[...]
> more than 3,700 full-time employees, according to recent internal data viewed by Insider. Roughly half of those were previously overseen by Sengupta.
Do I read correctly that "dozens" out of about 1800 people have left since April? Is that an abnormally high number, especially right after things started opening up again after the pandemic?
Says who? They are allowing people to apply for full remote, with an estimated 8500 so far approved.
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-approved-85-of-roughl...
> "The company also turned down requests where organizations "made a commitment to invest in key growth sites and are working to build their teams and critical mass in those particular hubs," Google told Insider."
That reads like "if someone in your organization chain said they want to build a hub in your region, we'll probably deny your request because headcount need to be filled for those hubs"
Which is fair for the company to do but you can see why that can trigger attrition too.
So it’s not as rosy as it seems.
All indications pointed towards no remote option, but that switched a few months ago. Most people in software engineering roles have decent access to full time remote options, especially if they are willing to change orgs. I don't know a single case in my org (hundreds of people) who had a rejected remote application.
I don't think I've ever had a manager that could be convinced to care about this even if some level of management did in fact care. Who the hell wants to spend time taking attendance like a schoolteacher?
They make the official policy in-office to set the expectation that that's where you'll be, and then they can negotiate exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I've never seen a high-performing Googler (meaning one who has successfully launched a project) turned down for remote work or office transfers. They don't want the non-performing Googlers (who possibly might outnumber the high-performing ones) working remote though. If you're meeting with engineers as an external partner or customer, it's almost certain those are high-performing engineers, because they wouldn't be put in that position otherwise.
Why not?
In most knowledge work - not just Google - you're fine as long as you're either putting in effort or getting results. After all, software development has plenty of risks, it's possible to fail to deliver for many reasons other than being lazy. But when you are neither putting in effort nor getting results, that's when you're at risk of getting fired, because the company starts to wonder why they're paying you. Remote work makes it much harder to observe the "putting in effort" piece.
I don’t get it. There’s code and working features. That’s the result.
It's not just about the code, it's also about the culture.
Non-performing staff could be non-performing for different reasons - not just output - and it's often easier to spot those reasons (and address them) when you're working in the same office.
Source: I've been running a company with hybrid in-office + remote staff for 15 years. Would be happy to expand on the above if asked.
They don't want to increase the performance of the low-performers?
When Google got big, it got stupid.
And if your org says no, there aren’t that many internal remote options yet. And some orgs will say no to remote transferees for the first N months or a year.
So it’s better than before, but some orgs are still stuck in no-remote, and for many a departure is the way to go remote.
Would I like to see more to support remote work? Yes. It feels ridiculous to me that the folks in Sales don't have the same options. But from the actual data collected most people in a position to work remotely have access to it.
I don't know if people leaving has something to do with that, but personally, I would leave immediately.