You mischaracterize the slotting process, which is now largely gone anyway (and you should know this so I'm not sure why you're bring it up as if it were a present problem)
I said that they got rid of it, but I think the fact that such an obviously bad idea could get in the door in the first place is symptomatic of out-of-touch managers, and the same people are still there-- just coming up with new bad ideas (like the 3 word mission statements) that will linger around for 5 years.
The fact that performance is peer-driven is overall a good thing. It means your relationship with your peers matters and this isn't just an arbitrary managerial decision.
In theory, this would be true. In practice at Google, manager-as-SPOF is as much in force as it is in any other company. Actually, I think it's more the case at Google than at most places, because managers can unilaterally block transfers and because HR does nothing about abuse-of-process issues.
What Perf does is that it gives more reasons to deny promotions, not more avenues toward success. Managers can block promotions, and so can influential peers. So, in some cases, can trigger-happy idiots who abuse the unsolicited feedback feature (which does nothing but breed distrust, especially with the "manager-only feedback" feature, which is, at best, a quarter-step up from "XXX is a slut" gossip in fraternity bathrooms).
See something that needs fixing? Then fix it.
If you try to fix managerial, cultural, or product problems you just make enemies of the people who are invested in bad ideas and stupid decisions. It's really not worth doing.
I wish the full contents of the e-mail threads you started inside Google would be made public, including the hundreds of replies from random Googlers giving you advice on how to succeed and be happy there. I found this phenomenon inspirational, honestly: dozens and dozens of people helping out a frustrated co-worker they had never met. The advice they gave you was mostly quite insightful, and I feel fortunate to have been a lurker on these threads.
I'm glad that Perf at Google involves peer reviews, and that colleagues can volunteer to contribute to your review packet. I found the 3-word mission statement to be a fun thing. (For outsiders: this is just a text field on your intranet profile page where you can make up a slogan that concisely describes your goals.) It's about the same as being at liberty to make up your own job title for your business cards. People get very creative with it.
I came to Google as part of a medium-sized acquisition and I've seen HR solve complex problems (we brought some baggage with us that they had to deal with), and seen managers' managers overrule their attempts to block transfers. Problems were not solved overnight, but they were definitely solved. People worked hard and got promoted. Things work pretty well from my point of view. I've experienced my fair share of frustrations at Google, but I have also found that the company is full of people who are trying to make employees successful and happy.
The successful path requires that you employ patience, humility, and hard work in equal measure. If you can do that, you can thrive.
If you come in with a giant ego, pick fights with everyone you encounter, and ignore advice, obviously you're not going to succeed. When Yoda says "Your weapons, you will not need them", LEAVE THEM OUTSIDE. He is the Jedi master and you are the padawan; if you cannot recognize that, forever will the Dark Side control your destiny. :)
Google has a lot of people I really like. I never intended that post to be anti-Google. I just think the company made some really serious mistakes in terms of whom to give audience on major decisions and, as long as it has the wrong people making important decisions, it's going to lurch toward mediocrity even though a lot of the individual engineers are really great.
A lot of Googlers are reacting as if I attacked them. I didn't. Not in the least (unless they personally made some of the moronic decisions I listed). And Google is, despite the attempts of many influential and powerful people to destroy it, still a great company. I found most individual Googlers are really great people, but I think the danger of having the wrong people make decisions that affect thousands of people cannot be understated.
I have a feeling that you are just venting your specific personal frustrations in public while pretending that they represent some universal truth about Google.
>This is the era when Google decided to get "real managers" and they hired a bunch of executives from places like Oracle, IBM, and Intel.
Wrong. The problem with Google started with the new CEO. The decision to focus on Facebook, the Motorola acquisition, Google+, integration across all Google products and services,etc. these are not mid-level management decisions. These are decisions made by Larry Page.
This is not true. Google does not sell personal information; no advertiser ever learns anything about you. Google learns about you and it learns about the advertiser, and then uses that information to match ads and users. Yes, we make money from that. But it's a huge leap from that to "selling your personal information".
The privacy policy says: "We will ask for your consent before using information for a purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy," and selling your information is not listed there. Read it for yourself, it's pretty short!
Just a nitpick... but is there a particular link in these results that you want us to view?
There's probably ample evidence to support your claim, but linking to search results doesn't seem all that helpful. (If Google is still personalizing web searches or if someone has blocked a domain from their results we could be looking at different lists.)
Why would I not want to share my personal information with advertisers. I certainly don't want to be marketed feminine hygiene products if I am a male. I also don't want to get offered oracle integration products if I am a Microsoft SQL shop. Targeted advertising is fine by me.
Is it possible, that you haven't thought this to the end. When you don't get advertising of feminine hygiene products, because you are a male, it is also possible, that you get no insurance advertisings, because you do free climbing. More, it is possible, you don't get cheap insurance or even any insurance because you habe only searched for free climbing or clicked on advertisement for free climbing products.
You understand. The industrie washes your brain to only see the positive side effects and don't think about the negative ones.
I think those decisions are totally right. It is very clear that social network is important. It is very clear that google needs really good phone/tablet products that other manufactures can not provide.
Google+ is a new product. Don't make a judgement so early. It is getting better everyday.
Comments
You mischaracterize the slotting process, which is now largely gone anyway (and you should know this so I'm not sure why you're bring it up as if it were a present problem)
I said that they got rid of it, but I think the fact that such an obviously bad idea could get in the door in the first place is symptomatic of out-of-touch managers, and the same people are still there-- just coming up with new bad ideas (like the 3 word mission statements) that will linger around for 5 years.
The fact that performance is peer-driven is overall a good thing. It means your relationship with your peers matters and this isn't just an arbitrary managerial decision.
In theory, this would be true. In practice at Google, manager-as-SPOF is as much in force as it is in any other company. Actually, I think it's more the case at Google than at most places, because managers can unilaterally block transfers and because HR does nothing about abuse-of-process issues.
What Perf does is that it gives more reasons to deny promotions, not more avenues toward success. Managers can block promotions, and so can influential peers. So, in some cases, can trigger-happy idiots who abuse the unsolicited feedback feature (which does nothing but breed distrust, especially with the "manager-only feedback" feature, which is, at best, a quarter-step up from "XXX is a slut" gossip in fraternity bathrooms).
See something that needs fixing? Then fix it.
If you try to fix managerial, cultural, or product problems you just make enemies of the people who are invested in bad ideas and stupid decisions. It's really not worth doing.
I wish the full contents of the e-mail threads you started inside Google would be made public, including the hundreds of replies from random Googlers giving you advice on how to succeed and be happy there. I found this phenomenon inspirational, honestly: dozens and dozens of people helping out a frustrated co-worker they had never met. The advice they gave you was mostly quite insightful, and I feel fortunate to have been a lurker on these threads.
I'm glad that Perf at Google involves peer reviews, and that colleagues can volunteer to contribute to your review packet. I found the 3-word mission statement to be a fun thing. (For outsiders: this is just a text field on your intranet profile page where you can make up a slogan that concisely describes your goals.) It's about the same as being at liberty to make up your own job title for your business cards. People get very creative with it.
I came to Google as part of a medium-sized acquisition and I've seen HR solve complex problems (we brought some baggage with us that they had to deal with), and seen managers' managers overrule their attempts to block transfers. Problems were not solved overnight, but they were definitely solved. People worked hard and got promoted. Things work pretty well from my point of view. I've experienced my fair share of frustrations at Google, but I have also found that the company is full of people who are trying to make employees successful and happy.
The successful path requires that you employ patience, humility, and hard work in equal measure. If you can do that, you can thrive.
If you come in with a giant ego, pick fights with everyone you encounter, and ignore advice, obviously you're not going to succeed. When Yoda says "Your weapons, you will not need them", LEAVE THEM OUTSIDE. He is the Jedi master and you are the padawan; if you cannot recognize that, forever will the Dark Side control your destiny. :)
Google has a lot of people I really like. I never intended that post to be anti-Google. I just think the company made some really serious mistakes in terms of whom to give audience on major decisions and, as long as it has the wrong people making important decisions, it's going to lurch toward mediocrity even though a lot of the individual engineers are really great.
A lot of Googlers are reacting as if I attacked them. I didn't. Not in the least (unless they personally made some of the moronic decisions I listed). And Google is, despite the attempts of many influential and powerful people to destroy it, still a great company. I found most individual Googlers are really great people, but I think the danger of having the wrong people make decisions that affect thousands of people cannot be understated.
I have a feeling that you are just venting your specific personal frustrations in public while pretending that they represent some universal truth about Google.
>This is the era when Google decided to get "real managers" and they hired a bunch of executives from places like Oracle, IBM, and Intel.
Wrong. The problem with Google started with the new CEO. The decision to focus on Facebook, the Motorola acquisition, Google+, integration across all Google products and services,etc. these are not mid-level management decisions. These are decisions made by Larry Page.
The problem is with the CEO.
Why is integration a problem? It's working pretty well for Apple.
Because Apple sells products.
Google sells YOUR personal information that you do NOT want to share to advertisers.
Big difference.
This is not true. Google does not sell personal information; no advertiser ever learns anything about you. Google learns about you and it learns about the advertiser, and then uses that information to match ads and users. Yes, we make money from that. But it's a huge leap from that to "selling your personal information".
The privacy policy says: "We will ask for your consent before using information for a purpose other than those that are set out in this Privacy Policy," and selling your information is not listed there. Read it for yourself, it's pretty short!
>Google sells YOUR personal information that you do NOT want to share to advertisers.
According to Google, this is not true. https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+does+not+share+person...
Just a nitpick... but is there a particular link in these results that you want us to view?
There's probably ample evidence to support your claim, but linking to search results doesn't seem all that helpful. (If Google is still personalizing web searches or if someone has blocked a domain from their results we could be looking at different lists.)
He just means that there is no reference to 'Google does not share personal information with advertisers' on the internet.
Which Internet were you using for research? My Internet contained 128,000,000 results (or thereabout) for the provided link.
It seems like your confusing bad management with having a business model you don't like.
Why would I not want to share my personal information with advertisers. I certainly don't want to be marketed feminine hygiene products if I am a male. I also don't want to get offered oracle integration products if I am a Microsoft SQL shop. Targeted advertising is fine by me.
Is it possible, that you haven't thought this to the end. When you don't get advertising of feminine hygiene products, because you are a male, it is also possible, that you get no insurance advertisings, because you do free climbing. More, it is possible, you don't get cheap insurance or even any insurance because you habe only searched for free climbing or clicked on advertisement for free climbing products.
You understand. The industrie washes your brain to only see the positive side effects and don't think about the negative ones.
Just because you're ok with it, doesn't mean other people are.
Those people could, you know, not use Google. But I bet there aren't/won't be many of those in practice.
I think those decisions are totally right. It is very clear that social network is important. It is very clear that google needs really good phone/tablet products that other manufactures can not provide.
Google+ is a new product. Don't make a judgement so early. It is getting better everyday.