Very insightful post. And as much as a reader might think it highlights dysfunction at Google, the continued growth and success of Waze within Google argues otherwise.
Because remember, it's only "actual work" when this guy is doing it
> Young people want it all - they want to get promoted quickly, achieve economic independence, feel fulfilled at Work, be home early, not miss the Yoga class at 11:00am etc. Having trouble scheduling meetings because “it's the new Yoga instructor lesson I cannot miss” or “I’m taking a personal day” drove me crazy.
Based off of my own personal experiences, the yoga instructor thing is a gross misrepresentation. Not only this, but a highly dismissive, caricatured way of talking about people you work with
> I have always been a pretty passionate guy, especially at Waze. After the acquisition, I was invited to speak on many different Google panels and events and very quickly, I began racking up my HR complaints. I used a four letter word, my analogy was not PC, my language was not PG… I actually stopped speaking at events where the majority appreciated what I was saying but the minority that was offended by something (words and not content) made it a pain.
I wonder if it ever crossed this guy's mind that maybe he is the problem. At least he's broadcasting his own entitlement under his own name for everyone to see
Of course not: he's such a narcissist that this would never occur to him.
Lack of ability to communicate is not a good quality in any leader. Phrasing is as important as the message many times.
As a long-time Googler with very mixed feelings, I feel this deeply.
> Having trouble scheduling meetings because [...] "I’m taking a personal day" drove me crazy.
Yikes.
- Not being able to just fire people he didn't want anymore
- Having to spend engineering time on things like Privacy protection and Legal compliance
- Work life balance
- Employee entitlement
- Equity compensation being relatively stable, not a win-or-lose lottery ticket
... and then a bunch of rants about political correctness, not being allowed to say offensive things, pronouns...
Yikes is right! Holy cow!
If Waze had stayed independent and done so, it would likely be destined for a consent decree with the FTC.
Either way his life would have gotten a lot worse--he just experienced the pain via corporate insistent, rather than direct governmental influence.
I agree with the author. It is somewhat shocking to me that so many employees in tech feel, or at least project, that being available during normal working hours is "kinda optional". And to be clear, I'm not talking about someone that has a real emergency. But to have the expectation that one should be available between 9-5ish is somehow considered "toxic" is just baffling to me. I'd also highlight that many professions, e.g. those that have shift work, are nowhere near as lax.
Here's the full quote:
> Having trouble scheduling meetings because “it's the new Yoga instructor lesson I cannot miss” or “I’m taking a personal day” drove me crazy. The worst thing is that this was inline with the policies and norms - I was the weirdo who wanted to push things fast and expected some level of personal sacrifice when needed. I don't believe long hours are a badge of honor but I also believe that we have to do whatever it takes to win, even if its on a weekend.
We have two groups of people - tech workers who have a generally great working environment, and shift workers who do not. The idea that in our advanced society we should base our expectations on those who are currently doing worse is frankly absurd. Our aim should be for _everyone_ to have the work-life balance that tech workers have now.
With what, a magic wand? There is the fundamental difference that, for shift work, every employee who is out needs to be replaced by someone else. And it's not just a low-skilled workers issue, for example the same dynamic exists in say doctor groups or pilots. With tech/project-based work, if someone is out it's not like someone else needs to cover for that timeslot.
But just, at a more fundamental level, basically saying "you are expected to be available for your job at particular times" is an expectation for which there is considerable disagreement between generations.
Right, because everyone should be stuck in traffic to work at 9AM, marvellous idea.
It baffles me that it appears to be so hard for managers to just schedule meeting at 11 instead of 9
As to "It baffles me that it appears to be so hard for managers to just schedule meeting at 11 instead of 9", this is the exact point I'm getting at. Why is it somehow hard for people to be available at 9? Having been a manager, it's much more difficult to juggle 15 different individualized schedules when you need to have a meeting with a couple people.
> The worst thing is that this was inline with the policies and norms - I was the weirdo who wanted to push things fast and expected some level of personal sacrifice when needed. I don't believe long hours are a badge of honor but I also believe that we have to do whatever it takes to win, even if its on a weekend.
You're making map app dude, week later or earlier on a feature won't save the world
For people who grew up on the lower half of the household income or wealth distribution, it takes many years of FAANG comp to feel stable there.
It’s a big privilege to risk your career in the pursuit of self-actualization. Not in the sense that one should be ashamed of it, but in the sense that it’s prudent not to look down on people for declining to take it.
The marginal $300k/year is worth significantly more impactful for most people than the expected returns of pursing of self-actualization-through-work. I think most people would rather have a secure income and seek self-actualization outside of work — in their family life or hobbies.
And according to your bio is Dropbox? Well good thing you let the whole HN know that Dropbox is toxic to work at.
But you're the one equating a bunch of stuff with toxicity, just keep in mind that that is not a universal equivalence, it's your opinion.
(Although for the record I don't _completely_ agree with the guy. Obviously work-life balance is a good thing. But much of the other stuff resonates.)
Nahh they were pitching google to get the mega bucks so they could rest and vest on the roof.
The biggest problem arises when a workplace has a mix of employees who have different motivations and goals. Some may be content with just doing their job and going home, while others may be ambitious and want to do great things. This can lead to resentment and hostility when these different perspectives clash. It's the role of the HR department and recruitment to make sure you don't get too many outliers in any direction, but alas those are often doing really poor job with this. Not to mention that the quality of "being a good fit" has been branded "problematic" so it's often not even taken into account.
As the economy moves from a period of growth to a recession, the balance of motivations and goals among employees is likely to shift. And the amount of entitlement will reduce.
(Not in Silicon Valley, but...) I have never regretted sacrificing work for life.
That sounds like you're striking a balance. Obviously, if you "sacrifice" work too much, eventually you won't be able to afford your life, either because you'll be fired or your lax employer will suffer and not be able to pay.
Sometimes it takes a while to manifest.
Some of the most dysfunctional work environments I've worked in followed periods of great business success. The marketplace success can obscure a slow descent into workplace dysfunction. When the profits are rolling in, it's easy to have large swaths of dysfunctional managers and teams blend in, and nobody is looking too hard. It's when the profits come back to earth that the teams are forced to excise the dysfunction or face failure.
I'm amazed that it only have 10 comments...
Anyway, at all jobs (so far) I've deeply cared about the quality of our product and the company bottom line, which explains why I'm invariably miserable at big company jobs.
I can actually think back to explicit feedback when I was passed up for a promotion that boiled down to "improve brown nosing skills, even if it puts the core business at risk".
The core business at that particular former employer is imploding; I'm long gone, as are 90% of the people I'd like to work with again (many left for similar reasons).
Anyway, there were lots of forehead slapping moments for me while I read that post.
Having said that, the main insight was the central thesis of Office Space. Same shit, different horse, I guess.
Early stage equity is one hell of a drug.
As a founder/manager, it’s irrational to expect anything other than fundamentally different levels of output from each “ring” of growth on the tree, because the inputs are very different. Anybody would work much harder for inter generational wealth than they would for a cool $500k. It’s shocking how common it is for early people to project their personal expectations on others and experience dissonance as a result.