You sound really naive and honestly it might do you good to get fired so you learn a simple life lesson: Google is a company that only exists to make money. That's its sole purpose. It's not your friend, it's not your family. You don't work their because they enjoy your company. You work there because the right people assume that you provide more value than your salary costs (i.e. they make a profit on their exchange with you). You need to grow past this "loyalty" nonsense.
It's true that I wouldn't personally go releasing information like this, but that's because I can make more money if I'm known as someone who doesn't air company laundry, not because of some misplaced and immature sense of "loyalty".
Ironically, the leak probably helped Google as some good talent out there never gave them a second look because they have a reputation of not being competitive with their salaries. They make billions so there is no valid excuse for paying less than places who only make hundreds of millions.
This is clearly flame bait / troll comment, but I would like to make a comment to rebut the central point, namely that personal relationships somehow "do not matter" or are purely exploitative at organizations.
First, I've found that one's work experience is dependent to a huge degree on the direct manager. If your manager is an asshole, you will hate your job. If you don't get along with your manager, you will dislike your job. If your manager does not care about you, you will dislike your job. If you work at an enlightened organization, you may be able to raise the issue up the chain with your manger's manager and apply for a transfer. Otherwise it is best to find another job.
That was the practical angle. Here is the theoretical one: if you call "social capital" the propensity of employees to form relationships, care about each other, and be loyal to each other, then the argument put forth is that low social capital corporations will somehow be better adapted than high social capital ones and will push them out of existence Darwin-like. This simply hasn't happened - Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple are all examples of places that by and large treat their employees fairly. I've heard that Oracle is more "cut throat" but I don't really know what that means in practice and have never worked there. Oracle does, however, seem to suffer from Ellison's weirdness. Just as there is a market in employee salaries there is also a market in corporate culture - a company that is not nice is not going to attract top talent. I have never heard that Oracle has attracted a substantial number of top-notch engineers.
On a personal level, it is always advantageous to be friendly, nice, respectful, and take everything in stride because it wins you friends and lets you do things like get other companies to hire you, a process which increases your market value as an employee. It is also completely free.
Keep in mind that this is specific to large tech companies - other sectors like Finance and Sales are going to obey their own cultural trends which may be more selfish and greedy. The start-up sector tends to attract and encourage a rather different breed, but the conditions are also completely different from a traditional corporate environment, so different personality characteristics will be adaptive.
I'm not trying to troll you, I'm trying to get you to take off your rose-colored glasses to save you from some real heart break down the road. Believe me.
>namely that personal relationships somehow "do not matter" or are purely exploitative at organizations.
Relationships can matter up to a point, but if your company took a hit in the market and has to shed 30% of its human resources your relationship is not going to matter. It can't, the company is trying to survive. And this goes double for a public company, it's basically illegal for them to value your friendship over their bottom line.
>First, I've found that one's work experience is dependent to a huge degree on the direct manager.
Fair enough.
>This simply hasn't happened - Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple are all examples of places that by and large treat their employees fairly.
The question is vastly more complex than that. For one thing, the aggressiveness of a company is going to depend on the market their in. You'll have the worst experience in retail because they have such tight margins.
For another thing, how do you figure they treat their employees "fairly"? "Fair" is a difficult thing to pin down, but if we look at some knowns: Google makes billions in profit. Google pays under market rate for developers because "but you'll be working at Google! GOOGLE!". Now if you could provide some citation that shows that Google employees end up making more money at their next company on average because of this situation then I would find it less unfair/exploitative, but I doubt you can.
>a company that is not nice is not going to attract top talent.
Not to nit pick, but the last company I worked at thoroughly debunked this idea. The devs were very high end and the management was horrendously bad but it was a hedge fund paying nearly double market rate in total compensation (i.e. most of the money came in bonuses which could be as much as double your salary).
>On a personal level, it is always advantageous to be friendly, nice, respectful, and take everything in stride because it wins you friends and lets you do things like get other companies to hire you, a process which increases your market value as an employee.
Of course. I've liked most everyone I've ever worked with, and I think most people I've worked with have liked me. I form friendship, etc. I just know what my relationship with the company is. As long as I'm good value, they'll keep me around. I view them the same way. I like the people but if I find a better deal [1], well, it's nothing personal, just business.
>The start-up sector tends to attract and encourage a rather different breed, but the conditions are also completely different from a traditional corporate environment, so different personality characteristics will be adaptive.
This site gives the impression that the start up culture is much more greedy. Most people appear to create a startup to get rich. Fair enough, but they also seem to want employees who will pull insane hours and cost nearly nothing. All this for an idea that probably wont pan out and even if it did, what kind of equity would they get for so much effort? If the startup tanks it doesn't even look that good on a resume.
[1] And by better deal, I mean overall. Making twice as much money but doing boring monotonous and stressful work wouldn't be a good long term trade off for me. I currently make enough that I don't have to make those kinds of sacrifices.
Just because you are jaded and have given up on loyalty and the idea of responsible corporations that care for their employees doesn't mean the rest of us must do so as well.
You paint a very black and white picture. Either the world can have caring corporations, or it can't. Your opinion leaves no room for middle ground. That alone should convince you to re-evaluate what you believe.
What you're saying makes no sense. A corporation is there to make money. Full stop. It's a thing, not a person. It doesn't care because it can't care, it has no feeling only a purpose.
If you get in an accident and lose both arms are they going to pay you to sit around because they care? Of course not. They will (hopefully) try to soften your landing, but that's less because they care and more about moral of existing and future employees.
Life is going to be a painful experience until you learn to only give the amount of loyalty that is given to you. No matter what a company says or does, they are going to drop you the second you don't make sense on paper (including if they find someone who can do what you do cheaper). If you behave any other way you've been brain washed [1].
[1] This doesn't mean that if you get an offer for $1/yr more you have to drop your current company. You have to keep the short and long term in view.
Enlightened Self-interest. It might be a completely rational move for Google to keep their staff happy, well-motivated and well-treated in order to maximise their productivity.
When doing comparisons (i.e. "Is this new guy really cheaper?") that sort of thing is figured into the price. Companies that care about morale figure more into the value of keeping existing employees, but places that use brain washing techniques [1] are going to count the "morale costs" of someones real value very low because they're controlling morale anyway [2]. I've directly seen this applied in several companies. Sometimes it was in response to loss in revenue (i.e. out of their control), a couple of times it was just because.
[1] When a company puts slogans all over their walls, keeps on bleating the same message about "we're a family", uses phrases like "always put in more than you take out!", it's nearly always because they're trying to create the impression in their employees that a relationship exists that actually doesn't.
[2] Most likely by driving it as low as they dare so that anyone who would leave already has.
Comments
You sound really naive and honestly it might do you good to get fired so you learn a simple life lesson: Google is a company that only exists to make money. That's its sole purpose. It's not your friend, it's not your family. You don't work their because they enjoy your company. You work there because the right people assume that you provide more value than your salary costs (i.e. they make a profit on their exchange with you). You need to grow past this "loyalty" nonsense.
It's true that I wouldn't personally go releasing information like this, but that's because I can make more money if I'm known as someone who doesn't air company laundry, not because of some misplaced and immature sense of "loyalty".
Ironically, the leak probably helped Google as some good talent out there never gave them a second look because they have a reputation of not being competitive with their salaries. They make billions so there is no valid excuse for paying less than places who only make hundreds of millions.
This is clearly flame bait / troll comment, but I would like to make a comment to rebut the central point, namely that personal relationships somehow "do not matter" or are purely exploitative at organizations.
First, I've found that one's work experience is dependent to a huge degree on the direct manager. If your manager is an asshole, you will hate your job. If you don't get along with your manager, you will dislike your job. If your manager does not care about you, you will dislike your job. If you work at an enlightened organization, you may be able to raise the issue up the chain with your manger's manager and apply for a transfer. Otherwise it is best to find another job.
That was the practical angle. Here is the theoretical one: if you call "social capital" the propensity of employees to form relationships, care about each other, and be loyal to each other, then the argument put forth is that low social capital corporations will somehow be better adapted than high social capital ones and will push them out of existence Darwin-like. This simply hasn't happened - Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple are all examples of places that by and large treat their employees fairly. I've heard that Oracle is more "cut throat" but I don't really know what that means in practice and have never worked there. Oracle does, however, seem to suffer from Ellison's weirdness. Just as there is a market in employee salaries there is also a market in corporate culture - a company that is not nice is not going to attract top talent. I have never heard that Oracle has attracted a substantial number of top-notch engineers.
On a personal level, it is always advantageous to be friendly, nice, respectful, and take everything in stride because it wins you friends and lets you do things like get other companies to hire you, a process which increases your market value as an employee. It is also completely free.
Keep in mind that this is specific to large tech companies - other sectors like Finance and Sales are going to obey their own cultural trends which may be more selfish and greedy. The start-up sector tends to attract and encourage a rather different breed, but the conditions are also completely different from a traditional corporate environment, so different personality characteristics will be adaptive.
>This is clearly flame bait / troll comment
I'm not trying to troll you, I'm trying to get you to take off your rose-colored glasses to save you from some real heart break down the road. Believe me.
>namely that personal relationships somehow "do not matter" or are purely exploitative at organizations.
Relationships can matter up to a point, but if your company took a hit in the market and has to shed 30% of its human resources your relationship is not going to matter. It can't, the company is trying to survive. And this goes double for a public company, it's basically illegal for them to value your friendship over their bottom line.
>First, I've found that one's work experience is dependent to a huge degree on the direct manager.
Fair enough.
>This simply hasn't happened - Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple are all examples of places that by and large treat their employees fairly.
The question is vastly more complex than that. For one thing, the aggressiveness of a company is going to depend on the market their in. You'll have the worst experience in retail because they have such tight margins.
For another thing, how do you figure they treat their employees "fairly"? "Fair" is a difficult thing to pin down, but if we look at some knowns: Google makes billions in profit. Google pays under market rate for developers because "but you'll be working at Google! GOOGLE!". Now if you could provide some citation that shows that Google employees end up making more money at their next company on average because of this situation then I would find it less unfair/exploitative, but I doubt you can.
>a company that is not nice is not going to attract top talent.
Not to nit pick, but the last company I worked at thoroughly debunked this idea. The devs were very high end and the management was horrendously bad but it was a hedge fund paying nearly double market rate in total compensation (i.e. most of the money came in bonuses which could be as much as double your salary).
>On a personal level, it is always advantageous to be friendly, nice, respectful, and take everything in stride because it wins you friends and lets you do things like get other companies to hire you, a process which increases your market value as an employee.
Of course. I've liked most everyone I've ever worked with, and I think most people I've worked with have liked me. I form friendship, etc. I just know what my relationship with the company is. As long as I'm good value, they'll keep me around. I view them the same way. I like the people but if I find a better deal [1], well, it's nothing personal, just business.
>The start-up sector tends to attract and encourage a rather different breed, but the conditions are also completely different from a traditional corporate environment, so different personality characteristics will be adaptive.
This site gives the impression that the start up culture is much more greedy. Most people appear to create a startup to get rich. Fair enough, but they also seem to want employees who will pull insane hours and cost nearly nothing. All this for an idea that probably wont pan out and even if it did, what kind of equity would they get for so much effort? If the startup tanks it doesn't even look that good on a resume.
[1] And by better deal, I mean overall. Making twice as much money but doing boring monotonous and stressful work wouldn't be a good long term trade off for me. I currently make enough that I don't have to make those kinds of sacrifices.
Just because you are jaded and have given up on loyalty and the idea of responsible corporations that care for their employees doesn't mean the rest of us must do so as well.
You paint a very black and white picture. Either the world can have caring corporations, or it can't. Your opinion leaves no room for middle ground. That alone should convince you to re-evaluate what you believe.
What you're saying makes no sense. A corporation is there to make money. Full stop. It's a thing, not a person. It doesn't care because it can't care, it has no feeling only a purpose.
If you get in an accident and lose both arms are they going to pay you to sit around because they care? Of course not. They will (hopefully) try to soften your landing, but that's less because they care and more about moral of existing and future employees.
Life is going to be a painful experience until you learn to only give the amount of loyalty that is given to you. No matter what a company says or does, they are going to drop you the second you don't make sense on paper (including if they find someone who can do what you do cheaper). If you behave any other way you've been brain washed [1].
[1] This doesn't mean that if you get an offer for $1/yr more you have to drop your current company. You have to keep the short and long term in view.
Enlightened Self-interest. It might be a completely rational move for Google to keep their staff happy, well-motivated and well-treated in order to maximise their productivity.
When doing comparisons (i.e. "Is this new guy really cheaper?") that sort of thing is figured into the price. Companies that care about morale figure more into the value of keeping existing employees, but places that use brain washing techniques [1] are going to count the "morale costs" of someones real value very low because they're controlling morale anyway [2]. I've directly seen this applied in several companies. Sometimes it was in response to loss in revenue (i.e. out of their control), a couple of times it was just because.
[1] When a company puts slogans all over their walls, keeps on bleating the same message about "we're a family", uses phrases like "always put in more than you take out!", it's nearly always because they're trying to create the impression in their employees that a relationship exists that actually doesn't.
[2] Most likely by driving it as low as they dare so that anyone who would leave already has.