Ask HN: Are ICs at tech companies usually so concerned about job performance?

I’m at a fellow FAANG, and it’s sadly the consequence of over staffing. Managers and directors recruit a bunch of ICs without necessarily knowing what they should be doing, just so that they can expand their empire as measured by number of heads under them. I’m not making this up, I’ve been both a manager and IC and I know how it works.

This leads to a rat race where everyone is left to compete for “impact”. “Impact” is the word used by your manager to defer to yourself, and yourself only, the responsibility of justifying your existence because there’s not enough meaningful work for everybody. In a functional organization, whose staffing grows along with the demands of the business as opposed to political empires, it should be the other way around.

This ultimately causes horrible changes in behavior from the ICs themselves, who have no other choices than playing the game: extreme competition, backstabbing, stealing of ideas and credit, comical self-promotion (e.g., you fix a trivial bug in one hour and then waste a week writing a pointless 10-page doc about it so that you can use it at perf time to justify how much you did or send it via email to your management chain), etc.

I’ve seen so much of it that I was thinking of starting a blog or a $4.99 ebook sharing all the situations I’ve witnessed during my tech career.

You absolutely should, but also - charging a paltry amount is hilariously in line with the lessons about stealing every inch that you’ve been forced to learn

Yes please do I would love to read it. I’ve seen this effect aswell and negative impact it has on the day to day work being done.

I will buy a copy for sure, when you type it out as an ebook.

The related dynamic here is why large companies can't innovate as much or as fast as startups.

Actual innovation is quite wasteful and you wind up going down a lot of dead ends where all you can really say at the end is "well I guess thats one way to not make a lightbulb". This is a land for obsessive nerds.

But if your goal is the next promotion or more headcount you can't afford to take that kind of risk. Instead orgs wind up optimizing for pretend work that makes a great powerpoint at the end of the quarter. Remaining energy gets spent on trying to backstab or downplay other projects - competing for a perceived limited pie, rather than trying to make more pie.

Yeah, so agree with the impact problem, but here's the irony ---

You have tens of thousands of brilliant and motivated engineers striving to find something to make better so... why are all the things so.... not-that-good?

So I did my whole career at startups mostly, and then joined Meta last year, and left already.

I found Meta wildly more work than startups (just one datapoint). I feel in the industry at large when we say 40 hour weeks we mean "35-40 hours in front of the computer per week, average, with 90 minutes minimum of distraction per day." My experience at meta was like straight 40-hours and I was still always feeling like I was behind.

Also at non-faang the idea that you'd hide broken things from coworkers so you could do all the work yourself would make people laugh out loud.

Then the whole Performance cycle and "4 axes" of performance is really a non-issue at startups. At a startup you just excel for a few months, and then basically the whole company knows you're awesome and you're rarely met with skepticism from then on (which is good). I feel like getting a good review at non-meta is a non-issue mostly for someone in your situation.

The hard work didn't drive me nuts, but the fact that I felt like people weren't building the right things did. The idea of working that hard toward a hacky system made my soul bleed.

I'm curious how there is so much work to do. Is it specific to a product?

The surest path to promotion is to build something new. Maintaining and scaling existing systems to fit our needs is meager in comparison. The result is abandonware which are kept on life support until they cause enough fires to justify spinning up a team to revamp them. Rinse and repeat.

> Also at non-faang the idea that you'd hide broken things from coworkers so you could do all the work yourself would make people laugh out loud.

This is so incredibly true, having been at both a FAANG and not. It’s insane (as I also described in my comment sibling to yours).

There's probably a full spectrum from "chill" to "most demanding" and it seems basically impossible to know what a place is really like until you're there for at least 1-2 years. I'm starting to realize my current org has fairly low expectations and has a company culture of "good work/life balance" where folks can prioritize their families - but they pay below industry standard.

> it seems basically impossible to know what a place is really like

Here you go:

> they pay below industry standard

Joining a cost center at Google can be effective if you want to chill out and make good money. The main trade off I can think of is you don't know when the project gets axed, but even if that happens, you can spend a couple of months not doing anything and finding another cost center and life goes on.

In my experience it is the same at Google but not at all at Microsoft.

I think the specifics of each company’s performance review system have a lot to do with it. At google the level definitions are so prescriptive that it is like a checklist to get good ratings and promotions, and doesn’t leave much room for people to do good work in ways that are unique to them. At Microsoft you do not receive a formal rating, and the level definitions are very vague and mostly come down to just doing well at whatever your team needs at least at lower levels.

Every time I think about leaving Microsoft for a higher paying FAANG job, I think about our teams general chill work schedule and lax time off. Really hard to give that stuff up, even for tons of money.

You definitely are rated at Microsoft on “Impact” annually, and this has an impact on your compensation.

Do you want to get promoted or get a really good review, or are you ok with a standard review? If you’re fine with a standard review

1. Be on good terms with your manager

2. Be on good terms with your team

3. Work on some things that are higher impact

4. Make sure your work is visible publicly

That’s it. There are a ton of optimizations that people talk about to “game” the system, but if you simply do the things above you don’t have to worry about it. If you’re trying to get extra bonus or a promotion, you need to optimize those areas, but that’s completely up to you. PSC is completely overhyped

Yeah I am fine with being at my current level with a meets-all for a bit. I just was promoted to IC5 at the beginning of the year and people were giving me some really surprising feedback on how hard it would be to succeed.

This is the first time I didn't take PSC super super seriously so we'll see how it goes. I put in quite a bit of effort still, but I'm not spending 8+ hours like it seems some other people do.

5. Work for people who will be straight with you about what they expect and how you're doing.

The ambiguity is a big part of what drives anxiety, and it's totally unnecessary.

Agree on these 4 elements - but in reality it’s not always as clear. 1- just pretend to like him and be nice 2- be a good colleague, don’t put others down in public. They don’t need to be your friends. 3- this one is harder. Here its about marketing your projects, products. That’s my most difficult area. I wanted to work on the next hot project but was not selected. Any advice? 4- again internal marketing. Make beautiful slides and slightly overpromise (I know people won’t like it but you need to make management dream a bit).

I would not say it's like this everywhere. Amazon / Meta / Apple tend to see this kind of attitude, and I imagine it exists at Microsoft / Google, and you can find chill environments at most companies (even Amazon).

Also, you see individuals bring these attitudes to an org. All it takes is one manager, or a couple, to shift the balance. I was getting this bullshit in an industry much less known for it. My boss quits, and things go much better.

That's fair. In my case, I think our managers have historically done very little outside of collecting information for promotions, fielding questions from other teams about our roadmaps, and approving expenses.

That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.

I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.

> I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager

Can you please share here - rather what else you prefer?

Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand

> That makes me think to some extent the problem is we have had little continuous feedback from these leaders or even much concentration on goals/expectations. That makes it really tough because you just have to keep outputting and believing it's enough until the end-of-cycle feedback comes in. I've managed to succeed in this environment anyways but it's certainly stressful.

> I've spent some time this cycle trying to mention this to our new manager, so we will see how/if things change.

I got your distaste from the above first paragraph. Earlier, I was asking: what else would have instead of that? I hope I was clear this time.

I think what I'm looking for is someone who understands the technical side of a team and org enough (perhaps through support of a tech lead) to set expectations and goals for the individuals they manage (and likely hired).

If the manager doesn't understand the business and technical needs enough to be able to set those items with an engineer, I'm not sure what that they are really enabling team members to have a good bar for what they will be evaluated on, and I think that is a sub-optimal environment for people (not just engineers) to work in.

My ultimate sentiment here is: would you want to take a test where you didn't have a good idea about how it was graded?

I agree that all it takes is one manager.

Sometimes even when there are multiple managers and your line manager is ok, one nearby person in the org chart with enough influence over who is kept is enough to make everyone in their sphere more fearful and paranoid - and perversely, perform less helpfully to the organisation, in order to protect their jobs.

Nope. From my experience working at a couple of startups in Europe, after the trial time is over, unless you s*t the bed royally, the workflow is:

1. we agree on xyz to be done and a time estimate

2. work on xyz within your 40h/week

3. if it is not possible to finish within time estimate for some objective reason (higher priority work coming in, unforeseen technical obstacles, etc.), let management know asap and rediscuss time estimate.

Never have I had fears for my position or job, except for external reasons (bad economy, for instance).

This is how my work in Canada goes as well. Specific to my company we only have 32 hour weeks (4 days). The pay is way lower than a US FAANG however.

I recall seeing news of Meta laying off 13% of the staff. I suspect that managers are being pressured to minimize severance costs by forcing people to leave on their own accord. I have seen this in the past and then those managers were made redundant along with some HR staff.

I've seen it both ways. The best companies are those where folks work hard because they like the work. Other companies where folks work very little but serve as glue for those that do. In those companies its easy to show up to meetings and still get promoted, but contribute very little in terms of engineering hours.

I believe the IC's in the US on visas are very concerned about the risk of being fired and suddenly needing to find a new visa in a matter of weeks while most hiring cycles take months.

I don't think I've seen anyone else worry about performance reviews. I assume this is why the US visa system is structured like this.

Untrue. Most of my friends at Meta visa or not, are under continuous stress of showing impact.

I've noticed this too, but unlike smaller companies I've worked at, there is real money on the line with Meta's performance review cycle. Good reviews can lead to tens of thousands more in bonuses and stock easily. In that context it makes sense to me for the review cycle to be more rigorous.

Try to take solace in the fact that no one cares about your anxiety. In fact, no one cares about you at all.

A lot of people in tech are just massive losers, I wouldn't want to be around the work version of their soul (usually they are much more normal outside of that context). They come from half assed bootcamps or self learning or non relevant majors, and have intense inferiority complexes. This manifests in this type of behavior. A lot also come from more "legit" backgrounds and have intense superiority complexes. It's a shit show from top to bottom. Couple all this with the 10x engineer mantra and stuff, and the general male dominant/new age yuppy lifestyles, it's like the last type of person you'd ever want to be around.

I've been all of these things and more, and I'm disgusted with myself. Here's my tip:

They say one form of meditation is to be cognizant of meandering thoughts. Watch as they show up in your head, acknowledge it, and let it pass by you. Don't react. Do this at work. When you see the system you hate, and the cosigners of the system (your coworkers) dancing to the tune, just go "heh, oh, you are doing that thing", and let it pass without reacting.

And a follow up to that tip addressing the solution you proposed of finding a smaller company:

It's the same shit at smaller companies. It can be even worse. You'll just run into another egomaniac that thinks they are king shit of that small company, or will find you threatening, or whatever. Again, it happens from top to bottom, so you will see the inferiority/superiority complexes in the devs down to the fucking office secretary.

You won't be able to run from any of it.

“Where would I find enough leather To cover the entire surface of the earth? But with leather soles beneath my feet, It’s as if the whole world has been covered.” ― Shantideva

Cover your feet with foam, there isn't a company that has nice soft carpet. But, be honest with yourself. If you embark on this new attitude, you must first acknowledge all the ways you were a shithead yourself that did much of the same things.

Please take this the right way because I see many aspects of my personality in your post and I’m coming from a place of love: the way you phrased this is full of self-loathing.

People being arrogant or submissive is not necessarily a “complex”. Being passionate and opinionated is sometimes stated positively as “strong opinions loosely held” because it’s a demeanor that allows the best ideas to bubble up in a smart group. Under qualified people definitely find their way in everywhere but in my experience software engineering chops are orthogonal to where you went to school, bootcamp and self-taught are often just as good as CS majors from respectable schools. In short, I think your observations are accurate but your disposition and interpretation is needlessly pessimistic.

I certainly won’t take it the wrong way. Pointing out how one end of the spectrum have inferiority complexes is not an out right attack on their credentials. It’s more of a ‘I know you are trying to overcompensate’, which is fine for a bit, but if it goes on too long it can be tiring.

Self loathing is not an issue I have with who I am today. I absolutely hated who I was before, and get annoyed at anyone that reminds me of me from then. In other words, I have no love or empathy for that version of me.

Whether that’s healthy (it isn’t) is a whole other can of psycho mumbo jumbo.

My general abrasive disposition is something I want to work on though.

Edit:

I do think it’s worth examining the types of personalities involved because this is not as simple as saying X company has X culture and therefore people act like shitheads. I want to know more about the individual shitheads and what makes them vulnerable to this type of archetype.

Totally agree with your last point. There's just not enough information in the post to really assess what's happening with any accuracy. It's open to wild speculation. On one extreme the manager could be putting a toxic level of pressure directly, on the other extreme it could be entirely self-inflicted. If I had to guess, the truth is most likely somewhere in between due to a general stressful miasma in the air of the current macro-environment after a 12-year bull run, a rank and file dominated by a younger cohort that has never known any different, and the general failure of Zuck's metaverse vision so far.

Would this be better somewhere else? Very hard to say. Meta is incredibly solid from a revenue and business perspective, and they've taken their medicine, so upside is definitely there. Meanwhile the economy is affecting pretty much everyone, so good luck finding somewhere more stable. All of this is background noise compared to the individuals involved though. Could be as simple as just changing teams internally.

Not my experience at all. Almost all companies I have worked for in my 30+ years career were OK or a pleasure to work for. The one exception was a seriously dysfunctional company run by incompetent narcissists. However it was most definitely the exception.

And yes occasionally I would clash with a single individual out of 50 to 150 individuals. But that’s to be expected whenever you have a large group of individuals working together.

My company is not FAANG and definitely doesn't pay the salaries but it is kind of similar.

* Lots of talk about making work visible and self promotion

* Lots of advice to devs that they should promote the business value of their work, cost savings etc. (although this should have really been defined and measured by someone else..)

* Like another commenter alluded to.. I've seen people take a problem and dramatize it. Then when they complete it they bask in the glory of having completed such a challenging problem.

* Lots of politics. You could be doing great work but it doesn't matter unless <main boss> thinks you're doing great work. So in the end people spend their time on powerpoint slides instead of work.

The only difference I see is that if you don't do it.. not much will happen. You'll get an average review but you won't be looked down on or in fear of losing your job.

I'm also at Meta and worked at two non-FAANG fortune 500s before this (5 YOE total). The performance anxiety at the two previous companies was nowhere close. Performance reviews were done mostly by managers and the stakes were much lower. Best case scenario, you get maybe a 10% raise. PIP was unlikely unless you're just grossly incompetent or not trying.

There are a subset of companies with this culture. It is at least better than firms where management gets any, and all, credit.

In my experience: Yes, and it’s fucking stupid. I actually left my last job of 4 years not because I was at risk of underperforming, but because I wasn’t interest in playing the song and dance for another year.

"You pressure me to fear for my life and I will put a fucking bullet in your head as if you were anybody else. Okay? "

Same applies to job performance. You give your best, there is no 110% that's just bullshit corporate mantra. If you are confident in yourself and your abilities then your motto should be: "I give you my best, you try to push me, I show you my finger."

What are ICs?

From ChatGPT: "IC" is short for "individual contributor." This is a term used to describe someone who is responsible for their own work within an organization, rather than managing a team. Individual contributors are typically focused on completing specific tasks or projects, rather than overseeing the work of others. In the context of the comment you provided, it sounds like the poster is asking if individual contributors at tech companies are typically very concerned about their job performance.

A company is not going to pay you top of the market rate for doing the bare minimum. As simple as that. Lesser the pay, lesser the expectations.

I think this is a bit too simplistic. You can perform well without having pressure on you to perform well. Self-motivated people don't need that.

In fact there are some companies out there that my friends have moved to that don't have formal performance reviews like Meta etc, but rather continuous reviews that are low-stakes. They make more than I do now.

Can you share some of those companies?

Top of the market rate in absolute sense is maybe only for top performers; I don’t know if they are or not. But top for the region; there are bucketloads of people (and not only on tech) in Fortune 500 companies that make a lot of money doing almost nothing and not actually contributing anything or very marginally. Deep management layers who get compensated based on weird metrics like number of people and layers ‘under them’ keep this alive and well.