavily subsidized water during a drought.
If these two problems were solved, corporations would be a lot better. I think people who attribute the problems corporations are confused and the problem is really a subtler issue around the particular way we allow corporations to selectively get the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities, and to pass off costs like environmental, opportunity, and subsidies.
But, I sure agree with you about corporations doing a lot of good for the world. Corporations are great.
The problem with corporations is in a combination of the shitty supreme court ruling that gives them all the rights of people, and the laws that say (unlike people) there only obligation is to maximize shareholder value. A lot of corporate abuse comes from them having all the legal rights of personhood but none of the moral responsibilities or ethics that come with personhood. We need corporations, but they should only get the rights of personhood if they agree to the ethical and moral responsibilities of personhood too. The problem isn't with corporations in and of themselves, it's this shitty legal context they exist in.
The other problem with corporations is that they can pass off costs to the public. For example, the true cost of oil includes the environmental damage from burning hydrocarbons, but this doesn't show up on the balance sheet. Or, if you prefer, the costs of bottling pepsi include water rights issues, yet bottlers often don't have to pay market price for this access, and may continue to get heavily subsidized water during a drought.
If these two problems were solved, corporations would be a lot better. I think people who attribute the problems corporations are confused and the problem is really a subtler issue around the particular way we allow corporations to selectively get the benefits of citizenship without the responsibilities, and to pass off costs like environmental, opportunity, and subsidies.
Well-matched non-obnoxious ads don't make people worse off and aren't a 'trick'. For example, for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results.
Since ad revenue makes other content possible, the better ad people do their jobs, the better off audiences are. If only dumb and ineffective people worked on ad systems, we'd lose a lot of quality web content.
Not all work has to be 'soul affirming' work like a missionary might perform. There is honor and dignity in just doing something people want at a price they're happy to pay. Especially so if applying your smarts makes things wildly cheaper, better, or more plentiful than before.
Since ad revenue makes other content possible, the better ad people do their jobs, the better off audiences are. If only dumb and ineffective people worked on ad systems, we'd lose a lot of quality web content.
Not all work has to be 'soul affirming' work like a missionary might perform. There is honor and dignity in just doing something people want at a price they're happy to pay. Especially so if applying your smarts makes things wildly cheaper, better, or more plentiful than before.
"for many Google queries, the paid results are more interesting to me than the natural results"
Which is kind of ironic, given that Google wants to be the best search engine. Yet their ads engine seems to be better than the search engine?
Which is kind of ironic, given that Google wants to be the best search engine. Yet their ads engine seems to be better than the search engine?
The paid results are only particularly useful to me when I want to buy something because the ads are always commercial compared to the often non-commercial results.
Exactly -- both the 'natural' and paid listings are informational, but for different reasons. Even when I find the paid listings more useful, I wouldn't call them 'better' than the natural results -- just interesting along another dimension.
So basically google is an extortion racket where people can't find you on the internet unless you either pay outlandish SEO fees to people to battle against google for tricking it into displaying your results high, or pay google for ads?
And maintaining this system (to googles benefit, not the consumers) is mostly a battle of fighting off the SEO guys so that your advertising money goes to google, or you don't get seen. There is honor and dignity in this endless, pointless fight? That doesn't sound like meaningful work that will satisfy people with a burning desire to change the world. That sounds like extortion. (Pay us ads, pay your nerds to fight with our nerds about SEO, or get kicked off the block).
Obviously, there are tons of people for whatever reason just want a job they can live with. That's fine. I'm not saying everyone should quit google or anyone who works at google is a soulless spineless fuck or anything like that.
But these google guys are at the edge of what's possible, and some of the brightest folks around. I'm not talking about finding a great job you can live with. I'm talking about the people who have both the desire and ability to set the world on fire. Those are the people google wants and can't hold.
I completely agree not all work has to be soul affirming to be worth doing. But there are some people who won't settle for less than truly meaningful work. These are the people google both needs, and can't hang onto.
And maintaining this system (to googles benefit, not the consumers) is mostly a battle of fighting off the SEO guys so that your advertising money goes to google, or you don't get seen. There is honor and dignity in this endless, pointless fight? That doesn't sound like meaningful work that will satisfy people with a burning desire to change the world. That sounds like extortion. (Pay us ads, pay your nerds to fight with our nerds about SEO, or get kicked off the block).
Obviously, there are tons of people for whatever reason just want a job they can live with. That's fine. I'm not saying everyone should quit google or anyone who works at google is a soulless spineless fuck or anything like that.
But these google guys are at the edge of what's possible, and some of the brightest folks around. I'm not talking about finding a great job you can live with. I'm talking about the people who have both the desire and ability to set the world on fire. Those are the people google wants and can't hold.
I completely agree not all work has to be soul affirming to be worth doing. But there are some people who won't settle for less than truly meaningful work. These are the people google both needs, and can't hang onto.
Hey, isn't selling ads what Web 2.0 is all about? :)
Work for a high-flying tech company with more perks than anybody, 20% of my time to work on whatever I want and a proven method for generating massive income or jump ship to work at the "hottest thing" of the moment where they need to take millions of funding each year just to keep the lights on and expansion moving along... seems a pretty easy decision to me.
Have we really gotten to the point where working at Google is considered "soul numbing work?" Some people would be wise to gain some perspective.